Inquisitorial CADs

[Gideon999]

Hi brothers!

 

I was looking at my codex : inquisition, and the FOC there.   With the advent of 7ed, we can now bring any number of combined arms detachments in our lists.   

 

So it appears to me that I can take a single inquisitor, and a full space marine detachment (hq, 2 troops, blah blah blah) but can still call the lone inquisitor a full detachment on his own.   This would allow me to designate him as the warlord of my army, despite him being the only model from that codex present.

 

Did I miss something here or do I have this correct?   Seems a little munchkin-y, but RAW seems to make it legal? I love some of the inquisition warlord traits and would rather have those than the ones from the space marine book if I can so it would be nice if I am right.

 

Can anyone confirm?

 

Thanks!

[Kilofix]

That is the case yes.

 

Edit - Though the Inquisitor would not be a CAD. It would simply be an Inquisitor Detachment (its own type of Detachment) - that is still Battleforged.

[Gideon999]

I guess the part that has me scratching my head is that when you select your warlord, that model's detachment automatically becomes your primary detachment.   Just seemed a little wishy washy that a single model could count as a full, primary detachment alongside a standard, battleforged marine detachment?

[Kilofix]

The disadvantage is that some Warlord traits only effect the Warlord's Detachment or the Warlord's Unit. Which, in that case would be 1 model.

[Morollan]

An Inquisitor could always be the Warlord, even if he wasn't from the Primary Detachment.

 

If your army includes an Inquisitorial detachment, you can nominate one Inquisitor (including Inquisitor Coteaz or Inquisitor Karamazov) to be your army’s Warlord, instead of a character from your primary detachment.

 

[Gideon999]

Ah!   That right there is what I needed, i will have to sort out where that is in the codex so I can make best use. 

 

Thanks for the help!

[Kristoff]

 

An Inquisitor could always be the Warlord, even if he wasn't from the Primary Detachment.

 

If your army includes an Inquisitorial detachment, you can nominate one Inquisitor (including Inquisitor Coteaz or Inquisitor Karamazov) to be your army’s Warlord, instead of a character from your primary detachment.

 

Not anymore. A Primary Detachment now is defined as whichever Detachment your Warlord is in. All others are Combined Arms, Allied, Formation, etc. And this continues even in Unbound armies.

[Raeven]

If the codex gives you permission to make an Inquisitor Warlord, even of a different faction, then yes.  You can.  Which the Inquisitorial codex does.

[Kristoff]

If the codex gives you permission to make an Inquisitor Warlord, even of a different faction, then yes. You can. Which the Inquisitorial codex does.

Are any Inquisitors not Characters? For that is the only requirement for being a Warlord, unless you have no Characters at all.

 

Edit: Oh, and the Warlord cannot be in an Allied Detachment.

[Kenderleech]

Codex inquisition no longer has the wording that allowed it to be your warlord no matter what.  It also no longer has the rules for an inquisitorial detachment.   it can be a combined arms, or allied, and uses its own force org chart.  to Gideon, yes, you can go CAD 1 inquisitor, and allied space marines.   You can also go 20 CAD inquisitions, and have 25 inquisitors in terminator armor with psycannons and daemon hammers at 2000 points.

[Kristoff]

Codex inquisition no longer has the wording that allowed it to be your warlord no matter what. It also no longer has the rules for an inquisitorial detachment. it can be a combined arms, or allied, and uses its own force org chart.

Just an advisory, Codex: Inquisition has no native Troops, so in order for them to build a Combined Arms or Allied Detachment, one must take Coteaz. Keep that in mind.

[Kenderleech]

Negative, kristoff.  It has a force org chart consisting of 1-2 HQ and 0-3 elites.   You do not have to have any troops at all, and actually have no way to make them troops, as coteaz only makes them troops in codex grey knights.   He made them Scoring as Elites in C:I, but no longer does so due to the 7th edition alterations of the codex inquisition.

[Kristoff]

Negative, kristoff.  It has a force org chart consisting of 1-2 HQ and 0-3 elites.   You do not have to have any troops at all, and actually have no way to make them troops, as coteaz only makes them troops in codex grey knights.   He made them Scoring as Elites in C:I, but no longer does so due to the 7th edition alterations of the codex inquisition.

So, I'm half right. People had informed me that Coteaz still had this same ability (I never bothered getting it). At which point, one CANNOT make a Combined Arms or Allied Detachment from Codex: Inquisition, as they do not have any Troops to fill the required slots.

[Raeven]

 

If the codex gives you permission to make an Inquisitor Warlord, even of a different faction, then yes. You can. Which the Inquisitorial codex does.

Are any Inquisitors not Characters? For that is the only requirement for being a Warlord, unless you have no Characters at all.

 

Edit: Oh, and the Warlord cannot be in an Allied Detachment.

 

What does that matter?

 

The book tells you flat out that an inquisitor can be the warlord, even if the Inquisitorial Detachment is not the primary.

 

Whatever you and Kenderleech are discussing is contrary to the words written in the book.

[cielaq]

 

 

If the codex gives you permission to make an Inquisitor Warlord, even of a different faction, then yes. You can. Which the Inquisitorial codex does.

Are any Inquisitors not Characters? For that is the only requirement for being a Warlord, unless you have no Characters at all.

 

Edit: Oh, and the Warlord cannot be in an Allied Detachment.

 

What does that matter?

 

The book tells you flat out that an inquisitor can be the warlord, even if the Inquisitorial Detachment is not the primary.

 

Whatever you and Kenderleech are discussing is contrary to the words written in the book.

 

Not really true - the book sayt that the detachment your Warlord is in is your Primary. So if your warlord is Inquisitior from Inquisitorial detachment, then Inquisitorian detachment is your Primary.

Primary detachment do not equal Combined Arms detachment by default.

[Morollan]

 

 

If the codex gives you permission to make an Inquisitor Warlord, even of a different faction, then yes. You can. Which the Inquisitorial codex does.

Are any Inquisitors not Characters? For that is the only requirement for being a Warlord, unless you have no Characters at all.

 

Edit: Oh, and the Warlord cannot be in an Allied Detachment.

 

What does that matter?

 

The book tells you flat out that an inquisitor can be the warlord, even if the Inquisitorial Detachment is not the primary.

 

Whatever you and Kenderleech are discussing is contrary to the words written in the book.

 

 

The problem is that the game has changed since that was written and now there is no way for a detachment to become your primary detachment other than to have your Warlord chosen from it. Plus, Kenderleech says the relevant wording from C:I is no longer there anyway!

[Kenderleech]

Coxed:inquisition, header "the emerors will" section 'including inquisitors in your army' - "The Inquisitorial Detachment shown here can be included as part of any Battle-forged army"

 

This essentially means it replaces the combined arms detachment requirement of HQ troop troop, replacing it with jsut an HQ

[Kristoff]

This essentially means it replaces the combined arms detachment requirement of HQ troop troop, replacing it with jsut an HQ

No, it doesn't. To be precise, a Combined Arms Detachment will always require 1 HQ, 2 Troops, for the duration of this Edition, at least.

 

What it does do is provide a detachment that they can use, as they have no Troops to be able to build a proper CAD or AD.

 

Does the Inquisitorial Detachment come with rules allowing for you to reroll Warlord Traits, or at least have it FAQ'd? That's one advantage a GK Inquisitor Warlord could provide over an ID Warlord if not.

[Raeven]

 

 

 

If the codex gives you permission to make an Inquisitor Warlord, even of a different faction, then yes. You can. Which the Inquisitorial codex does.

Are any Inquisitors not Characters? For that is the only requirement for being a Warlord, unless you have no Characters at all.

 

Edit: Oh, and the Warlord cannot be in an Allied Detachment.

 

What does that matter?

 

The book tells you flat out that an inquisitor can be the warlord, even if the Inquisitorial Detachment is not the primary.

 

Whatever you and Kenderleech are discussing is contrary to the words written in the book.

 

 

The problem is that the game has changed since that was written and now there is no way for a detachment to become your primary detachment other than to have your Warlord chosen from it. Plus, Kenderleech says the relevant wording from C:I is no longer there anyway!

 

The text you quoted is still in my copy.  It transfers directly to the new edition and the wording matches the new jargon.  I don't see any justification to ignore this exception to the rule just because it is old wording.

[Kristoff]

The text you quoted is still in my copy. It transfers directly to the new edition and the wording matches the new jargon. I don't see any justification to ignore this exception to the rule just because it is old wording.

It can be ignored for one main reason: whichever Detachment the Warlord is in becomes the Primary Detachment, period. You cannot have a Primary Detachment without the Warlord in 7th Edition, at all, even in Unbound.

 

What used to be called a Primary Detachment was split in to two. One part carried the classic FOC (with an Escalation modification) and named Combined Arms. The other part is what carries the Warlord, and is called the Primary Detachment and have the FOC of any Detachment type except for Allied.

 

So it is 100% impossible to have an Inquisitor Warlord that is NOT in a Primary Detachment.

[Raeven]

Eh. I think the rules are plainly written. Codex trumps The Rules when there is a contradiction.

 

Regardless, to the original topic, whether you call your lone inquisitor the primary detachment or not makes no difference. You can Ally him with any number of other detachments and your detachment of one can be warlord over all of them.

[Kristoff]

Eh. I think the rules are plainly written. Codex trumps The Rules when there is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction, though. When it was originally written, Primary Detachments were determined when writing your army list. Now, a Primary Detachment is only determined once you declare your Warlord. You cannot have your Warlord outside your Primary Detachment, anymore. That's what makes this statement completely pointless and ignorable.

 

Regardless, to the original topic, whether you call your lone inquisitor the primary detachment or not makes no difference. You can Ally him with any number of other detachments and your detachment of one can be warlord over all of them.

True. And once you pick him as a Warlord, his Detachment, even if it's just population: him, automatically becomes the Primary Detachment of the army.

[Kenderleech]

ok, from my last time of posting.. one step at a time.  Kristoff, you are correct, that a codex inquisition cannot be a combined arms detachment, as that is the the one which supplants the old standard force org.  However, it can still, expressly, be a battleforged army.   Yes, it allows rerolls of the warlord trait, that is its bonus.

 

 

Next point.  the text stating that an inquisitor can be the warlord even if he is not in the primary is gone.   No longer exists.  it is an ex-parrot.  If your version still has it, go back to the black library site, and redownload after deleteing your copy and clearing your cache.

 

Seems there were only two points. 

 

So, to make my own, a legal battle forged army must consist of any number of detachments, one of which must contain your warlord and be your primary.  Each detachments must conist of models from one and only one faction, and no model may be part of more then one detachment.  Each type of detachment has its own benefits, listed under its type.  So, a battleforged army can be anything you can partition into detachments or formation detachments, that your opponent is willing to play. 

 

For example, 2 weeks ago, i took a list to a tourney that was something like this

 

inquisition primary (warlord goes here, plus took cypher)

(2 inquisitors, 3 psyker battery warbands plus cypher)

grey knights allied

(coteaz, some DCA/crusaders, an assassin

inquisition

(2 inquisitors, 3 psyker battery warbands

militarum tempestus allied

(commisar, 2 5 man melta teams

inquisition

(2 inquisitors, 3 plasma cannon servs

legion of the damned detach

(2 legion squad

inquisition

(2 inquisitors

inquisition

(1 inquisitor

 

Perfectly battleforged legal. 

[Morollan]

Eh. I think the rules are plainly written. Codex trumps The Rules when there is a contradiction.

 

You don't seem to understand that this is not a contradiction. C:I says you can nominate one Inquisitor to be your army’s Warlord, instead of a character from your primary detachment. Can you tell us how you can have a character (or any other unit) from your primary detachment in 7e without your Warlord being from that detachment? Answer is that you cannot, because the thing that determines your primary detachment in 7e is that it is the detachment that your Warlord is chosen from.

[Kristoff]

However, it can still, expressly, be a battleforged army.

Never said otherwise. It is a Detachment, and all a Battle-Forged army requires is that all units are in one form of Detachment or another.

 

Yes, it allows rerolls of the warlord trait, that is its bonus.

Was that natively, or added in? I ask, because the new Ork Detachment doesn't have the same bonuses as the Combined Arms Detachment which provides for the Warlord Trait reroll.