Work In Progress

Work In Progress - We're working on it, honest!
Showing posts with label warhammer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label warhammer. Show all posts

Friday, 23 September 2011

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!

Saturday, 27 August 2011

Friday, 26 August 2011

Welcome, Pandora!

          This is Pandora. A short intro may be in order: I am a gamer geek who also happens to be a girl - we exist, honest! I play RPGs, table top games and console games and I take all of them very seriously. By seriously I mean I have a large collection of XBox games, I have characters for several RPGs and I have a fair few Warhammer and Warhammer 40K armies and a Warmachine army. Which is the point of the first piece that I am doing. I would like to point out that I know this isn't the case all of the time, with all people - this is based on some of my experiences and some experiences I know other girls have had.

          First of all, back off into the mists of time, when I was still in college, my group of friends would often go to the local LAN arena to play. Normally this would mean a first person shooter, mainly Call of Duty, Day of Defeat, Battlefield Vietnam or Halo; and although I am not usually a PC gamer - preferring consoles for the lack of having to upgrade once a week to be able to run new releases. I became very good at them - note the DM and 4G can back this up, and I'm not just bragging. For example, holding off in a 2 vs. 1 scenario on Battlefield Vietnam for an hour and a half, and the other team having to napalm me out in the end. Now most of the people I played with did take me seriously, but I did get the occasional comment of "You're good … for a girl." This is the most rage inducing statement that anyone could make to me. I don't see why that should affect my ability to play computer games.

          Ah, I hear you say that was then and this is now. Well this also goes into the game retail industry, and is still ongoing to this day. For example, imagine the total annoyance of this scenario: you are out shopping and find something you want to buy, but whilst you are trying to pay for said item the person serving is talking past you to the person you are with. This has happened to me on more than one occasion buying games, but only ever when the person I am shopping with is a guy. This has even happened when the person I am with has explained the game is for me and I am the one who is going to play it, but they still talked past me to them. This kind of leads me onto another point: this has only happened when I am buying FPS or combat/fighting games. Where as if I am buying an RPG or especially a JRPG I have never had that happen. Is there some sort of unwritten law that its fine for girls to be into some game types and not others? If so, why? I am good at FPS games, and beat 'em up games, though I still can't beat Auros at Soul Calibur - as well as RPGs. This happened recently enough for the game I was buying to be Red Dead Redemption.

          I have to say I have been lucky with pen and paper RPGing, the group I play with, when I get chance, are totally cool with the idea that I am perfectly capable of playing, coming up with plans and kicking ass in most RPG scenarios. Table top war gaming, however, is a different matter. For example I have been told that for Warhammer and 40K that I have "typical girl armies." Again, another rage inducing statement. My armies are chosen because I like the models, background fluff and abilities of said army. For example, the first army I collected was the Sisters of Battle; not because it was a "girl's army" but because I like the idea of battle nuns. I liked the models and thought I could build and play well with them. My choice was that simple. It would be the same incentive guys use to buy their armies; Space Marines, for example, is a typical "guy army."

          So there is my rant, I have tried not to get too wound up. I am sure there are a few girls out there who have similar, or worse experiences, and there are lots of people who take girl gamers seriously. It just seems the industry at large doesn't - games aimed at a female audience is a totally separate rant that I won't start now.