Sisters of Battle WD part 2

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.

**Dysartes**

Mythal wrote:...gains a 6++ save that RAW say can never be taken...

Mythal, I get the feeling I've missed something here - could you elaborate, please?

**Mythal**

Dysartes wrote:Mythal, I get the feeling I've missed something here - could you elaborate, please?

Invulnerable saves, in the BGB, may only be taken against wounds - which vehicles never suffer. Most folks I've played with, myself included, interpret RAI as Invulnerable Saves for vehicles being handled in the same way as Cover Saves - but there's a RAW argument for never allowing vehicles to take invulnerable saves, and I have seen folks get pretty heated over the debate.

**pretre**

Ugh. Not that again.

**Mythal**

pretre wrote:Ugh. Not that again.

He did ask. There is, in that at least, an upside to Penitent Engines not moving to Elites - can you imagine how often that would come up on the tabletop if Sisters could be expected to field 9 walkers and over a dozen hulls under a standard FOC?

**Melissia**

Often enough that GW is forced to address it?

**Ixquic**

I'm trying to imagine the type of person that is so pedantic that he has to make an argument over something so obvious as the intent of a rule specifically given to a model like this but then I remember that I spent last weekend judging at a tournament and I know exactly what that guy looks like.

**Pyriel-**

Didn't say it was right - in fact, I went on to explain why I disagreed with the view But it's human nature. Look at socialism.

And you did so quite well I might add, thanks.
What´s socialism got to do with it though, I mean an ideology where people buy things they want with someone elses money... lol

That depends on perspective. SM vehicles compared to BA and GK vehicles would be slightly overcosted. But SM vehicles compared to the majority of MC would be severely undercosted.

I would prefer to see vehicles, especially transports, get significant price hikes to account for thier increased survivability and increased tactical utility. Of course given the continued power creep of vehicles in 5th edition codices, I doubt that will happen.

I agree with you, more incentive to take foot or at least part foot armies. Am sick and tired of always playing against rows of vehicles.

As far as I have ever been able to tell the only area they pay in is 5 points for hammernators. Virtually every choice in both the space wolf and blood angels books that aren't exact copies of a unit in C:SM are superior in some way without costing more. Likewise in Grey Knights. Vulkan and those terminators are about the only thing keeping C:SM even remotely competitive.

Sorry if I am wrong, been some while I read through the BA codex but arent all BA infantry priced more to offset that chance to roll a rage/frenzy/whateveritscalled?

Same goes with space pups, their base infantry is underpriced but they pay sorely in the dedicated melee department to make up for that.

Yeah, scandanavia is totally overpowered with it's socialism trait. It's not fair that they all get FnP from their social healthcare system but still make more per model then we do while paying the same points cost after you consider the default upgrades we have to buy (We're like the only codex still having to pay for insurance grenades, and our's don't even work as well).

Then again you arent forced to pay three grenades for every free grenade other players get while those players can opt to do nothing at all in return

As far as THIS codex goes, I think it lacks flavor (or 'flavour' )... I 'get' that the 6++ on everything Sister-ish and the faith system is our special rule, but I don't think it's substantial... novel yes, substantial - no.

The one thing so far that I see is lacking is the absence of more then one competitive build.
Maybe when the army hits the tables and people start experimenting with it this will change but so far things look rather under powered.

Maybe because SoB only get 2 shooting transport variants, with one of them being massively worse than the SM equiv and one of them being the same. As they do not get access to las/plas and TLplas, not to mention even dual AC, they do deserve cheaper immolators. If you can't understand the fundamentals behind that concept, then this website is probably too complicated for you.

Throwing out your petty little insults again I see.
If you love to piss on people this much then maybe try a forum with no moderation.

Invulnerable saves, in the BGB, may only be taken against wounds - which vehicles never suffer. Most folks I've played with, myself included, interpret RAI as Invulnerable Saves for vehicles being handled in the same way as Cover Saves - but there's a RAW argument for never allowing vehicles to take invulnerable saves, and I have seen folks get pretty heated over the debate.

Interesting, I missed that one, thanks.
Just something GW needs to FAQ, I have no doubt the inv saves for SoB vehicles are intended to be taken in the logical way.

**pretre**

Mythal wrote:
pretre wrote:Ugh. Not that again.

He did ask. There is, in that at least, an upside to Penitent Engines not moving to Elites - can you imagine how often that would come up on the tabletop if Sisters could be expected to field 9 walkers and over a dozen hulls under a standard FOC?

I would have been glad to address it when it came up in exchange for 9 walkers and a dozen hulls.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, I was seriously considering buying a bunch of PE when I thought they were going Elite. Oh well, not now.

**Melissia**

Indeed, that would have been a rather good boon, and another positive mark to add to the few that are there (the other indisputably buffed units being Celestine's improved stats and the addition of Scout on dominions).

**pretre**

Heck, I might even say 85 points is a steal in elite. Oh well. It was not to be.

**Backfire**

Pyriel- wrote:

Invulnerable saves, in the BGB, may only be taken against wounds - which vehicles never suffer. Most folks I've played with, myself included, interpret RAI as Invulnerable Saves for vehicles being handled in the same way as Cover Saves - but there's a RAW argument for never allowing vehicles to take invulnerable saves, and I have seen folks get pretty heated over the debate.

Interesting, I missed that one, thanks.
Just something GW needs to FAQ, I have no doubt the inv saves for SoB vehicles are intended to be taken in the logical way.

It is totally silly argument as this is I believe third Codex (or fourth?) which has Invulverability save as a vehicle special rule. The special rule is meant to work and it's stupid to argue that it won't as the RAI is just so overwhelmingly obvious.

**The Grog**

Pyriel- wrote:
Dunno, somehow all the SoB fans keep thinking they are entitled to a cheaper version of the very same thing SM get.

That's because of two reasons:
A: Most Sisters players believe that was goes in/with the transport is weaker/less flexible than what SM get.
B: The rest of the army is less flexible than the rest of the SM list.

A is debatable. I personally think it is mostly true. B is straight fact, but the value of that fact is debated instead. I think it is also substantially important.

**Pyriel-**

That's because of two reasons:
A: Most Sisters players believe that was goes in/with the transport is weaker/less flexible than what SM get.
B: The rest of the army is less flexible than the rest of the SM list.

A is debatable. I personally think it is mostly true. B is straight fact, but the value of that fact is debated instead. I think it is also substantially important.

True.
I dont agree with A since they are cheaper and/or can be opted for more special weapons, plus it also depends on the rest of the army and we still dont know for sure how it plays until lots of players really start to drag it into tournaments and such.
I agree with B however, at least when it comes to competitive lists but as with A, the extent of this is still not known.

I still think the whole SoB "codex" is a little to underpowered though, especially if going outside the few competitive builds but I might be wrong (look up A).

As for the whole "lack of variation should bring lesser point cost" argument I dont believe it, it depends on how the rest of the army is supposed to work.
Space wolf troops have the same stats but lack the long range variation that SM troops have and not only do they compensate by added short range variation, they are also cheaper to boot. Had they not received increased short range power to make up then I would agree, they ought to be cheaper but not both.
Clearly more peripheral reasons play into GWs decisions to set points to units then pure and dry logic based on different codexes comparisons.

I´m also curious if the SoB will get their own "real" codex like the BA did or if they are to be stuck with a white dwarf one. Anyone know this? If this is already answered then I´we missed it.

**sharkticon**

Hey, bad news people. Dominions can't scout in rhinos. See the main rule book, page six, bright pink text:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

there goes that idea.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently, if you are scouting, you are doing it on foot.

**pretre**

Hey, bad news sharkticon. Dominions can scout in rhinos. See the main rule book, page 76, black and white text:

"If a unit with this ability is deployed inside a dedicated transport vehicle, it confers the scout ability to the transport too."

The FAQ question is for non-dedicated transports.

**Mythal**

sharkticon wrote:Hey, bad news people. Dominions can't scout in rhinos. See the main rule book, page six, bright pink text:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

there goes that idea.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently, if you are scouting, you are doing it on foot.

Old news. That's a FAQ, not an Errata - as such, it doesn't redact the BGB text on page 76. So long as the vehicle Dominions are mounted in is their own Dedicated Transport, selected according to the Dominions entry in the Army List, their Scout ability is conferred to said vehicle. The FAQ in question is designed to stop Space Marine Scouts mounting up in Heavy Support Land Raiders and Scouting/Outflanking in them - and similar situations.

Edit: Ninja'd

**pretre**

@Mythal: FAQ vs Errata is irrelevant; the rest of what you said is cool though.

**sharkticon**

Doesn't FAQ override main rulebook? The reason I ask is because it does say any vehicle, and dedicated transports are vehicles. Trust me, I wish it was different, this removes one of my main uses for stormtroopers.

**Mythal**

pretre wrote:@Mythal: FAQ vs Errata is irrelevant; the rest of what you said is cool though.

Au contraire, mon ami

Games Workshop Website wrote:What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?

As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

- Games Development, November 2008

Text copyright Games Workshop, etc., etc.

Edit: To clarify--

FAQs serve to attend grey areas. Where there are no grey areas possible in interpretation of text, an FAQ has no meaning. To redact the text in the BGB, which stipulates Scouts confer their Scouting ability to their own dedicated transport, so long as they are mounted in it, Games Workshop would instead have to issue an errata that rewrote the Scouts rule.

**pretre**

Yeah, I'm not going to get into that debate. It is literally irrelevant to the discussion.

The particular FAQ question is less specific than the quote from the main rulebook. Hence the main rulebook overrules.

General is overruled by specific.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The difference is that the Dominions have a Dedicated Transport. If a Stormtrooper squad takes a Dedicated Transport, it also gets Scout. If they try to embark into a non-dedicated transport without Scout than it does not gain it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically:
General: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to ANY transport it embarks in? No.
Specific case: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to a DT it embarks in? Yes.

**Mythal**

pretre wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically:
General: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to ANY transport it embarks in? No.
Specific case: Does the unit with Scout pass it on to a DT it embarks in? Yes.

This is pretty much what I was getting at, only much more succinctly put.

**ShumaGorath**

Sorry if I am wrong, been some while I read through the BA codex but arent all BA infantry priced more to offset that chance to roll a rage/frenzy/whateveritscalled?

Same goes with space pups, their base infantry is underpriced but they pay sorely in the dedicated melee department to make up for that.

As far as I have seen reading the books (specifically with the aim of bitching) nothing is costed up for access to random furious charge/more options/better options in the BA book. Their carbon copy squads are all identical (except with cheaper upgrades) and they get choices I don't. Their scoring assault squads can have melta weapons and they deep strike more accurately for instance. It's just better.

There is really no reason outside of vulkan TH/SS lists to not play BA. You don't lose or pay for anything, all you do is gain. As for wolves, when your dedicated mellee squad is either your own undercosted base troop (they beat assault squads!) or wolf riding death stars then you don't really lose anything.

**Kingsley**

ShumaGorath wrote:As far as I have seen reading the books (specifically with the aim of bitching) nothing is costed up for access to random furious charge in the BA book. Their carbon copy squads are all identical (except with cheaper upgrades) and they get choices I don't. Their scoring assault squads can have melta weapons for instance..

Blood Angels lose Combat Tactics/Chapter Tactics in exchange for the Red Thirst. Since Combat Tactics is a great rule and the Red Thirst is both unreliable and pretty "meh," I think the Codex Marines come out on top on that trade.

**ShumaGorath**

Fetterkey wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:As far as I have seen reading the books (specifically with the aim of bitching) nothing is costed up for access to random furious charge in the BA book. Their carbon copy squads are all identical (except with cheaper upgrades) and they get choices I don't. Their scoring assault squads can have melta weapons for instance..

Blood Angels lose Combat Tactics/Chapter Tactics in exchange for the Red Thirst. Since Combat Tactics is a great rule and the Red Thirst is both unreliable and pretty "meh," I think the Codex Marines come out on top on that trade.

Blood angels gain assault squads as scoring troops which have expanded options. None of the chapter tactics are particularly useful on tactical marines outside of vulkans and BA assault squads are significantly better in the troops slot then basic tacticals (which are commonly regarded as bad). I'll agree that the exchange works out ok when comparing tactical squads to eachother, but given that one of the two sides wouldn't be caught dead with a painted tactical squad and the other is forced to take them when it would probably prefer not to, it's not a hugely impactful issue. Near universal FNP easily makes up for the loss of combat tactics, a largely situational ability itself.

**Kingsley**

Ultimately, I think the new Codex: Sisters is doomed-- despite rules that I find quite appealing-- thanks to the exorbitant monetary costs of starting a Sisters army. This is, after all, an army where the basic troops are sold only as metal blisters in inconvenient sizes. I hope that GW lowers prices on the Sisters range (this will never happen) or comes out with new models soon (also unlikely until the full update), because I would really like to start a Sisters army with this Codex but the costs are just too damn high for me to justify-- it's literally at "one Sisters army or two other armies" level, and I don't like the new Sisters THAT much. Hopefully GW will give the Sisters the full update (including multi-part plastics) that they deserve sometime soon.

**Alastair78**

I think I can summarise the last 30 pages thusly,

1. Sisters complainers want all their cake and to eat it too (each turn)
2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)
3. Some various rules crap

Am I wrong?

**ShumaGorath**

Alastair78 wrote:I think I can summarise the last 30 pages thusly,

1. Sisters complainers want all their cake and to eat it too (each turn)
2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)
3. Some various rules crap

Am I wrong?

Yes.

**ph34r**

Alastair78 wrote:I think I can summarise the last 30 pages thusly,

1. Sisters complainers want all their cake and to eat it too (each turn)
2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)
3. Some various rules crap

Am I wrong?

I think you need to work on those reading skills.

**scuddman**

That totally sounds like Alistair from Dragon Age. Where's morrigan with her snippy reply?

Actually, it's more like

1. Sister players discovering that the new "cake" is a lie.
2. I told you so
3. It's not that bad!
4. But I told you so..oh well play Mech IG
5. Why are immolators worse than BA?
6. I told you so
7. it's not that bad!
8. But I told you so..oh well play Mech IG
9. Cannoness doesn't have 2++ save anymore....
etc etc.
.
.
.
99. I saves on vehicles are illegal!

oh better yet:

Sum up 31 pages of this thread:
Sister of Battle WD part 2 = Sisters of Battle WD part1 + I told you so

**Pyriel-**

2. They also want all marines nerfed to be around grot levels. (Grots competitive again..YAY)

To actually be able to field a competitive 1850 pointer "Da Grot Revolution" army complete with miniature grot tanks and hordes upon hordes of "revolution commie" themed grots in 40k (not apoc) would be so awesome that it would redefine the very concept of awesomeness.