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.

ShumaGorath wrote:You are aware of the fact that she has I7 and hit and run correct? She can't be tarpitted.

What Codex are you looking at? The WD Codex does not give her Hit and Run. You're thinking of Seraphim.

pretre wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You are aware of the fact that she has I7 and hit and run correct? She can't be tarpitted.

What Codex are you looking at? The WD Codex does not give her Hit and Run. You're thinking of Seraphim.

Which half are you looking in?

Both.

pretre wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:What Codex are you looking at? The WD Codex does not give her Hit and Run. You're thinking of Seraphim.

Which half are you looking in?

Both.

ShumaGorath wrote:Which half are you looking in?

I'm looking in both halves and she has it in neither half. Also you have to remember that she is Toughness 3. If she is hit by any strength 6 attack she bites it and then must roll to come back. She onl;y comes back 50% of the time. Her invulnerable save is only a 4+ so thats easy to fail as well.

ShumaGorath wrote:When I get home I'll look at it again. In all of our discussions in the local playground we've talked about the hit and run aspect. We've looked it up to show people more then once. That said I can't verify, so we could all be terribly wrong.

andrewm9 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Which half are you looking in?

I'm looking in both halves and she has it in neither half. Also you have to remember that she is Toughness 3. If she is hit by any strength 6 attack she bites it and then must roll to come back. She onl;y comes back 50% of the time. Her invulnerable save is only a 4+ so thats easy to fail as well.

I just downloaded it. Yeah, she doesn't have hit and run. I guess I was remembering the context of her dying and then escaping tarpit units that way. She had it in the previous book, but it looks like she lost it. That said, a 2+/4+ 3 wound model is not easy to kill. The one point toughness difference is not hugely influential, outside of the scatter laser or the off plasma shot there wasn't much that was going to insta kill her that wouldn't instakill anything up to 70 points above her cost anyway and getting to come back to life every turn is in most ways better then EW. She's not the most damaging character in the game but you pay often times half what you would for one of those characters and she's damn close.

Unstoppabe wrecking ball?

Zogwort, unless she's immune to psyker powers (i don't have the wd codex) - now she's a squishy squig. (my fave option, but then i play orks )

S 6 weapons? She's dead, Jim. She may come back, but a single solid hit will put her down again if she fails the save.

As codexmarines try hitting her with a devestator squad from halfway across the board, and watch her plummet. Hell, enough bolter fire would put her down hard (read about a squad's worth).

If she's somehow getting into CC with you and you're failing to PF her down have a unit or two just waiting for her to hit and run out at the end of her turn, when she charged you, as she'll be standing somewhere, looking foolish, unless there's a ton of scenery on the board and/or the other player is rolling well. Hit and run CAN get you far from a combat, or leave you standing a few inches away, witht he unit you just left having you in their gunsights.

Zogwort would replace her with a Squig and she'd get back up next turn leaving the squig there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And S6 is pretty common. She dies a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The good news is that she absorbs a lot of fire from the rest of your army. I would never run her with a squad now because she is such a good distraction.

Zogwort, unless she's immune to psyker powers (i don't have the wd codex) - now she's a squishy squig. (my fave option, but then i play orks )

This update clarified that she comes back from that. You just gave them a kill point.

Nope.

When you squig someone you don't kill them, they become a squig and lose all previous abilities.

The unit is never removed from play or removed as a casualty. It is transformed into a living, and ticked off, squig, losing it's special rules and wargear along the way.

'if the ork player scores higher the target model is replaced with an angry squig under the control of your opponent. You must provide the squig model, It has the profile below (leaving that out for ease of typing) and no wargear or special rules, but is an independent character that counts as infantry' PG 61 Ork Codex.

Even if you kill the squig, it's not coming back as celestine, as the special rule went byebye. She's not Celestine, any more.


*edit for clarity/spelling*

The model was replaced by a squig. Hence Celestine was removed from play and replaced by a squig. She'll be back on a 4+ next turn.

Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention
special rule against attacks that remove models from
play? (White Dwarf, August 2011, Page 103)
A: Yes.

No, she wont , IMO, but you're welcome to disagree.

The model is transformed into a squig, and loses its special rule allowing it to reappear. The unit is not removed from play, it's replaced. It has it's statline and abilities altered.

We won't agree on this one without a firm faq ruling though, so i'll just leave it up to the TO or dice for it if it ever comes up. The Ork FAQ doesn't provide any hints either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*** addendum***

If she pops up from no-where, as herself, what happens to the squig that was her body before it transformed?

Squig farm! Capture celestine, and kill her again and again for pleasure and profit

I think Pretre is correct on this one, but I would just avoid Zogwort to avoid this in a game

Ascalam wrote:If she pops up from no-where, as herself, what happens to the squig that was her body before it transformed?

Squig farm! Capture celestine, and kill her again and again for pleasure and profit

Basically. I agree to disagree, but my argument goes off of the fact that it doesn't say 'Celestine with Squig Stats' but 'replace Celestine with a Squig'.

I see Zogwort so rarely, that I doubt it will matter.

I don't think she is "removed ", I think she is "replaced". Key difference there, as this:

Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention
special rule against attacks that remove models from
play? (White Dwarf, August 2011, Page 103)
A: Yes.

Says nothing about being replaced, only removed. So, she couldn't come back (as she is/was a squig).

Am I getting this right?

CpatTom wrote:Am I getting this right?

Ascalam is right; we won't agree.

The FAQ answer opened up a can of worms that cannot easily be resolved. If you actually see Zogwort on the table, discuss with your opponent or dice off for an answer.

*shrug*

I see SOB so rarely i doubt it will either

It would be nice to get some utility out of the old duffer, as many of the recent SC's aren't IC's, and they're usually the ones i'd like to squig (mephiston, for example..)

Frankly, even if she's immuneish to the curse it would still be a fun way to 'kill' her (assuming that your take is correct and she CAN come back), as her comeback isn't guaranteed

K. I won't ever have this issue, as I am a tau player, just curious really.

Btw, Gift of Chaos has much clearer language and says that the model is removed as a casualty and replaced by a Chaos Spawn. Similar but different.

I think Boon of Mutation is the same.

Zog's curse isn't, which could either mean that the difference is deliberate, or that they need to hire a proofreader...

Hi,
On a side note but on the same subject of the new FAQs, I was redownloading the Ogre Kingdoms FAQ on my main computer and and noticed they have updated it again to 2.0, the 1.0 was added this morning I believe. In it they added a note from Jervis Johnston with reguards to the ironfist rule question.

Buffytrek wrote:Hi,
On a side note but on the same subject of the new FAQs, I was redownloading the Ogre Kingdoms FAQ on my main computer and and noticed they have updated it again to 2.0, the 1.0 was added this morning I believe. In it they added a note from Jervis Johnston with reguards to the ironfist rule question.

Spoiler:

Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011

"certainly" ? No Jervis... print is certain....intentions are not.

I know even more strange considering I remember him a few months back in a White Dwarf article discussing how to separate game rules from fluffy/ in character rules and mechanics. Then at the end he challenged us to think about this if we design games or rules. Someone should have proof read the codex a little better before they sent it out, or change the rule to what the fluffy way they had intended.

Really Jervis? Make up your mind! Just tell us what it was meant to be and make the change! Don't change it to one thing and then tell us how you want it to be something else!

Uggh. Clarity in rules does not have to be difficult, just requires time, proofreading and playtesting.

Ascalam wrote:I think Boon of Mutation is the same.

Zog's curse isn't, which could either mean that the difference is deliberate, or that they need to hire a proofreader...

Boon of Mutation clarifies model is both replaced and removed as casualty, which triggers Miraculous Intervention. Zog's curse doesn't specify remove from play or as casualty. Furthermore, codex Daemons does not set a precedence for other codices.

I'd have to vote in favor of Zog's curse supersede Saint Celestine's Miraculous Intervention.

Jervis Johnson wrote:That said, I’d personally recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.

So, exactly how does a "personal recommendation" work in a tournament environment?

It gets ignored in favour of magically platemailed ogres, of course

GW.. gotta love 'em...

CpatTom wrote:I don't think she is "removed ", I think she is "replaced". Key difference there, as this:

Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention
special rule against attacks that remove models from
play? (White Dwarf, August 2011, Page 103)
A: Yes.

Says nothing about being replaced, only removed. So, she couldn't come back (as she is/was a squig).

Am I getting this right?

I am quoting CpatTom because at the end of the day, I think his summation is what the whole debate is about regarding this rule; semantics. It also touches upon what Jervis himself said, about the spirit versus the letter of the rules. In a case of rule lawyer debate on this, I guess it would be "Did the model leave the table? Was the model of StC taken off of the table and out of play? Yes? Then it was 'removed.' The argument that it was 'replaced' only means that after the model was 'removed' another was put down where it was; so it was still 'removed' as part of being 'replaced.' Now if you can find a way to magically transform the model into a Squig without it leaving the table, why then I am all too happy to agree that she's gone because the model wasn't 'removed' as part of being 'replaced.'"
The crux here being that the rule on StC doesn't discuss the "unit" it discusses the model. IE the stance that the curse does not remove the unit from play can be argued as irrelevant since StC's rule is about the game status of the model, not the unit it represents. A fine hair to split, I grant you; but seeing as how the whole debate is over the semantic difference between "replaced" vs "removed" (in a game setting where the model must be removed in order to be replaced) its no more retentive a stance than any other.

I applaud the idea of the curse, but do have to wonder if it isn't rule lawyering to use the letter against the spirit. In the end, I'd ask GW about it, as I think it would be an interesting mechanic if it did work that way (to say nothing of saving many players potential headache).
Baring a definitive ruling by them, in any game where I faced it, I'd suggest a compromise of both (as in the Squig farm remark). "Yes, she can come back. Yes, each time she's changed, add another Squig to the table."

Jerrous Illandry wrote:I think his summation is what the whole debate is about regarding this rule; semantics.

I lol'd.