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.

Seems Tac Marines are going up 3 pts from 12 to 15 pts. If this points increase holds true (intercessors went up 3 points) and basic Battle Sisters go up to 12 points or even 11 points I’m going to be pretty salty going into 9th. Two basic sisters at 24 points wouldn’t compare to 1 intercessor at 20 points.

Going to 15 from 12 pts for tac marines represents proportionally a lesser increase in pts than for a sister to go to 12 from 9 pts. It would be verry unfair.

At first sight, the point increase is a loss for Battle Sisters but we have to keep in sight that 9th ed tend to diminish the importance of cheap troops to aim at multiplying battalion detachment in order to get free CP. Supposing that only the first battalion is free (CP refunded) while in parallel the next ones not only don't give you more CP but cost you some, you will certainly not try to multiply the battalion. Hence the lack of usefulness of the basic sister in 9th ed comparing to 8th ed.

In 8th, I can fit two battalion detachement in 1000pts without too much pain, it even becomes quite easy on 1250pts games. It won't be possible in 9th ed no matter the price of the basic sisters, so I won't play this datasheet as often as I was before.

While dissapointing as a multi army player tac marines are weaker than tacs it is not that unfair for them to be rebalanced however intercessors do not need a buff

If it's 11 Battle sisters should be fine. If it's 12 don't run them more than you have to.

 ierp wrote:
Going to 15 from 12 pts for tac marines represents proportionally a lesser increase in pts than for a sister to go to 12 from 9 pts. It would be verry unfair.

At first sight, the point increase is a loss for Battle Sisters but we have to keep in sight that 9th ed tend to diminish the importance of cheap troops to aim at multiplying battalion detachment in order to get free CP. Supposing that only the first battalion is free (CP refunded) while in parallel the next ones not only don't give you more CP but cost you some, you will certainly not try to multiply the battalion. Hence the lack of usefulness of the basic sister in 9th ed comparing to 8th ed.

In 8th, I can fit two battalion detachement in 1000pts without too much pain, it even becomes quite easy on 1250pts games. It won't be possible in 9th ed no matter the price of the basic sisters, so I won't play this datasheet as often as I was before.

Depending on points, I can see brigade being the standard Sisters detachment - which requires the same number of troops

 davidgr33n wrote:
Ahhh, correct - I’d forgotten about that.

IMO there’s better uses for 115 points, and I don’t think those points will change as I’m sure GW anticipated 9th coming out right afterwards.

115 points? Holy crap are they terrible. You can get more output from 2 canonesses for less points and still get the reroll bubble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia wrote:

 ierp wrote:
Going to 15 from 12 pts for tac marines represents proportionally a lesser increase in pts than for a sister to go to 12 from 9 pts. It would be verry unfair.

At first sight, the point increase is a loss for Battle Sisters but we have to keep in sight that 9th ed tend to diminish the importance of cheap troops to aim at multiplying battalion detachment in order to get free CP. Supposing that only the first battalion is free (CP refunded) while in parallel the next ones not only don't give you more CP but cost you some, you will certainly not try to multiply the battalion. Hence the lack of usefulness of the basic sister in 9th ed comparing to 8th ed.

In 8th, I can fit two battalion detachement in 1000pts without too much pain, it even becomes quite easy on 1250pts games. It won't be possible in 9th ed no matter the price of the basic sisters, so I won't play this datasheet as often as I was before.

Depending on points, I can see brigade being the standard Sisters detachment - which requires the same number of troops

Unless the brigade is +CP I can't see anyone ever taking on again.

The reason would be that you want extra slots of a particular type without spending CP on an extra detatchment -

The key thing will be points which we dont know yet and the tourney standard.

The ITC are backing 2000. However a large portion ofe the UK scene isn't ITC and if people want to stick with 6×4 then higher points might be recommended.

U02dah4 wrote:
The reason would be that you want extra slots of a particular type without spending CP on an extra detatchment -

The key thing will be points which we dont know yet and the tourney standard.

The ITC are backing 2000. However a large portion ofe the UK scene isn't ITC and if people want to stick with 6×4 then higher points might be recommended.

No one is going over 2k points. Especially in the UK where people already play smaller games in a lot of areas due to travel constraints. People who think the difference in board size is enough to prompt bigger games on 6x4 are severely overestimating the across the board points bump. Unless they really do want 4 hour games.

As for the rest, I know the reasons, i just can't see an army that wants 3 more troop units AND 2 more FA enough for it to not be worth the CP to just add a patrol.

Think about it for Sisters, to get a brigade you're spending 100 extra points on troops(2 more squads than the patrol) you probably don't want, as well as forgoing any chance to effectively mix and match your order convictions. Since you're taking the brigade for more slots anyway, you clearly want more of a specific force org slot, which mixing and matching will always favor one Conviction over another.

It seems like 2CP would be a fair trade off to save 100pts and get bloody rose seraphim instead of valorous heart seraphim.

I used to run a VH brigade with a BR detachment in 8th. With the way things are looking I’m planning to run a BR battalion with just 3 troops this edition.
I mainly fill up my elite slot, and since I think melee is going to be the best option for Sisters this edition, we might get some use out of Arco-flagellants since they don’t take up an elite slot if you bring a min priest (which I do). The main down side to Arcos will be losing models on failed 1s in the morale test, in addition to not being able to use MD.

 davidgr33n wrote:
I used to run a VH brigade with a BR detachment in 8th. With the way things are looking I’m planning to run a BR battalion with just 3 troops this edition.
I mainly fill up my elite slot, and since I think melee is going to be the best option for Sisters this edition, we might get some use out of Arco-flagellants since they don’t take up an elite slot if you bring a min priest (which I do). The main down side to Arcos will be losing models on failed 1s in the morale test, in addition to not being able to use MD.

take a missionary or a hospitaller to heal/prevent running away?

 davidgr33n wrote:
Seems Tac Marines are going up 3 pts from 12 to 15 pts. If this points increase holds true (intercessors went up 3 points) and basic Battle Sisters go up to 12 points or even 11 points I’m going to be pretty salty going into 9th. Two basic sisters at 24 points wouldn’t compare to 1 intercessor at 20 points.

Any source for that besides the 4chan guy who also said you could still fall back and shoot?

 davidgr33n wrote:
I used to run a VH brigade with a BR detachment in 8th. With the way things are looking I’m planning to run a BR battalion with just 3 troops this edition.
I mainly fill up my elite slot, and since I think melee is going to be the best option for Sisters this edition, we might get some use out of Arco-flagellants since they don’t take up an elite slot if you bring a min priest (which I do). The main down side to Arcos will be losing models on failed 1s in the morale test, in addition to not being able to use MD.

In my opinion, if melee is the best option it'll be mortifiers and pengines, not arcos or repentia. The new coherency rules make running 6-10 man units much more difficult and the new Look Out Sir rules make running priests almost impossible. On the opposite side, Morties are likely to get an update to at least their flamer rule and both benefit heavily from the smaller boards and the outflank rules. Add to that that nothing seems to be changing how mediocre rhinos are or how terrible immolators are and we're looking at a renaissance period for SoB walkers.

ERJAK wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:
I used to run a VH brigade with a BR detachment in 8th. With the way things are looking I’m planning to run a BR battalion with just 3 troops this edition.
I mainly fill up my elite slot, and since I think melee is going to be the best option for Sisters this edition, we might get some use out of Arco-flagellants since they don’t take up an elite slot if you bring a min priest (which I do). The main down side to Arcos will be losing models on failed 1s in the morale test, in addition to not being able to use MD.

In my opinion, if melee is the best option it'll be mortifiers and pengines, not arcos or repentia. The new coherency rules make running 6-10 man units much more difficult and the new Look Out Sir rules make running priests almost impossible. On the opposite side, Morties are likely to get an update to at least their flamer rule and both benefit heavily from the smaller boards and the outflank rules. Add to that that nothing seems to be changing how mediocre rhinos are or how terrible immolators are and we're looking at a renaissance period for SoB walkers.

I've found squads of 3 and 4 enough for Arcos and Repentia. The new screening rules will present some challenges to priests, but honestly not a lot more than they already face when left exposed

 davidgr33n wrote:
Ahhh, correct - I’d forgotten about that.

IMO there’s better uses for 115 points, and I don’t think those points will change as I’m sure GW anticipated 9th coming out right afterwards.

Sister book, PA books etc were written for 8th. Forget the marketing speech they were written with 9th ed in mind. Too much stuff flat out made useless in 9th ed for that. It's marketing speech. Does it sound better "they were written with 9th ed in mind" or "your book gets lots of it invalidated in few months"?

Any book supposedly written 9th in mind there would not a) have rules made redundant(looking at you mortificators or AM canticle...), bonuses for staying mono etc.

tneva82 wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:
Ahhh, correct - I’d forgotten about that.

IMO there’s better uses for 115 points, and I don’t think those points will change as I’m sure GW anticipated 9th coming out right afterwards.

Sister book, PA books etc were written for 8th. Forget the marketing speech they were written with 9th ed in mind. Too much stuff flat out made useless in 9th ed for that. It's marketing speech. Does it sound better "they were written with 9th ed in mind" or "your book gets lots of it invalidated in few months"?

Any book supposedly written 9th in mind there would not a) have rules made redundant(looking at you mortificators or AM canticle...), bonuses for staying mono etc.

According to the leaks, she went up 10 points already despite being pretty bad at 115.

Speaking of being really bad, the immolator, based on the razorback which is the same price chassis, is going up 25 points for the multimelta version. Which, by itself makes me a lot less optimistic about this edition. The fact that eradicators are only 40pts is just salt in the wound.

ANd feth, heavy bolters went up on vehicles(despite being crap) so Twin HB immos went up 18points on just the heavy bolters and HB morties went up 10 right off the bat.

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:
Ahhh, correct - I’d forgotten about that.

IMO there’s better uses for 115 points, and I don’t think those points will change as I’m sure GW anticipated 9th coming out right afterwards.

Sister book, PA books etc were written for 8th. Forget the marketing speech they were written with 9th ed in mind. Too much stuff flat out made useless in 9th ed for that. It's marketing speech. Does it sound better "they were written with 9th ed in mind" or "your book gets lots of it invalidated in few months"?

Any book supposedly written 9th in mind there would not a) have rules made redundant(looking at you mortificators or AM canticle...), bonuses for staying mono etc.

According to the leaks, she went up 10 points already despite being pretty bad at 115.

Speaking of being really bad, the immolator, based on the razorback which is the same price chassis, is going up 25 points for the multimelta version. Which, by itself makes me a lot less optimistic about this edition. The fact that eradicators are only 40pts is just salt in the wound.

ANd feth, heavy bolters went up on vehicles(despite being crap) so Twin HB immos went up 18points on just the heavy bolters and HB morties went up 10 right off the bat.

Srsly??? I already didn’t care for Stern even at 115. But the eradicators are too cheap for what they do and if what you’re saying re: heavy Bolters and Mortifiers, yea color me VERY SALTY

I had just painted all my Mortifiers and the rest of my revised list from 8th, not really looking forward to 9th at this point.

And this just in: exorcist launchers (both varieties) confirmed to be blast weapons

 davidgr33n wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:
Ahhh, correct - I’d forgotten about that.

IMO there’s better uses for 115 points, and I don’t think those points will change as I’m sure GW anticipated 9th coming out right afterwards.

Sister book, PA books etc were written for 8th. Forget the marketing speech they were written with 9th ed in mind. Too much stuff flat out made useless in 9th ed for that. It's marketing speech. Does it sound better "they were written with 9th ed in mind" or "your book gets lots of it invalidated in few months"?

Any book supposedly written 9th in mind there would not a) have rules made redundant(looking at you mortificators or AM canticle...), bonuses for staying mono etc.

According to the leaks, she went up 10 points already despite being pretty bad at 115.

Speaking of being really bad, the immolator, based on the razorback which is the same price chassis, is going up 25 points for the multimelta version. Which, by itself makes me a lot less optimistic about this edition. The fact that eradicators are only 40pts is just salt in the wound.

ANd feth, heavy bolters went up on vehicles(despite being crap) so Twin HB immos went up 18points on just the heavy bolters and HB morties went up 10 right off the bat.

Srsly??? I already didn’t care for Stern even at 115. But the eradicators are too cheap for what they do and if what you’re saying re: heavy Bolters and Mortifiers, yea color me VERY SALTY

I had just painted all my Mortifiers and the rest of my revised list from 8th, not really looking forward to 9th at this point.

And this just in: exorcist launchers (both varieties) confirmed to be blast weapons

A lascannon is now FIVE POINTS CHEAPER than a multimelta, and only 5 points more expensive than a meltagun on infantry. Which doesn't make any goddam sense considering that the lascannon has always been the superior weapon.

ERJAK wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:
Ahhh, correct - I’d forgotten about that.

IMO there’s better uses for 115 points, and I don’t think those points will change as I’m sure GW anticipated 9th coming out right afterwards.

Sister book, PA books etc were written for 8th. Forget the marketing speech they were written with 9th ed in mind. Too much stuff flat out made useless in 9th ed for that. It's marketing speech. Does it sound better "they were written with 9th ed in mind" or "your book gets lots of it invalidated in few months"?

Any book supposedly written 9th in mind there would not a) have rules made redundant(looking at you mortificators or AM canticle...), bonuses for staying mono etc.

According to the leaks, she went up 10 points already despite being pretty bad at 115.

Speaking of being really bad, the immolator, based on the razorback which is the same price chassis, is going up 25 points for the multimelta version. Which, by itself makes me a lot less optimistic about this edition. The fact that eradicators are only 40pts is just salt in the wound.

ANd feth, heavy bolters went up on vehicles(despite being crap) so Twin HB immos went up 18points on just the heavy bolters and HB morties went up 10 right off the bat.

Srsly??? I already didn’t care for Stern even at 115. But the eradicators are too cheap for what they do and if what you’re saying re: heavy Bolters and Mortifiers, yea color me VERY SALTY

I had just painted all my Mortifiers and the rest of my revised list from 8th, not really looking forward to 9th at this point.

And this just in: exorcist launchers (both varieties) confirmed to be blast weapons

A lascannon is now FIVE POINTS CHEAPER than a multimelta, and only 5 points more expensive than a meltagun on infantry. Which doesn't make any goddam sense considering that the lascannon has always been the superior weapon.

All depends if the rumour that Multi-Meltas are two shots now turns out to be true or not.

 Asmodai wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:
Ahhh, correct - I’d forgotten about that.

IMO there’s better uses for 115 points, and I don’t think those points will change as I’m sure GW anticipated 9th coming out right afterwards.

Sister book, PA books etc were written for 8th. Forget the marketing speech they were written with 9th ed in mind. Too much stuff flat out made useless in 9th ed for that. It's marketing speech. Does it sound better "they were written with 9th ed in mind" or "your book gets lots of it invalidated in few months"?

Any book supposedly written 9th in mind there would not a) have rules made redundant(looking at you mortificators or AM canticle...), bonuses for staying mono etc.

According to the leaks, she went up 10 points already despite being pretty bad at 115.

Speaking of being really bad, the immolator, based on the razorback which is the same price chassis, is going up 25 points for the multimelta version. Which, by itself makes me a lot less optimistic about this edition. The fact that eradicators are only 40pts is just salt in the wound.

ANd feth, heavy bolters went up on vehicles(despite being crap) so Twin HB immos went up 18points on just the heavy bolters and HB morties went up 10 right off the bat.

Srsly??? I already didn’t care for Stern even at 115. But the eradicators are too cheap for what they do and if what you’re saying re: heavy Bolters and Mortifiers, yea color me VERY SALTY

I had just painted all my Mortifiers and the rest of my revised list from 8th, not really looking forward to 9th at this point.

And this just in: exorcist launchers (both varieties) confirmed to be blast weapons

A lascannon is now FIVE POINTS CHEAPER than a multimelta, and only 5 points more expensive than a meltagun on infantry. Which doesn't make any goddam sense considering that the lascannon has always been the superior weapon.

All depends if the rumour that Multi-Meltas are two shots now turns out to be true or not.

I hadn't heard that one. Where's that from? Because that's a whole different ballgame.

Assuming people play on the smaller board size melta weapons will be in range sooner than currently in 8th so maybe that is why the melta now costs more (if the leak is true) than lascannon.

12” range with 6” range for “pick one” is still pretty short range

They are essentially 24" assault 2 with the shoot twice ability from the repulsor.

jivardi wrote:
Assuming people play on the smaller board size melta weapons will be in range sooner than currently in 8th so maybe that is why the melta now costs more (if the leak is true) than lascannon.

That doesn't really make much of a difference though. The range issue is only part of why the Lascannon is better. Being S9 rather than AP-4 is quite a lot better thanks to all the invuls kicking around and Melta as a rule is almost totally irrelevant.

Meh, that leak could be as fake as a $3 bill. If it is a fake it's a good one but I take all leaks NOT from GW or on the WHC website with a grain of salt.

I dunno,Spikey bits has been just about 100% on their 9th edition leaks.

Looks like the Battle Sanctum(s) does not cost us any CP - costs 1 but get it back if its of you won faction.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Looks like the Battle Sanctum(s) does not cost us any CP - costs 1 but get it back if its of you won faction.

Spoiler:

Well thats something... but at the same time i now have to pay CP if i want to run bunkers/trenches and the battle sanctum.... which gw still hasnt shipped to me XD, but at least i can run the sanctum by itself whenever it comes..

Ever since they let out that CP was changing and we’d be getting less I’ve had a bad feeling about 9th. I was fairly happy with the direction of 8th.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Looks like the Battle Sanctum(s) does not cost us any CP - costs 1 but get it back if its of you won faction.

Spoiler:

RAW that costs us 1 CP

The pious and penitent exemption does not apply to battle sanctums.

The battle sanctum is taken in an adeptus ministorum detatchment which is unlikely to be the same as your warlords detatchment which will be order of the bloody rose or valorous heart.

Does it Work if St C is your Warlord?