St. Celestine, IC or Not?

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.

**Steelmage99**

It has only ever been stated that a summary is overwritten by pretty much everything else IIRC.

I have never heard of a priority between bestiary and unit entry being established before.

**Mythal**

To be fair, I would think the fact that the Acts of Faith rules - which the second half tells you to refer to the first half for details regarding - stipulate St Celestine can join units, coupled with the fact that she has the Acts of Faith special rule in the Unit Entry but no Act of Faith of her own, coupled with the fact that her Unit Entry has her unit type as "Jump Infantry (character)", coupled with the fact that the first half stipulates she has the Independent Character special rule in her bestiary entry, would resolve the RAI for most people. Especially if you presented it to them in that way, explaining it to them rationally.

Anyone who'd make a scene about it after that really isn't someone you'd want to play against.

**nosferatu1001**

Scott-S6 wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:The guideline has always been: bestiary, unit entry, summary in terms of "which is correct"

Where is this stated?

Its a guideline - as in, I've yet to see a single time a bestiary entry has been "wrong" and later corrected.

As noted - the unit entry does not contradict the other two places she is declard as to be an IC

**Spiku**

Scott-S6 wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:The C:SM vindicators should be barrage then? Since that appears later in the codex?

I believe that was FAQ'd, but later in the same codex is not the same as "in a different publication", and sadly, the codex was published in two different publications.

I will not get involved with "guidelines have always stated" arguments, as no one has provided GW's written statement in this regard. What we do know, however, from the core rules and from FAQs, that the most recent publication takes precedence (and interestingly that codex overrides core rules, which was why sisters had their own hit n run. That was FAQ'd too anyway though). The fact of the matter is that RAW, you use the most recent publication, and the most recent one just happens to be one month later. Until it is FAQ'd she is technically not an IC.

However, as you can see from the quote I made previously, I believe she is suposed to be an IC, and will play her as such. I doubt I'd ever come into contact with someone who would argue she wasn't in real life, and I certainly wouldn't be in a position where I wouldn't be able to just go play someone else.

**nosferatu1001**

Spiku - that last statement is wrong, actually. There is no "newer takes precedence" - its "specifc beats general"

**Leo_the_Rat**

Spiku- that's not my quote in your Scott-S6 multi quote.

It looks like the reference section from the Basic Fantasy Rule Book is overridden by the fully written out section per their FAQ.

**the_ferrett**

There's a precedent!
Dakkaguns - ork warbikers
First part had 5 5 assault 3, points section had 5 4 assault 2.
FAQ showed it was the 5 5 that was correct.

**Homer S**

So, when it gets FAQd, then we'll know for sure. I would go by the Army List as that is stated as how the army is fielded. Also, the "Bestiary" lists all the possible rules for a unit, the Army List tells how they are put together. Remember, this won't get FAQd per se. It will get an updated version when it hits their website. Just like the BA book before it.

Homer

**Deepeyes**

I think she is a IC. It is mentioned twice in the first half of the codex that she is an IC. I assume it is harder to make two mistakes in the fist half than one single mistake in the second half.

Either way it doesn't bother me. I wouldn't have her attached to a squad. I wouldn't want my resurrecting saint fleeing off the table.

**Grakmar**

What? How is this a debate? She is clearly an IC.

Is the other side really saying that these 2 WD articles are separate releases? Wouldn't that mean that the entire first half is now an outdated codex and only the 2nd half is legit? That'd be crazy talk. Now, stop being crazy.

**Boss GreenNutz**

As was stated earlier, if she isn't an IC how can she add, well subtract, to the die roll needed for an Act of Faith to the squad she is attached to?

The downside to attaching her to a squad is if they break and are below 50% she spends a turn or 2 running and comes back on the table where she left it meaning a potentially long trek back to the battle.

**don_mondo**

yep, if you want to say that she's not an IC, then you also have to say that everything in the first half no longer applies. Which of course means we no longer have a playable codex...............

Yes, she's an IC.

**thecactusman17**

Sorry to piss on the parades of a lot of people in this first page at least, but the wording in the Bestiary, which includes all the rules for playing as a Sisters of Battle army according its own text, clearly identifies her as an Independent Character. Just because they failed to include that in the point cost does not change the status. Until GW states that the second half of the White Dwarf article overrules the first half, the actual unit rules clearly state Independent Character.

Seriously, this is like trying to argue that her sword doesn't explicitly state "power weapon" in the wargear list. Don't be a bunch of idiots.

[edit]Also, a brief running over of previous 5th edition releases suggests that when there is a discrepancy, the more powerful version is typically used, Tyranids excepted.[/edit]

**J.Black**

Is it possible for me to claim that until the discrepancies with St.Celestine and the Arco's are cleared up, the codex is effectively unuseable..... and i can go back to using C:WH?

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

J.Black wrote:Is it possible for me to claim that until the discrepancies with St.Celestine and the Arco's are cleared up, the codex is effectively unuseable..... and i can go back to using C:WH?

Unfortunately, No (legality speaking)
However if you and your friends say its ok than in that group it'd be fine

**J.Black**

Most of the folks in the local GW have said it's be fine for me to use the old codex. They all seem of the opinion that all the SoB really needed was some points cost adjustments here and there (namely making the canoness more expensive, and bringing down the cost of rhinos and PE's).

I do want to try out a few ideas with the new codex though, but i really don't want to get into silly arguments about IC status etc.... Just gonna have to pick my opponents more carefully i suppose

**Kitzz**

thecactusman17 wrote:Sorry to piss on the parades of a lot of people in this first page at least, but the wording in the Bestiary, which includes all the rules for playing as a Sisters of Battle army according its own text, clearly identifies her as an Independent Character. Just because they failed to include that in the point cost does not change the status. Until GW states that the second half of the White Dwarf article overrules the first half, the actual unit rules clearly state Independent Character.

Seriously, this is like trying to argue that her sword doesn't explicitly state "power weapon" in the wargear list. Don't be a bunch of idiots.

[edit]Also, a brief running over of previous 5th edition releases suggests that when there is a discrepancy, the more powerful version is typically used, Tyranids excepted.[/edit]

As a Necron player I feel I must take issue with that edit. Most armies (except maybe IG and Orks) are at best 50/50. Not really on topic, but you have to recognize the piss we (necron players) have had to deal with from GW.

**Kreedos**

Both parts count as the codex, you cannot play the acts of faith without the first part of the codex, because you would have no idea what they do, thus referring to the first codex in any situation would make both codexes count you can't play the game with one and not the other. Just because it wasn't repeated doesn't mean she doesn't have the IC independent character.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

Does anyone have any doubt this "Codex" was not proofread?

**Kreedos**

J.Black wrote:Is it possible for me to claim that until the discrepancies with St.Celestine and the Arco's are cleared up, the codex is effectively unuseable..... and i can go back to using C:WH?

After playing the new codex twice now, I believe it's actual equal to the power of the old codex. The trade off is better units for a not as good troop choice, but you've still got a 3+ and get a 6+ VS everything in the game. It feels good to not have to worry about squad size, and it feels very nice when opponents understand faith. Honestly I didn't have any issue with faith in any of my games, I never needed more than I had, and only failed one in this last game I played. You should give it a shot and really see the good in it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deepeyes wrote:I think she is a IC. It is mentioned twice in the first half of the codex that she is an IC. I assume it is harder to make two mistakes in the fist half than one single mistake in the second half.

Either way it doesn't bother me. I wouldn't have her attached to a squad. I wouldn't want my resurrecting saint fleeing off the table.

She makes the unit she is with fearless because she is fearless. Same with stubborn, Or at least I'm pretty sure. So she won't ever run.

**JB_Man**

It's pretty obvious that she's intended to be an IC, especially since the entry describing acts of faith modifiers even mentions her as an IC, as well. One section of the book has a typo, it happens. Make that two sections...or ten. Whatever.

**Andilus Greatsword**

Spiku wrote:Most recent rules are precedent. However, I would draw you all to the following line on page 94 of the first white dwarf, under Acts of faith:

"+1 if the unit is joined by at least one of the following independant characters: Canoness, Ecclesiarchal Confessor, Saint Celestine, Uriah Jacobus or Arch-Confessor Kyrinov."

Your opponent is entirely within his rights to enforce the second part of the codex, as by rules as written, most recent publication takes precendence. You should, however, make the very reasonable arguement that given the above line, and the IC status on her fluff page, that she is clearly suposed to be an independant character.

Yeah I just noticed this as well, and this obviously goes to show that the bit in part 2 is a typo. If I played Sisters, and if someone tried to tell me that she wasn't an IC, I would go play someone else. It's clear RAI, and if/when it gets FAQed it's obviously going to be in favour of the RAI.

**Tyr Grimtooth**

Where doyou people get release of rules a precedent with a 2 part 2 WD codex? That has to be the dumbest damn thing I have ever heard.

It is a two part release of a codex that is meant to be combined. If you don't understand that concept, rip the pages out of the first WD and the pages from the second WD, and staple them together. It was released as two but is meant to be one and can only be played as one.

Release date of rules? Seriously any damn thing to clutch at sometimes in here.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Where doyou people get release of rules a precedent with a 2 part 2 WD codex? That has to be the dumbest damn thing I have ever heard.

It is a two part release of a codex that is meant to be combined. If you don't understand that concept, rip the pages out of the first WD and the pages from the second WD, and staple them together. It was released as two but is meant to be one and can only be played as one.

Release date of rules? Seriously any damn thing to clutch at sometimes in here.

That's how it works, take up GW if you don't like it. Just wait for a FAQ and be patient the lil lady will prolly get fixed up all neat and nice here shortly

**SabrX**

Part 2 and Part 1 are treated as the same. Part 2 is not an Errata of Part 1. As long as it states somewhere that she's an IC, it's fair game.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

SabrX wrote:Part 2 and Part 1 are treated as the same. Part 2 is not an Errata of Part 1. As long as it states somewhere that she's an IC, it's fair game.

She's also listed as a Non-Independant Character ... so fair game???

RaW she's both, RaI looks to be IC, until FAQ'd I'm not touching it personally. Especially in tournies

**nosferatu1001**

RAW she is an IC, as she is listed as such twice.

Fearless does NOTHING for her when she is with a unit - check the USR section

Stating that this proves the codex was not proof read is fun, given the codex : SM Vindicator getting Barrage, a rule it has never had, but only in the summary...

**yakface**

Part 1 says she is an IC.

Part 2 does not say she isn't an IC, it just doesn't say whether or not she is.

Therefore, she is an IC. Part 2 would have had to specifically say she isn't an IC for it to clearly override the IC status granted by Part 1.

With that said, it is an ambiguous situation (it could easily be a typo in either direction), so there is no clear 'RAW' here.

**Spiku**

Part 2 says she is not an IC as that she is an IC is missing, surely. I mean it doesn't explicitly state that my Seraphim aren't Scouts and Infiltrate, but they aren't.

Part 2 came a month later, which is one month more time in which it could have been vetted. It is the most recent publication, simple as that. It is the most recent publication, and you are "clutching" just as much to use the earlier publication.

I doubt anyone here doubts that she is in fact an IC, she is clearly suposed to be, but RAW it is not listed in the most recent publication.

Were a statutory law to be amended in a principal leading document released in direction documents part 2 of which was one month later and had contradictions to the previous released directions, part 2 would take priority unless an amendment was written under the slip rule. It's a very simple concept.

**Backfire**

It's not a "later publication", it's part of the same publication published in two parts. Part 2 does not override part 1, unless specifically stated, which it does not.