Mythal wrote:...gains a 6++ save that RAW say can never be taken...

Mythal, I get the feeling I've missed something here - could you elaborate, please?

Dysartes wrote:Mythal, I get the feeling I've missed something here - could you elaborate, please?

Invulnerable saves, in the BGB, may only be taken against wounds - which vehicles never suffer. Most folks I've played with, myself included, interpret RAI as Invulnerable Saves for vehicles being handled in the same way as Cover Saves - but there's a RAW argument for never allowing vehicles to take invulnerable saves, and I have seen folks get pretty heated over the debate.

Ugh. Not that again.

pretre wrote:Ugh. Not that again.

He did ask. There is, in that at least, an upside to Penitent Engines not moving to Elites - can you imagine how often that would come up on the tabletop if Sisters could be expected to field 9 walkers and over a dozen hulls under a standard FOC?

Often enough that GW is forced to address it?

I'm trying to imagine the type of person that is so pedantic that he has to make an argument over something so obvious as the intent of a rule specifically given to a model like this but then I remember that I spent last weekend judging at a tournament and I know exactly what that guy looks like.

Didn't say it was right - in fact, I went on to explain why I disagreed with the view But it's human nature. Look at socialism.

And you did so quite well I might add, thanks.
What´s socialism got to do with it though, I mean an ideology where people buy things they want with someone elses money... lol

That depends on perspective. SM vehicles compared to BA and GK vehicles would be slightly overcosted. But SM vehicles compared to the majority of MC would be severely undercosted.

I would prefer to see vehicles, especially transports, get significant price hikes to account for thier increased survivability and increased tactical utility. Of course given the continued power creep of vehicles in 5th edition codices, I doubt that will happen.

I agree with you, more incentive to take foot or at least part foot armies. Am sick and tired of always playing against rows of vehicles.

As far as I have ever been able to tell the only area they pay in is 5 points for hammernators. Virtually every choice in both the space wolf and blood angels books that aren't exact copies of a unit in C:SM are superior in some way without costing more. Likewise in Grey Knights. Vulkan and those terminators are about the only thing keeping C:SM even remotely competitive.

Sorry if I am wrong, been some while I read through the BA codex but arent all BA infantry priced more to offset that chance to roll a rage/frenzy/whateveritscalled?

Same goes with space pups, their base infantry is underpriced but they pay sorely in the dedicated melee department to make up for that.

Yeah, scandanavia is totally overpowered with it's socialism trait. It's not fair that they all get FnP from their social healthcare system but still make more per model then we do while paying the same points cost after you consider the default upgrades we have to buy (We're like the only codex still having to pay for insurance grenades, and our's don't even work as well).

Then again you arent forced to pay three grenades for every free grenade other players get while those players can opt to do nothing at all in return

As far as THIS codex goes, I think it lacks flavor (or 'flavour' )... I 'get' that the 6++ on everything Sister-ish and the faith system is our special rule, but I don't think it's substantial... novel yes, substantial - no.

The one thing so far that I see is lacking is the absence of more then one competitive build.
Maybe when the army hits the tables and people start experimenting with it this will change but so far things look rather under powered.

Maybe because SoB only get 2 shooting transport variants, with one of them being massively worse than the SM equiv and one of them being the same. As they do not get access to las/plas and TLplas, not to mention even dual AC, they do deserve cheaper immolators. If you can't understand the fundamentals behind that concept, then this website is probably too complicated for you.

Throwing out your petty little insults again I see.
If you love to piss on people this much then maybe try a forum with no moderation.

Invulnerable saves, in the BGB, may only be taken against wounds - which vehicles never suffer. Most folks I've played with, myself included, interpret RAI as Invulnerable Saves for vehicles being handled in the same way as Cover Saves - but there's a RAW argument for never allowing vehicles to take invulnerable saves, and I have seen folks get pretty heated over the debate.

Interesting, I missed that one, thanks.
Just something GW needs to FAQ, I have no doubt the inv saves for SoB vehicles are intended to be taken in the logical way.

Mythal wrote:

pretre wrote:Ugh. Not that again.

He did ask. There is, in that at least, an upside to Penitent Engines not moving to Elites - can you imagine how often that would come up on the tabletop if Sisters could be expected to field 9 walkers and over a dozen hulls under a standard FOC?

I would have been glad to address it when it came up in exchange for 9 walkers and a dozen hulls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, I was seriously considering buying a bunch of PE when I thought they were going Elite. Oh well, not now.

Indeed, that would have been a rather good boon, and another positive mark to add to the few that are there (the other indisputably buffed units being Celestine's improved stats and the addition of Scout on dominions).

Heck, I might even say 85 points is a steal in elite. Oh well. It was not to be.

Pyriel- wrote:

Invulnerable saves, in the BGB, may only be taken against wounds - which vehicles never suffer. Most folks I've played with, myself included, interpret RAI as Invulnerable Saves for vehicles being handled in the same way as Cover Saves - but there's a RAW argument for never allowing vehicles to take invulnerable saves, and I have seen folks get pretty heated over the debate.

Interesting, I missed that one, thanks.
Just something GW needs to FAQ, I have no doubt the inv saves for SoB vehicles are intended to be taken in the logical way.

It is totally silly argument as this is I believe third Codex (or fourth?) which has Invulverability save as a vehicle special rule. The special rule is meant to work and it's stupid to argue that it won't as the RAI is just so overwhelmingly obvious.

Pyriel- wrote:
Dunno, somehow all the SoB fans keep thinking they are entitled to a cheaper version of the very same thing SM get.

That's because of two reasons:
A: Most Sisters players believe that was goes in/with the transport is weaker/less flexible than what SM get.
B: The rest of the army is less flexible than the rest of the SM list.

A is debatable. I personally think it is mostly true. B is straight fact, but the value of that fact is debated instead. I think it is also substantially important.

That's because of two reasons:
A: Most Sisters players believe that was goes in/with the transport is weaker/less flexible than what SM get.
B: The rest of the army is less flexible than the rest of the SM list.

A is debatable. I personally think it is mostly true. B is straight fact, but the value of that fact is debated instead. I think it is also substantially important.

True.
I dont agree with A since they are cheaper and/or can be opted for more special weapons, plus it also depends on the rest of the army and we still dont know for sure how it plays until lots of players really start to drag it into tournaments and such.
I agree with B however, at least when it comes to competitive lists but as with A, the extent of this is still not known.

I still think the whole SoB "codex" is a little to underpowered though, especially if going outside the few competitive builds but I might be wrong (look up A).

As for the whole "lack of variation should bring lesser point cost" argument I dont believe it, it depends on how the rest of the army is supposed to work.
Space wolf troops have the same stats but lack the long range variation that SM troops have and not only do they compensate by added short range variation, they are also cheaper to boot. Had they not received increased short range power to make up then I would agree, they ought to be cheaper but not both.
Clearly more peripheral reasons play into GWs decisions to set points to units then pure and dry logic based on different codexes comparisons.

I´m also curious if the SoB will get their own "real" codex like the BA did or if they are to be stuck with a white dwarf one. Anyone know this? If this is already answered then I´we missed it.

Hey, bad news people. Dominions can't scout in rhinos. See the main rule book, page six, bright pink text:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

there goes that idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently, if you are scouting, you are doing it on foot.

Hey, bad news sharkticon. Dominions can scout in rhinos. See the main rule book, page 76, black and white text:

"If a unit with this ability is deployed inside a dedicated transport vehicle, it confers the scout ability to the transport too."

The FAQ question is for non-dedicated transports.

sharkticon wrote:Hey, bad news people. Dominions can't scout in rhinos. See the main rule book, page six, bright pink text:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

there goes that idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently, if you are scouting, you are doing it on foot.

Old news. That's a FAQ, not an Errata - as such, it doesn't redact the BGB text on page 76. So long as the vehicle Dominions are mounted in is their own Dedicated Transport, selected according to the Dominions entry in the Army List, their Scout ability is conferred to said vehicle. The FAQ in question is designed to stop Space Marine Scouts mounting up in Heavy Support Land Raiders and Scouting/Outflanking in them - and similar situations.

Edit: Ninja'd

@Mythal: FAQ vs Errata is irrelevant; the rest of what you said is cool though.

Doesn't FAQ override main rulebook? The reason I ask is because it does say any vehicle, and dedicated transports are vehicles. Trust me, I wish it was different, this removes one of my main uses for stormtroopers.

pretre wrote:@Mythal: FAQ vs Errata is irrelevant; the rest of what you said is cool though.

Au contraire, mon ami

Games Workshop Website wrote:What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?

As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

- Games Development, November 2008

Text copyright Games Workshop, etc., etc.

Edit: To clarify--

FAQs serve to attend grey areas. Where there are no grey areas possible in interpretation of text, an FAQ has no meaning. To redact the text in the BGB, which stipulates Scouts confer their Scouting ability to their own dedicated transport, so long as they are mounted in it, Games Workshop would instead have to issue an errata that rewrote the Scouts rule.

Yeah, I'm not going to get into that debate. It is literally irrelevant to the discussion.

The particular FAQ question is less specific than the quote from the main rulebook. Hence the main rulebook overrules.

General is overruled by specific.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The difference is that the Dominions have a Dedicated Transport. If a Stormtrooper squad takes a Dedicated Transport, it also gets Scout. If they try to embark into a non-dedicated transport without Scout than it does not gain it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically:
General: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to ANY transport it embarks in? No.
Specific case: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to a DT it embarks in? Yes.

pretre wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically:
General: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to ANY transport it embarks in? No.
Specific case: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to a DT it embarks in? Yes.

This is pretty much what I was getting at, only much more succinctly put.

Sorry if I am wrong, been some while I read through the BA codex but arent all BA infantry priced more to offset that chance to roll a rage/frenzy/whateveritscalled?

Same goes with space pups, their base infantry is underpriced but they pay sorely in the dedicated melee department to make up for that.

As far as I have seen reading the books (specifically with the aim of bitching) nothing is costed up for access to random furious charge/more options/better options in the BA book. Their carbon copy squads are all identical (except with cheaper upgrades) and they get choices I don't. Their scoring assault squads can have melta weapons and they deep strike more accurately for instance. It's just better.

There is really no reason outside of vulkan TH/SS lists to not play BA. You don't lose or pay for anything, all you do is gain. As for wolves, when your dedicated mellee squad is either your own undercosted base troop (they beat assault squads!) or wolf riding death stars then you don't really lose anything.

ShumaGorath wrote:As far as I have seen reading the books (specifically with the aim of bitching) nothing is costed up for access to random furious charge in the BA book. Their carbon copy squads are all identical (except with cheaper upgrades) and they get choices I don't. Their scoring assault squads can have melta weapons for instance..

Blood Angels lose Combat Tactics/Chapter Tactics in exchange for the Red Thirst. Since Combat Tactics is a great rule and the Red Thirst is both unreliable and pretty "meh," I think the Codex Marines come out on top on that trade.

Fetterkey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:As far as I have seen reading the books (specifically with the aim of bitching) nothing is costed up for access to random furious charge in the BA book. Their carbon copy squads are all identical (except with cheaper upgrades) and they get choices I don't. Their scoring assault squads can have melta weapons for instance..

Blood Angels lose Combat Tactics/Chapter Tactics in exchange for the Red Thirst. Since Combat Tactics is a great rule and the Red Thirst is both unreliable and pretty "meh," I think the Codex Marines come out on top on that trade.

Blood angels gain assault squads as scoring troops which have expanded options. None of the chapter tactics are particularly useful on tactical marines outside of vulkans and BA assault squads are significantly better in the troops slot then basic tacticals (which are commonly regarded as bad). I'll agree that the exchange works out ok when comparing tactical squads to eachother, but given that one of the two sides wouldn't be caught dead with a painted tactical squad and the other is forced to take them when it would probably prefer not to, it's not a hugely impactful issue. Near universal FNP easily makes up for the loss of combat tactics, a largely situational ability itself.

Ultimately, I think the new Codex: Sisters is doomed-- despite rules that I find quite appealing-- thanks to the exorbitant monetary costs of starting a Sisters army. This is, after all, an army where the basic troops are sold only as metal blisters in inconvenient sizes. I hope that GW lowers prices on the Sisters range (this will never happen) or comes out with new models soon (also unlikely until the full update), because I would really like to start a Sisters army with this Codex but the costs are just too damn high for me to justify-- it's literally at "one Sisters army or two other armies" level, and I don't like the new Sisters THAT much. Hopefully GW will give the Sisters the full update (including multi-part plastics) that they deserve sometime soon.

I think I can summarise the last 30 pages thusly,

1. Sisters complainers want all their cake and to eat it too (each turn)
2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)
3. Some various rules crap

Am I wrong?

Alastair78 wrote:I think I can summarise the last 30 pages thusly,

1. Sisters complainers want all their cake and to eat it too (each turn)
2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)
3. Some various rules crap

Am I wrong?

Yes.

Alastair78 wrote:I think I can summarise the last 30 pages thusly,

1. Sisters complainers want all their cake and to eat it too (each turn)
2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)
3. Some various rules crap

Am I wrong?

I think you need to work on those reading skills.

That totally sounds like Alistair from Dragon Age. Where's morrigan with her snippy reply?

Actually, it's more like

1. Sister players discovering that the new "cake" is a lie.
2. I told you so
3. It's not that bad!
4. But I told you so..oh well play Mech IG
5. Why are immolators worse than BA?
6. I told you so
7. it's not that bad!
8. But I told you so..oh well play Mech IG
9. Cannoness doesn't have 2++ save anymore....
etc etc.
.
.
.
99. I saves on vehicles are illegal!

oh better yet:

Sum up 31 pages of this thread:
Sister of Battle WD part 2 = Sisters of Battle WD part1 + I told you so

2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)

To actually be able to field a competitive 1850 pointer "Da Grot Revolution" army complete with miniature grot tanks and hordes upon hordes of "revolution commie" themed grots in 40k (not apoc) would be so awesome that it would redefine the very concept of awesomeness.

n0t_u wrote:Yep, they just really really liked some of the shiny stuff the Witch Hunters had. So they made their own version of some of it.

...Or the Black Templar vows resembled the old SoB 'faith' mechanic where the army got a bonus from the shrine every game. I think some were very similar to the Armageddon BT vows...

For a while I wondered if the SoBs were being used as a 'test bed' to see if certain ideas were too far out for the game and would be received poorly.

I wish they went MORE far out. What they have here isn't "far out", it's bland and generic.

Unfortunately that is true.

Probably being in line with the dumbing down of the game. I still miss the guess template range days.

Pyriel- wrote:I still miss the guess template range days.

Ah, guessing ranges - a mechanism that took skill, and one which, as a Dwarf or Empire player in Fantasy, you learned PDQ...

Hopefully the Ecclesiarchy will make friends with the tech priests again so they'll agree to fix the engines on our Immolators.

Dysartes wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:I still miss the guess template range days.

Ah, guessing ranges - a mechanism that took skill, and one which, as a Dwarf or Empire player in Fantasy, you learned PDQ...

Ah guess range, an annoying mechanic that only served to annoy new comers to the game, and was irrelevant the other 99% of the time. Whhen you can guess to within an accuracy of 1" every damn time its a crap extra step.

A bit like eyeballing the world in 6" increments.

What makes no guess range so overpowering is the ability to place the template so perfectly it maximizes hits and lands on almost every model in a unit. While people can get good at guessing (and I've yet to see these mythical super guessers that can land within an inch from 50" distances every time even at major tournaments) you can't get so good that you can place it exactly 1 mm onto the edge of a base to get that perfect hit.

But thats what the scatter dice is for - you only hit 1/3rd of the time. So no, it really isnt "overpowered"

You obviously never went to any of the UK tournies in 7th ed, or 3rd ed 40k. As an exercise we got a friend to guess a basilisk range on Apocalypse (no need as 4th, but we thought we'd try his old skills out) - he could guess to within 1" when hitting another games tables, at well over 10' distance

It doesn't matter if you are within 1". Unless your friend is guessing stuff like 35 3/10" he isn't hitting that perfect sweet spot you can get by placing the template and maximizing models, especially from over 4 feet away. So 1/3 of the time you are hitting 20+ models.

I think the difference in opinions we are having is probably a 40k vs Fantasy thing. In Fantasy the models are much more densely packed so direct hits will typically generate more models touched. In 40k I don't think it's a problem.

Except in 40k you have "hits" more often, as you reduce scatter.

I play both games quite a bit (more 40K, admittedly) so know what you mean - however it still doesnt make them "overpowered" - what does hurt are cannon being as accurate as they are.

I like the new book but I don't have a preconcieved notion of how they should play. I think the idea of putting down 90ish models supported by 9 hulls at 2k is pretty solid. Especially when that includes a decent CC component, some medium ranged anti-tank, some solid anti-infantry and hardcore close in anti-tank/terminator. But that's just my opinion.

Err, you realize that you could have had a larger squad for cheaper using the previous rules, right?

Both squads are ~125 for a basic squad with a VSS, but the new BSS pays one point more for each sister aftewards. So 234 points for a C:WH basic battle sister squad with twenty members, 245 for a WD book with the same numbers. And the latter pays more for its heavy flamer.

Heck the C:WH version, especially with forgeworld rules for cheaper rhinos, can also end up being cheaper at ten members because of the heavy flamer issue.

Melissia wrote:I wish they went MORE far out. What they have here isn't "far out", it's bland and generic.

Welcome to the world of Dark Angels.

I run 10-man in rhinos. For me the new rules are better we also got a better CC element than we had before. But don't let me get in the way of your vitriol friend

Hulksmash wrote:I run 10-man in rhinos. For me the new rules are better we also got a better CC element than we had before.

Err, no we don't. The only Sisters infantry unit that became better in CC than before is Celestine.

Melissia wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I run 10-man in rhinos. For me the new rules are better we also got a better CC element than we had before.

Err, no we don't. The only Sisters infantry unit that became better in CC than before is Celestine.

Repentia.

Deathcult too Shuma. But I'm sure some purists won't count them which is fine

Death cult assasins. Far better than before.

Stop thinking pure sisters.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I run 10-man in rhinos. For me the new rules are better we also got a better CC element than we had before.

Err, no we don't. The only Sisters infantry unit that became better in CC than before is Celestine.

Repentia.

Okay, units that matter.

Hell even they got weaker because of the nerf to the Mistress Repentia.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I run 10-man in rhinos. For me the new rules are better we also got a better CC element than we had before.

Err, no we don't. The only Sisters infantry unit that became better in CC than before is Celestine.

Repentia.

Okay, units that matter.

Hell even they got weaker because of the nerf to the Mistress Repentia.

They get to strike in combat at some point now. That's a hell of a lot better then before. You have death cults with priests now as well. Thos're pretty good. Not that the sisters ever had good assault units before. So it's kind of a silly question in the first place.

I agree DCAs are better than before, but you can't take them without a special character anymore. Basically, nothing got increased assault capability without any notable drawback except Celestine. And most of the drawbacks are pretty harsh (losing initiative 4 and holy hatred as well as acts of faith in the enemy's turn, for example for celestians, making them weaker than before in melee, while penitent engines are better in assault, but also less mobile than before).

Hulksmash wrote:I run 10-man in rhinos. For me the new rules are better we also got a better CC element than we had before. But don't let me get in the way of your vitriol friend

+1

Having actually made some lists that I like, I am cautiously optimistic. Things are much less bad than people portray.

Melissia wrote:I agree DCAs are better than before, but you can't take them without a special character anymore. Basically, nothing got increased assault capability without any notable drawback except Celestine. And most of the drawbacks are pretty harsh (losing initiative 4 and holy hatred as well as acts of faith in the enemy's turn, for example for celestians, making them weaker than before in melee, while penitent engines are better in assault, but also less mobile than before).

Realistically celestians were never very good in combat. That's sort of a strawman.

Dysartes wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:I still miss the guess template range days.

Ah, guessing ranges - a mechanism that took skill, and one which, as a Dwarf or Empire player in Fantasy, you learned PDQ...

Guess-ranging has nothing to do with skill, and opens the door wide open for cheating.

Omegus wrote:Guess-ranging has nothing to do with skill, and opens the door wide open for cheating.

???

You going to explain how guessing ranges is the gateway drug for cheating?

ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically celestians were never very good in combat. That's sort of a strawman.

They were better than they are now, certainly, and combined with a flamer/heavy flamer and power sword or eviscerator or even a brazier/combiflamer wielding superior could get the drop on most non-assault units (hitting at the same time or earlier than most non-eldar units, as well as hitting more often, after inflicting casualties from divine guidance on the flamer templates).

As an aside, I don't think you quite grasp what a strawman is, but that's for another thread.

This "book" resembles Cruddace's work on the Nid book in a lot of ways. He specifically removed things that irritated his guard army (Spirit of the Martyr, Cloak of St Aspira, Psuedo Fast Immos, Rage Movement) and put in a bunch of cut paste work from other books. Then, he balanced prices against guardsman, because thats what the game revolves around in his mind. I mean, does anyone in their right mind think for a moment that a Battle Sister is even in the same ball park as a basic Tactical Marine? Were 4 meltaguns in a fast attack slot really outshining meltavets that much? We even got a weaker version of guard orders, just to drive the point home about how much he loves him some guardsmen.

I can accept that this is a placeholder to get rid of allies, because GW is sick of answering questions about it. I can accept that they wanted to remove confusion between the GK and SoB versions of the same units. But Cruddace is a moron of Gav Thorpian proportions, when it comes to codex design and internal balance. Further, stupid choices he has made in this list have a good chance of finding their way into the final propper book, meaning the taint of Cruddace may have irrevocably hosed this army forever.

Here are my major issues:
Cannoness- Ok, we get it you hate the 2+ Inv (though every MAREENZ character seems to get a 3+ to go with their T4 seems ok for some reason), but for the love of god why no Jump Pack option? Has anyone seen a Sisters army without at least one Jump Pack Canoness as part of its collection? Artificer Armor on a model with T3 would have been nice, since you hiked the price for no real bennefit, but the lack of a jump pack option is the real travesty, especially with the new emphasis on Seraphim.

Pennitant Engines-
No rage rule and no fleet? Yeah, an open topped killer kan at twice the cost has no business being in heavy support. Armored Sentinals are cheaper, more durable, and they are Fast Attack. This unit will never reach hand to hand against any army with even a passive relationship to the word competitive.

Battle Sisters-
Welcome to the world of Eldar, where troops are taken for no other reason than the fact that you have to have something to hold objectives that tries not to die. The price hike is so utterly ridiculous, even if you do not take the nerfed faith acts into account. Lets pretend there are no GKs, BAs, and SW for a moment, and just compare them to Tac Marines. You get seven sisters for slightly more than five tac marines. Same gear, but inferior toughness, Initiative, strength, and a complete lack of ATSKNF puts them behind the tactical marines in every situation, outside of killing other tactical marines at range with bolters. Thats not even taking the flexibility of Combat Squads and Drop Pods into the mix.

But hey, lets foget that comparision for a moment and do the comparison that Cruddace was undoubtedly doing when he wrote this list. A typical Demo Melta Vet squad in a Chimera weighs in at the same cost as the typical double melta rhino kit battle sister squad. Does anyone actually think that the Mech Battle Sister Squad is superior? And whats worse is that the Melta Vets are not that much worse in close combat than the sisters (certainly less helpless against walkers) and the chimera gives the unit a much longer threat range, thanks to AV12 front and 36" Multilaser.

As someone who played Sisters, and even won with them, I hate this list more than anything I have seen in 40k, and thats including me being a Tyranid player and getting Cruddaced once already, this edition. My wife basically lost all interest in finishing the army, after reading the list, and she mostly plays for fun.

TLDR Version:
Die in a fire Robin Cruddace, you hack among hacks. You make me long for the days of Gav Thorpe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps- the Death Cultists are a copy paste from the GK book, but in typical Cruddace fashion, he forgot the fact that in that book they generally have a Stubborn LD10 character leading the unit and access to Hammer Hand and Rad Grenades.

Also, he can eat my poo for removing all psychic defense from the book. Hooray for Jaws of the World Wolf rapign half the army!

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Realistically celestians were never very good in combat. That's sort of a strawman.

They were better than they are now, certainly, and combined with a flamer/heavy flamer and power sword or eviscerator or even a brazier/combiflamer wielding superior could get the drop on most non-assault units (hitting at the same time or earlier than most non-eldar units, as well as hitting more often, after inflicting casualties from divine guidance on the flamer templates).

As an aside, I don't think you quite grasp what a strawman is, but that's for another thread.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Stating that the sisters lost their assault ability to refute what I said because "celestians got worse" is a strawman. Celestians were bad assault troops before, especially for their cost. They were just capable of the act in off situations.

ShumaGorath wrote:Stating that the sisters lost their assault ability to refute what I said because "celestians got worse" is a strawman.

You keep telling yourself that.

ShumaGorath wrote:Celestians were bad assault troops before, especially for their cost.

They weren't excitingly powerful, but they weren't bad for their price, certainly not as bad as you make them out to be.

They weren't excitingly powerful, but they weren't bad for their price, certainly not as bad as you make them out to be.

In fifth they were pretty poor. They didn't stack up to grey hunter, BA assault troops, anything in the GK codex, and most things fielded by vanilla marines outside of tacticals. They certainly couldn't tangle with orks or nids. They were fine in fourth, but that was a very different power level.

This is wardtime. Everything is metal boxes or crack assault troops.

ShumaGorath wrote:

They weren't excitingly powerful, but they weren't bad for their price, certainly not as bad as you make them out to be.

In fifth they were pretty poor. They didn't stack up to grey hunter, BA assault troops, anything in the GK codex, and most things fielded by vanilla marines outside of tacticals. They certainly couldn't tangle with orks or nids. They were fine in fourth, but that was a very different power level.

This is wardtime.

Yes, but that just means you need to be conscious about what you use them to assault.

You know, intelligence and tactics and good judgment, the bane of the average 40k player.

I used to be terrible at guess ranges. I would shoot at my enemy's unit in the far back corner. But somehow my guesses would always make the shot land on top of a losing close combat 6" away.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

They weren't excitingly powerful, but they weren't bad for their price, certainly not as bad as you make them out to be.

In fifth they were pretty poor. They didn't stack up to grey hunter, BA assault troops, anything in the GK codex, and most things fielded by vanilla marines outside of tacticals. They certainly couldn't tangle with orks or nids. They were fine in fourth, but that was a very different power level.

This is wardtime.

Yes, but that just means you need to be conscious about what you use them to assault.

You know, intelligence and tactics and good judgment, the bane of the average 40k player.

And you wanted eight point sisters and admitted to ceasing to play the army in fifth. There's a point at which condescension doesn't work. That's here. When the unit is bad in assault it's bad in assault. Anything can win in combat against "the right targets". Not everyone fields foot tau though, so being non specific isn't particularly helpful.

ShumaGorath wrote:And you wanted eight point sisters

No I didn't, stop making things up.

Actually, I priced Sisters at 11-12 points ideally for Battle Sisters in my codex.

ShumaGorath wrote: and admitted to ceasing to play the army in fifth

I played Sisters for most of fifth edition. In fact, the only new codices I haven't played Sisters against are Grey Knights and the new Sisters WD rule update, which isn't really a codex anyway.

ShumaGorath wrote:When the unit is bad in assault it's bad in assault.

Says the guy that thinks tacticals suck in assault, proving he doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to assault power because he only ever thinks in terms of MEQ?

Under the old book, Celestians with an Evisorator, using Spirit of the Martyr, were a workable assault unit against certain things. Ideal? No. But they had a use in assault to go with their other functions. The new list took that use away and they cost more on top of that.

Says the guy that thinks tacticals suck in assault, proving he doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to assault power because he only ever thinks in terms of MEQ?

A tac squad gets 18 attacks and 3 fist attacks on a full charge. Against MEQ they get 9 hits, 1.5 fist hits. 4.5 wounds, 1.2 fist wounds. That's 2.7 dead marines. For a 205 point squad minimum. On a full charge. Against orks that's like 5 orcs and I'll lose half the squad or more on the return.

Thats awful. Don't try and tell me that's good.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Says the guy that thinks tacticals suck in assault, proving he doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to assault power because he only ever thinks in terms of MEQ?

A tac squad gets 18 attacks and 3 fist attacks on a full charge. Against MEQ they get 9 hits, 1.5 fist hits. 4.5 wounds, 1.2 fist wounds. That's 2.7 dead marines. For a 205 point squad minimum. On a full charge. Against orks that's like 5 orcs and I'll lose half the squad or more on the return.

Thats awful. Don't try and tell me that's good.

And yet, against anything T3 that isn't equipped with massive amounts of power weapons, they're frighteningly deadly, especially combined with shooting.

@Shuma: Just walk away. It really isn't worth it.

I think that things are not as bad as the armchair tacticians think they are. We'll see over the next couple of months as people get in some actual games though.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Says the guy that thinks tacticals suck in assault, proving he doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to assault power because he only ever thinks in terms of MEQ?

A tac squad gets 18 attacks and 3 fist attacks on a full charge. Against MEQ they get 9 hits, 1.5 fist hits. 4.5 wounds, 1.2 fist wounds. That's 2.7 dead marines. For a 205 point squad minimum. On a full charge. Against orks that's like 5 orcs and I'll lose half the squad or more on the return.

Thats awful. Don't try and tell me that's good.

And yet, against anything T3 that isn't equipped with massive amounts of power weapons, they're frighteningly deadly, especially combined with shooting.

On a full charge they kill like 4.5 sisters and the only shooting i'm getting before hand is pistols and maybe a melta gun. That's still awful for how much I pay. Sisters are the best case scenario opponent too. Everything else i lose to or the assault is meaningless since ill wipe them by shooting first (ig vets).

If that's awful for how much you pay, then Sisters are even MORE awful for the same reason.

Tacticals get more for their points than Sisters do. For a mere four points more per model, they get +1 WS, +1 S, +1 T, +1 I, Combat Tactics, ATSNKF (like Light of the Emperor, but better!), and access to a better variety of wargear on their sergeant.

Melissia wrote:If that's awful for how much you pay, then Sisters are even MORE awful for the same reason.

Tacticals get more for their points than Sisters do. For a mere four points more per model, they get +1 WS, +1 S, +1 T, +1 I, Combat Tactics, ATSNKF (like Light of the Emperor, but better!), and access to a better variety of wargear on their sergeant.

And you get twin specials and heavy flamers. You do much more by double tapping then i do by pistol + assault. The math is in your favor against most opponents. Somehow that's lost here though.

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats awful. Don't try and tell me that's good.

And yet, when a 185 point tactical squad (sergeant w/ power weapon, flamer, multimelta) assaults another tactical squad, it inflicts on average 2.5 unsaved wounds.

When such a tac squad is assaulted by a 180 point Celestian squad (superior w/ power weapon, flamer, multimelta), the Celestians inflict on average 2.3 unsaved wounds (assuming no shortage of Faith Points).

Now, I'm not one of the doomsayers saying the new Codex is thoroughly unworkable - but saying that a 'good' Assault unit inflicts 9% fewer wounds on a charge than a 'bad' assault unit that costs 2.7% more is a bit disingenuous. Celestians aren't being taken for their assault capabilities in the new Codex, any more than they were under the old Codex - to competitive players, Celestians are not the absolute elite of the Adepta Sororitas - they're just two melta guns in a transport with gold trim.

Mythal wrote:Celestians are not the absolute elite of the Adepta Sororitas - they're just two melta guns in a transport with gold trim.

lol Excellent. At least something good came out of this thread.

Mythal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats awful. Don't try and tell me that's good.

And yet, when a 185 point tactical squad (sergeant w/ power weapon, flamer, multimelta) assaults another tactical squad, it inflicts on average 2.5 unsaved wounds.

When such a tac squad is assaulted by a 180 point Celestian squad (superior w/ power weapon, flamer, multimelta), the Celestians inflict on average 2.3 unsaved wounds (assuming no shortage of Faith Points).

Now, I'm not one of the doomsayers saying the new Codex is thoroughly unworkable - but saying that a 'good' Assault unit inflicts 9% fewer wounds on a charge than a 'bad' assault unit that costs 2.7% more is a bit disingenuous. Celestians aren't being taken for their assault capabilities in the new Codex, any more than they were under the old Codex - to competitive players, Celestians are not the absolute elite of the Adepta Sororitas - they're just two melta guns in a transport with gold trim.

Wasn't that the point I was making? That both were bad assault troops? As an aside a power fist in a tac squad puts it at 195 points. They're 170 for 10 and the fist is 25.

Guess-ranging has nothing to do with skill, and opens the door wide open for cheating.

Lots of games = experience = skill = be able to guess better.
Zero games = no experience = not be able to guess as well.
If you want to mix in cheating then anything goes.

I can accept that this is a placeholder to get rid of allies, because GW is sick of answering questions about it. I can accept that they wanted to remove confusion between the GK and SoB versions of the same units. But Cruddace is a moron of Gav Thorpian proportions, when it comes to codex design and internal balance. Further, stupid choices he has made in this list have a good chance of finding their way into the final propper book, meaning the taint of Cruddace may have irrevocably hosed this army forever.

Could have been worse, I still shudder when thinking of Hines and his favorite iron warriors or Chambers and his orks.

(though every MAREENZ character seems to get a 3+ to go with their T4 seems ok for some reason)

Difference between a foot 3++ that you pay for or a jumping 2++.

Pennitant Engines-
No rage rule and no fleet? Yeah, an open topped killer kan at twice the cost has no business being in heavy support. Armored Sentinals are cheaper, more durable, and they are Fast Attack. This unit will never reach hand to hand against any army with even a passive relationship to the word competitive.

Agree.

Battle Sisters-
Welcome to the world of Eldar, where troops are taken for no other reason than the fact that you have to have something to hold objectives that tries not to die.

Welcome to the wonderful world of SM tactical squads.
In other words, live with it!

But hey, lets foget that comparision for a moment and do the comparison that Cruddace was undoubtedly doing when he wrote this list. A typical Demo Melta Vet squad in a Chimera weighs in at the same cost as the typical double melta rhino kit battle sister squad. Does anyone actually think that the Mech Battle Sister Squad is superior? And whats worse is that the Melta Vets are not that much worse in close combat than the sisters (certainly less helpless against walkers) and the chimera gives the unit a much longer threat range, thanks to AV12 front and 36" Multilaser.

Did not know IG vets had 3+ saves.

As someone who played Sisters, and even won with them, I hate this list more than anything I have seen in 40k, and thats including me being a Tyranid player and getting Cruddaced once already, this edition. My wife basically lost all interest in finishing the army, after reading the list, and she mostly plays for fun.

Sorry to hear, that sucks. At least my gf likes the sisters more now since she is a casual gamer and the old faith rules were just to complex and hard to keep track of.

Also, he can eat my poo for removing all psychic defense from the book. Hooray for Jaws of the World Wolf rapign half the army!

Strikes me as really weird to not give the foremost witch hunter army any means to counter what they are supposed to be fighting the most.

You keep telling yourself that.

Shuma happens to be right about this.

When the unit is bad in assault it's bad in assault.
Says the guy that thinks tacticals suck in assault, proving he doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to assault power because he only ever thinks in terms of MEQ?

Tacs do suck in assault point for point with pretty much everything else they meet.

And yes, theoretical on paper discussions about a unit facing just the right target all depending on the intellect of the player is irrelevant. You have an opponent whos primary goal is to make stick your units in non favorable situations. Ergo: a bad assault unit like old celestians were on average a bad choice in melee since far from all melee happened according to plan.

Sure, celestians suck even more today but they were far from good back then.

And yet, against anything T3 that isn't equipped with massive amounts of power weapons, they're frighteningly deadly, especially combined with shooting.

Hardly frighteningly deadly.
Model for model they are better mostly due to the T4 but model for model is not the correct way to count.

And you get twin specials and heavy flamers. You do much more by double tapping then i do by pistol + assault. The math is in your favor against most opponents. Somehow that's lost here though.

Selective argumentation for the win

And yet, when a 185 point tactical squad (sergeant w/ power weapon, flamer, multimelta) assaults another tactical squad, it inflicts on average 2.5 unsaved wounds.

When such a tac squad is assaulted by a 180 point Celestian squad (superior w/ power weapon, flamer, multimelta), the Celestians inflict on average 2.3 unsaved wounds (assuming no shortage of Faith Points).

Now, I'm not one of the doomsayers saying the new Codex is thoroughly unworkable - but saying that a 'good' Assault unit inflicts 0.2 fewer wounds on a charge than a 'bad' assault unit that costs 5 points less is a bit disingenuous. Celestians aren't being taken for their assault capabilities in the new Codex, any more than they were under the old Codex - to competitive players, Celestians are not the absolute elite of the Adepta Sororitas - they're just two melta guns in a transport with gold trim.

Amen!

ShumaGorath wrote:Wasn't that the point I was making? That both were bad assault troops? As an aside a power fist in a tac squad puts it at 195 points. They're 170 for 10 and the fist is 25.

Then I apologise - I completely misunderstood the thrust of your argument, and thought you were saying they were one of the CC units that were 'improved' by the new Codex. They haven't been improved, and are still outperformed in assault point for point by Tacs. And yeah, I noticed your points error earlier, but felt it would be churlish to mention it. For my maths, I had both 'sergeants' equipped with power swords, since Celestians have no access to a power-fist equivalent.

Mythal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Wasn't that the point I was making? That both were bad assault troops? As an aside a power fist in a tac squad puts it at 195 points. They're 170 for 10 and the fist is 25.

Then I apologise - I completely misunderstood the thrust of your argument, and thought you were saying they were one of the CC units that were 'improved' by the new Codex. They haven't been improved, and are still outperformed in assault point for point by Tacs. And yeah, I noticed your points error earlier, but felt it would be churlish to mention it. For my maths, I had both 'sergeants' equipped with power swords, since Celestians have no access to a power-fist equivalent.

i was arguing that the celstians got worse, but that it's irrelevant since they were bad before. They won against things a basic sisters squad would win against and they lost against the same. It's a wash as far as they're concerned. With the advent of better repentia, celestine, and DCAs the sisters book got a better push for knocking things off objectives overall in my opinion.

ShumaGorath wrote:And you get twin specials and heavy flamers. You do much more by double tapping then i do by pistol + assault.

No, the math does not favor them.

Pistols = 1 shot each, assault = 2 attacks each, all S4 against T3, and WS4 against WS3, and I4 with frags against I3. Let's assume the flamer hits three models. That's 30 attacks that need rolling to-hit for. 23 hits including the three flamer hits. 15.3 wounds. 5.1 models lost in one turn if the sergeant has no power weapon-- half the Sisters squad is dead. They make one attack per model each at WS3, T3 in response. Only a fifty percent chance of removing even a single Marine model, meaning they more than likely have to make a leadership check at Ld6, and thus they stand a good chance of retreating, thus forcing a Sweeping Advance roll at d6+3 vs d6+4, giving the Marines a decent chance of wiping out the entire squad in one turn.

Now compare the Sisters. Boltguns rapid firing = 2 shots each. 14 boltgun shots. heavy flamer we assume hits three enemies at S5, three flamer hits at S4. May not assault afterwards. 12.3 S4 hits, of which 6.19 wound, and 2.1 models are removed. Of the S5 hits, 2 wound, and there's a 2/3rds chance of removing one Marine. A total of about 2.7-2.8 Marines removed in one turn. Assuming they use the Act of Faith to re-roll to-hit rolls, 14 shots, 9 don't need a re-roll, the remaining 5 hits get three more from the re-roll, and add another 2/3rds chance to wound one Marine, raising it from ~2.78 to ~3.46.

Then the seven Marines pistol, flamer, and assault the Sisters and wipe them out in two assault phases.

Pyriel- wrote:

Also, he can eat my poo for removing all psychic defense from the book. Hooray for Jaws of the World Wolf rapign half the army!

Strikes me as really weird to not give the foremost witch hunter army any means to counter what they are supposed to be fighting the most.

The Witch Hunter thing was shoehorned in in the 3rd edition C: WH to support the Inquisition push which was to support the Inquisitor game. Previous to that SoB were no more Witch Hunters than any other Imperial Force and were not tied to the Inquisition in any way. In fact in 2nd Ed SOB, there is one sidebar on Witch Hunts which is kind of a 'Yeah the Ministorum hates us some witches and gets bored sometimes and rustles up a good ol fashion witch hunt.'

Further more, IIRC, sisters had no psychic defense before C: WH. I still don't have a copy of Codex: Chapter Approved, but that's what I remember.

We're -considerably- worse in CC because we lost AoF that let us tarpit, and more importantly we can only AoF in our own turn.

And seraphim lost their version of hit n run, and have 3 init.

Repentia are better, definately; able to get in transports if the enemy don't have anything they can see, FNP (on T3...).

DCA are great because of Uriah.

Lack of Canoness options also hits us in the CC

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:And you get twin specials and heavy flamers. You do much more by double tapping then i do by pistol + assault.

No, the math does not favor them.

Pistols = 1 shot each, assault = 2 attacks each, all S4 against T3, and WS4 against WS3, and I4 with frags against I3. Let's assume the flamer hits three models. That's 30 attacks that need rolling to-hit for. 23 hits including the three flamer hits. 15.3 wounds. 5.1 models lost in one turn if the sergeant has no power weapon-- half the Sisters squad is dead. They make one attack per model each at WS3, T3 in response. Only a fifty percent chance of removing even a single Marine model, meaning they more than likely have to make a leadership check at Ld6, and thus they stand a good chance of retreating, thus forcing a Sweeping Advance roll at d6+3 vs d6+4, giving the Marines a decent chance of wiping out the entire squad in one turn.

Now compare the Sisters. Boltguns rapid firing = 2 shots each. 14 boltgun shots. heavy flamer we assume hits three enemies at S5, three flamer hits at S4. May not assault afterwards. 12.3 S4 hits, of which 6.19 wound, and 2.1 models are removed. Of the S5 hits, 2 wound, and there's a 2/3rds chance of removing one Marine. A total of about 2.7-2.8 Marines removed in one turn. Assuming they use the Act of Faith to re-roll to-hit rolls, 14 shots, 9 don't need a re-roll, the remaining 5 hits get three more from the re-roll, and add another 2/3rds chance to wound one Marine, raising it from ~2.78 to ~3.46.

Then the seven Marines pistol, flamer, and assault the Sisters and wipe them out in two assault phases.

If you're in assault range you're hitting more then 3 marines with the heavy flamer. Put that number to five. Then account for the 10 regular flamer hits and 10 bolter hits. 13 bolter/flamer wounds, 3.6 heavy flamer wounds, I'm losing about 5.25 marines. That's without the act of faith which will bump that number up to about 6.5ish. I'll really put a dent in your army with the remaining 3.5 marines. Thats assuming you don't just shoot them with another squad. It's not like the tacs are going to be in land raiders so I'm not going to get to avoid your flamer bubble with them.

This entire situation is ridiculous anyway. The chance of these two units punching eachother is minimal in a basic game, just as the chances of them even seeing eachother is minimal since no one plays sisters. The meta for sisters is close range focused firepower, not assault. If you're assaulting me you're doing it wrong. Since I'm in your grill why don't you just use two sisters squads and wipe me out entirely.

ShumaGorath wrote:If you're in assault range you're hitting more then 3 marines with the heavy flamer.

And the Marine gets the same number of hits against the Sister force, except the flamers wound the Sisters more often because, and you don't seem to notice, T3 versus S4. A lot of Marine players don't understand just how important that T4 statline is.

You're the one who said the math supported you. It doesn't, so now you say it's not important.

pretre wrote:Further more, IIRC, sisters had no psychic defense before C: WH. I still don't have a copy of Codex: Chapter Approved, but that's what I remember.

2nd Edition Purity Seals, IIRC. And one of the Sacred Rites, I think, but I can't get to my book to verify.

Either way, the Witch Hunter stuff was shoe-horned in, as you said. Still, Space Marines aren't technically Witch Hunters, and their army lists include at least a modicum of psyker defense. I honestly expect something will be added when we eventually get the book Codex Tabitha tells us is due out within a year, if only for mechanical rather than fluff purposes.

They actually had two items that were anti-daemon. The Staff of Belief and the Vials of Emperor's Tears. Purity Seals do indeed give you a 4+ against Psychic in 2nd, but was allowed to any Imperium model and not sister specific.

"Unlike other Relics, a Purity Seal can be taken by any character allowed to take ' imperium only' wargear and is counted as a Wargear card."

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:If you're in assault range you're hitting more then 3 marines with the heavy flamer.

And the Marine gets the same number of hits against the Sister force, except the flamers wound the Sisters more often because, and you don't seem to notice, T3 versus S4. A lot of Marine players don't understand just how important that T4 statline is.

You're the one who said the math supported you. It doesn't, so now you say it's not important.

ok, 10 flamer hits, 5.28 bolt pistol hits.
11.88 wounds
3.96 dead sisters
18 close combat attacks, 3 with fist
12 hits, 2 hits
8 wounds 1.66 wounds
2.66 dead 1.66 dead

You have 1.8 sister left. You break, maybe I catch you. Oh look it's exactly the same as the scenario you outlined. Looks like those flamers didn't matter. Nor does ATSKNF when you're just going to wipe out the 3 marines i have left after double tapping. The two squads kill eachother in their semi preferred environments in this fight that theoretically wouldn't occur anyway. Shock. It's as if this entire thing is idiotic and both squads are bad at assault. LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME

If you're assaulting or getting assaulted without firing with celestians then you're doing it wrong. You're playing the army wrong. If that's the case it looks like I win anyway since you're probably not a very good player. This is an imaginary scenario that isn't likely to happen if you have any skill at all.

ShumaGorath wrote: It's as if this entire thing is idiotic and both squads are bad at assault.

LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME

Told you to just walk away.

ShumaGorath wrote:You have 1.8 sister left. You break, maybe I catch you. Oh look it's exactly the same as the scenario you outlined.

I'm not even sure you actually have a point anymore (if in fact you ever did), beacuse this certainly isn't what you've been saying all along.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You have 1.8 sister left. You break, maybe I catch you. Oh look it's exactly the same as the scenario you outlined.

I'm not even sure you actually have a point anymore (if in fact you ever did), beacuse this certainly isn't what you've been saying all along.

I don't think you've ever understood what I've been saying, but that's par for the course with my conversations with you. Everyone else seems to get it just fine while you run off in an unrelated and wild tangent. My point from the start was the celestians suck in close combat. That they always did.

It appears that you agree with me, but I like your shifting sands arguments anyway. They sure don't make me want to self immolate at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: It's as if this entire thing is idiotic and both squads are bad at assault.

LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME

Told you to just walk away.

Done.

ShumaGorath wrote:It appears that you agree with me, but I like your shifting sands arguments anyway.

I'm not "shifting" anything. I've argued the same things rather consistently this entire time

pretre wrote:They actually had two items that were anti-daemon. The Staff of Belief and the Vials of Emperor's Tears. Purity Seals do indeed give you a 4+ against Psychic in 2nd, but was allowed to any Imperium model and not sister specific.

"Unlike other Relics, a Purity Seal can be taken by any character allowed to take ' imperium only' wargear and is counted as a Wargear card."

That's the bunny. Also, just managed to check, and there was a Sacred Rite that granted them Psyker defense - it was the sixth one.

This thread is no longer news or rumor.

And it is getting more than a little... heated as well.

At this point, feel free to discuss topics related to this release in the appropriate sections of the forum.

Thanks!