Jump to content

Inqisitors after the bog FAQ


domsto
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guys, it's still a beta rule. It isn't set in stone. If you write in you can change it. GW won't know that many people have trouble with it if you don't write in. It's the only way!

I think a lot of us(me includet) wrote already to them, but if you think about how long the smite change was beta before it has been changed, thinking about how we could work around this rule isn't that wrong after all

Edited by domsto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Guys, it's still a beta rule. It isn't set in stone. If you write in you can change it. GW won't know that many people have trouble with it if you don't write in. It's the only way!

I think a lot of us(me includet) wrote already to them, but if you think about how long the smite change was beta before it has been changed, thinking about how we could work around this rule isn't that wrong after all

True, but as problems come up, new situations we didn't originally foresee, we should definitely continue to write in.

 

Now for some good news- a GW store owner around me, while he is using the beta rules at events for his store, has added a new line to the rule:

 

"Any INQUISITON unit may be included as Battlebrothers in a detachment of IMPERIUM DEATHWATCH, IMPERIUN ADEPTUS MINISTORUM, or IMPERIUM GREY KNIGHTS, so long as the ORDO <ordo> matches the purpose of the other army. I.e. ORDO XENOS may be included with IMPERIUM DEATHWATCH, ORDO MALLEUS may be included with IMPERIUM GREY KNIGHTS, etc."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we stop repeating that its beta? It doesnt add anything to the discussion. Its being adopted by tournaments already so as far as actual competitive discussion goes we may have to talk as if it is set in stone for the moment. Edited by MeatGrinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we stop repeating that its beta? It doesnt add anything to the discussion. Its being adopted by tournaments already so as far as actual competitive discussion goes we may have to talk as if it is set in stone for the moment.

It also doesn't add to the discussion when people just say "it ruined my list because I had X, Y, and Z in one detachment!" and provide no solution or ideas. Everyone on this thread knows the rule screwed Inquisiton. The thread is basically called that. GW, however, needs to be told. As long as this thread continues to be complaining with no solutions, I will continue reminding people that it is a beta and people need to write in to GW. If people start strategizing I'd be more than happy to add in useful discussion.

 

And as far as TOs- the TO for a big tournament around me changed the rules, as I said, because I approached him with my concerns about Inquisiton in a polite and calm way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn it be helpfull if they give Inqisitors,assassins and all this none real Army guys a keyword they share?

Like "Agents of the Emperor" so could at least put them together in one detachment.

Or if i am allowed to dream a litte more, give us a special rule that stats something like "aslong as your Warlord is from IMPERIUM you can add units with the Keyword Agents of the Emperor to any imperial Detachment without any breaking Battlebrothers and Docintrins"

This whould inable to make the good soup but still makes the bad soupe (morty,knight,Magnus in one Superheavy detachment) impossible.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m hopeful that there’ll be more options for list building once we get a Codex for Inquisition/ Imperial Agents. Some Inquisition Troops (Stormtroopers and Henchmen as I suggested in another thread) would now be pretty much essential if an Inquisition army was to become a real option. Sisters of Silence need an HQ character (and a few more choices if a Codex:SoS is ever published - cyber-jackals!). I’m okay with the idea of Assassins being available only in Auxiliary Detachments or this “Execution Force”: costing a CP effectively turns an Assassin into a strategem, which seems appropriate. However, I’d suggest adding an exception to the organised play guidelines that allows you to take one Assassin as a “free” extra detachment. An Execution Force I think is big enough to consider as a normal detachment for “Rule of Three” purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually use Inquisitors to support my guardsmen. They have sooo many CPs, that I would have no issue with paying for auxiliary detachments. Problem is the 3 detachment limit, it's hard to burn one on just a single guy.

 

Maybe auxiliary detachments shouldn't count towards the limit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually use Inquisitors to support my guardsmen. They have sooo many CPs, that I would have no issue with paying for auxiliary detachments. Problem is the 3 detachment limit, it's hard to burn one on just a single guy.

 

Maybe auxiliary detachments shouldn't count towards the limit?

I think that (and this is what it sounded like GW is considering from the limited dealings I've had directly with GW) that the Inquisitorial Authority rule is going to allow Inquisitors to act as HQs for any Imperium force besides space marines (with the exception of grey knights and Deathwatch).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut feeling is that this is either an oversight or it means that something is in the pipeline for some of these lesser imperial factions bookwise; although if it is an oversight regarding inquisitors then people should email in and point it out just in case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It also doesn't add to the discussion when people just say "it ruined my list because I had X, Y, and Z in one detachment!" and provide no solution or ideas.

 

 

I guess I'm missing the part where I've got the obligation to come up with the solution.  I haven't been hired by GW and I'm not a playtester nor an editor.  My solution is to get better writers who can be explicit about the intent of a rule in the first place.  I don't buy the excuse about "unforeseen interactions" when these issues were apparent to so many of us from the first read.

 

Null-Maidens were intended (and designed) to work alongside Custodes - but they were never given a shared keyword.  Likewise Nulls and Assassins.  You could have an Astropath HQ for Null-Maidens but that's no more reasonable than an Inquisitor.

 

I agree with others who said that these units need a shared keyword - once upon a time, not so long ago)  these sorts of units shared a Codex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It also doesn't add to the discussion when people just say "it ruined my list because I had X, Y, and Z in one detachment!" and provide no solution or ideas.

 

I guess I'm missing the part where I've got the obligation to come up with the solution. I haven't been hired by GW and I'm not a playtester nor an editor. My solution is to get better writers who can be explicit about the intent of a rule in the first place. I don't buy the excuse about "unforeseen interactions" when these issues were apparent to so many of us from the first read.

 

Null-Maidens were intended (and designed) to work alongside Custodes - but they were never given a shared keyword. Likewise Nulls and Assassins. You could have an Astropath HQ for Null-Maidens but that's no more reasonable than an Inquisitor.

 

I agree with others who said that these units need a shared keyword - once upon a time, not so long ago) these sorts of units shared a Codex.

You're 100% correct. But someone did indicate that it wasn't constructive to say "it's beta email GW" and I was just pointing out that very little of this thread is genuinely constructive. And ultimately the most constructive thing we can do is tell GW what we think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but I have my doubts it'll matter.  Considering the variety of questions that have been asked for months that remain unanswered, I wonder if GW is really reading the emails or paying them much heed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically I just finished painting Greyfax up for my Custodes. How I was using her was as part of a Vanguard, along with two Acolytes and a Culexus.

 

So I guess this is illegal now. The question is what’s the least painful way if making the Culexus legal? Or should I dump him and go Greyfax with 3 acolytes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically I just finished painting Greyfax up for my Custodes. How I was using her was as part of a Vanguard, along with two Acolytes and a Culexus.

 

So I guess this is illegal now. The question is what’s the least painful way if making the Culexus legal? Or should I dump him and go Greyfax with 3 acolytes?

Afraid it’s either pay the CP and have sufficient detachments available to run the Culexus by themselves (with an extra Acolyte for Greyfax’s detachment) or go big with another two Assassins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically I just finished painting Greyfax up for my Custodes. How I was using her was as part of a Vanguard, along with two Acolytes and a Culexus.

 

So I guess this is illegal now. The question is what’s the least painful way if making the Culexus legal? Or should I dump him and go Greyfax with 3 acolytes?

or you could drop Greyfax and play 3 Culexus.

I know it's painful because you just painted Greyfax and she is a very cool looking model, but that's would be the most effective way to get some psykic defense for the Custodes now.

 

It's a little bit ironic:sweat:

this Beta rule now forces you to "Spam" some units to get them playable.

Edited by domsto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I usually use Inquisitors to support my guardsmen. They have sooo many CPs, that I would have no issue with paying for auxiliary detachments. Problem is the 3 detachment limit, it's hard to burn one on just a single guy.

 

Maybe auxiliary detachments shouldn't count towards the limit?

I think that (and this is what it sounded like GW is considering from the limited dealings I've had directly with GW) that the Inquisitorial Authority rule is going to allow Inquisitors to act as HQs for any Imperium force besides space marines (with the exception of grey knights and Deathwatch).

 

 

This is what should happen, but where are you hearing this and why was it not included in the big faq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I usually use Inquisitors to support my guardsmen. They have sooo many CPs, that I would have no issue with paying for auxiliary detachments. Problem is the 3 detachment limit, it's hard to burn one on just a single guy.

 

Maybe auxiliary detachments shouldn't count towards the limit?

I think that (and this is what it sounded like GW is considering from the limited dealings I've had directly with GW) that the Inquisitorial Authority rule is going to allow Inquisitors to act as HQs for any Imperium force besides space marines (with the exception of grey knights and Deathwatch).

This is what should happen, but where are you hearing this and why was it not included in the big faq?

This is all from emails I've sent to GW and store owners I've talked to who are beta test stores. Afraid I can't say much more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honesty I think we should look at a fix for Acolytes then looking to the ‘generic’ Imperium. As in expanding the Acolytes to two Units.

 

Disciple (7 Points)

1-6 Models

-Current Options

Changes from Acolytes

-2 Wounds

-May Purchase Carapace for 3 Points

-3+ WS/BS

(retained) Bodygaurd Rule

-May only include 1 Disciple Unit per (Ordos) Inquisitor

 

Acolytes (5 Points)

4-12 Models

-Current Options for Equipment

Changes from current Acolytes

-No Quarry

-No Bodygaurd

For (Ordos) Inquistor you make take up to 2(3?) units of (Ordos) Acolytes

 

Also add to the armory, Galvanic Rifles (1 Point), Lasgun (1 Point), Arc Rifles (4 Points) and Grenade Launcher (5 Point). And reduce the cost of HotShot Las (1 Point). And increase the cost of a Bolter (1 Point) and Storm Bolter (3 Points).

 

And I’d allow an Inquistor to take 0-2 (Troop) of their Ordos as an Elite Unit. Then seperate the Deamonhosts into two Units, one Unit is the current one but allowed in packs of 1-6 and other is more like Cherubeal. Then add a second Xeno Unit alongside the Jokero, like Kroot or something. Then adding Crusaders and Arco Fallagellents to the list. Because I am full wishlist now (I apologize), also add few Weapons for each Ordos.

-HellRifle

-Deamonblade

-Conversion Beamer

-Poison Weapons

-Physic Hood

-Everiscator

(Unless Someone has better options for hereticus beside just Null Rod)

 

Pardon the wishlist tangent. But each (Ordos) having two generic ‘units’ and then two themed units (which could be locked behind Ordos or not. I’d rather not). I think help a bit pardon the wish listing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like they could have fixed this whole issue with like 30 minutes of extra work.

 

Sisters of Silence - Add a datasheet for a low level HQ.

Legion of the Damned - Add a datasheet for a Lieutenant or Captain.

Inquisitors - Add a rule to the effect of "Any detachment consisting entirely of units with the "Imperium" keyword may include a Character with the "Inquisitor" keyword as one of it's HQ choices even if no other keyword is shared."

Assassins - As Inquisitors, or something similar.

 

None of it should have been hard, and it's disappointing that they rolled out this FAQ and didn't even catch how weird all of these things are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...Kin you realize that too can take Primaris Pysker? They both share “Astra Telepathical” faction Keyword atleast for SoS. Really Legion and Assassins fixes are both imho. Inquisition and Fallen only two Units not properly covered. Atleast I can think of Edited by Schlitzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...Kin you realize that too can take Primaris Pysker? They both share “Astra Telepathical” faction Keyword atleast for SoS. Really Legion and Assassins fixes are both imho. Inquisition and Fallen only two Units not properly covered. Atleast I can think of

Umm...Schlit, yes I do realize that. But I also realize that an elite cadre of elite anti-psykers having nothing to lead them except a psyker makes, ummm... shall we say, not a whole lot of sense? And I wouldn't really buy for a second that GW planned it that way, rather than it being a happy accident and again, they could've provided a sensible fix in about 5 minutes for any one of these issues, especially the Inquisition problem which they themselves created with their lack of foresight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree GW completely failed on inquisitors. It seems that GW simply watched the big turnoments and made all adjustments off of them....with no input on armies not represented. As someone trying to build a solid yet fluffy army, this is now more difficult, or at least throw my plans off. I’m still not sure how they want assasisn and SoS to fit together, but no longer will Hector Rex lead them. I don’t know, before I dump more money into new models I’m waiting to see how this pans out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like they could have fixed this whole issue with like 30 minutes of extra work.

 

Sisters of Silence - Add a datasheet for a low level HQ.

Legion of the Damned - Add a datasheet for a Lieutenant or Captain.

Inquisitors - Add a rule to the effect of "Any detachment consisting entirely of units with the "Imperium" keyword may include a Character with the "Inquisitor" keyword as one of it's HQ choices even if no other keyword is shared."

Assassins - As Inquisitors, or something similar.

 

None of it should have been hard, and it's disappointing that they rolled out this FAQ and didn't even catch how weird all of these things are.

Did you send this to 40KFAQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.