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.

 Grimskul wrote:
I mean, competitive doesn't necessarily mean overpowered and i feel like you're conflating the two. You don't need to be Iron Hands level of crazy to be considered a good army.

Depends on if you are talking tournament competitive or game with friends competitive.

In the first case if you can't beat 'iron hands crazy' then you are by definition not competitive. For friendly games it's moving goalposts depending on your local group and sisters do a pretty good job of not falling over themselves.

A.T. wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
I mean, competitive doesn't necessarily mean overpowered and i feel like you're conflating the two. You don't need to be Iron Hands level of crazy to be considered a good army.

Depends on if you are talking tournament competitive or game with friends competitive.

In the first case if you can't beat 'iron hands crazy' then you are by definition not competitive. For friendly games it's moving goalposts depending on your local group and sisters do a pretty good job of not falling over themselves.

The word competitive does not mean the same thing as the word best.

You don't have to be able to beat THE BEST army to be competitive. Nobody says a silver medalist wasn't competitive. Most people would define competitive as "Do you win more than 50% of the games you play.

I mean, that's how I define competitive.

On Dakka, of course, the term is also used to describe a particular method of list building that focuses on value per point. It's very, very math heavy. Some people call that "Win at all costs" playing, because it doesn't take into account a) the background of either army b) the background of the battle or c) the opponent's enjoyment of the game. While I find some degree of truth behind the WAAC label, I'm not sure it's entirely fair, so I use it as infrequently as I can.

So now, here's where it gets weird: you can design a list for maximum efficiency, and cost it out as shooting dice per point or whatever, meaning that you designed an army with the primary intent to compete. But then you go and lose every game over a weekend, and people will say your army wasn't competitive because it didn't win.

So the term competitive, as it's used here has two meanings- one related to intent and another related to performance.

To say you're not competitive if you DON'T beat the best is pure crap; it's related to a lot of other equally problematic concepts, though this is not the place to get into it. Saying an army isn't competitive if it CAN'T beat the best is more reasonable, but it still isn't objectively true. If you compete with a hundred players, the guy who comes in 99th is competitive according to the guy who came in 100th.

What you're talking about is the guy who came in 2nd; you can say that player is not competitive if you want to, but I'd advise you not to say it too close to the other 98 people, right?

PenitentJake wrote:
The word competitive does not mean the same thing as the word best.

You don't have to be able to beat THE BEST army to be competitive. Nobody says a silver medalist wasn't competitive. Most people would define competitive as "Do you win more than 50% of the games you play.

I mean, that's how I define competitive.

On Dakka, of course, the term is also used to describe a particular method of list building that focuses on value per point. It's very, very math heavy. Some people call that "Win at all costs" playing, because it doesn't take into account a) the background of either army b) the background of the battle or c) the opponent's enjoyment of the game. While I find some degree of truth behind the WAAC label, I'm not sure it's entirely fair, so I use it as infrequently as I can.

So now, here's where it gets weird: you can design a list for maximum efficiency, and cost it out as shooting dice per point or whatever, meaning that you designed an army with the primary intent to compete. But then you go and lose every game over a weekend, and people will say your army wasn't competitive because it didn't win.

So the term competitive, as it's used here has two meanings- one related to intent and another related to performance.

To say you're not competitive if you DON'T beat the best is pure crap; it's related to a lot of other equally problematic concepts, though this is not the place to get into it. Saying an army isn't competitive if it CAN'T beat the best is more reasonable, but it still isn't objectively true. If you compete with a hundred players, the guy who comes in 99th is competitive according to the guy who came in 100th.

What you're talking about is the guy who came in 2nd; you can say that player is not competitive if you want to, but I'd advise you not to say it too close to the other 98 people, right?

I think that entire ramble misses entirely what Grimskul was getting at. To be competitive you need to have the tools required to make the nastiest lists sweat. You don't need to win every game, but you need to be more than just another speed bump along the way.

Also, if I came in DFL and you came slightly above me due to losing one game slightly less hard, neither of us was competitive. You need to go at least 2 - 3 and have had a chance to go 3 - 2 to be semi-competitive, you need to be a lock to go 3 - 2 and have a chance of going 4 - 1 to actually be competitive.

PenitentJake wrote:
What you're talking about is the guy who came in 2nd; you can say that player is not competitive if you want to, but I'd advise you not to say it too close to the other 98 people, right

You are creating all of these new positions to argue against that have no bearing on anything I have written.

My post, and my position, is simply that if an army can't win with some level of consistency against the other winning faction(s) then they are not competitive in a tournament setting.

A.T. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
What you're talking about is the guy who came in 2nd; you can say that player is not competitive if you want to, but I'd advise you not to say it too close to the other 98 people, right

You are creating all of these new positions to argue against that have no bearing on anything I have written.

My post, and my position, is simply that if an army can't win with some level of consistency against the other winning faction(s) then they are not competitive in a tournament setting.

And this is how we end up with power creep, because instead of letting armies be toned down, we insist that everyone else be tuned up.

Sororitas actually can beat Iron Hands. Anecdotally I've seen it done (and done it myself with my infantry spam list). Now, I don't know what the relative difference in player skill was or anything; I don't keep track of stats that well. But I will say it's not impossible. Plus, you have to consider game types. A lack of NLOS weapons and long range power means that on an ITC-style mission, where it's death if you're in LOS but fine everywhere else (except you can't shoot) then Sisters dramatically underperform. In my experience with the GW missions (very much especially the new Maelstrom ones) Sororitas perform quite well. Not Iron-Hands level of gamebreakingly good, but certainly able to go toe to toe with any list in the game and slug it out to victory.

As for Exorcists, they are by no means required. I own zero exorcists. I run an all-infantry Argent Shroud list with a million billion meltaguns and multi-meltas as my anti-tank and it works just fine. Argent Shroud are in a good place to self-provide fire support; they move up the board almost as fast as Slaanesh. 24" range feels a lot longer when you can move 6+d6" (with rerolls and miracle dice for critical units). Plus, the Retributor stratagem makes your meltas shoot 36" or melta-rule at 18, and give them +1 damage. You can swarm up the field so quickly that players don't have time to get board control, and end up feeling trapped in their DZ.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And this is how we end up with power creep, because instead of letting armies be toned down, we insist that everyone else be tuned up.

Toning down the factions that need to be toned down also works fine.

This all started with a question over whether sisters were currently competitive, based on what limited success they have had in orgainised competitive play so far.

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And this is how we end up with power creep, because instead of letting armies be toned down, we insist that everyone else be tuned up.

Toning down the factions that need to be toned down also works fine.

This all started with a question over whether sisters were currently competitive, based on what limited success they have had in orgainised competitive play so far.

I mean, the book was released in January (fully), and the COVID lockdown started late February in some places, so... eugh? How many events have they gotten to play at that we have data for?

I've had the book since Nov/Dec (thanks GW for the prebox) and played loads of games with it, both competitively (in the sense they were PUGs practicing for a tournament) and casually. It stomped in casual play to the point where I felt kinda bad; people simply didn't know how to deal with 120-odd power armored bodies that moved 10" a turn and fired with no penalty. Competitively it didn't stomp but against certain lists it did. It crushed Triptide Tau who didn't bring enough gun to outshoot the Sisters; the drones all died in one turn to a thousand storm bolter/bolter shots, and even a 3++ riptide won't endure 12 or 15 melta shots (with a miracle die or two for the damage). It beat Deathwatch, Death Guard, Ultramarines, and CSM fairly consistently. I'd say the book is in the top half of the rankings, probably around doctrineless Space Marines.

i.e. pretty well balanced and competitive enough to be satisfying to play while still being intellectually challenging to operate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, the book was released in January (fully), and the COVID lockdown started late February in some places, so... eugh? How many events have they gotten to play at that we have data for?

The LVO 2020 would probably have been the largest one. One sisters list finished in the top 100 (at 20th), which was pretty good.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
What you're talking about is the guy who came in 2nd; you can say that player is not competitive if you want to, but I'd advise you not to say it too close to the other 98 people, right

You are creating all of these new positions to argue against that have no bearing on anything I have written.

My post, and my position, is simply that if an army can't win with some level of consistency against the other winning faction(s) then they are not competitive in a tournament setting.

And this is how we end up with power creep, because instead of letting armies be toned down, we insist that everyone else be tuned up.

Sororitas actually can beat Iron Hands. Anecdotally I've seen it done (and done it myself with my infantry spam list). Now, I don't know what the relative difference in player skill was or anything; I don't keep track of stats that well. But I will say it's not impossible. Plus, you have to consider game types. A lack of NLOS weapons and long range power means that on an ITC-style mission, where it's death if you're in LOS but fine everywhere else (except you can't shoot) then Sisters dramatically underperform. In my experience with the GW missions (very much especially the new Maelstrom ones) Sororitas perform quite well. Not Iron-Hands level of gamebreakingly good, but certainly able to go toe to toe with any list in the game and slug it out to victory.

As for Exorcists, they are by no means required. I own zero exorcists. I run an all-infantry Argent Shroud list with a million billion meltaguns and multi-meltas as my anti-tank and it works just fine. Argent Shroud are in a good place to self-provide fire support; they move up the board almost as fast as Slaanesh. 24" range feels a lot longer when you can move 6+d6" (with rerolls and miracle dice for critical units). Plus, the Retributor stratagem makes your meltas shoot 36" or melta-rule at 18, and give them +1 damage. You can swarm up the field so quickly that players don't have time to get board control, and end up feeling trapped in their DZ.

One of the things that people miss is that there are almost always multiple 'nastiest armies out there' at any given moment. Pre-nerf IH were one of the exceptions being absolutely busted on release but most of the time there are several 'top tier threats' and having a good matchup against any of them is good enough to be 'competitive'.

For example, SoB wallop any eldar list with flyers, nightspinners, or a lot of infantry. A VH exorcist will tear a -3 flyer out of the sky every turn, so long as the SoB player has CP. Hemlocks are going to have a very hard time casting anything if they get within the bubble of minus to cast that a lot of SoB lists run, eldar weapons can't reliably kill anything the sisters have because they're bouncing off of either 2+ immune to AP-2 armor or a 4++ or T8 with an invul and a FNP. One to one, most eldar infantry just can't outlast battle sisters thanks to having high armor, bs 3+ Firepower, and being relatively cheap.

In the mythical 'stare at each other and shoot for 3 turns' games everyone who plays ITC is apparently getting into all the time, eldar have a very uphill battle against most SoB lists. So an eldar heavy meta could see Sister catapulted to '4-1 for free' status almost immediately.

Having a few bad matchups and a couple of exploitable weaknesses doesn't make an army non-competitive, so long as they still have plenty of good matchups and strengths to balance them out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And this is how we end up with power creep, because instead of letting armies be toned down, we insist that everyone else be tuned up.

Toning down the factions that need to be toned down also works fine.

I'd say the book is in the top half of the rankings, probably around doctrineless Space Marines.

Did you mean 'supplement-less' space marines? Because doctrineless baseline C:SM are a pretty easy win ngl. Even some of the supplement books I'm not particularly worried about. WS, UM, Sallies, ravenguard if the guy doesn't use his centurions perfectly or gets a run of bad dice in the early turns.

Yes, supplement-less marines. And like I said, I've seen success against UM even with the supplement, so concurred.

To be clear about competitive, no I didn't mean as good as Iron Hands or easily the best army in the game. However, Sisters are in the upper half of armies and have the tools to win a given event.

That's not true for all armies (Necrons, Death Guard, Mono-CSM, Tyranids, etc.).

If you're curious about some good builds, the Art of War podcast has done two Sisters episodes since the codex dropped breaking down two very different tournament winning SoB lists. One built around hard to kill valorous heart (does have a dreadnought detachment), the other with Triumph, Mortifiers, and repentia. Neither with exorcists.

My comment was directed at people saying the codex is "very mediocre" and that they are "objectively just worse space marines."