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.

 AtoMaki wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ahyes. In edition where durability goes up sisters supposed to jupt delete units at will as before.

Space Marines get to do that, so why not the girls?

And Tau ...and Eldar

On a slightly positive note - The Dominions look quite good - obviously not Marine or Eldar good but good

 Mythantor wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ahyes. In edition where durability goes up sisters supposed to jupt delete units at will as before.

Reduced lethality great as long as apply only your opponent eh?

Id just settle for our anti-tank squad being able to wound the average tank on better than a 5+

I think I'd expect to see a lot of Sisters ally in 3 Armiger Warglaives or Canis Rex/one of the other big boys. Sisters did get a little shafted here.

People calling out inconsistencies are those with early access, either. What you're seeing is a huge collective of people all looking at something at the same time and noticing different things. Let's be serious here.

how many second after seeing Dark Artisan and the old liquifires and the point costs of DE units, did it take for the community to understand that something was wrong. Even the playtesters were acting up when talking about DE and later Ad Mecha.

Sisters are mechanicaly bad. Conditional stuff will always be worse then unconditional stuff, unless the conditions are writen in a such a way that they are auto met. forcing an MSU style of a build, while at the same time making people play with 10 size squads is bad design. No real efficient anwser to tanks or monsters, is bad design too. It wouldn't be as much of a bad design, if there weren't armies that will be just deleting tanks, infantry, elites etc.
Plus, and I agree with you here, that no many people like the idea of, and now you are going to buy 10+ boxes, because from the army you used nothing really works anymore. Then you will assemble and paint it, because the painted rule is still in. meanwhile people with other armies are going to be playing with the same stuff they had since 6th ed.

Karol wrote:

People calling out inconsistencies are those with early access, either. What you're seeing is a huge collective of people all looking at something at the same time and noticing different things. Let's be serious here.

how many second after seeing Dark Artisan and the old liquifires and the point costs of DE units, did it take for the community to understand that something was wrong. Even the playtesters were acting up when talking about DE and later Ad Mecha.

Sisters are mechanicaly bad. Conditional stuff will always be worse then unconditional stuff, unless the conditions are writen in a such a way that they are auto met. forcing an MSU style of a build, while at the same time making people play with 10 size squads is bad design. No real efficient anwser to tanks or monsters, is bad design too. It wouldn't be as much of a bad design, if there weren't armies that will be just deleting tanks, infantry, elites etc.
Plus, and I agree with you here, that no many people like the idea of, and now you are going to buy 10+ boxes, because from the army you used nothing really works anymore. Then you will assemble and paint it, because the painted rule is still in. meanwhile people with other armies are going to be playing with the same stuff they had since 6th ed.

First of all I don't buy into you having had points for stuff etc for weeks now. Want in points for 3 totally random units and we can check back in 2 days. The flip side being, is this only talking about competitive lists or are people generally suggesting casual games for sisters are no benuo?

 Mythantor wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mythantor wrote:
I think you mean 6-12" range MM got nerfed range now need to be in 9" to get melta buff.

For maximum effect, yea, but I think the idea is to try and push damage via MD. A couple 6s is as good as a prism in that sense ( obviously not in any other regard ).

I think Sisters is going to be high ceiling trying to manage / generate MD and dealing with losses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Daedalus please, people had the rules for longer then a few hours. If I could get my hands on the index a week before, then some dudes in UK can easily get a month, or so, head start. That is why everyone is calling out inconsistancies within the rules or how rules differ between different language versions.

So you had the index and shared nothing about them?

This post was not started by someone with advanced access. People calling out inconsistencies are those with early access, either. What you're seeing is a huge collective of people all looking at something at the same time and noticing different things. Let's be serious here.

Cant us a MD to set the damage roll if you need to use it to gaurantee the wound.

There is jank with Dialogus and Triumph...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mythantor wrote:
I think you mean 6-12" range MM got nerfed range now need to be in 9" to get melta buff.

For maximum effect, yea, but I think the idea is to try and push damage via MD.

I think MD is a Red Herring. It is just 1/phase/unit and it has to be activated before any dice are rolled so you can't just safety net your rolls it is "substitute or die". And if the stars don't align and you end up with low MD results and no super special characters to do something about it then sucks2bU.

HÖWEVER, you can push out a crapton of re-rolls: Canoness re-rolls hits (and can tank some damage with her one-phase 2+ invu), Immolator allows re-rolling wounds, and Vahl re-rolls everything, so you can have, say, 3 Retributors and 1 Nundams re-roll everything ever and that's pretty nice.

I'm like 90% sure the dominion bolter tags are a transcription error

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I think Sisters is going to be high ceiling trying to manage / generate MD and dealing with losses.

Saying something is "high ceiling" without knowing points is basically tantamount to saying it doesn't look that great (i.e. for this stuff to be good, you're reliant on cheapness/luckiness or your opponent to make bad decisions). Why can't you just be open with that?

 warmaster21 wrote:
I'm like 90% sure the dominion bolter tags are a transcription error

Because they are good?

 Mythantor wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ahyes. In edition where durability goes up sisters supposed to jupt delete units at will as before.

Reduced lethality great as long as apply only your opponent eh?

Id just settle for our anti-tank squad being able to wound the average tank on better than a 5+

This seems to be a trend. Tyranids only have a few weapons that do more than 3 Damage. Most of the non-heavy anti-tank guns (blasters, meltas) wound rhinos on a 5+.

Unless vehicles get a significant points increase, it feels like vehicle durability might be a problem in early 10th.

I don't miss Armor Values and the Vehicle Damage chart, but at least anti-tank guns could reliably hurt tanks under that system. Blasters only wounding rhinos on a 5+ compared to a splinter rifle's 6+ feels really weird.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Mythantor wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ahyes. In edition where durability goes up sisters supposed to jupt delete units at will as before.

Reduced lethality great as long as apply only your opponent eh?

Id just settle for our anti-tank squad being able to wound the average tank on better than a 5+

This seems to be a trend. Tyranids only have a few weapons that do more than 3 Damage. Most of the non-heavy anti-tank guns (blasters, meltas) wound rhinos on a 5+.

Unless vehicles get a significant points increase, it feels like vehicle durability might be a problem in early 10th.

I don't miss Armor Values and the Vehicle Damage chart, but at least anti-tank guns could reliably hurt tanks under that system. Blasters only wounding rhinos on a 5+ compared to a splinter rifle's 6+ feels really weird.

Difference is even our heavy weapons lack str as well.
Lascannons are str 12 ffs.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I think Sisters is going to be high ceiling trying to manage / generate MD and dealing with losses.

Saying something is "high ceiling" without knowing points is basically tantamount to saying it doesn't look that great (i.e. for this stuff to be good, you're reliant on cheapness/luckiness or your opponent to make bad decisions). Why can't you just be open with that?

Because they do have good stuff and it's quite complicated. If you were to take missions out of 9th it would be an entirely different game. As long as things with absurd killing potential like Hellfire Bolts get dealt with then the ability to operate on the table gets easier. And it's not that the opponent is making bad decisions - they're a rock and a hard place.

There's the matter of Saint Katherine, which helps produce 6s and breaks the acts of faith limit among other very decent abilities. And then there's some decent CP regen on top of not always needing CP for rerolls so tank shock and grenades can be useful - especially with Paragons being vehicles and swinging a S12 mace and engines swinging with S10.

This is also an index detachment and as such leans melee / martyr heavy in the strats and enhancements. Eventually we'll see stuff like the 'Holy Trinity' make its way back in other detachments.

What I don't like is the seemingly rough internal balance or needing lots of characters that people don't own.

Poor Battle Sanctum. Barely made it through two editions before being squatted.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I think Sisters is going to be high ceiling trying to manage / generate MD and dealing with losses.

Saying something is "high ceiling" without knowing points is basically tantamount to saying it doesn't look that great (i.e. for this stuff to be good, you're reliant on cheapness/luckiness or your opponent to make bad decisions). Why can't you just be open with that?

Because they do have good stuff and it's quite complicated. If you were to take missions out of 9th it would be an entirely different game. As long as things with absurd killing potential like Hellfire Bolts get dealt with then the ability to operate on the table gets easier. And it's not that the opponent is making bad decisions - they're a rock and a hard place.

There's the matter of Saint Katherine, which helps produce 6s and breaks the acts of faith limit among other very decent abilities. And then there's some decent CP regen on top of not always needing CP for rerolls so tank shock and grenades can be useful - especially with Paragons being vehicles and swinging a S12 mace and engines swinging with S10.

This is also an index detachment and as such leans melee / martyr heavy in the strats and enhancements. Eventually we'll see stuff like the 'Holy Trinity' make its way back in other detachments.

What I don't like is the seemingly rough internal balance or needing lots of characters that people don't own.

I dont count St Katherine as a character because even though I have her she is beyond a nightmare to transport safely so I cant actually use her.

Magnets.

By now gw models should be transported with magnets anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Mythantor wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ahyes. In edition where durability goes up sisters supposed to jupt delete units at will as before.

Reduced lethality great as long as apply only your opponent eh?

Id just settle for our anti-tank squad being able to wound the average tank on better than a 5+

This seems to be a trend. Tyranids only have a few weapons that do more than 3 Damage. Most of the non-heavy anti-tank guns (blasters, meltas) wound rhinos on a 5+.

Unless vehicles get a significant points increase, it feels like vehicle durability might be a problem in early 10th.

I don't miss Armor Values and the Vehicle Damage chart, but at least anti-tank guns could reliably hurt tanks under that system. Blasters only wounding rhinos on a 5+ compared to a splinter rifle's 6+ feels really weird.

So you enpectea strength to just go up same as t? Would kinda negate point with nothing changing...

 Mythantor wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Mythantor wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ahyes. In edition where durability goes up sisters supposed to jupt delete units at will as before.

Reduced lethality great as long as apply only your opponent eh?

Id just settle for our anti-tank squad being able to wound the average tank on better than a 5+

This seems to be a trend. Tyranids only have a few weapons that do more than 3 Damage. Most of the non-heavy anti-tank guns (blasters, meltas) wound rhinos on a 5+.

Unless vehicles get a significant points increase, it feels like vehicle durability might be a problem in early 10th.

I don't miss Armor Values and the Vehicle Damage chart, but at least anti-tank guns could reliably hurt tanks under that system. Blasters only wounding rhinos on a 5+ compared to a splinter rifle's 6+ feels really weird.

Difference is even our heavy weapons lack str as well.
Lascannons are str 12 ffs.

Yeah, the drukhari dark lance is S12 as wel. (Although at least my drukhari will have the option to spam haywire scourges.)

It's definitely a shift in how anti-tank weapons are meant to behave. It used to be that a single meltagun shot could take out a rhino without even needing to get all that lucky. This edition, I guess meltaguns are something you need several of to reliably do any appreciable harm to a rhino. I support the idea of lowering lethality on the whole, but I'm struggling to think of a meltagun or blaster as something that only occassionally does damage when you shoot it at a rhino.

It seems like a better approach would have been to up the strength of such weapons but leave the Damage a bit lower. Or just charge more points for anti-tank guns and then up their stats to match the changes to vehicle Wounds and Toughness. (The latter assuming that GW wants dedicated AT weapons to continue being roughly as effective against tanks as before.)

Goal wasn't to keep at same. Goal was to stop vehicles going bam instantly...

What's the point of upping durability if you up lethality to match?


Only way to get lethality down is not up lethality same rate as durability get buffed. That's game design 101.

tneva82 wrote:


So you enpectea strength to just go up same as t? Would kinda negate point with nothing changing...

Enpectea?

Upping the strength of dedicated anti-tank guns specifically would allow GW to reduce lethality throughout the game overall but still allow anti-tank guns to keep pace with vehicles. So for instance, if GW made 10th edition meltaguns S12, they'd remain consistently capable of damaging rhinos and land raiders, but bolters would still be wounding that rhino on a 6+ instead of a 5+ (as it does now).

GW seems to at least sort of want that to be the case given that they've upped the strength of lascannons and dark lances to still wound rhinos on 3s and land raiders on 4s. Not giving the same treatment to meltas and blasters is awkward because you have these single-shot weapons traditionally framed as being anti-tank guns that now only wound a rhino 1/3rd of the time (after hitting). Shooting a blaster or melta at a rhino feels like a gamble with a modest payoff instead of feeling like a specialized weapon performing reliably against its target of choice.

EDIT: Sloppy math says that to kill a T9 W10 rhino with blasters (which are framed as anti-tank guns), you need...
10+ damage means 3 wounds (AP means each wound goes straight through the rhino's save)
3 wounds means you need 9 hits.
Drukhari hit with blasters on a 3+, so you need 13.5 blasters to get those 9 hits.

So that's 3 squads of blaster scourges plus the two blasters from a 10-man warrior squad to take out a single rhino. I'm all for reduced lethality, but it doesn't seem like you should need 3 dedicated anti-tank squads plus some help from their friends to take out a single enemy transport.

tneva82 wrote:
Goal wasn't to keep at same. Goal was to stop vehicles going bam instantly...

What's the point of upping durability if you up lethality to match?


Only way to get lethality down is not up lethality same rate as durability get buffed. That's game design 101.

The point is some factions got upped lethality but others didnt.
SM get str 12 lascannons and all sorts of lethal wounds or whatever it is.
Sisters got str 9 Melta.
It used to be Melta was better at killing but at the drawback of low range. Now Lascannons just make melta look bad.

Kabalites will be a 10 man like BSS. Their one Dark Lance...

1 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 5.5 = 1.5

And the MM

2 * .5 * .333 * 3.5 = 1.2 / 1.8 ( short )

Against a Landraider it becomes 0.9 vs 1 / 1.5.

The MM might be "worse", but it has twice the shots and almost max AP still. Range is an issue, but that's likely a problem for points.

Also I take back my comment on MD for damage. It should be used on wounding if you don't have rerolls to prevent shots from cratering.

Feels like a points resolution to me.

I mean the MM remains better than a Lascannon into just about anything except T10 and T11 - where its about as good.

I find the whole "how will I ever roll a 5+ when I have miracle dice" a bit weird too.

Sure, if MMs are overcosted Sisters could be in real trouble - but that goes for everything in the game.

 Mythantor wrote:
We get no ranged weapons higher than str 10 and precious few of them as MM are only str 9 which for the supposed premier tank killers is just dumb.

You cant even put dominions in a Immolator anymore. Only units you can put in them is Sacrosants or Retributers as basic Celestians are just outright gone...

Dominions locked to 10 models and Retributers locked to 5.

Oh and we're rocking guard level leadership now.

I kinda want to just cry.

I think they might be getting a third wave of models that might cover the firepower gap. As I understand it they’ve been very popular and there’s still space for a Vindicator variant or some dakka bikes. This very much feels like a placeholder.

But yeah, there’s some odd choices. Like I got 10 converted Celestians and had my squads set up for blocks of 20 which went out the window. It puts the army in a weird place. You can’t get the numbers to make up for having less wounds than marines but you also can’t lean into MSU with units of 5. So you can’t maximise your character buffs on bigger squads.

Points are going to be everything but I worry the writers are overvaluing the power armour and ignoring that a Chaos Marine has more attacks than a Canoness. They have to be aggressively costed relative to marines with the stat lines they have.

I am glad Paragons and the Triumph got a boost. Excuse to get the Triumph finally built. 😄

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Kabalites will be a 10 man like BSS. Their one Dark Lance...

1 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 5.5 = 1.5

And the MM

2 * .5 * .333 * 3.5 = 1.2 / 1.8 ( short )

Against a Landraider it becomes 0.9 vs 1 / 1.5.

The MM might be "worse", but it has twice the shots and almost max AP still. Range is an issue, but that's likely a problem for points.

Also I take back my comment on MD for damage. It should be used on wounding if you don't have rerolls to prevent shots from cratering.

To clarify, I'm personally not really comparing lances against MMs. My concern is more that, some anti-tank weapons seem like they might no longer be good at their specialized jobs. See above about needing 14 blasters to kill a rhino. Maybe I just need to adjust my perspective, but it feels like a specialized anti-tank weapon shouldn't be fishing for 5s to wound against its intended target. Maybe blasters and meltaguns aren't meant to be thought of as anti-tank weapons in 10th? Maybe they're meant to be gravis killers instead?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

I find the whole "how will I ever roll a 5+ when I have miracle dice" a bit weird too.

Miracle dice are a thing, sure. But it feels weird to need to use a miracle die to make a specialized anti-tank weapon actually perform well against a tank, right? Plus, if that is GW's intention, I think I'd rather trade the whole Miracle Dice mechanic for a couple more points of Strength on my sisters' meltas.

tneva82 wrote:
Goal wasn't to keep at same. Goal was to stop vehicles going bam instantly...

What's the point of upping durability if you up lethality to match?


Only way to get lethality down is not up lethality same rate as durability get buffed. That's game design 101.

Stop with the gaslighting, everyone knows that GW already hilariously failed at their actual stated goal, which anyways was not that some armies should just get folded by tough vehicles.

And even though we're still missing points, this incompetently made Index just works if Sisters are pretty much a Horde army now.

tneva82 wrote:
Goal wasn't to keep at same. Goal was to stop vehicles going bam instantly...

What's the point of upping durability if you up lethality to match?

Because the problem was never that vehicles were too vulnerable to anti-vehicle weapons. The problem was that vehicles were vulnerable to anti-elite weapons. This led to many units not bothering with dedicated anti-vehicle weapons because their anti-elite weapons were almost as good (sometimes even better), whilst also being much better against infantry and such as well.

Thus, the goal should not have been to make vehicles more durable against dedicated anti-vehicle weapons, the goal should have been to make vehicles more resilient to anti-elite weapons like plasmaguns.

I should add, too, that GW approached the problem in the most asinine way possible. The logical solution would have been to give vehicles very good saves (including 1+ saves) and cut down on invulnerable saves. This would then have combined well with overall reductions to AP of many weapons. Anti-vehicle weapons, though, could retain their AP - which would finally serve a meaningful purpose.

Instead, what we have is an absolute mess of some anti-vehicle weapons being buffed, whilst others are left behind. Not only that but their damage/rules still make them out to be anti-vehicle weapons, even though their strength makes them horribly inefficient at the task.

Not that any of this matters. GW could replace the contents of their boxes with parasitic wasps and people here would still lavish praise on them for making a bold and unforeseen improvement to their games.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Kabalites will be a 10 man like BSS. Their one Dark Lance...

1 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 5.5 = 1.5

And the MM

2 * .5 * .333 * 3.5 = 1.2 / 1.8 ( short )

Against a Landraider it becomes 0.9 vs 1 / 1.5.

I'm not sure your math is proving what you seem to think it's proving. Needing 8 multi-meltas (so 2 entire Retributor units) firing at 18" to kill a single Rhino is not a good return.

Even at optimum range, you still need 6 multi-meltas to (on average) guarantee a kill.

For a weapon that's supposed to sacrifice range for effectiveness, that's an utterly abysmal return.

Tyel wrote:
I find the whole "how will I ever roll a 5+ when I have miracle dice" a bit weird too.

Don't worry, SoB players, you're saved. Miracle Dice are the answer to every single problem your army faces. Because, just as DE have infinite Pain Tokens at all times, so too does your army have infinite Miracle Dice that can be spent freely on every single roll your army ever has to make.

Ah yes. Weapons should just delete units.

Sheesh. People complain when units die and when they don't the omplain.

Bup it has become clear lethality going down is fine as long as its for others. Own units should laugh at enemy firepower but own units should delete enemy.


Replace skill with op datasheets.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. Weapons should just delete units.

Sheesh. People complain when units die and when they don't the omplain.

Bup it has become clear lethality going down is fine as long as its for others. Own units should laugh at enemy firepower but own units should delete enemy.


Replace skill with op datasheets.

Not sure if you're trolling or just being salty because people agree (edit: disagree) with you. That's a really disingenuous interpretation of what people have been saying.

The issue isn't that I want my personal armies' weapons to auto-delete tanks. The issue is that I want everyone's anti-tank weapons to be reasonably effective against tanks. And needing 14 blasters to kill a rhino doesn't seem reasonable to me.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. Weapons should just delete units.

Sheesh. People complain when units die and when they don't the omplain.

Bup it has become clear lethality going down is fine as long as its for others. Own units should laugh at enemy firepower but own units should delete enemy.


Replace skill with op datasheets.

I will just repeat: Stop with the gaslighting, anti-vehicle weapons should obviously be able to destroy vehicles.

And i also will repeat this: Sisters are a slow + low range glass canon army, if they don't have lethality they have nothing, and they can't even remotely laugh at enemies firepower(and i'm not just talking about the broken Eldar or Space Marines here).

Normal players aren't Siegler, to expect that skill just sommehow magically resolves all the glaring balancing issues of GW is ridiculous.

Dudeface wrote:

First of all I don't buy into you having had points for stuff etc for weeks now.

yeah thats 100% bs, it wouldve leaked somewhere


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:


Upping the strength of dedicated anti-tank guns specifically would allow GW to reduce lethality throughout the game overall but still allow anti-tank guns to keep pace with vehicles. So for instance, if GW made 10th edition meltaguns S12, they'd remain consistently capable of damaging rhinos and land raiders, but bolters would still be wounding that rhino on a 6+ instead of a 5+ (as it does now).

bolters wounding tanks on 5 wasnt the main source of lethality

 Wyldhunt wrote:
To clarify, I'm personally not really comparing lances against MMs. My concern is more that, some anti-tank weapons seem like they might no longer be good at their specialized jobs. See above about needing 14 blasters to kill a rhino. Maybe I just need to adjust my perspective, but it feels like a specialized anti-tank weapon shouldn't be fishing for 5s to wound against its intended target. Maybe blasters and meltaguns aren't meant to be thought of as anti-tank weapons in 10th? Maybe they're meant to be gravis killers instead?

I do think Blasters are transitioned to be a better heavy infantry / light vehicle hunter. Before the game didn't have a lot of stuff that popped up in the T5 / T6 range save for specialized armies. Now in this new scale where T6/7/8 would be uncommon there's still a ton of stuff that that's going to be crucial.

An armored sentinel is now T8 W7 2+, Ballistarii are T7 W7 3+, Kataphrons are T7 W3 3+, Custodes, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm not sure your math is proving what you seem to think it's proving. Needing 8 multi-meltas (so 2 entire Retributor units) firing at 18" to kill a single Rhino is not a good return.

Even at optimum range, you still need 6 multi-meltas to (on average) guarantee a kill.

For a weapon that's supposed to sacrifice range for effectiveness, that's an utterly abysmal return.

I think that's sort of the point even though your perspective is more negative than mine.

Imagine a S12 MM --

2 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 2.3 / 3.7 // T9 to T11
2 * .5 * .5 * .833 * 3.5 = 1.5 / 2.3 // T12

And so you might say, "Well, yea short range!", but that ignores all the platforms that are very fast -- including the ones where they shoot out of a Rhino and get +1 to hit and +1 to wound for the Rhino being on low wounds or any other buffs that might be available to this platform.