[edit] It appears that I am still able to field my entire army in the same way as before by shopping around in the book, and using a ridiculous amount of formations & factions. This book is great YAY : D
So the question of ignoring the book is only relevant for organised play with detachment restrictions. This sure was a roller coasters.
Elbows wrote: That's entirely up to you and your opponent.
Na it isn't in pick up games is it. suppose you where my opponent would you accept it if I just ignored the new book and continued to play with the actual codex.
oldzoggy wrote: So lets say that the rumors are true and most of the book is a bunch of nerfs / removal of options for sisters and Inq players. Can we as INQ / sister players just reject it and use our own true 7th codex instead ? GWFAQ's sure seem to hint this way with the iron priest ruling and the green tide ruling.
The answer is going to be the same as it always is... it depends on who you're playing with. If you're playing in a specifc organized event, check with the organizers. If you're playing against a specific opponent, ask that opponent. If you're asking what you're likely to expect for some hypothetical game against an unknown opponent in the future... I've found that people generally expect you to use the latest version of any given rule set. At the very least, you should be using rules sources that are still available for purchase. If Codex Inquisition and Codex Adepta Sororitas are still available for purchase, I would expect the average player to be fine with you using them. If they're no longer available and there is a newer source that IS available, I would expect the average player to want you to use the newer source.
I miss my old GK codex (mostly psy-ammo and Draigo being an HQ). That doesn't mean I can use it without specific opponent permission.
Kriswall nails it. Argue all you want, but that's the answer unless you want to try being TFG. You ask the people you're actually play with, not random people on the internet who you will likely never play with.
Depends. If it's just a supplement, then sure go for it. If it's supposed to be the new codex, then maybe. That'd be the same as me saying "Hey can we play 7th with my 4th edition Ork codex?"
From what I hear, the conversation will go like this for me.
Pouncey: "Hey, I'm gonna use the old eBook Codex this time, okay?"
Pouncey's mom: "Why not the new hardcopy Codex?"
Pouncey: "I want to field Saint Celestine this time."
Yeah it all seems a bit odd since they still sell the codexes. ( it would be simple if they stopped selling those ). Also the new book might be great due to stuff that we haven't seen yet who knows.
I doubt the book is going to completely overwrite the Codexes any more than Khorne Daemonkin deleted Tzeentch/Nurgle/Slaanesh from the CSM/Daemon books. I suspect you'll be able to use the existing content alongside it, if only so GW can make people keep buying two books.
AnomanderRake wrote: I doubt the book is going to completely overwrite the Codexes any more than Khorne Daemonkin deleted Tzeentch/Nurgle/Slaanesh from the CSM/Daemon books. I suspect you'll be able to use the existing content alongside it, if only so GW can make people keep buying two books.
This might just be the best comparison of the day.
Elbows wrote: That's entirely up to you and your opponent.
Na it isn't in pick up games is it. suppose you where my opponent would you accept it if I just ignored the new book and continued to play with the actual codex.
It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.
KDK is a different faction than CSM.
Would you be okay with your opponent telling you they are going to use a different edition of the brb for their models so they could charge from reserves/infiltration? Has the same level of validity.
Invalid rules which have an update are still invalid rules.
blaktoof wrote: It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.
KDK is a different faction than CSM.
Would you be okay with your opponent telling you they are going to use a different edition of the brb for their models so they could charge from reserves/infiltration? Has the same level of validity.
Invalid rules which have an update are still invalid rules.
It's a tabletop game. So long as all parties involved in the game agree, it's fine.
blaktoof wrote: It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.
KDK is a different faction than CSM.
Would you be okay with your opponent telling you they are going to use a different edition of the brb for their models so they could charge from reserves/infiltration? Has the same level of validity.
Invalid rules which have an update are still invalid rules.
It's a tabletop game. So long as all parties involved in the game agree, it's fine.
Unless OP decides to go to a tournament. Then it's not fine.
As Pouncey said - the only time this will really matter is tournaments who will make a ruling about this beforehand. (the OP is asking "what if we reject..." --- well that's up to the tournament organizers, not the OP)
If not, it's entirely up to you and your opponent - but you should be prepared for someone to not play you if they insist you need to use the new book, etc. It's table top wargaming...someone could refuse to play you because of the colour of your shirt, let alone believing you're using an out-of-date book, etc.
I'd imagine the vast majority of people won't care at all.
Why?
I hate how the digital Codex: Inquisition was digital-only, I hate how it was based on what, 5th edition rules? The friggin Chimeras in there still ran the age-old IG rules. So - in general - I am excited for the book.
The only real downside I can see for now is that St. Celestine is gone - which really sucks. I really don't get why they'd just remove her, if she's really gone for good. I hope they'll at least bring her back next year with a new model, but if she's removed now I don't really see them bringing her back at any point. But I'm not going to boycott a book for one model.
Has there been an ACTUAL leak of the contents of the book? outside of just the index and like 3 pages? I'd love to see the whole Inquisition stuff and hold my judgement until I've seen the whole picture.
But this is one of the books where I'll have a look inside and THEN decide whether or not I'll buy it.
nekooni wrote: Why?
I hate how the digital Codex: Inquisition was digital-only, I hate how it was based on what, 5th edition rules? The friggin Chimeras in there still ran the age-old IG rules. So - in general - I am excited for the book.
The only real downside I can see for now is that St. Celestine is gone - which really sucks. I really don't get why they'd just remove her, if she's really gone for good. I hope they'll at least bring her back next year with a new model, but if she's removed now I don't really see them bringing her back at any point. But I'm not going to boycott a book for one model.
Has there been an ACTUAL leak of the contents of the book? outside of just the index and like 3 pages? I'd love to see the whole Inquisition stuff and hold my judgement until I've seen the whole picture.
But this is one of the books where I'll have a look inside and THEN decide whether or not I'll buy it.
nekooni wrote: Why?
I hate how the digital Codex: Inquisition was digital-only, I hate how it was based on what, 5th edition rules? The friggin Chimeras in there still ran the age-old IG rules. So - in general - I am excited for the book.
The only real downside I can see for now is that St. Celestine is gone - which really sucks. I really don't get why they'd just remove her, if she's really gone for good. I hope they'll at least bring her back next year with a new model, but if she's removed now I don't really see them bringing her back at any point. But I'm not going to boycott a book for one model.
Has there been an ACTUAL leak of the contents of the book? outside of just the index and like 3 pages? I'd love to see the whole Inquisition stuff and hold my judgement until I've seen the whole picture.
But this is one of the books where I'll have a look inside and THEN decide whether or not I'll buy it.
New model?
Are you new to WH40k?
but if she's removed now I don't really see them bringing her back at any point
Marbo, Celestine, Inquisitor Valerya and Praxedes of Ophelia versus Vect, Malys, Sliscus and Kheradruakh. There's a superhero comic book in there somewhere.
BBAP wrote: Marbo, Celestine, Inquisitor Valerya and Praxedes of Ophelia versus Vect, Malys, Sliscus and Kheradruakh. There's a superhero comic book in there somewhere.
Given how few units there are in the Sororitas list, it's difficult to imagine a reason they'd've needed to remove her entry in the Codex.
Elbows wrote: That's entirely up to you and your opponent.
Na it isn't in pick up games is it. suppose you where my opponent would you accept it if I just ignored the new book and continued to play with the actual codex.
You would be going against GW's opiniong though. GW seems to be "if it's printed by us it's legal". Hell greentide is legal despite it being in supplement that got new version( rather than orks getting completely new supplement!)
Pouncey wrote: Given how few units there are in the Sororitas list, it's difficult to imagine a reason they'd've needed to remove her entry in the Codex.
Malice it is then.
Never attribute to malice etc etc
The new Detachment allows Sisters to reroll 1s to save once per game. Celestine is the only AS model with a 2+ base armour save. Given that the devs don't really play 40k, it's possible someone saw that and thought it would make her some sort of Titan-killing OP monstrosity, and thus she had to go - they'd already written the formation rules and didn't want to change them, so it was easier to not copy-paste Celestine over.
Then again it could've been malice. Celestine was fantastic at killing Space Marines, after all.
Pouncey wrote: Given how few units there are in the Sororitas list, it's difficult to imagine a reason they'd've needed to remove her entry in the Codex.
Malice it is then.
Never attribute to malice etc etc
The new Detachment allows Sisters to reroll 1s to save once per game. Celestine is the only AS model with a 2+ base armour save. Given that the devs don't really play 40k, it's possible someone saw that and thought it would make her some sort of Titan-killing OP monstrosity, and thus she had to go - they'd already written the formation rules and didn't want to change them, so it was easier to not copy-paste Celestine over.
Then again it could've been malice. Celestine was fantastic at killing Space Marines, after all.
That is a level of stupidity indistinguishable from malice in its callousness.
Pouncey wrote: Given how few units there are in the Sororitas list, it's difficult to imagine a reason they'd've needed to remove her entry in the Codex.
Malice it is then.
Never attribute to malice etc etc
The new Detachment allows Sisters to reroll 1s to save once per game. Celestine is the only AS model with a 2+ base armour save. Given that the devs don't really play 40k, it's possible someone saw that and thought it would make her some sort of Titan-killing OP monstrosity, and thus she had to go - they'd already written the formation rules and didn't want to change them, so it was easier to not copy-paste Celestine over.
Then again it could've been malice. Celestine was fantastic at killing Space Marines, after all.
That is a level of stupidity indistinguishable from malice in its callousness.
Callousness is an action. Stupidity or malice would be the reason for that action. They are still separate things
Pouncey wrote: Given how few units there are in the Sororitas list, it's difficult to imagine a reason they'd've needed to remove her entry in the Codex.
Malice it is then.
Never attribute to malice etc etc
The new Detachment allows Sisters to reroll 1s to save once per game. Celestine is the only AS model with a 2+ base armour save. Given that the devs don't really play 40k, it's possible someone saw that and thought it would make her some sort of Titan-killing OP monstrosity, and thus she had to go - they'd already written the formation rules and didn't want to change them, so it was easier to not copy-paste Celestine over.
Then again it could've been malice. Celestine was fantastic at killing Space Marines, after all.
She really wasn't.
Like I already said, she was the worst option in terms of HQ's. The Cannoness unlocks a Command Squad and can at least get EW through a relic, and Jacobus provides a Counter Attack and Fearless aura, both of which are fantastic on an army that only has weapons that want them to be close.
Pouncey wrote: Given how few units there are in the Sororitas list, it's difficult to imagine a reason they'd've needed to remove her entry in the Codex.
Malice it is then.
Never attribute to malice etc etc
The new Detachment allows Sisters to reroll 1s to save once per game. Celestine is the only AS model with a 2+ base armour save. Given that the devs don't really play 40k, it's possible someone saw that and thought it would make her some sort of Titan-killing OP monstrosity, and thus she had to go - they'd already written the formation rules and didn't want to change them, so it was easier to not copy-paste Celestine over.
Then again it could've been malice. Celestine was fantastic at killing Space Marines, after all.
That is a level of stupidity indistinguishable from malice in its callousness.
Callousness is an action. Stupidity or malice would be the reason for that action. They are still separate things
blaktoof wrote: It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.
KDK is a different faction than CSM.
Would you be okay with your opponent telling you they are going to use a different edition of the brb for their models so they could charge from reserves/infiltration? Has the same level of validity.
Invalid rules which have an update are still invalid rules.
This is 7th. There are quite a lot of units printed concurrently in different books that don't clearly overwrite the previous one. I'd argue that this book is a supplement that updates specific dataslates in existing books without overwriting the entire Codex, unless you're arguing that they're squatting PAGK, Paladins, GKHQ units, GK Rhinos/Razorbacks, Deathwatch ground vehicles, HQ, Terminators, Bikes, and Jump units, Inquisitorial Rhinos, Kataphrons, Electro-Priests, and Kastelan bots at the same time.
Somehow I doubt they're going to squat half the AdMech Christmas box right after releasing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: ...Callousness is an adjective, not a verb.
'Callousness' is a noun, thank you very much. 'Callous' is an adjective, 'callously' is an adverb, I don't know if there's a verb form.
Callous is an adjective, callus is the noun. They both come from the same root. Callousness is also a noun, but it is derived from callous, not callus.
Martel732 wrote: Guitar players develop a callus, not a callous.
Callous is an adjective, callus is the noun. They both come from the same root. Callousness is also a noun, but it is derived from callous, not callus.
I'll admit that I don't use that word often, so I may be wrong.
However, the sentence, "That is a level of stupidity indistinguishable from malice in its callous," seems very wrong to my mind.
They should have used callousness, since malice and callousness are both nouns. As is stupidity.
For what its worth, I'm on your side. There is no reason to trash can the Sisters like this. Just as there is no reason to print an Eldar codex with Phil Kelly goo all over the pages. It's random actions from a random company.
Grab some dice and roll a single round of combat with Celestine against a 5-man Tactical Squad.
She was good at killing Space Marines.
Jacobus provides a Counter Attack and Fearless aura, both of which are fantastic on an army that only has weapons that want them to be close.
Nobody cares about WS3 S3 I3 models Counter-attacking them. Nobody. Them being Fearless would be great if they were capable of killing anything in CC, but they aren't. Jacobus is irrelevant at best. Celestine at least can be useful.
Martel732 wrote: Guitar players develop a callus, not a callous.
Callous is an adjective, callus is the noun. They both come from the same root. Callousness is also a noun, but it is derived from callous, not callus.
I'll admit that I don't use that word often, so I may be wrong.
However, the sentence, "That is a level of stupidity indistinguishable from malice in its callous," seems very wrong to my mind.
I'm trying to work through that one. It seems to be utterly missing the point of the distinction between stupidity and malice (you can get the same effects out of the two, but since they're descriptions of motives that's sort of irrelevant), but if you wanted to make it make grammatical sense swapping 'callous' for 'callousness' is the short way to do it. Another would be "That is a level of stupidity so indistinguishable from malice that it's callous", but at that point you're changing the meaning from equating malice with stupidity to calling that particular level of stupidity callous.
Either way it's an odd abstract sentiment that doesn't have much to do with the discussion.
Grab some dice and roll a single round of combat with Celestine against a 5-man Tactical Squad.
She was good at killing Space Marines.
Jacobus provides a Counter Attack and Fearless aura, both of which are fantastic on an army that only has weapons that want them to be close.
Nobody cares about WS3 S3 I3 models Counter-attacking them. Nobody. Them being Fearless would be great if they were capable of killing anything in CC, but they aren't. Jacobus is irrelevant at best. Celestine at least can be useful.
That's all I'm saying.
Anything can kill a 5 man Tactical Squad. Hell, they can barely get through Fire Warriors. If the Tactical marine, a unit that hasn't been good in literally years, is your standard for Marine, and not Veterens and Bikers and Scouts, then that's on you.
I'll give you she can kill Sternguard very well though.
And yes Fearless is great because when you run them as they make sense, small squads, the Fearless means you ignore what happens when most of them die outside the Special Weapon holders. Counter attack is just the icing on the cake as anything wanting to finish them off in melee might take one more wound to try and do it. Counter Attack is good on everything, even Fire Warriors, as it helps even non-melee units fight back.
You're looking at it the wrong way. What would YOUR Sisters list look like, but I know I'd spam Exorcists and 5 man Sister squads with max special weapons. Jacobus fits perfectly there; he just needs to be transported.
Being able to kill 5 Tactical Marines in CC should really be the new benchmark for "is this OP". If it does and it's not AT LEAST 600 points, it's OP for sure. 600+ we'll have to investigate whether or not it's able to instead kill 5 Assault Marines in close combat. If it's able to do that's it's clearly OP regardless of points since they're goddamn ASSAULT marines and they simply can't loose in a melee.
Just watched the book being showed off by bols, and I must say INQ players are not worse off : )
They killled of psy inq armies but thats a fair trade for the cool new mixed henchmensquads you can now make
[Edit] NOPE
The new henchman squad sucks.. :(
The old book is still a way better way to build an inq army. The new book is however a better way for cool inquisitors.
Is the Imperial Agents codex actually supposed to be a replacement codex for the constituent armies in that codex?
My understanding is that, e.g., it's not a replacement for gray knights. Imperial Agents is the codex you get if you want to construct a small gray knights strike force but don't actually want to build a full fledged 1850 gray knights list.
Grey knights in there are mostly added just for the ease of me not having to buy x books when I want some imp allies.
For example the new Inq formation uses GK termies, this book includes that unit entry saving me the trouble of having to buy the GK codex.
blaktoof wrote: It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.
The "old codex" will be valid until GW stops selling it.
Until then, Codex: Imperial Agents is merely a supplement.
As it was quite clearly intended to be.
Not true. It will be updated by the supplement. So if you are going to play RaW you are "forced" to use the supplement. Now none of this matters outside of tournaments and PuG's. Talk it out with your opponent.
The "old codex" will be valid until GW stops selling it. Now none of this matters outside of tournaments and PuG's. Talk it out with your opponent.
Well it kinda does. Since any Inquisitor army is mainly using the old inq henchmen squad. This is 75%+ of their army and is missing in the new book. The new henchman formation seems to fill the gap until closer inspection reveals that most normal builds are now impossible, or would result in you rolling 10+ times on the warlord trait table :\
Players might feel cheated when your entire army consist of a single disputed unit entry.
blaktoof wrote: It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.
The "old codex" will be valid until GW stops selling it.
Until then, Codex: Imperial Agents is merely a supplement.
As it was quite clearly intended to be.
Not true. It will be updated by the supplement. So if you are going to play RaW you are "forced" to use the supplement. Now none of this matters outside of tournaments and PuG's. Talk it out with your opponent.
Like you aren't able to use formations in new version of supplement? Oh wait except you can!
I still don't see that being clarified here... what am I missing?
"The rules in this eBook are also available in Codex: Imperial Agents, fully revised and updated along with new detachments plus rules for adding even more servants of the Emperor to your army."
The "old codex" will be valid until GW stops selling it. Now none of this matters outside of tournaments and PuG's. Talk it out with your opponent.
Well it kinda does. Since any Inquisitor army is mainly using the old inq henchmen squad. This is 75%+ of their army and is missing in the new book.
The new henchman formation seems to fill the gap until closer inspection reveals that most normal builds are now impossible, or would result in you rolling 10+ times on the warlord trait table :\
Players might feel cheated when your entire army consist of a single disputed unit entry.
"disputed" ? The only thing missing here are the pages for the actual component units, mainly the Acolytes. How it works is pretty much undisputed by now, isn't it?
The only difference for SoB are whether or not Celestine is available. If someone gives me a hard time for fielding Celestine I am going to hate them very very much and not play with them (and possibly kill them dead when they are not looking?).
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: The only difference for SoB are whether or not Celestine is available. If someone gives me a hard time for fielding Celestine I am going to hate them very very much and not play with them (and possibly kill them dead when they are not looking?).
Or send them a sandwich with US cheese.
Personally I'd allow any Sisters player to just use the old Celestine rules, no big deal to me. It's not really that different to fielding 6th edition forgeworld stuff and most people are fine with that, too - as long as there aren't newer rules, use the old ones.
I still don't see that being clarified here... what am I missing?
"The rules in this eBook are also available in Codex: Imperial Agents, fully revised and updated along with new detachments plus rules for adding even more servants of the Emperor to your army."
That part.
If that is taken at face value, then, GK and DW ARE indeed replaced by the new book. That statement is a throw-away I'm afraid.
Yeah its going to be the same as all the daemon / chaos players. We will just pick the stuff we like out of book A and combine it with book B. A happens to be our own obscure digital book that is still for sale and B is the new allies for everyone book. Together they make a perfect army. Look at it they really do. Just only using the new book, makes all of the armies in the book kinda silly since all the entries in there are focussed at being used as allies.
I still don't see that being clarified here... what am I missing?
"The rules in this eBook are also available in Codex: Imperial Agents, fully revised and updated along with new detachments plus rules for adding even more servants of the Emperor to your army."
That part.
If that is taken at face value, then, GK and DW ARE indeed replaced by the new book. That statement is a throw-away I'm afraid.
Does Codex: Grey Knights have the same disclaimer? No.
Does Codex: Deathwatch have the same disclaimer? No.
Does Codex: Inquisition have the same disclamer? Yes.
I'm not quoting Codex: Imperial Agents, I'm quoting the webstore page of Codex: Adepta Sororitas.
I think it's pretty obvious which codex is replaced and which isn't. It wasn't me who needed an "official line" to understand how it works, what you do with the information and official statement is up to you.
I'm betting a cheese sandwich on most TOs going with "GK and DW Codexes are still valid but Inquisition and Sisters digital codexes arent". I'd even go buy some proper dutch cheese for that sandwich.
Well ...I do like cheese sandwiches and I agree it is clear how this is meant to work. But I also know what this community is like and I hardly think that will be considered the "official line".
Gunzhard wrote: Well ...I do like cheese sandwiches and I agree it is clear how this is meant to work. But I also know what this community is like and I hardly think that will be considered the "official line".
Gunzhard wrote: Well ...I do like cheese sandwiches and I agree it is clear how this is meant to work. But I also know what this community is like and I hardly think that will be considered the "official line".
There's an official line on BOTH invalidated codexes, there isn't one on the others.
Which book is valid and which isn't has never been "clearly ruled" anywhere, so it's really a non-issue unless GW starts publishing a list of valid books.
It's really not advancing the community at all by claiming that there are so many people that think like that and arguing their point. I've literally never met someone that went "oh, but GW never claimed that old books are invalidated, so I can just play this 2nd edition book instead".
If people that want to argue that actually exist, let them speak for themself and explain WHY they think that they're free to use a clearly invalidated codex?
It's fine if you wanna bring Celestine to a casual match with the new Codex: Imperial Agents, just ask beforehand. But that won't fly at a tournament or with a bad attitude, claiming it's your right to do that.
Neki you know that, this is just your interpretation of that disclaimer not the clear cut official line right ? There are clearly players who read it in an other way, and the previous GWFAQ's seem to all point in the other direction. So it isn't all that clear cut.
oldzoggy wrote: Neki you know that, this is just your interpretation of that disclaimer not the clear cut official line right ?
There are clearly players who read it in an other way, and the previous GWFAQ's seem to all point in the other direction. So it isn't all that clear cut.
It's really not advancing the community at all by claiming that there are so many people that think like that and arguing their point. I've literally never met someone that went "oh, but GW never claimed that old books are invalidated, so I can just play this 2nd edition book instead".
If people that want to argue that actually exist, let them speak for themself and explain WHY they think that they're free to use a clearly invalidated codex? You don't sound like one of those people, just playing devils advocate, am I right?
oldzoggy wrote: Neki you know that, this is just your interpretation of that disclaimer not the clear cut official line right ?
There are clearly players who read it in an other way, and the previous GWFAQ's seem to all point in the other direction. So it isn't all that clear cut.
It's really not advancing the community at all by claiming that there are so many people that think like that and arguing their point. I've literally never met someone that went "oh, but GW never claimed that old books are invalidated, so I can just play this 2nd edition book instead".
If people that want to argue that actually exist, let them speak for themself and explain WHY they think that they're free to use a clearly invalidated codex? You don't sound like one of those people, just playing devils advocate, am I right?
In this case the alternate Codices are up-to-date for the current edition, so it's not like bringing a 2e Codex to a 7e game.
Came to this thread curious about the new Imperial Agents book and now I am leaving remembering how convoluted and ugly 40k's codex system is.
God damn, I really want to get back into 40k. Between this book, the Deathwatch release and Genestealer Cults there is a ton of cool stuff in 40k now, but the arguments over what is valid, and knowing that all this new gak will be invalid probably sooner rather than later just makes me go a big "nope" to the prospect of getting back in.
oldzoggy wrote: Neki you know that, this is just your interpretation of that disclaimer not the clear cut official line right ?
There are clearly players who read it in an other way, and the previous GWFAQ's seem to all point in the other direction. So it isn't all that clear cut.
It's really not advancing the community at all by claiming that there are so many people that think like that and arguing their point. I've literally never met someone that went "oh, but GW never claimed that old books are invalidated, so I can just play this 2nd edition book instead".
If people that want to argue that actually exist, let them speak for themself and explain WHY they think that they're free to use a clearly invalidated codex? You don't sound like one of those people, just playing devils advocate, am I right?
In this case the alternate Codices are up-to-date for the current edition, so it's not like bringing a 2e Codex to a 7e game.
Codex Inquisition had 5th edition rules. The Codex store page literally tells you where to find the latest rules for that faction.
oldzoggy wrote: [Edit] We now have seen the book. It is clearly not intended to be used as a stand alone army book for Inq players and lacks some Sister options. It does however give some minor but interesting buffs to some units and would work perfectly as a printed supplement for our digital codex's. Can we as INQ / sister players just ignore it and use our own true 7th codex instead or use them side by side like most daemon players tend to do ?
GWFAQ's sure seem to hint this way with the iron priest ruling and the green tide ruling.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Came to this thread curious about the new Imperial Agents book and now I am leaving remembering how convoluted and ugly 40k's codex system is.
God damn, I really want to get back into 40k. Between this book, the Deathwatch release and Genestealer Cults there is a ton of cool stuff in 40k now, but the arguments over what is valid, and knowing that all this new gak will be invalid probably sooner rather than later just makes me go a big "nope" to the prospect of getting back in.
Or you could just talk to your local group and decide how you want to play things instead of letting Dakka ruin 40k for you.
Codex Inquisition had 5th edition rules. The Codex store page literally tells you where to find the latest rules for that faction.
Nope not at all it was never 5th.It was 6th and is all updated to 7th editon for ages. I lost my power axes in the last update, that is not something you forget ; )
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: The only difference for SoB are whether or not Celestine is available. If someone gives me a hard time for fielding Celestine I am going to hate them very very much and not play with them (and possibly kill them dead when they are not looking?).
Or send them a sandwich with US cheese.
I'm assuming you mean "American" "Processed" "Cheese" TM(R)(C), rather than something like White Vermont Cheddar.
Cause the former is a hate crime, and the latter is awesome.
andysonic1 wrote: So my point stands, then? Good, glad we're in agreement.
I made the same point you did in my first post in the thread. So yes, we do agree.
I was merely pointing out that there are people in this thread who disagree quite strongly.
And my original point is that it really doesn't matter what Dakka says, it matters what you and your opponent decide on, or you and your tournament organizer decide on. Putting so much stock in Dakka that it pushes you away from the game is madness and I see it all the time on this forum.
andysonic1 wrote: And my original point is that it really doesn't matter what Dakka says, it matters what you and your opponent decide on, or you and your tournament organizer decide on. Putting so much stock in Dakka that it pushes you away from the game is madness and I see it all the time on this forum.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but when people create threads on Dakka asking for their fellow forumers' opinions, it's usually because they value the opinions of those forumers in some way.
Taking your approach, we may as well just shut down this entire forum site and merely discuss everything with our real-world groups instead.
Pouncey wrote:You can play an older edition with your opponent's permission if you want to.
Really it's up to you and your opponent to decide, the Internet cannot help you.
The Internet can help you out. He can gauge if it's worth his time to start or not. Just like asking "anyone want to play Unbound" almost everyone will say No, so it will not be worth buying, modelling and painting an army if he can't use it for Unbound. So maybe he will have to buy other minis to play with if he wants to get games in.
Same here. He can gauge to see if he really needs to buy the book so he can play with what ever army he wants or save a bit of money and not bother with it, just in case it sells out.
I say you still have to wait. While it seems most information is out, there could still be stuff in that we don't know yet and wait and see until it's actually released and then decide for yourself. It's too early to get worked on for nothing.
That said, if you were playing me, I would be perfectly fine with it. Thing is in most cases we will never have a game and you will have to think what is your alternative if your opponent says No. What will you do then? Have 2 lists? One for when someone says yes and when someone says no? Is this ok with you? Will you shelf your army until a new dex comes out? What is your plan B, C and D and maybe E?
I still don't see that being clarified here... what am I missing?
"The rules in this eBook are also available in Codex: Imperial Agents, fully revised and updated along with new detachments plus rules for adding even more servants of the Emperor to your army."
That part.
If that is taken at face value, then, GK and DW ARE indeed replaced by the new book. That statement is a throw-away I'm afraid.
I'm still confused as to how you're trying to argue that RAI they're squatting everything in the Cult Mechanicus Codex at the same time they're putting out a big Christmas launch.
I still don't see that being clarified here... what am I missing?
"The rules in this eBook are also available in Codex: Imperial Agents, fully revised and updated along with new detachments plus rules for adding even more servants of the Emperor to your army."
That part.
If that is taken at face value, then, GK and DW ARE indeed replaced by the new book. That statement is a throw-away I'm afraid.
I'm still confused as to how you're trying to argue that RAI they're squatting everything in the Cult Mechanicus Codex at the same time they're putting out a big Christmas launch.
I am currently of two opinions, either they are doing it because
1. Knee Jerk reaction.
2. They are claiming everything is an updated army list, when in truth only INQ and Sororitas got updated army lists and the rest are other formations - in doing so they can latch onto the claim that because some of them were not updated army lists then it is a "supplement" and does not update any army lists.
Pouncey wrote:You can play an older edition with your opponent's permission if you want to.
Really it's up to you and your opponent to decide, the Internet cannot help you.
The Internet can help you out. He can gauge if it's worth his time to start or not. Just like asking "anyone want to play Unbound" almost everyone will say No, so it will not be worth buying, modelling and painting an army if he can't use it for Unbound. So maybe he will have to buy other minis to play with if he wants to get games in.
Same here. He can gauge to see if he really needs to buy the book so he can play with what ever army he wants or save a bit of money and not bother with it, just in case it sells out.
I say you still have to wait. While it seems most information is out, there could still be stuff in that we don't know yet and wait and see until it's actually released and then decide for yourself. It's too early to get worked on for nothing.
That said, if you were playing me, I would be perfectly fine with it. Thing is in most cases we will never have a game and you will have to think what is your alternative if your opponent says No. What will you do then? Have 2 lists? One for when someone says yes and when someone says no? Is this ok with you? Will you shelf your army until a new dex comes out? What is your plan B, C and D and maybe E?
My only opponent is my mom.
And currently my plan is to quit WH40k tabletop and donate my collection of models to a thrift store because I am completely convinced that Sisters of Battle will never receive a proper update and end up being squatted entirely.
Pouncey wrote:You can play an older edition with your opponent's permission if you want to.
Really it's up to you and your opponent to decide, the Internet cannot help you.
The Internet can help you out. He can gauge if it's worth his time to start or not. Just like asking "anyone want to play Unbound" almost everyone will say No, so it will not be worth buying, modelling and painting an army if he can't use it for Unbound. So maybe he will have to buy other minis to play with if he wants to get games in.
Same here. He can gauge to see if he really needs to buy the book so he can play with what ever army he wants or save a bit of money and not bother with it, just in case it sells out.
I say you still have to wait. While it seems most information is out, there could still be stuff in that we don't know yet and wait and see until it's actually released and then decide for yourself. It's too early to get worked on for nothing.
That said, if you were playing me, I would be perfectly fine with it. Thing is in most cases we will never have a game and you will have to think what is your alternative if your opponent says No. What will you do then? Have 2 lists? One for when someone says yes and when someone says no? Is this ok with you? Will you shelf your army until a new dex comes out? What is your plan B, C and D and maybe E?
My only opponent is my mom.
And currently my plan is to quit WH40k tabletop and donate my collection of models to a thrift store because I am completely convinced that Sisters of Battle will never receive a proper update and end up being squatted entirely.
Well, I think that's kind of cool you play with your mom tbh.
I suspect the next edition which will be out in 6 months will see SoB updated to the basic standard every one else is. There is a 3rd party called "raging heroes" that makes some "sisters like" models which make GW look like ....mishappen balls of metal. GW generally hates 3rd party miniatures, and they often either remove units if GW does not produce a model for an unit entry but a 3rd party does, or update their rules/model line to make people stop buying the 3rd party models. GW will likely at some point do the second option.
blaktoof wrote: Well, I think that's kind of cool you play with your mom tbh.
My parents met at the strategy gaming club at their college.
She was actually just looking for a quiet spot to study, and the spot she picked was near the club.
My dad refused to get into Warhammer 40k. He's an obsessive collector, and he knew he couldn't afford the model-buying habit that would happen if he got into it.
I suspect the next edition which will be out in 6 months will see SoB updated to the basic standard every one else is. There is a 3rd party called "raging heroes" that makes some "sisters like" models which make GW look like ....mishappen balls of metal. GW generally hates 3rd party miniatures, and they often either remove units if GW does not produce a model for an unit entry but a 3rd party does, or update their rules/model line to make people stop buying the 3rd party models. GW will likely at some point do the second option.
Pouncy they reprinted the SoB rules with new detachment rules and made a new canoness model. IF GW was never going to bother with SoB again they wouldn't have bothered even doing that much.
CrownAxe wrote: Pouncy they reprinted the SoB rules with new detachment rules and made a new canoness model. IF GW was never going to bother with SoB again they wouldn't have bothered even doing that much.
Get your head out of you rear end
We've had formations before, you know.
You know when the time was to release plastic Sisters of Battle? December. Three months after the Warhammer TV tease. When they get a hardcopy Codex again. Right now.
CrownAxe wrote: Pouncy they reprinted the SoB rules with new detachment rules and made a new canoness model. IF GW was never going to bother with SoB again they wouldn't have bothered even doing that much.
Get your head out of you rear end
We've had formations before, you know.
You know when the time was to release plastic Sisters of Battle? December. Three months after the Warhammer TV tease. When they get a hardcopy Codex again. Right now.
Didn't happen.
You are missing the point. If they were going to squat sisters they would be doing literally nothing for them. They aren't. They get a new detachment and they got a new model. That is proof that sisters will get plastics and a new book eventually
CrownAxe wrote: You are missing the point. If they were going to squat sisters they would be doing literally nothing for them. They aren't. They get a new detachment and they got a new model. That is proof that sisters will get plastics and a new book eventually
It's really, really not proof of what you think it is.
Also, when "eventually" gets here, that's when I'll believe it. I've been waiting for "eventually" for the past five years, and it's still not here yet.
CrownAxe wrote: You are missing the point. If they were going to squat sisters they would be doing literally nothing for them. They aren't. They get a new detachment and they got a new model. That is proof that sisters will get plastics and a new book eventually
It's really, really not proof of what you think it is.
Also, when "eventually" gets here, that's when I'll believe it. I've been waiting for "eventually" for the past five years, and it's still not here yet.
I've been waiting for 10 years. Get over your self. You're not the only one who wants plastic sisters, but you're the only one I see that's such a pessimistic crybaby about it.
Dark Eldar took 10 years to get their plastic update and they eventually got it. Sisters getting anything new means they are still on GW's radar and aren't about to get squated.
CrownAxe wrote: I've been waiting for 10 years. Get over your self. You're not the only one who wants plastic sisters, but you're the only one I see that's such a pessimistic crybaby about it.
Dark Eldar took 10 years to get their plastic update and they eventually got it. Sisters getting anything new means they are still on GW's radar and aren't about to get squated.
I'm incredibly pessimistic because my enjoyment of my army depends on being able to do conversions with them. Conversions are the most fun I have with WH40k. My fear of power tools and dislike of superglue mean I require plastic models to do that. I've tried converting metal models with the tools I'm comfortable using. It didn't go well.
Also, Sisters of Battle were released in 1997. Next year that will be 20 years ago.
Sisters got a new Codex, yes. But not their own Codex. They could eventually be written out of it. That new Codex removed Saint Celestine as an option, so we lost a unit with this new Codex.
When I say I fear they'll be squatted, I don't mean that one day they just up and disappear. I mean that as time goes on, and new Imperial Agents updates come out, the army is scaled back further, and further, until finally they just end what little remains. I don't view that happening soon, butt instead many years from now.
Also, if you want to see me being optimistic about Sisters of Battle, go look at my oldest posts. Around and before the time the 5e WD dex was released. You will see me being excited about having the Codex all to Sisters of Battle, without the Inquisition. You will see me being glad that the army's still getting updates. You will see me hopeful for plastics without moping or whining.
You will also see at least a half-dozen other Sisters of Battle players, arguing with me, telling me what utter gak it all was, that the plastics would never come, that GW hated the army, and that I was an idiot for being optimistic.
After weeks of that, they broke me. You will find a post somewhere in mid-2011 where my optimism is destroyed forever. By Dakkites.
Codex Inquisition had 5th edition rules. The Codex store page literally tells you where to find the latest rules for that faction.
Nope not at all it was never 5th.It was 6th and is all updated to 7th editon for ages. I lost my power axes in the last update, that is not something you forget ; )
So then why exactly did Codex:Inquisition Chimeras have 5 Firing Points and no Lasgun arrays? From what I can tell it was using 5th Edition rules, even if it might've been released during 6th and was slightly updated for 7th edition (more of an errata update than anything else from what I can tell - DCAs always should've had Power Swords).
CrownAxe wrote: Pouncy they reprinted the SoB rules with new detachment rules and made a new canoness model. IF GW was never going to bother with SoB again they wouldn't have bothered even doing that much.
Get your head out of you rear end
We've had formations before, you know.
You know when the time was to release plastic Sisters of Battle? December. Three months after the Warhammer TV tease. When they get a hardcopy Codex again. Right now.
Didn't happen.
You are missing the point. If they were going to squat sisters they would be doing literally nothing for them. They aren't. They get a new detachment and they got a new model. That is proof that sisters will get plastics and a new book eventually
Uhh, did you pay any attention to what happened with WHFB/AoS? Releasing things and having them made invalid in a couple of months is not something we have never seen from GW. With the talk of 8th being a complete overhaul of the game and the recent fluff looking more and more like the End Times of WHFB I wouldn't be surprised if entire armies got written out of existence after their cash grab releases.
I love GSC but I honestly think we will probably never see any continued support of them. They got their models, they got a codex, they will probably be left to rot from this point on.
I doubt SoB will see any new releases, at best we will see a new faction that is SoB-like. I love my SoB, one of my favorite armies by far, but I am not holding out hope. I do not see their inclusion into a supplement as a good sign, I see it as a way to incentivize the sale of the remaining SoB stock to people who can now just run them as a small allied group.
After The End Times I have zero faith in GW doing anything that would make sense. They literally tricked their fan base into buying a bunch of incredibly expensive books, made it seem like they were finally giving the game some support, then pulled the rug out under everyone and released a new game that had rules that actively insulted the players of the game they just axed. They do not care about existing players. They do not care about existing armies. All they care about is new model sales and new players.
azraelboogie1984 wrote: Games workshop stated before the release that this is a supplement and will not replace the codex for any of the imperial books.
CrownAxe wrote: I've been waiting for 10 years. Get over your self.
[rude crap I'm not quoting]
Stop being a dick. No one is obligated to share your optimism. No one is obligated to put a fake smile on just so you can be happy. No one is obligated to agree with you, either. And there's zero excuse for you to be a smarmy, condescending jerk about fething miniatures just because someone refused to do these things for you.
As far from self-awareness as could be.
But hoo boy this topic is a land-mine of opinions right now, but if you ask your opponents nicely they may allow it, but in general people tend to want the newest updated rules.
I'm not exactly enthusiastic about what I've seen leaked thus far, but I'm nowhere near 'Boycott the book' levels. I mean, I'm going to miss my build-a-bear inquisition squads, but 18-point Psyker batteries absolutely needed to go, and I don't begrudge them for removing it. If Cannonesses get access to Jump Packs, I'll forgive them for axing Celestine. I wish the Grey Knights section gave access to Librarians, but oh well.
Really, I'm most annoyed that it looks like Sisters aren't really given any kind of changes - They absolutely, absolutely needed changes. The 'Re-roll saves of 1' thing is nifty, I guess, but the fact that it only lasts for a turn makes it less-than-stellar. Giving two acts of faith to every unit would have been much, much better, and probably made a lot more sense, too.
Waaaghpower wrote: I'm not exactly enthusiastic about what I've seen leaked thus far, but I'm nowhere near 'Boycott the book' levels. I mean, I'm going to miss my build-a-bear inquisition squads, but 18-point Psyker batteries absolutely needed to go, and I don't begrudge them for removing it. If Cannonesses get access to Jump Packs, I'll forgive them for axing Celestine. I wish the Grey Knights section gave access to Librarians, but oh well.
Really, I'm most annoyed that it looks like Sisters aren't really given any kind of changes - They absolutely, absolutely needed changes. The 'Re-roll saves of 1' thing is nifty, I guess, but the fact that it only lasts for a turn makes it less-than-stellar. Giving two acts of faith to every unit would have been much, much better, and probably made a lot more sense, too.
Are Sisters really that underpowered? I was under the impression they're a solid mid-level army, not even close to e.g 'Nids or Orks. But I've never played with Sisters on the table (I'm still waiting on RH to deliver my totally-not-sisters) on either side, so I'm honestly curious.
Waaaghpower wrote: I'm not exactly enthusiastic about what I've seen leaked thus far, but I'm nowhere near 'Boycott the book' levels. I mean, I'm going to miss my build-a-bear inquisition squads, but 18-point Psyker batteries absolutely needed to go, and I don't begrudge them for removing it. If Cannonesses get access to Jump Packs, I'll forgive them for axing Celestine. I wish the Grey Knights section gave access to Librarians, but oh well.
Really, I'm most annoyed that it looks like Sisters aren't really given any kind of changes - They absolutely, absolutely needed changes. The 'Re-roll saves of 1' thing is nifty, I guess, but the fact that it only lasts for a turn makes it less-than-stellar. Giving two acts of faith to every unit would have been much, much better, and probably made a lot more sense, too.
Are Sisters really that underpowered? I was under the impression they're a solid mid-level army, not even close to e.g 'Nids or Orks. But I've never played with Sisters on the table (I'm still waiting on RH to deliver my totally-not-sisters) on either side, so I'm honestly curious.
They're not the weakest army in the game, but pretty much everything we can do is outdone by old fashioned Space Marines. And by old-fashioned, I mean footslogging CADs, maybe with Rhinos. Imagine a Space Marine army with no Centurions, no fliers, no AA, no Drop Pods, no Psykers, no bikes, no Chapter Masters. Imagine also that they have no access to 2+ armor, which also means no Terminators and no Honour Guard. Imagine that army without any formations, no Decurion, not even a modified CAD, just the regular one. That Space Marine army is still better than what Sisters of Battle get.
We're an army that work best at short range (All of our good weapons are either Melta or Flamer,) but who cannot handle even light Close Combat with most of our squads, and whose dedicated, built-out melee units are only marginally better than Assault Marines.
For a more comprehensive rundown:
Spoiler:
Compare our basic troops to Tactical marines, who really aren't that powerful to begin with:
We're 12 points, to a Tacs 14.
We get a 6++ and Admantium Will, which is about equivalent to any chapter's Chapter Tactics.
We get Preferred Enemy, once per game, for a single phase. (A single turn, as of the new book, which is marginally better if we plan on charging, but we really shouldn't be charging.)
Space Marines get And They Shall Know No Fear, +1 WS, S, T, and I.
We can go to units of 20, but don't get extra special weapon access for doing so.
We DO get access to either two special weapons or a heavy weapon and special weapon in a five sister squad, which is nice. Unfortunately, our only options are the Flamer, Meltagun, or Storm Bolter. (Heavy Flamer, Multi-Melta, and Heavy Bolter for our Heavies.)
No Drop Pods, either.
All in all compared to Tacs, we don't really show up favorably, and nobody's looking to Tacs as the gold standard of troops right now. We pay a points upgrade to get 'Assault' squads, but because Sisters are pretty meh to begin with, they'd need some significant boosts in order to have an actually good melee squad, and they really don't get them.
Compare Celestians to Assault Marines without jump packs, and we cost the same Ppm, get +1 ld, and our Act of Faith lets of get furious charge for a turn, meaning that once per game we can have a charge as good as Assault Marines get all the time. (We also get Boltguns and Bolt Pistols, meaning we have marginally better shooting, but if we use those boltguns then we aren't charging, and if we aren't charging we may as well just take Battle Sisters.)
Compare an Exorcist to a Tri-las Predator. The Exorcist has one worse strength, one better AP, and trades three shots (One of which is twin-linked) for d6 shots. No choice to be in a squadron, and it's completely unreliable because you never know if you'll get a few shots when you need them, or if you'll roll a '1' when you REALLY need to kill that tank.
Compare Penitent Engines to Dreadnoughts, and just laugh. We get an extra Heavy Flamer attack, and Rage, and a 6+ invuln. Dreadnoughts have better armor, aren't open topped, have actual shooting choices, have better Initiative, Weapon Skill...
The whole army gets Admantium Will, but has no access to Warp Charges, so it's ultimately meaningless. Cannonesses are so bad that it's laughable. (The 'Best' build is a 3+4++ model with 3 EW wounds and 4 S6, AP2, Armorbane attacks at I1 WS5. For 120 points. Her Act of Faith gives Hatred, but for 25 points you can just take a Priest, who gives Zealot for the whole game.
It's not all terrible, of course. Dominions can Scout forward with Meltaguns, and get Ignores Cover for a turn. Seraphim really aren't great unless you include Celestine, but for less than 100 points you can get 4 Hand Flamers that get shred once per game. Retributors can get Rending on their guns for a turn, which doesn't exactly make them a competitive option, but does at least mean that the Boltguns in the squad aren't completely useless. But these 'Good' choices are barely average compared to better armies, and speaking of options, we really don't get many - One HQ, one psuedo-HQ that can't be your main choice, two special characters. One troop choice, two Elites choices, two Fast Attack choices, and a whopping three Heavy Support options.
Gunzhard wrote: Well ...I do like cheese sandwiches and I agree it is clear how this is meant to work. But I also know what this community is like and I hardly think that will be considered the "official line".
There's an official line on BOTH invalidated codexes, there isn't one on the others.
Which book is valid and which isn't has never been "clearly ruled" anywhere, so it's really a non-issue unless GW starts publishing a list of valid books.
It's really not advancing the community at all by claiming that there are so many people that think like that and arguing their point. I've literally never met someone that went "oh, but GW never claimed that old books are invalidated, so I can just play this 2nd edition book instead".
If people that want to argue that actually exist, let them speak for themself and explain WHY they think that they're free to use a clearly invalidated codex?
It's fine if you wanna bring Celestine to a casual match with the new Codex: Imperial Agents, just ask beforehand. But that won't fly at a tournament or with a bad attitude, claiming it's your right to do that.
Why you think contents of supplement are no longer legal automatically just because new book or even new version appears? GW doesn't say so. Indeed when they have said anything regarding that it's that old stuff is still valid to use.
Only ones invalidating old books are players. GW for sure isn't.
CrownAxe wrote: Pouncy they reprinted the SoB rules with new detachment rules and made a new canoness model. IF GW was never going to bother with SoB again they wouldn't have bothered even doing that much.
Get your head out of you rear end
We've had formations before, you know.
You know when the time was to release plastic Sisters of Battle? December. Three months after the Warhammer TV tease. When they get a hardcopy Codex again. Right now.
Pouncey wrote:You can play an older edition with your opponent's permission if you want to.
Really it's up to you and your opponent to decide, the Internet cannot help you.
The Internet can help you out. He can gauge if it's worth his time to start or not. Just like asking "anyone want to play Unbound" almost everyone will say No, so it will not be worth buying, modelling and painting an army if he can't use it for Unbound. So maybe he will have to buy other minis to play with if he wants to get games in.
Same here. He can gauge to see if he really needs to buy the book so he can play with what ever army he wants or save a bit of money and not bother with it, just in case it sells out.
I say you still have to wait. While it seems most information is out, there could still be stuff in that we don't know yet and wait and see until it's actually released and then decide for yourself. It's too early to get worked on for nothing.
That said, if you were playing me, I would be perfectly fine with it. Thing is in most cases we will never have a game and you will have to think what is your alternative if your opponent says No. What will you do then? Have 2 lists? One for when someone says yes and when someone says no? Is this ok with you? Will you shelf your army until a new dex comes out? What is your plan B, C and D and maybe E?
My only opponent is my mom.
And currently my plan is to quit WH40k tabletop and donate my collection of models to a thrift store because I am completely convinced that Sisters of Battle will never receive a proper update and end up being squatted entirely.
Quote the wrong person? How does this apply "the internet can't help you out"?
Gunzhard wrote: Well ...I do like cheese sandwiches and I agree it is clear how this is meant to work. But I also know what this community is like and I hardly think that will be considered the "official line".
There's an official line on BOTH invalidated codexes, there isn't one on the others.
Which book is valid and which isn't has never been "clearly ruled" anywhere, so it's really a non-issue unless GW starts publishing a list of valid books.
It's really not advancing the community at all by claiming that there are so many people that think like that and arguing their point. I've literally never met someone that went "oh, but GW never claimed that old books are invalidated, so I can just play this 2nd edition book instead".
If people that want to argue that actually exist, let them speak for themself and explain WHY they think that they're free to use a clearly invalidated codex?
It's fine if you wanna bring Celestine to a casual match with the new Codex: Imperial Agents, just ask beforehand. But that won't fly at a tournament or with a bad attitude, claiming it's your right to do that.
Why you think contents of supplement are no longer legal automatically just because new book or even new version appears? GW doesn't say so. Indeed when they have said anything regarding that it's that old stuff is still valid to use.
Only ones invalidating old books are players. GW for sure isn't.
Have I claimed that GW officially invalidates books? No. I've pointed out that GW says that the Army Lists for both Inquisition and Sisters of Battle are updated and revised in Codex: Imperial Agents. I've said that there isn't a clear ruling or anything of that kind when it comes to "is this book still legal to use in a 40k game?".
You, as a player, are free to run ANY book you like. You're free to houserule the living gak out of your 40k experience. But when you play, you have to agree on the "how you play" with the other player. And I'd say it's a save bet to say that most people expect you to run the most recent rules, unless you specifically told them otherwise. And then it's within their rights to deny playing you. If you ask them nicely many people will agree to it I'd expect, but if you start the introduction of your army with "You know how GW doesn't have a rule for invalidating old books? I'm just gonna use that fact and run a nth Edition Codex: Something now, it's totally legal", I don't think you'll be making friends that way.
And when it comes to tournaments your - and my - opinion simply doesn't matter at all. The TOs set up rules that govern the tournament. If they tell you to always use the most recent Army List for a Faction you will use that book for your Inquisition/Sisters of Battle or you will not be able to participate in that tournament. If they're cool with you using Codex: Inquisiton that's just the way it is. But I'd suggest you ask them in advance since I don't think that's the norm for a tournament.
I still don't see that being clarified here... what am I missing?
"The rules in this eBook are also available in Codex: Imperial Agents, fully revised and updated along with new detachments plus rules for adding even more servants of the Emperor to your army."
That part.
If that is taken at face value, then, GK and DW ARE indeed replaced by the new book. That statement is a throw-away I'm afraid.
I'm still confused as to how you're trying to argue that RAI they're squatting everything in the Cult Mechanicus Codex at the same time they're putting out a big Christmas launch.
I am currently of two opinions, either they are doing it because
1. Knee Jerk reaction.
2. They are claiming everything is an updated army list, when in truth only INQ and Sororitas got updated army lists and the rest are other formations - in doing so they can latch onto the claim that because some of them were not updated army lists then it is a "supplement" and does not update any army lists.
Uhh what? I assume the "they" is myself and nekooni, and for the record we both agree that only INQ and SoB got fully updated. Where we differ is our assessments of the good and reasonable 40k community... he thinks they will accept that opinion as "official", I believe the 40k community to be entirely insane and incapable of common sense if it's not stamped 'official'.
I'm quite baffled that the first reaction to Celestine's removal for some has been "Sisters are being squatted!" and not "GW is making a great big plastic kit a la the AoS Prime for an upcoming release".
We've had GW's marketing team themselves tease plastic Sisters, and that team is actually competent now. Plastics are assuredly coming, probably as a release to be part of 8th in order to generate hype, and GW won't want to undermine sales of a flagship kit like Celestine by letting people buy her in their current Sisters push. They'll release a great big kit, probably with a wild power boost to match the increase in scale, and her brief disappearance will only serve to increase hype.
The comparison to 5th Dark Eldar made earlier in the thread is very apt.
And currently my plan is to quit WH40k tabletop and donate my collection of models to a thrift store because I am completely convinced that Sisters of Battle will never receive a proper update and end up being squatted entirely.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: The only difference for SoB are whether or not Celestine is available. If someone gives me a hard time for fielding Celestine I am going to hate them very very much and not play with them (and possibly kill them dead when they are not looking?).
Or send them a sandwich with US cheese.
I AM NOT A MONSTER! (Okay, I am one. I'll send them US cheese!)
Melissia wrote: I'm assuming you mean "American" "Processed" "Cheese" TM(R)(C), rather than something like White Vermont Cheddar.
Cause the former is a hate crime, and the latter is awesome.
You Trumpies have edible cheese too? Why do you hide it then ?
CrownAxe wrote: You are missing the point. If they were going to squat sisters they would be doing literally nothing for them. They aren't. They get a new detachment and they got a new model. That is proof that sisters will
be stuck in a limbo forever and ever with regular minimal rule tweak releases where they mostly just lose units, until the whole range erode into oblivion.
Waaaghpower wrote: If Cannonesses get access to Jump Packs, I'll forgive them for axing Celestine.
They don't. OF COURSE THEY DON'T, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Now that's what I call quotable!
Hey salty Chaos players, care to elaborate on what that “condescending treatment” is? Because I mostly remember Chaos getting tons of new plastic models, new rules and all that.
I have many Inquisitor models/units, Grey Knights, Deathwatch... no SOBs (I respect you all though!) and just cannot WAIT to see what they have done.
I have a fair bit of Black Templar so I may have a sneaking suspicion of where this is going.
I would say the "normal" fluff player really will not care at all if you use the new or old codex.
Anyone who is competitive will probably want it "by the book" quite literally.
I must say though hearing Pouncy's spirit being broken about Sisters not happening and Dakka-folk crushing their spirit is rather sad.
I am pretty pessimistic and I would say getting some Sisters of Silence out may be the foot in the door.
They are still pretty Iconic in the 40k lore unlike Squats so I honestly think we will see some plastic sisters, only a hunch: next three months?
Place your bets?
What I am wondering is will they go for a more "classic" gothic look like armor that would be at home with church décor?
Or go for cleaning them up further and give more of a different vibe?
I was raised Roman Catholic so a mean looking nun would make me happy.
This release and thread have me rather confused. Is this an actual update for those units or is it an optional supplement of some sort or... Something else? Sounds like maybe we don't actually know for sure?
nekooni wrote: Have I claimed that GW officially invalidates books? No. I've pointed out that GW says that the Army Lists for both Inquisition and Sisters of Battle are updated and revised in Codex: Imperial Agents. I've said that there isn't a clear ruling or anything of that kind when it comes to "is this book still legal to use in a 40k game?".
You, as a player, are free to run ANY book you like. You're free to houserule the living gak out of your 40k experience. But when you play, you have to agree on the "how you play" with the other player. And I'd say it's a save bet to say that most people expect you to run the most recent rules, unless you specifically told them otherwise. And then it's within their rights to deny playing you. If you ask them nicely many people will agree to it I'd expect, but if you start the introduction of your army with "You know how GW doesn't have a rule for invalidating old books? I'm just gonna use that fact and run a nth Edition Codex: Something now, it's totally legal", I don't think you'll be making friends that way.
And when it comes to tournaments your - and my - opinion simply doesn't matter at all. The TOs set up rules that govern the tournament. If they tell you to always use the most recent Army List for a Faction you will use that book for your Inquisition/Sisters of Battle or you will not be able to participate in that tournament. If they're cool with you using Codex: Inquisiton that's just the way it is. But I'd suggest you ask them in advance since I don't think that's the norm for a tournament.
And as I keep pointing GW considers every book they have as valid. That means even older supplement! They release supplement A. They release supplement A again. As far as GW is concerned old version contents is STILL legal to use.
Thing is unless tournament SPECIFICALLY overrides older version default is you can use it. Unless overriden by players what's legal by GW is legal to use.
Stormonu wrote: Bleh, if someone wants to force me to use this book, they can buy it for me, otherwise I'll use the books I already have.
Was there actually any changes to Grey Knights or were the units just reproduced in the new book?
If you're a competitive GK player that plays in an environment that allows unlimited detachments, then it's an essential purchase.
Deamonhunter Strike Force is 1x Terminator Squad OR 1x Interceptor Squad with optional Heavy.
A GK 1850 tournament list (as long as detachments/formations aren't limited) will likely involve 5x DSF with an Interceptor Squad and NDK in each; and an Imperial Knight
Stormonu wrote: Bleh, if someone wants to force me to use this book, they can buy it for me, otherwise I'll use the books I already have.
Was there actually any changes to Grey Knights or were the units just reproduced in the new book?
If you're a competitive GK player that plays in an environment that allows unlimited detachments, then it's an essential purchase.
Deamonhunter Strike Force is 1x Terminator Squad OR 1x Interceptor Squad with optional Heavy.
A GK 1850 tournament list (as long as detachments/formations aren't limited) will likely involve 5x DSF with an Interceptor Squad and NDK in each; and an Imperial Knight
Not sure if it's that much of an upgrade over the NSF (1x HQ/1x Troops mandatory, 2x HS optional).
If you're a competitive GK player that plays in an environment that allows unlimited detachments, then it's an essential purchase.
Deamonhunter Strike Force is 1x Terminator Squad OR 1x Interceptor Squad with optional Heavy.
A GK 1850 tournament list (as long as detachments/formations aren't limited) will likely involve 5x DSF with an Interceptor Squad and NDK in each; and an Imperial Knight
I'd rather take an HQ-tax just to get a Comm-Relay via Nemesis Strike Force.
?
