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.

Hey Dakka!

I have been a looong time lurker here. Thanks to all of you fine folk, I have decided to jump back into the hobby! I played Warhammer Fantasy (RIP) for years and with it transferring to Age of Sigmar, I lost my love to hobby.

After watching dozens and dozens of battle reports, I have come to a crossroads. Do I grab up Sisters of Battle and help purge the universe of Chaos, or do I gather my WAAAAGH and lead it to beat up the hummies?

I am looking for advice, guidance and anything else anyone has to share on these armies.

In fantasy, I played High Elves using a Dragon Prince bus style list. Very maneuverable and very elite style list. I know Orks cannot hit that but what about Sisters?

Thanks again in advance for all the help =]

I will say that it depends on how you like to whine.

Do you like to whine about how GW hates you, and you never get any models, and they've been putting you on the shelf for years with old minis, and uncompetitive codices? If so, either army will suit you fine!

But that said, Sisters of Battle does have a "worse" time with never getting new stuff. Seriously, you'd better like pewter and paying through the nose for hard to find models.

But that said, Orks always seem to be bottom tier or near-bottom with every edition of the game, give or take. Right now, in a rougher place rules-wise than Sisters.

So while both options will allow you to let the salt flow, which way to you prefer to be salty?

Haha, that's a funny way to look at it!

Either way I plan on converting a lot of my army, so sisters shouldn't be terrible to acquire, as long as my opponents are okay with conversions/counts as.

Are both really that bad on the table though? I don't mind having a weaker army but I would like to go into each game with a chance to win.

I would not recommend sisters as a starter army - I think they're doing pretty decent rules-wise at the moment, but simply obtaining the models is both expensive and difficult. Plus, sisters models are typically all metal, which I'm not a fan of.

In essence, though, sisters are more or less just space marines with T3 instead of T4. They have quite a few unique rules, granted, but have same weapons, similar vehicles, same BS, WS, and save.

Orks are far more easy and cheap to obtain, they're far more common both in-stores and in secondhand markets.

Rules wise, they're generally doing ok. Their infantry is generally decent to good, and their vehicles are generally mediocre to awful.

I play orks, so I'm perhaps biased, but nothing's more boring than yet another army with 3+ to hit, 3+ save, bolters and flamers and meltas.

So I'd say orks, unless you're a fan of metal models.

Also, disregard any and all rumors you may have heard regarding plastic sisters coming out soon. I've been playing since 2012, and have heard of plastic sisters rumors about every 6 months or so. Ain't happened yet, probably ain't going to happen anytime soon.

manofsteel wrote:


Haha, that's a funny way to look at it!

Either way I plan on converting a lot of my army, so sisters shouldn't be terrible to acquire, as long as my opponents are okay with conversions/counts as.

Are both really that bad on the table though? I don't mind having a weaker army but I would like to go into each game with a chance to win.

If you play with people that are casual and fun oriented you'll be perfectly fine balance wise with either army. It's when you start playing people that play competitively that Orks have a big issue. They're in the same boat as other index armies. They don't have a codex with lots of fun toys and rules.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I would not recommend sisters as a starter army - I think they're doing pretty decent rules-wise at the moment, but simply obtaining the models is both expensive and difficult. Plus, sisters models are typically all metal, which I'm not a fan of.

In essence, though, sisters are more or less just space marines with T3 instead of T4. They have quite a few unique rules, granted, but have same weapons, similar vehicles, same BS, WS, and save.

Orks are far more easy and cheap to obtain, they're far more common both in-stores and in secondhand markets.

Rules wise, they're generally doing ok. Their infantry is generally decent to good, and their vehicles are generally mediocre to awful.

I play orks, so I'm perhaps biased, but nothing's more boring than yet another army with 3+ to hit, 3+ save, bolters and flamers and meltas.

So I'd say orks, unless you're a fan of metal models.

Also, disregard any and all rumors you may have heard regarding plastic sisters coming out soon. I've been playing since 2012, and have heard of plastic sisters rumors about every 6 months or so. Ain't happened yet, probably ain't going to happen anytime soon.

Oh I figured they were never going to get plastic models besides the character that came in with Captain Ultramarine.

I imagine the competitive scene is Eldar and marines of all flavors.

The ability to gather up more Orks off the second hand market is appealing though. Thanks for the tip!

Orks may not get a lot of love via rules, but they do have an extensive model line, at the very least. It's a fun army to play, though you definitely need to be comfortable with losing handfuls of orks at a time.

Play Imperial or Choas, unless you like playing at a significant disadvantage in terms of rules and available units.

But hey, if you like a challenge, such as, being a second class GW customer, play whatever you want.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Play Imperial or Choas, unless you like playing at a significant disadvantage in terms of rules and available units.

But hey, if you like a challenge, such as, being a second class GW customer, play whatever you want.

That is some serious salt.

Exactly why I asked the OP what they like to whine about.

People are never perfectly happy with their armies. I think many people would be better off deciding what kind of crap they can put up with, rather than picking what they like and imagining it will be awesome forever.

If I get to brass tacks, I'd suggest Orks. They're a fun army, but I'd never want to paint them all. I can't think of any Ork player ever being called Cheesy, or anything like that. Regardless of power level, I always enjoy playing against Orks. For a few editions, they were very well balanced with Guard, and the will they / wont they turn where Guard either kill enough to blunt the assault or they get swept away were always highlight turns for the Ork player and myself.

I hate to say it, but Sisters always felt like a faction that kept going despite not being considered a "real" faction. They're models of women, in a sci-fantasy game. Otherwise, they're a split between Marines and Guardsmen. So they don't really reach out and grab me as a faction to collect or play.

I think the game would benefit from having more women models throughout the Imperial / Chaos line of products, rather than being a stand-alone army, but that's me. I don't really dig "fetishy" models, but I do think it's kind of weird that there aren't any readily available Guardswomen. I acknowledge that beneath Kevlar, the characteristics don't really show, but a couple of head options with women's faces would be good.

So yeah, play Orks, because playing Sisters seems like a tremendous pain in the ass, and Sisters players constantly complain about everything to do with their army. Ork players are always happy with modelling opportunities and painting and weird game rules like snotling-warp-cannons, and power level of an army is a crap-shoot anyway between editions.

Let's just say that Guard were terrible back in the days where you could leap-frog between combats, without ever being shot.

A choise between sisters and orks should go to the orks. Sisters have had no support for many years now. It is a miracle they got an index entry. Orks have plenty of suport, models you can buy, but they are currently a monobuild.

If you are looking for codexes that are plenty flexible and powerfull I would recomend the nids or the IG.

ArmchairArbiter wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Play Imperial or Choas, unless you like playing at a significant disadvantage in terms of rules and available units.

But hey, if you like a challenge, such as, being a second class GW customer, play whatever you want.

That is some serious salt.

And also inaccurate given elder and tyranids are apparently in the top tier this edition.

My advice is find the model range you like and play that. given the rate of change in 40K, by time you finish assmbling and painting an army there is a chance whatever you are told now could be semi-out of date, if not completely out of date.

Space Marines are often a good first choice for a first army because they're readily avaliable (you could proably get an entire battle company on ebay easily eneugh) have a lot of flex to be built anyway you want them to.

Between the two armies you mentioned I'd reccomend Orks simply to avoid having to deal with peweter. still, eaither of these armies will be a big inital cost. Another option since you liked high elves is proably Craftworld eldar.

In terms of the crunch Sisters are probably the best Index army out there right now (kinda damning with faint praise but seriously, Sisters are in a good spot). Collecting them can be a serious pain, though.

Sister right now are the better high mobility army then orks. They have decent short range shooting, have a vehicle they can shoot from, and with acts of faith, can take double actions, such as extra shooting, or moving. They're cheaper (in points) then Space Marines, but tougher then IG. They do have the downside though of not being able to 'horde' well, and their T3 is still a weakness, but can take a higher proportion of special weapons. This is why most successful sister builds are mechanized small units. Sisters also ally well.

If you do plan on sisters, you might be interested in third party companies, such as Raging Heroes (https://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/types?q=Sisters%20SF%20%28SoEM%20-%20SF%29), which is wrapping up delivery on a line of plastic scifi nuns. The look is similar in feel to GW sisters, though the models don't blend well together.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If I get to brass tacks, I'd suggest Orks. They're a fun army, but I'd never want to paint them all. I can't think of any Ork player ever being called Cheesy, or anything like that.

So maybe it's just me, but I don't see how Weirdboy spam is any more/less cheesy than something like Tau Commander spam or Chaos Malefic Lord spam.

It is just you.

Orks are fun to play against. Even if they were OP as all get-out, Orks would be fun to play against. I think there's a weird mix of Altruism and Barbarity and Humour that goes into being a proper Ork player. Orks are fun to play against.

 greatbigtree wrote:
It is just you.

Orks are fun to play against. Even if they were OP as all get-out, Orks would be fun to play against. I think there's a weird mix of Altruism and Barbarity and Humour that goes into being a proper Ork player. Orks are fun to play against.

Orks have always been presented as sort of a "fun" army. but have never since I started playing been exactly top tier, they're the type of army you play because you enjoy wacking conversions and rolling dice etc. not because you wanna be a "game winner"

My checkboard for choosing a new army goes as this:

1. Models. Don't like, won't buy.
2. Rules. Don't like, won't play.
3. Lore. Don't like, won't read.
4. Variety. Playing the same army most of your group does isn't as cool as playing something they don't have there!

So, the first question you need to answer is if you like Orks or SoB models better (this includes painting). Then, which playstyle you like more (this requires some playtesting, even with proxied armies). At least these 2 must concur - increasing the chances you won't abandon the army later (and thus wasting money)!

 Vector Strike wrote:
My checkboard for choosing a new army goes as this:

1. Models. Don't like, won't buy.
2. Rules. Don't like, won't play.
3. Lore. Don't like, won't read.
4. Variety. Playing the same army most of your group does isn't as cool as playing something they don't have there!

So, the first question you need to answer is if you like Orks or SoB models better (this includes painting). Then, which playstyle you like more (this requires some playtesting, even with proxied armies). At least these 2 must concur - increasing the chances you won't abandon the army later (and thus wasting money)!

This is actually great advice! I loved the High Elf fluff for Warhammer Fantasy and their models, so it kept me wanting to play them and add to my collection. I guess I will have to go back to the drawing board and really dive into what armies look the most appealing to me and what army offers the coolest fluff!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Sister right now are the better high mobility army then orks. They have decent short range shooting, have a vehicle they can shoot from, and with acts of faith, can take double actions, such as extra shooting, or moving. They're cheaper (in points) then Space Marines, but tougher then IG. They do have the downside though of not being able to 'horde' well, and their T3 is still a weakness, but can take a higher proportion of special weapons. This is why most successful sister builds are mechanized small units. Sisters also ally well.

If you do plan on sisters, you might be interested in third party companies, such as Raging Heroes (https://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/types?q=Sisters%20SF%20%28SoEM%20-%20SF%29), which is wrapping up delivery on a line of plastic scifi nuns. The look is similar in feel to GW sisters, though the models don't blend well together.

Yea I was intrigued by the Acts of Faith thing, it seemed like a really nice (fluffy) addition to the army! I was browsing some different sites and it seems waaaay cheaper to buy 3rd party minis and do some slight converting to get them to GW gear loadouts compared to buying a full Sisters force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

ArmchairArbiter wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Play Imperial or Choas, unless you like playing at a significant disadvantage in terms of rules and available units.

But hey, if you like a challenge, such as, being a second class GW customer, play whatever you want.

That is some serious salt.

And also inaccurate given elder and tyranids are apparently in the top tier this edition.

My advice is find the model range you like and play that. given the rate of change in 40K, by time you finish assmbling and painting an army there is a chance whatever you are told now could be semi-out of date, if not completely out of date.

Space Marines are often a good first choice for a first army because they're readily avaliable (you could proably get an entire battle company on ebay easily eneugh) have a lot of flex to be built anyway you want them to.

Between the two armies you mentioned I'd reccomend Orks simply to avoid having to deal with peweter. still, eaither of these armies will be a big inital cost. Another option since you liked high elves is proably Craftworld eldar.

Thanks for this advice! I will have to dive into the model catalog and really window shop. Eldar seemed like a natural fit based off of the High Elf past, but I didn't want to be "that guy" starting with a top tier army as my first choice.

BrianDavion wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
It is just you.

Orks are fun to play against. Even if they were OP as all get-out, Orks would be fun to play against. I think there's a weird mix of Altruism and Barbarity and Humour that goes into being a proper Ork player. Orks are fun to play against.

Orks have always been presented as sort of a "fun" army. but have never since I started playing been exactly top tier, they're the type of army you play because you enjoy wacking conversions and rolling dice etc. not because you wanna be a "game winner"

There was a time when Kult of Speed was absolutely a top tier tournament army. Personally, I love the Ork faction, and if you like to convert then Orks is a great choice. The potential for converted infantry and especially vehicles is pretty much endless. They also support, IMO, the widest range of potential paint schemes, from the colourful and cartoony to realistic and gritty. They aren't currently a top-tier tournament list, but that's not the same at all as saying they are not competitive in a casual setting, or at smaller events. You can win games with Orks, you just aren't going to take them to Adepticon and wreck face. The need to be top-tier is a bit of a mirage on Dakka IMO. Efficiency and mathammer rule a lot of the tactics threads, but the extent to which that matters to most players is much less than it would appear if you only go by how guys talk about the game on this forum. I played very seriously for about a decade, and went to hundreds of tournaments, but only a handful of events like Adepticon, where WAAC was absolutely the only thing that mattered. The top end of the tournament scene right now is almost like playing a different game entirely from what your average GW hobbyist is playing. IF you want to play at your LFGS, in campaigns with friends, and at the occasional small local tournament, you'll be fine with Orks. Personally, I build top-end lists as seperate projects from the stuff I do because I love the setting and the story, and the artistic side of the hobby.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Orks can't win, just that their "most powerful" builds are not as strong as the "most powerful" builds of other armies, right now.

I'm a long-time garage gamer. I think I've ever been to 1 or 2 tournaments in my 20 years of GW gaming. My friends and I play to win. We play with tournament-level armies sometimes, and our winnings are bragging rights. We all play to win. But I try to play WYSIWYG as often as I can, which means my own armies are the best I can make from what I have, unless we're pulling out all the stops or I want to try something "weird".

Right now, that's amazing for the win-ratio, because with IG... I've got everything I need to build kick-ass lists, by having a little bit of everything. Just the way my collection has turned out in this edition. A bit of a bummer, because my throw-together, little-bit-of-everything approach happens to be OP right now, without trying to be. We've made house-rules to help balance, and games are as good as 8th allows without massive rejigging.

I like "plain" models without much detail on most models. I can paint the majority quickly. Were I to jump in right now, I'd probably pick either Necrons or Tau. Neither are top-curve powerful. Both seem like they can be easy to paint, with a simple scheme, and as anti-olde-schoole as it is, I like the Newcron fluff. I'd probably pick up Tau, as a friend already plays Necrons.

manofsteel wrote:

Eldar seemed like a natural fit based off of the High Elf past, but I didn't want to be "that guy" starting with a top tier army as my first choice.

I was going to ask why Eldar weren't on the list with your Elvish background. You don't have to be "that guy" just because you play Eldar. Try building a list without Reapers, Dragons, Seer Council or Scat bikes (units which have/had a bad reputation) and no one could accuse you of it.

From your two options I'd pick Orks for the wider choice of units, tactics and modelling opportunities, but that's just me.