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.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Yet again, conflicting sources. THQ also depicted sniper rifles that had a meaningful effect on morale, an Avatar with no ranged attack, airplanes that stopped dead whenever they felt like it, persistent invisibility on a lot of Eldar structures, and Dark Reapers firing a bunch of little white balls.

You know that those video games were created like 3-4 editions ago, right?

Also, seriously, take a look at the Joakero (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Grey-Knights-Jokaero-Weaponsmith) and tell me where you see anything on those rings indicating that they're anything other than plain, ordinary rings. Just because the Imperium doesn't understand their technology doesn't mean it operates by channeling the wrath of the Emperor.

No. Of course not.

Joakero tech is extremely highly advanced, allowing them to build a wide variety of powerful weapons into tiny technology. They don't literally have all of those weapons, they have similarly-powerful weapons built into their rings that use those weapon profiles for simplicity's sake. We know this because it's written into the lore.

Celestine can manifest the Emperor's wrath as divine flames that burn the crap out of enemies. We know this because it's written into the lore.

Are you telling me to take your personal headcanon over things written in a Codex?

No. I'm telling you your personal headcanon doesn't by virtue of its existence invalidate all other personal headcanon. There are a number of 'explanations' that fit the facts. Yet you seem to think that because your explanation happens to fit the facts it invalidates all possible other explanations.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No. I'm telling you your personal headcanon doesn't by virtue of its existence invalidate all other personal headcanon. There are a number of 'explanations' that fit the facts. Yet you seem to think that because your explanation happens to fit the facts it invalidates all possible other explanations.

Generally I assume that when I read something in my army's Codex, it actually is the truth.

But I see now that that's not actually true. There is room for doubt when a Codex states something explicitly. I recognize my error now.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No. I'm telling you your personal headcanon doesn't by virtue of its existence invalidate all other personal headcanon. There are a number of 'explanations' that fit the facts. Yet you seem to think that because your explanation happens to fit the facts it invalidates all possible other explanations.

Generally I assume that when I read something in my army's Codex, it actually is the truth.

But I see now that that's not actually true. There is room for doubt when a Codex states something explicitly. I recognize my error now.

Sarcasm aside I'm glad you've finally gotten the point.

There are a number of possibilities when the narrator in a Codex is telling you something. They might be right. They might be wrong. They might be exaggerating for effect. They might be lying. If you're unlucky and you've had a Codex written by Matt Ward they may be spouting nonsense or offensive gibberish.

It's possible to tell which is which if there are multiple narrators describing the same topic. When I take comments from earlier books that Vulkan was pissed at Gulliman imposing the Codex Astartes on the Space Marines (and only acquiesced because the Smurfs sat the Heresy out and had a mostly intact Legion while he was down to 10-20% strength after Istvaan) and I look at Matt Ward's name on the cover I can take the 5e Space Marine book's assertion that 'all Space Marines revere Gulliman as their spiritual liege' and recognize that the narrator is spouting bulls***.

If there aren't, or if the topic fundamentally doesn't matter (Celestine works. Do we care how? F*** no. She flies around, hits things with swords, sets heretics on fire, and does badassery. She can be as much of a black box as she likes.), there is no objective answer to whether the narrator is right, wrong, exaggerating, lying, or spouting bulls***. Picking one isn't any more valid than picking any other. (That said if Matt Ward's name isn't on the cover of your book it's usually safe to assume the narrator isn't spouting complete bulls***.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No. I'm telling you your personal headcanon doesn't by virtue of its existence invalidate all other personal headcanon. There are a number of 'explanations' that fit the facts. Yet you seem to think that because your explanation happens to fit the facts it invalidates all possible other explanations.

Generally I assume that when I read something in my army's Codex, it actually is the truth.

But I see now that that's not actually true. There is room for doubt when a Codex states something explicitly. I recognize my error now.

Sarcasm aside I'm glad you've finally gotten the point.

There are a number of possibilities when the narrator in a Codex is telling you something. They might be right. They might be wrong. They might be exaggerating for effect. They might be lying. If you're unlucky and you've had a Codex written by Matt Ward they may be spouting nonsense or offensive gibberish.

It's possible to tell which is which if there are multiple narrators describing the same topic. When I take comments from earlier books that Vulkan was pissed at Gulliman imposing the Codex Astartes on the Space Marines (and only acquiesced because the Smurfs sat the Heresy out and had a mostly intact Legion while he was down to 10-20% strength after Istvaan) and I look at Matt Ward's name on the cover I can take the 5e Space Marine book's assertion that 'all Space Marines revere Gulliman as their spiritual liege' and recognize that the narrator is spouting bulls***.

If there aren't, or if the topic fundamentally doesn't matter (Celestine works. Do we care how? F*** no. She flies around, hits things with swords, sets heretics on fire, and does badassery. She can be as much of a black box as she likes.), there is no objective answer to whether the narrator is right, wrong, exaggerating, lying, or spouting bulls***. Picking one isn't any more valid than picking any other. (That said if Matt Ward's name isn't on the cover of your book it's usually safe to assume the narrator isn't spouting complete bulls***.)

You're absolutely right.

So if, for example, I look at the lore that says that Space Marines are only men, and I look at the organs and say, "Well, why couldn't you put those organs into a woman? Biological rejection for these may not depend on gender specific things, and you could do the same thing for a woman. Maybe the Imperium tried this with one of the later Foundings. Maybe it worked."

And now I have my canon-compatible female Space Marine chapter.

Thank you.

 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.

All primarches are accounted for in fluff except for the 2 missing ones.

Nowhere in fluff does it state there's finite number of living saints though. There could be dozens of them. It's 10,000 years and hell of a big universum so it's not even unreasonable assumption.

tneva82 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.

All primarches are accounted for in fluff except for the 2 missing ones.

Nowhere in fluff does it state there's finite number of living saints though. There could be dozens of them. It's 10,000 years and hell of a big universum so it's not even unreasonable assumption.

I'll be more clear.

The writers should define the number of Living Saints there are.

I thought the part where the writers are the ones doing the defining should have been implied. Apparently I was wrong about that.

 Pouncey wrote:
...You're absolutely right.

So if, for example, I look at the lore that says that Space Marines are only men, and I look at the organs and say, "Well, why couldn't you put those organs into a woman? Biological rejection for these may not depend on gender specific things, and you could do the same thing for a woman. Maybe the Imperium tried this with one of the later Foundings. Maybe it worked."

And now I have my canon-compatible female Space Marine chapter.

Thank you.

There's a bit of a 'yes, but...' to this one. You don't get to say 'I reject your reality and substitute my own!' and ride off into the sunset. You want female Space Marines? Find a reason for the implied taboo to be broken. It's well-established that the Imperium's techs/scientists don't know why their tech works, the 'no girls allowed' rule could be an inherent part of the process or it could be tangential.

One of my favourite explanations comes from the children's novelist and 40k blogger Kenton Kilgore (of http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/); his Space Marine Chapter was horrendously understrength after a devastating invasion of their planet by a Khornate fleet, and turned to recruiting women to make up for a shortage of able candidates (brief vignette describing the moment of decision (with bonus points for Space Marines eating): http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/dharma2.html).

The great strength of Kilgore's approach is that he's applied his headcanon to his army in a way that's small-scale, doesn't seek to trample established lore (this is an experiment a minor out-of-the-way Chapter performed on their own initiative out of desperation and found worked rather well, not some kind of broad upheaval wherein the High Lords decided it was suddenly time to experiment), and doesn't seek to overwrite or dictate to anyone else's headcanon. And the counter-explanation for why it happened to work there but wouldn't work elsewhere is just as easy: some kind of fluke mutation within the gene-seed and/or the population of his planet let it go off without a hitch, while a different gene-seed and a different genetically isolated human population still wouldn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
...The writers should define the number of Living Saints there are...

...No, they shouldn't. The best settings are those where there are few or no hard limitations on what side stories you can come up with within them, by defining and explaining Living Saints the writers would be limiting the players' ability to make up army backgrounds, models, and general coolness.

edwardmyst wrote:
Anyone have thoughts? A clue as to why they don't want a cannoness with the seraphim?

It's not a question of "want", to my mind. Far as I can see such things are a result of low prioritisation by GW creative - they want to design Marines, release Marines, push Marines and sell Marines, and they don't want anything to get in the way of Marines ever, hence designing rules or models for your army is not a priority unless your army is Marines. It can be normal Marines, spiky Marines, furry Marines, smelly Marines or shouty Marines - plus, with Fall of Cadia, one of the big Marines dudes (who is the father of all other Marines) is coming back to fight against the mutated big Marine and his band of Chaos Marines.

 BBAP wrote:

edwardmyst wrote:
Anyone have thoughts? A clue as to why they don't want a cannoness with the seraphim?

It's not a question of "want", to my mind. Far as I can see such things are a result of low prioritisation by GW creative - they want to design Marines, release Marines, push Marines and sell Marines, and they don't want anything to get in the way of Marines ever, hence designing rules or models for your army is not a priority unless your army is Marines. It can be normal Marines, spiky Marines, furry Marines, smelly Marines or shouty Marines - plus, with Fall of Cadia, one of the big Marines dudes (who is the father of all other Marines) is coming back to fight against the mutated big Marine and his band of Chaos Marines.

The other problem is that GW doesn't like releasing rules for which they don't make an explicit official model, hence why the Archon lost his option for a jetbike in the 7e DE book, and why the Deathwatch Librarian can't get a bike.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...You're absolutely right.

So if, for example, I look at the lore that says that Space Marines are only men, and I look at the organs and say, "Well, why couldn't you put those organs into a woman? Biological rejection for these may not depend on gender specific things, and you could do the same thing for a woman. Maybe the Imperium tried this with one of the later Foundings. Maybe it worked."

And now I have my canon-compatible female Space Marine chapter.

Thank you.

There's a bit of a 'yes, but...' to this one. You don't get to say 'I reject your reality and substitute my own!' and ride off into the sunset. You want female Space Marines? Find a reason for the implied taboo to be broken. It's well-established that the Imperium's techs/scientists don't know why their tech works, the 'no girls allowed' rule could be an inherent part of the process or it could be tangential.

One of my favourite explanations comes from the children's novelist and 40k blogger Kenton Kilgore (of http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/); his Space Marine Chapter was horrendously understrength after a devastating invasion of their planet by a Khornate fleet, and turned to recruiting women to make up for a shortage of able candidates (brief vignette describing the moment of decision (with bonus points for Space Marines eating): http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/dharma2.html).

The great strength of Kilgore's approach is that he's applied his headcanon to his army in a way that's small-scale, doesn't seek to trample established lore (this is an experiment a minor out-of-the-way Chapter performed on their own initiative out of desperation and found worked rather well, not some kind of broad upheaval wherein the High Lords decided it was suddenly time to experiment), and doesn't seek to overwrite or dictate to anyone else's headcanon. And the counter-explanation for why it happened to work there but wouldn't work elsewhere is just as easy: some kind of fluke mutation within the gene-seed and/or the population of his planet let it go off without a hitch, while a different gene-seed and a different genetically isolated human population still wouldn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
...The writers should define the number of Living Saints there are...

...No, they shouldn't. The best settings are those where there are few or no hard limitations on what side stories you can come up with within them, by defining and explaining Living Saints the writers would be limiting the players' ability to make up army backgrounds, models, and general coolness.

If you disagree with my personal army's fluff or models, you are welcome to never play another game of 40k with me ever again.

Vect had a model but they squatted him anyway. They still sell his "captives" as bitz so it's not a sanitisation thing. Personally I think he beat Marines in CC one time and GW couldn't have that.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 BBAP wrote:

edwardmyst wrote:
Anyone have thoughts? A clue as to why they don't want a cannoness with the seraphim?

It's not a question of "want", to my mind. Far as I can see such things are a result of low prioritisation by GW creative - they want to design Marines, release Marines, push Marines and sell Marines, and they don't want anything to get in the way of Marines ever, hence designing rules or models for your army is not a priority unless your army is Marines. It can be normal Marines, spiky Marines, furry Marines, smelly Marines or shouty Marines - plus, with Fall of Cadia, one of the big Marines dudes (who is the father of all other Marines) is coming back to fight against the mutated big Marine and his band of Chaos Marines.

The other problem is that GW doesn't like releasing rules for which they don't make an explicit official model, hence why the Archon lost his option for a jetbike in the 7e DE book, and why the Deathwatch Librarian can't get a bike.

But if they don't have rules for a model, how can they make a new model with those options, since there are no rules to support that model?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lexicanum states, from the 3rd ed Witch Hunters Codex that:
"A Living Saint is a mighty and pious warrior of the Imperial Creed who displays miraculous abilities within his or her lifetime and is subsequently resurrected, supposedly by the Emperor himself."

However, it lists the following as Living Saints - "Lozepath, saint of the Salandraxis. Was killed by Kharn
Solar Macharius, the most famous saint of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Anais, powerful member of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Celestine, the most famous hero of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Gerstahl, legendary soldier of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Sabbat, founder of the Sabbat Worlds".

By this regard, can the Legion of the Damned be regarded as Living Saints?

Uh...

I actually own the Witch Hunters Codex. And I read and re-read all the lore in it.

It's not like I'm a newbie. I don't have to rely on Lexicanum for this.

I'm not questioning you, or your knowledge on this. I'm just citing the point I have on this.
Please stop looking for conflict where there is none.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lexicanum states, from the 3rd ed Witch Hunters Codex that:
"A Living Saint is a mighty and pious warrior of the Imperial Creed who displays miraculous abilities within his or her lifetime and is subsequently resurrected, supposedly by the Emperor himself."

However, it lists the following as Living Saints - "Lozepath, saint of the Salandraxis. Was killed by Kharn
Solar Macharius, the most famous saint of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Anais, powerful member of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Celestine, the most famous hero of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Gerstahl, legendary soldier of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Sabbat, founder of the Sabbat Worlds".

By this regard, can the Legion of the Damned be regarded as Living Saints?

Uh...

I actually own the Witch Hunters Codex. And I read and re-read all the lore in it.

It's not like I'm a newbie. I don't have to rely on Lexicanum for this.

I'm not questioning you, or your knowledge on this. I'm just citing the point I have on this.
Please stop looking for conflict where there is none.

Okay.

How old was that post when you typed that?

I can't make an issue out of things no one's contradicting me about.

And I kinda assume that if they're contradicting me, they want to have a discussion.

Otherwise, why say anything?

I'm not a fan of GW fluff...just not my style, so I really wasn't that into it being a saint or whatever, I just want a cannoness with a jump pack that is legal. (My table is great for letting these things in...my local game store and GW events...not so much)
Anyway, I now have seen the codex, and here is the reality. It is exactly the same for Sister's of Battle as the last codex I downloaded (which I believe is 6th ed). In fact the only real change was removing Celestine and adding the option to buy your cannoness with two pistols. You do now get a formation for sisters, and can ally psychers. So that is something. Sad. I am very glad I did not purchase this (my friend is seriously into the fluff and loves the inquisition etc). Anyway, just another gamer disappointed. I have no issues with the power level etc (think they are fairly balanced point wise) I just wanted some new stuff.
In GW's defense they never said it was all new rules or anything for Sister's, so...

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lexicanum states, from the 3rd ed Witch Hunters Codex that:
"A Living Saint is a mighty and pious warrior of the Imperial Creed who displays miraculous abilities within his or her lifetime and is subsequently resurrected, supposedly by the Emperor himself."

However, it lists the following as Living Saints - "Lozepath, saint of the Salandraxis. Was killed by Kharn
Solar Macharius, the most famous saint of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Anais, powerful member of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Celestine, the most famous hero of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Gerstahl, legendary soldier of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Sabbat, founder of the Sabbat Worlds".

By this regard, can the Legion of the Damned be regarded as Living Saints?

Uh...

I actually own the Witch Hunters Codex. And I read and re-read all the lore in it.

It's not like I'm a newbie. I don't have to rely on Lexicanum for this.

I'm not questioning you, or your knowledge on this. I'm just citing the point I have on this.
Please stop looking for conflict where there is none.

Okay.

How old was that post when you typed that?

I can't make an issue out of things no one's contradicting me about.

And I kinda assume that if they're contradicting me, they want to have a discussion.

Otherwise, why say anything?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here, so I gather what I can:

Yes, the post is from a page back. Have you considered that I've only just been able to see and reply to the comment you made against me?

I wasn't even replying to anyone particularly, other than throwing in the information I had on Living Saints. I didn't question anyone's knowledge, which you seem to think I did. As far as I can tell, I didn't contradict you, and if I did, that's just with plain fact with clearly marked sources from the canon. My apologies if the canon disagrees with you.

I've no idea why you even thought I was calling you a newbie anywhere.

edwardmyst wrote:
I'm not a fan of GW fluff...just not my style, so I really wasn't that into it being a saint or whatever, I just want a cannoness with a jump pack that is legal. (My table is great for letting these things in...my local game store and GW events...not so much)
Anyway, I now have seen the codex, and here is the reality. It is exactly the same for Sister's of Battle as the last codex I downloaded (which I believe is 6th ed). In fact the only real change was removing Celestine and adding the option to buy your cannoness with two pistols. You do now get a formation for sisters, and can ally psychers. So that is something. Sad. I am very glad I did not purchase this (my friend is seriously into the fluff and loves the inquisition etc). Anyway, just another gamer disappointed. I have no issues with the power level etc (think they are fairly balanced point wise) I just wanted some new stuff.
In GW's defense they never said it was all new rules or anything for Sister's, so...

Again, the IA codex does not replace the Sister digital-codex. You can still use the Sister digital-codex and field your Jump Canoness, Celestine, and Jacobus.

SJ