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.

U02dah4 wrote:
Still it is a nerf to 90% of our codex and others got buffed I'm glad the supermajor I'm going to next weekend is past rules cut off

Correction I missed a page
Mortifier -5pts
Exorcist -10pts
Immolator -10pts

Secondaries

https://tabletoptactics.tv/2023/01/05/war-zone-arks-of-omen-secondaries-warhammer-40000-state-of-play/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Defend the Shrine is good Sacred ground is better than I expected but slightly worse

Leap however is a mess from auto 12 every game

To something still capped at 12 but more expensive (cost 5 miracle dice) and less reliable spending a 4+ each battle round for 10 with 2 6's wasted to get 12 and there's no guarantee of getting that many every game so probably an avg 10 max12 secondary still atleadt its non interactive and possibly makes a case for the triumph/sanctum

Valorous Heart back to the way it was before means that sisters now have two legitimate options for order traits again. VH Sacresants are still solid, immolators being cheaper than dirt multi-melta profiles now is solid. Leap is still doable and still good in matchups where the opponent doesn't offer a compelling secondary. You just have to be A LOT more careful with your dice. 1, 2,3 is even more painful to roll and 6 is even crazier, which isn't great.

It's an across the board nerf, but it could be worse. It could be like last year at this time when we took 7 compounding nerfs all at once. This one at least has the benefit of opening up another build option. You might even see the custom 'ignore -1' ability see some use now.

Exorcist is still worthless and 5 points saved on a Mortifier is nice but meh.

These changes are definitely much more light handed than I expected. Zephyrim staying at 15 is really nice, as I expected them to at least go to 16 (honestly I would have preferred Repentia going to 15 and Zeph going to 16 but I will take the Repentia nerf). Immolators and Exorcists going down is very nice, though I am in agreement that the Exorcist is still pretty bad due to the indirect fire nerf that simultaneously helps us against Tau and others but hurts such an iconic unit. However, with AoC going away I may be putting one or two back in very casual lists when I play with noobs learning the game or good friends that have less than stellar collections. At least AP -2 kind of means something again.

The secondary missions came out better than I expected. Shrine not being changed is really nice, Sacred Grounds going back to 4 points instead of 5 makes sense and as long as you can still score it in the same way with multiple units doing it each turn I think it is still really solid in most missions. Honestly I expected that one to get gutted so I will just take a return to the 4 VP scored on objectives outside deployment zone as going to 5 VP was just unnecessary. Leap is definitely something I am going to have to play and practice with to see exactly how best to score it. With the change I think if you take it you only use MD for auto-passing charges, key melta damage to kill something, and an incredibly clutch 4+ save on something like Vahl. Overall this is what we wanted to use them on anyway so I think it just means we need to more carefully prioritize what we use them on during the game compared to what we ae ditching to score points. Be very careful as ERJAK says.

Finally I guess I am actually bumping my Sacresants up to 20 now lol. I have always loved Valorous Heart so competitively I may be just going back to them. I think Warsuits might still be viable in VH too, though probably only one squad instead of the 2 or 3 I have seen in many lists lately. I am just happy to see BR have some competition again!

While this is definitely a nerf to the army I think we came out better than the leaks suggested and with other S tier armies taking big hits I still think we are going to shake out in B tier with a high 40%-low 50% win percentage. Guard, Admech, and maybe even Marines will probably rule the roost to some degree again along with maybe Custodes and possibly a few lower tier armies too, but we may even find ourselves in low A tier at least when playing VH and maybe even BR still.

Leap is discard dice from the sounds of it not perform acts of faith. So those guaranteed charges mean you don't have a 6 for leap.

We were not s tier before we were pretty balanced and now we are probably C tier its enough that I'm considering jumping to one of my other armies. AoC and leap are big hits particularly when many other armies got significantly buffed by comparison.

Could it have been worse absolutely but the changes are incentiviseing alpha strikes at a time when our durability has been shot to bits. Once the new codex hits in Guard Ironhands and mechanicus all go from easy wins to probable losses while armies like BA who were balanced with us are now slight advantage over us I feel like before I had a reasonable 4-2 chance and now its 3-3 or lower with bad match ups

I feel like with Leap you often won't NEED to discard that 6. As long as you get some 4s and 5s and can keep 6s and some 3s you should be okay. As long as you can discard any number of dice per turn if you have a 4 and a 2 or something that's 3 VP for that turn. Do that for 4 turns and you max it. If you can only discard 1 MD per turn though then that's where things will definitely get messy. I really want to read the full secondary before making a final judgement on it.

I agree we got hit hard, but I am still hopeful our best lists in VH and BR will still be able to have play into most A tier factions from mid-upper B tier. Everything else may sit in C tier but I think we will still have builds that let us punch above C tier.

Also, and this is such a noob question but I feel like I have been playing this wrong now for the last like year and change. Since you generate Miracle Dice at the start of the turn and on each battle round, should I technically be getting 3 MD at base in each battle round? So if I am going first I get one for the player turn and one for the battle round starting, followed by one for my opponent's turn? Then vice versa if my opponent goes first I get one for their turn and one for the battle round followed by the one for my turn?

I hate to even ask this, but I recently watched some batreps where I saw that happening and it made me second guess everything. Or does the player turn rule just replace the battle round rule so it is still just 2 base MD each turn, you and your opponent's (which is the way I have been playing it)?

Thanks in advance for the clarification, I just feel like such an idiot right now and want to make sure one way or the other.

GFdoubles wrote:
I feel like with Leap you often won't NEED to discard that 6. As long as you get some 4s and 5s and can keep 6s and some 3s you should be okay. As long as you can discard any number of dice per turn if you have a 4 and a 2 or something that's 3 VP for that turn. Do that for 4 turns and you max it. If you can only discard 1 MD per turn though then that's where things will definitely get messy. I really want to read the full secondary before making a final judgement on it.

According to TT Tactics, it is just 1 die per Battle Round with a maximum of 12 VP for the Secondary. You'll need 3 4-5's and 2 6's to max it out in 5 Rounds.

Also, and this is such a noob question but I feel like I have been playing this wrong now for the last like year and change. Since you generate Miracle Dice at the start of the turn and on each battle round, should I technically be getting 3 MD at base in each battle round? So if I am going first I get one for the player turn and one for the battle round starting, followed by one for my opponent's turn? Then vice versa if my opponent goes first I get one for their turn and one for the battle round followed by the one for my turn?

I hate to even ask this, but I recently watched some batreps where I saw that happening and it made me second guess everything. Or does the player turn rule just replace the battle round rule so it is still just 2 base MD each turn, you and your opponent's (which is the way I have been playing it)?

Balance Dataslate changes it from 1 per Battle Round to one per Player Turn. You only get 2 per Battle Round (1 each player turn) outside of earning them.

Now on a completely different subject, I went over the new MFM and it is amazing how close we are to the codex when it comes to unit cost. I didn't note one upgrade cost changed, and only the following units don't match the codex (Italic if change in this MFM):

Morvenn Vahl 280 (+15)
Triumph of Saint Katherine 220 (-20)
Paragon Warsuits 210 (-30)
Sisters Repentia 16 each (+2)*
Dominion Squad 14 each (+2)
Seraphim Squad 12 each (-2)
Zephyrim Squad 15 each (-2)
Castigator 135 (-15)
Exorcist 120 (-30)*
Mortifiers 55 each (-5)*
Penitent Engines 50 each (-5)
Immolator 90 (-30)*

I guess GW wants us to use more tanks and less Repentia

Except with the loss of AoC the tanks are less tanky and the pts reduction doesn't make up for it

 alextroy wrote:

GFdoubles wrote:
I feel like with Leap you often won't NEED to discard that 6. As long as you get some 4s and 5s and can keep 6s and some 3s you should be okay. As long as you can discard any number of dice per turn if you have a 4 and a 2 or something that's 3 VP for that turn. Do that for 4 turns and you max it. If you can only discard 1 MD per turn though then that's where things will definitely get messy. I really want to read the full secondary before making a final judgement on it.

According to TT Tactics, it is just 1 die per Battle Round with a maximum of 12 VP for the Secondary. You'll need 3 4-5's and 2 6's to max it out in 5 Rounds.

Also, and this is such a noob question but I feel like I have been playing this wrong now for the last like year and change. Since you generate Miracle Dice at the start of the turn and on each battle round, should I technically be getting 3 MD at base in each battle round? So if I am going first I get one for the player turn and one for the battle round starting, followed by one for my opponent's turn? Then vice versa if my opponent goes first I get one for their turn and one for the battle round followed by the one for my turn?

I hate to even ask this, but I recently watched some batreps where I saw that happening and it made me second guess everything. Or does the player turn rule just replace the battle round rule so it is still just 2 base MD each turn, you and your opponent's (which is the way I have been playing it)?

Balance Dataslate changes it from 1 per Battle Round to one per Player Turn. You only get 2 per Battle Round (1 each player turn) outside of earning them.

Now on a completely different subject, I went over the new MFM and it is amazing how close we are to the codex when it comes to unit cost. I didn't note one upgrade cost changed, and only the following units don't match the codex (Italic if change in this MFM):

Morvenn Vahl 280 (+15)
Triumph of Saint Katherine 220 (-20)
Paragon Warsuits 210 (-30)
Sisters Repentia 16 each (+2)*
Dominion Squad 14 each (+2)
Seraphim Squad 12 each (-2)
Zephyrim Squad 15 each (-2)
Castigator 135 (-15)
Exorcist 120 (-30)*
Mortifiers 55 each (-5)*
Penitent Engines 50 each (-5)
Immolator 90 (-30)*

I guess GW wants us to use more tanks and less Repentia

Thanks for the clarification that I at least have been playing the correct way the last 10 months or whatever lol.

If what TT is reading about Leap is right then it definitely becomes far more difficult. Definitely not unplayable but far more RNG based unfortunately. I am really hoping it is more than just 1 die per turn, but if it is it could still be fair to try and get 8-10 off of honestly. We will just have to weigh it up against some of the other generic secondaries.

Unfortunately our motor pool is just not great. The Castigator is still pretty much the most effective general purpose tank we have unless you take 3+ MM Immolators and T7 with 11 wounds is still just not great in the game. The Exorcist has been hurt ever since it changed from the 8th book. Had it kept AP -3 on the anti-tank missiles and at least 12 wounds on its profile then losing T8 I think would have been manageable to some degree. But T7, 11 wounds, and AP -2 on somethign that should be dedicated anti-tank is just so meh. It is great to see the tank chassis itself come down but they really just need to make those anti-tank missiles cost less, like 20 points max and probably 15. The Exorcist at 135 with its big missiles and 120 with the anti-infantry ones might see SOME play as a utility option. However, the main reason you were bringing this version of it (and probably even a 135 point version) is to have it hide out of LoS and with indirect fire nerfed that kills it. Granted I realize that this also helps us as an army, but this poor Exorcist has just been hurt so much in 9th. I would gladly pay 160 points for AP -3 missiles even at T7 and 11 wounds (at least in casual games), but the way it is now it just doesn't do enough to justify 150, and maybe not even at 135. The Rhino is still our best metal box it seems lol.

So as much as GW wants us to use our tanks, the Rhino and Castigator is still the only things that will probably see play, and MAYBE a few MM Immolators, though that is debatable. I have to write to GW about fixing the Exorcist soon, I feel so strongly about that poor tank getting nerfed. It is so iconic and now it just never sees play because of what they have done to it. It was almost perfect in the 8th edition book, they finally gave it the glow up it needed, and I would even argue it should have retained its AP -4 missiles from the index and beta codex. But I understand that with 3d3 shots compared to 1d6 the AP was going to have come down a bit. It still wasn't worth 190 or 200 points or whatever, but the hits it has taken just to drop 40-50 points is just so sad. I will always be salty about that organ tank until they fix it.

 alextroy wrote:


I guess GW wants us to use more tanks and less Repentia

They have pretty much maxed repentia sales(only so many each player needs) and not much tanks been sold

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:


I guess GW wants us to use more tanks and less Repentia

They have pretty much maxed repentia sales(only so many each player needs) and not much tanks been sold

I love that myth.

GW are responding to the fact that every list runs 3 squads of Repentia (because they slay) and no one runs Exos and Immos('cause they are trash). Ideally every winning army would run 1 of each unit, like 1 Castigator.

Only problem with that is you don't sell anything if you make a faction terrible to play you just have to look at mechanicus before these changes to see that. Unfortunately they have made Sisters broadly reliant on 1 strategy to win so everyone will still take repentia they will just go from winning half there games to 40%

They aren't making them terrible in theory; they are making everything equally viable.

We were balanced at 54% for veterans. Maybe I'm pessimistic but I don't see any viable route for Sisters in an ironhands alpha meta but the data will out we have reduced pts reduced secondaries and reduced durability while other factions gained 1/8 in pts I don't see the balance I hope you prove me wrong but in the meantime I thing I'm swapping faction

U02dah4 wrote:
We were balanced at 54% for veterans. Maybe I'm pessimistic but I don't see any viable route for Sisters in an ironhands alpha meta but the data will out we have reduced pts reduced secondaries and reduced durability while other factions gained 1/8 in pts I don't see the balance I hope you prove me wrong but in the meantime I thing I'm swapping faction

Iron Hands alpha is older than free rein Admech, and that hasn't kept up.

Does that mean I think Sisters will keep up? No. But I wouldn't rule sisters out either. We still have the power to max secondaries by not interacting with out opponent. And that's still powerful.

So I have been seeing some content creators discuss how, even though Sisters are realistically C tier to low B tier right now at best, they might play spoiler to many strong marine lists that may become the new meta. While IH and other top (S tier) Marine lists may be out of reach for now, we may be able to handle many A tier marine factions. We might become a bit of an anti-meta choice that might have us seeing play even toward some top tables at certain events.

While it is definitely not ideal, it at least keeps us somewhat viable as an army that deals with a marine heavy meta. Only time will tell of course, but I am interested to see if this ends up being true as we begin to head into the new edition over the next 6 months.

And that's assuming marines are even among top though...AoC loss hurts. Sure free gear but how much is that really worth on soft bodies that are going to be shot off board faster than ever. They got shot off easily pre-AOC and firepower has just increased since then.

tneva82 wrote:
And that's assuming marines are even among top though...AoC loss hurts. Sure free gear but how much is that really worth on soft bodies that are going to be shot off board faster than ever. They got shot off easily pre-AOC and firepower has just increased since then.

Old Doctrines are the Marine buff.

I don't see Sisters being a counter meta pick, at least not over any other army and not more than before. We will live through secondaries or die. If anything, our lists will go to pre AoC days

Old doctrine isn't buff to every marine army though and some of the marines that did better before have zero benefit from old doctrines.

No but it is a buff to iron hands which will be broken again because we know what it did to them previously when 70% of the field was iron hands

GFdoubles wrote:
So I have been seeing some content creators discuss how, even though Sisters are realistically C tier to low B tier right now at best, they might play spoiler to many strong marine lists that may become the new meta. While IH and other top (S tier) Marine lists may be out of reach for now, we may be able to handle many A tier marine factions. We might become a bit of an anti-meta choice that might have us seeing play even toward some top tables at certain events.

While it is definitely not ideal, it at least keeps us somewhat viable as an army that deals with a marine heavy meta. Only time will tell of course, but I am interested to see if this ends up being true as we begin to head into the new edition over the next 6 months.

Sisters pulled a dead 50% winrate with 5 X-0/X-1 lists at LVO. Several lists in the top 32 (though none in the top 16).

Exactly where we want to be. Good enough to do well if played well, not good enough to catch nerfs.

ERJAK wrote:

GFdoubles wrote:
So I have been seeing some content creators discuss how, even though Sisters are realistically C tier to low B tier right now at best, they might play spoiler to many strong marine lists that may become the new meta. While IH and other top (S tier) Marine lists may be out of reach for now, we may be able to handle many A tier marine factions. We might become a bit of an anti-meta choice that might have us seeing play even toward some top tables at certain events.

While it is definitely not ideal, it at least keeps us somewhat viable as an army that deals with a marine heavy meta. Only time will tell of course, but I am interested to see if this ends up being true as we begin to head into the new edition over the next 6 months.

Sisters pulled a dead 50% winrate with 5 X-0/X-1 lists at LVO. Several lists in the top 32 (though none in the top 16).

Exactly where we want to be. Good enough to do well if played well, not good enough to catch nerfs.

LOV wasn't AoO though.

Yes it was good to have the giddy height of 50% wins and no top 16 before being triple nerfed

Well one list also placed just outside of the top 10 at that Uprising Adelaide event I believe, and that was AoO. I think that Bloody Rose list placed 11th if I am not mistaken.

Not saying that we are good, but when played well we still have a shot at placing fairly well in AoO. I believe our final win rate there was around 47% as well, which is not good but that doesn't feel as horrible as most expected us to be.

I know this data is early of course, but it definitely doesn't seem like we are truly a "C" tier faction at least, and I will take it.

GFdoubles wrote:
Well one list also placed just outside of the top 10 at that Uprising Adelaide event I believe, and that was AoO. I think that Bloody Rose list placed 11th if I am not mistaken.

Not saying that we are good, but when played well we still have a shot at placing fairly well in AoO. I believe our final win rate there was around 47% as well, which is not good but that doesn't feel as horrible as most expected us to be.

I know this data is early of course, but it definitely doesn't seem like we are truly a "C" tier faction at least, and I will take it.

We were always going to be better than people expected. They misunderstand how good Leap is, for one example...

Thing is, I don't expect our WR to get better. We don't have any real new tricks. Bu the end of it i could see up dropping into the low 40s.

Well so far post aoo 47% with no army above 60

And just hit 40% more like what I was expecting

U02dah4 wrote:
And just hit 40% more like what I was expecting

I like how the Adepticon meta has been by far the worst meta for all of 9th edition, specifically because it's the only large national event I go to.

Looking at the data, they'll end up doing what they did after they destroyed the meta before the LAST adepticon. They'll implement some huge sweeping change in july that makes 40k fun to play until february when they kill it again.

Well while we are definitely low on the list according to GW's meta article, we are still holding at around a 45% win rate. I will take it personally. it definitely looks worse than it is as most factions look to be in the 45%-50% win rate currently, with only a few factions above or below that. Plus that article is only based on a few weeks of tournament results, so I think some of it is definitely skewed, especially for a faction like GSC. It really seems like we are in an okay spot currently, at least as far as GW's win rate hopes are concerned (45=55% WR for most armies). If we were expecting low 40s I think we are at least going to avoid that (at least until "10th edition" hits).

I never really just the GW data as a means if assessing faction tourney performance

Stats check has Sisters at 41% for tourney performance and that seems much more accurate

Interesting. I wonder whether Stats Check or GW are using a wider net in the data pool?

Either way, I think it is very telling that Sisters have fallen hard since AOC was removed. Not surprising given we got barely any points reductions while Space Marines got a whole raft of them and improved Combat Doctrines as AoO began.

 alextroy wrote:
Interesting. I wonder whether Stats Check or GW are using a wider net in the data pool?

Either way, I think it is very telling that Sisters have fallen hard since AOC was removed. Not surprising given we got barely any points reductions while Space Marines got a whole raft of them and improved Combat Doctrines as AoO began.

If we take the average percentage from stats check and GW you get about 43% win rate so that might be about as accurate as we can get right now, depending on exactly what kind of data pool each source is using. I agree it has definitely been a hard fall from where we were, but without Iron Hands factored in most codex Marines are probably more around our win rate, especially since Blood Angels are just below us according to GW. The loss of AoC has affected so many, even Marines with all of their free wargear. It is an incredibly interesting state for the game, as I am still heartened by the fact that so many factions are within that 45-50% win rate and almost all are within GW's "goal" of 45%-55%. It feels like when the game is relatively healthy we always suffer and when it is dominated by a few top factions we are doing better somehow as a sort of anti-meta choice. Either way though, it definitely beats where we were back in the day (7th and before).

Looking at where DG is at though on GW's ranking, I do admit that I can only take some of their results with grains of salt. With such a durability hit on an army that really needs it to be viable, Death Guard should be around where we are at best. Even with all of the Admech buffs, they are still just barely better than where they were. I guess I am just trying to say it could always be worse, we aren't at the bottom at least!