Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Inquisition in Nov WD


  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#126
Mobius0288

Mobius0288

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 493 posts

I could see both ways for acolytes being viable. Just get a bunch on the board and keep them cheap... helps with the "seize for interrogation" stratagem, fill in the random transports space you have left over.

 

Or.

 

Give some of them decent weaponry (SB's being a good middle ground?) and leverage them in key transports (counter assault, objective grab, w/e). Also mad about the las guns since I have a few themed scions for storm troopers :(

 

I could see benefits to acolyte characters as an extra layer of protection for an inquisitor, especially if giving him/her additional powers and what not from the warlord trait.

 

I like the Ordo xenos stuff as it makes the inquisitors slightly better fighters (+2 to wound relic, -1 to hit, can't target unless closest unit psychic power, etc.), but the Ordo Malleus combos are looking REALLY strong. I definitely may have to get a land raider for my inquisitor force soon. And finish up some more Orlock gang acolytes :)


  • N1SB likes this

Deathwatch | Imperial Fist | Imperial Knights | Skitarii | Inquisition


#127
Lord Lorne Walkier

Lord Lorne Walkier

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,429 posts
  • Location:Chico Ca USA
  • Faction: Enlightened Sons

As I said before... I get the feeling that this is the last 'current' published datasheet they will get.... next stop is legends so GW doesnt get the the whole 'faction squated' scenario again.....

we may see individual Inquisitors with 40K rules appear as special characters with <ORDO> Keyword but with DW /GK /AS /AM etc keywords in the future but they will be campaign book style releases*

*This is purely personal opinion

They have a tv show coming out with the =][= as the pov. That would seem bad timing to show them the door. =][= have been a major playable part of 40k from the very beginning. Rouge Trader hard back. They have not been updated like the Marines or elder but no way this is the last round up. I hope.
Just An FYI, relevant because of the above quote...

Just as one of the most successful video games based on the old Warhammer Fantasy Battles world was completing development and being released... GW squatted the entire Fantasy Battles universe.

I don't think any loaned out IP licenses provide protection like this... GW will do whatever they want to do.

Touche..

Squatted is now a verb? Nice.
  • librisrouge likes this

"Death comes in many forms, but i would count aerial bombardment amongst the most satisfyingly efficient."

 

gallery_70393_10089_14705.png


#128
librisrouge

librisrouge

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,597 posts
  • Faction: His Noble Inquisition
For the Lady! Lady Greyfax!
  • Prot likes this

"Frak this, for my faith is a shield proof against your blandishments."

-Book of Cain - Chapter IV, Verse XXI

 

"I think you really need to be a guard player in order to have that kind of attitude about casualties. My forces were killed to a man for slight strategic gain? All I heard was a buzzing noise until that part about strategic gain."

-Ailarian, Hand of the Kind XXXI

 

gallery_48988_15465_5689.png gallery_48988_15465_9618.png gallery_48988_15465_8459.png sml_gallery_29004_10691_7586.pnggallery_48988_10980_7442.png


#129
brother_b

brother_b

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,002 posts
I think that acolytes should be taken as characters, with either plasma or meltas. They’ll be somebody to accompany your inquisitor as he or she slings spells and instills confidence in your imperial forces. I don’t think you should field them in targetable units. A space monkey and a couple of hardened, albeit plainly human, operatives to accompany my =][= are greatly anticipated. I’m super happy for this supplement.

gallery_62972_10568_12006.jpgsml_gallery_101149_13675_4249.jpg


#130
ZaelART

ZaelART

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 104 posts
Haha yep, codex: squats here we come.

Maybe we will finally get a codex and the return of proper inquisitorial storm troopers.

Maybe an inquisitorial thunderhawk gunship in plastic.

I honestly don't know anything anymore.

Edited by duz_, 16 November 2019 - 03:32 AM.
Removed unrelated content and excessive quotes


#131
duz_

duz_

    ++ REPREHENSOR FECTUM ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 5,175 posts
Let's keep the excessive quotes in order and leave the Warhammer Fantasy / AoS discussion for outside if B&C

:tu:

#132
Silas7

Silas7

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 536 posts
  • Location:West coast, USA
  • Faction: Crimson Fists, Blood Angels

I hope GW injects the Corvus Blackstar into the =][=

 

Such a lovely model to be left exclusively in the DW codex.


  • brother_b likes this

gallery_48988_15465_10130.png gallery_45765_11565_21922.png


#133
Outbacksailor

Outbacksailor

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 13 posts

I think that acolytes should be taken as characters, with either plasma or meltas. They’ll be somebody to accompany your inquisitor as he or she slings spells and instills confidence in your imperial forces. I don’t think you should field them in targetable units. A space monkey and a couple of hardened, albeit plainly human, operatives to accompany my =][= are greatly anticipated. I’m super happy for this supplement.


I was thinking about the opposite. Runnings 2 full squads of acolytes and a monkey with hector rex. 2 casting 3 deny 5W with 2+/3++ and another 12 2+ saves. Or a minoris inquisitor with 3 full squads of plasmas. Overcharge all you like on characters.

I has a question about eisenhorn. Do you need to pay for the daemonhost
  • brother_b likes this

#134
sairence

sairence

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 404 posts

I hope GW injects the Corvus Blackstar into the =][=

Such a lovely model to be left exclusively in the DW codex.


Well, they can go into any Imperial transport, so they can use a Corvus. I just can't remember if you needed a DW detachment to unlock it first.
gallery_30308_9518_8251.png

#135
ZaelART

ZaelART

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 104 posts
Yeah, agree that the corvus is a beautiful model. It does only have imperium, Astartes and deathwatch keywords. No ordo or inquisition.

#136
Kolgrim DeathHowl

Kolgrim DeathHowl

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 643 posts
  • Location:Blairsville, GA

Yeah, agree that the corvus is a beautiful model. It does only have imperium, Astartes and deathwatch keywords. No ordo or inquisition.

I could be wrong but it says Imperium and then the Inquisitor can get into any Imperium transport so it should be allowed. It just says Terminator Inquisitors must embark on vehicles that they are allowed to be on.



#137
ZaelART

ZaelART

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 104 posts
He can get in it, but you need to invest in a deathwatch detachment.

It would be great if it became an ordo vehicle.

#138
Kolgrim DeathHowl

Kolgrim DeathHowl

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 643 posts
  • Location:Blairsville, GA

Ahh ya I get ya I'm running DW so it was just second nature to be like ya he can do it lol.



#139
dogfender

dogfender

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,993 posts
  • Location:UT
  • Faction: Relictors
Why are acolytes more expensive guardsmen? I would expect them to have at least the same stats as scions.
Seems very odd for an inquisitor to surround themselves with the worst thing in the game lol

I hope they reconsider the acolytes stat line considering the lore and also the fact that they removed all other interesting options from the retinue, servitors, crusaders, assassins, etc..

#140
Dread

Dread

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 810 posts
  • Location:West Texas
  • Faction: Grey Knights
Don't forget command detachment. Say Greyfax, Voludus and ? . I'm getting the new sisters and plan on Greyfax being a part somehow. Just an idea.
gallery-48988-15465-6059.jpg

I have come to kick ass and chew bubble gum! And I'm fresh outta bubble gum.

#141
librisrouge

librisrouge

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,597 posts
  • Faction: His Noble Inquisition

Don't forget command detachment. Say Greyfax, Voludus and ? . I'm getting the new sisters and plan on Greyfax being a part somehow. Just an idea.


Can’t be done. Inquisitors are limited to 1 per inquisition Detachment.

"Frak this, for my faith is a shield proof against your blandishments."

-Book of Cain - Chapter IV, Verse XXI

 

"I think you really need to be a guard player in order to have that kind of attitude about casualties. My forces were killed to a man for slight strategic gain? All I heard was a buzzing noise until that part about strategic gain."

-Ailarian, Hand of the Kind XXXI

 

gallery_48988_15465_5689.png gallery_48988_15465_9618.png gallery_48988_15465_8459.png sml_gallery_29004_10691_7586.pnggallery_48988_10980_7442.png


#142
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,659 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
How everyone like the book? Overall, from looking at this from a purely flavor prospective. It’s a solid win*. It might be not the next l33t thing. But overall, the rules are solid and the units are solid. Acolytes can be functional bodyblockers now that you can take them in squads of 1 for character given most body blocking = melee. Like my “Inquistion” would be like 2 1 Man Acolyte, 1 6 Man, 0-1 Jokero, 0-2 Daemonhosts and an Inquistor.

*Only thing found wanting is inability to recruit something like Kroot, Kabalites or Corsairs, or otherwise.
  • Montford likes this
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#143
dogfender

dogfender

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,993 posts
  • Location:UT
  • Faction: Relictors
Acolytes at the very least should have had scion stats.
Add back crusaders and assassins.

#144
ThePenitentOne

ThePenitentOne

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 166 posts

This is way better than what we had, so I'm content. I do wish it could have gone further.

 

Seeking some clarification. If I'm reading properly, Inquisitorial Detachments will still mess with Sacred Rights [Sisters] and Doctrines- anything that requires an army to be mono. Not only that, Inquisitorial Detachments may not even be immune to Battle Brothers, as the rule that provides that immunity comes in the text block that describes how Inquisitors function when they occupy other Imperial Detachments. And finally, as mentioned above, the one Inquisitor per Inquisition Detachment rule means that we can only field Inquisition Vanguards. While we could field a lot of Vanguards, a] some people still believe that the ridiculous limit of three detachments is a rule and not merely a recommendation and b] even if we found an opponent that was okay with it, we could never keep up in the CP race against a faction that has access to brigades and battalions.

 

As for using an Inquisitor as a part of another Imperial Detachment, the wording leaves some ambiguity about whether you can attach Inquisitors to more than one detachment. I think you can, as long as it's only one Inquisitor per Detachment.

 

I hope so, because there's a story trigger in my Campaign to bring Karamazov and another to bring Greyfax. I have two other Hereticus Inquisitors with Inferno Pistols as well, and one would likely accompany each of the named heroes. Karamzov would attach to my Penitent Legion, which contains only Priests, Arcoflagellants, Penitent Engines and Repentia. Greyfax would attach to my Sisters Command Battalion. The other two Inquisitors could work with smaller detachments.

 

But I'd like to see them fix the integration a little bit more, particularly with Chambers Militant. 

 

I think every Ordo should have the keyword of its Chamber Militant, and every Chamber Militant should have its Ordo's Keyword. If it's too OP, I'd be willing to pay CP up front. Alternately, GW could just craft a Chamber Militant rule. Inquisition detachments should be able to join armies of their Orders militant AND Inquisitors should be able to join allied detachments. 



#145
Montford

Montford

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 784 posts
  • Location:Nigh that dark and bloody river.
  • Faction: Sisters of Battle/Red Templars

In a similar vein, does the Inquisitor's Transport affect Battle Brothers?

 

If I have a Sisters army, and I include an Inquisitor which in and of himself does not break Battle Brothers, however if I want to give him a Razorback transport, does the Adeptus Astartes keyword on the Transport violate Battle Brothers?


Peace may cost less than war, or infinitely more, for war cannot cost more than one's own life.

 

-Klingon proverb


#146
Prot

Prot

    ++ EQUES AEDITUUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 14,245 posts
I finally got a chance to read the Inquisitor article today. I’ll tell you what I’m really looking forward to.... putting one in my Custodes as I’m tired of assassins.

Specifically I just love Grey Fax’s character. I have since we met her in the Guilliman returns fiction. I love her self loathing yet unquestionable devotion to the Emperor.

She’ll be in my next games for sure. Plus her WL trait is awesome. I can’t wait to trap Tau! Man I hate Tau.... I may call her my fish trap. ;)
  • duz_ likes this

Click to see....
gallery_2760_14273_30255.jpg
Instagram: @Prot40k


#147
xenomortis

xenomortis

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 88 posts

I'm still struggling with this ermm.gif

 

So, if I wanted to include a single Inquisitor in a Deathwatch battalion, they could be included without taking up a slot. What does that mean?

 

Would I still have to field 2 Deathwatch HQ units AND the Inquisitor?

 

Or

 

A single Deathwatch HQ choice and the Inquisitor would take up the second mandatory HQ slot?


mlygNsm.jpg


#148
Slasher956

Slasher956

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,457 posts
  • Location:The Kingdom of the East Saxons!
  • Faction: OoOML, Ulthwé

I'm still struggling with this ermm.gif

 

So, if I wanted to include a single Inquisitor in a Deathwatch battalion, they could be included without taking up a slot. What does that mean?

 

Would I still have to field 2 Deathwatch HQ units AND the Inquisitor?

 

Or

 

A single Deathwatch HQ choice and the Inquisitor would take up the second mandatory HQ slot?

 

 

Bascially although the Inq is a HQ character they dont count for filling the box in the formation.

 

So a battalion has 3 HQ slots of which 2 have to be filed... If you take 1 DW HQ & an Inq you only fill one slot.. if you take 3 DW HQs & an INQ you are only using the 3 formation slots

 

Or to put it another way.. each box in the formation diagrams (pg 243 & 244) is also called a slot, and can only be filled once.  However if a unit is slotless then you can add it in even if there is no box /all the boxes are filled.

 

HOWEVER WARNING - you cant add slotless units to an Aux formation!

 

CA 2018 faq pg 2

Q: Do units that do not ‘take up slots in a Detachment’ (e.g. Death Cult Assassins, via their Ecclesiarchy Battle Conclave ability) allow you to exceed the maximum number of allowed slots for a Detachment? For example, a Patrol Detachment only allows for two Elites units. Can I exceed that by including a third unit with a similar ability?

A: Yes, unless the Detachment is an Auxiliary Support Detachment: their Restriction allowing only a single unit is not bypassed by such units.


Edited by Slasher956, Today, 09:09 AM.

Dyspraxic & Dyslexic  - So I might not write/explain what I think I have as clearly as intended to.... 





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users