I really hope they ditch the repentia and penitent engines from SoB

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SisterSydney**

ClockworkZion wrote:
SisterSydney wrote:
My patch in my fandex/expandex was to let them move as Cavalry and then let a Confessor unlock PE as an Elites choice, the way a Master of the Forge unlocks Dreadnaughts as a Heavy Support choice. I think Elites is a better option than Fast Attack.

Elites would make them compete with Repentia in a Repentance themed army though.

D'oh. I did not think that through. Maybe I should let the Confessor switch them to Fast Attack, after all, or make the upgrade to Cavalry-style movement turn them into FA (and make it cheaper...).

But look how good I'm being, I'm not even linking to my own homebrew or even mentioning i... damn.

**JohnHwangDD**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Elites would make them compete with Repentia in a Repentance themed army though.

In a Repentence-themed army, I'd assume a different FOC:
- massed units of up to 20 Arco-Flagellants and/or Militia as Troops,
- Repentia as Elites,
- roving Priests, etc. from HQ,
- squadrons of PEs as Fast.

It would be glorious.

It would not have to follow the existing SoB / AS Codex FOC.

**dracpanzer**

Just lift the repentia/pengine formation over to 40k legal with the stat fix. Data-slate would fix any FoC conflicts.

**JohnHwangDD**

If it's a Formation, doesn't that automatically make it 40k legal?

**GoonBandito**

Unfortunately it says they're for use in Apocalypse.

You could probably argue for their use in regular games though now, considering how 7th Edition has played out. I'd hardly call them overpowered now that Lords of War and Super-Heavy Vehicles are in regular games. I suppose the only 'problem' is that they're fairly large formations model wise. The Repentant Host (3 units of 10+ Repentia, 3+ Penitent Engines: Gain Rampage and It Will Not Die and can re-roll Feel No Pain) is 705pts minimum.

**jeffersonian000**

The Confesser should unlock PEs as non-slotted Elites, much like Inquisitorial Henchmen are.

SJ

**ClockworkZion**

GoonBandito wrote:
Unfortunately it says they're for use in Apocalypse.

You could probably argue for their use in regular games though now, considering how 7th Edition has played out. I'd hardly call them overpowered now that Lords of War and Super-Heavy Vehicles are in regular games. I suppose the only 'problem' is that they're fairly large formations model wise. The Repentant Host (3 units of 10+ Repentia, 3+ Penitent Engines: Gain Rampage and It Will Not Die and can re-roll Feel No Pain) is 705pts minimum.

It's also useless now that Repentia only have FnP 1-2 times a game during the assault phase.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Elites would make them compete with Repentia in a Repentance themed army though.

In a Repentence-themed army, I'd assume a different FOC:
- massed units of up to 20 Arco-Flagellants and/or Militia as Troops,
- Repentia as Elites,
- roving Priests, etc. from HQ,
- squadrons of PEs as Fast.

It would be glorious.

It would not have to follow the existing SoB / AS Codex FOC.

Different FOC charts still pull units from the same slots though, so if you put a new FOC in it'd still need the models to be in the correct slots first.

**dracpanzer**

The formation would need to be updated with the new repentia/pe builds and costs.

For both I think simpler and cheaper is the way to go. They don't necessarily need a stat/rule buff. They just need to cost what they are worth.

Though the how/rampage/fnp/iwnd combo would be nice. Assuming they came in larger units (20-30) would you field the repentia we have now if they were five points a piece?

**ClockworkZion**

Repentia at 5ppm would likely be too low. I mean that's Guard level for something that can cleave a land raider (assuming they reach it).

**SisterSydney**

Inspired by John Hang's excellent effort, I took a shot at building a new Penitent Engine out of a Sentinel using Ovion's costing methods, and I ended up with something significantly more expensive -- in part because I'm paying more for some things than John is, in part because I'm paying for some things (e.g. Scout) that John doesn't have. (I love Scout). I'm very interested in what folks think of the two approaches and how to get the best of both.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
KIlly enough? That depends ...

[John proceeds to design lovely 55-point Pengine]

Spoiler:

First, let's review the starting point:

Arco-Flagellant - 10 pts each
WS5 BS1 S3(5) T3 W1 I3 A3(4) Ld8 Sv-
2x Arco-Flails (S+2 AP-)
Feel No Pain

An AF is just a unarmored person (T3 W1 I3 Sv-) running around with 2 huge weapons. Drugs provide some durability via Feel No Pain, which roughly equates to a 5++ Invulnerable save. The big thing is WS5 BS1 A3 - that's pretty awesome and a great fit for a crazed killing machine.

Embiggening the Arco-Flagellant, we keep the WS5 BS1, and double the S values to S6(10 with DNCCW). Translate the T3 W1 over as AV10/10/10 Open-Topped with 2 HPs like a basic Scout Sentinel. Add the Flamers, because BS1. Also Hammer of Wrath because it starts like a Sentinel.

That leaves FNP, which translates over to IWND. Sentinel has MTC & Scout, which are at odds with the PE's purpose - swap those for Rage (+2A charging) and Rampage (+d3A when outnumbered).

Points-wise, we start at 35 pts for the Sentinel,
+0 to swap Guardsman to Arco-Flagellant,
+0 to swap the HF for 2 Flamers
+20 pts to add the 2 DNCCWs.

Penitent Engine
WS5 BS1 S6(10) AV10/10/10 I3 A3(4) HP2 Ld10
2x DNCCW (w/ 1 Flamer ea)
Open-Topped, Hammer of Wrath, Rage, Rampage, It Will Not Die.

Elite, Squadron of 1-3 models, 55 pts each.

In most cases, each PE will be rolling 8x WS8 S10 AP2 attacks when charging. That's some pretty mean stuff, if it reaches HTH.

Fleet would be really nice, but it's not obvious that it's something that the model should have for free. Tho if we had the current 80-pt budget, Fleet would be a given, along with AV11 and the weapon upgrades to HFs instead of Flamers. Thing is, I like simpler PEs at a lower point cost. They become easier to take as less of a points investment and less of a risk.

Start with a Scout Sentinel: 35 points
Keep Scout, it's entirely appropriate for something that races ahead of the main force screaming bloody murder: +/-0
Replace Move Through Cover with Rage: +/- 0
Change WS:3 BS:3 to PE's WS:4 BS:2: +/- 0
Add +2 Attacks: +20
Replace Multi-Laser with Heavy Flamer: +/-0
Replace Heavy Flamer with two regular Flamers: +/-0:
Add Rampage: +10
Add 2 Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons: +20
Add Shield of Faith: +10 (yes, it's +5 on a Rhino, this ain't a Rhino)
Total additions: 60 points
New total cost: 95 points -- 15 more than the original Pengine.

Note I didn't manage to fit It Will Not Die in there....

Now, this is something faster than a regular Pengine but even less durable (Armour 10/10/10, 2 Hull Points, and not Unstoppable). To make it as durable as the original, using Ovion's methods, we'd have to pay another 40 points, bringing total cost to a whopping 135, but perhaps that's fair for a Scouting, Rampaging Penitent Engine with decent armour and 3 HP:
Up armor to 11/11/10: +20
Add 1 Hull Point (i.e. 1 Wound): +10
Add Unstoppable: +10 maybe?

**JohnHwangDD**

@SS - Please note that I re-tweaked with Fleet replacing IWND a few posts later, having reviewed all four pages of the previous PE "fix" thread.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
In revisiting the PE, would drop IWND (which probably doesn't get used that much) in favor of Fleet and a minimal 6++ field (which is generally useful, and not out of the question for such units, allowing the completely exposed pilot), and adding a few options:

Penitent Engine - Squadron 1-3, 55 pts each Elite
WS5 BS1 S6(10) AV10/10/10 I3 A3(4) Sv6++ HP2 Ld10
2x DNCCW (w/ 1 Flamer ea)
Open-Topped, Fleet, Hammer of Wrath, Rage, Rampage.

- may exchange both Flamers for Defensive and Assault Grenades for free.
- may upgrade both Flamers to Heavy Flamers for +10 pts
- may upgrade power field to 5++ for +10 pts

This version is a little bit faster and more reliable in movement, compared to the Sentinel it's based on. It is somewhat less likely to fail reaching HtH when needed, while not being so dramatically faster that it justifies a points cost increase.

As others have suggested, cheaper is better, and I would recommend that one target the base points cost for a PE in the 55-75 pt range. From a design standpoint, adding more stuff to a marginally-armored Sentinel chassis has issues of fragility.

**SisterSydney**

Oh, right, it was using the earlier version. I still don't see how you're paying for the two extra attacks, though, and that's a big deal....

**JohnHwangDD**

Each DNCCW adds +1A base, also, my baseline pilot is a 10-pt A3 Arco-Flagellant. Either way, A3 result.

**SisterSydney**

Ah, thanks, I thought I was missing something. Though my copy of the rules suggests you would end up with A:2, since only the second DNCCW gives you a bonus attack: the first is what gives you double Strength and AP:2.

Also, does any Codex actually give a point cost for a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon? The PE comes with two standard, so there's no price for that specific weapon I can find, and Marine Dreadnoughts use power fists instead....

**Andilus Greatsword**

SisterSydney wrote:
Ah, thanks, I thought I was missing something. Though my copy of the rules suggests you would end up with A:2, since only the second DNCCW gives you a bonus attack: the first is what gives you double Strength and AP:2.

Also, does any Codex actually give a point cost for a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon? The PE comes with two standard, so there's no price for that specific weapon I can find, and Marine Dreadnoughts use power fists instead....

Can't you buy DCCWs for Defilers? I can't recall the cost off the top of my head though. If you used PFs as a baseline though, 25pts per DCCW would be overpriced after the first one IMHO, since the first one gives you Sx2 AP2, whereas each additional one gives you only +1A (and a backup weapon if you get a Weapon Destroyed result of course).

**SisterSydney**

Oh, right, a Power Fist and a generic DCCW are identical stat-wise ~~[EDIT: except DCCWs don't suffer from Unwieldy...~~]. And yes, 50 points for a pair seems a bit much....

**Furyou Miko**

Power Fists mounted on Walkers don't suffer from Unwieldy either.

**SisterSydney**

~~I thought that, but I couldn't find the rule written anywhere -- can you point me to the right place?~~ I am an idiot it's right in the write-up for "Unwieldy" hurr durr

**dracpanzer**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Repentia at 5ppm would likely be too low. I mean that's Guard level for something that can cleave a land raider (assuming they reach it).

You understand my point though. The cost is the problem with Repentia, though they really could use a unit size increase to go along with a point reduction.

**JohnHwangDD**

SisterSydney wrote:
Though my copy of the rules suggests you would end up with A:2, since only the second DNCCW gives you a bonus attack: the first is what gives you double Strength and AP:2.

Also, does any Codex actually give a point cost for a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon? The PE comes with two standard, so there's no price for that specific weapon I can find, and Marine Dreadnoughts use power fists instead....

I started with an A3 pilot, though.

I don't think DNCCWs are worth 25 pts, though:
- C:SM allows you to replace the PF with a 15-pt Missile Launcher for +10 pts, so that places the PF value at 5 pts.
- C:BA allows you to replace the PF with a 15-pt Missile Launcher for +5 pts, so that places the PF value at 10 pts.

I thought +10 pts per DNCCW to be a fair result based on the more expensive BA example.
____

Repentia should generally compare with Inquistion Death Cult Assassins, Arco-Flagellants and Crusaders.
- 15 pts each in Codex: Inquisition, 10 pts for Combat Servitor
- 10/15 pts each in C: Sororitas

Repentia are worth no less than 10 points, and no more than 15 pts. At 14 pts, the points cost is not unreasonable.

**SisterSydney**

Good point about Power Fist costing. Actually C:SM is letting you pay 10 points to replace the PF and the Storm Bolter, which is nominally 5 points in itself, so you could make the argument that a DCCW costs... nothing. GW, WTF?

I'm still not sure swapping a Guard pilot for an Arco-flagellant is a way to get +2 Attacks for free -- I don't think any vehicle in the game pays for its pilot separately from the vehicle itself, except for a handful of SCs like Pask.

**J3f**

I don't see any reason to make the Penitent Engines cheaper than they already are. They sit nicely between Imperial Guard Pricing (Sentinels) and Space Marine Pricing (Dreadnoughts). Same thing with Repentia. If you want to people to start calling them Female IG instead of Female Space Marines, then that might help.

Instead they should be more reliable so they're worth their cost. You shouldn't need to spam them to ensure reliability through numbers, that's Imperial Guard Tactics. Read my previous post shilling about my Fandex (in signature below) for how I'd buff Penitent Engines and repentia.

Overall the Sisters of Battle shouldn't have units as cheap and spammable as the Imperial Guard. They're an elite fighting force that can saturate the battlefield with slightly more bodies than Space Marines can afford.

@SisterSydney: You over apply Ovion's guide to just about everything. I don't think it should be used in this case or that the IG sentinel should be the base model. Also Walkers ignore the Unwieldy rule it's in the vehicle description section of the rulebook.

**A Town Called Malus**

I swear, it seems that the Sisters of Battle have the most fandexes out of any army

Shows how dedicated the players are to their army, I guess

**J3f**

Well who else is going to write us a Codex, Game Workshop?

**SisterSydney**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I swear, it seems that the Sisters of Battle have the most fandexes out of any army

Shows how dedicated the players are to their army, I guess

Also shows how dedicated GW isn't, what with the lack of new units....

And yes, Ovion's guide is just a framework to start from, not a final answer, but I find it awfully useful as

Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: J3f and I were writing the same thought at the same time.... Yes, it happens.

**ClockworkZion**

dracpanzer wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Repentia at 5ppm would likely be too low. I mean that's Guard level for something that can cleave a land raider (assuming they reach it).

You understand my point though. The cost is the problem with Repentia, though they really could use a unit size increase to go along with a point reduction.

Oh I agree. I'd love to see them be cheaper, to mach their tissue paper effectiveness (or at least get FnP back to make their current cost feel more fitting) and a 5-20 unit size.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I swear, it seems that the Sisters of Battle have the most fandexes out of any army

Shows how dedicated the players are to their army, I guess

Or how desperate we are to have an army that is fun and interesting to play.

**Furyou Miko**

I think the initial white dwarf Repentia were pretty much placed correctly - 6++ followed by a 4+ Feel no Pain, with the ability to strike once even if they die.

**ClockworkZion**

Furyou Miko wrote:
I think the initial white dwarf Repentia were pretty much placed correctly - 6++ followed by a 4+ Feel no Pain, with the ability to strike once even if they die.

They just needed to be priced like current Repentia to be perfect.

**Andilus Greatsword**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
I think the initial white dwarf Repentia were pretty much placed correctly - 6++ followed by a 4+ Feel no Pain, with the ability to strike once even if they die.

They just needed to be priced like current Repentia to be perfect.

Mhmm, I was thinking 5+ FNP and Angelic Visage for their current price to be reasonable.

**ClockworkZion**

Andilus Greatsword wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
I think the initial white dwarf Repentia were pretty much placed correctly - 6++ followed by a 4+ Feel no Pain, with the ability to strike once even if they die.

They just needed to be priced like current Repentia to be perfect.

Mhmm, I was thinking 5+ FNP and Angelic Visage for their current price to be reasonable.

I could kind of see the Angelic Visage thing, or perhaps a bonus to their Shield of Faith (to a 5++) through a Faithful rule.