Talk:Codex - Sisters of Battle: /tg/ edition

Making a PDF out of this

So I'd be willinng to put this whole thing into a proper pdf looking like the real codices. There are only two things I'd need:

1. Which font is used in the codices? I'm reluctant to use a Fraktur font like the WD version of the codex. Personally I'm leaning to use Celestia Antiqua Standard for headings and Columbus for the main body text, just like the FFG RPG books
2. It was stated that fluff will be done when the rules are complete, but I'd like to get at least some very basic fluff to make it look a bit smoother.
3. Same applies to pictures.

I'll try to get a little sample with lorem ipsum text up this evening (UTC time), so you can judge my work on this. --Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the heading uses in fact Celestia Antiqua Standard (at least in the Necron Codex), so I'm going with this. Still unsure about the body though. --Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, this would be awesome, thank you! I'll gladly help you with the fluff as soon as you can give us a rough concept (though I'm going on holiday soon, so it could require some time to start working on this). -Silver (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care how the fluff is. I can put everything in the PDF (well with some obvious limitation, aka: keep it serious), that is no problem. My primary style reference are the Codex Necrons and Codex Dark Angels. The latter has a very good layout but has far too many pictures for a simple codex like this, while the Codex Necrons isn't as good in layout but a much better reference for the text style. This means at least a few pages of general fluff (history, "chapters", etc.), a time-line with important events, quotes, some side-informations we can put in nifty little (metal) bwaxes. For the units my optimal choice would be so that I can put one unit on a A4 sheet of paper (if we are to deduct heading, a picture of the unit and a small quote the fluff for that unit should be around one half to 2/3s of an A4 sheet long).

Btw: Here is a quick pdf for the Armoury Section, It has Lorem Ipsum place holder text so it does not look that empty. Still it could use some real text. But you'll get the gist: http://www.mediafire.com/download/bomrzowmz3u839k/Armoury_Of_Faith.pdf (constructive criticism is greatly appreciated) --Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

think it should me more like IA Lists - with just a few bits of fluff before each datasheet with a few pictures. Making a fully-blown codex with big stories, metafluff, timeline and fluff-sections for every unit is a bit too ambitious, and we all know that ambitious projects on /tg/ tend to stuck halfway done, because people get bored pretty fast.Oh, and about armoury example - 6th ed. codexes tend to skip pieces of wargear that are explained in core rulebook, just menioning them at the start of each vargear section, and so should we. Mezmerro(talk) 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My main focus was the Army list anyway. IF we get the Fluff I'll include it, nothing wrong with it. Yeah I saw that too. Didn't see that sooner because on my MBA I only had the Codex Necrons and they don't have that much common wargear ;) --5.147.164.161 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here is a newer version. I put in all sections I deemed necessary (without regarsds to Mezmerros post yet, and lots, lots of lorem ippsum so it looks at least somewhat decent ;) ). Download Basically sections can be considered this:

• The Sisters of Battle: General fluff, whatever it may be in the end.
• The Order Militant: Detailed explanation of the units; meaning some fluff, stats line equipment and explanation of rules only this unit has.
• Armoury of Faith: Should be obvious
• Armies of Faith: Army list 'nuff said.
• Reference: Do I need to explain this?

--Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Fucking wiki markup language, ever heard of paragraphs and line breaks... ffs don't rip my formatting apart. Word is a better Word processor that this. arghhh...

So I played a little bit in my uni free time and made a slightly different version of the pdf. The wargear I knew was from the core rulebook was moved into an info box at the beginning of each wargear "chapter". I also added the Canoness and St. Celestine into the The Order Militant section, so you guy can see how that will look in the end (you also can see that we don't need that much fluff if we have pictures). Constructive criticism is appreciated, as always. Also: Table of Contents is working (nifty hyperlinks) DOWNLOAD HERE --5.147.164.161 21:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Great job, man! I can only suggest cofering statline in a frame, and reposition dtatsheet sections in "canonical" order:

• Wargear section
• HQ(named)
• HQ(generic)
• Troops
• Dedicated Transport
• Elites
• Fact Attack
• Heavy Support

Mezmerro (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Every Codex I know puts the named characters at the end of the "Full Section", so I'll stick to that. But I'm not against changing it, if putting them at the beginning is the better layout. --Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Aw, forgive me my bad English, i meant "short sections" aka "Armies Of Faith" in your book. "Full Section" of causr should be standard "Generic commanders - Generic units - specialist units/vehicles - named characters"Mezmerro (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the order I wanted to make. Most of the "Army List/Short Section/Armies of Faith" is already layouted. I'll try to get a new version up asap --Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So here is the new version I just finished. The Army list section is now complete. I reduced the font size so we get more on the pages (also goes along with the 6th ed codices). Tomorrow I'll start on the long section. Tell me what you think of it. --Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is my first time posting in this wiki, or on any wiki for that matter, so I apologize ahead of time if I did this incorrectly. I found this page a couple of days ago and was blown away with everything you all have managed to come up with and went out on a limb and combined it with one of my homebrew sisters of battle codex. Feel free to critique it or rip it to shreds.---> here --SB (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's incredible. You did a grat job, SB! It's well written, has nice artwork and has the layout of a 6th edition codex. There are only a few flaws I found: the changes to the special rules (Shield of Faith, Witchhunt and Faithful) make our Sisters OP at the same point cost; the Penitent Engines are armed with two dreadnought close combat weapons, not power fists; the special characters' warlord traits are usually listed in their entry too. Anyway, it's really nice, and I thank you for your work. -Silver (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah didn't notice the character warlord trait entries. I changed the condemnor boltgun so it was in line with the grey knight codex one and thus less confusing, so witchbane is not as big of an issue i think since only uriah jacobus, the power stake and one of the artifacts get it which you are taking specifically to kill witches. New walkers are now armed with powerfists which is why i changed that. As for the shield of faith, I made it resemble the orignal rule in witch hunters, 5+ deny the witch with immunity to force weapons (which really only benefits HQs) and then kept the 6+ inv, because as someone once said, a 6+ inv is like getting socks for christmas, you didn't ask for them, you don't want them, but you'll wear them because hey its free socks. But that's just my reasoning behind it. But thank you for the feedback. It was just a spur of the moment project i spent a couple of days on.--SB (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion

Uh...hi. Can just anyone work on this? Cause I've got some ideas. -Jemas42

Of course. Please, excuse my absence. I'm a tiny bit scatterbrained. WH codex is freely available at gw (fyi) --Boro 11:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. For the moment, I'll just take some equipments' descriptions here. -Silver (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I got carried away. What do you think if we make the Armory like the one in C:CSM? It would save us some time when doing the Characters profiles. -Silver (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you link me to the image for that armory page? I only have the witch hunter, vanilla marines and 6th edition rulebook available. --Boro 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are lucky you could find it googleing. I could scan the page, but I'd have problems putting it on the web. -Silver (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why give the Sisters +1T* when only bikes or cavalry get that bonus? It's been made pretty clear in all the other codices that T is literally governed by meatiness, or large metal masses absorbing fire, while armor is represented by a better armor save. Grab a guardsman, slap them in power armor, and they will still be T3 3+ Sv. I find Adeptus Sororitas fairly kickass but this makes no sense to me. Why do this, other then "I want sisters to be as tanky as marines"?

Seconded. If the others agree, I'll remove that feature. -Silver (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed some things here and there, and added the grid to the Canoness' stats. -Silver (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fluff fan here, with a question: Will this will just be a re-balance of the existing units or will you also add new ones (like Super Heavies)? -Anon

I'm impartial on this subject. I think the best will be keeping the existing (5th edition WardXCruddance) childs in a "core" section, and open a new section for adding new units. But aside, I'd give Land Raider Redeemers for the repentia as a dedicated transport, and allow either IG platoons or stormtroopers for the troops slots (with chimeras for transport) as per imperial guard codex. I was also thinking of Bhaal predators for fast attack...

As for the +1T* (as in old 5th edition bikers), I wanted to differentiate them from the guardsmen in a way that they are tankier than them, but not as tanky as marines. (weak against instant death from plasma and s6, but meq against small arms fire) After looking at how much s6+ ap3 hurt newer armies can push out. And again, that they are "almost, but not quite" space marines. That's just my trail of thought of course. If you think we can make up for it with faith powers, point costs, weapons or numbers, I'm all ears. My other idea was +1S due to power armor to make them less craptastic in melee...

@Nice grid Silver.

WardXCruddance codex: http://www.2shared.com/document/rbSTbmfa/WarHammer_40k_codex_Sisters_of.html --Boro 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think 4ish T is kind of wonky. Every type of human, short of heavy cybernetics or beings of ork size, will be T4. The closest thing to a sister just going by the rules, might be the good old Storm Trooper; both are heavily trained and religiously straightened orphans. Main difference with sisters is they get more training on top of that (better WS , Ld, and occasionally I), sick weapons and armor, and fringe benefits of hardcore worshiping a psionic god. It's also worth noting that most Power Armor can't make the hummie inside stronger, since they can't interface with the thing without crazy amounts of augmentation. There should be a reason for making them T4, rather then personal wishes that they be more resistant to plasma in the current edition. I'd advise just giving them a flat 5+ invulnerable, and the faith power giving FNP, or something. Or just slapping on Eternal Warrior with T3. I'm just very opposed to giving them T4 when they are always portrayed as human. Exceptional and part-part divine sure, but still effectively human. (Should be noted that this is the only beef I have with this)

From a fluff standpoint and compared to other units, EW seems extraordinarily inconsistent, since far tougher and more determined units lack it. The 5+ seems a better approach.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Decided to fuck it. Stormtroopers, chimeras and land raiders are coming in. Also, Rosarius won't be the Canoness' starting gear, at 50 points. Fixed the tables a bit. Anyone knows how to make it not look like shit aside from putting fucktons of linebreaks after the table? --Boro 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Decided it was too fucked, so I moved the new entries on a new section, but removed the Land Raider. This are Sisters bro, not some wannabe Space Marines. Added the Rosarius to the Canoness again and increased her cost accordingly. Modified some point costs, removed the +1 T bonus, added some HQ entries and created the new codex section. -Silver (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Land Raiders (at least schizos) are in the old WH codex. Remember, they're inquisition/ecclesiarchy both (if you think adding Ordo Hereticus is acceptable), and that means access to those vehicles. It would make the much-neglected inquisitors (who should be reworked appropriately) worth taking twice. A Redeemer (ecksbawkshueg flamers + multimelta + Assault Cannon already being in line with what the sisters works with) could be jacked (given to) by the repentia while the inquisitor goes away to "question" that suspicious looking piece of terrain or something.

Also, we shouldn't just copypasta the bad entries in. e.g. Immolators should be from WH codex if you are so desperate to copypasta. In addition, when you change one thing, make sure things aren't redundant (e.g. giving Rosarius defaultly to the generic Canoness should automean removing the rosarius from options, and vica versa. If there's one thing our spiritual liege does right, it's not making the rules an absolute mess. Sure, some are nonsensical, but fuck, it's not TOO contradictory at least. Or at least nowhere as contradictory as this mess we have. And if you add a section in, please have the decency to add in some stats at the very least. I can hardly say that I have added anything if I just wrote the titles there, after all. Can I? NEVERMIND, I noticed standard sisters were added.

Changelog:

• Eternal Warrior cloak? WTF? WH codex clearly states "wards away incoming blows" and +1 improvement to armor save. Kinda makes Mantle of Ophelia feel redundant too.
• Added costs to blessed wargear. Diversified costs of Blessed weapons to account for power weapon changes in the 6th edition. Subject to change depending on what I see in the chaos space marine codex when I finally get off my ass and look it up.
• Shield of Faith: 5+ inv to non-vehicles. 6+ to vehicles. Balance reasons.
• Rosarius again gives the wearer a 4+ invulnerable save as per Codex WH and Codex SoB. (It's old function of giving 5+ inv has been replaced by the Shield of Faith) Put back into options with appropriate pricing. Adjusted price for the Canoness. I understand that you didn't want it overpowered, but this might just work
• Increased the cost of adding celestians to the squad. I believe with the new options, they are worth it. (I kinda like the sternguard veteran lite feel to them, even though they aren't marines and can't deep strike and no special ammunition... But they can rend!)
• Adjusted Saint Celestine's points cost.
• Repentia squad base cost is 80. Eviscerators may be exchanged to a pair of Power Mauls.
• Changed Bionics due to redundancy. Now it adds +1I (due to enhancing the user) to the model. Adjusted the cost.
• Added Rhino and Immolator entries. Immolator retains her fire point. Options pending until addition of Vehicle Wargear list.

Keep cool dudes. --Boro 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down please. I didn't mean to offend anyone. This is a long, boring work, and it's taking a lot of time from everyone of us. I don't have the WH Codex, so I had no idea of what were you doing. Also, I never claimed to have done everything on any page.

But it's ok, this wouldn't be teamwork without discussions. So, I think that 5++ from SoF is a little too OP, expecially when normal Sisters cost 11 pts. and similar special rules like Mark of Tzeentch give only a 6++ to invuln.-less units. Should we make veehicles 5 pts. pricier for SoF too? Also, the Sister Superior should take the squad's base cost at 65, like other sarge upgrades (+10 pts.), even when included in the base pricing. Maybe we could increase the cost of the Mantle of Ophelia to something like 35/40 pts. and let it garant Eternal Warrior always.

About Ordo Hereticus options... I've included them because you put Strormtroopers and Chimeras, but I'm not totally sure about them. I mean, I know that the Adepta Sororitas are the unofficial Hereticus' army, but I feel that an Inquisitor would just tell the Ecclesiarchy to get their girls anywhere the heretics are without joining the battle. Dunno. I'd like to have a "pure Ecclesiarchy" Codex, but let me know what do you think about this. And the Land Raider: wasn't it a Space Marine and Mechanicus only thing? Can't remember. -Silver (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's ok dude, I just assumed you googled it. Mea culpa. Anyway, here's The codex on the official Games Workshop website. How in the fuck are people supposed to browse that trash site of theirs is beyond me, I only found it by googling. As for the +10 sarge, yeah I think it was a mistake on my part to leave it out of the base price, mainly because I'm still thinking a bit in the old WH model. Changed, fixed, raised sisters base price. Changed Mantle of Ophelia too. Added vehicle armory w list & points costs, but no descriptions yet..

Another thing I want eventually, is modelling advice in the style of Rogue Trader, to make any new units we design and there's no model for.

I think inquisitional *detachment* on the force org chart can be a solution. As a "you can include them in above 1500pt engagements" kind of option. Currently thinking in Frateris Militia troops choice.. --Boro 19:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I like how the Inquisitorial detachment and modelling advices things sound, we can put them in. Added the Vehicle Armory descriptions, the Repressor and the Avenger Strike fighter, fixed Rhino and Immolator a little, tried something with the Techpriestess. I still have issues with the 5++ from SoF though. Dunno, it sounds so OP to me. Maybe because I play DE, but the Rosarius becomes useless with that too: why paying 20 points to only improve the invuln by 1? Meh, I'm still not sure. I've changed SoF to an universal 6++ at the moment, but let me know. Shall we give access to the Rosarius to the Techpriestess too? About Novices: I would easly see them converted from DE Witches. -Silver (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

All right, added Novices squads, fixed the Percussor (seriously, what the Warp was he supposed to be? Some kind of uber-Cyrus?), added the CCW to all the Superiors as standard, swapped the Canoness' bolter with a CCW again, fixed some things here and there. -Silver (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Put the cost on the Command Squad, changed its oprions (Melee and Ranged Weapons list for everyone? What?). Removed bolter from the Canoness equipment and her Rosarius option, as it's already in the special issue wargear. Also, isn't the Cloak redundant with the artificer armour option? Tried to fix some stuff, but maybe I only made it worse. Unno. -Silver (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah looks good to me. The Rosarius may only be taken be the Canones, so I think it is best to put the option to the Canones and remove it from the Special Issue Wargear.

I still think that it the disclamer that you may take one of these if you have these and they take up no play in the army oranisation etc. is pretty standard in the 6th edition and I would suggest to stick with these kind of wording because they are pretty good selections. Also these mechanics that the Techpriestress has to to join a Servitor unit are not really nesseccary since the Serviator are pretty useless with out the Priestress.

Yeah looks good to me. The Rosarius may only be taken be the Canones, so I think it is best to put the option to the Canones and remove it from the Special Issue Wargear. By the way I would a Seraphim Command Squad for Canoness with Jet Pack and Celestine- Yandere (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The cloak is now a bit more expensive and does more than a Artificer Armour. Also much Repentia to Troops like I said before I would. - Yandere (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Repentia are not going to troops due to fluff. They wouldn't care about holding objectives and there wouldn't be so many in an Order. Adjusted price of artificer armor for the Canoness, priced the Seraphim, fixed stuff here and there. About the Rosarius: I think we could allow anyone with acces to the Special issue wargear list to get it, as there would just be two or three characters allowed to take SIW. Let me know. Also, if you think we need someone else in troops, maybe we could put the Dominions or the Celestians. -Silver (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I just picked the Repentia because of the diffrent models, I think it would be very confusing to have very similar looking units in the same slot. But I can see your point.

By the way can we streamline the Acts of Faith a bit? My suggestion would be that every test would be a Leadership test and would always consume a Faith point. I think that would be very helpful during play.

The Konfessor can basiclly have a Rosarius but I think that would be standard wargear for him anyway. Speaking of Konfessors I think it would be good when Konfessors and Canones would use the Sororita Command Squad as Retinue. We could move the Battle Conclave to Elite. The many reason for this is that most people pick Konfessor over Canones simply because he has the better Retinue. We could even that out by letting both choose the Command Squad and just make the both HQs interesting enough for diffrent reasons. - Yandere (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Confessors should be allowed to take a command squad. Acts of Faith and Faith Points should stay this way, or some would become too OP. It's not too difficult to remember the various Acts anyway. I've moved the Conclave to Elites, fixed some wargear costs, outlined the Inquisitor and the "inquisitorial detachment" thing, added a Malleus Powers table. -Silver (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why the Confessor shouldn't be allowed to take a command squad? From a pure fluff perspecive I think it wouldn't be really strange if a Confessor would be guarded by Sororitas.

Since most of them are leadership test anyway when a Independent Character model joins the squad it actually isn't so much of an issue. When you think some would become OP on a pure leadership test, I would suggest to change them that tey aren't OP anymore.

I like the Hereticus Inquisitor, but shouldn't he have access to a Heriticus Power table instead of a Maleus power table? - Yandere (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chirping in: Faith is good in this way, and it can actually make independent character choices (3 priests from the elites? How about they can act of faith?) worth it simply because they make acts of faith easier, or even simply possible (when rolling above squad number on 1d6). On the other hand, they can make some acts of faith be harder, due to Ld check rather than 11 or less. I think the diversity, and the better narrative it can promote is worth not streamlining it.

On the Inquisitorial Psychic Table: I know rolling for powers is the new thing, but is it actually better than buying sure powers for +x points? We know that Phil Kelly loves random numbers, but I don't think such randomization is viable in an army that has psychic power equivalents without the perils. --Boro 17:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"His foes shall fall" is OP with a simple Ld test. "Light of the Emperor" too. Also, I imagine Confessors would rather stay among the troops, to inspire the squads with their sermons. Priest from elite could be faithful [1] maybe, and of course they'll have AoF. Rolling for psy powers isn't a Phil's idea, it's from the 6th ed rulebook. Fixed the power table name and removed the plasma pistol option from the Confessor (it's already in the ranged weapons list). -Silver (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Silver. I was referring to the Pre-Yandere version of faiths (1d6>=squadsize && !(rollof(d6,1)). As for psychic tables: OK that the core rulebook has a rollable table for those who don't want to spend points on buying powers that they choose themselves. I kinda like having alternatives, and picking&choosing what my psykers get, for a price.

Reset indent Ok, I am not sure who much lectures in statistics you guys visited during university. The basic problem is that the diversity only brings more complexity in the game. You have extremely different cases what to roll, sometimes it is a d6 sometimes 2d6 sometimes you have to roll high sometimes you have to roll low. With a leadership test you basically have 3 simple cases:

• Ld 8; The Superior is dead only standard SoBs in the unit. Probability to succeed is: 72.2%
• Ld 9; The standard case. Probability to succeed is: 83.4%
• Ld 10; A strong independent character joined the unit. Properbility to succeed is: 91.7%

If you say this is still to good in most cases you can think about something like a "losing faith" rule: If you roll a 12 on a Test of Faith the whole army gains a -1 or even -2 penality for further Tests of Faith in this round reducing the probability to succeed for our Ld8 Sobs to: 58.4% or even 41.7%
Including re-rolls you get from a Simulacrum Imperialis, this should give you enough statistical diverity in the system to get pretty much every outcome you would like to have. Yes, you don't have the extremely impropable results anymore but let's face it: They are called improbable for a reason.
What I basically want to say is that diversity in the rules doesn't bring diversity to the gaming table and before you ask yes I am a statistician.
If Acts of Faith are OP, nerf them. Simple fix: pay 2 faith points for example. If they are OP they are OP either way.

On the case of the Psi powers and basiclly all other things. I would love if this project ends with a modern 6th edition codex. Seriously the 2nd and 3rd have a working codex if I would want to play those edition I simply pick one of those up. Modern psi is dice rolling so I would suggest to stick with it. You could make a short list like in the chaos codex. One basic power and 3 additional instead of 6 additional. - Yandere (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we can go with this. I've put different costs to each AoF, so there wouldn't be problems (I hope), and the profile of the power lance. I've made the Hereticus psy powers list with 3 powers and a primaris, let me know what you think about it. Also, I'm not into statistics yet. -Silver (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychic powers: Noted. Going to glean the chaos and WH power sections some time in the future.

Faith: I'm waiting for Silver's input nevermind, EC. But I'm thinking of a "pushing your luck" rule, in which the more faith powers an unit uses in a turn, the less likely it is to succeed, or more points have to be used. (to a maximum of +2 per power) --Boro 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty good idea. The simplest solution would be that with each faith test a unit performs (successful or failure doesn't matter) within one turn they take a cummulative -1 penality for the next test, they want to perform. Having a unit start with Ld 9 which is the standard the second test of faith would be with leadership Ld 8 and a third one with Ld 7. With the probabilites if 83.4%, 72.2%, 58.4% to succeed on each test individually. The chance that every roll succeeds is about 35.2%, to fail one of the rolls would be 45.6% (the most common result). The chance to fail 2 rolls is 17.3% and if you really unluck you would 1.9% chance to fail everything. I think that isn't a bad result. Of chouse, being able to re-roll fail Tests of Faith is a really helpful ability but it costs 20 points so it can do something.

The psy powers are very interesting and cool. I don't know if purgatus is to strong for a 1 point power. A permanent -2Ld can be pretty tough depending on who got hit by the power. The second thing is the Scrouging. I cannot remember any modern codex in which a Invulnerability save was ignored. It is a pretty good basic attack anyway so perhaps I would just delete the part with the saves. - Yandere (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Invul ignore was in the 3rd ed WH codex, but it allowed armor & cover saves. How many cases are there when the Invul is better than the armor save? There's crusaders, or when necron scarabs troll some multi-wound model by ripping it naked that come off my head. --Boro 08:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean,. My thoughts exactly.

A friend of mine told me a while ago that they removed every ability to ignore invul saves from the game. I think it is a basic design decision form GW, that you can count on your invul save even if everything else is ignored. Acutually it is one thing why I think that Shield of Faith isn't such a crappy ability.

You are totally right that this ability isn't a huge deal in most cases, but that is also a reason to remove it. If it does hardly nothing it is not really neccessary. - Yandere (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, removed the "invuln not allowed" from the purgatus and fixed some grammar. But I have doubts with hammerhand. It's basically a power fist without specialist weapon. Also, now the table is a little weird. Roll 1d6 and two powers have two numbers? Wut? -Silver (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it is a little weird, but it is nothing that really bothers me. Another thing that I am thinking about for a while now is the Sororita Warlord Ability Table. You know role a d6 or have a fixed one for character models. A modern codex should have one of those and I habe a few ideas like Adamantine Will for the warlord and every unit withing 12" or something like that. But I am hardly close to 6 abilities. - Yandere (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could add some new powers for the last two numbers. I'll see what I can find. I agree with you on the warlord traits table, start with the ones you're thinking about and we'll work together on it. -Silver (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Added a warlord table. It is basiclly the first 6 stupid abilites I came up with. Some abilities are ok others are a bit ... well. Just change what you think needs changing (including completly prplace it.) Deep faith is one the best in my opionen. Since this is a relativly weak ability that basilly all named characters could get, so that you can't get overly broken combos with these. - Yandere (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed some things in the warlord table (Chosen of the Seraphim was just... well, as you said). Fixed some grammar in the units' composition charts, removed the Seraphim Pistols rule (RTM guys) and... sweet Emperor what the Warp have you done with the Preachers? It would have been easier if we left them there and said something like "you can take three per army and don't take up an Elite slot." -Silver (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea with the preachers was that if they are an upgrade for the unit, they are far more easy to balance. That was basiclly the whole reason to make the upgrades. They can also be cheaper in general because you don't need to fear the someone equipps al of them like mad and then put them in the same unit etc. That is basiclly all. I can understand, why you would want a seperate codex entry (because it is easier to wirte down). I have not a really strong opinion on that. I just wanted to try how that works out.

The additions to the warlord table are very nice.

Why did you delete Seraphim pistols? It is one of their classic abilites from the 2nd and the 5th editon codex, only the 3rd edition codex didn't have that, but their weapons counted as syncronized so their pistols counted as syncronized so their was also a special rule about their pistols. Is there something in the 6th editon rule book I missed, so that everybody can fire 2 pistols at once now? - Yandere (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, now any model with two pistols can fire both in the same shooting phase. -Silver (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh cool, I totally missed that. - Yandere (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

All right people, we are going great! I've changed the two named confessors' traits, because they were the same for all the unique characters, re-estabilished the status quo in the canoness entry (even Chaos Champions don't have three weapons, and she can always take a Blessed Weapon), reduced the cost of CCWs for the Celestians (2 pts. like chaos space marines), limited the assassins save to the h2h combat like DEldar Witches and specified their type of power weapons, specified what Amphibious does. Now, I have a couple of suggestions: why don't we remove the Percussor and add the four Temple Assassins? And may we create a new, unique canoness? -Silver (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Percussor creator here, deleted her and added stubs for the temple assassins. A suggestion for the unique canoness: a very zealous Sister Oblatia. -Shinr (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the change was basiclly that in the current codex the Canoness has Bolter and Bolt pistol as her weapons, not Bolt pistol and Chain Sword. The very old Canoness seen here has three weapons with her, but you can argue the that mace is a blessed weapon or something.

I am all in for a new unique canoness. - Yandere (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the Inquisitor really be limited to 1500+ games? No other army uses those these days, and if anything it makes more sense for an Inquisitor to be going with a small band of Sisters than large amount.

I know what you mean. It is a bit odd nowadays. You could change the whole thing to: "Ordo Hereticus Inquisitors can't be warlord of your army and therefore can't fulfill your mandatory HQ choice." You could also make him a bit more expensive. It is the only option to get a Psyker so he could cost a bit more. And to be honest 1500 is pretty much standard game, so it is hardly a limitation. Yeah, I would a agree to delete that part. - Yandere (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if you think so, I've changed that phrase. The cost is ok, as each mastery level costs 20 points. I think we should make an unique section of the armory full of inquisitorial trinkets though. -Silver (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we really have not much Inquisition stuff. The Hereticus Inquisitor is basiclly the only one. So he would be the only one who would use the entry. I think you could probably add some stuff like Pyke-Out Granades to the Special Issue wargear however. - Yandere (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We could create a section of the armory for Inquisitors only, starting from the Gay Knights Codex's entries. -Silver (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

How about an item/character that surpresses overwatch? Perhaps an act of faith? 'Holy Terror' or something. 'Spend a faith point, choose an enemy unit. The unit rolls a leadership test on 3d6. If they fail, they cannot fire overwatch. Traitor guard and Chaos always fail?'

I can see this on the special Canoness we are thinking about, but not as an Act. -Silver (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So do we want to add Vanus and Venum assasins? Vanus seem like mentats--perhaps they deliver a buff to reserves and can make a subordinate attack its leader. This said, they don't seem the sort to take to the battlefield. Venum could give a unit poisoned weapons and perhaps have a sniper weapon that's poisoned.

We are not adding Vanus and Venenum. This because Vanus Asssassins wouldn't be on the battlefield, and Vindicare would be better than Venenum anyway. -Silver (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fellow elegan/tg/entlemen and ca/tg/irls, it seems this project is pretty much dead. Though I must say it's far from being a failure: every unit of the WD mini-dex was included, and may others were added. We worked hard and I am satisfied with the result, and I'd say we could leave it as it is now, without feeling guilty. As a last addition, I'm adding a modified allies matrix which should make more sense. Cheers. -Silver (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Now this is an allies table I can get behind.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Boss, it's just the first thing I came up with. -Silver (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Unique Canoness

Good, let's start brainstorming. I think we have to decide who this lady is and what she has done to become famous first, then we can work on the crunch. Any ideas? -Silver (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

First stupid thing that came to my mind: Noya Sabathiel, little sister of Miriael. She is infamous for sending fellow sisters who struggle in tha face of chaos and corruption to the Repentia. An true Zelot for the God emperor, who is not afraid to turn her weapon even against her own sister. As she has proven in the endless battles to hunt down Miriael.

For those who do not know who Miriael Sabathiel is: She is basiclly the only known sister who got corrupted by Chaos (Slaanesh to be more specific). - Yandere (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like part Canoness, part Mistress of Repentance, whose special rule allows her to take Repentia Squads as a troop choice.

A background idea: I recall one comic (don't know if it was official or fanmade) which showed a captured Sister who fought and survived in the gladiatorial pits of Commorragh, is that badass enough? - Shinr (talk) 8:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Saint Arabella the Liberator, the last of original six sisters who is merely MIA, not dead. - Shinr (talk) 9:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Arabella is a bit problamatic in my eyes. The first thing is to find a reasonable explanation why she is a fe thousand years old. - Yandere (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Warp time-travel Shenanigans? Faith so deep she never ages? Was in suspended animation? - Shinr (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Warp time-travel Shenanigans seems to be most likly giving she is MIA and this is basiclly the default exploration for everything in 40k. - Yandere (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sabathiel's sister doesn't really sound like a canoness, more like a fanatic mistress of repentance. We could save the idea for later though.

A prisioner of the Dark Eldars? Really? No-one escapes the dark city. Once in the pits, you die in there, no matter how much badass you are.

Letting Arabella in would be like letting Corax or the Kahn in the Space Marine Codex. Ok, it's not really the same, but I hope you got the comparison.

What do you think about the canoness of a crusading order or something? We get special rules, special equipment and an interesting background. -Silver (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well we already got a Seraphim Canoness so I thought a Mistress of Repentance Canoness would be kind of fun.

What du you mean with crusading order? That is a bit vague, because as far as I know, all orders were on a crusade on one point or another. Celestines background is basiclly a giant crusade were she survived countless times, which gives the explanation for her Miraculous Intervention. It is not that I object to the idea, but I just don't get the idea. - Yandere (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You know Black Templars? Just like that: an order on a permanent/reeeeally long crusade. -Silver (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Yeah now I get what you mean... But isn't that a bit, well, Black Templarish O_o - Yandere (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem in being a little Black Templarish. What's the matter for you? -Silver (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have basiclly no problem with that. The main point is that I would want something that is unique to the Sisters of Battle, not something you could find in other armies if that make sense. But you actually haven't flashed out the idea much, so perhaps I am all fine with that degree of SoBness you have planned. - Yandere (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2013 (:

Well, we can work on something unique to the Sisters if you wish. The first thing that came in my mind: SoB are the only army that can field dual weilding pistols squads; a gunny Canoness? -Silver (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, gunny Canoness really sounds like fun ... I am all in ^^ - Yandere (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, how about a Canoness that dual-wields a master-crafted flamer and a master-crafted melta that she can fire at different targets? -Dok

A little unpractical. Maybe we could give her a couple of special (mark this: special ruled, not master crafted) bolt pistols or a Cypher's combo (master crafted bolt and plasma pistol) and allow her to take a retinue of "veteran" akimbo Celestians or something. Also weird, because in my Order's fluff there's a Celestian with a Cypher's combo (dundunduuuun...) -Silver (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(reset indent) (Totally unrelated, but I think a few artefacts and probably some special weapons wielded by named characters should get the master-crafted rule, because it is kind of expected that these kind of weapons or at least some of them are master-crafted) I also thought about the Cypher combo. But the flamer, melta idea also has potantial. Perhaps like this:

• Twin Pistols of Cleansing Fire - This pair of identical master-crafted pistols may be used on two diffrent settings. In one configuration they work as hand flamer, in the other configuration they are used as inferno pistols.

- Yandere (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. I have doubts on the limited range of the weapons. And most of the special weapons of named characters aren't master crafted. I still think the Cypher combo is the best option, despite the fact it has limited special rules possibilities. But we could always compensate this by giving her some army buffs. -Silver (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just flipped through the first two codices I got into my hands. Non of them was 6th edition though, but if I remember correctly the artefact section works also like this. Roughly half of the named characters whild some kind of master-crafted close combat weapon. Not all of them, but half of them.

As I said I have nothing against the Cypher combo. - Yandere (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

side discussion

I'll get started adding Noya Sabathiel as an HQ choice under WIP, if you guys don't mind. -Dok

I mind. Sorry if I'm going to be rude, but nobody told you you could do that. Sisters of Silence? Frateris Militia? Vanus and Venenum Temple Assassins? Missionaries? Where did you suggest that? Did anyone agree with adding them? If you'd like to have a new entry, then please ask in the General Discussion first. I'm going to delete the assassins, the missionary and the SoS; if anybody has an issue with what I'm doing, let me know. -Silver (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Frateris Militia is second edition stuff. I was never a fan of these because it watered down the woman under weapon thing. So I didn't add them by myself. I can see them as assault units however. The Vanus and Venenum Temple Assassins are fluff wise existent but they had never offical stats. I actually like the WiP section, because you can just pitch things without suggesting it first on the talk page. Therefore I really didn't mind the additions.

Having set that, we are kind of off topic because unique canoness is the name of the game. - Yandere (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Percussor

As the one who added the Percussor, I apologize, I was under the impression that Assassin-type units were useless unless their stats were that high plus more traits. And on the unrelated note, should we have Veteran Superiors? -anon

The Superiours are pretty veteran as they are right now, so it would be more the question if we should add a downgraded variant. I have no idea where the Percussor comes from from a fluff perspective I think Sly Marbo is a pretty good bench mark for those kind of units. On that note, why didn't you simply add the 4 temple assassins? They are more or less classic sister units. - 93.219.86.45

If you're asking from which source Percussors came from, I made them up. Fluff-wise, the girls are Sororitas trained scouts/snipers/assassins used when the services of Officio Assassinorum are hard to get (either no contact or will arrive too late to make a difference) or undesirable (Puritan vs Radicals being one of possible reasons). 95.132.40.224

I'd say we could remove the Percussor and add the Temple Assassins, but let's see what the others say. -Silver (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok added all rules for Temple Assassins. - Yandere (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's add a separate category for this

Not to nitpick but under tactics category seems a bit eh; adding a "40k Homebrew" category. Glad to see /tg/ getting shit done.

Interestingly, I think the tactics category serves a good purpose now: getting tactically and codically minded people to see the project. --Boro 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Exorcist Missile Launcher: Range 48" S8 AP1 Heavy d6. Not sure removing a full terminator squad each turn, at 135 points, is balanced. How does this compare to the official Exorcist Missile launcher? And what about the Pentinent Engine hull points? I'd like to hear people's thoughts on these two things and see if it's just me getting irked. Disregard- thought it was also blast. I misread.

It would be so awesome if this would be also a blast... O_o

But OP as hell. I just punched in the offical stats for both. I think both units a generally ok, but you could argue about the point costs.- Yandere (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-Official Codex Entries?

Why do we have those? Seriously this is an unoffical Codex so we can pretty much do what we want. I would just add then into the normal Units When they are no objections - Yandere (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Objection here. We are doing this to allow people who play SoB but don't like the mini-dex to play a decent army. Some of them may feel the added units weird. Moreover, I don't think a separate section is a terrible issue. You just have to jump to another paragraph while building your army list. -Silver (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point. I think the biggest problem with the mini dex is, that there is only one unit in the troop slot.

I would suggest to add the Repentia to the troop slot if there are no new units added. - Yandere (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also consider moving Penitent Engines to Elites.

Art and Fluff

Right now this is a bit of an eyesore, I think we'd do well to pretty it up with pictures and fluff entries so people who want to use it aren't hit with a massive wall of numbers. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is probably something we'll do, but only after we have finished everything else. -Silver (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

One picture per entry would be nice so that you know how a unit looks like. I could take pictures of my army I have most models painted. - Yandere (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Would be nice, thanks Yan. -Silver (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Allies and Subfactions

Will we be making the two convents distinct from each other? Probably not, but here's the allies chart for flavor (basically, Sanctorum is more "Yay, Imperium!" while the Prioris is more "Yay, Inquisition!") -anon

	SoB(V/MO)	SoB(CS)	SoB(CP)	SM	BA	DA	SW	BT	GK	IG	T	E	DE	N	O	Ty	CSM	CD
Sisters of Battle (Vanilla/Minor Order)	/	BB	BB	AoC	AoC	AoC	AoC	AoC	AoC	BB	DA	DA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA
Sisters of Battle (Convent Sanctorum)	BB	/	AoC	BB	BB	AoC	BB	AoC	AoC	BB	DA	DA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA
Sisters of Battle (Convent Prioris)	BB	AoC	/	AoC	DA	DA	DA	DA	BB	BB	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA	CtA

I think this just makes things more confusing. Why should SoB have 3 (3?!?!?) Allies charts? I was thinking about it too, but I'd say it's a little early at this stage. -Silver (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with silver here. Three allies charts a just to much, when we want to follow such an idea I would suggest an Canoness upgrade. That the Canoness from a Minor Order has no upgrade, the one from the Convent Sanctorum gets an additional bolter to her equipment and the one from the Convent Prioris get Adamantine Will USR. Something like that. For allies however I would use the offical chart. - Yandere (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Marines have 5! For the time being, I say no, but when it's fluffed up enough with traditions and special units, additional charts are a foregone consequence. --Boro 18:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But they also have 5 diffrent codices. - 93.219.86.45 01:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A Canoness upgrade for this would just be confusing and (in my opinion) useless. This is a single codex, we'll make a single allies chart (read: fix the current one). -Silver (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

While my knowledge of sisters fluff is not immense, I find it odd that any Imperial faction would be worse than AoC with each other. Of course, if fluff contradicts this, go ahead and disregard.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Sisters are officially DA with Black Templars in 6th edition. 95.132.40.224

It makes next to no sense though. If anything, the BT should work with the Sisters even better than other marines, considering their focus on purgation and abhorrence of psykers.

We'll fix the Imperial allies for SoB, now they are just nonsense. -Silver (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Shield of Faith

I'm going to put in my official two cents that Shield of Faith should be +2 to Deny the Witch!, army-wide, instead of 6+ invulnerable. I mean, Sisters don't have any Psykers to give them bonuses, and really, is Shield of Faith that useful in its current form? (Also, Shield of Faith had to do with stopping psychic powers in 3rd edition... just sayin'...). -Dok

• Also, for Angelic Visage, just make Shield of Faith +3. Hey, Battle Sisters really hate psykers...

I liked the WD Shield of Faith, actually it makes the SoB tanks kind of interesting. Adamantine Will is a USR which does exactly that, and a few units already have Adamantine Will. The general 6+ save is a bit more useful, and is kind of interesting. - Yandere (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot it applied to tanks as well. I suppose it is quite useful when a Heldrake swoops down and tries to burn all your poor little Sisters to a crisp... Still, a 6+ Invuln. save just isn't that useful, at least if you're not going up against AP3 (which is relatively rare), and even if you are, it'll generally only save a model or two, tops. Still, I can see a reason for it. In which case my real question is, can we get army-wide Adamantine Will? It just seems to make so much sense fluff-wise, while not being particularly broken crunch-wise. -Dok

We have a warlord trait which basiclly hands out adamantine will in a pretty big radius. - Yandere (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. -Dok

Sisters of Silence

Also, I would like to propose we include Sisters of Silence. Yeah, yeah, I know, we don't know what happened to them post-Heresy; screw that. They fit so naturally under the Battle Sister banner it's easy to see them. I'm going to start drafting some rules for a Sisters of Silence auxiliary in a few. -Dok

Ok, I have no idea what the Sisters of Silence are. I don't oppose the addition, but were can I get a few material about them? - Yandere (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

They're a Horus Heresy-era group of warrior women (a lot like Battle Sisters) that made up the chamber militant of (the precursor to) the Adeptus Astra Telepathica. They were basically silent Pariahs that hunted witches. They disappeared post-Heresy. They've never actually been included in-game, but they've been mentioned a few times in the Horus Heresy novels and they have a good article over on Warhammer 40k Wiki. I figured they'd be more contentious than Frateris Militia (or even the "new" Assassins), hence why I added a discussion section down here. A bad idea for the Battle Sisters codex, given their questionable canonicity and lack of rules precedent? Perhaps, but then that's what this discussion is for... --Dok

In my opinion it's a safe bet to say that Sisters of Silence don't exist anymore in the 41st millennium, as (for what I know) all pariahs are taken to the Culexus temple when they are not killed after birth because they make people feel weird. Grimdark? Yes. SoS could be a branch of the Culexus temple? Quite unlikely. There would be some possibility though, if in one of the next Forgeworld HE books they put some fluff about them (likely in the Fall of Prospero one). At the moment, no. -Silver (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fluff

Should I add some fluff? I suppose most of the design choices make sense without explicitly stating a fluff reason for it to exist but... it feels dirty to have crunch without any fluff. -Dok

We can add fluff. I am more of a crunsh guy, but more fluff is the ultimate goal of this project. including some nice picture, which I might do this frieday if everything works out ok. - Yandere (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Faith Points Mechanics

Firstly hello.

I'm not particularly liking the faith points mechanics-- I'd always liked the ones from the old codex, where you got one for each unit at the beginning and one every time one of your units died.

What if we kept things as we have them now with the doubling, but added in the +1 as any sisters unit dies?-Gendo

Actually, while I'm thinking of it, what if the laud hailers gave fearless (or supressed overwatch) in addition to/rather than the recouping of points. Logic here is that with the faith points increasing by a factor of 1.5 each turn (if you don't spend them) I don't think conservation will be all that big an issue save at the start of the game. Since the sisters will likely be out of trouble early on, faith point expenditure will likely be low.

Sorry to hear that, but I wouldn't change the FP mechanics. Acts of Faith are quite powerful abilities, and this is offset by the low number of Faithful units. We went through various modifications and ideas with this sistem, and I don't feel like it needs some adjustments. -Silver (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fluff for Items and Units

Figured I'd add a section for it.

Blessed Artifacts

Brazier of Holy Fire:;--1/game flamer Blade of Admonition:--Variable AP Mace of Chastisement:--Anti psyker Book of St. Lucius:--Lead Buff Cloak of St. Aspira:--Grants +1 bonus to Armor Save and Deny the Witch rolls. Mantle of Ophelia:--Eternal Warrior USR.

Condemnor Boltgun--Antipsyker

Techpriestess

Novice

Noya

Frateris

New Units Idea

Ok, I had an idea for a couple (three) units. A sister, if she is particularily skilled with one weapon of the holy trinity, and their faith in said weapon assists them in battle greatly, they join one of the three sub-Orders of the Order Militant. These three orders are the Sisters of Protection (name pending if there is a better name), The Sisters of Destruction and the Sisters of Fire.

Sisters of Protection

                             WS|BS|S|T|W|I |A|Ld|Sv

Sister of Protection 3 | 4 |3|3|1|3|1| 9 |3+

Sister Superior 3 | 4 |3|3|1|4|2| 9 |3+

Wargear:

• Storm Bolters
• Power Armour
• Heavy Bolter (Superior only)

Special Rules:

• Faithful [1]
• Shield of Faith
• Acts of Faith

*Faith Protecting Others
  The squad gains the Supporting Fire special rule.

Options

• The Sister Superior may exchange her Power Armour for Sentinel Armour-30 points
• One Sister mat exchange her Storm Bolter for two Bolt pistols-10 points
• The entire squad may take inferno bolts-15 points

Sisters of Fire

                             WS|BS|S|T|W|I |A|Ld|Sv

Sister of Fire 3 | 4 |3|3|1|3|1| 9 |3+

Sister Superior 3 | 4 |3|3|1|4|2| 9 |3+

Wargear:

• Flamers
• Power Armour
• Blessed Flamer (Superior only)

Range S AP Template 5 4 Assault 1, Ignores Cover, Torrent

Special Rules:

• Faithful [1]
• Shield of Faith
• Acts of Faith

*Faith Burning like nothing else
  The squads flamers become twin-linked

• The Sister Superior may exchange her Power Armour for Sentinel Armour-30 points
• One Sister mat exchange her Flamer for two Hand Flamers-10 points
• The entire squad may take Holy Promethium-15 pointsSisters of Protection

                               WS|BS|S|T|W|I |A|Ld|Sv

Sister of Destruction 3 | 4 |3|3|1|3|1| 9 |3+

Sister Superior 3 | 4 |3|3|1|4|2| 9 |3+

Wargear:

• Meltas
• Power Armour
• Multi-Melta (Superior only)

Special Rules:

• Faithful [1]
• Shield of Faith
• Acts of Faith

*Faith Destroying the Unfaithful
   The squad rolls +1D6 for armour penetration

• The Sister Superior may exchange her Power Armour for Sentinel Armour-30 points
• One Sister mat exchange her Storm Bolter for fusion pistols-10 points
• The entire squad may take Melta bombs-15 points

Points please be decided by someone else, I will just make them broken. Please rate.

Saint

350pts

	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Sv	Unit Type	Composition
Saint	8	5	6	5	3	7	5	9	2+	Flying Monstrous Creature (C)	1 Saint

Wargear -Fervent Blade

Range	S	AP	Type
-	User	1	Melee,

-Armour of Righteous Glory: The Armour of Righteous Glory grants the model wearing it a 2+ Armour save and a 5+ Invulnerable Save.

Special Rule

-Zealot

-Fearless

-Act of Faith: Miraculous Intervention: When a Saint is removed as a casualty, roll 2D6 at the start of your next turn. If the total rolled is 10 or less, return the Saint to the battlefield within 1" of her location of death, with full wounds.

Options

• The Saint may be given up to two of the following powers:

- Gleaming Beacon: All units within 18" of the Saint loses the Stealth and Shrouded special rules if they have them. Also, the Saint gains the Stealth special rule - 20pts
- Purifying Light: The Saint gains a ranged weapon with the following profile: - 20pts

Range	S	AP	Type
18	6	3	Assault 6

- Herald of Victory: Whenever the Saint destroys an enemy unit in close combat, you may activate an Act of Faith on all friendly Codex: Sisters of Battle units within 12". These Acts of Faith are in effect until the end of your next turn. - 30pts
- Light In The Dark: All Codex: Sisters of Battle units within 12" of the Saint gain the Prefferred Enemy (Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons) - 30pts
- Martyr's Blood: When the Saint suffers her final wound, right before she is removed as a casualty, resolve a Nova power with the following profile, treating the saint as the psyker - 20pts:

Range	S	AP	Type
12	4	5	Assault 2D6, Nova, Final Fall

Final Fall: If it is the second time the model using this psychic power is being removed as a casualty, increase the strength of this weapon by 1 and reduce it's ap by 1.

Was thinking about adding more options, but I am lacking in creativity atm. - TheRavenousEye 11:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)