Sisters speculation topic

[Purifying Tempest]

Probably starting the week after the coming up week. Feels like I've been waiting an eternity... we keep delaying the start of our next narrative campaign for chapter approved...

 

Been delaying since like September!

 

We'll hopefully see some order specific stuff that'll really start to tie some if their thought processes together for us!

[Atrus]

I reckon maybe one or two more teasers at most, more than likely a data slate as gw seems to like to show a unit off.

 

Truth be told, im rather disappointed in the sisters community at large; the overwhelming negativity over the revealed strats has been surprising. I always figured that we were cut from a different cloth, but when we finally get something (that is both fluffy and good) theres a whole bunch of whining, like a bunch of space marine players, some comments ive seen (not here thankfully) have been downright toxic.

 

Now if gw had teased an Exorcist dataslate, claiming it to be awesome and it was in fact completely unchanged from current, then i could understand ;)

[CaptainMarsh]

There are two separate discussions going on, I do believe.

The first is about strategems and this one in particular. It is meh, situational, and that is fine. I still think it needs to be improved- needing to be within 8'' and having a mixed squad are both less than exciting for what it does- and will say so, but in the end it is okay. Most codexes after all have legions of meh/situational strategems, buoyed by some out and out awesome ones. I am still waiting for one that is unconditionally awesome, but I am confident we will get some. 

The second is about the general power level of strategems and their relation to how effective we want Sisters to be. The main divergences here are whether or not you want Sisters to have the same quality of strategems in terms of power as others, with some true standouts, or whether your primary desire is they keep to a sense of balance outside of their interactions with others. The other half of this is whether you think Sisters are a standalone effective force, and maybe therefore don't need the same quality of strategems as others since almost anything is a good boost already, or whether you think they are in desperate need of an expansion on their toolkit because they suffer from crippling issues currently as a standalone force.

I tend to believe, as stated earlier, that Sisters are in need of extra tools. Since the Holy Trinity will never be discarded (and rightfully so, even if each individual weapon is either trash or highly overcosted) and Sisters are a limited army in many ways, this needs to come through via strategems and abilities. Since this is the case, I would like them to have the same quality of Strategems and Abilities we see elsewhere. I don't begrudge people who think otherwise, but this is IMHO our biggest shot to make the Adepta Sororitas more than an afterthought in the grand scheme of 40k and I don't want to let it by easily. 

[Beams]

Look, I'm doing good with sisters now. Add in order traits, and I'll LGE doing even better. If we get Custodes level warlord takes/strategems/relics, sisters will be broken.

[tvih]

The effectiveness of Holy Trinity will - to some extent at least - be dependant on the options in the codex. Like if a Superior can get an Inferno pistol, then that'd be a pretty good option for a flamer squad. For a tank-hunting melta squad the strategem might not be all that, but meltas already do a pretty good job of wounding things anyway.

In general though it's not like you would spam that for every unit for every turn anyway, or you'd be out of CP in a hurry despite it costing only 1CP.

 

I get why people are disappointed at the strats not being auto spam zomg super death killy awesomeness.
But ive always hated strats and CPs as "i win" points. When they first came out in 8th, my thought was that they were intended to be cool fluffy things that caan be used that while making some differnece, werent going to skew games. Then theyve lost their way with the codexes being released and competitive players in particular using them as crutches and anything that isnt decimating enough is hot garbage.

What weve seen so far fir sisters strats is how ive felt strats were meant to be. Fluffly cool that doesn't break the game.
Imo, its not that sisters need stronger strats, rather all other strats need bringing back down to earth.

But thats my humble opinion as a casual, borderline narrative player.

I agree with this mostly. CPs have become just about as bad as formations were in 7th. Those started out mostly reasonable too, then we ended up with free marine Rhinos for some insane spam and Emperor knows what else from them.

[CaptainMarsh]

Look, I'm doing good with sisters now. Add in order traits, and I'll LGE doing even better. If we get Custodes level warlord takes/strategems/relics, sisters will be broken.

This isn't an either/or issue. The choice isn't "intensely humble strategems that rock zero boats ad naseum" and "super awesome all the time everywhere you look broken forever".

[robofish7591]

Right now I'm thinking that the stratagem will be best on a 6 girl melta dom squad with a flamer, or on battle sisters with a heavy flamer and a melta gun.  With doms, I wouldn't do more than one squad with that load out.  I am thinking that it could be useful as part of the alpha strike, however I'm not sure if it would be more effective than just taking a 5 meltas in a squad.  It would probably be best used with the battle sister load out, since it can be used to make them hit a bit harder when pushing enemies off of objectives.

 

The best thing about having a beta codex is that we can let GW know if we think it is good or not.  If you end up not ever using the stratagem, maybe let GW know that there are too many conditions that need to be met to use it.  

[CaptainMarsh]

Look, I don't hate this particular strategem. But this more extended conversation started because there seems to be this prevailing attitude of all strategems are good strategems if they're Sister strategems. The attitude extends seemingly to say that even if our Strategems and abilities are weaker than they could or even should be even in relation to others we should be humble and thankful for them at all, and that we should be so humble that we should carry the burdens of fairness upon our mighty shoulders alone. That we should absolutely not be critical of Strategems in a beta codex unless, perhaps, they're too powerful, because we are so self-sacrificing that even though other codexes and armies get all sorts of powerful options we should reign ourselves in so we can be righteous and pure!

I am obviously exaggerating for comedic, not mocking effect, so no offense intended to those I am disagreeing with!

But I would hate to see the feedback we give be all too forgiving of mediocrity and too critical of excellence and it have an impact, to the extent that when our actual codex does come out it lands with a thud outside of the dedicated core. I don't want or need every option for the Sisters to be awesome, broken, outrageous and effective. But there is a gulf of difference between terrible and mediocre, mediocre and good, and good and broken. The Strategem in question needs something and then it could maybe be good, and I like good. And if it doesn't get changed thats fine, I don't think I've used around half of the AMilitarum, Mechanicus, Custodes, Knight, Space Marines, or Deathwatch Strategems I have access to either.

But until we have the beta codex in hand and can see for certain that we do have a few eminently useful and powerful strategems like everyone else in the game has, I'm not going to pretend that Holy Trinity is in a perfect position, either.

Edit: As an aside, I agree in philosophy with many in regards to CP and Strategems. They should have been a fun additional tool and not as important as they have become. But regardless of whether they should have, they have, and I do not want to see a Sisters codex, an army that is already critically limited in several ways, limited further arbitrarily. If we could turn back the clock and change things and how they turned out, we'd all be on the same team, methinks.

[Drider]

Ok, so here's how the math breaks down between 5 melta Dominion squad vs the 6 Dominion holy trinity set up. I've left in the break down per weapon type, but total damage per unit is the '5 melta' and '1 Flamer, 1 bolter, 4 melta' lines. (melta damage assumes the mean of 2d6 pick the highest(4.472))

 

 

it's not much of a buff, but it is a marginal increase. Could probably squeeze a little more out of it with a rr1s to hit but realistically dominions are't really going to be near a cannoness.

[Beams]

 

 

Look, I'm doing good with sisters now. Add in order traits, and I'll LGE doing even better. If we get Custodes level warlord takes/strategems/relics, sisters will be broken.

This isn't an either/or issue. The choice isn't "intensely humble strategems that rock zero boats ad naseum" and "super awesome all the time everywhere you look broken forever".

There is, and I'm hoping GW finds the line or at least errs on the side of caution. I've had a lot of people react negatively to my "shooting phase before the shooting phase", and, especially, Martyrdom, since they see Martyrdom as a punishment for killing my characters. I think we are already powerful, and GWs restraint here with fluffy strategems isn't a bad thing. Descent of Angels will help Seraphim, even if it doesn't make them amazing, and Holy Trinity will lead to interesting squad load outs.

 

I don't want a "Vengeance for Cadia" or "Rotate Ion Shields" or "Swooping Dive" that makes me or my opponents feel that I'm playing an autowin army.

[Aqui]

Ok, so here's how the math breaks down between 5 melta Dominion squad vs the 6 Dominion holy trinity set up. I've left in the break down per weapon type, but total damage per unit is the '5 melta' and '1 Flamer, 1 bolter, 4 melta' lines. (melta damage assumes the mean of 2d6 pick the highest(4.472))

 

 

it's not much of a buff, but it is a marginal increase. Could probably squeeze a little more out of it with a rr1s to hit but realistically dominions are't really going to be near a cannoness.

I have to admit, Mathhammer is difficult for me to process and understand :(

[Drider]

What it boils down to is these are the numbers for expected damage done if dice rolled completely average. it gives you a quick reference guide for what to expect in terms of damage. 

 

The breakdown is that once you examine the 2 unit set ups side by side and are shooting things that you'd want to shoot a melta at, rhino, russ, land raider, knight, you get an average of less than 1 extra damage. 

[GodwynDi]

I'd be interested to see the math for being outside of the 2d6 melta range. Rare that it should occur with good positioning, sometimes sisters do fall just outside it.

[Drider]

vs T8, 0.97 damage per melta. 1.56 with HT (5.83 melta set up, 6.63 HT setup)
vs T8 5++ 0.78 damage per melta 1.04 with HT (3.88 5 melta set up, 4.56 HT setup)
vs T8 4++ 0.58 damage per melta 0.78 with HT (2.91 5 melta set up, 3.52 HT setup)

 

But realistically if you're hitting the 8" flamer range, chances are you're going to be able to hit the 6" melta range.

[Atrus]

I dont in any way shape or form see this strat as something intended to buff out already strong specialist units ie. doms and seraphim. They have their specialities and own strengths and are already doing what theyre designed to do.

I see this strat as a nice little boost to our other squads- bss and celestians.

Id be curious to see the mathhammer differemce this strat makes to those units both at min and max sizes.

[Ficinus]

I feel like the strat might be best on a max size Retributor squad with 4 heavy flamers, 1 combi-melta, and 5 bolters. It would really buff them against both infantry hoards (going from 3+ to wound to 2+ to wound with the heavy flamers) and monsters/tanks (going from 5+ to 4+ with the heavy flamers).

[Drider]

I just got done doing a max sized BSS unit and a max sized HF Ret unit. colour coded it a bit so that it's a bit easier to identify the same unit for base stats/classic setup and HT buff/HT setup and corrected an error with flamers rolling to hit(setting it to BS1 solved that issue).

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't really see a massive swing at the high end, dealing with knights. you do see slightly bigger bumps when you're looking at chaff killing setups killing chaff. An interesting highlight is is HF Rets are really good all rounders, and even slightly edge out dominions at killing knights. The baseline stats for Rets are slightly skewed because they're not really run as a "classic setup" so i just used the HT setup for baseline. i cant really think of any other min/maxed setups for what we have to use with HT... maybe adding a plasma pistol to the seraphim, but that's about it.

 

Regardless, it gives a good ball park figure for theory crafting and if anyone wants to build a unit in a specific way, then the stats for the weapons with and without HT are listed, so just bust out a calculator. (also no point in stating for the HB as it's literally unusable with this strat.)

 

 

ugh... just realized that i messed up the number of shots on the hand flamers. i'll fix that if someone comes up with an idea that warrens another iteration. 

 

Makes the HT seraphim unit look more like this.

 

Seraphim 2 melta, 2 hand flamer, 16 bolter GEQ 8.81 DA 6.89 MEQ 4.15 TEQ 3.00 Crisis 5.78 Rhino 7.19 Russ 5.60 LR 4.13 Knight 4.28 Knight4++ 3.62

[dracpanzer]

Truth be told, im rather disappointed in the sisters community at large; the overwhelming negativity over the revealed strats has been surprising. I always figured that we were cut from a different cloth, but when we finally get something (that is both fluffy and good) theres a whole bunch of whining, like a bunch of space marine players, some comments ive seen (not here thankfully) have been downright toxic.

I disagree, bad rules deserve feedback calling them as such, especially when they are launching this as an interactive codex writing event. Having to tailor your list to make use of a strategem doesn't make it a GOOD strategem. Its fluffy sure, but if it were akin to something like Sisters old Retributor Apoc formation rule I would be more willing to use it. Having to be in range of the flamer rules out most existing units except BSS, Celestians and HF Rets. They can't be in a vehicle to use it, and how often do you see Celestians and HF Rets? Which in my experience will make it a one use per unit strategem. Dismounting a unit you built to take advantage of it will get them murdered as soon as you use it.

 

Having said that, its possible other changes in the BetaDex will change that outlook. With the limit of no new models it will be interesting to see what we get from the BetaDex. I am okay with what we have seen so far, all fluff stuff, though it will be disappointing if BR Repentia are better than VH Repentia. They already seem to have missed the mark there, OoBR is supposed to be known for its use of Dominion squads. Fluff is fine but I'm waiting to see something I will use. So far I am hoping we don't lose Martyrdom and Deny the Wych because nothing we have seen will have me using anything else yet.

[Ficinus]

My "classic" set-up for heavy flamer retributors is 4 heavy flamers and 1 combi-flamer.

 

The main problem/advantage of the max sized HF Retributor squad is how swingy it is. A roll of 20 hits with the heavy flamers, instead of 14, will up some of those numbers significantly. A roll of 8 with them will drop them. This also applies to whether the single melta hits and wounds against hard targets. What we really need is a distribution of damage against those targets, but I'm not willing to do all that math by hand and even with a modeling system it would require a lot of time.

 

Also, that HF/HT squad is probably the best anti-air we have.

[Drider]

I am kinda wondering if this is the little something HF Rets need to make them viable, but i suspect not. Still the same issue with movement/range and if you're using AoF to give them a 20" threat range then that's a unit of something that isn't double shooting or double fighting.

 

Combo in a cost reduction on the HF and they might edge there way into the meta. i do agree though that randomness is a huge issue more dice helps you hit average though. you wouldn't believe the number of times i've rolled Big C's HF and she's got 1 hit...

 

...and another thing. 

 

On the subject of 2d6 pick the highest. 

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/1d6-vs-2d6-take-highest.423017/

 

As you can see, the mean for 2d6-keep-the-highest is just under a point higher than the mean for 1d6. Interestingly, the mode (that is, the value that comes up most frequently) for 2d6-keep-the-highest is 6 - you'll get a six more often than you'll get 1-3 put together.

 So that would actually skew the distribution of melta damage in the real world vs the mean used for ease of use in math hammer.
 

[Aqui]

It's certainly frustrating to extrapolate what we're going to get from the extremely limited info we have so far. I really hope the next week or so, GW will drop a better preview of what's in store. I know we'll know soon enough, but any further, more in-depth information will be of much use to us, so we can start planning stuff. I have about 1.5 - 2k of Sisters without any paint and it'd be good to know which of my remaining units I should concentrate on painting :lol:

 

That and possibly let every one know 2019 is the year Faith sweeps across the Imperium ;)

[Ficinus]

I think heavy flamer retributors are viable right now. They may not be the strongest unit in the army, but they're really good at scaring opponents and usually make back their points. I always include one unit in my list (backed up by a battle sister squad with heavy flamer, flamer, and combi-flamer, both in a rhino).

[Drider]

If we get what the other codices got then we should start seeing previews in the format of an article with a chapter tactic and a stratagem soonish. given that we're only in beta them might skip that in favor of other stuff they've got in CA. I am kinda interested by that CUSTOMIZE YOUR COMMANDER thing. it'll be for open play but i have a ray of hope under a grain of salt that it'll let us take a jump pack on a cannoness in matched play.

[Aqui]

To change up the conversation a bit, I've been thinking about what units need a change in terms of rules or stats. In my mind, right now that is:

 

Celestians

Repentia

Exorcist

Penitent Engines (assuming they're still going to be a Sisters unit)

 

Any ideas on what GW might do to make them better?

[Drider]

i think celestians are mostly ok, they could do with actually having a body to guard though. Maybe let them all have sister superior weapon options as fluff wise that's kinda what they're supposed to be.

 

repentia aren't too bad they're a total glass cannon and take a lot of investment to run. maybe give them a wulfen style, gets to attack again when they die and combo in a cost reduction.

 

exorcist needs a rework from the ground up.

 

penitent engines, if we keep them, need a mobility buff to counter the fact they are a massive glass cannon you can't protect. 

 

what i think GW might do? Nothing.