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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I want to play with her tho, her is my favorite character, why would i want to play without my favorite character?

If every SM had a named character is that really a bad think? I dont think so, as long as there are more than 1 name character players are playing with (balanced them out i mean), we only have 1 named character, would we not take it?

Every DE play have Urien for Coven as well.

Its fun to play with a character with story, its more fun for the players to have your hero on the table compare to a no named general.

I'm not saying "make her unplayable". All I'm saying is "make her balanced" for the army. So that YOU can play her in every sister army and have fun while not EVERYONE HAS to play her, else the army fails.

There is a huge difference. I for one would like to play with and without Celestine.

Making Celestine mandatory for the army to work is really bad design. (Just like any other character in any other army.)

Weidekuh wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I want to play with her tho, her is my favorite character, why would i want to play without my favorite character?

If every SM had a named character is that really a bad think? I dont think so, as long as there are more than 1 name character players are playing with (balanced them out i mean), we only have 1 named character, would we not take it?

Every DE play have Urien for Coven as well.

Its fun to play with a character with story, its more fun for the players to have your hero on the table compare to a no named general.

I'm not saying "make her unplayable". All I'm saying is "make her balanced" for the army. So that YOU can play her in every sister army and have fun while not EVERYONE HAS to play her, else the army fails.

There is a huge difference. I for one would like to play with and without Celestine.

Making Celestine mandatory for the army to work is really bad design. (Just like any other character in any other army.)

It might have helped if they had been bothered to make ANY other Sisters named character model and not just said - "meh use priests" - we already have Canoness V as a model - I donlt see why they did not bother to give her rules.

It all smacks of lazy phoned in work before they could go do something more interesting.

Celestine was fantastic (but needed to be) - if they had given mroe stuff to the rest of the army, hammering her with nerfs would have made sense but they only did one half of the job.

I assume the Gemini can;t get relics?

It might have helped if they had been bothered to make ANY other Sisters named character model and not just said - "meh use priests" - we already have Canoness V as a model - I donlt see why they did not bother to give her rules.

It all smacks of lazy phoned in work before they could go do something more interesting.

Celestine was fantastic (but needed to be) - if they had given mroe stuff to the rest of the army, hammering her with nerfs would have made sense but they only did one half of the job.

I assume the Gemini can;t get relics?

As I said:

Weidekuh wrote:
I like Celestine getting weaker. I hate it, when something is an auto-take. Especially named characters. It's so stupid that every sister army has celestine in it. Every single one! Balancing out Celestine is the right thing to do. Now the army just needs options that make it viable to run the army without her and be fun and viable.

So while playtesting I think it would be very important to play without Celestine too. What is the army missing without her? Is the army playble? If not give your suggestion! I'd hate it if when the codex comes out there is only one way to play sisters, Celestine + other stuff.

 Mr Morden wrote:

It might have helped if they had been bothered to make ANY other Sisters named character model and not just said - "meh use priests" - we already have Canoness V as a model - I donlt see why they did not bother to give her rules.

That wouldn't help much either. I don't like named characters for example. I prefer my own characters with their own stories, motivations and combat styles rather than premade characters who are 1 in the frigging big galaxy. Having any of them show up all the time is just breaking suspension of disbelief.

If named characters are required to do well it's bad design. Doesn't matter if there's 1 or 10 to choose from.

I agree - waiting till I get my CA before I send intial thoguhts to GW and then playtest the options - hopefully over Christmas break

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
For those of you who've seen the leak.

Do seripham get a +1 to shield of faith, or is their shield of faith a 5+?

If it's the former they might do well as a screen near front of the armored wedge.

It is worded "improve the shield of faith invuls by 1 to a maximum of 3+"

So it should stack with the WL trait then (hopefully).

Weidekuh wrote:
So while playtesting I think it would be very important to play without Celestine too. What is the army missing without her?

The jump canoness, as has been stated to GW many many times since the WD dex.

56 points base going by GWs own pricing conventions. Even with only modest wargear options their existence would likely relegate the current Celestine to higher points games where her stackable aura would be enough of an asset to offset her high cost.

So, whether she's too weak or just right, what do we do with her? Drop her or work her up a flank with her WL trait aura making Seraphim harder to crack? Build her a nest of transports T1 to help them weather the alpha? Stick her in a block of troops and count on stratagems to make them hit harder? Counterstrike unit? Trade her for Canoness auras running out in Immolators?

 MacPhail wrote:
So, whether she's too weak or just right, what do we do with her?

Hide her behind the seraphim and advance her/them with other forward units.

With just the dominions the sisters are pretty critically short on early impact so i'm guessing early playstyles are either going to be horde'o'casualties, or a mechanised/seraphim blob supported by a retributor/exorcist blob.

This codex has me feeling deflated. I'm far more excited about my Slaanesh than my Sororitas.
My army is an Order of the Argent Shroud minor order. It is also apparent to me that faith point's don't actually do anything. So let me look at my options:
My army trait gives me Faith Points.
Celestine's WT gives me Faith Points.
I like to run infantry spam, meaning I have lots of extra Faith Points.

This leaves me in the awkward position of having to do lots of book keeping that doesn't mean anything at all. I could probably forget most of the Acts of Faith and still be within 5-10% of how I would do with them. My entire army is built around a mechanic that doesn't actually do anything. Feels bad man.

 Mr Morden wrote:

It might have helped if they had been bothered to make ANY other Sisters named character model and not just said - "meh use priests" - we already have Canoness V as a model - I donlt see why they did not bother to give her rules.

There's a named character priest (who used to exist then didn't and now does again)
There's two more named characters as part of blackstone

How many do you want exactly

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

It might have helped if they had been bothered to make ANY other Sisters named character model and not just said - "meh use priests" - we already have Canoness V as a model - I donlt see why they did not bother to give her rules.

That wouldn't help much either. I don't like named characters for example. I prefer my own characters with their own stories, motivations and combat styles rather than premade characters who are 1 in the frigging big galaxy. Having any of them show up all the time is just breaking suspension of disbelief.

If named characters are required to do well it's bad design. Doesn't matter if there's 1 or 10 to choose from.

I understand the concept of breaking the suspension of disbelief, and would get behind it if I really thought that this was GW's purpose. As much as I love Celestine, my wish is that NO named character be an auto-take.

However, thats not what they are doing this for. My suspension of disbelief is broken by the fact that to be competitive, I need to:
1. Take non-SOB priests
2. Need to "soup" in order to be a real fighting force.
3. Now they are 'encouraging' units from different Orders to all be mixed into my fighting force? What military organization would ever do this?

I want to play a wargame in the 40k universe - or at least have the feeling that I am. We keep getting further and further away from that to where it is becoming impossible for me to suspend my disbelief anymore.

I would even just like playing a game with my single order of sisters, be competitive and have fun.

 Grundz wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

It might have helped if they had been bothered to make ANY other Sisters named character model and not just said - "meh use priests" - we already have Canoness V as a model - I donlt see why they did not bother to give her rules.

There's a named character priest (who used to exist then didn't and now does again)
There's two more named characters as part of blackstone

How many do you want exactly

How many of those three are SISTERS of Battle? Oh yeah none.

The current situtaion is like have a Space Wolves Codex with Ragnar and 3 Ultramarine characters and saying yeah thats all good.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My army is an Order of the Argent Shroud minor order.

Is anyone thinking they'll run multiple Orders under these rules? Are any two Convictions worth considering? I'm sure most of us are bound by paint scheme in terms of running multiple Orders.

 MacPhail wrote:
So, whether she's too weak or just right, what do we do with her? Drop her or work her up a flank with her WL trait aura making Seraphim harder to crack? Build her a nest of transports T1 to help them weather the alpha? Stick her in a block of troops and count on stratagems to make them hit harder? Counterstrike unit? Trade her for Canoness auras running out in Immolators?

Do we think its worth having Celestains to drop wounds onto for her in case of snipers and similar?

 MacPhail wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My army is an Order of the Argent Shroud minor order.

Is anyone thinking they'll run multiple Orders under these rules? Are any two Convictions worth considering? I'm sure most of us are bound by paint scheme in terms of running multiple Orders.

I'm considering it. I have enough sisters to do a decent sized force for multiple convents. I'd likely go with the same paint scheme, but each detachment would have a different color shoulder pad.

I missed that the Brazier of Holy Flame was back... Deny on 2d6 within 6"... yes please! Can anyone confirm this?

 MacPhail wrote:
I missed that the Brazier of Holy Flame was back... Deny on 2d6 within 6"... yes please! Can anyone confirm this?

It is what has been said in the video reviews.

All the eggs in one basket, but as a support canoness for an exorcist/retributor blob it's a fairly deny-heavy basket. Half a dozen attempts easily, albeit with a 24" range.

 Mr Morden wrote:

How many of those three are SISTERS of Battle? Oh yeah none.
The current situtaion is like have a Space Wolves Codex with Ragnar and 3 Ultramarine characters and saying yeah thats all good.

I don't get it, sisters have always had inquisitorial warband style models in their lists, since second edition, that you can't stuff every body into power armor is not anything new.

 Grundz wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

How many of those three are SISTERS of Battle? Oh yeah none.
The current situtaion is like have a Space Wolves Codex with Ragnar and 3 Ultramarine characters and saying yeah thats all good.

I don't get it, sisters have always had inquisitorial warband style models in their lists, since second edition, that you can't stuff every body into power armor is not anything new.

It's the same problem as saying "I want there to be more Iron Hands characters" and then someone coming along and saying "You have Tigurus and Calgar!" Like yeah they've been in the same codex since forever but that's not what people mean.

 Grundz wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

How many of those three are SISTERS of Battle? Oh yeah none.
The current situtaion is like have a Space Wolves Codex with Ragnar and 3 Ultramarine characters and saying yeah thats all good.

I don't get it, sisters have always had inquisitorial warband style models in their lists, since second edition, that you can't stuff every body into power armor is not anything new.

Yeah and we used to have other Sisters characters - even a secnd one briefly in 7th edition that GW discarded or forgot or whatever.

Priests are not part of an Order and do not benefit from their Order tactics and in a specifically named SISTERS OF BATTLE codex you would think that there would be more Sisters named characters than Priests.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Priests are not part of an Order and do not benefit from their Order tactics and in a specifically named SISTERS OF BATTLE ADEPTUS MINISTORUM codex you would think that there would be more Sisters named characters than Priests.

 Grundz wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Priests are not part of an Order and do not benefit from their Order tactics and in a specifically named SISTERS OF BATTLE ADEPTUS MINISTORUM codex you would think that there would be more Sisters named characters than Priests.

Oh ffs

ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

You do know Priests appear in another Imperial Codex right - Astra Militarium - now imagine if that Codex just had Yarrick and two priests - would that fly??????

IF it was called Codex Adeptus Ministorium you would have a point but its not.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/12/06/6th-dec-faction-focus-sisters-of-battlegw-homepage-post-1/

Now is that a headline you ever thought you’d see on this website? Chapter Approved 2018 would be exciting enough if all it had was a tonne of rules for matched, open and narrative play – but it also contains the beta version of Codex: Adepta Sororitas

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh ffs
ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

Codex Sisters of Battle - the first one - was 50% ministorum. It wasn't until codex WH that the priesthood was scaled down to make space for the inquisition, but they've always been part of what made the sisters more than just T3 marines with half of their units missing.

A.T. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh ffs
ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

Codex Sisters of Battle - the first one - was 50% ministorum. It wasn't until codex WH that the priesthood was scaled down to make space for the inquisition, but they've always been part of what made the sisters more than just T3 marines with half of their units missing.

In your Opinion.

A.T. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh ffs
ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

Codex Sisters of Battle - the first one - was 50% ministorum. It wasn't until codex WH that the priesthood was scaled down to make space for the inquisition, but they've always been part of what made the sisters more than just T3 marines with half of their units missing.

Perhaps it is time to have actual Adepta Sororitas units, then?

If the Adepta Sororitas is only "t3 marines with half their units missing" then the problem is that they have half their units missing, not that Adeptus Ministorum isn't here. The Adeptus Ministorum is more different from the Adepta Sororitas than the Blood Angels are from the Black Templars or Space Wolves. Think about that for a moment.

A.T. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh ffs
ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

Codex Sisters of Battle - the first one - was 50% ministorum. It wasn't until codex WH that the priesthood was scaled down to make space for the inquisition, but they've always been part of what made the sisters more than just T3 marines with half of their units missing.

Now that they've stripped out the inquisition for their own codex, still like half of the actual choices in the book aren't sisters, they're various eclioarchy (sp) stuff
Because of the chapterhouse legal precedent, they can't release rules before the model is available or else they lose some of the rights to those models, so expecting a brick of new stuff in a beta codex before the models come out is silly

I expect that the sisters basic box will be sisters/dominions/celestians and the seraphim box to contain at least one new choice
I don't expect any named or special characters at all, unless absolutely required to round out the book, they aren't a popular army and there's a lot of back work to a character model that could be used on something that would sell better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh ffs
ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

Codex Sisters of Battle - the first one - was 50% ministorum. It wasn't until codex WH that the priesthood was scaled down to make space for the inquisition, but they've always been part of what made the sisters more than just T3 marines with half of their units missing.

Perhaps it is time to have actual Adepta Sororitas units, then?

If the Adepta Sororitas is only "t3 marines with half their units missing" then the problem is that they have half their units missing, not that Adeptus Ministorum isn't here. The Adeptus Ministorum is more different from the Adepta Sororitas than the Blood Angels are from the Black Templars or Space Wolves. Think about that for a moment.

Guardsmen bring orgyns and ratlings too, but you don't see them with their own book
Sisters are always going to be a mishmash unless their popularity dramatically increases.

The game allows countsas, get creative if you want everything to be a sister

 Grundz wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh ffs
ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

Codex Sisters of Battle - the first one - was 50% ministorum. It wasn't until codex WH that the priesthood was scaled down to make space for the inquisition, but they've always been part of what made the sisters more than just T3 marines with half of their units missing.

Now that they've stripped out the inquisition for their own codex, still like half of the actual choices in the book aren't sisters, they're various eclioarchy (sp) stuff
Because of the chapterhouse legal precedent, they can't release rules before the model is available or else they lose some of the rights to those models, so expecting a brick of new stuff in a beta codex before the models come out is silly

I expect that the sisters basic box will be sisters/dominions/celestians and the seraphim box to contain at least one new choice
I don't expect any named or special characters at all, unless absolutely required to round out the book, they aren't a popular army and there's a lot of back work to a character model that could be used on something that would sell better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh ffs
ITS Codex: Adepta Sororitas - thats the Sisters NOT the fething Church as a whole. The fact that they decided to cram other elements of the Ministorium into the Codex is just because.

Codex Sisters of Battle - the first one - was 50% ministorum. It wasn't until codex WH that the priesthood was scaled down to make space for the inquisition, but they've always been part of what made the sisters more than just T3 marines with half of their units missing.

Perhaps it is time to have actual Adepta Sororitas units, then?

If the Adepta Sororitas is only "t3 marines with half their units missing" then the problem is that they have half their units missing, not that Adeptus Ministorum isn't here. The Adeptus Ministorum is more different from the Adepta Sororitas than the Blood Angels are from the Black Templars or Space Wolves. Think about that for a moment.

Guardsmen bring orgyns and ratlings too, but you don't see them with their own book
Sisters are always going to be a mishmash unless their popularity dramatically increases.

Please read the actual responses....and consider not trolling ths thread?

Having a proper dex and a range of plastic models will give them the chance to be bought. Bit like Ad Mech - or do you feel that they shouldn't have been made as they were not popular (when they didnlt have a model)

 Mr Morden wrote:

Having a proper dex and a range of plastic models will give them the chance to be bought. Bit like Ad Mech - or do you feel that they shouldn't have been made as they were not popular (when they didnlt have a model)

Lol
I had one of the biggest admech armies in the country up to ~5th edition, there was plenty of admech.

Were they all counts-as armies using something elses codex because they didn't have an official rulebook? absolutely, but it didn't stop anyone from having fun.
If you want heavy armored sisters, ally with grey knights, take a unit of paladins and get some raging heroes big armored sisters
If you want some big melee sisters, ally with guard and take some counts-as ogryns and conscripts

There is a universe of possibilities out there if you can get over the hang up of the data sheet not saying "sisters" Thats why 40k is fun.

 Grundz wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Having a proper dex and a range of plastic models will give them the chance to be bought. Bit like Ad Mech - or do you feel that they shouldn't have been made as they were not popular (when they didnlt have a model)

Lol
I had one of the biggest admech armies in the country up to ~5th edition, there was plenty of admech.

Were they all counts-as armies using something elses codex because they didn't have an official rulebook? absolutely, but it didn't stop anyone from having fun.
If you want heavy armored sisters, ally with grey knights, take a unit of paladins and get some raging heroes big armored sisters
If you want some big melee sisters, ally with guard and take some counts-as ogryns and conscripts

There is a universe of possibilities out there if you can get over the hang up of the data sheet not saying "sisters" Thats why 40k is fun.

Lemme put this heavily armoured Sister/GK in my detach- oh wait you can't anymore. Now I have to bring a whole load of other GK, and not use their psychic powers, just to field one unit.

Come on, man. I've never ignored anyone else on this forum before, not even people I disagree with heavily, but you're so blatantly trolling it's obvious even to me.