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.

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

Yeah but you get T4 and I4

Ixquic wrote:

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

Yeah but you get T4 and I4

And throwing grenades! Just don't run into the guy playing 2nd ed chaos.

baron deathnyx wrote:I can,t wait to see what they look like in platic and finecast

Turns out you can, and will wait to see the platic and resin sisters. At least until whenever they decide the "real" codex is due to come out. Not that I am bitter.

AllistorPreist wrote:

baron deathnyx wrote:I can,t wait to see what they look like in platic and finecast

Turns out you can, and will wait to see the platic and resin sisters. At least until whenever they decide the "real" codex is due to come out. Not that I am bitter.

Why you would want a recast of some of the ugliest models still in GWs range I will never know.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ixquic wrote:

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

Yeah but you get T4 and I4

And throwing grenades! Just don't run into the guy playing 2nd ed chaos.

Wiping out my friend's 500 point Chaos super lord with a vortex grenade from a 15 point Sergeant was the highlight of 40k for me.

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.

Considering how mech is likely to play, counter-assault is the best bet. Put one rhino full of them a bit behind 2-3 others, so when you dump your Sisters out, shoot, inevitably get assaulted, and then probably wiped out, you'll at least have a cleanup unit. This is an option we didn't have before. No unit in the previous codex has anywhere near the melee power of 9 DCA. It's a shame they can't benefit from the Cannoness act.

Now, do they have fleet, and does attaching Uriah prevent fleet? Matters a lot in positioning, as you don't want what just killed your SoB squads to consolidate out of range.

The Grog wrote:

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.

Considering how mech is likely to play, counter-assault is the best bet. Put one rhino full of them a bit behind 2-3 others, so when you dump your Sisters out, shoot, inevitably get assaulted, and then probably wiped out, you'll at least have a cleanup unit. This is an option we didn't have before. No unit in the previous codex has anywhere near the melee power of 9 DCA. It's a shame they can't benefit from the Cannoness act.

Now, do they have fleet, and does attaching Uriah prevent fleet? Matters a lot in positioning, as you don't want what just killed your SoB squads to consolidate out of range.

No, they do not have fleet. How sad...

You don't really need the Canoness act on that unit. Canoness gives +1 I and Preferred Enemy, doesn't it?

Uriah gives them PE on the charge and they are already I6.

I don't see Fleet in part one, but maybe P2 has it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Why you would want a recast of some of the ugliest models still in GWs range I will never know.

Really? I've always thought the Canoness (V2) and St Celestine were two of GWs best sculpts. Especially given their age. Of course, now that I've got the second half of the Codex and have sat and costed up 2,000 and 3,000 point standard FOC lists, it looks like Canoness Cassiopeia has finally been elevated to Sainthood - so I won't be fielding my Canoness model any more, at least under the standard FOC. I'm definitely taking Uriah - I can't not, given how gloriously fluffy I can make his unit. And I'm not passing up on the new St Celestine stats and cost - but it's kinda fluffy for my force anyway, since Cassiopeia's schtick has always been surviving blows that should surely have been fatal (farewell, 2++ and Mantle of Ophelia - I'll miss you, but we had good times while they lasted) and the new Canoness crunch doesn't reflect that.

Looking at the new points costs, they certainly aren't where I would have hoped them to be. But having theorycrafted a few lists, I think the new Codex will at least be serviceable. Undergeared compared to the new bookdexes, obviously - no flying assault transports or grey hunters - but solid enough. I admit I found the Batrep thoroughly disingenuous - "Oh, Sisters of Battle lack long-range high strength weapons! Quick, make sure the Batrep features a Fortress they can crib twin-linked Lascannons from at no points cost!", and "Oh gosh-darnit, my Genestealers are taking longer to reach the table than Boromir took to die". And the list Cruddace fielded shows he knows nothing about the Codex he himself authored - not least, the specials/model ratio on Dominions. But all that said, I've stuck with Sisters since they got their first book Codex - and I'll be damned if rules written by someone who only considered collecting the army a decade after I started with them is going to stop me.

Really? I've always thought the Canoness (V2) and St Celestine were two of GWs best sculpts. Especially given their age.

I mostly mean the sisters themselves and anything thats a different type of basic "sister" (seraphim, etc). The canoness has a pretty impressive manface. Gives space marine scouts a run for their money.

Mythal wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Why you would want a recast of some of the ugliest models still in GWs range I will never know.

Really? I've always thought the Canoness (V2) and St Celestine were two of GWs best sculpts. Especially given their age. Of course, now that I've got the second half of the Codex and have sat and costed up 2,000 and 3,000 point standard FOC lists, it looks like Canoness Cassiopeia has finally been elevated to Sainthood - so I won't be fielding my Canoness model any more, at least under the standard FOC. I'm definitely taking Uriah - I can't not, given how gloriously fluffy I can make his unit. And I'm not passing up on the new St Celestine stats and cost - but it's kinda fluffy for my force anyway, since Cassiopeia's schtick has always been surviving blows that should surely have been fatal (farewell, 2++ and Mantle of Ophelia - I'll miss you, but we had good times while they lasted) and the new Canoness crunch doesn't reflect that.

Looking at the new points costs, they certainly aren't where I would have hoped them to be. But having theorycrafted a few lists, I think the new Codex will at least be serviceable. Undergeared compared to the new bookdexes, obviously - no flying assault transports or grey hunters - but solid enough. I admit I found the Batrep thoroughly disingenuous - "Oh, Sisters of Battle lack long-range high strength weapons! Quick, make sure the Batrep features a Fortress they can crib twin-linked Lascannons from at no points cost!", and "Oh gosh-darnit, my Genestealers are taking longer to reach the table than Boromir took to die". And the list Cruddace fielded shows he knows nothing about the Codex he himself authored - not least, the specials/model ratio on Dominions. But all that said, I've stuck with Sisters since they got their first book Codex - and I'll be damned if rules written by someone who only considered collecting the army a decade after I started with them is going to stop me.

That's the spirit, I like your attitude, I pretty much feel the same way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Really? I've always thought the Canoness (V2) and St Celestine were two of GWs best sculpts. Especially given their age.

I mostly mean the sisters themselves and anything thats a different type of basic "sister" (seraphim, etc). The canoness has a pretty impressive manface. Gives space marine scouts a run for their money.

I never understood why people think Sisters should look like straight up females. Most women that serve in the military look fairly mannish, why would even more fanatical battle women give any kind of a crap of what they look like? I think they're way too busy beating wholesale face in. Also shorter hair makes more sense, esp considering all the flamers they shoot.

Mythal wrote:
Looking at the new points costs, they certainly aren't where I would have hoped them to be. But having theorycrafted a few lists, I think the new Codex will at least be serviceable. Undergeared compared to the new bookdexes, obviously - no flying assault transports or grey hunters - but solid enough. I admit I found the Batrep thoroughly disingenuous - "Oh, Sisters of Battle lack long-range high strength weapons! Quick, make sure the Batrep features a Fortress they can crib twin-linked Lascannons from at no points cost!", and "Oh gosh-darnit, my Genestealers are taking longer to reach the table than Boromir took to die". And the list Cruddace fielded shows he knows nothing about the Codex he himself authored - not least, the specials/model ratio on Dominions. But all that said, I've stuck with Sisters since they got their first book Codex - and I'll be damned if rules written by someone who only considered collecting the army a decade after I started with them is going to stop me.

I just can't look at every other recent codex's power level and then somehow justify playing this army anymore. I really don't want to play guard, but it's what I've got the models for and it's more than competitive. At least my sisters have a great paint job and will look quite nice on my shelf for a few years.

Try out a game with them before you shelf them guys, trust me on this.

Kreedos wrote:Try out a game with them before you shelf them guys, trust me on this.

Just let them stomp around and cry. Anything else is futile.

Kreedos posted a nice account of a list and how it fared using the new Codex. But one small part stuck out to me......

Kreedos wrote:

Faith isn't important anymore, not at all...

Although I don't think Kreedos entirely intended it that way, I think that's possibly the most complete condemnation of the WD codex I've yet seen...

Thank you GW.



Valete,

JohnS

Kreedos wrote:Try out a game with them before you shelf them guys, trust me on this.

I would like to second this sentiment. Seriously give it a shot. It's better than 'nids, and people still play them. Despite their being mroe expensive, Immolator spam will still do wonders Especially when you can have several scouting, and have them backed up by cheap heavy bolters in the rearfeild. I still think there is hope for them, and I'm the person who first called that they would cost 12 points.

I never understood why people think Sisters should look like straight up females. Most women that serve in the military look fairly mannish, why would even more fanatical battle women give any kind of a crap of what they look like? I think they're way too busy beating wholesale face in. Also shorter hair makes more sense, esp considering all the flamers they shoot.

They should look like straight up females because they are. Dramatically increased testosterone can change facial features, but not as much as they seem to on the faces of several sister models. They're just badly sculpted. The bodies are to blocky as well.

Ixquic wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ixquic wrote:

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

Yeah but you get T4 and I4

And throwing grenades! Just don't run into the guy playing 2nd ed chaos.

Wiping out my friend's 500 point Chaos super lord with a vortex grenade from a 15 point Sergeant was the highlight of 40k for me.

Right... all this. But sadly I don't like 2nd ed... I just like a lot of the codices.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I never understood why people think Sisters should look like straight up females. Most women that serve in the military look fairly mannish, why would even more fanatical battle women give any kind of a crap of what they look like? I think they're way too busy beating wholesale face in. Also shorter hair makes more sense, esp considering all the flamers they shoot.

They should look like straight up females because they are. Dramatically increased testosterone can change facial features, but not as much as they seem to on the faces of several sister models. They're just badly sculpted. The bodies are to blocky as well.

Maybe they are transsexuals? It would get around the no men under arms rule, and explain the sculpts.

I'm a little confused. In part 1 of the codex it seemed to imply that "ecclesiarchy preachers" could run with a battle conclave, but in part 2 "ecclisiarchy priests" (I'm assuming they are the same unit, as their stat lines are the same and that their name was borked in print) it seems like they are weak IC elites which you can field up to 5 of for 45 points each minus the bodyguards. Could someone clarify this for me?

DarknessEternal wrote:
Just let them stomp around and cry. Anything else is futile.

Look at Grey Knights. Blood Angels. Space Wolves. Dark Eldar. IG. Any other army that people actually play.

Now look at Sisters, the latest release.

I'm not sure why I bother trying to argue such an obvious point.

I feel like I bought the designer's notes for Sisters of Battle 6th edition. Still, it feels good to get some sort of update.

pretre wrote:You don't really need the Canoness act on that unit. Canoness gives +1 I and Preferred Enemy, doesn't it?

Uriah gives them PE on the charge and they are already I6.

I don't see Fleet in part one, but maybe P2 has it.

Again, remember that Battle Conclaves don't have the Acts of Faith special rule. They can't benefit from a Canoness using "The Passion".

As for "give them a shot", I do plan to. I played a few games with my Tyranids before allowing them to collect dust. I'm just somewhat pessimistic that my Sister's won't end up right alongside my Nids in the Closet of Shame.

The Decapitator wrote:Well I used to think the Valkarie Vendetta was the most underpriced unit in the game.

Now I'm thinking Celestine is a definate contender!

With her points cost and Jacobus's rules, they are an almost certainty in most armies.

On average, she dies every turn to 5 chimeras shooting multilasers at her or 2 marines rapid firing plasma guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kreedos wrote:Try out a game with them before you shelf them guys, trust me on this.

Oh yeah? Is your brilliant new army an inferior razorspam plus seraphim or something?

I don't "get" how you could think this new list is actually better than the old.

ph34r wrote:On average, she dies every turn to 5 chimeras shooting multilasers at her or 2 marines rapid firing plasma guns.

Why would you run her out into the open on her own to get shot at?

[edit]Also, I would say she's worth her points if an opponent is dedicating 5 chimeras to take just her down.[/edit]

Cheddah wrote:

ph34r wrote:On average, she dies every turn to 5 chimeras shooting multilasers at her or 2 marines rapid firing plasma guns.

Why would you run her out into the open on her own to get shot at?

[edit]Also, I would say she's worth her points if an opponent is dedicating 5 chimeras to take just her down.[/edit]

Chimera multilasers are basically freebie shots. Unless you really want to shake razorbacks, or are fighting DE, they don't have a strong main purpose.

Except for ID'ing and ignoring FNP on t3 models.

EDIT: And I doubt a bodyguard of seraphim with no access to 3++ will last any appreciable amount of time.

ph34r wrote:I don't "get" how you could think this new list is actually better than the old.

In fairness, I've not yet spoken to anyone who thinks this list is better than Codex: Witch Hunters. Well, nobody who plays the army, anyways - plenty of trolls who play other armies, obviously, but we can ignore them. The question is whether or not it can function, not whether or not it will function as well as the old book or whether or not it will be as competitive as Codex: Blood Angels or Codex: Space Wolves.

In my case, at least, it's more a question of immovable stubbornness in the face of overwhelming adversity rather than an (IMO erroneous) belief in the new Codex being better.

ph34r wrote:

Kreedos wrote:Try out a game with them before you shelf them guys, trust me on this.

Oh yeah? Is your brilliant new army an inferior razorspam plus seraphim or something?

I don't "get" how you could think this new list is actually better than the old.

To be fair, he didn't say they were better than the old list, just that they should be given a chance.

DarknessEternal wrote:
Just let them stomp around and cry. Anything else is futile.

Mythal wrote:The question is whether or not it can function, not whether or not it will function as well as the old book or whether or not it will be as competitive as Codex: Blood Angels or Codex: Space Wolves.

In my case, at least, it's more a question of immovable stubbornness in the face of overwhelming adversity rather than an (IMO erroneous) belief in the new Codex being better.

I'm not denying it can function; just whether or not I plan to bother with it. It can be underpowered and still function: I'll compare it to the state of Wood Elves or Beastmen in Fantasy: They can function, just, not at the level of other armies. That's not to say you can't win, you can. Just expect every single fight to be frustratingly uphill, where a single bad roll can essentially end the game no matter your other actions.