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.

For Celestine and her Geminaes. I assuming that they count as a character unit and I'm sure people have discussed this already. For the secondary assassinate, they would give up 9 pts for that secondary right or could it be more for the resurrected Geminaes? Because the secondary counts each character model, not unit. This seems very risky to have Celestine in your army.

Probably needs an FAQ because I think this is our first book with character units.

Assassinate is at the end of the game, so it doesn't matter how many times you kill the Geminae and how many times they get rezzed, it's 9 points max. And it's definitely 9 points, there's no doubt about that. No FAQ needed. Each character is 3 points, not each character unit.

I really don't think it's much of a risk though; between her healing to full every turn and rezzing a Geminae and character protection and the coming back to life the first time she dies on a 2+ as well, it takes a *lot* to kill her dead for good, to the point where taking assassinate is probably a trap unless you have a bunch of crappy buff characters for them to hoover up too.

 christianA wrote:
For Celestine and her Geminaes. I assuming that they count as a character unit and I'm sure people have discussed this already. For the secondary assassinate, they would give up 9 pts for that secondary right or could it be more for the resurrected Geminaes? Because the secondary counts each character model, not unit. This seems very risky to have Celestine in your army.

Not a big deal. She's almost impossible to kill in 5 turns if you're not an idiot about using her.
If anything she becomes a trap for opponents who don't know her rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Probably needs an FAQ because I think this is our first book with character units.

The rules specifically spells out that only final deaths count. Guerilla miniatures video is clear enough to read it if you want verification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Assassinate is at the end of the game, so it doesn't matter how many times you kill the Geminae and how many times they get rezzed, it's 9 points max. And it's definitely 9 points, there's no doubt about that. No FAQ needed. Each character is 3 points, not each character unit.

I really don't think it's much of a risk though; between her healing to full every turn and rezzing a Geminae and character protection and the coming back to life the first time she dies on a 2+ as well, it takes a *lot* to kill her dead for good, to the point where taking assassinate is probably a trap unless you have a bunch of crappy buff characters for them to hoover up too.

Deepstrike her too. If you go second that would mean your opponent would have to kill her 2 times in 3 turns.

Good luck.

Thanks for the clarification on Assassinate.

EDIT: Thought I found a dumb combo but on further reading GW capped it so it's not a problem.

ERJAK wrote:

Deepstrike her too. If you go second that would mean your opponent would have to kill her 2 times in 3 turns.

Good luck.

It's even harder to kill her than that, because she also qualifies for the strat that pulls her up off the table to be redeployed the following movement phase. Realistically, it's almost impossible for her to die unless you deliberately suicide her.

yukishiro1 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Deepstrike her too. If you go second that would mean your opponent would have to kill her 2 times in 3 turns.

Good luck.

It's even harder to kill her than that, because she also qualifies for the strat that pulls her up off the table to be redeployed the following movement phase. Realistically, it's almost impossible for her to die unless you deliberately suicide her.

Oh, she's also immune to damage one.

Because this is a great book!

ERJAK wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Deepstrike her too. If you go second that would mean your opponent would have to kill her 2 times in 3 turns.

Good luck.

It's even harder to kill her than that, because she also qualifies for the strat that pulls her up off the table to be redeployed the following movement phase. Realistically, it's almost impossible for her to die unless you deliberately suicide her.

Oh, she's also immune to damage one.

Because this is a great book!

Dead Sea called, it wants its salt back.

If typos are the worst we have to legitimately complain about then this book is easily of GW's better written ones hands down.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Deepstrike her too. If you go second that would mean your opponent would have to kill her 2 times in 3 turns.

Good luck.

It's even harder to kill her than that, because she also qualifies for the strat that pulls her up off the table to be redeployed the following movement phase. Realistically, it's almost impossible for her to die unless you deliberately suicide her.

Oh, she's also immune to damage one.

Because this is a great book!

Dead Sea called, it wants its salt back.

If typos are the worst we have to legitimately complain about then this book is easily of GW's better written ones hands down.

If only.

Complaining about GW's inability to proofread is totally valid. This is a company worth billions. It's beyond embarrassing that they can't manage to hire a competent proofreader, and it says relevant things about their general competence that they can't manage what organizations tens or hundreds of times smaller than them have no trouble with. You can say it's just errors so who cares, but it really isn't - these are premium products at a premium price tag, there is no excuse for something so simple as not being able to proofread.

GW's ability to proofread (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to a discussion of SISTERS OF BATTLE TACTICS. Please take these side discussions to another thread.

Anyways, what loadouts do we all think are best for the Paragon Warsuits? I'm leaning toward meltas, as those have proven very successful in Sisters lists in the past, and I think the swords are better than the maces despite the lower damage. Playstyle-wise I think we have to think of them as our Terminator-analogs rather than vehicles, and I don't think I'd go for more than one unit in a list to receive the reroll buff from Morvenn.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Complaining about GW's inability to proofread is totally valid. This is a company worth billions. It's beyond embarrassing that they can't manage to hire a competent proofreader, and it says relevant things about their general competence that they can't manage what organizations tens or hundreds of times smaller than them have no trouble with. You can say it's just errors so who cares, but it really isn't - these are premium products at a premium price tag, there is no excuse for something so simple as not being able to proofread.

I mean it's valid, but I've seen errors in military documents and they have a budget far and beyond what GW dreams it could have. I've seen professionally published novels by big name authors with spelling errors. This stuff happens even with proofreaders, editors, and budgets far larger thrown at projects than GW allocates to their dev teams.

So yes, complaining is valid, but so is pointing out that it's not really as uncommon for mistakes to slip into nearly every work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
GW's ability to proofread (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to a discussion of SISTERS OF BATTLE TACTICS. Please take these side discussions to another thread.

Anyways, what loadouts do we all think are best for the Paragon Warsuits? I'm leaning toward meltas, as those have proven very successful in Sisters lists in the past, and I think the swords are better than the maces despite the lower damage. Playstyle-wise I think we have to think of them as our Terminator-analogs rather than vehicles, and I don't think I'd go for more than one unit in a list to receive the reroll buff from Morvenn.

I'd lean towards Heavy Bolters or Flamers myself. Meltas bring them up to 90ppm and being able to start tagging stuff at range seems better for them (flamers would be for more of an ambush bully role).

Or if you're feeling silly, take a flamer and two multi meltas and keep storm bolters on them and then use the Holy Trinity strat.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
GW's ability to proofread (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to a discussion of SISTERS OF BATTLE TACTICS. Please take these side discussions to another thread.

Anyways, what loadouts do we all think are best for the Paragon Warsuits? I'm leaning toward meltas, as those have proven very successful in Sisters lists in the past, and I think the swords are better than the maces despite the lower damage. Playstyle-wise I think we have to think of them as our Terminator-analogs rather than vehicles, and I don't think I'd go for more than one unit in a list to receive the reroll buff from Morvenn.

Its valid when those failures turn a unit into 240 points per model instead of 240 points for the unit

yukishiro1 wrote:
Complaining about GW's inability to proofread is totally valid. This is a company worth billions. It's beyond embarrassing that they can't manage to hire a competent proofreader, and it says relevant things about their general competence that they can't manage what organizations tens or hundreds of times smaller than them have no trouble with. You can say it's just errors so who cares, but it really isn't - these are premium products at a premium price tag, there is no excuse for something so simple as not being able to proofread.

Then don't buy from them, they know they can get away with it because there's really is no competition. They don't have to improve or develop better products. People will keep buying from them like a bunch of animals. I ask you why do they need to improve from their perspective. People will buy regardless of almost anything they do.

I've got a question; does the exorcist's conflagration rockets counts as flame weapons? I was thinking about the secondaries, slay the heretic (destroy one unit with melta, bolt and flame weapon, score one point per each and bonus point for all).

Conflag rockers aren't anything, unfortunately.

I've been reflecting a lot on this book. Initially I was pretty bummed, but I've come around.

I think that if you're comparing it to Admech or DE, even DG, you have to remember that those books got minimal/no weapon profile changes when the Space Marine book came out, whereas Sisters got changes to heavy bolters, flamers and MM.

If this codex had brought us new MM along with it, I don't think anyone would be feel like the Retributor changes were an issue at all, likewise if we were getting 4 inch range and 1str on all flamers with this book people would be delighted.

40k tank issues and Paragon suits aside, I think it's a really good book.

 warmaster21 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
GW's ability to proofread (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to a discussion of SISTERS OF BATTLE TACTICS. Please take these side discussions to another thread.

Anyways, what loadouts do we all think are best for the Paragon Warsuits? I'm leaning toward meltas, as those have proven very successful in Sisters lists in the past, and I think the swords are better than the maces despite the lower damage. Playstyle-wise I think we have to think of them as our Terminator-analogs rather than vehicles, and I don't think I'd go for more than one unit in a list to receive the reroll buff from Morvenn.

Its valid when those failures turn a unit into 240 points per model instead of 240 points for the unit

Play PL or Crusade, and laugh. They're probably a steal at 13PL for the unit of 3 if we're really going to operate under the assumption that they start at 720 points for a squad of 3.

Won't ever touch PL. I think tying certain mechanics to PL for matched play is a horrible idea and completely soured on it with my first game of 8th. Tested the beta-dex against Slaanesh daemons. Mission ended up being meat grinder and I was the attacker because I had almost double his PL despite is both playing 1500 points.

If my opponent had played the mission instead of the game, he would have won handily because I don't think I ever could have caught his units and my only means of victory per the mission was to destroy all of his units.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
GW's ability to proofread (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to a discussion of SISTERS OF BATTLE TACTICS. Please take these side discussions to another thread.

Anyways, what loadouts do we all think are best for the Paragon Warsuits? I'm leaning toward meltas, as those have proven very successful in Sisters lists in the past, and I think the swords are better than the maces despite the lower damage. Playstyle-wise I think we have to think of them as our Terminator-analogs rather than vehicles, and I don't think I'd go for more than one unit in a list to receive the reroll buff from Morvenn.

Multi-Meltas on several squads could be interesting in a walker heavy army...

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:


Vahl will swamp Tourneys, then 100% be hit hard with the nerf hammer, repeatedly, within months, probably to the point she ends up not worth taking at all (because boy is it hard to properly price a unit with absolutely no downsides with which you can use to justify adjusting the final point cost downward a bit, including disadvantages like being limited to a overall lower strength Order/subfaction). Meanwhile Retributors losing both the Strategem AND not being able to move and fire Heavy Weapons without penalty (which any Devastator-style unit should have, IMO) can now only be compensated by point costs after the Codex release, and they are already down to 12 points per model, while the writers are extremely unlikely to change the price of something as common as "Multi-Melta" because it affects too many units in the Codex, so what is going to happen, another singular -1 point drop per model?

Or the poor Exorcist. It would have to drop a huge amount of points to compensate for:
1) -1 Toughness, despite being a very expensive direct fire tank
2) -1 Nerf to AP
3) - No CORE, so pretty much most Aura buffs being out.
Will that happen? Probably not, because GW seems to be overvaluating battle tanks a lot this Edition and not consider how much of a nerf not being CORE is. We'll probably get like a -5 or -10 point cost adjustment and that's it.
Meanwhile Seraphim can be happy they have Hand Flamers as an option (and that they are getting buffed with S4 and the previously Ebon Chalice Strat. becoming general issue), because boy would they be dead without it.

As an outsider (one who started to collect and build sisters but hasn't had a chance to play a game with them), I thought the whole Retributor move and shoot and boosted range strat was just a crutch anyway. There was no reason it should exist, it's just a devastator unit that even comes with a second cherub.

Feel the same about the Exorcist too. It's a rhino chassis so T7 seems correct. Missiles are generally AP-2. So, it's pretty much spot on....but it does need a points drop for sure.

Vehicles existing in a Multi-melta/Dark lance world just doesn't make sense competitively anymore, which is a shame, especially if T7. This will only be worse when Craftworld brightlances get the same treatment. MMs need a points kick and DL should have been D6 with min damage of 3. Automatically doing 4-6 damage with such a cheap weapon is a little bonkers, especially since the platforms are generally hard to kill too.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the codex with a set of fresh eyes and seeing which way to go with my sisters. Regardless of abilities, I will still roll with the 2 Immolators and single Exorcist I have built simply because they are some of my favourite sister models.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:


Vahl will swamp Tourneys, then 100% be hit hard with the nerf hammer, repeatedly, within months, probably to the point she ends up not worth taking at all (because boy is it hard to properly price a unit with absolutely no downsides with which you can use to justify adjusting the final point cost downward a bit, including disadvantages like being limited to a overall lower strength Order/subfaction). Meanwhile Retributors losing both the Strategem AND not being able to move and fire Heavy Weapons without penalty (which any Devastator-style unit should have, IMO) can now only be compensated by point costs after the Codex release, and they are already down to 12 points per model, while the writers are extremely unlikely to change the price of something as common as "Multi-Melta" because it affects too many units in the Codex, so what is going to happen, another singular -1 point drop per model?

Or the poor Exorcist. It would have to drop a huge amount of points to compensate for:
1) -1 Toughness, despite being a very expensive direct fire tank
2) -1 Nerf to AP
3) - No CORE, so pretty much most Aura buffs being out.
Will that happen? Probably not, because GW seems to be overvaluating battle tanks a lot this Edition and not consider how much of a nerf not being CORE is. We'll probably get like a -5 or -10 point cost adjustment and that's it.
Meanwhile Seraphim can be happy they have Hand Flamers as an option (and that they are getting buffed with S4 and the previously Ebon Chalice Strat. becoming general issue), because boy would they be dead without it.

As an outsider (one who started to collect and build sisters but hasn't had a chance to play a game with them), I thought the whole Retributor move and shoot and boosted range strat was just a crutch anyway. There was no reason it should exist, it's just a devastator unit that even comes with a second cherub.

Feel the same about the Exorcist too. It's a rhino chassis so T7 seems correct. Missiles are generally AP-2. So, it's pretty much spot on....but it does need a points drop for sure.

Vehicles existing in a Multi-melta/Dark lance world just doesn't make sense competitively anymore, which is a shame, especially if T7. This will only be worse when Craftworld brightlances get the same treatment. MMs need a points kick and DL should have been D6 with min damage of 3. Automatically doing 4-6 damage with such a cheap weapon is a little bonkers, especially since the platforms are generally hard to kill too.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the codex with a set of fresh eyes and seeing which way to go with my sisters. Regardless of abilities, I will still roll with the 2 Immolators and single Exorcist I have built simply because they are some of my favourite sister models.

The Exo was Rhino+, hence T8. That loss is one of the very few great crimes of the new models.

The missiles are a Melta weapon, the loss of that is a loss of character. Pehaps one we brought on ourselves, but one that GW has been happy to push.

The Exo was originally 13/11/10 with S8, AP 1 missiles.

The index version of it was T8 and the missiles were AP -4. The 8E codex brought the missile AP down to -3. Now it's lost 1T, 1W, 1AP, and the ability to re-roll its shots for an (in my opinion) inferior indirect fire strat that can only be used on one Exorcist per turn that should just be part of the unit if they're trying to turn it into a Whirlwind wanna-be from a main battle tank.

Taikishi wrote:
The Exo was originally 13/11/10 with S8, AP 1 missiles.

The index version of it was T8 and the missiles were AP -4. The 8E codex brought the missile AP down to -3. Now it's lost 1T, 1W, 1AP, and the ability to re-roll its shots for an (in my opinion) inferior indirect fire strat that can only be used on one Exorcist per turn that should just be part of the unit if they're trying to turn it into a Whirlwind wanna-be from a main battle tank.

It was only 3+ save (part of why it was only 125pts) but everything else was correct.

Including that new devastating refrain is stupid and worse than old devastating refrain.

In the 8th codex before the melta changes people were taking 3 of them (myself included) and they ALWAYS did work. Now you can't really even justify taking one because it's just gonna bounce off of saves and die in 2 hits.

If they wanted to nerf it this hard AND keep it 180pts, they should have made it ALWAYS ignore LoS. As it stands it really should be around the 140pt mark.

The thing is, I would have been mostly fine with this if the castigator had been any good. As much as it sucks, we'd at least still have a valid long range shooting option. But NOPE, the castigator is even worse than the Exorcist for almost the same points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 christianA wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Complaining about GW's inability to proofread is totally valid. This is a company worth billions. It's beyond embarrassing that they can't manage to hire a competent proofreader, and it says relevant things about their general competence that they can't manage what organizations tens or hundreds of times smaller than them have no trouble with. You can say it's just errors so who cares, but it really isn't - these are premium products at a premium price tag, there is no excuse for something so simple as not being able to proofread.

Then don't buy from them, they know they can get away with it because there's really is no competition. They don't have to improve or develop better products. People will keep buying from them like a bunch of animals. I ask you why do they need to improve from their perspective. People will buy regardless of almost anything they do.

You act like just because you still buy the codex crap like this has no effect on GW's profits.

I buy sisters of battle stuff the way normal people buy electricity or water or a cellphone plan. When the plastic launched I bought 2500$ worth of stuff day one and have added to that since because I loved the models and loved the codex.

This time I bought the Codex, the battle cards, Morvenn, 1 box of Paragons, 2 boxes of sacrosants, and a box of dice. That will be everything I purchase from this release. I refuse to buy the castigator, Paragons are mostly because I like the models, Sacrosants because they're the one decent thing that's new.

My original purchase plan? Morvenn, 3 Boxes of Paragons, 4 boxes of Sacrosants, a Dogmata, Banner Lady, A Castigator, and probably Stern because I never bothered until now and figured she was gonna see changes.

So yes, even though I'm still invested enough in sisters to buy the new stuff I like and the codex I need to keep playing, I'm not a chimp. This codex cost GW probably close to 500$ of revenue from me and who knows how much down the line when I never walk into a games shop and think 'well I did want to try that 30 Zephyrim list...'

Taikishi wrote:
The Exo was originally 13/11/10 with S8, AP 1 missiles.

The index version of it was T8 and the missiles were AP -4. The 8E codex brought the missile AP down to -3. Now it's lost 1T, 1W, 1AP, and the ability to re-roll its shots for an (in my opinion) inferior indirect fire strat that can only be used on one Exorcist per turn that should just be part of the unit if they're trying to turn it into a Whirlwind wanna-be from a main battle tank.

It's not as good and it uses your once-per-phase reroll but the CP reroll can still be used on number of shots. And in argent shroud, if you were to run that way, you're not lacking for rerolls. Obv picking and choosing the dice to reroll is far better, but for 1-1-1 or 2-1-1 then it's not really that different.

And I haven't counted it, but if there are the same number of stratagems in this book as the old one, Its nice to have something that doesn't (somewhat) double up with a core strat.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
GW's ability to proofread (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to a discussion of SISTERS OF BATTLE TACTICS. Please take these side discussions to another thread.

Anyways, what loadouts do we all think are best for the Paragon Warsuits? I'm leaning toward meltas, as those have proven very successful in Sisters lists in the past, and I think the swords are better than the maces despite the lower damage. Playstyle-wise I think we have to think of them as our Terminator-analogs rather than vehicles, and I don't think I'd go for more than one unit in a list to receive the reroll buff from Morvenn.

Its valid when those failures turn a unit into 240 points per model instead of 240 points for the unit

Play PL or Crusade, and laugh. They're probably a steal at 13PL for the unit of 3 if we're really going to operate under the assumption that they start at 720 points for a squad of 3.

I've heard people say it's only a typo in the English version of the book, so it might have been caught when the book was being translated, but after they sent the English run off to print.

Oh, I totally understand that it is a typo, and no one in my playgroup would ever charge 240 points a model. I bet you'd have a TO hard pressed to run them at 240/ea unless they had some sort of "I don't really like that faction" or "I will operate 100% RAW and the books are as immutable as the bible" type outlooks. I'm merely pointing out how normal people in the real world would look at that and laugh at the obviousness of it (they wrote 240 because it is min/max 3, therefore the unit's entry cost is quite literally 240... no need to individually point them because there's no way that'll be needed). But for whatever reason here on the internets, the conversation shifts to boogeymen and strawmen that are going to charge you 720+ points for a squad of Paragons. And then pointing out the absurdity of that 720+ point unit only costs 13PL in narrative or crusade games that tally on PL... so clearly GW has some sort of nefarious bias to force people to play on PL instead of points.

RAW it takes -1dmg, so...

I'll admit, I still bought in pretty hard, but did so knowing my relationship with 40k is changing. I'm a hardcore competitive player, but I know GWs cycle of lunacy means todays garbage becomes tomorrow's OP if one can wait long enough. I love the new models aesthetically, so someday they'll get played.

That said, talking to most of my competitive friends and some content creators, it really does feel like Sisters will have a couple fairly decent builds, but won't make a dent in shifting the Ad-Mech hellscape tournaments are about to enter.

Competitive person or not, not competing with admech should be considered a good thing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Complaining about GW's inability to proofread is totally valid. This is a company worth billions. It's beyond embarrassing that they can't manage to hire a competent proofreader, and it says relevant things about their general competence that they can't manage what organizations tens or hundreds of times smaller than them have no trouble with. You can say it's just errors so who cares, but it really isn't - these are premium products at a premium price tag, there is no excuse for something so simple as not being able to proofread.

I mean it's valid, but I've seen errors in military documents and they have a budget far and beyond what GW dreams it could have. I've seen professionally published novels by big name authors with spelling errors. This stuff happens even with proofreaders, editors, and budgets far larger thrown at projects than GW allocates to their dev teams.

So yes, complaining is valid, but so is pointing out that it's not really as uncommon for mistakes to slip into nearly every work.

Not like this. These are technical mistakes in technical documents. I draft technical documents for a living (for an organization with far fewer resources than GW has). I wouldn't still have a job if I kept putting out crap this riddled with substantive errors.

We aren't talking a missing or doubled preposition here. These aren't typos. They're substantive errors, caused by a lack of proper, professional proofreading. These errors don't slip through a decent proofreading process, at least not more than once in a blue moon. That they keep slipping through in document after document shows that GW is not meeting basic professional standards. If I had to guess, the basic problem is that the people doing the proofreading don't actually understand the content they are proofreading - so they catch typos, but not substantive errors. This is a common mistake organizations that aren't used to doing technical proofreading make, the sort of thing that you can forgive when it's five dudes in their grandma's basement, but not when it's a multinational company worth billions.