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.

So last night, my friend pointed out despite being imperial, if you took Celestine as an ally to ANY army, then they get to use relics. Chaos, orks, Eldar, etc, as long as she is part of army. Is this true?

I hate admitting it, but I think your interpretation is correct if we Read As Written.

For the reference,

Fall of Cadia, p.118
"Characters in armies that include Celestine or Belisarius Cawl, or taken as part of the Formations and Detachments presented in this book, that can normally bear one of their army's relics can instead be equipped with one such Arcana Mechanicum or Ecclesiarchy Relic, as described and at the points cost indicated."

So I believe it is possible to give Farseers Eternal Warrior, or deep striking near Tau Commander nigh impossible.
I would abhor seeing such messy combination in casual games though.

Thats only part of the mess.

Imperial Knights are, when used e.g. in a Baronial Court, Characters with access to relics.

So you could have a Knight equipped with a Memento Morispex.

 Thairne wrote:
Thats only part of the mess.

Imperial Knights are, when used e.g. in a Baronial Court, Characters with access to relics.

So you could have a Knight equipped with a Memento Morispex.

That was my first thought when I read this as well.

Replacing its giant D chain axe with the a power sword that gets even better when it passes a leadership save? Instant take!
Eternal warrior for my knight Crusader? Yes please!
Sweet Sweet cognis battle cannons!
How about 30 points for a 6+ invulnerable save for him and his unit. Think of the value!

I don't know how I'll choose. I'll just have to buy enough knights to run them all. This is the game GW always wanted it to be!

Omnissiahs Grace on a CCB Overlord.... 3+ Invuln. Yum.

That's horrible and hilarious.

As GW likes to say... "There's need for some common sense here".

I don't think this is what htey had in mind. Sharing between Imperials, ok; now, Chaos and Xenos? C'mon, dudes...

Someone please send an e-mail for them to quickly FAQ it for clearer information.

... But I'm already plotting my chaos celestine conversion... :p

(Not really, but a cross with a banshee could look sweet)

 Vector Strike wrote:
As GW likes to say... "There's need for some common sense here".

I don't think this is what htey had in mind. Sharing between Imperials, ok; now, Chaos and Xenos? C'mon, dudes...

Someone please send an e-mail for them to quickly FAQ it for clearer information.

And this would be why they need to learn how to write rules.

What's that? I should replace one of the Heavy Stubbers on my Knight Paladin with the Quantum Annihilator? Or Omnissiah's Grace for 3++ Shields and 6++ on all sides?

Actually, Desvalle's Holy Circle on a Knight is amazing. It shuts down suicide Melta and gives a 4++ to all sides (making the ion shield superfluous).

 coblen wrote:

 Thairne wrote:
Thats only part of the mess.

Imperial Knights are, when used e.g. in a Baronial Court, Characters with access to relics.

So you could have a Knight equipped with a Memento Morispex.

That was my first thought when I read this as well.

Replacing its giant D chain axe with the a power sword that gets even better when it passes a leadership save? Instant take!
Eternal warrior for my knight Crusader? Yes please!
Sweet Sweet cognis battle cannons!
How about 30 points for a 6+ invulnerable save for him and his unit. Think of the value!

I don't know how I'll choose. I'll just have to buy enough knights to run them all. This is the game GW always wanted it to be!

you can't pass a leadership test without leadership and what use is being immun to id when you can't be id'ed?

terry wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 Thairne wrote:
Thats only part of the mess.

Imperial Knights are, when used e.g. in a Baronial Court, Characters with access to relics.

So you could have a Knight equipped with a Memento Morispex.

That was my first thought when I read this as well.

Replacing its giant D chain axe with the a power sword that gets even better when it passes a leadership save? Instant take!
Eternal warrior for my knight Crusader? Yes please!
Sweet Sweet cognis battle cannons!
How about 30 points for a 6+ invulnerable save for him and his unit. Think of the value!

I don't know how I'll choose. I'll just have to buy enough knights to run them all. This is the game GW always wanted it to be!

you can't pass a leadership test without leadership and what use is being immun to id when you can't be id'ed?

*When the sarcasm game is so advanced that people think you're actually stupid ...

Edit: ignore this, misread the rules.

GW: Print a campaign book with OP stuff, sell out of it, profit, print FAQ nerfing it.

Actually, that's been there business model for a while..

huh, I was sure they were paraphrasing that when I read it on faet....*goes back to reading what the relics do* XD

Can any character in an army-list pick a relic from the Fall of Cadia book if Cawl or Celestine is in that army-list, or do they have to be in the same detachment?

 Arlen wrote:
Can any character in an army-list pick a relic from the Fall of Cadia book if Cawl or Celestine is in that army-list, or do they have to be in the same detachment?

It specifically says army not detachment.

Never fear for Celestine is here, and she has an amazing idea. She is going to give that tervigon over there a pistol.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
I hate admitting it, but I think your interpretation is correct if we Read As Written.

For the reference,

Fall of Cadia, p.118
"Characters in armies that include Celestine or Belisarius Cawl, or taken as part of the Formations and Detachments presented in this book, that can normally bear one of their army's relics can instead be equipped with one such Arcana Mechanicum or Ecclesiarchy Relic, as described and at the points cost indicated."

So I believe it is possible to give Farseers Eternal Warrior, or deep striking near Tau Commander nigh impossible.
I would abhor seeing such messy combination in casual games though.

But Tau commanders can't take relics... they take Signature Systems.

edit: Someone already beat me to the no deep striking within 12" around him and a 4++. No more messing around with shield orientation. (But yeah, this is about the only one that's good, and it's broken at its cost.) (Although it would be funny to see a knight with one of its arms holding a human-sized pistol.

Mavnas wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 coblen wrote:

 Thairne wrote:
Thats only part of the mess.
Imperial Knights are, when used e.g. in a Baronial Court, Characters with access to relics.

So you could have a Knight equipped with a Memento Morispex.

That was my first thought when I read this as well.

Replacing its giant D chain axe with the a power sword that gets even better when it passes a leadership save? Instant take!
Eternal warrior for my knight Crusader? Yes please!
Sweet Sweet cognis battle cannons!
How about 30 points for a 6+ invulnerable save for him and his unit. Think of the value!

I don't know how I'll choose. I'll just have to buy enough knights to run them all. This is the game GW always wanted it to be!

-No deep striking within 12" around him and a 4++. No more messing around with shield orientation. (But yeah, this is about the only one that's good, and it's broken at its cost.)
-Optional Skyfire? (I think some of them have non-blast weapons, right?)

Oh ya for sure a couple of them are good. The autopurger also stands out as pretty great. I've seen knights get stuck in combat with blobs for ages even with stomp. Monster hunter, tank hunter and skyfire would all be useful on the Gatling cannon knight. Really though to get access to these things you need to bring at least three knights and cawl/celestine. This is like 1200 points minimum. It is cute though.

I'm waiting to see the amazing conversion though where somebody removes the chain sword and puts on a space marine sized power sword on their knight. Forge the narrative!

I have a question about the relics that I might as well ask in this thread.

The rules for the Ecclesiarchy Relics states this:

Characters that can normally take a relic (or equivalent) and have been selected as part of a Wrathful Crusade Formation (pg 127), a Castellans of the Imperium Detachment (pg 130) or are in an army that includes Celestine, can select one of the following Ecclesiarchy Relics. Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army.

Since it doesn't say explicitly say that it is instead of a normal relic, does this mean that I could take a relic from Fall of Cadia as well as one from my normal list?

 Aenarian wrote:
I have a question about the relics that I might as well ask in this thread.

The rules for the Ecclesiarchy Relics states this:

Characters that can normally take a relic (or equivalent) and have been selected as part of a Wrathful Crusade Formation (pg 127), a Castellans of the Imperium Detachment (pg 130) or are in an army that includes Celestine, can select one of the following Ecclesiarchy Relics. Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army.

Since it doesn't say explicitly say that it is instead of a normal relic, does this mean that I could take a relic from Fall of Cadia as well as one from my normal list?

Yes, so if you play space marines and celestine you could have 3 different relic lists to choose from.

 Aenarian wrote:
I have a question about the relics that I might as well ask in this thread.

The rules for the Ecclesiarchy Relics states this:

Characters that can normally take a relic (or equivalent) and have been selected as part of a Wrathful Crusade Formation (pg 127), a Castellans of the Imperium Detachment (pg 130) or are in an army that includes Celestine, can select one of the following Ecclesiarchy Relics. Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army.

Since it doesn't say explicitly say that it is instead of a normal relic, does this mean that I could take a relic from Fall of Cadia as well as one from my normal list?

According to the faq, each model can only have 1 relic, unless stated otherwise. But differenct characters can take relics from different lists

terry wrote:

According to the faq, each model can only have 1 relic, unless stated otherwise. But differenct characters can take relics from different lists

Thanks, must have missed it. Not that it makes any difference as my army doesn't have any.

Mavnas wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
I hate admitting it, but I think your interpretation is correct if we Read As Written.

For the reference,

Fall of Cadia, p.118
"Characters in armies that include Celestine or Belisarius Cawl, or taken as part of the Formations and Detachments presented in this book, that can normally bear one of their army's relics can instead be equipped with one such Arcana Mechanicum or Ecclesiarchy Relic, as described and at the points cost indicated."

So I believe it is possible to give Farseers Eternal Warrior, or deep striking near Tau Commander nigh impossible.
I would abhor seeing such messy combination in casual games though.

But Tau commanders can't take relics... they take Signature Systems.

edit: Someone already beat me to the no deep striking within 12" around him and a 4++. No more messing around with shield orientation. (But yeah, this is about the only one that's good, and it's broken at its cost.) (Although it would be funny to see a knight with one of its arms holding a human-sized pistol.

Yep beat me to it, we've ran the idea over at the ATT forums and the same conclusion being that Tau Sig sys' aren't relics, and a lot of armies would have this issue. RAW restrict armies like Tau from this 'loophole'

Anyone notice it's the same with Belsarius Cawl?

"Arcana Mechanicum - Characters that can normally take a relic and are part of a Conclave Acquistorius Formation, Grand Concavaction Detachment or are in an army that includes Belsarius Cawl can take these:"

Anyone notice that gun that does haywire to everything in 2d6 inches? Or the thing that gives the bearer and the unit skyfire / monster hunter / tank hunter? Or the one that makes opponents assaulting you need to take a toughness test or suffer a wound?

Anyone?

Edit: read a few posts up. Someone did.

 Overheal wrote:

Mavnas wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
I hate admitting it, but I think your interpretation is correct if we Read As Written.

For the reference,

Fall of Cadia, p.118
"Characters in armies that include Celestine or Belisarius Cawl, or taken as part of the Formations and Detachments presented in this book, that can normally bear one of their army's relics can instead be equipped with one such Arcana Mechanicum or Ecclesiarchy Relic, as described and at the points cost indicated."

So I believe it is possible to give Farseers Eternal Warrior, or deep striking near Tau Commander nigh impossible.
I would abhor seeing such messy combination in casual games though.

But Tau commanders can't take relics... they take Signature Systems.

edit: Someone already beat me to the no deep striking within 12" around him and a 4++. No more messing around with shield orientation. (But yeah, this is about the only one that's good, and it's broken at its cost.) (Although it would be funny to see a knight with one of its arms holding a human-sized pistol.

Yep beat me to it, we've ran the idea over at the ATT forums and the same conclusion being that Tau Sig sys' aren't relics, and a lot of armies would have this issue. RAW restrict armies like Tau from this 'loophole'

Does it? From what I hear, the EXACT wording used in the book is "relic (or equivalent)" rather than merely "relic". I believe that wording is also used in the FAQ in several places (Consistency? From GW!?!).

I don't have the book, however, so I don't know if THAT report was accurate. Perhaps someone with the book could enlighten us.

I'd argue Tau Signature Systems are not relics, but they are a relic equivalent (separate section, one of each per army, limited in availability almost exclusively to Characters, etc.). As such, a Tau character capable of taking a Signature System could take 1 Relic if the appropriate New Hawtness character is taken in their army.

Of course, a colloquial look around ATT suggests that most Tau players think Signature Systems are quirky in a few ways: you can take multiple Signature Systems on a single model (a view I held myself until I'd found that position less and less supported recently and relooked at wording - I'm ambivalent and leaning towards disallowance), and supposedly Farsight Enclaves' Tau can even mix and match Tau Empire and Farsight Enclave Signature Systems (still not sure on the basis for that - apparently that was the result of an update for the ebook version of the Farsight Enclaves supplement, though my non-digital copy of Mont'ka states the FE SS list is a replacement, not an addition...).

I really wish GW had addressed this in the FAQ, instead of relying on vague terms and equivalencies...

Of course you can take more than one sig system per model. Two items even say they can be used together.

So besides the one guy with a 3++ overlord, is anyone else going to actually abuse this? Personally, as a chaos player, I don't see much to actually take advantage of. Anyone else feel the same?

(In other words: I don't think most people will actually care to use this loop hole)

 mrhappyface wrote:
So besides the one guy with a 3++ overlord, is anyone else going to actually abuse this? Personally, as a chaos player, I don't see much to actually take advantage of. Anyone else feel the same?

(In other words: I don't think most people will actually care to use this loop hole)

Eternal Warrior on a DP, maybe?

Waaaghpower wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
So besides the one guy with a 3++ overlord, is anyone else going to actually abuse this? Personally, as a chaos player, I don't see much to actually take advantage of. Anyone else feel the same?

(In other words: I don't think most people will actually care to use this loop hole)

Eternal Warrior on a DP, maybe?

Eternal Warrior on a squishy Farseer.