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.

 Troike wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Jump infantry that don't actually have jump pack usually don't have jump pack in their wargear.

Right, becuase they cannot float around on their own either.

And DE Scourges have neither wings nore jump packs listed in the codex, but they're still jump infantry modelled with wings. So maybe, someone editing or writing her entry got lazy and just threw in, "Jump Pack," in her listing.

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Jump infantry that don't actually have jump pack usually don't have jump pack in their wargear.

Right, becuase they cannot float around on their own either.

And DE Scourges have neither wings nore jump packs listed in the codex, but they're still jump infantry modelled with wings. So maybe, someone editing or writing her entry got lazy and just threw in, "Jump Pack," in her listing.

That is odd. I suppose we can put it down to different rules writers. Cruddance wrote the rules for the latest SoB codex, Kelly wrote them for the Dark Eldar Codex. Had Cruddance written the DE codex, maybe Scourges would've gotten wings in their wargear?

 Troike wrote:

 Extreaminatus wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Jump infantry that don't actually have jump pack usually don't have jump pack in their wargear.

Right, becuase they cannot float around on their own either.

And DE Scourges have neither wings nore jump packs listed in the codex, but they're still jump infantry modelled with wings. So maybe, someone editing or writing her entry got lazy and just threw in, "Jump Pack," in her listing.

That is odd. I suppose we can put it down to different rules writers. Cruddance wrote the rules for the latest SoB codex, Kelly wrote them for the Dark Eldar Codex. Had Cruddance written the DE codex, maybe Scourges would've gotten wings in their wargear?

I think it might be a hold-over from when all jump infantry had to have a jump pack in their wargear list in order for them to be jump infantry that Cruddance put in out of habit.

Celestine isn't the only living saint. There's also that one from Dawn of War: Soulstorm, and Saint Sabbat from the Guants Ghosts novels. Both of which IIRC were portrayed as supernatural.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Celestine isn't the only living saint. There's also that one from Dawn of War: Soulstorm, and Saint Sabbat from the Guants Ghosts novels. Both of which IIRC were portrayed as supernatural.

Eh. As much as I love Anias ("Follow my light, Sisters. It is the beacon of victory!", DoW isn't really considered to be particularly canonical. Hell, IIRC even Relic said that it wasn't.

But yes, Saint Sabbat could fit the bill. Though I have not read the Gaunt books so this isn't exactly a fully-infromed judgement.

Troike wrote:Eh. As much as I love Anias ("Follow my light, Sisters. It is the beacon of victory!", DoW isn't really considered to be particularly canonical. Hell, IIRC even Relic said that it wasn't.

Technically, nothing in this franchise is "canonical". There is no difference between Dawn of War or a Black Library novel. Or even a Codex, for that matter. This is also why we keep seeing so many discrepancies and conflicts.

If we go by Codex fluff, the first Living Saint was Dominica - who lived quite some time (M36) after Sabbat (M35). If one were to incorporate this novel into their personal perception of the setting at all, they'd either have to dismiss this aspect of Codex fluff, or invoke the difference between "Saint" and "Living Saint".

Was Dominica specifically referred to as the first living saint? .

TiamatRoar wrote:Was Dominica specifically referred to as the first living saint? .

"Dominica led her warriors in countless crusades against the enemies of the Imperium, and she was the first heroine to be proclaimed a Living Saint by the Ecclesiarchy."
- WD #383

Hunh, that's wierd. That would imply that the ecclesiarchy never proclaimed any other female as a living saint for 5,000 years. I find that rather egregiously unrealistic considering how often real world religions proclaim saints and how large the Imperium is.. Unless there's some sort of special criteria for "Living Saint" or that "Living Saint" was just a new title the Ecclesiarch came up with at that time. Probably the latter, I suppose.

Though I'm not sure how relevant this is to the supernatural aspect or existance of... er, "ressurected persons by apparently non-chaotic non-warp means wielding oddly supernatural powers". Since Dominica was not particularly supernatural to my knowledge, this feels more like a tangent.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Hunh, that's wierd. That would imply that the ecclesiarchy never proclaimed any other female as a living saint for 5,000 years. I find that rather egregiously unrealistic considering how often real world religions proclaim saints and how large the Imperium is.. Unless there's some sort of special criteria for "Living Saint" or that "Living Saint" was just a new title the Ecclesiarch came up with at that time. Probably the latter, I suppose.

It is likely that the concept just didn't exist before that.

 Crimson wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Hunh, that's wierd. That would imply that the ecclesiarchy never proclaimed any other female as a living saint for 5,000 years. I find that rather egregiously unrealistic considering how often real world religions proclaim saints and how large the Imperium is.. Unless there's some sort of special criteria for "Living Saint" or that "Living Saint" was just a new title the Ecclesiarch came up with at that time. Probably the latter, I suppose.

It is likely that the concept just didn't exist before that.

Yea. The latter.

I guess in this case, living saint is just a title. Saint Celestine and Saint Sabbot seem to be an entirely different category of being than Living Saint as defined by the ecclesiarchy.

TiamatRoar wrote:Since Dominica was not particularly supernatural to my knowledge

See what I mean?

Although there isn't actually much of a difference between Saints and Living Saints in regards to in-universe public perception. The Ecclesiarchy preaches they both work miracles. The only different aspect of Living Saints is that they are still alive when canonised, hence the name.

TiamatRoar wrote:Saint Celestine and Saint Sabbot seem to be an entirely different category of being than Living Saint as defined by the ecclesiarchy.

Saint Celestine not a Living Saint? Huh?

 Lynata wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:Saint Celestine and Saint Sabbot seem to be an entirely different category of being than Living Saint as defined by the ecclesiarchy.

Saint Celestine not a Living Saint? Huh?

I didn't say she wasn't a living saint. Just that she seemed to be an entirely different category of being than Living Saint as defined by the ecclesiarchy.

IE, her miracles are on a whole other ascended level of "oddness" than Dominica. In essence, just because Dominica never did anything particularly bizarre or supernatural doesn't mean that there are saints (living or otherwise) that really ARE supernatural (or whatever else) beings, with Saint Celestine and Sabbot being big examples. Dominica is only a living saint because the ecclesiarchy said so (as far as we know). Sabbot and Celestine, however, are (possibly/probably) a different type of being. Maybe they're angels. Maybe they're Emperor Daemon Princes. Maybe they're something unpronouncable in the human tongue. But whatever they are, it's something far different than what Dominica was.

I don't necessarily agree with this assessment. A "Living Saint as defined by the Ecclesiarchy" is:
"a vessel through which the Emperor takes a direct hand in the course of history" and "an avenging angel, a terrible and wondrous being to witness, for they shine with the purest of light, and bring death and destruction to the impure"
- 3E C:WH

Dominica may have easily been revered just as much as Celestine, and the simple truth is that we don't know the facts about either - what we read in the Codex fluff is simply how they are described; a depiction that may well be manipulated by legend, myth, and propaganda. Hence the discussion between Crimson and Troike about whether Celestine is truly a supernatural being or was just hyped by the Imperial religion and populace, very much like Dominica seems to be.
Another example: Canoness Praxedes killed a Hive Tyrant single-handedly in melee combat = MUST BE A MIRACLE! Thus, she was canonised as a Saint. Where we as observers see badassery, the average Imperial Joe sees the hand of the Emperor.

If you'd go back to the medieval age and contest the Catholic Church on whether its saints truly did miracles, you'd probably be burnt on a pyre, yet that doesn't mean that the Church is right. Just that people believed these stories, and given that 40k has a huge case of "art imitates life", it could well be similar.

If you say that Celestine may still be a different being than Dominica, then I'd agree that this is a possible option, and as previously mentioned I too see it as a case of "Warp possession".
This, however, does not change anything about the Ecclesiarchy's definition, and that both Dominica as well as Celestine are regarded as Living Saints within the setting. And if you'd suggest Celestine is a daemon in 40k, you'd get sent to the pyre as well.

 Lynata wrote:

If you say that Celestine may still be a different being than Dominica, then I'd agree that this is a possible option, and as previously mentioned I too see it as a case of "Warp possession".

This is what I was trying to say. The rest of it regarding what the ecclesiarchy thinks about Dominica or burning on pyres is irrelevant to whether or not the Sisters of Battle have faith or psychic powers or nothing or anything else (which is also what I was trying to say).

Gotcha. Sorry, I guess this was a misunderstanding then.