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.

 Grundz wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


...And I've explained to you...pretty patiently I thought...that I have an Imagifier, so the discussion is an academic one. So stahp with the salt already.

When did you change that? were you cheating then or now?

You're a real cool guy man. Real cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dracpanzer wrote:

It's not academic at all, Indomitable Belief is an Order locked warlord trait. You have refused to see how you were wrong in your interpretation of that. You switching to an Imagifer from a Dialogus in your list might be conceding the issue, but it doesn't mean you still aren't trying to sell it or just save face.

I failed Acts of Faith too often and had to add the Imagifier. Simple. I did so after my first loss, when it became obvious that even Ebon Chalice wasn't enough of a guarantee. My motivations arent as important as the fact that you seem to want to harp on a this. I dont know what it is about the internet that makes people so frigging monocular and angry, but I dont think you'd talk to me like this if you knew me. It's just crazy how we talk to each other and at some point, you gotta put your foot down.
So you can feud with me over what I consider an academic point at this stage or you can keep the torch lit. I'll leave it up to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I agree about overwatch. For me, one unit every other turn gets +1 to hit, and it's not that good that I really want to vessels for it.

But multiple units overwatch many turns in a row for me, and a 100% increase in hits from inferno pistols and krak grenades are pretty good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know GW said they were doing a full rewrite on AoF, which means it will either be stupidly broken, or stupidly sucktastic. Seeing as it's already sucktastic, we might as well hope.

We should hope.

Well what I do not like about Acts is that they have forced me into a singular build, which is a sure sign that we need to expand the usefulness of them at minimum to more types of units even though they are very useful for the units I use.

IN this current iteration, the armored lists don't work AS WELL. I wanted to try and play the armored corps version but I was 7-4 with a bunch of squeaker results. Very few of the 11 games I tried it in were more than average wins OR losses. And that was a version of the army I had a LOT of experience with, so it wasn't like I didn't have familiarity. Acts of Faith just didn't do as much and you have less of them in armored forces of course. A lot of the time, you're benefitting most when things are bad and you've just been smite spammed out of your rhino or what have you.

When I switched over to my current build (which DESPITE what has been suggested, isn't just a blob sitting there with 4+ invuls all day long) I found MUCH greater benefits from the Acts of Faith, an enormously better win percentage, and the margins of victory went up. Way up. I'm not offering opinion at this stage, but demonstrable fact. I demonstrated it both ways, with no motivation to lose doing it in either way. I wasn't out to make a point when I played them armored, I was trying to win! I saw (and showed) clearly that it worked a lot better one way than the other for me. I dedicated myself to it. My battle reports are there for the seeing, all in one place. After the Major I just attended, the army is 38-6. I can't apologize for that. You wouldn't either.

I've never told even one person that they can't win any other way. I don't play a net list (obviously) and neither should anyone else. I "won", I suppose, as armored Sisters too (technically 7-4 is "winning"). In the heat of ITC competition, that just isn't going to work for me and most tournament players understand that. Even if i win all three games like that I probably am not going to win the event because: points. How frustrating that must be for a lot of players, but it's the truth.

Act of Faith Revamp may be just what we need.

 Jancoran wrote:
Good?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778360.page#10520540

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Good?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778360.page#10520540

Gotta keep passing those IRL faith tests

 Jancoran wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


...And I've explained to you...pretty patiently I thought...that I have an Imagifier, so the discussion is an academic one. So stahp with the salt already.

When did you change that? were you cheating then or now?

You're a real cool guy man. Real cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dracpanzer wrote:

It's not academic at all, Indomitable Belief is an Order locked warlord trait. You have refused to see how you were wrong in your interpretation of that. You switching to an Imagifer from a Dialogus in your list might be conceding the issue, but it doesn't mean you still aren't trying to sell it or just save face.

I failed Acts of Faith too often and had to add the Imagifier. Simple. I did so after my first loss, when it became obvious that even Ebon Chalice wasn't enough of a guarantee. My motivations arent as important as the fact that you seem to want to harp on a this. I dont know what it is about the internet that makes people so frigging monocular and angry, but I dont think you'd talk to me like this if you knew me. It's just crazy how we talk to each other and at some point, you gotta put your foot down.
So you can feud with me over what I consider an academic point at this stage or you can keep the torch lit. I'll leave it up to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I agree about overwatch. For me, one unit every other turn gets +1 to hit, and it's not that good that I really want to vessels for it.

But multiple units overwatch many turns in a row for me, and a 100% increase in hits from inferno pistols and krak grenades are pretty good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know GW said they were doing a full rewrite on AoF, which means it will either be stupidly broken, or stupidly sucktastic. Seeing as it's already sucktastic, we might as well hope.

We should hope.

Well what I do not like about Acts is that they have forced me into a singular build, which is a sure sign that we need to expand the usefulness of them at minimum to more types of units even though they are very useful for the units I use.

IN this current iteration, the armored lists don't work AS WELL. I wanted to try and play the armored corps version but I was 7-4 with a bunch of squeaker results. Very few of the 11 games I tried it in were more than average wins OR losses. And that was a version of the army I had a LOT of experience with, so it wasn't like I didn't have familiarity. Acts of Faith just didn't do as much and you have less of them in armored forces of course. A lot of the time, you're benefitting most when things are bad and you've just been smite spammed out of your rhino or what have you.

When I switched over to my current build (which DESPITE what has been suggested, isn't just a blob sitting there with 4+ invuls all day long) I found MUCH greater benefits from the Acts of Faith, an enormously better win percentage, and the margins of victory went up. Way up. I'm not offering opinion at this stage, but demonstrable fact. I demonstrated it both ways, with no motivation to lose doing it in either way. I wasn't out to make a point when I played them armored, I was trying to win! I saw (and showed) clearly that it worked a lot better one way than the other for me. I dedicated myself to it. My battle reports are there for the seeing, all in one place. After the Major I just attended, the army is 38-6. I can't apologize for that. You wouldn't either.

I've never told even one person that they can't win any other way. I don't play a net list (obviously) and neither should anyone else. I "won", I suppose, as armored Sisters too (technically 7-4 is "winning"). In the heat of ITC competition, that just isn't going to work for me and most tournament players understand that. Even if i win all three games like that I probably am not going to win the event because: points. How frustrating that must be for a lot of players, but it's the truth.

Act of Faith Revamp may be just what we need.

So a critique. 38-6 is a bit inflated. Counting locals matches in your win loss statistics is silly for a good player. I haven't been nearly as successful as you in tournaments this year but if I counted locals I'd be like 74-9. You're 15-6, own that number because it's A. Really good, B. Much more representative of the actual quality of the list, and C. Easily verifiable.

You are certainly free to ignore wins that happened. I don't choose to do that.

Since youre a fan of context, let me give you some. My meta is brutal and I still do well. Lets get specific about my losses, for context of course!

2 losses were to Zachary Nelson (42nd in the world), 1 was to Colin Sherman (55th in the world), 1 to Jason Ryder (185th in the world and #1 Adeptus Astartes player in the world), 1 to Logan Shelton in a casual game (hes not a tourney player but he has tough forge world lists) aaaaand 1 to Joseph Darbison (501st in the world, 29th as T'au, but he doesnt have all his results yet, so keep track)

And thats it.

Dunno who you play. Thats who I play, and more like them. Jim Vesal. Michael Timpe, Jason Rider (lost to him 36-30) and Sean Morgan were all at the Major I just went to. I'm doing just fine given the codex im rocking. Lol.

No one on DakkaDakka needs to be (now) 40-6 to have an opinion though, nor have the losses I do against quality opponents to be heard.

Get in the ring and show me how wrong I am, but let's all stop with minimizations. The ITC rankings are easy to follow. We need more Sisters players and I anticipate many more in the standings near the end of year when the codex drops. Keep me updated on your progress. Place well and take pride in it.

ERJAK wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


...And I've explained to you...pretty patiently I thought...that I have an Imagifier, so the discussion is an academic one. So stahp with the salt already.

When did you change that? were you cheating then or now?

You're a real cool guy man. Real cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dracpanzer wrote:

It's not academic at all, Indomitable Belief is an Order locked warlord trait. You have refused to see how you were wrong in your interpretation of that. You switching to an Imagifer from a Dialogus in your list might be conceding the issue, but it doesn't mean you still aren't trying to sell it or just save face.

I failed Acts of Faith too often and had to add the Imagifier. Simple. I did so after my first loss, when it became obvious that even Ebon Chalice wasn't enough of a guarantee. My motivations arent as important as the fact that you seem to want to harp on a this. I dont know what it is about the internet that makes people so frigging monocular and angry, but I dont think you'd talk to me like this if you knew me. It's just crazy how we talk to each other and at some point, you gotta put your foot down.
So you can feud with me over what I consider an academic point at this stage or you can keep the torch lit. I'll leave it up to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I agree about overwatch. For me, one unit every other turn gets +1 to hit, and it's not that good that I really want to vessels for it.

But multiple units overwatch many turns in a row for me, and a 100% increase in hits from inferno pistols and krak grenades are pretty good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know GW said they were doing a full rewrite on AoF, which means it will either be stupidly broken, or stupidly sucktastic. Seeing as it's already sucktastic, we might as well hope.

We should hope.

Well what I do not like about Acts is that they have forced me into a singular build, which is a sure sign that we need to expand the usefulness of them at minimum to more types of units even though they are very useful for the units I use.

IN this current iteration, the armored lists don't work AS WELL. I wanted to try and play the armored corps version but I was 7-4 with a bunch of squeaker results. Very few of the 11 games I tried it in were more than average wins OR losses. And that was a version of the army I had a LOT of experience with, so it wasn't like I didn't have familiarity. Acts of Faith just didn't do as much and you have less of them in armored forces of course. A lot of the time, you're benefitting most when things are bad and you've just been smite spammed out of your rhino or what have you.

When I switched over to my current build (which DESPITE what has been suggested, isn't just a blob sitting there with 4+ invuls all day long) I found MUCH greater benefits from the Acts of Faith, an enormously better win percentage, and the margins of victory went up. Way up. I'm not offering opinion at this stage, but demonstrable fact. I demonstrated it both ways, with no motivation to lose doing it in either way. I wasn't out to make a point when I played them armored, I was trying to win! I saw (and showed) clearly that it worked a lot better one way than the other for me. I dedicated myself to it. My battle reports are there for the seeing, all in one place. After the Major I just attended, the army is 38-6. I can't apologize for that. You wouldn't either.

I've never told even one person that they can't win any other way. I don't play a net list (obviously) and neither should anyone else. I "won", I suppose, as armored Sisters too (technically 7-4 is "winning"). In the heat of ITC competition, that just isn't going to work for me and most tournament players understand that. Even if i win all three games like that I probably am not going to win the event because: points. How frustrating that must be for a lot of players, but it's the truth.

Act of Faith Revamp may be just what we need.

So a critique. 38-6 is a bit inflated. Counting locals matches in your win loss statistics is silly for a good player. I haven't been nearly as successful as you in tournaments this year but if I counted locals I'd be like 74-9. You're 15-6, own that number because it's A. Really good, B. Much more representative of the actual quality of the list, and C. Easily verifiable.

Inflated? No, his wins are not inflated at all. I live and actively play in the same community he does, and I can say first hand we live in a very large, very competitive area. The majority of players play ITC and always prepping there lists to tournaments, there is a ITC within a hour of us every week. We have a lot of TOUGH players, people are always grinding there lists against each other to improve for tournaments, then there are still people who are very hyper competitive and don't hit tournaments very often. I highly recommend if you want some good tough games, you come down to our neck of the woods, you might change your mind on keeping track of every win and loss. Sure, ITC is a good way of verifying wins and showing when someone is full of it. Jan is not. He goes as often as he can to ITC events, though he has run a few ITC events himself. The names he listed are legit, I've played against some outside of tournaments. We see them and many more at almost every tournament that pops up, since people are always trying to bump up there scores.

Sure, Jan's list may not LOOK like something that wins as much as he stated, but keep something in mind, 2/3 of the game is the PLAYER who wields a army. From experience I have seen Jan play with wonky lists and do very well. Its all in how you play. And no he doesn't cheat, if hes been cheating as much as its been suggested it would be well known in our community, and everyone knows jan in our community, and everyone is a damn rules lawyer.

Like magic you have to read things as is. Its EASY to overthink something so simple over simple wording, especially when the INTENT would agree with you. Thats why GW always has to release FAQs to clarify rules or make changes. Overthinking and arguing over the intent will lead to endless arguments, and hes already changed it up anyway. Entirely unrelated to this thread. Maybe I would suggest, if people are going to attack him and say his wins are inflated or fake, put your money where your mouth is and come down to our neck of the woods and play him, I'll record it for everyone to see. Unless cowardice through internet tough guy/anger is the preferred method.

And Erjack, this isn't necessarily directed all at you. This is just the last post i am replying to. This applies to everyone involved.

Yeah I'm uh, kinda uncomfortable at the level of hostility here, too. His list doesn't seem that unbelievable to me. Let's just... not do this?

Morendie wrote:


Sure, Jan's list may not LOOK like something that wins as much as he stated, but keep something in mind, 2/3 of the game is the PLAYER who wields a army. From experience I have seen Jan play with wonky lists and do very well. Its all in how you play. And no he doesn't cheat, if hes been cheating as much as its been suggested it would be well known in our community, and everyone knows jan in our community, and everyone is a damn rules lawyer.

I guess someone can point out the part of the rules that lets him substitute keywords when they don't exist on the original model then huh?

This ought to be a place where we can share our successes without whats happened here the last couple pages. I think his response is just aimed at the general "crab pot" responses.

Sisters of Battle have been a rare breed and when I do well or others do well, it seems theres this undertow, to minimize.what people did or just HOW they did it, or who they did it against. Pointless.

The game is the game. We should be respecting each other more than we do, and I include myself in that. Morendie is just frustrated with the strong negativity.

Truce.

 Jancoran wrote:
The game is the game. We should be respecting each other more than we do, and I include myself in that. Morendie is just frustrated with the strong negativity.

Dude, I just called you out about arguing about a point of rule after a mod explicitly asked you to stop arguing about it here, and instead do it in the proper forum section.
You went all high and mighty about it.
Idk about your win ratio or which kind of lists you build, no worries about this. Just don't act rude.

 Grundz wrote:

Morendie wrote:


Sure, Jan's list may not LOOK like something that wins as much as he stated, but keep something in mind, 2/3 of the game is the PLAYER who wields a army. From experience I have seen Jan play with wonky lists and do very well. Its all in how you play. And no he doesn't cheat, if hes been cheating as much as its been suggested it would be well known in our community, and everyone knows jan in our community, and everyone is a damn rules lawyer.

I guess someone can point out the part of the rules that lets him substitute keywords when they don't exist on the original model then huh?

Your literally beating a dead horse, arguing over a irrelevant debatable point that never mattered in the first place because it didn't matter which model he put the warlord trait on, that was just the model he picked at the time, of which isn't even the model that carries the warlord trait anymore, and still your tunnel visioned obsessed it. He modified his list and changed which character has it as part of his adjustment after his first lost. And still your obsessed with pointing this out, not to mention calling him a cheater repeatedly. It has never mattered who had it and its not even relevant anymore. Its so irrelevant it doesnt change any of his games the way he plays, nor does it change the result or have any meaningful impact, as he will still have that warlord trait, but on a different model. But your so obsessed over it.

Morendie wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

I guess someone can point out the part of the rules that lets him substitute keywords when they don't exist on the original model then huh?

Your literally beating a dead horse, arguing over a irrelevant debatable point that never mattered in the first place because it didn't matter which model he put the warlord trait on, that was just the model he picked at the time, of which isn't even the model that carries the warlord trait anymore, and

So no then?

Can we really not?

Indeed.

Guys, could you stop going back to this please? And that includes snippy one-liners somewhere in otherwise interesting posts.

This has been polluting the thread for the last 5-ish pages, I think by now everyone is aware of who thinks what so as has been suggested several times, YMDC is the place to take this if you really want to land somewhere during the wait for the full Codex.

Many thanks, I suppose on behalf of quite a few other contributors/reader/lurkers of this thread.

It has a you make da call post, why are we still talking about it?

How about lets start a new topic.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
It has a you make da call post, why are we still talking about it?

How about lets start a new topic.

Anyone think we'll get even half the rules/options/strats/crap/choices as the SM dex?

With the rate of codex creep inherent in 8th edition coming out later isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Maybe a tactics related topic? Space marine salt can go in general discussion

With the Hospitaller recently previewed (model wise); anyone got any good tips for maximising use with her?
She never makes my non fluff lists on account of my finding her rules to be pretty meh to me.

You can get some work out of them in your Citadel topping off your Brigades elite slots and your characters wounds. Not terribly competitive, but you get more out of them than healing up a squad by one model.

I have topped off Celestine from 1 wound to full with a Hospitaller and Spirit of the Martyr. Took a cp of course, and she got tore up next turn just to rez up in time to get run over by an Abominant. Such is life right?

It's what she's good at.

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Maybe a tactics related topic? Space marine salt can go in general discussion

With the Hospitaller recently previewed (model wise); anyone got any good tips for maximising use with her?
She never makes my non fluff lists on account of my finding her rules to be pretty meh to me.

My daughter played with the Hospitaler and it was surprisingly useful. Keeping a character alive longer, especially if theres an assassin around is pretty cool. Between the Hospitaler and the Act of Faith you can keep Celestine up a long time. The Hospitaler saves you Faith Points in some instances. So that also seems like an economy plus to me.

I used her a little bit and she would work on Celestine before launching Celestine like a missile as I am wont to do. Then sh'd work on the Canoness. Then sh'ed work on a unit that maybe needed its melta back (Ill sometimes kill a melta instead of the sergeant if i plan to roll for ld, and then just res the meltagun, and we are talking about a unit that's been ripped up here of course).

So while I don't take the Hospitaler as a matter of course, I never really saw her as a waste. She even had a decent attack before. We'll see what she has now.

Her save at least seems to be getting better. I'm sure the cost will go up to reflect that...

Poor Celestine. R&D don’t know what to do with her. In the decade I’ve been playing WH/SOB, I’ve seen her go from meh to good to bad to really good and then back to meh. I hope we can get a few new characters so that Celestine wasn’t the sole symbol of the army.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Her save at least seems to be getting better. I'm sure the cost will go up to reflect that...

The hospitaller has had a 3+ save since becoming available as a sisters model (rather than an inquisition retinue model).

Lingering side effect of the WD command being copy/pasted from the marine dex (even the dialogus was 3+ for a while).

madhatter00o wrote:
Poor Celestine. R&D don’t know what to do with her. In the decade I’ve been playing WH/SOB, I’ve seen her go from meh to good to bad to really good and then back to meh. I hope we can get a few new characters so that Celestine wasn’t the sole symbol of the army.

she kind of has a job, her only real problem is that she's overcosted in order to not maker her an auto include in IG armies, if we had another source of an extra +1 shield of faith I'd take it and use the extra points on some other close combat beatstick.

 Grundz wrote:

madhatter00o wrote:
Poor Celestine. R&D don’t know what to do with her. In the decade I’ve been playing WH/SOB, I’ve seen her go from meh to good to bad to really good and then back to meh. I hope we can get a few new characters so that Celestine wasn’t the sole symbol of the army.

she kind of has a job, her only real problem is that she's overcosted in order to not maker her an auto include in IG armies, if we had another source of an extra +1 shield of faith I'd take it and use the extra points on some other close combat beatstick.

Yeah, exactly. Her point cost has been all over the place, which I consider part of her overall design. Her role is pretty clear, but I think R&D is overthinking her, especially without considering the context of other armies--probably why they can't decide on her cost or "extra" abilities (i.e., everything besides resurrection and ardent blade stuff).

madhatter00o wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

madhatter00o wrote:
Poor Celestine. R&D don’t know what to do with her. In the decade I’ve been playing WH/SOB, I’ve seen her go from meh to good to bad to really good and then back to meh. I hope we can get a few new characters so that Celestine wasn’t the sole symbol of the army.

she kind of has a job, her only real problem is that she's overcosted in order to not maker her an auto include in IG armies, if we had another source of an extra +1 shield of faith I'd take it and use the extra points on some other close combat beatstick.

Yeah, exactly. Her point cost has been all over the place, which I consider part of her overall design. Her role is pretty clear, but I think R&D is overthinking her, especially without considering the context of other armies--probably why they can't decide on her cost or "extra" abilities (i.e., everything besides resurrection and ardent blade stuff).

fun fact, resurrection pretty much doesn't work ever in its current form.

fun fact, resurrection pretty much doesn't work ever in its current form.

No kidding. It's how they had her in 5th ed. Didn't work then; doesn't work now.

madhatter00o wrote:

fun fact, resurrection pretty much doesn't work ever in its current form.

No kidding. It's how they had her in 5th ed. Didn't work then; doesn't work now.

I liked her in the index version. I thought the deep striking again was a nice thematic touch. The current form is pretty useless.

 deviantduck wrote:

madhatter00o wrote:

fun fact, resurrection pretty much doesn't work ever in its current form.

No kidding. It's how they had her in 5th ed. Didn't work then; doesn't work now.

I liked her in the index version. I thought the deep striking again was a nice thematic touch. The current form is pretty useless.

The INdex was ironically a better codex probably. I loved the crazy turn one shenanigans. Seraphim were so useful in it. Just an entire line of absolutely screaming units up the field. Spent almost the entire game in the enemies front yard