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.

The Cannoness model supplied in the new box set is equiped with a rod of office and plasma pistol, this is illegal acording to the rules in the Codex (supplied in the same box)!

The Cannoness options are as follows:



A Cannoness is a single model equipped with a bolt pistol, chainsword, frag grenades, krak grenades.

WARGEAR OPTIONS

- This model can be equipped with 1 Bolton and 1 power sword instead of 1 bolt pistol and 1 chainsword. If this
model is equiped with 1 boltgun and 1 power sword it additionally has a rod of office.

- This model can be equipped with one of the following instead of 1 bolt pistol: 1 condemnor boltgun, 1 weapon
from the pistols list.

- This model can be equipped with one of the following instead of 1 chainsword: 1 power sword, 1 blessed blade.

- If this model is equiped with 1 chainsword it can have a Brasier of Holy Fire or a Null Rod.



In order to have a rod of office, the Cannoness must have a boltgun, and she has no options to replace it with anything.

These options are needlessly confusing. Why not just let her choose one gun, one sword, and one rod? What does this bizarre web of dependencies achieve?

Is there some powerful combination that these dependencies are trying to rule out?

I would personally like to be able to take a Null Rod and a power sword, but this combination is probably not leagal either, although to be honest it is not clear!

Am I in the right place? I've just made an account so I can post this.

IT'S A MIRACLE! EMPEROR BE PRAISED!

Seriously though, the weapon options do seem pretty convoluted. I think they are trying to prevent people from taking a chain sword in addition to another mêlée weapon (giving her another attack for free), whilst also preventing people from having both pistol and non-pistol weapons (allowing her to shoot when in close combat whilst also giving her a decent ranged attack when not).

They likely changed the rules slightly after the model was finalised. WYSIWYG isn't actually a rule, but if you are worried about it then you could just not attach her plasma (inferno?) pistol and claim that she hid her bolter up her vestments.

This also means no canonesses with Combi-Weapons, if I am reading it correctly, relegating them purely to the domain of Sister Superiors.

That's true about Combi-Weapons.

The three rods she can have are all excellent though.

Zomby138 wrote:
That's true about Combi-Weapons.

The three rods she can have are all excellent though.

I am going to assume this is a joke (because it's hilarious).

Also, I'm still chuckling to myself that the limited-edition model included in the box is illegal according to the limited-edition rules included in the same box.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This also means no canonesses with Combi-Weapons, if I am reading it correctly, relegating them purely to the domain of Sister Superiors.

Condemner Boltgun is a combi weapon. It's the Bolter/Stake crossbow.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This also means no canonesses with Combi-Weapons, if I am reading it correctly, relegating them purely to the domain of Sister Superiors.

Condemner Boltgun is a combi weapon. It's the Bolter/Stake crossbow.

You can tell how the profile gives you two options, just like the other combi-weapons, and even lets you fire both but at a -1 penal-

oh wait, it's just Rapid Fire 1, Str 4, AP -1, d1 or d3 against psykers.

If it's a combi-weapon, it is so in lore only - and the rules aren't even trying to replicate the setting anymore.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This also means no canonesses with Combi-Weapons, if I am reading it correctly, relegating them purely to the domain of Sister Superiors.

Condemner Boltgun is a combi weapon. It's the Bolter/Stake crossbow.

You can tell how the profile gives you two options, just like the other combi-weapons, and even lets you fire both but at a -1 penal-

oh wait, it's just Rapid Fire 1, Str 4, AP -1, d1 or d3 against psykers.

If it's a combi-weapon, it is so in lore only - and the rules aren't even trying to replicate the setting anymore.

No need to be a snarky gakker. Historlcally it has always been a combi weapon.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This also means no canonesses with Combi-Weapons, if I am reading it correctly, relegating them purely to the domain of Sister Superiors.

Condemner Boltgun is a combi weapon. It's the Bolter/Stake crossbow.

You can tell how the profile gives you two options, just like the other combi-weapons, and even lets you fire both but at a -1 penal-

oh wait, it's just Rapid Fire 1, Str 4, AP -1, d1 or d3 against psykers.

If it's a combi-weapon, it is so in lore only - and the rules aren't even trying to replicate the setting anymore.

No need to be a snarky gakker. Historlcally it has always been a combi weapon.

And historically, canonesses have been able to take all sorts of combi-weapons.

Clearly, what's historical is irrelevant here in YMDC. So I gotta saw the combi-weapon off of this metal model (though that one isn't mine) without making it look silly. For someone like me, it's probably easier simply to add it to the growing list of casualties the new book has deleted from my army (or run her as a way overdressed Superior).

A list of casualties that includes the canoness model literally in the same box as the rules...

Obsolete before she even made it out of the box!

In all seriousness I expect this to be fixed in an errata / FAQ.

Zomby138 wrote:
Obsolete before she even made it out of the box!

In all seriousness I expect this to be fixed in an errata / FAQ.

Will the errata be limited edition too?

Or will it be the first time a general FAQ has come out before the general Codex? That'd be a new record for GW FAQing things.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zomby138 wrote:
Obsolete before she even made it out of the box!

In all seriousness I expect this to be fixed in an errata / FAQ.

Will the errata be limited edition too?

Or will it be the first time a general FAQ has come out before the general Codex? That'd be a new record for GW FAQing things.

FAQ for the Shadowspear box.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

oh wait, it's just Rapid Fire 1, Str 4, AP -1, d1 or d3 against psykers.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Condemner is not AP -1 in this book

Ghaz wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zomby138 wrote:
Obsolete before she even made it out of the box!

In all seriousness I expect this to be fixed in an errata / FAQ.

Will the errata be limited edition too?

Or will it be the first time a general FAQ has come out before the general Codex? That'd be a new record for GW FAQing things.

FAQ for the Shadowspear box.

Is that a codex FAQ before the codex is released?

Zomby138 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

oh wait, it's just Rapid Fire 1, Str 4, AP -1, d1 or d3 against psykers.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Condemner is not AP -1 in this book

Sure - either way, the point stands.

 Bilge Rat wrote:
IT'S A MIRACLE! EMPEROR BE PRAISED!

Seriously though, the weapon options do seem pretty convoluted. I think they are trying to prevent people from taking a chain sword in addition to another mêlée weapon (giving her another attack for free), whilst also preventing people from having both pistol and non-pistol weapons (allowing her to shoot when in close combat whilst also giving her a decent ranged attack when not).

Not for free though since it costs pistol and generally bolt pistol or chainsword attack isn't going to be big difference either way. Unless WS is better than BS it's going to be either same S AP D or maybe pistol even has better. Has the canoness S4 or is the chainsword attack made with S3?

More likelly due to how the multipart canoness is made. Can you have chainsword and other cc weapon without converting? If not no rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zomby138 wrote:
Obsolete before she even made it out of the box!

In all seriousness I expect this to be fixed in an errata / FAQ.

Will the errata be limited edition too?

Or will it be the first time a general FAQ has come out before the general Codex? That'd be a new record for GW FAQing things.

FAQ for the Shadowspear box.

Is that a codex FAQ before the codex is released?

Space Wolves had errata before the book was released.

Look like another victim of No Model, No Rules. Gotta say this is a new achievement for GW however, Yes Model, No Rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Space Wolves had errata before the book was released.

Look like another victim of No Model, No Rules. Gotta say this is a new achievement for GW however, Yes Model, No Rules.

Did they include rules with the Red Gobbo figure they put out earlier this month? If not, that beat out the Cannoness for Yes Model, No Rules.(And, technically wasn't there a Grombrindal figure once in a space suit suitable for 40K without giving him 40K rules? That might be one of the first under the "no model no rules" regime to not get rules even with a figure)

So they’ve made rules that just fit the possible options of the model they’re releasing, but forgot the limited model. They’ll just patch with an FAQ. Nothing really to see here?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Gotta say this is a new achievement for GW however, Yes Model, No Rules.

Power armoured Inquisitors have been doing that for a while now.

I wouldn't include red gobbo. He is just a grot. Under strength unit / aux detachment him as a single grot if your deaparate to run him solo.

nareik wrote:
I wouldn't include red gobbo. He is just a grot. Under strength unit / aux detachment him as a single grot if your deaparate to run him solo.

I'd rather have rules for him as an HQ character for running an all grot army.

Red Gobbo now has rules

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/d4758fa7.pdf

 Bilge Rat wrote:
Red Gobbo now has rules

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/d4758fa7.pdf

*sighs and pinches bridge of nose*

Why did they make it an Elite slot?
It would have made a perfect Grot HQ, and lots of folks would have bought it for that alone!

 Blndmage wrote:

 Bilge Rat wrote:
Red Gobbo now has rules

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/d4758fa7.pdf

*sighs and pinches bridge of nose*

Why did they make it an Elite slot?
It would have made a perfect Grot HQ, and lots of folks would have bought it for that alone!

Probably so that it doesn't cramp their sales in a year or two they can put out a separate Codex: Rebel Grots and put out all sorts of new grot-related things (along with a Gorkamorka release).

 doctortom wrote:
Probably so that it doesn't cramp their sales in a year or two they can put out a separate Codex: Rebel Grots and put out all sorts of new grot-related things (along with a Gorkamorka release).

In the midnight hour they cried waaagh, waaagh, waaagh
With the rebel grots they cried waaagh, waaagh, waaagh

Zomby138 wrote:
The Cannoness model supplied in the new box set is equiped with a rod of office and plasma pistol, this is illegal acording to the rules in the Codex (supplied in the same box)!

It is not actually illegal to have a model like that. RAW does not care about what items the proper model is holding.

The Cannoness can be modeled with a doom siren and shuriken pistol, and as long as you are using the Datasheet for a Cannoness, you are within the rules.

The rules do not car about the weapons are physically on the model, just what is on the datasheet.

The Canoness is a limited edition model, so doesn't have her gear options in the Codex.

I can't believe the last two people tried to defend this.

Are you guys saying that if they'd shipped the canoness holding a Lascannon then you wouldn't have seen any problem?

Zomby138 wrote:
I can't believe the last two people tried to defend this.

Are you guys saying that if they'd shipped the canoness holding a Lascannon then you wouldn't have seen any problem?

To be fair, if the cannoness has no weapons options that she can take then it's irrelevant from a rules standpoint what weapons are actually modelled on her. They could model the cannoness hoisting a battlecannon over her head; if the rules say that it's a laspistol then she has a laspistol despite what you see her carrying around. That's a different point from whether it's bloody stupid of GW to not give her in the rules the weapons she's been modeled with, which is the point with which most people probably have a problem. Just because people are stating the RAW situation here doesn't mean they don't think it's stupid.

Zomby138 wrote:
I can't believe the last two people tried to defend this.

Are you guys saying that if they'd shipped the canoness holding a Lascannon then you wouldn't have seen any problem?

By the rules, she could be holding a shock attack gun, and as long as she is a Citadel model of a Cannoness, and you are using the Cannoness datasheet, the RAW is covered.