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.

Remember that SoB have no assault vehicles, so you will be telegraphing your DCA assault terribly.

The Grog wrote:Remember that SoB have no assault vehicles, so you will be telegraphing your DCA assault terribly.

Or counter-charging. Yes, chances of that unit actually getting off an assault? Low.

Melissia wrote:

n0t_u wrote:Seems odd you'd be able to spam Immolators more with the update. But as I'm running a mech force anyway it's a good thing.

You mean you find it odd GW would let you spam a heavily nerfed vehicle?

No, I would have though Repressors or something then go with the convenient line of "Hey guys guess what you can make with the Immolator sprue" or "[Playername] could usually pick this up from forgeworld, but thanks to the great detail put into the Immolator kit he was able to build his Repressors for a steal". Cause it already seemed like Immolators are everywhere.

pretre wrote:Roll 2d6 for Faith each turn while he is alive.

Not quite - you get a Faith Reroll while he's alive, and you have to accept the second result even if it's worse (in line with the BRB). But he's still an awesome unit. The fact I'll be telegraphing the assault doesn't worry me much - I'll mainly use him and his DCA swirly-death-death Conclave as a counter-assault squad to protect objective-holding troops.

JB_Man wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Do, please. Sounds like my Sisters are about to become Guardsmen.

If only. A squad of Guardsmen in a Chimera runs 105 points.

Our Sisters of Fiberglass Battlearmour.

pretre wrote:

The Grog wrote:Remember that SoB have no assault vehicles, so you will be telegraphing your DCA assault terribly.

Or counter-charging. Yes, chances of that unit actually getting off an assault? Low.

Mine got two charges off in my victory the other day. Killing two tac squads. Sure you can't point and click them like with marines in land raiders but you just have to put more thought into your game. Perhaps my eldar banshees have just given me enough experience with it that I don't view it as such a negative. Also I highly recommend avoiding the 9 DC unit in favor or putting in some crusaders. 9 DC kill an entire squad of marines twice over in the first round of combat on average. Cutting that down to just killing the squad but vastly increasing its survivability with stormshields is a much better option especially since if by poor dice you don't kill the 10 man unit you have the crusaders power weapons as well.

pretre wrote:

Eumerin wrote:I, for one, would be quite curious to know the details regarding how one of the squads (with Jacobus) managed to beat genestealers in an assault...

That's easy.

Genestealers assaulted into cover, so swing last.
Uriah gives +1 attack and FNP to the unit.

That's the biggest killer right there. :-\ I try to avoid reading WD bat reps. While they're occasionally enjoyable the majority of the time they're full of list errors, rules errors and just the general feeling that one side is throwing the game.

Guess I should start finding a fem model for a counts-as Jacobus. Hate the existing model. I also dumped a crapton of money into Escher for allied guard since I wanted an all female force, not about to start changing that up now.

You could always pull the guns and pistols off the Eschers and give them power weapons or shields. DCA/Crusaders.

Thought about it, but with how many I have I'd rather just go with turning them into IG. I already have 9 sentinels and 9 Leman Russ Battle Tanks from when Apoc came out and they were selling entire battle formations! XD

Might have a spare shotgun Escher though...

pretre wrote:

Eumerin wrote:I, for one, would be quite curious to know the details regarding how one of the squads (with Jacobus) managed to beat genestealers in an assault...

That's easy.

Genestealers assaulted into cover, so swing last.
Uriah gives +1 attack and FNP to the unit.

Above average rolling will have those stealers taking a lot of wounds and potentially losing the combat (especially with no or few rends). A low I roll on the sweep check sees them wiped out.

It isn't the most common outcome of that scenario, but is certainly well within the realm of possibility.

But see - it's not your job to explain how it came about (and ultimately, you're just guessing the most likely outcome - it's entirely possible, however unlikely, that Cruddace made every single one of this 6++ saves in this combat on the first attempt). Its the responsibility of Cruddace and Hutchings to explain it. That's what makes a Battle Report an actual Battle Report instead of a poorly written fairy tale with pictures. Even if they have to reroll everything ten times in order to get the "proper" result (and of course neglect to mention that little fact in the write-up), at least we can sit down and parse through exactly what happened.

That's the biggest killer right there. :-\ I try to avoid reading WD bat reps. While they're occasionally enjoyable the majority of the time they're full of list errors, rules errors and just the general feeling that one side is throwing the game.

In fairness, the genestealers were a reserve unit that didn't arrive until Turn 5, and they were assaulting a squad that was sitting on top of an objective. So the assault made sense even with the drawbacks - it was essentially a last-minute desperation maneuver. It's just the utter and complete lack of details that I find frustrating.

Eumerin wrote:
But see - it's not your job to explain how it came about (and ultimately, you're just guessing the most likely outcome - it's entirely possible, however unlikely, that Cruddace made every single one of this 6++ saves in this combat on the first attempt). Its the responsibility of Cruddace and Hutchings to explain it. That's what makes a Battle Report an actual Battle Report instead of a poorly written fairy tale with pictures. Even if they have to reroll everything ten times in order to get the "proper" result (and of course neglect to mention that little fact in the write-up), at least we can sit down and parse through exactly what happened.

You seem to have a misunderstanding as to what White Dwarf actually is and what the battle reports in it are for.

pretre wrote:You seem to have a misunderstanding as to what White Dwarf actually is and what the battle reports in it are for.

I know... I know... I haven't paid much attention to it since the days when they actually did provide all of the details that I'm looking for.

On the other hand, given the general expectation people have that GW is actually going to try making WD relevant again...

The only time I've ever seen the new army of the month NOT win was Tyranids. That was the same month as the Legion of the Damned models came out, so the Space Marines managed a tie against them. I think that's very telling of Tyranids though, and the typical "one of everything" list that WD usually has.

Vampires didn't win their intro battle as well. The guy playing Vampires didn't cast their signature spell (the one that raises more models) once the entire game. He also used a special ability, a movement spell and a full march to tarpit one of his units first turn into an unbreakable unit. It was absolutely ridiculous.

pretre wrote:

Eumerin wrote:I, for one, would be quite curious to know the details regarding how one of the squads (with Jacobus) managed to beat genestealers in an assault...

That's easy.

Genestealers assaulted into cover, so swing last.
Uriah gives +1 attack and FNP to the unit.

Above average rolling will have those stealers taking a lot of wounds and potentially losing the combat (especially with no or few rends). A low I roll on the sweep check sees them wiped out.

It isn't the most common outcome of that scenario, but is certainly well within the realm of possibility.

Or if the stealers happened to be within range of synapse, then you have to take into effect fearless wounds for losing an assualt -- 5+ saves doesn't get you very far. With the loss of frags, massive rending nerf, no 4+ armour, and fearless saves, it isn't uncommon for stealers to suffer large casualties in CC, especially if your dice fail.

This is why casting catalyste (FNP) on stealer blobs is such a premium option for nid players (and why Tervigons become such a priority to kill for the opponent).

Thats ok the Dark eldar love to have SoB as slaves.

baron deathnyx wrote:Thats ok the Dark eldar love to have SoB as slaves.

They even have models for it.

And this is why the accusation of sexism alwys pops up concerning GW's treatment of Sisters.

And we have BBQ sauce for them, after the summer flamers games.

Fair enough

of course they are sexist. They are overweight/underweight gamer geeks living out fantasies through models!

oh wait...like us lol


It's good to take all that stuff with a pinch of salt and just enjoy the game. Bringing sexism etc into it just makes things poor.

It's hard to do that playing Sisters given how much they're mistreated (in the lore, in models, in pricing, in update times, etc). Thankfully that's not all I play, but still. This WD update is closer to them taking a dump on a plate and saying it's a gourmet specialty than the appetizer it should have been for the forthcoming REAL codex.

"Cuisine gastronomique moderne"

A pea alone in the plate, to make it clear, all the flavor.

lol

I will always like the Sisters as a force, no matter how much GW dump all over them.

The concept is fun, the fluff is appealing and its a whole army of warrior women with guns! whats not to like (GW's behavior aside)

I can,t wait to see what they look like in platic and finecast

Eumerin wrote:

Cofessor Dallax wrote:Oh my goodness...
WD September issue
Page 90-
Dominions - "For every five models in the squad, up to two Dominions may replace their boltgun with one of the following [Storm bolter, flamer, melta]
Page 96 - A photo of the sisters army for the battle report, looking distinctly like it has 5 Dominions armed with 4 flamers... WTF looks like the designers aren't even playing by their own rules these days lol

IIRC the photo of the Dominions going up against the big Tyranid monster-beastie shows six Sisters in the photo, suggesting that Cruddace went with the "proper" option of a 10 Dominion squad in order to get more than two heavy flamers. Unfortunately, I don't have my magazine handy (I'm at work now...), so I can't double-check that.

...Correct, there's six sisters, but it's a canoness who makes up the sixth sister, so it still looks like the writer of the list is breaking his own rules to me...

Personally, I'd rather use the 2nd ed codex over this... 4in movement and everything...

Beyond the initial negative reaction, all the nerfings, the fact that it's now a lot less of a competitive army... I don't think I will mind playing this list in the long run... Will try to make more use of priests and enclaves, seraphim, repentia than I did previously. Plus will have to get over the fact that I'll be using named characters all the time for points reasons (115 Celestine? Holy cow that's random)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:OMG WTF BBQ!

In all seriousness, this frequently happens in WD battle reports. The battle reports are generally fought and documented well before the WD is released. This leads to previous versions of rules and armies being seen in the BRs and also leads to rules interpretations that are later changed by the time the real thing hits the shelves.

There are countless examples of this over the last 20 years.

Fair play Must say that these are the first two copies of WD I've bought in the last err... Wow about 10 years now. I always found it a bit like paying money for a sales pamphlet myself and a bit childish (not wanting to cause offense to any avid readers, personal opinion)

Brother SRM wrote:The only time I've ever seen the new army of the month NOT win was Tyranids. That was the same month as the Legion of the Damned models came out, so the Space Marines managed a tie against them. I think that's very telling of Tyranids though, and the typical "one of everything" list that WD usually has.

6th edition Dark Elves lost. That was the Dark Elf army book that was so bad that it had to have an Errata released reducing the cost of Warriors - yes, GW released an FAQ/Errata that reduced the cost on the basic troop model for the army list.


In comparison, the battle report using the 7th edition Dark Elf list used the wrong rules for the War Hydra.

Melissia wrote:And this is why the accusation of sexism alwys pops up concerning GW's treatment of Sisters.

In the grim darkness of the far future, gaks still pretty sexist. I'm amazed they so deftly avoid mentioning things like institutionalized racism which would logically have to exist in side the fluff coinciding with "anti mutant" stances.

If somebody wanted to use the 3rd ed codex in a casual game instead of the current one, I sure wouldn't stop them. If your gaming group isn't full of sticklers it shouldn't be a problem. Hell, there was a guy in my old gaming group who still plays using the Lost and the Damned list. Fun guy.