Aqui Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 Hmph grumble grumble geedub getting even with us for not buying CA17... I bought it :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taikishi Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 The easy way to solve it is to give some of the units the Adepta Sororitas trait just like Priests, Crusaders and Jacobus already have the Astra Militarum trait. I wouldn't necessarily give it to DCA and Arco-Flagellants depsite the problems it would cause, but those problems are no different than what Inquisitors and Assassins have right now -- take 3 or take 1 and lose a CP. And honestly, Assassins, LotD, SoS and Inquisitors should just ignore the soup rule in general so that you can splash one unit in without losing CP as long as you're willing to break other things in the detachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aqui Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 The easy way to solve it is to give some of the units the Adepta Sororitas trait just like Priests, Crusaders and Jacobus already have the Astra Militarum trait. I wouldn't necessarily give it to DCA and Arco-Flagellants depsite the problems it would cause, but those problems are no different than what Inquisitors and Assassins have right now -- take 3 or take 1 and lose a CP. And honestly, Assassins, LotD, SoS and Inquisitors should just ignore the soup rule in general so that you can splash one unit in without losing CP as long as you're willing to break other things in the detachment. Hopefully those units that can't work without using soup will be addressed soon. I think the reason why GW hasnt said anything, is because it might ruin the surprise of things upcoming, because to explain any changes for them might run into stuff we shouldn't yet know about. As ever, we'll have to wait and see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montford Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 So if I'm tracking all this correctly, if my Battalion Detachment is 100% Sororitas and contains my Warlord, and then I have a Spearhead Detachment which has a Penitent Engine as one of the Heavy Weapon choices, it is a Batleforged Detachment as the PE shares a keyword which is not Imperium, and my Army is still Objective Secured. Or is the Battalion portion Objective Secured, and the Spearhead is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atrus Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 Way i read it the battalion detachment has obsec but the spearhead does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taikishi Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 What Atrus said. As long as your army shares a keyword - Adeptus Ministorum or Imperium in this case, since you have a no units outside of the Adeptus Ministorum in your example - and are all organized into legal detachments your force is Battle-forged. In addition: you gain access to the stratagems because you have at least one Adepta Sororitas detachment that isn't an Auxiliary Support Detachment your Troops units in the Battalion gain Objective Secured because it is an Adepta Sororitas detachment your Spearhead Detachment is an Adeptus Ministorum detachment because of the Penitent Engines. Because Adeptus Ministorum isn't one of the listed Faction keywords in Chapter Approved, your Troops units do not have Objective Secured. your Adepta Sororitas units in the Ministorum detachment may still use the Adepta Sororitas stratagems; the restriction is only that you must have an Adepta Sororitas detachment to gain the stratagems if you wish to bring a third detachment, because of Rule of 3, it can only be an Adepta Sororitas detachment if you haven't already used all three of your Canoness dataslates AND Celestine. If you have, you must either bring Uriah Jacobus as your HQ choice and make it a Adeptus Ministorum detachment OR you must make it a detachment from another Imperium faction If, for some reason, you'd brought two battalions of Adepta Sororitas and wished to bring a third detachment, the same problem holds true: you either need to make Jacobus the HQ choice for the third detachment if you wish to bring more Ministorum units OR it has to be an Imperium detachment from one of the other factions since you've clearly already used Celestine and three Canoness to form the two Sororitas battalions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taikishi Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 Oh, yeah. Soup rule also prevents us from bringing any flyers unless: we want to lose a CP for each flyer we bring we bring at least three fliers for an Air Wing detachment. And even without the soup rule, any detachment with flyers that isn't one of the two above loses Objective Secured. May not be a big deal in an Outrider detachment of Seraphim and no BSS but that battalion or brigade is locked out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Burton Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Hopefully those units that can't work without using soup will be addressed soon. I think the reason why GW hasnt said anything, is because it might ruin the surprise of things upcoming, because to explain any changes for them might run into stuff we shouldn't yet know about. As ever, we'll have to wait and see... I'm sorry, I had an involuntary snort at this...it's just far far more likely that the reason GW hasn't or doesn't say something about any given topic is that they have no idea what they're doing. Especially when it comes to peripheral armies like Sisters and Assassins; we got overlooked (again), they didn't think or didn't care. They don't have a grand surprise planned for all the units that don't work so well right now. At best we'll get a duct tape solution worked out in an hour on a whiteboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aqui Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Hopefully those units that can't work without using soup will be addressed soon. I think the reason why GW hasnt said anything, is because it might ruin the surprise of things upcoming, because to explain any changes for them might run into stuff we shouldn't yet know about. As ever, we'll have to wait and see... I'm sorry, I had an involuntary snort at this...it's just far far more likely that the reason GW hasn't or doesn't say something about any given topic is that they have no idea what they're doing. Especially when it comes to peripheral armies like Sisters and Assassins; we got overlooked (again), they didn't think or didn't care. They don't have a grand surprise planned for all the units that don't work so well right now. At best we'll get a duct tape solution worked out in an hour on a whiteboard. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm more optimistic that GW will do something to finally give Sisters the attention they deserve. As I've said before, we shall see. In any case, regardless of whether GW deliver on their promise, I won't stop playing Sisters. There will always be something to be done to make us work well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taikishi Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I'm somewhere in the middle. I absolutely agree with Jack that this is more "we don't know what we're doing"/"oops we missed something" because the "fix" for Assassins, LotD and SoS feels hastily done -- especially since SoS can at least take a Primaris Psyker for the HQ slot and the blanket Ro3 creates more problems for units that aren't a problem than fixes issues with units that are a problem. Even then I have SOME hope for corrections, I just don't have much hope. Also, even if we get "Canoness with Jump Pack" option later, don't get your hopes up on it being a separate data slate because it isn't for Space Marines; which is another issue. Some armies have up to seven different ways to take the same character/unit because each is a separate data slate while others have at most two ways of taking the same choice. If Jump Pack rules can be added to a data slate, why can't the rules bikes and terminator armor? Or Gravis armor for Primaris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Orlock Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 If ... rules can be added to a data slate, why can't ... terminator armor?At least in this case, Terminator Captains have a very long history that dates to some time in the Rogue Trader era of being a separate, if redundant, army list entry. Likely for stylistic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taikishi Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I do remember them being a separate entry in 2E. Thought they were the same entry in 3-7E codexes, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Burton Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 Oh I'll never stop playing Sisters; there's no other faction in all of 40K that would let me bitch quite so much about GW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhitar Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 My last list was sisters battalion + admin spearhead + flyer wing, for the exact bit mentioned here. Frequently I throw in my avenger as an aux. it’s a little silly but the games are just casual and I don’t usually need help winning... (I don’t take any troops in the spearhead, so loss of obsec is no big deal) I’m hoping admin get rules similar to Guard auxiliary units or militarum tempestus, where they don’t break a sisters detachment but don’t benefit from our special rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.