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.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That's entirely up to you and your opponent.

Na it isn't in pick up games is it. suppose you where my opponent would you accept it if I just ignored the new book and continued to play with the actual codex.

You would be going against GW's opiniong though. GW seems to be "if it's printed by us it's legal". Hell greentide is legal despite it being in supplement that got new version( rather than orks getting completely new supplement!)

 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.

 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.

 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

 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.

She really wasn't.

Like I already said, she was the worst option in terms of HQ's. The Cannoness unlocks a Command Squad and can at least get EW through a relic, and Jacobus provides a Counter Attack and Fearless aura, both of which are fantastic on an army that only has weapons that want them to be close.

 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.

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.

This is 7th. There are quite a lot of units printed concurrently in different books that don't clearly overwrite the previous one. I'd argue that this book is a supplement that updates specific dataslates in existing books without overwriting the entire Codex, unless you're arguing that they're squatting PAGK, Paladins, GK HQ units, GK Rhinos/Razorbacks, Deathwatch ground vehicles, HQ, Terminators, Bikes, and Jump units, Inquisitorial Rhinos, Kataphrons, Electro-Priests, and Kastelan bots at the same time.

Somehow I doubt they're going to squat half the AdMech Christmas box right after releasing it.


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.

 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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

For what its worth, I'm on your side. There is no reason to trash can the Sisters like this. Just as there is no reason to print an Eldar codex with Phil Kelly goo all over the pages. It's random actions from a random company.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
She really wasn't.

Grab some dice and roll a single round of combat with Celestine against a 5-man Tactical Squad.

She was good at killing Space Marines.

Jacobus provides a Counter Attack and Fearless aura, both of which are fantastic on an army that only has weapons that want them to be close.

Nobody cares about WS3 S3 I3 models Counter-attacking them. Nobody. Them being Fearless would be great if they were capable of killing anything in CC, but they aren't. Jacobus is irrelevant at best. Celestine at least can be useful.

That's all I'm saying.

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?

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

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

Okay, problem solved then.

 Pouncey wrote:

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.

I'm trying to work through that one. It seems to be utterly missing the point of the distinction between stupidity and malice (you can get the same effects out of the two, but since they're descriptions of motives that's sort of irrelevant), but if you wanted to make it make grammatical sense swapping 'callous' for 'callousness' is the short way to do it. Another would be "That is a level of stupidity so indistinguishable from malice that it's callous", but at that point you're changing the meaning from equating malice with stupidity to calling that particular level of stupidity callous.

Either way it's an odd abstract sentiment that doesn't have much to do with the discussion.

 BBAP wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
She really wasn't.

Grab some dice and roll a single round of combat with Celestine against a 5-man Tactical Squad.

She was good at killing Space Marines.

Jacobus provides a Counter Attack and Fearless aura, both of which are fantastic on an army that only has weapons that want them to be close.

Nobody cares about WS3 S3 I3 models Counter-attacking them. Nobody. Them being Fearless would be great if they were capable of killing anything in CC, but they aren't. Jacobus is irrelevant at best. Celestine at least can be useful.

That's all I'm saying.

Anything can kill a 5 man Tactical Squad. Hell, they can barely get through Fire Warriors. If the Tactical marine, a unit that hasn't been good in literally years, is your standard for Marine, and not Veterens and Bikers and Scouts, then that's on you.
I'll give you she can kill Sternguard very well though.

And yes Fearless is great because when you run them as they make sense, small squads, the Fearless means you ignore what happens when most of them die outside the Special Weapon holders. Counter attack is just the icing on the cake as anything wanting to finish them off in melee might take one more wound to try and do it. Counter Attack is good on everything, even Fire Warriors, as it helps even non-melee units fight back.

You're looking at it the wrong way. What would YOUR Sisters list look like, but I know I'd spam Exorcists and 5 man Sister squads with max special weapons. Jacobus fits perfectly there; he just needs to be transported.

Being able to kill 5 Tactical Marines in CC should really be the new benchmark for "is this OP". If it does and it's not AT LEAST 600 points, it's OP for sure. 600+ we'll have to investigate whether or not it's able to instead kill 5 Assault Marines in close combat. If it's able to do that's it's clearly OP regardless of points since they're goddamn ASSAULT marines and they simply can't loose in a melee.

signed, totally not a Space Marine player.

Just watched the book being showed off by bols, and I must say INQ players are not worse off : )

They killled of psy inq armies but thats a fair trade for the cool new mixed henchmensquads you can now make

[Edit] NOPE

The new henchman squad sucks.. :(
The old book is still a way better way to build an inq army. The new book is however a better way for cool inquisitors.

Potentially dumb question:

Is the Imperial Agents codex actually supposed to be a replacement codex for the constituent armies in that codex?

My understanding is that, e.g., it's not a replacement for gray knights. Imperial Agents is the codex you get if you want to construct a small gray knights strike force but don't actually want to build a full fledged 1850 gray knights list.

Grey knights in there are mostly added just for the ease of me not having to buy x books when I want some imp allies.
For example the new Inq formation uses GK termies, this book includes that unit entry saving me the trouble of having to buy the GK codex.

GK and DW aren't replaced by the new book, but SoB and Inquisition are. Their entire army lists are in there.

nekooni wrote:
GK and DW aren't replaced by the new book, but SoB and Inquisition are. Their entire army lists are in there.

I agree with this assessment, but as it's not "officially stated" anywhere I can already see a Sky is Falling moment ahead...

 Gunzhard wrote:

nekooni wrote:
GK and DW aren't replaced by the new book, but SoB and Inquisition are. Their entire army lists are in there.

I agree with this assessment, but as it's not "officially stated" anywhere I can already see a Sky is Falling moment ahead...

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Codex-Adepta-Sororitas-eBook-Edition
"officially stated".

 Melissia wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.

The "old codex" will be valid until GW stops selling it.

Until then, Codex: Imperial Agents is merely a supplement.

As it was quite clearly intended to be.

Not true. It will be updated by the supplement. So if you are going to play RaW you are "forced" to use the supplement. Now none of this matters outside of tournaments and PuG's. Talk it out with your opponent.

Table wrote:

The "old codex" will be valid until GW stops selling it. Now none of this matters outside of tournaments and PuG's. Talk it out with your opponent.

Well it kinda does. Since any Inquisitor army is mainly using the old inq henchmen squad. This is 75%+ of their army and is missing in the new book.
The new henchman formation seems to fill the gap until closer inspection reveals that most normal builds are now impossible, or would result in you rolling 10+ times on the warlord trait table :\

Players might feel cheated when your entire army consist of a single disputed unit entry.

Table wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It's an update of the previous codex. The old codex is no longer valid.

The "old codex" will be valid until GW stops selling it.

Until then, Codex: Imperial Agents is merely a supplement.

As it was quite clearly intended to be.

Not true. It will be updated by the supplement. So if you are going to play RaW you are "forced" to use the supplement. Now none of this matters outside of tournaments and PuG's. Talk it out with your opponent.

Like you aren't able to use formations in new version of supplement? Oh wait except you can!

nekooni wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

nekooni wrote:
GK and DW aren't replaced by the new book, but SoB and Inquisition are. Their entire army lists are in there.

I agree with this assessment, but as it's not "officially stated" anywhere I can already see a Sky is Falling moment ahead...

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Codex-Adepta-Sororitas-eBook-Edition
"officially stated".

I still don't see that being clarified here... what am I missing?