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.

Here's an irony for you: I was pretty much forced to change armies because my pool of players was just tired of getting beat with them. They call them the Swissters of Battle. This was back where I had an army without transports! Three blobs of Sisters of Battle streaming across the field like Orks. VERY effective. Didn't even use the usual triple Exorcist thing. I only had one and it was the only armor in the force.

Obviously things changed over time and two Codex's later, we have todays version which fights very well from vehicles instead of on foot (though you COULD still do what i did before and probably win).

Anyways, it's just fun to play armies that "shouldnt" win but they do anyways, making not just a few people eat that sweet sweet humble pie.

Are they relevant? An army that has more melta than any other in a meta that has increased the viability of mech lists always has potential.

SoB can function and perform as well as any other army, their biggest downsides being that the range of units in their codex are limited, and you will need to mortgage your house to buy a full army.

Troike wrote: Your theory is that GW really wants to drop the Sisters but can't because they fear the backlash, but several things that GW has said and done contradict this mindset.

You need to stop posting what you think I think, lol. You haven't been right once yet.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
You need to stop posting what you think I think, lol. You haven't been right once yet.

That's what you said in here. You said that they had "learned their lesson" with the Squats, in that they "took crap" from Squats players for year, so they want to drop the Sisters but are putting out token rules updates to avoid a new wave of backlash.

How about we stop arguing over if Sisters are sticking around or not and when GW does something with them (even if it's "get rid of them") then you can tell each other "I told you so". There is just no point in arguing over what the company might be doing.

That said, from the feedback I'd gotten from submitting my $.02 on the rules and how the army could be improved by giving it more build options and generally be more fun, I'm pretty sure Sisters aren't going away. There is an interest but it's tempered by time constraints/developer interest and since models come before rules, so if the models aren't ready yet, the rules won't be either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moving on beyond "will GW or won't they?", Sisters can be an fun investment, albeit a very pricy one.

Depending on what and how people play you might find that Sisters don't make the cut on their own. My army has run into that quite a bit due to people either bringing hordes of ranged models or building face punchy armies that close the gap too quick for me to thin then before getting smacked.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Sisters army and I'd trade a lung and a kidney to have a properly updated army in plastic, but at the same time I have come to accept that they aren't exactly a juggernaut on the table. Pairing them with another army (Guard, some Assassins, maybe the Inquisition, or some Marines, depending on how you want to theme it all) can really shore up their weaknesses though so give that a consideration if you find the army being kicked around too much where you play.