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.

SemperMortis wrote:
OMG did you know that a 120pt Retributor squad with Ministorum heavy flamers and 2 cherubs can kill 216pts of Orkz in a mob of 30 in a single shooting phase! OMG! T5 does nothing for Orkz, its a nerf in reality!

How exactly?

Flamers are not blast and one cherub means 3D6 or 10.5, which converts to 7 dead or 63 points. I don't see the boltguns making up the 150 point difference.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
How exactly?

Flamers are not blast and one cherub means 3D6 or 10.5, which converts to 7 dead or 63 points. I don't see the boltguns making up the 150 point difference.

I think Semper forgot you can't fire off both cherubs.
But the Cleansed by fire stratagem makes D6 hits=6 hits. So probably 36 hits, 24 dead Orks, 216 points gone. 30 hits would still be 180 points of dead Orks.
In practice ditch a cherub, take a combi-flamer on superior instead of a second Cherub, theoretically 23~ dead Orks.

Obviously however this is kind of contrived.

Really I think the question with Sacresants is how the meta evolves. At least with VH (and it may be possibly to explore alternatives) they are clearly worse against mass AP-1 than they were before. But given how bad AP-1 is against various types of Marine now, I'm not sure how plentiful its going to be in the meta. Realistically, if Terminators were going to get AoC, its not really clear why they carved out other things.

I can’t believe I am being baited into this unbelievable silly premise but after reading this thread here we go.....

Premise: an army wide -1 to ap makes the codex worse as it does not apply to one unit. I mean that sounds
so bad no further argument should be necessary. But ok let’s go further. So the unit excluded from the new rule is sisters best unit. Ok. Welll if you take any detachment ability other than the -1/-2 then the sacrosancts are exactly the same as before and every other unit is better. Again can probably stop here why the premise is wrong. However let’s continue with the -1/-2 on sacrosancts is the only competitive build (pretty sure this is not true either but whatever). So the whole detachment gets the same minus to ap only better because no cap. So still only sacrosancts are affected. Ok they lose the -ap. But that is not the end of it. They gain a new ability which is no re-roll for wounds. First all units also get this so other units get better -ap and this improvement. Again probably can stop now but we continue.

Two problems. One: your argument presupposes that the new no re-roll is a nerf. You are wrong. It is not only not a nerf but an improvement. Why you ask? Well that goes to a fundamental of the game. Dice rolling.

See while math-hammer is all well and good you don’t roll average on every attack. You probably don’t roll average on the majority of attacks. You roll better or worse. And what a re-roll does is move bad rolls toward average. They nerfed custodies hard for thus very reason. It is also why the re-roll detachment abilities, or say wisdom of ancients is so popular. It helps maintain the average or better. And currently there is lots of ways almost every army gets re-roll to wound (my elder are built around it for AT). So turning that off is a big deal. Especially for a T3 army in which the vast majority of attacks in the game (S4 +) will more likely than not wound on the re-roll. And again the entire rest of the army gets -1 ap AND this ability.

Second even if the above was not true the times in which the -1/-2 matters is limited. Does not apply to ap0. Does not apply to ap-3 or more. Makes no difference to -1 ap if you are in cover. So to state that a buff (great one at that) to the whole army except one unit in very specific circumstance (certain detachment and only against-1 out of cover or -2 ap) is an overall nerf to the codex is so laughable I should just delete this post.

 xeen wrote:
I can’t believe I am being baited into this unbelievable silly premise but after reading this thread here we go.....

Premise: an army wide -1 to ap makes the codex worse as it does not apply to one unit. I mean that sounds
so bad no further argument should be necessary. But ok let’s go further. So the unit excluded from the new rule is sisters best unit. Ok. Welll if you take any detachment ability other than the -1/-2 then the sacrosancts are exactly the same as before and every other unit is better. Again can probably stop here why the premise is wrong. However let’s continue with the -1/-2 on sacrosancts is the only competitive build (pretty sure this is not true either but whatever). So the whole detachment gets the same minus to ap only better because no cap. So still only sacrosancts are affected. Ok they lose the -ap. But that is not the end of it. They gain a new ability which is no re-roll for wounds. First all units also get this so other units get better -ap and this improvement. Again probably can stop now but we continue.

Two problems. One: your argument presupposes that the new no re-roll is a nerf. You are wrong. It is not only not a nerf but an improvement. Why you ask? Well that goes to a fundamental of the game. Dice rolling.

See while math-hammer is all well and good you don’t roll average on every attack. You probably don’t roll average on the majority of attacks. You roll better or worse. And what a re-roll does is move bad rolls toward average. They nerfed custodies hard for thus very reason. It is also why the re-roll detachment abilities, or say wisdom of ancients is so popular. It helps maintain the average or better. And currently there is lots of ways almost every army gets re-roll to wound (my elder are built around it for AT). So turning that off is a big deal. Especially for a T3 army in which the vast majority of attacks in the game (S4 +) will more likely than not wound on the re-roll. And again the entire rest of the army gets -1 ap AND this ability.

Second even if the above was not true the times in which the -1/-2 matters is limited. Does not apply to ap0. Does not apply to ap-3 or more. Makes no difference to -1 ap if you are in cover. So to state that a buff (great one at that) to the whole army except one unit in very specific circumstance (certain detachment and only against-1 out of cover or -2 ap) is an overall nerf to the codex is so laughable I should just delete this post.

Weren't all the topping Sisters' lists made up of VH Sacresants?

If the 'Dex had good internal balance, I'd agree with this post-a nerf to one unit and a buff to others would result in a stronger Codex. But... That'd require them to have good internal balance. That seems a massive and unwarranted assumption.

So your spoiler with math-hammer misses the point and shows why math-hammer is not the best way to judge effectiveness. As stated above the benefits of turning off re-rolls is not to increase survival across the game. It is to capitalize on a bad skew from you opponent. Example. In a recent game my fire dragons shoot enemy tank. All 5 hit. I roll 4 1s to wound. Now fire dragons get to re-roll wounds against vehicles and I convert 3 more than not wounds. Dead tank. If I could not re-roll then not dead tank and fire dragons are exposed and probably dead or seriously degraded. Is this going to happen all the time? No but when it does come up it matters way more the the limited situation of ap negation at -1 out of cover or -2.

Oh and you seem so worried about competitive lists that are supposed nerfed so let’s talk that. First re-roll wound is very prevalent now. But let’s just look at the top armies. All costidies quines tau elder top lists use real-roll wounds extensively. So by your own logic the re-roll deny is MORE valuable in the competitive scene as you are extremely likely to encounter it.

Its AoC going to make sisters a top tier army. Lol hell no. Just like it is not going to push marines up either (maybe death guard or grey knights). There are bigger issues with those codex beyond this issue. But to say it is a nerf to the whole book? That is ludicrous


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I would like to poise this question. How many games can you remember where you have one guy left on an objective or a few wounds left on a character or vehicle and your opponents attack hits and fails to wound and you are like “yes!!!” then you hear them say “command point re-roll” and they re-roll and ooop they wound you die. I can think of many times. Turning that crap off is significant

 xeen wrote:
So your spoiler with math-hammer misses the point and shows why math-hammer is not the best way to judge effectiveness. As stated above the benefits of turning off re-rolls is not to increase survival across the game. It is to capitalize on a bad skew from you opponent. Example. In a recent game my fire dragons shoot enemy tank. All 5 hit. I roll 4 1s to wound. Now fire dragons get to re-roll wounds against vehicles and I convert 3 more than not wounds. Dead tank. If I could not re-roll then not dead tank and fire dragons are exposed and probably dead or seriously degraded. Is this going to happen all the time? No but when it does come up it matters way more the the limited situation of ap negation at -1 out of cover or -2.

Oh and you seem so worried about competitive lists that are supposed nerfed so let’s talk that. First re-roll wound is very prevalent now. But let’s just look at the top armies. All costidies quines tau elder top lists use real-roll wounds extensively. So by your own logic the re-roll deny is MORE valuable in the competitive scene as you are extremely likely to encounter it.

Its AoC going to make sisters a top tier army. Lol hell no. Just like it is not going to push marines up either (maybe death guard or grey knights). There are bigger issues with those codex beyond this issue. But to say it is a nerf to the whole book? That is ludicrous

It's a durability buff that fails to make any units any better at surviving; it just reduces overkill to kill. While the most durable non character unit loses some of the durability it had.

Rrw is very popular in the competitive scene, but it's marginal into sisters. Weight of dice rather than value is what matters. (This would change is sister's higher toughness units were worth anything)

 xeen wrote:
So your spoiler with math-hammer misses the point and shows why math-hammer is not the best way to judge effectiveness. As stated above the benefits of turning off re-rolls is not to increase survival across the game. It is to capitalize on a bad skew from you opponent. Example. In a recent game my fire dragons shoot enemy tank. All 5 hit. I roll 4 1s to wound. Now fire dragons get to re-roll wounds against vehicles and I convert 3 more than not wounds. Dead tank. If I could not re-roll then not dead tank and fire dragons are exposed and probably dead or seriously degraded. Is this going to happen all the time? No but when it does come up it matters way more the the limited situation of ap negation at -1 out of cover or -2.

Oh and you seem so worried about competitive lists that are supposed nerfed so let’s talk that. First re-roll wound is very prevalent now. But let’s just look at the top armies. All costidies quines tau elder top lists use real-roll wounds extensively. So by your own logic the re-roll deny is MORE valuable in the competitive scene as you are extremely likely to encounter it.

Its AoC going to make sisters a top tier army. Lol hell no. Just like it is not going to push marines up either (maybe death guard or grey knights). There are bigger issues with those codex beyond this issue. But to say it is a nerf to the whole book? That is ludicrous


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I would like to poise this question. How many games can you remember where you have one guy left on an objective or a few wounds left on a character or vehicle and your opponents attack hits and fails to wound and you are like “yes!!!” then you hear them say “command point re-roll” and they re-roll and ooop they wound you die. I can think of many times. Turning that crap off is significant

More valuable competitively? Sure.

How many are wounding on a 5+ with RRAll wounds? Because that's what it takes to be less effective now.

 xeen wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I would like to poise this question. How many games can you remember where you have one guy left on an objective or a few wounds left on a character or vehicle and your opponents attack hits and fails to wound and you are like “yes!!!” then you hear them say “command point re-roll” and they re-roll and ooop they wound you die. I can think of many times. Turning that crap off is significant

Less then the number of times a unit has been wiped that my opponent wanted to charge.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I just wonder how bad the outcry would have been if Codex: Space Marine had Armor of Contempt from the start.

I think everyone, even the worst of SM fan boys, would've agreed it was unnecessary if GW "game designers" didn't keep handing out random AP-1 and D2. At the VERY beginning of 9th most people would've asked why.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I just wonder how bad the outcry would have been if Codex: Space Marine had Armor of Contempt from the start.

I think everyone, even the worst of SM fan boys, would've agreed it was unnecessary if GW "game designers" didn't keep handing out random AP-1 and D2. At the VERY beginning of 9th most people would've asked why.

SM were OP until DE/Admech anyway.

You know what. You Gus are totally right. The single change to one unit for one detachment ability is so much a nerf to the ENTIRE sisters codex. Man you should complain over and over until GW changes it back. Also if you ever play me you are totally allow to use pre-balance change codex. Because your whole army was just ruined by this one situational change to one unit in one detachment type.

Done discussing this ridiculous topic

 xeen wrote:
You know what. You Gus are totally right. The single change to one unit for one detachment ability is so much a nerf to the ENTIRE sisters codex. Man you should complain over and over until GW changes it back. Also if you ever play me you are totally allow to use pre-balance change codex. Because your whole army was just ruined by this one situational change to one unit in one detachment type.

Done discussing this ridiculous topic

You didn't have to post here in the first place.

And if you're incapable of having reasoned debate... Maybe you should take a break from the forums for a bit. Relax a little.

 xeen wrote:
You know what. You Gus are totally right. The single change to one unit for one detachment ability is so much a nerf to the ENTIRE sisters codex. Man you should complain over and over until GW changes it back. Also if you ever play me you are totally allow to use pre-balance change codex. Because your whole army was just ruined by this one situational change to one unit in one detachment type.

Done discussing this ridiculous topic

You should probably avoid making ridiculous arguments like "No no your mathhammer doesn't mean gak compared to these isolated incidents that can happen with a lot less consistency than just ignoring all AP1/2 all the time". I don't even necessarily agree with the premise but your argument was awful.

 xeen wrote:
Because your whole army was just ruined by this one situational change to one unit in one detachment type.

Did you somehow miss all the SoB nerfs beforehand?

Lammia 804587 11352029 wrote:
I think everyone, even the worst of SM fan boys, would've agreed it was unnecessary if GW "game designers" didn't keep handing out random AP-1 and D2. At the VERY beginning of 9th most people would've asked why.

SM were OP until DE/Admech anyway.

The first results speak of a significant buff to sisters.

Let's see if the trend gets confirmed or not.

^ This.

Sisters got a 51% winrate after the balance datasheet. They're doing better than Guard who are at 26% despite the buffs. Lol.

Karol wrote:
Plus it wasn't SM that were OP. It was white scars. GW let salamaners be good for like a month or so, and a lot of marine factions did really bad.

White scars and Salamanders are the same Codex : Space Marines.

It was Lucius that was OP, not Graia
It was Black heart that was OP, not Poisoned Tongue

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

White scars and Salamanders are the same Codex : Space Marines.

It was Lucius that was OP, not Graia
It was Black heart that was OP, not Poisoned Tongue

This is what dilutes imo the "poor innocent casual player has lucked into the super meta kill army".

I mean just swap your chapter and take some... atypical warlord traits/relics/psychic powers/stratagems etc. Odds are you suddenly are not pushing a 65% win rate.

Aha. Okey. I give the example of GK. Termintors, paladins etc horrible in 8th. The only sensible way to play is to run strikes, interceptors and NDKs. This "best way to play" army has a 30% something win rate mind edition. Imagine this player lasted till 9th, didn't quit in 9th, when the list got much weaker after the PA nerfs and rules changes. And suddenly the day arrives of new GK codex, and he now has a top tier tournament list. And he does not need to buy a single model, because GW did make any new ones or changed the existing rules of the bad ones better (eg flyers, everything in termintor armour, tanks, dreadnoughts etc). A litteral example fo a bad army becoming good over night, with 0 models bought. Ah and you can't just replace those good things in it, because if you try to army reverts to its one of the worse armies in the game status.

Karol wrote:
Aha. Okey. I give the example of GK. Termintors, paladins etc horrible in 8th. The only sensible way to play is to run strikes, interceptors and NDKs. This "best way to play" army has a 30% something win rate mind edition. Imagine this player lasted till 9th, didn't quit in 9th, when the list got much weaker after the PA nerfs and rules changes. And suddenly the day arrives of new GK codex, and he now has a top tier tournament list. And he does not need to buy a single model, because GW did make any new ones or changed the existing rules of the bad ones better (eg flyers, everything in termintor armour, tanks, dreadnoughts etc). A litteral example fo a bad army becoming good over night, with 0 models bought. Ah and you can't just replace those good things in it, because if you try to army reverts to its one of the worse armies in the game status.

Paladins were one of the best builds for GK at one point in 8th. IDK what you're talking about?

Yes, the "sometime" happened at the very end of 8th ed. The books got bought up in the west and were impossible to get. And I even remember when I got my 3ed of February, because on the 14th we started an almost 2 year lockdown, because of covid.

There is a huge difference between having an army okey for 2 months. And having the same army be bad for almost 3 years of 8th and almost 2+ years of 9th. How were termintor or paladin armies doing pre AoC change? Not much success or being seen. Even with the advent of the new codex, somehow the GK community couldn't get their heads around how to use them.

Interestingly, these guys think Sisters are the "biggest beneficiaries of Armour of Contempt" (start 00:42:45)

Karol wrote:
Aha. Okey. I give the example of GK. Termintors, paladins etc horrible in 8th. The only sensible way to play is to run strikes, interceptors and NDKs. This "best way to play" army has a 30% something win rate mind edition. Imagine this player lasted till 9th, didn't quit in 9th, when the list got much weaker after the PA nerfs and rules changes. And suddenly the day arrives of new GK codex, and he now has a top tier tournament list. And he does not need to buy a single model, because GW did make any new ones or changed the existing rules of the bad ones better (eg flyers, everything in termintor armour, tanks, dreadnoughts etc). A litteral example fo a bad army becoming good over night, with 0 models bought. Ah and you can't just replace those good things in it, because if you try to army reverts to its one of the worse armies in the game status.

Eh? GK Terminators and baby cradles were great. Down here in Australia we had some witch smashing a tourney with them

ERJAK wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
lol, I disagree It is a buff to sisters, Paragons, Seraphs, Zephs, Mortis, BSS, tanks, basically everything not doing well all got better.

Who cares that you auto include units didn't get buffed, the balance slate is to buff things you don't take. Sacs didn't need to be maxed and spammed, they already were good enough. heck they were good enough without VH.

The second sentence is just factually untrue. The only Sisters lists that have had significant success since LVO have been 30 sac lists. They absolutely did need to be spammed. VH was also the only order conviction that was seeing significant success, so they also were not good enough without VH. The w/l stats back all that up.

If the best stuff gets nerfed and the worst stuff gets buffed, whether or not the army improves is entirely dependent on if the worst units got buffed enough to be better than best stuff USED to be.

I personally don't think the buffs to Paragons, Seraphim, Zephyrim, Mortifiers, BSS, or tanks were particularly relevant. I think the nerf to Sacresants was majorly relevant.

It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I won't know until tournament results have had time to stabilize.

Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.

 Altruizine wrote:
Interestingly, these guys think Sisters are the "biggest beneficiaries of Armour of Contempt" (start 00:42:45)

The guys are obviously exceptional players - but their views on how the meta works I think are occasionally skewed. Possibly due to the nature of tier systems and a tendency towards exaggeration for cinematic effect.

Personally the idea Sisters are the third best army in the game... is a reach. I really don't see how you'd conclude in general terms they were better than DE (although AoC may effect the matchup itself - I've not played my Sisters friend since the dataslate came out). I guess you can say its early days etc, but... yeah. Not convinced we'll see that come out in tournaments.

I mean maybe based on tools/potential etc Sisters should be doing this - but if they aren't, then it seems like they can't.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
lol, I disagree It is a buff to sisters, Paragons, Seraphs, Zephs, Mortis, BSS, tanks, basically everything not doing well all got better.

Who cares that you auto include units didn't get buffed, the balance slate is to buff things you don't take. Sacs didn't need to be maxed and spammed, they already were good enough. heck they were good enough without VH.

The second sentence is just factually untrue. The only Sisters lists that have had significant success since LVO have been 30 sac lists. They absolutely did need to be spammed. VH was also the only order conviction that was seeing significant success, so they also were not good enough without VH. The w/l stats back all that up.

If the best stuff gets nerfed and the worst stuff gets buffed, whether or not the army improves is entirely dependent on if the worst units got buffed enough to be better than best stuff USED to be.

I personally don't think the buffs to Paragons, Seraphim, Zephyrim, Mortifiers, BSS, or tanks were particularly relevant. I think the nerf to Sacresants was majorly relevant.

It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I won't know until tournament results have had time to stabilize.

Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.

Where you are now is mostly determined by where you started.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Altruizine wrote:
Interestingly, these guys think Sisters are the "biggest beneficiaries of Armour of Contempt" (start 00:42:45)

Spoiler:

That's objectively false. The argument can be had that AoC is a buff and a far bigger benefit than I've given it credit for, but the idea that it benefits US more than DA, DG, or GK is pure fantasy.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.

Have you seen the rules for tyranids. Tau nerfs don't kill their best builds, same with custodes. GK post the brotherhood nerf got worse, but still played the same list -1GM NDK and just one brotherhood. Having sacrosancts nerfed is as if suddenly both venoms and raiders became really bad option, but instead the shades got -1Ld to opponent if the fight happens to be in cover. GW is full of examples of armies where the core unit gets nerfed, like for example the shield drone durning 8th to 9th transition, and suddenly tau go from strong, but annoying to worse army in the game. And you can tell player to try out other stuff shield drone for month, and somehow they don't find a proper way to play tau. A substential nerf to the army is not balanced by a buff to something bad.

Tyel wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
Interestingly, these guys think Sisters are the "biggest beneficiaries of Armour of Contempt" (start 00:42:45)

The guys are obviously exceptional players - but their views on how the meta works I think are occasionally skewed. Possibly due to the nature of tier systems and a tendency towards exaggeration for cinematic effect.

Personally the idea Sisters are the third best army in the game... is a reach. I really don't see how you'd conclude in general terms they were better than DE (although AoC may effect the matchup itself - I've not played my Sisters friend since the dataslate came out). I guess you can say its early days etc, but... yeah. Not convinced we'll see that come out in tournaments.

I mean maybe based on tools/potential etc Sisters should be doing this - but if they aren't, then it seems like they can't.

They're right more often then anyone of Dakka has ever been


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Who cares about old lists, so much of the game just changed you can not look at old rules, Indirect nerfs, Tau nerfs, Custodes nerfs, and most of Sisters got a defense buffs. Stop living in the past and look at what you can do now in the new metas.

Have you seen the rules for tyranids. Tau nerfs don't kill their best builds, same with custodes. GK post the brotherhood nerf got worse, but still played the same list -1GM NDK and just one brotherhood. Having sacrosancts nerfed is as if suddenly both venoms and raiders became really bad option, but instead the shades got -1Ld to opponent if the fight happens to be in cover. GW is full of examples of armies where the core unit gets nerfed, like for example the shield drone durning 8th to 9th transition, and suddenly tau go from strong, but annoying to worse army in the game. And you can tell player to try out other stuff shield drone for month, and somehow they don't find a proper way to play tau. A substential nerf to the army is not balanced by a buff to something bad.

Custodes nerfs killed custodes best builds stone dead. Like utterly. No one is playing the bikes and maybe a dreadnought with trajan now.

Use more repentia.

stratigo wrote:


They're right more often then anyone of Dakka has ever been

That's probably true? They are still wrong pretty frequently though. I hate to say Wait and SeeTM but Wait and SeeTM.