yukishiro1 wrote: Guilliman is absolutely a good guy and it's comical to see anyone try to seriously argue otherwise. Even on the rare occasions he does bad things, it's basically always for a good purpose. He stands out like a sore thumb in 40k for a reason, which was fine as a contrast as long as he never got more than a bit-part role, but is proving very problematic now that he's the main protagonist.
But is him sticking out like a sore thumb a problem? That contrast is good for interesting story telling compared to some of the God awful suggestions that I've seen here, like him just power grabbing for the sake of power grabbing.
yukishiro1 wrote: Guilliman is absolutely a good guy and it's comical to see anyone try to seriously argue otherwise. Even on the rare occasions he does bad things, it's basically always for a good purpose. He stands out like a sore thumb in 40k for a reason, which was fine as a contrast as long as he never got more than a bit-part role, but is proving very problematic now that he's the main protagonist.
But is him sticking out like a sore thumb a problem? That contrast is good for interesting story telling compared to some of the God awful suggestions that I've seen here, like him just power grabbing for the sake of power grabbing.
Gotta agree. Imperium Secundus already happened, it would be retreading on ground that's been done before, it would be terribly boring for him to just "NOPE" and run off to Ultramar to empire build.
yukishiro1 wrote: Guilliman is absolutely a good guy and it's comical to see anyone try to seriously argue otherwise. Even on the rare occasions he does bad things, it's basically always for a good purpose. He stands out like a sore thumb in 40k for a reason, which was fine as a contrast as long as he never got more than a bit-part role, but is proving very problematic now that he's the main protagonist.
But is him sticking out like a sore thumb a problem? That contrast is good for interesting story telling compared to some of the God awful suggestions that I've seen here, like him just power grabbing for the sake of power grabbing.
As I said, it's not a problem except when he's the big boss of everything. Then he stops being the contrast and starts to become the norm - see how they have rewritten things via him to have the Imperium not to have been so bad in the "good old days" and to place the blame for its current state more on bad bureaucrats than on fundamental rottenness.
A grimdark setting has trouble surviving a supreme leader who is an unambiguous good guy.
Horus Heresy book series still exists and we hear plenty of talk about how much they crushed things back then. If it's presented differently in 40k that'd likely be the 10k years of romantization about the Great Crusade and the Imperium teaching only history that makes them look good at play.
I mean we know that both history and the calendar system is such a mess that Guilliman is trying to collate and write a more balanced account of the actual history of the Imperium to fix it, while hiding the Imperium Secondus events from everyone.
ClockworkZion wrote: I mean we know that both history and the calendar system is such a mess that Guilliman is trying to collate and write a more balanced account of the actual history of the Imperium to fix it, while hiding the Imperium Secondus events from everyone.
On a side note, I still don't get idiocy of some people bashing him for IS. When you're cut off from your capital by enemy aggression, first task of sane military force is establishing command, defence and governance of territory they still posses before doing anything else. It's like bashing Free French during WW2 or various Allied forces from Indochina to Philippines after Japanese attack cut them off from the metropolises for taking control over their provinces, or that western bit of Belgium during WW1 that pretty much established 'Belgium Secundus'. GW really should stop putting dumb bits meant to appease loudly screeching tiny minority into the lore (see especially stupid take on Codex in Ventris books)
The whole thing with that is that it was a perfectly rational and understandable and sensible thing to do...but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be viewed as treasonous, because the Imperium is not a rational, sensible institution. This goes back to the original portrayal of the Imperium as fundamentally flawed from the very beginning. Throughout the period leading up to the heresy, the Emperor repeatedly makes poor decisions, rewarding the blindly loyal but incompetent, while punishing the intelligent and proactive but free-thinking. The very fact that Guilliman did nothing wrong and yet has to cover it up - just as Magnus did nothing wrong, and would have nipped the Heresy in the bud before it even started if the Emperor hadn't been an idiot whose pride outweighed his wisdom - is an illustration of how the Imperium is not run in ways that make sense or produce good governance.
Guilliman in HH is a great character; it's in 40k where he's become a problem, because of how he has been misuesed.
yukishiro1 wrote: The whole thing with that is that it was a perfectly rational and understandable and sensible thing to do...but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be viewed as treasonous, because the Imperium is not a rational, sensible institution. This goes back to the original portrayal of the Imperium as fundamentally flawed from the very beginning. Throughout the period leading up to the heresy, the Emperor repeatedly makes poor decisions, rewarding the blindly loyal but incompetent, while punishing the intelligent and proactive but free-thinking. The very fact that Guilliman did nothing wrong and yet has to cover it up - just as Magnus did nothing wrong, and would have nipped the Heresy in the bud before it even started if the Emperor hadn't been an idiot whose pride outweighed his wisdom - is an illustration of how the Imperium is not run in ways that make sense or produce good governance.
Guilliman in HH is a great character; it's in 40k where he's become a problem, because of how he has been misuesed.
I don't agree he's being misused, but that's mostly because I think his BL appearances have done a good bit of work to show where he's weak. Even if he presents himself as a glowing beacon of hope for the Imperium he knows he's not. He's forced to live in his armour just to stay alive (though he's trying to wean himself off it), he's post human nigh-immortality hasn't stopped him from aging from the stress, he can't sleep, and even with the Indomitus Crusade being a smashing PR success, it can't be everywhere to handle everything. It's not plugging holes in a dam, it's trying to stop the dam from collapsing after it's already started to come down. We know it ends with him declaring it a "success" but knowing he's lying since his efforts have been more like tossing a cup of water into a burning building. Plus he can't even attempt to reinstate the Imperial Truth thanks to the Ministorum being the nut jobs they are.
In the codex level summaries we get I can get that we don't dig into his weaknesses the same way since those books focus on very simplistic summaries, and only making those inside look like they're the winningest ever, but through the BL at least GW has been trying to balance Guilliman's status and demigod nature with limitations and weaknesses that make sense.
yukishiro1 wrote: The whole thing with that is that it was a perfectly rational and understandable and sensible thing to do...but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be viewed as treasonous, because the Imperium is not a rational, sensible institution. This goes back to the original portrayal of the Imperium as fundamentally flawed from the very beginning. Throughout the period leading up to the heresy, the Emperor repeatedly makes poor decisions, rewarding the blindly loyal but incompetent, while punishing the intelligent and proactive but free-thinking. The very fact that Guilliman did nothing wrong and yet has to cover it up - just as Magnus did nothing wrong, and would have nipped the Heresy in the bud before it even started if the Emperor hadn't been an idiot whose pride outweighed his wisdom - is an illustration of how the Imperium is not run in ways that make sense or produce good governance.
Guilliman in HH is a great character; it's in 40k where he's become a problem, because of how he has been misuesed.
I don't agree he's being misused, but that's mostly because I think his BL appearances have done a good bit of work to show where he's weak. Even if he presents himself as a glowing beacon of hope for the Imperium he knows he's not. He's forced to live in his armour just to stay alive (though he's trying to wean himself off it), he's post human nigh-immortality hasn't stopped him from aging from the stress, he can't sleep, and even with the Indomitus Crusade being a smashing PR success, it can't be everywhere to handle everything. It's not plugging holes in a dam, it's trying to stop the dam from collapsing after it's already started to come down. We know it ends with him declaring it a "success" but knowing he's lying since his efforts have been more like tossing a cup of water into a burning building. Plus he can't even attempt to reinstate the Imperial Truth thanks to the Ministorum being the nut jobs they are.
In the codex level summaries we get I can get that we don't dig into his weaknesses the same way since those books focus on very simplistic summaries, and only making those inside look like they're the winningest ever, but through the BL at least GW has been trying to balance Guilliman's status and demigod nature with limitations and weaknesses that make sense.
Bingo. I find a lot of the complaints with Cawl as well come from this 1d4chan hyperbole and mere codex entries.
ClockworkZion wrote: Speaking of Sisters, when are we expecting them? Late May before GW drops AoS 3.0?
My guess would be:
May: AdMech
June: Adepta Sororitas Codex and releases
July: Age of Sigmar 3.0!
August: Beast Snaggas Ork Box
September: 40K Mystic Showdown Box and attending Codexes
October: Codex Orks and releases
It's a "solipsist is literally incapable of comprehending that his viewpoint is subjective and arbitrary and not based on any sort of objectivity" episode ITT. My favorite rerun.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero as its focus.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero who occasionally makes progress in furthering their conventionally good goals.
Nowhere has it ever been stated that the pre-Heresy era was a morally pristine utopia. Anyone who has bothered to actually educate themselves even a little bit on the HH series will know that from day 1 the Great Crusade was presented as morally dubious. The GC era Imperium was the Golden Age of the Imperium, because it was the height of mankind's power projection in the galaxy and the height of its technological achievement. It being the golden age =\= some BIPOC utopia where everyone was happy and the government was benign and you had the freedom to do whatever you wanted whenever.
The argument that 40K isn't grimdark anymore because the Hero is a mostly good guy who espouses values from a less crappy time is Zack Snyder tier pseud drivel. A good man fighting desperately in a eternal stalemate against the torrent of gak is perfectly grimdark.
ClockworkZion wrote: Speaking of Sisters, when are we expecting them? Late May before GW drops AoS 3.0?
My guess would be:
May: AdMech
June: Adepta Sororitas Codex and releases
July: Age of Sigmar 3.0!
August: Beast Snaggas Ork Box
September: 40K Mystic Showdown Box and attending Codexes
October: Codex Orks and releases
But I'm totally guessing
I think that's actually too far out. Squash all of that by half.
May: The rest of Vampires and Admech
June: Sororitas leading into AoS 3.0
July: More AoS 3.0 and Beast Snaggas
August: 40k Mystic Showdown Box and attending Codexes.
Anywhere possible, GW is going to try to make up time, and generally they don't reveal things that are more than 2 months out. It'll all come down to how much they squish in around the next couple months.
It's a "solipsist is literally incapable of comprehending that his viewpoint is subjective and arbitrary and not based on any sort of objectivity" episode ITT. My favorite rerun.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero as its focus.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero who occasionally makes progress in furthering their conventionally good goals.
Nowhere has it ever been stated that the pre-Heresy era was a morally pristine utopia. Anyone who has bothered to actually educate themselves even a little bit on the HH series will know that from day 1 the Great Crusade was presented as morally dubious. The GC era Imperium was the Golden Age of the Imperium, because it was the height of mankind's power projection in the galaxy and the height of its technological achievement. It being the golden age =\= some BIPOC utopia where everyone was happy and the government was benign and you had the freedom to do whatever you wanted whenever.
The argument that 40K isn't grimdark anymore because the Hero is a mostly good guy who espouses values from a less crappy time is Zack Snyder tier pseud drivel. A good man fighting desperately in a eternal stalemate against the torrent of gak is perfectly grimdark.
Right, people get soooo focused on grimdark that they don't realize that grimdark needs something to be, well literally GRIM & DARK. How do you iterate that into a setting, by having something that no matter how bright and noble actions, their efforts are but a mere twig in the rapids of horrendous outcomes, both in the pursuit of "good" AND "evil".
He's the head honcho of the titanic and there are no lifeboats or perservers. The iceberg is literally the galaxy at large. And chaos is the water the ship is navigating thru.
If it's not chaos today, is perfidious Tau tomorrow, meddling Eldar next week, cocroach orks & nids/gsc in a fortnight....
It's a "solipsist is literally incapable of comprehending that his viewpoint is subjective and arbitrary and not based on any sort of objectivity" episode ITT. My favorite rerun.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero as its focus.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero who occasionally makes progress in furthering their conventionally good goals.
Nowhere has it ever been stated that the pre-Heresy era was a morally pristine utopia. Anyone who has bothered to actually educate themselves even a little bit on the HH series will know that from day 1 the Great Crusade was presented as morally dubious. The GC era Imperium was the Golden Age of the Imperium, because it was the height of mankind's power projection in the galaxy and the height of its technological achievement. It being the golden age =\= some BIPOC utopia where everyone was happy and the government was benign and you had the freedom to do whatever you wanted whenever.
The argument that 40K isn't grimdark anymore because the Hero is a mostly good guy who espouses values from a less crappy time is Zack Snyder tier pseud drivel. A good man fighting desperately in a eternal stalemate against the torrent of gak is perfectly grimdark.
Right, people get soooo focused on grimdark that they don't realize that grimdark needs something to be, well literally GRIM & DARK. How do you iterate that into a setting, by having something that no matter how bright and noble actions, their efforts are but a mere twig in the rapids of horrendous outcomes, both in the pursuit of "good" AND "evil".
He's the head honcho of the titanic and there are no lifeboats or perservers. The iceberg is literally the galaxy at large. And chaos is the water the ship is navigating thru.
If it's not chaos today, is perfidious Tau tomorrow, meddling Eldar next week, cocroach orks & nids/gsc in a fortnight....
I mean he can't even get rid of the problems holding the Imperium back (like the religious fanaticism) and people insist he's some kind of perfect superman whose ruining the setting.
yukishiro1 wrote: The very fact that Guilliman did nothing wrong and yet has to cover it up - just as Magnus did nothing wrong, and would have nipped the Heresy in the bud before it even started if the Emperor hadn't been an idiot whose pride outweighed his wisdom - is an illustration of how the Imperium is not run in ways that make sense or produce good governance.
There's a massive difference between Guilliman (and Sanguinius, and the Lion) doing nothing wrong given the information at their disposal by creating Imperium Secundus, and Magnus - at best - doing wrong by blowing the Webway project up by accident, causing a Warp rift beneath the Imperial Palace.
Magnus did wrong, multiple times, and in his hubris was unable to see it - and his defenders are blinded to it too.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's a "solipsist is literally incapable of comprehending that his viewpoint is subjective and arbitrary and not based on any sort of objectivity" episode ITT. My favorite rerun.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero as its focus.
Nowhere in the definition of "grimdark" does it state that your setting may not have a conventionally good hero who occasionally makes progress in furthering their conventionally good goals.
Nowhere has it ever been stated that the pre-Heresy era was a morally pristine utopia. Anyone who has bothered to actually educate themselves even a little bit on the HH series will know that from day 1 the Great Crusade was presented as morally dubious. The GC era Imperium was the Golden Age of the Imperium, because it was the height of mankind's power projection in the galaxy and the height of its technological achievement. It being the golden age =\= some BIPOC utopia where everyone was happy and the government was benign and you had the freedom to do whatever you wanted whenever.
The argument that 40K isn't grimdark anymore because the Hero is a mostly good guy who espouses values from a less crappy time is Zack Snyder tier pseud drivel. A good man fighting desperately in a eternal stalemate against the torrent of gak is perfectly grimdark.
Thank you for summing it up and particularly the paragraph about the pre-Heresy Imperium. The Imperium was "great" as in powerful and the future at least seemed upbeat and optimistic (if you were pro-Imperium), not that the Imperium was morally good or a utopia. That apparent greatness and hopefulness where humanity seemed to be climbing the slope of recovery is what Guilliman is trying to recover rather than the crumbling Imperium of 40K where it is a bleeding colossus trying to staunch its bleeding and basically of trying to just beat back the next threat to live another day. Guilliman seems to at least view the idea of an Imperium as it was or could have been as better than the alternative of the Age of Strife, with petty warlords and small human states endlessly fighting each other. Obviously as one of the major players in the 30k Imperium, his POV may be biased as he would not have been subject to the negative aspects that the average person in 30k might have had to endure from the Imperium.
At least in Guilliman's own thoughts he justifies himself as fighting for humanity not necessarily just because the Emperor wants him to. So I can see a divergence in their goals. I also see the erosion of Guilliman as a theme as he makes more and more compromises, such as his initial tolerance of the Ecclesiarchy. He tries to justify it as avoiding a religious schism or civil war when the Imperium can least afford one, which may very well be true, but over time I can see this compromising and turning a blind eye happening more and more often, and each time seemingly reasonably justified, and this leading effectively to the indefinite postponement of critical reforms.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's a "solipsist is literally incapable of comprehending that his viewpoint is subjective and arbitrary and not based on any sort of objectivity" episode ITT. My favorite rerun.
Just a heads up, you are misusing solipsist. Believing, or starting from the premise, that one's mind is the only thing one can be sure exists does not imply anything about objectivity of one's view points. If anything, it implies that any and all perceptions of things existing outside the mind are more likely to be arbitrary illusions simply because they suggest a world of objects and actors outside the mind, the very world whose existence is in doubt in the first place.
You might be thinking more of narcissist instead.
ClockworkZion wrote: Speaking of Sisters, when are we expecting them? Late May before GW drops AoS 3.0?
My guess would be:
May: AdMech
June: Adepta Sororitas Codex and releases
July: Age of Sigmar 3.0!
August: Beast Snaggas Ork Box
September: 40K Mystic Showdown Box and attending Codexes
October: Codex Orks and releases
But I'm totally guessing
I think that's actually too far out. Squash all of that by half.
May: The rest of Vampires and Admech
June: Sororitas leading into AoS 3.0
July: More AoS 3.0 and Beast Snaggas
August: 40k Mystic Showdown Box and attending Codexes.
Anywhere possible, GW is going to try to make up time, and generally they don't reveal things that are more than 2 months out. It'll all come down to how much they squish in around the next couple months.
I'd agree, but until we see the backside of the pandemic, I'm not expecting releases that quickly. And that schedule doesn't leave a lot of space for releases for other games along with a 2 week pre-order window for AOS 3.0.
Still, anything can happen. It is pure speculation on both our parts. I hope you are more right than I am.
ClockworkZion wrote:All I know is GW really should do the massive Ork launch with the codex and everything in October. And I don't mean pre-orders in October either.
An actual Orktober launch! That would be a bold move on GW's part
yukishiro1 wrote: The very fact that Guilliman did nothing wrong and yet has to cover it up - just as Magnus did nothing wrong, and would have nipped the Heresy in the bud before it even started if the Emperor hadn't been an idiot whose pride outweighed his wisdom - is an illustration of how the Imperium is not run in ways that make sense or produce good governance.
There's a massive difference between Guilliman (and Sanguinius, and the Lion) doing nothing wrong given the information at their disposal by creating Imperium Secundus, and Magnus - at best - doing wrong by blowing the Webway project up by accident, causing a Warp rift beneath the Imperial Palace.
Magnus did wrong, multiple times, and in his hubris was unable to see it - and his defenders are blinded to it too.
Er, it's actually exactly the same. Magnus didn't know about the Webway project because the Emperor was too stupid to tell him, which again goes back to the Emperor being a terrible judge of character who created the Heresy himself by his terrible decisions.
The only thing Magnus did wrong was disobeying an unjust command that didn't make any sense in order to save the person who made that command. That the Emperor responded to it by punishing him for something that was the Emperor's own fault is the ultimate expression of why the Emperor was a terrible leader who created all his own problems and why the Imperium was fundamentally flawed from its inception.
SERIOUSLY GUYS STOP DERAILING THIS THREAD WITH TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ROBOUTE GUILLIMAN IS A GOOD GUY. GUILLIMAN IS NOT A SISTER OF BATTLE AND THUS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE.
I came into this thread to see if there was any news about the upcoming Sisters release and instead I find a multi-page wall of people quoting each other about who in 40k are the good guys and if there should be good guys and if Guilliman this or Guilliman that. Only reason I haven't hit the yellow triangle of friendship is because I'd hate for the mods to have to shut this thread down.
My opinion on the new Sisters units is that basically all of them are really cool models, but we really won't know whether any of them are good until we see their full points costs and rules. I'm hoping the Paragon Warsuits are good as I actually like the models, and I'll be picking up the Super Canoness lady regardless of competitive utility because her model is so damn cool.
There's nothing much new to discuss about sisters so far, anyway. We'll have more articles on the new rules once they'll announce one sunday that the codex is on pre-order next week, most certainly.
Unless they kept a surprise (IMHO very unlikely), we've seen all the new miniatures for this release.
Sarouan wrote: There's nothing much new to discuss about sisters so far, anyway. We'll have more articles on the new rules once they'll announce one sunday that the codex is on pre-order next week, most certainly.
Unless they kept a surprise (IMHO very unlikely), we've seen all the new miniatures for this release.
We will almost certainly have a new Battle Sister Bulletin on Monday. They could show off more pics of models they have already revealed. They may toss in some rules tidbits. They may have something else up their sleeves. We shall see.
The next BSB would be June 7th if this wasn’t the last one. If we are lucky, that would be preview week instead with Preorder on June 12th and release on June 19th.
Looks like they are just rebuilding Acts of Faith from the 3rd Ed (I think) Witch Hunters Codex. Giving bolters rending, etc. The second they show seems like it is redundant with Sisters just ignoring psykers in general, so I am assuming they removed that rule.
Wehrkind wrote: Looks like they are just rebuilding Acts of Faith from the 3rd Ed (I think) Witch Hunters Codex. Giving bolters rending, etc. The second they show seems like it is redundant with Sisters just ignoring psykers in general, so I am assuming they removed that rule.
Sisters don't ignore Psykers - thats Sisters of Silence?
Wehrkind wrote: The second they show seems like it is redundant with Sisters just ignoring psykers in general….
Uh…? When did they do that? They currently have one, quite expensive, way to get a short ranged negative modifier for psychic tests, and a completely worthless general deny the witch ability. You can make that ability sorta useful but you have to give up other army-wide buffs to do it. Army-wide completely ignoring psychic powers is not a thing though.
Wehrkind wrote: Looks like they are just rebuilding Acts of Faith from the 3rd Ed (I think) Witch Hunters Codex. Giving bolters rending, etc. The second they show seems like it is redundant with Sisters just ignoring psykers in general, so I am assuming they removed that rule.
Sisters don't ignore Psykers - thats Sisters of Silence?
I think this guy got confused lol. Just because they have boobs doesn't automatically make them sisters of battle
An incredibly fluffy rule for Sisters, even if I super hate the entire 'roll a 3 or be useless' mechanic of hymns/prayers/whatever.
We'll see, maybe there's a relic giving a bonus to the roll for the hymns. As an AoS player used to how priests work the same way, it doesn't bother me that much.
In any case, it's still an improvement compared to what Dialogus used to do in V8.
Wehrkind wrote: Looks like they are just rebuilding Acts of Faith from the 3rd Ed (I think) Witch Hunters Codex. Giving bolters rending, etc. The second they show seems like it is redundant with Sisters just ignoring psykers in general, so I am assuming they removed that rule.
This isn't Acts of Faith- it's closer to what Space Marine Chaplains/Chaos Dark Apostles get.
I'm hoping they don't touch the current Acts of Faith system. It's just fine as it is.
Wehrkind wrote: Looks like they are just rebuilding Acts of Faith from the 3rd Ed (I think) Witch Hunters Codex. Giving bolters rending, etc. The second they show seems like it is redundant with Sisters just ignoring psykers in general, so I am assuming they removed that rule.
They normally dispel on d6. Meaning if opponent casts on 5(lowest casting value generally) you can dispel 1/6 times. If they roll 6 or more on 2d6 sisters can't stop it. It's hardly "ignoring".
Even with sacred rite(which you might or might not have) it's still d6+3 trying to beat 2d6(maybe with modifiers). Again hardly ignoring. d6+3 average=6.5. 2d6 average=7. You need to roll ABOVE to deny.
If you get 2 items(one being relic) within 18" of caster without bonuses it gets better as he gets -2 to his roll but that's LOT of resources spent.
Wehrkind wrote: Looks like they are just rebuilding Acts of Faith from the 3rd Ed (I think) Witch Hunters Codex. Giving bolters rending, etc. The second they show seems like it is redundant with Sisters just ignoring psykers in general, so I am assuming they removed that rule.
This isn't Acts of Faith- it's closer to what Space Marine Chaplains/Chaos Dark Apostles get.
I'm hoping they don't touch the current Acts of Faith system. It's just fine as it is.
In the preview video some weeks ago it sounded like Miracle Dice are here to say. I really hope it's true, I quite like the system. And interested in the hymns, got a Dialogus last week, because I really like the model. If there are now new and useful rules, it would be great.
But I'm most excited for the Crusade rules, eager to start a campaign against my friend's Necrons.
I saw that they said 'Priests' in the article and I got a little discouraged. Then they said that Dogmata and Dialogus also get the ability and that made me feel a lot better. It'd be nice if other units got it as well, but we'll see. As it is, the Dialogus really serves very little purpose, so it'll be nice for them to have... well, a purpose.
drbored wrote: I saw that they said 'Priests' in the article and I got a little discouraged. Then they said that Dogmata and Dialogus also get the ability and that made me feel a lot better. It'd be nice if other units got it as well, but we'll see. As it is, the Dialogus really serves very little purpose, so it'll be nice for them to have... well, a purpose.
Guess you haven't used them and miracle dices in same game then.
drbored wrote: I saw that they said 'Priests' in the article and I got a little discouraged. Then they said that Dogmata and Dialogus also get the ability and that made me feel a lot better. It'd be nice if other units got it as well, but we'll see. As it is, the Dialogus really serves very little purpose, so it'll be nice for them to have... well, a purpose.
Guess you haven't used them and miracle dices in same game then.
I certainly did and it's not really helping that the Triumph of St Catherine does the same thing and is not cumulative. Which is why the Dialogus is practically never seen (Triumph is simply better in every aspect).
Also, that ability is way too situationnal to be really useful. It's just a gimmick.
So it's good to give the dialogus more purpose than now.
drbored wrote: I saw that they said 'Priests' in the article and I got a little discouraged. Then they said that Dogmata and Dialogus also get the ability and that made me feel a lot better. It'd be nice if other units got it as well, but we'll see. As it is, the Dialogus really serves very little purpose, so it'll be nice for them to have... well, a purpose.
Guess you haven't used them and miracle dices in same game then.
I certainly did and it's not really helping that the Triumph of St Catherine does the same thing and is not cumulative. Which is why the Dialogus is practically never seen (Triumph is simply better in every aspect).
Also, that ability is way too situationnal to be really useful. It's just a gimmick.
So it's good to give the dialogus more purpose than now.
I actually disagree about the Triumph. The Triumph is good but it's only good in very specific lists. It suffers because the actual body of it (i.e. its statline) is fething atrocius for its point cost. It's melee stats are terrible and being 18 wounds just gives your opponent an awesome target for spare bolter shots they wouldn't normally get much use out of.
Most of the buffs are terrible too. The entire reason you take it is for the extra miracle dice and the extra act of faith, which means that there are a lot of situations where a dialogus, a battle sanctum, and a handful of simulacrums do exactly the same thing for probably 50-80pts cheaper, while not wasting an HQ slot.
I actually disagree about the Triumph. The Triumph is good but it's only good in very specific lists. It suffers because the actual body of it (i.e. its statline) is fething atrocius for its point cost. It's melee stats are terrible and being 18 wounds just gives your opponent an awesome target for spare bolter shots they wouldn't normally get much use out of.
Most of the buffs are terrible too. The entire reason you take it is for the extra miracle dice and the extra act of faith, which means that there are a lot of situations where a dialogus, a battle sanctum, and a handful of simulacrums do exactly the same thing for probably 50-80pts cheaper, while not wasting an HQ slot.
Doesn't really matters since no one brings the Triumph for this ability and even less the dialogus for it.
It's just a gimmick that barely had any practical use, other than the pleasure of bringing the miniature on the field and playing with her.
Viterbi wrote: But I'm most excited for the Crusade rules, eager to start a campaign against my friend's Necrons.
Absolutely this. A couple buddies and I are painting up new armies (well, the buddy with Crons is painting up 9th edition era stuff to largely replace his older warriors and such) for a Crusade, and I want this to come out so I can finally make some decisions about equipping Sisters Superior and HQs for that.
Gonna get the Codex and maybe a unit of the Celestians. My Canoness held a flank alone the last two games, she could do with the assistance.
Really dislike the new dice and am happy I have the last set.
But yes, the release schedule is amping up and looking to playing some catch up. This is a quick release but good to see things moving forward. Book for sure, probably Morvenn, then look at the lists to see where to next.
porkuslime wrote: Irbis, those are skulls, which are generally OK by the Imperium, but the ones I see on the codex cover look fleshy and ragged, which is uncouth
porkuslime wrote: Irbis, those are skulls, which are generally OK by the Imperium, but the ones I see on the codex cover look fleshy and ragged, which is uncouth
You mean the strips of parchment hanging around the skulls?
porkuslime wrote: Irbis, those are skulls, which are generally OK by the Imperium, but the ones I see on the codex cover look fleshy and ragged, which is uncouth
Ok, do these count then? Plenty of flesh left on these
Will that leave Aedred, Castigator and a Combat Patrol for week 2? Keen to know the contents of that, hope it isn’t the limited army box without codex and cards.
Is it just me or do those Paragon suits look a bit strange? As in I intuitively thought about where the actual SoB's knees might be. Now I sort of know the rationalization is that they are probably somewhere in the suit's "thigh" but the whole thing still looks visually "off" to me.
Iracundus wrote: Is it just me or do those Paragon suits look a bit strange? As in I intuitively thought about where the actual SoB's knees might be. Now I sort of know the rationalization is that they are probably somewhere in the suit's "thigh" but the whole thing still looks visually "off" to me.
Try not to think about how the Sister's legs move without snapping in several places every time the suit takes a step forward.
Iracundus wrote: Is it just me or do those Paragon suits look a bit strange? As in I intuitively thought about where the actual SoB's knees might be. Now I sort of know the rationalization is that they are probably somewhere in the suit's "thigh" but the whole thing still looks visually "off" to me.
Try not to think about how the Sister's legs move without snapping in several places every time the suit takes a step forward.
This is 40k. I wouldn't put it past them to saw off the Sisters' legs at the knee, just so they have better articulation inside the suit.
Though I doubt the High Lord would be okay with losing her legs, even if its temporary
feugan wrote: Will that leave Aedred, Castigator and a Combat Patrol for week 2? Keen to know the contents of that, hope it isn’t the limited army box without codex and cards.
It probably will be the limited army box with an extra something thrown in.
Iracundus wrote: Is it just me or do those Paragon suits look a bit strange? As in I intuitively thought about where the actual SoB's knees might be. Now I sort of know the rationalization is that they are probably somewhere in the suit's "thigh" but the whole thing still looks visually "off" to me.
Yes I'd assume the pilots knees are in the thigh, while there foot is near the suits knee joint.
Iracundus wrote: Is it just me or do those Paragon suits look a bit strange? As in I intuitively thought about where the actual SoB's knees might be. Now I sort of know the rationalization is that they are probably somewhere in the suit's "thigh" but the whole thing still looks visually "off" to me.
Yes I'd assume the pilots knees are in the thigh, while there foot is near the suits knee joint.
So their ankles snap in twain everytime the warsuit does a step?
Casbyness wrote: So no pseudo-Joan of Arc or Girls Und Panzer tank next week? Just the High Lady, Powerloaders and Halberdiers?
Maybe the following week for the missing two units?
Maybe. Though gw said in stream people gets their hands on new aos launch box in june which means that has to be next sunday announcement. So either they were in error, they share preorder date or the 2nd wave is later.
Casbyness wrote: So no pseudo-Joan of Arc or Girls Und Panzer tank next week? Just the High Lady, Powerloaders and Halberdiers?
Maybe the following week for the missing two units?
Maybe. Though gw said in stream people gets their hands on new aos launch box in june which means that has to be next sunday announcement. So either they were in error, they share preorder date or the 2nd wave is later.
Didn't they only say the preorder will be in june, not the release?
Casbyness wrote: So no pseudo-Joan of Arc or Girls Und Panzer tank next week? Just the High Lady, Powerloaders and Halberdiers?
Maybe the following week for the missing two units?
I thought the floaty pulpit sister was the pseudo Joan of Arc?
I guess the flag hugger is too.
Well basically they're all Pseudo Joan of Arcs I guess.
Except not because none of them have been executed on trumped up charges to simultaneously appease an invading force and remove someone more popular than the local Governor even though she was ostensibly on his side…
Except not because none of them have been executed on trumped up charges to simultaneously appease an invading force and remove someone more popular than the local Governor even though she was ostensibly on his side…
Iracundus wrote: Is it just me or do those Paragon suits look a bit strange? As in I intuitively thought about where the actual SoB's knees might be. Now I sort of know the rationalization is that they are probably somewhere in the suit's "thigh" but the whole thing still looks visually "off" to me.
Try not to think about how the Sister's legs move without snapping in several places every time the suit takes a step forward.
Honestly they look fine. You are assuming for some reason that the pilot's legs are fully stretched out, but it makes much more sense for the knees to be partially bent in that kind of design.
Instead, what looks quite unconfortable is the suit's leg spacing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But honestly if we go in that level of design, I would first ask myself why exactly did someone strap a person's head between 2 high caliber high RoF guns.
It was confirmed either on a stream or in a WarCom article that the Paragon Warsuits come in box sets of three models. Might have been the Warhammer Fest week where the codex was shown etc. So depending on how much faith you put into WarCom as a source, it is kinda confirmed.
Ah good, more abilities to turn off invulnerable saves. The game needs that, certainly.
I await the inevitable counter-ability that disallows turning off invulnerables.
Needing to spend 1 miracle dice to activate it on the character who bought it. Also, melee attacks only. Doesn't bother me if it's pretty limited like this, if you ask me.
More options for sisters are good for the competitive players, a headache for casual players. But that's the real problem of the V9, it's not specific to the sisters.
Actually, that's what bothers me in all V9 codexes : very specific rules applying only in a very specific case. You better take a good cheat sheet to remember it all in game !
Ah good, more abilities to turn off invulnerable saves. The game needs that, certainly.
I await the inevitable counter-ability that disallows turning off invulnerables.
Needing to spend 1 miracle dice to activate it on the character who bought it. Also, melee attacks only. Doesn't bother me if it's pretty limited like this, if you ask me.
More options for sisters are good for the competitive players, a headache for casual players. But that's the real problem of the V9, it's not specific to the sisters.
I fully support more uses for miracle dice. This seems like a fantastic inclusion.
Ah good, more abilities to turn off invulnerable saves. The game needs that, certainly.
I await the inevitable counter-ability that disallows turning off invulnerables.
Needing to spend 1 miracle dice to activate it on the character who bought it. Also, melee attacks only. Doesn't bother me if it's pretty limited like this, if you ask me.
More options for sisters are good for the competitive players, a headache for casual players. But that's the real problem of the V9, it's not specific to the sisters.
I fully support more uses for miracle dice. This seems like a fantastic inclusion.
It does lend credence to the idea that dice are getting nerfed though. Oh well, at least they sort of acknowledged that no one ON EARTH wants to use a miracle dice on a hit roll.
Regarding skulls - please remember that the Imperium is a death cult that is worshipping the corpse on the Golden Throne - every skull is potentially a representation of the Emperor.
Ref. crosses, Christianity, etc.
That one of the Chaos gods also is associated with skulls is surely a pure coincident. Right?
Us3Less wrote: It was confirmed either on a stream or in a WarCom article that the Paragon Warsuits come in box sets of three models. Might have been the Warhammer Fest week where the codex was shown etc. So depending on how much faith you put into WarCom as a source, it is kinda confirmed.
I'd missed that.
The Paragon price isn't as bad as might be expected then (although these things are relative!)
Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
To be fair, the elite sisters units do have higher quality attacks, with strength mods, ap, and/or increased damage.
Strange to see the Celestians have a 2+, I was expecting a 3+ with the shield ability then adding +1 to save rolls. But no, they appear to be wearing normal power amour but somehow have the same base save as a terminator...
Fergie0044 wrote: Strange to see the Celestians have a 2+, I was expecting a 3+ with the shield ability then adding +1 to save rolls. But no, they appear to be wearing normal power amour but somehow have the same base save as a terminator...
Since they always have the shields, it may just be saving some people some extra calculations.
I expect they will not have Storm Shield and will have some special unit specific shield instead. Thus 2+ Save and 4++ while not needing to worry about any future changes to the Storm Shield carrying over to the unit.
Did you notice all the special weapons are now Ministorum X instead of just X? More ways to separate the wargear and avoid the "we changed it here so have to changed it everywhere" problem.
So basically the shield gives +1 save but not necessarily an invuln. As for attacks, since initiative is no longer a thing, adding more attacks for elves makes sense for their speed.
They don't immediately strike me as very strong. Comparing 2 to a redemptor; similar points, worse melee, 5 fewer wounds, worse T, similar shooting, similar speed, 1 better save.
The comparison to mortifiers also isn't great. They are tougher...kind of. Mortifiers are much cheaper have an extra wound and feel no pain, but worse armor and no -1 damage. Mostly though it seems like their melee is miles ahead of the warsuits.
We'll see what else they get and how they stack up when all of the buffs are said and done. 4 attacks (sword) just seem so few for an 80 point model.
drakerocket wrote: They don't immediately strike me as very strong. Comparing 2 to a redemptor; similar points, worse melee, 5 fewer wounds, worse T, similar shooting, similar speed, 1 better save.
The comparison to mortifiers also isn't great. They are tougher...kind of. Mortifiers are much cheaper have an extra wound and feel no pain, but worse armor and no -1 damage. Mostly though it seems like their melee is miles ahead of the warsuits.
We'll see what else they get and how they stack up when all of the buffs are said and done. 4 attacks (sword) just seem so few for an 80 point model.
alextroy wrote: I expect they will not have Storm Shield and will have some special unit specific shield instead. Thus 2+ Save and 4++ while not needing to worry about any future changes to the Storm Shield carrying over to the unit.
Did you notice all the special weapons are now Ministorum X instead of just X? More ways to separate the wargear and avoid the "we changed it here so have to changed it everywhere" problem.
With bespoke system no such worry. All rules in datasheet. No need for datasheet rules match. Not even unheard for gw.
drakerocket wrote: They don't immediately strike me as very strong. Comparing 2 to a redemptor; similar points, worse melee, 5 fewer wounds, worse T, similar shooting, similar speed, 1 better save.
The comparison to mortifiers also isn't great. They are tougher...kind of. Mortifiers are much cheaper have an extra wound and feel no pain, but worse armor and no -1 damage. Mostly though it seems like their melee is miles ahead of the warsuits.
We'll see what else they get and how they stack up when all of the buffs are said and done. 4 attacks (sword) just seem so few for an 80 point model.
Where is the point cost info from?
Munitorum Field Manual packaged with Chapter Approved 2021.
Paragon Warsuit
-1 Damage from each attack allocated to it.
No mention of a minimum Damage. I hope this is not intended since as written it could be interpreted to mean Damage 1 goes to 0.
Could just be lazy copy-pasting.
Wouldn't be the first time that the blurp in a community article hasn't matched with what the book actually says.
I kinda wonder if it isn't intended they be immune t d1 attacks. At 80pts per model, that's a VERY expensive squad to bo out there with half or worse of a mortifiers damage output (shooting+melee). They absolutely need significant longevity to have enough time on the board to make their points back.
Besides, how many D1 weapons are you really gonna be hitting them with? Even heavy bolters are D2 now.
Paragon Warsuit
-1 Damage from each attack allocated to it.
No mention of a minimum Damage. I hope this is not intended since as written it could be interpreted to mean Damage 1 goes to 0.
Could just be lazy copy-pasting.
Wouldn't be the first time that the blurp in a community article hasn't matched with what the book actually says.
I kinda wonder if it isn't intended they be immune t d1 attacks. At 80pts per model, that's a VERY expensive squad to bo out there with half or worse of a mortifiers damage output (shooting+melee). They absolutely need significant longevity to have enough time on the board to make their points back.
Besides, how many D1 weapons are you really gonna be hitting them with? Even heavy bolters are D2 now.
When they charge into my cultist blobs, I'd like to be able to ding even 1 point of damage off of them through great luck...
Or if say my brother charged his 30 ork boyz in, they should probably be able to scratch the paint. If they can tear apart a Knight, they should be able to hurt a warsuit.
Lol, there is absolutely zero chance they're actually supposed to be immune to D1 attacks, especially since their boss lady with the better paragon armor isn't. It's just another example of GW laziness in putting out these articles (or, if it's in the codex, an example of GW laziness when it comes to rules proofreading).
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
Wait till you notice paragon warsuits have ork boy statline
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
Wait till you notice paragon warsuits have ork boy statline
Boyz are M8, W4, BS3, and have 2+ saves now? Must've missed that in the Orks preview.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
Wait till you notice paragon warsuits have ork boy statline
Also, yeah it would suck if they were on the same tier as other 2 attack models like (checks notes) repentia.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
Wait till you notice paragon warsuits have ork boy statline
Also, yeah it would suck if they were on the same tier as other 2 attack models like (checks notes) repentia.
Cause we all know how terrible repentia are
If repentia costed 80 pts a piece they would be garbage.
I'm not saying Paragon warsuits will be bad, that remains to be seen but 80 points for a 3A model is not a great place to start from.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
Wait till you notice paragon warsuits have ork boy statline
Also, yeah it would suck if they were on the same tier as other 2 attack models like (checks notes) repentia.
Cause we all know how terrible repentia are
If repentia costed 80 pts a piece they would be garbage.
I'm not saying Paragon warsuits will be bad, that remains to be seen but 80 points for a 3A model is not a great place to start from.
Sacrosancts have 2 attacks and cost 14pts. Since Paragons have 3 attacks, I'm pretty clearly talking about those.
Dunno how good Paragons will be. Doubt they'll be better than Mortifiers at 80 but maybe they have more synergy we're not seeing.
My bigger point is that number of attacks doesn't necessarily determine a model's effectiveness. It's part of it, but definitely not the full story.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
Wait till you notice paragon warsuits have ork boy statline
Also, yeah it would suck if they were on the same tier as other 2 attack models like (checks notes) repentia.
Cause we all know how terrible repentia are
If repentia costed 80 pts a piece they would be garbage.
I'm not saying Paragon warsuits will be bad, that remains to be seen but 80 points for a 3A model is not a great place to start from.
Sacrosancts have 2 attacks and cost 14pts. Since Paragons have 3 attacks, I'm pretty clearly talking about those.
Dunno how good Paragons will be. Doubt they'll be better than Mortifiers at 80 but maybe they have more synergy we're not seeing.
My bigger point is that number of attacks doesn't necessarily determine a model's effectiveness. It's part of it, but definitely not the full story.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Attacks as laughable. Basic Wyches rock 4-5 Attacks and even base Kabalites or Rangers come with 2, while Super-Elite-Celestians only have 2, Paragons only have 3 and base Sisters presumably still only have 1?
Pretty disappointing.
Wait till you notice paragon warsuits have ork boy statline
Also, yeah it would suck if they were on the same tier as other 2 attack models like (checks notes) repentia.
Cause we all know how terrible repentia are
If repentia costed 80 pts a piece they would be garbage.
I'm not saying Paragon warsuits will be bad, that remains to be seen but 80 points for a 3A model is not a great place to start from.
Sacrosancts have 2 attacks and cost 14pts. Since Paragons have 3 attacks, I'm pretty clearly talking about those.
Dunno how good Paragons will be. Doubt they'll be better than Mortifiers at 80 but maybe they have more synergy we're not seeing.
My bigger point is that number of attacks doesn't necessarily determine a model's effectiveness. It's part of it, but definitely not the full story.
You replied to someone talking about Paragons,
They were talking about all three in the original comment.
Why is everyone hung up on the CC of the Paragons ? They have two different shooting weapons, and the unit stats plus the CCW they take. We don't know all their details yet. They aren't all about CC, they have shooting and are fairly tough with just the details we know.
The cost is fairly high so the devil will be in the details with them as is often the case. Either way, if they don't rock the world, they probably eventually will as is the way with GW.
The CC celestians feel great to me. While still not knowing all about them I love their look and feel, great unit, imo. Will they rock the world, doubtful but they look great and feel like a good bodyguard unit to me anyways.
Holy crap, it just dawned on me that this is the most models of a non-OML Order I've ever seen in one official GW photograph. Damn that red PA looks decadent on the Sacresants.
Edti: Also, I realize dakka doesn't seem to comment much on crusade/narrative bits, but I'm quite looking forward to developing an organic story for a character or two with the Saint Potenta Crusade rules.
It's amazing how great Judith looks with a head swap.
Good luck recreating that conversion though. That's the head of the Canoness from the Limited Edition Box Set (seriously GW, why have you not released her as a blister pack yet!).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaffis wrote: Holy crap, it just dawned on me that this is the most models of a non-OML Order I've ever seen in one official GW photograph. Damn that red PA looks decadent on the Sacresants.
Edti: Also, I realize dakka doesn't seem to comment much on crusade/narrative bits, but I'm quite looking forward to developing an organic story for a character or two with the Saint Potenta Crusade rules.
I really like the sound of the Crusade rules for making a Saint, sounds like fun and there's even a reason to martyr them if you need to boost your Crusade army.
I've seen some complaints in more Sisters focused community spaces about there being no ability to make a generic living saint, but I don't think we'll see that until GW releases a kit at some point in the future.
ClockworkZion wrote: I've seen some complaints in more Sisters focused community spaces about there being no ability to make a generic living saint, but I don't think we'll see that until GW releases a kit at some point in the future.
Yeah, I think this is the next best thing, because I agree. I'm not even sure what a generic matched play Living Saint datacard would even look like, though -- Celestine's a named character; that's like asking what's a generic Pedro Kantor? I feel like what people who complain about no generic Living Saint should most reasonably expect/wishlist are a return of the jump canoness (with new kit) that they can kitbash to have actual wings or whatever. That, and maybe a relic-style warlord add-on that confers some of Celestine's saintly special sauce, like a watered down version of Miraculous Intervention (or whatever the 9th ed equivalent for Celestine will be).
Otherwise, you can always just rename your kitbashed winged Sister and say she counts as Celestine the same way one might counts-as a first founding chapter's character for one of their "successors" (using the straight primogenitor's chapter rules).
And, honestly, Celestine's probably the named character that I feel least awkward playing in 40k, as her whole schtick is that she shows up unexpectedly all over the place. It's not like one questions why Celestine is at any given tabletop-sized skirmish or whatever, the way I can't help but feel weird that, say (to pull a random example out of thin air with no regard for actual metas), Azrael might show up at 40% of the Dark Angels battles based on a given tournament's field of lists. Heck, even though she was a sister of the Order of Our Martyred Lady, she'll join any order's fight with equal abandon, so the lack of a generic Living Saint doesn't even cause frustrations with internal order balance the way that, say, Junith does for people who want to have a canoness superior-level warlord for an army not using the OML order conviction.
They kinda did that, maybe? The article mentioned glowing wings as one of the upgrades available; could this be a jump infantry upgrade, or just fluffy FX?
Good luck recreating that conversion though. That's the head of the Canoness from the Limited Edition Box Set (seriously GW, why have you not released her as a blister pack yet!).
Well, it'll be on Warhammer Imperium for £9 at some point.
Mr_Rose wrote: They kinda did that, maybe? The article mentioned glowing wings as one of the upgrades available; could this be a jump infantry upgrade, or just fluffy FX?
Well, it's a crusade rule, not matched play, regardless. Optimistically, one could speculate that they're using the narrative play/crusade upgrades to pilot potential new wargear/options/whatever for future matched play legal units with new model releases or versions of the codex.
Mr_Rose wrote: They kinda did that, maybe? The article mentioned glowing wings as one of the upgrades available; could this be a jump infantry upgrade, or just fluffy FX?
Well, it's a crusade rule, not matched play, regardless. Optimistically, one could speculate that they're using the narrative play/crusade upgrades to pilot potential new wargear/options/whatever for future matched play legal units with new model releases or versions of the codex.
What are you on about? Nothing in this article says the upgrades are crusade only?
But they are one-use only so maybe not so good.
Mr_Rose wrote: They kinda did that, maybe? The article mentioned glowing wings as one of the upgrades available; could this be a jump infantry upgrade, or just fluffy FX?
Well, it's a crusade rule, not matched play, regardless. Optimistically, one could speculate that they're using the narrative play/crusade upgrades to pilot potential new wargear/options/whatever for future matched play legal units with new model releases or versions of the codex.
What are you on about? Nothing in this article says the upgrades are crusade only?
But they are one-use only so maybe not so good.
I was mis-remembering which article that section was from, my bad. I had it in my head that the wings were among the rewards for achieving sainthood in the narrative rules.
That said, putting it in the proper context of the Blessings of the Faithful rule, the 'angelic wings' spoken of might be the always-on part of the blessing (or at least, if they do confer jump infantry as part of the effect, that might be the always on part), not the one-time use part.
Good luck recreating that conversion though. That's the head of the Canoness from the Limited Edition Box Set (seriously GW, why have you not released her as a blister pack yet!).
Well, it'll be on Warhammer Imperium for £9 at some point.
I'm hoping they'll put her in the Start Collecting box at minimum. It's annoying that we have a Canoness whose wargear was unique to that kit but then she's unavailable.
Then again Games Workshop never did release that power fist Primaris captain to the wider audience so I probably shouldn't complain too much.
I'm hoping they'll put her in the Start Collecting box at minimum. It's annoying that we have a Canoness whose wargear was unique to that kit but then she's unavailable.
Then again Games Workshop never did release that power fist Primaris captain to the wider audience so I probably shouldn't complain too much.
At least converting with plastics is much easier.
I made a plasma/fist captain out of the Bladeguard box. Not sure what the bits situation is in the Sister’s range, but you should be able to make something work for the canoness.
I'm hoping they'll put her in the Start Collecting box at minimum. It's annoying that we have a Canoness whose wargear was unique to that kit but then she's unavailable.
Then again Games Workshop never did release that power fist Primaris captain to the wider audience so I probably shouldn't complain too much.
At least converting with plastics is much easier.
I made a plasma/fist captain out of the Bladeguard box. Not sure what the bits situation is in the Sister’s range, but you should be able to make something work for the canoness.
True, it is easy. I just hate unique models with special wargear combos not being released to the general public but getting codex entries.
Seems quite nice improvements across all orders to me. I'm pleased with what I'm seeing. Only thing I will miss is the Ebon Chalice full hits stratagem for flamers. I really like that they can pick 2 sacred rites though.
Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
Argent Shroud looks possibly most improved, full counts as stationary now and a reroll - run and gun a multi melta on every unit. Looking good that Bloody Rose/Valorous Heart are not quite auto picks.
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart where the auto-pick options to the point that they were almost always seen in lists, even when said lists was primary another order (I recall a podcast ep about an OoOML army that was half Bloody Rose for example). A lot of good rules clarifications, and slight tweaks all around. GW did good on these.
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
I’m annoyed that we lose bloody rose having enhanced seraphim when lockdown means I never actually got to play a game with them. Two bolt pistols is kind of a joke on their own after all.
Asmodai wrote:For VH, reducing AP-2 by 1 even when not in Imagifier range at least partially makes up for losing the 6+++. Makes for faster games too.
Agreed. It's cleaner, it's arguably better since you don't need to sprinkle Imagifiers around to get a benefit against AP-2, and generally I am all for faster games.
Lammia wrote:SR still trash tho...
I'd say it's better. It traded a no longer relevant Overwatch mechanic for a 50% more Miracle dice per game, and their Stratagem was changed to all ranged weapon attacks in the shooting phase instead of bolt weapons in the shooting or overwatch phase.
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
I’m annoyed that we lose bloody rose having enhanced seraphim when lockdown means I never actually got to play a game with them. Two bolt pistols is kind of a joke on their own after all.
As someone who played Seraphim for years without any kind of order bonuses, you can still do a decent amount of damage with weight of dice with them, but they'll probably get more out of other armies now like Sacred Rose who can give their shooting exploding 6s to hit.
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
You sure? Vs t8 they would do 9 wounds with 24 attacks. Now 8. Not that massive nerf.
Also heaven forbid us if that's their justification for point reduction,
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
You sure? Vs t8 they would do 9 wounds with 24 attacks. Now 8. Not that massive nerf.
Also heaven forbid us if that's their justification for point reduction,
I suspect they're not going to be Core limiting the units that can buff them to just the Repentia Superior.
Asmodai wrote:For VH, reducing AP-2 by 1 even when not in Imagifier range at least partially makes up for losing the 6+++. Makes for faster games too.
Agreed. It's cleaner, it's arguably better since you don't need to sprinkle Imagifiers around to get a benefit against AP-2, and generally I am all for faster games.
I’m gonna miss threatening the Sisters’ player with Snipers though.
I feel like a shoe hasn't dropped thanks to incomplete info. Bloody Rose is vaguely intact, and other Orders look better, meaning I expect Repentia and/or Retributor nerfs to break their viability.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like a shoe hasn't dropped thanks to incomplete info. Bloody Rose is vaguely intact, and other Orders look better, meaning I expect Repentia and/or Retributor nerfs to break their viability.
As I mentioned a couple posts ago, I assume Repentia won't be Core.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like a shoe hasn't dropped thanks to incomplete info. Bloody Rose is vaguely intact, and other Orders look better, meaning I expect Repentia and/or Retributor nerfs to break their viability.
As I mentioned a couple posts ago, I assume Repentia won't be Core.
I'm expecting the priest changes to kick them.
Also, I'm expect changes to Missionaries and Preachers that we haven't seen.
Repentia are good, but their usefulness has only gone backwards with each codex release
Martyrd lady nerfed...for some reason, valorous heart either modestly nerfed or massively nerfed depending on how tale of the stoic works now.
That nerf to bloody rose is actually massive. BR units are now essentially useless if they don't charge AND don't get the pistol bonus. Stratagem is significantly worse. Roughly a 5% nerf on anything that doesn't get rerolls. Warlord trait is still really bad but it was never the trait you used anyway.
Ebon chalice trait buffed (VERY slightly) at the expense of a significant nerf to their in built stratagem (3 mortal wounds and +4 inch range is NOT as good as guaranteeing 6 shots.) Argent Shroud trait got better but its stratagem and warlord trait are still terrible. There's no version of reality where I want to be in combat with an argent shroud character, having a trait that gets me into combat faster with no damage buff at all is the exact opposite of what I want to do.
Sacred rose is still by far the worst trait but they have a very good stratagem. The WT is meh. Not many sisters units in a Sacred Rose list that are CORE are going to survive a turn in combat, so retreat and shoot will actually have very limited use.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like a shoe hasn't dropped thanks to incomplete info. Bloody Rose is vaguely intact, and other Orders look better, meaning I expect Repentia and/or Retributor nerfs to break their viability.
As I mentioned a couple posts ago, I assume Repentia won't be Core.
I'm expecting the priest changes to kick them.
Also, I'm expect changes to Missionaries and Preachers that we haven't seen.
Repentia are good, but their usefulness has only gone backwards with each codex release
Are you talking like codexes in general or SoB codexes? Because the last one was the first codex where they were useful. Also, core means very little for repentia. Assuming they still get some kind of offensive buff from repentia superiors, it's honestly only a couple of percent loss to take those instead of imagifiers or preachers
The bigger issue is that if they're nerfing Order of Our Martyrd Lady, a darkhorse pick at BEST, that sets the tone that EVERYTHING in the codex is being nerfed in some way or another. So far it's only been small nerfs but who knows what's lurking deeper into the book?
ERJAK wrote: Martyrd lady nerfed...for some reason, valorous heart either modestly nerfed or massively nerfed depending on how tale of the stoic works now.
That nerf to bloody rose is actually massive. BR units are now essentially useless if they don't charge AND don't get the pistol bonus. Stratagem is significantly worse. Roughly a 5% nerf on anything that doesn't get rerolls. Warlord trait is still really bad but it was never the trait you used anyway.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like a shoe hasn't dropped thanks to incomplete info. Bloody Rose is vaguely intact, and other Orders look better, meaning I expect Repentia and/or Retributor nerfs to break their viability.
As I mentioned a couple posts ago, I assume Repentia won't be Core.
I'm expecting the priest changes to kick them.
Also, I'm expect changes to Missionaries and Preachers that we haven't seen.
Repentia are good, but their usefulness has only gone backwards with each codex release
Are you talking like codexes in general or SoB codexes? Because the last one was the first codex where they were useful. Also, core means very little for repentia. Assuming they still get some kind of offensive buff from repentia superiors, it's honestly only a couple of percent loss to take those instead of imagifiers or preachers.
The bigger issue is that if they're nerfing Order of Our Martyrd Lady, a darkhorse pick at BEST, that sets the tone that EVERYTHING in the codex is being nerfed in some way or another. So far it's only been small nerfs but who knows what's lurking deeper into the book?
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
I’m annoyed that we lose bloody rose having enhanced seraphim when lockdown means I never actually got to play a game with them. Two bolt pistols is kind of a joke on their own after all.
The bigger issue is the special weapons. Bolt pistols have always been almost completely useless, but now hand flamers are complete garbage (especially with the point bump) and inferno pistols can't instagib something 2+ or 3+ in cover anymore.
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart where the auto-pick options to the point that they were almost always seen in lists, even when said lists was primary another order (I recall a podcast ep about an OoOML army that was half Bloody Rose for example). A lot of good rules clarifications, and slight tweaks all around. GW did good on these.
I mean...unless your goal was to win games.
The flexibility of choice between Orders is better, that's absolutely true. It comes at the cost of a significant drop in the ceiling of what the best orders can do, though. So yes, people who play argent shroud are going to win more games relative to people who play bloody rose, but NEITHER are going to win as many games as the bloody rose player was winning before.
Obviously other rule changes in the book can bump that ceiling back up to where it was (though outlook is suspect here) but considering the codex creep that's been going on it's probably not great that step 1 of the new book was to make the good stuff worse.
Yeah, they look better balanced mainly because they're all equally mediocre now. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, though. It'd be a nicely refreshing change if SoB ends up not being another DE or Ad Mech monstrosity of a book.
alextroy wrote: Martyred Lady was nerfed? You’re going to need to explain that to me. They seem pretty decent with side grades rather then nerfs.
OML loses the +1 bonus if you res back up to full. Honour the martyr is slightly better because it doesn't conflict with canoness rerolls anymore but it's still not a stratagem you're likely to use even across several games. The warlord trait doesn't matter. It's not as good as +1 miracle dice or +1 to invul save so the only way you'd use it is if the generic traits took nerfs, which would end up being a net nerf even though your consolation trait isn't bad.
It's not a huge nerf but it's definitely a downgrade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, they look better balanced mainly because they're all equally mediocre now. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, though. It'd be a nicely refreshing change if SoB ends up not being another DE or Ad Mech monstrosity of a book.
Translation: It would be good if they were bad.
Gotta tell ya, having had terrible codexes 4 out of the last 6, I'm kind of over Sisters not being good. Personally, I would have been perfectly content to stick with the old book forever.
alextroy wrote: Just a slight nerf for Bloody Rose, but the loss of +1 To Wound is a massive nerf to BR Repentia. I can see why they got a point reduction.
On the other hand, the other orders are looking more attractive, although Valorous Heart was nerfed also. Funny that they stole part of Ebon Chalice's conviction from the 8th Edition codex.
Bloody Rose and Valorous Heart where the auto-pick options to the point that they were almost always seen in lists, even when said lists was primary another order (I recall a podcast ep about an OoOML army that was half Bloody Rose for example). A lot of good rules clarifications, and slight tweaks all around. GW did good on these.
I mean...unless your goal was to win games.
The flexibility of choice between Orders is better, that's absolutely true. It comes at the cost of a significant drop in the ceiling of what the best orders can do, though. So yes, people who play argent shroud are going to win more games relative to people who play bloody rose, but NEITHER are going to win as many games as the bloody rose player was winning before.
Obviously other rule changes in the book can bump that ceiling back up to where it was (though outlook is suspect here) but considering the codex creep that's been going on it's probably not great that step 1 of the new book was to make the good stuff worse.
Sisters of battle were top 1 army only superseeded by Drukhari. Of course they'll receive nerfs in their stronger stuff and buffs on the weaker, like marines. If they buffed the stronger Sister options they would become even more insane from what they really are.
For me just putting geminae back with Celestine has won me over this codex.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, they look better balanced mainly because they're all equally mediocre now. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, though. It'd be a nicely refreshing change if SoB ends up not being another DE or Ad Mech monstrosity of a book.
Translation: It would be good if they were bad.
Might I suggest you apply for a translator job with GW? With skills like that...
I want a nice, balanced book that doesn't immediately ratchet up the codex creep yet another notch. If that's "bad" in your book, sigh me up, I guess.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, they look better balanced mainly because they're all equally mediocre now. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, though. It'd be a nicely refreshing change if SoB ends up not being another DE or Ad Mech monstrosity of a book.
I guess that can be refreshing, but in my meta it just means I should expect to lose games. :-p 40k in some communities is just a hellish arms race, so if Sisters get a decent book only, they go back on my shelf for a year.
Yeah no one wants their army to be 'okay'. They would like their army to be competitive and competitive does not mean 'okay". Drukhari were an outlier, though they have been swiftly adjusted. Outside of them (and whatever admech does), there were about 4-5 armies winning tournaments; sisters were one of those. They weren't winning all of them, but they were a top tier army. If they are nerfed, particularly after two armies have come out which are stronger than them (drukhari and admech), then they will be bumped down. Why would you want that if they are your army?
If their top tier (Bloody rose) is lowered and then other orders are brought up to that new lowered state...then they will be overall nerfed. Given that they aren't the top of the heap (drukhari/admech hold that) but are pretty even with the top tier armies...that's actually a perfectly reasonable place to want to stay. If they lose power they slip to middle of the pack and...who wants to be there?
Mind you, we don't have the whole picture. Too early to tell. But overall I think sisters are in a great place; they aren't horribly oppressive and they are really good. That's where you want your army to be.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, they look better balanced mainly because they're all equally mediocre now. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, though. It'd be a nicely refreshing change if SoB ends up not being another DE or Ad Mech monstrosity of a book.
Translation: It would be good if they were bad.
Might I suggest you apply for a translator job with GW? With skills like that...
I want a nice, balanced book that doesn't immediately ratchet up the codex creep yet another notch. If that's "bad" in your book, sigh me up, I guess.
Putting out bad books is just pushes codex creep from the top down instead of the bottom up. The OP books end up being EVEN MORE OP by comparison. You're essentially advocating for Admech and Drukhari to be the only competitive factions in the game for the forseeable future.
The most powerful book in a given era automatically becomes the baseline by which all books are judged. Books that are in parity with it are good, books that are weaker than it are bad. Drukhari are the most powerful book currently so the ideal is for all other books to go 'price-is-right' on it. (i.e. get as close to as good as that book as you can without ending up better.)
Books that go over that line are failures and represent powercreep(which is bad). Books that are significantly worse are trash(which is also bad). The old SoB book was close enough in power to post-nerf drukhari that it's considered a 'good book'. Reducing it's power level creates a bad book.
You're essentially advocating for Admech and Drukhari to be the only competitive factions in the game for the forseeable future.
The other way to see it is: it's easier to tone down 2 books than 2+N books (via FAQs, erratas, reprintings, index PDFs, etc)
So if Sisters is a fine book, but weak compared to those two, and that's a continuing trend across codices, there are ways to fix Admech and Drukhari without ramping up power for everything else.
drakerocket wrote: Yeah no one wants their army to be 'okay'. They would like their army to be competitive and competitive does not mean 'okay". Drukhari were an outlier, though they have been swiftly adjusted. Outside of them (and whatever admech does), there were about 4-5 armies winning tournaments; sisters were one of those. They weren't winning all of them, but they were a top tier army. If they are nerfed, particularly after two armies have come out which are stronger than them (drukhari and admech), then they will be bumped down. Why would you want that if they are your army?
If their top tier (Bloody rose) is lowered and then other orders are brought up to that new lowered state...then they will be overall nerfed. Given that they aren't the top of the heap (drukhari/admech hold that) but are pretty even with the top tier armies...that's actually a perfectly reasonable place to want to stay. If they lose power they slip to middle of the pack and...who wants to be there?
Mind you, we don't have the whole picture. Too early to tell. But overall I think sisters are in a great place; they aren't horribly oppressive and they are really good. That's where you want your army to be.
And this is why gw keeps arms race. It makes more money as players don't want balance but their army be the next op thing.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I feel like a shoe hasn't dropped thanks to incomplete info. Bloody Rose is vaguely intact, and other Orders look better, meaning I expect Repentia and/or Retributor nerfs to break their viability.
As I mentioned a couple posts ago, I assume Repentia won't be Core.
I'm expecting the priest changes to kick them.
Also, I'm expect changes to Missionaries and Preachers that we haven't seen.
Repentia are good, but their usefulness has only gone backwards with each codex release
I feel like Repentia will remain useful as a single unit, but taking a massive mumber of them is likely nerfed.
Are you talking like codexes in general or SoB codexes? Because the last one was the first codex where they were useful. Also, core means very little for repentia. Assuming they still get some kind of offensive buff from repentia superiors, it's honestly only a couple of percent loss to take those instead of imagifiers or preachers
The bigger issue is that if they're nerfing Order of Our Martyrd Lady, a darkhorse pick at BEST, that sets the tone that EVERYTHING in the codex is being nerfed in some way or another. So far it's only been small nerfs but who knows what's lurking deeper into the book?
Despite what the internet says Repentia were good in the past. You had to work around Rage in 5th ed but I can attest to a unit of them turning anything they touched to mist for a long time.
They're better in the current codex, but I swore by a unit of them in 5th and 6th starting with C:WH and the White Dwarf codex. The digital only one was more meh all around though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So to catch up: if you use Judith she'll likely be locked to the OoML trait if she's your warlord. Not sure how I feel about it at the moment.
As for the book getting some softer touches in places, making the internal balance stronger is a good thing even if the book isn't made stronger externally. More variety for the army is always a net positive.
And we don't have 90% of the rules in the book. We haven't seen the Rites yet, nor the stratagems, specifics of Miracle Dice or even how they're changing the units to match their new points costs. Frankly I don't think we need to go full Chicken Little just because Becky and her Power Paddle Pals got a nerf.
Then again I played Sisters from 5th into 7th so I may have built up the ability to take it on the chin when GW nerfs the army.
drakerocket wrote: Yeah no one wants their army to be 'okay'. They would like their army to be competitive and competitive does not mean 'okay". Drukhari were an outlier, though they have been swiftly adjusted. Outside of them (and whatever admech does), there were about 4-5 armies winning tournaments; sisters were one of those. They weren't winning all of them, but they were a top tier army. If they are nerfed, particularly after two armies have come out which are stronger than them (drukhari and admech), then they will be bumped down. Why would you want that if they are your army?
If their top tier (Bloody rose) is lowered and then other orders are brought up to that new lowered state...then they will be overall nerfed. Given that they aren't the top of the heap (drukhari/admech hold that) but are pretty even with the top tier armies...that's actually a perfectly reasonable place to want to stay. If they lose power they slip to middle of the pack and...who wants to be there?
Mind you, we don't have the whole picture. Too early to tell. But overall I think sisters are in a great place; they aren't horribly oppressive and they are really good. That's where you want your army to be.
And this is why gw keeps arms race. It makes more money as players don't want balance but their army be the next op thing.
Yep. Honestly never thought I'd see the day where people are getting mad the idea that it's better for new releases to be balanced than overpowered, but there you go I guess.
I want everybody to be "in the middle of the pack." And you don't get there by making each new book more powerful than the last. Drukhari just got nerfed pretty significantly; if ad mech turns out to be as oppressive as it initially looks, it'll be nerfed too. It's a lot better for the game for new books to come out in the fat middle than to push the power level ever higher.
Agreed on the middle of the pack sentiment. To steal something from Warhammer Weekly if we drew faction power on a bell curve we'd want as many things in the "fat middle" of that curve as possible. The game is just healthier that way.
ClockworkZion wrote: Agreed on the middle of the pack sentiment. To steal something from Warhammer Weekly if we drew faction power on a bell curve we'd want as many things in the "fat middle" of that curve as possible. The game is just healthier that way.
That just ends up with the fat middle being irrelevant. This isn't math class, we don't just get to ignore the outliers.
Due to how slow updates are, this is closer to how competitive sports work. You're either a great team or you suck. Notice how there's not a whole lot of talk among Fifa teams about making sure they end up middle of the pack?
If your book is not able to at least somewhat consistently compete with the best book, it's bad. That's the nature of competition.
That's the nature of professional competition, certainly.
But the _books_ aren't where 40k has its competitions. Those are between players. If there are blatantly 'best books' that's a failure, not an achievement.
And a failure that renders the player competitions meaningless, since its no longer about them, just which books most blatantly failed the production process.
ClockworkZion wrote: Agreed on the middle of the pack sentiment. To steal something from Warhammer Weekly if we drew faction power on a bell curve we'd want as many things in the "fat middle" of that curve as possible. The game is just healthier that way.
That just ends up with the fat middle being irrelevant. This isn't math class, we don't just get to ignore the outliers.
Due to how slow updates are, this is closer to how competitive sports work. You're either a great team or you suck. Notice how there's not a whole lot of talk among Fifa teams about making sure they end up middle of the pack?
If your book is not able to at least somewhat consistently compete with the best book, it's bad. That's the nature of competition.
It's not that the outliers are ignored, they're nerfed or buffed as needed to push them into the middle. The goal is to bring the armies closer together in terms of power, not keep chasing whomever is on top.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: That's the nature of professional competition, certainly.
But the _books_ aren't where 40k has its competitions. Those are between players. If there are blatantly 'best books' that's a failure, not an achievement.
And a failure that renders the player competitions meaningless, since its no longer about them, just which books most blatantly failed the production process.
Very much this. Nerfing codexes is like putting a governor on a race car so the focus can be on the skill of the driver not who spent the most money on horsepower. The goal should always be to bring books closer together both internally and externally so that the game can focus more on playing the mission and outplaying your opponent than having the best army of the month.
These updates are not slow. We're looking at one codex a month roughly.
Maybe compared to the past, but we're still talking one codex a month for 20+ factions, which if GW concentrated purely on would still take two years (this is assuming that Space Marines don't get a fresh round of 9.5 codices which would push the number up to near 30). They don't concentrate on them, though, and 40k codices have to share space with major AoS releases as well as supplemental books such as The Book of Rust. This is on top of any covid delays.
We're 8 months into 9th and we've been so front loaded with Space Marines and other tanky factions that we're just now getting to the first horde armies, and some armies are in pretty desperate need of updates, both in model quality and with rules. If someone plays GSC, IG, Tau, etc., I'm sure the updates feel glacial, as they're not even given any design space in supplements.
I realise that this is the SoB thread, but there isn't a general 40k thread like there is for AoS (for reasons that still elude me), but it's worth pointing out that Lord Felthius + Cohort has returned to pre-order status on the Oz website.
I think the black would look good as well without the smears of blue all over the models.
The white armor has good contrast with the black robes, but its mostly saved by virtue of not being 'edge highlighted' and 'weapon glowed' to death.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm even more impressed with the Sacrosanct models than when we first saw them.
I kind of want to get them and kitbash them with Battle Sisters bits to make regular Celestians. The backpacks and hoods just make them stand out so much better as Celestians than the actual Celestian kit.
bullyboy wrote: Don't care about in game utility, but my sacrosancts will definitely be rocking halberds....looks good.
They look good until you realise they can't possibly wield them effectively, as their off-hand is occupied with both a pistol and a shield.
I kinda want to convert some to be holding their halberd two-handed with a smaller buckler-type shield and their pistol holstered, but I suspect that might be more work than is really justifiable...
bullyboy wrote: Don't care about in game utility, but my sacrosancts will definitely be rocking halberds....looks good.
They look good until you realise they can't possibly wield them effectively, as their off-hand is occupied with both a pistol and a shield.
I kinda want to convert some to be holding their halberd two-handed with a smaller buckler-type shield and their pistol holstered, but I suspect that might be more work than is really justifiable...
*sigh* Spears can be used one handed. Lets not start this again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm even more impressed with the Sacrosanct models than when we first saw them.
They really are gorgeous.
Anybody else notice the spoilers in the datacards? Ebon Chalice auto 6 shots for flamers got moved to a general strat AND affects adeptus ministorum units instead of just <Order> (i.e. penitent engines and mortifiers).
The +1 to run and charge sacred rite has stayed the same as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Goonhammer review is up with full spoilers
Nasty nerf to beneficence. Going down to D1. It picks up a horde bonus but, no one really cares. Deadly descent is useless now so Seraphim go back on the shelf. Devastating refrain nuked. Paying CP for LoS breaking is gak.Storm of Retribution is just straight up gone, meaning Rets are probably back on the shelf. Holy rage nerfed to gak.
Relics see a lot more variety at the expense of the ones that used to be good being not good. Hymns are bad.
Some of the Goonhammer stuff is incorrect for those reading along. Ebon Chalice strat is different and Desperate for Redemption was mortal wounds on death, not fight twice for repentia.
The single biggest problem I'm seeing so far is that everything has to footslog or nothing works. Almost every buff has been moved to a command phase ability, which means NONE of them function with deepstrike OR transports. They keep trying to make sacred right matter and they just...they just don't.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I realise that this is the SoB thread, but there isn't a general 40k thread like there is for AoS (for reasons that still elude me), but it's worth pointing out that Lord Felthius + Cohort has returned to pre-order status on the Oz website.
As a returning player to 9th, I just bought the DG codex (I think it's 9th - it has that new off-centre logo on it). I can't see any data sheets for Lord Felthius.
If he's a Lord of Contagion - fair enough, but what is the point of 3 Blightlord Terminators that have to be in groups of 5 minimum. There's no entry for a Lord to have a cohort.
I liked the look of the models, but why aren't rules in the new codex if this is a reprinted existing model?
Lammia wrote: Not really... Halberds are just poorly weighted
You know what they call someone trying to wield a poorly-weighted weapon designed for two-handed use in one hand?
A casualty.
To clarify, though, halberd and shield is actually possible. As long as you have the shield attached in such a way that it leaves your off-hand free to help control the halberd. It's really the pistol in the off-hand (and secondarily the rather large size of the shield) that makes the Sacrisants with halberds look wrong.
Battle sisters bump up to 20 comes at the expense of MSU units no longer getting 2 specials.
Which is a doggak trade.
This book wants you to blob infantry sooooo badly. Imagifier is worthless for defense. -1 to wound for S3 attacks isn't even an ability. Repentia superior completely worthless. Yeah, let's have a character that can only buff a unit that doesn't have a save use their ability in the COMMAND phase. Stupid.
Paragons are terrible. Vehicles with a 6+ invul don't work for 80pts a pop. Zephyrim lose reroll to wounds, so they're gak.
And of course they nerf flails. I hate this book so goddamn much.
This book sounds amazing. I wasn't looking to use any obnoxious cheese builds that existed in the 8th codex so no nerfs in sight.
I think I saw a setup that gives a 20 sister unit 4++, counts as in cover (did i imagine this part?), transhuman for a turn, ap-1/-2 reduced by 1, counts as 40 for obsec.
That's a warrior blob+++
Also 48 auto hit s6 ap-1 from flamers on penitent engines/moritfiers. This codex really wants you to take flamers.
Also, goonhammer suggested the remove invuln miraculous ability was a once-per battle but that hasn't been supported by the text as far as I can see (the warcom article said once per battle but I read that as the upgrade that gives the miraculous ability can only be used once per battle).
Lammia wrote: Not really... Halberds are just poorly weighted
You know what they call someone trying to wield a poorly-weighted weapon designed for two-handed use in one hand?
A casualty.
To clarify, though, halberd and shield is actually possible. As long as you have the shield attached in such a way that it leaves your off-hand free to help control the halberd. It's really the pistol in the off-hand (and secondarily the rather large size of the shield) that makes the Sacrisants with halberds look wrong.
We're talking about the weight of an unknown material in a post-hyperspace civ that has anti-grav tech...
dammit wrote: This book sounds amazing. I wasn't looking to use any obnoxious cheese builds that existed in the 8th codex so no nerfs in sight.
I think I saw a setup that gives a 20 sister unit 4++, counts as in cover (did i imagine this part?), transhuman for a turn, ap-1/-2 reduced by 1, counts as 40 for obsec.
That's a warrior blob+++
What obnoxious cheese builds? Having 2 good units?
4++ is very difficult to get, cover is OOML only from Junith, Ap-1/2 VH mutually exclusive with Junith, what difference is 40 vs 20 going to make? 99.99% of Obsec situations are usually 1 model to 0 or like 2 vs 3. There's never a time where you're like 'Oh good thing I had 21 models on the objective, they might have taken it!
That's a bleh blob. It's probably our best strategy but it's a far cry from the multiple, varied options we had before.
Lammia wrote: *sigh* Spears can be used one handed. Lets not start this again.
Spears can. Halberds can't. They are very different weapons.
Not really... Halberds are just poorly weighted
Like, I legit don't care that warhammer models can't effectively use their weapons if you tried to make them a real life mock up since the setting is high octane ridiculousness, but let's not get so far the other way that we start pretending that it was totally effective and realistic to do gak like wield halberds one handed because the pretty models are posed that way.
Halberds are a two handed weapon, as are almost all polearms. It is a simply case of leverage and body mechanics. Not even weight handwaved by space magic or whatever.
Though without a two handed model, it limits the utility for gw doing cool action poses. There are neat things you do with a halberd (which is why halberds were invented and you didn't just use spears), though they're probably better suited for formation visuals. I'd love to see a model posed going in for a hook.
dammit wrote: If you think there were only 2 good units in the old codex is suggests you were running repentia/retributor cheese builds.
Yes, it's junith who gives the light cover, so not cover.
Thinking thats the best build in the book though really tells me about your thinking. It's a goddamned meme build.
Of course there were more than two good units in the book, but people who whine about 'cheese' tend to focus down on the best of what's available.
Large blobs of battle sisters have the most overall synergy with the rest of the book. With almost every good offensive unit being stripped of a good amount of their damage the best bet you'll have is to sit on objectives and hope your opponent kills you too slow to win.
So yeah, what should be a meme build is likely one of our most competitive options now.
Omfg, the bloody rose build seems better than ever. I'm really debating between them or our martyred lady.
One thing that the goonhammer review mentioned, was how hard it's stack up inv save to 4++. The indomitable belief warlord trait gives +1, while dogmata prayer gives another +1. So I guess not that hard really.
You're going on ignore until you stop chicken littling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spreelock wrote: Omfg, the bloody rose build seems better than ever. I'm really debating between them or our martyred lady.
One thing that the goonhammer review mentioned, was how hard it's stack up inv save to 4++. The indomitable belief warlord trait gives +1, while dogmata prayer gives another +1. So I guess not that hard really.
The thing is it's no longer two auras.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More reading looks like you might be able to put beneficence on a sister superior, or is that canoness with chainsword only? (edit-any model with chainsword, with the 1cp strat)
dammit wrote: you're the person claiming 2 good units, not me.
You're going on ignore until you stop chicken littling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spreelock wrote: Omfg, the bloody rose build seems better than ever. I'm really debating between them or our martyred lady.
One thing that the goonhammer review mentioned, was how hard it's stack up inv save to 4++. The indomitable belief warlord trait gives +1, while dogmata prayer gives another +1. So I guess not that hard really.
The thing is it's no longer two auras.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More reading looks like you might be able to put beneficence on a sister superior, or is that canoness with chainsword only? (edit-any model with chainsword, with the 1cp strat)
Whine about cheese builds, gets mad when he realizes cheese builds weren't ever a thing. Typical.
ERJAK wrote: Battle sisters bump up to 20 comes at the expense of MSU units no longer getting 2 specials.
Which is a doggak trade.
This book wants you to blob infantry sooooo badly. Imagifier is worthless for defense. -1 to wound for S3 attacks isn't even an ability. Repentia superior completely worthless. Yeah, let's have a character that can only buff a unit that doesn't have a save use their ability in the COMMAND phase. Stupid.
Paragons are terrible. Vehicles with a 6+ invul don't work for 80pts a pop. Zephyrim lose reroll to wounds, so they're gak.
And of course they nerf flails. I hate this book so goddamn much.
You are soo disingenuous but expected from you. Zephyrim lost the reroll to wounds and gained a innate +1 to wound and +1 attack. Less rerolls is always better. They were flying rodent gak insane with damage in meele before.
ERJAK wrote: Battle sisters bump up to 20 comes at the expense of MSU units no longer getting 2 specials.
Which is a doggak trade.
This book wants you to blob infantry sooooo badly. Imagifier is worthless for defense. -1 to wound for S3 attacks isn't even an ability. Repentia superior completely worthless. Yeah, let's have a character that can only buff a unit that doesn't have a save use their ability in the COMMAND phase. Stupid.
Paragons are terrible. Vehicles with a 6+ invul don't work for 80pts a pop. Zephyrim lose reroll to wounds, so they're gak.
And of course they nerf flails. I hate this book so goddamn much.
You are soo disingenuous but expected from you. Zephyrim lost the reroll to wounds and gained a innate +1 to wound and +1 attack. Less rerolls is always better. They were flying rodent gak insane with damage in meele before.
They get a stratagem that gives them +1 to wound. Not an innate ability. They were also fairly strong as an out of deepstrike melee missile geared towards taking on a wide variety of targets with low or no invuls. 'flying rodent gak' is not an apt descriptor for a unit that was walled pretty effectively by a 5++.
Also, it's funny how it's SOOO disingenuous but the only specific objection you had was incorrect in at least 2 ways.
But then again, what I else could I expect from you.
Sisters are still great. I just saw a battle report online. It featured the new sisters vs the new Admech. It was a nail biter fight down to round 5. Both sides gave as good as they got. It was just crazy how powerful both sides were.
The text was tiny and hard to read, but did the Dominions get their pre-game movement INSIDE of a transport back... at the expense of it only being 6 inches instead of full?
I mean, there's a lot of the "sky is falling" going on, but it looks like they set out to bring back some overachieving units in-line and bring up anything not named Valorous Heart or Bloody Rose.
Overall, it looks like a power decrease (where it was due), but flavor increase.
Edit: also keep in mind that the 8th Codex was regarded as one of the best/strongest, even by 9th standards. So... seeing some tweaks downward shouldn't be as much of a shock as people are making it out to be.
Well i need to repaint base squad markings and buy box or two bss to compensate for spare superiors.
Might be month or two before i get to try sisters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Purifying Tempest wrote: The text was tiny and hard to read, but did the Dominions get their pre-game movement INSIDE of a transport back... at the expense of it only being 6 inches instead of full?
I mean, there's a lot of the "sky is falling" going on, but it looks like they set out to bring back some overachieving units in-line and bring up anything not named Valorous Heart or Bloody Rose.
Overall, it looks like a power decrease (where it was due), but flavor increase.
Edit: also keep in mind that the 8th Codex was regarded as one of the best/strongest, even by 9th standards. So... seeing some tweaks downward shouldn't be as much of a shock as people are making it out to be.
Well as players want their army buffed to op as general if book power stays same it's worst book evah
Is this a 2 wave release, haven’t seen that battle tank yet and was hoping for a combat patrol box too, want to start a collection and that’d be a nice start?
Post the actual wording for the squads' special/heavy weapons or stop talking about it.
End of story. The Skitarii one is open-worded enough that it very well might be that your previous builds aren't invalidated, but rather you've interpreted it wrong.
dammit wrote: This book sounds amazing. I wasn't looking to use any obnoxious cheese builds that existed in the 8th codex so no nerfs in sight.
I think I saw a setup that gives a 20 sister unit 4++, counts as in cover (did i imagine this part?), transhuman for a turn, ap-1/-2 reduced by 1, counts as 40 for obsec.
That's a warrior blob+++
Also 48 auto hit s6 ap-1 from flamers on penitent engines/moritfiers. This codex really wants you to take flamers.
Also, goonhammer suggested the remove invuln miraculous ability was a once-per battle but that hasn't been supported by the text as far as I can see (the warcom article said once per battle but I read that as the upgrade that gives the miraculous ability can only be used once per battle).
The Blessings are in 2 parts. A passive that is always working and an active that is once per game
These blessings are made up of two parts: the first is a persistent effect that applies all battle long, while the second can only be temporarily activated by expending a Miracle die.
Each blessing can only be used once per battle, so make sure your Canoness or Palatine of choice is geared up to take the best advantage of it before you get started.
Has anyone seen any pics of a full Sacresants unit with halberds? GW only appears to the showing the mace variants everywhere, aside from the 2 figures largely shown in the one webstore picture (also on the previous page), one of which is the one that was first previewed. Still curious how all standard poses work/look with halberds, which is difficult to tell from sprue pictures.
dammit wrote: This book sounds amazing. I wasn't looking to use any obnoxious cheese builds that existed in the 8th codex so no nerfs in sight.
I think I saw a setup that gives a 20 sister unit 4++, counts as in cover (did i imagine this part?), transhuman for a turn, ap-1/-2 reduced by 1, counts as 40 for obsec.
That's a warrior blob+++
Also 48 auto hit s6 ap-1 from flamers on penitent engines/moritfiers. This codex really wants you to take flamers.
Also, goonhammer suggested the remove invuln miraculous ability was a once-per battle but that hasn't been supported by the text as far as I can see (the warcom article said once per battle but I read that as the upgrade that gives the miraculous ability can only be used once per battle).
The Blessings are in 2 parts. A passive that is always working and an active that is once per game
These blessings are made up of two parts: the first is a persistent effect that applies all battle long, while the second can only be temporarily activated by expending a Miracle die.
Each blessing can only be used once per battle, so make sure your Canoness or Palatine of choice is geared up to take the best advantage of it before you get started.
yeah, you can only take each blessing once. That does not mean you can only use the miraculous ability once. What it means that that you can't have two characters with the same blessing.
People seem to be reading it wrong, or not evidencing what they're saying. The blessing is not the miraculous ability. I'm going to check the review vids and see if there's some additional wording that hasn't been shown
Edit - each miraculous ability can be used once. It's written on the page, there, but is not the same rule that says each blessing can only be used once.
Lammia wrote: We're talking about the weight of an unknown material in a post-hyperspace civ that has anti-grav tech...
"Anything goes because space-magic" is not a serious argument. Also, if you think making what is primarily a cutting weapon effectively weightless and/or not caring about leverage with a polearm are good ideas, then that suggests you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Unless you're talking about the weight of the shields rather than the halberds? In which case you sort of have a point, but it's not really relevant to whether the halberds could reasonably be wielded one-handed.
Putting the shield on a shoulder-strap and holstering the pistol would make wielding the halberd perfectly fine. No space-magic needed. But as the models are actually, um, modelled by GW, they just look a bit silly, like they're posing with all their weapons out rather than fighting.
But my original point was just that they'd look better converted to be two-handing the halberds, not that the models shouldn't exist or that they shouldn't have halberds and shields. If other people think they look cool as-is, then that's fine. People are allowed to be wrong.
Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.
The pistol attached to the shield - best of all, on the side so you have to expose yourself to fire your gun - is actually one of those "so bad it's good" things IMO. Just utterly ridiculous.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.
For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.
For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?
They still hold Bolters two-handed despite their power armour, and their shield not only probably weight as much as a bolter, but are much, much more uncomfortable to hold, because you gotta hold it like you would hold a pistol..
If less than 9 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.
For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons
For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.
Literally exactly what I put earlier but for some reason you wanted more letters.
Does it actually say "If the unit numbers less than 9 models", or does it say "If the unit contains 9 or fewer models"?
Cause those are not the same things, even with the "for every 10 models" bit...which, by the by, does not actually say it is instead of the "if the unit contains 9 or fewer".
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
It's funny how NOW it's a problem when we've had a Combat Shield in the Marine Command Squad for how long now?
dammit wrote: Oh you're pedantic. This is the last time I will deal with you.
Sure, I'm pedantic.
Also, I would rather people actually take a frigging step back and wait until they have books in hand before talking up changes to squad sizes or compositions. I felt like the damn sky was falling when the AdMech previews were coming and it became "OMG THEY WANT YOU TO HORDE SKITARII!!!1!!" but nobody posted the actual wording/screenshots of it until much later on.
The wording is open enough that people should be sending the 40kFAQ email a line about it to get them to answer it, definitively.
So, how many of these new D2 Storm Bolters can SoB pack into squads? Also, looks like Retributors hit HARD. Ouch. And another codex, another chance for gw to overprice tanks, it seems. They really seem to overvalue armour.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.
For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?
They still hold Bolters two-handed despite their power armour, and their shield not only probably weight as much as a bolter, but are much, much more uncomfortable to hold, because you gotta hold it like you would hold a pistol..
Not when they want to pose like an absolute boss, they don't
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.
For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?
They still hold Bolters two-handed despite their power armour, and their shield not only probably weight as much as a bolter, but are much, much more uncomfortable to hold, because you gotta hold it like you would hold a pistol..
Spoiler:
Not when they want to pose like an absolute boss, they don't
Kanluwen wrote: Post the actual wording for the squads' special/heavy weapons or stop talking about it.
End of story. The Skitarii one is open-worded enough that it very well might be that your previous builds aren't invalidated, but rather you've interpreted it wrong.
Skitari is 1 if less than 9, 1 if 10-19, 2 if 20. What's so unclear?
At least if you can read even slightly english. Of course if you can't it's harder. Of course then you wouldn't be posting here and my reply could just as well be marsian.
I honestly don't care how much they overprice exorcists and immolators, when mine are painted I will absolutely be playing with the gorgeous rolling churches. Probably some of the best vehicle models GW has made in recent years.
Kanluwen wrote: Post the actual wording for the squads' special/heavy weapons or stop talking about it.
End of story. The Skitarii one is open-worded enough that it very well might be that your previous builds aren't invalidated, but rather you've interpreted it wrong.
Skitari is 1 if less than 9, 1 if 10-19, 2 if 20. What's so unclear?
Wrong.
The Skitarii (and Sisters one!) states: "If the unit contains 9 or less models" and then it goes on to say "For every 10 models in the unit, 1 model can..."
This isn't expressed as an either/or, nor is it on the same line. They're distinctive options in the unit entry.
At least if you can read even slightly english. Of course if you can't it's harder. Of course then you wouldn't be posting here and my reply could just as well be marsian.
Cool, so you'd say then that taking a torsion cannon prevents you from taking a hydraulic claw on Breachers? Power sword on the Ranger Alpha prevents an arc/radium/phosphor blast pistol?
Context matters. This "for every 10 models" language is not a subchoice for the "if 9 or fewer" language. It's a distinctive bit.
If less than 9 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.
For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons
For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.
Literally exactly what I put earlier but for some reason you wanted more letters.
Does it actually say "If the unit numbers less than 9 models", or does it say "If the unit contains 9 or fewer models"?
Cause those are not the same things, even with the "for every 10 models" bit...which, by the by, does not actually say it is instead of the "if the unit contains 9 or fewer".
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.
It's funny how NOW it's a problem when we've had a Combat Shield in the Marine Command Squad for how long now?
...expect Space Marines actually hold their shields like shields?
1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20
celestians and domions both seem the same
Which is terrible, considering that they had it different for decades.
Yes it's more in line with the usual GW marine army. But it was something that made BSS squads unique, while, due to limited weapon choices, wasn't really over powered. Now they're just marine light.
MajorWesJanson wrote: By definition, a unit that includes 10 models for the 1 in 10 option is outside of the range of the 9 or less. No need for an either/or
Yes, but when you consider this has been explained to him at least 10 times now, the 11th is unlikely to be what convinces him that he's wrong.
It is confusingly laid out and thus easy to misread, but there is a clear RAW answer here. It's just not one he wants to hear.
MajorWesJanson wrote: By definition, a unit that includes 10 models for the 1 in 10 option is outside of the range of the 9 or less. No need for an either/or
Nah. There's a need, because your wording is not what is happening. It does not say "Only if this unit is 9 or fewer models, select this".
"If this unit contains 9 or fewer" and "For every 10 models in this unit" are two entirely different concepts of putting choices out there. Maybe it seems clear to you, but the language is open enough to me that it is something that needs to be addressed--especially since they give us no actual example squads built under this new system in the codex.
MajorWesJanson wrote: By definition, a unit that includes 10 models for the 1 in 10 option is outside of the range of the 9 or less. No need for an either/or
Yes, but when you consider this has been explained to him at least 10 times now, the 11th is unlikely to be what convinces him that he's wrong.
It is confusingly laid out and thus easy to misread, but there is a clear RAW answer here. It's just not one he wants to hear.
And like I said, repeatedly, you could just submit an email to their FAQ line and get your stance backed up. It literally hurts nobody to have the question answered, definitively.
“If the unit has 9 or less” excludes a unit of ten because that is neither nine, nor less than nine.
It is syntactically identical to “if the unit has no more than nine” but uses less space.
Going to start taking 2 specials and a heavy on each of 10 models in an 11 model squad, because each different combination of 10 counts, and the comma doesn't mean OR, it means AND.
If you have a problem, prove I can't do this by showing the response you got from GW. It doesn't hurt anyone to have to do this.
Well, there's your trouble: not understanding what words mean. 10 most definitely does not include 9 or fewer.
It literally says:
If this unit contains 9 or fewer models
A unit that contains 10 models does not contain 9 or fewer models. This is not open to debate. There's no possible way to read the first clause as applying to a unit of 10+.
1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20
celestians and domions both seem the same
So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.
1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20
celestians and domions both seem the same
So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.
Arbitrary.
The best that can can be said is it beings them in line with tac marines for the first time ever
1 special/heavy at 5-9 1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19 2 special + 2special/heavy at 20
celestians and domions both seem the same
So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.
Arbitrary. The Battle Sisters box also makes Celestians and Dominions, and as such has 4 of each special weapon and 1 each of the heavy bolter and flamer, but no multi-melta (even though they can take them)
Well, there's your trouble: not understanding what words mean. 10 most definitely does not include 9 or fewer.
It literally says:
If this unit contains 9 or fewer models
A unit that contains 10 models does not contain 9 or fewer models. This is not open to debate. There's no possible way to read the first clause as applying to a unit of 10+.
I think I see the issue. If you treat contain as a synonym for include, it would make sense, but then you are using a language definition. Does the rulebook define contain like it does within vs fully within?
1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20
celestians and domions both seem the same
So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.
Arbitrary.
The best that can can be said is it beings them in line with tac marines for the first time ever
Not exactly, as TACs are capped at 10 models. CSMcan go up to 20, but still only get 2 specials/heavys. Going beyond 10 just gets us more bodies.
1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20
celestians and domions both seem the same
So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.
Arbitrary.
The best that can can be said is it beings them in line with tac marines for the first time ever
Not exactly, as TACs are capped at 10 models. CSMcan go up to 20, but still only get 2 specials/heavys. Going beyond 10 just gets us more bodies.
To clarify, every battle sister box comes with 4 of each special, a heavy bolter and a heavy flamer. The maximum number of guns you can put on a 20 girl squad TWENTY FOUR shy of what comes in two boxes of BSS
TangoTwoBravo wrote: If there was a forest needing a napalm adjustment, it was the Retributors.
They were good, they weren't THAT good. Losing their stratagem alone would have brought them down to normal. Instead they lost the stratagem, move and shoot, their second armorium cherub (essentially) , and most of their defensive bonuses.
They went from being a premiere unit in the game to being garbage Devastator knockoffs again.
The worst part is you still have to take them because our next best 24" range or better shooting unit is Morven Vahl after they gutted the exorcist and let a toddler design the Castigator.
That's a really good value combat patrol for me. I need a rhino ($60), and probably more sisters ($60), so I'm getting the rest for $20.
I know this is the monobuild, but I probably need more sister bolters than anything.
Having the initial limited set, and buying a box of repentia later; adding 4 more makes 2 squads now viable. It also means I have 6 arcoflags for a unit, plus 2 pen engines. 5 seraphim can be converted to a unit of zeph easy enough (as I bought the zeph box to round out my previous seraphim).
Convert cannonness to different loadout and same for repentia superior. There are a lot of savings to be had here.
I do agree that they seem to have gone too far with the nerfs, though. Which seems to be a pattern throughout the codex: they did identify the stuff that was too good, but they took a sledgehammer to it instead of a scalpel.
Galas wrote: As long as multimeltas are as OP as they are now Retributors will be fine because they are the cheapest multimeltas one can put out there.
except that they're fragile infantry with multi metlas which mean you have to assume they'll be shot off the board
Galas wrote: As long as multimeltas are as OP as they are now Retributors will be fine because they are the cheapest multimeltas one can put out there.
Multimeltas are only 'OP' if they have a functional delivery system. 24" might as well be pistol range when it's the closest thing you have to artillery. Without the extra 12" range and with most of their defensive bonuses piss in the wind, they can't afford to start on the table (unless out of LoS and even then only of your opponent has ZERO indirect fire) anymore. Without move and shoot they're much worse coming out of a transport or outflank.
They'll still see play because 1. Sisters have nothing else that shoots that far. 2. The Exorcist and Castigator are utter, utter garbage and 3. The miracle dice change killed soup.
Only positive change I'm seeing is that dominions got their pre-game transport move back. All the other changes look less than exciting.
damage 2 storm bolters, +1s on all flamer variants (and the ebon rose max hits with flamers is now generic), every non-bloody rose order is better. Repentia went down 2 points and got core. Penitent engine got natural advance and charge as well as +1 movement.
Galas wrote: As long as multimeltas are as OP as they are now Retributors will be fine because they are the cheapest multimeltas one can put out there.
except that they're fragile infantry with multi metlas which mean you have to assume they'll be shot off the board
Isn't that why you put them in Rhinos or Immolators?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: ...expect Space Marines actually hold their shields like shields?
You wot?
In anything, they have it even worse, grabbing less balanced shield with chunkier pistol by pistol grip that is not centered but on the very edge of shield. But funny how the bit SM had last 20 years is not a problem, but whining starts the second Sisters get something much better designed...
Galas wrote: As long as multimeltas are as OP as they are now Retributors will be fine because they are the cheapest multimeltas one can put out there.
except that they're fragile infantry with multi metlas which mean you have to assume they'll be shot off the board
Isn't that why you put them in Rhinos or Immolators?
and getting out now gives -1 to hit, which is a pretty big deal.
Retributors needed a nerf but the entire Codex got shafted hard in almost every aspect (Damage, Durability and Miracle Dice generation), the only thing that improved is the Deny section but even then it's mediocre at best
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: ...expect Space Marines actually hold their shields like shields?
You wot?
In anything, they have it even worse, grabbing less balanced shield with chunkier pistol by pistol grip that is not centered but on the very edge of shield. But funny how the bit SM had last 20 years is not a problem, but whining starts the second Sisters get something much better designed...
pretty sure people whined about that when it first came out.
Eventually people got over it, same way people will get over this.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: ...expect Space Marines actually hold their shields like shields?
You wot?
In anything, they have it even worse, grabbing less balanced shield with chunkier pistol by pistol grip that is not centered but on the very edge of shield. But funny how the bit SM had last 20 years is not a problem, but whining starts the second Sisters get something much better designed...
Well that's worse and i hate it equally. But most Space Marines hold their shields, y'know, like this. Inclduing the more modern ones, like Bladeguard Veterans.
Ordana wrote: and getting out now gives -1 to hit, which is a pretty big deal.
Sounds like the unit could do with having a handlfu of ways to deal with that.
or just accept that 12 multimelta shots hitting on 4 is still really good. You could even shoot through dense cover without any penalty for moving.
Gw has been handing out -1 to hit strategems to vehicles like candy lately, so they were already going to be hitting on 4s against their intended targets anyway.
A bit salty that the Combat Patrol is the $200 SOB army boxset. Especially since it includes a Rhino (no codex, but still) for less. But I guess it's nice for other people to get a chance to pick up those models.
That would be a bold move on 
