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.

 Melissia wrote:
That rule also means that even if the repressor is in combat, the passengers aren't-- they're not effected by anything unless specifically stated, and the firing ports rule does not say they're effected by it-- and can fire out as normal. So the repressor can tie up an enemy unit and force htem to fall back or stay in melee with a vehicle, even as the passengers continue to fire as long as it's not at the unit the repressor is in melee with (due to not being able to fire into a melee).

Definitely going to want to see some official clarification drop on the Repressor and the nature of its firepoints. Stuff like that just feels all kinds of dirty.

Yeah, open topped transports usually have a clarification that units can't shoot anything other than pistols if the enemy is within 1", and that they can't shoot if the transport falls back, so I'd imagine an FAQ adding that in relatively soon.

That said, as a riot control vehicle is is kind of fluffy to imagine the unit inside blazing away with their guns into an angry mob.

The forgeworld rules in general do seem a little more rushed than the main indexes unfortunately, which is a shame as the internal balance for each army is far better in this edition than I've ever seen before.

 Hoboanarki wrote:
Yeah, open topped transports usually have a clarification that units can't shoot anything other than pistols if the enemy is within 1", and that they can't shoot if the transport falls back, so I'd imagine an FAQ adding that in relatively soon.

That said, as a riot control vehicle is is kind of fluffy to imagine the unit inside blazing away with their guns into an angry mob.

The forgeworld rules in general do seem a little more rushed than the main indexes unfortunately, which is a shame as the internal balance for each army is far better in this edition than I've ever seen before.

The Stormlord doesn't have that language either... of course the base vehicle can fire while in combat. Are there any non-open-topped, non-super heavies that still have fire points?

Hey guys, here's my first 8th Sisters list. C&C appreciated. It's a pretty standard sisters list I think.
I did try to fit 2x5 Battle Sister squads in each Rhino with full specials and heavies, but couldnt fit it into 2000pts.
I wanted to fit another Geminae and Repressors, but I dont have Repressors and again, points were tight.
I'm trying to figure out if I want the Seraphim squad to have a plas pistol and p sword, or an extra model.



Tactics are pretty obvious. Big C and the Seraphim bounce around burning stuff. Canoness, Imagifier, Hospitaller camp with the Retributors and Exorcists, getting extra AoF, heals and re roll 1s.
We have 11 meltaguns, 12 various flamers, 4 heavy bolters and 2 Exorcists.

So what do you think? And thanks for your time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also something I posted on the old thread, that i'd noticed.

Sister Superiors for BSS, Doms, Seraphim, Celestians all get +1 Ld. Retributers Superiors only have 7 Ld.

Seems strange to me, can anyone explain this?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You can with Pistols.

That's a good catch!

FYI, if you are going to ATC they have ruled that Imagifers don't work on vehicles. They only work on units that have the Act of Faith ability

PanzerLeader wrote:
FYI, if you are going to ATC they have ruled that Imagifers don't work on vehicles. They only work on units that have the Act of Faith ability

Lame! What about Celestine? she still works on vehicles?

 Fafnir wrote:
Definitely going to want to see some official clarification drop on the Repressor and the nature of its firepoints. Stuff like that just feels all kinds of dirty.

I wouldn't surprised to see it errata'd. But how I described it is how it works as written.

PanzerLeader wrote:
FYI, if you are going to ATC they have ruled that Imagifers don't work on vehicles. They only work on units that have the Act of Faith ability

I HATE it when the tournament bodies make panic/snap decisions before a game is even old enough to warrant them. Its like the one LVO where they panic-nerfed Ghost-Keel's Mirror ability to one use per unit... when it wouldn't have made one ounce of impact, because the entire meta was abusing Space Marine cheese that they allowed unhindered.

Nerfing anything Sisters that might elevate them to "not bad" status, is a kick in the dick kind of move. :-p

But, 64pt Scion Command Plasma Squads will be on every table, and that's cool, right? :-p

Nm

Pretre, I didn't ask about Celestine yet. I'm going to assume they rule similarly as I continue planning.

NewTruth- it wasn't a snap decision per say. One of my team mates brought up a good rules argument about why it shouldn't work on vehicles and so we asked for a decision up front rather than waiting until July and risking a snap ruling mid tournament

No, no... I mean "snap" decision in the sense that no one has even seen where Sisters stack up in a tournament setting, meaning making calls against or for anything, in any army, outside of deeply exploitative stuff, is premature in my eyes.

I mean... we've been playing it that Imagifiers do work on vehicles locally, with a big competitive player-base, and it hasn't once yet made Sisters feel "OMG TOO GOOD!!!".

Well, that's good to know. That changes my ATC list a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:
FYI, if you are going to ATC they have ruled that Imagifers don't work on vehicles. They only work on units that have the Act of Faith ability

Where did you see/hear/read this?

That's garbage. Play the rules as written and wait for a FAQ.

 MacPhail wrote:
That's garbage. Play the rules as written and wait for a FAQ.

Except for Celestine. That one deserves and insta-nerf.

I think there's a world of difference between a maybe its meant to be played x or y, wording, versus an obvious error/omission. Celestine not expressly being listed as one-per-army is so obvious that only a troll would try to get away with it, whereas the Imagifier one, I sincerely think they're biffing.

 deviantduck wrote:
Well, that's good to know. That changes my ATC list a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:
FYI, if you are going to ATC they have ruled that Imagifers don't work on vehicles. They only work on units that have the Act of Faith ability

Where did you see/hear/read this?

We asked their lead judge Alexis for a ruling.

Imagifiers seem horribly overcosted if they don't work on Exorcists or transports. At only 50% to give you an extra AoF, the base unit would have to be worth well over 80 points (since the extra bodies would be better) or really safe from being removed. Since the unit would have to be outside their transport at the start of a turn more or less the only unit that seems like this would good on would be a large BSS blob and it would be OK on HB rets.

It seems to me that all three AoF options are accompanied by clear, specific language that appears elsewhere in various army indices. Nothing looks like text from an early draft was left in place after a purge of a broken rule or an awkward phrasing. For example, auras that affect <Regiment> are all over the Astra Militarum index, but there plenty of auras that are more or less restrictive. Commissars affect all AM units within 6", Tank Commanders only affect <Regiment> Leman Russes, etc. Our Priests only affect Infantry from Astra Militarum and Adeptus Ministorum, but not Adeptus Mechanicus. The keyword mechanic has been used all over the place to limit the scope of auras.

It isn't as though a restriction was left off, leaving something far too powerful (as with Celestine). All of the text is present, is playable as written, and appears to be deliberate barring some detail known only to the design team. Why are TOs questioning it?

PanzerLeader wrote:
We asked their lead judge Alexis for a ruling.

I would be interested to hear his reasoning, because I don't think his ruling is correct. Perhaps that would be a discussion best had in another thread, though.

The restriction is right there in the Acts of Faith special rule:

...one unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability can perform an Act of Faith chosen from the following list. Some abilities may allow you to use more than one Act of Faith in the same turn...

You can't just ignore these sentences when using the Imagifier or Celestine. Their abilities do not specifically override the need to have the Acts of Faith ability, as is stated in the Acts of Faith ability which they are allowing you to access (in addition to your once per turn 2+).

Is it worded poorly? Absolutely. But the intent is there.

For a precedent, consider Ynnari Soulburst actions that were later clarified to not work on vehicles using similar 'loopholes', as they did not possess the Strength from Death special rule. There are no 'vehicles' anymore, but there are models that specifically do not have the Acts of Faith ability in the same vein. If you're building lists around using Acts of Faith on Exorcists, then IMO you are wasting your time.

 MacPhail wrote:
It seems to me that all three AoF options are accompanied by clear, specific language that appears elsewhere in various army indices. Nothing looks like text from an early draft was left in place after a purge of a broken rule or an awkward phrasing. For example, auras that affect <Regiment> are all over the Astra Militarum index, but there plenty of auras that are more or less restrictive. Commissars affect all AM units within 6", Tank Commanders only affect <Regiment> Leman Russes, etc. Our Priests only affect Infantry from Astra Militarum and Adeptus Ministorum, but not Adeptus Mechanicus. The keyword mechanic has been used all over the place to limit the scope of auras.

It isn't as though a restriction was left off, leaving something far too powerful (as with Celestine). All of the text is present, is playable as written, and appears to be deliberate barring some detail known only to the design team. Why are TOs questioning it?

I mean, I think they assumed that the requirement that the unit has the rule is implied, although RAW it probably isn't. Vehicles are clearly not meant to have the rule, otherwise, they'd have the rule or Celestine and the imagifier would call this out explicitly. That said, I don't think the book is free of oversights. Consider that the Jokaero Weaponsmith from the Inquisition can't board any transports (except I think FW has an inquisition one)?

 Rubenite wrote:
The restriction is right there in the Acts of Faith special rule:

...one unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability can perform an Act of Faith chosen from the following list. Some abilities may allow you to use more than one Act of Faith in the same turn...

You can't just ignore these sentences when using the Imagifier or Celestine. Their abilities do not specifically override the need to have the Acts of Faith ability, as is stated in the Acts of Faith ability which they are allowing you to access (in addition to your once per turn 2+).

But those abilities clearly override the "one unit from your army" part of the rule, just like it says they might. The paragraph you quote from describes the core AoF, anticipates a potential abuse of it (using multiple AoFs on the same unit), and imposes a restriction to eliminate to potential for abuse. I dont think you can get much more than that from the paragraph. Anything more is reading between the lines if you ask me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mavnas wrote:

 MacPhail wrote:
Why are TOs questioning it?

I mean, I think they assumed that the requirement that the unit has the rule is implied, although RAW it probably isn't. Vehicles are clearly not meant to have the rule, otherwise, they'd have the rule or Celestine and the imagifier would call this out explicitly. That said, I don't think the book is free of oversights. Consider that the Jokaero Weaponsmith from the Inquisition can't board any transports (except I think FW has an inquisition one)?

Interesting point on the Jokaero... this seems at least potentially likely to be an oversight, since it's the absence of Authority the Inquisition as opposed to something written into the unit abilities. I guess my point is just that... that we're not talking about an absence or oversight, but some actual present language that seems retry explicit to me. That's why I'm inclined to play it as written until GW says otherwise, but that's just me.

@Rubenite - St Celestine can use her Saintly Blessings rule to allow one Adepta Sororitas unit to perform an Act of Faith, it doesn't state that the unit has to be a unit with the AoF special rule.

 MacPhail wrote:

Interesting point on the Jokaero... this seems at least potentially likely to be an oversight, since it's the absence of Authority the Inquisition as opposed to something written into the unit abilities. I guess my point is just that... that we're not talking about an absence or oversight, but some actual present language that seems retry explicit to me. That's why I'm inclined to play it as written until GW says otherwise, but that's just me.

My point is that the absence of Authority of the Inquisition is probably intentional, but since the inquisition has no vehicles of its own this edition... A rule can be both intentionally worded one way and also have unintended consequences.

 Rubenite wrote:
The restriction is right there in the Acts of Faith special rule:

...one unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability can perform an Act of Faith chosen from the following list. Some abilities may allow you to use more than one Act of Faith in the same turn...

You can't just ignore these sentences when using the Imagifier or Celestine. Their abilities do not specifically override the need to have the Acts of Faith ability, as is stated in the Acts of Faith ability which they are allowing you to access (in addition to your once per turn 2+).

Is it worded poorly? Absolutely. But the intent is there.

For a precedent, consider Ynnari Soulburst actions that were later clarified to not work on vehicles using similar 'loopholes', as they did not possess the Strength from Death special rule. There are no 'vehicles' anymore, but there are models that specifically do not have the Acts of Faith ability in the same vein. If you're building lists around using Acts of Faith on Exorcists, then IMO you are wasting your time.

Uh... this is a new edition and the Ynnari thing is not valid since it was from 7th. In fact you can soul burst ynnari vehicles this edtion if you use the psyker power by raw. They just can't do it without this special case/power.

The Specific wording of the Celestine Ability as well as the imagrifier make it very clear who can use an act of faith and are specific that Sororitas units can use an act of faith. You are confusing keywords for special rules. Key words ARE NOT special rules.

also, if you are saying you can't skip that paragraph, celestines rules and the imagrifiers rules make zero sense in context... since they say pick a unit before rolling the 4+ (or just pick in celestines case) and they may perform ..etc. If we follow your logic, we get to pick a unit within 6 inches to use the act of faith but then... roll a 4+ to roll a 2+ to pick another unit anywhere on the table... and that makes zero sense...

Again, the Special rule for celestine says a unit with the sororitas keyword can use an act of faith. Thats explicitly clear and specific would overide the general anyways.

What's weird is... if this judge Alexis is the same woman I am thinking of (we're relatively local to the ATC event coming up), she is not only a SoB player, but was playing it with us Saturday using Imagifiers in the exact opposite way as she would apparently have ruled.

 Rubenite wrote:
The restriction is right there in the Acts of Faith special rule:

...one unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability can perform an Act of Faith chosen from the following list. Some abilities may allow you to use more than one Act of Faith in the same turn...

That isn't the actual Acts of Faith, those are the four special abilities listed below. That rule is telling you which units are eligible to perform that particular Act if you roll the 2+ at the start of your turn. The way it seems to me, there are three different ways to perform an Act of Faith:

1. Roll a 2+ at the start of your turn. Only units with the Acts of Faith ability may perform this Act of Faith.
2. Be within 6" of Celestine. Only units with the Adepta Sororitas keyword can perform this Act of Faith (this excludes Crusaders).
3. Roll a 4+, and be within 6" of an Imagifier. Only units with the same <Order> keyword as the Imagifier can perform this Act of Faith (this excludes Celestine, Crusaders, and anything from a different <Order> )

I agree completely that #1 on that list is restricted to units with Acts of Faith, as it explicitly says so. But if the latter two are intended to be restricted to units with the Acts of Faith ability, they currently lack the verbiage to effect that restriction.

I think we can all agree that a Designers FAQ should clear this up. Doesnt matter if you think it is clear this or that way. Games suck if you can even come to two different conclusions. Doesnt matter if one is a bit "more true"than the other.

GW should just clear it up.


I have 8 Penitent Engine Proxies... should I ever use that man in a 1500-2000 point game? :(

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
What's weird is... if this judge Alexis is the same woman I am thinking of (we're relatively local to the ATC event coming up), she is not only a SoB player, but was playing it with us Saturday using Imagifiers in the exact opposite way as she would apparently have ruled.

She could have misunderstood my captains question I guess. Just reporting what I was told.