hopes, dreams, and fears for sisters in 8th

[Knight of the Raven]

That and if we get 10 point multi-meltas Marines are going to lose their helmets.

The term you're looking for is "win-win."

 

As for sisters only getting a rules update... well, it might be a good thing. To quote my favorite B&C member:

 

I'm almost positive that any attempt by GW/BL to make Sisters cool...well...it's like this.

 

You take a bunch of middle aged British guys. You lock them in an office and tell them "Okay, I want this faction to be made all 'hip' and 'with it' so the kids these days will think they're 'da bomb'. You dig me, dawgs?"

 

At this point, you have only yourself to blame for the horrors to come.

 

[Noeh]

 

No no, it's fine. They still have time to fix it if it's bad..pffffahahaha! Who am I kidding, this is GW. It'll just be a copy paste of the original codex again with the excuse "Oh we thought it was fine just as it was! Did a major rule change happen or something?"

Can't really just Copy and Paste the codex directly. Mostly because of new statlines.

 

That and if we get 10 point multi-meltas Marines are going to lose their helmets.

 

According to what we've heard from Jervis Johnson on a Twitch stream all armies were worked on the same time to better tighten up the edition. Doesn't mean we're getting new toys, but it does mean this is probably the most dedicated focus given to Sisters since 2nd edition.

 

You dare challenge GW to not copy paste our rules once more? You tryin' to say they can't? Now they're going to do it just to prove you wrong.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

No no, it's fine. They still have time to fix it if it's bad..pffffahahaha! Who am I kidding, this is GW. It'll just be a copy paste of the original codex again with the excuse "Oh we thought it was fine just as it was! Did a major rule change happen or something?"

Can't really just Copy and Paste the codex directly. Mostly because of new statlines.

 

That and if we get 10 point multi-meltas Marines are going to lose their helmets.

 

According to what we've heard from Jervis Johnson on a Twitch stream all armies were worked on the same time to better tighten up the edition. Doesn't mean we're getting new toys, but it does mean this is probably the most dedicated focus given to Sisters since 2nd edition.

 

You dare challenge GW to not copy paste our rules once more? You tryin' to say they can't? Now they're going to do it just to prove you wrong.

 

Unless they secretly keep a TARDIS on hand to go back in time to prove me wrong, I'm going to say that they didn't just copy and paste.

 

And even if they do have a TARDIS we know that GW doesn't copy and paste, they have a serf transcribe the information onto a sheet of vellum with a quill while sitting in a candlelit room.

[Servant of Dante]

Wait, you don't call your copyist serf Control C?

 

Seriously though, I would be surprised if we don't just have the same units and generals stats and options as before, but with 8E stat lines. And I'm ok with that. I do hope we cost a few points less per model though.

[BitsHammer]

Wait, you don't call your copyist serf Control C?

naming them makes it harder to purge them for heresy later.

 

Seriously though, I would be surprised if we don't just have the same units and generals stats and options as before, but with 8E stat lines. And I'm ok with that. I do hope we cost a few points less per model though.

Wargear and units are supposed to be staying the same. It's points costs and rules that are getting changed and will be the decidinng factor if the finally balanced the army.

 

Also a squadron of Exorcists (assuming we get them like how Guard and amarines can buy squadrons) sounds extra good with the split firing rule. Throw three into a single HS slot and then take Retributors or Penitent Engines (which aren't going to be vehicles thank the Emperor) in another slot.

[Noeh]

Can you just imagine a wall of 9 penitent engines with split fire though? Paired with a solid multicharge afterwards...or just a nice charge into a gunline that drags a ton of people into the slaughter of combat....
Delicious carnage.

[Beams]

Can you just imagine a wall of 9 penitent engines with split fire though? Paired with a solid multicharge afterwards...or just a nice charge into a gunline that drags a ton of people into the slaughter of combat....

Delicious carnage.

 

Here's hoping Heavy Flamers aren't stronger than flamers, but instead deal more hits...

 

Still, I'm super excited and anxious to see the Pentinent engine statline, as it's one of my all time favorite models.

[Noeh]

 

Can you just imagine a wall of 9 penitent engines with split fire though? Paired with a solid multicharge afterwards...or just a nice charge into a gunline that drags a ton of people into the slaughter of combat....

Delicious carnage.

 

Here's hoping Heavy Flamers aren't stronger than flamers, but instead deal more hits...

 

Still, I'm super excited and anxious to see the Pentinent engine statline, as it's one of my all time favorite models.

 

Why not both? I just want a 2d6 flamethrower with higher strength and armor rending flames.

It'll go wonderfully when I assemble my Acheron. Inferno cannon should easily be 3 or 4d6 and melting just everything due to the high flames. It used to use a MASSIVE template after all.

[Ficinus]

Wait, you don't call your copyist serf Control C?

 

Seriously though, I would be surprised if we don't just have the same units and generals stats and options as before, but with 8E stat lines. And I'm ok with that. I do hope we cost a few points less per model though.

 

You doubt their ability to copy and paste with wanton abandon?  Sisters will be the only models with Initiative stats in the new edition!  It'll be okay, though, when it says "AP 5" for a bolter and flamer, we can interpret that to mean that they give a -5 to armour saves.  And our basic sisters will hit on a 3+ in close combat (but only a 4+ in shooting).  It'll be a funhouse mirror list.

[Servant of Dante]

Or that they add 5 to all armour saves :P

[Rizara]

I seriously doubt that the heavy flamer and inferno flamer will gain more hits than a normal flamer, as before they use the same template.   The random number of hits seems to stem from the templates, but I could see the strength of the heavy flamer being 5, which makes it easier to wound, and an inferno flamer as str 6, again making it easier to wound.   I can also see them as having more rend or AP value, with the heavy flamer possibly being -2 to armor and the inferno flamer being -3 to armor.    But we also don't have to fear as we have immolators with twin linked heavy flamers in the turrets, which doubles the attack so either way, those will be 2d6 hits at minimum str of 5, which means they will be feared.   I could however see the range for the heavy flamer and inferno flame cannons being increased, even if only by 2 inches, as that would make them only have a d6 hits more scary if at a bit longer range.   A normal flamer is 8 inches, so I could easily see a heavy flamer being 10 inches, with the inferno cannons on the sides of land raider redeemers being 10-12 inches.    This way those weapons become stronger, and much scarier than simply hitting more models.   The templates I feel really determine the amount of models that could possibly be hit with weapons in the new edition.  

[BitsHammer]

Heavy flamers have two barrels, two shots perhaps? >:D

 

Considering that GW did something to the mulit melta to justify it needing to cost 27 points on top of the 13 point Marine the had carrying it (making for a 50 point model who is not an HQ choice, nor Terminator and has only one wound) I can imagine the Heavy Flamer got something done to it that will give it more kick. Perhaps double range (16", 1d6, -1, auto hits perhaps?) to represent the extra oomph it has.

 

While the Heavy Bolter hasn't really changed much, it never needed to. I can see it staying cheap as chips to be the cheap option for upgrade while we see a stronger Heavy Flamer to make up for fact that it is no longer the only "heavy" style weapon we got to run and gun with (and even if it becomes a heavy weapon it autohits so who cares about -1bs?).

[Sister Alessia]

I would be happy with a pretty much copy and paste from our current list, just a bit cheaper and with some slight changes to Faith. Such as Celestians having a useful faith power, like say Holy firestorm! They shoot 3x as many shots for any weapons that are part of the trinity for the turn :)

[Noeh]

I seriously doubt that the heavy flamer and inferno flamer will gain more hits than a normal flamer, as before they use the same template.   The random number of hits seems to stem from the templates, but I could see the strength of the heavy flamer being 5, which makes it easier to wound, and an inferno flamer as str 6, again making it easier to wound.   I can also see them as having more rend or AP value, with the heavy flamer possibly being -2 to armor and the inferno flamer being -3 to armor.    But we also don't have to fear as we have immolators with twin linked heavy flamers in the turrets, which doubles the attack so either way, those will be 2d6 hits at minimum str of 5, which means they will be feared.   I could however see the range for the heavy flamer and inferno flame cannons being increased, even if only by 2 inches, as that would make them only have a d6 hits more scary if at a bit longer range.   A normal flamer is 8 inches, so I could easily see a heavy flamer being 10 inches, with the inferno cannons on the sides of land raider redeemers being 10-12 inches.    This way those weapons become stronger, and much scarier than simply hitting more models.   The templates I feel really determine the amount of models that could possibly be hit with weapons in the new edition.  

 

My bad I meant Flame Cannon and not Inferno Cannon. The Acheron's flame cannon uses a hellstorm template. So it should have a much larger amount of wounds than simply 1d6. In addition it should be way stronger than strength 4 or 5

[sedibear]

Looking at the Stratagem rules. Does anyone else see the resemblance to our old Faith Points system?

Might mean we get a different way to represent our Acts of Faith. But who knows.

 

I for one am excited to have Repentia strike first when I want them to.

[Servant of Dante]

Repentia will strike first when charged only if the opponent charges a second of your units and activates the second charging unit.

 

You have to use Counter-offensive after an enemy unit that charged makes its attacks, so enemy unit A charges the Repentia and enemy unit B charges the Celestians (fingers crossed Celestians actually getting on the table isn't laughable in 8th). Now your opponents chooses to either activate unit A or unit B. Only after that first unit swings can you use Counter-Offensice, so if and only if they activated unit B first would you get the chance to make the Repentia strike first.

 

Still, I love the possibility too :D

[Noeh]

Repentia will strike first when charged only if the opponent charges a second of your units and activates the second charging unit.

You have to use Counter-offensive after an enemy unit that charged makes its attacks, so enemy unit A charges the Repentia and enemy unit B charges the Celestians (fingers crossed Celestians actually getting on the table isn't laughable in 8th). Now your opponents chooses to either activate unit A or unit B. Only after that first unit swings can you use Counter-Offensice, so if and only if they activated unit B first would you get the chance to make the Repentia strike first.

Still, I love the possibility too

I think they meant that they would be the ones charging with the repentia...which makes them go first.

[Servant of Dante]

True. They made the comment right after they mentioned command points so I assumed they meant that.

 

Either way, they should be getting to swing first on the charge, which is a big improvement over unwieldy :P

[micahwc]

I came to an unfortunate conclusion in the new marine thread that I will share here. This is tinfoil hat type conclusion, no real proof yet, just speculation.

 

The inclusion of new marines 2.0 will all the inclusion of female marines with the following implications:

 

1: SOBs and marines 1.0 will be phased out completely over time. SOB's are basically already there. They have only two models in plastic. There is sadly almost nothing unique to SOBs anymore. Penitent engines are :cussty dreadnoughts; exorcists are more random predators, immolators are razorbacks with different weapons; priest/crusaders/flagellants/assassins can all be taken by different armies (guard/inquisition).

 

Marines 1.0 will be phased out eventually. This will be like when GW told me I could keep using my 2nd edition minis for 3rd edition; yes you can technically still use these models; but over time they look more and more out of place, and they will have fewer rules available to represent them. As time goes on in the time line the older marines will eventually all die out; replaced by marines 2.0 except for some named characters.

 

2: From a fluff perspective Cawl has had millennia to get the marines 2.0 program to work. By finding a way to make the process work for female "applicants" he doubles the pool of potential Astartes. Since this is an end times scenario the Imperium is facing why wouldn't he try to get it to work with female applicants?

 

3: From a business perspective this would give GW a way to open the hobby up to those who want more female inclusion in a way that would not be expensive for GW. Honestly, they could do 90% of the work simply by adding some female heads to the marine 2.0 sprues. Bulky power armor and genetic modification could explain why the body looks the same. They would then make 2 or 3 female named characters. Suddenly GW has widened their potential customer base by a very large margin; and done so in a way that doesn't cost a lot of money or effort. Everyone wins, GW wins more.

[Knight of the Raven]

And I was looking forwards to the discussion of female space marines staying on dakka.

 

In the grim darkness of the twenty-first century, there is only diversity and social justice.

[micahwc]

Sorry, I don't read Dakka so I am unfamiliar with their threads. This was just my rambling thoughts. I've always been wary of social justice and I don't want this thread to devolve into a bunch of name calling, political speech; however, now that I have daughters I will say it would probably be easier to get them into the hobby if there were some "good" female miniatures; cause as of right now in the game most of the females available are daemons or dark eldar.

[Commander Dawnstar]

From a business perspective this would give GW a way to open the hobby up to those who want more female inclusion in a way that would not be expensive for GW. Honestly, they could do 90% of the work simply by adding some female heads to the marine 2.0 sprues. Bulky power armor and genetic modification could explain why the body looks the same. They would then make 2 or 3 female named characters. Suddenly GW has widened their potential customer base by a very large margin; and done so in a way that doesn't cost a lot of money or effort. Everyone wins, GW wins more.

Considering that there's going to be a gap of more than two years between the release of Age of Sigmar and GW's first female Stormcast Eternal model, I really wouldn't count on it. I don't think they've made a single canonical female Stormcast character in that period, not even as a side-character in a short story, despite there being literally zero reasons for them not to exist in the fluff if not on the tabletop.

Anyway:

The only reason this release matters to me as a Sisters player is that it means that two new lines of Space Marines (first the Heresy and now Primaris Marines) will have been released in plastic before Sisters of Battle receive their update. That's ... pretty depressing, if not exactly unsurprising.

Based on their stats, the Exorcist should probably be an absolute nightmare for these new boys though

[Aqui]

The discussion on whether or not there will be Female Marines is not appropriate here. No more on the subject =][=

[A.T.]

There is sadly almost nothing unique to SOBs anymore. Penitent engines are :cussty dreadnoughts; exorcists are more random predators, immolators are razorbacks with different weapons...

 

Actually marines got TL multimelta razorbacks way back in 5th edition, for 40pts, long before they pinched the eviscerators and heavy flamers and the eldar made off with divine guidance. IIRC one of the forgeworld chapter tactics gave out hand flamers too but not to the hit and running white scars.

 

So sisters could certainly use some new material. My immediate concern though would be another slowdown in non-marine releases due to GW's need to work through the entire marine model line updating assault marines, bikes, etc in multiple chapter styles combined with the same being done on the traitor side as the other primarchs arrive. Could be a  forgeworld "this year we are release marines, again" kind of schedule.

[Servant of Dante]

Eh, I got into Sisters knowing that we were a fringe faction.

 

As long as we have rules, ill get to play my Sisters. I'm not super worried about being super competitive, and I think that while we could be more distinctive, it's pretty ok as-is.

 

What I think is almost comical is that not only do the new marines have AP-1 standard (something I was hoping wouldn't be a thing this edition), they outrange everything in our codex except Heavy Bolters and Exorcists :D

 

I suppose we'll just have to drive up to them in rhinos, just like we've been doing for over a decade :P

 

And we will have rules. Whether those rules will get updated past the "get you by" rules at launch is anyone's guess, but that's beside the point as far as I'm concerned.