Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I was wondering (as I often do), that in the Fluff world of 40k if an Inquisitor came up to a unit automatically the Inquisitor would take over as the leader. Read a lot of books with that. So it would seem that in a game mode wouldn't an Inquisitor take over the roll as leader even if he was alone? I am going to work on an IG army but am going to use an Inquisitor attached and even though it will more than likely be an elite one it would seem fluff wise that he would be in charge. Even though the hq is from IG. Does it seem fluff wise that way to others? I know the rules has the IG which will work but just a little idea for thoughts.
Also I was going along with an idea that the Inquisitor was a radical one and that he had "turned" the IG army with his "influence and status". Sounds like a lost and the damned army, but not that extreme. IU have more Ig than inquisition and would have the majority as IG. Now if I used an HQ Inquisitor would he "lead the army or would the IG hq? How would I go about "using" the Inquisitor influence as the leader and not the IG?
I shall call him Squishy, and he shall be mine, and he shall be my Squishy.
Fluffwise, the =I= would take control of the army for his own personal purposes. In the Witch Hunters codex it says that =I= have "..word from the Emperor" which means when he/she asks for help, anyone listening has to send help.
In game, a =I= in an IG army is not the leader. You will still use your HQ for Ld, not the =I=.
IMO I wouldn't use an =I= when you have access to units with Faith Points. A Canoness tooled up can be beefy, plus SoB add a lot of fire support. BS4 Bolters are hard to turn down, same as the speed of Serephim.
not exactly, the I would take control of the army, yes, he would say, i want you to help me do this, th army would follow but battlefield command would reamin the same, as the IG commander would invairiably have a firmer grasp of tactics and most likely a little more experience in large battles, in which inquisitors are acctualy involved a lot less in.
PROUD TO BE IN THE BRITISH ARMY.
~~ Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death~~
In the Eisenhorne (sp?) trilogy, as well as other novels in the Black Library, inquisitors will requisition IG to help out, but they really don't command the army. They usually just give the directives and objectives to the commanders, then go do their own thing. I think Inquisitors in the fluff see using an army as a means to an end. It's a tool for them, and they don't really care how it works, or how many die, as long as it does work. (Which fits into the whole cold, uncaring, oppressive imperium motif.)
That being said, you can look at Lord Vandire in the Age of Apostatsy as well as the Daemon Hunter special character Cortez. Both of them felt it was their right to take over and govern not just armies, but entire systems. There's talk in the fluff about an ideological divide over this. Should an inquisitor be the figurehead of a group, or remain, as they traditionally have, playing in the shadows behind the scenes?
Back to your original question, in your proposed army with an IG HG and an Inquisitor as an elite, the IG HQ would be the leader of the army, but the real brains and force behind the group would be the inquisitor. He's not the figurehead, but he's the one ultimately in charge. (Or said Inquisitor's superiors in some vast imperial conspiracy...)
To answer your second question, if you made an Inq. army with IG allies, then you could have the army tailored to fit the inquisitor, if you had IG with Inq. allies, it'd be the vica versa. Hope that helps.