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.

So, my friend has the new Mperial Agents. Celestine is gone (she was a bit too powerful for my taste) and apparently you still can't buy a cannoness with a jump pack. And here I now have a converted cannoness with wings, AND a St. Celestine...Anyone have thoughts? A clue as to why they don't want a cannoness with the seraphim? I know, not the end of the world, but man I LIKE my conversions, and now they're just sister superiors...and yes, I have run a Sister's only army for more than a decade.

Well, you could find an ordinary Canoness model.

Then buy a Seraphim model.

Then, like, glue the Seraphim backpack onto the Canoness.

Then if anyone goes, "She doesn't look like she's flying," you say, "Yeah, the Jump Pack is a way to get from point A to point B. She does her fighting on the ground. Where her enemies are. Duh."

St. Celestine returns in the next campaign book about Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade on Cadia.

Oh. You mean the Codex doesn't allow it as an option?

Try asking for a house rule outside of tournaments. Clear it with your opponent first, of course. Something like, "Hey, I have this Canoness model I really like. Not a special character or anything, but is it okay if I spend X points in my list to give her a jump pack? Nothing special, just an ordinary jump pack and an ordinary generic Canoness. You can do the math with my Codex and army list if you want to make sure I'm not trying to slip anything by you, I totally understand."

Then make X something about 50% more than the normal cost of a Jump Pack. I'm thinking like 40pts or so. That's more than a Rhino would cost. People are usually at least willing to consider those kinds of exceptions if you pay a lot of extra points for them. The extra points tend to indicate it's a flavor thing.

If they say, "Yeah, sure, it's fine." then it works.

If they say, "Nah, I don't think so." then whatever. You could magnetize the jump pack and swap it to a more ordinary backpack and, I dunno, have a separate list or something? Or just live with a 40pts deficit, that's fine too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:
St. Celestine returns in the next campaign book about Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade on Cadia.

What, if, just hear me out here, but what if someone, like, doesn't buy that campaign book?

 Pouncey wrote:


What, if, just hear me out here, but what if someone, like, doesn't buy that campaign book?

That person doesn't get to play with Celestine's new rules then. They can either use the old rules in C:AS or not use her at all.

 Pouncey wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:
St. Celestine returns in the next campaign book about Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade on Cadia.

What, if, just hear me out here, but what if someone, like, doesn't buy that campaign book?

Then you don't get the rules. If CSM players don't buy WoM or Traitor Legions they don't have the rules for Exalted Sorcerers. If Guard players don't buy IA1 they don't have the rules for Malcadors. If Marine players don't buy IA2 they can't have Contemptors with different armaments than the one in the Calth box. The models exist and are legal in the game, but you still need to have access to the rules to use them if you want to use them. Not that hard of a problem.

(Before you go on a bender about having to buy two books to play your army I will remind you of the Great Inquisition Book Chop-Up of 6th Edition that has me needing 4+ books to play my 3e Ordo Malleus army. One-book armies are rare and unusual these days.)

On the subject of the model: Still working out the details (among other things I still need the right body on the right scale) but my current plan involves wings from http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/convergence-of-cyriss/warcasters/aurora-numen-of-aerogenesis stuck to a single central Jump Pack thruster (borrowed from a Sanguiniary Guard model, with a fleur-de-lys added in greenstuff). She may end up being big enough that she needs to be a Living Saint rather than just a Canoness but the wings are just that awesome.

Loopstah wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


What, if, just hear me out here, but what if someone, like, doesn't buy that campaign book?

That person doesn't get to play with Celestine's new rules then. They can either use the old rules in C:AS or not use her at all.

Why didn't they just put Celestine's rules in the Codex?

 Pouncey wrote:

Loopstah wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


What, if, just hear me out here, but what if someone, like, doesn't buy that campaign book?

That person doesn't get to play with Celestine's new rules then. They can either use the old rules in C:AS or not use her at all.

Why didn't they just put Celestine's rules in the Codex?

Why can't the Inquisition have BS4 dudes anymore? Why didn't they update the GK instead of reprinting three units in IA and giving them a detachment that offers nothing over their existing detachment? Why does GW do anything?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
(Before you go on a bender about having to buy two books to play your army I will remind you of the Great Inquisition Book Chop-Up of 6th Edition that has me needing 4+ books to play my 3e Ordo Malleus army. One-book armies are rare and unusual these days.)

I'm not planning to use Celestine at all.

She's, uh, kinda rare to begin with.

And then there's the lore for my personal army making her even less likely to show up and help.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Loopstah wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


What, if, just hear me out here, but what if someone, like, doesn't buy that campaign book?

That person doesn't get to play with Celestine's new rules then. They can either use the old rules in C:AS or not use her at all.

Why didn't they just put Celestine's rules in the Codex?

Why can't the Inquisition have BS4 dudes anymore? Why didn't they update the GK instead of reprinting three units in IA and giving them a detachment that offers nothing over their existing detachment? Why does GW do anything?

Well, generally because they want to make money.

So when they spread the rules between multiple books, people have to buy multiple books to play their army.

At this point I think I'd rather they just went with free datasheets distributed online or something, and they could mail them out to their stores if anyone needs one. Then just, like, stop having Codices entirely.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
(Before you go on a bender about having to buy two books to play your army I will remind you of the Great Inquisition Book Chop-Up of 6th Edition that has me needing 4+ books to play my 3e Ordo Malleus army. One-book armies are rare and unusual these days.)

I'm not planning to use Celestine at all.

She's, uh, kinda rare to begin with.

And then there's the lore for my personal army making her even less likely to show up and help.

My apologies for the preemptive 'stop whining', then.

(I still haven't found a good explanation for why there isn't a generic 'Living Saint' profile, or why Celestine is still S/T3. I always thought of them as a rough Imperial equivalent of a Daemon Prince, and it made some sense back when there was one S/T3 Celestine and maybe one or two S/T4 Daemon Princes in a CSM army, but with the S6/T5 profile and this Daemon book's tendency to put three or more in an army Celestine feels kind of like she's fallen by the wayside and the Emperor's forces need more backup. That isn't Dreadknights. F*** Dreadknights.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
(Before you go on a bender about having to buy two books to play your army I will remind you of the Great Inquisition Book Chop-Up of 6th Edition that has me needing 4+ books to play my 3e Ordo Malleus army. One-book armies are rare and unusual these days.)

I'm not planning to use Celestine at all.

She's, uh, kinda rare to begin with.

And then there's the lore for my personal army making her even less likely to show up and help.

My apologies for the preemptive 'stop whining', then.

(I still haven't found a good explanation for why there isn't a generic 'Living Saint' profile, or why Celestine is still S/T3. I always thought of them as a rough Imperial equivalent of a Daemon Prince, and it made some sense back when there was one S/T3 Celestine and maybe one or two S/T4 Daemon Princes in a CSM army, but with the S6/T5 profile and this Daemon book's tendency to put three or more in an army Celestine feels kind of like she's fallen by the wayside and the Emperor's forces need more backup. That isn't Dreadknights. F*** Dreadknights.)

How many Living Saints do you think there are? The answer is that you may as well just say it's Celestine, because they're probably rarer than Primarchs.

Besides, I can argue against or for something without it affecting me personally, you know.

 Pouncey wrote:
...Well, generally because they want to make money.

So when they spread the rules between multiple books, people have to buy multiple books to play their army.

At this point I think I'd rather they just went with free datasheets distributed online or something, and they could mail them out to their stores if anyone needs one. Then just, like, stop having Codices entirely.

In practice they're running on an archaic business model because nobody else is about to knock them off their 'best models' throne (other people compete on sculpt quality, nobody else competes on customizability or range). They're still trying to make money off of army books because nobody told them there's an Internet now. (Similar reasons to why Microsoft took so long to get in on the smartphone market. GW is very much the Microsoft of tabletop wargames. Old, ubiquitous, convoluted, customizable, unpopular, and yet it's what everyone uses.)

(Privateer (Warmachine/Hordes) and Corvus Belli (Infinity) are going the 'all rules/model profiles free online' route. They haven't exploded yet. Privateer's also established that premeasuring and non-random charges can coexist without the game exploding. Lessons GW could really stand to learn from.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Well, generally because they want to make money.

So when they spread the rules between multiple books, people have to buy multiple books to play their army.

At this point I think I'd rather they just went with free datasheets distributed online or something, and they could mail them out to their stores if anyone needs one. Then just, like, stop having Codices entirely.

In practice they're running on an archaic business model because nobody else is about to knock them off their 'best models' throne (other people compete on sculpt quality, nobody else competes on customizability or range). They're still trying to make money off of army books because nobody told them there's an Internet now. (Similar reasons to why Microsoft took so long to get in on the smartphone market. GW is very much the Microsoft of tabletop wargames. Old, ubiquitous, convoluted, customizable, unpopular, and yet it's what everyone uses.)

(Privateer (Warmachine/Hordes) and Corvus Belli (Infinity) are going the 'all rules/model profiles free online' route. They haven't exploded yet. Privateer's also established that premeasuring and non-random charges can coexist without the game exploding. Lessons GW could really stand to learn from.)

I, uh, play a lot of computer games on my PC.

Are you aware that the comparison to Microsoft was actually very unflattering?

 Pouncey wrote:
...How many Living Saints do you think there are? The answer is that you may as well just say it's Celestine, because they're probably rarer than Primarchs.

Besides, I can argue against or for something without it affecting me personally, you know.

How many Daemon Princes do I think there are? And yet they've got a generic profile and show up 3-4 to an army regularly.

(Lexicanum lists six notable Living Saints (Lozepeth, Macharius, Anais, Celestine, Gerstahl, Sabbat) aside from Dominica and companions for a total of twelve, nineteen notable Daemon Princes, and eighteen Primarchs, given that there are vastly more Sisters than there are Space Marines, they've been around for half as long, and they've had a fraction as many Codexes and novels written starring them I'd speculate that Living Saints can be as rare as/rarer than Primarchs in terms of how many there are for each ordinary member of the order and yet still have enough to need a generic profile (since I doubt GW is about to release an 'Age of Apostasy' supplemental era with specific profiles for Dominica and her companions).)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
...I, uh, play a lot of computer games on my PC.

Are you aware that the comparison to Microsoft was actually very unflattering?

I was trying to make a point about market leaders and their tendency to resist adopting new ideas/altering their business model, not to flatter or insult either Microsoft or GW.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...How many Living Saints do you think there are? The answer is that you may as well just say it's Celestine, because they're probably rarer than Primarchs.

Besides, I can argue against or for something without it affecting me personally, you know.

How many Daemon Princes do I think there are? And yet they've got a generic profile and show up 3-4 to an army regularly.

(Lexicanum lists six notable Living Saints (Lozepeth, Macharius, Anais, Celestine, Gerstahl, Sabbat) aside from Dominica and companions for a total of twelve, nineteen notable Daemon Princes, and eighteen Primarchs, given that there are vastly more Sisters than there are Space Marines, they've been around for half as long, and they've had a fraction as many Codexes and novels written starring them I'd speculate that Living Saints can be as rare as/rarer than Primarchs in terms of how many there are for each ordinary member of the order and yet still have enough to need a generic profile (since I doubt GW is about to release an 'Age of Apostasy' supplemental era with specific profiles for Dominica and her companions).)

I was right.

Six Living Saints.

Twenty PRIMARCHS.

You're aware that the tabletop game does not accurately represent the lore, right? I don't think you do, because you're conflating something being common in one with its frequency in the other, and no, they don't line up like that, at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
...I, uh, play a lot of computer games on my PC.

Are you aware that the comparison to Microsoft was actually very unflattering?

I was trying to make a point about market leaders and their tendency to resist adopting new ideas/altering their business model, not to flatter or insult either Microsoft or GW.

You know, a company can be successful while making a terrible product.

You know, like Twilight. And Fifty Shades of Grey.

 Pouncey wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
...I, uh, play a lot of computer games on my PC.

Are you aware that the comparison to Microsoft was actually very unflattering?

I was trying to make a point about market leaders and their tendency to resist adopting new ideas/altering their business model, not to flatter or insult either Microsoft or GW.

You know, a company can be successful while making a terrible product.

You know, like Twilight. And Fifty Shades of Grey.

If I were to discuss the quality of the product rather than the effect on the business model of its success there might be somewhere to go with this one. I totally agree that quality and success aren't that closely connected. And given that I'm discussing success, not quality, the disconnectedness makes my comparison between Microsoft and GW much less insulting to either one's product.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
...I, uh, play a lot of computer games on my PC.

Are you aware that the comparison to Microsoft was actually very unflattering?

I was trying to make a point about market leaders and their tendency to resist adopting new ideas/altering their business model, not to flatter or insult either Microsoft or GW.

You know, a company can be successful while making a terrible product.

You know, like Twilight. And Fifty Shades of Grey.

If I were to discuss the quality of the product rather than the effect on the business model of its success there might be somewhere to go with this one. I totally agree that quality and success aren't that closely connected. And given that I'm discussing success, not quality, the disconnectedness makes my comparison between Microsoft and GW much less insulting to either one's product.

And I really don't care whether either one is successful or not.

I care about them trying to wring money out of people with stupid policies.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...How many Living Saints do you think there are? The answer is that you may as well just say it's Celestine, because they're probably rarer than Primarchs.

Besides, I can argue against or for something without it affecting me personally, you know.

How many Daemon Princes do I think there are? And yet they've got a generic profile and show up 3-4 to an army regularly.

(Lexicanum lists six notable Living Saints (Lozepeth, Macharius, Anais, Celestine, Gerstahl, Sabbat) aside from Dominica and companions for a total of twelve, nineteen notable Daemon Princes, and eighteen Primarchs, given that there are vastly more Sisters than there are Space Marines, they've been around for half as long, and they've had a fraction as many Codexes and novels written starring them I'd speculate that Living Saints can be as rare as/rarer than Primarchs in terms of how many there are for each ordinary member of the order and yet still have enough to need a generic profile (since I doubt GW is about to release an 'Age of Apostasy' supplemental era with specific profiles for Dominica and her companions).)

I was right.

Six Living Saints.

Twenty PRIMARCHS.

You're aware that the tabletop game does not accurately represent the lore, right? I don't think you do, because you're conflating something being common in one with its frequency in the other, and no, they don't line up like that, at all.

Twelve Living Saints explicitly mentioned in the lore, with implied existence of an unspecified number not explicitly mentioned. Eighteen Primarchs explicitly mentioned in the lore, with implied existence of exactly two not mentioned (and no more). And the existence of clear descriptions and stats of the eighteen is a function of the game's decision to make them the poster army, not of their rarity or lack thereof in the lore.

There are unique stats with unique rules for all eighteen Primarchs (at least there will be, five are yet to be released), with a further potential/implied release of distinct rules for each one for 40k proper. Is it so much to ask that 12+ Living Saints get a generic profile to approximate themselves in addition to the one specific special character profile for a total of two unit entries, by comparison to 14 and counting (not to stop before 19 at the earliest and potentially going all the way to 36) unique unit entries for 18 Primarchs?

As for the lore/rules relationship I'm aware it's not a particularly close one but at the same time that isn't a good excuse for not trying to make it better. If you were going to operate from the premise that the two have no connection and shouldn't be used to justify changes in each other you'd have a valid argument for choosing to declare Twilight as the canon of lore for 40k, and by said premise there's no argument that can be made that Twilight is any worse at being 40k canon than the one we've got, or Harry Potter, or Ivanhoe, or any other random bit of prose you happen to feel like inserting into that sentence. ([/reducto ad absurdum])

Exaggeration aside the lore and the rules are connected. They're not as well reflected in each other as they could be, and frequently the game has too much impact on the lore rather than the other way around, but that's a problem, not an excuse for not trying to fix the problem.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...How many Living Saints do you think there are? The answer is that you may as well just say it's Celestine, because they're probably rarer than Primarchs.

Besides, I can argue against or for something without it affecting me personally, you know.

How many Daemon Princes do I think there are? And yet they've got a generic profile and show up 3-4 to an army regularly.

(Lexicanum lists six notable Living Saints (Lozepeth, Macharius, Anais, Celestine, Gerstahl, Sabbat) aside from Dominica and companions for a total of twelve, nineteen notable Daemon Princes, and eighteen Primarchs, given that there are vastly more Sisters than there are Space Marines, they've been around for half as long, and they've had a fraction as many Codexes and novels written starring them I'd speculate that Living Saints can be as rare as/rarer than Primarchs in terms of how many there are for each ordinary member of the order and yet still have enough to need a generic profile (since I doubt GW is about to release an 'Age of Apostasy' supplemental era with specific profiles for Dominica and her companions).)

I was right.

Six Living Saints.

Twenty PRIMARCHS.

You're aware that the tabletop game does not accurately represent the lore, right? I don't think you do, because you're conflating something being common in one with its frequency in the other, and no, they don't line up like that, at all.

Twelve Living Saints explicitly mentioned in the lore, with implied existence of an unspecified number not explicitly mentioned. Eighteen Primarchs explicitly mentioned in the lore, with implied existence of exactly two not mentioned (and no more). And the existence of clear descriptions and stats of the eighteen is a function of the game's decision to make them the poster army, not of their rarity or lack thereof in the lore.

There are unique stats with unique rules for all eighteen Primarchs (at least there will be, five are yet to be released), with a further potential/implied release of distinct rules for each one for 40k proper. Is it so much to ask that 12+ Living Saints get a generic profile to approximate themselves in addition to the one specific special character profile for a total of two unit entries, by comparison to 14 and counting (not to stop before 19 at the earliest and potentially going all the way to 36) unique unit entries for 18 Primarchs?

As for the lore/rules relationship I'm aware it's not a particularly close one but at the same time that isn't a good excuse for not trying to make it better. If you were going to operate from the premise that the two have no connection and shouldn't be used to justify changes in each other you'd have a valid argument for choosing to declare Twilight as the canon of lore for 40k, and by said premise there's no argument that can be made that Twilight is any worse at being 40k canon than the one we've got, or Harry Potter, or Ivanhoe, or any other random bit of prose you happen to feel like inserting into that sentence. ([/reducto ad absurdum])

Exaggeration aside the lore and the rules are connected. They're not as well reflected in each other as they could be, and frequently the game has too much impact on the lore rather than the other way around, but that's a problem, not an excuse for not trying to fix the problem.

Sure, okay, we can just, like, call it a "Living Saint" and leave it at that.

Let's also just call it a "Primarch" and leave it at that, so we can have a generic Primarch.

 Pouncey wrote:
...And I really don't care whether either one is successful or not.

I care about them trying to wring money out of people with stupid policies.

And I'm going to try to get back to the original point before we wandered off into this particular stretch of weeds. Successful companies, including GW, have trouble adapting to changes in technology that make some part of their business model irrelevant. GW was founded in a pre-Internet age where the only way they could distribute rules was to print books and ship them places, which cost money and necessitated charging for the rules. These days we're in an age of endless free copy-pasting, and game companies could (and do) just toss their rulebooks up on their website for download while paying a fraction of what they would to print them all up and ship them out to stores. Yet GW is still stuck in their pre-Internet mindset where the rules are a valuable commodity that need to be charged for, and since they're top of the market and nobody else is showing any signs of challenging their spot on the totem pole, they're not likely to change that anytime soon since people are still going to go buy the stuff despite grumbling.

Grumble about the 'stupid policies' if you must, but I only ask that you remember Heinlein's Law ("never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence") and complain about small-mindedness and resistance to change rather than an evil money-grubbing conspiracy. People don't try to be customer-unfriendly. Lots of people get there by being bad at being customer-friendly.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...And I really don't care whether either one is successful or not.

I care about them trying to wring money out of people with stupid policies.

And I'm going to try to get back to the original point before we wandered off into this particular stretch of weeds. Successful companies, including GW, have trouble adapting to changes in technology that make some part of their business model irrelevant. GW was founded in a pre-Internet age where the only way they could distribute rules was to print books and ship them places, which cost money and necessitated charging for the rules. These days we're in an age of endless free copy-pasting, and game companies could (and do) just toss their rulebooks up on their website for download while paying a fraction of what they would to print them all up and ship them out to stores. Yet GW is still stuck in their pre-Internet mindset where the rules are a valuable commodity that need to be charged for, and since they're top of the market and nobody else is showing any signs of challenging their spot on the totem pole, they're not likely to change that anytime soon since people are still going to go buy the stuff despite grumbling.

Grumble about the 'stupid policies' if you must, but I only ask that you remember Heinlein's Law ("never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence") and complain about small-mindedness and resistance to change rather than an evil money-grubbing conspiracy. People don't try to be customer-unfriendly. Lots of people get there by being bad at being customer-friendly.

I said stupid policies.

Not evil.

Where did I call GW evil? I thought I called them greedy. Because they're trying to make money in ways that deliberately inconvenience their customers, because they do things like, what would you call this, price gouging?

 Pouncey wrote:
...Sure, okay, we can just, like, call it a "Living Saint" and leave it at that.

Let's also just call it a "Primarch" and leave it at that, so we can have a generic Primarch.

The difference between the Primarchs and the Living Saints is that there are a finite number of Primarchs with defined powers and properties in the lore. There isn't a strictly-defined finite set of Living Saints. I can make up my own Living Saint without stepping on anyone else's lore, employing convoluted twists of setting logic, or setting off the #1 40k Mary Sue red flag ('Lost Primarchs!') much more easily than I can if I wanted to make up another Primarch.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Sure, okay, we can just, like, call it a "Living Saint" and leave it at that.

Let's also just call it a "Primarch" and leave it at that, so we can have a generic Primarch.

The difference between the Primarchs and the Living Saints is that there are a finite number of Primarchs with defined powers and properties in the lore. There isn't a strictly-defined finite set of Living Saints. I can make up my own Living Saint without stepping on anyone else's lore, employing convoluted twists of setting logic, or setting off the #1 40k Mary Sue red flag ('Lost Primarchs!') much more easily than I can if I wanted to make up another Primarch.

Then define the number.

There are 6 named ones. Another 6 un-named ones. Yet you suggest a generic template instead of having each one be different. Yet you're not treating the Space Marine Primarchs the same way.

 Pouncey wrote:
...deliberately inconvenience...

This is the bit I'm taking issue with. They're not out to deliberately inconvenience you. They've got it stuck in their head that their rules are valuable and they need to charge for them because that was how things worked in the '80s when they were getting started and they've got no reason to change. You're ascribing hostile motives to an action without considering why it's really there.

Almost all of GW's actions can be more easily explained by taking a look at what they were trying to do and how incorrect assumptions, excessive caution, or inadequate testing made them screw it up rather than by inventing theories about how GW is out to get you.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...deliberately inconvenience...

This is the bit I'm taking issue with. They're not out to deliberately inconvenience you. They've got it stuck in their head that their rules are valuable and they need to charge for them because that was how things worked in the '80s when they were getting started and they've got no reason to change. You're ascribing hostile motives to an action without considering why it's really there.

Almost all of GW's actions can be more easily explained by taking a look at what they were trying to do and how incorrect assumptions, excessive caution, or inadequate testing made them screw it up rather than by inventing theories about how GW is out to get you.

Whatever.

Can we get back to talking about Sisters of Battle now?

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Sure, okay, we can just, like, call it a "Living Saint" and leave it at that.

Let's also just call it a "Primarch" and leave it at that, so we can have a generic Primarch.

The difference between the Primarchs and the Living Saints is that there are a finite number of Primarchs with defined powers and properties in the lore. There isn't a strictly-defined finite set of Living Saints. I can make up my own Living Saint without stepping on anyone else's lore, employing convoluted twists of setting logic, or setting off the #1 40k Mary Sue red flag ('Lost Primarchs!') much more easily than I can if I wanted to make up another Primarch.

Then define the number.

There are 6 named ones. Another 6 un-named ones. Yet you suggest a generic template instead of having each one be different. Yet you're not treating the Space Marine Primarchs the same way.

Twelve named ones. I'll name them: Lozepeth. Macharius. Anais. Celestine. Gerstahl. Sabbat. Dominica. Katherine. Silvana. Mina. Lucia. Arabella.

The point is that the lore doesn't preclude the existence of more, while the lore precludes the existence of more than twenty Primarchs. There could be a dozen more Living Saints, a hundred more, a thousand more, we don't know. We don't have any evidence to the contrary. Yet there are exactly twenty Primarchs, because 'Primarch' is defined as 'one of the twenty prototype Space Marines created by the Emperor as part of the Primarch Project'.

I'm absolutely in favour of a stack of unique statlines for a common class of characters, but only if it's a relatively small and limited one. There are specific, unique statlines for the Phoenix Lords, because we can define them as Asurmen and those of his disciples influential enough to found a new widespread Aspect, which has the number at eight statted (six in the Eldar book, plus Irrilyth and Arhra/Drazhar) and three implied (no official rules/model for the Phoenix Lords of the Crimson Hunters, Warp Spiders, or Shining Spears yet). There can't be hundreds more waiting in the wings we've never heard of because that'd require hundreds more distinct Warrior Aspects.

But in cases like Daemon Princes, Living Saints, etc. defining a finite number, or declaring that this is a broader category in lore and then defining a single unique character as a representative of the whole, takes a rich area of lore, rules, and model customization and strangles it unnecessarily. There are five (Urraka, Mamon, Samus, Be'lakor, and giant!Magnus) unique Daemon Princes statted right now, but declaring that they're the sole representation of all Daemon-Prince-kind and refusing to put out generic rules for making your own would be silly, and to my mind declaring that Celestine is the sole representative of all official and potential Living Saints on the tabletop is just as silly.

If you must argue for statting out a bunch of unique ones keep to a limited group (e.g. do an Age of Apostasy/founding historical campaign book and stat out the six original founders the way the Primarchs have been), but put out generic rules as well to keep the possibilities open and give the player more lore/rules concepts to play around with.

(A secondary note on trying to stat out a whole class of characters: the Primarchs and the Phoenix Lords had a clearly defined 'this is the age when these guys came into being'. A Living Saint could pop up tomorrow. A new Primarch or Phoenix Lord couldn't.)

(Tertiary note on bringing the Phoenix Lords into this analogy: I'm aware that the lore discusses the existence/creation of newer and rarer Aspect Shrines, but the Phoenix Lords' armour is superior to modern armour in part because of its age, the Phoenix Lords themselves are superior to modern warriors in great part because they're ten thousand year old gestalt consciousnesses, and the Exarchs tend to be very old consciousnesses themselves and unlikely to splinter in great part from their Phoenix Lord's teachings the creation of a new Phoenix Lord is a process that could hypothetically start tomorrow but would be both exceedingly unlikely and probably would take a few millennia to produce something on the level of the current Phoenix Lords, so for my purposes there exist eleven, eight have stats, and there aren't going to be any more.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...deliberately inconvenience...

This is the bit I'm taking issue with. They're not out to deliberately inconvenience you. They've got it stuck in their head that their rules are valuable and they need to charge for them because that was how things worked in the '80s when they were getting started and they've got no reason to change. You're ascribing hostile motives to an action without considering why it's really there.

Almost all of GW's actions can be more easily explained by taking a look at what they were trying to do and how incorrect assumptions, excessive caution, or inadequate testing made them screw it up rather than by inventing theories about how GW is out to get you.

Whatever.

Can we get back to talking about Sisters of Battle now?

I could start speculating on a 30k-style list for Age of Apostasy Sisters and make up Legion/Primarch-esque rules for the original Orders Militant and their founders, if that would help. That said it might overlap too much with my homemade overhauls for the Sisters in general and the generic Living Saint rules contained therein.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Sure, okay, we can just, like, call it a "Living Saint" and leave it at that.

Let's also just call it a "Primarch" and leave it at that, so we can have a generic Primarch.

The difference between the Primarchs and the Living Saints is that there are a finite number of Primarchs with defined powers and properties in the lore. There isn't a strictly-defined finite set of Living Saints. I can make up my own Living Saint without stepping on anyone else's lore, employing convoluted twists of setting logic, or setting off the #1 40k Mary Sue red flag ('Lost Primarchs!') much more easily than I can if I wanted to make up another Primarch.

Then define the number.

There are 6 named ones. Another 6 un-named ones. Yet you suggest a generic template instead of having each one be different. Yet you're not treating the Space Marine Primarchs the same way.

Twelve named ones. I'll name them: Lozepeth. Macharius. Anais. Celestine. Gerstahl. Sabbat. Dominica. Katherine. Silvana. Mina. Lucia. Arabella

Living Saints.

Saints are something else.

Dominica is one name I absolutely recognize. She is a Saint. She is not a Living Saint.

There is a difference.

 Pouncey wrote:
...Living Saints.

Saints are something else.

Dominica is one name I absolutely recognize. She is a Saint. She is not a Living Saint.

There is a difference.

'Living Saints' displayed miracles and were recognized by the Imperial Creed during their lifetime. Dominica had a revelation from the Emperor, defused Vandire's rebellion, and was the founder and overall leader of the Adepta Sororitas for several centuries. If she wasn't a Living Saint nobody is.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Living Saints.

Saints are something else.

Dominica is one name I absolutely recognize. She is a Saint. She is not a Living Saint.

There is a difference.

'Living Saints' displayed miracles and were recognized by the Imperial Creed during their lifetime. Dominica had a revelation from the Emperor, defused Vandire's rebellion, and was the founder and overall leader of the Adepta Sororitas for several centuries. If she wasn't a Living Saint nobody is.

The "Living" part is kinda important. Sainthood is awarded post-humously.

I mean, you DO know that Celestine keeps showing up even after her death, right?

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...Living Saints.

Saints are something else.

Dominica is one name I absolutely recognize. She is a Saint. She is not a Living Saint.

There is a difference.

'Living Saints' displayed miracles and were recognized by the Imperial Creed during their lifetime. Dominica had a revelation from the Emperor, defused Vandire's rebellion, and was the founder and overall leader of the Adepta Sororitas for several centuries. If she wasn't a Living Saint nobody is.

The "Living" part is kinda important. Sainthood is awarded post-humously.

I mean, you DO know that Celestine keeps showing up even after her death, right?

Resurrection is a 'miracle'. Whether it's the only one that qualifies you as a Living Saint isn't stated. For that matter whether Dominica ever died and was resurrected isn't stated, I've seen sources claiming she continued to lead the Sororitas from the front for several centuries and yet none of her battles have ever had novels telling us whether she has or hasn't died and been resurrected.

That said 'Saint' in real-world Catholicism is always awarded posthumously, but from the fact that 'Living Saint' is a designation that exists in 40k I think it's a safe assumption that not all Imperial Saints are dead when canonized, as well as not necessarily staying that way once they are. And proof of miracles is pretty easy to come by in 40k given that they tend to be pretty flashy.