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.

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.

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."

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 The old codex is no longer valid.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.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Unless OP decides to go to a tournament. Then it's not fine.

The tournament organizer will make it known ahead of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BBAP wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
It's a tabletop game. So long as all parties involved in the game agree, it's fine.

+1

I can either use Celestine, or I can reroll all my 1s to save once per game. I'd rather be facing Celestine if I'm honest.

And I'd rather be able to use my converted Celestine model.

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?

blaktoof wrote:
Celestine is probably sitting next to Vector somewhere wondering wtf happened.

Celestine actually died many thousands of years before M41.

nekooni wrote:
but if she's removed now I don't really see them bringing her back at any point

Correct. You understand the reality.

 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.

Malice it is then.

 BBAP wrote:

 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.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 BBAP wrote:

 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

Callousness is an adjective, not a verb.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
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.

I think you're wrong about that.

But you understand what I meant, yes?

Martel732 wrote:
Callousness is indeed a noun. For the most part if it ends with "ness", it's a noun.

A callous is the kind of thing that guitar players develop on their fingers.

Callous is a noun.

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.

Martel732 wrote:
They should have used callousness, since malice and callousness are both nouns. As is stupidity.

...I did.

Then someone called callousness an action.

Should I have instead said that callousness is a noun, not a verb?

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, callousness is a noun, which is why it works with stupidity and malice.

Okay, problem solved then.

 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".

This is an Exorcist.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Sisters-of-Battle-Exorcist

It fires rockets out of the pipe organ. The pipes are thus the barrels of its weapon.

Consult your BRB and determine the arcs of fire for the Exorcist.

nekooni wrote:

 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 GW FAQ'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.

 andysonic1 wrote:
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.

You may want to read the thread. Quite a few people insist that you should never use anything but the latest edition of your rules.

 andysonic1 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
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.

You may want to read the thread. Quite a few people insist that you should never use anything but the latest edition of your rules.

Quite a few people you play with or quite a few people on Dakka?

Given that I told you to read the thread, what do you believe the answer to your question to be?

 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.

 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.

Davor wrote:

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.

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.

Heh. No. No they won'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.

Didn't happen.

 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.

 Jancoran wrote:
CrownAxe is right. That is all.

I'll grudgingly admit we did finally get a new model. That's really the only new development - we've gotten numerous Codex updates since 2003.

 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.

You guys made me this way.