I have only tested the Grey Knights list, and I have no glaring issues with it. Some points:

List structure: I like the three-headed approach to inquisition strike forces. They do not have to be identical, but I plan to and would like to be able to use the same Inquisitor(s) with different support. I would really like this concept to stay.

Shrouding: To me, this is how a pure Grey Knights force deals with air attacks, and subsequently artillery. Anything else is just a bonus.

Gun-cutter: I would like this to stay as it gives the modeller freedom (something I like). I see no gain in switching to the Stormbird or something else. To please the crowd, the Stormbird could be included in the list of counts-as.

Fearless: They pay for it, and the formations are really small. Personally, I think it is the easiest way to distinguish Grey Knights from Marines. As Lord I points out, it has a marginal effect, although I have not tried the Grey Knights+Terminators formation yet.

Inquisitor/Inquisitor Lord: I like the Inquisitor as a unit, with the SC as a character add-on. However, I have a cosmetic issue with adding Inquisitor Lord to the Grand Master character upgrade. Maybe the Grand Master could be a unit that replaces a Terminator.

Strategy Rating: I often want to include Guards, but the SR2 really puts me off, especially if I want to set up air assaults and teleports. I think a pure 3 or 5 approach would see more inducted armies on my table.

# of Inquisitors: I like the option of having more than 1 Inquisitor, but 3 at 3000 seems like a crowd to me. Perhaps 1 per 1500 would be more appropriate.

Grey Knight Transports: I support Lord I on keeping with the Land Raider theme. I am painting some GK Rhinos right now, but I keep them for Storm Troopers. I like it because a) it distinguishes this list from other Marine lists, and b) expensive transport options makes for less formations, reducing the risk of Grey Knight inflation.

Aquilas: If you lose the VTOL rule and want them to remain aircraft, you could look at the Thunderhawk Transporters rule from the Scions of Iron list. Aquilas should be a separate formation then.

On a final note, I think the debate on whether conversions are needed or not seems superficial, since there are no official models available anymore.

/Fredmans

I've been a big fan of the Gun-cutter since we were playtesting the first version of this list. It is really what this list is about, lower level inquisitors that can't pull the entire force of a system into a mission, and often these inquisitors have drop ships that work like their home away from home. It's also for this reason I don't have an issue of having 3 inquisitors in a force at 3k.

I was never a fan of the re-roll dice. They seemed clunky from day 1.

SRwise, with the addition of specific Sisters/GK lists I don't think you need to have the variable SRs as if someone wants to do a pure list they should probably go with one of the pure lists that has more options anyhow so the Helican list should most of the time represent a mixed list. Also even if the Guard are not the best of the best, they are going to be far more motivated having the Inquisition watching them.

_________________

My Photobucket

Do you run a pure-Grey Knight army? How do you find that it plays in general? How often do you get to play with it?


The idea is simply a shorthand way of adding Supreme Commander to the Grand Master without having to make up a new character or a clause that limits you taking an Inquisitor Lord and a SC Grand Master. So a "Inquisitor Lord Grand Master" could just be a Grand Master that is the supreme commander. Does this help? Would it be better if there was a note that explicitly laid this out in the army list? I can change it (back) to a specific note that GMs can be given supreme commander if there isn't an Inquisitor Lord in the same army ... but it complicates up the list structure.


Okay, next version will be pure 3 or 5, at least until a pure GK list is conceived after the new Inquisition codex in 40K.


A cell of three inquisitors working together seems okay to me - three's a nice number. The restriction's only there to prevent an army consisting of nothing by Inquisitors in Gun Cutters, which would be problematic.

Thanks for the feedback!

I'd rename the "Inquisitor Lord" character to "Supreme Commander" or something.

I could... but it's a bit flat... I'd like to have a Lord Inquisitor in there as an upgrade

So make them seperate characters or something? It has never sat well with me that you add an "inquistor lord" character to a cannoness or grey knight character.

Lord Inquisitor went AWOL again, so no.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This does not stop someone who is interested working on this list.

As long as someone starts testing and developing something for the Ordo it would be a good thing.

I would, but I have 3 lists that I am looking after at present, and they take priority (for me) over the Ordo.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

If I was looking at the list I would (surprise surprise) be looking at removing Fearless off everything.

At the end of the day, these are just Marines with an enhanced skill at blocking mind attacks and unleashing a psychic attack.

So what is the alternative? Remove Fearless and Grey Knights do not get the -2 to rally from broken. Call it something like Steadfast.

I believe that something like this would balance against Fearless and should not really see a change in their points.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Don't great knights have ATSKNF anyway? They really don't need to made even harder to break!

Honestly, I have little opinion on the Xenos list, but I will be posting my updated Ecclesiarchy list soon, and with it the list of changes to the Hereticus list that LI and I had agreed.