Grand Master Tyrak Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! I haven't gotten that far yet..... Ooops :P :blush: sorry. It was a WD interview with Abnett, I have no idea if it's faked or he comes back or what (since there are at least one more book after that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kettu Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Celestine the Living Saint, Sister Repentia of the Order of Our Martyred Lady, Hieromartyr of the Palatine Crusade, is also dead. Says so in her fluff. Dies some time before Commander Shadowsun of Tau even was made into the hero that she is also. That little factoid didn't stop the two girls from having a showdown last week. Dead heroes still get published in Codices from time to time. I personally think that they left Gaunt out either because the Commissar Lord represents him well enough and/or/as well as they have too many characters already? (Count them, there are ten) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 /shrug Missing a named IC is one thing. It's done all the time. But missing a generic unit type. It realy scuppers the rumours of Inquisitors being included as advisors to the Guard. Unless the 'Dex contains some sort of 'Ally' rules pointing back to the DH/DW 'Dexs. And that I can't belive, as even GW wouldn't released a 5th Ed codex that refers back to two 3rd ed ones.... Would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Why woudl they need to? The Ally rules are still in the third edition codex and so there's no need to include them in the new ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakehunter52 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Yeah, now that we know that =I= isn't standard for IG, that is gonna make a mess of the allies rules if the composition structure for platoons turns out to be even half true. I mean, tanks attached to the platoons? Plasma cannon sentinels? Even just the basic guardsmen with their points decrease will make a huge difference. However, I guess the missing Inquistor is also good tidings for those with uneasy nerves about a dissolution of our books out of a lack of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I dunno, I think it's bad news, I have always hoped they removed the Inquisition from my Codex: Sisters of Battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakehunter52 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Who knows, they may still. They did say the were going to focus on the armies rather than actual inquisitors. Frankly, I am more on your side since I play pure SoB and mostly pure GK but like to try and keep everyone happy...I am such a people pleaser....sad face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Currently, for the next 3-4 odd years, I've a feeling our 'inducted' rules are going to cause a lot of confusion and RAW lawerying. There's no more Armour Fist Company any more (isn't that the rumour?), so we can't induct one of those. What happens if the name of the IG unit is changed from "IG Platoon"? Will we still be able, by RAW, to induct any IG? But if so, by being able to induct a "Leman Russ Battle Tank", can we then use the new goodies, like the 3 Plasma Cannon Main Turret one, or the 20 Shot one? GW cannot be so continually pig headed to not update existing out of date codexes. And to *refuse* point blank, to sort out redudnacy errors this attitude causes. It was a cop out to say things like Emperors Tarrot no longer has any effect ingame, and wait for your Codex to update it. Utter cop out. Why woudl they need to? The Ally rules are still in the third edition codex and so there's no need to include them in the new ones. Not if the 'new' DH/WH 'dexs wouldn't contain them. So by leaving Inquisitors out ofhte IG Codex, with no reference to them, we're looking at still having DH/WH 'dexs that shore up limited actual army choices by "Well, go play a proper army, and take a couple of these you really like". I can honestly see the Ally rules going, with allying left to Apoc games. But this would then deny IG access to Human Inquisitors. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hasn't Abnett killed Gaunt off in the books though? AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! I haven't gotten that far yet..... :tu: you really mean that he......*sniffle sniffle* dies Well I suppose they all have to go sometime.. No kidding man I haven't read that far yet... that's way uncool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Delias Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 that is unless they make a book specifically for inquisitorial forces(unlikely), with DW, ISTs, and the 3 differing ordos of the inquisition slated in with the options of loyalist and radical Inquisitors.... I'm not holding my breath though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Well this is just a total shot in the dark but I was at the GW store in Texas and the manager there told me that word floating around the workplace was that the Inquisition was going to get 1 book with all three branches of the Ordos in one cover... and the black templars. As crazy as that sounds I can't tell you how excited I would be if it came to pass. All the recent fluff indicates the BT work with the Inquisition is getting more serious. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verythrax Draconis Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Dunno about Gaunt, but when I'll finally have that awesome mini of Ciaphas Cain crouching under cover, while guiding his brave troops against the enemies of the Imperium? :D that is unless they make a book specifically for inquisitorial forces(unlikely), with DW, ISTs, and the 3 differing ordos of the inquisition slated in with the options of loyalist and radical Inquisitors.... I'm not holding my breath though. I would settle with an Xenos Inq as option for IG and leave the others in their own codexes as they are now, for the sake of having an official Ordo Xenos list (even a WD's CA, with Xenos Inq rules and DeathWatch), but it's 110% wishful thinking. Forget that you read this, move along... Well this is just a total shot in the dark but I was at the GW store in Texas and the manager there told me that word floating around the workplace was that the Inquisition was going to get 1 book with all three branches of the Ordos in one cover... and the black templars. As crazy as that sounds I can't tell you how excited I would be if it came to pass. All the recent fluff indicates the BT work with the Inquisition is getting more serious. Who knows. Sorry about the 3rd post in a row, but... Maybe it's just an campaign book, like Eye of Terror, or Armaggedon? It would be nice, having Inq and BTs in the spotlight! - and maybe it just what is needed to Inq minis/armies to become top sellers ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Delias Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Well this is just a total shot in the dark but I was at the GW store in Texas and the manager there told me that word floating around the workplace was that the Inquisition was going to get 1 book with all three branches of the Ordos in one cover... and the black templars. As crazy as that sounds I can't tell you how excited I would be if it came to pass. All the recent fluff indicates the BT work with the Inquisition is getting more serious. Who knows. I doubt that highly, especially with the 'promise' that the current dex's will be left seperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yes, there's been rumors about a combined Inquisition book, but we have had multiple confirmations from Jervis Johnson that they will remain separate, focusing on the Sisters and Grey Knights (though not necessarilly removing the Inquisition, that part wasn't commented on). WHich is a GOOD thing. What a load of trash an amalgam codex would be anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Iapetus Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Well this is just a total shot in the dark but I was at the GW store in Texas and the manager there told me that word floating around the workplace was that the Inquisition was going to get 1 book with all three branches of the Ordos in one cover... and the black templars. As crazy as that sounds I can't tell you how excited I would be if it came to pass. All the recent fluff indicates the BT work with the Inquisition is getting more serious. Who knows. *THE* GW store in Texas? We have 4 in Houston alone :D Still good to know there is at least one more GK player in TX... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 WHich is a GOOD thing. What a load of trash an amalgam codex would be anyway. I find it ironic you say that, considering your part in the Inquisition Project, originally intended by 7eAL to be a combined codex. :lol: Yes, I do know you didn't want the Project to be a combined codex though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Indeed I don't, and I make that quite clear in my posts there ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Dunno about Gaunt, but when I'll finally have that awesome mini of Ciaphas Cain crouching under cover, while guiding his brave troops against the enemies of the Imperium? ;) I missed this the first time around. I would love a Ciaphas Cain mini. Cain is probably in my top three 40k characters of all time. After reading Cains Last Stand there is zero doubt of the mans Caliber now. But few books can make me laugh like those can, its amazing that in the 40k universe you can take such a serious type of character (commissar) and turn him into a comic relief omnibus. On a second note Cain can be used fluffily in an Inquisition Army since he is after all a tertiary part of Inquisitor Amberly's retinue. Or at the very least an informant and lover ;) I actually saw someone come up with Cain and some special rules for him on Librarium Online and he did a good job. He's a Commissar that runs away on failing a Morale Check but you get to pick the direction and if you run into enemy units its counted as an assault. (I laughed out loud when I read that cause its so perfect for him. He runs away every time just to find himself in mortal combat with an even scarier force than the one he just left.) Oh and as to the GW store in Texas well I was unaware there were 4 in Houston, that makes me sad. I have to drive an hour just to get to the one in Grapevine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 WHich is a GOOD thing. What a load of trash an amalgam codex would be anyway. I really disagree on this. I do understand that your very obvious personnal preference for SOB is to the exclusion of all things Inquisitorial, but it would actually be very good for the community as a whole to have a united codex. First, the space saved by duplicating wargear and units (=I=, assassins, IST, ally rules, etc) could be used to add units and fluff to both Ordos. Right now, both codexes are not anywhere near the number of page the new Codex: SM has. So put it a 100-110 pages and you've got ample space to satisfy fluff desires. Also, while fluff is nice, a codex is first and foremost a rule book. For more fluff, turn to the Black Library for demands and questions. Second, both codexes are fairly "niche" armies without the broader appeal armies like SM, CSM, Nids, Orks, Eldars have. By regrouping the armies, you unite the =I= community in one market. Hence, higher sales as most SoB players will buy a bit of GKs to supplement their army and vice versa. Third, a combined =I= will offer the players a more diverse array of models and tactics, which appeals to both hobby-minded and game-minded clients. Also, those units tend to works very well together. Finally, a combine codex does not force the players to use all units in the codex. Although they may complain about loss of legions, the CSM players can still play an army with one mark. Of course, it's not as effective. But then again, one must choose: fluff or powergaming? There has been a few mentions by JJ of separate codexes. Yet, quite a bit of water will run under bridges before that project is on top of the list and things can happen... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I think a unified dex would be fantastic. They can simply limit the units available by the type of Inquisitor you take. If you grab a Malleus then you gain access to GK and all that entails, if you take a Xenos you get your kill team, if you grab 2 hq's you can get a good deal of both. Its a pretty good deal for everyone if they do that. The units unlocking other units works really well in a unified codex. They need better rules for the Inquisitor retinue too. I think they should allow you to just grab units from other armies and toss em in and use their original rules. If you want to build a crazy powerful retinue why should they stop you, its your points to spend anyway. Cause dangit I want to take Ciaphas Cain in my retinue!!! Or a death cult assassin, or something of this nature. Imagine an Inquisitor with a sniper, commissar, death cult assassin, Ogryn, a sister of battle, and a psychic blank. How fluffy and neat would that be? Effective, well maybe not but I'd use it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Also, while fluff is nice, a codex is first and foremost a rule book. For more fluff, turn to the Black Library for demands and questions. The BA got a codex without the fluff - I don't think any of us would want to be palmed off with something as sub-standard as that. It's the sum of rules and fluff that make the codex. The Black Library aren't known for adhering to fluff - for that you should try Forgeworld, they make a visible and almost always successful (excluding later retcons by the Studio) in following fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'm certain you do like it. But the fact is, a combined codex must either be twice as large as the SM codex that's currently out, or it must do less justice and give less fluff and give less info and be :cusstier than the SM codex. Either way, a combined codex will only further reinforce the notion that they're just Gw's throwaway armies, worthless things that they're not willingly holding onto. I hope it never happens,it woudl be trash compared to two full separate codices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verythrax Draconis Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 I actually saw someone come up with Cain and some special rules for him on Librarium Online and he did a good job. He's a Commissar that runs away on failing a Morale Check but you get to pick the direction and if you run into enemy units its counted as an assault. (I laughed out loud when I read that cause its so perfect for him. He runs away every time just to find himself in mortal combat with an even scarier force than the one he just left.) It should not only just count as a charge, but inflict some penalty to the "assaulted" force - he always find his way out of the danger, after all those mistakes :) If you can get me that link, I'll appreciate ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I like the condescension in that opening remark... not very polite. But I don't get your point, we have 2 full books now and they are quite simply pathetic. A book the size of the SM dex would be a fair size for an inquisition army book. And lets say they do combine them and as you assert its gigantic... that's not a bad thing. On the topic of a single book making us look like a throw away army? That seems like insecurity to me. A single book that has a giant Inquisitorial Rosette on the cover would be awesome. And then Xenos could have their turn too. But I suppose you want to maintain the purity of your sisters, dont want to be caught dead in the same book as those filthy Grey Knights :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It's not insecurity. i'm tired of [censored] trying to belittle the Sisters and I don't want Gw to continue giving them more ammunition. The fact taht they were combined witht he Inquisition in C:WH is bad enough, what a mistake that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.