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.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:It's still roughly 9,001 times better than anything the codices have put out in recent times.

Agreed. FFG adds in the gak I hate from the codices like the Dreadknight , but FFG doing so doesn't annoy me cause they didn't create the Dreadknight. They have to add it cause GW says so seeing as GW created the Dreadknight.

Nonsense. Licensed material can and does divert from GW fluff by considerable margin, and if FFG did not want to add the Dreadknight they could have simply let it out of the book. Just like, lo and behold, the use of Warp Sorcery - a big theme in the GK retcon - is omitted completely in FFG fluff, thus retaining their "paladins of purity" aspect.

As a Sisters fan, I also disagree with Blood of Martyrs being "better than anything the codices have put out in recent times". I'll rather keep my Sisters being badasses instead of decorative cannonfodder mages wielding "civilian bolters", thanks.

 Lynata wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:It's still roughly 9,001 times better than anything the codices have put out in recent times.

Agreed. FFG adds in the gak I hate from the codices like the Dreadknight , but FFG doing so doesn't annoy me cause they didn't create the Dreadknight. They have to add it cause GW says so seeing as GW created the Dreadknight.

Nonsense. Licensed material can and does divert from GW fluff by considerable margin, and if FFG did not want to add the Dreadknight they could have simply let it out of the book. Just like, lo and behold, the use of Warp Sorcery - a big theme in the GK retcon - is omitted completely in FFG fluff, thus retaining their "paladins of purity" aspect.

*shrug* Okay. Still doesn't change the fact that GW created it and thus its inclusion in FFG doesn't annoy me. I'd think that not going along with the retcon or atleast not showing it in that book will please you?

As a Sisters fan, I also disagree with Blood of Martyrs being "better than anything the codices have put out in recent times". I'll rather keep my Sisters being badasses instead of decorative cannonfodder mages wielding "civilian bolters", thanks.

If you mean due to game mechanics? I have already told you that I don't particularly care, right?

From what I've seen, the FFG fluff paints them off to be badass in both combat and in ways other than combat. The are wielding human bolters. Not the bolters marines use.

I'm sure you will bombard me with quotes now. I will tell you now, Lynata, please don't. i'm not in the mood you right now.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:I'd think that not going along with the retcon or atleast not showing it in that book will please you?

That's tricky. I like oldschool GKs more and think the change sucks (same about the Newcrons). On the other hand, I've kinda committed to always prefer a GW source for my own interpretation of the setting whenever a conflict arises.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:If you mean due to game mechanics? I have already told you that I don't particularly care, right? From what I've seen, the FFG fluff paints them off to be badass in both combat and in ways other than combat. The are wielding human bolters. Not the bolters marines use. I'm sure you will bombard me with quotes now. I will tell you now, Lynata, please don't. i'm not in the mood you right now.

Alright, no quotes - just pointing out that, no, it's not just the game mechanics. It's their entire representation from omitting their capability to deal with Space Marines (this fits to FFG's rules however, given that their weapons aren't even capable of wounding Astartes) to bumping up their numbers in the Calixis sector from 50 (Black Industries' Inquisitor's Handbook) to several thousand (FFG's Book of Martyrs) all the way to turning Acts of Faith into actual space magic rather than a matter of willpower and grit. GW also doesn't make a difference between "human" or "Marine" bolters when it comes to destructive capabilities - they all have the same barrel size and the WH Codex notes weapons and armour as being on the same level.

In short, FFG "guardified" the Sisters by making them more numerous whilst simultaneously stripping away their firepower. What's more, now it seems that everybody and his mum can pull off Acts of Faith, too.

If you prefer that, cool. I'll stick with the original.

If you're not in the mood to discuss, Reznov, don't post. Simple, see?

In all the other established fluff, there is no difference in calibre between Godwyn pattern bolters used by Marines and Godwyn De'az pattern bolters used by Sisters. They use the same rounds and are roughly the same size. The difference is that the De'az has a smaller pistol grip and a more streamlined foregrip designed to take a Sarissa or Exterminator attachment, while the straight-up Godwyn pattern has a larger pistol grip suited for Astartes power armour and a chunkier foregrip so that it's easier to handle with large hands, but lacks the attachment rail in favour of a gun cam.

I also hate the idea of Sisters as "space wizards" using mystical mumbo-jumbo to perform their acts of heroism. They are much more badass using straight-up fighting prowess with the occasional bit of divine inspiration or guidance. You want space wizards, go bug the Adeptus Astra Telepathica.

Edit: spelling

 Lynata wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:I'd think that not going along with the retcon or atleast not showing it in that book will please you?

That's tricky. I like oldschool GKs more and think the change sucks (same about the Newcrons). On the other hand, I've kinda committed to always prefer a GW source for my own interpretation of the setting whenever a conflict arises.

So you pretty much admit what I've been saying all along that you are biased against everything not codexes. As I've said before, go and become the boss of GW and then declare everything not codex to be not canon. That way you will be happy.

Alright, no quotes - just pointing out that, no, it's not just the game mechanics. It's their entire representation from omitting their capability to deal with Space Marines (this fits to FFG's rules however, given that their weapons aren't even capable of wounding Astartes)

I really wouldn't know seeing as I don't play the game.

to bumping up their numbers in the Calixis sector from 50 (Black Industries' Inquisitor's Handbook) to several thousand (FFG's Book of Martyrs)

is this a problem? More numbers are good. It make more sense. Also there are other sisters like order famulous and such and they have to be in higher numbers than a mere 50.

all the way to turning Acts of Faith into actual space magic rather than a matter of willpower and grit.

I will have to read it again. But Acts of faith can be like the Orks belief affecting reality which shows that humans have their own version which is weaker cause not all humans believe the same thing and such, if you can get what I mean? Or it could be the Emp daining to help the SOB *shrug*.

GW also doesn't make a difference between "human" or "Marine" bolters when it comes to destructive capabilities - they all have the same barrel size and the WH Codex notes weapons and armour as being on the same level.

Differences between human and marine bolters make more sense to me. Don't care what you think.

In short, FFG "guardified" the Sisters by making them more numerous whilst simultaneously stripping away their firepower. What's more, now it seems that everybody and his mum can pull off Acts of Faith, too.

Their called acts of faith meaning if you have sufficient faith and such, they should work.

If you prefer that, cool. I'll stick with the original.

Am I trying to convince you to change your opinion? The answer is no. keep your pov. I don't care.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:So you pretty much admit what I've been saying all along that you are biased against everything not codexes.

How was there ever any question about this?

"Me, I'm staying as close to the GW studio fluff as possible, meaning the contents of codices, the rulebooks, magazines such as White Dwarf or Citadel Journal (RIP) and the stuff hosted on the various websites (free PDFs and short articles). Aside from me "growing up" with the tone and style of the studio's own writing, I also believe that this approach keeps me more compatible to the majority of future products from this origin than if I were to embrace one of the outsourced outlets of fluff instead, simply because all the GW stuff is written by the same circle of people (aside from the occasional change in personnel that occurs over the years), compared to the ideas and interpretations of the many, many different individual writers that work on novels etc. Many cooks, broth, etc. Even now, after over two decades, you still find references and even straight copied passages of text from the earliest days of the franchise in the newest rulebook. That is a consistency unparalleled by any other source of fluff, and I'm all for consistency."
- Lynata in the recent "40k canon" thread

Are you just not reading my posts in their entirety?

Corporal_Reznov wrote:is this a problem? More numbers are good. It make more sense. Also there are other sisters like order famulous and such and they have to be in higher numbers than a mere 50.

I'm talking Battle Sisters. And it doesn't make more sense, seeing that the Calixis sector, amongst other Sisterhood detachments, now hosts about a third of what one of the six Major Orders has available for the entire galaxy.

Of course, this would only apply if you take into account GW sources, which have presented us with actual numbers on their strength.

Also, it is a problem in that it contradicts the fluff that Dark Heresy had established for itself in the Inquisitor's Handbook. But I guess this is one of the risks involved in transferring a game from one studio to another. Other writers = other ideas.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:I will have to read it again. But Acts of faith can be like the Orks belief affecting reality which shows that humans have their own version which is weaker cause not all humans believe the same thing and such, if you can get what I mean? Or it could be the Emp daining to help the SOB *shrug*.

"Acts of Faith are not counted as psychic powers, and so may not be nullified."
- Games Workshop

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Differences between human and marine bolters make more sense to me. Don't care what you think.

Why call me out on it, then?

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Their called acts of faith meaning if you have sufficient faith and such, they should work.

Except that Codex fluff explained them not only as a result of the Sisters' faith and willpower but also many years of specialised training and indoctrination following the original teachings of the San Leor temple.
That's the big difference between GW and FFG - one tells you it's actually just trained badassness taken for miracles, whilst the other tells you it's SPACE MAGIC you can just happen to pick up at random.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Am I trying to convince you to change your opinion? The answer is no. keep your pov. I don't care.

Why do you keep posting this stuff, then? For someone who "doesn't care" you are rather quick to jump into long debates about it.

 Lynata wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:So you pretty much admit what I've been saying all along that you are biased against everything not codexes.

How was there ever any question about this?

"Me, I'm staying as close to the GW studio fluff as possible, meaning the contents of codices, the rulebooks, magazines such as White Dwarf or Citadel Journal (RIP) and the stuff hosted on the various websites (free PDFs and short articles). Aside from me "growing up" with the tone and style of the studio's own writing, I also believe that this approach keeps me more compatible to the majority of future products from this origin than if I were to embrace one of the outsourced outlets of fluff instead, simply because all the GW stuff is written by the same circle of people (aside from the occasional change in personnel that occurs over the years), compared to the ideas and interpretations of the many, many different individual writers that work on novels etc. Many cooks, broth, etc. Even now, after over two decades, you still find references and even straight copied passages of text from the earliest days of the franchise in the newest rulebook. That is a consistency unparalleled by any other source of fluff, and I'm all for consistency."
- Lynata in the recent "40k canon" thread

Nothing just making a full confirmation. Thats all.

Are you just not reading my posts in their entirety?

Sometimes. Your posts are dull and tiring to read and just consist of you trying to batter people over the head until they bow to you.

I'm talking Battle Sisters. And it doesn't make more sense, seeing that the Calixis sector, amongst other Sisterhood detachments, now hosts about a third of what one of the six Major Orders has available for the entire galaxy.

Of course, this would only apply if you take into account GW sources, which have presented us with actual numbers on their strength.

Does the book say exactly battle sisters or simply sisters? Will have to check it out. I personally don't find any problem with the numbers increase. Just increase it elsewhere as well.

You have me at a handicap in this discussion cause I'm still somewhat busy with school work and thus can't and open up my FFG books. Me being on the forum is just a way to loosen some stress before diving back in to school work. Though chatting and reading your posts is once again raising my stress level .

Also, it is a problem in that it contradicts the fluff that Dark Heresy had established for itself in the Inquisitor's Handbook. But I guess this is one of the risks involved in transferring a game from one studio to another. Other writers = other ideas.

I don't mind it at all.

]"Acts of Faith are not counted as psychic powers, and so may not be nullified."
- Games Workshop

see above about not reading the books.

Why call me out on it, then?

I didn't, You brought it up! I was just agreeing with Void_dragon and then you come along and started this discussion.

Except that Codex fluff explained them not only as a result of the Sisters' faith and willpower but also many years of specialised training and indoctrination following the original teachings of the San Leor temple.
That's the big difference between GW and FFG - one tells you it's actually just trained badassness taken for miracles, whilst the other tells you it's SPACE MAGIC you can just happen to pick up at random.

One of the faith abilities as used in FFG fluff IIRC is weakening a Nurgle daemon prince by surrounding it and chanting and praying. And this was done by Sister Hospitaler's! And you say weak and gak? Also how does a trained badass beat a nurgle prince by praying?

Why do you keep posting this stuff, then? For someone who "doesn't care" you are rather quick to jump into long debates about it.

I was talking about changing your opinion. Funny about how you say that there is no canon and thus we should pick and choose what we want and that its all fine and yet you attack me over posting fluff I like cause you disagree with it.

Well, since it's obvious that you only care about arguing with Lynata rather than discussing anything, I'll bow out of this one.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Well, since it's obvious that you only care about arguing with Lynata rather than discussing anything, I'll bow out of this one.

Just ignore him until he gets bored - I'd give it another hour tops.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Well, since it's obvious that you only care about arguing with Lynata rather than discussing anything, I'll bow out of this one.

I'm not interested in arguing with Lyanata. I came back into this thread again just to reply to void_dragon. Lyanata started this.

My response was to an issue brought up by Void Dragon. That you have replied to it doesn't change this. I guess I should have just removed your post from the quote if the avoidance of this confusion would have saved us both the fruitless debate above, so apologies for that.

You picking out individual points from my argument still conflicts with you "not caring", however. As do the posts you made in the last few days where you attacked my PoV without me having addressed you in any way, such as in the lasgun thread.

But if you're not interested in a proper discussion anyways due to my "tiresome" posts, let's just stop here before you result to actual insults rather than mere verbal stings. I'll do us both a favour and ignore your posts in this thread from here on out. Feel free to shoot me a PM should you start "caring" again.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Well, since it's obvious that you only care about arguing with Lynata rather than discussing anything, I'll bow out of this one.

Considering the fact Lynata enjoys typing essays in response to everything I don't think anyone has any interest in arguing with him/her.

Essays are useful, they tell us things. *Shrug*

Not when s/he ignores or manipulates your content to fit his/her preconceived notions and then proceeds to go off on an irrelevant tangent.

Amaya wrote:Not when s/he ignores or manipulates your content to fit his/her preconceived notions and then proceeds to go off on an irrelevant tangent.

I'd like you to expand on this point, please.

 Lynata wrote:
As a Sisters fan, I also disagree with Blood of Martyrs being "better than anything the codices have put out in recent times". I'll rather keep my Sisters being badasses instead of decorative cannonfodder mages wielding "civilian bolters", thanks.

What are you talking about?

Decorative cannon fodder is exactly how the Sisters of Battle are being portrayed these days in studio fluff.

 Lynata wrote:
My response was to an issue brought up by Void Dragon. That you have replied to it doesn't change this. I guess I should have just removed your post from the quote if the avoidance of this confusion would have saved us both the fruitless debate above, so apologies for that.

Cause you replied to me and discussed points I had posted about such as the Dreadknight. So I responded. Things escalated from there.

You picking out individual points from my argument still conflicts with you "not caring", however.

Because I had thought you were replying to me so I replied back. Get it?

. As do the posts you made in the last few days where you attacked my PoV without me having addressed you in any way, such as in the lasgun thread.

I was having a discussion with you then. That as time worn on turned into canon and inconsistencies debates.

But if you're not interested in a proper discussion anyways due to my "tiresome" posts, let's just stop here before you result to actual insults rather than mere verbal stings.

I can have a discussion with you later on in maybe over the weekend, not right now. But even when I am eager to discuss things. I do admit that dealing with your posts are tiresome.

I'll do us both a favour and ignore your posts in this thread from here on out. Feel free to shoot me a PM should you start "caring" again.

My not caring was about changing your opinion. In the other threads I was discussing about consistencies so as to see if we can rationalize them. I did them just for discussion sake, not out of a need to try and change you pov.

 Amaya wrote:

Considering the fact Lynata enjoys typing essays in response to everything I don't think anyone has any interest in arguing with him/her.

Its a debate tactic I have seen in action other sites, its called "debate through attrition" or something like that. Its basically where you overwhelm your opponent with large and tiresome posts usually in essay form. You continue to do this until the opponent simply gets sick of it and call quits or can't keep up and calls quits.

I personally have no stomach to deal with this tactic, thus all my comments about tiresome and so on.

Lynata isn't even a master from what I've seen. i've seen this tactic used where the essay ends up taking a large portion of the screen.

Take it to PMs, no one gives a gak. Seriously.

As far as the Sisterhood's current depiction in studio fluff is concerned... yeah, they're definitely being used as cannonfodder. This is not good (that's the IG's job) especially when it's used only to show how much better the SM are, when the SoB are meant to be their equals.

As far as the FFG bolters thing is concerned... there isn't, really, a fundamental difference between a "civilian" and an "Astartes" bolter. While the Astartes bolter will be of superior craftsmanship, and possibly contain more advanced targeting systems and such, they still fire the same rocket-propelled mass-reactive exploding bullet. Their game systems should establish this by having a standard bolt-weapon entry, and then providing the Astartes versions with a bonus to-hit or something... not the *massively* overpowered (base double damage, plus Tearing, plus Best Quality) bolters presented in DW.

Our local group has made them a hodge-podge of both. Removed the Tearing quality from the Astartes bolters and upgraded the DH bolt weapons to the 2d10+6 P4 damage of DW. A boltgun should be a fearsome weapon, but it should not be the best weapon for every situation (with the "exploding d10s" the Tearing quality gave all-but-guaranteed access to, it was possible for a DW Marine to shoot a Baneblade to death with his boltgun).

Corporal_Reznov wrote:
[
Its a debate tactic I have seen in action other sites, its called "debate through attrition" or something like that. Its basically where you overwhelm your opponent with large and tiresome posts usually in essay form. You continue to do this until the opponent simply gets sick of it and call quits or can't keep up and calls quits.

I personally have no stomach to deal with this tactic, thus all my comments about tiresome and so on.

Lynata isn't even a master from what I've seen. i've seen this tactic used where the essay ends up taking a large portion of the screen.

And you're egging him/her/it on... please chill its just a "friendly" discussion on one aspect of a boardgame - this is getting ridiculous.

And Lynata, Reznov is the only one who reads all of your posts - we got short attention spans.

Where is this belief that Battle Sisters are on par with Space Marines coming from?

^ Oooo NO, you didn't say that ...now this discussion will never end !!!
And here we go....

 Psienesis wrote:
Take it to PMs, no one gives a gak. Seriously.

Agreed on that. though I don't know if that if I have the stomach to do so. May just decided to ignore Lynata altogether.

As far as the Sisterhood's current depiction in studio fluff is concerned... yeah, they're definitely being used as cannonfodder. This is not good (that's the IG's job) especially when it's used only to show how much better the SM are,

I agree on the cannonfodder thing.

when the SoB are meant to be their equals.

I can't agree on this part. SM's have more bigger armor which should mean better protection, centuries of experience, all sorts of bio-enhancements, that carapace thing that lets them act as if their armor is a second skin and so on. SM's should be better in average situations to me. Everything else depends on skill, weapon and faith abilities, etc, of the users.

As far as the FFG bolters thing is concerned... there isn't, really, a fundamental difference between a "civilian" and an "Astartes" bolter.

While the Astartes bolter will be of superior craftsmanship, and possibly contain more advanced targeting systems and such, they still fire the same rocket-propelled mass-reactive exploding bullet. Their game systems should establish this by having a standard bolt-weapon entry, and then providing the Astartes versions with a bonus to-hit or something... not the *massively* overpowered (base double damage, plus Tearing, plus Best Quality) bolters presented in DW.

According to Lexicanum, they say the below and the cites come from dark Heresy rpg the Inquisitors handbook which was made by Black Industries IIRC. could be wrong.

Adeptus Astartes

Like other Space Marine weaponry, Astartes boltguns are designed around their superhuman physique. The weight of each weapon would require most humans to use a supporting brace, with hand-grips larger than any normal human could manage. However, even if a normal human were to fire the boltgun, the resulting recoil would rip their arm from its socket.[10d] Normal humans found to be in possession of even a single Astartes bolt round, much less a boltgun, can expect a swift execution for their crimes.[10a]

This makes perfect sense to me.

Our local group has made them a hodge-podge of both. Removed the Tearing quality from the Astartes bolters and upgraded the DH bolt weapons to the 2d10+6 P4 damage of DW. A boltgun should be a fearsome weapon, but it should not be the best weapon for every situation (with the "exploding d10s" the Tearing quality gave all-but-guaranteed access to, it was possible for a DW Marine to shoot a Baneblade to death with his boltgun).

The DW fluff I've read never implied that bolters could kill Baneblades on their own. So I just put it down to game mechanics. Unless, I'm mistaken?

 Amaya wrote:
Where is this belief that Battle Sisters are on par with Space Marines coming from?

Oh God, you've just opened Pandora's Box without even realizing it.

All those without the mettle to face the oncoming storm, abandon thread.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Where is this belief that Battle Sisters are on par with Space Marines coming from?

Oh God, you've just opened Pandora's Box without even realizing it.

All those without the mettle to face the oncoming storm, abandon thread.

Looks like i've also added to it unfortunately .

The only thing Battle Sisters have that Space Marines don't is Faith.

Space Marines have

1) Genetically engineered superhumans
2) Interface completely with their power armor, making them even stronger and getting superior usage from it
3) Decades to centuries of combat experience
4) Beyond human training that is only capable because they are genetically engineered


Battle Sisters might be peak humans with Faith, but Space Marines are beyond any natural human limits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would great if SoB were retconned to be on par with Space Marines, but I don't see anything in current fluff to suggest that they are equal right now.

Void__Dragon wrote:Decorative cannon fodder is exactly how the Sisters of Battle are being portrayed these days in studio fluff.

Eh, they definitively still have that "martyr" theme going on (tbh it never really changed) - but at least they're still portrayed as an elite force capable of taking on daemons and Marines, and do sport the occasional "win" in studio fluff (in spite of how often that tends to be forgotten even by the more cynical SoB fans).

mad_eddy_13 wrote:And Lynata, Reznov is the only one who reads all of your posts - we got short attention spans.

I doubt that - I've had long and civil discussions with quite a number of dakkanauts in the past. For some reason, Reznov and I have been clashing time and time again last week. I have no idea why; I don't think we ever interacted before.

Amaya wrote:Where is this belief that Battle Sisters are on par with Space Marines coming from?

Just a line dropped on the GW website, and the description of their equipment in the 3E 'dex. It's not really surprising that few people know of it, especially given how Astartes superiority is stressed in much more popular sources.

Frankly I disagree, individually, no soldier in the Imperium should be equal to a Space Marine on average (Disregarding exceptions like Straken or Yarrick). That is the entire point of the Space Marines, individually, they are the mightiest soldiers of the Imperium.

Also, how many battle sisters are there? I've never seen the numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
Eh, they definitively still have that "martyr" theme going on (tbh it never really changed) - but at least they're still portrayed as an elite force capable of taking on daemons and Marines, and do sport the occasional "win" in studio fluff (in spite of how often that tends to be forgotten even by the more cynical SoB fans).

I can recall no recent codex fluff where the Sisters weren't massacred, to be honest. But then, I did just sort of glance through the WD update, so hey.

Strong evidence for Sisters being on par with Space Marines. Oh em gee guys, they both wear power armor, they must be equal!

Void__Dragon wrote:Also, how many battle sisters are there? I've never seen the numbers.

There are six Major Orders with about 2.000 to 3.000 Battle Sisters each, and an undisclosed amount of Minor Orders that tend to average at about a hundred. The former are the mobile crusading forces, whereas the latter tend to be local convents focusing on other duties such as guarding a holy site, escorting Ecclesiarchy officials, protecting a pilgrim route etc.

There just was a "short" discussion (about 2 pages, involving fluff quotes as well as speculation) about that very subject in this thread.

Wow that's it?

That's fething puny. Those numbers should be bulked up, IMHO.