Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Asmodai wrote:
I interpreted the piece the opposite way - the everything within the "C" formed by the walls is within the terrain and the statute is just decorative since it talks about being able to put it onto of the rest of the terrain.

It will hopefully be clarified.

all the whiny uber competitive types will ruin it. lol. it will seem obvious and then some douche will raise "plausible" things and because 95% of the players dont use it, they'll all vote in favor of nerfing their enemies like usual.

le sigh.

For my list I'm thinking 2 VH battalions with loads of sisters, Celestine, couple of cannonness backed up by 3 excorcists and 2 retributors squads. Then wanting a BR vanguard with a cannonness with the relic chainsword and a blob of repentia in a rhino, a squad of celestians so sit near imagifiers etc and then a Zepharim squad, quite liking the combined arms approach.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I interpreted the piece the opposite way - the everything within the "C" formed by the walls is within the terrain and the statute is just decorative since it talks about being able to put it onto of the rest of the terrain.

It will hopefully be clarified.

all the whiny uber competitive types will ruin it. lol. it will seem obvious and then some douche will raise "plausible" things and because 95% of the players dont use it, they'll all vote in favor of nerfing their enemies like usual.

le sigh.

Yeah over competitive jerks tend to ruin a LOT of things for our game unfortunately. Stuff like untargetable psychic characters, the whole salamander thing, etc. I can definitely see how the GW office is full of happy people who just love the game then they find out about this stuff and are like.......seriously?

 Jancoran wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I interpreted the piece the opposite way - the everything within the "C" formed by the walls is within the terrain and the statute is just decorative since it talks about being able to put it onto of the rest of the terrain.

It will hopefully be clarified.

all the whiny uber competitive types will ruin it. lol. it will seem obvious and then some douche will raise "plausible" things and because 95% of the players dont use it, they'll all vote in favor of nerfing their enemies like usual.

le sigh.

hey at least they aren't just making up their own rules

 Jancoran wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I interpreted the piece the opposite way - the everything within the "C" formed by the walls is within the terrain and the statute is just decorative since it talks about being able to put it onto of the rest of the terrain.

It will hopefully be clarified.

all the whiny uber competitive types will ruin it. lol. it will seem obvious and then some douche will raise "plausible" things and because 95% of the players dont use it, they'll all vote in favor of nerfing their enemies like usual.

le sigh.

This is an idiotic argument. There's not even VAGUE guidelines in the available rules for how to use the structure and nothing guiding how deployment should work beyond 'here's all the stuff in the box'.

They gave us a box of random legos and said 'here figure it out' and people like you have the ridiculous, nonsensical hot take of 'well it's YOUR fault if it gets modeled for advantage' not the ACTUAL truth of the matter which is; if they intend for it to be used creatively, it will be used creatively, if they didn't then they screwed up the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grundz wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I interpreted the piece the opposite way - the everything within the "C" formed by the walls is within the terrain and the statute is just decorative since it talks about being able to put it onto of the rest of the terrain.

It will hopefully be clarified.

all the whiny uber competitive types will ruin it. lol. it will seem obvious and then some douche will raise "plausible" things and because 95% of the players dont use it, they'll all vote in favor of nerfing their enemies like usual.

le sigh.

hey at least they aren't just making up their own rules

Oh yeah, I forgot about that; that he totally made up rules for how...I believe the imagifier(?) worked and got super salty when people disputed his little homebrew. That makes this BS 'but the waac players tho' thing he's doing even more hilarious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I interpreted the piece the opposite way - the everything within the "C" formed by the walls is within the terrain and the statute is just decorative since it talks about being able to put it onto of the rest of the terrain.

It will hopefully be clarified.

all the whiny uber competitive types will ruin it. lol. it will seem obvious and then some douche will raise "plausible" things and because 95% of the players dont use it, they'll all vote in favor of nerfing their enemies like usual.

le sigh.

Yeah over competitive jerks tend to ruin a LOT of things for our game unfortunately. Stuff like untargetable psychic characters, the whole salamander thing, etc. I can definitely see how the GW office is full of happy people who just love the game then they find out about this stuff and are like.......seriously?

They write the rules. If the rules make a unit of salamanders do 20 mortal wounds a turn, that's a failure of the rules writers not the players.

If they're finding about this stuff from players it's due to incompetence not people being 'overly competitive'.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:
I interpreted the piece the opposite way - the everything within the "C" formed by the walls is within the terrain and the statute is just decorative since it talks about being able to put it onto of the rest of the terrain.

It will hopefully be clarified.

I want to clarify my point with this:

I DO NOT care one way or another how the battle sanctum works, at 50 points it's a competitive option just for the extra miracle dice, it doesn't need all the hooplah and rigamorole to be useful.

What I DO care about is the ability to use it correctly. If the intention is that only the walls matter, they must be assembled a specific way, and the statue is entirely decorative then that's fine.

If you can take advantage of the seeming modularity of the walls as well as the statue to create an even more favorable terrain piece, that works too.

I just want to know WHICH ONE IS CORRECT and GW have failed UTTERLY to do so in the codex rules of the battle sanctum, as well as the initial SoB faq so either the more detailed rules are in the box or we must take the RAW as it comes, at which point it allows many different varieties of shenanigans which are all ENTIRELY due to GW's oversight.

ERJaK still singing that same old tune. I love it.

He’s got a good and accurate point, though.

Also, who made up the Imagifier rules?

How to use the Battle Sanctum 101:

1. Assemble your Battle Sanctum model
2. Place it in your army list
3. Place in on the battlefield

Oh, I forgot rule 0.
0. Don't be a douche

 JNAProductions wrote:
He’s got a good and accurate point, though.

Also, who made up the Imagifier rules?

He says I did.

to clarify, it amounted to me putting a trait on a character. coulda put it on anyone. I dont even recall what the model was but the argument was essentially whether a model could affect other models and its <order> if I recall. right after the beta dropped so who cares.

I had already changed it in my list by the time he bitched and a couple local players told him so, but here he is, on about it.... again. . after admins told him to drop the issue. but I had argued the point. Honestly, it's time to get him some sunshine and vitamin B.

It wasn't the Imagifier; it was the Dialogus.

You were arguing that the beta-dex Diaogus, despite it not having the <Order> keyword, worked with the beta-dex version of Indomitable Belief to give any <Order> unit within 6" a bonus to its Shield of Faith because you could just substitute whatever Order keyword you wanted to it.

Because he hasn't ruled that I can't makeup rules it must be ok

Also see: Air Bud

Can we not?

Taikishi wrote:
It wasn't the Imagifier; it was the Dialogus.

You were arguing that the beta-dex Diaogus, despite it not having the <Order> keyword, worked with the beta-dex version of Indomitable Belief to give any <Order> unit within 6" a bonus to its Shield of Faith because you could just substitute whatever Order keyword you wanted to it.

ok dialogus. right. you're almost right. what I had said was that the the trait targetted those with that order. and as mentioned had moved the trait to Canoness anyways. months ago. many. months ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Can we not?

sure would be nice.

I think the Battle Sanctum may just be a Fortification that other armies may pick up, just for the 12" height and the resulting line of sight advantage.

If I buy two, I think I'll model the second statue as someone beating a dead horse.

Regarding the set up of the battle sanctum, on the recent warhammer community post the designer says:

"The statue itself is designed to be STANDALONE (emphasis mine), but you can mount it on top of a building if you want to make an imposing centrepiece for your scenery collection – the footprint of the plinth it’s mounted on fits inside one of the standard Sector Imperialis floor/roof tiles. As such, the statue itself can fit on any building you can possibly use from our scenery range!"

Not an official rules clarification per se, but the the statue is clearly not intended to benefit from the specific battle sanctum rules. If it becomes a problem, I'd expect this to get faq'd fast.


Of course, that doesn't stop you spamming three of them at such a low points cost.

ArikTaranis wrote:
Regarding the set up of the battle sanctum, on the recent warhammer community post the designer says:

"The statue itself is designed to be STANDALONE (emphasis mine), but you can mount it on top of a building if you want to make an imposing centrepiece for your scenery collection – the footprint of the plinth it’s mounted on fits inside one of the standard Sector Imperialis floor/roof tiles. As such, the statue itself can fit on any building you can possibly use from our scenery range!"

Not an official rules clarification per se, but the the statue is clearly not intended to benefit from the specific battle sanctum rules. If it becomes a problem, I'd expect this to get faq'd fast.


Of course, that doesn't stop you spamming three of them at such a low points cost.

See, I disagree with that assessment. I actually think the statue is what makes the sanctum and the walls, its limits. The modularity of the kit is ment to sell the kit to non-sisters players as terrain features, rather than enabled weird rule interpretation.

I also think we prefer to keep the kit together anyway, give how we plan to use it.

I'm not actually sure we do disagree ultimately, other than perhaps the semantics of which part the battle sanctum name applies to. It's just that the wording of the statement to me suggests the statue is a separate/optional entity which is not part of the rules. I could be wrong, and again it's simply a designer's comment, not a rule.

We both agree that the standalone statue is not intended to extend the battle sanctum's auras, that the walls are the critical metric, right? Placing the statue within the boundaries of the walls is fine, as it doesn't really affect the model rules-wise (or at least, only minimally). LoS stays pretty much the same.

I agree with the point about modularity keeping modelling options open, rather than enabling rules manipulation.

See, I would measure from the statue if it was the closest part for rules, but I'd also have it... within a unit coherence range of the building, since it's all one 'unit'

 Melissia wrote:
Can we not?

That depends. Can we also stop calling competitive players jerks and acknowledge that GW needs to write better, more consistent, more concise, and more clear rules? If anything, the ones people call "jerks" need to be GW's playtesters. Break the rules in playtest, point them out...

... and then pray GW actually listens, unlike what happened with the initial FAQ of the Iron Hands supplement and then the most recent FAQ on the matter.

Edit: By "break the rules", I don't mean do anything illegal. I mean stretch the rules to the limit. Actually break them mechanically so they can be re-examined and, if necessary, rebuilt.

I personally didn't call anyone in here a jerk, and I'm really not interested in your whataboutist argument. I just really don't want this thread to get dragged down by personal attacks, no matter who's throwing htem.

I never said you did. I was responding to your "Can we not?" by saying that depends on if people who did make said comments reciprocate or not.

Moving on.

All my lists, for like every army, tend to include a certain amount of inefficiency simply because I enjoy the gameplay about a mechanic or like a model too much not to include it...so I'm too biased to really look at some of these things properly.

So I'm wondering... I'm in love with the Simulacrum and Cherub combo with embedded meltas for BSS, but is this too much inefficiency to still be able to field a solid force? It's a whole other BSS squad in points across the whole army, but they're so much fun. Is there something to be said for quality and timeliness of a strong play over simple boring quantity, or is that my bias talking again?

What is the consensus of the points cost for the geminae? The Codex lists them as 16 points excluding wargear, but CA 2019 (which technically came out after the initial Codex release in the limited box...) says 16 points including wargear - battlescribe keeps them at 20 points, but I think it's not so clear that CA is wrong...

Lemondish wrote:
Moving on.

All my lists, for like every army, tend to include a certain amount of inefficiency simply because I enjoy the gameplay about a mechanic or like a model too much not to include it...so I'm too biased to really look at some of these things properly.

So I'm wondering... I'm in love with the Simulacrum and Cherub combo with embedded meltas for BSS, but is this too much inefficiency to still be able to field a solid force? It's a whole other BSS squad in points across the whole army, but they're so much fun. Is there something to be said for quality and timeliness of a strong play over simple boring quantity, or is that my bias talking again?

I have to make the caveat that I don't have a ton of games in to reflect on, but I'm definitely including two such units (sharing Rhinos with stormbolter Dominions for now) going forward in most of my lists. In my limited experience, they're a little swingy, but they can be decisive when the dice (both regular and miraculous) behave, and usually they can soften something up at short range that an Exorcist can finish from long range (or the other way around if I have enough MDs to spare for Exo damage with the original 1/turn before Simulacra kick in). Maybe not the most efficient, but very fun and cinematic when it goes well. An especially rewarding use has been to open with an Exo to soften up a Repulsor, finish it with the BSS melta/cherub/simulacrum combo, and use the stormbolter Doms with Blessed Bolts to wreck the Primaris squad inside.

Has anybody used Zephyrim in non-Bloody Rose detachments? I really enjoy the (pretty much) guaranteed charge from Deepstrike, also for longer distances than 9 inch, but I'm not so sure if these girls pack sufficient punch by themselves to warrant their point cost. I purchased two kits, so I can field a single 10-girl squad. Of course I will just try it out myself, but I do not get to play very regularly at the moment, so other people's experiences would be nice to get a better feel for this unit.

Bossdoc wrote:
What is the consensus of the points cost for the geminae? The Codex lists them as 16 points excluding wargear, but CA 2019 (which technically came out after the initial Codex release in the limited box...) says 16 points including wargear - battlescribe keeps them at 20 points, but I think it's not so clear that CA is wrong...

Argument is codex released in january is newer but that argument means every sister player that got boxed set is expected to buy 2 codex...And GW being GW of course didn't bother touching subject in faq

Us3Less wrote:
Has anybody used Zephyrim in non-Bloody Rose detachments? I really enjoy the (pretty much) guaranteed charge from Deepstrike, also for longer distances than 9 inch, but I'm not so sure if these girls pack sufficient punch by themselves to warrant their point cost. I purchased two kits, so I can field a single 10-girl squad. Of course I will just try it out myself, but I do not get to play very regularly at the moment, so other people's experiences would be nice to get a better feel for this unit.

with support of +1str and attack they still pretty much butcher stuff, you could also charge them in alongside a casket canoness to make up for the loss of +1 to wound

Zephyrim fully buffed kill 30 boy ork squads.

And everyone knows 30 boy ork squads are the gold standard of durability

 Grundz wrote:
And everyone knows 30 boy ork squads are the gold standard of durability

kay smart guy. they also nuclear strike an entire Primaris Squad.