Codex Inquisition Updated

[IndigoJack]

As an allied detachment no, so since there are no troops to fulfill the requirement. As an inquisitorial detachment though yes. And you can take as many detachments as you like, provided one is your primary.

[Gentlemanloser]

You can take as many Inquisitorial Detachments in a Battle Forged army as you want.

 

Even if you're using a different CAD as your Primary Detachment. (One of your ID could be your Primary Detachment instead, if you wished.)

 

Either way, nothing is stopping you using multiple CADs, ADs and IDs in your Battle Forged Army.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Most tourneys are ruling 1 main detachment, one Allied (including formations and Inquistion etc). My player group does a similiar thing. GW are bad at rules, so you have to do their work for them :) . RAW though you are correct, detachments can be infinite. 

[Venemox]

Yup, nothing like deviating from something specifically mentioned in the base rule book for a game to make it a more even playing field.

[IndigoJack]

Yup, nothing like deviating from something specifically mentioned in the base rule book for a game to make it a more even playing field.

 

I'm going to assume you actually haven't read the rules on pg. 116. In bold, "plaers must agree how they are going to select armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number an type of models they can use." Sounds to me like the rules are saying if you only want two detachments and both players agree, it's totally fine.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yup, nothing like deviating from something specifically mentioned in the base rule book for a game to make it a more even playing field.

 

 

Dude, GW have stated on multiple occasions (both in their new errata policy, which is basically 'well this is our version but hey make up your own interpretation if you like', and the main rulebook) that the only thing binding in 40k is player consent. If you both wanna play Unbound, or Escalation, or even Lords of War, its entirely up to you. You can literally fudge anything now (provided you both agree of course). 

 

More realistically, I just try and follow the rules as they are, and only make changes where they fall apart (detachments being a classic). House rules only work up to a certain point. 

[Kilofix]

I'm assuming there's also still no update to alleviate Codex:Inq Inquisitors from getting Perils on any doubles when casting Santic (e.g. Hammerhand)?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I'm assuming there's also still no update to alleviate Codex:Inq Inquisitors from getting Perils on any doubles when casting Santic (e.g. Hammerhand)?

 

 

Probably no need, given the only good Disciplines on them are Divination and Telepathy anyway. Why would you roll on Sanctic anyway?

[Kilofix]

 

I'm assuming there's also still no update to alleviate Codex:Inq Inquisitors from getting Perils on any doubles when casting Santic (e.g. Hammerhand)?

 

 

Probably no need, given the only good Disciplines on them are Divination and Telepathy anyway. Why would you roll on Sanctic anyway?

 

 

Inquisitor with Rad Grenades and Hammerhand can allow lots of 'average joe' Troops to Instant kill lots of stuff (Tau Crisis, etc.)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Inquisitor with Rad Grenades and Hammerhand can allow lots of 'average joe' Troops to Instant kill lots of stuff (Tau Crisis, etc.)

 

 

Lol, that would be pretty cool. But still, you have to roll 'Hammerhand'. I'd rather just Psychic Shriek or give out re-rolls. 

[Zeratul29]

I'm dissapointed C:I doesn't have access to malefic as to represent radical inquisitors.

[Kenderleech]

I'm dissapointed C:I doesn't have access to malefic as to represent radical inquisitors.

This.   so much this.

[Quozzo]

wow that is strange considering that they can perils on a double for santic :S

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I'm dissapointed C:I doesn't have access to malefic as to represent radical inquisitors. 

 

 

Everyone except Codex: Grey Knights psykers has access to Malefic. If you mean 'I don't wanna Perils on doubles', too bad dirty heretic ;)

[Kenderleech]

Negative RD.   C:I gets sanctic, divination, pyro, telepathy, telekinises,  and perils on any double in sanctic

[Grand Master Caloth]

I'm sure in friendlies, you could give up sanctic for malific. I'd let my opponent. As for the perils on doubles for C:I, no, it makes sense. GKs are totally pure, while inquisitors can be turned.

[IndigoJack]

How are the inquisitors in the GK codex any more pure than those in C:I? How are GK pskyer henchman more pure than C:I inquisitors?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Negative RD.   C:I gets sanctic, divination, pyro, telepathy, telekinises,  and perils on any double in sanctic

 

 

The main rulebook states that unless otherwise stated, all Psykers can roll for Daemonology powers. The Inqusition FAQ doesn't state you cannot roll on Malefic, so I would assume it is available, however you would Peril on doubles like normal. 

 

How are the inquisitors in the GK codex any more pure than those in C:I? How are GK pskyer henchman more pure than C:I inquisitors? 

 

 

(shrug) GW are never consistent. I'd think of it as GK Inquisitors being Ordo Malleus (the two others represent Radical Malleus Inquisitors who are anti-psyker or anti-Daemon focused), and Malleus are generally considered the most uncompromising and conservative of all Inquisitors. That's just my head canon though. I'm sure our next codex will delete the Inquisitors and Henchmen entirely :)

 

[Kenderleech]

RD, the inquisition codex got updated.   It specifically lists on a per unit basis what psykers can take what.   all of them got the same copy/paste as codex grey knights.

[IndigoJack]

The main rulebook states that unless otherwise stated, all Psykers can roll for Daemonology powers. The Inqusition FAQ doesn't state you cannot roll on Malefic, so I would assume it is available, however you would Peril on doubles like normal.

What inquisition FAQ? I didn't see one on the BL page. I did check my C:I ibook though (with latest update) and in fact, inquisitors and pskyers from C:I only have access to daemonology (sanctic), divination, pyromancy, telekinesis, and telepathy. So no malefic for either C:I or GK

[Valerian]

How are the inquisitors in the GK codex any more pure than those in C:I? How are GK pskyer henchman more pure than C:I inquisitors?

 

Well, they wouldn't be, but this is a temporary issue (I fully expect) that we won't have to worry about when the Grey Knights codex gets its 7e update and all of the Inquisition units are stripped out.  Then all of the Inquisitors and their Henchmen will be consistent, and we won't have to continue with the dichotomy of like-units in different codices with slightly different rules.

 

v

[Zeratul29]

But I want my power weapon assassins and crusaders! Screw all power swords!

[Gentlemanloser]

And updated C:I > BRB. ;)

 

No Malefic for C:I Inquisitors.

[Grand Master Caloth]

But I want my power weapon assassins and crusaders! Screw all power swords!

Another reason I don't use Inq forces. Lol

[Reclusiarch Darius]

And updated C:I > BRB.

No Malefic for C:I Inquisitors.

I guess they purged all those heretics trying to use Malefic ;)