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.

Dudeface wrote:
Taking a step back, why are the sisters complaints in here, the relative profiles and supporting rules aren't wildly different from today to such a point they're unrecognisable. Surely this shouldn't be anything new? Why the intercessors hate, not seeing tac Marine grumbles, or complaint compared to hearthkyn

If "aren't wildy different" continues for several editions, then it eventually adds up to be "wildly different".

That's very Zen. I'm not sure its actually true (which might make it even more Zen), but it definitely sounds pithy.



(there's a lot of stuff that got tweaked over editions and ended up more or less the same).

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

So those 3 models will have an extra wound, 3 extra attacks, str and t 4, hitting on 3 in CC and with a better gun. The only thing they have going is its five (weaker) bolters against three. Bolters that don’t have AP and shorter range.

If you think 3 Intercessors are the same as 5 sisters of Battle with bolters you’re not seeing the wood for the trees.

The guns should be the high cost item. Not the troops themselves.

The 10th edition bolt rifles are the same range as Sister's bolters. Those 5 sisters put 10 shots to 6 from the marines at half range. Those marines can have their AP negated by cover and get no cover from the Sisters shooting them.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

A rule where you have to be losing the game to get special rules doesn’t seem very good.

Losing one model in a unit of 20 in a Hallowed Martyr's detachment = an immediate +1 to hit for that unit on every attack against every unit for the rest of the game.
Losing one model in a unit of 20 in a Hallowed Martyr's detachment =/= losing the game.

Stop using misleading language.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

MSU is too strong. It’s a way of exploiting the game. You pay same points for extra map control and effective damage protection by overkill. No downside to it at all for a unit you just want to secure objectives. Plus, it just does not suit the character of the Sisters army at all. So it’s not a trade off. People will carry on with their map control and now Faith dice.

The downside of MSU controlling objectives is that it takes fewer shots to end their control of said objectives.

There is no "Single characteristic force" that is most fluffy to Sisters. If a mission calls for MSU, it is in character to send MSU. If a mission calls for max troop blocks, they send massed troop blocks. The tool fits the job. I have the recent Marvel SoB comic. I think they send down five-ten sisters to do the job?

As for Faith, yes, a few lean 5 woman units to seek Martyrdom in order to get you a boost to the MD pool does make sense. But we've demonstrated to you that there is no advantage to having an MSU hold objective when it comes to the Defenders of the Faith MD bonus over giving the same job to a bigger unit.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Damage as in number of dice, rerolls etc etc

Rerolls did go down. Youaren't being specific enough when you state your point.

Yes, in a game VS Marines with Bobby, 5 of our units over the course of the entire game will have lots of rerolls against them from Oath of moment. In 9th, there were ways to get rerolls against every unit.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Morale got worse for sisters.

It's more correct to say that morale changed for every faction in the game, and that we don't really know the full impact of that yet... Though I will be fair and say that having high dice be good for morale will make it harder for Sisters to use MD for morale, because there are too many other uses for high-rolling MD.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

extra shot on the bolter,

So yes... But also no? They were rapid fire before, so there were always circumstances where a Marine could get 2 shots... But yes, it has moved to a system where they'll be getting two shots more often than in the previous edition.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

BS5 if they stand still

I think what you mean by this is that every infantry portable heavy weapon in the game, including those that are not weilded by marines, gets a +1 to hit when they stand still, however all of those weapons have had their BS adjusted so that the net effect is no functional change from one version of the game to the other for anyone.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

and can advance and fire.

Bolters can, being assault weapons, and non-assault weapons can during one turn of the game if the controlling player chooses to use their single use of Assault Doctrine.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

You really want to tell me that model is still worth 11 points and an Intercessor 18 points.

You really want to tell me that you know points costs are going to be 11 and 18?

And if you do, can you link me to the proof?

I do agree that the 11- 18 ratios may be off... The issue is just that GW may have already already solved this problem- or at least narrowed the gap somewhat.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Yes, I am sure they’re going to make Sisters 3 attacks and 2 wounds for combat patrol and they won’t just be tweaking and tucking a few things. 🙄

They're unlikely to solve the problem that way- they'd be more likely to give Sisters units additional or alternate abilities that make the units more powerful.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Taking a step back, why are the sisters complaints in here, the relative profiles and supporting rules aren't wildly different from today to such a point they're unrecognisable. Surely this shouldn't be anything new? Why the intercessors hate, not seeing tac Marine grumbles, or complaint compared to hearthkyn

If "aren't wildy different" continues for several editions, then it eventually adds up to be "wildly different".

That's lovely but I'm talking 9th to 10th.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Taking a step back, why are the sisters complaints in here, the relative profiles and supporting rules aren't wildly different from today to such a point they're unrecognisable. Surely this shouldn't be anything new? Why the intercessors hate, not seeing tac Marine grumbles, or complaint compared to hearthkyn

If "aren't wildy different" continues for several editions, then it eventually adds up to be "wildly different".

That's lovely but I'm talking 9th to 10th.

To be honest, I don't know what total war's problem is.

The only really meaningful changes we've seen are that we can't guarantee 12 inch charges (which, admittedly, is so big that even every unit being able to use miracle dice every phase doesn't fully mitigate it) and that our guns are bad against vehicles.

We weren't really a shooting army anyway, so the guns thing doesn't really matter. We'll do just fine in melee like we did all 9th.

Sidebar: The Sister's reveal is very funny. Every other army is like 'well what will X type of gun do or Y cannon or Z pistol?' Sisters saw literally every gun in the entire army except the Castigator's in this preview.

Voss wrote:
That's very Zen. I'm not sure its actually true (which might make it even more Zen), but it definitely sounds pithy.



(there's a lot of stuff that got tweaked over editions and ended up more or less the same).

Let me tell you a story about the plight of the Shuriken Catapult . . .

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Taking a step back, why are the sisters complaints in here, the relative profiles and supporting rules aren't wildly different from today to such a point they're unrecognisable. Surely this shouldn't be anything new? Why the intercessors hate, not seeing tac Marine grumbles, or complaint compared to hearthkyn

If "aren't wildy different" continues for several editions, then it eventually adds up to be "wildly different".

That's lovely but I'm talking 9th to 10th.

That's the very definition of short-sighted, and the reason behind the saying "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's the very definition of short-sighted, and the reason behind the saying "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

I'm sure when you're working out a budget for something you want to buy in 3 months, you randomly decide to consider it's relevant cost increases over a 20 year period as well? It's really not relevant when doing a direct point to point comparison of 2 objects 3 months apart.

@PenitentJake

For MSU it’s not a disadvantage that you can in theory more easily shoot them off objectives.

1) If you take a block of twenty you can only hold one objective as opposed to four. Your opponent has to be able to make four seperate attacks on four seperate units. If you sink few hundred points to secure one objective you’re just conceding map control to him.

2) Objectives are usually around LOS blocking terrain. It’s a lot easier to hide these small units. Your opponent has to be in four different places as the area you can move and threaten is higher. A big ponderous unit of 20 models is a lot easier to deal with.

3) If instead of buying three lots 20 overpriced Battle sisters to secure three objectives you instead got 3 lots of 5 and spent the rest on killing units like retributors, Repentia and sacresancts; your opponent has to deal with them first on the board. So they won’t be able to send ten guardsman to bayonet charge 5 sisters.

4) You aren’t losing out. If there’s one objective you just park all four units on one objective. Same firepower and survivability.

5) Sportsmanship. Let’s say you’re playing Heresy and you bring a fluffy list of 4 lots of 20 marines. That’s a lot of points not going into guns and close combat units. Even in a friendly game that can swing it because a much cheaper two tax squads in rhinos can get you enough map control. Whilst your opponent has a fun game butchering your overmatched troops.

Like I kind of went off Age of Sigmar when I got advised after a game to split my Liberator squads into different objective tokens of 5 instead of a full unit. I wouldn’t be taking the unit or the army if I just wanted to park a dinky unit at the back and pray I don’t get shot.

It should be I take an objective and then we fight over that objective. Not be put in the situation where you lose the game because you took full units instead of MSU tokens so you can’t contest the four objectives.

Looking at the Votann preview, I'm surprised to see Conversion going off on an unmodified roll of a 4+, meaning that it doesn't interact with the +1 to hit from the Judgement tokens.

Seems like a missed opportunity for synergy.

“Oathbands are built around a corps of dependable Hearthkyn Warriors – rough and ready fighters clad in thick, void-sealed armour to bolster their natural hardiness. “

Ah so toughness 5 for your armour on dwarves? Pretty sure they ain’t Space Marines so all you lot saying “oh marines get wounds and toughness coz they’re marines. Geneseed! It’s not because of the armour.”

Yeah….

Which is another baseline unit that got its durability increased and on the grounds of equipment. So I don’t think this Sisters should have a guard stat line comes from but it’s getting pretty sus now.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
“Oathbands are built around a corps of dependable Hearthkyn Warriors – rough and ready fighters clad in thick, void-sealed armour to bolster their natural hardiness. “

Ah so toughness 5 for your armour on dwarves? Pretty sure they ain’t Space Marines so all you lot saying “oh marines get wounds and toughness coz they’re marines. Geneseed! It’s not because of the armour.”

Yeah….

Which is another baseline unit that got its durability increased and on the grounds of equipment. So I don’t think this Sisters should have a guard stat line comes from but it’s getting pretty sus now.

T5 is probably the replacement for void armour (cancel one point of AP on incoming fire, no re-rolls for wound and damage rolls) which would be very OP under 10th conditions. I don't suppose all Votann will have T5 standard.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
“Oathbands are built around a corps of dependable Hearthkyn Warriors – rough and ready fighters clad in thick, void-sealed armour to bolster their natural hardiness. “

Ah so toughness 5 for your armour on dwarves? Pretty sure they ain’t Space Marines so all you lot saying “oh marines get wounds and toughness coz they’re marines. Geneseed! It’s not because of the armour.”

Yeah….

Which is another baseline unit that got its durability increased and on the grounds of equipment. So I don’t think this Sisters should have a guard stat line comes from but it’s getting pretty sus now.

T5 is probably the replacement for void armour (cancel one point of AP on incoming fire, no re-rolls for wound and damage rolls) which would be very OP under 10th conditions. I don't suppose all Votann will have T5 standard.

Also, they're not just normal humans.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's the very definition of short-sighted, and the reason behind the saying "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

I'm sure when you're working out a budget for something you want to buy in 3 months, you randomly decide to consider it's relevant cost increases over a 20 year period as well? It's really not relevant when doing a direct point to point comparison of 2 objects 3 months apart.

Focussing on the short term while ignoring the long term always works out well. Sure.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
@PenitentJake

For MSU it’s not a disadvantage that you can in theory more easily shoot them off objectives.

1) If you take a block of twenty you can only hold one objective as opposed to four. Your opponent has to be able to make four seperate attacks on four seperate units. If you sink few hundred points to secure one objective you’re just conceding map control to him.

2) Objectives are usually around LOS blocking terrain. It’s a lot easier to hide these small units. Your opponent has to be in four different places as the area you can move and threaten is higher. A big ponderous unit of 20 models is a lot easier to deal with.

3) If instead of buying three lots 20 overpriced Battle sisters to secure three objectives you instead got 3 lots of 5 and spent the rest on killing units like retributors, Repentia and sacresancts; your opponent has to deal with them first on the board. So they won’t be able to send ten guardsman to bayonet charge 5 sisters.

4) You aren’t losing out. If there’s one objective you just park all four units on one objective. Same firepower and survivability.

5) Sportsmanship. Let’s say you’re playing Heresy and you bring a fluffy list of 4 lots of 20 marines. That’s a lot of points not going into guns and close combat units. Even in a friendly game that can swing it because a much cheaper two tax squads in rhinos can get you enough map control. Whilst your opponent has a fun game butchering your overmatched troops.

Like I kind of went off Age of Sigmar when I got advised after a game to split my Liberator squads into different objective tokens of 5 instead of a full unit. I wouldn’t be taking the unit or the army if I just wanted to park a dinky unit at the back and pray I don’t get shot.

It should be I take an objective and then we fight over that objective. Not be put in the situation where you lose the game because you took full units instead of MSU tokens so you can’t contest the four objectives.

This is a well argued post.

For me, I usually use a mix of unit sizes- I've never been a huge fan of MSU, especially when the models are somewhat fragile. But I also tend to play mostly 25PL games, so MSU are usually practical. Growing units from 5-20 over the course of a Crusade will be in the cards for some units and not others, and it all depends on the story within the larger campaign.

My SoB Mission has been cut off from the Imperium for 4 millennia, so they got used to training recruits from a single system at the Progenium facilities that were available. The lost contact with the convents Prioris and Sanctorum have left these sisters with a fierce streak of independence, and when contact with the Imperium has been re-established, their may be conflicts with the main convent. There's a potential for a huge influx of new units, but the isolationists need those units to earn trust before they accept outsiders en masse.

So for me, it isn't as simple as "Choose to have a unit of 5 vs a unit of 20 because winning" - in the first games of the Crusade, I can only afford MSU, and those squads grow when recruits at the progenium are ready to graduate.

Mid campaign, a whole other army of Sisters shows up, and the existing army begins to vet those new units one at a time, accepting them as sisters only once they've demonstrated prowess, character, and a commitment to manifesting the will of the Emperor.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's the very definition of short-sighted, and the reason behind the saying "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

I'm sure when you're working out a budget for something you want to buy in 3 months, you randomly decide to consider it's relevant cost increases over a 20 year period as well? It's really not relevant when doing a direct point to point comparison of 2 objects 3 months apart.

Focussing on the short term while ignoring the long term always works out well. Sure.

That does depend on the army though. An eldar player wants his faction and the units he likes to be fun to play now, because he knows that as soon as his codex for the new edition drops, more fun is garenteed. Someone who plays a faction with more ups and downs, lets say orks, can decide that because greenwave is v.bad this edition they will take the 3 years time, as an option to repaint 200+ new orks and not be involved that much with the gaming. Because the ork player knows that his books are sometimes good, sometimes bad and most important not always fun to play the way he wants.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's the very definition of short-sighted, and the reason behind the saying "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

I'm sure when you're working out a budget for something you want to buy in 3 months, you randomly decide to consider it's relevant cost increases over a 20 year period as well? It's really not relevant when doing a direct point to point comparison of 2 objects 3 months apart.

Focussing on the short term while ignoring the long term always works out well. Sure.

What exactly is your point here? I'm merely stating the profiles of the units being complained about as a part of the transition from 9th to 10th are awfully close to how they are now, what the feth does that have to do with searching through the annals of history or considering the ramifications for a century from now? I'm purely addressing their state from 9th, to 10th, because the comparison being made is about the unit entries, from its, to 10th. There is no deep soul searching required for the profile of a sister back in 2nd Ed, nor concerns for 30 wound giga Chad intersupers in 27th edition.

"things are bad now, and 10th doesn't fix it" is not countered by "tenth isn't changing much". In fact, it is supported.

Aash wrote:
Looking at the Votann preview, I'm surprised to see Conversion going off on an unmodified roll of a 4+, meaning that it doesn't interact with the +1 to hit from the Judgement tokens.

Seems like a missed opportunity for synergy.

I'm exceedingly glad they didn't. 8th was full of that stuff and it was brutal.

There ate better ways to make the game interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"things are bad now, and 10th doesn't fix it" is not countered by "tenth isn't changing much". In fact, it is supported.

For me 9th is just crazy messy - not bad.

10th is changing quite a bit and I'm not sure where that perspective is coming from?

Is it this sense that sisters should suddenly be more durable?

Hmm. Between the sisters preview and the squats preview, it seems like strats that let you shoot back at the enemy might be somewhat common this edition. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it does seem like a slightly odd choice.

People didn't care much for tau getting a free shooting phase or my ynnari getting to shoot on my opponent's turn. But maybe it will work out given the CP cost, the trigger, and the units available to the factions that have it. The worst thing to shoot back at you on your own turn for sisters is what? Paragon warsuits? Assuming you're not like, shooting a squishy infantry squad at a big old blob of sisters anyway. Not sure how scary some out of turn squat shooting would be. I've only played a single game against them.

Resurrection vs responsive shooting - that could be an axis armies revolve around.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"things are bad now, and 10th doesn't fix it" is not countered by "tenth isn't changing much". In fact, it is supported.

It is rather hard to say 10th doesn't fix things with how little rules we know about 10th. It doesn't matter that a Bolter-armed Battle Sister looks like 40% of a Bolt Rifle Intercessor. We don't have the points value of an Bolter-armed Battle Sister, a fulled upgraded Battle Sister Squad, nor an Intercessor. So we really don't know how to compare them in a meaningful way.

You can compare the changes to the two squads based on the preview.

We basically see the Battle Sister stat line hasn't changed except for a bit worst leadership. Meltaguns/Multi-Meltas are a bit worst against vehicles/Monster. We have less layers of rules, but Battle Sisters are now a source of generating Miracle Dice.

Intercessor have pretty much the same stat line as the 8.5/9th Marine, now with less Leadership and no ATSKNF. The new fangled Bolt Rifle, while incorporating all the prior versions of the Bolt Rifle and Bolter Discipline into a versatile package, is strictly worst than any one of it's predecessors at their specific jobs (less range than any but the Auto Bolt Rifle, less attacks than the Auto Bolt Rifle, less AP and damage than the Stalker Bolt Rifle). We don't know what nifty Ability the unit gets, but it will need to be awesome to makeup for the loss of AP enhancing Doctrines, not to mention super-doctrines.

Call me biased, but I think Intercessors have actually lost more than Battle Sisters in the transition to 10th, as far as we know.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Resurrection vs responsive shooting - that could be an axis armies revolve around.

A never ending cycle of death and life.

It's almost as if there was only war...

I want to take this time and this space to preemptively complain about drukhari.
I am now almost certain we are getting screwed again. Tau seem even better than before and power from pain is getting nerfed I'm pretty sure
Archons won't be able to join grotesques which sucks if it happens. Everyone else now has pseudo open topped transports so ours are worse by comparison. Plus weapons went up in strength making our toughness 3 even less tough. And don't get me started on poison. And if that's not enough we won't even get a dex until 2025. I'm so sick of 10th edition already.

We don't know what poison even does yet.

If you're going to complain about something, pick a topic that's worth being annoyed about:

1. One-Size-Fits-All combi-weapon profiles.
2. "And They Shall Know Oaths of Moment" being the new defining trait of all Marines, rather than the things that have traditionally defined them.
3. Shadow in the Warp, good or bad, being really boring.
4. The terrain rules are simplistic and silly.

That's not as fun plus I'm getting an early start!

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You keep referring for stuff they get in future and current point costs. That's just fallacity. You either refer current rules and points or future rules and points.

Anything else and you admit for being dishonest arqument and just interested in causing trouble.

Cute.

I’ve seen enough to know where the winds going. Damage is still absurdly high. Sisters profile got worse. Marines got better. Saying that combat patrols are balanced when they have same models as marines. Rules that encourage taking minimum size squads which is gamey and silly.

Damage may or may not be absurdly high. Marines did not get better. And the Sisters profile looks the same. Did they lose a point of LD?

Everything they put out just confirms that they’re doubling down on this stupid idea that the Sisters of Battle Intercessors should be in same bracket because “ohhh 3 plus armour” and that giving them a Centurion from Heresy’s profile is just a little added extra.

It’s stupid and it just means people will carry on taking weird sisters lists that have two lots of five sisters because they’re overcosted.

So no, I am going to list precedents like points cost. A Sister of Battle with a bolt gun should be a third the points cost of an Intercessor.

dominuschao wrote:
I want to take this time and this space to preemptively complain about drukhari.
I am now almost certain we are getting screwed again. Tau seem even better than before and power from pain is getting nerfed I'm pretty sure
Archons won't be able to join grotesques which sucks if it happens. Everyone else now has pseudo open topped transports so ours are worse by comparison. Plus weapons went up in strength making our toughness 3 even less tough. And don't get me started on poison. And if that's not enough we won't even get a dex until 2025. I'm so sick of 10th edition already.

Are you a poe or something?

 p5freak wrote:

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Breton wrote:

I'm a little unimpressed with Acts of Faith mostly in the production of miracle dice. Comparing it to some of the other similar abilities its just harder to apply. It's got both the "Control Objectives to trigger full value" and "Doesn't automatically affect everyone" issue. I mean Daemons have to control objectives for more value, but it affects everyone. Marines don't have to control objectives but 3 out of 5ish turns means it doesn't affect everyone. Sisters appear to have been hit with both. Have to wait and see, but it doesn't look good.

Getting ~50 MD per game looks unimpressive to you ? Its way better than a reroll because you already know what you will get.

Not sure where you're getting 50. One per turn, one per Sister Squad(s) on an objective on your turn - assuming a 50/50 3 of 6 objectives for five turns (even being on three turn 1 Command Phase is unlikely) is 15 plus 10 for 25. Beyond that you're either in a laugher or you're losing squads which means those lost squads aren't getting to use your dice. There's certainly more to see, but their mechanic looks more painful than Doctrines, Dark Pacts, etc.

Did you read the preview ? You get 1 each players turn, thats 10. Then you get 1 for each objective marker you hold with battle sisters. Lets say thats about 13 (your home marker and two in no mans land from turn 2 onwards). Then you get 1 for each friendly unit killed by the enemy. Thats 5-10 more. Whenever a simulacrum unit kills an enemy unit, you get 1. There are 5 sisters units currently which have the simulacrum ability. Lets say those kill 5-10 enemy units, thats 5-10 more. Add those up and you get to 33-43 dice. Thats just from the preview, im pretty sure there will be more ways to gain miracle dice. Cherubs will let you get rid of 1s and 2s you roll, because you immediately get one more dice.

That doesn't get you to 50, you're assuming you get to control both midfields and a bunch if my stuff dies destroying your stuff giving me dice I can't use because... my stuff was destroyed while destroying your stuff.

I just see most of these abilities having one drawback or the other - Chaos gets to use the ability which blows their stuff up, Sisters have to blow their stuff up to use the ability. Sure if Sisters get up and rolling they churn through the dice, but on a slow start or evenly matched game with miracle dice keep up with Doctrines or Pacts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

The weapon article already showed the Sustained Hits ability which keys of Critical Hits, but it's nice to have confirmation what critical hits are. Some people need that, if you followed the discussions about crit wounds

And some people just have to be the donkey-cave. If you had followed that discussion you would have found out we know no more about about Critical Hits than we do Critical Wounds. We don't know what else they're going to interact with or if this is the extant of interactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


In before "but was is a Critical Hit" philosophical external monologue.

So the total sum value of your post is to violate rule number one, not provide anything constructive, and congratulate yourself for being the first to do so, yet failing to actually be first? Have you tried looking up the definition of "philosophical"? Have you tried intellectual honesty? Have you tried wondering about anything beyond what you've been spoonfed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We don't know what poison even does yet.

Pardon me while I laugh in Schadenfreude.

And now to be fair - We have a pretty good guess. Poison will more than likely be some sort of Anti-Biological - Almost Assuredly Anti-Infantry (though how they're going to say all of these, but not Necron Robot Warriors I don't know) potentially anti-Swarm/Monster/Calvary/etc. but potentially not. They may decide that Monsters are too big to be susceptible to the same poisons that kill a man sized person, and swarms are too hard to hit with the little needle dart. (as Justification for balance reasons to make Monsters not poof to a poison troop unit) Poison could be it's own USR that like the Marines USR of 9th, was just See Also: a bunch of other USR's: in this case Anti-X with a bunch of X's.

Breton wrote:

That doesn't get you to 50, you're assuming you get to control both midfields and a bunch if my stuff dies destroying your stuff giving me dice I can't use because... my stuff was destroyed while destroying your stuff.

I just see most of these abilities having one drawback or the other - Chaos gets to use the ability which blows their stuff up, Sisters have to blow their stuff up to use the ability. Sure if Sisters get up and rolling they churn through the dice, but on a slow start or evenly matched game with miracle dice keep up with Doctrines or Pacts?

No, it doesnt get me to 50, because its just a preview. What you saw is a tiny bit from the army rules, and 30 is not unlikely from this sneak peak. Pacts are weak because you must roll 6s, only every 6th dice roll does that. Sisters already know what they will get, they can even plan for the next turns with already rolled dice.