Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 14:13:48


Post by: RevlidRas


At the moment, the basic Sister of Battle statline is Weapon Skill 4+, Ballistic Skill 3+, Strength 3, Toughness 3. These are the same characteristics shared by other "elite human" units like Stormtroopers and Skitarii, which makes sense - after all, Battle Sisters even graduate from the same school system as Militarum Tempestus Scions. Or to put it another way, S3/T3 is the human baseline, exceeded only through heavy bionics, mutations, genetic engineering, etc, which Battle Sisters don't have, while WS4+, BS4+ is the "human soldier" baseline, and only gets an extra pip in either direction from elite training, which Battle Sisters do have.

However, it results in a dynamic where Battle Sisters are just as good at shooting stuff as (pre-Bolter Drill) Tactical Marines, can directly compete at range with the (heavily-gun-focused) Skitarii Rangers, and are far, far more dangerous at range than the same number of Astra Militarum Infantry. Meanwhile, they're... exactly as good as basic Astra Militarum Infantry in close combat. They're worse than Catachans, in fact, and even worse when Orders are taken into account - but let's set those aside for now.

This is weird because the Adepta Sororitas are presented to us, in the setting, as fanatical zealots dedicated to purging impurity from the galaxy with blade and flame. The kind of god-bothering whackos who would (and do) charge into combat equipped with nothing but a prayer and a giant chainsword in order to redeem their own perceived sins. So it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me that a) the rules encourage Battle Sisters to stay at range at all costs because they're useless at close combat, b) the rules suggest Battle Sisters don't focus their training on close combat over ranged weaponry, compared to the special forces-esque Stormtroopers.

I'd like to see the Battle Sister statline changed to Weapon Skill 3+, Ballistic Skill 4+. At that point, they're still better than basic Astra Militarum Infantry at shooting - but it's their guns that make the difference (and for a baseline human, even one in low-grade power armour, a boltgun has to have one hell of a kick...). But now they're better than Infantry, Stormtroopers, or Skitarii at close combat, because they have that extra pip of Weapon Skill. Granted, this would also need to come with a slight discount, since specialists are always more valuable than generalists, but it certainly seems to fit the fluff better.

Or just slap Zealot onto all of them, I dunno.

Thoughts?


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 14:33:02


Post by: Apple Peel


The strength 3/toughness 3 is the typical stat line for the normal human up to the most elite and well trained, which Scions and sisters represent.
For regular human soldiers, the only time I think WS goes under 4 is when you have the crazy Kriegers.
Otherwise, Scions have better BS due to their sniper training. I don’t know fully about sisters, but I’m sure they exceptionally train themselves as well.

A further note, sisters and Scions do both graduate from the Schola Progenium. But, they both learn the respective skills they need at other places—The Scions at the Schola Tempestus and the Sisters at whichever convent.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 14:56:11


Post by: Excommunicatus


R&H Militia are WS (and BS) 5+.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 15:21:35


Post by: BaconCatBug


What if they gave choppy SOB units WS3+ and BS4+ aka the Blood Claw treatment? Would also incentivise using Hand Flamers.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 15:23:48


Post by: Apple Peel


 Excommunicatus wrote:
R&H Militia are WS (and BS) 5+.

Under 4 meaning 3+ on down. R&H is bad FW.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 16:28:25


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Sisters are really good at close combat, actually. I play them that way.

Use Order of the Bloody Rose for +1S +1A on the charge, equip power weapons, and leverage good access to very aggressive and fast units to get in a kill stuff on the charge. Support with priest for a fairly decent impression of Berzerkers. We're better than most other MEQ at it. Being "good at combat", IMO, isn't so much a matter of having thunder hammers, but a matter of being able to get to combat with adequate armament. And we're really good at the "get to combat" part. The low WS hurts a little bit, since 4+rr1 is appreciably worse than 3+rr1, but we do have good WS3+ units that are fast, tough, and lethal [Seraphim]

The one thing that I think we really need is a lieutenant-grade character for re-rolls to wound. Our arsenal is overwhelmingly S4 and S8, and wounding is the trouble most of the time.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 17:01:37


Post by: A.T.


The sisters have traditionally been a short range shooting army, not a close combat army (and actually have been outright terrible at CC for most of their run).

They are an attritional army. Run them forward, have them cheap enough that some survive to attack, and then have those wiped out as the next wave comes in. Faith being the tools to make trades inefficient for the opponent and to bolster the few units that make it so that the sisters can't be taken out at the knees by losing critical units on the way in.

The trouble with the sisters at the moment is they don't have the old punch when they get in close, it promotes clumping up and trying to outlast opponents. It's worth noting that the sisters 'assault' units do all have WS 3+ already.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 17:12:15


Post by: flandarz


Well, if we wanna go by the fluff you have two options.

1) Everyone is good at everything.

2) Humans (mostly Space Marines) are the best at everything, and everyone else sucks.

Or, in other words: the fluff rarely matches the gameplay.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 21:01:53


Post by: Dysartes


RevlidRas wrote:
I'd like to see the Battle Sister statline changed to Weapon Skill 3+, Ballistic Skill 4+. At that point, they're still better than basic Astra Militarum Infantry at shooting - but it's their guns that make the difference (and for a baseline human, even one in low-grade power armour, a boltgun has to have one hell of a kick...). But now they're better than Infantry, Stormtroopers, or Skitarii at close combat, because they have that extra pip of Weapon Skill. Granted, this would also need to come with a slight discount, since specialists are always more valuable than generalists, but it certainly seems to fit the fluff better.


That would all depend on which version of the bolt weaponry is in play. Theoretically, they're a really low-kick weapon, given a small gas charge ejects the round from the weapon before the rocket-propelled bit activates. However, this is one of the things that varies by writer.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 21:03:39


Post by: Giantwalkingchair


Have to disagree, myself. Sisters have been shooty with elite combat elements sprinkled in.
Celestians and repentia both have a ws3+. If we counts the ministorum units, then there's another 4 units that are dedicated close combat with ws3+ half of which reroll failed hits.

The sisters ranged combat training regimen has been comparable to space marines- can't remember where I read that but I read it-.
I view the 4+ws being more representative of their lack of close combat experience when they're focused on ranged drill.
Explains the Celestians 3+ws as representing the experience that comes with time seeing as Celestians have had a few decades under their belt.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 21:04:19


Post by: BrianDavion


making sisters WS3 and BS4 would be a nerf to sisters no two ways about it/ I'd be fine withWS3 and BS3 myselfit doesn't seem unreasonable.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 21:07:46


Post by: RevlidRas


 Apple Peel wrote:
The strength 3/toughness 3 is the typical stat line for the normal human up to the most elite and well trained, which Scions and sisters represent.
For regular human soldiers, the only time I think WS goes under 4 is when you have the crazy Kriegers.
Otherwise, Scions have better BS due to their sniper training. I don’t know fully about sisters, but I’m sure they exceptionally train themselves as well.
WS4+, BS4+ is the standard for trained human soldiers, yes.

Elite human soldiers get WS4+, BS3+ - that's found on Stormtroopers, Veterans, and Skitarii, plus current Battle Sisters.

Elite humans warriors get WS3+, BS4+ - that's found on basic Kriegers, Crusaders, Death Cult Assassins, and Sisters Repentia. It's less common, because baseline humans are too weedy for the most part, but it happens. I just think Sororitas fit more into this category than the former.

A.T. wrote:
The sisters have traditionally been a short range shooting army, not a close combat army (and actually have been outright terrible at CC for most of their run).

They are an attritional army. Run them forward, have them cheap enough that some survive to attack, and then have those wiped out as the next wave comes in. Faith being the tools to make trades inefficient for the opponent and to bolster the few units that make it so that the sisters can't be taken out at the knees by losing critical units on the way in.

The trouble with the sisters at the moment is they don't have the old punch when they get in close, it promotes clumping up and trying to outlast opponents. It's worth noting that the sisters 'assault' units do all have WS 3+ already.
That's fair. I guess it just seems weird that your average Battle Sister hits like Dave the Guardsman in close combat.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 21:28:46


Post by: BrianDavion


RevlidRas wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
The strength 3/toughness 3 is the typical stat line for the normal human up to the most elite and well trained, which Scions and sisters represent.
For regular human soldiers, the only time I think WS goes under 4 is when you have the crazy Kriegers.
Otherwise, Scions have better BS due to their sniper training. I don’t know fully about sisters, but I’m sure they exceptionally train themselves as well.
WS4+, BS4+ is the standard for trained human soldiers, yes.

Elite human soldiers get WS4+, BS3+ - that's found on Stormtroopers, Veterans, and Skitarii, plus current Battle Sisters.

Elite humans warriors get WS3+, BS4+ - that's found on basic Kriegers, Crusaders, Death Cult Assassins, and Sisters Repentia. It's less common, because baseline humans are too weedy for the most part, but it happens. I just think Sororitas fit more into this category than the former.

A.T. wrote:
The sisters have traditionally been a short range shooting army, not a close combat army (and actually have been outright terrible at CC for most of their run).

They are an attritional army. Run them forward, have them cheap enough that some survive to attack, and then have those wiped out as the next wave comes in. Faith being the tools to make trades inefficient for the opponent and to bolster the few units that make it so that the sisters can't be taken out at the knees by losing critical units on the way in.

The trouble with the sisters at the moment is they don't have the old punch when they get in close, it promotes clumping up and trying to outlast opponents. It's worth noting that the sisters 'assault' units do all have WS 3+ already.
That's fair. I guess it just seems weird that your average Battle Sister hits like Dave the Guardsman in close combat.


sisters are a definate victiem of the lack og granuality of a D6 base ideally guard should be S3. sisters (with their power armor enchanced strneght) and Space Marine scouts (with their gene enhancements) should be S4, Space Marines should eb S5 and Primaris Marines (to reflect their enhanced str) should be S6. with other factions having their own units str boosted to reflect their capabilities. (an Ork Nob for example could be as strong as S6, with a warboss being S7, just for example)


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 22:34:17


Post by: Martel732


Yes, and so should marines. Because power armor.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 22:50:55


Post by: BaconCatBug


Martel732 wrote:
Yes, and so should marines. Because power armor.
Power Armour is only a part of why Marines are stronger. It's a strength multiplier, not a strength addition. They have enhanced physiology, the Black Carapace and decades to centuries of experience.

SoB Power Armour is of poorer quality, not backed up by ALL THE DRUGS and is being piloted by a woman who three weeks ago had to ask to use the bathroom.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 23:51:26


Post by: Quasistellar


The real problem was putting Space Marines at str 4 to begin with. Really they needed to not go so low with strength and toughness on a lot of things in 8th. Didn't leave themselves room for granularity without using special rules.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/29 23:52:44


Post by: ERJAK


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Sisters are really good at close combat, actually. I play them that way.

Use Order of the Bloody Rose for +1S +1A on the charge, equip power weapons, and leverage good access to very aggressive and fast units to get in a kill stuff on the charge. Support with priest for a fairly decent impression of Berzerkers. We're better than most other MEQ at it. Being "good at combat", IMO, isn't so much a matter of having thunder hammers, but a matter of being able to get to combat with adequate armament. And we're really good at the "get to combat" part. The low WS hurts a little bit, since 4+rr1 is appreciably worse than 3+rr1, but we do have good WS3+ units that are fast, tough, and lethal [Seraphim]

The one thing that I think we really need is a lieutenant-grade character for re-rolls to wound. Our arsenal is overwhelmingly S4 and S8, and wounding is the trouble most of the time.


You must be fighting a lot of cultists then, because statistically a full unit of 10 seraphim kills precisely 1 intercessor on the charge, even in bloody rose.

That's not exactly what I call 'lethal'.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 02:25:51


Post by: Mmmpi


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Yes, and so should marines. Because power armor.
Power Armour is only a part of why Marines are stronger. It's a strength multiplier, not a strength addition. They have enhanced physiology, the Black Carapace and decades to centuries of experience.

SoB Power Armour is of poorer quality, not backed up by ALL THE DRUGS and is being piloted by a woman who three weeks ago had to ask to use the bathroom.


Sisters armor is just as high quality, but doesn't have the bells and whistles (many of which require a black carapace). As far as protection and speed, it's just as good. It has the same targeting systems and HUDs. It doesn't enhance their strength as much though.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 07:47:56


Post by: Breton


ERJAK wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Sisters are really good at close combat, actually. I play them that way.

Use Order of the Bloody Rose for +1S +1A on the charge, equip power weapons, and leverage good access to very aggressive and fast units to get in a kill stuff on the charge. Support with priest for a fairly decent impression of Berzerkers. We're better than most other MEQ at it. Being "good at combat", IMO, isn't so much a matter of having thunder hammers, but a matter of being able to get to combat with adequate armament. And we're really good at the "get to combat" part. The low WS hurts a little bit, since 4+rr1 is appreciably worse than 3+rr1, but we do have good WS3+ units that are fast, tough, and lethal [Seraphim]

The one thing that I think we really need is a lieutenant-grade character for re-rolls to wound. Our arsenal is overwhelmingly S4 and S8, and wounding is the trouble most of the time.


You must be fighting a lot of cultists then, because statistically a full unit of 10 seraphim kills precisely 1 intercessor on the charge, even in bloody rose.

That's not exactly what I call 'lethal'.


Few units kill in close combat anymore.

Lets take a 10 man basic bare bones Assault Squad vs a 10 man Intercessor squad. Assault Marines get the charge. 10 marines. 21 attacks, 14 hits 7 wounding rolls. 2.31 wounds after armor saves. 1 dead Intercessor.
The problem with close combat isn't WS 4+

Now take a 10 man Vanguard Vet with 10 bolt pistols and 10 power swords. 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounding rolls, 5.8333 wounds after armor saves. probably 3 dead intercessors.
The problem is that they only took part of the second edition rules. CCW weapons with strong armor save mods are not available enough to CCW based non-elite units. In Second Ed, you had armor save modifiers like now, and Assault Squads were taking a mix of power axes, power swords, and power fists with bolt pistols, and plasma pistols with chainswords(The plasma pistols were usable in CCW). Partly because the kit didn't have enough power swords for everyone. After so many years of the bolt pistol/chainsword kit, I can certainly understand them not wanting to open the floodgates on Power Sword Assault marines now, so the CCW oriented squads probably should have a squad level rule giving them a -X save modifier in close combat (potentially only against infantry, bikers, and walkers or some such) (also Potentially only when using chainswords, or combat knives, or generic close combat weapons, whatever their basic load S: As User, AP 0 D1 stabby slashy bashy thing is to prevent stacking it on power weapons that don't need it and shouldn't get it. ) justified by their skill and specialization finding holes in armor up close or some such, to offset the missing power weaponry. This would allow them to maintain the balance on the Chainsword weilding Tactical Sergeant while giving the assault squad the boost it needs to remain viable/competitive in it's role.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 08:04:24


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


The problem with Assault Marines is that they only have two attacks each max. Volume is king in 8th edition.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 08:57:12


Post by: A.T.


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Support with priest for a fairly decent impression of Berzerkers.
That's perhaps a little optimistic. :p
A single bloody rose/priest sister has three WS4, S4, AP- attacks on the first round only at 9 points, with a pair of S3 attacks each round thereafter.
A world eaters berserker is less than twice the cost for more than twice the attacks at twice the strength, hitting around twice as often (DttFE), and a champion with an attack profile comparable to a penitent engine.

Outside of repentia I see bloody rose as more cleanup/protection from getting tied up than actual combat threats. If celestians/seraphim get power weapons that could change, assuming the current blood rose rules survive to the codex as well. The core sisters squads though are at best looking at picking up an S8 eviscerator unless GW includes them as a special weapon alternate.


Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 09:22:50


Post by: Breton


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The problem with Assault Marines is that they only have two attacks each max. Volume is king in 8th edition.


We use six sided dice. Volume is king in every edition.

Both units had 21 attacks.

A 10 man Intercessor squad has 20 shots at -1.
That 10 man Intercessor squad fighting back has 20 attacks at S: User, AP0, and D1.

Reivers Bolt Pistol, Combat Knife - 31 attacks 20.77 hits, 13.9159 wounding rolls 4.59 wounds after after armor saves. 2 dead Intercessors. And the Reivers are 95% of the Vanguard Vet's points for 78% of the wounds. Give the Reivers 2 point jump packs and they cost more for less damage.



Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 09:32:36


Post by: RevlidRas


Breton wrote:
After so many years of the bolt pistol/chainsword kit, I can certainly understand them not wanting to open the floodgates on Power Sword Assault marines now, so the CCW oriented squads probably should have a squad level rule giving them a -X save modifier in close combat (potentially only against infantry, bikers, and walkers or some such) (also Potentially only when using chainswords, or combat knives, or generic close combat weapons, whatever their basic load S: As User, AP 0 D1 stabby slashy bashy thing is to prevent stacking it on power weapons that don't need it and shouldn't get it. ) justified by their skill and specialization finding holes in armor up close or some such, to offset the missing power weaponry. This would allow them to maintain the balance on the Chainsword weilding Tactical Sergeant while giving the assault squad the boost it needs to remain viable/competitive in it's role.
It's not helped by the following apparent design process:
  • Pistol+CCW gives +1A, but not all pistols are the same. That doesn't make sense!
  • What if Pistols just let you shoot in combat? That's basically the same, but it's much more realistic.
  • But wait, everyone can shoot before charging anyway now, and pistols are easily the worst ranged weapons, so this makes pistol+CCW units relatively much worse on the first turn of combat.
  • And because of Fall Back, it will always be the first turn of combat.
  • And lots of assault units have worse BS than WS. Or worse Strength on their pistols than their fists.
  • Well, uh, what if we just give them back the +1A, but make it an effect of the CCW instead? Now it's not tied to a pistol!
  • Now all our basic CCW have stats that read +1A, whether they're chainswords or just combat knives. That... makes very little sense, but let's roll with it.
  • Wait, doesn't that make non-basic CCW less relatively powerful too, because you're not getting +1A on a powerfist+pistol?
  • I guess we just have to inflate the basic Attacks characteristic of any assault unit without a chainsword, to make up for it.
  • This definitely won't have consequences when buffs are layered on.
  • Oh well, time for lunch, print this thing.


  • Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 17:04:05


    Post by: ERJAK


    Breton wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
     Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
    Sisters are really good at close combat, actually. I play them that way.

    Use Order of the Bloody Rose for +1S +1A on the charge, equip power weapons, and leverage good access to very aggressive and fast units to get in a kill stuff on the charge. Support with priest for a fairly decent impression of Berzerkers. We're better than most other MEQ at it. Being "good at combat", IMO, isn't so much a matter of having thunder hammers, but a matter of being able to get to combat with adequate armament. And we're really good at the "get to combat" part. The low WS hurts a little bit, since 4+rr1 is appreciably worse than 3+rr1, but we do have good WS3+ units that are fast, tough, and lethal [Seraphim]

    The one thing that I think we really need is a lieutenant-grade character for re-rolls to wound. Our arsenal is overwhelmingly S4 and S8, and wounding is the trouble most of the time.


    You must be fighting a lot of cultists then, because statistically a full unit of 10 seraphim kills precisely 1 intercessor on the charge, even in bloody rose.

    That's not exactly what I call 'lethal'.


    Few units kill in close combat anymore.

    Lets take a 10 man basic bare bones Assault Squad vs a 10 man Intercessor squad. Assault Marines get the charge. 10 marines. 21 attacks, 14 hits 7 wounding rolls. 2.31 wounds after armor saves. 1 dead Intercessor.
    The problem with close combat isn't WS 4+

    Now take a 10 man Vanguard Vet with 10 bolt pistols and 10 power swords. 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounding rolls, 5.8333 wounds after armor saves. probably 3 dead intercessors.
    The problem is that they only took part of the second edition rules. CCW weapons with strong armor save mods are not available enough to CCW based non-elite units. In Second Ed, you had armor save modifiers like now, and Assault Squads were taking a mix of power axes, power swords, and power fists with bolt pistols, and plasma pistols with chainswords(The plasma pistols were usable in CCW). Partly because the kit didn't have enough power swords for everyone. After so many years of the bolt pistol/chainsword kit, I can certainly understand them not wanting to open the floodgates on Power Sword Assault marines now, so the CCW oriented squads probably should have a squad level rule giving them a -X save modifier in close combat (potentially only against infantry, bikers, and walkers or some such) (also Potentially only when using chainswords, or combat knives, or generic close combat weapons, whatever their basic load S: As User, AP 0 D1 stabby slashy bashy thing is to prevent stacking it on power weapons that don't need it and shouldn't get it. ) justified by their skill and specialization finding holes in armor up close or some such, to offset the missing power weaponry. This would allow them to maintain the balance on the Chainsword weilding Tactical Sergeant while giving the assault squad the boost it needs to remain viable/competitive in it's role.


    You wasted a lot of time comparing really, really terrible units really terrible melee stats here.

    Also, there's a name for the 'few' melee units that kill stuff:

    THE GOOD ONES.

    Smash captains, Bloodletters, melee knights, literally everyhting GSC have, harlequins, DE melee specialists, and Ork boyz all kill stuff just fine in combat.

    Also, your point gets really confused towards the end. Why did you meander off into talking about assault marine buffs when the two threads of the conversation were 'Seraphim aren't good in melee' and 'Whether or not there are things that can kill stuff in melee'?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 17:06:23


    Post by: Melissia


     Giantwalkingchair wrote:
    Sisters have been shooty with elite combat elements sprinkled in.

    This.

    Celestians, for example, used to have a better to-hit roll than most Space Marines, for example, before they got nerfed hard in 5th edition. They just never really had the equipment to do anything about it, instead relying on Acts of Faith to be tarpits basically. And then there's Repentia, whom are exclusively melee, and have been buffed and nerfed in weird ways because GW has no freaking idea what to do with Sisters.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 17:09:12


    Post by: Elbows


    Simply put, too many units in armies have 3+ abilities when they shouldn't, and inexplicably so. Guardians should still be 4+/4+...as should Space Marine scouts, etc.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 17:12:49


    Post by: ERJAK


    Breton wrote:
     AlmightyWalrus wrote:
    The problem with Assault Marines is that they only have two attacks each max. Volume is king in 8th edition.


    We use six sided dice. Volume is king in every edition.

    Both units had 21 attacks.

    A 10 man Intercessor squad has 20 shots at -1.
    That 10 man Intercessor squad fighting back has 20 attacks at S: User, AP0, and D1.

    Reivers Bolt Pistol, Combat Knife - 31 attacks 20.77 hits, 13.9159 wounding rolls 4.59 wounds after after armor saves. 2 dead Intercessors. And the Reivers are 95% of the Vanguard Vet's points for 78% of the wounds. Give the Reivers 2 point jump packs and they cost more for less damage.



    Dude, you are all over the place. You are in dire need of a clear thesis.

    So far all you've done is compare really terrible units really terrible melee stats and gone 'See!'

    What exactly is the point you're trying to make? If it's 'melee sucks' then you're not supporting it well. If it's 'marines suck at melee' you're correct but you're in the wrong thread.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/06/30 17:35:07


    Post by: BaconCatBug


     Elbows wrote:
    Simply put, too many units in armies have 3+ abilities when they shouldn't, and inexplicably so. Guardians should still be 4+/4+...as should Space Marine scouts, etc.
    It's almost like being stuck to a D6 limits the range of abilities you can represent with a simple "Beat x+" check.

    If we used a D12 as the base dice for the game then we could have Guardsmen at 7+, Elite Humans/Crisis Suit Equivalents at 6+, Space Marines at 5+, Elite Space Marines at 4+, Hyper Specialised Superhumans/Xenos at 3+ and Living Gods at 2+

    Would also allow for terminator armour to be useful again (make it a 2+ armour save compared to Power Armour 4+) and would make modifiers a nice bonus rather than crippling and/or a hard carry.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 07:31:49


    Post by: Breton


    ERJAK wrote:


    You wasted a lot of time comparing really, really terrible units really terrible melee stats here.

    Also, there's a name for the 'few' melee units that kill stuff:

    THE GOOD ONES.

    Smash captains, Bloodletters, melee knights, literally everyhting GSC have, harlequins, DE melee specialists, and Ork boyz all kill stuff just fine in combat.

    Also, your point gets really confused towards the end. Why did you meander off into talking about assault marine buffs when the two threads of the conversation were 'Seraphim aren't good in melee' and 'Whether or not there are things that can kill stuff in melee'?


    There's a name for a system where the standard purpose built unit isn't good at the purpose it's built for. A bad system.

    Someone mentioned buffs would make some sort of disparity they claimed worse. I was pointing out buffs weren't in the mix in the first place.


    Erjak wrote:
    ]Dude, you are all over the place. You are in dire need of a clear thesis.

    So far all you've done is compare really terrible units really terrible melee stats and gone 'See!'

    What exactly is the point you're trying to make? If it's 'melee sucks' then you're not supporting it well. If it's 'marines suck at melee' you're correct but you're in the wrong thread.


    Yes, really terrible units.. that are supposed to be close combat specialists. I'll grant all the units I picked were Marines. They're the baseline/common point of reference. People have already stipulated Sisters are bad at melee as well.

    20 Hormaguants Dealing - we'll split the difference between points (30) vs base size (12) - 40 attacks 20 hits, 6.6 wounds, 2.2 after armor saves. (I skipped the rerolled 1's - which guants get from the talons and potentially mob size, because I didn't give it to the marines, and won't to the orks who would have likely had it - it turns out to be about 1/2-3/4 of a wound)
    Receiving 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 5.88 Wounds received

    15 Ork Boys Dealing (again splitting points(20) vs base size(10) 45 attacks, 30 hits, 15 wounds, 5 after armor saves.
    Receiving 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 5.88 Wounds received.

    15 Bloodletters (including -Leaper) 1st turn - 33 attacks 22 hits, 18.48 wounds 15.52 after saves -
    6.0984 after saves if we pretend their hellblade isn't a power weapon equivalent which was part of my point about basic assault troops not getting save mod's making close combat not very good.
    Second turn. 16 attacks 10.72 hits, 5.36 wounding rolls, 4.5 after armor saves
    1.7688 if we again pretend they aren't equipped with power sword equivalent weapons AND after the +1A, +1S for "charging" wears off which was also part of my point about Close Combat in general not being good.

    15 battle sisters - no special/heavy weapons Lest someone complain if I use a Space Marine unit everyone is familiar with for a comparison baseline (roughly equal points - shooting doesn't care about base size) gets 15-30 shots depending on rapid fire range.

    15 shots, 10 hits 5 wounding rolls, 1.65 wounds after saves.
    30 shots 20 hits, 10 wounding rolls, 3.3 wounds after saves. - Average 2.475

    And they can do this pretty reliably turn after turn. Close Combat can be assumed to be somewhere between every other turn, and just under every turn. If we assume an every other turn - and a few other things like basic shooty troops should be roughly as effective as basic bashy troops (i.e. Tau might be an exception) - then the bashy troop should be rougly twice as effective in close combat as the shooty is at shooting.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 17:51:20


    Post by: Ozomoto


    RevlidRas wrote:
    At the moment, the basic Sister of Battle statline is Weapon Skill 4+, Ballistic Skill 3+, Strength 3, Toughness 3. These are the same characteristics shared by other "elite human" units like Stormtroopers and Skitarii, which makes sense - after all, Battle Sisters even graduate from the same school system as Militarum Tempestus Scions. Or to put it another way, S3/T3 is the human baseline, exceeded only through heavy bionics, mutations, genetic engineering, etc, which Battle Sisters don't have, while WS4+, BS4+ is the "human soldier" baseline, and only gets an extra pip in either direction from elite training, which Battle Sisters do have.

    However, it results in a dynamic where Battle Sisters are just as good at shooting stuff as (pre-Bolter Drill) Tactical Marines, can directly compete at range with the (heavily-gun-focused) Skitarii Rangers, and are far, far more dangerous at range than the same number of Astra Militarum Infantry. Meanwhile, they're... exactly as good as basic Astra Militarum Infantry in close combat. They're worse than Catachans, in fact, and even worse when Orders are taken into account - but let's set those aside for now.

    This is weird because the Adepta Sororitas are presented to us, in the setting, as fanatical zealots dedicated to purging impurity from the galaxy with blade and flame. The kind of god-bothering whackos who would (and do) charge into combat equipped with nothing but a prayer and a giant chainsword in order to redeem their own perceived sins. So it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me that a) the rules encourage Battle Sisters to stay at range at all costs because they're useless at close combat, b) the rules suggest Battle Sisters don't focus their training on close combat over ranged weaponry, compared to the special forces-esque Stormtroopers.

    I'd like to see the Battle Sister statline changed to Weapon Skill 3+, Ballistic Skill 4+. At that point, they're still better than basic Astra Militarum Infantry at shooting - but it's their guns that make the difference (and for a baseline human, even one in low-grade power armour, a boltgun has to have one hell of a kick...). But now they're better than Infantry, Stormtroopers, or Skitarii at close combat, because they have that extra pip of Weapon Skill. Granted, this would also need to come with a slight discount, since specialists are always more valuable than generalists, but it certainly seems to fit the fluff better.

    Or just slap Zealot onto all of them, I dunno.

    Thoughts?


    Bloody Rose + dialogus (30pts) +preacher (25) a 15 sister unit attacks with 46 S4 attacks in close combat, fighting twice on a 4+ with a reroll (simalcrum), for 92 S4 attacks before your opponent fights back on the charge. Sisters of battle fight like wyches subtracting combat drugs(-1ws for troops but seraphim etc, celestian squads = chopiness of wyches ) in cc with 3+ save,3/4++ (celestine cathedral) and half/more then half have storm bolters.

    Smash Nun-49 pts, blade of admonition, 2+ reroll hit, S6, 6 attacks with preacher, -3 ap, flat 3 damage, fights twice without cp 55% of the time (diaologus), will kill triple her points in one turn of combat frequently by ko-ing 3-4 ogryn, lopping a DP's head off, killing off close to half a knight if you fight twice etc (12x0.97,divided by three, x0.84,x3=roughly 10)

    Celestine...nuff said



    Need to be better at cc?No I really don't think they do. There generally not good a killing high toughness value targets, but every chaff units excels at killing other chaff, and characters excel at killing midrange bullgryn type stuff and other characters. The brawling niche can easily be answered by adding lib dreads/smash captains, jetbike custodian captains etc etc for a balanced cc army. I do well in tournies with my bloody rose brigade +allies to fill role gaps.

    (edit: idk what you guys are on about one intercessor, 92Ax0.58x0.5x0.33=8.89 wounds dealt with there 75% to fight twice or 4.4 if they fail the 75%), but there your chaff and should be brawling chaff anyway, they kill 22.2 orks for example on the charge. Even then who cares about intercessors, all your chaff need to do is let celestine, smash nun, eviscerater cannoness etc get to them and they will kill them in droves. Its not like wyches, plaugebearers, horrors, hormagaunts, ork boyz etc are killing intercessors in droves either; they dont need to.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 18:29:35


    Post by: epronovost


    Yes, I do think Sisters of Battle should be better in close combat. According to their fluff, they basically started as an order of "Shaolin nuns in space". They should have awesome kung-fu skills. This means, better close combat skills and some dedicated more dedicated close combat units beside Repentia and Penitent Engines should you consider them Sister of Battle units (I personnaly consider them like an Inquisition/Ecclesiarchy unit). If it was only left to me, they would WS 3+, BS: 3+. An army that is short range and in the medium level of firepower like the SIsters do need some good melee to survive on board. Plus it jt make sense fluff wise.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 19:17:25


    Post by: A.T.


    Ozomoto wrote:
    Celestine...nuff said
    You are paying daemon prince prices for not daemon prince punch there.

    Now if the blade canoness could take a jump pack you'd be in business. She's nothing close to a smash captain or a chaos mortal wound lord but she does good work for her points.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 19:21:44


    Post by: Xenomancers


     Elbows wrote:
    Simply put, too many units in armies have 3+ abilities when they shouldn't, and inexplicably so. Guardians should still be 4+/4+...as should Space Marine scouts, etc.

    Gaurdians never should have been 4+ to hit. Unskilled Eldar are more dexterous than even skilled humans. This is well established in the fluff.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 19:24:50


    Post by: Bharring


    "He's actually a poet, but we handed him a gun this morning" Guardians should be 4+/4+.

    "Standing militia"/"Black Guardians"/"Was an Aspect yesterday" Guardians should be 3+/3+.

    They're +1 WS/BS over humans - the first grouping being Conscript-equivs (no training), the later grouping being Guardsmen-equivs (extensive training).

    The problem is that the Guardian fluff is a mix of both groups.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    "Untrained Human", or even "Poorly Trained Human" is WS/BS 5+, not 4+. "Well-trained well-equipped human" is WS/BS 4+ with a 5+ and a Lasgun.

    It's just every faction is super awsome in every way, so you rarely ever see "Like a well-trained, well-equipped human, but worse.".


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 19:34:29


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    You should definitely be allowed to use pistols as melee weapons....THE GUN KATA!



    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 20:07:32


    Post by: Ozomoto


    A.T. wrote:
    Ozomoto wrote:
    Celestine...nuff said
    You are paying daemon prince prices for not daemon prince punch there.

    Now if the blade canoness could take a jump pack you'd be in business. She's nothing close to a smash captain or a chaos mortal wound lord but she does good work for her points.


    Actually celestine with 1 less attack(can make up for it with preacher) but better ap hits most targets the same as a DP, some worse, some better. Without needing cp to fight twice and generally being able to be affected by buffs easier (as she can belong in tank castles etc) she brawls better then Dps on the table and I have a lot of games with both under my belt. The only argument for the DP at all actuality being better in CC in the herald buff which suffers from the same issues you have with the smash nun. Shes also 20 points less, is all around more survivable (extremely difficult for mono shoot/cc armies to deal with, she frequently dies comes back up and tags 2 tanks_mortars where as a dp would just be straight dead) and +1 invul psychic power that cant be denied and doesnt need to go first is waaayy better then having 2 psychic powers.

    No one said she was? in fact in my post I even aluded to allying such thing as smash captain to make up for sisters cc weaknessess. A smash captain costs you roughly 6-11 cp to use effectively and costs more then twice as much. Ive never used the lord so idk how much cp he eats but he eats cp + points into guys that cast pyshic powers. She costs you faith points to use which is fantastic because its making use of a garbage mechanic and no cp, captains are aggresive and need support. She can just be your generic reroll 1 buff for your infantry and tanks and not ever hit cc and have made her points back. The same is not true of the smash captain. Shes would actually be crazy with a jump pack yes; but as she is shes not a hyper aggro tool shes more akin to a point efficient lite abadon, guiliman, cawl whom have utlity jobs to do but offer powerful counter attack options. That being said I have basically had her in combat in almost every game I have played with sisters boosting her movement with faith when need be. Its comparing apples to oranges, shes not trying to replace anything.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 20:50:43


    Post by: A.T.


    Ozomoto wrote:
    Actually celestine with 1 less attack(can make up for it with preacher) but better ap hits most targets the same as a DP, some worse, some better. Without needing cp to fight twice and generally being able to be affected by buffs easier
    5 hits, 3x2 wounds before saves. An ardent blade canoness out-damages her while princes have various mortal wound sources or just outright strength builds like diabolic strength & intoxicating elixir (and still lag behind the bigger hitters of their faction).

    She's not bad as such, but if jump canonesses were a thing you'd get two and change from her points and it'd only be the stacking save aura keeping her in lists. It doesn't help that she neither generates nor benefits from reroll 1s as the one HQ that can keep up with the seraphim, and she is decidedly shaky on her faith.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 20:59:55


    Post by: Kaiyanwang


     BaconCatBug wrote:
    What if they gave choppy SOB units WS3+ and BS4+ aka the Blood Claw treatment? Would also incentivise using Hand Flamers.

    This is simple and reasonable.
    Not going to happen.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 21:36:46


    Post by: DarknessEternal


    They have a 3+ save. They are better in close combat than other humans.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 22:08:49


    Post by: Elbows


     Xenomancers wrote:
     Elbows wrote:
    Simply put, too many units in armies have 3+ abilities when they shouldn't, and inexplicably so. Guardians should still be 4+/4+...as should Space Marine scouts, etc.

    Gaurdians never should have been 4+ to hit. Unskilled Eldar are more dexterous than even skilled humans. This is well established in the fluff.


    Which is why a Guardian called up from his normal day job was on par with a "highly trained" Imperial Guard soldier. Guardians being 3+ also make Aspect Warriors look completely gak by comparison. Guardians should be 4+, no questions asked.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 22:30:48


    Post by: BaconCatBug


    Another reason why D12 would be better.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/01 22:57:45


    Post by: Ozomoto


    A.T. wrote:
    Ozomoto wrote:
    Actually celestine with 1 less attack(can make up for it with preacher) but better ap hits most targets the same as a DP, some worse, some better. Without needing cp to fight twice and generally being able to be affected by buffs easier
    5 hits, 3x2 wounds before saves. An ardent blade canoness out-damages her while princes have various mortal wound sources or just outright strength builds like diabolic strength & intoxicating elixir (and still lag behind the bigger hitters of their faction).

    She's not bad as such, but if jump canonesses were a thing you'd get two and change from her points and it'd only be the stacking save aura keeping her in lists. It doesn't help that she neither generates nor benefits from reroll 1s as the one HQ that can keep up with the seraphim, and she is decidedly shaky on her faith.


    It wouldn't just be the invulnerable(which btw makes her outclass DP's by a massive margin in power while also being less points imo). It would be the resurrecting 2+/4+ 6 wounds. Many things in this game dont actually need to be killed, mortars, bassilisk, leman russ, kastellan robots, broadsides the list is endless. The fact that celestine can yolo into gunline armies to fight something up front, inevitably get knocked down, come back up and tag 2 tanks and mortars the same turn while flaming some infantry already puts her WORLDS apart from a dp who would just die to some basilisks or something. likewise mono cc armies like cults any alpha would just murder a dp where as she gets back up for a counter attack.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 06:41:49


    Post by: von Hohenstein


    Why not give them S4 and T4 (powerarmor and stuff)?
    Why not give them Dreadnoughts and Terminators and Bikers?
    Why not paint them blue?

    Because they are NOT Space Marines. They are humans.


    When I started SoB they had the same statline as a Linemember in the guard +1LD.
    They are humans. Faithful humans in very good armor with very good guns. But they are humans.
    I would even reduce their BS to 4+ and lower the point cost. I don't need another faction of "we are the elite"-Models.

    And as written in the post above: SoB ARE scary in CC if you want them to be.
    I had a game just the day before yesterday. I managed to roll the fight twice act on a charakter and spend the 3CP to make it work on every squad in 6". A full squad off repentia had just disembarked from a Rhino and there where 30 Sisters nearby. Thats 180 S4 Attacks (That`s 25 dead orks) and 72 S7 A-2 D2 Attacks (another 36 dead orks or 1 dead Knight). You need some luck to pull this of, but it wins you games. With SoB in CC.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 07:03:48


    Post by: Mmmpi


    I just want to point out, while their close combat prowess is very much up for debate (in fluff better than guard, worse than marines), in terms of shooting, they're as good as space marines.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 07:52:12


    Post by: A.T.


    Ozomoto wrote:
    The fact that celestine can yolo into gunline armies to fight something up front, inevitably get knocked down, come back up and tag 2 tanks and mortars the same turn while flaming some infantry already puts her WORLDS apart from a dp who would just die to some basilisks or something.
    You must have the new codex (or still be using the old index), because you are playing an entirely different celestine to me if she's yoloing unopposed into the opposing army and killing two tanks and change a turn.
    She averages what, 4 wounds against a rhino?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 09:07:04


    Post by: Breton


    Ozomoto wrote:


    (edit: idk what you guys are on about one intercessor, 92Ax0.58x0.5x0.33=8.89 wounds dealt with there 75% to fight twice or 4.4 if they fail the 75%), but there your chaff and should be brawling chaff anyway, they kill 22.2 orks for example on the charge. Even then who cares about intercessors, all your chaff need to do is let celestine, smash nun, eviscerater cannoness etc get to them and they will kill them in droves. Its not like wyches, plaugebearers, horrors, hormagaunts, ork boyz etc are killing intercessors in droves either; they dont need to.


    The Intercessor comparison/point is this - they're the tactical/basic shooty troop unit. But they're close combat-ing close to as well as the basic bashy troop unit. And it's a whole lot easier to shoot every turn than it is to bash every turn. Ergo- the bashy troop unit should be better at bashy than the shooty troop unit should be at shooty by some margin roughly equivalent to how much harder it is to bashy the enemy than shooty the enemy. Not only is this not the case, the shooty unit is just as bashy as your bashy unit in addition to being shooty.

    As a rebuttal to your "Just Use Smash-Captain/Nun/etc which are perfectly fine at close combat". I've seen multiple editions of Hero Hammer across the various systems. They're rarely good, and usually end up with a massively over-corrected followup edition. 2nd Ed was something of a Herohammer. 3rd Ed characters were garbage. I think that was when they introduced instant death, and took away invuln saves from every character at the same time. A smash captain/nun etc should need a supporting smash squad, not die laughing at one.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 11:41:20


    Post by: Melissia


     von Hohenstein wrote:
    Why not give them S4 and T4 (powerarmor and stuff)?
    Actually, no. S4 and T4 for Marines are more biology than power armor. See also: Scout Marines, whom don't have power armor but are still S4/T4 (though IIRC scouts used to be S3? so you could argue that I suppose, but scout marines are still a world apart from normal humans even if both are S3).

    The power armor primarily provides marines their armor save more than anything. For Sisters, it provides an armor save and the ability to carry heavier weapons without slowing them down (thus why a Retributor can carry a heavy bolter by themselves, where a common Guardsman needs a team to move and set their heavy bolter up quickly, and why Sisters commonly use weapons like bolt guns en masse).

    Sisters can reach higher than a human's S3 with Acts of Faith, various kinds of power weapons, and so on. But their base should and will always be S3. But just because something is baseline S3 doesn't mean that it can't be good in close combat, because while the to-wound roll is important, there's more to the game than that-- if they have the possibility of many attacks that hit more frequently, for example, they can typically do better than you would expect an S3 unit to do in close combat. Or if they're given wider access to power weapons or other close combat boosters, for example, the option to purchase the Sarissa upgrade letting them reroll all to-wound rolls on the charge or something like that.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 11:47:36


    Post by: G00fySmiley


    Bharring wrote:
    "He's actually a poet, but we handed him a gun this morning" Guardians should be 4+/4+.

    "Standing militia"/"Black Guardians"/"Was an Aspect yesterday" Guardians should be 3+/3+.

    They're +1 WS/BS over humans - the first grouping being Conscript-equivs (no training), the later grouping being Guardsmen-equivs (extensive training).

    The problem is that the Guardian fluff is a mix of both groups.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    "Untrained Human", or even "Poorly Trained Human" is WS/BS 5+, not 4+. "Well-trained well-equipped human" is WS/BS 4+ with a 5+ and a Lasgun.

    It's just every faction is super awsome in every way, so you rarely ever see "Like a well-trained, well-equipped human, but worse.".


    i mean eldar are supppossed to perceive things better (keener senses), and humans move in a sort of slow motion to them outside of astartes who similarly are on another level from humans.

    put another way compared to a sloth most people would be WS 3 BS3 simply because the opponent is so much slower and cannot react quickly to you


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 12:56:23


    Post by: Crimson


    I think they should have WS3+. They're highly trained elites. Marines still have S4 (and nowadays two attacks) so they would still clearly be better, but it would allow the sisters to be better in melee than the guard, which is how it should be.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 12:59:45


    Post by: Melissia


    I'm inclined to agree. There's still some granularity between GEQ and MEQ.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 13:06:24


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


    I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers nor veterans that have survived where everyone else died. And very tough $+ troops would be a neat niche as opposed to tougher Scions.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 13:28:50


    Post by: Melissia


    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers
    Sisters of Battle are elite soldiers.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 14:15:07


    Post by: AlmightyWalrus


    Agreed, BS 3+ is absolutely warranted on Sisters.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 14:28:26


    Post by: Martel732


     Melissia wrote:
     von Hohenstein wrote:
    Why not give them S4 and T4 (powerarmor and stuff)?
    Actually, no. S4 and T4 for Marines are more biology than power armor. See also: Scout Marines, whom don't have power armor but are still S4/T4 (though IIRC scouts used to be S3? so you could argue that I suppose, but scout marines are still a world apart from normal humans even if both are S3).

    The power armor primarily provides marines their armor save more than anything. For Sisters, it provides an armor save and the ability to carry heavier weapons without slowing them down (thus why a Retributor can carry a heavy bolter by themselves, where a common Guardsman needs a team to move and set their heavy bolter up quickly, and why Sisters commonly use weapons like bolt guns en masse).

    Sisters can reach higher than a human's S3 with Acts of Faith, various kinds of power weapons, and so on. But their base should and will always be S3. But just because something is baseline S3 doesn't mean that it can't be good in close combat, because while the to-wound roll is important, there's more to the game than that-- if they have the possibility of many attacks that hit more frequently, for example, they can typically do better than you would expect an S3 unit to do in close combat. Or if they're given wider access to power weapons or other close combat boosters, for example, the option to purchase the Sarissa upgrade letting them reroll all to-wound rolls on the charge or something like that.


    If that's true, that's REALLY dumb. A mechanical exosuit is probably stronger and tougher than a space marine. They are still just flesh and blood.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 14:47:03


    Post by: Klickor


    Martel732 wrote:
     Melissia wrote:
     von Hohenstein wrote:
    Why not give them S4 and T4 (powerarmor and stuff)?
    Actually, no. S4 and T4 for Marines are more biology than power armor. See also: Scout Marines, whom don't have power armor but are still S4/T4 (though IIRC scouts used to be S3? so you could argue that I suppose, but scout marines are still a world apart from normal humans even if both are S3).

    The power armor primarily provides marines their armor save more than anything. For Sisters, it provides an armor save and the ability to carry heavier weapons without slowing them down (thus why a Retributor can carry a heavy bolter by themselves, where a common Guardsman needs a team to move and set their heavy bolter up quickly, and why Sisters commonly use weapons like bolt guns en masse).

    Sisters can reach higher than a human's S3 with Acts of Faith, various kinds of power weapons, and so on. But their base should and will always be S3. But just because something is baseline S3 doesn't mean that it can't be good in close combat, because while the to-wound roll is important, there's more to the game than that-- if they have the possibility of many attacks that hit more frequently, for example, they can typically do better than you would expect an S3 unit to do in close combat. Or if they're given wider access to power weapons or other close combat boosters, for example, the option to purchase the Sarissa upgrade letting them reroll all to-wound rolls on the charge or something like that.


    If that's true, that's REALLY dumb. A mechanical exosuit is probably stronger and tougher than a space marine. They are still just flesh and blood.


    If they increased marines to str and t 5 it would be ok. The power armor a marine wears is after all probably twice the weight of the armor a sister wears and much more integrated with the marine due to the black carapace.

    It isnt effortless to use the exoskeleton in battle for non marines. So like mentioned before getting that 3+ save and being able to use marine weapons is a huge upgrade already from what guardsmen get.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:02:00


    Post by: Martel732


    Sisters should get a big boost too. There's no point in manufacturing crappy power armor.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:02:29


    Post by: A.T.


    Martel732 wrote:
    If that's true, that's REALLY dumb. A mechanical exosuit is probably stronger and tougher than a space marine. They are still just flesh and blood.
    An exosuit is as strong as you build it. In the case of the sisters it's barely more than required to counteract the weight of the armour (hence the use of a secondary exoskeleton on the heavy weapon models).


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:02:54


    Post by: RevlidRas


    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers nor veterans that have survived where everyone else died. And very tough $+ troops would be a neat niche as opposed to tougher Scions.
    Battle Sisters train at the Schola Progenium. That's the same place that turns out Stormtroopers, Commissars, Arbites, Officers, and Inquisitors. Every single Battle Sister goes through the same school as the most elite special forces available to the entire Astra Militarum. What in the world makes you say that they're not elite soldiers?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:17:34


    Post by: Martel732


    A.T. wrote:
    Martel732 wrote:
    If that's true, that's REALLY dumb. A mechanical exosuit is probably stronger and tougher than a space marine. They are still just flesh and blood.
    An exosuit is as strong as you build it. In the case of the sisters it's barely more than required to counteract the weight of the armour (hence the use of a secondary exoskeleton on the heavy weapon models).


    Why would you build it to suck?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:30:33


    Post by: Melissia


    Because easier to fit armor on without adding additional bulk that way. Also because it's easier to maintain, cheaper to mass produce (we still don't really have a solid definition on how many Adepta Sororitas there are in the galaxy, there could be as few as a few hundred thousand, or as many as hundreds of millions), and also is as much as they need to do their jobs..


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Bear in mind, Marines are not just taller but also wider, they're massive. Their power armor just has more room to incorporate strength-enhancing servos to begin with.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:35:37


    Post by: A.T.


    Martel732 wrote:
    Why would you build it to suck?
    Practicality.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:35:38


    Post by: Martel732


    I think that GW and many posters are missing the point of military-grade equipment. The whole point of engineering is to build effective equipment that can be maintained and produced in a reasonable manner.

    Even building hundreds of millions of high quality suits would be trivial for an entity the size of the Imperium. You'd probably have to get to the trillions before scale becomes a problem.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:39:12


    Post by: Melissia


    Martel732 wrote:
    Even building hundreds of millions of high quality suits would be trivial for an entity the size of the Imperium.
    The lore disagrees. Power armor is incredibly rare. That Sisters have power armor at all is a show of how wealthy the Imperial Cult is.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:47:29


    Post by: Martel732


    Then the lore is incredibly stupid. Par for the course, I suppose.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 15:50:03


    Post by: Melissia


    Yes yes yes, we have already learned that you hate the lore from your rants in the background section.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:02:30


    Post by: A.T.


    Martel732 wrote:
    I think that GW and many posters are missing the point of military-grade equipment. The whole point of engineering is to build effective equipment that can be maintained and produced in a reasonable manner.
    Effective being the key.

    Vandire certainly could have ordered armour twice the size, three times the weight, and probably ten times the cost for the sisters. But why have them stomping around smashing up the palace and running up the fuel and maintenance bills when you can have ten times as many bodyguards just as well armoured and have them shoot people with big guns and high-grade optics rather than trying to arm wrestle the space marines.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:14:36


    Post by: Martel732


    They could have more than one type of armor you know.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:14:54


    Post by: Insectum7


    Martel732 wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Melissia wrote:
     von Hohenstein wrote:
    Why not give them S4 and T4 (powerarmor and stuff)?
    Actually, no. S4 and T4 for Marines are more biology than power armor. See also: Scout Marines, whom don't have power armor but are still S4/T4 (though IIRC scouts used to be S3? so you could argue that I suppose, but scout marines are still a world apart from normal humans even if both are S3).

    The power armor primarily provides marines their armor save more than anything. For Sisters, it provides an armor save and the ability to carry heavier weapons without slowing them down (thus why a Retributor can carry a heavy bolter by themselves, where a common Guardsman needs a team to move and set their heavy bolter up quickly, and why Sisters commonly use weapons like bolt guns en masse).

    Sisters can reach higher than a human's S3 with Acts of Faith, various kinds of power weapons, and so on. But their base should and will always be S3. But just because something is baseline S3 doesn't mean that it can't be good in close combat, because while the to-wound roll is important, there's more to the game than that-- if they have the possibility of many attacks that hit more frequently, for example, they can typically do better than you would expect an S3 unit to do in close combat. Or if they're given wider access to power weapons or other close combat boosters, for example, the option to purchase the Sarissa upgrade letting them reroll all to-wound rolls on the charge or something like that.


    If that's true, that's REALLY dumb. A mechanical exosuit is probably stronger and tougher than a space marine. They are still just flesh and blood.


    Ever notice how the power armored models carry their heavy weapons around, rather than carting them around on wheels or in teams? It's true that Souts carry a Heavy Bolter and a Missile Launcher, but they carry slightly smaller variants without the bonus ammunition packs.

    Also, "flesh and blood" can be really strong. Chimpanzee's have muscles and bones far stronger than human muscles and bones. Maybe not "machine strong", but way stronger than humans.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:21:35


    Post by: Martel732


    Not machine strong. Thats the point.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:22:04


    Post by: G00fySmiley


    Honestly on the D6 system there are only so many increments. we can argue all we want on the lore, but in game mechanic terms 4+ = 50% 3+ = 66%. there is no in between and lets be honest, in the fluff a marine is probably going to hit more than 66% of the time when aiming with a shot.

    But from a game perspective you need profiles. If we moved to a D10 system then you could pull off more realistic. though I fear people would just still complain when some BS3+ models become BS4 and some 4 become BS5+ while otehrs stay the same. D12s would be even better, but I do hope if GW goes to either one that 2+ armor becomes rarer


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:46:29


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Power Armor is not "Astartes armor". It's just "powered" armor. Imagine it in DnD terms, and stop thinking about it like Fallout.

    You think it gives +2 to Strength, which it doesn't. It just gives +2 to THAC0.

    It's not even Power Armor. This has been cleared up. Arbites, Sororitas, Justicars, and even Inquisitors don't have the same armor as Space Marines. For obvious reasons, the fluff states that non-astartes CANNOT wear Astartes Armor. Structurally, it's no different than a good set of Catachan Pectorals.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:48:04


    Post by: Martel732


    Thats even moar dumb. Thanks for clarifying.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 16:49:40


    Post by: Melissia


     FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    It's not even Power Armor.
    Oh, it's definitely powered armor. It is not merely heavy plates.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:01:49


    Post by: Apple Peel


    RevlidRas wrote:
    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers nor veterans that have survived where everyone else died. And very tough $+ troops would be a neat niche as opposed to tougher Scions.
    Battle Sisters train at the Schola Progenium. That's the same place that turns out Stormtroopers, Commissars, Arbites, Officers, and Inquisitors. Every single Battle Sister goes through the same school as the most elite special forces available to the entire Astra Militarum. What in the world makes you say that they're not elite soldiers?

    The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:03:32


    Post by: A.T.


     FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    It's not even Power Armor. This has been cleared up. Arbites, Sororitas, Justicars, and even Inquisitors don't have the same armor as Space Marines.
    That's not quite correct.

    Marine armour is a void suit with significant internal equipment not present in most other suits of armour in addition to all of the radiation shielding and so on needed for use in space - nutrient recycling, blood filtering, significant environmental equipment, enough redundant systems to endure the damage a marine can survive, enough strength to enhance that of a marine significantly as well as carry all of the above along with the heavy exoskeleton, power cables and cooling, and extra ablative plates (and so on). Plus all the connections and electronics for the black carapace interface allowing the marines to use their superhuman reactions without having to wait for more mundane control sensors to catch up.

    There is likely little difference between the actual outer armour skin of the astartes and sororitas power armour.


    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers nor veterans that have survived where everyone else died. And very tough $+ troops would be a neat niche as opposed to tougher Scions.
    Look at the size of the scopes on those guns though :p


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:10:12


    Post by: Ozomoto


    A.T. wrote:
    Ozomoto wrote:
    The fact that celestine can yolo into gunline armies to fight something up front, inevitably get knocked down, come back up and tag 2 tanks and mortars the same turn while flaming some infantry already puts her WORLDS apart from a dp who would just die to some basilisks or something.
    You must have the new codex (or still be using the old index), because you are playing an entirely different celestine to me if she's yoloing unopposed into the opposing army and killing two tanks and change a turn.
    She averages what, 4 wounds against a rhino?


    In fairness I used the word 'tag as in to attach something unto another or refering to the game; either being 'touching' not killing which functionally kills tanks. Yes she is opposed; that IS my point about her durability in that a gunline opposes but cant kill her in one turn unlike something like a DP which they could overkill 6 times.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:14:22


    Post by: Melissia


    A.T. wrote:
    There is likely little difference between the actual outer armour skin of the astartes and sororitas power armour.
    Not quite. Sororitas power armor is capable of operating in the vacuum of space-- for a lesser amount of time of course, because of a difference in biology. It also does have strength-enhancing servos to allow wearing of the armor without slowing down, and operating heavy weapons without assistance. The helmet of the Sororitas is also designed with, and I quote, "full-spectrum filtering and psycho-oculal buffering" to help ensure that the wearer's mind is not overwhelmed by the little-c chaos of the battlefield.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:30:07


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


     Melissia wrote:
    A.T. wrote:
    There is likely little difference between the actual outer armour skin of the astartes and sororitas power armour.
    Not quite. Sororitas power armor is capable of operating in the vacuum of space-- for a lesser amount of time of course, because of a difference in biology. It also does have strength-enhancing servos to allow wearing of the armor without slowing down, and operating heavy weapons without assistance. The helmet of the Sororitas is also designed with, and I quote, "full-spectrum filtering and psycho-oculal buffering" to help ensure that the wearer's mind is not overwhelmed by the little-c chaos of the battlefield.



    Sorry, I misread this.

    Did you say the fluffy doober has fluff factor 5 fluffnosticators? And it can fluff in the fluff?

    All stupid fluff babble aside, if we cannot agree that Astartes Power Armor is not the same as, and vastly superior to, Sisters armor, we desperately need to review the basics. SM Power Armor melds with the skin of it's wearer. The SM can "feel" the damage the armor takes. Each suit is a prized relic of it's chapter. Granted it's not Terminator armor, which is literally a holy relic now, it's not the same.

    "Power" armor mass manufactured.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:32:38


    Post by: Melissia


     FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    Did you say the fluffy doober has fluff factor 5 fluffnosticators? And it can fluff in the fluff?
    Look, if you don't know anything about the lore, and you don't like the lore, then it'd behoove you to not debate it in the first place. All I was saying is that sororitas power armor is, in fact, power armor, defining power armor as a wearable powered exoskeleton with armor plates and other additional features.

    The constant insinuations that it's not actually "power armor" is ignorance and continuing to push those insinuations breeds more ignorance.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:37:38


    Post by: RevlidRas


     Apple Peel wrote:
    The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.
    Okay, so they're soldiers who graduated from a prep school that turns out students for special forces colleges etc, and go on to train at fanatical warrior-cults? It's still absurd to claim that they're not elite.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:45:41


    Post by: Melissia


    As for the training Sisters receive... they live almost like Marines do, actually. Their entire lives are dedicated to training, combat, prayer, and self-denial.

    So very much a regimen of non-stop training from the moment they get to the convent.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:47:30


    Post by: Mr Morden


     FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    Power Armor is not "Astartes armor". It's just "powered" armor. Imagine it in DnD terms, and stop thinking about it like Fallout.

    You think it gives +2 to Strength, which it doesn't. It just gives +2 to THAC0.

    It's not even Power Armor. This has been cleared up. Arbites, Sororitas, Justicars, and even Inquisitors don't have the same armor as Space Marines. For obvious reasons, the fluff states that non-astartes CANNOT wear Astartes Armor. Structurally, it's no different than a good set of Catachan Pectorals.


    Sororitas Power armour provides the same level of protection as Astartes armour - According to GW
    Inquisitors have access to superior - ie Artifcer armour than normal /Primaris Marines - According to GW

    The effects and advantaes of the Black Carapace can be simulated by a hgh tech bodyglove - According to GW

    However Marines are superhuman even before they don their armour - it just makes even more powerful



    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 17:56:39


    Post by: Insectum7


    Martel732 wrote:
    Not machine strong. Thats the point.

    A: Depends on the machine.

    And B:
    Well, what does the Strength characteristic mean? All it means for 40K purposes is "Strength in combat". Not strength in lifting, or carrying, or jumping. All it is is "how hard can it hit an opponent." There's plenty of room to have armor that's good at carrying and bearing the load of itself and the wearer, but it may not offer a whole lot in combat. It might be a bit slower, or less flexible. Having some restricted movement in hand to hand can make a big difference.

    Want to give an infantryman the ability to carry a Lascannon along with it's battery pack? Use power armor.

    Want pure hand to hand strength? Take a Power fist.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:01:14


    Post by: Martel732


    Seems like justifying GW's nonsense to me.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:07:00


    Post by: Insectum7


    Martel732 wrote:
    Seems like justifying GW's nonsense to me.

    Wah wah wah.

    Is it possible that some machines are stronger than others? Is is possible that an exoskeleton would be more suited to lifting heavy loads than punching?

    You don't have to answer. The answer to both questions is yes. Obviously.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:08:33


    Post by: Martel732


    Why would you give that to a COMBATANT?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:09:15


    Post by: BaconCatBug


    Martel732 wrote:
    Why would you give that to a COMBATANT?
    Why would you think that your doorbell has a soul? The Imperium is a silly place.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:10:46


    Post by: Insectum7


    Martel732 wrote:
    Why would you give that to a COMBATANT?

    Because carrying a really big gun might be more important than martial arts.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:14:04


    Post by: epronovost


    Martel732 wrote:
    They could have more than one type of armor you know.


    If Sisters were more then basically three models that were never updated by GW, yes that would be a very distinct possiblity. Who knows what GW will produce for them or what it will retcon in their upcomming release. They might have their own terminator armors afterall or a unique power armor suit that does special stuff or they might get nothing at all.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:14:30


    Post by: Bharring


    Not all machines are "strong" in that regard. I've certainly made machines not strong enough to crack an egg.

    Conversely, there's no reason a "non-machine" (read: living being) couldn't be that strong. The entire Nid and Ork races simply can't exist if that were true.



    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:14:55


    Post by: Apple Peel


    RevlidRas wrote:
     Apple Peel wrote:
    The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.
    Okay, so they're soldiers who graduated from a prep school that turns out students for special forces colleges etc, and go on to train at fanatical warrior-cults? It's still absurd to claim that they're not elite.

    But are they all equally elite, or elite on different levels or in different areas? Sisters go to the convents after graduation for showing excellent faith in the emperor. Otherwise, I’d believe that they’d be tossed into one of the various other jobs or become a Scion.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:20:50


    Post by: Bharring


    You give a powerful exoskeleton to a combatant when the combat ability gained is more than you'd get from investing the resources in logistics.

    Which is precisely why IG are the backbone of the IoM military might. Marines are certainly better per-person, but IGs take less resources to project the same military might.

    Some tasks/missions require a higher concentration of force in a smaller number of individuals; that's where Marines should be used.

    Sisters are different because they serve the Ecclesiasty and not the Imperium (directly). The Ecclesiasty's corpus of soldiers (Sisters) doesn't really change in size based on resources invested. And the Ecclesiasty can requesition resources incredibly cheaply - meaning it costs the Ecclesiasty a fraction of the value it takes from the Imperium when they just take what they need. So you have a situation where Power Armor is super cheap to those making decisions. Even if using those resources for more IG or IG gear would be better for the IoM as a whole, it's better for those making the relevant decision to spend them on Sisters, so they spend them on Sisters.

    So 40k does seem to follow the "It's wasteful to spend that kind of tech on the *battlefield*" rule. The results just aren't as simple as expected.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:25:18


    Post by: epronovost


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Martel732 wrote:
    Why would you give that to a COMBATANT?

    Because carrying a really big gun might be more important than martial arts.


    We have been capable of producing harness to carry very heavy loads for some time in the real world now, but only now are first world nation armies considering using one for their troops. Carrying heavy loads is murder on soldiers back. Up to 30% (it rises up to 50% amongst female soldiers) of all soldiers suffer injuries related to carrying heavy loads for extanded period of times in deployments or during boot camps. That's a lot of injuries and those who aren't injured suffer reduced performance due to quicker exhaustion, etc. Having a harness would be a blessing, but the army refused to use several different design specifically because they had the side effect of reducing the range of motion, the speed and agility of soldiers. A soldier needs to be able to move quickly, crouch, change position and fight above all else. Only recently have we developped a harness that might be good enough to support the ever increasing weight of an infantry soldier load and still allow a full range of motion. Carrying a really big gun might be important. Any army will choose to have it carried by two or three people instead of giving a stiff harness to have it carried by one just to avoid having their one soldier a sitting duck for a split second too much because in a modern battlefield where people fight with guns, bombs and cannons this means death.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:27:04


    Post by: Bharring


    It's also another logistics chain to support.

    Soldiers win battles, but logistics wins wars.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:30:19


    Post by: Melissia


    Martel732 wrote:
    Why would you give that to a COMBATANT?
    So they could lug around a heavy bolter on their own while under the ample protection of power armor, thus allowing them to move to the most advantageous position with minimal harm and deliver substantial firepower.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:32:23


    Post by: Martel732


    You people are just going to defend this nonsense no matter what they come up with. At this point, I'm fascinated by the mental gymnastics.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:34:36


    Post by: Insectum7


    Martel732 wrote:
    You people are just going to defend this nonsense no matter what they come up with. At this point, I'm fascinated by the mental gymnastics.

    And you're going to gripe, regardless of. . . basically anything.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:39:17


    Post by: Bharring


    If you think that's `mental gymnastics`, you'd be shocked to see what happens "in the real world". Military appropriations are sausage factories.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:39:31


    Post by: epronovost


     Apple Peel wrote:
    RevlidRas wrote:
     Apple Peel wrote:
    The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.
    Okay, so they're soldiers who graduated from a prep school that turns out students for special forces colleges etc, and go on to train at fanatical warrior-cults? It's still absurd to claim that they're not elite.

    But are they all equally elite, or elite on different levels or in different areas? Sisters go to the convents after graduation for showing excellent faith in the emperor. Otherwise, I’d believe that they’d be tossed into one of the various other jobs or become a Scion.


    Where you make slight error is that Scholam are indeed military academies first and foremost and that the word "Sister" might mean all sorts of things. The Sisterhood is seperated in several branches. Some of them are non combattant like the nurse-like Hospitalier or notary-like like the Famulous. The trait in common between all Sisters is that they are all religious fanatics by the standards of religious fanatics. Sisters of Battle aren't selected on the ground that they are religious fanatics. They are selected on the ground that they are religious fanatics who also happen to be really, really good at killing people while those who have other skills are sent to other branches of the Adepta Sororitas. If they are good with numbers and legal documents, they will become Famulous. If they are good in language skills they will become Dialogous. If they are nurturers and carring, they will be Hospitaliers. The Adpeta Sororita also holds priority on female recruits from the Scholam over the Scions and Commissariat which explains why there are few female Commissars and Scions according to the fluff. The only female commissars and scions there is are those who weren't quite faithful or good enough for them. So that would make them very elite. Plus, training in a SoB covent is pretty much a form of shaolin in space; war is like a mass, training is a prayer, killing the enemy is repentance and dying is martyrhood. That makes fantastically, almost inhumanely good soldiers. Unfortunately it also make insane people, but the Imperium doesn't mind.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 18:41:14


    Post by: Insectum7


    epronovost wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Martel732 wrote:
    Why would you give that to a COMBATANT?

    Because carrying a really big gun might be more important than martial arts.


    We have been capable of producing harness to carry very heavy loads for some time in the real world now, but only now are first world nation armies considering using one for their troops. Carrying heavy loads is murder on soldiers back. Up to 30% 9it rises up to 50% amongst female soldiers) of all soldiers suffer injuries related to carrying heavy loads for extanded period of times in deployments or during boot camps. That's a lot of injuries and those who aren't injured suffer reduced performance due to quicker exhaustion, etc. Having a harness would be a blessing, but the army refused to use several different design specifically because they had the side effect of reducing the range of motion, the speed and agility of soldiers. A soldier needs to be able to move quickly, crouch, change position and fight above all else. Only recently have we developped a harness that might be good enough to support the ever increasing weight of an infantry soldier load and still allow a full range of motion. Carrying a really big gun might be important. Any army will choose to have it carried by two or three people instead of giving a stiff harness to have it carried by one just to avoid having their one soldier a sitting duck for a split second too much because in a modern battlefield where people fight with guns, bombs and cannons this means death.


    Yeah, I agree with all that. "Carrying a big gun" is more of a simplification than anything else. My overall point is more one of "because the exoskeletons are just not designed for punching harder enough to merit a change from the base Strength characteristic of the model." is really the correct way of saying that.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 19:13:28


    Post by: epronovost


     Insectum7 wrote:

    Yeah, I agree with all that. "Carrying a big gun" is more of a simplification than anything else. My overall point is more one of "because the exoskeletons are just not designed for punching harder enough to merit a change from the base Strength characteristic of the model." is really the correct way of saying that.


    40K has a huge problem of granularity that Fantasy and Age of Sigmar didn't have to such a degree. Basically, while the stat system goes from 1 to 10. Only the 2 to 4 are actually by used and that is very stupid. The system of Fantasy was designed to make the difference between a weak punch to a ballista bolt or catapult stone while In 40K the strength difference must go from a weak punch to a tactical nuclear bomb. That's just not feasible with a 1 - 10 d6 system.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 19:14:25


    Post by: A.T.


     Melissia wrote:
    Not quite. Sororitas power armor is capable of operating in the vacuum of space-- for a lesser amount of time of course, because of a difference in biology.
    Environmentally sealed but I don't think it has ever been described as void-capable, nor can I think of any instances of it being used in space. It's certainly lacking the manoeuvring thrusters of the marine armour.


    Ozomoto wrote:
    Yes she is opposed; that IS my point about her durability in that a gunline opposes but cant kill her in one turn unlike something like a DP which they could overkill 6 times.
    More accurately they can kill her in one turn, but they'll likely need to kill her in the next turn as well. The other five DPs worth of firepower will be shooting up the sisters instead.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 19:22:57


    Post by: Insectum7


    epronovost wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:

    Yeah, I agree with all that. "Carrying a big gun" is more of a simplification than anything else. My overall point is more one of "because the exoskeletons are just not designed for punching harder enough to merit a change from the base Strength characteristic of the model." is really the correct way of saying that.


    40K has a huge problem of granularity that Fantasy and Age of Sigmar didn't have to such a degree. Basically, while the stat system goes from 1 to 10. Only the 2 to 4 are actually by used and that is very stupid. The system of Fantasy was designed to make the difference between a weak punch to a ballista bolt or catapult stone while In 40K the strength difference must go from a weak punch to a tactical nuclear bomb. That's just not feasible with a 1 - 10 d6 system.


    There are many weapons that are greater than 10 Strength, or do Mortal Wounds. Strength is not actually bound to 10.

    I'd also argue that the theoretical difference in strength between a Guardsman and a power-armored Battle Sister is really not important enough to fuss over in a game that also scales to Knight level weapons, etc.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 19:45:05


    Post by: Melissia


    A.T. wrote:
     Melissia wrote:
    Not quite. Sororitas power armor is capable of operating in the vacuum of space-- for a lesser amount of time of course, because of a difference in biology.
    Environmentally sealed but I don't think it has ever been described as void-capable, nor can I think of any instances of it being used in space. It's certainly lacking the manoeuvring thrusters of the marine armour.
    Was described as void-capable for a limited amount of time in 3.5e Witch Hunters, IIRC. That was the only book that really went in depth on it.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/02 21:30:34


    Post by: A.T.


     Melissia wrote:
    Was described as void-capable for a limited amount of time in 3.5e Witch Hunters, IIRC. That was the only book that really went in depth on it.
    Page 19 - appropriate given the new model.

    "integral rebreather allowing the Sister to operate in total vacuum for limited periods"


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/03 00:17:38


    Post by: Mmmpi


     Melissia wrote:
    A.T. wrote:
    There is likely little difference between the actual outer armour skin of the astartes and sororitas power armour.
    Not quite. Sororitas power armor is capable of operating in the vacuum of space-- for a lesser amount of time of course, because of a difference in biology. It also does have strength-enhancing servos to allow wearing of the armor without slowing down, and operating heavy weapons without assistance. The helmet of the Sororitas is also designed with, and I quote, "full-spectrum filtering and psycho-oculal buffering" to help ensure that the wearer's mind is not overwhelmed by the little-c chaos of the battlefield.


    In some of the fluff they're also shown jumping over 20' (up, not out), and ramming themselves through stone walls a few feet thick (2ish I believe). A sister's armor pretty much does anything a marines does except recycle body waste, and anything requiring a black carapace. The marine armor might do it better, either because the marine isn't a human (aka consumables last longer, occupant is stronger/faster), or because the armor just has more room to hold stuff.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/03 17:17:30


    Post by: Strg Alt


    @OP:

    The holy trinity of weapons of the sisters were always bolter, flamer & melta. Therefore no fancy close combat rules are needed.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/03 17:23:26


    Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


    Also, my opinion, better weapon skill would be secondary to better weapons when it comes to my CQC wishlist.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/04 03:26:51


    Post by: ERJAK


    Martel732 wrote:
    You people are just going to defend this nonsense no matter what they come up with. At this point, I'm fascinated by the mental gymnastics.


    Martel, your whole shtick on this forum is that you're an olympic level mental gymnast.



    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/04 11:22:03


    Post by: RevlidRas


    Martel732 wrote:
    Why would you give that to a COMBATANT?
    Are you seriously asking why you would give a suit focused on lifting heavy loads to a combatant holding a gun as big as she is?

    A gun that normally needs to be braced against the ground and carried/operated by two soldiers?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/04 14:45:50


    Post by: Melissia


    yeah the Heavy Bolter makes a modern hmg look like a lightweight.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/04 14:57:21


    Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


     Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
    Also, my opinion, better weapon skill would be secondary to better weapons when it comes to my CQC wishlist.


    This.

    I think it's better to keep WS 4+ and BS 3+ for sisters but add more unique equipment/rules to flesh them out than change the stats. Hell add a flamer/spear melee weapon which also allows you to 'fight' with a flamer/melta/bolter in lieu of your normal close combat attack instead.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/05 11:51:13


    Post by: Melissia


    I'd still prefer Celestians to get their WS3+ back (they had the equivalent of that before their unnecessary nerf in 5th edition), but yes, the basic Battle Sisters don't need it.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/05 12:24:15


    Post by: Breton


     Crimson wrote:
    I think they should have WS3+. They're highly trained elites. Marines still have S4 (and nowadays two attacks) so they would still clearly be better, but it would allow the sisters to be better in melee than the guard, which is how it should be.


    The Primaris Marines and Sergeants have two attacks. Normal every day 1.- Assault Marines still have 1.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/05 12:39:28


    Post by: A.T.


     Melissia wrote:
    I'd still prefer Celestians to get their WS3+ back (they had the equivalent of that before their unnecessary nerf in 5th edition), but yes, the basic Battle Sisters don't need it.
    Celestians are WS 3+

    Their 3e rule was that they didn't hit on less against opponents with equal/higher WS (other than characters and monsters), which was swapped out for 2 attacks in 5th. Of course 5e also took away their eviscerator option, dropped their initiative, nerfed their faith and moral, and made them more expensive... but I can't say I remember getting much out of their pre 5e holy hate. They were always suicide melta.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/05 12:41:52


    Post by: Melissia


    Right, but people were saying Sisters should in general be WS4+. Celestians were equivalent to WS4+ for a while IIRC, just saying they shouldn't be

    As for holy hatred, I actually used Celestians for tarpitting back in 3rd edition, so they benefited from hitting more often that way.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/05 13:09:37


    Post by: Crimson


    Breton wrote:


    The Primaris Marines and Sergeants have two attacks. Normal every day 1.- Assault Marines still have 1.

    Yet but I was not talking about the legacy units. Primaris are the real Space Marines now.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/05 13:11:53


    Post by: A.T.


     Melissia wrote:
    As for holy hatred, I actually used Celestians for tarpitting back in 3rd edition, so they benefited from hitting more often that way.
    Could be seen as a disadvantage. You didn't want the sisters getting a few wounds through and drawing combat when they should have been getting themselves killed.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/05 14:32:49


    Post by: Melissia


    Depends on what they're tarpitting against. Back then, they were capable of tarpitting things like Abbadon or full squads of Berserkers. Against those, getting a few hits in would be a great thing.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 14:48:11


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


     Apple Peel wrote:
    RevlidRas wrote:
    Every single Battle Sister goes through the same school as the most elite special forces available to the entire Astra Militarum. What in the world makes you say that they're not elite soldiers?

    The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.


    Indeed, I don't see anything in their training which would be better than one of the best regiments of guard raised from a tithe world. Just far better equipment and more praying.

    RevlidRas wrote:
     Apple Peel wrote:
    The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.
    Okay, so they're soldiers who graduated from a prep school that turns out students for special forces colleges etc, and go on to train at fanatical warrior-cults? It's still absurd to claim that they're not elite.


    Fanatical warrior cults would be somewhat similar to many guard regiment training and recruitment systems. Doesn't give you Space Marine or 10, 20 year veteran levels of accuracy in combat.

    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers nor veterans that have survived where everyone else died. And very tough $+ troops would be a neat niche as opposed to tougher Scions.
    Look at the size of the scopes on those guns though :p


    That is unarguable...

    Best reason for BS 4+ though is it makes pointing them a lot easier... In general the more brittle a model with high firepower is the harder they are to balance. Reduce the firepower and make them easier to consistently point.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 15:09:40


    Post by: A.T.


    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    Best reason for BS 4+ though is it makes pointing them a lot easier... In general the more brittle a model with high firepower is the harder they are to balance. Reduce the firepower and make them easier to consistently point.
    Sisters did go through a stretch at BS 4+ (or rather BS3) - from the start of 3rd edition until the release of the WH codex.

    They were a full third cheaper than regular marines, twice the points of a guardsman, and pretty much useless as an army.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 16:12:31


    Post by: Insectum7


    They get BS 3+ because they are righteous and unflinching in their faith, and have better armor. Guardsmen know their armor is poor, and spend precious potential focus on protecting themselves. Battle Sisters are fanatical devotees to His Glory, and do not fear being shot, thus are better marks(wo)men.

    Could be the same training, but a different mind set. Each shot can amount to a tiny act of faith.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 17:28:53


    Post by: Melissia


    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    Indeed, I don't see anything in their training which would be better than one of the best regiments of guard raised from a tithe world. Just far better equipment and more praying.
    Not paying attention will do that to you.

    Sisters get far, FAR superior training than the average Guardsman does. The comparison between them and the Scions is a lot more accurate, but in many ways they are superior to scions, as well-- both do ceaseless, non-stop training, but Sisters are trained by and in what is basically an ancient warrior cult who are capable of using faith to violate the laws of physics.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 17:29:29


    Post by: Pleasestop


     Insectum7 wrote:
    They get BS 3+ because they are righteous and unflinching in their faith, and have better armor. Guardsmen know their armor is poor, and spend precious potential focus on protecting themselves. Battle Sisters are fanatical devotees to His Glory, and do not fear being shot, thus are better marks(wo)men.

    Could be the same training, but a different mind set. Each shot can amount to a tiny act of faith.


    Or, y'know, they are trained to the same standard as Scions? I don't see why this is even a discussion? Humans are trained all the time to BS 3+ and no one questions it when they are men (Scions) but when female, suddenly this is an issue?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 17:52:27


    Post by: Apple Peel


     Melissia wrote:
    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    Indeed, I don't see anything in their training which would be better than one of the best regiments of guard raised from a tithe world. Just far better equipment and more praying.
    Not paying attention will do that to you.

    Sisters get far, FAR superior training than the average Guardsman does. The comparison between them and the Scions is a lot more accurate, but in many ways they are superior to scions, as well-- both do ceaseless, non-stop training, but Sisters are trained by and in what is basically an ancient warrior cult who are capable of using faith to violate the laws of physics.

    And that gives them the Acts of Faith abilities. How does that make them better melee combatants? The only differences we have in Scions and sisters is leadership, war gear, and Acts/Shield of Faith against Aerial Drop and the ability to take orders.

    Funnily enough, Tempestors have WS and BS 3+ compared to Sister Superiors.
    I don’t know how Sisters get promoted, but I know Scions are promoted on battlefield accomplishments alone.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 18:09:32


    Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


    Pleasestop wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    They get BS 3+ because they are righteous and unflinching in their faith, and have better armor. Guardsmen know their armor is poor, and spend precious potential focus on protecting themselves. Battle Sisters are fanatical devotees to His Glory, and do not fear being shot, thus are better marks(wo)men.

    Could be the same training, but a different mind set. Each shot can amount to a tiny act of faith.


    Or, y'know, they are trained to the same standard as Scions? I don't see why this is even a discussion? Humans are trained all the time to BS 3+ and no one questions it when they are men (Scions) but when female, suddenly this is an issue?


    Only if you want to make it a gender issue. Because despite there not being any obvious female Scion heads in the model kit, there are in fact, female Scions just like there are female Astra Militarum. So if you could, please leave the gender politics out and focus on this being a faction issue instead.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 18:11:32


    Post by: Insectum7


    Pleasestop wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    They get BS 3+ because they are righteous and unflinching in their faith, and have better armor. Guardsmen know their armor is poor, and spend precious potential focus on protecting themselves. Battle Sisters are fanatical devotees to His Glory, and do not fear being shot, thus are better marks(wo)men.

    Could be the same training, but a different mind set. Each shot can amount to a tiny act of faith.


    Or, y'know, they are trained to the same standard as Scions? I don't see why this is even a discussion? Humans are trained all the time to BS 3+ and no one questions it when they are men (Scions) but when female, suddenly this is an issue?

    Sure, or that. I thought someone brought up Guardsmen, so I threw the "it doesn't have to be training, it's because 40K" path out there.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 18:22:25


    Post by: Mr Morden


     Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
    Pleasestop wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    They get BS 3+ because they are righteous and unflinching in their faith, and have better armor. Guardsmen know their armor is poor, and spend precious potential focus on protecting themselves. Battle Sisters are fanatical devotees to His Glory, and do not fear being shot, thus are better marks(wo)men.

    Could be the same training, but a different mind set. Each shot can amount to a tiny act of faith.


    Or, y'know, they are trained to the same standard as Scions? I don't see why this is even a discussion? Humans are trained all the time to BS 3+ and no one questions it when they are men (Scions) but when female, suddenly this is an issue?


    Only if you want to make it a gender issue. Because despite there not being any obvious female Scion heads in the model kit, there are in fact, female Scions just like there are female Astra Militarum. So if you could, please leave the gender politics out and focus on this being a faction issue instead.


    Scions and Sororitas are both highly trained elite soliders - although with different focuses - the Scions are more like conventional special forces, the Sisters must also police the Church as well as being shock troops and elite bodyguards.

    The Sororitas do have superior equipment with Bolters/power armour - which includes advanced targeting systems (even if Sisters like Marines tend to take their helmit off.....). They do also seem to have a somewhat better connection to whatever the Emperor is....

    I am happy with the BS3+, WS4+ for game purposes for basic Sisters.



    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 18:37:56


    Post by: Melissia


     Apple Peel wrote:
    How does that make them better melee combatants?
    The common battle sister I would say have yet to achieve it, but that's never what I was talking about in this thread. The Sororitas elites like celestians seraphim, and superiors, however? They have unlocked the secrets of the San Leor warrior cult and are fully capable fighters.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 18:39:25


    Post by: Crimson


    I think Sisters should have WS 3+. because assaulting enemies and chopping them with chainswords feels like it thematically should be a viable playstyle for them. Same is not really true for the Scions, so they don't need that.

    For relatively point expensive models they need to pack some punch for to be even remotely effective in the melee.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 18:43:42


    Post by: Mr Morden


     Melissia wrote:
     Apple Peel wrote:
    How does that make them better melee combatants?
    The common battle sister I would say have yet to achieve it, but that's never what I was talking about in this thread. The Sororitas elites like celestians seraphim, and superiors, however? They have unlocked the secrets of the San Leor warrior cult and are fully capable fighters.


    Celestians and Seraphims already have WS 3+


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 18:47:18


    Post by: Melissia


     Mr Morden wrote:
    Celestians and Seraphims already have WS 3+
    And some people in this thread have been arguing they shouldn't have it...


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 19:06:28


    Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


    Spoiler:
     Mr Morden wrote:
     Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
    Pleasestop wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    They get BS 3+ because they are righteous and unflinching in their faith, and have better armor. Guardsmen know their armor is poor, and spend precious potential focus on protecting themselves. Battle Sisters are fanatical devotees to His Glory, and do not fear being shot, thus are better marks(wo)men.

    Could be the same training, but a different mind set. Each shot can amount to a tiny act of faith.


    Or, y'know, they are trained to the same standard as Scions? I don't see why this is even a discussion? Humans are trained all the time to BS 3+ and no one questions it when they are men (Scions) but when female, suddenly this is an issue?


    Only if you want to make it a gender issue. Because despite there not being any obvious female Scion heads in the model kit, there are in fact, female Scions just like there are female Astra Militarum. So if you could, please leave the gender politics out and focus on this being a faction issue instead.


    Scions and Sororitas are both highly trained elite soliders - although with different focuses - the Scions are more like conventional special forces, the Sisters must also police the Church as well as being shock troops and elite bodyguards.

    The Sororitas do have superior equipment with Bolters/power armour - which includes advanced targeting systems (even if Sisters like Marines tend to take their helmit off.....). They do also seem to have a somewhat better connection to whatever the Emperor is....

    I am happy with the BS3+, WS4+ for game purposes for basic Sisters.



    I am not arguing the that Sisters of Battle should or shouldn't have these buffs with my post. Only that Pleasestop was trying to frame it as if Scions are manly men that could can brawl where Sisters of Battle are frail women that can't. Which isn't true because Scions aren't like Space Marines, they have females within there ranks. I don't want to see this thread get bogged down in that sort of thing because I don't think gender is relevant so much as it is a faction thing.

    Honestly, I lean toward Sisters of Battle not having a WS 3+ based on their past. However, I am not strongly tied to it all and mechanically it makes the faction weird to use as they have all these short range weapons but not great melee. So they want to get really close to the enemy but want to stay out of CQC. Which has to be be a struggle on the tabletop. So if they had WS 3+ and probably a 1 ppm increase, I don't see much on an issue with it either. They are still a little different that Scions or Scouts at that point even ignoring weapon load out choices.

    I think the import thing is if Sisters of Battle players want to pay that extra point per model. Because I don't see them getting WS 3+ and keeping their current point cost. What is the current ppm for a basic troop? Nine points? WS 3+ doesn't seem like a great addition if it means a 10 ppm cost to me. We can argue that the price wouldn't go up since Codex prices usually come down, but at the same, GW does value things sort of odd. So are proponents accepting the base cost might go up as well?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/09 19:28:39


    Post by: Apple Peel



    Honestly, I lean toward Sisters of Battle not having a WS 3+ based on their past. However, I am not strongly tied to it all and mechanically it makes the faction weird to use as they have all these short range weapons but not great melee. So they want to get really close to the enemy but want to stay out of CQC. Which has to be be a struggle on the tabletop. So if they had WS 3+ and probably a 1 ppm increase, I don't see much on an issue with it either. They are still a little different that Scions or Scouts at that point even ignoring weapon load out choices.

    Scions solve this problem by having good weapons in short range and being less points, so it’s not as bad to lose them. Sisters would be better with better weapons, I reckon.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 00:51:44


    Post by: warmaster21


    I'd be happy if they gave sisters back the option to take bayonets for their bolsters.

    though honestly what im really hoping is a serephim varient armed with a melee weapon (chainsword, powersword, power spear, whatever)


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 02:22:27


    Post by: ERJAK


    Sisters are a shotgun army and should be a shotgun army. The problem at the moment is that they're best run as a poxwalker horde so their identity gets reduced down to a generic 'hard to kill infantry horde'.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 03:19:13


    Post by: Insectum7


    Wtf is a "shotgun army"?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 03:22:11


    Post by: Melissia


    My guess is he means short range, high risk, high reward.

    Sisters have one of those things, I suppose. Two really, come to think about it. They need to work on the "reward" part, because flamers are kinda overcosted.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 11:59:44


    Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


     Melissia wrote:
    My guess is he means short range, high risk, high reward.

    Sisters have one of those things, I suppose. Two really, come to think about it. They need to work on the "reward" part, because flamers are kinda overcosted.



    Well why don't they create a new 'Soroitas Flamer' weapon for sisters? I know flamers across the board need readjustment but the flamer itself is so damn iconic to Sisters that I'd love to see them have their own unique version to design around instead of blanket changes to flamers (Emperor knows they need it though)

    Maybe a rule to allow them to treat flamer weapons as pistol when engaged in combat? Or a slight range increase? Or both


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 12:06:00


    Post by: G00fySmiley


    eh.. honestly I am grabbing a sisters of battle batallion to go along with my custodes/knight (armiger) list. I am waiting for actual squads of the new models to be available but I am not sure if they or really any unaugmented human should be ws3. IE scions (who do not all have ws3, only the tempestor does) shoudl not. Honestly I miss the old charts though in this instance where weapon skill was compared and the resulting roll was generated from there.

    put another way

    should a sister hit a chaos space marine on a 3? in my opinion no.

    should they hit an avatar, a literal god of war, on a 3+ nope

    a harlequin troupe master? certainly no

    should they hit Lucius (probably one of the best swordsman in the galaxy at this point) on a 3... again no.

    should they be hitting cultists and traitor guard on 3's? absolutely.

    should they be hitting tanks and most vehicles on a 3? yes

    should they hit grots on a 3? well yes, but honestly it should probably be a 2.

    I just think the current 2-6 system is too limiting to represent different levels of close combat skill.

    That aside I think given the 8th edition ruleset most sisters units in the elite slot should probably by WS3+ (though not the basline troops or heavy support units)


    on the flamer though look to the orks for the worst flamers... ours have D3 instead of D6 hits while costing the same as imperial flamers, because... reasons?


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 12:22:41


    Post by: fraser1191


    Just from reading this thread I'd say make most sisters BS 3,WS 4. Then dedicated melee units BS 4,WS 3 since they are "devoted" to a melee weapon. Then maybe for extra crazyness make their vets BS 3,WS 3


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 13:29:03


    Post by: Mmmpi


    Most sisters are WS4+

    The only ones that aren't are characters, Celestians, and Seraphim


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 13:43:32


    Post by: Melissia


    This is more a complaint about the system. In previous systems, both units having WS4 (the equivalent of a marine's modern 3+) would mean they both hit each other on a 4+.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     fraser1191 wrote:
    Just from reading this thread I'd say make most sisters BS 3,WS 4. Then dedicated melee units BS 4,WS 3 since they are "devoted" to a melee weapon. Then maybe for extra crazyness make their vets BS 3,WS 3
    Sisters only have one dedicated melee unit, Repentia, who don't have a ranged attack to begin with. Instead they have nerfed eviscerators that are inferior in every way to other factions' eviscerators.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 14:03:31


    Post by: G00fySmiley


     Melissia wrote:
    This is more a complaint about the system. In previous systems, both units having WS4 (the equivalent of a marine's modern 3+) would mean they both hit each other on a 4+.



    they never really used the old system like they should have imo, very few units has over a 5. while an Avatar had a 10 very few units had a 6-9. You could give Custodes/space marine captains a 6, normal marines a 5, sisters/scions and other elite humans a 4 (probably eldar guardians here too), then guardsman and such have a 3, while grots stay a 2.

    That said as I stated at the end there this is not the old ways, and in 8th I do think with this imperfect limited system the elite sister should probably have a WS3+ as should the seraphim (as i believe they mostly if not all are) but just like the scions who (other than the scion leader) are WS4+, if you want the sister superior to have WS3+ like the scions.. sure I see no problem there, more experience/ hs stood out from the rank and file sisters etc.. just not the whole squad, at least not at 9 points per model.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 14:24:38


    Post by: Mmmpi


     Melissia wrote:

     fraser1191 wrote:
    Just from reading this thread I'd say make most sisters BS 3,WS 4. Then dedicated melee units BS 4,WS 3 since they are "devoted" to a melee weapon. Then maybe for extra crazyness make their vets BS 3,WS 3
    Sisters only have one dedicated melee unit, Repentia, who don't have a ranged attack to begin with. Instead they have nerfed eviscerators that are inferior in every way to other factions' eviscerators.


    Yeah, that was two kicks in the teeth. First marines get what was an exclusive weapon, and then next edition GW nurfs the original versions with no reason given.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 14:52:02


    Post by: Crimson


    I have nothing against Sisters having proper Eviscerators, but they should be modelled differently. The current Repentia Eviscerators are just marine chainswords held with two hands. It is weird that they're even as powerful as they're now.


    Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat? @ 2019/07/11 14:56:20


    Post by: Melissia


    They used to be modeled as chain-greatswords and encouraged to be painted as power weapons.