The new look for Inquisitorial forces:

Daemonhunters

Witch Hunters

Alien Hunters

The Inquisitorial allies system is scrapped. If you want a Guard/Inquisition army I've made the Cadian Interior Guard with integrated Inquisitorial units.

If Inquisitors and Space Marines float your boat, check out the Relictors.

Some notes on the new version of the Daemonhunters (Alien- and Witch Hunters follow the same pattern).

- Allies are gone! I've included a token Imperial Guard company plus Navy and Titan options just as with any other list. No more "only one ally" restriction, mix-n-match away. I'm a little concerned about this - while there are far less options, cherry-picking is now a possibility. If this change drastically alters exisiting armies then speak up! Can you make your army using the Cadian Interior list?

- Many special rules removed. Last Man Standing is gone. The Inquistor Lord special rule is gone, as are many others.  

- I've not changed the Grey Knight rules, other than simplifying the Holocaust into a simple attack and reducing the Terminators CC to 3+. I am toying with a smaller Shrouding range and/or a different "daemonic bonus" mechanic but both will require playtesting.

- Some units removed. Deathwatch Veterans and Celestians for example. Just a bit fiddly for Epic-scale.

- Each list has a unique leader (Deathwatch, Mystics and Priests). Hopefully the hordes of cut-n-paste daemons will have been thwarted this time. The Mystics are identical to the Sanctioned Psykers of the Cadian Interior (these should at some point have the same name).

- Already spotting errors. There's no Mysic upgrade box (it should be 50 points).

- I've changed the Pegasus to the Aquila, seeing as there a model and all. The functional role is almost identical.

- VTOL. I know there hasn't been overwhelming support on this one. However, it serves a purpose beyond just being a gimmick. I've been wrestling with the issues of too many aircraft options - the possibility of someone spamming out with gun-cutters, pegasi and navy is one that troubles me. Equally, pegasus/aquila formations are meant to be pure transport formations, but they function as a cheap activation and objective-takers in their own right. Trying to fit them into the list is troublesome (what, another 0-1 per stormtrooper restriction?). Lastly, there are no rules for non-War Engine flying transport vehicles. A special rule is required to even allow the formation to function at all! VTOL solves all of this at a stroke. The Aquila landers require no special rule, they simply remain part of the infantry formation and function exactly like undergunned valkyries (except they can take off!) and they are simply a transport upgrade for the list. In terms of "fluff" justification, yes Thunderhawks/Landers/any aircraft that can land on the battlefield should be able to VTOL - but this is hover mode (I'm contemplating calling the special rule that to avoid this confusion) - not just vertical-take-off-and-landing but being able to hover close and support the infantry. It should be noted that Aquila landers are one of the very few aircraft with VTOL under Forgeworld rules and Gun-cutters are noted as having anti-grav plates in the Dark Heresy rules. I know there are fears that this is a complicated rule, but it really, really isn't. Landed aircraft already count as ground units in all respects. This rule simply allows them to move.

Isn't 35cm for a VTOL aircraft a bit to fast? I would calculate the ground speed from the aircraftspeed.
Fighter = 35cm (same as Skimmer tanks eg Eldar Falcons)
Fighter-Bomber = 30cm
Bomber = 25cm (same as Skimmer WarEngines eg Eldar Scorpions)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Hmm, I simply made it the same as the Valkyrie and Vulture. I think making the speed dependant on the class is a very nice idea, but a bit complicated I fear. I could simply make it 30cm or even 25cm (the only units to have this are the Gun-cutter and the Aquila, both bombers).

Hi Lord Inquisitor,

Although I am not an EA player and so can not comment on the content I would still like to say that your lists look great and have given me some much needed ideas for my own NetEpic.

Thanks for posting and I will be watching with interest.

_________________
My head is full of War...

[img]http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk120/Warhead40k/Tyranid%20Swarm/DSC02262.jpg[/img]

This version of the list seems much better already.

I'm still unconvinced about the nessesity of the VTOL rule, and I'm still very, very, very, very strongly in favour of 'shrouding' working at all times outside of Firefight range (You have to check for 'shrouding' at ranges of tens of metres in Warhammer 40,000!)... 45cm is much, much too far.


Other than that, it's a step in the right direction.


EDIT:

Oh and Kill the 'Glavian Pilot' upgrade already! It's just silly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As a whole I definately prefer the list split up like this. It's so much more legible and balancable like this.

A few points:

Warrior Henchmen: I thought AP5+/AT5+ had been agreed for plasma cannons rather than slow firing? Slow firing on infantry bases is a nightmare to keep track of.

Support Staff: Is the special rule needed? Maybe disposable or something instead?

Mystic: Has first strike in notes, so doesn't need it on the weapon as well.

Glavian Pilot: Probably unneccesary, but quite fun though.

VTOL: Entirely unneeded special rule. Make it a plane or a skimmer, not both. Maybe a skimmer with planetfall at most.

Shrouding: Anything outside a firefight makes more sense. 45cm is arbitrary.

Nemesis Force Weapons: Confusing, even with the notes. Maybe rename it for each varient? "Expertly handled nemesis force weapons" for the macro etc.

Grand Master: Lose the TK. Daemon Princes have lost it. Infantry just shouldn't have TK attacks.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

looks good Lord Inquisitor, I just fliping through and sore that the stats for the land raider crusader are the one's with the MW extra attack, it doesn't make much difference but it would be cool if we could all use the same stat line.

i'll have a good read through tomorrow

thanks

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

Some quick notes:
- shrouding could be simply that 'unit is counted to be in cover against any ranged (not FF) attack even on open'  (bit like shadow shield) - of course this would not then help against 'ignore cover' attacks, but actually the current text means that if grey knights are in cover and are attacked by IC weapon, the attacker does not get -1 to-hit, but _will_ get if they are in open...?
- as already stated, there is some un-needed rules (VTOL) and lose the TK CC now that DP lost it
- shouldn't the grey knight dreadnaught have armour 3+?

The possibility to wield all-teleport all-fearless all-TSKNF army sounds a bit dangerous, but if the costs are right, could work.

I am, of course, eagerly awaiting the witchunter list.
This one looks equally good however.
Some small points
The list background with black writing is quite difficult to read
Flack should be spelt Flak
Will go through in more detail later.

Thank you oh so much

_________________
I'm involved in Nunnery Practice
My latest Blog http://www.players.tacticalwargames.net ... p?blogId=8

Okay, mega-reply. I've added headings to help you scroll through!

Evil and Chaos

Glad you like the changes.  

VTOL I'll talk about in a sec. Okay, Shrouding. Lots of people saying it should be anything outside of "firefight ranges". The thing is, I've not heard a single convincing argument why this should be so. We've been over this before, so the bullet points are coming out!

• Argument 1: "Fluff".
  There is no fluff on the Shrouding. It is a 40K mechanic and no more. It has never been part of their powers (going back to their first incarnation in Space Hulk), its not to my mind mentioned in any of the background, inlcuding the novel Grey Knights. So the sum total of the "fluff" on shrouding is the following. "The combined psychic prayers of the Grey Knigths are focussed in battle to consistently confuse and wrong-fott their enemies, blinding their corrupted senses with the shining light of their faith and resolution." That is the entire background on the Shrouding, with no mention of range.
  
• Argument 2: "40K Game mechanic"
  Firstly, this is not intended as a translation of the Daemonhunters codex into Epic. This is an Epic Daemonhunters list. This is an important but subtle distinction. I am not making an exact replication of every 40K mechanic. Secondly, I don't even agree that the Shrouding should work "outside of firefight ranges". You know what the average distance the Shrouding works at? 31.5 inches. That's near as dammit to heavy bolter range, which corresponds to 30cm in Epic (yes, ranges are elastic, but virtually all 36" range weapons correspond to 30cm). There's no way Shrouding should work at less than 30cm even going by the 40K rules! Even more than that, in order to have any confidence that the Shrouding will protect you, the Knights need to be considerably further than that. At 48" range the Shrouding is likely (but not certain) to protect you. So 45cm is justified. In terms of simply translating the 40K mechanic, 30-45cm is about right for Shrouding.
  
• Argument 3: “Epic game mechanicâ€Â

"flak" not "flack"

VTOL:  Regardless of what you decide eventually, all landing aircraft should be WEs, eve if they are DC1.  The image of a Warhound barging through and dragging an Aquila half way across the board is comical, but not something that I think should happen (well, except for maybe by an Ork Lifta-droppa).

_________________
Neal

Hmmm... having them as DC1 War Engines might be interesting, it subtly changes certain dynamics. That said, I don't see the issue of being barged. Is a hovering Aquila really going to prevent a Titan from going wherever it chooses?

Well, I hadn't considered the hovering bit.  That's a bit less silly.

I was picturing a landed aircraft being towed along behind a titan like one of those flappy, noise-making turtle toys behind a toddler...

_________________
Neal

Besides, the Aquila is definitely a jet aircraft, unlike the helicopter-like valkyries.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter