(TBH this is mostly on the off chance there's a GW lurker somewhere in here.)
There seems to be a general idea that Armor of Contempt is a flat buff for Sisters the way it is for space marines. The reality is that it's actually a moderate step back for the army. It doesn't make the army unplayable. It's honestly, not even a very significant nerf once the mitigating factors are accounted for, but it does (again) result in a small tick downwards in the army's overall efficacy. Considering it was ostensibly meant to be a buff, this is very unfortunate.
To establish a framework, the current most powerful, most successful Sisters of Battle build is Valorous Heart with Vahl and 30 Sacresancts. Every other variation of Sister's list has had barely a shadow of VVHS30's success so significant increases in power need to be seen just to get other lists up to that level, in terms of EXTERNAL balance.
First: Valorous Heart is significantly nerfed. Sister's of battle already had access to ignoring -1 AP through the Valorous Heart Order Conviction. It only worked on attacks up to AP -2, but it affected every unit with the <order> keyword. The replacement rule of 'no reroll to wound' is...almost nothing. The army is predominantly T3, so most things are basically guaranteed to wound already and rerolls to wound are relatively rare compared to -1 AP or even rerolls to hit. As a result, armor of contempt strips a significant amount of power from our best Order Conviction.
Second: Sacresancts are excluded from Armor of Contempt.
Sacresancts are the best unit in the Sister of Battle army currently. The 30 Sacresanct Valorous heart build was the only remaining Sisters build that saw any success in the TauStodes era. Sacresancts being 2+ 4++ makes them easily the most resilient non-character unit in the Sisters of Battle army. Adding the ability to ignore -1 AP helped considerably against weapons like Tactical Doctrine storm bolters that generally hunted Sacresancts. Their resilience and relatively high melee damage make them the absolute best option the army has for contesting midfield objectives. Anecdotally, I brought 10 to adepticon and my single biggest regret at that event was not bringing 20.
Losing access to the AP reduction from Valorous Heart and NOT getting armor of contempt essentially kills the 30 Sacresanct Valorous heart build as they don't get anywhere near the resilience buff from no reroll wounds.
The counter argument here is 'well the rest of the army DOES get a flat 1AP reduction, doesn't that more than make up for the Sacresancts no longer getting it? Unfortunately, it does not.
Again, Sisters of Battle could ALREADY do that with valorous heart. So to get any value out of the change AT ALL you have to use a different order conviction (as, again, denying reroll to wounds is an incredibly paltry ability for a T3 army).
The two next best order convictions are Bloody Rose and Order of Our Martyrd Lady. Both of which STILL need to run at least 20 Sacresancts to be able to contest midline objectives. So 300+ Points of any competitive Sisters build already doesn't benefit from armor of contempt. Both lists also like to run anywhere from 5 to 20 repentia as well. Repentia ALSO don't get any benefit from Armor of Contempt as they have no armor save (one small exception, in cover against an AP-1 attack that ignores invul saves they do get to keep their 6+ armor). So you're looking at anywhere from a fifth to a third of any competitive list gaining no benefit at all.
So what DOES benefit?
Not a lot to be honest. Every Adepta Sororitas unit except mortifiers already had a 6+ invul so the -1AP bonus caps out much earlier than it does for space marines.
Character units are the big winners. Vahl, Stern, and Celestine adding AP reduction to their defensive suite is a pretty solid buff. The problem is, it only has any meaningful impact on AP2 or lower because the combat characters already had 4++ invuls. Canonesses and Palantines only see any benefit from AP-1. So, while this is a nice bonus for these units, it does not in any way cancel out losing the Valorous Heart change.
Paragon Warsuits see dividends as a result of this. It basically gives them a 5+ invul vs Melta and a 4+ invul vs Lascannons while also taking the teeth out of things like heavy bolters. Too bad Paragon warsuits still aren't good. Even a 30pt drop and reducing AP by 1 isn't enough to make these an appealing option. Especially when you consider how much better something like 2 Deathwing terminators with power fists(who also benefit from armor of contempt) are for roughly the same price.
Zephyrim/Seraphim are slightly harder to kill with AP-1 bolter shots. As are Novitiates (who only have a 4+ save anyway).
Mortifiers (who also only have a 4+ save) benefit because of their adeptus sororitas keyword so they're marginally better against heavy bolters. Which is nice, i guess.
Battle sisters bodies (BSS, Retributors, Dominions, Celestians) are slightly more difficult to kill in non-VH lists. So your opponent will only be wasting 5 shots overkilling these units instead of the 7 he had previously.
Rhinos are slightly less paper.
And...that's it. The Exorcist got taken off of the table due to the indirect fire change, immolators are still too expensive to be in contention, and Castigators could be straight up immune to damage and they'd still be bad.
This buff would have been a fairly marginal improvement if it had applied to the entire army. By excluding sacresancts and nerfing Valorous heart, it resulted in a slight decrease in the army's ability. Combine that with the VERY significant gains Marines get out of this and I would assume Sisters fall another tier as a result of this balance slate. Adding the Bodyguard nerf (which was necessary, if unfortunate) and the indirect fire change (also necessary) not accounting for how garbage Devastating refrain is; and 3 out of the 4 changes in this balance slate end up negatively impacting the army.
But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
This: stop crying that the only CURRENTLY good unit didnt get buffed, instead start looking at the CURRENTLY bad units that got buffed
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
But you do understand that building your SoB in another way gives you a bad army, which is unfun to play with? As anon said, if this was just a sacrosanct nerf, and SoB could switch to a different build, then people would have to adapt. right now with the changes, there is nothing to adapt in to. All armies that have a single working build have that problem.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
This: stop crying that the only CURRENTLY good unit didnt get buffed, instead start looking at the CURRENTLY bad units that got buffed
He went through all that in detail. Did you not read his post?
He's not "crying," he's made a detailed post explaining his conclusions. You can disagree with those conclusions if you want, but just telling him to stop crying and do what he's already done doesn't add anything.
This is not a nerf to Valorous Heart. First VH already had TWO great bonuses and second the VH trait doesn't work on AP-3 (or higher) weapons. Now also powerful weapons reduce their AP against sisters. It's a buff especially for vehicles, which are among the units that needed more help in that codex.
Sacrestants are already tough per their points, were already spammed, and definitely didn't need to be buffed.
This: stop crying that the only CURRENTLY good unit didnt get buffed, instead start looking at the CURRENTLY bad units that got buffed
Anon just did that. He analyzed that, took us through all SoB units and how they change with the update. Thing that were making the bad units stayed the same, while the few things SoB had that were good, got removed. And let us point out one more thing, the good SoB had wasn't really that SoB were seriously falling out of with the new updated armies coming to the sceen.
It is like telling a GK player that after a 100% probable NDK and interceptor nerf, he should in to other things. And there are no other things in the codex.
ERJAK wrote: (TBH this is mostly on the off chance there's a GW lurker somewhere in here.)
There seems to be a general idea that Armor of Contempt is a flat buff for Sisters the way it is for space marines. The reality is that it's actually a moderate step back for the army. It doesn't make the army unplayable. It's honestly, not even a very significant nerf once the mitigating factors are accounted for, but it does (again) result in a small tick downwards in the army's overall efficacy. Considering it was ostensibly meant to be a buff, this is very unfortunate.
To establish a framework, the current most powerful, most successful Sisters of Battle build is Valorous Heart with Vahl and 30 Sacresancts. Every other variation of Sister's list has had barely a shadow of VVHS30's success so significant increases in power need to be seen just to get other lists up to that level, in terms of EXTERNAL balance.
First: Valorous Heart is significantly nerfed. Sister's of battle already had access to ignoring -1 AP through the Valorous Heart Order Conviction. It only worked on attacks up to AP -2, but it affected every unit with the <order> keyword. The replacement rule of 'no reroll to wound' is...almost nothing. The army is predominantly T3, so most things are basically guaranteed to wound already and rerolls to wound are relatively rare compared to -1 AP or even rerolls to hit. As a result, armor of contempt strips a significant amount of power from our best Order Conviction.
Second: Sacresancts are excluded from Armor of Contempt.
Sacresancts are the best unit in the Sister of Battle army currently. The 30 Sacresanct Valorous heart build was the only remaining Sisters build that saw any success in the TauStodes era. Sacresancts being 2+ 4++ makes them easily the most resilient non-character unit in the Sisters of Battle army. Adding the ability to ignore -1 AP helped considerably against weapons like Tactical Doctrine storm bolters that generally hunted Sacresancts. Their resilience and relatively high melee damage make them the absolute best option the army has for contesting midfield objectives. Anecdotally, I brought 10 to adepticon and my single biggest regret at that event was not bringing 20.
Losing access to the AP reduction from Valorous Heart and NOT getting armor of contempt essentially kills the 30 Sacresanct Valorous heart build as they don't get anywhere near the resilience buff from no reroll wounds.
The counter argument here is 'well the rest of the army DOES get a flat 1AP reduction, doesn't that more than make up for the Sacresancts no longer getting it? Unfortunately, it does not.
Again, Sisters of Battle could ALREADY do that with valorous heart. So to get any value out of the change AT ALL you have to use a different order conviction (as, again, denying reroll to wounds is an incredibly paltry ability for a T3 army).
The two next best order convictions are Bloody Rose and Order of Our Martyrd Lady. Both of which STILL need to run at least 20 Sacresancts to be able to contest midline objectives. So 300+ Points of any competitive Sisters build already doesn't benefit from armor of contempt. Both lists also like to run anywhere from 5 to 20 repentia as well. Repentia ALSO don't get any benefit from Armor of Contempt as they have no armor save (one small exception, in cover against an AP-1 attack that ignores invul saves they do get to keep their 6+ armor). So you're looking at anywhere from a fifth to a third of any competitive list gaining no benefit at all.
So what DOES benefit?
Not a lot to be honest. Every Adepta Sororitas unit except mortifiers already had a 6+ invul so the -1AP bonus caps out much earlier than it does for space marines.
Character units are the big winners. Vahl, Stern, and Celestine adding AP reduction to their defensive suite is a pretty solid buff. The problem is, it only has any meaningful impact on AP2 or lower because the combat characters already had 4++ invuls. Canonesses and Palantines only see any benefit from AP-1. So, while this is a nice bonus for these units, it does not in any way cancel out losing the Valorous Heart change.
Paragon Warsuits see dividends as a result of this. It basically gives them a 5+ invul vs Melta and a 4+ invul vs Lascannons while also taking the teeth out of things like heavy bolters. Too bad Paragon warsuits still aren't good. Even a 30pt drop and reducing AP by 1 isn't enough to make these an appealing option. Especially when you consider how much better something like 2 Deathwing terminators with power fists(who also benefit from armor of contempt) are for roughly the same price.
Zephyrim/Seraphim are slightly harder to kill with AP-1 bolter shots. As are Novitiates (who only have a 4+ save anyway).
Mortifiers (who also only have a 4+ save) benefit because of their adeptus sororitas keyword so they're marginally better against heavy bolters. Which is nice, i guess.
Battle sisters bodies (BSS, Retributors, Dominions, Celestians) are slightly more difficult to kill in non-VH lists. So your opponent will only be wasting 5 shots overkilling these units instead of the 7 he had previously.
Rhinos are slightly less paper.
And...that's it. The Exorcist got taken off of the table due to the indirect fire change, immolators are still too expensive to be in contention, and Castigators could be straight up immune to damage and they'd still be bad.
I'd buy & use invulnerable Castigators..... Why can't we get that buff?
Blackie wrote: This is not a nerf to Valorous Heart. First VH already had TWO great bonuses and second the VH trait doesn't work on AP-3 (or higher) weapons. Now also powerful weapons reduce their AP against sisters. It's a buff especially for vehicles, which are among the units that needed more help in that codex.
Sacrestants are already tough per their points, were already spammed, and definitely didn't need to be buffed.
Okey, which of the SoB vehicles that exist in the SoB codex right now, are both pointed aggresivly enough and have the damage capability to go head to head with what is considered good right now. Because the anon did analyz most of them. I think he skipped the predator, but that is an easy thing to do.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
That's fair, HOWEVER, hitting the best unit in an army without compensating anywhere else is just reducing the rate of play of the army in general.
I'd buy & use invulnerable Castigators..... Why can't we get that buff?
I assume this means the armies you run produce enough fire power for Castigators being an expensive brick being unimportant. And yeah I can imagine that being good in some armies. For sob taking 2 or 3 of those with their next to zero fire power, is a lot of points invested in the something that is a marine predator.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters. GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
This: stop crying that the only CURRENTLY good unit didnt get buffed, instead start looking at the CURRENTLY bad units that got buffed
My statement addressed this exact issue.
TLDR, the nerfs to sacresancts are not canceled out, in terms of external balance, vs the buffs to everything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: This is not a nerf to Valorous Heart. First VH already had TWO great bonuses and second the VH trait doesn't work on AP-3 (or higher) weapons. Now also powerful weapons reduce their AP against sisters. It's a buff especially for vehicles, which are among the units that needed more help in that codex.
Sacrestants are already tough per their points, were already spammed, and definitely didn't need to be buffed.
It is a nerf to Valorous Heart. Even if you don't see it as a nerf to Sisters, it's definitely a nerf to VH.
Stopping rerolling wounds is largely irrelevant. Not that many armies have significant sources of reroll wounds and Sisters are T3 anyway. 90% of the weapons in the game basically auto-wound as is.
Sisters already had access to Invul saves army wide and were again, majority T3. Any AP higher than 2 was already being wasted most of the time, either hitting invuls or wasting lascannons on battle sisters.
And like I addressed in the post, the vehicles are irrelevant. The only good vehicle in the army is the rhino and 5++ against Melta isn't going to change that.
The change is decent for the INTERNAL balance of the book at the expense of being worse relative to most of the other factions.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
This: stop crying that the only CURRENTLY good unit didnt get buffed, instead start looking at the CURRENTLY bad units that got buffed
My statement was not only NOT in anyway crying, it ALSO addressed this exact issue.
The problem is with your reading comprehension bud. But I'm a nice guy so I'll sum it up for you in a way that's easier for you to digest:
SACRESANCT BIG NERF=BAD; OTHER UNIT'S SMALL BUFFS=NOT MATTER.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
Nobody wants their army to look like a stupid highlander "one of everything" that you want.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
This: stop crying that the only CURRENTLY good unit didnt get buffed, instead start looking at the CURRENTLY bad units that got buffed
My statement was not only NOT in anyway crying, it ALSO addressed this exact issue.
The problem is with your reading comprehension bud. But I'm a nice guy so I'll sum it up for you in a way that's easier for you to digest:
SACRESANCT BIG NERF=BAD; OTHER UNIT'S SMALL BUFFS=NOT MATTER.
In the context of high end tournament play.
Yes, also I edited that comment to be less inflammatory. My kneejerk reaction was unkind an I apologize for that.
But yes, it does only apply if you're going up against the best builds of other factions. Armor of Contempt massively raise the FLOOR of the army, it just does so at the expense of the ceiling.
It is a nerf to Valorous Heart. Even if you don't see it as a nerf to Sisters, it's definitely a nerf to VH.
Stopping rerolling wounds is largely irrelevant. Not that many armies have significant sources of reroll wounds and Sisters are T3 anyway. 90% of the weapons in the game basically auto-wound as is.
But it's not true, in fact it's a (massive) bonus even for VH. It's not worse than before, it's better since the reduction of AP now also works on AP-3 or better. And they got re-rolling wounds in addiction.
Internal balance might be affected and to be honest also that seems to be improved with a smaller gap between orders, but those who played VH lists have now gained, not lost, something. Which means it's a bonus for them.
Those who didn't play VH have definitely gained a significant bonus.
Armor of contempt is a massive nerf for my poor orks, which basically only have AP0, AP-1 and AP-2 weapons and not many sources of mortal wounds, not for sisters.
How is losing sacrosanct and not gaining anything in return to be considered a "massive" buff?
And internal balance only matters, if you play a lot of mirror games. If you play other factions, then your army losing what was good and powerful, and not getting something at least as powerful, means your army got weaker. And SoB are in a situation where they already got a codex, so it is not like GW will fix them in 9th with a new book.
Those who didn't play VH have definitely gained a significant bonus.
If you played SoB post the dual detachment nerf, you were playing VH.
But it's not true, in fact it's a (massive) bonus even for VH. It's not worse than before, it's better since the reduction of AP now also works on AP-3 or better. And they got re-rolling wounds in addiction.
Are you missing the bit where it doesn't work on Sacresants? Because that's the only way your comment makes sense.
I'd buy & use invulnerable Castigators..... Why can't we get that buff?
I assume this means the armies you run produce enough fire power for Castigators being an expensive brick being unimportant. And yeah I can imagine that being good in some armies. For sob taking 2 or 3 of those with their next to zero fire power, is a lot of points invested in the something that is a marine predator.
Oh my armies can put out the firepower, have no doubt about that. Even my own SoB. But even if I were to pull out my own SoB? Unless there was an extremely heavy downside involved, for a truly invulnerable brick? I'll strip every gun right off that thing/never fire a shot, buy 3 of 'em, and pay the extra CP to run an extra heavy detachment.
It is a nerf to Valorous Heart. Even if you don't see it as a nerf to Sisters, it's definitely a nerf to VH.
Stopping rerolling wounds is largely irrelevant. Not that many armies have significant sources of reroll wounds and Sisters are T3 anyway. 90% of the weapons in the game basically auto-wound as is.
But it's not true, in fact it's a (massive) bonus even for VH. It's not worse than before, it's better since the reduction of AP now also works on AP-3 or better. And they got re-rolling wounds in addiction.
Internal balance might be affected and to be honest also that seems to be improved with a smaller gap between orders, but those who played VH lists have now gained, not lost, something. Which means it's a bonus for them.
Those who didn't play VH have definitely gained a significant bonus.
Armor of contempt is a massive nerf for my poor orks, which basically only have AP0, AP-1 and AP-2 weapons and not many sources of mortal wounds, not for sisters.
The problem is AoC doesn't work on Sacresancts. Sacresancts were the entire reason Valorous heart was good. People weren't taking valorous heart because it made battle sisters stick around for one additional bolter round, they were taking it because it buffed Sacresancts.
Sacresancts are so much better than every other unit in the army, thanks to the multiple nerfs sisters have taken, that a nerf that ONLY targets sacresancts is honestly more impactful than a buff to everything BUT sacresancts. They've become a blackhole the way Guillaman was in the Index era.
With AoC not working on Sacresancts and ignoring reroll wounds being a negligible bonus, there's no reason to bother with Valorous Heart.
Also, both OoML AND BR use massive amounts of Sacresancts AND repentia who don't benefit from AoC.
The units that DO benefit from AoC, don't benefit in any meaningful way. Are you intimidated at the idea of killing a T3 3+ save 1W infantry model? Even with -1AP? It's the 'T5 ork boyz are gonna be unstoppable!' of army "buffs".
Yes, armies like Orkz and Necrons come off worse, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt sisters a little bit also.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: How is losing sacrosanct and not gaining anything in return to be considered a "massive" buff?
And internal balance only matters, if you play a lot of mirror games. If you play other factions, then your army losing what was good and powerful, and not getting something at least as powerful, means your army got weaker. And SoB are in a situation where they already got a codex, so it is not like GW will fix them in 9th with a new book.
Those who didn't play VH have definitely gained a significant bonus.
If you played SoB post the dual detachment nerf, you were playing VH.
Technically OoML was viable but it was a rogue option at best and STILL had 20 Sacresancts in any competent list.
But it's not true, in fact it's a (massive) bonus even for VH. It's not worse than before, it's better since the reduction of AP now also works on AP-3 or better. And they got re-rolling wounds in addiction.
Are you missing the bit where it doesn't work on Sacresants? Because that's the only way your comment makes sense.
Why? Just because AP-1 and AP-2 weapons are now more effective against VH sacrestans? What about the rest of the army?
Honestly I think they could have just let it apply to Sacresants too. With the 4++ it wouldn't have been that much of a buff compared to where they are now in VH. Seems like SoB just got tacked on to someone being like "hmm, we probably shouldn't let this combo with marine shields."
But it's not true, in fact it's a (massive) bonus even for VH. It's not worse than before, it's better since the reduction of AP now also works on AP-3 or better. And they got re-rolling wounds in addiction.
Are you missing the bit where it doesn't work on Sacresants? Because that's the only way your comment makes sense.
Why? Just because AP-1 and AP-2 weapons are now more effective against VH sacrestans? What about the rest of the army?
Did you not read his original post? He goes into this in detail. Sacresants are such a big part of every competitive VH army (which is basically every competitive SoB army) that the significant nerf to them outweighs the buffs to everything else.
If you played SoB post the dual detachment nerf, you were playing VH.
And now many other orders are viable. If you were playing with tons of melee units, switch to Bloody Rose. Sacrestans would be a little less tough against a selected array of weapons (AP-1 and AP-2) but they would gain more punch.
If you played SoB post the dual detachment nerf, you were playing VH.
And now many other orders are viable. If you were playing with tons of melee units, switch to Bloody Rose. Sacrestans would be a little less tough against a selected array of weapons (AP-1 and AP-2) but they would gain more punch.
Or start playing Crusade / Open Play. These rules only apply to matched play, it's not like there's only one way to play.
No they aren't. As mr Erjack said all the other side builds still run Sacrosancts. It does not matter which order is picked, the builds will be weaker and ,as I said before, SoBs were already having big troubles with all the new armies coming out. Their good match ups was marines, but marines were getting worse and worse too, and now they got better, so even their good match up just got harder.
Or start playing Crusade / Open Play. These rules only apply to matched play, it's not like there's only one way to play.
Yes, right after buying that flat to play games of w40k with your friends. Saying don't play match play makes as much sense as telling someone in 9th to just play 1000pts games.
But it's not true, in fact it's a (massive) bonus even for VH. It's not worse than before, it's better since the reduction of AP now also works on AP-3 or better. And they got re-rolling wounds in addiction.
Are you missing the bit where it doesn't work on Sacresants? Because that's the only way your comment makes sense.
Why? Just because AP-1 and AP-2 weapons are now more effective against VH sacrestans? What about the rest of the army?
The rest of the army is irrelevant. At least as far as reducing AP goes. Sacresancts were the only 'tough' unit Sisters had. We tend to be mostly glass cannons (or just glass) otherwise.
Think about it this way: You need to get to the other side of a huge river, you have a leaky paddle boat, a rusty bicycle, and 2006 Hyundai Tuscon with a hole in the radiator. Now imagine someone came along and said 'you know what, let me help' and they upgraded your bicycle to a Moped and your 2006 Hyundai Tuscon to a 2012 Dodge Ram, but in doing so, took away your paddle boat.
Technically, in a pure dollar value standpoint, you're better off. The moped and the truck are a significant improvement. But without the paddle boat, you're not getting across that river anymore.
That's what happened here. Technically, the army as a whole is better. In reality, Sacresanct were, and are, Sister's of battle's only real method of contesting the mid-board. The paddleboat, in this analogy. So with them, goes the whole army, competitively.
There are ways that this can be mitigated, Junith grants cover and novitiates greater numbers alongside actually receiving the AoC benefit might be enough to make up for the ground sacresancts lost, but it'll at best net out to about the same. When it was supposed to be a buff.
If you played SoB post the dual detachment nerf, you were playing VH.
And now many other orders are viable. If you were playing with tons of melee units, switch to Bloody Rose. Sacrestans would be a little less tough against a selected array of weapons (AP-1 and AP-2) but they would gain more punch.
Which they could have ALWAYS done. But didn't, because people realized immediately that the AP reductions was massively more valuable than the BR punch.
I think some people have a different definition of what viable means. Playing bloody rose vs Custodes, Tau or Eldar or the new tyranids? Why would you even come to the store to play such a game. There are limits to how unfun a game can be for the regular player. you play 3-4 games like that one week, then another next week, and after a month of playing SoB, which you painted and saved up to buy, are something you just don't want to use. And with each next codex you want to use them less and less.
Karol wrote: I think some people have a different definition of what viable means. Playing bloody rose vs Custodes, Tau or Eldar or the new tyranids? Why would you even come to the store to play such a game. There are limits to how unfun a game can be for the regular player. you play 3-4 games like that one week, then another next week, and after a month of playing SoB, which you painted and saved up to buy, are something you just don't want to use. And with each next codex you want to use them less and less.
This was the jist of it. Bloody Rose actually did okay-ish into Custodes but the Tau matchup was so brutally one-sided that anything not VH could get tabled without killing a full unit.
I guess you could ask the custodes player to field a melee SoS army or the tau player to play his majority kroot list. Maybe ask for him to take 200-300pts less too.
techsoldaten wrote: Or start playing Crusade / Open Play. These rules only apply to matched play, it's not like there's only one way to play.
Yes, right after buying that flat to play games of w40k with your friends. Saying don't play match play makes as much sense as telling someone in 9th to just play 1000pts games.
Makes as much sense as complaining Bloody Rose didn't get buffed.
techsoldaten wrote: Or start playing Crusade / Open Play. These rules only apply to matched play, it's not like there's only one way to play.
Yes, right after buying that flat to play games of w40k with your friends. Saying don't play match play makes as much sense as telling someone in 9th to just play 1000pts games.
Makes as much sense as complaining Bloody Rose didn't get buffed.
While I'll stay out of the crusade/not crusade bit; EVERY sisters list needed a buff. They weren't as down-bad as Guard were but they ARE falling off with no help in sight. Bloody Rose isn't good. Our Martyrd lady isn't good, even Valorous Heart isn't good. The best of the best of Sisters builds were hovering in the 45% winrate space.
With strong buffs to marines and mild nerfs to Tau and Harlequins (Sisters actually do okay into custodes compared to the other two), it's entirely possible that percentage was going to dip down into the 40-42% range with no changes. WITH these changes, I can see us ending up anywhere from that same 45%, all the way down to the high 30s. I don't see those numbers getting any better though.
lol, I disagree It is a buff to sisters, Paragons, Seraphs, Zephs, Mortis, BSS, tanks, basically everything not doing well all got better.
Who cares that you auto include units didn't get buffed, the balance slate is to buff things you don't take. Sacs didn't need to be maxed and spammed, they already were good enough. heck they were good enough without VH.
Amishprn86 wrote: lol, I disagree It is a buff to sisters, Paragons, Seraphs, Zephs, Mortis, BSS, tanks, basically everything not doing well all got better.
Who cares that you auto include units didn't get buffed, the balance slate is to buff things you don't take. Sacs didn't need to be maxed and spammed, they already were good enough. heck they were good enough without VH.
The second sentence is just factually untrue. The only Sisters lists that have had significant success since LVO have been 30 sac lists. They absolutely did need to be spammed. VH was also the only order conviction that was seeing significant success, so they also were not good enough without VH. The w/l stats back all that up.
If the best stuff gets nerfed and the worst stuff gets buffed, whether or not the army improves is entirely dependent on if the worst units got buffed enough to be better than best stuff USED to be.
I personally don't think the buffs to Paragons, Seraphim, Zephyrim, Mortifiers, BSS, or tanks were particularly relevant. I think the nerf to Sacresants was majorly relevant.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I won't know until tournament results have had time to stabilize.
Karol wrote: How is losing sacrosanct and not gaining anything in return to be considered a "massive" buff?
they didnt lose sacrosants....
I mean...VH kinda did lose sacresants. The major draw VH had was that they'd allow Sacresants to weather AP-1 and AP-2 shots much more effectively. Now VH...doesn't do that, so there's no real reason to take that conviction at all. Plenty of armies don't even HAVE wound rerolls.
Honestly, an Order Minoris Chapter of 'reduces AP-1 to AP0' and '+1AP in melee' is probably stronger than current VH despite only Sacresants being able to benefit from half the conviction, it only working on AP-1 attacks, and losing the VH stratagem, warlord Trait, and Relic.
Which they could have ALWAYS done. But didn't, because people realized immediately that the AP reductions was massively more valuable than the BR punch.
And now BR lists get both. Also much more powerful AP reductions. Orders other than VH are extremely better now.
Overall sisters are much stronger. And sacrestans aren't much worse thanks to the dataslate. So yeah, I believe sisters got a massive buff this time and I definitely don't think that without 30 sacrestans they can't compete.
kingheff wrote: I actually don't think it's going to be too long before people are complaining about how difficult it is to kill power armour, marines included.
Which probably is how it should be...
... but there were probably better ways to reduce the AP in the game than to give about half the factions a buff and ignore the other half.
kingheff wrote: I actually don't think it's going to be too long before people are complaining about how difficult it is to kill power armour, marines included.
Especially marines. They were already demanding buffs to their weapons' APs.
"Heavy bolter is now inefficient in killing elites? But it's what is supposed to do. Make it flat AP-2 NOW!!!"
kingheff wrote: I actually don't think it's going to be too long before people are complaining about how difficult it is to kill power armour, marines included.
Especially marines. They were already demanding buffs to their weapons' APs.
"Heavy bolter is now inefficient in killing elites? But it's what is supposed to do. Make it flat AP-2 NOW!!!"
Wait until they take a few dozen mortals from nids, maybe gw can patch in an ignore mortals rule for power armour factions too.
kingheff wrote: I actually don't think it's going to be too long before people are complaining about how difficult it is to kill power armour, marines included.
Which probably is how it should be...
... but there were probably better ways to reduce the AP in the game than to give about half the factions a buff and ignore the other half.
That's the problem with GW randomly handing out AP-1 and AP-2. You can't expect to reasonably want to pay for the basic Intercessor or Tactical Marine at that price.
And now we got this dumbass dataslate. Just throw out everything and start over if you ask me.
Karol wrote: No they aren't. As mr Erjack said all the other side builds still run Sacrosancts. It does not matter which order is picked, the builds will be weaker and ,as I said before, SoBs were already having big troubles with all the new armies coming out. Their good match ups was marines, but marines were getting worse and worse too, and now they got better, so even their good match up just got harder.
Or start playing Crusade / Open Play. These rules only apply to matched play, it's not like there's only one way to play.
Yes, right after buying that flat to play games of w40k with your friends. Saying don't play match play makes as much sense as telling someone in 9th to just play 1000pts games.
Odd, later today I've got a Crusade game scheduled at the local shop.....
They provide the tables & terrain, we players decide what games/versions of games to play on them. In this case, a Crusade match.
Which they could have ALWAYS done. But didn't, because people realized immediately that the AP reductions was massively more valuable than the BR punch.
And now BR lists get both. Also much more powerful AP reductions. Orders other than VH are extremely better now.
Overall sisters are much stronger. And sacrestans aren't much worse thanks to the dataslate. So yeah, I believe sisters got a massive buff this time and I definitely don't think that without 30 sacrestans they can't compete.
What unit do you see as being meaningfully stronger?
I'm genuinely curious, because one of the issues I'm having with this change is that I can't get out of the mindset of 'sacresants are so good, everything else is so crap, what does this change?'
I do tend to...fixate with things like this so it's entirely possible I missed something.
kingheff wrote: I actually don't think it's going to be too long before people are complaining about how difficult it is to kill power armour, marines included.
Especially marines. They were already demanding buffs to their weapons' APs.
"Heavy bolter is now inefficient in killing elites? But it's what is supposed to do. Make it flat AP-2 NOW!!!"
Wait until they take a few dozen mortals from nids, maybe gw can patch in an ignore mortals rule for power armour factions too.
Sisters already have that. It's one of the few things we're good at.
Considering most of the Sisters armory for vehicles rely on armor and Miracle Dice to deflect wounds... reducing AP of anything Plasma and below now is not without value. I'd much rather have 5+ against massed -3AP shots than the 6+ I previously had as VH.
Additionally, I think the downplaying of shutting of re-rolls to wound is a bit disingenuous.
How many times do heavy tank obliterating weapons roll a 1 or a 2 and is quickly saved by a CP re-roll? That's gone. Doom a problem in your meta? That's gone. SM Lieutenant auras are pretty popular, too. NOPE vs VH. Enjoy your 5-6PL coaster. Heck, even lightning claws from warp talons (hear that's a fun trick to push through wounds from things like Night Lords)... yeah, that's all gone, too. Heck, even Morven Vhal is on the list of things that'd make angry faces at Valorous Heart, and that's a Sororitas unit.
Like re-rolling hits is a massive buff and pretty much a mainstay across a lot of codices, but re-rolling wounds is typically seen as a more powerful buff... and uh... Valorous Heart now gives 0 forks about them.
Pretty sure crying salt over VH getting 'nerfed' won't age well.
Also:
Sacresanct is not a Sister in Terminator Armor. It is a Power Armored sister with a Storm Shield - same for ALL stormshields. How quickly we forget the +1 save that got rolled into Stormshields pretty much game wide at the start of 9th. So, yeah, Stormshields still enjoy a better buff than Armored with Contempt (+1 save > reducing AP by 1).
What unit do you see as being meaningfully stronger?
I'm genuinely curious, because one of the issues I'm having with this change is that I can't get out of the mindset of 'sacresants are so good, everything else is so crap, what does this change?'
It isn't a unit that has improved; it is every non-VH sororitas units.
Every Bloody Rose unit in the game kept every rule it ever had, but now they also have part of what Valorous Heart used to have all to themselves.
Same is true of Agent Shroud or Ebon Chalice or OoOML.
It is true that VH are not as good as they were- the rule that replaced their AP reduction is a very poor substitute. It's also true that no bodyguard unit is as good as it was before; I hate the fact that the fact that previous rules allowed bodyguards to confer protection against targets from which they are hidden- but I would have preferred that GW find another way to fix the problem- bodyguard units don't really "feel" different than anyone else in the army- they can't do anything special, they just get to do a thing that everyone can do in less than ideal circumstances. Bodyguard is now just "Look Out Sir" that is slightly more flexible for some units.
So yes, VH got nerfed, and yes, Sacressants got nerfed. Everything else got buffed, which means there is a net gain for Sisters as a whole.
The only way to come to terms with the changes is to rebuild armies from scratch under the new rules. You never looked for synergies with - 1 AP in a Bloody Rose list, because you've never had a reason to do so. I'm curious about the impact on OoOML; the AP reduction isn't so powerful that it's going to prevent squads from getting a Martyrdom power up, but once they ARE powered up, it might be powerful enough to help you make that Martyrdom count by keeping survivors in the game longer.
Siegler: Sororitas, Space Marines, and Thousand Sons are the biggest winners here. In particular Varlous Heart, Salamanders, and Scarab Occult Terminators received massive boosts to their durability with the former taking on board the Armour of Contempt changes with an updated trait of “no rerolls to wound!” Wow! That is now one of the best traits you can have in the entire game, especially against other recent books where re-roll wound abilities are prevalent.
Considering most of the Sisters armory for vehicles rely on armor and Miracle Dice to deflect wounds... reducing AP of anything Plasma and below now is not without value. I'd much rather have 5+ against massed -3AP shots than the 6+ I previously had as VH.
Additionally, I think the downplaying of shutting of re-rolls to wound is a bit disingenuous.
How many times do heavy tank obliterating weapons roll a 1 or a 2 and is quickly saved by a CP re-roll? That's gone. Doom a problem in your meta? That's gone. SM Lieutenant auras are pretty popular, too. NOPE vs VH. Enjoy your 5-6PL coaster. Heck, even lightning claws from warp talons (hear that's a fun trick to push through wounds from things like Night Lords)... yeah, that's all gone, too. Heck, even Morven Vhal is on the list of things that'd make angry faces at Valorous Heart, and that's a Sororitas unit.
Like re-rolling hits is a massive buff and pretty much a mainstay across a lot of codices, but re-rolling wounds is typically seen as a more powerful buff... and uh... Valorous Heart now gives 0 forks about them.
Pretty sure crying salt over VH getting 'nerfed' won't age well.
Also:
Sacresanct is not a Sister in Terminator Armor. It is a Power Armored sister with a Storm Shield - same for ALL stormshields. How quickly we forget the +1 save that got rolled into Stormshields pretty much game wide at the start of 9th. So, yeah, Stormshields still enjoy a better buff than Armored with Contempt (+1 save > reducing AP by 1).
My counter argument to the first point would be that none of this matters if no one takes any of the tanks. The Exorcist was essentially eliminated from contention by the indirect fire change and it's 9th ed book nerfs and The Castigator's durability is only one of its many problems.
The immolator is better but it's still extremely expensive for what it does. The primary beneficiaries are the Rhino and the Paragon Warsuit. Buffing a Rhino is always nice but the jury is honestly still out on Paragon Warsuits. They could finally have been dragged over the line of viability.
About the CP reroll, I almost never see the wound roll rerolled. People normally wait until the damage roll to spend CP. Doom isn't a problem because we're T3 and arguably the best anti-psychic army in the game. Being able to ignore lieutenant rerolls and things like Deathwatch and Lightning claws is nice, but those are very specific and no one was struggling to wound us in the first place.
Ignoring reroll to wounds is situational, ignoring a point of AP was universal. Regardless of the overall efficacy of the army post AoC, I'll doubt you'll see Valorous Heart see anywhere near the amount of representation just on the basis of the offensive increases from BR and OoML being more valuable than a much more situational surviveability increase.
The last bit was more about them both being a 2+ save.
I'd rather be wrong, but I haven't seen anything that convinces me that AoC builds are better than VHS30 was. Or that we didn't lose ground to space marines, even as we gained ground on Eldar and Tau.
Siegler: Sororitas, Space Marines, and Thousand Sons are the biggest winners here. In particular Varlous Heart, Salamanders, and Scarab Occult Terminators received massive boosts to their durability with the former taking on board the Armour of Contempt changes with an updated trait of “no rerolls to wound!” Wow! That is now one of the best traits you can have in the entire game, especially against other recent books where re-roll wound abilities are prevalent.
What unit do you see as being meaningfully stronger?
I'm genuinely curious, because one of the issues I'm having with this change is that I can't get out of the mindset of 'sacresants are so good, everything else is so crap, what does this change?'
It isn't a unit that has improved; it is every non-VH sororitas units.
Every Bloody Rose unit in the game kept every rule it ever had, but now they also have part of what Valorous Heart used to have all to themselves.
Same is true of Agent Shroud or Ebon Chalice or OoOML.
It is true that VH are not as good as they were- the rule that replaced their AP reduction is a very poor substitute. It's also true that no bodyguard unit is as good as it was before; I hate the fact that the fact that previous rules allowed bodyguards to confer protection against targets from which they are hidden- but I would have preferred that GW find another way to fix the problem- bodyguard units don't really "feel" different than anyone else in the army- they can't do anything special, they just get to do a thing that everyone can do in less than ideal circumstances. Bodyguard is now just "Look Out Sir" that is slightly more flexible for some units.
So yes, VH got nerfed, and yes, Sacressants got nerfed. Everything else got buffed, which means there is a net gain for Sisters as a whole.
The only way to come to terms with the changes is to rebuild armies from scratch under the new rules. You never looked for synergies with - 1 AP in a Bloody Rose list, because you've never had a reason to do so. I'm curious about the impact on OoOML; the AP reduction isn't so powerful that it's going to prevent squads from getting a Martyrdom power up, but once they ARE powered up, it might be powerful enough to help you make that Martyrdom count by keeping survivors in the game longer.
Repentia and Sacresants don't get AoC. The 2 good Bloody Rose units.
This sentence "So yes, VH got nerfed, and yes, Sacressants got nerfed. Everything else got buffed, which means there is a net gain for Sisters as a whole." Is where my entire argument comes in.
I do not believe that is true at all. If you nerf the best units and buff the worst units, the army as a whole ONLY gets better if the combined value of the nerfs is LESS than the combined value of the buffs. And that's in a vacuum.
If you extend that out to external balance, a buff is only a buff if the value of your buff is greater than or equal to the overall average buffs of factions also changed during that time period. (There's more factors, such as gatekeeper matchups, but that's the general rule)
The general consensus among everybody BUT me is that the value of the buffs is greater than the value of the nerfs and the consensus among everyone BUT me is that the buffs to Space Marines do not represent a meaningful depreciation of ability, especially in the face of TauStodesClown nerfs.
I understand I'm alone in this, I still don't think I'm wrong. I believe that the change is a slight nerf or, at best, a net 0 change.
There are extenuating factors. While I have, in fact, looked for BR synergies with ignoring 1AP (old tale of the stoic) novitiates weren't around back then are numerous enough that, even with only a 4+, the change in resilience could push them into being highly competitive. Problem is, they lose the BR AP bonus against 2/3rds of the factions in the game now. You also have a BSS tax for them. Still, possible option.
OoML is more interesting. Junith's Cover aura has immense synergy with AoC, as does the OoML trait and suite of stratagems. The problem is that OoML is relatively anemic offensively and didn't necessarily gain enough resilience vs. other armies to play the board control game.
If either one of these Convictions sees more benefit from AoC than I'm projecting, they would certainly prove me wrong. And I'm sure many people on this site can't wait to rub it in my face.
Ignoring reroll to wounds is situational, ignoring a point of AP was universal.
Maybe you're not a native english speaker, but I don't think that means what you think that means.
It means, not every army even HAS reroll to wounds(excluding CP rerolls) and even the ones that DO don't always bring it. But EVERY army has SOMETHING they bring that's got at least 1 point of AP.
Eldarsif wrote: Nerf for Valorous Heart, but a buff for any other order.
I am an Argent Shroud lady and I am super happy with the new Armour of Contempt.
Argent shroud are definitely massively improved. They used...basically 0 sacresants and almost everything they field got a resilience boost, so they have more AoC bodies than the other subfactions ever really field.
Not sure where they end up, considering how bad the FAQ rulings on remain stationary and the Retributor nerfs hit them, but they're absolutely a big winner in this change.
bullyboy wrote: But honestly, I don't care about your 30 Sacresants. Spamming units really needs to die. A list should have about 10 tops, and should contain more battle sisters.
GW might need to do more to make this viable, but stopping things like 30 sacresants being the default is a good result.
This: stop crying that the only CURRENTLY good unit didnt get buffed, instead start looking at the CURRENTLY bad units that got buffed
Looking at the bad units that got slightly buffed, straight up just shows that they're still bad XD...
Hell i'm not even convinced that ERJAK is correct about it being an overall nerf, but it is at the very best a relatively small buff and is by absolutely no means enough.
And if GW wants that people take more different kinds of Battle Sisters they should make those good, instead of making the few good non-character units in the army worse.
Amishprn86 wrote: lol, I disagree It is a buff to sisters, Paragons, Seraphs, Zephs, Mortis, BSS, tanks, basically everything not doing well all got better.
Who cares that you auto include units didn't get buffed, the balance slate is to buff things you don't take. Sacs didn't need to be maxed and spammed, they already were good enough. heck they were good enough without VH.
Nobody will take any of the formerly bad(and lol at mentioning tanks, the best but still not good tank even got nerfed) but not mandatory units, cause they're still bad and in fact still worse than the Sacrosancts. So if we really go by that measurement, congratulations GW just failed hard...
Siegler: Sororitas, Space Marines, and Thousand Sons are the biggest winners here. In particular Varlous Heart, Salamanders, and Scarab Occult Terminators received massive boosts to their durability with the former taking on board the Armour of Contempt changes with an updated trait of “no rerolls to wound!” Wow! That is now one of the best traits you can have in the entire game, especially against other recent books where re-roll wound abilities are prevalent.
Wtf is Siegler on about? Going by all what he claimed there Sisters would be pretty much the new Meta, which is not just a hot but an utterly absurd take, except he saw some crazy interactions that just a player of his lvl can recognize.
Lennon had this to say: "...The Exorcist, Castigator and Rhinos should all continue to be staples. I may even be tempted to paint some Paragons…"
Say whatever you want about my take on the AoC change for Sisters, at least it comes from THIS reality.
The only thing the Castigator has been the staple of is the bargain bin. True story, at adepticon, one of the vendors had a 30% off NO SALES TAX sale on the last day. Every single Sisters of Battle unit was gone almost instantly. They had multiple Castigators left by the time they packed up.
I actually think we should compare Zephyrim to Sacresants now. Zephyrim are 17 ppm compared to Sacresants 16ppm. I personally think Zephyrim are finally better for their points now that Bodyguard has been effectively neutered. They get +1 attack, +6" of movement, can fly, and can take a pennant to allow themselves and units close to them to reroll charges. The things Sacresants have over are better strength (with the halberds) or D2 (with the maces, but you lose AP for that), and a 2+ save that becomes a 3+ if there's any AP on the shot (which evens it out with Zephyrim who have a 3+ that reduces AP of weapons by 1), and probably most importantly the 4++ (compared to Zephys' 5++). The other consideration is which FOC slot they take. Sacresants are Elites and so there are more slots for them in a Battalion, but now that Dominions are less good our FA slots are more open, leaving plenty of room for Zephys. Neither unit has ObSec or anything (although both can get it from a Dogmata), so that's a wash. And both units can have the same number of bodies. Zephyrim also have the option to "deep strike", and can have their 5++ boosted to a 4++ in a couple of different ways: the Indomitable Belief warlord trait, and the hymn (can't remember the name off the top of my head).
Personally I think Zephyrim might be one good way forward. Paragons are also worth a look now, and honestly sticking with Sacresants isn't necessarily a mistake, although spamming them probably is.
I have real trouble finding sympathy for anyone saying an army-wide buff is actually a nerf because one specific build doesn't like it due to said build spamming the one unit that doesn't receive the buff.
The "can't re-roll wounds" change to Valorous Heart is a pretty lame substitute, sure, but calling this a nerf to Sisters is flat out false.
Really the only thing that bothers me is that it affects things it really shouldn't.
ZergSmasher wrote: I actually think we should compare Zephyrim to Sacresants now. Zephyrim are 17 ppm compared to Sacresants 16ppm. I personally think Zephyrim are finally better for their points now that Bodyguard has been effectively neutered. They get +1 attack, +6" of movement, can fly, and can take a pennant to allow themselves and units close to them to reroll charges. The things Sacresants have over are better strength (with the halberds) or D2 (with the maces, but you lose AP for that), and a 2+ save that becomes a 3+ if there's any AP on the shot (which evens it out with Zephyrim who have a 3+ that reduces AP of weapons by 1), and probably most importantly the 4++ (compared to Zephys' 5++). The other consideration is which FOC slot they take. Sacresants are Elites and so there are more slots for them in a Battalion, but now that Dominions are less good our FA slots are more open, leaving plenty of room for Zephys. Neither unit has ObSec or anything (although both can get it from a Dogmata), so that's a wash. And both units can have the same number of bodies. Zephyrim also have the option to "deep strike", and can have their 5++ boosted to a 4++ in a couple of different ways: the Indomitable Belief warlord trait, and the hymn (can't remember the name off the top of my head).
Personally I think Zephyrim might be one good way forward. Paragons are also worth a look now, and honestly sticking with Sacresants isn't necessarily a mistake, although spamming them probably is.
This is exactly what I've been looking for. A real, honest to goodness assessment of a unit that is significantly improved by AoC and it's place in the army. Thank you good sir.
I was toying with a similar idea and technically, with character support, you could get the Zephyrim to 2+4++ relatively easily, at least in OoML.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I have real trouble finding sympathy for anyone saying an army-wide buff is actually a nerf because one specific build doesn't like it due to said build spamming the one unit that doesn't receive the buff.
The "can't re-roll wounds" change to Valorous Heart is a pretty lame substitute, sure, but calling this a nerf to Sisters is flat out false.
Really the only thing that bothers me is that it affects things it really shouldn't.
1. It not only doesn't effect the best build, it actively took that ability AWAY from the best build. It's a nerf to sacresants in Valorous Heart, which was the best Order for Sacresants.
2. If the buff to the rest of the army is not enough to cancel the nerf to the best build, then it is, in terms of EXTERNAL balance, a nerf. It might turn out to be false, but it's not totally without merit just yet.
If the VHS30 Build, which is weaker as a result of the AoC change, is not eclipsed by another build, AoC will have resulted in either a small nerf or no change. If SoB winrates stay in the mid 40s or drop, it will represent either a small nerf or, no change while other armies improved.
kingheff wrote: I actually don't think it's going to be too long before people are complaining about how difficult it is to kill power armour, marines included.
That's not surprising, it was a poorly thought-out knee jerk reaction.
Not to mention obsec battle of sisters spam. Like point for point, aren't the basic sisters of battle now the cheapest thing in power armor you can get now? Imagine now trying to kill over 120 or 150 sisters of battle in power armor that are all obsec and run onto points. lol
Aren't sacrestans 16ppm, plus eventual upgrades on the leader? So only 480 points + upgrades if maxed out.
When the rest of the list, 1500 points of stuff, gets a significant bonus such as functional armywide +1 save then yeah, I'm pretty sure the army has been buffed significantly.
Sacrestans are powerful, but they don't win the games alone. And now they might be squishier against a selected array of weapons, but also exactly as they were against some other stuff (AP0 or AP-3+) but doing the math we could see that it's nothing gamebreaking.
The math on the rest of the army, 1500 points of stuff using 2000 lists (or even more if sacrestants aren't maxed out) returns significant numbers instead.
And I don't even think that lots of sacrestans were necessary for sisters. I mean before changes. Good unit for sure, still T3 1W melee only dudes though which died in mass to weapons with high rate of fire. Now they die easier but in many cases they were overkilled so I don't think they're significantly worse now.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I have real trouble finding sympathy for anyone saying an army-wide buff is actually a nerf because one specific build doesn't like it due to said build spamming the one unit that doesn't receive the buff.
The "can't re-roll wounds" change to Valorous Heart is a pretty lame substitute, sure, but calling this a nerf to Sisters is flat out false.
Really the only thing that bothers me is that it affects things it really shouldn't.
Oh no, their 7+ save ignores one pip of AP meaning that it doesn't actually change the game in any way.
ERJAK wrote: As an additional WTF from goonhammer:
Lennon had this to say: "...The Exorcist, Castigator and Rhinos should all continue to be staples. I may even be tempted to paint some Paragons…"
Say whatever you want about my take on the AoC change for Sisters, at least it comes from THIS reality.
The only thing the Castigator has been the staple of is the bargain bin. True story, at adepticon, one of the vendors had a 30% off NO SALES TAX sale on the last day. Every single Sisters of Battle unit was gone almost instantly. They had multiple Castigators left by the time they packed up.
I'm mostly a casual player, and I saw it as stupid. Now I'm wondering how much GW paid them for that.
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh no, their 7+ save ignores one pip of AP meaning that it doesn't actually change the game in any way.
Do you practice missing the point?
I think he got the point pretty well. Complaining that Repentia get AOC is silly since the only game effect is they:they get a save against AP -1 attacks if they manage to find a +1 Save modifier. Oh my game is ruined by this.
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh no, their 7+ save ignores one pip of AP meaning that it doesn't actually change the game in any way.
Do you practice missing the point?
I mean they got a rule that doesn't actually change anything about how they're played and did nothing to improve their durability at all so complaining that it technically affects them because GW didn't write them out for no reason is a bit silly.
Well silly even for Dakka's normal standards of pedantry.
And sure, if you give them a cover save they get a 6+ save that ignores a single pip of AP, but that's not exactly lighting the world on fire is it? They already have a 6++ and a 5+ FNP so it literally changes nothing for how they're played.
Blackie wrote: Aren't sacrestans 16ppm, plus eventual upgrades on the leader? So only 480 points + upgrades if maxed out.
When the rest of the list, 1500 points of stuff, gets a significant bonus such as functional armywide +1 save then yeah, I'm pretty sure the army has been buffed significantly.
Sacrestans are powerful, but they don't win the games alone. And now they might be squishier against a selected array of weapons, but also exactly as they were against some other stuff (AP0 or AP-3+) but doing the math we could see that it's nothing gamebreaking.
The math on the rest of the army, 1500 points of stuff using 2000 lists (or even more if sacrestants aren't maxed out) returns significant numbers instead.
And I don't even think that lots of sacrestans were necessary for sisters. I mean before changes. Good unit for sure, still T3 1W melee only dudes though which died in mass to weapons with high rate of fire. Now they die easier but in many cases they were overkilled so I don't think they're significantly worse now.
The change to bodyguard means neither the robot lady, neither celestine can be run efficiently. That is huge for sisters, because those two are the tougher ones of their characters. And saying that them being bad, but the bad thing getting a little bit worse, is like telling an ork player that maybe his buggies got nerfed, but now he can run more boys, even if he doesn't want to run more buy.
I'm mostly a casual player, and I saw it as stupid. Now I'm wondering how much GW paid them for that.
For all we know, they could be in the middle of testing 10th ed, where maybe castigators are awesome. The problem of course is, that balance patchs don't exist to prep people for the next edition or the next patch wave, but for the problems that exist here and now. A player who may quit w40k right now, is not going to care that in 12th ed sacrosancts break the meta in how good they are.
I'm interested to see how the hottest of takes ages.
Beat me to it. Yeah honestly I hate the hot takes of recent 40k. 1 overwhelming and abused unit is being nerfed so now the whole army is being useless despite getting army wide buffs. It happened with custodes lol. they got rid of 3+ invulns and got rid of some strats and legit every custodes player was weeping and crying despite getting good point reductions and a ton of free rules. yeah now look. I this is is an overall buff especially with more miracle dice. I don't see in anyway that this is holistically a nerf.
I feel like units like Zephyrim might be spammed now as they have more mobility and damage while being around the same points. compare to pre-change sacrosancts would be in VH getting a 3+ 4++ but 2+ save against ap -1/-2 but are locked into VH. Now Zephyrim get a 2+ so equal to Sancrosant in VH without invulns (only matters with ap -3) but do more damage and can be played in other melee buff orders so even more punchy but somewhat equal durability. but this doesn't take into account the broken (power level and mechanic) bodyguard rule.
This doesn't even take into account so many decent units getting buffed like basic sisters, paragons, mortifiers, novitiates, rhinos, repentia, etc etc. All the while being able to pick the optimal order. Sacrosancts were the optimal build but I don't think they were so far ahead of everything else that they are better than every other unit getting a massive defensive boost ON TOP of getting their order's bonus. And holistically no one is talking about getting more miracle dice. sure its okays to look at AoC in a vacuum but then you need look at it as a whole. I think overall the army has gotten a buff.
But as always, people will probably find one or two busted units, spam them, they get changed, and we'll be here all over again. but that's just my hot take
Beat me to it. Yeah honestly I hate the hot takes of recent 40k. 1 overwhelming and abused unit is being nerfed so now the whole army is being useless despite getting army wide buffs. It happened with custodes lol. they got rid of 3+ invulns and got rid of some strats and legit every custodes player was weeping and crying despite getting good point reductions and a ton of free rules. yeah now look. I this is is an overall buff especially with more miracle dice. I don't see in anyway that this is holistically a nerf.
Sure and for that I can give you a counter example of GK. NDKs get nerfed, double brotherhood option gets removed, interceptors get a points hike and you can only run 1 GM in NDK armour. But hey termintors became 2 pts cheaper, so it balances itself out. Yet somehow the army is kind of a gone. Orks the same, annoying buggies get nerfed over and over again, and somehow the boys builds didn't take root amonth the players. Not the mention the entire marine line which was suppose to adapt to entire meta, since like DE codex, yet somehow it never did. Pur magic.
Beat me to it. Yeah honestly I hate the hot takes of recent 40k. 1 overwhelming and abused unit is being nerfed so now the whole army is being useless despite getting army wide buffs. It happened with custodes lol. they got rid of 3+ invulns and got rid of some strats and legit every custodes player was weeping and crying despite getting good point reductions and a ton of free rules. yeah now look. I this is is an overall buff especially with more miracle dice. I don't see in anyway that this is holistically a nerf.
Sure and for that I can give you a counter example of GK. NDKs get nerfed, double brotherhood option gets removed, interceptors get a points hike and you can only run 1 GM in NDK armour. But hey termintors became 2 pts cheaper, so it balances itself out. Yet somehow the army is kind of a gone. Orks the same, annoying buggies get nerfed over and over again, and somehow the boys builds didn't take root amonth the players. Not the mention the entire marine line which was suppose to adapt to entire meta, since like DE codex, yet somehow it never did. Pur magic.
Terminators also got Armour of Contempt so they're actually much improved durability wise.
You would never run termintors over paladins.
And terminators even with the buff, are still weaker then strikes or interceptors, who on top of getting the same buff, also have more shots, more A, being faster and costing a bit over half as much as the termintors.
Paladins could get extremly annoying. But with nids being out any psychic army that can't deal with MW spam is going to be hard pressed to do much. It is funny though to see that GW forgets their own rules. they did not want NDKs to get the buff, yet somehow other inv dreads get it which is bizzar, but they forgot that unlike every other form of marines we don't have storm shields. So Draigo gets the buff and , assuming someone was crazy enough to do it, GK can take staffs in their squads which can buff our resiliance.
In general the change does have medium to big impact on marine armies. And a positive one too. 1ksons got a lot better, and very annoying if someon can't MW spam for example. But SoB lost a ton of stuff, on top of nerfs they already got, and got buffs to stuff which was not making them win. I don't think that AoC jump infantry is going to replace the old sacrosanct spam. SoB were reliant on protecting their heroes as long as possible, and they can no longer do that.
Karol wrote: You would never run termintors over paladins.
And terminators even with the buff, are still weaker then strikes or interceptors, who on top of getting the same buff, also have more shots, more A, being faster and costing a bit over half as much as the termintors.
Paladins could get extremly annoying. But with nids being out any psychic army that can't deal with MW spam is going to be hard pressed to do much. It is funny though to see that GW forgets their own rules. they did not want NDKs to get the buff, yet somehow other inv dreads get it which is bizzar, but they forgot that unlike every other form of marines we don't have storm shields. So Draigo gets the buff and , assuming someone was crazy enough to do it, GK can take staffs in their squads which can buff our resiliance.
In general the change does have medium to big impact on marine armies. And a positive one too. 1ksons got a lot better, and very annoying if someon can't MW spam for example. But SoB lost a ton of stuff, on top of nerfs they already got, and got buffs to stuff which was not making them win. I don't think that AoC jump infantry is going to replace the old sacrosanct spam. SoB were reliant on protecting their heroes as long as possible, and they can no longer do that.
Terminators are troops with Obsec, Paladins are not.
so yeah I definitely misinterpreted the rules. so sacresants would have an effective 1+ save against ap-1/-2 only and a 2+ base. So they would pretty much always have a 2+ save besides ap-3. big difference. but the damage and mobility difference the Zephyrim bring I think outweighs this. the sacresants have better strength or damage 2 but the Zephyrim get 1 more attack plus being in something like bloody rose for +1A and ap (marginal). though ap-4 is funnily enough is most optimal against sacresants
So +2 attacks (but only +1 after 1 round), 6" better move, ap increase (more useful as other armies will get AoC) and deepstrike, plus more miracle dice I think beats out better save, bodyguard (which was just dumb and broken mechanically), better strength or damage, and heroic interventions.
not to mentioned I still feel every other unit getting a MASSIVE buff outweighs what was lost. maybe not by a lot but I still think sisters are better. Sure lists would run a lot of sacrosancts but they would also run mortifiers, basic sisters, and retributors, and normal which flat out got a major buff. They now all have a better VH trait while also being able to get bonus from another order.
So ap -1 is equal between VH and AoC. ap-2 is better in VH. but ap-3 and above is far better in AoC so more useful on paragons and mortifiers. plus order buffs
Beat me to it. Yeah honestly I hate the hot takes of recent 40k. 1 overwhelming and abused unit is being nerfed so now the whole army is being useless despite getting army wide buffs. It happened with custodes lol. they got rid of 3+ invulns and got rid of some strats and legit every custodes player was weeping and crying despite getting good point reductions and a ton of free rules. yeah now look. I this is is an overall buff especially with more miracle dice. I don't see in anyway that this is holistically a nerf.
Sure and for that I can give you a counter example of GK. NDKs get nerfed, double brotherhood option gets removed, interceptors get a points hike and you can only run 1 GM in NDK armour. But hey termintors became 2 pts cheaper, so it balances itself out. Yet somehow the army is kind of a gone. Orks the same, annoying buggies get nerfed over and over again, and somehow the boys builds didn't take root amonth the players. Not the mention the entire marine line which was suppose to adapt to entire meta, since like DE codex, yet somehow it never did. Pur magic.
well idk about that. AoC is FAR stronger a buff than terminators getting a 2 point reduction. and with the boys they essentially got nerfed. boys getting get buffed with the T5 but losing mob rules and points increase was a far bit worse. Those examples the whole army was gutted. Sisters one unit in one order is getting nerfed (well regular celestines are nerfed too so 2 units). while literally every other unit in every other order is getting a massive buff, much like custodes and very unlike what happened with GK and Orks. I think people are really underestimating how powerful AoC is considering it's free for most things besides SS users.
I'm interested to see how the hottest of takes ages.
Beat me to it. Yeah honestly I hate the hot takes of recent 40k. 1 overwhelming and abused unit is being nerfed so now the whole army is being useless despite getting army wide buffs. It happened with custodes lol. they got rid of 3+ invulns and got rid of some strats and legit every custodes player was weeping and crying despite getting good point reductions and a ton of free rules. yeah now look. I this is is an overall buff especially with more miracle dice. I don't see in anyway that this is holistically a nerf.
I feel like units like Zephyrim might be spammed now as they have more mobility and damage while being around the same points. compare to pre-change sacrosancts would be in VH getting a 3+ 4++ but 2+ save against ap -1/-2 but are locked into VH. Now Zephyrim get a 2+ so equal to Sancrosant in VH without invulns (only matters with ap -3) but do more damage and can be played in other melee buff orders so even more punchy but somewhat equal durability. but this doesn't take into account the broken (power level and mechanic) bodyguard rule.
This doesn't even take into account so many decent units getting buffed like basic sisters, paragons, mortifiers, novitiates, rhinos, repentia, etc etc. All the while being able to pick the optimal order. Sacrosancts were the optimal build but I don't think they were so far ahead of everything else that they are better than every other unit getting a massive defensive boost ON TOP of getting their order's bonus. And holistically no one is talking about getting more miracle dice. sure its okays to look at AoC in a vacuum but then you need look at it as a whole. I think overall the army has gotten a buff.
But as always, people will probably find one or two busted units, spam them, they get changed, and we'll be here all over again. but that's just my hot take
I think the important thing to note is Sacs were and still are a load bearing unit - They were always going to get the bodyguard nerf, the game needed it - but sisters don't have the units to do what they do. Maybe the BSS brick will claw back some ground but the cost to support that build and the lethality increse of the game since the last time I saw it makes me doubt it will get enough results.
Zephyrim aren't going to become the magic replacement. They have inferior durability, damage output and compete with another squad for speed. Repentia too are past their prime there a too many matchups where they underpeform(part of the reason - maybe the main - Sacrescants became popular to begin with) and they only get less playable with AoC. Nundams for all their defensive buffs still fall over when something looks at them and would need a doubling of Rhino chassis wounds or a worthwhile invunerable save before that changes.
While I'm not all doom and gloom about this update as a lot of internet SoB players, there's no reason to expect a revolution in game results either
The stuff that really gets mileage out of it is 2+ save models with mortal wound defense. GKs, BTs, that sort of thing. People say TS but I think the lack of defense against non-psychic MWs is a big weakness for them, with how many non-psychic MWs there are out there these days.
Sisters really don't have the datasheets they need to get the most out of this. It may be going too far to call it a nerf, but it doesn't seem like much of a buff, either.
The only thing I would say is that Sacresants should probably get a reversal of the points increase they received, especially since this was in relation to the bodyguard ability which has been changed considerably. That would go a long way to making them seem like they took too many hits.
bullyboy wrote: The only thing I would say is that Sacresants should probably get a reversal of the points increase they received, especially since this was in relation to the bodyguard ability which has been changed considerably. That would go a long way to making them seem like they took too many hits.
The change to bodyguard means neither the robot lady, neither celestine can be run efficiently. That is huge for sisters, because those two are the tougher ones of their characters. And saying that them being bad, but the bad thing getting a little bit worse, is like telling an ork player that maybe his buggies got nerfed, but now he can run more boys, even if he doesn't want to run more buy.
For their points and abilities both Vahl and Celestine don't need bodyguards to shine. In fact I've never seen players using bodyguards for those two characters in 9th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: The only thing I would say is that Sacresants should probably get a reversal of the points increase they received, especially since this was in relation to the bodyguard ability which has been changed considerably. That would go a long way to making them seem like they took too many hits.
At 16ppm they are cheap enough to be taken in large numbers anyway IMHO.
For their points and abilities both Vahl and Celestine don't need bodyguards to shine. In fact I've never seen players using bodyguards for those two characters in 9th.
SoB have been falling off with the old bodyguard rules, old sacrosancts and old VH. And as never seen goes, it really doesn't prove much. I have 0 NDKs and 0 power armoured models in my army. Does it mean it is okey to say that GK don't play multiple NDKs, no termintators and max interceptors?
At 16ppm they are cheap enough to be taken in large numbers anyway
they are not efficient enough to cost 16pts, post changes. Worse part is that unlike with lets marines GW is not going to drop an extra wound and/or +1A on them to "fix" them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The stuff that really gets mileage out of it is 2+ save models with mortal wound defense. GKs, BTs, that sort of thing. People say TS but I think the lack of defense against non-psychic MWs is a big weakness for them, with how many non-psychic MWs there are out there these days.
Sisters really don't have the datasheets they need to get the most out of this. It may be going too far to call it a nerf, but it doesn't seem like much of a buff, either.
True. Maybe if paradon suits had like double the fire power and/or an invs worth rolling. If a change like that was in effect, we could at least say that SoB players can switch to that kind of a list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jacobiW 804587 11348050 wrote:
well idk about that. AoC is FAR stronger a buff than terminators getting a 2 point reduction. and with the boys they essentially got nerfed. boys getting get buffed with the T5 but losing mob rules and points increase was a far bit worse. Those examples the whole army was gutted. Sisters one unit in one order is getting nerfed (well regular celestines are nerfed too so 2 units). while literally every other unit in every other order is getting a massive buff, much like custodes and very unlike what happened with GK and Orks. I think people are really underestimating how powerful AoC is considering it's free for most things besides SS users.
The change to double brotherhoods not being allowed did "gut" the GK. You don't see them winning match and a lot of their bad match ups are the newest armies. One can say that it is just one unit and one order. But that ain't really how playing SoB looks like. Playing something else then VH was very niche, like very very niche and also related to the no two convents nerf. And everyone who was playing SoB was playing at least 20 sacrosancts, and a lot of people played more. If tomorrow DE got nerfed by hiking up their transports cost and rules. lets say something like if you are in an open topped transports half the wounds the vehicle suffers also are lost by the unit they carry, it wouldn't matter how good the rest of the DE codex is, and it is better then then what SoB have. If someone removed NDKs from GK, the army stops existing, and it is easy to show, because the "good" GK army was exactly the same army which was good now maxed out NDKS, maxed interceptors and no termintors etc. The army was bottom of bottom tier in 8th.
ERJAK wrote: As an additional WTF from goonhammer:
Lennon had this to say: "...The Exorcist, Castigator and Rhinos should all continue to be staples. I may even be tempted to paint some Paragons…"
Say whatever you want about my take on the AoC change for Sisters, at least it comes from THIS reality.
The only thing the Castigator has been the staple of is the bargain bin. True story, at adepticon, one of the vendors had a 30% off NO SALES TAX sale on the last day. Every single Sisters of Battle unit was gone almost instantly. They had multiple Castigators left by the time they packed up.
Yeah, I hope that, at some point, the community realizes that even the great tournament players are either spitting hot takes for visibility, or are not as oracular as one would think in their assessments. Nick N. said Ork buggies were fine. Siegler said there were no issues with Tau at release. Now they claim Nids will be to Harlequins what Harlequins were to the field (i.e. S+++ tier) even without Crusher Stampede, and Death Guard are still gonna suck, and SoB are going to be incredible. It's just all really unlikely to me.
Yes to some armies it is huge. For marines for example. For my termintors, especially paladins gigantic. but a buff to being hit by ap1 fire power on regular sob, or on tanks they do not run, combined with a second or maybe third nerf to sacrosanct does not equal a buff to sisters.
The change to bodyguard means neither the robot lady, neither celestine can be run efficiently. That is huge for sisters, because those two are the tougher ones of their characters. And saying that them being bad, but the bad thing getting a little bit worse, is like telling an ork player that maybe his buggies got nerfed, but now he can run more boys, even if he doesn't want to run more buy.
For their points and abilities both Vahl and Celestine don't need bodyguards to shine. In fact I've never seen players using bodyguards for those two characters in 9th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: The only thing I would say is that Sacresants should probably get a reversal of the points increase they received, especially since this was in relation to the bodyguard ability which has been changed considerably. That would go a long way to making them seem like they took too many hits.
At 16ppm they are cheap enough to be taken in large numbers anyway IMHO.
Celestine used bodyguards all the time. She could be 12" in front of the rest of the army and still not be shot. Vahl didn't need them, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Sisters probably break even on this. They lose out on some of their AP (like heavy bolters) but gain a slight durability buff.
Time will tell for sure and I think lists may change a bit to compensate but the army doesn't look dead to me.
Then again I have biases based around living through the WD and digital only codexes.
It's like I've been saying, between the positive and the negative, it's a very small change no matter how it swings (I think it swings nerf), which is unfortunate for something that's supposed to be a buff.
so yeah I definitely misinterpreted the rules. so sacresants would have an effective 1+ save against ap-1/-2 only and a 2+ base. So they would pretty much always have a 2+ save besides ap-3. big difference. but the damage and mobility difference the Zephyrim bring I think outweighs this. the sacresants have better strength or damage 2 but the Zephyrim get 1 more attack plus being in something like bloody rose for +1A and ap (marginal). though ap-4 is funnily enough is most optimal against sacresants
So +2 attacks (but only +1 after 1 round), 6" better move, ap increase (more useful as other armies will get AoC) and deepstrike, plus more miracle dice I think beats out better save, bodyguard (which was just dumb and broken mechanically), better strength or damage, and heroic interventions.
not to mentioned I still feel every other unit getting a MASSIVE buff outweighs what was lost. maybe not by a lot but I still think sisters are better. Sure lists would run a lot of sacrosancts but they would also run mortifiers, basic sisters, and retributors, and normal which flat out got a major buff. They now all have a better VH trait while also being able to get bonus from another order.
So ap -1 is equal between VH and AoC. ap-2 is better in VH. but ap-3 and above is far better in AoC so more useful on paragons and mortifiers. plus order buffs
Beat me to it. Yeah honestly I hate the hot takes of recent 40k. 1 overwhelming and abused unit is being nerfed so now the whole army is being useless despite getting army wide buffs. It happened with custodes lol. they got rid of 3+ invulns and got rid of some strats and legit every custodes player was weeping and crying despite getting good point reductions and a ton of free rules. yeah now look. I this is is an overall buff especially with more miracle dice. I don't see in anyway that this is holistically a nerf.
Sure and for that I can give you a counter example of GK. NDKs get nerfed, double brotherhood option gets removed, interceptors get a points hike and you can only run 1 GM in NDK armour. But hey termintors became 2 pts cheaper, so it balances itself out. Yet somehow the army is kind of a gone. Orks the same, annoying buggies get nerfed over and over again, and somehow the boys builds didn't take root amonth the players. Not the mention the entire marine line which was suppose to adapt to entire meta, since like DE codex, yet somehow it never did. Pur magic.
well idk about that. AoC is FAR stronger a buff than terminators getting a 2 point reduction. and with the boys they essentially got nerfed. boys getting get buffed with the T5 but losing mob rules and points increase was a far bit worse. Those examples the whole army was gutted. Sisters one unit in one order is getting nerfed (well regular celestines are nerfed too so 2 units). while literally every other unit in every other order is getting a massive buff, much like custodes and very unlike what happened with GK and Orks. I think people are really underestimating how powerful AoC is considering it's free for most things besides SS users.
Zephyrim do less damage than sacresants against most targets. Maces hit harder against anything T4 or better with 2 wounds (especially if they have good invuls) Halberds do more against anything T3, T5, or T8.
ERJAK wrote: As an additional WTF from goonhammer:
Lennon had this to say: "...The Exorcist, Castigator and Rhinos should all continue to be staples. I may even be tempted to paint some Paragons…"
Say whatever you want about my take on the AoC change for Sisters, at least it comes from THIS reality.
The only thing the Castigator has been the staple of is the bargain bin. True story, at adepticon, one of the vendors had a 30% off NO SALES TAX sale on the last day. Every single Sisters of Battle unit was gone almost instantly. They had multiple Castigators left by the time they packed up.
Yeah, I hope that, at some point, the community realizes that even the great tournament players are either spitting hot takes for visibility, or are not as oracular as one would think in their assessments. Nick N. said Ork buggies were fine. Siegler said there were no issues with Tau at release. Now they claim Nids will be to Harlequins what Harlequins were to the field (i.e. S+++ tier) even without Crusher Stampede, and Death Guard are still gonna suck, and SoB are going to be incredible. It's just all really unlikely to me.
In Nick's defense..and I usually crap on his take on orkz, Ork Buggies were fine. Even the zOMG BROKEN OP Squigbuggies weren't bad, its just players didn't like having to lose to orkz so they had to get nerfed hard.
The biggest offending ork buggy was without a doubt the Squigbuggy which has now been nerfed 3 separate times and is literally the worst buggy in the game now. But at its height lets compare it to the recently nerfed Voidweaver. So Squigbuggy PRE nerf compared to POST nerf voidweaver...ready?
PRE NERF Squigbuggy 90pts Post NERF voidweaver 130pts.
Squigbuggy: 2D6 shots at S5 AP-2 2dmg hitting on 4s. Average = 7 shots, 3.5 hits, Against T4 3+ thats 2.3 wounds and 3.06 dmg. If its within 18' range it gets an extra D6 shots but hitting on 5s so 3.5 shots on average for 1.16 hits, 0.77 wounds and 1.02dmg to a T4 3+ save. Grand total of 4.08dmg. So per point that is 22ppd (Points per dmg)
POST Nerf Voidweaver is 3D3 shots at S5 AP-3 1dmg averages out to 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.6 wounds and 2.2dmg OR 2 shots 1.33 hits, 1.1 wounds at -4 so 4.4dmg (only good against mutli-wound targets) Then it gets 6 shots at S6 -1 2dmg. So 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.6 wounds (0.66 of them at AP-3) so likely 1.5 wounds go through for 3dmg. Total is 7.4dmg So per point that is 17.56ppd (Points per dmg)
So unbuffed, no re-rolls no strats etc the PRE nerf squigbuggy is noticeably worse than the POST nerf Voidweaver in terms of dmg output.
And before you start calling for buffs to be added, the only meaningful buff the Squigbuggy got was the Kulture buff of +1 to hit which only benefited the 1D6 short range gun AND the speedwaaagh which gave the guns -1AP. So even with those 2 buffs, 1 of which was a once a game buff the other required an enemy unit to die first the squigbuggy, even at short range only increased to 10.5 shots, 5.25 hits, 3.5 wounds and 5.83dmg which was 15.43ppd. Give the voidweaver some of its natural buffs like the re-rolls to hit/wound from Laughing god and its dmg spikes even higher than this. BTW the current Squigbuggy without buffs is 26.9 ppd and 18.8 and only if it is within 18' and it can see its target, otherwise its hitting on 5s and 6s against targets with +1 armor Oh, and against those Marines who are the ideal target for this thing, it lost 1AP so its now even worse than before in that regard as well
***Side Note: The Pre-nerf voidweavers ppd was 12.16ppd
Lennon had this to say: "...The Exorcist, Castigator and Rhinos should all continue to be staples. I may even be tempted to paint some Paragons…"
Say whatever you want about my take on the AoC change for Sisters, at least it comes from THIS reality.
The only thing the Castigator has been the staple of is the bargain bin. True story, at adepticon, one of the vendors had a 30% off NO SALES TAX sale on the last day. Every single Sisters of Battle unit was gone almost instantly. They had multiple Castigators left by the time they packed up.
Yeah, I hope that, at some point, the community realizes that even the great tournament players are either spitting hot takes for visibility, or are not as oracular as one would think in their assessments. Nick N. said Ork buggies were fine. Siegler said there were no issues with Tau at release. Now they claim Nids will be to Harlequins what Harlequins were to the field (i.e. S+++ tier) even without Crusher Stampede, and Death Guard are still gonna suck, and SoB are going to be incredible. It's just all really unlikely to me.
In Nick's defense..and I usually crap on his take on orkz, Ork Buggies were fine. Even the zOMG BROKEN OP Squigbuggies weren't bad, its just players didn't like having to lose to orkz so they had to get nerfed hard.
The biggest offending ork buggy was without a doubt the Squigbuggy which has now been nerfed 3 separate times and is literally the worst buggy in the game now. But at its height lets compare it to the recently nerfed Voidweaver. So Squigbuggy PRE nerf compared to POST nerf voidweaver...ready?
PRE NERF Squigbuggy 90pts
Post NERF voidweaver 130pts.
Squigbuggy: 2D6 shots at S5 AP-2 2dmg hitting on 4s. Average = 7 shots, 3.5 hits, Against T4 3+ thats 2.3 wounds and 3.06 dmg. If its within 18' range it gets an extra D6 shots but hitting on 5s so 3.5 shots on average for 1.16 hits, 0.77 wounds and 1.02dmg to a T4 3+ save. Grand total of 4.08dmg. So per point that is 22ppd (Points per dmg)
POST Nerf Voidweaver is 3D3 shots at S5 AP-3 1dmg averages out to 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.6 wounds and 2.2dmg OR 2 shots 1.33 hits, 1.1 wounds at -4 so 4.4dmg (only good against mutli-wound targets) Then it gets 6 shots at S6 -1 2dmg. So 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.6 wounds (0.66 of them at AP-3) so likely 1.5 wounds go through for 3dmg. Total is 7.4dmg So per point that is 17.56ppd (Points per dmg)
So unbuffed, no re-rolls no strats etc the PRE nerf squigbuggy is noticeably worse than the POST nerf Voidweaver in terms of dmg output.
And before you start calling for buffs to be added, the only meaningful buff the Squigbuggy got was the Kulture buff of +1 to hit which only benefited the 1D6 short range gun AND the speedwaaagh which gave the guns -1AP. So even with those 2 buffs, 1 of which was a once a game buff the other required an enemy unit to die first the squigbuggy, even at short range only increased to 10.5 shots, 5.25 hits, 3.5 wounds and 5.83dmg which was 15.43ppd. Give the voidweaver some of its natural buffs like the re-rolls to hit/wound from Laughing god and its dmg spikes even higher than this. BTW the current Squigbuggy without buffs is 26.9 ppd and 18.8 and only if it is within 18' and it can see its target, otherwise its hitting on 5s and 6s against targets with +1 armor Oh, and against those Marines who are the ideal target for this thing, it lost 1AP so its now even worse than before in that regard as well
***Side Note: The Pre-nerf voidweavers ppd was 12.16ppd
Quasistellar wrote: Folks are absolutely postively underrating AoC. It's a huge buff.
For marines, absolutely.
And for sisters as well. 10 Boyz just went from killing 6.6 sisters a turn to 4.4...that is a big deal bud, you just got 1/3rd more durable vs AP-1.
It's interesting that you used possibly the worst possible example you could have here.
1. That still kills the entire squad the majority of the time. The only difference now is that sometimes it DOESN'T and you get to tri-point the last battle sister. So the increased durability is objectively worse. Oh, also if you play OoML and the sister dies to attrition, you don't get a miracle dice.
2. It's also demonstrating how little that durability actually matters, even if it doesn't result in a tri-point. 10 Ork Boyz, not known for their crazy output, still kills that entire unit the majority of the time.
One of the points I brought up in the original post was that the primary effect of AoC is, for the majority of units, your opponent overkilling them by a few less shots. Which is more of less what happened here.
Now, that's not to say there isn't ANY meaningful value in AoC, it just requires a complete shift in the army's listbuilding paradigm. It's not like it is with marines where it just makes the stuff you were already taking better.
To get value out of AoC, we have two primary build categories now. You can either spam as many Novitiates as you're willing to buy and paint and go for a board control obsec skew setup, or you can invest heavily in Zephyrim and build a deathball that is less damaging than the sacresant one, but is faster and just as durable with some character buffs.
Are either of these setups better than VHS30 was? Maybe. Maybe not. We're still waiting on tournament data to find out. The point is, we had to sacrifice our existing strategies to meaningfully benefit from the Balance update, something none of the other AoC factions had to do. That means it's not as cut and dry where we stand after the change as it is for something like Deathguard.
Celestine used bodyguards all the time. She could be 12" in front of the rest of the army and still not be shot. Vahl didn't need them, though.
and that felt right? The bodyguard rule change was super needed, as it was, it made zero sense and was gamey as feth
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Getting good vs a unit type which isn't and shouldn't be used is hardly something one should consider good.
thats an example -.-
Models that got AoC got better against litterally any attack with ap greater than zero
I've deliberately sidestepped the bodyguard change because I don't really have a problem with it. I also rarely used it unless I desperately needed to (Tau).
For the second point, that's not actually true in practice. Example: You fire a 10 man terminator squad at a unit of 5 retributors. 10 Terminators worth of stormbolters kills 8 battle sisters (assuming no rerolls). With AoC it kills 5.9 battle sisters. Either way, that whole unit is still dead.
While yes, units are technically more durable against all attacks, that only matters in a practical sense if more models survive than would have otherwise.
90pts of Orkz, will kill 4.4 Sisters on average now. thats 48.4pts Yeah, a unit that is only good in 1 phase of the game kills slightly more than HALF its cost in CC... Its almost like...a unit that is only good in one phase of the game and is TWICE THE POINTS of the other squad should almost wipe it out completely.
OMG did you know that a 120pt Retributor squad with Ministorum heavy flamers and 2 cherubs can kill 216pts of Orkz in a mob of 30 in a single shooting phase! OMG! T5 does nothing for Orkz, its a nerf in reality!
The argument regarding a net buff/ nerf should really be taken in context of the proportion of opponents that a sister player has, that also benifits from the changes to power armour. I haven't thought about it enough to make a determination, but if it proportionatly improved ves marines, more than sisters, a d all you play against is marines, then it's going to be a net loss.
Plant wrote: The argument regarding a net buff/ nerf should really be taken in context of the proportion of opponents that a sister player has, that also benifits from the changes to power armour. I haven't thought about it enough to make a determination, but if it proportionatly improved ves marines, more than sisters, a d all you play against is marines, then it's going to be a net loss.
On the contrary, you never know what someone's local meta or playerbase looks like, so any buff/nerf needs to be taken in complete isolation. Its no good allowing the Sisters player the town over to hit 80% WR while you struggle at 30% (to be hyperbolic) because of a global change.
Plant wrote: The argument regarding a net buff/ nerf should really be taken in context of the proportion of opponents that a sister player has, that also benifits from the changes to power armour. I haven't thought about it enough to make a determination, but if it proportionatly improved ves marines, more than sisters, a d all you play against is marines, then it's going to be a net loss.
On the contrary, you never know what someone's local meta or playerbase looks like, so any buff/nerf needs to be taken in complete isolation. Its no good allowing the Sisters player the town over to hit 80% WR while you struggle at 30% (to be hyperbolic) because of a global change.
If one SoB can achieve 80% & you can only manage 30%? Then maybe you should ask them for some advice....
For the second point, that's not actually true in practice. Example: You fire a 10 man terminator squad at a unit of 5 retributors. 10 Terminators worth of stormbolters kills 8 battle sisters (assuming no rerolls). With AoC it kills 5.9 battle sisters. Either way, that whole unit is still dead.
While yes, units are technically more durable against all attacks, that only matters in a practical sense if more models survive than would have otherwise.
"oh no, my 100pts unit gets wiped by a 400pts unit even after the buffs!!"
90pts of Orkz, will kill 4.4 Sisters on average now. thats 48.4pts Yeah, a unit that is only good in 1 phase of the game kills slightly more than HALF its cost in CC... Its almost like...a unit that is only good in one phase of the game and is TWICE THE POINTS of the other squad should almost wipe it out completely.
OMG did you know that a 120pt Retributor squad with Ministorum heavy flamers and 2 cherubs can kill 216pts of Orkz in a mob of 30 in a single shooting phase! OMG! T5 does nothing for Orkz, its a nerf in reality!
Woohoo there's a strawman comparison. An unit you build you army around can kill a squad of basic troops!
Also, lets be real. It kill 55 points of sisters to pretend otherwise would be like saying 8th edition Goffs made green tide lists better and moar killy.
SemperMortis wrote: OMG did you know that a 120pt Retributor squad with Ministorum heavy flamers and 2 cherubs can kill 216pts of Orkz in a mob of 30 in a single shooting phase! OMG! T5 does nothing for Orkz, its a nerf in reality!
A few things wrong here:
- 1) No-one is taking flamers on Retributors, they're the only good ranged AT sisters have and will basically always have multi-meltas.
- 2) GW removed the ability to use 2 cherubs in the same turn.
SemperMortis wrote: OMG did you know that a 120pt Retributor squad with Ministorum heavy flamers and 2 cherubs can kill 216pts of Orkz in a mob of 30 in a single shooting phase! OMG! T5 does nothing for Orkz, its a nerf in reality!
A few things wrong here:
- 1) No-one is taking flamers on Retributors, they're the only good ranged AT sisters have and will basically always have multi-meltas.
- 2) GW removed the ability to use 2 cherubs in the same turn.
EC can still clear a squad with strats and they do take HF Rets
Jarms and Lammia...you guys both missed the point you realize right?
Complaining that a BUFF which makes you better is a nerf because...reasons is silly. and Complaining that a MELEE focused unit that costs 2x as much kills you in melee is...well stupid. The flamer comment is just to point out that other units that focus on something else, in this case ranged combat, can do the same thing, or in this case a lot more and to say a buff is a nerf because it doesn't work as much as we want in the example given is disingenuous in the extreme.
SemperMortis wrote: Jarms and Lammia...you guys both missed the point you realize right?
Complaining that a BUFF which makes you better is a nerf because...reasons is silly. and Complaining that a MELEE focused unit that costs 2x as much kills you in melee is...well stupid. The flamer comment is just to point out that other units that focus on something else, in this case ranged combat, can do the same thing, or in this case a lot more and to say a buff is a nerf because it doesn't work as much as we want in the example given is disingenuous in the extreme.
You've missed the reasons though.
The BUFF use to effect a unit and now doesn't effect that unit. That is a direct nerf that unit.
There is no other unit in the Codex that benefits from that buff to change it's combat maths to allow it to fill the role that the nerfed unit does.
Mortifiers, Zephyrims, and Paragons all got AoC. Which you could lean into for melee if you feel Celestian Sacresants aren’t viable anymore.
Mortifiers, especially if you take the 3+ save upgrade, gets a 5+ save against AP-3 and a 5+++. Which is pretty nice. 5 attacks, and a 75% chance to hit on the first round of combat is pretty good too.
While I do agree Sacresants got an indirect nerf I don’t think it’s as bad as other storm shield options. Marine players have to pay for those with additional points and lose out on AoC. At least with Sacresants it’s inbuilt into the profile.
Plant wrote: The argument regarding a net buff/ nerf should really be taken in context of the proportion of opponents that a sister player has, that also benifits from the changes to power armour. I haven't thought about it enough to make a determination, but if it proportionatly improved ves marines, more than sisters, a d all you play against is marines, then it's going to be a net loss.
On the contrary, you never know what someone's local meta or playerbase looks like, so any buff/nerf needs to be taken in complete isolation. Its no good allowing the Sisters player the town over to hit 80% WR while you struggle at 30% (to be hyperbolic) because of a global change.
If one SoB can achieve 80% & you can only manage 30%? Then maybe you should ask them for some advice....
Christ it was a random figure plucked out of thin air to try and show that "taking your opponents into account" isn't a fair way of trying to manage buff/nerfs. If they're getting 80% because they randomly only play people who used ap1 weapons previously means the "net buff" is too much so it needs taking back out. If the 30% player exclusively plays people who spam ap- or brand new meta armies with against their casual list, that would suggest AoC isn't strong enough. You can't just decide to alter an army on what they match against.
Jarms48 wrote: Mortifiers, Zephyrims, and Paragons all got AoC. Which you could lean into for melee if you feel Celestian Sacresants aren’t viable anymore.
Mortifiers, especially if you take the 3+ save upgrade, gets a 5+ save against AP-3 and a 5+++. Which is pretty nice. 5 attacks, and a 75% chance to hit on the first round of combat is pretty good too.
While I do agree Sacresants got an indirect nerf I don’t think it’s as bad as other storm shield options. Marine players have to pay for those with additional points and lose out on AoC. At least with Sacresants it’s inbuilt into the profile.
Sacs are still more viable than any if those units in most lists...
What is missing from the OP analysis, is the reason why the Sororitas meta became focused on VH Sacs.
The reason for this is that for a while now we have been plagued by a meta which goes strong on AP-1 and indirect fire, which makes a mess of any other kind of sister.
Before that meta, the name of the sisters was "Trading".
The meta that will now follow will be much lighter on AP -1 sources, and will have almost no indirect fire.
This means that there is no more need for sisters to be VH sac centered.
SemperMortis wrote: Jarms and Lammia...you guys both missed the point you realize right?
Complaining that a BUFF which makes you better is a nerf because...reasons is silly. and Complaining that a MELEE focused unit that costs 2x as much kills you in melee is...well stupid. The flamer comment is just to point out that other units that focus on something else, in this case ranged combat, can do the same thing, or in this case a lot more and to say a buff is a nerf because it doesn't work as much as we want in the example given is disingenuous in the extreme.
A supposed buff, that also affects other armies, and which they can use a lot more efficiently when combined with nerfs, multiple now since codex being out, to core units is a nerf. If GW decides to nerf 2-3 options form any codex, and then drop 1-2pts of a unit which is bad doesn't somehow make the 1-2pts change a good one. Unless the unit litterally cost 1-2pts per model and now someone can take an as many as you have free slots number of chaff units .
SemperMortis wrote: Jarms and Lammia...you guys both missed the point you realize right?
Complaining that a BUFF which makes you better is a nerf because...reasons is silly. and Complaining that a MELEE focused unit that costs 2x as much kills you in melee is...well stupid. The flamer comment is just to point out that other units that focus on something else, in this case ranged combat, can do the same thing, or in this case a lot more and to say a buff is a nerf because it doesn't work as much as we want in the example given is disingenuous in the extreme.
A supposed buff, that also affects other armies, and which they can use a lot more efficiently when combined with nerfs, multiple now since codex being out, to core units is a nerf. If GW decides to nerf 2-3 options form any codex, and then drop 1-2pts of a unit which is bad doesn't somehow make the 1-2pts change a good one. Unless the unit litterally cost 1-2pts per model and now someone can take an as many as you have free slots number of chaff units .
This was a buff, it buffed the vast majority of the SoB codex, it screwed over 1 unit which was in competitive builds. But that doesn't mean that the other 95% of the codex didn't just receive a very significant and FREE buff.
If my codex got functionally +1 armor across the board for free, but it didn't give it to Meganobz I wouldn't give a damn, it would still be a buff. I get the upset, especially for players who were leaning into that build, but it doesn't change the fact that for the VAST majority of the codex its a good thing.
I just wonder how bad the outcry would have been if Codex: Space Marine had Armor of Contempt from the start.
Certainly, one can coulda, woulda, shoulda the lethality of 9th (or better design codices) or that codex release window be much smaller. Despite the rules bloat, I am much happier having Armor of Contempt, than points knocked off of my marine units. I'm already fielding 12ppm CSM which is kinda sad and pathetic to me. As a rule of thumb, I like basic marines to be at least 3 times the points of a basic guardsmen. That feels like good minimum distance to fit everything else that's between them.
SemperMortis wrote: OMG did you know that a 120pt Retributor squad with Ministorum heavy flamers and 2 cherubs can kill 216pts of Orkz in a mob of 30 in a single shooting phase! OMG! T5 does nothing for Orkz, its a nerf in reality!
How exactly?
Flamers are not blast and one cherub means 3D6 or 10.5, which converts to 7 dead or 63 points. I don't see the boltguns making up the 150 point difference.
Flamers are not blast and one cherub means 3D6 or 10.5, which converts to 7 dead or 63 points. I don't see the boltguns making up the 150 point difference.
I think Semper forgot you can't fire off both cherubs.
But the Cleansed by fire stratagem makes D6 hits=6 hits. So probably 36 hits, 24 dead Orks, 216 points gone. 30 hits would still be 180 points of dead Orks.
In practice ditch a cherub, take a combi-flamer on superior instead of a second Cherub, theoretically 23~ dead Orks.
Obviously however this is kind of contrived.
Really I think the question with Sacresants is how the meta evolves. At least with VH (and it may be possibly to explore alternatives) they are clearly worse against mass AP-1 than they were before. But given how bad AP-1 is against various types of Marine now, I'm not sure how plentiful its going to be in the meta. Realistically, if Terminators were going to get AoC, its not really clear why they carved out other things.
I can’t believe I am being baited into this unbelievable silly premise but after reading this thread here we go.....
Premise: an army wide -1 to ap makes the codex worse as it does not apply to one unit. I mean that sounds
so bad no further argument should be necessary. But ok let’s go further. So the unit excluded from the new rule is sisters best unit. Ok. Welll if you take any detachment ability other than the -1/-2 then the sacrosancts are exactly the same as before and every other unit is better. Again can probably stop here why the premise is wrong. However let’s continue with the -1/-2 on sacrosancts is the only competitive build (pretty sure this is not true either but whatever). So the whole detachment gets the same minus to ap only better because no cap. So still only sacrosancts are affected. Ok they lose the -ap. But that is not the end of it. They gain a new ability which is no re-roll for wounds. First all units also get this so other units get better -ap and this improvement. Again probably can stop now but we continue.
Two problems. One: your argument presupposes that the new no re-roll is a nerf. You are wrong. It is not only not a nerf but an improvement. Why you ask? Well that goes to a fundamental of the game. Dice rolling.
See while math-hammer is all well and good you don’t roll average on every attack. You probably don’t roll average on the majority of attacks. You roll better or worse. And what a re-roll does is move bad rolls toward average. They nerfed custodies hard for thus very reason. It is also why the re-roll detachment abilities, or say wisdom of ancients is so popular. It helps maintain the average or better. And currently there is lots of ways almost every army gets re-roll to wound (my elder are built around it for AT). So turning that off is a big deal. Especially for a T3 army in which the vast majority of attacks in the game (S4 +) will more likely than not wound on the re-roll. And again the entire rest of the army gets -1 ap AND this ability.
Second even if the above was not true the times in which the -1/-2 matters is limited. Does not apply to ap0. Does not apply to ap-3 or more. Makes no difference to -1 ap if you are in cover. So to state that a buff (great one at that) to the whole army except one unit in very specific circumstance (certain detachment and only against-1 out of cover or -2 ap) is an overall nerf to the codex is so laughable I should just delete this post.
xeen wrote: I can’t believe I am being baited into this unbelievable silly premise but after reading this thread here we go.....
Premise: an army wide -1 to ap makes the codex worse as it does not apply to one unit. I mean that sounds
so bad no further argument should be necessary. But ok let’s go further. So the unit excluded from the new rule is sisters best unit. Ok. Welll if you take any detachment ability other than the -1/-2 then the sacrosancts are exactly the same as before and every other unit is better. Again can probably stop here why the premise is wrong. However let’s continue with the -1/-2 on sacrosancts is the only competitive build (pretty sure this is not true either but whatever). So the whole detachment gets the same minus to ap only better because no cap. So still only sacrosancts are affected. Ok they lose the -ap. But that is not the end of it. They gain a new ability which is no re-roll for wounds. First all units also get this so other units get better -ap and this improvement. Again probably can stop now but we continue.
Two problems. One: your argument presupposes that the new no re-roll is a nerf. You are wrong. It is not only not a nerf but an improvement. Why you ask? Well that goes to a fundamental of the game. Dice rolling.
See while math-hammer is all well and good you don’t roll average on every attack. You probably don’t roll average on the majority of attacks. You roll better or worse. And what a re-roll does is move bad rolls toward average. They nerfed custodies hard for thus very reason. It is also why the re-roll detachment abilities, or say wisdom of ancients is so popular. It helps maintain the average or better. And currently there is lots of ways almost every army gets re-roll to wound (my elder are built around it for AT). So turning that off is a big deal. Especially for a T3 army in which the vast majority of attacks in the game (S4 +) will more likely than not wound on the re-roll. And again the entire rest of the army gets -1 ap AND this ability.
Second even if the above was not true the times in which the -1/-2 matters is limited. Does not apply to ap0. Does not apply to ap-3 or more. Makes no difference to -1 ap if you are in cover. So to state that a buff (great one at that) to the whole army except one unit in very specific circumstance (certain detachment and only against-1 out of cover or -2 ap) is an overall nerf to the codex is so laughable I should just delete this post.
Weren't all the topping Sisters' lists made up of VH Sacresants?
If the 'Dex had good internal balance, I'd agree with this post-a nerf to one unit and a buff to others would result in a stronger Codex. But... That'd require them to have good internal balance. That seems a massive and unwarranted assumption.
Spoiler:
And yes, it is a nerf.
Against AP-1, damage doubles.
Against AP-2, damage increases by 50%.
Turning rerolls off is only a 25% improvement in durability if you were wounded on a 3+ and had full rerolls to-wound.
Against 2+ to-wound, RRAll; or any wound value but only RR1s; it's a meager 15% increase in durability.
Sure, some weapons are AP0 or AP-3 or even stronger. But Rerolls to-wound aren't everywhere.
So your spoiler with math-hammer misses the point and shows why math-hammer is not the best way to judge effectiveness. As stated above the benefits of turning off re-rolls is not to increase survival across the game. It is to capitalize on a bad skew from you opponent. Example. In a recent game my fire dragons shoot enemy tank. All 5 hit. I roll 4 1s to wound. Now fire dragons get to re-roll wounds against vehicles and I convert 3 more than not wounds. Dead tank. If I could not re-roll then not dead tank and fire dragons are exposed and probably dead or seriously degraded. Is this going to happen all the time? No but when it does come up it matters way more the the limited situation of ap negation at -1 out of cover or -2.
Oh and you seem so worried about competitive lists that are supposed nerfed so let’s talk that. First re-roll wound is very prevalent now. But let’s just look at the top armies. All costidies quines tau elder top lists use real-roll wounds extensively. So by your own logic the re-roll deny is MORE valuable in the competitive scene as you are extremely likely to encounter it.
Its AoC going to make sisters a top tier army. Lol hell no. Just like it is not going to push marines up either (maybe death guard or grey knights). There are bigger issues with those codex beyond this issue. But to say it is a nerf to the whole book? That is ludicrous
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I would like to poise this question. How many games can you remember where you have one guy left on an objective or a few wounds left on a character or vehicle and your opponents attack hits and fails to wound and you are like “yes!!!” then you hear them say “command point re-roll” and they re-roll and ooop they wound you die. I can think of many times. Turning that crap off is significant
xeen wrote: So your spoiler with math-hammer misses the point and shows why math-hammer is not the best way to judge effectiveness. As stated above the benefits of turning off re-rolls is not to increase survival across the game. It is to capitalize on a bad skew from you opponent. Example. In a recent game my fire dragons shoot enemy tank. All 5 hit. I roll 4 1s to wound. Now fire dragons get to re-roll wounds against vehicles and I convert 3 more than not wounds. Dead tank. If I could not re-roll then not dead tank and fire dragons are exposed and probably dead or seriously degraded. Is this going to happen all the time? No but when it does come up it matters way more the the limited situation of ap negation at -1 out of cover or -2.
Oh and you seem so worried about competitive lists that are supposed nerfed so let’s talk that. First re-roll wound is very prevalent now. But let’s just look at the top armies. All costidies quines tau elder top lists use real-roll wounds extensively. So by your own logic the re-roll deny is MORE valuable in the competitive scene as you are extremely likely to encounter it.
Its AoC going to make sisters a top tier army. Lol hell no. Just like it is not going to push marines up either (maybe death guard or grey knights). There are bigger issues with those codex beyond this issue. But to say it is a nerf to the whole book? That is ludicrous
It's a durability buff that fails to make any units any better at surviving; it just reduces overkill to kill. While the most durable non character unit loses some of the durability it had.
Rrw is very popular in the competitive scene, but it's marginal into sisters. Weight of dice rather than value is what matters. (This would change is sister's higher toughness units were worth anything)
xeen wrote: So your spoiler with math-hammer misses the point and shows why math-hammer is not the best way to judge effectiveness. As stated above the benefits of turning off re-rolls is not to increase survival across the game. It is to capitalize on a bad skew from you opponent. Example. In a recent game my fire dragons shoot enemy tank. All 5 hit. I roll 4 1s to wound. Now fire dragons get to re-roll wounds against vehicles and I convert 3 more than not wounds. Dead tank. If I could not re-roll then not dead tank and fire dragons are exposed and probably dead or seriously degraded. Is this going to happen all the time? No but when it does come up it matters way more the the limited situation of ap negation at -1 out of cover or -2.
Oh and you seem so worried about competitive lists that are supposed nerfed so let’s talk that. First re-roll wound is very prevalent now. But let’s just look at the top armies. All costidies quines tau elder top lists use real-roll wounds extensively. So by your own logic the re-roll deny is MORE valuable in the competitive scene as you are extremely likely to encounter it.
Its AoC going to make sisters a top tier army. Lol hell no. Just like it is not going to push marines up either (maybe death guard or grey knights). There are bigger issues with those codex beyond this issue. But to say it is a nerf to the whole book? That is ludicrous
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I would like to poise this question. How many games can you remember where you have one guy left on an objective or a few wounds left on a character or vehicle and your opponents attack hits and fails to wound and you are like “yes!!!” then you hear them say “command point re-roll” and they re-roll and ooop they wound you die. I can think of many times. Turning that crap off is significant
More valuable competitively? Sure.
How many are wounding on a 5+ with RRAll wounds? Because that's what it takes to be less effective now.
xeen wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I would like to poise this question. How many games can you remember where you have one guy left on an objective or a few wounds left on a character or vehicle and your opponents attack hits and fails to wound and you are like “yes!!!” then you hear them say “command point re-roll” and they re-roll and ooop they wound you die. I can think of many times. Turning that crap off is significant
Less then the number of times a unit has been wiped that my opponent wanted to charge.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I just wonder how bad the outcry would have been if Codex: Space Marine had Armor of Contempt from the start.
I think everyone, even the worst of SM fan boys, would've agreed it was unnecessary if GW "game designers" didn't keep handing out random AP-1 and D2. At the VERY beginning of 9th most people would've asked why.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I just wonder how bad the outcry would have been if Codex: Space Marine had Armor of Contempt from the start.
I think everyone, even the worst of SM fan boys, would've agreed it was unnecessary if GW "game designers" didn't keep handing out random AP-1 and D2. At the VERY beginning of 9th most people would've asked why.
You know what. You Gus are totally right. The single change to one unit for one detachment ability is so much a nerf to the ENTIRE sisters codex. Man you should complain over and over until GW changes it back. Also if you ever play me you are totally allow to use pre-balance change codex. Because your whole army was just ruined by this one situational change to one unit in one detachment type.
xeen wrote: You know what. You Gus are totally right. The single change to one unit for one detachment ability is so much a nerf to the ENTIRE sisters codex. Man you should complain over and over until GW changes it back. Also if you ever play me you are totally allow to use pre-balance change codex. Because your whole army was just ruined by this one situational change to one unit in one detachment type.
Done discussing this ridiculous topic
You didn't have to post here in the first place.
And if you're incapable of having reasoned debate... Maybe you should take a break from the forums for a bit. Relax a little.
xeen wrote: You know what. You Gus are totally right. The single change to one unit for one detachment ability is so much a nerf to the ENTIRE sisters codex. Man you should complain over and over until GW changes it back. Also if you ever play me you are totally allow to use pre-balance change codex. Because your whole army was just ruined by this one situational change to one unit in one detachment type.
Done discussing this ridiculous topic
You should probably avoid making ridiculous arguments like "No no your mathhammer doesn't mean gak compared to these isolated incidents that can happen with a lot less consistency than just ignoring all AP1/2 all the time". I don't even necessarily agree with the premise but your argument was awful.
Lammia 804587 11352029 wrote:
I think everyone, even the worst of SM fan boys, would've agreed it was unnecessary if GW "game designers" didn't keep handing out random AP-1 and D2. At the VERY beginning of 9th most people would've asked why.
SM were OP until DE/Admech anyway.
harlequins had much higher win rates, same with custodes. Even orks dide well in early 9th ed. Plus it wasn't SM that were OP. It was white scars. GW let salamaners be good for like a month or so, and a lot of marine factions did really bad. They only way they could be even close to be considered to be OP, is if someone had to plays vs them with something like IG or pre codex tau.
Karol wrote: Plus it wasn't SM that were OP. It was white scars. GW let salamaners be good for like a month or so, and a lot of marine factions did really bad.
White scars and Salamanders are the same Codex : Space Marines.
It was Lucius that was OP, not Graia
It was Black heart that was OP, not Poisoned Tongue
White scars and Salamanders are the same Codex : Space Marines.
It was Lucius that was OP, not Graia
It was Black heart that was OP, not Poisoned Tongue
This is what dilutes imo the "poor innocent casual player has lucked into the super meta kill army".
I mean just swap your chapter and take some... atypical warlord traits/relics/psychic powers/stratagems etc. Odds are you suddenly are not pushing a 65% win rate.
Aha. Okey. I give the example of GK. Termintors, paladins etc horrible in 8th. The only sensible way to play is to run strikes, interceptors and NDKs. This "best way to play" army has a 30% something win rate mind edition. Imagine this player lasted till 9th, didn't quit in 9th, when the list got much weaker after the PA nerfs and rules changes. And suddenly the day arrives of new GK codex, and he now has a top tier tournament list. And he does not need to buy a single model, because GW did make any new ones or changed the existing rules of the bad ones better (eg flyers, everything in termintor armour, tanks, dreadnoughts etc). A litteral example fo a bad army becoming good over night, with 0 models bought. Ah and you can't just replace those good things in it, because if you try to army reverts to its one of the worse armies in the game status.
Karol wrote: Aha. Okey. I give the example of GK. Termintors, paladins etc horrible in 8th. The only sensible way to play is to run strikes, interceptors and NDKs. This "best way to play" army has a 30% something win rate mind edition. Imagine this player lasted till 9th, didn't quit in 9th, when the list got much weaker after the PA nerfs and rules changes. And suddenly the day arrives of new GK codex, and he now has a top tier tournament list. And he does not need to buy a single model, because GW did make any new ones or changed the existing rules of the bad ones better (eg flyers, everything in termintor armour, tanks, dreadnoughts etc). A litteral example fo a bad army becoming good over night, with 0 models bought. Ah and you can't just replace those good things in it, because if you try to army reverts to its one of the worse armies in the game status.
Paladins were one of the best builds for GK at one point in 8th. IDK what you're talking about?
Yes, the "sometime" happened at the very end of 8th ed. The books got bought up in the west and were impossible to get. And I even remember when I got my 3ed of February, because on the 14th we started an almost 2 year lockdown, because of covid.
There is a huge difference between having an army okey for 2 months. And having the same army be bad for almost 3 years of 8th and almost 2+ years of 9th. How were termintor or paladin armies doing pre AoC change? Not much success or being seen. Even with the advent of the new codex, somehow the GK community couldn't get their heads around how to use them.
Karol wrote: Aha. Okey. I give the example of GK. Termintors, paladins etc horrible in 8th. The only sensible way to play is to run strikes, interceptors and NDKs. This "best way to play" army has a 30% something win rate mind edition. Imagine this player lasted till 9th, didn't quit in 9th, when the list got much weaker after the PA nerfs and rules changes. And suddenly the day arrives of new GK codex, and he now has a top tier tournament list. And he does not need to buy a single model, because GW did make any new ones or changed the existing rules of the bad ones better (eg flyers, everything in termintor armour, tanks, dreadnoughts etc). A litteral example fo a bad army becoming good over night, with 0 models bought. Ah and you can't just replace those good things in it, because if you try to army reverts to its one of the worse armies in the game status.
Eh? GK Terminators and baby cradles were great. Down here in Australia we had some witch smashing a tourney with them
Amishprn86 wrote: lol, I disagree It is a buff to sisters, Paragons, Seraphs, Zephs, Mortis, BSS, tanks, basically everything not doing well all got better.
Who cares that you auto include units didn't get buffed, the balance slate is to buff things you don't take. Sacs didn't need to be maxed and spammed, they already were good enough. heck they were good enough without VH.
The second sentence is just factually untrue. The only Sisters lists that have had significant success since LVO have been 30 sac lists. They absolutely did need to be spammed. VH was also the only order conviction that was seeing significant success, so they also were not good enough without VH. The w/l stats back all that up.
If the best stuff gets nerfed and the worst stuff gets buffed, whether or not the army improves is entirely dependent on if the worst units got buffed enough to be better than best stuff USED to be.
I personally don't think the buffs to Paragons, Seraphim, Zephyrim, Mortifiers, BSS, or tanks were particularly relevant. I think the nerf to Sacresants was majorly relevant.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I won't know until tournament results have had time to stabilize.
Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.
Altruizine wrote: Interestingly, these guys think Sisters are the "biggest beneficiaries of Armour of Contempt" (start 00:42:45)
The guys are obviously exceptional players - but their views on how the meta works I think are occasionally skewed. Possibly due to the nature of tier systems and a tendency towards exaggeration for cinematic effect.
Personally the idea Sisters are the third best army in the game... is a reach. I really don't see how you'd conclude in general terms they were better than DE (although AoC may effect the matchup itself - I've not played my Sisters friend since the dataslate came out). I guess you can say its early days etc, but... yeah. Not convinced we'll see that come out in tournaments.
I mean maybe based on tools/potential etc Sisters should be doing this - but if they aren't, then it seems like they can't.
Amishprn86 wrote: lol, I disagree It is a buff to sisters, Paragons, Seraphs, Zephs, Mortis, BSS, tanks, basically everything not doing well all got better.
Who cares that you auto include units didn't get buffed, the balance slate is to buff things you don't take. Sacs didn't need to be maxed and spammed, they already were good enough. heck they were good enough without VH.
The second sentence is just factually untrue. The only Sisters lists that have had significant success since LVO have been 30 sac lists. They absolutely did need to be spammed. VH was also the only order conviction that was seeing significant success, so they also were not good enough without VH. The w/l stats back all that up.
If the best stuff gets nerfed and the worst stuff gets buffed, whether or not the army improves is entirely dependent on if the worst units got buffed enough to be better than best stuff USED to be.
I personally don't think the buffs to Paragons, Seraphim, Zephyrim, Mortifiers, BSS, or tanks were particularly relevant. I think the nerf to Sacresants was majorly relevant.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I won't know until tournament results have had time to stabilize.
Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.
Where you are now is mostly determined by where you started.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Altruizine wrote: Interestingly, these guys think Sisters are the "biggest beneficiaries of Armour of Contempt" (start 00:42:45)
Spoiler:
That's objectively false. The argument can be had that AoC is a buff and a far bigger benefit than I've given it credit for, but the idea that it benefits US more than DA, DG, or GK is pure fantasy.
Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.
Have you seen the rules for tyranids. Tau nerfs don't kill their best builds, same with custodes. GK post the brotherhood nerf got worse, but still played the same list -1GM NDK and just one brotherhood. Having sacrosancts nerfed is as if suddenly both venoms and raiders became really bad option, but instead the shades got -1Ld to opponent if the fight happens to be in cover. GW is full of examples of armies where the core unit gets nerfed, like for example the shield drone durning 8th to 9th transition, and suddenly tau go from strong, but annoying to worse army in the game. And you can tell player to try out other stuff shield drone for month, and somehow they don't find a proper way to play tau. A substential nerf to the army is not balanced by a buff to something bad.
Altruizine wrote: Interestingly, these guys think Sisters are the "biggest beneficiaries of Armour of Contempt" (start 00:42:45)
The guys are obviously exceptional players - but their views on how the meta works I think are occasionally skewed. Possibly due to the nature of tier systems and a tendency towards exaggeration for cinematic effect.
Personally the idea Sisters are the third best army in the game... is a reach. I really don't see how you'd conclude in general terms they were better than DE (although AoC may effect the matchup itself - I've not played my Sisters friend since the dataslate came out). I guess you can say its early days etc, but... yeah. Not convinced we'll see that come out in tournaments.
I mean maybe based on tools/potential etc Sisters should be doing this - but if they aren't, then it seems like they can't.
They're right more often then anyone of Dakka has ever been
Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.
Have you seen the rules for tyranids. Tau nerfs don't kill their best builds, same with custodes. GK post the brotherhood nerf got worse, but still played the same list -1GM NDK and just one brotherhood. Having sacrosancts nerfed is as if suddenly both venoms and raiders became really bad option, but instead the shades got -1Ld to opponent if the fight happens to be in cover. GW is full of examples of armies where the core unit gets nerfed, like for example the shield drone durning 8th to 9th transition, and suddenly tau go from strong, but annoying to worse army in the game. And you can tell player to try out other stuff shield drone for month, and somehow they don't find a proper way to play tau. A substential nerf to the army is not balanced by a buff to something bad.
Custodes nerfs killed custodes best builds stone dead. Like utterly. No one is playing the bikes and maybe a dreadnought with trajan now.
stratigo wrote: Custodes nerfs killed custodes best builds stone dead. Like utterly. No one is playing the bikes and maybe a dreadnought with trajan now.
Use more repentia.
I can't help but feel that saying "use more repentia [instead of sacrosancts]" - a unit that doesn't benefit from AoC at all outside of a single edge case (Against AP-1 while in cover and their Invulnerable save has been turned off) - while arguing Sisters are the biggest beneficiaries of AoC and that it alone makes Sisters the 3rd best army in the game is a bit incogruent.
stratigo wrote: Custodes nerfs killed custodes best builds stone dead. Like utterly. No one is playing the bikes and maybe a dreadnought with trajan now.
Use more repentia.
I can't help but feel that saying "use more repentia [instead of sacrosancts]" - a unit that doesn't benefit from AoC at all outside of a single edge case (Against AP-1 while in cover and their Invulnerable save has been turned off) - while arguing Sisters are the biggest beneficiaries of AoC and that it alone makes Sisters the 3rd best army in the game is a bit incogruent.
I honestly disagree with those guys, I don't think sisters are hte biggest beneficiaries, but I think it definitely was a major buff for them. I believe based on the 1st weekend results that Grey Knights are in fact the biggest beneficiaries but its still too early to call so we will see
stratigo wrote: Custodes nerfs killed custodes best builds stone dead. Like utterly. No one is playing the bikes and maybe a dreadnought with trajan now.
Use more repentia.
I can't help but feel that saying "use more repentia [instead of sacrosancts]" - a unit that doesn't benefit from AoC at all outside of a single edge case (Against AP-1 while in cover and their Invulnerable save has been turned off) - while arguing Sisters are the biggest beneficiaries of AoC and that it alone makes Sisters the 3rd best army in the game is a bit incogruent.
Repentia are very strong into AoC. And Sisters pack in a bunch of meltas.
Sisters have a very strong subfaction to lean on.
And the tier list is: Tyranids (BIG GAP) Craftworlds (Gap) sisters, greyknights, et cetera. The A rank was all very close to each other.
Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.
Have you seen the rules for tyranids. Tau nerfs don't kill their best builds, same with custodes. GK post the brotherhood nerf got worse, but still played the same list -1GM NDK and just one brotherhood. Having sacrosancts nerfed is as if suddenly both venoms and raiders became really bad option, but instead the shades got -1Ld to opponent if the fight happens to be in cover. GW is full of examples of armies where the core unit gets nerfed, like for example the shield drone durning 8th to 9th transition, and suddenly tau go from strong, but annoying to worse army in the game. And you can tell player to try out other stuff shield drone for month, and somehow they don't find a proper way to play tau. A substential nerf to the army is not balanced by a buff to something bad.
Nids will be nerf, stop looking at 1-3 month FOMO 9th lists and wait for the nerfs. And never said the nerfs killed any builds, said Indirect got worst and put Tau/Custodes more in line with what they should be, you know not 65%+ win rates.
stratigo wrote: Custodes nerfs killed custodes best builds stone dead. Like utterly. No one is playing the bikes and maybe a dreadnought with trajan now.
Use more repentia.
I can't help but feel that saying "use more repentia [instead of sacrosancts]" - a unit that doesn't benefit from AoC at all outside of a single edge case (Against AP-1 while in cover and their Invulnerable save has been turned off) - while arguing Sisters are the biggest beneficiaries of AoC and that it alone makes Sisters the 3rd best army in the game is a bit incogruent.
Repentia are very strong into AoC. And Sisters pack in a bunch of meltas.
Sisters have a very strong subfaction to lean on.
And the tier list is: Tyranids (BIG GAP) Craftworlds (Gap) sisters, greyknights, et cetera. The A rank was all very close to each other.
Repentia were a somewhat obsolete meta and AoC doesn't help them...
Repentia knock out heavier armor with a large number of medium-high AP attacks at D2 well was the point, I think...and their ride got slightly tougher.
Certainly not the biggest beneficiary, but not useless either.
.
