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.

nekooni wrote:


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.

That looks amazing! That entire range of Sisters from that Kickstarter is going to be more fallback Sisters army if GW either mess up the new Sisters or don't even bother. Probably won't be able to play in a GW store, but I'll just keep them for private games

 Pouncey wrote:

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."?

I've already responded to that in a generic way:

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".

Personally I've got no issue with it either way, I've got a Codex: Inquisition army that's in the same weird spot, so obviously I wouldn't go "nah mate feth off with yer self-printed crap or im gunna bash yer head in!" while playing an army where I had to bring in a home-printed codex myself.

nekooni wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

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."?

I've already responded to that in a generic way:

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".

Personally I've got no issue with it either way, I've got a Codex: Inquisition army that's in the same weird spot, so obviously I wouldn't go "nah mate feth off with yer self-printed crap or im gunna bash yer head in!" while playing an army where I had to bring in a home-printed codex myself.

And personally my only opponent has zero issues with my printed-out Sisters of Battle Codex.

So I'm fine with not updating to Codex: Imperial Agents, thanks.

As an extra layer of FUN (TM) we've now got an 'Aquila Kill-Team' detachment that's distinct from the 'Aquila Kill-Team' formation, and yet another entry on the entirely overlong list of things 'Kill-Team' means (a novel, six formations, a non-formation element of the Black Spear Strike Force, an alternate game mode, historical and fanmade variants on that game mode, at least one video game, and a lore concept. To make things even more fun the detachment, six formations, and non-formation element of the Black Spear Strike Force can't be used in the game mode. So my Kill-Team isn't a Kill-Team.)

Codex: Imperial Agents - worth it? Yes.

With C:IA you can take Priests and Daemonhosts in the same unit. You can give the Priest a Mace of Valaan. The Daemonhost gives the Mace Fleshbane and Armourbane. The Priest can use prayers to get Smash. It's not a competitive thing to do, but I find the idea of Father John Cena beating some almighty IC to death amusing enough to justify the cost of the book.

 BBAP wrote:
Codex: Imperial Agents - worth it? Yes.

With C:IA you can take Priests and Daemonhosts in the same unit. You can give the Priest a Mace of Valaan. The Daemonhost gives the Mace Fleshbane and Armourbane. The Priest can use prayers to get Smash. It's not a competitive thing to do, but I find the idea of Father John Cena beating some almighty IC to death amusing enough to justify the cost of the book.

You know you could take Priests and Daemonhosts in the Inquisition book without getting capped at one Priest and needing to have a rules-lawyerey argument to use your Dedicated Transport, right?

The Hosts weren't Daemons then though, so they didn't activate the Mace of Valaan.

 BBAP wrote:
The Hosts weren't Daemons then though, so they didn't activate the Mace of Valaan.

Hey, that's right! I can cart around my Bone Shard trigger now, and have a Storm Shield on a Grey Knight character...

Oh. Right. I have to buy another Codex and use an entire new detachment to do this, and I still can't actually deliver it to melee.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BBAP wrote:
The Hosts weren't Daemons then though, so they didn't activate the Mace of Valaan.

Hey, that's right! I can cart around my Bone Shard trigger now, and have a Storm Shield on a Grey Knight character...

Oh. Right. I have to buy another Codex and use an entire new detachment to do this, and I still can't actually deliver it to melee.

Really? I can. I have a land raider with both the Grey Knights and inquisition faction that I can grant Scout.

Father Cena doesn't have that problem. Father Cena will simply smash his way through space and time to reach the enemy, whom he will then smash.

the_scotsman wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BBAP wrote:
The Hosts weren't Daemons then though, so they didn't activate the Mace of Valaan.

Hey, that's right! I can cart around my Bone Shard trigger now, and have a Storm Shield on a Grey Knight character...

Oh. Right. I have to buy another Codex and use an entire new detachment to do this, and I still can't actually deliver it to melee.

Really? I can. I have a land raider with both the Grey Knights and inquisition faction that I can grant Scout.

Two detachments. 500+pts. Seven T3/4+ wounds and a Space Marine Captain profile in Terminator armour. Move over, Smashf***er, there's a new King of the Deathstars in town!

(Secondary note: the Page 120 sidebar gives no indication on whether the unit's faction is added to the transport's or replaces it. It's entirely possible that you can't put the Grey Knights in the vehicle and it has to go Scouting off without them.)

Damn, would you look at those goalposts dance!~

the_scotsman wrote:
Damn, would you look at those goalposts dance!~

My goalposts are different from your goalposts, neither have moved. Yours are set at "technically possible." Mine are set at "could field them in a non-joke game."

You can technically field Pyrovores. You can technically play Bloodbrides.

the_scotsman wrote:
Damn, would you look at those goalposts dance!~

I wonder if it's ironic or not that your name is a reference to a very common logical fallacy.

Really, I have no serious issue with Codex: Imperial Agents other than I can't imagine why people couldn't simply have used Unbound to do the same thing. Honestly, if you're going to insist on playing half a dozen different armies at once, lugging around half a dozen books is a worthy price for the fluffiness, isn't it?

 Pouncey wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Damn, would you look at those goalposts dance!~

I wonder if it's ironic or not that your name is a reference to a very common logical fallacy.

Really, I have no serious issue with Codex: Imperial Agents other than I can't imagine why people couldn't simply have used Unbound to do the same thing. Honestly, if you're going to insist on playing half a dozen different armies at once, lugging around half a dozen books is a worthy price for the fluffiness, isn't it?

Given that Imperial Agents makes it harder, more annoying, and worse to play an army you could easily have just run as bound under the current set of books? More Codexes is annoying, but it's preferable to this tripe.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Damn, would you look at those goalposts dance!~

I wonder if it's ironic or not that your name is a reference to a very common logical fallacy.

Really, I have no serious issue with Codex: Imperial Agents other than I can't imagine why people couldn't simply have used Unbound to do the same thing. Honestly, if you're going to insist on playing half a dozen different armies at once, lugging around half a dozen books is a worthy price for the fluffiness, isn't it?

Given that Imperial Agents makes it harder, more annoying, and worse to play an army you could easily have just run as bound under the current set of books? More Codexes is annoying, but it's preferable to this tripe.

To compound the issue, only the "lesser" armies were included in Imperial Agents, so if you want your Salamanders and Imperial Guard to join in on the fun, you still have to carry more books around.

An all-in-one Megadex for the entire Imperium faction would be one thing, I could see the value in that easily... but why only the least popular factions?

To me, the answer is simple, they plan on removing support for the individual codices later on, and Imperial Agents will become the only up-to-date Codex for these factions in 8e. They're letting you use your own Dex in the meantime to mitigate backlash over a longer period and get people so used to the idea that when they do finally drop support for the standalone codices, anyone who complains will be shouted down.

It honestly doesn't bode well for my favorite army, as I cannot see any other reason for this Codex.

Do I hope I'm wrong? Absolutely, and I may very well be.

But I really don't think I am. I think GW's just cutting down on the number of playable armies by rolling the least popular ones into the same book, and I think my own army will suffer in the long run for it.

I wish GW would just go for free rules like every other tabletop game is doing these days.

 Pouncey wrote:

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?

"Discussed" isn't really the term I'd use. Regardless, the Adepta Sororitas makes up less than half the book. The cacophony over it is literally drowning out discussion on the majority of C:IA.

To the OP, I would just reiterate the_scotsman, who summarized it pretty well: "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".

Audustum wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

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?

"Discussed" isn't really the term I'd use. Regardless, the Adepta Sororitas makes up less than half the book. The cacophony over it is literally drowning out discussion on the majority of C:IA.

First hardcopy Codex for a hugely neglected army in 13-14 years, discussion overwhelms the rest of the armies in the book which all got one or more updates within the past half-decade.

Again, this surprises you?

No one's surprised.

Just tired.

 Blacksails wrote:
No one's surprised.

Just tired.

:: hugs :: So am I.

But the long wait may be over soon.

And I'm not the sort of person who complains for no reason, you know.

 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

Yes well what did you expect? GW hinted at new stuff for them but we got a codex that combines all of the small factions but hardly gave anything to the sisters.

 Pouncey wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

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?

"Discussed" isn't really the term I'd use. Regardless, the Adepta Sororitas makes up less than half the book. The cacophony over it is literally drowning out discussion on the majority of C:IA.

First hardcopy Codex for a hugely neglected army in 13-14 years, discussion overwhelms the rest of the armies in the book which all got one or more updates within the past half-decade.

Again, this surprises you?

I'm angrier about my Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, honestly. They haven't had an entry in a hardcopy Codex for just as long, but GW isn't coming out and squatting them, they're shaving away their game presence and excising them from the lore bit by sorry bit until we're left with 'Acolyte' squads who can't figure out which way to point a gun, may or may not know how to use their transports, and generally just sit around being wastes of space.

At least Sisters have rules and sort of work.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

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?

"Discussed" isn't really the term I'd use. Regardless, the Adepta Sororitas makes up less than half the book. The cacophony over it is literally drowning out discussion on the majority of C:IA.

First hardcopy Codex for a hugely neglected army in 13-14 years, discussion overwhelms the rest of the armies in the book which all got one or more updates within the past half-decade.

Again, this surprises you?

I'm angrier about my Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, honestly. They haven't had an entry in a hardcopy Codex for just as long, but GW isn't coming out and squatting them, they're shaving away their game presence and excising them from the lore bit by sorry bit until we're left with 'Acolyte' squads who can't figure out which way to point a gun, may or may not know how to use their transports, and generally just sit around being wastes of space.

At least Sisters have rules and sort of work.

Uhh... Stormtroopers are called Militarum Tempestus now. They have their own Codex. Why aren't you just allying them with Inquisitors?

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

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?

"Discussed" isn't really the term I'd use. Regardless, the Adepta Sororitas makes up less than half the book. The cacophony over it is literally drowning out discussion on the majority of C:IA.

First hardcopy Codex for a hugely neglected army in 13-14 years, discussion overwhelms the rest of the armies in the book which all got one or more updates within the past half-decade.

Again, this surprises you?

I'm angrier about my Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, honestly. They haven't had an entry in a hardcopy Codex for just as long, but GW isn't coming out and squatting them, they're shaving away their game presence and excising them from the lore bit by sorry bit until we're left with 'Acolyte' squads who can't figure out which way to point a gun, may or may not know how to use their transports, and generally just sit around being wastes of space.

At least Sisters have rules and sort of work.

Uhh... Stormtroopers are called Militarum Tempestus now. They have their own Codex. Why aren't you just allying them with Inquisitors?

Because they're terrible, can't do any of the things my Stormtroopers could, and as of this FAQ it's debatable whether I'm allowed to use the same transports or not.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Because they're terrible, can't do any of the things my Stormtroopers could, and as of this FAQ it's debatable whether I'm allowed to use the same transports or not.

I played the Witch Hunters Codex. What exactly can't they do now that they could before, other than be re-equipped to be Arbites?

Just a question:
Do Psychostroke grenades change at all in the IA book?And do Inquisitors finally get an invun save?

 master of ordinance wrote:
Just a question:
Do Psychostroke grenades change at all in the IA book?And do Inquisitors finally get an invun save?

Nope, and nope.

Yay to the first and WTF to the second.
Why not?

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Because they're terrible, can't do any of the things my Stormtroopers could, and as of this FAQ it's debatable whether I'm allowed to use the same transports or not.

I played the Witch Hunters Codex. What exactly can't they do now that they could before, other than be re-equipped to be Arbites?

Be in the same transport as the Inquisitor. Be in a normal one-detachment army that makes any sense at all. Have boltguns, Null Rods, Eviscerators, or otherwise anything cool that made them feel like they were a bit of the Inquisition army instead of another army stapled on as an afterthought. Interact with the Inquisitorial elements of the list beyond being different psychic targets.

Just having the ability to take a CAD with units from different 'sub-lists' in different slots would be an incredible step forward. One of the things that's killing the Grey Knights is that they were designed to be an elite melee unit in a larger book, and somewhere along the line some moron said "Why don't we cut out the rest of this book and make a Codex for just them?", which is the moral equivalent of deleting the rest of the Space Marines Codex so you can write Codex: Terminators. It's tiny, one-dimensional, barely functional, and can't do a lot of incredibly basic things like 'hold objectives'. This newfangled 'fill-minimum-detachments-from-multiple-books' horrorshow makes everything clunkier, worse, and a lot more sensitive to the fact that a lot of the basic line units are steaming garbage.

(I had written 'Infiltrate', but apparently I've started conflating my homebrew book (which takes a lot from the 5e Guard book's Special Operations mechanic) with my memory of the original books.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Yay to the first and WTF to the second.
Why not?

Because someone in 5e decided the 'Armoury' was a dumb thing to have and they're being really, really slow about reintroducing them.

(Edit: You CAN have an Inquisitor with an Invulnerable save! If he's an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor he can get Terminator armour! And if he's a psyker he can roll on Divination and get Forewarning! Yay! [/sarcasm])

Woo. Ah well, still no invun toting Xenos Inquisitor for my Sisters of Silence deathstar then.