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.

sharkticon wrote:

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.

To be honest the fact that most of the "BOOBS111" gamer crowd doesnt find them sexy enough was always a plus in my book as it meant that most of those guys found some other army to be creepy playing...

ph34r wrote: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.

I never said the new list is better than the old in fact I think the exact opposite and have stated as such though out this thread. I'm simply trying to be optimistic and just enjoy my army, even if they aren't a high power level codex. In my game I played, I saw good results and fairly decent play with this new army. I will continue to do so, and if enough time passes and they aren't working for me, I'll eventually shelve them and play my GK or Necrons. Point is I'm trying to make is that people need to not listen as much to the internet doomsday machine and instead play it themselves and see what it's like. As for me, after playing them I'm not nearly as mad or jaded about the army, and I believe others should do the same.

And pheer the insulting sarcasm really isn't unnecessary, I understand you're all pissed and ragey about the book but I'm not the one that wrote it. Still, forgive me for being positive at all because apparently that's not allowed, sorry man, my bad.

Cheddah wrote: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?

You can include a Battle Conclave for each Confessor, including special characters Kyrinov and Jacobus, you have in your army. Priests do not have that option. Confessors and Priests are separate things. In the bestiary, they are both under the Preachers section, probably to save space on the page.

streamdragon wrote:I'm not denying it can function; just whether or not I plan to bother with it.

Which is a perfectly understandable viewpoint, and I apologise if you took any affront from my post My response was more directed at the poster who thought those trying out the new Codex honestly believed it was superior.

CT GAMER wrote:

sharkticon wrote:

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.

To be honest the fact that most of the "BOOBS111" gamer crowd doesnt find them sexy enough was always a plus in my book as it meant that most of those guys found some other army to be creepy playing...

Heh, I started Sisters for the boobs, and I think they're plenty attractive enough as-is. Besides, it's not like I... enjoy... my miniatures. That's what fan artwork is for. ^_^

Mythal wrote: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.

Blood Angels weren't competitive either with their WD dex, it took them a real codex to become competitive. Daemonhunters were about as competitive as the old sisters codex, but when they got the Grey Knights codex they immediately shot up the list. While Sisters of Battle aren't the highest power level codex, it's still a codex, plays like a codex and the army plays like Sisters of Battle. I think it depends more on the player, than the game/codex, and I think that's what it will always boil down to when we're talking competitive. I've been competitive with both my Necrons, and My WH thoughout 5th, and never thought myself inferior to the new codexs.

Point is I'm trying to make is that people need to not listen as much to the internet doomsday machine and instead play it themselves and see what it's like. As for me, after playing them I'm not nearly as mad or jaded about the army, and I believe others should do the same.

Must be the single best post in this entire thread.
Thank you Sir

CT GAMER wrote:

sharkticon wrote:

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.

To be honest the fact that most of the "BOOBS111" gamer crowd doesnt find them sexy enough was always a plus in my book as it meant that most of those guys found some other army to be creepy playing...

Theres a distinct difference between sexualized models (infinity) and gakky modeling work (sisters of battle). Don't confuse the two, or my intentions here. You want to play with old hunks of metal crap then feel free. I'm standing by the notion that it's bizarre to want recasts of bad old models.

ShumaGorath wrote:Don't confuse the two, or my intentions here. You want to play with old hunks of metal crap then feel free. I'm standing by the notion that it's bizarre to want recasts of bad old models.

Better than old dark Eldar, and I love metal models, I live in las vegas, it gets up to 120 some days here, and you hear about finecast melting all the time.

No thanks. I'll keep the metal TYVM

ShumaGorath wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

sharkticon wrote:

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.

To be honest the fact that most of the "BOOBS111" gamer crowd doesnt find them sexy enough was always a plus in my book as it meant that most of those guys found some other army to be creepy playing...

Theres a distinct difference between sexualized models (infinity) and gakky modeling work (sisters of battle). Don't confuse the two, or my intentions here. You want to play with old hunks of metal crap then feel free. I'm standing by the notion that it's bizarre to want recasts of bad old models.

Two distinct issues imho.

I think some of the SOB sculpts still hold up today as great models. That being said I sold off my old metal SOB collection (which i have collected off and on since 2nd edition) in hopes of redoing a new SOB force IF:

1. We got a new range of multi-pose SOB plastics
2. We got a codex that excited me enough to reinvest

Nothing that has happened thus far has moved me along that path, and overpriced fincasts of the old stuff won't change that even though I have some fondness for some of the old SOB models...

As tot eh second issue: the sexualized nature (or degree of) of SOB models is something that has been lobg debated and discussed. Some people want half naked D-cupped SOB. Those are the types that I always was happy didn't take up the army tbh...

CT GAMER wrote:
I think some of the SOB sculpts still hold up today as great models.

QFT

With the age of the models, I completely agree with you, they hold up very well and by no means look like trash, when painted well, the models look really nice.

In fact, I've never thought they've looked inferior.

CT GAMER wrote:
The sexualized nature (or degree of) of SOB models is something that is lobg debated and discussed. Some people want half naked D-cupped SOB. Those are the types that I always was happy didn't take up the army tbh...

Those types of people, now most likely play TAU, the anime army.

Kreedos wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
The sexualized nature (or degree of) of SOB models is something that is lobg debated and discussed. Some people want half naked D-cupped SOB. Those are the types that I always was happy didn't take up the army tbh...

Those types of people, now most likely play TAU, the anime army.

Would have thought they'd have gone Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh), myself.

Eumerin wrote:

Kreedos wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
The sexualized nature (or degree of) of SOB models is something that is lobg debated and discussed. Some people want half naked D-cupped SOB. Those are the types that I always was happy didn't take up the army tbh...

Those types of people, now most likely play TAU, the anime army.

Would have thought they'd have gone Chaos Daemons (Slaanesh), myself.

I'm pretty sure 80% of wargamers are those people.

Mythal wrote:

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.

That seems valid. There probably will be a build that if played by a high-level player can compete at a decently high level, even old codexes like Necrons have their day sometimes when the player is truly dedicated.

Kreedos wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
The sexualized nature (or degree of) of SOB models is something that is lobg debated and discussed. Some people want half naked D-cupped SOB. Those are the types that I always was happy didn't take up the army tbh...

Those types of people, now most likely play TAU, the anime army.

Speak for yourself, I play Tau and I hate "half-naked D-cupped SOB" more than anyone.

Sidstyler wrote:
Speak for yourself, I play Tau and I hate "half-naked D-cupped SOB" more than anyone.

Thinking about it in hindsight, it was probably an unfair jab .

However, I think TAU don't fit with 40k very well at all.

Kreedos wrote:


However, I think TAU don't fit with 40k very well at all.

Its a big Universe, and much of it ISN'T controlled by the Imperium...

Regardless of the internal motivation of GW to release Tau (this was hotly debated when they appeared, and many like you Kreedo initially took a strong stance against them, at least in my gaming circles) I thought it was a bold move and added some much needed variety to the game.

I also hoped it might herald a tradition of an occassional totally new army... Oh well...

If anything GW has moved to make the game smaller and smaller in scope (most likely to maximize profits, afte rall SM of all variety sell), and thus the current state of 40K: endless games of Gk vs. Blood Angels.

A diverse and thematic SOB codex could really be a big seller if it spearheaded the launch of an exciting and quality new plastics line for SOB. I fear however that GW plans to rather sell off what metal SOB they still have warehoused and/or convince those willing to build the army that finecasts of the old stuff is adequate.

Time will tell...

Kreedos wrote:

ph34r wrote: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.

I never said the new list is better than the old in fact I think the exact opposite and have stated as such though out this thread. I'm simply trying to be optimistic and just enjoy my army, even if they aren't a high power level codex. In my game I played, I saw good results and fairly decent play with this new army. I will continue to do so, and if enough time passes and they aren't working for me, I'll eventually shelve them and play my GK or Necrons. Point is I'm trying to make is that people need to not listen as much to the internet doomsday machine and instead play it themselves and see what it's like. As for me, after playing them I'm not nearly as mad or jaded about the army, and I believe others should do the same.

And pheer the insulting sarcasm really isn't unnecessary, I understand you're all pissed and ragey about the book but I'm not the one that wrote it. Still, forgive me for being positive at all because apparently that's not allowed, sorry man, my bad.

What you are seeing is the side effect of a disappointing list, and spitting it into two parts so we have to wait a month between seeing it and playing. If we would have got this list all at once, we could have moved past this part of the cycle. But lets be honest, even the best codexii go through this, and this is not the best by a long shot. I think most of us aren't gonna shelve the minis until we play a few games, after all, it is not like this list requires me to go out and buy 40+ over priced redemptionists or Land Raiders I cant use next dex, so I will putt out what I got and give it a go. But I still gotta wait until tomorrow (hopefully) to actually build a list so this "I hate the list", "we told you so", or the internet doomsday runs a little longer.

After all, most of us aren't saying that the army cannot be played, just that it is a massive disappointment. Well, even disappointment is wrong since a lot of us had low expectations.

So, I guess it is time to go knock all those evicerators off my squad leaders.

AllistorPreist wrote:Most of us aren't saying that the army cannot be played, just that it is a massive disappointment.

Most people are saying it can't be played, or it's staying on the shelf without even giving it a run, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Now what people say and what people do are two completely different things though.

Kreedos wrote:

AllistorPreist wrote:Most of us aren't saying that the army cannot be played, just that it is a massive disappointment.

Most people are saying it can't be played, or it's staying on the shelf without even giving it a run, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Now what people say and what people do are two completely different things though.

Even the worst haters seem willing to concede that 1) a few small things have improved and 2) that the codex still provides a list that is at least capable of wining in some cases. Seriously, I have been following this on several boards.

Sure most of us haters have said it is a crappy, poorly thought out list that will force us into more of a box than the old list and that it is difficult to get enthusiastic about playing, but how many have actually said they won't even try it?

I can think of maybe 2 or 3.

Won't buy any new models? Yeah, most of them said that.
Won't be starting an SoB army? Again, most is appropriate.
Thinks Cruddace should never write another codex again? That one may have come up a few times.
Tinks that the battle report was more of a loose battle interpretive dance? Quite a few.
Thinks that 10 sisters in a Rhino with special weapons should not cost almost as much as 10 marines in a rhino with special weapons? Almost every danged one.
Thinks that the Sisters will be literally unplayable or plans to shelve them out of hand? I counted 2 and I think one was being hyperbolic.

I've played Tau intensively since 2009 and I have had to fight tooth and nail in almost every game to get a win or draw.

Played the new SoB rules twice now (using old dex point costs) vs. vanilla marines and guard. The easiest two victories I've ever had.

If people really want to complain about a terrible codex I recommend a few games using Tau or Necrons, especially at low points.

troy_tempest wrote:I've played Tau intensively since 2009 and I have had to fight tooth and nail in almost every game to get a win or draw.

Played the new SoB rules twice now (using old dex point costs) vs. vanilla marines and guard. The easiest two victories I've ever had.

If people really want to complain about a terrible codex I recommend a few games using Tau or Necrons, especially at low points.

2 is far from 10. 1 is further away from 10. Therefore, 2 isn't that far from 10, and people should stop whining.

troy_tempest wrote:I've played Tau intensively since 2009 and I have had to fight tooth and nail in almost every game to get a win or draw.

Played the new SoB rules twice now (using old dex point costs) vs. vanilla marines and guard. The easiest two victories I've ever had.

If people really want to complain about a terrible codex I recommend a few games using Tau or Necrons, especially at low points.

I am not going to play misery poker, there is no point in that. I have heard in great detail the weakness of Necrons in 5th ed, and I will take your word on the Tau.

But, rather than tell us you had two easy victories, one against one of the top codexes in the game right now, why not give us a rundown of the game. What were the army list? How did the acts of faith work out? What units shined and what units flopped?

Cause marines (BA and SW mostly) and IG are going to be most of my enemies, I would love to hear how the sisters got to them. Cause I am dying for a silver lining man. Hit me with it!

Thinks that 10 sisters in a Rhino with special weapons should not cost almost as much as 10 marines in a rhino with special weapons? Almost every danged one.

I don't know what magic hat you're pulling those marine points values from, especially when the base cost for 10 marines with a single flamer (free) and rhino is 205. 210 for a melta, 220 for two meltas (one being combi), 245 with a fist.

The optimal build for a marine squad is roughly 20-25% more expensive then the optimal build for a sister squad. The sisters army is a much more cohesive force while a sisters squad can bring 50% more special weapon firepower the turn they dump out of the rhino and the same number and effectiveness for bolters (irrelevant as they are). High firepower low point values squads are preferable in this meta, the tactical squad won't survive the grey knight/ork/wolfwolves/mephiston/ig template any better then the sisters will, and you'll do more damage before you explode.

If we're talking grey hunters then I don't know what to tell you other then the fact that that entire codex is bs. Most other marines can't compare point for point. I pay 13 per model for scouts.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Thinks that 10 sisters in a Rhino with special weapons should not cost almost as much as 10 marines in a rhino with special weapons? Almost every danged one.

I don't know what magic hat you're pulling those marine points values from, especially when the base cost for 10 marines with a single flamer (free) and rhino is 205. 210 for a melta, 220 for two meltas (one being combi), 245 with a fist.

The optimal build for a marine squad is roughly 20-25% more expensive then the optimal build for a sister squad. The sisters army is a much more cohesive force while a sisters squad can bring 50% more special weapon firepower the turn they dump out of the rhino and the same number and effectiveness for bolters (irrelevant as they are). High firepower low point values squads are preferable in this meta, the tactical squad won't survive the grey knight/ork/wolfwolves/mephiston/ig template any better then the sisters will, and you'll do more damage before you explode.

If we're talking grey hunters then I don't know what to tell you other then the fact that that entire codex is bs. Most other marines can't compare point for point. I pay 13 per model for scouts.

Try swaping that multi melta for a missile launcher. But the number I got for the sisters was from Kreedo's list a few pages back 220 for a melta, a combi melta and missile seems pretty close to 195 for a melta and Heavy Flamer. I promised I wasn't gonna do misery poker, but seriously, nilla marines aren't that bad and the only reason the "optimal" build is 25% more is because of all the extra options.

Kreedos wrote:
Sister of Battle x 10 - 195
Combi Flamer, Heavy Flamer, Flamer
Rhino

Try swaping that multi melta for a missile launcher. But the number I got for the sisters was from Kreedo's list a few pages back 220 for a melta, a combi melta and missile seems pretty close to 195 for a melta and Heavy Flamer. I promised I wasn't gonna do misery poker, but seriously, nilla marines aren't that bad and the only reason the "optimal" build is 25% more is because of all the extra options.

The melta and missile cost the same and you're not firing either one very effectively without vulkan in there (i will never stoop that low!).

You're paying more for the heavy flamer which is a good weapon. Cut that out and just throw on a combi and you're dropping points while equaling out to the damage output of the marine squad. Even if I drop the fist you're still hovering at 25% less. You pay less for more firepower at short range, but you also pay less for worse assault stats (somewhat irrelevant when compared to tacs since they fold like lawn chairs) and the lack of ATSKNF (the sisters faith power works similarly). While not having access to long range heavy weapons.

It's a tradeoff, but it's one that I would enjoy given what is in my experience the total irrelevance of the strength and toughness of a tactical marine in the face of triple hammer handing grey knights, battlecanons, ork boy squads (where atsknf is damning), splinter canons, thunderhammers, etc. I'd rather have focused and directed anti horde/mech firepower on a cheap, mobile platform backed up by an army that sports considerable close range anti mech then I would an overcosted mixed weapon squad that is a jack of all trades and terrible at every one. The sister is no grey hunter or ork boy, but it's a good solid troops choice in the current game. It's telling that so many sisters players are somehow identifying the core troop as the lists weakness.

Kreedos wrote:Most people are saying it can't be played

You can keep making things up which aren't true all ya want, but they're still not true.

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

I agree with Kreedos - we tried play testing a few games before the points list had come out (and our guesses on the points were't far off) - yeah, the list isn't hyper-competitive, but it's not complete and utter cack either. I won a three-way Tyranid / Grey Knight / SOB last week... Admittedly it was by cowering behind ruins until the last moment when I charged my Rhinos to the objective, but even then my Repentia got out there and hacked up some stuff.

I think a change of previously traditional list is order:
Maybe take advantage of the cheaper Seraphim (who are still awesome),
Dominions for the outflank threat
Celestine for her ability to keep coming back - Right next to an objective!
Take the Confessors and drop the Canoness (sorry to see her go, admittedly)
Experiment with crusaders taking hits for arco-flagellants and move them forward with repentia
Drop Celestians
Exorcists... At least they've gained 6++ and smoke for 'free'
Etc.

Anyone else share the same opinion?
It's only a game (well we don't put money bets on the outcome where I play, put it that way)

Anyway, try regularly playing as Death Korps against Tyranids like I do, then you'll know what losing is like


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Repentia are my new best friends!

CT GAMER wrote:

Kreedos wrote:


However, I think TAU don't fit with 40k very well at all.

Its a big Universe, and much of it ISN'T controlled by the Imperium...

Regardless of the internal motivation of GW to release Tau (this was hotly debated when they appeared, and many like you Kreedo initially took a strong stance against them, at least in my gaming circles) I thought it was a bold move and added some much needed variety to the game.

I also hoped it might herald a tradition of an occassional totally new army... Oh well...

If anything GW has moved to make the game smaller and smaller in scope (most likely to maximize profits, afte rall SM of all variety sell), and thus the current state of 40K: endless games of Gk vs. Blood Angels.

A diverse and thematic SOB codex could really be a big seller if it spearheaded the launch of an exciting and quality new plastics line for SOB. I fear however that GW plans to rather sell off what metal SOB they still have warehoused and/or convince those willing to build the army that finecasts of the old stuff is adequate.

Time will tell...

Well said.

Cheddah wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kreedos wrote:


However, I think TAU don't fit with 40k very well at all.

Its a big Universe, and much of it ISN'T controlled by the Imperium...

Regardless of the internal motivation of GW to release Tau (this was hotly debated when they appeared, and many like you Kreedo initially took a strong stance against them, at least in my gaming circles) I thought it was a bold move and added some much needed variety to the game.

I also hoped it might herald a tradition of an occassional totally new army... Oh well...

If anything GW has moved to make the game smaller and smaller in scope (most likely to maximize profits, afte rall SM of all variety sell), and thus the current state of 40K: endless games of Gk vs. Blood Angels.

A diverse and thematic SOB codex could really be a big seller if it spearheaded the launch of an exciting and quality new plastics line for SOB. I fear however that GW plans to rather sell off what metal SOB they still have warehoused and/or convince those willing to build the army that finecasts of the old stuff is adequate.

Time will tell...

Well said.

Also agree. This stinks of a 'real world' business decision to get rid of stock and not make the codex so attractive that they will need to re-cast minis any time soon. Can't blame them for wanting to stay afloat in the current economic climate, but I personally think they're going completely the wrong way about it by putting their prices so high.