PDA

View Full Version : Inquisitor Coteaz... don't know whether to smile or squint



Jack of Blades
20-03-2011, 10:58
Yes, he lets you take Henchmen as Troops. But he also costs 4 times that of an Inquisitor, meaning you have that much less points to play around with... and also takes up that second HQ slot. Wanted to have something fun there? nope, you have to take Coteaz or no Henchmen for you.

Why couldn't they just have kept Stormtroopers anyway? 12 points a model would've made them sufficiently costly compared to Warrior Acolytes and cheap enough to be lucrative compared to more Grey Knights. Then again they've screwed a lot with the point costs for Warrior Acolytes (they're horrendously expensive unless you only give them a weapon, which they will fire with BS3 - not very fluffy for Inquisitorial Stormtrooper-representatives) so maybe not.

Instead they force you to take this special character just to have the option enabled of creating an army not comprised almost solely out of Grey Knights (don't be a smartass and cite the codex name here). So what was the problem, was it unbalanced to let you create such an army? if so, why can you create an unbalanced army through the simple act of purchasing this modestly priced special character? Was there some great cataclysmic horror that would be unleashed by letting you have ''cheap'' infantry by default and/or Grey Knights like the old codex?

Mixed feelings here...

Bubble Ghost explains it well.

OK, here's my attempt at explaining the feelings of people who dislike the way special characters are the army-changing mechanic.

Picking the same set character every time means that he's never truly yours. Even if you imagine with all your little heart that he's someone different, he is still merely aping someone else; there's a nagging feeling of being a copycat, however rich the history you invent for your charlatan. The blank slate is what makes a character your own, even if you only use it to squeeze out an optimum gaming build. Being denied it is an artificial, gimmicky constraint in a hobby which is based on customisation and individuality, and is hugely frustrating because of that.

I have nothing against the existence of special characters, they can add a great deal to their army's background and style. But they should appear as themselves to have that effect. Encouraging people use them as "character archetypes" both stifles the player, and completely undermines the "unique" character by implying that they are not unique. It benefits nobody.

It may be that some people don't happen to mind all this, and lucky them, but can you not at least understand why some people do? Isn't tying what ought to be generic army options to uncustomisable, named characters a contrary philosophy to that of a hobby where we create and build our own unique collections? What possible reason is there to force special characters on people? It represents either a failure to understand what motivates their players, or a conniving siren call to tempt people into choosing more expensive models. Those are the only possible explanations.

The continuaton of this trend makes me fear the day when I'll have to choose Lucius if I want to keep using my Slaanesh CSM army, because a little part of what I've loved since day one about this hobby will have died.

When you play a game based on the idea of customisation, being forced to take something which is not customisable whatsoever is like sticking a Pariah amongst a bunch of Psykers... it makes them go insane.

Grimtuff
20-03-2011, 11:04
Yes, he lets you take Henchmen as Troops. But he also costs 4 times that of an Inquisitor, meaning you have that much less points to play around with... and also takes up that second HQ slot. Wanted to have something fun there? nope, you have to take Coteaz or no Henchmen for you.


Huh? :eyebrows:
Coteaz can be your only HQ.

Jack of Blades
20-03-2011, 11:06
Huh? :eyebrows:
Coteaz can be your only HQ.

A special character as my only HQ? :wtf:

Grimtuff
20-03-2011, 11:09
A special character as my only HQ? :wtf:

Yes, what is so hard to comprehend with such a concept? Special Characters bear no such restriction that they cannot be taken as compulsary HQ's. I truly have no idea where you have got this from....

static grass
20-03-2011, 11:11
I guess they decided to write Codex Grey knights and didnt want some tool on BoLS to write up an army list non GKs and claim it was the new errr... black. So you can take Cortez and have your non grey knight list but it wont be as effective as the GKs. Which makes a lot of sense especially when you want to sell loads of new GK plastic to the masses.

Stormtroopers were removed as a stand alone entry because having a cheap unit entry in an elite army is a dream for any general who knows how to hide a few measly points until they are needed to contest/claim objectives.

Jack of Blades
20-03-2011, 11:12
Yes, what is so hard to comprehend with such a concept? Special Characters bear no such restriction that they cannot be taken as compulsary HQ's. I truly have no idea where you have got this from....

... You seriously don't get the problem I have with taking a special character as my only HQ? Ok, I'll explain it to you: A special character is not my character, it's a pre-defined character both fluff and most touchingly rules wise. That, in short, sucks - and I don't see why it needs to be this way.

And Stormtroopers are hardly a unit of cheap expendables like Guardsmen are. They're just more disposable than Grey Knights, but tell any IG general that Stormtroopers are expendable and he'll laugh for three days before he realises your brain caught Nurgle's Rot and he takes you to the mental hospital, visiting you each day hoping your delusions are getting better. They aren't that good in a brawl either, not much harder than Guardsmen really... any close combat unit has a decent chance against them, except if they get shot to pieces first (which is self-explanatory).

Grimtuff
20-03-2011, 11:14
Stormtroopers were removed as a stand alone entry because having a cheap unit entry in an elite army is a dream for any general who knows how to hide a few measly points until they are needed to contest/claim objectives.

Even though said tactic is perfectly possible in the current GK book. Paladins are troops with Draigo and their unit size is 1+. Same goes for Henchmen. 12pts for a naked unit of 3.


... You seriously don't get the problem I have with taking a special character as my only HQ? Ok, I'll explain it to you: A special character is not my character, it's a pre-defined character both fluff and most touchingly rules wise. That, in short, sucks - and I don't see why it needs to be this way.

SC are all unit archetypes. You could name him your own =][= that uses Coteaz' rules, he could be named Inquisitor Choccywoccydoodah and have scores of unique background you have written for him for all we care and no-one would bat an eyelid as this has no affect on his rules, but it makes you feel a bit better inside.

Simples. ;)

Jack of Blades
20-03-2011, 11:21
SC are all unit archetypes. You could name him your own =][= that uses Coteaz' rules, he could be named Inquisitor Choccywoccydoodah and have scores of unique background you have written for him for all we care and no-one would bat an eyelid as this has no affect on his rules, but it makes you feel a bit better inside.

Simples. ;)

I know I can create my own little pretty fluff for him and treat him as my guy, but that's like trying to suppress the voices :p. And he would still be the same guy as every other Coteaz or ''Coteaz'' out there. I don't see why this thing had to be on a special character instead of being an option for any Inquisitor with a properly named and costed rule. A rule requiring 75 points for making 'em troop choices would have you pay his price in points while still letting you be flexible. You could even make it 100+ points to particularily annoy and restrict guys like me who don't have the senses to use him as the only HQ choice ;)

NerZuhl
20-03-2011, 11:23
I suppose we shall just ignore all the previous codex's in 5th edition that use SC to unlock new force orgs or themed lists and consider this a first time and be shocked by it.

Big deal you have to take a SC cause you want to modify the army, and man up to the fact that henchmen are far more flavorful than stormtroopers ever were.

Jack of Blades
20-03-2011, 11:25
I suppose we shall just ignore all the previous codex's in 5th edition that use SC to unlock new force orgs or themed lists and consider this a first time and be shocked by it.

Big deal you have to take a SC cause you want to modify the army, and man up to the fact that henchmen are far more flavorful than stormtroopers ever were.

But why a special character? is he the only man in the Imperium who can comprise his army out of Henchmen? and yes, fyi I think it really sucks to have to use special characters like that. Instead of becoming interesting add-ons they define your force and are either taken or not taken, if you catch my drift. Guardsman Marbo is a prime example of a pretty good special character who instead of restricting the army under the benevolent guise of an option, adds to it.

Grimtuff
20-03-2011, 11:34
But why a special character? is he the only man in the Imperium who can comprise his army out of Henchmen?

Nope. He is a character archetype. The name attached to him is meaningless. Coteaz is the ruler of an entire SYSTEM. He does not have to call on outside resources (i.e. SM's, GK's) when he wants to make war, this guy has his own mini empire and the fact you can build an army purely of Henchmen represents this.

However, Coteaz is not the only =][= who commands a system, all you have to do is use his rules. Hell, he doesn't even have to have the same weapons. The hammer could be a huge Daemon weapon and the Eagle some kind of Warp Rift gun (representing the random amount of shots). There you go. I just made a Radical =][= using Coteaz' rules yet he is of my own creation. I'll call him Bucky. :)

Shamana
20-03-2011, 11:38
It is unfortunate, but not unprecedented - remember how the SM codex made you take Vulkan for the salamander specialty (master-crafted flame/melta weapons), Shrike for the Raven guard one, Kor'sarro Khan for the white scars etc etc. I would have preferred to have a generic inquisitor lord, but meh. Actually, I can use him as a generic OM inquisitor lord, but that way his gear is set. You can check with your local club guys if you could buy the "Inquisitor lord" upgrade for a generic inquisitor (they are HQs iirc) and work from there. Mind you, I think there was a mention how the role of the Inquisition would be downplayed in this codex, so perhaps the move away from stormtroopers/henchmen (who can be played as stormtroopers anyway) was quite intentional. We'll see how the Witchhunters codex handles the matter.

As for paying 75 points extra... I'd say the guy is fairly priced, all in all. He's got some very good gear and rules, and in fact might be a bit on the cheap side.

Castigator
20-03-2011, 11:41
... You seriously don't get the problem I have with taking a special character as my only HQ? Ok, I'll explain it to you: A special character is not my character, it's a pre-defined character both fluff and most touchingly rules wise. That, in short, sucks - and I don't see why it needs to be this way.

Because everything GW does comes with pre-defined fluff. They sell you Tyranids, complete with background, etc.... not just generic Space Bugs. They sell you Blood Angels of the Adeptus Astartes, not random sci-fi warriors in exo-armour. They sell you The Inquisition of the Imperium of Man, with very specific fluff, orders, etc.., not a random secretive/clerical agency. They sell you Cotaez, not a nameless concept of the same direction.

If you do not like pre-defined fluff, 40K seems an odd choice for a hobby to pick up.

ShodansOwn
20-03-2011, 11:41
I agree with Jack here. There were a few hot items I was very interested to see how they updated, and I looked directly for those when I saw the in-store preview copy.
-Stormtroopers, as I enjoy the inquisition, but I have no time for power armor (except on HQs).
-Daemonhosts, they were always cool, they could have been brought up to date in a really unique way.
-Assassins

So as it is, there are no Stormtroopers, the Daemonhosts are now pathetic 10 pt dinkuses, and while the assassins are cool, I have no way to support them army-wise anymore!

Unless I do The Coteaz Build; the exact same non-power armor GK army every other guy doing the same thing has. No thank you.

I'm not going to go as far as saying its a bad book, because it seems pretty solid otherwise, and I realize what I'm trying to do is not really GK after all, but I want to play inquisition!

As it is, I can use the dying Witchhunter codex while it lasts, but really, that just dont cut it anymore, and I'll have deficient assassins, which is half the point for me in the first place.

If it were me, I would make troops as an upgrade. Say, an Inquisitor upgraded to an Inquisitor Lord can bring his posse as your troop choice.

Jack of Blades
20-03-2011, 11:42
Nope. He is a character archetype. The name attached to him is meaningless. Coteaz is the ruler of an entire SYSTEM. He does not have to call on outside resources (i.e. SM's, GK's) when he wants to make war, this guy has his own mini empire and the fact you can build an army purely of Henchmen represents this.

However, Coteaz is not the only =][= who commands a system, all you have to do is use his rules. Hell, he doesn't even have to have the same weapons. The hammer could be a huge Daemon weapon and the Eagle some kind of Warp Rift gun (representing the random amount of shots). There you go. I just made a Radical =][= using Coteaz' rules yet he is of my own creation. I'll call him Bucky. :)

No. He is explicitly not a character archetype; that's the problem. The name attached to him is meaningless, but it means you can't customise his equipment. Having pre-defined fluff stings a little but the main sticker is not being customisable, you can't do anything with him. Just buy, copy, paste. All the rationalisation in the world can't make up for that.


Because everything GW does comes with pre-defined fluff. They sell you Tyranids, complete with background, etc.... not just generic Space Bugs. They sell you Blood Angels of the Adeptus Astartes, not random sci-fi warriors in exo-armour. They sell you The Inquisition of the Imperium of Man, with very specific fluff, orders, etc.., not a random secretive/clerical agency. They sell you Cotaez, not a nameless concept of the same direction.

If you do not like pre-defined fluff, 40K seems an odd choice for a hobby to pick up.

What you just wrote is completely out of context and you know it.

Monodominant
20-03-2011, 11:54
I believe the OP is just pulling our leg... he must be joking or something...

The whole "is it not obvious why I dont want a SC as my HQ" is just too much not to be a bait...

New Cult King
20-03-2011, 12:16
I fail to see the problem. He has a cool mini, he lets you take henchmen.

So?

marv335
20-03-2011, 12:18
I fail to see the problem. He has a cool mini, he lets you take henchmen.

So?

I'm with NCK here,
as far as I am concerned, this is a huge non-problem.

duffybear1988
20-03-2011, 12:27
It is because some people don't want to have to base their list around a special character just to get the unlocks that should have been standard in the codex from the start.

Now every Inquisition themed army will have Coteaz because he is the only one allowing henchmen as troops! It takes the flavour out of the game and stops people using their creativity to think up and convert their own inquisitors to use.

This whole problem could have been solved by including stromtroopers as a troops choice at 1 unit per inquisitor... as it now stands inquisitorial stormtroopers no longer really exist - a hefty blow to the fluff lovers I feel.

It is a shame that GW make these kind of mistakes on a regular basis.

Sami
20-03-2011, 12:36
Then convert your own model, name him something else, and say "This guy counts as Corteaz in terms of rules".

Hell, the DE codex even has a box-out suggesting players do just this to customize their army if they want to use the special rules on a special character.

Don't blame GW for players being lazy and/or unimaginative to come up with their own backgrounds and conversions for characters in the codex.

[ ] think

Shamana
20-03-2011, 12:38
The problem is that conversions are a bit harder to get other players to agree to, since they are not "official". Without people to play with, all your rules are just half-baked fanfiction :) .

ehlijen
20-03-2011, 12:48
The thing is, according to GWs background, Inquisitors in general do not build armies. They lead small strike teams on investigations and if they find something big, they ask an actual army to go take it out, which it does on its own then.

In rare cases, Inquisitors end up with some many strike teams they can form small armies on their own, but only the most influential and personally dedicated ones do that, ones like corteaz. So if you have an army made up of henchmen, you have an inquisitor as tooled up as corteaz leading them. It's just a conclusion GW makes.

Not a big fan of it, but I understand it.

I also understand why someone wanting to field a horde inquisition army doesn't want a overly tooled up human with a thunderhammer but no invul save as far as I can tell leading them.

Xelloss
25-03-2011, 10:14
1/ No matter how you call him, you'll be "yet another guy with Coteaz". There is a difference between labelling a unit "Inquisitor Lord" and using Coteaz as the sig character and making the unit "Coteaz"
2/ No wargear means that if you want to run a full-inquisition army, you can't use an Ordo Hereticus or Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, you can't choose the Psychic powers you want, you can't say "**** thunderhammer, I want another weapon". You have Coteaz and nothing else.

I raged against this dumb design when 5th ed SM was released (what ? you need a SC to play Salamander ?), but this is even sillier than just not being able to get your Chapter's special rules.

Nocculum
25-03-2011, 11:20
My Inquisitor Coteaz is called Lady Marion, Matriarch of the Sisters of Penitence, a Sister Ecclesiastes war veteran who has a rather large girth and likes to hit people with her rod of office whilst wearing fetching nun robes...

Use a little imagination and attach yourself to the rules, not the name they come with :). 100 points is disgustingly cheap for what you get with the model.

ShodansOwn
25-03-2011, 11:46
Use a little imagination and attach yourself to the rules, not the name they come with :).

People keep saying this, but it doesnt really address what most of the guys complaining are actually asking for, which is the ability to create your own Inquisitor if you want non power armor Inquisiton. The post directly above you lays it out nicely.

It sounds petty, but I probably wont buy GK for the simple reason that I dont own or want to own squads of power armor (no hate, I just dont like them), but I DO want to run an Inquisitor of my own making.

BTW does anyone know if Witch Hunters are still generally tournament legal? If so, would they use the new assassin rules, or stick to their own codex? Sure, its a dated book but its the last place this can still be done with official books.

mrtn
25-03-2011, 11:58
Forcing special characters down people's throats if they want to "unlock" special rules is a stupid design choice in all codexes and armybooks it turns up in.

Galatan
25-03-2011, 12:01
I can understand the point. He may be an archtype, but he isn't your archtype character. No customizing and what not. Who says you want your inq lord to have a hammer? Hell I would love to have an coteaz like character with an sword or a halberd, but alas. I don't mind the designers doing this though, it something I can live with. Luckily Coteaz is a character I really like and the model is a blast to paint. The fact that inq have such a small role in the grey knight codex is also understandable, inq has always worked from the shadows and that is how it should be. Coteaz is just one of those special kind of inquisitors with a grand vision.

BTW Coteaz is a steal for his points. His 2 special rules are awesome, very supportive and usefull for grey knights. I'm taking him as a 2nd HQ (together with my grand master) in a unit of purifiers with psybolts and I think he's gonna rock.

Draigo
25-03-2011, 12:06
Pretend his hammer is a huge sword, then. Problem solved.

Memnos
25-03-2011, 12:24
Wish granted!

Play Witch Hunters. Now you can have Storm Troopers and Inquisitors.

No, no. You don't have to thank me. Stop it. No, your fawning isn't necessary. I accept your adoration.

Okay. Maybe a little fawning.


I agree with Jack here. There were a few hot items I was very interested to see how they updated, and I looked directly for those when I saw the in-store preview copy.
-Stormtroopers, as I enjoy the inquisition, but I have no time for power armor (except on HQs).
-Daemonhosts, they were always cool, they could have been brought up to date in a really unique way.
-Assassins

So as it is, there are no Stormtroopers, the Daemonhosts are now pathetic 10 pt dinkuses, and while the assassins are cool, I have no way to support them army-wise anymore!

Unless I do The Coteaz Build; the exact same non-power armor GK army every other guy doing the same thing has. No thank you.

I'm not going to go as far as saying its a bad book, because it seems pretty solid otherwise, and I realize what I'm trying to do is not really GK after all, but I want to play inquisition!

As it is, I can use the dying Witchhunter codex while it lasts, but really, that just dont cut it anymore, and I'll have deficient assassins, which is half the point for me in the first place.

If it were me, I would make troops as an upgrade. Say, an Inquisitor upgraded to an Inquisitor Lord can bring his posse as your troop choice.

ehlijen
25-03-2011, 12:43
2/ No wargear means that if you want to run a full-inquisition army, you can't use an Ordo Hereticus or Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, you can't choose the Psychic powers you want, you can't say "**** thunderhammer, I want another weapon". You have Coteaz and nothing else.


Not true. You still have your second HQ slot for a customised Inquisitor.

Cry of the Wind
25-03-2011, 13:17
Codex Witchhunters seems to be the obvious choice, heck the is still an armoury in there too (people need that to be able to customize their stuff right?)!

Come to think of it you can still bring allies into the Grey Knight army as far as I can tell, so there you go 2 squads of Stormtroopers and an Inquisitor Lord with an armoury to pick from. Toss in an HQ from the GK Codex and you have another Inq with retinue and still could bring a 3rd Inq from the WH elites section. Now you have 3 Inquisiors with retinues and 2 squads of Stormtroopers. After all that you can still take whatever you like from the GK Codex.

If you don't like that simply go all Witchhunters and you can have your 6 squads of Stormtroopers and 5 Inquisitors with retinues.

Or hey maybe those options don't fit you, there is the Imperial Guard Codex. Command Squads have tons of options with neat special rules that can be used for whatever henchmen you want. Toss in some elite Stormtroopers and Veterans for troops and now you have some really characterful models all with lots of options and they can ride in Valkyries! Sure you null rod doesn't exist in anything but fluff but it's not a game changer that much anyway (just as one example of lost unique wargear).

Codex Grey Knights was never about having an army of non-Grey Knights, you should be happy they even kept Inquisitors in there and added to them! I'm thrilled with the new book and while I do understand where you are coming from I just don't see it as the deal breaker you make it out to be. Would I rather have my Ordos Xenos Inquisitor leading the henchman army instead of Coteaz, sure but I'm not going to stop the army because of it. 'Counts As' along with decent imagination can make almost any army work the way you want it to. I can't take Valkyries in a Grey Knight army (my Inquisitors troops normally use the IG Codex so have a pair) so instead I'm switching to Stormravens, your Inquisitor doesn't wield a hammer, well make it something different but close. Or just say screw it and make the model whatever you want and just call him Coteaz in the game. Any opponent that won't let you play that way isn't worth playing and I have never had a problem doing that even in National level tournaments. If you don't know what Coteaz has for wargear by now with all the whining and the many armies that are going to be based off him, well the shape of the model wasn't going to help you much anyway...

Fine all that has failed and you are stuck with a Coteaz that you don't like. Guess what he isn't the army leader, your real Inquisitor is and this funny Coteaz guy is just another acolyte, albeit a senior one who is well equipped. Just because the guy is a named HQ choice doesn't mean he is the leader of your army. Now you still have access to the allegedly cheesy Grey Knights stuff without needing to use WH or IG and your own custom Inquisitor is leading the way with his well appointed acolyte. Can't fit in a GK HQ then? Well too bad you can't have everything, that's part of the hard choices you make when picking an army. I'd like all my henchmen riding into battle with Stormravens but sadly only 3 squads will be able to. If I went with IG as a base than 9 could. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? You can't pick a fringe specialist army and expect to have everything handed to you as if you were an Ultramarine (and even they can't ride into battle in Stormravens, suckers :p).

shadowhawk2008
25-03-2011, 13:29
CotW sums it up really well. Special characters need to be able to do something beyond just giving you a fancy HQ unit with some fancy wargear that does fancy things. Special characters are also the best way of customizing your armies to your heart's content. He also makes a good point about using the special characters who unlock special tactics as secondary units. You want to play a Salamanders army? Use a tooled up CM with TH/SS termies as your force commander and his honour guard and use VH as your secondary to unlock the salamander specific rules.

LonelyPath
25-03-2011, 13:29
My Coteaz is Lord Bathor. He's armed with a ancient gun from the Dark Age of technology and instead of a thunder hammer he's got a spiked power fist that acts in much the same way. He never wears armour, believing that his faith in the God Emperor will protect him from harm (he's a real zealot) not realising that the Inquisitorial Emblem hanging about his neck contains a Displacer Field (for that 3+ save, if not the special rules a displacer field also used to wield).

There, a SC based on Coteaz that doesn't wear power armour and has a good explanation for as to why he still gets that 3+ save.

Also, I see nothing wrong with the current shape of things with having to take a SC to unlock certain options and builds, it's been about since 4th edition now (see Codex: Dark Angels for instance where you need Sammael and Belial to unlock DW and RW troops options).

Xelloss
25-03-2011, 13:37
"You can have an ice cone, sure. But it has to be strawberry - But I don't like strawberry, I want chocolate - Ok, you can have chocolate, but only if you also take strawberry".

This is silly.

Memnos
25-03-2011, 13:47
"You can have an ice cone, sure. But it has to be strawberry - But I don't like strawberry, I want chocolate - Ok, you can have chocolate, but only if you also take strawberry".

This is silly.

It's Gray Knights and he wants an Inquisition army, so it's more like.

"You can have ice cream." "But I want a scone!" "Well... Uh... Okay. We do have an ice cream cone that comes with a scone, but you have to order the ice cream cone." "But I want a scone! NO ICE CREAM!" "Why not go to a scone shop, then. This is an ice cream shop."

IcedCrow
25-03-2011, 13:57
You also have to remember that 40k "armies" are not really "armies". EPIC "armies" are actual "armies". 40k "armies" are really nothing more than specialized strike forces.

shadowhawk2008
25-03-2011, 14:39
The terminology does not matter. And arguing over it is really no help for the discussion.

Shamana
25-03-2011, 14:56
Well, iirc it was stated that the codex was supposed to bring in Grey knights much more prominently... so Inquisition would only be a minor element. Let's see if they will do the same about the Witchhunters - I think a few rumors pointed at them going the same direction too (much more sisters oriented, less inquisition).

GreenDracoBob
25-03-2011, 15:55
I can understand how people can be upset by the way GW handles Special Characters and their FOCs. Personally, I still think the Eldar codex did the best at making sure you could still make a huge variety of lists while streamlining the rules. I don't really mind the current trend, but I can see it's not ideal.

But to complain of the price is a little much. Coteaz is 75 points more than naked Inquisitor. Not particularly good. You could, if you wanted to, make an Inquisitor that costs more than him. I tooled up one to about the same price with similar gear and abilities, aside from his unique ones. He is not at all expensive compared to his fellow, individualized, Inquisitors.

Lord Inquisitor
25-03-2011, 16:31
I, too, am less than delighted overall by this.

I can deal with SC for certain builds, but it does feel like it's very restrictive. All those lovely HQ choices to choose from - but I must take Corteaz if I want henchmen, limiting me to only one HQ I can actually choose. Inquisitors themselves are somewhat underwhelming (when did commissars get better than Inquisitors in experience and training?). Corteaz himself isn't too shabby and useful for discouraging reserve entry (I imagine very useful for shoring up a flank from outflanking stealers, for example.)

As for the henchmen, there are some interesting options. However, annoyingly warrior henchmen are not only a pathetic BS3 (what happened to the idea that Inquisitors surrounded themselves with experienced veterans like Nayl?) and even if geared up as proper stormtroopers they're inferior troops masquerading as stormtroopers. To gear them up in this way is prohibitively expensive anyway. :rolleyes: Now, spamming plasma or just bolters might be a good choice, but still annoying for everyone with substantial numbers of stormtroopers.

Still it's not all doom and gloom. Stormravens can be made up to look like a gun-cutter or other Inquisitor's personal shuttle. Load up with Arcos or Deathcultists and you've got glass hammers that can jump out and slice and dice through just about anything. I have to say the nostalgic amusement about Jokareo has worn off now, but there's no denying there's application for these McGyver apes. Certainly every shooty henchman unit should have one just for the Inconceivable Customisation roll. Servitors are dirt cheap as long as you're taking an Inquisitor. And yeah, screw it, if we can't have stormtroopers, then I guess I'm going to have to run some 12x plasma gun squads for the fun of it...

Bubble Ghost
25-03-2011, 16:35
OK, here's my attempt at explaining the feelings of people who dislike the way special characters are the army-changing mechanic.

Picking the same set character every time means that he's never truly yours. Even if you imagine with all your little heart that he's someone different, he is still merely aping someone else; there's a nagging feeling of being a copycat, however rich the history you invent for your charlatan. The blank slate is what makes a character your own, even if you only use it to squeeze out an optimum gaming build. Being denied it is an artificial, gimmicky constraint in a hobby which is based on customisation and individuality, and is hugely frustrating because of that.

I have nothing against the existence of special characters, they can add a great deal to their army's background and style. But they should appear as themselves to have that effect. Encouraging people use them as "character archetypes" both stifles the player, and completely undermines the "unique" character by implying that they are not unique. It benefits nobody.

It may be that some people don't happen to mind all this, and lucky them, but can you not at least understand why some people do? Isn't tying what ought to be generic army options to uncustomisable, named characters a contrary philosophy to that of a hobby where we create and build our own unique collections? What possible reason is there to force special characters on people? It represents either a failure to understand what motivates their players, or a conniving siren call to tempt people into choosing more expensive models. Those are the only possible explanations.

The continuaton of this trend makes me fear the day when I'll have to choose Lucius if I want to keep using my Slaanesh CSM army, because a little part of what I've loved since day one about this hobby will have died.

minionboy
25-03-2011, 16:53
This is one sad thread... People have been making customized special characters since the first special characters were born! My chaos lord in 2nd edition was a warrior who has gone on a quest to unite the 4 cults and lead them on a campaign of blood, death, treachery and lust. He had all 4 marks and for his devotion, the gods granted him a sword of insane power. In game terms, he was Abaddon. Not the greatest story, but hey, I was in the 7th grade...

If you want a custom inquisitor, take Coteaz (name him Xerxes the Soulless if you want to make a statement), then add one of your own liking. Your custom one is the "official" commander while Mr. Soulless is his lackey. It's not rare or unusual and nobody will judge you for it.

PS - I've never heard someone complain about the emperors champion equipment. Give him a title and say his war gear is badge of office, BAM!

Bunnahabhain
25-03-2011, 17:10
You also have to remember that 40k "armies" are not really "armies". EPIC "armies" are actual "armies". 40k "armies" are really nothing more than specialized strike forces.

depends on you points limit...

A guard force of 6 full platoons, a tank/artillery company, three Valkyrie squadrons, and several units of specialists certainly feels like an army to me...

60 ish vehicles, and ~1000 men isn't a real army, even by epic standards?

minionboy
25-03-2011, 17:16
I was just thinking about my various armies and I remembered about a counts as that I use all the time!

Meet Kirill Mikhaylov, my Valhallan demolitions specialist (counts as Sly Marbo):
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m480256a_99060105270_IGCrew_445x319.jpg

He's the guy on the left smoking a cigar and holding a gas can. I cut out one gas can, and replaced it with his lucky pistol named "Ripper," the other gas can had the spigot drilled out and sculpted in a rag to make his improvised demolition charge.

Thomson
25-03-2011, 17:17
depends on you points limit...

A guard force of 6 full platoons, a tank/artillery company, three Valkyrie squadrons, and several units of specialists certainly feels like an army to me...

60 ish vehicles, and ~1000 men isn't a real army, even by epic standards?

Well 1000 men is a battallion, which is a fairly small unit in war.

60 vehicles - yes that's something, but certainly not an "army"

In the battle of Verdun several hundred thousands of men clashed - and that was World War 1.

So yes, in 40k table top "armies" are pretty small...

Draigo
25-03-2011, 17:30
The best way to sell expensive models is to give them unique bonuses.

shadowhawk2008
25-03-2011, 18:53
This is one sad thread... People have been making customized special characters since the first special characters were born! My chaos lord in 2nd edition was a warrior who has gone on a quest to unite the 4 cults and lead them on a campaign of blood, death, treachery and lust. He had all 4 marks and for his devotion, the gods granted him a sword of insane power. In game terms, he was Abaddon. Not the greatest story, but hey, I was in the 7th grade...

If you want a custom inquisitor, take Coteaz (name him Xerxes the Soulless if you want to make a statement), then add one of your own liking. Your custom one is the "official" commander while Mr. Soulless is his lackey. It's not rare or unusual and nobody will judge you for it.

PS - I've never heard someone complain about the emperors champion equipment. Give him a title and say his war gear is badge of office, BAM!

Argument already made and countered several times in this thread.


Well 1000 men is a battallion, which is a fairly small unit in war.

60 vehicles - yes that's something, but certainly not an "army"

In the battle of Verdun several hundred thousands of men clashed - and that was World War 1.

So yes, in 40k table top "armies" are pretty small...

There are times when you port over real world details to the hobby. There are also times when you shouldn't. This is one of those times.

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 18:56
If I could, I would have stickied Bubble Ghost's post at the OP so people understand what I mean. Actually I can and will do that :)

Navar
25-03-2011, 20:04
Just to note that you can have Henchmen without Inquisitors. You can even make them scoring if you take a Grand Master.

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 20:05
Just to note that you can have Henchmen without Inquisitors.

Unfortunately you can't... :/

Navar
25-03-2011, 20:11
Unfortunately you can't... :/

Yes you can they are just elites.

Cry of the Wind
25-03-2011, 20:16
Yes you can they are just elites.

I think you need to reread all of the unit entry. They are elites but not...

Long story short with this whole issue is that GW has decided that special characters are the common way to unlock alternate lists. In Codex Grey Knights this means the alternate henchman list needs a character to unlock as it is not a normal way the Codex is supposed to be used. There is a Codex that fits what is being requested just fine. I suggest that people use Witch Hunters if they really feel this strongly about it and not use the wrong Codex for their army idea. I don't play Blood Angels hoping to get an army of Terminator troops...

Edit: Don't get me wrong I wish there were more options like the Space Marine Captain on bike unlocking bike troops instead of needing a Sammael but that isn't what GW gave us. For that reason I look at this as a challenge to make the army fit what I want and am happy to at least have some options.

Navar
25-03-2011, 20:21
I don't have the book in front of me, but I think that the entry says something to the effect of

"For each inquisitor in your army you may include 1 henchman squad consisting of 3-12 members. This unit does not count towards the Force Organization Chart."

So there are 3 ways to take them
As elites that take up a slot (no character needed)
As elites that don't take up a slot (Inquisitor needed)
As troops that take up a slot (Coteaz needed)

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 20:55
I don't have the book in front of me, but I think that the entry says something to the effect of

"For each inquisitor in your army you may include 1 henchman squad consisting of 3-12 members. This unit does not count towards the Force Organization Chart."

So there are 3 ways to take them
As elites that take up a slot (no character needed)
As elites that don't take up a slot (Inquisitor needed)
As troops that take up a slot (Coteaz needed)

I have the book in front of me, and you cannot take Henchmen without taking Inquisitors; the entry doesn't make sense otherwise, for example there is no unit size listed except if you take them with an Inquisitor. Coteaz however is the proving point, as a little box at his entry says that ''Henchmen are Troops if you take Coteaz and aren't restricted by the amount of Inquisitors in your army''. If you had no need to take Inquisitors to take Henchmen, Inquisitors would not restrict you.

That they're in the Elites section is probably just to put them somewhere, it has no relevance however.

In fact I think there was in the first place a bit of wishful rules interpretation necessary to think that Henchmen could be taken without Inquisitors, as their entry quite plainly states that you can take one Warband per Inquisitor; it really is what it says on the tin. That it says ''This unit does not take a force organisation chart'' merely means that the Warband taken by your Inquisitor does not take up a Force Organisation chart.


Doubtlessly they could have easily worded it better. Just putting a ''You may not have more Warbands than you have Inquisitors (including/discluding special character Inquisitors in this bubble), does not take up a Force Organisation slot'' would instantly clear every last shred of doubt away.

Navar
25-03-2011, 21:01
So where exactly is the rule that says "you must include an inquisitor in order to include a henchman warband" (i. e. on what page is it?)

Also if the book is right in front of you what does it say word for word?

Thanks.

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 21:05
... Well, the most definite ''rule'' would be on page 87 at Inquisitor Coteaz's entry. It says word for word, ''Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are Troops choices in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army.

If you would not need to take Inquisitors in order to take Henchmen, you would not be limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army, and half of Coteaz's little box would not make sense.

Navar
25-03-2011, 21:13
So they are located in the elite section of the army list
AND
There is no rule that states you must have an inquisitor to field them.

What is the problem?

Even without Coteaz's rule in place you are limited to 3 + 1 per inquisitor. So assuming that the rule on page 87 is 100% correct and not a hold over from an earlier draft or something it definitely doesn't say "you must have an inquisitor in order to field Henchman Warbands."

ForgottenLore
25-03-2011, 21:26
Navar, you already quoted the rule.

For each inquisitor in your army you may include one henchmen unit.

Period, end of one rule. That rule is not one of the options for the unit, it is up at the top, before the stat line even, it always applies to the unit unless overwritten.

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 21:27
So they are located in the elite section of the army list
AND
There is no rule that states you must have an inquisitor to field them.

What is the problem?

Even without Coteaz's rule in place you are limited to 3 + 1 per inquisitor. So assuming that the rule on page 87 is 100% correct and not a hold over from an earlier draft or something it definitely doesn't say "you must have an inquisitor in order to field Henchman Warbands."

No, now you're going halfway and being selective. If you want to go that route then you go all the way and you can have as many squads of Henchmen as you like as they ''do not take up a force organisation slot'', there not being any rule that states how many Henchmen Warbands you are allowed maximum. The part where they say that you may take one per Inquisitor? in Coteaz's entry where it says that Henchmen in his army are not limited by the number of Inquisitors? we'll conveniently ignore that on our route to interpret the rules as we see fit ;)

airmang
25-03-2011, 21:27
I don't have the book in front of me, but I think that the entry says something to the effect of

"For each inquisitor in your army you may include 1 henchman squad consisting of 3-12 members. This unit does not count towards the Force Organization Chart."

So there are 3 ways to take them
As elites that take up a slot (no character needed)
As elites that don't take up a slot (Inquisitor needed)
As troops that take up a slot (Coteaz needed)

The bolded part specifies you need an inquisitor to take a unit of henchmen.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
25-03-2011, 21:34
The bolded part specifies you need an inquisitor to take a unit of henchmen.

Technically, it says that you can take a squad that does not take up a FoC slot if you have an inquisitor. It does not preclude you from taking a squad on their own normally as an elites choice. So with two normal Inquisitor HQ options, with the RAW, you could have 5 inquisitorial retinues.

Now, I strongly suspect that the RAI is one choice per inquisitor. But that's not technically what it says.

EDIT; Saw Jack of Blade's point about how Coteaz's special rule is worded, and this further cements my opinion that the RAI is for the henchmen to be a retinue-esque choice for inquisitors. They really should have explicitly said that henchmen can ONLY be taken with an inquisitor.

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 21:37
Technically, it says that you can take a squad that does not take up a FoC slot if you have an inquisitor.

If you add your own spice to the wording then yes, that might be what it says. However it states that for each Inquisitor, you may take a Warband. Warbands do not take up Force Organisation slots. It's that simple really, but people twist it into something else and are selective with their evidence, conveniently not mentioning stuff that doesn't make sense the way they interpret it or else bending it into something else than what it says on the tin.

Navar
25-03-2011, 21:49
I strongly suspect that the developers intended the only way to take warbands was to also take an inquisitor. But to imply that I am being selective or not mentioning anything is just flat false.

Professionally I am a technical writer, and no where in that codex does it say that an inquisitoris required to take a squad of henchmen. I am sorry that it doesn't say that, because I believe that it should, but it doesn't.

Worsle
25-03-2011, 21:54
I strongly suspect that the developers intended the only way to take warbands was to also take an inquisitor. But to imply that I am being selective or not mentioning anything is just flat false.

Professionally I am a technical writer, and no where in that codex does it say that an inquisitoris required to take a squad of henchmen. I am sorry that it doesn't say that, because I believe that it should, but it doesn't.

No but it does have no rules on how you could take a henchmen unit without taking an inquisitor. The squad size is linked to the existence of an inquisitor so without one you are doing what? If you have no given minimum or maximum does that mean you get to take 3 squads of 0 henchmen? Sure they could have said you need an inquisitor to take the squad but instead they have only given rules for how to take them if you have inquisitor.

Navar
25-03-2011, 21:59
No but it does have no rules on how you could take a henchmen unit without taking an inquisitor. The squad size is linked to the existence of an inquisitor so without one you are doing what? If you have no given minimum or maximum does that mean you get to take 3 squads of 0 henchmen? Sure they could have said you need an inquisitor to take the squad but instead they have only given rules for how to take them if you have inquisitor.

This is the tricky part. As far as I can tell reading the rules neither a minimum nor maximum unit size is required to field a unit. Their are examples of squads without one, but no examples without both. This doesn't mean that they are required though.

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 22:02
I strongly suspect that the developers intended the only way to take warbands was to also take an inquisitor. But to imply that I am being selective or not mentioning anything is just flat false.

Professionally I am a technical writer, and no where in that codex does it say that an inquisitoris required to take a squad of henchmen. I am sorry that it doesn't say that, because I believe that it should, but it doesn't.

You are being selective, it is not false. The not mentioning-part was not targeted at you however, you just ignore the evidence instead :p

Which appears to be meaningless or even a hindrance as you misinterpret the rules seemingly thanks to being one. It does say that, there is no doubt about it. Don't make up excuses for it. Don't get me wrong I don't want to flame you but your argument is wrong and has already been proven to be so... if you still don't think so, well *shrug*, but don't tell people that's the way it is when it isn't.

RAW does not mean Rule As Wanted...

Worsle
25-03-2011, 22:08
This is the tricky part. As far as I can tell reading the rules neither a minimum nor maximum unit size is required to field a unit. Their are examples of squads without one, but no examples without both. This doesn't mean that they are required though.

No you need a unit composition to be able to field the unit. Have a look at every other unit in the codex then look the the henchmen, every other run it has some sort of starting composition even unique characters have it. The henchmen have no composition, you have zero rules on what you can or can not take in that unit (ignoring weapon restrictions) without having an inquisitor. There is no way to field the unit without one because of this.

Navar
25-03-2011, 23:23
No you need a unit composition to be able to field the unit. Have a look at every other unit in the codex then look the the henchmen, every other run it has some sort of starting composition even unique characters have it. The henchmen have no composition, you have zero rules on what you can or can not take in that unit (ignoring weapon restrictions) without having an inquisitor. There is no way to field the unit without one because of this.

Again there arn't rules that speek to this directly.

"I don't want to start a flame war"
"RAW doesn't = Rules as wanted"

These two sentences don't seem to go together.

I actually don't want to start a flame war. I merely respectfully disagree with your rulings. I can 100% promise you I don't want to run Henchmen Warbands. I am not going to field anything even close if I ever run a GK army. This isn't a selfish ruling, it is just how I read the rules. I will look back at my BRB and see if a minimum or maximum squad size is required under the RAW, but I don't believe that it is. If someone can point me to that rule and the page it is on I will concede the point.

To me this argument is academic anyway as I don't expect to see armies using elite slots to take henchmen.

Jack of Blades
25-03-2011, 23:32
I will look back at my BRB and see if a minimum or maximum squad size is required under the RAW, but I don't believe that it is.

:wtf:

I really shouldn't make this post but can't help it, what more do you require RAW for? RAW for using a table instead of your opponent's corpse? do you need everything defined and ruled? gee dude. And that ''RAW doesn't = Rule As Wanted'' applies. You're either reading the rules as wanted or you're viewing them in distortion goggles and saying that's the way they really are, because the rules do not say what you say they do. But really, whatever... and this is not an attempt to get the last word, our arsenals are depleted so let's just end this.

Xelloss
26-03-2011, 01:43
''Henchmen are Troops if you take Coteaz and aren't restricted by the amount of Inquisitors in your army''.
Bad writer doesn't know how to write and makes confusing rules. How surprising. :shifty:
I think indeed that you do need an inquisitor to take them without Corteaz and that the author just botched his rules. Considering how much space he wasted on redundant information and useless fluff description, he probably wanted to make a retinue entry for inquisitors but adding it in Elite as a non force choice allowed him to wasted one more page instead of including it in the inquisitor entry.

Navar
26-03-2011, 02:07
That is the thing. IF he really wanted to make another unit required to take henchmen then why not add them as an HQ unit under the Inquisitor entry like Command Squads and Honour Guards.

Again I think that at some point the rule was likely clear in a previous draft of the codex, but in its current form it isn't.

I believe that the developers intended to require an inquisitor to take a henchmen squad, but the Dark Eldar codex has a unit like this and the Space Marine Codex has 2. They intended for their to be a difference clearly as well.

Because I cannot truly know the mind of the developers (at least until an FAQ comes out) all I have to go on are the words in the actual book. Without a rule stating that an inquisitor is required then they are not. Again contrast Henchmen squads with Command Squads, Honour Guard Squads and the Dark Eldar retinue unit.

Draigo
26-03-2011, 02:10
But if he hadn't done it like this, you'd not buy the expensive Coteaz model, or use parts to make your own dude in artificer armor, with a hammer and a bird.

You know, because this is how Jervis decided the game was gonna be way back with dark angels, and it's not going away.

ehlijen
26-03-2011, 03:50
That is the thing. IF he really wanted to make another unit required to take henchmen then why not add them as an HQ unit under the Inquisitor entry like Command Squads and Honour Guards.


Because then they'd be subject to all sorts of anti HQ rules and gear (such as possibly the sanguinor's avenging angel ability). Also, they would then have been able to set up in dawn of war scenarios while in their current form they can't without corteaz. For some reason GW decided against those outcomes and made them count as elite rather than HQ units without slots.

LonelyPath
26-03-2011, 13:42
So there are 3 ways to take them
As elites that take up a slot (no character needed)
As elites that don't take up a slot (Inquisitor needed)
As troops that take up a slot (Coteaz needed)

Does it state that taking Coteaz means they take u pa slot? I've yet to see that in the codex. If it does not explicitly state that, they still do not take up slots and still do not fill the minimal 2 troops slots.

Worsle
26-03-2011, 16:03
Again there arn't rules that speek to this directly.

"I don't want to start a flame war"
"RAW doesn't = Rules as wanted"

These two sentences don't seem to go together.

I actually don't want to start a flame war. I merely respectfully disagree with your rulings. I can 100% promise you I don't want to run Henchmen Warbands. I am not going to field anything even close if I ever run a GK army. This isn't a selfish ruling, it is just how I read the rules. I will look back at my BRB and see if a minimum or maximum squad size is required under the RAW, but I don't believe that it is. If someone can point me to that rule and the page it is on I will concede the point.

To me this argument is academic anyway as I don't expect to see armies using elite slots to take henchmen.

Really you are arguing this? You know I am sure this is why gw don't proof read codexes that well. What is the point when people are going to make some silly nonsensical argument like this. We have no information on how to field the unit but that doesn't matter? You also want to look in the codex not the BRB, unit composition is always defined on the army list page with the FoC or the one after it (well in every book since the 5th edition older books use different wording).

It is the same with people arguing coteaz means infinite troops. Sure you can argue that is what the rules say but seriously no one can sensibly think that is right. Though I often get the feeling that common sense and the online 40k community are at best distant relations.

Thomson
29-03-2011, 00:09
There are times when you port over real world details to the hobby. There are also times when you shouldn't. This is one of those times.

IMSNSHO real world (TM) is a very tough beast and should be aproached with great care. Usually the real world has the tendency to contradict common sense and is far too complicated to be fun.

So I happily agree to keep nasty real world away from the hobby - always ;)