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.
I cannot imagine nower-days GW releasing a new mini that doesn't fit with their new rules.
They say you can replace her Chainsword and/or Bolt Pistol with a few options, but the only way you can take a rod (including a flame rod) is to replace both your Chainsword and Bolt Pistol with a very specific set of weapons.
It’s a rules/model disconnect error that I imagine will be Errata’d a couple of weeks after the codex release.
No doubt. Until then I hope folks can be patient and bend the rules a bit to allow new Sisters players to use their new Canoness without hitting them with a WYSIWYG argument.
The question is...FAQ after this release, or the one in January?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lammia wrote: We've seen the general release Canoness, they don't have the Limited Canoness' configuration. So like The Red Gobbo, in the sense that she's not get support in the Codex.
The general release Canoness can equip the same things minus the rod of office. Furthermore, nothing says there's a special limited configuration data sheet anywhere. It's not in the codex. It's not in the box.
I don't really know what you're referring to :(
Long stort short - the lack of Sword, Rod and Plasma Pistol configuration in the Codex may not be an oversight. It may be intentional.
Long stort short - the lack of Sword, Rod and Plasma Pistol configuration in the Codex may not be an oversight. It may be intentional.
Are you saying you believe they intentionally paired a new model with rules that render it unplayable? That they selected the rules specifically and purposefully in such a way that it can't be used in a matched play game, therefore rendering the box incapable of producing a battle forged army and reducing one of the models entirely to simply a collector's piece with no game rules?
That's a pretty crazy conspiracy theory there, if that's what you're saying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/28 11:21:30
Long stort short - the lack of Sword, Rod and Plasma Pistol configuration in the Codex may not be an oversight. It may be intentional.
Are you saying you believe they intentionally paired a new model with rules that render it unplayable? That they selected the rules specifically and purposefully in such a way that it can't be used in a matched play game, therefore rendering the box incapable of producing a battle forged army and reducing one of the models entirely to simply a collector's piece with no game rules?
That's a pretty crazy conspiracy theory there, if that's what you're saying.
Wysiwyg isn't a rule, it's a perfectly usable model. But this model also isn't a general release, so it's exact configuration may be available in 'Legends' but not the Codex.
Long stort short - the lack of Sword, Rod and Plasma Pistol configuration in the Codex may not be an oversight. It may be intentional.
Are you saying you believe they intentionally paired a new model with rules that render it unplayable? That they selected the rules specifically and purposefully in such a way that it can't be used in a matched play game, therefore rendering the box incapable of producing a battle forged army and reducing one of the models entirely to simply a collector's piece with no game rules?
That's a pretty crazy conspiracy theory there, if that's what you're saying.
Wysiwyg isn't a rule, it's a perfectly usable model. But this model also isn't a general release, so it's exact configuration may be available in 'Legends' but not the Codex.
I could be completely wrong to. Time will tell
Uh huh...
Okay, yeah time will tell. Time for a possible errata to allow this collection of wargear, regardless what manifested the situation in the first place. I suppose we'll just leave it at that.
Actually GW already revealed these, the first is the Exorcist the second is the Immolator (flamer version). A little over done if you ask me, but they certainly are shrines..
zamerion wrote: Any hope in new miniatures for priests/missionaries?
This is probably best answered a few days from now after the open day. Considering the codex reportedly doesn't show much in the way of future releases we can't tell from what we have. If we get extensive Sisters previews but no preachers are there, that's probably a good sign that we shouldn't expect any surprise clampack releases.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
I cannot imagine nower-days GW releasing a new mini that doesn't fit with their new rules.
They say you can replace her Chainsword and/or Bolt Pistol with a few options, but the only way you can take a rod (including a flame rod) is to replace both your Chainsword and Bolt Pistol with a very specific set of weapons.
It’s a rules/model disconnect error that I imagine will be Errata’d a couple of weeks after the codex release.
No doubt. Until then I hope folks can be patient and bend the rules a bit to allow new Sisters players to use their new Canoness without hitting them with a WYSIWYG argument.
The question is...FAQ after this release, or the one in January?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lammia wrote: We've seen the general release Canoness, they don't have the Limited Canoness' configuration. So like The Red Gobbo, in the sense that she's not get support in the Codex.
The general release Canoness can equip the same things minus the rod of office. Furthermore, nothing says there's a special limited configuration data sheet anywhere. It's not in the codex. It's not in the box.
I don't really know what you're referring to :(
Long stort short - the lack of Sword, Rod and Plasma Pistol configuration in the Codex may not be an oversight. It may be intentional.
Except for the fact that the power sword, plasma pistol and rod of office configuration is completely valid in the codex
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/28 15:49:01
Except for the fact that the power sword, plasma pistol and rod of office configuration is completely valid in the codex
Not in the codex I have...
You can only have a rod of office with a boltgun and power sword, which replaces the baseline bolt pistol and chainsword. That is the only way to get a rod of office.
The only way to get a plasma pistol is to trade the bolt pistol...which was traded along with the chainsword for the boltgun and power sword. So you cannot have a plasma pistol, rod of office, and power sword.
You can, however, have a plasma pistol and power sword, but not a rod of office.
You can also have a power sword and rod of office, but only if you have a boltgun.
You can only have a rod of office with a boltgun and power sword, which replaces the baseline bolt pistol and chainsword. That is the only way to get a rod of office.
The only way to get a plasma pistol is to trade the bolt pistol...which was traded along with the chainsword for the boltgun and power sword. So you cannot have a plasma pistol, rod of office, and power sword.
You can, however, have a plasma pistol and power sword, but not a rod of office.
You can also have a power sword and rod of office, but only if you have a boltgun.
Cripes, why can't GW reduce the complexity a bit? This codex sounds like it's going to be a hot mess.
Kanluwen wrote: It's entirely likely that the 'complexity' surrounding this is more tied to the way people are explaining it.
Oh, yes, that is possible that folks could think this. In which case, let me provide you the exact wording from the data sheet so that we're all on the same page here (figuratively speaking).
A Canoness is a single model equipped with: bolt pistol, chainsword, frag grenades, krak grenades
This model can be equipped with 1 boltgun and 1 power sword instead of 1 bolt pistol and 1 chainsword. If this model is equipped with 1 boltgun and 1 power sword it additionally has a rod of office.
This model can be equipped with one of the following instead of 1 bolt pistol: 1 condemnor boltgun, 1 weapon from the Pistols list
This model can be equipped with one of the following instead of 1 chainsword: 1 power sword, 1 blessed blade
If this model is equipped with 1 chainsword, it can have a brazier of holy fire or a null rod
We can see from the one picture we have of the sprue and the 360 rotating picture that this Canoness in the box is equipped with a power sword (or a blessed blade, I have no idea how to tell the difference), a plasma pistol, and a rod of some sort.
The options for rod-like items are a null rod and a rod of office. There are no rod shaped melee weapons available to her. The rod of office requires a loadout of 1 boltgun and 1 power sword, but replaces 1 bolt pistol and 1 chainsword to get there, so there is no other way to acquire the plasma pistol. The null rod requires you to carry a chainsword, which this model is not carrying, so it can't be one of those either.
Unfortunately, the argument that this rod she's carrying is just a gubbin that has no effect would be compelling if it weren't for a description saying it was the rod of office.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/28 17:15:57
this is one of my issues with the codex. despite the canoness use to be able to use any combi and storm bolters last i checked, you have this specified list that at best allows most of the melee options and any pistol, after going through a checklist of what you can take per piece.
And this is a model with some of the most requested for new options like a jump pack, and for the only reason i can guess to fit the upcoming kit, it is this specific.
Bdrone wrote: this is one of my issues with the codex. despite the canoness use to be able to use any combi and storm bolters last i checked, you have this specified list that at best allows most of the melee options and any pistol, after going through a checklist of what you can take per piece.
And this is a model with some of the most requested for new options like a jump pack, and for the only reason i can guess to fit the upcoming kit, it is this specific.
The rule writer probably was just listing all the ways that the multipart Canoness can be built, and in their insane anti-kitbashing frenzy forbade all combinations that were not possible without converting. And then they forgot that the limited edition Canoness existed...
Unfortunately, the argument that this rod she's carrying is just a gubbin that has no effect would be compelling if it weren't for a description saying it was the rod of office.
Yeah...you're not understanding why I said what I did.
I'm not saying "The rod does nothing!" or that "It's just a cool bit!".
I'm saying that there's likely a simple answer in that the intention for the swap is that the boltgun gets treated the same as the bolt pistol in that it can be swapped for a Pistol.
It's entirely possible that the codex in the army pack has different wording to the actual, final product given that it was made to be ready at least a month prior to the final product--and/or that the model itself was codex legal with an earlier iteration.
Remember that this is the same model as given away to Nova attendees--and I don't know if it had rules in the package or not, but we're talking about possibly three different iterations of the same item in terms of rules---which could mean anywhere from 1 to 4 or 5 different 'checkmarks' for iterations of the book.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/28 17:30:22
You can only have a rod of office with a boltgun and power sword, which replaces the baseline bolt pistol and chainsword. That is the only way to get a rod of office.
The only way to get a plasma pistol is to trade the bolt pistol...which was traded along with the chainsword for the boltgun and power sword. So you cannot have a plasma pistol, rod of office, and power sword.
You can, however, have a plasma pistol and power sword, but not a rod of office.
You can also have a power sword and rod of office, but only if you have a boltgun.
Cripes, why can't GW reduce the complexity a bit? This codex sounds like it's going to be a hot mess.
Because that would require giving you options. Instead they want you to use specific, set wargear combinations, no doubt to mirror exactly what the model in question provides. Apparently they got one option wrong, in this case, but regardless of that you can't help requiring convulated language if you go out of your way to limit the most basic wargear options for characters.
It's dead stupid, but that's modern GW for you.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Bdrone wrote: this is one of my issues with the codex. despite the canoness use to be able to use any combi and storm bolters last i checked, you have this specified list that at best allows most of the melee options and any pistol, after going through a checklist of what you can take per piece.
And this is a model with some of the most requested for new options like a jump pack, and for the only reason i can guess to fit the upcoming kit, it is this specific.
The rule writer probably was just listing all the ways that the multipart Canoness can be built, and in their insane anti-kitbashing frenzy forbade all combinations that were not possible without converting. And then they forgot that the limited edition Canoness existed...
This is likely the situation, however they handled it poorly because there's no indication you can actually built a boltgun/power sword Canoness from what we've seen. That's okay - it will be fixed, I have no doubt about that. It's ultimately not that big of an issue.
From what it appears, the multi-part model will have options for a bolt pistol, plasma pistol, inferno pistol, or Condemnor boltgun on the ranged side of things. It will likewise have options for a null rod, brazier, chainsword, power sword, or blessed blade. The real issue is the boltgun, which no version of this model has thus far been shown carrying.
The real solution to make this all jive is to list the melee replacements for the chainsword, list the ranged replacements for the bolt pistol, and add the wargear selections on top.
Unfortunately, the argument that this rod she's carrying is just a gubbin that has no effect would be compelling if it weren't for a description saying it was the rod of office.
Yeah...you're not understanding why I said what I did.
I'm not saying "The rod does nothing!" or that "It's just a cool bit!".
I'm saying that there's likely a simple answer in that the intention for the swap is that the boltgun gets treated the same as the bolt pistol in that it can be swapped for a Pistol.
It's entirely possible that the codex in the army pack has different wording to the actual, final product given that it was made to be ready at least a month prior to the final product--and/or that the model itself was codex legal with an earlier iteration.
Remember that this is the same model as given away to Nova attendees--and I don't know if it had rules in the package or not, but we're talking about possibly three different iterations of the same item in terms of rules---which could mean anywhere from 1 to 4 or 5 different 'checkmarks' for iterations of the book.
Of course - I apologize. I would never have assumed that intention in the first place given the exact wording making clear that the qualifier for the rod of office is that the unit be equipped with a boltgun and power sword. Furthermore, as I am not a Nova attendee and nor is a majority of the people picking up this box this weekend, I don't think that particular piece of information is relevant or helpful here. The solution, I think, and you can disagree if you want, is to pepper the GWFAQ email with requests for clarification. I'm sorry if that's not how you think this should be done, but I'm of the mind that this is a mistake and we can help make it right.
You suggest that the codex in this box could be different from the codex to be released next month. I do not believe that is likely, but it is possible.
Of course - I apologize. I would never have assumed that intention in the first place given the exact wording making clear that the qualifier for the rod of office is that the unit be equipped with a boltgun and power sword. Furthermore, as I am not a Nova attendee and nor is a majority of the people picking up this box this weekend, I don't think that particular piece of information is relevant or helpful here.
And given that not everyone is picking up one of these boxes or willing to read pirated/'transcribed' material--maybe you shouldn't assume that people are just pretending to not know the exact wording of something that doesn't officially release until tomorrow?
As for the Nova mention, if you cannot understand why it would be a relevant tangent--that is on you. Nova was where this model made her debut. Nova was where they literally gave one to people who attended the Studio Preview. If she included rules, I would have expected to see this nonsensical argument about "I CAN'T ACTUALLY MAKE IT WORK!" there.
The solution, I think, and you can disagree if you want, is to pepper the GWFAQ email with requests for clarification. I'm sorry if that's not how you think this should be done, but I'm of the mind that this is a mistake and we can help make it right.
I'm suggesting you actually wait and use some common sense. I can't imagine anyone out there would deny you the ability to play the Canoness if you wanted to, especially given the convoluted nature of the swapping.
You suggest that the codex in this box could be different from the codex to be released next month. I do not believe that is likely, but it is possible.
I'm suggesting that it could be as much as two or three different development iterations from when things were, because there is such a thing as "product lead time".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/28 18:04:22
It doesn't really matter how it happened, it happened. The limited edition Canoness has an illegal gear combination, it needs an errata. I for one am going to spam their FAQ email about this, that's why they have it in the first place.
Dr Mathias wrote: Cripes, why can't GW reduce the complexity a bit? This codex sounds like it's going to be a hot mess.
What's funny is this is an attempt to reduce complexity, which generally explains right off why the complexity is there.
Having rules strictly confined to what's in the box, means you can build things right out of the box. Comparing that to what used to be required to make chaos havocs and you can see right off why they're going that way.
Except you have to be sure you get it right, or things like this happen.
Only, we can just go, oh, they made this miniature, I guess it's valid, and move the hell on with your day. It's what they did with most of the indexes.
Mine shipped day of order. The corresponding tracking link says it arrived at the local GW store the following Thursday and was signed for.
Based on other preorders I've done, the 'your product has arrives' e-mail won't be sent until release date. Sometimes not even then - even if it's at the store waiting.
Was talking to one of the lads at a local GW today and the staff at that store were not even able to get a personal order in for the Sisters box, that seems mental to me. He did mention that stores may be getting some of the sprues sent to them to be painted up prior to the Jan/Feb full range release.
My Firestorm Games order of the box is in the post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/28 19:22:41
2200pts/1750 painted
2800pts/1200 painted
2200pts/650 painted
217pts/151 painted 