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.

Hi all - not sure this is the right place for this but I couldn't decide. I've changed a few things from the original list so I guess they count as proposed rules?!

I've been on a bit of a Sisters of Battle/Witch Hunters fetish of late & decided to re-write the army list. I originally intended to copy it exactly, just in a new format but there were many problems with all the wargear etc. I thought I'd simply share my effort with any who would be interested in an updated list (as I was gutted when GW didn't make the effort when they posted it on their site).

What's changed?

I've changed a few things and given some units wargear choices they didn't necessarily have originally with the idea that for friendly play no one would (or should) mind. I've kept all the original points costs and given everything frag and krak grenades (so Sisters are 14 points each etc) - I've also added/ommitted a few things here and there if they are no longer relevant. I've also tried to include all the FAQ changes as well. There is a notes section at the end of the document which explains these changes and a few other things I'd like to see in their next release (x years from now). In short I've updated a few things whilst sticking to the current Codex book's points costs.

The formatting isn't 100% and there are a few typo's here and there (I had it nearly 100% cool then thought I'd be a brainiac and try and add a footer for page numbers etc and the formatting went to hell & I couldn't be ed to re-format it all for the third time).

I'm not sure about some of the changes. You said you didn't change much but most of the HQ's are more expensive.

Sisters are more expensive (14 vs 11) and VSS get less options for wargear.

Immos can squadron, but I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

Penitent Eng aren't Open any more and Orbitals don't autoscatter.

Other than that, it is dreadfully the same.

So either it is not enough change or too much, depending on the point of view.

They are more expensive because I've given them frag & krak grenades as standard and included the official points costs for taking them. The HQ's are more expensive because I've given them Rosarius's as standard (again I designed this list for personal use and I always give them that useful Invulnerable save and my Troops frag & krak grenades). Immolators can squadron because, personally, as a Witch Hunter's player I'll never consider taking it as a stand-alone Heavy Support choice as it currently stands - which makes it useless (so I could have simply removed it instead?). The main aim was to create a list that's easier to use than flipping back and forth and buying shotguns for a measely 2 points etc, as well as singling out 'logical' options for Sister Superiors & Priests to take (no one in their right mind would spend 100 points of wargear on a Veteran Superior - although perhaps I should have given them the option to have refractor fields or something?). Also I've given all the options for the specific HQ choices without having to look at tiny little numbers to see what they can take!

Yeah - Orbitals should always scatter and Penitent Engines should have open-topped (my bad - like I said typo's)

I agree I may have "sat on the fence" a little. As I said I simply started by up-dating the list as it is into a 'modern' format and added/altered a few tweaks here and there - but perhaps I should just re-write it how I would like it?

warspawned wrote:
I agree I may have "sat on the fence" a little. As I said I simply started by up-dating the list as it is into a 'modern' format and added/altered a few tweaks here and there - but perhaps I should just re-write it how I would like it?

In for a penny, in for a pound. Go for it.

Ha! When I can face the dreadful re-formatting AGAIN!