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.

 Selym wrote:
I may get tired of Martel's constant whining

Considering your reaction every time someone mentions the Ultramarines, or your large personal complaint thread where you tell everyone how annoying one of your available local players is, Martel really pales in comparison (which is no mean feat).

My Ultrahate is rather more limited than the constant BA threadjacking. Anf the dedicated thread is just that, dedicated. Voluntary participation in the rant.

It's a thread about the worst lists. How are BA posts threadjacking?

Other threads, I meant. Here it's relevant.

Worst army is easily Chaos Marines. They got 4 or 5 supplements and they are still ass.

I love my CSM but I never get to play them for fun. The Meta here is ful of WAAC players and TFGs.

 Selym wrote:
Other threads, I meant. Here it's relevant.

Sorry but is going on about 'BA thread jacking' in this thread also irrelevant?

To be fair , Martel has got a point. You can say that IOM armies do have more tactical versatility due to allying but you can not judge a codex by it's ally matrix, especially when the stronger codex (i.e C:SM) is better on it's own... even then an army needs to be judged by it's own merits otherwise you're just cherry picking units and not playing an army...

I've said it about Harlequins and I'm also guessing it holds true for BA: If the product of adding an ally to a weak codex actively makes a worse army than just having the single strong faction, then the 'weaker codex is a failure in all regards.

Some of these aren't full codices, so not really voting for them.

For me it's a toss-up between IG, Nids, Orks, and CSM. CSMs can perform better with FW, but the question is regarding codices.

 Torus wrote:
especially when the stronger codex (i.e C:SM) is better on it's own.

REALLY!? Then why is not a *single* top table ruled by mono SM-lists?

Look at Adepticon: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/04/07/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2016-top-16-lists/

Top is SM, but by no means pure SM. Most of the rest of the list is Eldar.
Clearly you're wrong, and allying can make an army stronger.

People keep saying that Sisters is fine. They have literally no response to flying. Bring any flier and simply devastate them... unless you want to say allying *can* make a codex stronger, because then of course they can ally in something and you might as well leave the fliers at home.

On its own, Sisters is an incredibly weak codex because it has that one glaring hole. Their best way of shooting down fliers is Exorcists, hit on sixes. Bring fliers, shoot them down with impunity.

I mean tbf most fliers can be ignored and competitively aren't often taken.

That's not to say Sisters are strong, but that weakness isn't as large/overbearing as you're making it out to be.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I mean tbf most fliers can be ignored and competitively aren't often taken.

That's not to say Sisters are strong, but that weakness isn't as large/overbearing as you're making it out to be.

Fliers can be ignored because no one takes them and no one takes them because anti air is abundant and much cheaper than the cost for getting something to fly. Flying in the current meta is wasted points because you will be shot down.

If there is no threat to your fliers, the meta changes a hell of a lot, so yes, it is as large/overbearing as I'm making it out to be. The Heldrake is honestly a mediocre unit in the current meta, but against a mono-Sisters army? Are you kidding me? A drake or two can completely destroy the whole army. You're making the mistake of not accounting for anything but the current meta, which the Sisters have nothing at all to do with. You're like those people in League of Legends that will religiously build anything the internet tells them to, flame anyone that deviates and think absolutely nothing at all about what you are playing against and how to topple that specifically.

The reason why Sisters can be considered a "mid tier army" is because no one tries to play against their weakness. That doesn't make the codex strong. It just means people are bad at adapting, and that's nothing new.

Again, I never said they were strong (I made that clear in my post), just that this weakness isn't a major as you make it out to be.

Also not sure how my post can be compered to flaming but ok, whatever.

The this is, many people don't even take AA units in competitive armies either, for the same reason that almost no one takes fliers: they suck. Fliers are mostly bad so there's no reason to take a unit to counter them.

The reason no one plays to their weakness is because quite frankly their major weakness isn't worth exploiting most of the time, either because tailoring to that would screw them against other armies or because the points spent to exploit that weakness aren't worth it.

If the Heldrake is considered mediocre in a meta with almost 0 dedicated AA then they are still mediocre against an army with literally 0 in-codex dedicated AA. The broken neck a limited maneuverability of a Heldrake hurts them a lot when it comes to picking targets.

All that being said though, Nid and Daemon Flying Circus lists are a Game Over for sisters, which is why they're stuck in the odd spot of being one of the few genuine mid-tier armies.

 Purifier wrote:

 Torus wrote:
especially when the stronger codex (i.e C:SM) is better on it's own.

REALLY!? Then why is not a *single* top table ruled by mono SM-lists?

Look at Adepticon: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/04/07/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2016-top-16-lists/

You miss the point, I'm not saying that armies get weaker when you ally them...as a general rule that couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm saying that IF an army has an allied detachment from another faction and it actually becomes weaker in the process then the allied faction is a failure from a rules perspective.

Now it's true that in your linked example Aaron Aleong won with white scars and he allied the bare minimum to field a single Sanguinary priest... I'm sorry, I don't collect BA but if the implication you're trying to suggest is that BA are a decent faction or as an ally in general because of a single model, I'd find it insulting

 Torus wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Torus wrote:
especially when the stronger codex (i.e C:SM) is better on it's own.

REALLY!? Then why is not a *single* top table ruled by mono SM-lists?

Look at Adepticon: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/04/07/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2016-top-16-lists/

You miss the point, I'm not saying that armies get weaker when you ally them...as a general rule that couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm saying that IF an army has an allied detachment from another faction and it actually becomes weaker in the process then the allied faction is a failure from a rules perspective.

Now it's true that in your linked example Aaron Aleong won with white scars and he allied the bare minimum to field a single Sanguinary priest... I'm sorry, I don't collect BA but if the implication you're trying to suggest is that BA are a decent faction or as an ally in general because of a single model, I'd find it insulting

I honestly have no idea how you think. You said "C:SM are better on their own," I proved that they most certainly are not. End of story. How you manage to draw it into these weird assumptions, I can't even begin to imagine.

Torus wrote:
Sorry but is going on about 'BA thread jacking' in this thread also irrelevant?

Not when responding to ashiraya

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Selym wrote:
I may get tired of Martel's constant whining

Considering your reaction every time someone mentions the Ultramarines, or your large personal complaint thread where you tell everyone how annoying one of your available local players is, Martel really pales in comparison (which is no mean feat).

I'll go with Tyranids. Their lack of good psychic powers and horrendous weaponry, combined with high cost makes them a schizophrenic kind of army. They're not even approaching the levels of medicore IMO.

 Purifier wrote:


I honestly have no idea how you think. You said "C:SM are better on their own," I proved that they most certainly are not. End of story. How you manage to draw it into these weird assumptions, I can't even begin to imagine.

I think I understand the confusion Purifier - The statement "C:SM are better on their own" was directed to the notion that BA become stronger when allied to IOM. In this scenario I merely state that Space marines (being a stronger codex and the easiest comparison) are stronger on their own rather than allying with BA.

Apologies if I did not make that clear beforehand.

Certainly I've seen really nasty lists with Space marines skyhammers + cad+ nemesis strike force for example is a really strong alphastrike build , but something like BA have nothing to offer that normal marines can't do better themselves- hence why I call BA a failure of a faction rules wise, they suck as an ally and they suck a standalone force.

 Torus wrote:
hence why I call BA a failure of a faction rules wise, they suck as an ally and they suck a standalone force.

Ok, so I understand your point better, but this statement is simply not true. They do have one or two things to offer. I'm not saying that makes the codex fine, but saying they have literally nothing to offer is untrue. They have about as much to offer as Skitarii or Cult Mechanicus does. Which of course is saying a lot when they have as much to offer as a minidex, but it's still false to say they have nothing that people want. Clearly, as they are being used as an ally for the sang priest at the very top tables.

So they're actually quite good as an ally. But obviously one model doesn't make a codex valid on its own.

 Purifier wrote:

 Torus wrote:
especially when the stronger codex (i.e C:SM) is better on it's own.

REALLY!? Then why is not a *single* top table ruled by mono SM-lists?

Look at Adepticon: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/04/07/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2016-top-16-lists/

Top is SM, but by no means pure SM. Most of the rest of the list is Eldar.
Clearly you're wrong, and allying can make an army stronger.

People keep saying that Sisters is fine. They have literally no response to flying. Bring any flier and simply devastate them... unless you want to say allying *can* make a codex stronger, because then of course they can ally in something and you might as well leave the fliers at home.

On its own, Sisters is an incredibly weak codex because it has that one glaring hole. Their best way of shooting down fliers is Exorcists, hit on sixes. Bring fliers, shoot them down with impunity.

Flyers can be ignored. I do it all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Torus wrote:
hence why I call BA a failure of a faction rules wise, they suck as an ally and they suck a standalone force.

Ok, so I understand your point better, but this statement is simply not true. They do have one or two things to offer. I'm not saying that makes the codex fine, but saying they have literally nothing to offer is untrue. They have about as much to offer as Skitarii or Cult Mechanicus does. Which of course is saying a lot when they have as much to offer as a minidex, but it's still false to say they have nothing that people want. Clearly, as they are being used as an ally for the sang priest at the very top tables.

So they're actually quite good as an ally. But obviously one model doesn't make a codex valid on its own.

And that justifies putting them ahead of nids? At least the nids get to use their one good unit in a tyranid list. Contributing fnp to a wolfstar doesn't put them ahead of anyone. It raises the value of c:sw only.

This started with you putting ba ahead of sisters, orks, nids, and csm. Sisters is out of the question. As for the others, your argument boils down to ba supplying priests to real codices. That's the definition of a bad codec.

From the past few pages I've come to these conclusions:

If a standalone army becomes weaker after another dex is allied in, one cannot say the allied dex is a functional one in any capacity (and who in their right fething mind would buy a BA dex, a unit of scouts and a Sang Priest just to ally it into C:SM? I can't see anyone answering that with a "yes" straightfaced. To those who do I simply shake my head.

Also, anyone can ally with anyone. For everyone whining about the IoM matrix and saying or implying it makes AWFUL books like BA or IG better your argument is a strawman. Codex A is Codex A. Codex B is codex B. Do demons make CSM a better CODEX? Nyet. Some of you are clearly having issues distinguishing an army list from an army book... or your thinking is clouded by personal bias.

Ah, its been a while since I've seen a classic thread like this..

*takes a deep mile-long sniff of the laptop monitor*

People still drawing strawmen arguments?

The ever-ongoing conversation weather or not certain books count as codex's?

Martel prattling on, still beating the dead horse?

Ah, the good 'Ol days..

But wait whats this?

Other posters gaining rep for CSM complaints?

I'm taking back my fabulous crown!

*parades fabulously with a crown made of the Slanneshi pink and purple neon glowing tears of CSM players with the smell of Nurgles Rot combined*



Nothing but love for you all

I have to admit I am blessed with my area allowing FW for my CSM, but even then I feel that I have more success with my Orks than my CSM. Its is just a shame it feels so bland with 10 Trukks 6, 12 boyz squads, Ghazzys bully boyz with megaboss, some Gretchen and Traktor Kannons in the back.. It's like CSM can't compete without a renegade knight or daemonology.

In all seriousness though its all situational and really when it comes down to it, its more about your area than anything. Case in point the previous Dreadknight situation. Deadknights will fall to grav because of the grav rules but will tank out en. massed firepower. Dreadknights can fall to IK and titans but can give a greater daemon and daemon princes a good run for their money as well as any psyker in general. Sometimes its just a question of who and what your playing with/against rather than the balance seen from some chart from across the pond.

I personally only voted on the basis of GW-only not including FW so I went for CSM, Orks and Adeptus Sororitas. SoB are good but they do need that codex and an overhaul as they can get countered really easily to deadly impact upon a standalone game. I only see one DE player and they usually use DE on a successful level of consistency with stuff liker the Dark Artisan and the Haemonculi covens book, so from a personal perspective I don't see them as bad as people make them out to be imo.

 Purifier wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I mean tbf most fliers can be ignored and competitively aren't often taken.

That's not to say Sisters are strong, but that weakness isn't as large/overbearing as you're making it out to be.

Fliers can be ignored because no one takes them and no one takes them because anti air is abundant and much cheaper than the cost for getting something to fly. Flying in the current meta is wasted points because you will be shot down.

If there is no threat to your fliers, the meta changes a hell of a lot, so yes, it is as large/overbearing as I'm making it out to be. The Heldrake is honestly a mediocre unit in the current meta, but against a mono-Sisters army? Are you kidding me? A drake or two can completely destroy the whole army. You're making the mistake of not accounting for anything but the current meta, which the Sisters have nothing at all to do with. You're like those people in League of Legends that will religiously build anything the internet tells them to, flame anyone that deviates and think absolutely nothing at all about what you are playing against and how to topple that specifically.

The reason why Sisters can be considered a "mid tier army" is because no one tries to play against their weakness. That doesn't make the codex strong. It just means people are bad at adapting, and that's nothing new.

Do tournaments let people change their list based on what army they're facing?

Are your non-tournament opponents list tailoring frequently?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I mean tbf most fliers can be ignored and competitively aren't often taken.

That's not to say Sisters are strong, but that weakness isn't as large/overbearing as you're making it out to be.

Fliers can be ignored because no one takes them and no one takes them because anti air is abundant and much cheaper than the cost for getting something to fly. Flying in the current meta is wasted points because you will be shot down.

If there is no threat to your fliers, the meta changes a hell of a lot, so yes, it is as large/overbearing as I'm making it out to be. The Heldrake is honestly a mediocre unit in the current meta, but against a mono-Sisters army? Are you kidding me? A drake or two can completely destroy the whole army. You're making the mistake of not accounting for anything but the current meta, which the Sisters have nothing at all to do with. You're like those people in League of Legends that will religiously build anything the internet tells them to, flame anyone that deviates and think absolutely nothing at all about what you are playing against and how to topple that specifically.

The reason why Sisters can be considered a "mid tier army" is because no one tries to play against their weakness. That doesn't make the codex strong. It just means people are bad at adapting, and that's nothing new.

Do tournaments let people change their list based on what army they're facing?

Are your non-tournament opponents list tailoring frequently?

No, but that's irrelevant. Sisters aren't a good enough army to win in tournaments no matter what, so they won't be played there. As a result, talking about what you'd face in a tournament is a moot point.
"List tailoring" is such a ridiculous notion. Like it's a bad thing to bring units that can help you win? Maybe if you're winning every game, you can be nice and not bring your top level game, but if someone knows they'll be facing me, I don't really see it as a horrible thing for them to bring something that will hurt my army specifically.

Martel732 wrote:


This started with you putting ba ahead of sisters, orks, nids, and csm. Sisters is out of the question. As for the others, your argument boils down to ba supplying priests to real codices. That's the definition of a bad codec.

And sisters don't supply ANYTHING to "real" codices. What is the definition of that?
You're just the definition of whiny.

Honestly, the more you whine, the more I start thinking you're absolutely wrong. BA is possibly the worst of the SM chapter codices, mostly because they pay a little more for the same things, but they're still a SM chapter codex. They're not *that* bad. The only people I see whining about it are people that I more and more realise are completely removed from the reality of the game. Maybe you're just terrible at playing your army?

I'm an IG player, and though it may sound odd to say I hope that my army is not buffed through the roof. I'd much prefer that 8th edition focus more on balance and less on buffing armies that are considered to be weaker.

Overall though, I've found that IG are completely reasonable for casual matches at least. I'll admit I have yet to play a competitive match.

 Purifier wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I mean tbf most fliers can be ignored and competitively aren't often taken.

That's not to say Sisters are strong, but that weakness isn't as large/overbearing as you're making it out to be.

Fliers can be ignored because no one takes them and no one takes them because anti air is abundant and much cheaper than the cost for getting something to fly. Flying in the current meta is wasted points because you will be shot down.

If there is no threat to your fliers, the meta changes a hell of a lot, so yes, it is as large/overbearing as I'm making it out to be. The Heldrake is honestly a mediocre unit in the current meta, but against a mono-Sisters army? Are you kidding me? A drake or two can completely destroy the whole army. You're making the mistake of not accounting for anything but the current meta, which the Sisters have nothing at all to do with. You're like those people in League of Legends that will religiously build anything the internet tells them to, flame anyone that deviates and think absolutely nothing at all about what you are playing against and how to topple that specifically.

The reason why Sisters can be considered a "mid tier army" is because no one tries to play against their weakness. That doesn't make the codex strong. It just means people are bad at adapting, and that's nothing new.

Do tournaments let people change their list based on what army they're facing?

Are your non-tournament opponents list tailoring frequently?

No, but that's irrelevant. Sisters aren't a good enough army to win in tournaments no matter what, so they won't be played there. As a result, talking about what you'd face in a tournament is a moot point.
"List tailoring" is such a ridiculous notion. Like it's a bad thing to bring units that can help you win? Maybe if you're winning every game, you can be nice and not bring your top level game, but if someone knows they'll be facing me, I don't really see it as a horrible thing for them to bring something that will hurt my army specifically.

Have you considered asking your opponents in non-competitive games to stop bringing units they don't field against anyone else just because they know you have no defenses against them?

 Pouncey wrote:

Have you considered asking your opponents in non-competitive games to stop bringing units they don't field against anyone else just because they know you have no defenses against them?

Every time I've tried that I either got whining or more of the same. Personal experience says that people who don't normally choose fluff over table power won't do it when asked.

 Selym wrote:
Every time I've tried that I either got whining or more of the same. Personal experience says that people who don't normally choose fluff over table power won't do it when asked.

You're not asking them to choose a fluffy army though. You're asking them to make it a more fair fight by not bringing things your Codex has no answer to.

 Pouncey wrote:


Have you considered asking your opponents in non-competitive games to stop bringing units they don't field against anyone else just because they know you have no defenses against them?

Why would I want to do that?

 Purifier wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Have you considered asking your opponents in non-competitive games to stop bringing units they don't field against anyone else just because they know you have no defenses against them?

Why would I want to do that?

Because you're complaining about them doing exactly that. If it's proving to be a problem, you do have the option to ask them not to.

Like how a Daemons player had the option to ask their Grey Knights opponents NOT to Shunt-Quake in 5th because it makes for a hell of a boring game where there's no question who the victor will be.

 Pouncey wrote:


Because you're complaining about them doing exactly that.

No I'm not. I'm saying it's what makes the Sisters codex weak. If we could just say "don't use your strong units!" to our opponents in this discussion and then that would make the codex fine, then the whole conversation on what codex is strong and what is weak is fairly pointless, no?

Do you understand the difference between complaining about a weakness and wanting others to play around it, and simply explaining that a weakness exists?

 Purifier wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Because you're complaining about them doing exactly that.

No I'm not. I'm saying it's what makes the Sisters codex weak. If we could just say "don't use your strong units!" to our opponents in this discussion and then that would make the codex fine, then the whole conversation on what codex is strong and what is weak is fairly pointless, no?

Do you understand the difference between complaining about a weakness and wanting others to play around it, and simply explaining that a weakness exists?

Sorry, I came into this conversation partway through so I guess I mistook what you were saying for something else.

Yes, I would agree that Sororitas lack a lot of tools that other Codices have and any proper revamp to the Codex and model line would have to include some anti-air tools. You could probably fix the anti-air thing by letting Exorcists buy a piece of vehicle wargear that gives them a Skyfire option, and that wouldn't even require a new model.