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.

 Salted Diamond wrote:

Bdrone wrote:
speaking of Assassin's... ive been thinking on a plausible list for my playstyle, but i should consider what works well while still maintaining the benefits of the sisters mono rules and without.

i think inquisitors are ruled to work and not cause problems, because as i understand it, you can only run one missionary HQ in a list.. am i right on that? how about Assassins? I imagine anything else would ruin sacred rites or the order convictions depending on how you arrange your forces.

I though it was you could not have more than 1 missionary HQ per Detachment. So 2 detachments with min 2 HQ, only 1 per could be a missionary.

"Lone Mission: You can only include a single MISSIONARY in each Detachment in a Battle-forged army."

... okay, fair enough, just needed more clarification because im behind on some rules due to lack of play. so i can fill detachments easier than i thought without needed Celestine, even if it's not that wise to do. double bat it is for certain.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Really GW? You got and make a new Sisters of Battle Codex and won't put a picture of the new Serephim in there, fill the book with pictures of the same 3 Seraphim minis (ie. the mono-pose ones from the Ltd. Ed. box) but then less than a week after it sells out instantly you are happy to show them off? What gives?

At least the Seraphim look good. And that Mortifier... wow. Those flails are going to be killing a lot of infantry.

I hear you but the book had to be printed weeks/months ago so that either the new Seraphim weren't ready or they were worried about leaks.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Really GW? You got and make a new Sisters of Battle Codex and won't put a picture of the new Serephim in there, fill the book with pictures of the same 3 Seraphim minis (ie. the mono-pose ones from the Ltd. Ed. box) but then less than a week after it sells out instantly you are happy to show them off? What gives?

At least the Seraphim look good. And that Mortifier... wow. Those flails are going to be killing a lot of infantry.

I hear you but the book had to be printed weeks/months ago so that either the new Seraphim weren't ready or they were worried about leaks.

I'd wager not ready.

This entire production seems rather rushed in a "we have GOT to get this ready ASAP" kind of way.
They just didn't want to wait for the multi-kits to be ready before sending the codex to the print, because that could case a delay of a few months, and would lose them the precious "we told you it could even be 2019!" value.

Why does GW insist on writing rules in the most complicated way possible? Why isn't the Triumph just a unit with six sisters and whatever the centrepiece is? That would cut out a whole load of book-keeping with having to remember which relics it has left.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Why does GW insist on writing rules in the most complicated way possible? Why isn't the Triumph just a unit with six sisters and whatever the centrepiece is? That would cut out a whole load of book-keeping with having to remember which relics it has left.

Why isn't the big bonehead and his retinue in AoS a unit of individual models? Because the sculptor made a model and the rules writers are left to do something with it. Same here. The sculptor wanted a diorama and got a diorama*. Whether that is in any way practical within the current rules supposedly doesn't enter into it.

Depending on how the model turns out, we may be able to use magnets to make casualty removal and bookkeeping practical.




*presumably, since I haven't seen the model yet - the rules obviously point towards it

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Why does GW insist on writing rules in the most complicated way possible? Why isn't the Triumph just a unit with six sisters and whatever the centrepiece is? That would cut out a whole load of book-keeping with having to remember which relics it has left.

if there are figures carrying each relic that would be cool for keeping track and removal

Psst...magnets are a thing.

Lies! Lies! There are no magnets. There is nothing to be done but bear the inescapable pain of bookkeeping!

I once played a Tzeentch Chaos Demons player in 7th ed who used to bring a full-size WHITEBOARD and markers for his bookkeeping - to keep track of all the boons, buffs, and psychic powers etc. It was insane.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
I also don't understand the point of Penitent Engines compared to Mortifiers.

Penitent Engines are not a new unit. People own Penitent engines. No one owns Motifiers. Mortifiers have better rules. People need to buy the new kit to get Mortifiers.

New model selling 101. How else you gonna sell Malibu Stacey's new flails hat.

This sort of 'GW makes stuff OP to sell models' rhetoric should die with this release, permanently. This book is not good. They're trying to sell a brand new faction with a book that couldn't survive the indexes. It will be years of FAQs an chapted approveds to get Sisters to 'decent'.

GW do not sell power because they have no concept of what power is in 40k.

Ok. If you say so Mr. Negative.

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
I also don't understand the point of Penitent Engines compared to Mortifiers.

Penitent Engines are not a new unit. People own Penitent engines. No one owns Motifiers. Mortifiers have better rules. People need to buy the new kit to get Mortifiers.

New model selling 101. How else you gonna sell Malibu Stacey's new flails hat.

This sort of 'GW makes stuff OP to sell models' rhetoric should die with this release, permanently. This book is not good. They're trying to sell a brand new faction with a book that couldn't survive the indexes. It will be years of FAQs an chapted approveds to get Sisters to 'decent'.

GW do not sell power because they have no concept of what power is in 40k.

Nah, you wrong. Sisters are gonna be gooooodddd

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
I also don't understand the point of Penitent Engines compared to Mortifiers.

Penitent Engines are not a new unit. People own Penitent engines. No one owns Motifiers. Mortifiers have better rules. People need to buy the new kit to get Mortifiers.

New model selling 101. How else you gonna sell Malibu Stacey's new flails hat.

This sort of 'GW makes stuff OP to sell models' rhetoric should die with this release, permanently. This book is not good. They're trying to sell a brand new faction with a book that couldn't survive the indexes. It will be years of FAQs an chapted approveds to get Sisters to 'decent'.

GW do not sell power because they have no concept of what power is in 40k.

What an awful hot take. People haven't even put lists together, haven't even put models on the table, haven't even built the models, haven't even BOUGHT the models.

But ok, you go and do whatever you want with your time. Clearly sisters aren't for you so, like... why are you here in the sisters thread? Just to rain on people's parade? Like, even in terms of the negativity that Dakka is meme'd for, this is a particular low.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ok. If you say so Mr. Negative.

We are well beyond just Mr. Negative, more like the whole Negative clan cookout.

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
I also don't understand the point of Penitent Engines compared to Mortifiers.

Penitent Engines are not a new unit. People own Penitent engines. No one owns Motifiers. Mortifiers have better rules. People need to buy the new kit to get Mortifiers.

New model selling 101. How else you gonna sell Malibu Stacey's new flails hat.

This sort of 'GW makes stuff OP to sell models' rhetoric should die with this release, permanently. This book is not good. They're trying to sell a brand new faction with a book that couldn't survive the indexes. It will be years of FAQs an chapted approveds to get Sisters to 'decent'.

GW do not sell power because they have no concept of what power is in 40k.

While I think its too early to tell if this codex is awful or just fine (or likely, somewhere between), I do agree that the 'GW makes stuff OP to sell models' is and had always been a pretty ridiculous stance.

 jake wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
I also don't understand the point of Penitent Engines compared to Mortifiers.

Penitent Engines are not a new unit. People own Penitent engines. No one owns Motifiers. Mortifiers have better rules. People need to buy the new kit to get Mortifiers.

New model selling 101. How else you gonna sell Malibu Stacey's new flails hat.

This sort of 'GW makes stuff OP to sell models' rhetoric should die with this release, permanently. This book is not good. They're trying to sell a brand new faction with a book that couldn't survive the indexes. It will be years of FAQs an chapted approveds to get Sisters to 'decent'.

GW do not sell power because they have no concept of what power is in 40k.

While I think its too early to tell if this codex is awful or just fine (or likely, somewhere between), I do agree that the 'GW makes stuff OP to sell models' is and had always been a pretty ridiculous stance.

There is really no way to know how the book will shake out until it's out and all the units are taken and the interactions etc. Does it look as strong as the new marines ? No it doesn't look to be that strong right out the gate. Which leads me to believe the complaints about marines will and perhaps should continue if they weren't the dawn of a new age and instead a gross outlier to the power curve. That said, no way to judge the sisters before we get any game time in with the different options.

I'd like to believe GW makes things OP to sell models. However you can't ignore sometimes that doesn't work so to that I'd say I wish they actually understood their own game rules well enough to be more consistent with design and stop making some things god awful and others no brainer good. I'd love to have some faith they put more than a lunch breaks thoughts into their rules.

I'd also say, I doubt the Triumph of the Saint will be good good, but I love the feeling so I'll look forward to it for sure just has such a cool feeling behind it that I love.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok. If you say so Mr. Negative.

Don't worry every Mr.Negative has a polar opposite side of Mr. Positive

Racerguy180 wrote:

We are well beyond just Mr. Negative, more like the whole Negative clan cookout.

Well every time the Negative clan holds a cookout they can't but help invite their polar opposite the Positive clan they just seem to attract each other and they tend to stick together.

I'd say that Mr.Negative and Mr.Positive will be a big help with the Saint Katherine model for keeping track of the relics a positive experience rather than a negative one.

 alextroy wrote:
Lies! Lies! There are no magnets. There is nothing to be done but bear the inescapable pain of bookkeeping!

I knew someone who died of paper cuts because he had to track 2 numbers on a piece of paper. It was horrible. His widow shows up every time I suggest tracking CP per detachment.

I’d say GW tweaking balance to sell models is a real phenomenon, it’s just not one of their higher priorities and they aren’t great at it.

The frequent FAQ rotation is undeniably making tournament players and meta chasers buy more, if nothing else.

Anyhow I might try that queuing outside a store before it opens thing next week for the first time.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
That said, no way to judge the sisters before we get any game time in with the different options.

What do you expect DakkaDakka to do? Not pre-judge the strength of an army based only on partial information about the codex? I remember seeing over a dozen different threads about how the Kellermorph was so broken they would have to reboot the whole edition just to fix it. Turns out that whole codex was some of the best evidence we've gotten against GW making new armies OP. GSC turned out to be just like the Popeye's chicken sandwich: Good, maybe even really good, but no where near deserving of the hype.

Indivual case trend makes not. 99% time what is good and what isn't is spot on known before. 40k is neither complex nor deep. Difficulty in 40k is having deep enough pockets to buy constantly new models as gw changes balance for sake of money

And we've consistently seen how inconsistent the power curve of new codices is. Sometimes a codex with new models is OP as hell. Sometimes it's mediocre. Sometimes it's good in the right hands, but otherwise sucks. Sometimes there's one or two good units in the codex and everything else is just treading water. When something like the SM codex comes out, everyone comes out of the woodwork about GW creating rules to sell models. When something like GSC comes out, those same people just change the narrative to "GW tried to release a broken codex but they don't know their own game." So which is it? Are GW evil pay-to-win marketing masterminds, or are they incompetent rules writers who can't make rules good enough to sell new models?

 EnTyme wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
That said, no way to judge the sisters before we get any game time in with the different options.

What do you expect DakkaDakka to do? Not pre-judge the strength of an army based only on partial information about the codex?

It's not pre-judgement. Everyone has seen the new codex

 deviantduck wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
That said, no way to judge the sisters before we get any game time in with the different options.

What do you expect DakkaDakka to do? Not pre-judge the strength of an army based only on partial information about the codex?

It's not pre-judgement. Everyone has seen the new codex

No, they haven't.

 Dysartes wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
That said, no way to judge the sisters before we get any game time in with the different options.

What do you expect DakkaDakka to do? Not pre-judge the strength of an army based only on partial information about the codex?

It's not pre-judgement. Everyone has seen the new codex

No, they haven't.

If you watched video of the man read out loud the entire rules section of the codex you have.

 Dysartes wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
That said, no way to judge the sisters before we get any game time in with the different options.

What do you expect DakkaDakka to do? Not pre-judge the strength of an army based only on partial information about the codex?

It's not pre-judgement. Everyone has seen the new codex

No, they haven't.

If you want to its there for everyone

 EnTyme wrote:
And we've consistently seen how inconsistent the power curve of new codices is. Sometimes a codex with new models is OP as hell. Sometimes it's mediocre. Sometimes it's good in the right hands, but otherwise sucks. Sometimes there's one or two good units in the codex and everything else is just treading water. When something like the SM codex comes out, everyone comes out of the woodwork about GW creating rules to sell models. When something like GSC comes out, those same people just change the narrative to "GW tried to release a broken codex but they don't know their own game." So which is it? Are GW evil pay-to-win marketing masterminds, or are they incompetent rules writers who can't make rules good enough to sell new models?

Their writing is simply uneven. People can try and build a narrative around that, but they have to ignore a lot no matter which way they go.

The SM narrative is always amusing in this context, since Primaris debuted as rather awful, and it took multiple points revisions to just get them to 'acceptable,' and then finally doctrines to boost them over the edge.

 EnTyme wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
That said, no way to judge the sisters before we get any game time in with the different options.

What do you expect DakkaDakka to do?

As always, Dakka Dakka remains strangely silent on the matter.

However, what we do see here is a lot of people with various opinions.

I’m sure there be a few good builds somewhere in this new codex...

 Alpharius wrote:

As always, Dakka Dakka remains strangely silent on the matter.

However, what we do see here is a lot of people with various opinions.

I’m sure there be a few good builds somewhere in this new codex...

This retort doesn't make you look witty, just pretentious. It's common practice to refer to the zeitgeist of a forum by the name of that forum. You and everyone else who read my post know whatI was referring to.

So is the new box basically sold out everywhere?