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.

Late, I know, but just getting to this.
So, it costs 5 points to give an Ironclad Dread the assault launcher keyword. This allows you access to a 1 CP stratagem with limited uses (although not useless). As far as I can see it does nothing else for an Ironclad Dread.
So, is paying points in the build stage for the right to pay CP to use a stratagem good game design?
It isn't to me. Gamble points for a chance you might spend more of your resources? Spend points for a stratagem?

I know it is free for Centurions...so is it really just a we need to sell these models/built for these models and oh yeah this other one used to have them so...? (not that I think it is spectacular or anything but I do see good uses for the Strat (just lowering a units Attacks and no overwatch can be huge, especially if you have another unit in charge range.).

Honestly, yeah. I'd have a lot fewer problems with strats if more of them were limited in this way.

Smoke launchers are another good example, what was formerly a once per game ability is now part of the resource system that you choose to adopt and use when it's worthwhile.

If we have to have strats at all, I'd much rather a small hand of the things that you build during army composition, rather than free reign over the entire book's worth (and supplements and campaign books and allied books) with no restrictions whatsoever. So things like assault launchers and other equipment based strats are much better than opened end alternatives.

I'd also strip out the no brainer ones like double shoot or fight, but that's a different discussion

Voss wrote:
Honestly, yeah. I'd have a lot fewer problems with strats if more of them were limited in this way.

Smoke launchers are another good example, what was formerly a once per game ability is now part of the resource system that you choose to adopt and use when it's worthwhile.

If we have to have strats at all, I'd much rather a small hand of the things that you build during army composition, rather than free reign over the entire book's worth (and supplements and campaign books and allied books) with no restrictions whatsoever. So things like assault launchers and other equipment based strats are much better than opened end alternatives.

I'd also strip out the no brainer ones like double shoot or fight, but that's a different discussion

Problem with smoke launchers being　stratagem is the core issues with stratagem. It's unscalable. Its great for big gunboat in 1k, drops usefullness as points go up. It also hurts transports so unsurprisingly this kicks chaos to teeth while primaris marines loves it.

As usual gw not　interested in good game design nor　balance. The moment you introduce non-scaling rules the rule suck. And makes mockery of gw's claim game　is designed to　scale up. No it　isn't. It works badly at 2k and anything up　or down goes worse. Nature of non-scaling rules like stratagems.

tneva82 wrote:
The moment you introduce non-scaling rules the rule suck.

This is such a reductive and subjective hot take. The whole post is. You may dislike a choice, but it's not fundamentally bad.

Before, your enemy could shroud all their vehicles with smoke in the same turn via wargear. Now, it's a choice and they can only smoke-shroud one via a Stratagem. That's not a non-scaling rule, it's a "choice-forcer".

Sometimes it pays to look at a rule another way rather than write it off, or proclaim a ruleset plenty of people enjoy as inherently "bad" because of one choice you disagree with.

Voss wrote:
Honestly, yeah. I'd have a lot fewer problems with strats if more of them were limited in this way.

Smoke launchers are another good example, what was formerly a once per game ability is now part of the resource system that you choose to adopt and use when it's worthwhile.

If we have to have strats at all, I'd much rather a small hand of the things that you build during army composition, rather than free reign over the entire book's worth (and supplements and campaign books and allied books) with no restrictions whatsoever. So things like assault launchers and other equipment based strats are much better than opened end alternatives.

I'd also strip out the no brainer ones like double shoot or fight, but that's a different discussion

This is a good point. I am also very frustrated in general with the Stratagem system. Too many auto use every turn balanced at a 1-5 ratio with never use strats. Too many choices overall as you said. Some units seem to have certain strats built into their cost (looking at Slaanesh oblits. Which is in reality the double action strat that needs to be removed as you said) while others get free ones.
It probably would be a better system if you purchased your usable strats in the build system, either by unit or simply with a points cost.

Regarding smoke launchers, I like the change to Smokescreen with a Stratagem. You pop smoke as a reaction. Before, all the Rhinos advance and pop smoke Turn 1. Smoke was useless to protect a vehicle engaged by the enemy, especially if you didn’t get the first turn. Now, you can protect your tank if you get engaged first turn, but at the cost of a CP. It’s actually a decision now. I like it, but I also accept that some hate Stratagems. I actually like what they’ve brought to the game.

They’re borrowing heavily from the Relic Gladius computer game.

I actually go the other way. I’d like to see a lot more of the clunky war gear and/or special rules moved to 0CP strats (potentially even “spammable” I.e. any unit can use/reuse a 0CP strat, but you can only use a 0CP strat if you have 1 CP to begin with or something). Another option might be they’re 1CP strats, but you get the 1CP back at end of player turn with no limit. Some sort of mechanic to keep you managing your CP instead of blowing your wad then hanging onto the 0 CP “repeatable”.

0CP strats should exist in more forms to begin with. It would help with things like Marks on CSM armies, where currently there's just one for each God.

I agree that there should be a few more 0CP strats, but I don't think Smoke Launchers should be one of them.

Equipment-based Strats are the problem here. Smoke Launchers should just be something you take, not something you take that gives you a keyword that gives you access to a strat.

I await HK Missiles, Marker Lights and other things becoming Strats in the future.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I await HK Missiles, Marker Lights and other things becoming Strats in the future.

Equipment being represented as stratagems is my biggest complaint with the stratagem system, and while I fear your prediction may come true, I think it's a bad move.

I play Horus Heresy. There I pay a non-negligible sum to take meltabombs on my infantry. A unit of Thallax with meltabombs is a credible threat to tanks. I have to position them appropriately to make use of this, and my opponent, knowing they have meltabombs, can counterplay to mitigate them. That drives tactics and game strategy. I can also forgo meltabombs at the list-building stage to save points, but that might come back to bite me later.

Meanwhile in 40K, meltabombs are a thing you use whenever you get close to a tank. You don't need to worry about who actually has them, you don't need to position well to get them to where they can hurt the enemy, you just get into combat and pop a stratagem.

If I've got smoke launchers on all my transports, why shouldn't I be able to deploy them all to protect an area as I come under fire? It's not like tankers in the real world have to take turns and decide amongst themselves who really needs to pop smoke this 'turn'. I get to buy guns and swords and use them on the models that possess them; why are smoke launchers this intangible once-per-turn resource? Like you said, it should just be something you take; it's a piece of equipment, not a special ability.

I don't find the very basic resource management of finite CP makes for as meaningful decision-making as having capabilities tied to specific units. It feels like another step towards making the actual armies and battlefield secondary to abstract card game mechanics.

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I await HK Missiles, Marker Lights and other things becoming Strats in the future.

Equipment being represented as stratagems is my biggest complaint with the stratagem system, and while I fear your prediction may come true, I think it's a bad move.

I play Horus Heresy. There I pay a non-negligible sum to take meltabombs on my infantry. A unit of Thallax with meltabombs is a credible threat to tanks. I have to position them appropriately to make use of this, and my opponent, knowing they have meltabombs, can counterplay to mitigate them. That drives tactics and game strategy. I can also forgo meltabombs at the list-building stage to save points, but that might come back to bite me later.

Meanwhile in 40K, meltabombs are a thing you use whenever you get close to a tank. You don't need to worry about who actually has them, you don't need to position well to get them to where they can hurt the enemy, you just get into combat and pop a stratagem.

If I've got smoke launchers on all my transports, why shouldn't I be able to deploy them all to protect an area as I come under fire? It's not like tankers in the real world have to take turns and decide amongst themselves who really needs to pop smoke this 'turn'. I get to buy guns and swords and use them on the models that possess them; why are smoke launchers this intangible once-per-turn resource? Like you said, it should just be something you take; it's a piece of equipment, not a special ability.

I don't find the very basic resource management of finite CP makes for as meaningful decision-making as having capabilities tied to specific units. It feels like another step towards making the actual armies and battlefield secondary to abstract card game mechanics.

GW doesn't want decision-making on the table, they want decision-making in purchases i..e "buy this new thing to have an advantage over your opponent."

 JohnnyHell wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
The moment you introduce non-scaling rules the rule suck.

This is such a reductive and subjective hot take. The whole post is. You may dislike a choice, but it's not fundamentally bad.

Before, your enemy could shroud all their vehicles with smoke in the same turn via wargear. Now, it's a choice and they can only smoke-shroud one via a Stratagem. That's not a non-scaling rule, it's a "choice-forcer".

Sometimes it pays to look at a rule another way rather than write it off, or proclaim a ruleset plenty of people enjoy as inherently "bad" because of one choice you disagree with.

It is not a choice forcer, if you can't do the same thing. If you can't just drive up and pop smokes o f4-6 vehicles, but only one one, then the tactic stops working. It is a good thing for people who didn't play that way, and maybe used one vehicle, which practicaly always is a bad thing to do, unless it is something big and super resilient like mid 8th castellan.

If my GK could in past codex get an option to have +1str on all storm bolters, all psycanons and autocanons etc, and now I can get +1str if I used a 2CP stratagem, then I wasn't given I choice to do it, my options were just nerfed.

Hecaton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I await HK Missiles, Marker Lights and other things becoming Strats in the future.

Equipment being represented as stratagems is my biggest complaint with the stratagem system, and while I fear your prediction may come true, I think it's a bad move.

I play Horus Heresy. There I pay a non-negligible sum to take meltabombs on my infantry. A unit of Thallax with meltabombs is a credible threat to tanks. I have to position them appropriately to make use of this, and my opponent, knowing they have meltabombs, can counterplay to mitigate them. That drives tactics and game strategy. I can also forgo meltabombs at the list-building stage to save points, but that might come back to bite me later.

Meanwhile in 40K, meltabombs are a thing you use whenever you get close to a tank. You don't need to worry about who actually has them, you don't need to position well to get them to where they can hurt the enemy, you just get into combat and pop a stratagem.

If I've got smoke launchers on all my transports, why shouldn't I be able to deploy them all to protect an area as I come under fire? It's not like tankers in the real world have to take turns and decide amongst themselves who really needs to pop smoke this 'turn'. I get to buy guns and swords and use them on the models that possess them; why are smoke launchers this intangible once-per-turn resource? Like you said, it should just be something you take; it's a piece of equipment, not a special ability.

I don't find the very basic resource management of finite CP makes for as meaningful decision-making as having capabilities tied to specific units. It feels like another step towards making the actual armies and battlefield secondary to abstract card game mechanics.

GW doesn't want decision-making on the table, they want decision-making in purchases i..e "buy this new thing to have an advantage over your opponent."

Considering we allready have a campaignbook with what is in essence "cut content" for the faction soon to be released...
This is pretty accurate.

Karol wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
The moment you introduce non-scaling rules the rule suck.

This is such a reductive and subjective hot take. The whole post is. You may dislike a choice, but it's not fundamentally bad.

Before, your enemy could shroud all their vehicles with smoke in the same turn via wargear. Now, it's a choice and they can only smoke-shroud one via a Stratagem. That's not a non-scaling rule, it's a "choice-forcer".

Sometimes it pays to look at a rule another way rather than write it off, or proclaim a ruleset plenty of people enjoy as inherently "bad" because of one choice you disagree with.

It is not a choice forcer, if you can't do the same thing. If you can't just drive up and pop smokes o f4-6 vehicles, but only one one, then the tactic stops working. It is a good thing for people who didn't play that way, and maybe used one vehicle, which practicaly always is a bad thing to do, unless it is something big and super resilient like mid 8th castellan.

If my GK could in past codex get an option to have +1str on all storm bolters, all psycanons and autocanons etc, and now I can get +1str if I used a 2CP stratagem, then I wasn't given I choice to do it, my options were just nerfed.

Karol is correct. The scaling is absolutely silly. Take True Grit from the Wolves codex for example. For whatever reason, just one squad of Grey Hunters remembered they can shoot in melee. You can even look at generic Strats for this too. Duty Eternal implies just one Dreadnought remembered he can take less damage and the others...forgot.

I find it's mostly the pure defensive and offensive Strats that do this.

Slayer-Fan123 794103 10991905 wrote:
Karol is correct. The scaling is absolutely silly. Take True Grit from the Wolves codex for example. For whatever reason, just one squad of Grey Hunters remembered they can shoot in melee. You can even look at generic Strats for this too. Duty Eternal implies just one Dreadnought remembered he can take less damage and the others...forgot.

I find it's mostly the pure defensive and offensive Strats that do this.

By the way I ain't against on off stratagems. But they should be something like a pack of SW or squad of BAs letting out their inner beast. Single survivours of SW units turning in to Lone Wolfs mid game. Such stuff is interesting. But I don't know, if GW decided that power from pain for DE is suddenly a 2CP/3CP is unit over 5, stratagem it is just bad. In my opinion at least. Plus it creates those feels bad man moments when someone plays an army that has extensive faction rules spread over the whole army, like marines, and an army where GW seemed to have went and scopped out almost everything they could scoop out.

Situational stuff seems like it could be ,if not good, then at least cool. If lets say the relictors had the option of "picking up" relics from opponents killed characters. That is cool, even if sometimes it is busted. Tyfus having a build-in limitation on creating units of pox walkers in the form of it not being a free ability, but stratagem he can use if he kills something in melee. that seems to be cool too, at least to me. Making harlis -1 aura a one per unit stratagem would be plain stupid.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is such a reductive and subjective hot take. The whole post is. You may dislike a choice, but it's not fundamentally bad.

Before, your enemy could shroud all their vehicles with smoke in the same turn via wargear. Now, it's a choice and they can only smoke-shroud one via a Stratagem. That's not a non-scaling rule, it's a "choice-forcer".

Sometimes it pays to look at a rule another way rather than write it off, or proclaim a ruleset plenty of people enjoy as inherently "bad" because of one choice you disagree with.

If all your tanks have smoke why shouldn't they all be able to use it each turn?

For that matter, what would be broken about making these equipment strategies impact all units that can benefit for the same CP cost they have now? Is anybody really trying to argue that a capped -1 to hit from smoke or two units using melta bombs in a turn is going to break the game?

If you make Smoke Launchers a 0cp stratagem that can be used multiple times in a turn on any vehicle with the Smoke Launchers wargear, why not just make the rule a consequence of the Smoke Launchers wargear in the first place?

Smoke launchers cost CP but can be used any number of times per turn: Why does Captain Beefstick fighting twice suck the smoke grenades out of their launchers? It's not like you have to pay CP to shoot guns.

Smoke launchers don't cost CP but can only be used once per turn: Why can only one tank pop smoke at a time?

Smoke launchers don't cost CP and can be used multiple times per turn: Like Unit said, that's just wargear.

Any way you slice it I don't think it's logical.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of smoke-launchers becoming a strategem. Rhinos were already looking pretty bad this edition, and only being able to cover one of them as they advance up the board is just... meh. Sure the reactivity is cool, but it's only really valuable for gunboats.

As for assault launchers - I don't like paying 5 points for something that I have to pay a CP for later on, or get 0 use. I know 5 points is a pretty small price, but it just doesn't sit well with me.

Melta-bombs on the other hand were useless last edition, but have now they have some bite this edition. I'd rather they just have been a 5 point purchase for the squad that could be used by a single squad member in CC against MCs and vehicles instead of a strat - but it made something that was worthless less so.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you make Smoke Launchers a 0cp stratagem that can be used multiple times in a turn on any vehicle with the Smoke Launchers wargear, why not just make the rule a consequence of the Smoke Launchers wargear in the first place?

Having cards as reactions to enemy actions does have some elegance though.

Now, if it weren't 40+ cards scattered across a dozen or so different triggers...

I'm all for axing any stratagems that aren't pre-game purchases or reactions anyways.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you make Smoke Launchers a 0cp stratagem that can be used multiple times in a turn on any vehicle with the Smoke Launchers wargear, why not just make the rule a consequence of the Smoke Launchers wargear in the first place?

Having cards as reactions to enemy actions does have some elegance though.

Now, if it weren't 40+ cards scattered across a dozen or so different triggers...

I'm all for axing any stratagems that aren't pre-game purchases or reactions anyways.

Why does it have to be a card instead of a wargear ability? I could easily see the Wargear's rule being "When this model is declared as a target by enemy shooting its controlling player may..." blah blah.

Because a deck of cards is more practical to have on the table and easier searched, than flipping through a codex, a supplement, the FW book and a campaign book to check all the datasheets for possible reaction abilities.

You would just have all possible reactions in one place for better access. Essentially I think we are talking about the same thing though, you could even put the rule on both the card and the datasheet with some sort of keyword next to it.

 Jidmah wrote:
Because a deck of cards is more practical to have on the table and easier searched, than flipping through a codex, a supplement, the FW book and a campaign book to check all the datasheets for possible reaction abilities.

You would just have all possible reactions in one place for better access. Essentially I think we are talking about the same thing though, you could even put the rule on both the card and the datasheet with some sort of keyword next to it.

Or even just have a list of abilities in the rulebook, all in one place.

You could call it Universal Special Mechanics, USM.

Or perhaps Universal Rules that are Special, URS.

I wonder if GW's ever thought of this before.

Definitely not, feth that.

Any solution requiring two books to find out what one unit does is absolutely horrible.

 Jidmah wrote:
Definitely not, feth that.

Any solution requiring two books to find out what one unit does is absolutely horrible.

I don't think there's ever been a time in 40k history when I haven't needed 2 documents to figure out what something or another in my codex did, except Indexhammer 8th edition and the blissful two-week pre-FAQ period after a codex drop.

EDIT: The real solution to the problem of USRs isn't "fewer books, everything on cardstock/datasheets/MOAR PAPER" but rather to go to a digital system like the enhanced ebooks where you can click on a rule and it defines it for you. If the discussion is turning to the accessibility of rules rather than game design.

Putting USR in the BRB would just add a book and a FAQ to whatever number you need right now. Unit rules do not belong with the core rules, the belong with the units, and that's not even touching the issue that they have to put an entire cycle of codex updates worth of USR into the BRB the second the edition drops.

Once 8th was in my head (9th is almost there) I played most of my games of 8th with just the codex+PA, with an additional source for a mission.
One of my friends accidentally took my BRB home and I only found out months later - because I never needed it.

There was not a single good thing about having USR in the BRB.

I mean, TBF I often didn't bring my BRB in earlier editions either, because it was sufficiently easy to remember the USRs - far easier than it is to remember all the stratagems for every army in the game.

I knew what Zealot (and by extension Fearless and Hatred did). I knew what Fleet did.

I have no idea what Tenacious Assault or Might from Beyond or whatever the other 1e10 stratagems in the game that aren't for my armies are. I don't even know the names of most of them. I have spent more time looking stuff up in 8th than in earlier editions, generally because things are "bespoke" that really don't have to be (did you know Living Battering Ram and Avalanche of Muscle are two completely different abstractions for what amounts to "this guy charge good"? Though to be fair USRs ended up with the same problem late in their lifecycle).

 Jidmah wrote:
Putting USR in the BRB would just add a book and a FAQ to whatever number you need right now.

Heavy, Assault, Blast, Infantry, Vehicle, and Fly are all USRs, with definitions given in the BRB and not the codex. I don't need to constantly reference the BRB to remember what they do. Do you?

You start running into problems when you have 50+ USRs, or USRs referencing other USRs, but I'm with Unit here- I have to do a lot more lookup of bespoke rules, playing hunt the nuance to make sure an ability is 'within' and not 'wholly within', or 'reroll any' and not 'reroll failed', and trying to learn all the stratagems of other armies is a lost cause.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, TBF I often didn't bring my BRB in earlier editions either, because it was sufficiently easy to remember the USRs - far easier than it is to remember all the stratagems for every army in the game.

I knew what Zealot (and by extension Fearless and Hatred did). I knew what Fleet did.

I call BS on that, no one knew what Zealot did
The difference is that right now I flip open the page for a new/rarely played model like Ghazgkull Thrakka or a squig buggy, and I have all the rules right there. I can resolve all the movement, shooting and fighting without ever needing to through a second book.

I have no idea what Tenacious Assault or Might from Beyond or whatever the other 1e10 stratagems in the game that aren't for my armies are. I don't even know the names of most of them. I have spent more time looking stuff up in 8th than in earlier editions, generally because things are "bespoke" that really don't have to be (did you know Living Battering Ram and Avalanche of Muscle are two completely different abstractions for what amounts to "this guy charge good"? Though to be fair USRs ended up with the same problem late in their lifecycle).

I see your battering ram and rise you 11 different kinds of vehicle explosions in Codex:Orks. Did you know that only two of the new buggies explode in the same way?

I'm not against streamlining common rules and having same things worded and work the same at all. I'm just strictly against printing incomplete datasheets into codices again and forcing people to cross-reference books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Putting USR in the BRB would just add a book and a FAQ to whatever number you need right now.

Heavy, Assault, Blast, Infantry, Vehicle, and Fly are all USRs, with definitions given in the BRB and not the codex. I don't need to constantly reference the BRB to remember what they do. Do you?

You start running into problems when you have 50+ USRs, or USRs referencing other USRs, but I'm with Unit here- I have to do a lot more lookup of bespoke rules, playing hunt the nuance to make sure an ability is 'within' and not 'wholly within', or 'reroll any' and not 'reroll failed', and trying to learn all the stratagems of other armies is a lost cause.

Technically, "Angel of Death" is an USR as well. Put that into the BRB and you are straight back in 7th's USR hell.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, TBF I often didn't bring my BRB in earlier editions either, because it was sufficiently easy to remember the USRs - far easier than it is to remember all the stratagems for every army in the game.

I knew what Zealot (and by extension Fearless and Hatred did). I knew what Fleet did.

I call BS on that, no one knew what Zealot did
The difference is that right now I flip open the page for a new/rarely played model like Ghazgkull Thrakka or a squig buggy, and I have all the rules right there. I can resolve all the movement, shooting and fighting without ever needing to through a second book.

I have no idea what Tenacious Assault or Might from Beyond or whatever the other 1e10 stratagems in the game that aren't for my armies are. I don't even know the names of most of them. I have spent more time looking stuff up in 8th than in earlier editions, generally because things are "bespoke" that really don't have to be (did you know Living Battering Ram and Avalanche of Muscle are two completely different abstractions for what amounts to "this guy charge good"? Though to be fair USRs ended up with the same problem late in their lifecycle).

I see your battering ram and rise you 11 different kinds of vehicle explosions in Codex:Orks. Did you know that only two of the new buggies explode in the same way?

I'm not against streamlining common rules and having same things worded and work the same at all. I'm just strictly against printing incomplete datasheets into codices again and forcing people to cross-reference books.

You must really really hate the Imperial Armour Compendium then. And the Space Marine supplements. All the rules that a unit has are most decidedly not on the datasheet.

I don't know about Orks, but I know that if I look up the rules for a Keeper of Secrets with no prior knowledge, I must then find:
1) The Daemonic Ritual Rule (not on the datasheet)
2) Quicksilver Swiftness (not on the datasheet)
3) The Daemonic rule.

Those are all printed on the datasheet but have no further elaboration. Then I might miss the following rules, because they're not even printed on the datasheet:
1) Locus of Swiftness (advancing and charging is a pretty neat ability that you would never know a Keeper is capable of if I just showed you the datasheet)
2) Any stratagems that are available to the keeper (e.g. Exalted Keeper of Secrets) that meaningfully affect its gameplay performance (things such as a 4++ invuln save, a full movement-phase move in the morale phase, a 6" heroic intervention...) and how one interacts with it on the tabletop. These rules are actually not even printed anywhere in the codex.
3) The FAQ (because the datasheet's been printed and corrected six separate times). Not even the Chaos Daemons FAQ but rather the Psychic Awakening: Engine War FAQ.

I would argue that if I simply showed my opponent the Keeper of Secrets datasheet and nothing else, I have woefully underrepresented its capabilities and he is right to call shenanigans when it turns out that it can advance and charge, can consolidate 3+d3" and HI 6", and has 16" movement with +1 to advance and charge roll, has a 5++, can be summoned by other Chaos characters, and always fights first in the fight phase, has a different damage table to the one printed, and has access to relics from outside the codex itself.