- Never mind- I wasn't looking too closely at the new rules. My bad- someone should go over this when I finish adding everything to it.--Newerfag (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Grey Knight Inquisitors vs. Codex: Inquisition
http://pinsofwar.com/warhammer-40k-codex-inquisition/ (is this enough of information that the GK codex is not null and void?) --Vuoripeikko (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- That FAQ was before the codex was even released, an it only said that Inquisitors could be used for factions other than GK. It didn't say that GK could use Inquisitors without the Inquisition codex. Until GW specifically states otherwise, assume that all Codex: Inquisition units can only be used in an Inquisitorial detachment.--Newerfag (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does say that the codex is not supposed to replace Grey Knights, as in you can still take Grey Knights inquisitors as an ally. This was asked from GW, Facebook page, but still GW. What I'm after is that Grey Knights can use their own inquisition, the digital codex does not prevent that. --Vuoripeikko (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- If they could still take Inquisitors in the Grey Knights army, then why have an Inquisition codex in the first place? Simple common sense- that's all it is.--Newerfag (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- To give other armies the choice of having Inquisition without having to resort in allying the Grey Knights? Inquisition works with all imperial armies, after all. --Vuoripeikko (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which is why GK no longer have Inquisitors in their army list. Accept that and stop wasting time. Unless GW openly says "Grey Knights still have Inquisitors in their army list", assume they do not.--Newerfag (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Debatable. Unless GW openly says "Grey Knights no longer have Inquisitors in their army list", assume they do. Honestly, even Sisters of Battle have been using characters from the Inquisition (See: Battle Conclave) and no one pipes up about that. Apparently now you've got a codex from which you can rip off half of the pages. How does that make any sense? --Vuoripeikko (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's GW- they doesn't have to make sense. You have no evidence to back up your claims that they do keep them in the army list, so arguing otherwise is pointless. If you have other questions, ask GW about them instead of cluttering up the talk page further.--Newerfag (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is no evidence to back up your claims either. I only interpret what we currently have - two different codexes which have the same units, characters and rules, but no FAQs or erratas to stop using both of them. Information gathering from GW will commence, though. They might just wait till the next GK codex to remove the inquisitors, but till then... --188.8.131.52 07:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Considering that the updated 7th Edition Grey Knights FAQ still has corrections for Inquisitors in it, I would imagine GK can still use the ones in their codex (and since nothing in Codex: Inquisition ever actually said it nullified the GK codex, I don't know why it was really an issue in the first place).
Uh, pretty sure the Psycannon is rending on both profiles, not just the secondary profile - the rate of fire changes, not the type of ammo itself. (If an example of this elsewhere is needed, look at the Dark Eldar Splinter Cannon: SX Assault 4 or Heavy 6, Poisoned. If it was read in the same way the Psycannon entry is currently, then the assault mode would be useless as it has Strength X but no poisoned.)
- --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) If it is written as "Assault 2 or Heavy 4, Rending" then the Assault 2 / Heavy 4 choice is a separate condition from Rending, which then applies to both. If you look at it another way: if there was a comma before the OR to make the separation of conditions clear (written as "Assault 2, or Heavy 4, Rending") then Rending would be bunched in with Heavy 4 and the Assault 2 would remain separate.
- -- Yep, just checked, it's "Assault 2 or Heavy 4*, Rending", where the * denotes additional rules for the weapon (which is about which firing mode is used and when). So it will need to be amended in the main page. Actually, probably needs to be fixed for the one on the Grey Knights page as well funnily enough.
inquisitor lord hecator rex
Which rules would we use for him, the forgeworld rules or the rules at the back of imperial armour apocalypse (in the war zone vraks of 150)?
The most recent rules for him are in Imperial Armour Volume 5 second edition - Random anon, 27/05/2015
Cult Mechanicus and Skitarii
They should really be added to the allies section shouldn't they? Anyone willing to help me come up with some good, synergistic combos? VVK 17:40 2 August 2015 (GMT)
Clarifying Imperial Agents
Considering the cover, it may resemble an Inquisition book, but it is in its own way its own separate codex. As the name implies, it's a kind of catch-all book that technically stands on its own but supplements all forces. I modified the Imperial Agents section a tad to reflect that. This is especially notable (the distinction that is) because both that book and Codex: Inquisition are separate entities that offer different means to field the same forces.--Naeondaemon (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't worked on this for a bit, but a while ago I wanted to make revisions to this article. I was thinking that tactics are sort of randomly scattered between unit entries and weapon entries, so neither give a complete picture. I wanted to put all tactics in the unit entries, and the wargear section would just have objective facts; I wound up making tables of stat lines. Have a look at a draft here: User:TomTheHand/Inquisition#The_Big_I.27s_Armory
Does this seem like a good idea? Is there maybe a copyright issue? I dunno.
- To be honest I don't like listing the full stats like that because anyone who has the book will already have the stats, so reposting them doesn't help anyone. Even ignoring that, if there's no tactics posted alongside the use of the weapons (like mentioning what the weapon's good for or if it should be replaced by anything, or if it sucks and you're stuck with it), then there's no purpose in listing the armoury in the first place. -- Triacom (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)