Sisters of Battle: Old vs. New? Pandora speaks!

          Hey there, Pandora here.

          Like a lot of people I have been waiting a very long time for Games Workshop to re-launch the Sisters of Battle. After a long absence from the shelves I was starting to worry that nothing would ever get done with them and they would disappear. Well now they have finally released the new rules, not as a Codex but as articles in White Dwarf. After such a long wait that was a big let down - this army has a hugely loyal fan base, so why such a low key re-launch? The Grey Knights got all of the usual GW fanfare when they were relaunched. Still, the articles are better than nothing, so I got the 2 issues and have spent the last few weeks trying to decide how I feel about the new rules and set up my army.

          As it stands there are good and bad points, so lets start with the basics: the Sisters of Battle as a force have now been moved away from the Inquisition and closer to the Ecclesiarchy. This, of course, means no more Inquisitors on the field, including Karamazov. This in turn means no more inducted Imperial Guard or Space Marine units. This is the start of the problem as this has limited the options for a lot of categories. Although the Sisters of Battle units can hold their own on the battle field, having the extra options to play with was helpful. For example, I would always field Imperial Guard Rough Rider Cavalry as a fast attack option, as their points cost was fairly low, and have some awesome weaponry. Now however your fast attack options are limited to Seraphims and Dominion squads.

          There have been some new additions - there are now 2 new named HQ units and the option to have a Confessor and Battle Conclave. The Battle Conclaves and Cannoness Command Squad are now much more like the Inquisitor retinues, there are a few options for what units to include, each with their own unique statistics and special rules. This makes them well worth their points cost. Death Cult Assassins and Arco-Flagelants can now only be fielded as part of a Battle Conclave, which I think is awesome because I am a massive fan of the Death Cult Assassins, and I can now field them and still have 2 other elite choices.

          I have also been looking on the GW website, as all the models have been sold out for a very long time. For some reason, I'm guessing to make more money, squad size box sets now seem to have vanished from the site. All that seems to be on there is the blisters of 3 standard Sisters, with all Superiors and special weapons sold separately. For me this isn't such an issue as I have a fairly sizeable force already; but this would put me off if I was just starting out. I don't get this at all, this and the lack of a proper Codex makes it seem that GW thinks of this army as one that won't attract new players, which would also explain why no models are back in stores.

          Before this all gets too negative there are some good things about the new rules. The Acts of Faith have always been a great special rule, and in the new rules they have gotten even better: instead of having a total for the length of the battle, they are now rolled at the start of the players turn. As each Act of Faith costs 1 Faith Point - that's potentially 6 Acts of Faith per turn. In the new rules each unit type has it's own Act of Faith, and they all seem well thought out and compliment the unit's strengths. For example if the Act is successful, Repentias that are taken down in close combat get an extra attack at the end of the phase; Dominion squad's weapons count as twin linked and Seraphims get to re-roll any failed to wound rolls. As the rules are used in different phases, depending on what they affect, this makes planning how to use them much easier; and because the Faith Points are 'per turn' it gives the player more freedom to use them.

          The Shield of Faith rule is another of the army-wide special rules that has changed. This one I am still not sure which is better: old or new. The Shield of Faith special rule used to mean that any minor psychic power would automatically fail and on a roll of a 5+ any psychic power would be nullified. New rules mean all models with that special rule have a 6+ invulnerable save. After being at the wrong end of AP1 weapons in the past, even that small chance seems like a bonus; but I did like messing up players who liked to use psychic powers. The jury is still out on that one for me.

          Time to talk points values now. There hasn't been many massive changes points-wise. The biggest one being Saint Celestine, who has dropped from 201 to 115 while still keeping most of her special rules (all the good ones). Most of the other points changes are one or two either way, so won't have a great effect on points totals for standing armies such as mine. There has also been little in the way of statistic changes, which I'm not too surprised about as the stats, as they stood, were pretty good.

          So, which is better: new or old? To be honest I still haven't decided on that one. I would have liked to have seen more new models and more choices added. The new Acts of Faith rules are awesome. Most of the unit special rules have stayed the same. Also, there is now no war gear allowance for the Cannoness, which I would like back. I still think the Sisters of Battle have enough fire power and tricks to take on armies as well as they used to, which is the main thing!

Pen and Paper RPGs vs. Computer RPGs - Part 2

Okay, so which is better?

A tough question by any stretch of the imagination, well lets weigh up the two!

Now I'm trying to be fair here, so bear with me as a dice rolling fanatic; but also one of those people who cried when Aerith died in Final Fantasy VII, mostly because I'd equipped the hell out of her and not bothered with the others characters.

So I'll try my best to be fair.

Setting:-

With the sheer weight of RPG books out in the world, there is no shortage on rules and settings for you and your friend's campaigns, one off missions or even re-telling episode 4 of Stargate if you so chose. Otherwise you're pretty much down to your own imagination - especially as a DM. But the unique thing is the setting can be wherever and whenever you like, with no shortage of humour or dark fantasy... the world is what you make it.

With our console counterpart the setting is there, an entire world for you to explore visually, technically and physically - if you move the controller's d-pad you're moving your avatar... you get the idea. There is no shortage of settings and worlds, all from the post apocalyptic to the high Japanese industrial magic revolution.

In contrast you need very little imagination. After all, everything is set out for you. But I find a common complaint is that you haven’t exactly got the freedom to explore. Okay, Bethesda games give you huge maps, more nooks and NPC crazies than you can rattle your sabre at; but there is limit: there is a point where that invisible wall comes down!

Gameplay:-

With our pen and paper RPGs, gameplay varies greatly; not because of the players, but due to the rules and the settings they're attached too. These obviously affect the "pick up and playability." After all, some systems will grind everything to a halt with character creation alone - you should not need 2 hours to create a character unless its 2 hours going "Hmm, broad sword? Axe? Broad sword? Axe..."

Anyway, "rules are rules," and rules are meant to be broken. RPGs in this way do have that degree of customizability, allowing players and game masters alike to be able to keep the game going, and have fun doing so. Game play in this way, in some respects, relies on your group and some quick thinking.

Our console buddies have one great advantage: easy to play in comparison. Granted, you can just blitz the whole game or really take your time and plan.

With games like Fallout 3, you have fair and levelled system, loads of customizability - from characters appearance to perks that affect the game play, and giant world exploration. On the other hand you have a very linear game with good back story and pre-generated characters. Granted some are easier to play than others, but I find there is a inherent problem: GRINDING!

Quite possibly the most annoying, boring and tedious activity of all! And for what? To level up!

Okay, I can understand that yeah, you need to make progressively harder enemies, and Okay, unlike the pen and paper RPGs you can't just have a new adventure each time: you are stuck with no other option but to grind and grind... not all are like this, but we all know which ones they are!

Which semi leads me to my last point,

Playability:-

Seriously, how many times can you play something before you get bored of it, or fancy a change? This I feel is the advantage of pen and paper RPGs: as many settings as you like, each game varied and thousands of settings in which you and your friends can battle through, or you could be really daring and change the rule sets!!

Unless you're stuck in a grinding loop, or are a dedicated player, there’s what, 4-8 hours of game play? Maybe more? And yes, with some you can get different results through your actions and playing style; but it all seems so boxed in. Don’t get me wrong, the worlds are interesting, varied and really imaginative, I appreciate that. And yes, there is the add ons and downloadable content which add to game play settings and the like... but how many times will you play before you go "Oh, I do this, this and this and its done... what to do now??"

After all, console games only really have a shelf life of 2-4 play throughs before its relegated again to the ever growing pile.

It does tend to be a very solitary activity, Okay there the "achievements" to share with your friends online or your mate who’s popped around to steal your beer.

But on the other hand the same could be said for pen and paper RPGs.

After all, there are some advantages, granted most of them hinge on a good DM and having a decent group. It is a very sociable activity, unless it's a fighting fantasy book.

But it only takes one person to spoil the group dynamic, so choose your friends wisely. lol

As I said, a lot hinges on good DM: being able to think on your feet when the players completely negate the campaign you’ve spent last month working on, by going "Nah, I don't want to stay in this pub, let's go raid the bath house."

However there is freedom as your character, granted there are systems where character creation is the game or is so damn complicated 3 hours later you realize you’ve got work in the morning, can pretty much do anything and everything, and the only thing that anchors you to reality is the DM, who will simply penalize your stupidity. On the other hand, a few quick tests made on the spot and you could have the most epic fight scene ever; no doubt Mr. Dare will remind me once again about how he dived into the water and had boxing match with an giant octopus.

It is dependent on your players and their imagination, something console gaming has solved by giving you a visual medium; but hand outs, visual references or as DM your prime role as story teller simply weave a magical mystical world around your setting.

So which is better?

If I'm feeling creative: pen and paper RPGs.

If I'm feeling lazy: console RPGs.

I'll let you decide...

So where does the future lie, kids and kiddies? Well D&D4th edition took elements from both formats of RPG and turned it into a table top game... not necessary what we're after... but until the next technological leap, or until books are eliminated I'm quite happy to roll some dice.

DM

Pen and Paper RPGs vs. Computer RPGs - Part 1

Once again i take to the typing machine, and bring you another DM ramble!

Today I am tackling (mostly attempting) to answer my own personal question...

Pen and paper RPGs vs. computer RPGs, which s better?

Okay, where shall I start? Of course!

Back in the mists of time before the gaming industry really took off and we were stuck with pong yer back too the good old 70s!!

We as people didn't have a lot to choose from, granted there were the ultimate board games of the time dealing with war, strategy and seeing how many times your little sister could land on that row of hotels around Piccadilly!

The concept of 'role playing' is a simple one: you take the persona of a warrior or a crafty thief but really its only an upgrade, dare I say, from playing games as kids using your imagination to well and truly live out your favourite cartoon or comic (many times when I was younger I'd be a Power Ranger or Michelangelo from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles).

But I digress...

Role playing 'games' as we know them was a concept drempt up by David Wesely with the Braunstein Game.

In 1967, Wesely served as referee for a Napoleonic war game set in the fictional German town of Braunstein.

Two players acted as commanders of the opposing armies, but because he was interested in multi-player games, Wesely also assigned additional, non-military roles. (For example, he had players acting as town mayor, banker, and university chancellor. When two players challenged each other to a duel, Wesely found it necessary to improvise rules for the encounter on the spot).

Needless to say initial experiments were not exactly popular (from all reports simply chaotic) the Braunstein game was never published but in the eyes of the world 1967 had sown the seeds of role playing games.

It wasn't until 1974 when arguably the corner stone of all pen and paper RPGs was invented! Dungeons and Dragons!

Giving us poor mortals a chance to use our imagination to play out those fantasies of being Gandalf or Conan in a structured way! And it kept people from murdering each other playing diplomacy.

Now with the concept of RPGs established and the gaming industry growing it was only a matter of time before the popular 'table top game' became a console game only a year later!!

In 1975 Claremont graduate university student wrote the first Computer RPG. The game was an unlicensed implementation of the new role playing game Dungeon and Dragons!

Granted it was in text format, it was still the first game to use line of sight graphics, as the top-down dungeon maps showing the areas that the party had seen or could see took into consideration factors such as light or darkness and the differences in vision between species. Truly revolutionary!

Okay people lets do the time warp *cue Dr who theme tune.*

Fast forward and we find ourselves at the ever developing peak of technology and social interaction known simply as....err, today?

Anyhow!

Where does this lead us? Do I even need to to list the hundreds upon thousands of role playing games out there? Most people can name at least 4 console RPGs... but can they name 4 pen and paper RPGs?

Once upon a time getting your mates around, grabbing some dice, some soft drink, order a pizza and once again assailing the heights of Wizard's Tower, was cool, popular and of course dictated the basic core concepts of console RPGs!

Epic back story, <check>
Player characters, <check>
More monsters and booty and exp! <check>
And of course the dungeon with optional sewer level (because there's always a sewer level). <check mate>

But somewhere along the line we became geeks, pen and paper games became unpopular and so shunning sunlight and girlfriends (or boyfriends. After all, girl gamers do exist - I know 4) it simply became a stereotype, but once again I'm going off point...

Wait what is my point...?

Oh yes...

You see, with time comes innovation with that we look back and go "hmm, how can we make that better?"

Both console games and pen and paper games have come a hell of long way: rules, graphics and dozen other things.

But which is better?

Find out in part 2!