So I'm looking at updating the Inquisition lists after my long absence (because I just need to procrastinate when I've a deadline looming ). So I'm throwing open the forum for anyone with playtest experience or suggestions for the new lists. I'd also be interested in knowing who actually plays with the lists on a regular basis!

Due to popular opinion, VTOL is liable to be scrapped. I'm still not happy about it - in game balance terms it is the right decision - but it clearly "feels wrong." If anyone actually likes it now's the time to speak up.

I havent played with them, having only used the Adeptus Ministorum v1.1 so far, but will quite likely use them interchangeably once the stats and units have been matched up!

Ok, I've taken a critical eye over the witch hunters, and here are my thoughts. Obviously these are on top of the changes we've already discussed that effect both lists

Inquisitorial Retinues: From my playtests of your list, I'm not at all keen on how these are handled. My opponent in one game, Pulsar, found the reroll granted by the support staff "ridiculous". Not to mention that keeping track of which support staff have used their reroll, along with which henchmen have fired their slow firing plasma cannons is a total nightmare.

I'd suggest having just one type of henchmen, with a combined stat and expendable, and ideally a non slow firing weapon.

Equally the sheer numbers of your retinues seem disproportionate. Inquisitorial bodyguards are pretty small in number in 40k and the background, so maybe lose the "retinue" upgrade and keep the formation small.

Banishers: Whilst I'm no big fan of these anyway, allowing a formation of 5 of them is daft; an average of 10 AA5+ shots from the formation is just too many. If you decide to keep banishers, fix the formation as exorcists and have banishers as an upgrade.

Priests: I believe every other list that has used priests has made them fearless. It certainly makes sense background-wise.

Gun Cutter: What is it? Why is it needed? What background references are there for anything similar? Given that you're losing VTOL, surely the canonical Aquilla Lander serves the same purpose?

The little said about the Glavian pilot the better. Suffice to say that it's a very 40k level of detail.

Rogue Trader Vessel: 75 points? It's worth more than that.

Inquisition Battleship 10BP MW? Bring it down and cut the price.

Flack: Typo, should be Flak.

Basilica Imperialis: Has this ever been playtested? 500 points for a DC12 war engine seems far too cheap. I'd much rather go down the route of smaller chapels/cathedrals shared between the lists.

Penitent Engines: Do they really belong in the list?

Penitents Upgrade: Can't currently be take by anything. The priest requirement seems a 40k level detail too.

Transports 5 transport options (+ the gun cutter) for inquisitors seems rather excessive. Prune it back a bit.

Marauder Bombers: NetEA changes have these at 250 points.

Obsidian Fortress/Black Citadel: Are both really needed?

Razorbacks: Datafax is there but no way to buy them. I presume they're just left over from when the lists were one big one.

I would still like to see the Inquisitor's support unit types consolidated into a single type.

I believe you will be removing the Glavian Pilot upgrade, which is a good thing. I would prefer to see the "Gun Cutter" removed entirely and replaced with an Inquisitorial Thunderhawk (It's a slightly shorter Thunderhawk without a top gun, see Imperial Armour Two for a picture of it).

I would still like to see the Grey Knights' shroud rule made to affect all ranged shooting, as since the majority of shooting occurs at less than 45cm (Even moreso with Grey Knights as they teleport) this special rule is basically doing nothing right now.

You may want to consider Grey Knight Rhinos and Razorbacks, if you've bought and read Imperial Armour Seven you'll know why.

Definite price drop required for Grey Knight Land Raiders. Maybe introduce GK Land Raider Redeemer for the same reason as the GK Razorback.

I'm not a fan of you making up your own fighter craft for the Deathwatch, especially one that has an AA3+ and an AA4+ shot when intercepting or CAPing.


=====

Overall all three of your Inquisition lists are still too enamoured of making up new units to interest me in collecting an army... which is a shame because the Grey Knights especially interest me, but not as they're presented here.


It's from a Black Library book.
So's the Glavian Pilot, in fact, as the Gun Cutter is flown by a really awesome pilot from the planet Glavia...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The "biggest" change I'd like to see is that Inquisitors, and Inquisitor Lord, be characters instead of units, so that they can be added to a variety of units to give different types of Inquisitors.

The "slow firing" will be changed to just plain AP5+/AT5+ (i.e. longer ranged plasma guns), which I believe is a NetEA change to plasma cannons? Heh, I thought I had changed this already TBH...


I definitely want to keep the two types of henchmen (if nothing else I've modelled two formations of them!) but I'm ameanable to any suggestion for a mechanic for how support staff can "buff" the rest of the formation in a linear fashion.

As for the re-rolls, I just have different-coloured dice next to each SS model and use those dice exclusively for the re-rolls. It's not any more bookkeeping than DC or void shields. However, as I said, I'm willing to consider changing it.


Most inquisitors have hundreds, even thousands of operatives (e.g. Coteaz). Even on the battlefield, a personal retinue of dozens is by no means abnormal. You have the option to take less, and I typically run an Inquisitor Lord with 40-odd retinue and an Inquisitor with only 20 or so.

Banishers - need a rethink. I agree that as an upgrade for formations makes sense. I'm going to rethink the sororitas formations based on your list. I know you don't like making up new units, but then there's not really a flak (spelling noted!) formation that fits the sororitas, given that they don't use SM-pattern vehicles.


Which lists use priests? Other than the Ministorum list, obviously...


Chiefly the Eisenhorn series. Note that this list has always been based on the Inquisitorial Task Forces depicted in these novels... It's even been suggested to name the list "Helican Inquisitorial Task Force" or somesuch to make that clear.

As for the Glavian, I have removed it already in the next edition and just made the guncutter a fighter-bomber. I'm not sure that it's too much detail - you could say that about any character upgrade! If an individual character has an Epic-level effect, then it's worth including. But I'm removing it just to cut down on unnecessary options and because I buy it everytime anyway!


Really think a single pinpoint with limited planetfall (no drop pods) is worth more than 75? I find pinpoints so hard to cost, because they can be useless if there are no WE or pivotal if you get that magic 3 hits on a warhound. I'm willing to bring it up, I just don't find it particularly amazing.

As for the battleship, the idea is to represent some of the power of exterminatus that the Inquisition have at their disposal. What is the problem with it if it is costed appropriately?

The Basilica has not had much of a playtest, and I agree that penitents can be removed.


What would you suggest axing? All are appropriate.


Hmmm. Potentially not. Originally the Black Citadel was intended as a Deathwatch formation but got moved into to the Inquisitorial section. Had quite a bit of positive feedback on both of them, I'd be hard-pressed to decide which to axe... It's possible to give each ordo only one of these... e.g. Xenos, Black Citadel, Hereticus, Basilica and Malleus the Obsidian Fortress?


Only the Deathwatch can take them, the datafax should be removed from the other two ordos.


I've been playing with four unit types (inquisitors, henchmen, staff and assassins) for a long time now - each is distinct and understandable and I've not had any problems in gameplay. While I'm always keen to keep it simple, there's a line between "simple" and "bland" - I wanted to get across the idea that some henchmen don't just whack bozos, much as in 40K where henchmen buff other models. Orks, for example, usually run formations with three or four infantry types in there. Why do you think retinues should be simplified?


I will have a look. Sounds naff though, the gun cutter is instantly recognisable (at least in name) to the majority of Inquisition players out there, it's actually a novel type of unit in Epic with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Put simply, I love my gun cutter and there's no way I would relinquish it.


It does the same thing as in 40K - it protects them from long-range bombardment. Within 45cm, you're within the Grey Knights' striking range. I find it helps quite a bit against certain enemies like aircraft.

I'd consider making it only 30cm, but not less than that - otherwise what's it for? It's just a random grey-knights-are-better-than-everyone-else ability. By making it 45cm or even 30cm it encourages enemies to close with the grey knights, but then that's the sort of range the knights can fight back at...


I'm going to stick to the 40K army structure. It differentiates Grey Knights, otherwise they're just rock hard space marines.


Maybe on the Redeemer. Why do you think the regular LRs need a points drop? Playtest experience or are you looking cross-lists?

You're probably right as I am coming to the conclusion that my natural caution has lead to the Ordo Malleus being somewhat underpowered in general, but it's better than being overpowered.


The fighter craft is a throwback from a description of an inquisitor interrogating a marine pilot in an old Tyranid codex.

I shall put it on the list of things to reconsider.


This is a curious position. If you do not like any given unit (of which few are actually new units, most are at least described in the background) can't you just not take that unit?


Hmmm. This is a possibility. Are you talking about within the Inquisition lists or, as I suspect, the Cadians?

For all Inquisition lists, that way they can lead Guardsmen, Space Marines, Storm Troopers, Sisters, even ride around in a Baneblade!, in some future list, including Cadians.

And Inquisitor, is by definition, a single individual, certainly they can have staff, but they should be able to "go where they want", in my opinion.

Then what would be your suggestion to limit the number of Inquisitors so we don't have an embarassment of inquisitors leading every formation?

I don't think you are, all your lists generally have a finer level of detail than is typical for Epic, for example your fondness for putting D3 rolls on armoured vehicles' attacks (Generally an extremely limited ability) or henchmen re-rolls, or character upgrades for aircraft, etc.


Largely because I don't think the non-combat advisors need to be present on the battlefield, and certainly they shouldn't be doing something so dramatic as granting re-rolls.



Indeed, your attachment to models that you have already scratchbuilt proxies for is clear.


No, it protects from anything over about 16" away (Ie: Less than Firefight range!) in 40k.


45cm, or even 30cm, is basically useless, as the majority of AP type weapons are 45cm or 30cm range (Ie: By the time your guns are in range, the Grey Knights' shield is inevitably gone).

It needs to be either 15cm, or flatly "Any situation other than a Firefight".


So you're going to ignore the fact that they've had new models (Razorbacks) released for the army?

Not really, if you start putting made-up units in key positions in the list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The exact same as it is now, up to 1 per 1000 seems fine by me, with one upgradable to a "Lord".

As to pricing the Rogue Trader vessel, it's better to err on costing it for "optimum" use, rather than average or worst use. A *least* 100 points, I'd say; the Pin-Point can be deadly, and allowing planetfalling is good too.

Perhaps you are right. However I have with every edition of the lists simplified and streamlined.


They are present in 40K and can have enormous effect on the game (e.g. mystics). And I want retinues to be different from just a veteran guard formation. Assuming the warrior/non-combat divide remains, what would be a good "buff" mechanic for the SS?


Put another way, a unit that I like enough to actually scratchbuild is probably one that I'm fond of in concept...


No, it protects from anything over about 16" away (Ie: Less than Firefight range!) in 40k.
At 16" range it only protects about 5% of the time. The average distance that shrouding protects from is actually 31.5" (i.e. heavy bolter range!). The probability that it will work at 48" (i.e. corresponding to 45cm in Epic) is 95%.

So in terms of translating 40K mechanics anywhere between 15cm (95% chance shrouding won't work) and 45cm (95% chance it will work) is appropriate. 30cm is probably most accurate, at 74% chance.



But if enemy are that close then the Knights can engage them (if they survive!). If you make it 15cm then the enemy might as well sit back at maximum range and blast anyway. It also means that GKs have no use for cover.


You mean Forgeworld have released a single turret upgrade for razorbacks? I don't think that's quite reason enough to totally rewrite the list and go against the established Daemonhunters format.

Incidentally, do you have a page number for that Inquisitorial Thunderhawk?


Okay, I'll have a good think about formatting Inquisitors as characters and I'll put the ship at 100.

Specific lists can certainly limit the units/formations that Inquisitor characters can be added to; I don't think it should be a complete free-for-all in every list.

I don't see a need for a divide when a single mixed-profile unit could do just as well (And be more appropriate to Epic's typical "feel", IMO).

If you want a divide, then you want a special rule to service a single unit in the army list. Such things (SR's for single units within a list) should be used with extreme frugality.

So what I'm saying is that you should cheat and use a pre-existing rule, rather than making up a whole new special rule just for use by one unit (Which would be the 40k way of doing things).



Ah yes I forgot they hadn't been updated to use the standard Night Fight rules yet and still use the older mechanic. Please ignore my comment for the next 2 months until the new Inquisition Codex is released in 40k.

And anyway, from a simple "Are they going to be fun and interesting to play ingame" perspective your rule will almost never come up, either it'll be long range shooting in which case the Knights are going to be in cover anyway (So the rule does nothing) or short range shooting where the Knights will again very likely be in cover and certainly you'll be within 45cm so again the rule will do nothing... and these are teleport troops so they're not going to be all that far away, typically.

So because you can't "stack" the -1 to-hit with other cover, you've got a Special Rule that does basically nothing.



And written rules for it and heavily featured it in Imperial Armour seven, along with the Land Raider GK Redeemer which you apparently are considering.


I'll dig one up later.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Actually the netEA haven't made an official call on it one way or the other. I suspect it's TRC's call really; he's the Guard champion so champion of the only affected official list, and the co-champion of the Dark angels, who make most use of them.



I think this is a mistake. Tracking the workings of non-combat henchmen at this scale is excessive micromanagement. Even in 40k they're mixed in the same squad with combat henchmen, so they should have a combined profile. A Warrior Henchmen stand with expendable covers both types neatly.

Honestly, having converted them for yourself is not a good argument for their inclusion. That is exactly what held the Tau discussion back for a long time. Awesome, overpowered units got added, so people converted them up. This made it very hard to strip them out of the list later, though the list was much the better for doing so. Sometimes you need to make hard calls for the good of the list. For example, I switched Retributors to Heavy Bolters, even though I had invested time and money in making sisters models with multimeltas. I did it anyway, because it was the right thing for the list.



There's a good reason we don't give DC, Void shields or Slow Firing weapons to infantry. It's just too much to keep track of.



Why not make the retinue upgrade tied to the supreme commander upgrade then?



I think we should put a vote up on this matter and both agree to abide by the result.



A couple of guard lists. I'll look them up when I get the chance.



The planet of origin of the pilot flying a plane is much too high a level of detail for epic. It's much higher detail than tech-marines, apothacaries and other characters that get abstracted out.



At 75 points it's worth it even without planetfall, just as a punt on the opponent having war engines. With planetfall it's easily worth well over 100 points. I'd stick it at 125 as a minimum.



Exterminatus shouldn't be represented in Epic; it's too powerful and would render a battle null and void. Epic scale battles wouldn't take place if such an exterminatus was occuring; the fact that there's a battle at all tells us it's not happening. I hate to use this word, and please don't take offense, but this seems fanboyish.




Lose Valkyries for starters. If you're so keen on keeping the gun-cutter then lose the aquilla. You need to make a call on this; just because everything is potentially appropriate doesn't mean you include everything. See the Steel Legion list; it's completely appropriate that Storm Troopers should be able to use Chimeras, but they can't, in order to focus the list. This list seriously lacks focus, there's real kitchen-sink-syndrome.



I'd like that very much.

There are plenty of individual units with unique rules in the core army lists (e.g. the humble imperial guardsmen!). And there are plenty of lists that have distinction between unit types. You could argue that you don't need a Nobs unit as they're typically spread out leading mobs.

I've made a list of units with unique special rules (apart from support staff and other common notes like transport capacity):

Malleus.
Aquila lander - VTOL (this unit REQUIRES a special rule of some form, otherwise it cannot transport another formation, so it has to have a rule whether in the current VTOL format or not)
Grey Knight Strike Cruiser - grants teleport.

Xenos.
Aquila lander - VTOL

Hereticus
Aquila lander - VTOL
Basilica - will be edited
Arcos/Penitents - will be removed or edited.

So the ONLY units (apart from the Aquila that requires a special rule to function) really with a unique special rule are the support staff and the GK cruiser.


Well, that may indeed change things and I will embrace the new codex (which, it might be added, I'm rather looking forward to). If GKs get rhino/razorback dedicated transports I shall have to reconsider, but that can wait until I have the new codex in my hands and properly digested it.


I find that the rule can help - most often after you teleport/airstrike in, smash your target and then are unable to consolidate into cover.


It can be argued that it does basically nothing in 40K... But it doesn't do nothing, it just doesn't allow you to throw your GKs around without concern for cover or make them impossible to attack in cover. It's flavourful and it does what I just describe - it protects the GKs from long-ranged barrages and aircraft after an assault. Have you played a lot with the Grey Knights? Because I get hit by >45cm fire often enough.

As I said before, I think changing it to 30cm is acceptable. It also corresponds to the "average" distance shrouding working in 40K.


And written rules for it and heavily featured it in Imperial Armour seven, along with the Land Raider GK Redeemer which you apparently are considering.[/quote]
From the beginning I wanted a pure-Land Raider approach to mechanising the Grey Knights. Another Redeemer variant is acceptable. A rhino variant is not. Unless the new 40K codex changes this, it is what I'm going to stick to.


I'll dig one up later.[/quote]
Found it. Heh, was looking in the REALLY OLD Imperial Armour II and wondering where it was in amongst all of the Orks and Eldar. Duuuh.

Okay, lets say I put in a Inquisitorial Armoured Shuttle. Let's assume it has the exact same profile as a gun-cutter. Happy? What's it armed with... assuming it is symmetrical, two lascannon and two paired heavy bolters. It isn't going to make a lot of difference, it's not like SG weapon fits match up with forgeworld patterns anyway. I can play with the weapon options, but the gun-cutter IS an armoured shuttle. That's what it IS. The exact make or model is not important.