Take my money

[ValourousHeart]

[Quixus]

Nice. I think the statue could also make an interesting Khorne Daemon Prince(ss). Replace the sword with an axe, the halo with an eight-pointed star or khorne symbol and maybe feet with hooves.

[Montford]

Gorgeous!

[bazazatron]

I would gladly pauper myself for the righteous foot of the Emperor's justice! Lovely looking kit, even with that massive foot.

[Bjorn Firewalker]

Is that Celestine the Living Saint? Alicia Dominica or other veteran of the Age of Apostasy?

[Jack Burton]

Mmm darn those look good, I think I'm definitely getting that statue.  The Retributors and Zephyrim also look fantastic.

[Atrus]

Everything looks great....except for the foot on the right...it just looks so wrong for some reason.

Was hoping for more of an intact building.

[Dread]

Just saw them. Holy poop! I think GW has finally out done themselves more then before with the sisters. They always been beautiful models but lately even a lot of the other army releases are just really well done.

[ERJAK]

So they didn't say battle sanctum...but battle sanctum?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Is that thing behind the statue not the sanctum then? I'm a bit confused.

 

(I hope it isn't, I was hoping for something a bit more practical, and less half missing...)

[WarriorFish]

The statue is the first bit of terrain that got me excited, it's really good and really 40k. It's good to have some more character in terrain as it gets quite samey otherwise so I wouldn't be surprised to see this decorating table tops all around. It is my best chance at actually wanting to paint some terrain too :lol:

[ValourousHeart]

Everything looks great....except for the foot on the right...it just looks so wrong for some reason.

Was hoping for more of an intact building.

 

Well it looks to be very similar to the other city buildings, so it might be compatible with those parts similar to how the Imperial Knight and GSC Terrain kits can integrate with the industrial terrain.

 

The top center window appears to be very similar to this window on the bottom left, and the bottom middle window looks similar to the bottom middle window in this picture.

 

The side windows with the 3 arches are new, but seem to be the same size as The door in this piece.

 

If compatible then GW gave an excuse for non-sister's players to pick this kit up just to get new wall pieces to make more varied terrain.

 

Also this new one seems to have a curved floor section, which should make for some very interesting new design possibilities when combined 1 or more of these witht the other kits.

[ERJAK]

If it's 2 pieces how do you deploy it? Can i put the statue on one side and the sanctum on the other for 2 bubbles of +1 leadership? Put retributors in the ruin and use the statue to los block my Bloody rose canonesses halfway across the board?

[ValourousHeart]

If it's 2 pieces how do you deploy it? Can i put the statue on one side and the sanctum on the other for 2 bubbles of +1 leadership? Put retributors in the ruin and use the statue to los block my Bloody rose canonesses halfway across the board?

 

Don't go there, you aren't helping.

 

Take the win that we have some flexibility on the relative distance between the statue and the wall.  But don't be that guy that ruins it for the rest of us.  The wall and statue are considered to be 1 piece of terrain.  So just keep the 2 pieces relatively close together so that they are obviously 1 piece of terrain.

 

As just an example of how abusively  GW could respond to counter your shenanigans, consider this.  They might change the wording to say that you have to have a unit wholly within 6" of both pieces.  Which would take this from a generously large area to a punishingly small area.

 

Don't be that guy who ruins it for the rest of us!

[ERJAK]

 

 

If it's 2 pieces how do you deploy it? Can i put the statue on one side and the sanctum on the other for 2 bubbles of +1 leadership? Put retributors in the ruin and use the statue to los block my Bloody rose canonesses halfway across the board?

Don't go there, you aren't helping.

 

Take the win that we have some flexibility on the relative distance between the statue and the wall. But don't be that guy that ruins it for the rest of us. The wall and statue are considered to be 1 piece of terrain. So just keep the 2 pieces relatively close together so that they are obviously 1 piece of terrain.

 

As just an example of how abusively GW could respond to counter your shenanigans, consider this. They might change the wording to say that you have to have a unit wholly within 6" of both pieces. Which would take this from a generously large area to a punishingly small area.

 

Don't be that guy who ruins it for the rest of us!

First of all, you have no idea if any of what you said about them being 1 or 2 pieces of terrain is true. For all we know the statue is the entire kit and the ruin is just for framing the photo.

 

If it is two pieces than separating the pieces like that I described is either:

 

A: Not allowed by something we haven't seen yet.

 

B Not allowed because either the statue or the ruins are not actually part of the battle sanctum's warscroll.

 

C. Not intended and will be FAQed quickly when people email GW about using it that way.

 

D. An intended usage of it.

 

Saying 'shh don't point out this potentially broken (as in non-functional) rule might allow exploitation because I want to exploit it slightly less than the most it CAN be exploited' is the single dumbest 'hot-take' I've ever seen from this website.

 

First of all, it relies on the idea that GW was both completely incapable of seeing this coming and already having a plan in place, AND on GW being ACTIVELY VINDICTIVE in the FAQ. It also requires that you be willing to actively LIE about the exploitability of rules BECAUSE YOU ONLY WANT TO EXPLOIT IT A LITTLE, like that's somehow better?!

 

Good thing you're not in charge of GW's balance team because Ironhands would still be sitting at an 80% win rate. Or would you just bump it up to 100%? "Valorous Heart's IH FAQ: Feirros' aura is 12" long and confers a 3++ and you can use your opponents command points for your stratagems. Also the Iron Stone turns all damage inflicted into mortal wounds". It's okay though because VH was only gonna use ONE repulsor executioner with it!

Edited January 8, 2020 by ERJAK

[Spinsanity]

First of all, you have no idea if any of what you said about them being 1 or 2 pieces of terrain is true. For all we know the statue is the entire kit and the ruin is just for framing the photo.

If it is two pieces than separating the pieces like that I described is either:

A: Not allowed by something we haven't seen yet.

B Not allowed because either the statue or the ruins are not actually part of the battle sanctum's warscroll.

C. Not intended and will be FAQed quickly when people email GW about using it that way.

D. An intended usage of it.

Saying 'shh don't point out this potentially broken (as in non-functional) rule might allow exploitation because I want to exploit it slightly less than the most it CAN be exploited' is the single dumbest 'hot-take' I've ever seen from this website.

First of all, it relies on the idea that GW was both completely incapable of seeing this coming and already having a plan in place, AND on GW being ACTIVELY VINDICTIVE in the FAQ. It also requires that you be willing to actively LIE about the exploitability of rules BECAUSE YOU ONLY WANT TO EXPLOIT IT A LITTLE, like that's somehow better?!

Good thing you're not in charge of GW's balance team because Ironhands would still be sitting at an 80% win rate. Or would you just bump it up to 100%? "Valorous Heart's IH FAQ: Feirros' aura is 12" long and confers a 3++ and you can use your opponents command points for your stratagems. Also the Iron Stone turns all damage inflicted into mortal wounds". It's okay though because VH was only gonna use ONE repulsor executioner with it!

I hope it wasn’t your intent, but wow, this does sound out of line and abusive. Can’t you tone it down a bit with the condescension?

 

Anyway, I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere in the N&R weekender thread that someone already asked at the event and had been told the datasheet refers to the two pieces, not just the statue, so in theory yes, he does know.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Spinsanity

[Aqui]

=][= Everyone needs to chill out. I've noticed a few members who have been rude and condescending to other over the last few weeks. I've been watching them and I will take action if it continues. If members can't participate in a topic without bad behaviour and manners, then they're better off not saying anything. =][=

[War Angel]

So this new model, is it not in the codex that just came out? (The special codex that came with the limited box?)

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I saw a comment on the 40k page asking if the ruined building in the picture is the Sanctum. Apparently it is. (Which means I definitely need to see the front to persuade me to get it. Because so far, it's not grabbing me.)

[Sword Brother Adelard]

So this new model, is it not in the codex that just came out? (The special codex that came with the limited box?)

No. The photography in the codex was clearly done at a stage where a lot of the models weren't done. (The last SM codex was similar IIRC?)

There are no pics in the codex of retributors, dominions, zephyrim, mortifiers or the sanctum.

[ValourousHeart]

=][= Everyone needs to chill out. I've noticed a few members who have been rude and condescending to other over the last few weeks. I've been watching them and I will take action if it continues. If members can't participate in a topic without bad behaviour and manners, then they're better off not saying anything. =][=

Understood.  I am going to respond, but I will keep the conversation pleasant.

 

First of all, you have no idea if any of what you said about them being 1 or 2 pieces of terrain is true. For all we know the statue is the entire kit and the ruin is just for framing the photo.

 

I think it is clear that you believe that this is 2 pieces, hence why you suggested placing the 2 piece on three feet away from each other.  We should not argue over what we agree on, we should limit the discussion to what we disagree on.

 

 

If it is two pieces than separating the pieces like that I described is either:

A: Not allowed by something we haven't seen yet.

 

B Not allowed because either the statue or the ruins are not actually part of the battle sanctum's warscroll.

 

C. Not intended and will be FAQed quickly when people email GW about using it that way.

 

D. An intended usage of it.

 

I have the codex, and the codex describes it at a single piece of terrain.  Much the same way that the Ork Big Mek Workshop is a single piece of terrain and the Sylvaneth Woods is a single piece of terrain.  Why do I bring up those 2 pieces of terrain?  Because the Workshop has 4 or 5 parts and the Sylvaneth woods has 3 to 6 components.

 

Currently the warscroll for the Sanctum and the workshop does not define how the pieces have to be arranged.  It simply define the terrain as a single piece of terrain.   The Woods do define how the parts have to be placed.  I suspect that is because it is possible to place multiple sets of woods down during game play.  As opposed to the workshop and the sister's terrain which are set down prior to the game beginning.

 

I think we can just ignore your #D, since there is not 1 example of any unit or terrain that counts as a single unit or terrain that can currently be placed in 2 or more remote locations on the board.

 

 

Saying 'shh don't point out this potentially broken (as in non-functional) rule might allow exploitation because I want to exploit it slightly less than the most it CAN be exploited' is the single dumbest 'hot-take' I've ever seen from this website.

 

First off I didn't say "shh don't point out potentially broken rule".  I said don't go there, you aren't helping.

 

Nothing about the rule is even remotely "Non-Functional" so I don't know what you are implying there.

 

Now I haven't held the model in my hand yet, so I don't know the curve of the building or the depth component of the statue.  So I don't know if it is physically possible to place the statue in base contact with the building.  But visually from the picture it looks like the statue is about 2 to 3 inches from the building.

 

It is interesting that you would claim that I'm the one with the "hot-take".  I'm only suggesting that you could fudge the placement of the statue between 3-6 inches away from the wall.  And that doing so will not more than likely not arouse suspicion from either GW or any of your opponents.

 

Your suggestion was to place the statue 3 feet away from the wall.  Would that qualify as a "hot-take"?  I think you would be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that the statue and wall are a single piece of terrain when you have placed them 3 feet away from each other.

 

 

First of all, it relies on the idea that GW was both completely incapable of seeing this coming and already having a plan in place, AND on GW being ACTIVELY VINDICTIVE in the FAQ. It also requires that you be willing to actively LIE about the exploitability of rules BECAUSE YOU ONLY WANT TO EXPLOIT IT A LITTLE, like that's somehow better?!

 

I understand that it is fashionable these days to blame everyone else one's own bad behavior.  But every entry in the FAQs can be tied directly back to some incident at one of the major tournaments where one or more players had a "creative" interpretation of the rules.   And the rest of us suffer for it.

 

You can engage in whatever shenanigans you want, but just remember that the rule of 3 wasn't a thing until someone decided to bring 6 hive tyrants.   Hive Tyrants are supposed to lead armies of Nids, not leave armies of Nids at home.  And poof, any chance of Deathwing becoming competitive went out the window, because it would require more than 3 units of DW terminators.

 

It doesn't require any of what you just said.  To GW this is a beer and pretzel game you play with friends for fun.  They write rules to create fun and exciting events to happen on the table top.  They think that Hive Tyrants and Deamon Princes LEAD armies.  So yeah, they didn't think they had to tell players that they shouldn't bring only Hive Tyrants or Deamon Princes.  That isn't GW fault for not anticipating that someone would show up with nothing but Hive Tyrants.

 

As for GW being Actively Vindictive, ask the players that bought and painted up 6 Hive Tyrants either for that tournament or in the aftermath of that tournament.  Only to have the FAQ come down.  Do you think that any of them felt robbed of the money they just spent?

 

 

Good thing you're not in charge of GW's balance team because Ironhands would still be sitting at an 80% win rate. Or would you just bump it up to 100%? "Valorous Heart's IH FAQ: Feirros' aura is 12" long and confers a 3++ and you can use your opponents command points for your stratagems. Also the Iron Stone turns all damage inflicted into mortal wounds". It's okay though because VH was only gonna use ONE repulsor executioner with it!

I have no idea what you are going on about here.

[War Angel]

 

So this new model, is it not in the codex that just came out? (The special codex that came with the limited box?)

No. The photography in the codex was clearly done at a stage where a lot of the models weren't done. (The last SM codex was similar IIRC?)

There are no pics in the codex of retributors, dominions, zephyrim, mortifiers or the sanctum.

So no pictures, but are there rules?

[ThePenitentOne]

What I figure is you can use the model to represent one site or two, depending on whether you pay the points for one site or two.

+

When you look at it like that, strategically, you're better off using the two pieces to represent a single site. First off, it would save you points; second, it creates a larger area of effect for the site, and finally, it would just look more impressive.

 

Just my two cents. GW would probably prefer that people buy a second kit if they want a second site, so it might be a "counts as" friendly game kind of arrangement.

 

I don't like ruined buildings- I prefer structures that are intact. So what I'm likely to do is purchase one full kit, and then buy as many of the statues as I can from Ebay. Paint it all without locking the pieces to a any kind of area base. That way,if I'm playing against someone who insists on hard interpretations of rules and such, I use one GW ruined church and one statueplaced no further than 6" apart.

 

But when I'm playing in the campaign, and the enemy attacks one of the 7 churches on the planet of Orisons wake, I'll use a scratch built church, placing as many statues as the church in question could support. I pay the sanctum price for every statue I take, and measure ranges from the statues. Place two statues 12" apart, and the distance between them is covered, plus the 6" on either side, and you get a 24" line in the sand.

 

Like I said, only in narrative, only with the consent of my opponent and only when the story/ mission calls for it.

[Slasher956]

 

 

So this new model, is it not in the codex that just came out? (The special codex that came with the limited box?)

No. The photography in the codex was clearly done at a stage where a lot of the models weren't done. (The last SM codex was similar IIRC?)

There are no pics in the codex of retributors, dominions, zephyrim, mortifiers or the sanctum.

So no pictures, but are there rules?

 

 

Yes