Daemonblades

[Jimsolo]

So, I have a couple of quick questions about the daemonblades and the Ordo Malleus inquisitor. (From the Grey Knights Codex.) I've read through the rules a couple of times now, but I am still a little unclear on this.

 

1. When you have two daemonblades, the FAQ states you gain the benefits of the one you use in close combat. (Since you can't use both at the same time.) So what if one of them grants Feel No Pain and the other grants the Rage rule? How does that work outside of close combat? Neither state that the rule only applies in close combat. So I thought it would resolve in one of a few ways. Either A) you pick which sword is affecting you each turn, both in and out of close combat. B) Outside of close combat, you are affected by rules from both swords, while in close combat you pick only one to operate on you. Or C) Outside of close combat, you gain no benefits at all if you use two swords, even from the rules not limited to close combat. The rules don't seem to clarify this for me.

 

2. The Ordo Malleus Inquisitor can "replace his bolt pistol and/or chainsword with" several optional pieces of equipment. He can also "replace his carapace armor, bolt pistol, chainsword, and his frag and krak grenades for terminator armor with" a set of weapons. I saw an argument crop up over this and wondered if it had come up before. If the Inquisitor replaces his bolt pistol with, say, a daemonblade, is he still eligible to take terminator armor? One school of thought said he had to trade a weapon (the chainsword, in this case) for the daemonblade, therefore he no longer had the four pieces of equipment he needed to get the terminator armor. The other school of thought says that the book doesn't say trade, it says replace, so you replace all that qualify (and the fact that there is no chainsword to replace becomes irrelevant). It seemed to me like the first supposition was the correct one, but I was wrong earlier this week about nob bikers, so I thought I would ask about this one. Can an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor ever have both terminator armor AND a daemonblade?

 

3. Per the FAQ, and Inquisitor who becomes a psyker generates one psychic power. (At mastery level 1.) If you roll an 11-12 when generating your daemonblade powers (raising your mastery level to 2) do you generate a second psychic power? I thought that psykers generated one psychic power per mastery level, but I cannot seem to find that rule now that I'm looking for it. If you don't, what would be the benefit to gaining a mastery level?

 

Thanks for the help in advance! 

 

[Gentlemanloser]

1: GW are bad.  This requires a dice off.

 

2: No, no TDA.  Try replacing a Bolt Pistol with a Plasma Pistol, when you've already replaced a Bolt Pistol with a Power Sword, and see what people think. ;)

 

3: GW are bad, again.  Only benefit would be the Second Warp Charge.  Allowing you to use a 2WP power if you roll it, or being able to use your 1WP power and your Force Weapon.

[Jimsolo]

In reference to number 3, the big book says that you generate powers equal to your mastery level unless otherwise specified.  The Grey Knights codex specifically says what to do only with an Inquisitor with Mastery Rating of 1.  It makes no mention of Inquisitors with Mastery 2 or 3, so wouldn't they default back to the big book and generate as many powers as their mastery rating?

[Gentlemanloser]

/shrug

 

GW are bad. ;)

 

We're only told how to generate powers for a PML1 Inquisitor.  You could assume that a PML2 one generates powers like Coteaz.  But that might not be correct.

[Jimsolo]

I'm not saying use the rules for Coteaz, I just thought it would be reasonable to use the BRB rule that says unless you're told otherwise, psykers generate one power per mastery rating.  Since the codex only says what to do if your inquisitor is mastery rating 1, it seems reasonable that the BRB would then come into effect if he is mastery 2 or 3.  Is that not reasonable, do you think?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah look, it's worded poorly. However, if you do manage (via Daemonblade) to get a Mastery 2 Inquisitor, I think its logical to assume he generates two powers. 

 

Mind you though, this is all theoretical, as Coteaz is better anyway. 

[Jimsolo]

Perhaps in a standard Grey Knights list, but I think a generic Inquisitor is going to work better for the allied detachment I need.  Thanks for the help!

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

 

Perhaps in a standard Grey Knights list, but I think a generic Inquisitor is going to work better for the allied detachment I need.  Thanks for the help!

 

 

 

Unless they are Terminators, and you need someone in TDA to Deepstrike with, there really isn't any HQ in the game as good as Coteaz. 

[Jimsolo]

Fortunately, I don't need someone in TDA to Deepstrike with. Thanks, though.

[nurglez]

Well, there is much fun to be had from a Inquisitor in terminator armour with psycannon and prescience, especially as Coteaz is considered over powered (and gives access to servo skulls too).

[Jimsolo]

I'm just thinking about a duel-Daemonblade wielding Inquisitor piling out of a Land Raider Crusader with some assualt heavy Grey Knights at his back.  Seems like a solid plan to me.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

Well, there is much fun to be had from a Inquisitor in terminator armour with psycannon and prescience, especially as Coteaz is considered over powered (and gives access to servo skulls too).

 

Who cares? Coteaz is baller. Servo-skulls are overrated, mine get removed Turn 1 by Scout moves or other fast units. 

 

I do like the TDA Inquisitor as my secondary, but as the primary it has to be Coteaz. 

 

 

 

 

I'm just thinking about a duel-Daemonblade wielding Inquisitor piling out of a Land Raider Crusader with some assualt heavy Grey Knights at his back.  Seems like a solid plan to me.

 

 

Heresy! In all seriousness though, bad plan. Land Raiders weren't especially good last edition, and this edition they're actually easier to kill. You are better off going with a Raven if you want an assault unit delivery system. Dropping Purifiers or a Paladin combat squad into your opponents backline is terrifying for them. 

 

[Jimsolo]

Well, you've got some interesting ideas there, Darius.  Thanks anyway, but I think I'm going to stick with my plan.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

Servo-skulls are overrated, mine get removed Turn 1 by Scout moves or other fast units.

 

They can't be removed by Scout moves.  Can't Inflitrate/Scout within range of them.

 

Turn 1 they can easily be removed by fast units, but they hamper armies with a lot of Scout moves.

[IndigoJack]

I'm just thinking about a duel-Daemonblade wielding Inquisitor piling out of a Land Raider Crusader with some assualt heavy Grey Knights at his back. Seems like a solid plan to me.

 

Heresy! In all seriousness though, bad plan. Land Raiders weren't especially good last edition, and this edition they're actually easier to kill. You are better off going with a Raven if you want an assault unit delivery system. Dropping Purifiers or a Paladin combat squad into your opponents backline is terrifying for them.

 

The land raider is a good choice. It sacrifices the safety of the air for the safety of AV14. A lot of people scrapped melta in favor of plasma this edition, so melta isn't as common as it used to be. Now it's restricted to a few units, and those can be focused on to remove them before they're too big of an issue. Most armies also don't pack a lot of S9+ (except tau), and glancing a LR to death with S8 is going to take a while. So while yes, LRs are easier to kill, a meta shift has made them more survivable.

[thade]

It's funny to me how some can assert that "the rules are dodgy because GW is bad at rules" and then assert "Coteaz is unquestionably the best option" as the latter would depend upon a mostly consistent system and the former challenges GW's very ability to craft a system with any consistency at all. <3

 

There are plenty of reasons to not use Coteaz.

• There are, at times, stigmas associated with SPs that are frowned upon by players in your local hangout.
• You have a super cool model that's obviously not Coteaz.
• You have a super cool character design that's very much not Coteaz.
• You simply don't want to.
• Another reason that you might imagine yourself.

In other news, the benefits to gaining a second mastery level while only wielding one power are that you can cast that one power and activate your force weapon in the same round (both of which I think still require the use of a "power" as they did in the previous edition) and that a higher mastery level increases your Deny the Witch roll for that model (and I believe its unit). There may be other benefits I'm forgetting.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

It's funny to me how some can assert that "the rules are dodgy because
GW is bad at rules" and then assert "Coteaz is unquestionably the best
option" as the latter would depend upon a mostly consistent system and
the former challenges GW's very ability to craft a system with any
consistency at all. <3

 

Not at all.

 

writing a character that is so undercosted for what he brings, that it's an effort to justify *not* using him in each and ever list you make, is just as bad a rule, and just as bad a rule writing, as the DftS suppliment.  Or letting a Brotherhood Champion purchase Ditigal Weapons.  Or failing to account for what happens when a random roll makes your PML1 psyker PML2.

 

All of these are bad rules. 

 

Hell, you could assert that GW are consistent at writing bad rules.  And *that* is thier consistent system.

[Jimsolo]

I think that they did establish what happend when your PML psyker becomes PML2.  The BRB says that if the Codex does not state how many powers they roll, then they get one per mastery rating.  The Codex very explicity establishes how many an Inquisitor with a PML 1 gets.  (And ONLY an Inquisitor with a PML of 1.)  It seems very reasonable to me that an Inquisitor with a PML of 2 or 3 would fall under the guidelines of what to do when your Codex doesn't give you an express number. 

 

Coteaz is a very good character, he just doesn't fit in with this list.  Neither do Deep Striking Grey Knights.  One of the biggest advantages of wargaming over, say, WoW, is that in wargaming there is more than one right way to do something.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

They can't be removed by Scout moves.  Can't Inflitrate/Scout within range of them.

 

Gah, really? I've been playing that wrong. Ah well, my point is I don't get much out of them usually. But they are cheap, so if you have 5-10pts spare spamming them isn't bad. 

 

 

The land raider is a good choice. It sacrifices the safety of the air for the safety of AV14. A lot of people scrapped melta in favor of plasma this edition, so melta isn't as common as it used to be. Now it's restricted to a few units, and those can be focused on to remove them before they're too big of an issue. Most armies also don't pack a lot of S9+ (except tau), and glancing a LR to death with S8 is going to take a while. So while yes, LRs are easier to kill, a meta shift has made them more survivable.

 

Nope. People aren't spamming melta, that's true, but it is still most definitely in people's lists. You'd be mad not to take it when you can, AP1 is clutch. I think it's very optimistic of you to assume you won't face melta. I dunno what your local playerbase is like, but mine take at least two fast melta units in most of their lists. If they don't it is because they are Tau, Orks or Tyranids. 

Glancing a Raider to death can be achieved by something as cheap as a PsyDread or Long Fang pack. Guard also don't care too much, with their lascannons now chipping away at the HP. And of course, let us not forget melee, where any MC or Dread can pop your hull quite easily. Seeing as you are taking it as an assault delivery system, you are forced into engagement range, so its not like you can avoid melta/melee in any case. 

 

 

It's funny to me how some can assert that "the rules are dodgy because GW is bad at rules" and then assert "Coteaz is unquestionably the best option" as the latter would depend upon a mostly consistent system and the former challenges GW's very ability to craft a system with any consistency at all. <3

 

I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. GW rules are inconsistent and there are legitimate balance issues/deadwood in their ruleset. Doesn't stop Coteaz from being both powerful and underpriced. 100pts, for Mastery 2 Divination, his statline, his gear, his special rules, his unlock...its nuts. 

GW writes dodgy rules but they sometimes accidentally the game and make something really good. I'm sure they'll make him more expensive in our next codex, or remove some of his abilities etc. Still annoyed they got rid of his refractor field...eh, can't have everything I guess. 

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of reasons to not use Coteaz.

• There are, at times, idiots who try to guilt you for taking something you like and is a legal unit entry.
• You have a super cool model that's obviously not Coteaz, so use the regular Inquisitor rules
• You have a super cool character design that's very much not Coteaz, this is the same as point 2
• You simply don't want to, because your list doesn't need Henchmen

 

 

Fixed. These aren't really arguments, or reasons not to use him. 

 

I'm not saying Coteaz should be in every list, but I can only think of a couple of our variants that don't want him. Knightwing want TDA characters to accompany the blobs, Draigowing want IG or Orks really, Purifier lists are busy chewing up points on Purifiers+support. In a normal list, he's pretty much an auto-pick, rather like PsyDread. He's basically our Eldrad, if you wanna think of it that way. You can make a regular Farseer work, if you want one on a jetbike or something. 

[Jimsolo]

I frequently play in campaigns or small-point tournaments where Special Characters are forbidden.  Coteaz would not be allowed in those games, but a regular Inquisitor would.

 

While I appreciate that you are trying to help, Darius, I really don't need any list-building advice.  I already know what kind of list I want to build, I just needed a little help on some rules situations I wasn't clear on.  You've already told me what you feel is the correct interpretation, and that's all I need at this time.

 

I recognize Coteaz is a unit that you obviously feel very strongly about, but I am not going to replace my Inquisitor with Coteaz.  Nor will I remove the Land Raider from my list.

 

Now, if people would like to give advice, I would love some on a separate issue.  (Totally separate.)

 

Given that I am running a regular Inquisitor (who is not, and will not be, Coteaz) in a Land Raider with a single troops selection, which troops selection should I go with?  I am leaning towards the Terminators rather than the Strike Squad, but I can see the benefit in spending the extra points to go in with a full squad of ten with the Strike Squad. 

 

In either event, I'm kind of conflicted about which Nemesis Force Weapons to use.  Am I reading correctly that Nemesis Falchions give an additional attack in addition to the bonus for having two close combat weapons?  I can see benefits to daemon hammers, but I can also see some huge bennies to going with any of the other choices too.

 

I'd appreciate anyone's feedback on the weapons issue as well as the decision of which of those two troops choices will work better with the Land Raider strategy.  Thank you for your time.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

The BRB says that if the Codex does not state how many powers they roll, then they get one per mastery rating.

 

Our Codex (well Codex FAQ) does state how many powers an Inquisitor gets to roll, so the BRB generic answer isn't applicable.

 

 

 Am I reading correctly that Nemesis Falchions give an additional attack in addition to the bonus for having two close combat weapons?

 

Sadly, no.

 

They would be worth thier cost if they did, and it would make sense.

 

But they are classed as a single CCW.  With a special rule that gives +1A.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

 

I frequently play in campaigns or small-point tournaments where Special Characters are forbidden.  Coteaz would not be allowed in those games, but a regular Inquisitor would.

 

 

Ah fair enough. Thankfully in Oz we don't bother with such absurdities. But if that is your local meta, then yeah me pimping Coteaz to you is kinda meaningless. On the plus side, we have a good selection of generics (Grandmaster, Librarian, Inquisitor). 

 

 

Given that I am running a regular Inquisitor (who is not, and will not be, Coteaz) in a Land Raider with a single troops selection, which troops selection should I go with?  I am leaning towards the Terminators rather than the Strike Squad, but I can see the benefit in spending the extra points to go in with a full squad of ten with the Strike Squad. 

 

Not Strikes. They're awful in melee. I'd go Terminators in that context. If we shifted our discussion to other army slots, I'd really recommend Purifiers instead. They have the damage output of Terminators, but wear power armour so you can go 10-man in the LRC/LRR and still have room for a TDA Inquisitor or whatever. But yeah, if you're talking just default Troops, I'd go Terminators.

 

 

In either event, I'm kind of conflicted about which Nemesis Force Weapons to use.  Am I reading correctly that Nemesis Falchions give an additional attack in addition to the bonus for having two close combat weapons?  I can see benefits to daemon hammers, but I can also see some huge bennies to going with any of the other choices too.

 

Falchions are terrible, because they cost points and a Bro Banner is a better investment if you want more attack output. 

I tend to mix loadouts, depending on opponents. If you know you'll have to deal with enemy Terminators, hammers are a must-have. However, halberds are fantastic against anything not in 2+ armour. So, if you know the list you are fighting, pick one or the other. If you're in a tournament situation...I'd go halberd Justicar, then 3 hammers/2 halberds mix. That way you can still challenge effectively, and you still have enough halberd or hammer to handle enemy melee units. 

[Jimsolo]

 

The BRB says that if the Codex does not state how many powers they roll, then they get one per mastery rating.

 

Our Codex (well Codex FAQ) does state how many powers an Inquisitor gets to roll, so the BRB generic answer isn't applicable.

 

My confusion comes from the fact that the FAQ only tells us how many powers an Inquisitor with Mastery Rating 1 gets to roll (it specifies), and makes no mention of an Inquisitor who winds up with a higher Mastery Rating.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I guess we just use common sense, and say that if he has Mastery 2, he rolls two powers, and if he has Mastery 3, he rolls 3 powers. 

[thade]

I guess we just use common sense, and say that if he has Mastery 2, he rolls two powers, and if he has Mastery 3, he rolls 3 powers. 

You'll want to consider that the majority of psykers in 40k seem to take one power less than their Mastery rating (minimum of one power) with a few, notable exceptions (like Tigiruis and that Eldar jerkface guy) and while our own librarians are pretty dang mighty, and - fluffwise - Inquisitors tend to be as well, it's not clear to me that they would necessarily rack up powers with the Daemonblade in this way. It may, but I'm not certain.

 

There's also a question of order-of-operations which, without my rulebook at work, I can't dig into. Which gets rolled first? The Daemonblade (which could grant you more powers, in theory) or your powers? In the event this remains unclear after a rules dig,  you'll want to discuss it at length with your opponent(s) to see how they feel about it. They will be, after all, on the receiving end of that Inquisitor. :)