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.

The pistol attached to the shield - best of all, on the side so you have to expose yourself to fire your gun - is actually one of those "so bad it's good" things IMO. Just utterly ridiculous.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.

Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.

For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.

Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.

For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?

They still hold Bolters two-handed despite their power armour, and their shield not only probably weight as much as a bolter, but are much, much more uncomfortable to hold, because you gotta hold it like you would hold a pistol..

dammit wrote:
The hell is your problem?

If less than 9 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.

For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons

For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.

Literally exactly what I put earlier but for some reason you wanted more letters.

Does it actually say "If the unit numbers less than 9 models", or does it say "If the unit contains 9 or fewer models"?

Cause those are not the same things, even with the "for every 10 models" bit...which, by the by, does not actually say it is instead of the "if the unit contains 9 or fewer".

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.

It's funny how NOW it's a problem when we've had a Combat Shield in the Marine Command Squad for how long now?

Oh you're pedantic. This is the last time I will deal with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IxMj7Cti_Y&t=4148s - read it, I did.

dammit wrote:
Oh you're pedantic. This is the last time I will deal with you.

Sure, I'm pedantic.

Also, I would rather people actually take a frigging step back and wait until they have books in hand before talking up changes to squad sizes or compositions. I felt like the damn sky was falling when the AdMech previews were coming and it became "OMG THEY WANT YOU TO HORDE SKITARII!!!1!!" but nobody posted the actual wording/screenshots of it until much later on.

The wording is open enough that people should be sending the 40k FAQ email a line about it to get them to answer it, definitively.

So, how many of these new D2 Storm Bolters can SoB pack into squads? Also, looks like Retributors hit HARD. Ouch. And another codex, another chance for gw to overprice tanks, it seems. They really seem to overvalue armour.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.

Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.

For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?

They still hold Bolters two-handed despite their power armour, and their shield not only probably weight as much as a bolter, but are much, much more uncomfortable to hold, because you gotta hold it like you would hold a pistol..

Not when they want to pose like an absolute boss, they don't

 GaroRobe wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.

Those shields must be an absolute murder on the wrists and finger, imagine holding up a man-sized slab of solid metal by only a one-handed pistol grip.

For a person wearing powered armor that can withstand a tank round?

They still hold Bolters two-handed despite their power armour, and their shield not only probably weight as much as a bolter, but are much, much more uncomfortable to hold, because you gotta hold it like you would hold a pistol..

Spoiler:

Not when they want to pose like an absolute boss, they don't

We see one handed bolter shots in the 9th ed preview video too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9V0bOB8sXQ

 Kanluwen wrote:
Post the actual wording for the squads' special/heavy weapons or stop talking about it.

End of story. The Skitarii one is open-worded enough that it very well might be that your previous builds aren't invalidated, but rather you've interpreted it wrong.

Skitari is 1 if less than 9, 1 if 10-19, 2 if 20. What's so unclear?

At least if you can read even slightly english. Of course if you can't it's harder. Of course then you wouldn't be posting　here and my reply could just as well be marsian.

I honestly don't care how much they overprice exorcists and immolators, when mine are painted I will absolutely be playing with the gorgeous rolling churches. Probably some of the best vehicle models GW has made in recent years.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Post the actual wording for the squads' special/heavy weapons or stop talking about it.

End of story. The Skitarii one is open-worded enough that it very well might be that your previous builds aren't invalidated, but rather you've interpreted it wrong.

Skitari is 1 if less than 9, 1 if 10-19, 2 if 20. What's so unclear?

Wrong.

The Skitarii (and Sisters one!) states:
"If the unit contains 9 or less models"
and then it goes on to say
"For every 10 models in the unit, 1 model can..."

This isn't expressed as an either/or, nor is it on the same line. They're distinctive options in the unit entry.

At least if you can read even slightly english. Of course if you can't it's harder. Of course then you wouldn't be posting　here and my reply could just as well be marsian.

Cool, so you'd say then that taking a torsion cannon prevents you from taking a hydraulic claw on Breachers? Power sword on the Ranger Alpha prevents an arc/radium/phosphor blast pistol?

Context matters. This "for every 10 models" language is not a subchoice for the "if 9 or fewer" language. It's a distinctive bit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

dammit wrote:
The hell is your problem?

If less than 9 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.

For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons

For every 10 models, 1 battle sister can replace with 1 from special weapons, 1 from heavy weapons.

Literally exactly what I put earlier but for some reason you wanted more letters.

Does it actually say "If the unit numbers less than 9 models", or does it say "If the unit contains 9 or fewer models"?

Cause those are not the same things, even with the "for every 10 models" bit...which, by the by, does not actually say it is instead of the "if the unit contains 9 or fewer".

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Personally, I find the shield attached to the side of a pistol far more egregious than one handed halberds. I think, if I was going to use these minis, I’d ditch the shields altogether and give them new left arms, either empty handed or holding pistols.

It's funny how NOW it's a problem when we've had a Combat Shield in the Marine Command Squad for how long now?

...expect Space Marines actually hold their shields like shields?

By definition, a unit that includes 10 models for the 1 in 10 option is outside of the range of the 9 or less. No need for an either/or

dammit wrote:
Looks like just the standard squad.

1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20

celestians and domions both seem the same

Which is terrible, considering that they had it different for decades.
Yes it's more in line with the usual GW marine army. But it was something that made BSS squads unique, while, due to limited weapon choices, wasn't really over powered. Now they're just marine light.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
By definition, a unit that includes 10 models for the 1 in 10 option is outside of the range of the 9 or less. No need for an either/or

Yes, but when you consider this has been explained to him at least 10 times now, the 11th is unlikely to be what convinces him that he's wrong.

It is confusingly laid out and thus easy to misread, but there is a clear RAW answer here. It's just not one he wants to hear.

dammit wrote:
No, you see, this 60 point model only makes 10 s5 ap-2 cc attacks now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia wrote:
That's still a nerf they didn't need

It's basically nothing.

Wait...a change that reduces the number of special/heavy weapons by 50% is nothing?

That's not nothing.

I've never seen people take that many special/heavies in msu sister squads for it to matter.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
By definition, a unit that includes 10 models for the 1 in 10 option is outside of the range of the 9 or less. No need for an either/or

Nah. There's a need, because your wording is not what is happening. It does not say "Only if this unit is 9 or fewer models, select this".

"If this unit contains 9 or fewer" and "For every 10 models in this unit" are two entirely different concepts of putting choices out there. Maybe it seems clear to you, but the language is open enough to me that it is something that needs to be addressed--especially since they give us no actual example squads built under this new system in the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
By definition, a unit that includes 10 models for the 1 in 10 option is outside of the range of the 9 or less. No need for an either/or

Yes, but when you consider this has been explained to him at least 10 times now, the 11th is unlikely to be what convinces him that he's wrong.

It is confusingly laid out and thus easy to misread, but there is a clear RAW answer here. It's just not one he wants to hear.

And like I said, repeatedly, you could just submit an email to their FAQ line and get your stance backed up. It literally hurts nobody to have the question answered, definitively.

“If the unit has 9 or less” excludes a unit of ten because that is neither nine, nor less than nine.
It is syntactically identical to “if the unit has no more than nine” but uses less space.

Ten includes 9 or less though.

Seriously, it hurts NOBODY to get GW to actually defend their wording. This was a poorly written change to both Sisters and Skitarii.

End of story.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ten includes 9 or less though.

No it doesn’t. Ten is not nine, nor is it less than nine. “Nine or less” is a whole clause.

Going to start taking 2 specials and a heavy on each of 10 models in an 11 model squad, because each different combination of 10 counts, and the comma doesn't mean OR, it means AND.

If you have a problem, prove I can't do this by showing the response you got from GW. It doesn't hurt anyone to have to do this.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ten includes 9 or less though.

No it doesn’t. Ten is not nine, nor is it less than nine. “Nine or less” is a whole clause.

Never said 10 is 9.

I said that 10 includes 9 or less. It is stupid, stupid wording in any case, since the units are set up in multiples of 5 otherwise.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ten includes 9 or less though.

Well, there's your trouble: not understanding what words mean. 10 most definitely does not include 9 or fewer.

It literally says:

If this unit contains 9 or fewer models

A unit that contains 10 models does not contain 9 or fewer models. This is not open to debate. There's no possible way to read the first clause as applying to a unit of 10+.

dammit wrote:
Going to start taking 10 special weapons in an 11 model squad, because each different combination of 10 counts.

If you don't want me to do this, then show me the response you got from GW. It doesn't hurt anyone to clarify this.

Yes, because those situations are totally the same thing.

dammit wrote:
Looks like just the standard squad.

1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20

celestians and domions both seem the same

So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

dammit wrote:
Looks like just the standard squad.

1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20

celestians and domions both seem the same

So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.

Arbitrary.

The best that can can be said is it beings them in line with tac marines for the first time ever

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

dammit wrote:
Looks like just the standard squad.

1 special/heavy at 5-9
1 special + 1special/heavy at 10-19
2 special + 2special/heavy at 20

celestians and domions both seem the same

So does this match "what's in the box", similar to Plague Marines? Or is it entirely arbitrary? For the record, I don't think removing previously legal options is good either way. Just curious.

Arbitrary. The Battle Sisters box also makes Celestians and Dominions, and as such has 4 of each special weapon and 1 each of the heavy bolter and flamer, but no multi-melta (even though they can take them)

 Mmmpi wrote:

dammit wrote:
No, you see, this 60 point model only makes 10 s5 ap-2 cc attacks now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia wrote:
That's still a nerf they didn't need

It's basically nothing.

Wait...a change that reduces the number of special/heavy weapons by 50% is nothing?

That's not nothing.

You're not wrong, I just think GW likely did it to balance MSU vs large squad options for Sisters. Now you tmhave a trade off between the two.