[ikbuh]

So with it being possible that nids can DS most if not all of their army, I would imagine Inquisitors with mysitcs would become much more fun. Would multiple, cheap inquisitors be worth taking? I figure an elite inquisitor with 2 mystics in a rhino is 82 points and you could position them to allows your guys to pour fire into anything getting close, or even give them a plasma cannon or a chimera or something and have them do it themselves.

Think it might be worth it?

 

[Blood_Lord]

I'll sure prove fun. I'd love to see what they'd do against my nids, would also be fun to field them against against nids.

But as an answer: depends on the nid opponent. It will give you a nice (maybe needed) edge.

 

[Blood_Lord]

I'll sure prove fun. I'd love to see what they'd do against my nids, would also be fun to field them against against nids.

But as an answer: depends on the nid opponent. It will give you a nice (maybe needed) edge.

 

[number6]

I don't know about multiples, but deep strike defense is definitely something worth working into any (and every) Imperial army. If you weren't doing this before 'nids, the new 'nids will definitely make you reconsider.

The reason I think you only want one such inquisitor/mystic combo is because most of deep-strike defense is deployment. Deploy in a castle and wait for the DS elements to arrive. Then and only then break the castle (if required) and engage to destroy. And you need a good killy army for that kind of work. Inquisitors don't really cut it anymore (if they ever did).

Mawlocs are the only deep-striking unit that is capable of actually breaking apart a castle. The only defense against a Mawloc is to mechanize. If you're still playing a foot army -- like lots of foot GKs -- Mawlocs will singlehandedly hand you a loss each and every game. ISTs in Rhinos, GKs/GKTs in land raider crusaders. Do this or die if you're facing 'nids. (See DH links in my sig, below.)

 

[ikbuh]

I've been trying to mechanize as much as possible, though I don't have ISTs (yet), I usually include sisters. I almost always include a set of mystics, unless it's a friendly game and I know nothing will DS. This was more of a discussion over the possibility of 2 cheap mystic Inqs to cover more range and give you more of a buffer, possibly make them stay away from you as well. The horror stories I've heard about the new nids are just stupid and even make my Nids buddy not like them for being cheesy and the fact that they have officially made it "Tank or die" (or at least put the final nail in the coffen) kind of saddens me from a fluff point of view because the Knights have fought worse and don't need tanks.

Back on track, cheap two mystic Inq buffer zone. It gives you not only the chance to double your attacks on them, but gives you a back up for the inevitable times when you are half an inch shy.

 

[number6]

The horror stories I've heard about the new nids are just stupid and even make my Nids buddy not like them for being cheesy and the fact that they have officially made it "Tank or die" (or at least put the final nail in the coffen) kind of saddens me from a fluff point of view because the Knights have fought worse and don't need tanks.

The new 'nids are not cheesy in the least. With the exception of gribblies, costs went up across the board for the entire army. And if GW didn't give the 'nids can openers -- some way to deal with tanks -- the army wouldn't sell, period. They will still struggle against modern mech armies, but at least they won't lose automatically anymore like the old 4th edition 'nids codex does.

The reason people should be mechanizing is because the base rules make that the better choice! Seriously, how can you not look at the vehicle damage chart -- especially compared to 4th edition -- and not draw this obvious conclusion? Combine this with how cheap all vehicles are getting (in the new codexes), and isn't the mechanization of 40K an obvious extension of the basic rules? The game has been designed to encourage mechanization. GW wants to sell you models, my friend!

Beyond that, what is "unfluffy" about mechanization? Think about modern warfare. How survivable are infantry on the ground? Right, then. This is why there has been all this hullaballoo in the US (and other countries caught up in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to mention the most recent history) about improving the armoured transports for troops. (And look back to WWII. Did you laugh at Poland for trying to defeat Panzers with cavalry?) You really think SF warfare in the 41st millenium is "fluffier" by being about a bunch of guys on the ground with very little involvement from vehicles? Don't be silly.

If you want to continue to play with a foot army, that's your choice. But don't do so thinking "codex creep" and "cheese". Foot army players are living in the past and failing to adapt. The game has evolved. Evolve with it ... or lose.