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.
2019/07/02 15:35:37
Subject: Re:Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
I think that GW and many posters are missing the point of military-grade equipment. The whole point of engineering is to build effective equipment that can be maintained and produced in a reasonable manner.
Even building hundreds of millions of high quality suits would be trivial for an entity the size of the Imperium. You'd probably have to get to the trillions before scale becomes a problem.
2019/07/02 15:39:12
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Martel732 wrote: Even building hundreds of millions of high quality suits would be trivial for an entity the size of the Imperium.
The lore disagrees. Power armor is incredibly rare. That Sisters have power armor at all is a show of how wealthy the Imperial Cult is.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2019/07/02 15:47:29
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Yes yes yes, we have already learned that you hate the lore from your rants in the background section.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2019/07/02 16:02:30
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Martel732 wrote: I think that GW and many posters are missing the point of military-grade equipment. The whole point of engineering is to build effective equipment that can be maintained and produced in a reasonable manner.
Effective being the key.
Vandire certainly could have ordered armour twice the size, three times the weight, and probably ten times the cost for the sisters. But why have them stomping around smashing up the palace and running up the fuel and maintenance bills when you can have ten times as many bodyguards just as well armoured and have them shoot people with big guns and high-grade optics rather than trying to arm wrestle the space marines.
2019/07/02 16:14:36
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Actually, no. S4 and T4 for Marines are more biology than power armor. See also: Scout Marines, whom don't have power armor but are still S4/T4 (though IIRC scouts used to be S3? so you could argue that I suppose, but scout marines are still a world apart from normal humans even if both are S3).
The power armor primarily provides marines their armor save more than anything. For Sisters, it provides an armor save and the ability to carry heavier weapons without slowing them down (thus why a Retributor can carry a heavy bolter by themselves, where a common Guardsman needs a team to move and set their heavy bolter up quickly, and why Sisters commonly use weapons like bolt guns en masse).
Sisters can reach higher than a human's S3 with Acts of Faith, various kinds of power weapons, and so on. But their base should and will always be S3. But just because something is baseline S3 doesn't mean that it can't be good in close combat, because while the to-wound roll is important, there's more to the game than that-- if they have the possibility of many attacks that hit more frequently, for example, they can typically do better than you would expect an S3 unit to do in close combat. Or if they're given wider access to power weapons or other close combat boosters, for example, the option to purchase the Sarissa upgrade letting them reroll all to-wound rolls on the charge or something like that.
If that's true, that's REALLY dumb. A mechanical exosuit is probably stronger and tougher than a space marine. They are still just flesh and blood.
Ever notice how the power armored models carry their heavy weapons around, rather than carting them around on wheels or in teams? It's true that Souts carry a Heavy Bolter and a Missile Launcher, but they carry slightly smaller variants without the bonus ammunition packs.
Also, "flesh and blood" can be really strong. Chimpanzee's have muscles and bones far stronger than human muscles and bones. Maybe not "machine strong", but way stronger than humans.
Honestly on the D6 system there are only so many increments. we can argue all we want on the lore, but in game mechanic terms 4+ = 50% 3+ = 66%. there is no in between and lets be honest, in the fluff a marine is probably going to hit more than 66% of the time when aiming with a shot.
But from a game perspective you need profiles. If we moved to a D10 system then you could pull off more realistic. though I fear people would just still complain when some BS3+ models become BS4 and some 4 become BS5+ while otehrs stay the same. D12s would be even better, but I do hope if GW goes to either one that 2+ armor becomes rarer
10000 points 7000 6000 5000 5000 2000
2019/07/02 16:46:29
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Power Armor is not "Astartes armor". It's just "powered" armor. Imagine it in DnD terms, and stop thinking about it like Fallout.
You think it gives +2 to Strength, which it doesn't. It just gives +2 to THAC0.
It's not even Power Armor. This has been cleared up. Arbites, Sororitas, Justicars, and even Inquisitors don't have the same armor as Space Marines. For obvious reasons, the fluff states that non-astartes CANNOT wear Astartes Armor. Structurally, it's no different than a good set of Catachan Pectorals.
2019/07/02 16:48:04
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Oh, it's definitely powered armor. It is not merely heavy plates.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 16:49:58
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2019/07/02 17:01:49
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
The_Real_Chris wrote: I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers nor veterans that have survived where everyone else died. And very tough $+ troops would be a neat niche as opposed to tougher Scions.
Battle Sisters train at the Schola Progenium. That's the same place that turns out Stormtroopers, Commissars, Arbites, Officers, and Inquisitors. Every single Battle Sister goes through the same school as the most elite special forces available to the entire Astra Militarum. What in the world makes you say that they're not elite soldiers?
The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
2019/07/02 17:03:32
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's not even Power Armor. This has been cleared up. Arbites, Sororitas, Justicars, and even Inquisitors don't have the same armor as Space Marines.
That's not quite correct.
Marine armour is a void suit with significant internal equipment not present in most other suits of armour in addition to all of the radiation shielding and so on needed for use in space - nutrient recycling, blood filtering, significant environmental equipment, enough redundant systems to endure the damage a marine can survive, enough strength to enhance that of a marine significantly as well as carry all of the above along with the heavy exoskeleton, power cables and cooling, and extra ablative plates (and so on). Plus all the connections and electronics for the black carapace interface allowing the marines to use their superhuman reactions without having to wait for more mundane control sensors to catch up.
There is likely little difference between the actual outer armour skin of the astartes and sororitas power armour.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I am disappointed they are BS3+... Being neither elite soldiers nor veterans that have survived where everyone else died. And very tough $+ troops would be a neat niche as opposed to tougher Scions.
Look at the size of the scopes on those guns though :p
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 17:04:38
2019/07/02 17:10:12
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Ozomoto wrote: The fact that celestine can yolo into gunline armies to fight something up front, inevitably get knocked down, come back up and tag 2 tanks and mortars the same turn while flaming some infantry already puts her WORLDS apart from a dp who would just die to some basilisks or something.
You must have the new codex (or still be using the old index), because you are playing an entirely different celestine to me if she's yoloing unopposed into the opposing army and killing two tanks and change a turn.
She averages what, 4 wounds against a rhino?
In fairness I used the word 'tag as in to attach something unto another or refering to the game; either being 'touching' not killing which functionally kills tanks. Yes she is opposed; that IS my point about her durability in that a gunline opposes but cant kill her in one turn unlike something like a DP which they could overkill 6 times.
2019/07/02 17:14:22
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
A.T. wrote: There is likely little difference between the actual outer armour skin of the astartes and sororitas power armour.
Not quite. Sororitas power armor is capable of operating in the vacuum of space-- for a lesser amount of time of course, because of a difference in biology. It also does have strength-enhancing servos to allow wearing of the armor without slowing down, and operating heavy weapons without assistance. The helmet of the Sororitas is also designed with, and I quote, "full-spectrum filtering and psycho-oculal buffering" to help ensure that the wearer's mind is not overwhelmed by the little-c chaos of the battlefield.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2019/07/02 17:30:07
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
A.T. wrote: There is likely little difference between the actual outer armour skin of the astartes and sororitas power armour.
Not quite. Sororitas power armor is capable of operating in the vacuum of space-- for a lesser amount of time of course, because of a difference in biology. It also does have strength-enhancing servos to allow wearing of the armor without slowing down, and operating heavy weapons without assistance. The helmet of the Sororitas is also designed with, and I quote, "full-spectrum filtering and psycho-oculal buffering" to help ensure that the wearer's mind is not overwhelmed by the little-c chaos of the battlefield.
Sorry, I misread this.
Did you say the fluffy doober has fluff factor 5 fluffnosticators? And it can fluff in the fluff?
All stupid fluff babble aside, if we cannot agree that Astartes Power Armor is not the same as, and vastly superior to, Sisters armor, we desperately need to review the basics. SM Power Armor melds with the skin of it's wearer. The SM can "feel" the damage the armor takes. Each suit is a prized relic of it's chapter. Granted it's not Terminator armor, which is literally a holy relic now, it's not the same.
"Power" armor mass manufactured.
2019/07/02 17:32:38
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Did you say the fluffy doober has fluff factor 5 fluffnosticators? And it can fluff in the fluff?
Look, if you don't know anything about the lore, and you don't like the lore, then it'd behoove you to not debate it in the first place. All I was saying is that sororitas power armor is, in fact, power armor, defining power armor as a wearable powered exoskeleton with armor plates and other additional features.
The constant insinuations that it's not actually "power armor" is ignorance and continuing to push those insinuations breeds more ignorance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/02 17:35:29
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2019/07/02 17:37:38
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Apple Peel wrote: The Schola Progenium is Super Prep School. The Schola Tempestus makes Scions, the Schola Prefectus makes Commissars, the convents make Sisters, etc. The Schola Progenium makes physically and mentally and faithfully fit humans. If we are going to judge how elite a Sister is, then we need to examine the training Sisters receive at convents.
Okay, so they're soldiers who graduated from a prep school that turns out students for special forces colleges etc, and go on to train at fanatical warrior-cults? It's still absurd to claim that they're not elite.
2019/07/02 17:45:41
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
As for the training Sisters receive... they live almost like Marines do, actually. Their entire lives are dedicated to training, combat, prayer, and self-denial.
So very much a regimen of non-stop training from the moment they get to the convent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 17:46:06
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2019/07/02 17:47:30
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Power Armor is not "Astartes armor". It's just "powered" armor. Imagine it in DnD terms, and stop thinking about it like Fallout.
You think it gives +2 to Strength, which it doesn't. It just gives +2 to THAC0.
It's not even Power Armor. This has been cleared up. Arbites, Sororitas, Justicars, and even Inquisitors don't have the same armor as Space Marines. For obvious reasons, the fluff states that non-astartes CANNOT wear Astartes Armor. Structurally, it's no different than a good set of Catachan Pectorals.
Sororitas Power armour provides the same level of protection as Astartes armour - According to GW Inquisitors have access to superior - ie Artifcer armour than normal /Primaris Marines - According to GW
The effects and advantaes of the Black Carapace can be simulated by a hgh tech bodyglove - According to GW
However Marines are superhuman even before they don their armour - it just makes even more powerful
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
And B:
Well, what does the Strength characteristic mean? All it means for 40K purposes is "Strength in combat". Not strength in lifting, or carrying, or jumping. All it is is "how hard can it hit an opponent." There's plenty of room to have armor that's good at carrying and bearing the load of itself and the wearer, but it may not offer a whole lot in combat. It might be a bit slower, or less flexible. Having some restricted movement in hand to hand can make a big difference.
Want to give an infantryman the ability to carry a Lascannon along with it's battery pack? Use power armor.
Want pure hand to hand strength? Take a Power fist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 17:59:07
Is it possible that some machines are stronger than others? Is is possible that an exoskeleton would be more suited to lifting heavy loads than punching?
You don't have to answer. The answer to both questions is yes. Obviously.
Martel732 wrote: They could have more than one type of armor you know.
If Sisters were more then basically three models that were never updated by GW, yes that would be a very distinct possiblity. Who knows what GW will produce for them or what it will retcon in their upcomming release. They might have their own terminator armors afterall or a unique power armor suit that does special stuff or they might get nothing at all.
2019/07/02 18:14:30
Subject: Should Sisters of Battle be better at close combat?
Not all machines are "strong" in that regard. I've certainly made machines not strong enough to crack an egg.
Conversely, there's no reason a "non-machine" (read: living being) couldn't be that strong. The entire Nid and Ork races simply can't exist if that were true.
7000 
