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.

 Oguhmek wrote:
Hey rules team, how about fixing the random profile of the Doomsday Ark too, while you’re at it?

That's a recurrent complaint on the Facebook post, and as a Sisters of Battle player… I hope they fix it for the Doomsday Ark too!

i'm surprised theres nothing about flamers...does anyone run flamers in their Sisters list? I started sisters cause I enjoyed pyromaniac space nuns. These days its dakka nuns, which is cool but we need the pyro incentive. Kind of surprised Exorcists took the spotlight, I thought they were fine. Also, wtf is up with Repressors...so many questions. I appreciate the communication but there are still way to many questions still.

Edit: Gatta beg the question, rerelease exorcist kit, rules buff to sell models...sincerity obfuscation? How to Act Of Faith GW Rules team?

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
i'm surprised theres nothing about flamers...does anyone run flamers in their Sisters list? I started sisters cause I enjoyed pyromaniac space nuns. These days its dakka nuns, which is cool but we need the pyro incentive. Kind of surprised Exorcists took the spotlight, I thought they were fine. Also, wtf is up with Repressors...so many questions. I appreciate the communication but there are still way to many questions still.

Edit: Gatta beg the question, rerelease exorcist kit, rules buff to sell models...sincerity obfuscation? How to Act Of Faith GW Rules team?

Flamer range is 8". Most things that want to be in melee deepstrike outside of 9". If they get off the charge, the flamers aren't even useful. This is a big reason why flamers with longer range are so potent but those with only 8" range are ignored. To do the other function of flamers, chaff clearing, you actually have to get close to the chaff, which means footslogging it for most flamers.

 Chairman Aeon wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Beta Codex feedback and some misc news:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/04/battle-sister-bulletin-part-2-beta-rules-feedback/

I have to admit that's a solid article about the feedback they got and that they actually are listening to the fans. It almost sounds like playtesting.</heresy>

It doesn't really. Playtesting actually has solid data points and actionable items. 'Too random' is a quirky and subjective thing, where a lot of feedback is "in this one game, i only got one shot and it missed so model=borked."
30 seconds skimming the rules would produce much the same reaction, especially with any familiarity with how a lot of heavy weapons work in 8th edition.

On the other side, 'Redo from start' for the obvious things (and tellingly, _yet again_ for AoF and Celestians) is a bad thing at month 3 of the year when this army comes out. Given there is lead time needed at the other end for printing, distribution and all that kind of thing, the window for getting these rules right is shrinking. And these aren't unknown or new issues. The systems in the beta rules (that they sold for real money) aren't all that different from the last two iterations of the sister's rules.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I love how the act of faith rules are rebuilt from the ground up… in every iteration of the rules, even the smallest ones!
I'm worried that they didn't mention the (now completely useless, I think) Gemini but just because they didn't mention them doesn't mean they won't change them, I guess.

It's March if GW is planning to hit 2019 we have to assume the models are done and since the books are printed in China the PDF have to be due soon.

So I'd say they'd better get a move on...

Books are the ones that need to be done first and yes if they are aiming nov 2019 they have like 2-3 months to do it. Well gw rules don't get extensive testing anvway. Business as usual

I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Yeah I'm thinking that rumour that we'd get a Sisters vs Somebody Else boxed set this year and the actual release would be the first half of 2020 is sounding a lot more plausible now we know it's March and they've not got a final version of the codex yet.

Sisters vs Necrons!

Sanctuary-101 2: The Return of the Revenge!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Some are broken good, other are broken bad, Sisters players complain about the broken bad, the rest complain about the broken good.
Call me Nostradamus!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sisters vs Necrons!

Sanctuary-101 2: The Return of the Revenge!

How did you miss the opportunity to call it Sanctuary 102 ?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Meh, it's not like the beta codex will have any impact either. What GW is going to release and what they are willing to publicize before that time has precious little overlap.

And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How did you miss the opportunity to call it Sanctuary 102 ?

Because 101 2 is sillier.

 Geifer wrote:
And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

Yup, because new guns the CSM are getting now instead of autocannons and plasma guns and alternate build for defiler is sooo much better, eh?

 Geifer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Meh, it's not like the beta codex will have any impact either. What GW is going to release and what they are willing to publicize before that time has precious little overlap.

And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

So what exactly is the issue? That GW told us in advance that they're changing the worst issues the beta codex has?
Would you've preferred if they just didn't tell us anything? I really don't see how they could have done this in a way to please you. Show the planned actual rules only to be called liars, frauds and worse once the codex comes out because they had to change something in the meantime?

The beta Codex obviously has impact, or are you seriously thinking that they released a crappy AoF system with plans in place to replace it anyway?

 Irbis wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

Yup, because new guns the CSM are getting now instead of autocannons and plasma guns and alternate build for defiler is sooo much better, eh?

Too early to say at the moment... Wait until we see the full Chaos release

nekooni wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Meh, it's not like the beta codex will have any impact either. What GW is going to release and what they are willing to publicize before that time has precious little overlap.

And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

So what exactly is the issue? That GW told us in advance that they're changing the worst issues the beta codex has?
Would you've preferred if they just didn't tell us anything? I really don't see how they could have done this in a way to please you. Show the planned actual rules only to be called liars, frauds and worse once the codex comes out because they had to change something in the meantime?

The beta Codex obviously has impact, or are you seriously thinking that they released a crappy AoF system with plans in place to replace it anyway?

Nobody calls GW liars and frauds when they release an errata or beta rules that change an existing rule. But you think if GW were to release a beta codex, specifically called out as that, then people would suddenly do that when the actual codex includes changes from the beta codex? Stop being ridiculous.

My objection to the whole process, as I have stated before when they announced and released the beta codex, is that they let us play with units we have had for a long time, and that had rules for 8th ed and plenty of potential for customer feedback for eighteen months when the beta codex was released. Meanwhile we can expect that there will be new rules and units in the actual codex that no one sees until it is way, way too late to give feedback on. Really, Codex Adepta Sororitas will be no different from any other codex in spite of getting what GW markets as a beta test: We will have the full picture only once the codex is released, and any meaningful changes will happen afterwards in the biannual FAQs and Chapter Approved.

 Geifer wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Meh, it's not like the beta codex will have any impact either. What GW is going to release and what they are willing to publicize before that time has precious little overlap.

And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

So what exactly is the issue? That GW told us in advance that they're changing the worst issues the beta codex has?
Would you've preferred if they just didn't tell us anything? I really don't see how they could have done this in a way to please you. Show the planned actual rules only to be called liars, frauds and worse once the codex comes out because they had to change something in the meantime?

The beta Codex obviously has impact, or are you seriously thinking that they released a crappy AoF system with plans in place to replace it anyway?

Nobody calls GW liars and frauds when they release an errata or beta rules that change an existing rule. But you think if GW were to release a beta codex, specifically called out as that, then people would suddenly do that when the actual codex includes changes from the beta codex? Stop being ridiculous.

That's not what I said. I said that if they promised a certain change in the ARTICLE that people would get upset if they then had rules different from that in the finished codex.

If you don't like the whole process, that's another thing. Your point about potential new units not being playtested since they're not in the beta Codex is absolutely valid and I agree with you on that.

 Geifer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Meh, it's not like the beta codex will have any impact either. What GW is going to release and what they are willing to publicize before that time has precious little overlap.

And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

Honestly, after it came out, it seems more of a play test for things like AoF, warlord traits, and Covenants.

nekooni wrote:

Spoiler:

 Geifer wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder what all the new units no one got to playtest will end up being.

Meh, it's not like the beta codex will have any impact either. What GW is going to release and what they are willing to publicize before that time has precious little overlap.

And given that time is running out for rules corrections I suspect they picked the points of criticism for this article that they already intended to change in the real codex to make themselves look good because when people have the codex they can then point to an article from six months earlier and say "yes, see, GW did listen to our concerns. My Exorcist shoots 2D3 missiles now. Granted,the alternate build of the new kit is still so much better, but they did improve the Exorcist, too!"

So what exactly is the issue? That GW told us in advance that they're changing the worst issues the beta codex has?
Would you've preferred if they just didn't tell us anything? I really don't see how they could have done this in a way to please you. Show the planned actual rules only to be called liars, frauds and worse once the codex comes out because they had to change something in the meantime?

The beta Codex obviously has impact, or are you seriously thinking that they released a crappy AoF system with plans in place to replace it anyway?

Nobody calls GW liars and frauds when they release an errata or beta rules that change an existing rule. But you think if GW were to release a beta codex, specifically called out as that, then people would suddenly do that when the actual codex includes changes from the beta codex? Stop being ridiculous.

That's not what I said. I said that if they promised a certain change in the ARTICLE that people would get upset if they then had rules different from that in the finished codex.

If you don't like the whole process, that's another thing. Your point about potential new units not being playtested since they're not in the beta Codex is absolutely valid and I agree with you on that.

My apologies. I completely misread that.

I will say that if that had happened, it would be completely on GW. No one pressured them into releasing this specific article at this time and in its current form. If they wanted to speak of what we can expect in the codex, it could have been as simple as saying in one article that the playtest period is over with a promise of a followup article detailing the highlights, and only releasing that article when they've finalized the document that will hit the printers. No room for false information then.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So you'd prefer they did nothing? I'm glad they're at least trying.

I'd prefer they
1) Were competent to begin with - it is literally the job of the rules team to write rules. They shouldn't require us to tell them that Celestians are rubbish.
2) Communicated meaningful information. We learn nothing from this 'article'.

Out of the options available we have the best one and while they haven't said much it's not like they can tell us everything they think of.

 ceorron wrote:
If GW is looking for inspiration for Sisters I am reminded of my new SOB design I did for them in 2011.

Drew that with one hand, did you? Not bad.

Stop encouraging him!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Stop encouraging him!

Indeed. This is so wrong.

There should be pistons and servos connecting the torso and boots to preserve the functionality of her power armor.

Tyel wrote:
Seemed like a reasonable article to me.

People don't like AoF being random. Okay, they can make them guaranteed, but probably expect them to be nerfed in some way.

People don't like the Exorcist. Okay - I don't know here, I think they are just wrong. Its a D6-dark lance tank with T8 and a 6++ (buffable) save for just 125 points. Yes you can roll a 1 and thats bad. You can also roll a 6 and its a bit good. If they were to make it always 4 shots, compare it to a quad-las Pred, costing approximately 50% more points with far weaker defensive stats. I realise a Pred is dreadful - but seriously. I can't really see why now you wouldn't always have 3 exorcists in a sisters list.

And yes, Celestians are currently a bit pointless. I'd have thought they were obviously on the table for an overhaul if/when they get new models. I can't believe they are going to go "here's a kit, use it to make sisters, celestians, dominions and retributors, because thats what we came up with in 2nd or 3rd edition and we are not changing it now".

Ha! Like they could nerf AoF more than they already did! That's funny. Any more nerfed, and we might as well not have the rules! What, +1" to move instead! Reroll 6's to hit! Cause a mortal wound to your own model if you fail the heal roll!

Pleasestop wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyel wrote:
Seemed like a reasonable article to me.

People don't like AoF being random. Okay, they can make them guaranteed, but probably expect them to be nerfed in some way.

People don't like the Exorcist. Okay - I don't know here, I think they are just wrong. Its a D6-dark lance tank with T8 and a 6++ (buffable) save for just 125 points. Yes you can roll a 1 and thats bad. You can also roll a 6 and its a bit good. If they were to make it always 4 shots, compare it to a quad-las Pred, costing approximately 50% more points with far weaker defensive stats. I realise a Pred is dreadful - but seriously. I can't really see why now you wouldn't always have 3 exorcists in a sisters list.

And yes, Celestians are currently a bit pointless. I'd have thought they were obviously on the table for an overhaul if/when they get new models. I can't believe they are going to go "here's a kit, use it to make sisters, celestians, dominions and retributors, because thats what we came up with in 2nd or 3rd edition and we are not changing it now".

Ha! Like they could nerf AoF more than they already did! That's funny. Any more nerfed, and we might as well not have the rules! What, +1" to move instead! Reroll 6's to hit! Cause a mortal wound to your own model if you fail the heal roll!

Careful, that sounds like a challenge GW might just accept.

 ceorron wrote:
If GW is looking for inspiration for Sisters I am reminded of my new SOB design I did for them in 2011.

Well done. GW should hire you on the spot.

 ceorron wrote:
If GW is looking for inspiration for Sisters I am reminded of my new SOB design I did for them in 2011.

Knees aren't right. 2/10, would not deploy.

More news:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/18/battle-sister-bulletin-3-the-charactersgw-homepage-post-4/

What is that, chest plate without certain controversial bit? Did warp freeze over?

I think that is the first sheathed chainsword I have ever seen.

 Irbis wrote:
More news:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/18/battle-sister-bulletin-3-the-charactersgw-homepage-post-4/

What is that, chest plate without certain controversial bit? Did warp freeze over?

Any chance of a rehost on the image? I can see Dakka, but not the community site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nm hopped on mobile. I dig it