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.

 koooaei wrote:
So...why would you need this book?

I like owning a codex that I for the army I play to show my opponent. This book does just that. Do I need it of course I do not need it. But the ebup on my phone and those printed hand outs of the same book are just not the same as a book you can actually hand over. I only need to print a few pages if I want to use things out of the codex. All the strange rules like the daemon sword, the daemon host table and the warlord traits are all in the book.

Yeah, it says as much right in the rules for the book. Use the new detachment too if you want to, it might be more useful than a CAD, I don't know.

If you're not interested in the other factions, I don't know what to tell you other than it's not intended for you? I don't know why Codex: Dark Angels exists because I don't find Dark Angels compelling, that doesn't mean I think it should be deleted because I think other people who like other things shouldn't have those nice things. That seems petty and jerky.

I love having the rules for the factions here at my fingertips in one volume, because my imperial army DOES tend to combine a crap-ton of different minifactions. It makes things more interesting. I don't find the rules updates a significant down-grade in any way (much more interested in codex: inquisition than codex: servo skulls and minimum henchman squads) and it was annoying to have to carry around increasingly tattered loose pages from a white dwarf to play my assassins.

It contains pretty much only minor upgrades for Sisters (people were only whining over the loss of celestine, which, thanks to page 37 which is an actual passage in the codex and not just an email from customer service, didn't actually happen), some upgrades and some nerfs for inquisition, and then mostly just either rules the same or slight improvements for every other faction present.

To me, the only real headscratcher is the valkyries...but I don't own valkyries, and if I did want to use one, oh look i've got this codex: Astra Militarum right here, and now I have a unit entry for the flyer in my book that has the DFTS stats without me needing to buy DFTS.

This book basically gave me exactly what I wanted to add a little flavor to my existing imperium armies, and others where I play are doing the exact same thing. I'm buying a box of deathwatch vets, I know someone else is buying inquisitors, someone else is finally painting up their assassins...it's just fun to have variety. Why begrudge people that? You don't like something, don't buy it, and play the way you like - that's how GW has been operating in 7th and people are still tearing their hair out over every change like GW's going to sneak in at night and steal your existing codexes.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So...why would you need this book?

I like owning a codex that I for the army I play to show my opponent. This book does just that. Do I need it of course I do not need it. But the ebup on my phone and those printed hand outs of the same book are just not the same as a book you can actually hand over. I only need to plint a few pages if I want to use things out of the codex. All the strange rules like the daemon sword, the daemon host table and the warlord traits are all in the book.

So it is intended to replace the books we already own?

Why remove units then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, it says as much right in the rules for the book. Use the new detachment too if you want to, it might be more useful than a CAD, I don't know.

If you're not interested in the other factions, I don't know what to tell you other than it's not intended for you? I don't know why Codex: Dark Angels exists because I don't find Dark Angels compelling, that doesn't mean I think it should be deleted because I think other people who like other things shouldn't have those nice things. That seems petty and jerky.

I love having the rules for the factions here at my fingertips in one volume, because my imperial army DOES tend to combine a crap-ton of different minifactions. It makes things more interesting. I don't find the rules updates a significant down-grade in any way (much more interested in codex: inquisition than codex: servo skulls and minimum henchman squads) and it was annoying to have to carry around increasingly tattered loose pages from a white dwarf to play my assassins.

It contains pretty much only minor upgrades for Sisters (people were only whining over the loss of celestine, which, thanks to page 37 which is an actual passage in the codex and not just an email from customer service, didn't actually happen), some upgrades and some nerfs for inquisition, and then mostly just either rules the same or slight improvements for every other faction present.

To me, the only real headscratcher is the valkyries...but I don't own valkyries, and if I did want to use one, oh look i've got this codex: Astra Militarum right here, and now I have a unit entry for the flyer in my book that has the DFTS stats without me needing to buy DFTS.

This book basically gave me exactly what I wanted to add a little flavor to my existing imperium armies, and others where I play are doing the exact same thing. I'm buying a box of deathwatch vets, I know someone else is buying inquisitors, someone else is finally painting up their assassins...it's just fun to have variety. Why begrudge people that? You don't like something, don't buy it, and play the way you like - that's how GW has been operating in 7th and people are still tearing their hair out over every change like GW's going to sneak in at night and steal your existing codexes.

Oh.

So basically it doesn't offer anything that my already-existing Codex did and it's just a new detachment type for a third to half of the Imperium's armies, but not all of them?

So I can keep saying that Sisters of Battle don't actually have a printed Codex then. Good to know, thanks.

Also, I dunno why you're downplaying the loss of Celestine like she doesn't matter.

And I STILL don't know why you couldn't just ally all your armies together using Unbound without this Codex.

 Pouncey wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So...why would you need this book?

I like owning a codex that I for the army I play to show my opponent. This book does just that. Do I need it of course I do not need it. But the ebup on my phone and those printed hand outs of the same book are just not the same as a book you can actually hand over. I only need to plint a few pages if I want to use things out of the codex. All the strange rules like the daemon sword, the daemon host table and the warlord traits are all in the book.

So it is intended to replace the books we already own?

Why remove units then?

It's intended to replace the pile of books for people who want to stick an Inquisitor or a Grey Knight squad into another army. For those of us who played the Inquisition books of yore it's just a middle finger.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So...why would you need this book?

I like owning a codex that I for the army I play to show my opponent. This book does just that. Do I need it of course I do not need it. But the ebup on my phone and those printed hand outs of the same book are just not the same as a book you can actually hand over. I only need to plint a few pages if I want to use things out of the codex. All the strange rules like the daemon sword, the daemon host table and the warlord traits are all in the book.

So it is intended to replace the books we already own?

Why remove units then?

It's intended to replace the pile of books for people who want to stick an Inquisitor or a Grey Knight squad into another army. For those of us who played the Inquisition books of yore it's just a middle finger.

I kinda feel like giving the middle finger to GW, actually, since I'm sure they'll now point to Imperial Agents as proof that Sisters of Battle have a proper Codex now.

 Pouncey wrote:


So it is intended to replace the books we already own?

Why remove units then?

You know that I do not think that this book is a replacement and that I don't really mind if it did since my army is still valid, we all know that you hate the book, haven't read it jet and will never use it.
So could you please stop repeating yourself / bugging me / hijacking the feth out off any thread that has anything to do with the new codex ?

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


So it is intended to replace the books we already own?

Why remove units then?

You know that I do not think that this book is a replacement and that I don't really mind if it did since my army is still valid, we all know that you hate the book and will never use it.
So could you please stop repeating yourself / bugging me / hijacking the feth out off any thread that has anything to do with the new codex ?

Sorry, it's just that you seem to be flip-flopping between, "There's no need to ever buy this Codex unless you want to play a combination of the armies therein," and "This Codex is just a better version of your army and doesn't get rid of anything important, you should buy it," and those are diametrically opposed stances.

Also, for your information, I was actually planning on buying and using C:IA until I heard it basically doesn't offer anything new for me. Which was about ten minutes ago.

Let me explain my stance on the book.

Initially: Rumors where bad really bad, it would potentially invalidate my entire army. This made me sad and angy.

Once I read the book, realized that this was not a replacement and that the early rumors had omitted some all important formations and unit entries:
- Nothing is lost since this is not a replacement so this book only adds things to the book I already own.
- Tons of stuff is added in all sorts of obscure ways, that actually affect me a lot such as being able to summon daemons with my radical inquisitor and being able to field lone daemon hosts or indep character priest.
- Some stuff is left out in the INQ codex. But I don't mind about this because:
*I never used them any ways in casual games, and the abuse of them by tournament players gave my army a bad name resulting in harsh codex specific penalties in most tournament rules ( servo skulls)
* They used to fire up rules discussions ( Chimera fire points )
* They where a bit cheesy, and a left over of an old rule system (10 point psykers) .

Also the need of this book isn't purely based on if it is better than your digital codex. It is the only way to show the special rules to your opponent without giving them some dubious printout or digital file.
This makes this book quite essential for any sisters and INQ player at the moment if you ask me, even if you plan to use the digital codex next to it.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Let me explain my stance on the book.

Initially: Rumors where bad really bad, it would potentially invalidate my entire army. This made me sad and angy.

Once I read the book, realized that this was not a replacement and that the early rumors had omitted some all important formations and unit entries:
- Nothing is lost since this is not a replacement so this book only adds things to the book I already own.
- Tons of stuff is added in all sorts of obscure ways, that actually affect me a lot such as being able to summon daemons with my radical inquisitor and being able to field lone daemon hosts or indep character priest.
- Some stuff is left out in the INQ codex. But I don't mind about this because:
*I never used them any ways in casual games ( servo skulls)
* They used to fire up rules discussions ( Chimera fire points )
* They where a bit cheesy, and a left over of an old rule system (10 point psykers) .

Also the need of this book isn't purely based on if it is better than your digital codex. It is the only way to show the special rules to your opponent without giving them some dubious printout or digital file.
This makes this book quite essential for any sisters and INQ player at the moment if you ask me, even if you plan to use the digital codex next to it.

If my opponent won't accept my digital codex on its own, why would they accept the Celestine entry for my Codex?

Really though, I've wanted to not have to print out my own Codices for a long time. What does this Codex offer me to offset the fact it doesn't let me use one of my favorite models and I don't care about minor upgrades enough to swap Codices for one model? Sell me on it.

 Pouncey wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So...why would you need this book?

I like owning a codex that I for the army I play to show my opponent. This book does just that. Do I need it of course I do not need it. But the ebup on my phone and those printed hand outs of the same book are just not the same as a book you can actually hand over. I only need to plint a few pages if I want to use things out of the codex. All the strange rules like the daemon sword, the daemon host table and the warlord traits are all in the book.

So it is intended to replace the books we already own?

Why remove units then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, it says as much right in the rules for the book. Use the new detachment too if you want to, it might be more useful than a CAD, I don't know.

If you're not interested in the other factions, I don't know what to tell you other than it's not intended for you? I don't know why Codex: Dark Angels exists because I don't find Dark Angels compelling, that doesn't mean I think it should be deleted because I think other people who like other things shouldn't have those nice things. That seems petty and jerky.

I love having the rules for the factions here at my fingertips in one volume, because my imperial army DOES tend to combine a crap-ton of different minifactions. It makes things more interesting. I don't find the rules updates a significant down-grade in any way (much more interested in codex: inquisition than codex: servo skulls and minimum henchman squads) and it was annoying to have to carry around increasingly tattered loose pages from a white dwarf to play my assassins.

It contains pretty much only minor upgrades for Sisters (people were only whining over the loss of celestine, which, thanks to page 37 which is an actual passage in the codex and not just an email from customer service, didn't actually happen), some upgrades and some nerfs for inquisition, and then mostly just either rules the same or slight improvements for every other faction present.

To me, the only real headscratcher is the valkyries...but I don't own valkyries, and if I did want to use one, oh look i've got this codex: Astra Militarum right here, and now I have a unit entry for the flyer in my book that has the DFTS stats without me needing to buy DFTS.

This book basically gave me exactly what I wanted to add a little flavor to my existing imperium armies, and others where I play are doing the exact same thing. I'm buying a box of deathwatch vets, I know someone else is buying inquisitors, someone else is finally painting up their assassins...it's just fun to have variety. Why begrudge people that? You don't like something, don't buy it, and play the way you like - that's how GW has been operating in 7th and people are still tearing their hair out over every change like GW's going to sneak in at night and steal your existing codexes.

Oh.

So basically it doesn't offer anything that my already-existing Codex did and it's just a new detachment type for a third to half of the Imperium's armies, but not all of them?

So I can keep saying that Sisters of Battle don't actually have a printed Codex then. Good to know, thanks.

Also, I dunno why you're downplaying the loss of Celestine like she doesn't matter.

And I STILL don't know why you couldn't just ally all your armies together using Unbound without this Codex.

You're obviously just determined to whine, given that you're taking dual stances of "Celestine is gone waaaah" and "why does this book exist waaaaah" so you can have your complaints both ways.

So, one more time:

-Celestine is not gone. Celestine IS a legal HQ choice with the sisters of battle faction.

-This is an in print book with rules for sisters of battle. You can use a full, game-legal sisters army using this book.

-Other people that are not you might like this book because they like including small detachments of minor factions. God forbid someone like something you don't like, or have fun some way you don't approve of.

you can keep saying whatever the heck you want. It doesn't have to be true. You can say that GW hates you personally, spies on your house to find out what you like and takes it away from you out of pure malice - it doesn't make it true and it doesn't require everyone or anyone to agree with you. This book, like DFTS, like Planetary Assault, like any and all of the supplementary materials that have come out recently, change NOTHING for you if you don't want them to. You have NO reason to whine, but I'm sure you're going to anyway, because that's what people do to get imaginary internet points. I'm done discussing it, feel free to go on your merry way saying and thinking anything you like.

the_scotsman wrote:
You're obviously just determined to whine, given that you're taking dual stances of "Celestine is gone waaaah" and "why does this book exist waaaaah" so you can have your complaints both ways.

I'm taking multiple stances as this thread goes on because I haven't bought this Codex yet so literally everything I know about it is coming from you guys, so my opinion keeps wavering based on new information.

So, one more time:

-Celestine is not gone. Celestine IS a legal HQ choice with the sisters of battle faction.

1. So her rules are included in C:IA?
2. If so, why exactly are so many people saying she's not included in C: IA?

-This is an in print book with rules for sisters of battle. You can use a full, game-legal sisters army using this book.

Yes, that's enough to sell me on it, but not if I can't use my favorite model, and people are telling me two different things about the book, the Celestine model is now out-of-production, and I don't know who to believe anymore.

-Other people that are not you might like this book because they like including small detachments of minor factions. God forbid someone like something you don't like, or have fun some way you don't approve of.

No, I'm saying it doesn't offer a benefit to me personally and the question about the book existing at all is a separate question that comes from the book not including all IoM factions, so when I want to ally my Sisters of Battle with my Space Marines, I still need two Codices anyways.

you can keep saying whatever the heck you want. It doesn't have to be true. You can say that GW hates you personally, spies on your house to find out what you like and takes it away from you out of pure malice - it doesn't make it true and it doesn't require everyone or anyone to agree with you. This book, like DFTS, like Planetary Assault, like any and all of the supplementary materials that have come out recently, change NOTHING for you if you don't want them to. You have NO reason to whine, but I'm sure you're going to anyway, because that's what people do to get imaginary internet points. I'm done discussing it, feel free to go on your merry way saying and thinking anything you like.

I would very much appreciate if you would refrain from saying I believe things which I do not.

 Pouncey wrote:



If my opponent won't accept my digital codex on its own, why would they accept the Celestine entry for my Codex?

It isn't about accepting it is about making the game experience fun.
They sure do accept my rules about a daemon host when they read my phone, but I and my opponent do not like to look at my phone during the game and I do not like to show up in a gaming store with a 100% home printed codex even if I would include the GW mail that said I could do so. Having an actual book fixes this for me, and I can just print out that single page for saint c if I really wanted to. This doesn't make me that guy who promotes pirated books in a gaming store nor that guy who has all sorts of obscure rules hidden in his buggy phone, and this makes me happy.

But hey you aren't me, I never claimed that you had to buy the book. If you don't want to just be happy with the codex you already have and the money you can now spend on other stuff.

 Pouncey wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So...why would you need this book?

It's a supplement. You don't need it. You can use it, however, if you feel like it. Nobody forces a Space Marine player to use Angels of Death. You can buy and use it, but it's not required of you.

Supplements normally add extra units. This really doesn't, and the formations could've been done as dataslates.

Do they really, though? How many units were added in Angels of Death? Mont'ka?
AoD technically added two, but both existed beforehand. All AoD did was limit(!) their equipment options and present them to you as regular units (instead of using that Relic special rule to limit their numbers in a 40k detachment).
C:IA added completely new units, even if it uses existing models. You couldn't run an astropath on it's own at all, and it didn't have the options it has now - it just couldn't be turned into a ML2 psyker, for example.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:



If my opponent won't accept my digital codex on its own, why would they accept the Celestine entry for my Codex?

It isn't about accepting it is about making the game experience fun.
They sure do accept my rules about a daemon host when they read my phone, but I and my opponent do not like to look at my phone during the game and I do not like to show up in a gaming store with a 100% home printed codex even if I would include the GW mail that said I could do so. Having an actual book fixes this for me, and I can just print out that single page for saint c if I really wanted to. This doesn't make me that guy who promotes pirated books in a gaming store nor that guy who has all sorts of obscure rules hidden in his buggy phone, and this makes me happy.

But hey you aren't me, I never claimed that you had to buy the book. If you don't want to just be happy with the codex you already have and the money you can now spend on other stuff.

See, there's my confusion. I'm legitimately confused what your stance is. You say that it's fine if anyone wants to stick with the eBook Codex if they don't care about the new stuff in C:IA.

But you're basically saying there that the new Codex is supposed to push people into the new versions of the rules because a hardcopy Codex is more legitimate.

You're saying people would accuse you of pirating if you had all your armies as eBooks (all Codices are available as eBooks, by the way), but then you say people wouldn't care if you just had one page for Celestine not in the actual book.

You're saying two different things, and it's confusing me.

 Pouncey wrote:

-Celestine is not gone. Celestine IS a legal HQ choice with the sisters of battle faction.

1. So her rules are included in C:IA?
2. If so, why exactly are so many people saying she's not included in C: IA?

I am getting the impression that you might be one of the slower kids in the class. Do not worry here is how it works.
1.All of the unit entries in your old codex are of the same faction as the sisters in the new book.
2.The old unit entries aren't invalidated. The new ones are just piled on top of the older ones.
3.Detachment do not have restrictions based on books but based on factions.
=>This makes it so that you can just take the new detachment or any old detachment that allowed you to take sisters and fill it up with any combination of old and new unit entries,

nekooni wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So...why would you need this book?

It's a supplement. You don't need it. You can use it, however, if you feel like it. Nobody forces a Space Marine player to use Angels of Death. You can buy and use it, but it's not required of you.

Supplements normally add extra units. This really doesn't, and the formations could've been done as dataslates.

Do they really, though? How many units were added in Angels of Death? Mont'ka?
AoD technically added two, but both existed beforehand. All AoD did was limit(!) their equipment options and present them to you as regular units (instead of using that Relic special rule to limit their numbers in a 40k detachment).
C:IA added completely new units, even if it uses existing models. You couldn't run an astropath on it's own at all, and it didn't have the options it has now - it just couldn't be turned into a ML2 psyker, for example.

Okay, that's what I concluded a few hours ago. C:IA is just a new detachment and my own Codex will work just fine on its own since I don't care about the detachment.

I won't question why it needs to exist anymore, but... why is Celestine out-of-production now?

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Sisters-of-Battle-Celestine-the-Living-Saint

"Celestine the Living Saint
$30
Availability: No Longer Available"

Who knows. GWs ways are mysterious. Why went nearly all inquisition models oop ? But why care you already have a model. ; )

 Pouncey wrote:

See, there's my confusion. I'm legitimately confused what your stance is. You say that it's fine if anyone wants to stick with the eBook Codex if they don't care about the new stuff in C:IA.

But you're basically saying there that the new Codex is supposed to push people into the new versions of the rules because a hardcopy Codex is more legitimate.

You're saying people would accuse you of pirating if you had all your armies as eBooks (all Codices are available as eBooks, by the way), but then you say people wouldn't care if you just had one page for Celestine not in the actual book.

You're saying two different things, and it's confusing me.

If you step away from the whole black-and-white thingy, you'll notice there're at least 48 other shades of that colour spectrum

The new codex is more convenient since it's printed. It appears as more "legitimate" as compared to a stack of paper you printed at home to others.
Having a single page printed plus a hardcover book with a pretty good reason as to why you had to print that page is also much more acceptable to other players than having a wholly home-printed codex.

He's not saying it is less or more legitimate, just that people percieve it as such. And since 40k requires social contact to arrange and play a game, that's a huge plus. "That guy with the printed codex where we don't know if he actually bought it or might have even modified it" sounds much worse than "that guy who still plays Celestine, but brings in the printed Codex that contains Sisters, too".

 Pouncey wrote:
Okay, that's what I concluded a few hours ago. C:IA is just a new detachment and my own Codex will work just fine on its own since I don't care about the detachment.

I won't question why it needs to exist anymore, but... why is Celestine out-of-production now?

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Sisters-of-Battle-Celestine-the-Living-Saint

"Celestine the Living Saint
$30
Availability: No Longer Available"

Who knows? Maybe they've run out of stock now and don't want to do another batch of her before a possible relaunch of the entire faction. But that's really off-topic to this thread, isn't it?

The most likely answer to her specifically going out of production is that the new sisters models in development currently contain a drastically different iteration of celestine. I'd guess it's physically a much larger model with rules more in line with GW's tendency to make large, centerpiece models. If GW releases a new sisters codex with the plastics, which DOES invalidate the current digital book, they can include the rules for the new celestine and then there aren't two versions of the same character legal in the rules, one a smallish beefy IC and one a large centerpiece model.

You have no reason to buy CIA if you have no interest in any faction in it besides sisters. Continue to use your digital codex as before with the FAQ and you have pretty much exactly the same rules. There is nothing in the book to "sell you on" - the book basically exists to get people to add small sisters contingents to their existing armies so more people will have small sisters collections when the new kits drop.

nekooni wrote:
If you step away from the whole black-and-white thingy, you'll notice there're at least 48 other shades of that colour spectrum

The new codex is more convenient since it's printed. It appears as more "legitimate" as compared to a stack of paper you printed at home to others.
Having a single page printed plus a hardcover book with a pretty good reason as to why you had to print that page is also much more acceptable to other players than having a wholly home-printed codex.

He's not saying it is less or more legitimate, just that people percieve it as such. And since 40k requires social contact to arrange and play a game, that's a huge plus. "That guy with the printed codex where we don't know if he actually bought it or might have even modified it" sounds much worse than "that guy who still plays Celestine, but brings in the printed Codex that contains Sisters, too".

If my gaming group suddenly questions my honesty when I bring in a Codex I printed up for the one army I play that doesn't have a printed Codex, even knowing that I don't own a tablet, phone or e-reader, and even though I bought every single one of my models direct from my local GW or its order point, which happens to be one of the most expensive armies that I've played for a full decade, the past 5 years of which have been me bringing in the same Codex with updates...

Frankly, they can go to hell and I'll get a new gaming group with people who actually use their brains and don't call me a liar and thief for playing a grossly-neglected army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
Who knows? Maybe they've run out of stock now and don't want to do another batch of her before a possible relaunch of the entire faction. But that's really off-topic to this thread, isn't it?

That historically has not been the case when Sisters models go OOP. They don't tend to come back.

 Pouncey wrote:

nekooni wrote:
If you step away from the whole black-and-white thingy, you'll notice there're at least 48 other shades of that colour spectrum

The new codex is more convenient since it's printed. It appears as more "legitimate" as compared to a stack of paper you printed at home to others.
Having a single page printed plus a hardcover book with a pretty good reason as to why you had to print that page is also much more acceptable to other players than having a wholly home-printed codex.

He's not saying it is less or more legitimate, just that people percieve it as such. And since 40k requires social contact to arrange and play a game, that's a huge plus. "That guy with the printed codex where we don't know if he actually bought it or might have even modified it" sounds much worse than "that guy who still plays Celestine, but brings in the printed Codex that contains Sisters, too".

If my gaming group suddenly questions my honesty when I bring in a Codex I printed up for the one army I play that doesn't have a printed Codex, even knowing that I don't own a tablet, phone or e-reader, and even though I bought every single one of my models direct from my local GW or its order point, which happens to be one of the most expensive armies that I've played for a full decade, the past 5 years of which have been me bringing in the same Codex with updates...

Frankly, they can go to hell and I'll get a new gaming group with people who actually use their brains and don't call me a liar and thief for playing a grossly-neglected army.

Not everyone has a fixed gaming group. Many people just go to their local FLGS or GW and pick up a random dude to play against. It's for situations like that. And not everyone plays just one army, too. You asked for HIS reasons, not YOURS. Just because they don't apply to you, specifically, doesn't invalidate them for him or others.

the_scotsman wrote:
The most likely answer to her specifically going out of production is that the new sisters models in development currently contain a drastically different iteration of celestine. I'd guess it's physically a much larger model with rules more in line with GW's tendency to make large, centerpiece models. If GW releases a new sisters codex with the plastics, which DOES invalidate the current digital book, they can include the rules for the new celestine and then there aren't two versions of the same character legal in the rules, one a smallish beefy IC and one a large centerpiece model.

You have no reason to buy CIA if you have no interest in any faction in it besides sisters. Continue to use your digital codex as before with the FAQ and you have pretty much exactly the same rules. There is nothing in the book to "sell you on" - the book basically exists to get people to add small sisters contingents to their existing armies so more people will have small sisters collections when the new kits drop.

Can you link me to the new Celestine model? I'd like to see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

nekooni wrote:
If you step away from the whole black-and-white thingy, you'll notice there're at least 48 other shades of that colour spectrum

The new codex is more convenient since it's printed. It appears as more "legitimate" as compared to a stack of paper you printed at home to others.
Having a single page printed plus a hardcover book with a pretty good reason as to why you had to print that page is also much more acceptable to other players than having a wholly home-printed codex.

He's not saying it is less or more legitimate, just that people percieve it as such. And since 40k requires social contact to arrange and play a game, that's a huge plus. "That guy with the printed codex where we don't know if he actually bought it or might have even modified it" sounds much worse than "that guy who still plays Celestine, but brings in the printed Codex that contains Sisters, too".

If my gaming group suddenly questions my honesty when I bring in a Codex I printed up for the one army I play that doesn't have a printed Codex, even knowing that I don't own a tablet, phone or e-reader, and even though I bought every single one of my models direct from my local GW or its order point, which happens to be one of the most expensive armies that I've played for a full decade, the past 5 years of which have been me bringing in the same Codex with updates...

Frankly, they can go to hell and I'll get a new gaming group with people who actually use their brains and don't call me a liar and thief for playing a grossly-neglected army.

Not everyone has a fixed gaming group. Many people just go to their local FLGS or GW and pick up a random dude to play against. It's for situations like that. And not everyone plays just one army, too. You asked for HIS reasons, not YOURS. Just because they don't apply to you, specifically, doesn't invalidate them for him or others.

I'm pretty sure I asked him to sell me on this new Codex and tell me why I personally should buy it, since he's very dead-set on convincing me to update to C:IA given that he's been ignoring every time I say, "Fine, so it's not for me, whatever, I'll stick with my current Codex" and immediately launching into an argument for buying the new C: IA.

 Pouncey wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The most likely answer to her specifically going out of production is that the new sisters models in development currently contain a drastically different iteration of celestine. I'd guess it's physically a much larger model with rules more in line with GW's tendency to make large, centerpiece models. If GW releases a new sisters codex with the plastics, which DOES invalidate the current digital book, they can include the rules for the new celestine and then there aren't two versions of the same character legal in the rules, one a smallish beefy IC and one a large centerpiece model.

You have no reason to buy CIA if you have no interest in any faction in it besides sisters. Continue to use your digital codex as before with the FAQ and you have pretty much exactly the same rules. There is nothing in the book to "sell you on" - the book basically exists to get people to add small sisters contingents to their existing armies so more people will have small sisters collections when the new kits drop.

Can you link me to the new Celestine model? I'd like to see it.

You really don't get the difference between speculation and fact, don't you? Where's your proof that Celestine is OOP for good? Where's your proof that she's not getting a revamp? All we're doing right now is speculating.

nekooni wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The most likely answer to her specifically going out of production is that the new sisters models in development currently contain a drastically different iteration of celestine. I'd guess it's physically a much larger model with rules more in line with GW's tendency to make large, centerpiece models. If GW releases a new sisters codex with the plastics, which DOES invalidate the current digital book, they can include the rules for the new celestine and then there aren't two versions of the same character legal in the rules, one a smallish beefy IC and one a large centerpiece model.

You have no reason to buy CIA if you have no interest in any faction in it besides sisters. Continue to use your digital codex as before with the FAQ and you have pretty much exactly the same rules. There is nothing in the book to "sell you on" - the book basically exists to get people to add small sisters contingents to their existing armies so more people will have small sisters collections when the new kits drop.

Can you link me to the new Celestine model? I'd like to see it.

You really don't get the difference between speculation and fact, don't you? Where's your proof that Celestine is OOP for good? Where's your proof that she's not getting a revamp? All we're doing right now is speculating.

You're offering speculation while demanding proof from me? Do you even argue, brah?

Then I'm speculating that the likelihood is that Celestine is going OoP and likely will not be replaced, and Sisters of Battle players will be steered into C:IA. The current Sisters eBook will eventually vanish from existence and Celestine will disappear forever.

It's not like our special characters and units haven't been removed from existence before.

 Pouncey wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The most likely answer to her specifically going out of production is that the new sisters models in development currently contain a drastically different iteration of celestine. I'd guess it's physically a much larger model with rules more in line with GW's tendency to make large, centerpiece models. If GW releases a new sisters codex with the plastics, which DOES invalidate the current digital book, they can include the rules for the new celestine and then there aren't two versions of the same character legal in the rules, one a smallish beefy IC and one a large centerpiece model.

You have no reason to buy CIA if you have no interest in any faction in it besides sisters. Continue to use your digital codex as before with the FAQ and you have pretty much exactly the same rules. There is nothing in the book to "sell you on" - the book basically exists to get people to add small sisters contingents to their existing armies so more people will have small sisters collections when the new kits drop.

Can you link me to the new Celestine model? I'd like to see it.

You really don't get the difference between speculation and fact, don't you? Where's your proof that Celestine is OOP for good? Where's your proof that she's not getting a revamp? All we're doing right now is speculating.

You're offering speculation while demanding proof from me? Do you even argue, brah?

Dude. Really? YOU asked for proof, I was just ... you know what - forget it. Yes, just take it literally - I totally told you that we're speculating but you, specifically you, have to provide facts. That's exactly what the intention of this was, no way was there a rethorical question hidden inside that text block. Or two.

Then I'm speculating that the likelihood is that Celestine is going OoP and likely will not be replaced, and Sisters of Battle players will be steered into C:IA. The current Sisters eBook will eventually vanish from existence and Celestine will disappear forever.

It's not like our special characters and units haven't been removed from existence before.

Yupp, and just like you're speculating this way, others think the signs are leading elsewhere. That's just a matter of interpretation of what little information we have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

I'm pretty sure I asked him to sell me on this new Codex and tell me why I personally should buy it, since he's very dead-set on convincing me to update to C:IA given that he's been ignoring every time I say, "Fine, so it's not for me, whatever, I'll stick with my current Codex" and immediately launching into an argument for buying the new C: IA.

If my opponent won't accept my digital codex on its own, why would they accept the Celestine entry for my Codex?

That was the question he replied to.

I for one was looking forward to a discussion about the C:IA that didn't involve complaints about Sisters of Battle....
Oh well

I'm just hoping the new Saint Celestine model will look like a cross between the Celestant Prime from Age of Sigmar and the Saint Celestine from DOW Soulstorm. All huge wings, angel motif and illusion of flying, not a small model that could be mistake for a Sanguinary Guard.

nekooni wrote:

If my opponent won't accept my digital codex on its own, why would they accept the Celestine entry for my Codex?

That was the question he replied to.

Then his answer did not satisfy the question. The Celestine entry would be from the exact same digital codex that my opponent would be willing to dismiss if it were presented in its entirety.

So I ask you this.

You have an opponent who brings a fully legitimate, hardcopy Codex, and a few printed-out sheets detailing a powerful special character.

In what way is that less suspicious than a fully-printed-out Codex for the entire army and the explanation, "GW doesn't sell a hardcopy Sisters of Battle Codex. You know that, man."?

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
I for one was looking forward to a discussion about the C:IA that didn't involve complaints about Sisters of Battle....
Oh well

You and me both.

Anyway, to answer the OP, it's worth it in my opinion. You get a lot of neat formation shenanigans to pull off with an Inquisition force or supplement into any of their Battle Brothers. The only major drawback I saw in the book is that it relies heavily on spamming small detachments and most tournaments limit those. If you're not playing in a tournament: great! If you are, it's harder to pull use out of the book though the Grey Knight formation and the Ad Mech one open up some very good options even there.

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
I for one was looking forward to a discussion about the C:IA that didn't involve complaints about Sisters of Battle....
Oh well

I'm just hoping the new Saint Celestine model will look like a cross between the Celestant Prime from Age of Sigmar and the Saint Celestine from DOW Soulstorm. All huge wings, angel motif and illusion of flying, not a small model that could be mistake for a Sanguinary Guard.

Same here - I'm still waiting on my Erzebel off of the TGG2 Kickstarter, she's sitting on a 40mm base with huge wings and everything.

Audustum wrote:

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
I for one was looking forward to a discussion about the C:IA that didn't involve complaints about Sisters of Battle....
Oh well

You and me both.

Sisters of Battle get their first proper semblance of a Codex since the 2003 Witch Hunters Codex and you weren't expecting it to be the most-discussed thing in threads about the Codex it's in?