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.

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

And still no good delivery mechanism. Though if the IC-joined-to-unit ruling comes down saying a multi-faction unit can deploy in a transport that matches any of its factions you will...wait...the Imperial Agents Codex won't help at all, but you will be able to put a Sisters of Silence squad in a Blackstar with a Watch-Captain along for the ride. (You might be able to port them across the board with the Beacon Angelis too, just to make your opponent sweat.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 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.)

...Your Stormtroopers had Eviscerators?

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 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.)

...Your Stormtroopers had Eviscerators?

Yours didn't?

(It was in the armoury available to Stormtrooper Sergeants. The whole squad didn't, no, and I played the Daemonhunters book more than the Witch Hunters so I didn't run them much, but it was certainly there.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Your Stormtroopers had Eviscerators?

Yours didn't?

(It was in the armoury available to Stormtrooper Sergeants. The whole squad didn't, no, and I played the Daemonhunters book more than the Witch Hunters so I didn't run them much, but it was certainly there.)

Hm.

Maybe it was different for Daemonhunters, but my understanding of lore suggests that an Eviscerator is more a tool of the Ecclesiarchy than the highly-disciplined Stormtroopers.

 captain bloody fists wrote:

afk1sec wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Please, somebody, explain to me: What are all these damned nerfs you're talking about? The cheesy, unfluffy psyker batteries that weren't even an intended squad? (And that still pretty much exist through Astropaths?)
There's only two real "Nerfs" that I can see - Celestine, and Servo Skulls. Yeah, losing Celestine sucks, and Servo Skulls (while responsible for some cheesy spamming) were neat, but we have gotten at least as many useful new rules and gear back, so what the heck is everyone on about?

In a sense you are kind of right. At the same time as a sisters player, getting a weak 6th edition style codex at the end of 7th edition missing a strong hq choice that ends up nerfing one of your other units sucks.
Some of the acts of faith are worded a little better now, but are less than ideal in most cases still. They need a slight points tweak in places and acts of faith that actually help the units that can use them.
A couple formations, penitent engines to elites section and celestine would be nice( I assume she will be back in a LOW slot with a bigger model at some point).

The rest of the book is a mess of poorly worded rules and stuff you could have done before minus a couple options.

Dude our codex is still valid. GW have said so themselves. This book is purely for other players to include sisters in their armies.

It's them backtracking on a job not well done. All of their original posting were that it over wrote the old book. Internet backlash is all that fixed that. Everyone is still out 40 bucks wasted on a book full of things they could have done already in a better way.

afk1sec wrote:

 captain bloody fists wrote:

afk1sec wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Please, somebody, explain to me: What are all these damned nerfs you're talking about? The cheesy, unfluffy psyker batteries that weren't even an intended squad? (And that still pretty much exist through Astropaths?)
There's only two real "Nerfs" that I can see - Celestine, and Servo Skulls. Yeah, losing Celestine sucks, and Servo Skulls (while responsible for some cheesy spamming) were neat, but we have gotten at least as many useful new rules and gear back, so what the heck is everyone on about?

In a sense you are kind of right. At the same time as a sisters player, getting a weak 6th edition style codex at the end of 7th edition missing a strong hq choice that ends up nerfing one of your other units sucks.
Some of the acts of faith are worded a little better now, but are less than ideal in most cases still. They need a slight points tweak in places and acts of faith that actually help the units that can use them.
A couple formations, penitent engines to elites section and celestine would be nice( I assume she will be back in a LOW slot with a bigger model at some point).

The rest of the book is a mess of poorly worded rules and stuff you could have done before minus a couple options.

Dude our codex is still valid. GW have said so themselves. This book is purely for other players to include sisters in their armies.

It's them backtracking on a job not well done. All of their original posting were that it over wrote the old book. Internet backlash is all that fixed that. Everyone is still out 40 bucks wasted on a book full of things they could have done already in a better way.

Put the tinfoil hat away. There is no backtracking because they always intended both to be valid? How do we know this? Because the named canonness in the book literally states she is available in both books. So no none of thier original postings stated nothing about the sisters codex being invalidated.

afk1sec wrote:
It's them backtracking on a job not well done. All of their original posting were that it over wrote the old book. Internet backlash is all that fixed that. Everyone is still out 40 bucks wasted on a book full of things they could have done already in a better way.

Honestly, I'm just gonna wait for plastic Sisters of Battle before I get back into 40k tabletop. This new Codex is unimpressive and caters only to a small niche, of which I am not, and our one new model is resin, not plastic. I'm also getting the feeling that GW's attitude of neglect toward my army hasn't really been ameliorated, instead they obviously just intend to do the bare minimum to say they aren't neglecting them anymore.

I'm expecting the "update" to actually just be casting the existing sculpts in resin instead of metal now more than ever, if anything at all. Maybe they'll just replace Celestine with Veridyan and leave everything else unchanged. If I'm wrong, I'll rejoin the playerbase, buy the new models, but I currently feel like I was wrong to get my hopes up that maybe things would be different this time.

And this is more of a side note, but at this point I simply will not be grateful when plastic Sisters of Battle are released. They are overdue in the extreme, and GW's conduct toward the army does not inspire any gratitude on my part. If I go into my GW on plastic Sisters of Battle launch day, and the clerk asks if I'm glad plastic Sisters of Battle are out, I won't snap at her, but I'll give her a sad look and say, "5+ years ago, I might've been. It's hard to get excited at this point though, given how much your company dragged their heels on this," or something similar. I'm too socially-anxious to ever be the slightest bit impolite in public, but I could not feign excitement at this point if I tried.

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.

Does it do anything though? I fail to see any reason this book exists. There's practically nothing you can't already do without it.

Hey here's a book that lets you combine armies of the imperium together! Yeah could already do that with this thing called allies.

They could have gotten slightly creative and made detachments with a core of some kind, and then various aux formations, each of which represented the different arm if the imperium. As it is it's telling you that you can take an army of 17 Allied detachments, which you could already do. I put no stock in the AoS fear at all, I wrote it off as rumor fearmongering until this book. But this does really look like "just plonk down whatever models you think look cool and make pew pew noises, why do you care about creating a cohesive army? You think we actually write wargame rules here at GW?"

Clearly another example of GW having rules written by people who've never read the rule book, played a game, or had the foggiest idea what they were doing.

*also wtf, a Valkyrie that can't transport your units because it's an "ally" and not actually part of your main force, thanks.

Danny slag 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.

Does it do anything though? I fail to see any reason this book exists. There's practically nothing you can't already do without it.

Hey here's a book that lets you combine armies of the imperium together! Yeah could already do that with this thing called allies.

They could have gotten slightly creative and made detachments with a core of some kind, and then various aux formations, each of which represented the different arm if the imperium. As it is it's telling you that you can take an army of 17 Allied detachments, which you could already do. I put no stock in the AoS fear at all, I wrote it off as rumor fearmongering until this book. But this does really look like "just plonk down whatever models you think look cool and make pew pew noises, why do you care about creating a cohesive army? You think we actually write wargame rules here at GW?"

Clearly another example of GW having rules written by people who've never read the rule book or played a game. I

*also wtf, a Valkyrie that can't transport your units because it's an "ally" and not actually part of your main force, thanks.

I've actually done the "just plunk models down and make pew pew noises" thing before.

It was pretty fun. Didn't need any rulebooks, the only rule I needed was "On a 4+, this model dies" and then it was like I was a child playing with really expensive plastic army men.

Most fun I had in 40k in years though. Kids know how to have fun, and they're probably right about us adults needing to complicate everything and make it all super-serious.

Has anybody had a chance to look a the digital sisters or inquisition books to see if any of the datasheets have been changed or updated?

afk1sec wrote:
Has anybody had a chance to look a the digital sisters or inquisition books to see if any of the datasheets have been changed or updated?

I haven't updated my Codex in years. Kinda stopped playing during 6th.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 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,

Actually detachments have restrictions on exact units not faction, they tend to not say "includes space marine faction units" they say "1+ tactical squads, 0-2 bike squads etc." if they did restrict based on faction that would actually be decently smart and stop all this bs where your army is a hodgepodge of disparate elements duct taped together because every new release cant be slotted in to be cohesive with previous releases or dataslates for the same faction.

I mean hell, my shampoo bottle could write better rules.

Danny slag wrote:
Actually detachments have restrictions on exact units not faction, they tend to not say "includes space marine faction units" they say "1+ tactical squads, 0-2 bike squads etc." if they did restrict based on faction that would actually be decently smart and stop all this bs where your army is a hodgepodge of disparate elements duct taped together because every new realease cant be slotted in to be cohesive with previous releases or dataslates for the same faction.

It sounds like an Imperial army drawn from multiple factions would actually be more clear if you just used standard rules for using multiple Codices in your force instead of relying on Codex: Imperial Agents. Admittedly I don't have Imperial Agents in hand to check.

 Pouncey wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Actually detachments have restrictions on exact units not faction, they tend to not say "includes space marine faction units" they say "1+ tactical squads, 0-2 bike squads etc." if they did restrict based on faction that would actually be decently smart and stop all this bs where your army is a hodgepodge of disparate elements duct taped together because every new realease cant be slotted in to be cohesive with previous releases or dataslates for the same faction.

It sounds like an Imperial army drawn from multiple factions would actually be more clear if you just used standard rules for using multiple Codices in your force instead of relying on Codex: Imperial Agents. Admittedly I don't have Imperial Agents in hand to check.

It would, which is why this book makes no sense and is pointless
But the problem there is they're still just allies with all the restrictions that come with that. This book should have provided fun rules for making any Army of the Imperium, instead it did, well I don't even know what it did, waste paper I guess.

Makes even less sense coming right off traitor legions which while it didn't fix the fact that points have decreased and power skyrocketed in codexes since CSM, it gave you cool new ways to build cohesive armies to your flavor that actually have structure and make sense both rule and fluff wise. Traitor legions was how to do a supplement, imperial agents is how not to do one.

Danny slag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Actually detachments have restrictions on exact units not faction, they tend to not say "includes space marine faction units" they say "1+ tactical squads, 0-2 bike squads etc." if they did restrict based on faction that would actually be decently smart and stop all this bs where your army is a hodgepodge of disparate elements duct taped together because every new realease cant be slotted in to be cohesive with previous releases or dataslates for the same faction.

It sounds like an Imperial army drawn from multiple factions would actually be more clear if you just used standard rules for using multiple Codices in your force instead of relying on Codex: Imperial Agents. Admittedly I don't have Imperial Agents in hand to check.

It would, which is why this book makes no sense and is pointless
But the problem there is they're still just allies with all the restrictions that come with that. This book should have provided fun rules for making any Army of the Imperium, instead it did, well I don't even know what it did, waste paper I guess.

I'm glad I didn't buy it then. : D

 Pouncey wrote:

Danny slag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Actually detachments have restrictions on exact units not faction, they tend to not say "includes space marine faction units" they say "1+ tactical squads, 0-2 bike squads etc." if they did restrict based on faction that would actually be decently smart and stop all this bs where your army is a hodgepodge of disparate elements duct taped together because every new realease cant be slotted in to be cohesive with previous releases or dataslates for the same faction.

It sounds like an Imperial army drawn from multiple factions would actually be more clear if you just used standard rules for using multiple Codices in your force instead of relying on Codex: Imperial Agents. Admittedly I don't have Imperial Agents in hand to check.

It would, which is why this book makes no sense and is pointless
But the problem there is they're still just allies with all the restrictions that come with that. This book should have provided fun rules for making any Army of the Imperium, instead it did, well I don't even know what it did, waste paper I guess.

I'm glad I didn't buy it then. : D

Definitely. I'm salty because my favorite army is skitarii, which also got hosed by this asinine mind bogglingly stupid army construction decisions of splitting it into two books that don't work together for no logical reason. I thought maybe this was going to fix that and let you make a fully fleshed out imperial army. But alas, I should learn better.

Danny slag wrote:
Definitely. I'm salty because my favorite army is skitarii, which also got hosed by this asinine mind bogglingly stupid army construction decisions of splitting it into two books that don't work together for no logical reason. I thought maybe this was going to fix that and let you make a fully fleshed out imperial army. But alas, I should learn better.

:: frownysads ::

:: comfort hugs ::

We can be mistreated army buddies together, okay?

At least Coteaz remembered he is the lord of Formosa, and his acolytes are objective secured again. BUT given lack of other reworkings I suspect some kind of unintentional copypasta.

Servo skulls being out is a good thing. For such low tax they gave too much of a hard counter to certain armies.

But overall the lack of the inquisitorial decurion, bugged inquisitorial and aeronautica sections makes this book rated (on a scale from 1 to 10) a pile of cowpoo.
Even for GW this book smells incompetency and lack of effort too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I will not forgive they killed my jokaero army list.

Fan67 wrote:
At least Coteaz remembered he is the lord of Formosa, and his acolytes are objective secured again. BUT given lack of other reworkings I suspect some kind of unintentional copypasta.

Servo skulls being out is a good thing. For such low tax they gave too much of a hard counter to certain armies.

But overall the lack of the inquisitorial decurion, bugged inquisitorial and aeronautica sections makes this book rated (on a scale from 1 to 10) a pile of cowpoo.
Even for GW this book smells incompetency and lack of effort too much.

I agree on the general disparagement and the "copypasta" part, but why on Earth would you think the copy/paste is not completely intentional?

 Pouncey wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Definitely. I'm salty because my favorite army is skitarii, which also got hosed by this asinine mind bogglingly stupid army construction decisions of splitting it into two books that don't work together for no logical reason. I thought maybe this was going to fix that and let you make a fully fleshed out imperial army. But alas, I should learn better.

:: frownysads ::

:: comfort hugs ::

We can be mistreated army buddies together, okay?

Two words for your new friend: War Convocation

It is a patch rather than solution, but the followers of the Omnissiah at least have couple lists that both fluffy and competitive.

Fan67 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Definitely. I'm salty because my favorite army is skitarii, which also got hosed by this asinine mind bogglingly stupid army construction decisions of splitting it into two books that don't work together for no logical reason. I thought maybe this was going to fix that and let you make a fully fleshed out imperial army. But alas, I should learn better.

:: frownysads ::

:: comfort hugs ::

We can be mistreated army buddies together, okay?

Two words for your new friend: War Convocation

It is a patch rather than solution, but the followers of the Omnissiah at least have couple lists that both fluffy and competitive.

I... uh...

Why not quote him instead of me if you're going to tell him that?

 Pouncey wrote:


I agree on the general disparagement and the "copypasta" part, but why on Earth would you think the copy/paste is not completely intentional?

I think they have some kind of a rules data base (I bet in MS Word), and the new guy didn't have a late inquisition codex around.
So he looked at the grey knights codex for coteaz entry, spotted lord of Formosa and copy pasted from a database.

Editor later probably fixed obvious out-of-edition phrasing to more suitable objsec.
Still I am sure we are to thank some outsourcer copy paster from india for this boost.

Fan67 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I agree on the general disparagement and the "copypasta" part, but why on Earth would you think the copy/paste is not completely intentional?

I think they have some kind of a rules data base (I bet in MS Word), and the new guy didn't have a late inquisition codex around.
So he looked at the grey knights codex for coteaz entry, spotted lord of Formosa and copy pasted from a database.

Editor later probably fixed obvious out-of-edition phrasing to more suitable objsec.
Still I am sure we are to thank some outsourcer copy pasted from india for this boost.

I've heard the most recent iteration of Sisters of Battle rules is a direct copy/paste of our WD Dex rules from 2011.

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if they literally just copy/paste stuff without reading sometimes.

Plastic sisters of battle pics from jan. white dwarf going around on 4chan tonight.
Looks like we can forget about this book by Feb.

nekooni wrote:

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

It's a supplement. You don't need it.

Ok. An odd way to make money.

afk1sec wrote:
Plastic sisters of battle pics from jan. white dwarf going around on 4chan tonight.
Looks like we can forget about this book by Feb.

Might just be models. Might also be fake - really hope it's not because those Seraphim are amazing, but it might be. Somehow.

 BBAP wrote:

afk1sec wrote:
Plastic sisters of battle pics from jan. white dwarf going around on 4chan tonight.
Looks like we can forget about this book by Feb.

Might just be models. Might also be fake - really hope it's not because those Seraphim are amazing, but it might be. Somehow.

Not looking fake. There's a ton of leaked pics including a Dark Eldar box game.

Yeah, unless this is a fairly elaborate hoax, I'd say the answer to the thread title just became "if you're using this as an allies dex, maybe. if you're using it as a sisters codex, you want to wait a couple of months to see what happens".

 BBAP wrote:

afk1sec wrote:
Plastic sisters of battle pics from jan. white dwarf going around on 4chan tonight.
Looks like we can forget about this book by Feb.

Might just be models. Might also be fake - really hope it's not because those Seraphim are amazing, but it might be. Somehow.

There's an official GW produced video showing the models, head on over to http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/711678.page or to Warhammer TV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yeah, unless this is a fairly elaborate hoax, I'd say the answer to the thread title just became "if you're using this as an allies dex, maybe. if you're using it as a sisters codex, you want to wait a couple of months to see what happens".

Well I'll be using it for my Inquisition. But yeah, the other army list just became redundant and probably very short-lifed.

CALLED IT!

CELESTINE = CELESTANT PRIME + SOULSTORM