Guest Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Hope, that and faith in an eventual return, is the thing that makes a true SOB player. I called it false hope, but calling it faith certainly has a nice ring to it. Semantics, I suppose. Fitting semantics for an army themed on faith... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 As for the number of Detachments, it's really only a problem because of the oddball unit drops. Seriously, the Inquisition Codex should just be wrapped right the hell back into Sisters of Battle. Witch Hunters for the win. Trouble is certain codex's are absolutely WRITTEN to need more than 2 Detachments. Certain Formations are just too important to the meta (see Assassins) not to be considered by any army. That's the reality. I mean we can theory about it all we want but we can all agree I think that Militarum Tempestus, Haemonculus Coven, Grey Knights, Necrons and so on are all written in this "meant for multipl Detachments" way. Even ORKS, it could be argued, despite their great internal balance as a codex (again) is better with 2-3 detachments. I'm not sure there's a right answer. its difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Seriously, the Inquisition Codex should just be wrapped right the hell back into Sisters of Battle. Witch Hunters for the win. If GW has the spare printers to make Militarum Tempestus into it's own physical printed codex independent of the imperial guard, they have no excuse for the sisters (or inquisition or assassins) not having a stand alone codex printed into the physical reality. That Militarum Tempestus has like 2 pages of rules that differ from their entry in the Astra Millitarum codex (plus dataslates). It's clear that they can make a sisters book and choose not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 There's a really easy excuse, actually, and it's the same one they've been using for more than a decade now: "Eh." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 There's a really easy excuse, actually, and it's the same one they've been using for more than a decade now: "Eh." Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Seriously, the Inquisition Codex should just be wrapped right the hell back into Sisters of Battle. Witch Hunters for the win. No. You are wrong and should feel bad. :) One of the codexes in the last 17 years for SOB has included the Inquisition and that was because it was shoe-horned in at that time to get people to accept Inquisitor as a side-game. It should not become the 'home' of the army anymore than Salamanders should only be included in a book also containing Speed Freeks. This same kind of argument comes up with other factions: 'All marines should be in the same book..' 'Eldar and Dark Eldar should be one codex' 'There should just be a Codex: Imperium/Chaos/Xenos' and is about as popular with most people who actually play the army. Losing variety in armies is not something that I want. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I dont care, actually. it worked, and was good and we should do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 It should not become the 'home' of the army anymore than Salamanders should only be included in a book also containing Speed Freeks. Literal LOL at that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I like that GW has decided some of the ancillary things get their own book Inquisitors for that. We as players have nobody but ourselves to blame for this limit and the perceived worthlessness of them as a result. Assassins as there own is amazing too. The tourney limits are really getting me. Course I personally prefer to use a single source but don't begrudge anyone that uses mor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 It worked, it was not good, and it's better the way it is now. You play Sisters of Battle? I wasn't aware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I have sisters I much prefer them with out the inquisition. They are fully fledged and in charge of themselves. You want witch hunters grab a separate inquisitor and then decide what forces he managed to requisition for himself. Love how the allies work for that, they even currently let him ride around in friendly transports so much better than those hunter books. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 You play Sisters of Battle? I wasn't aware.Forgot you needed an army to have an opinion. I guess whoever has had them the longest has the best opinion too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Forgot you needed an army to have an opinion. I guess whoever has had them the longest has the best opinion too? Funny you should ask that rhetorical question. No but if you don't own it, you shouldnt be telling anyone whether it worked or not. That much is certain. I only ever knew the Witch Hunter codex and it worked fine, I loved the fluff and I had no preconceived notions about what it "ought" to be before playing them. What I DO know is that they worked great in that form and could again. There's no reason they cannot unless you just dont WANT it to. It cleans up another problem: taking the Inquisition guy would now not come without significant commitment to the Sisters of Battle. Sells more models and eliminates its incredubly abusable nature, which in turn eliminates one more reason that we need to worry about multiple detachments. I'd rather have the codex's set up universally for this so I as a TO and other TO's could just let the reins go. There arent unlimited points. But you cant have some of the codex's essentially requiring multiple Detachments and some not. It causes a rift in Tournaments that is kinda annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PourSpelur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I just started with Sisters and I have no idea what we're talking about so...maybe? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I just started with Sisters and I have no idea what we're talking about so...maybe? ;) Did you ever decide what direction you're going with them? CAD? Multiple CAD? CAD plus Allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Honestly, as someone that's always loved Inquisitors and wanted to use them, I am SO happy I don't need to play an entire army to use one. "The separation of the church (Sisters) and state (Inquisitors) is for the betterment of all." -Thomas Jefferson, probably. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappy Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I love my Sisters of Battle. They kick butt. I prefer the old Chapter Approved list, but agree that Witchhunters was an army I didn't enjoy playing. I love them as a Single CAD with no allies just fine. They run well. Where they truly come alive is when you team them up with Space Marines. They fill the few gaps that the Sisters have. (Lol, too easy) My Sisters and Templar army runs great together as a dual CAD. My $0.02. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 No but if you don't own it, you shouldnt be telling anyone whether it worked or not. That much is certain. I only ever knew the Witch Hunter codex and it worked fine, I loved the fluff and I had no preconceived notions about what it "ought" to be before playing them. What I DO know is that they worked great in that form and could again. There's no reason they cannot unless you just dont WANT it to. It cleans up another problem: taking the Inquisition guy would now not come without significant commitment to the Sisters of Battle. Sells more models and eliminates its incredubly abusable nature, which in turn eliminates one more reason that we need to worry about multiple detachments. I'd rather have the codex's set up universally for this so I as a TO and other TO's could just let the reins go. There arent unlimited points. But you cant have some of the codex's essentially requiring multiple Detachments and some not. It causes a rift in Tournaments that is kinda annoying. Okay, part one. You can't tell someone whether an army worked or not unless you owned it? That's just silly. I don't own Ad Lance, so I obviously have no clue as to the viability of that army, right? Since we're allowing one fallacy, I'll take the other one. I have owned SOB since 2nd. I played 3rd Ed Black Book, 3rd Ed White Dwarf, 3rd Edition Chapter Approved Compilation, 3.5 C:WH, 5th C:WH, 5th/6th WD, 6th/7th Adepta Sororitas. Long and short of it, is that if we're going off the 'you have to own the army to have an opinion of its worth' fallacy, my SOB cred is bigger than yours. :) If we're going off the 'it worked great why not do it again' how about we just go back to Codex: Chapter Approved? It was the most fun I've ever had with SOB. It worked, why not do it again? As for combining SOB with Inquisition to prevent abuse, that worked great last time, right? Oh yeah, 5th edition, where every IOM army had a psyker with Deep Strike protection. Not so much, since that's exactly the thing you're railing against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I love my Sisters of Battle. They kick butt. I prefer the old Chapter Approved list, but agree that Witchhunters was an army I didn't enjoy playing. I love them as a Single CAD with no allies just fine. They run well. Where they truly come alive is when you team them up with Space Marines. They fill the few gaps that the Sisters have. (Lol, too easy) My Sisters and Templar army runs great together as a dual CAD. My $0.02. Agreed. The glory of 7th is that we CAN do allies if we want, instead of being forced to ally because of the nature of the books. (And being restricted in exactly what we could take. Ugh, the little grey allies boxes in C:WH and C:DH were annoying.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I did when they were Chapter Approved then Witch Hunters, I also have and still use Inquisitors. Does that meet your approval?Oh snap! Served. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 No but if you don't own it, you shouldnt be telling anyone whether it worked or not. Just so you know, I am NEVER going to stop dropping this bomb on you, LH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Just so you know, I am NEVER going to stop dropping this bomb on you, LH.He owns every army, so he can have an opinion on all of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PourSpelur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Did you ever decide what direction you're going with them? CAD? Multiple CAD? CAD plus Allies? Probably CAD plus Scion allies. Maybe Inq allies. Basically whatever models look fun to paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Scion models and their predecessors are coooool models Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Just so you know, I am NEVER going to stop dropping this bomb on you, LH. What bomb? I've played every army there is in some form other than SQUATs or something like that. Ive borrowed or own them all. But lets get completely objective for a moment. What I don't really see, at all, is how putting the Inquisition with the Sisters of Battle doesn't make sense to you. Taste is one thing. But it's not disputable that it was done. Here's something that some people (and maybe some people inclues you?) may not have thought about: The fluff is already there from 2003 to 2011. That's eight years. Other than a White Dwarf which hardly qualified as a codex (though I won with it) and then its very recent incarnation, we had eight years with it as Witch Hunters. For those counting such things and attempting to be objective, that's longer than any other incarnation you think you remember! That's not an inconsiderable amount of time! The Gav Thorpe Second Edition Codex was from 1997 to 1998 but was invalidated for use when 3rd Edition came out in 1998, though 3rd had a tiny Sisters of Battle list along with the others (later to be Codex'd as Witch Hunters). So it was a whopping ONE YEAR or so that they were not Witch Hunters, basically and a little longer if you want to stretch it to include the White Dwarf stuff! What had a longer standing codex? Necrons went from 2002 to 2011. Dark Eldar was 2003 (the "revised" version) to 2014. Who had a longer contiguous fluff? The Eldar Codex was 1999 to 2010, roughly the same. That makes the Witch Hunter Codex more or less tied for the third longest running in terms of its longevity. But that's not as important as the huge margin by which it held sway over its own brief second edition predecessor. Further, the fluff in the 2nd Edition one showed the Vandire incident with the Sisters of Battle the Witch Hunters codex did. The 2nd Edition Sisters weren't even a stand alone army. They were supplementary to a Space Marine army! Oh and since it was mentioned, the 3rd Edition Chapter Approved didn't have any Sisters of Battle in it that I remember and it's nowhere I can find reference to it. So I'm not sure what that reference is to. maybe you can scan it and show me what you're talking about there. So for all those reasons I don't get how this is not then a sensible thing to return to? Witch Hunters for all intents and purposes was the realized version that came from the original "supplementary" force they were before Witch Hunters. Then Matt Ward got involved. God bless Matt Ward for his part in the White Dwarf rewrite with Cruddacce.... Revisionist history aside, this is what they were, in fact, for longer than it wasn't. So other than personal taste, I think there's more than adequate reason to chuck Matt Wards influence on this one. What could make more since than an INQUISITION and the Church? Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.