Sisters of Battle 2019 Codex Tactics

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.

**dracpanzer**

Have we seen any of the changes to overwatch yet? Bit too early to judge on tagging vehicles and the like without that. We're also not sure how the tanks getting tanky again changes work. Unless they have previewed those changes (as far as I have seen they haven't). For all we know we could have tanks firing overwatch everytime they are charged even when they are in b2b.

**tneva82**

dracpanzer wrote:
Have we seen any of the changes to overwatch yet? Bit too early to judge on tagging vehicles and the like without that. We're also not sure how the tanks getting tanky again changes work. Unless they have previewed those changes (as far as I have seen they haven't). For all we know we could have tanks firing overwatch everytime they are charged even when they are in b2b.

Unless they change rules dramatically there's one thing. To overwatch you first need to be charged. If opponent doesn't declare charge then no overwatch.

Nobody gives you overwatch with non flying tank if they can't soak up it unless your tank is like over 15" away from rest of your army. That's quite a distance you need to keep gap between(and even 15" doesn't do anything if opponent has something like hormagaunts. Then you need more like 30" gap)

**davidgr33n**

davidgr33n wrote:

I think 9th is going to be driven more by CP / stratagems and their effectiveness. Therefore I think GW will use CP to dis-incentivize using nothing but “elite” type builds.

My theory is all lists will start with 20 CP (100 pts per CP).
Battalions and Super-heavy Knight Detachments will neither cost nor add CP to the total.
Brigades will ADD 5 CP to the list total.
“Other” detachments will subtract 2 CP per detachment.
Detachments of a different Faction from the first detachment will subtract 2 CP per.

So a pure brigade detachment would start with 25 CP whereas an “elite” type force of Space Marines with 3 “other” detachments would start off with 14 CP, and if one of those was, say, a Custodes detachment, then they’d start with 12 CP.

I think the 13 CP difference in the brigade is enough incentive for those builds, which can “rev up” their “lower-performing” units so that they can be competitive vs the all-elite builds.

Just my guess.

Well I was off but kinda figured detachments would cost CP. So much for taking what you want - you can - at the cost of CP.
I was using dual battalions but with the 2nd battalion now costing 3CP I’ll be reworking my list. And now that most units will go up in points cost it will be harder to fit in a brigade plus small detachment.
8th was the edition for battalions / brigades. This edition will see mostly a core battalion with single vanguard/spearhead/outriders

I like to take relics, and with reserves now costing CP this new system is actually a major NERF for my previous lists. Oh well

**jivardi**

If you can build an army with 1 detachment, you are going to have MORE CP than in 8th. much more.
Brigade/double battalion are going to have about as much CP as they currently do, but a bit more spread out.
Battalion+speciailst are currently an unknown, probably same spot like brigade and double.
Superheavy armies (knights etc) are a total unknown on CP stance.
Triple detachments are going to see a massive CP decrease.

In a 2k game a brigade of Sisters will be 12 CP (minus the pre-game CP usage) and you generate 1 CP per command phase.

**davidgr33n**

Yes but competitive lists had 2 detachments (bloody rose and valorous heart). My 2 battalions with less constraints gave me 13 CP to now 9 CP with MORE RESTRAINTS

**alextroy**

Now you need to pay for the extra power you gain form having two orders in your army rather than it being a bonus. Seems fair to me. The question will be how much will the various detachments cost. It may be better to slightly adjust your list and have a Battalion plus Patrol or Vanguard depending on the CP cost and the units you want. It's not like you'll need a second Battalion for the CP anymore.

**U02dah4**

Seems horrendous. I was looking at a brigade and a outrider and a fortification before (i love the battle sanctum it just looks cool)

Totalling 16 CP That now become 6CP+1 per turn.

Even if you ditch the outrider that still becomes 9+1 a turn which just isnt viable and is also a substantial nerf

Im not opposed to paying for extra detatchments but the cost is way to high.

The only thing i would point out is that at 2001pts you get +6CP and that puts the list construction variability back in the game.

I will definitely be suggesting that to my local TO's and would recommend others do the same.

**jivardi**

Me personally, I have no interest in dual battalion as I intend to run my Repentia as VH (sacrilege I know but Repentia hit hard enough without needing a boost to offense). VH does my Repentia no good but meh, if I want to play an army with badass melee units I'll start building a WE army.

Not to mention we still don't have even 25% of the rules yet. We honestly have it fairly easy. Sisters don't NEED dual battalions, Repentia do just fine without the buff. Some armies need soup to be competetive, Sisters don't.

**U02dah4**

jivardi wrote:
If you can build an army with 1 detachment, you are going to have MORE CP than in 8th. much more.
Brigade/double battalion are going to have about as much CP as they currently do, but a bit more spread out.
Battalion+speciailst are currently an unknown, probably same spot like brigade and double.
Superheavy armies (knights etc) are a total unknown on CP stance.
Triple detachments are going to see a massive CP decrease.

In a 2k game a brigade of Sisters will be 12 CP (minus the pre-game CP usage) and you generate 1 CP per command phase.

Not really most 1 detatchment armies in 8th were brigades

12CP+3 = 15CP at 2000pts 12CP +1 per turn means you don't get more till turn 4 and so one or two more in the late game is hardly loads. The only lists that will have substantially more are the heavy skew lists like mono knights that are usually the least fun. Anyone hitting a second detatchment has a subbstantial reduction.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

As to the above i aree sisters can play mono brigade better than other armies so its in sisters favour but.... its bad for the game as a whole

**jivardi**

U02dah4 wrote:
Seems horrendous. I was looking at a brigade and a outrider and a fortification before (i love the battle sanctum it just looks cool)

Totalling 16 CP That now become 6CP+1 per turn.

Even if you ditch the outrider that still becomes 9+1 a turn which just isnt viable and is also a substantial nerf

Im not opposed to paying for extra detatchments but the cost is way to high.

The only thing i would point out is that at 2001pts you get +6CP and that puts the list construction variability back in the game.

I will definitely be suggesting that to my local TO's and would recommend others do the same.

Where are you losing 10CP at? The Parent detachment is free so long as your Warlord is in it. I doubt very much Fortification and Outrider detachments cost 5 CP/detachment. I'm guessing it's 1 Cp for each so you would be at 10CP to start and then 1 per turn so by turn 4 you would have 14 if you banked them (of course nobody sits on CP's for 4 turns but that's besides the point). With points increases to most units in the game what you could fit in 3 detachments in 8th might struggle in 9th.

Not to mention every army out there has the same Detachment system. Some armies are going to be hurt more by the CP change, some less. Sisters have it easy for the most part.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
jivardi wrote:
If you can build an army with 1 detachment, you are going to have MORE CP than in 8th. much more.
Brigade/double battalion are going to have about as much CP as they currently do, but a bit more spread out.
Battalion+speciailst are currently an unknown, probably same spot like brigade and double.
Superheavy armies (knights etc) are a total unknown on CP stance.
Triple detachments are going to see a massive CP decrease.

In a 2k game a brigade of Sisters will be 12 CP (minus the pre-game CP usage) and you generate 1 CP per command phase.

Not really most 1 detatchment armies in 8th were brigades

12CP+3 = 15CP at 2000pts 12CP +1 per turn means you don't get more till turn 4 and so one or two more in the late game is hardly loads. The only lists that will have substantially more are the heavy skew lists like mono knights that are usually the least fun. Anyone hitting a second detatchment has a subbstantial reduction.

In my LGS I only ever seen the sole IG player field a Brigade, everyone else took Battalions for mono detachment armies.

Perhaps GW is trying to get people to rely less on Stratagems without just jerking the rug out from the players and saying "haha, you bought those data cards and photocopied all those stratagems and bought the PA books. Now we are going to take all that away and make you go back to the pre-stratagem days.

To say that the new system is bad for the game as a whole having seen only 25% or so of the rules is premature. We don't know ALL of the minutia of how Force org works or how detachments work nor CP cost for detachments or how missions interact with army construction.

GW could have just reverted back to 3rd edition 40k where we all play the same force organization of 1 HQ, 2 Troops mandatory without being able to expand. Some reigning in of "soup" armies is present in 9th but you still have a choice. If you want more CP play mono detachment for more CP's allowing more neat "tricks" to be used to make up some power shortages; if you need absolute power to crush your opponent min/max your detachments to game your army list to have more power base but less tricks to play with. Sounds kind of fair if you ask me. An army relying on tons of stratagems to deal damage with lots of CP to do it VS an army with very little CP but theoretically more powerful without the need for stratagems.

Not sure how that's a bad thing?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
jivardi wrote:
If you can build an army with 1 detachment, you are going to have MORE CP than in 8th. much more.
Brigade/double battalion are going to have about as much CP as they currently do, but a bit more spread out.
Battalion+speciailst are currently an unknown, probably same spot like brigade and double.
Superheavy armies (knights etc) are a total unknown on CP stance.
Triple detachments are going to see a massive CP decrease.

In a 2k game a brigade of Sisters will be 12 CP (minus the pre-game CP usage) and you generate 1 CP per command phase.

Not really most 1 detatchment armies in 8th were brigades

12CP+3 = 15CP at 2000pts 12CP +1 per turn means you don't get more till turn 4 and so one or two more in the late game is hardly loads. The only lists that will have substantially more are the heavy skew lists like mono knights that are usually the least fun. Anyone hitting a second detatchment has a subbstantial reduction.

As to the above i aree sisters can play mono brigade better than other armies so its in sisters favour but.... its bad for the game as a whole

**tneva82**

Reducing the cp batteries and multi klan/order/regiment/whatever free bonus min maxing is good for the game.

As is reducing stratagems so if this results in less CP actually it's fine. Stratagems are just annoying crutch 8th ed created.

**U02dah4**

Definitely not. It promotes skewlists. The biggest gainers are mono knight type lists. I have no problem with multi klan although i dont obect to a charge for the privalidge 25% CP is too much.

It also severly impacts flexibility not maybe in sisters but it hits double detatchments of the same faction just as much - looking at my other infantry guard army.

**Spoletta**

Multi subfaction lists have always been one of my most hated aspects of 8th. I'm quite glad to see it gone.

I will play a Bloody Rose brigade.

**U02dah4**

Yes 99% will pla bloody rose or valourous heart and goodbye to list variety

**davidgr33n**

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes 99% will pla bloody rose or valourous heart and goodbye to list variety

Exactly!! So much for GW’s statement “take the army you want to take not the army you have to take.”

Mono detachments, contrary to many opinions out there, will only serve to keep the best units that can be fit into that ONE DETACHMENT, elite armies will see some variety within their sole detachments, but horde style armies will be cut and paste across competitive 40k

**jivardi**

What variety? 2 Orders fielded. Yeah, only the same 2 Orders being used in some form or fashion by the competitive AS players shows lots of "variety".

People wanting to play the other Orders or create their own are going to do so regardless of what 9th edition does to army construction.

People "soup" armies to fill weaknesses in their army. Why can't an army have a weakness? 8th edition rewarded people for running multiple detachments to cover weaknesses while mono detachment armies had to deal with weak spots AND got fewer CP's to start with.

Now, multi-detachment armies get penalized for covering those same weaknesses they got rewarded for in 8th edition while not penalizing the players who want to stick to one clan/faction/whatever.

If I take a single Brigade of AS of the VH order and my opponent takes a multi-battalion force of AS of VH/BR to make his Repentia and Cannoness better than mine he pays a tax to have better Repentia and I get more starting CP because my Repentia "aren't as good".

Seems to me it's a more fair system.

**U02dah4**

the problem is not that there is a tax its that the tax is so high its prohibitive

**davidgr33n**

@jivardi

“Seems to me more of a fair system.”

Basically be more restrictive to those armies that could get more variety since those factions that can’t / don’t need to (Marines) aren’t at a “disadvantage”.

Ok so less variety- but that goes against the whole premise presented by GW early on “take the army you want to take not the one you have to take”.

**jivardi**

You can still take the army you want. Will it do well competitively? Probably not but people playing to WAAC don't give a crap about taking what they want, they take what wins.

I don't understand why soup armies should have their cake, eat it too and get free seconds while mono detachment/codex armies get taken advantage of because they dropped the soap in the shower and didn't have it attached to a rope.

Stratagems are a crutch mechanic. I like stratagems but I think there are too many and used too often. I actually would have preferred that stratagems be capped to no more than 2 per turn but I know some would whine about that.

People armies did just fine without stratagems in the past and with limited force orgs in the past. Does this change hurt every army out there more than SM? Sure but anybody who's played 40k long enough knows that SM will always be GW's favorite, right or wrong.

There were a couple of guys at my LGS who were concerned with the changes. We discussed it and I got them to see some rationale behind the changes and neither of them play SM or AS, the 2 armies affected the least by the changes.

Back on topic I think I might bump a few 5 gal Battle squads to 10. Objectives in cover being held by 10 girls with +1 armor save (assuming that mechanic stays) ignoring ap -1 and -2 weapons will be hard to shift and sacrificing some bolter shots to perform an objective taking action isn't all that big of a sacrifice. Might be best to take plain, naked Sisters for that purpose as I don't think MSU is going to fair well in 9th (just a gut feeling).

**Jancoran**

davidgr33n wrote:
Yes but competitive lists had 2 detachments (bloody rose and valorous heart). My 2 battalions with less constraints gave me 13 CP to now 9 CP with MORE RESTRAINTS

That was then. the new reality is here and the enemy has the same reality which makes "used to need 2 battalions" sort of irrelevant.

I think it will be a lot of command points ofr a lot of armies, more than before.

**alextroy**

U02dah4 wrote:
the problem is not that there is a tax its that the tax is so high its prohibitive

Really? You know the CP cost for a Patrol? How about an Vanguard? Or a Spearhead?

List are going to change. The amount of CP your list has is going to change. The points value of your models is going to change. How about waiting for enough information before deciding the sky is falling.

I, for one, welcome the reduction of multi-sub-faction armies that exist purely to cherry pick the best bonuses and garner extra CP. The fact of those coming at a cost rather than as a bonus is a good thing.

**MacPhail**

Obviously there a lot of detail missing, but I suspect the the hammer and anvil list of BR & VH will be strong enough to justify the extra CP, and it'll be worth it to see the end of the Loyal 32 in knight lists and a handful of others. Mono BR and VH lists will hold up well... but I dont see any other mono lists stepping forward.

**ZergSmasher**

All this discussion is why, as I'm building my Sisters collection from the ground up, I'll be waiting to purchase anything more until I have the 9th edition rulebook (and any army-specific errata/points changes/etc.) in my hands.

**Jancoran**

ZergSmasher wrote:
All this discussion is why, as I'm building my Sisters collection from the ground up, I'll be waiting to purchase anything more until I have the 9th edition rulebook (and any army-specific errata/points changes/etc.) in my hands.

That is sensible.

**Jancoran**

Big srgument erupted about the new mTt size. We are going to try it without any premeasure and deep strikes a re back baby.

Lookin forward to it.We should do a bat rep. We just want to see how well it plays whenyou must use your senses to guestimate distances and make bold decisiona.

**jivardi**

I doubt very much pre-measuring is gone from 9th and deep strikes exist now so not sure why you are saying deep strikes are back.

DS scatter was stupid because every army had something to guarantee on point deep strikes so it was good 8th got rid of scatter since it very rarely came into play.

I doubt table size is going to be a big issue. I'll find out Thursday if I can get some games in that day.

**tneva82**

Premeasuring gone has to be most ridiculous speculation i have yet heard. And would be particularly stupid. And there's no guessieg involved anyway. Nobody guessed anything when preameasuring was not a thing. If you couldn't figure out within 0.5" you were pretty much quaranteed noob.

Game should be about actual tactics than who can "guess" to like 0.2" accuracy over 0.3"

**Jancoran**

We practiced eliminating premeasuring today. It was...GREAT. So much less wasted time. Also we used the old Deep Striking rules. Also: great. So much faster.

**Mr Morden**

Jancoran wrote:
We practiced eliminating premeasuring today. It was...GREAT. So much less wasted time. Also we used the old Deep Striking rules. Also: great. So much faster.

In various games, in various systems, across the decades Pre-measuring was the thing that has saved the most time and stopped frustartion, cheating and arguments.

**tneva82**

Yeah. Do you want to quickly measure or slowly "guess"(read calculate) it. Either way end result is same. Just more time wasted and more cheating and arquments added.

Before premeasuring was allowed nobody guessed anyway. Nothing changed except it got faster and less source of arguments.