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.

Breton wrote:

 kodos wrote:
But those people do it because they want that specific look for a painting project

same as I have seen people using GW based designs for a Vietnam theme or Tau-Gundam Army made with Tau models
(while the people who proxy for gaming are using the Gundam models for Tau because they are cheaper)

they don't proxy a Space Marine with a look alike if they want to paint a Space Marine because it is cheaper, they do it if they want to paint that alternative

saying the painters leading the 3D printing market because they have less reason to buy originals than the gamers do, is like the opposite of reality (as they only reason to buy the GW models if you like to paint and collect them)

You've got a Chicken/Egg scenario here. Did I print my cheaper Lost In Space because I liked the aesthetic or did I like the aesthetic because it was cheaper?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Friend I mentioned earlier that’s also had their interest piqued by 10th?

He has a 3D Printer, and he’s a damned good painter. These two are linked.

What he doesn’t do is use his 3D Printer to produce knock-offs/carbon copies. Rather it’s a cost effective way for him to be able to obtain and then paint whatever it is that’s tickling his fancy in the moment.

It depends on what people want to call knock-offs and carbon copies. I've printed Molded Shoulder Pads - But I get both halves not just the chapter half but also the Battle Role half. I've printed alternate Shields/Swords, I've printed the Dawn of War Space Marine HQ building for terrain. I've printed Redemptor Chest panels. I haven't printed them yet, but I have the downloads to print Impuslor/Gladiator Toppers for magnetization/swaps. Some of that is an overlap I could get from GW - but I'd rather have matching Left and Right pads than GW official Chapter Pads and home made role pads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hence why things are so stripped out in 10th. Peeling back the layer cake of 9th is a long winded battle that would be difficult to truly get right.

In some ways they're repeating their punt after 7th, going back to indexes - and so far it looks like they're changing far less than they did from 7-8 than 9-10.

Less was broken in 9th than was broken in 7th.

People forget, but the 7th edition rulebook was 260 pages WITHOUT fluff. Also, by the end of 7th it was possible to make a unit of blue horrors (who cost 50pts and would summon brimstone horrors on death anyway) 2++ rerolling with a 4++ feel no pain, also you could only hit them on 6s. With minimal investment.

EviscerationPlague 809777 11528396 wrote:
Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.

Which circles us back to stuff like either regular terminators being overcosted, because there is a detachment that makes them good. Or termintors being extremly undercosted in one detachment, and we end up seeing bricks of 30 of them running in every lists. I remember powerfists for marines and IG costing the same. It is not good design.

I don’t like the new terminators rules

The armour save should reflect the armour they’re wearing. Wounds and toughness should represent the resilience of the person wearing that armour. Terminators shouldn’t be getting extra wounds and toughness from their armour. It’s a way of circumventing the AP system. Everybody else plays by those rules. Sisters don’t get 2 wounds or toughness 4 because they’re wearing power armour so I don’t see why marines should be. Especially because these bonuses are never worked into points properly.

Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.

Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.

I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.

Fine. A Sister of Battle should be more durable than an Eldar guardian but not as durable as a Space Marine. Since armour is trash this should be represented either by an extra wound or a pip of toughness. This represents than being mid tier in terms of durability for basic infantry. You’re not a Guardsman but your marine is still a good bit more durable.

If you’re all “oh no, the armour save covers all that mate.” Well that’s not really making a unit tough overall. AP makes armour irrelevant. I might as well just take forty Repentia because I am dead if I get shot anyway. That should not be a thing. They’re not Eldar and shouldn’t play as a glass cannon.

Do you know that Sisters are still T3 3+?
You’ve got their index early? You should probably share that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you know that Sisters are still T3 3+?
You’ve got their index early? You should probably share that.

Cute.

I’d be very surprised if they made any change to the core profile of the unit. It’s got nothing to do with whether the unit needs that to be considered mid tier infantry for durability. It’s because T4 or multi wounds is associated with marines so they’re going to drag their feet on that. It’s ingrained and so it’s not as simple as with Genestealer where it’s a monster so they can do what they want.

Going to keep insisting that 8 points giving you two extra attacks, an extra wound, AP on your gun and extra WS is reasonable.

They might give them some kind of ward save. They might up the WS. That’s it. I think GW might think that they can work around this by tweaking the AP so that “oh AP minus is so rare now. So that 3 up armour is now more consistent. They don’t need any points or stat changes.”. Completely ignores that those 10 point sisters in 3rd edition weren’t having the volume of wounds thrown at them as they are now.

dont forget once upon a time marines were T3.

with genestealers going up to 2 wounds i wonder if they are taking the HH approach to give veteran/elite troop variants the extra wound,

Once upon a time? A brief period in 1st Edition. Marines weren't even Marines back then. Nothing was anything. 40k hadn't been rationalised like it was at the start of 2nd.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.

Armour tops out at 2+. When that fails to represent how tough something is, you have to use other mechanics (such as Invulnerable saves, the very first change they made to Terminators in 3rd Edition). Plus thicker armour could easily be represented as wounds and toughness, as there are more redundant systems and parts of pure armour that could be blasted off without wounding the person inside, but still reducing the overall durability of the suit.

And Sisters are tougher than Eldar Guardians, because they have better armour. Simply saying "armour is trash" doesn't make it so, especially with the reductions we've seen to AP values in the 10th previews.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.

It rather begs the question as to why we have three separate stats for durability if they don't actually represent anything specific and can be used interchangeably.

Having and using multiple ways to make a unit tough in different but complimentary ways is good for the game. Say what you will about the layers of rules added in 9th Edition, abandoning the 3rd Edition stats for a wide variety of units was a good improvement in the game.

I mean, isn't nice that Orks can actually be tougher than a Marine in one manner?

Having different stats that can also show relative degrees of durability also limits the need for exceptions and special rules outside of the existing stats systems.

If you can show using simple numbers the difference between a Sister of Battle, a Space Marine, a Gravis Marine, a Nob, a Terminator and a Plague Terminator without needing to create a "Disgustingly Resilient" or "Duty Eternal" rule, the better.

ERJAK wrote:
People forget, but the 7th edition rulebook was 260 pages WITHOUT fluff. Also, by the end of 7th it was possible to make a unit of blue horrors (who cost 50pts and would summon brimstone horrors on death anyway) 2++ rerolling with a 4++ feel no pain, also you could only hit them on 6s. With minimal investment.

and this problem was not because of the rulebook, oterhwise you would have been able to do it right at the start
also the rulebook of 7th is still there and works

some forget that most problems came up because GW adds Codex rules to ignore the rulebook, not to build on it
hence why GW thought not having one will solve all the problems, yet it made it worse

one would hope, but suspect a false hope, that GW have at least sketched out all the core codex rules alongside the main rulebook

ok individual units will come and go but the core of "this is how this factions works this edition" should be written down somewhere in the Nottingham bunker

the problem is invariably half way through an edition a codex is released that ignores half the core rules in some way and from that point on all bets are off

I guess they do this, but in a very basic way like:
DA: Plasma and Bikes
BA: Melee and Flames
Space Wolves: Wolves
Orks: Melee and Dakka
Tau: Drones and Suits

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you know that Sisters are still T3 3+?
You’ve got their index early? You should probably share that.

Cute.

I’d be very surprised if they made any change to the core profile of the unit. It’s got nothing to do with whether the unit needs that to be considered mid tier infantry for durability. It’s because T4 or multi wounds is associated with marines so they’re going to drag their feet on that. It’s ingrained and so it’s not as simple as with Genestealer where it’s a monster so they can do what they want.

Going to keep insisting that 8 points giving you two extra attacks, an extra wound, AP on your gun and extra WS is reasonable.

They might give them some kind of ward save. They might up the WS. That’s it. I think GW might think that they can work around this by tweaking the AP so that “oh AP minus is so rare now. So that 3 up armour is now more consistent. They don’t need any points or stat changes.”. Completely ignores that those 10 point sisters in 3rd edition weren’t having the volume of wounds thrown at them as they are now.

The thing about W2 is that it's really susceptible to D2. Sisters don't care one bit and being that those guns tend to be more expensive and Sisters less expensive than marines it becomes a less efficient way to remove them.

You're also really only thinking along the stat-line axis. There are lots of other avenues where Sisters can be impacted.

I think the bigger response is just "yes, surely Sisters are a Glass Cannon Army"? What do you think elite T3 models are going to be?

I think moving Genestealers to 2 wounds (and potentially a bunch of other elite approaching 20ish points infantry) is a good idea. Maybe it moves everyone towards being Marines. But if you keep boosting offense, you turn everyone into glass cannons (and the game into checkers).

Its also theoretically easier to balance. I.E. Genestealers get a 20 point offensive ability. Genestealers get a 20 point defensive ability. Genestealers cost 20 points.

Rather than Genestealers get a 20 point offensive ability, and an 8 point defensive ability. They presumably cost somewhere in the middle but GW aren't really sure, so quite easily get it wrong and produce OP/UP units.

Certain armies should perhaps be a bit more skewed - so you'd expect Eldar and say Sisters to be a bit more front forward while Necrons and Death Guard are tougher with less damage. But this should in turn somehow balance. I.E. Eldar do more damage - but DG are tough so take less. DG do lower damage - but Eldar are fragile so take more.

The problem is you tend to end up with movement being the issue (and forming another axis of value), and its very hard to make a "slow" army feel powerful without making it overpowered. Usually because there's a tipping point - you either have the movement you need during a game or you don't.

The bigger issue of all this unfortunately is basic Space Marines, who I think should be a relatively tanky but low damage army, buoyed up by reliability (via rerolls etc) and multi-function units. But GW have never really managed that, and usually want their poster boys, the angels of death, the tip of the spear, etc etc to be the best at everything. Which they tend to be for a while - until everyone else catches up, and once OP marines become both pillowfisted and fragile. And then the cycle starts over.

But we wait and see.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.

If terminator faction a is better than faction b why points should be same?

Unless you mean same rules regardless of faction/detachment


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines are physically tougher than Sisters though, which is why they're T4/W2.

Terminators are still marines. They get T5 and bonus wounds from their armour. Same with Gravis. There’s no reason roughness should go up because of armour.

Want to give them -1+ save?

Oh and how points should be reflected properly? I trust your not suggesting bonker idea of double wounds, douple points


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d rather have “This unit is durable on the whole” given more credence than “This unit must be more durable in these specific ways, whether or not it works well in the game”.

Fine. A Sister of Battle should be more durable than an Eldar guardian but not as durable as a Space Marine. Since armour is trash this should be represented either by an extra wound or a pip of toughness. This represents than being mid tier in terms of durability for basic infantry. You’re not a Guardsman but your marine is still a good bit more durable.

If you’re all “oh no, the armour save covers all that mate.” Well that’s not really making a unit tough overall. AP makes armour irrelevant. I might as well just take forty Repentia because I am dead if I get shot anyway. That should not be a thing. They’re not Eldar and shouldn’t play as a glass cannon.

So armour is worthless because of ap which is getting reduced.

Yep. Your aquments still suck. Never change.

 kodos wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
People forget, but the 7th edition rulebook was 260 pages WITHOUT fluff. Also, by the end of 7th it was possible to make a unit of blue horrors (who cost 50pts and would summon brimstone horrors on death anyway) 2++ rerolling with a 4++ feel no pain, also you could only hit them on 6s. With minimal investment.

and this problem was not because of the rulebook, oterhwise you would have been able to do it right at the start
also the rulebook of 7th is still there and works

some forget that most problems came up because GW adds Codex rules to ignore the rulebook, not to build on it
hence why GW thought not having one will solve all the problems, yet it made it worse

The rulebook was stupid. It wasted 200 pages spinning it's wheels about nonsense that made absolutely no difference to anything. Just to be able to move any model from out in the open, into cover, was 35 pages of rules.

It also straight up didn't work from the start. Vehicle rules meant that if one unit capable of making a penetrating hit existed, all vehicles were worthless. Facings made sponsons worthless on the majority of tanks. Facings created massive issues with units like Knights. The USRs were such a mess that half of them were just a different USR with a 'and also' attached. Morale meant that pinning a unit was better than killing it a lot of the time.

that whole era was a mess.

tneva82 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.

If terminator faction a is better than faction b why points should be same?

Unless you mean same rules regardless of faction/detachment

Same rules regardless of detachment. Dark Angels having some more Terminator armor =/= Better Terminators, it just means they can "field more", when in reality Rule of 3 stops everyone from using even 50 or so Terminators to begin with.

It also creates weird issues where only Dark Angels successors have that many Terminator suits despite it being so "rare", and no other Chapter does. It's like how just Blood Angels get Heavy Flamers/Hand Flamers and Melta pistols, despite them not even being THE fire Chapter. However, why would I only want that option reserved to Salamanders anyway?

Dark Angels Don't even have many more Terminators than other Chapters. The Blood Angels boarded Sin of Damnation with over 80, and the Ultramarine organisation in the 3rd ed Codex had over 70, for example.
Dark Angels being the 'Terminator Marines' for having an extra 15 or so dudes out of 1000 is entirely arbitrary.

tneva82 wrote:



So armour is worthless because of ap which is getting reduced.

Yep. Your aquments still suck. Never change.

If it was third edition where two plasma guns is considered a dangerous unit sure. 3 plus armour alone is mid tier. But we’re not playing 3rd edition.

You’ve got so many attacks, rerolls and other boosts that the volume of shots just overwhelms them. Why do you think they’re boosting all these other units in the game if damage isn’t still increasing? This is because the shooting is meant to kill two wound marines. So even if you balance the game so that you kill two Intercessors which is reasonable attrition for the marines, that same damage kills most of a sisters squad and takes a whole unit out the game.

Which would be fine if Sisters didn’t have the same profile and costs as they had in 3rd edition. 11 points for T3 model with 3 up armour. In fact it’s worse since your boltgun doesn’t punch through five up Armour anymore because reasons.

Intercessor 18 points


Sister of Battle 11 points

For just 7 points you get a model whose gun has longer range and a pip of AP. It hits on 3 plus in CC. It has an extra point of strength and toughness. It has twice the wounds and twice the attacks. The only benefit is a six invulnerable save which is a you only get to use if your armours bypassed.

Now, I think that is ridiculous and ain’t remotely balanced. The intercessor should cost at least double and probably getting on to triple what the Sister of Battle costs. Instead, they’re pretty much in the same points bracket with a few extra points getting a massive upgrade in every category.

Sisters of Battle should not be a glass cannon. The selling point is that they’re an elite army in power armour. They shouldn’t play like Eldar where you have to move very fragile units to deliver an absurd amount of damage. They should be able to take a bit of Ork or Imperial guard shooting on the chin. You should be encouraged to take big blocks of Sisters and park them on objectives, not have little min size squads hiding out in ruins as objective tokens. The army doesn’t remotely resemble how it’s meant to be.

That’s only going to get worse if they keep boosting other factions like doubling Genestealer wounds for literally no reason. Giving Orks toughness 5 which makes no sense.

By the Throne, can you stop wailing until you actually have something to wail about? T

he Faction Focus article will come out soon enough and give us an idea of just what a Battle Sister Squad looks like if the past articles are any indication of what we will see. Then we will have something beyond the wildest speculations of your brain to discuss.

 alextroy wrote:
By the Throne, can you stop wailing until you actually have something to wail about? T

he Faction Focus article will come out soon enough and give us an idea of just what a Battle Sister Squad looks like if the past articles are any indication of what we will see. Then we will have something beyond the wildest speculations of your brain to discuss.

Because as hilarious as it would be for people to complain about 2W Sisters of Battle after being silent on T5 Orks, 2W Genestealers, 2W/3A marines and T5 Terminators; I don’t see them ever doing that.

They should either be cheaper or get a stat increase.

The focus should be -

- Move away from glass hammer. Lower damage and boost durability for power armoured units. They aren’t Eldar. Moving AP around isn’t going to cut it if all heavy weapons are hitting on 2 plus with exploding 6s.
- Provide a reason to take Sisters of Battle in larger squads. They should be the core of the force.
- Find some army wide act of faith system that keeps the spirit of the earlier one.
- Redo the Paragon warsuit profile to work.
- Points shouldn’t make “elite” sisters infantry almost the same cost as their troops.

Double post- sorry.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


You’ve got so many attacks, rerolls and other boosts

We've got more of those things than GW's hype for the edition may have led some of us to believe, but we seem to be getting fewer of them in 10th than we have right now by virtue of the the fact that Leaders can only confer them upon the unit to whom they are attached, and others like Oath of Moment can only target five unit over the course of the entire game unless you bring Bobby.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

volume of shots just overwhelms them.

Except that the weapons that are carried in volume (basic weapons) all have lower AP, meaning that armour saves will matter more. At the same time, weapons that DO have AP will want to focus fire on vehicles, because small arms volume of fire is far less effective against vehicles than it was in 9th, and vehicles require dedicated anti-vehicle fire to deal with them.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Why do you think they’re boosting all these other units in the game if damage isn’t still increasing?

Damage (as in the damage characteristic) doesn't seem to have gone up significantly on the majority of the units we've seen, while AP is universally down, twin linked is no longer MOAR shots, and rerolls are more focused than general use. We've also been told about defensive reaction strats, though to be fair I don't think we've seen any yet.

Just like rerolls, lethality is still going to be there, but it's very clearly not going to be as over the top as it is now.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

This is because the shooting is meant to kill two wound marines. So even if you balance the game so that you kill two Intercessors which is reasonable attrition for the marines, that same damage kills most of a sisters squad and takes a whole unit out the game.

Multi-damage weapons with AP are what's most capable of destroying marines. A skilled player will not choose to waste these types of shots on 1W infantry if any other target is available.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Which would be fine if Sisters didn’t have the same profile and costs as they had in 3rd edition. 11 points for T3 model with 3 up armour. In fact it’s worse since your boltgun doesn’t punch through five up Armour anymore because reasons.

If our boltguns don't punch through five up armour anymore then neither do the boltguns of our enemies punch through ours, right? And that's a lot of 9th ed "evidence" that doesn't effectively support our thoughts about 10th.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Intercessor 18 points
Sister of Battle 11 points

I don't think we've seen 10th ed points for Intercessors, and I know we haven't seen them for sisters. Ninth ed points aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

For just 7 points you get a model whose gun has longer range and a pip of AP. It hits on 3 plus in CC. It has an extra point of strength and toughness. It has twice the wounds and twice the attacks. The only benefit is a six invulnerable save which is a you only get to use if your armours bypassed.

Well, I'll cut you some slack on this one- marines certainly were, and will likely continue to be better than sisters by perhaps a greater margin than they should be... I mean, obviously yes, a marine should be tougher... But maybe not quite that much tougher. So I get where you're coming from...

But again, these arguments are based on information about 9th, and quite frankly, until we see the new AoF, we have no idea how tough Sisters are going to be. AoF, if handled correctly, have the capacity to get us throwing punches above our weight.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Sisters of Battle should not be a glass cannon.

Not a glass canon, I agree. But we do have a thing with Martyrdom. Look at our fluff- Sanctuary 101, the Martyrdoms of our founding saints, the slaughter at Armageddon that had OoOML change their colours to honour the numbers who died. So if not glass canon, then at least stoic martyr willing to die to see the will of the Emperor made manifest.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

The selling point is that they’re an elite army in power armour.

Nope, that's marines. OUR selling point is Faith.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

They shouldn’t play like Eldar where you have to move very fragile units to deliver an absurd amount of damage. They should be able to take a bit of Ork or Imperial guard shooting on the chin. You should be encouraged to take big blocks of Sisters and park them on objectives, not have little min size squads hiding out in ruins as objective tokens.

I'm with you here too, and I think this is where sisters might excel. If you look at some of 10th's mechanics that we've seen so far, like the buffs provided by attached heroes and the changes to Blast weapons, and the hints about defensive reactions and the unknown effects of Faith, I expect big units of sisters holding objectives to be the standard.

I hope that the reductions in AP across the board finally give us that middle ground between 2nd Ed/9th Ed, where too many things had save modifiers so a 3+ armour save was never really a 3+ armour save, and 3rd-7th Ed, where armour was an either/or situation, where you either had your full save, or no save at all.

One of my most enduring 40k memories was my surprise at seeing a Marine take a 3+ save in the first game of 3rd Ed I ever witnessed, my experience thus far having just been 2nd Ed where everyone and his dog's chew toy had at least a -1 Save Mod.

9th won't have that, as save mods are still a thing, but if basic small arms fire exchanged between infantry actually involves their full armour saves, I'd be happy with that.

Also changes the strategies/tactics around infantry weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope that the reductions in AP across the board finally give us that middle ground between 2nd Ed/9th Ed, where too many things had save modifiers so a 3+ armour save was never really a 3+ armour save, and 3rd-7th Ed, where armour was an either/or situation, where you either had your full save, or no save at all.

One of my most enduring 40k memories was my surprise at seeing a Marine take a 3+ save in the first game of 3rd Ed I ever witnessed, my experience thus far having just been 2nd Ed where everyone and his dog's chew toy had at least a -1 Save Mod.

9th won't have that, as save mods are still a thing, but if basic small arms fire exchanged between infantry actually involves their full armour saves, I'd be happy with that.

Also changes the strategies/tactics around infantry weapons.

I fully agree with this.

Although one of my memories of early 3rd was watching my Deathwing get blown or slashed off the board by foes I didn’t really worry about in 2nd.