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.

As I was going item by item comparison with my C:WH and both halves of the SoB WD codex, it was brought to my attention that St. Celestine is no longer an IC. I thought that this was preposterous as per her entry in the first half, she had it listed in her special rules. But looking at her entry in the second half, her IC-ness is most definitely lacking while it is still clearly present in every other HQ option (Battle Conclaves and Canoness Command Squads notwithstanding).

So is St. Celestine an IC as she was before or just another stand alone character a la Mephiston? Which half of the WD Codex is correct? Or is this just another case of GW not caring about the quality of their own work?

Does she have IC USR in the point cost section? If not, she is not an IC.

-cgmckenzie

Nope, she appears to be a stand alone

cgmckenzie wrote:Does she have IC USR in the point cost section? If not, she is not an IC.

-cgmckenzie

No, but she does have it listed under her Special Rules section of her entry in the "Bestiary" first half, hence my question. Why would/should the section that has the point costs have more weight for determining rules than her previous entry that does have it clearly listed? Keep it mind this is from the same people that brought us the "Retributor with Heavy bolter" Multi-melta Retributor.

Okay, everyone that has BOTH halves of the codex, look at her entry in the first half, then look at her entry in the second. See the inconsistency? Now, it seems people are saying she isn't an IC, fine, but why? Why does the points cost entry seem to condemn her to not being an IC when her Bestiary entry clearly has her having the IC Special Rule?

If it's in one of the sections then there's a typo somewhere.

Difficult to say which is correct though.

Go with the most recent release till they FAQ it which does not have the IC rule.....Besides she kinda has a Sanguinenor feel to her anyways.

I see a lot of "No she isn't" but not a lot of reasons why she isn't.

She isn't because the 2nd half of the SoB codex says does not include that rule in the list of USRs.

Yet the first half does include it...

Yay! Circles are fun! Seriously though, I think I'll stand by my statement of "WTF GW?!?" when it comes to this codex. Also brought up in the other thread was the incongruity between the Arco-Flagellant entries, not even compared to the C:GK, but within the same SoB WD codex. Let's all take a moment to thank GW for producing this wonderful replacement for our C:WH that needs FAQing just as badly and as quickly as C:GK did.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Yet the first half does include it...

Like GW's never made a typo before ...

However the most recent print she does not have the IC rule. Think that you're stuck with that unless the FAQ/Errata it

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Yet the first half does include it...

Like GW's never made a typo before ...

However the most recent print she does not have the IC rule. Think that you're stuck with that unless the FAQ/Errata it

So are you also of the opinion that SoB Acro-flagellants use the second half's stat line as opposed to the first's? Aside from having come out a month after the first half, why are people giving weight to one over the other? It is not like GW didn't have both halves ready for say the first printing and didn't want to put them both in one issue to make people buy two issues of WD instead of one...

So would people be signing a different tune if say the Bestiary came out "after" the Army Lists + Wargear even though they were almost certainly done at the same time with the actual dividing up between two WD issues being rather arbitrary?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Like GW's never made a typo before ...

Ah, but how do we know which is the typo and which is correct? Perhaps every SoB player is supposed to discuss the issue with their opponent and roll off to see if she is an IC or not every single game?

newer stats/rules in more recent publications have always over-ridden older stats and rules, even if the difference is 1 month the fact remains that any rule/stat changes in the 2nd half of the WD codex will override anything from the 1st half until an FAQ is given.

thats life, and thats how as far as I can remember it has always been

Stella Cadente wrote:newer stats/rules in more recent publications have always over-ridden older stats and rules, even if the difference is 1 month the fact remains that any rule/stat changes in the 2nd half of the WD codex will override anything from the 1st half until an FAQ is given.

thats life, and thats how as far as I can remember it has always been

Even though those "newer stats/rules" aren't really newer being that they were written at the same time and the release of said rules by one month's time is an arbitrary division?

they are newer in the sense that they were released to us later, if both parts were released at the same time then it would be an issue, but they are not, just because they were written and maybe even printed at the same time on the same day makes no difference to us the gamers.

the second half was released after the first
by that simple fact the second half is newer
therefore rules and stats printed in the second half overrule all similar rules and stats from the first.

such is life when doing anything by GW, they don't care or want to help, they just want you to shut up, buy there products, and go home

I have to agree I own both copies of WD and you need to go by the second half for the rules IMO. This will be clearer with a FAQ, they need to FAQ some other items anyway. The reason why I think she is not:

-More recent version of the rules in the second WD
-When in doubt, go with the less advantageous interpretation

If it turns out she is, consider it a bonus.

calypso2ts wrote:I have to agree I own both copies of WD and you need to go by the second half for the rules IMO.

Except the second half actually describes her in specific terms as "Jump Infantry (character)". Personally, I'd say to the OP use her as an IC if you want to - anyone who'd refuse to let you do so is just attempting to establish convention where none exists. If you can produce written evidence of a unit's stats that have not been formally errata'd on Games Workshop's website, they haven't a leg to stand on. As much as anything else, it is only the first half of the Codex that explicitly stipulates it is a replacement of Codex: Witch Hunters - and if they won't accept the first half of the Codex as legitimate, you can feel free to field a Witch Hunters army.

Mythal wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:I have to agree I own both copies of WD and you need to go by the second half for the rules IMO.

Except the second half actually describes her in specific terms as "Jump Infantry (character)". Personally, I'd say to the OP use her as an IC if you want to - anyone who'd refuse to let you do so is just attempting to establish convention where none exists.

you mean following the norm that has existed for not only since GW's creation, but practically EVERY wargaming system out there, that new rules = current rules
hell if GW released an FAQ the same day a codex was released could we choose to ignore the codex or faq depending on our mood each day just because of there release times being so close?

no fraid not, part 2 = current, simple as unfortunatly, thats how it has always been, but hell if someone wants to use celestine as an IC then fine, I'll just use doctrines from my previous guard codex and vanquisher ordnance blasts from the one before than with my cheaper options from the current codex, after all they are only seperated by a few years each, but why should that matter, as years are only made on individual months

Stella Cadente wrote:no fraid not, part 2 = current

Ah, but part 2 of what? If you treat them as two, seperate publications, they do not function. In fact, if someone refuses to acknowledge part 1, the entire Codex is invalidated (at least, as a replacement of Codex: Witch Hunters - the second half does not mention replacing Codex: Witch Hunters at all). And if I found someone who was really that desperate to claw an advantage over a White Dwarf Codex, I'd simply chuckle, walk away and let them play someone else. There's always a more reasonable person around the corner who'd say "So, the model is described in part one as an independent character, and has the unit type '(character)' in part 2, which from the internal conventions of the Codex's format is exclusive to units that are independent characters, so sure, you can blob it in a seraphim squad - it'll die to a pie-plate just the same".

To put it in context, I would not hold a later page of a book Codex to invalidate an earlier page of the same book. Viewing Codex: Sisters of Battle as two, disparate publications is impossible, because refusing to acknowledge the first half denies the second half purpose.

actually thinking about it there are bigger problems than whether some dumb bint is an IC or not, like the fact how 3 models for your basic units cost over £10, so the codex is pretty useless in the respects that nobody is gonna be moronic enough to buy a SOB army, so its more a waste of money to GW, HA

True, however the newer half has the newer rules.

Right under Special Rules, Acts, Fearless, MI, SoF

You're not sure which is right, no biggie there ( noone is) however when you purchase the character with the gear and all that jazz it's not a SR for her.

Stella Cadente wrote:actually thinking about it there are bigger problems than whether some dumb bint is an IC or not, like the fact how 3 models for your basic units cost over £10, so the codex is pretty useless in the respects that nobody is gonna be moronic enough to buy a SOB army, so its more a waste of money to GW, HA

Agreed, entirely. It's only those of us who've been around since 2nd Edition who have forces big enough to actually field. I suspect we're fast approaching a point where appreciation in the value of metal will actually exceed the production cost of GW's old stock of Sisters miniatures - at which point they'll just melt them down for the raw materials

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Ah, but how do we know which is the typo and which is correct? Perhaps every SoB player is supposed to discuss the issue with their opponent and roll off to see if she is an IC or not every single game?

What alternative do you propose?

Either you discuss it or you take the least advantageous option.

Scott-S6 wrote:What alternative do you propose?

Either you discuss it or you take the least advantageous option.

Personally, I'd prefer it if GW would pull their head out of their arse and actually have some quality control to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. Short of that, I'd have no problem discussing the issue with my opponent as I stated, sarcasm or not.

On a somewhat related tangent, would anyone with a non-English copy of the SoB WD care to add to the conversation on the status of St. Celestine's IC-ness?

Surely the later printing is the "more correct" until told otherwise. Anything else is just trying to argue syntax and grammer. Appart from enything else there is more time to correct the second part.

Hasn't always been the written out rules (pt1) outweigh the shorthand entries(pt2)?

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.

Good catch Spiku! This also makes sense in the context that St. Celestine has no AoF herself, and if she isn't an IC, then there would be no reason for her to have the AoF Special rule as she could never benefit from it. This wouldn't be the first time coming from GW, but it is more evidence in support of her IC status.

Edit: Furthermore, on page 84 of the second half,

SoB WD wrote:Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here. These special rules are explained in further detail in either Part 1 of the Codex or the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

This reinforces the idea that Part 2 is not the end all, be all of Special Rules, specifically referring back to Part 1.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Hasn't always been the written out rules (pt1) outweigh the shorthand entries(pt2)?

Generally it's the unit entry that's correct but there's no guidelines as to which you should use in the event of a conflict.

Spiku wrote:Most recent rules are precedent.

The C:SM vindicators should be barrage then? Since that appears later in the codex?

The guideline has always been: bestiary, unit entry, summary in terms of "which is correct"

For example - the summary for Codex : SM has the Vindicator gun as Barrage. This i sclearly a typo.

Celestine is an IC, as this is the most consistent option. She is noted as being an IC twice, and the summary rules omit this but do not directly contradict this.

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

Where is this stated?