Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Adeptus Ministorum(8E)

There is another Tactics page. we should consider consolidating them together https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Adeptus_Ministorum_(8E)

Done --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR

The reason I removed it was not only because the section is rubbish and doesn't provide anything actually useful (see discussions on other tactics pages why I think that) but it's also incorrect on fundamentally every tier. Where does the unit analysis even suggest that the Repressor is OP? Where does the unit analysis say that the Diologus is Trash? My own personal analysis has shown that Celestians are probably inferior to regular Battle Sisters in terms of cost vs return so they shouldn't occupy the same position, Retributors and Crusaders need to come further up the list since nothing in their section suggests they are low tier, whilst the Hospitaler analysis argues against the units worth, so they'd need to be dropped a tier... this TL:DR is a prime example of someone making up rankings to suit their personal opinion and it simply doesn't match the text that follows. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

While I admit the TL;DR bit will never be perfect it is still a useful tool, especially for the casual reader, such as someone looking for what their opponent may bring/what to target, or to someone looking to buy an army off eBay wanting to know whether it will be effective out the gate. I even hid it behind an expandable section to highlight that it's not core but an additional helpful bit. Also, I am not gonna go looking at every talk page just on the off chance you mention something about it. Spider (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

TL:DR are not a useful too, they give plainly contradict information. All Tactics should follow same standards; it was deemed TL:DR should have no place on this wiki. "Casual reader" who don't have 15 minutes to read an article? Seriously? --Flutist (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Where does it give contradictory information? If you want I can add a TL;DR to the other pages so they can follow the same standard. And yes there are some casual readers who might not have time to read an article or who might just want a rough guide, just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean others don't. Spider (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Arco Flagellants, Ministorum Priest, Dialogus, for instance. It's not about me, it's about the majority of people. If you want opinions like "x is trash, do not play", go to DakkaDakka or any other forum, not there. The same standard means the majority of people has agreed TL:DR are bad, and therefore should be removed from Tactics. --Flutist (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If you feel things are miss placed in the table then you are welcome to change them. When was the vote on whether TL;DRs are bad because I must have missed it. At the end of the day, it doesn't really harm the article in any way being hidden by default so there is little reason to remove it. Spider (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright spider, let's here it. Why do we so desperately need a fucking TLDR on this? Every single other page has dumped it for being useless, save the Tau page where you are again the only person trying to put it back. The floor is your, let's here why this thing is damn important. Battlegrinder (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we desperately need a TL;DR section, I think it provides more good than harm but if others are so against it then so be it, my main issue is removing a section of a page without justifying it first.Spider (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death on every other page, it's crap that provides useless, non-objective and unhelpful information that, seeing as how it's been purged from every other page, clearly isn't needed or wanted. Even on this very talk page, once again it was everyone else saying "dump it, we don't need this" and only you saying it should stay, for some vague reason you've alluded to but never made any case for. Battlegrinder (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

>TLDR sections have been deemed useless everywhere else,

Sauce ? TL:DR are usually low effort opinion pieces that don't match the unit description that follows. This isn't the case here, and give a pretty good shopping list and what to expect from a sorotitas army. If the name TL;DR is what offend you, we can simply rename the section "Internal Balance" and makes it more wordy. But there is value is such syntethized information.

The source would be "every single other tactics page on this wiki", every single one of which has purged these things as useless (including this one, until you decided to put it back for some reason). If someone is one this page, reading about sisters, what possible fucking value does "this unit is OP" in a little box add that just reading the entry doesn't present? Let alone that simply writing a list and trying to see what's good and what isn't is moronic, as proper synergy can elevate a "bad" unit to be useful, and that what's good and what's bad will depend heavily on how you use the army and what Order the unit belongs to, given how much swing the chapter tactics equivalent can give to other armies. There is no point to make a TLDR section for a page that's already tiny as is, and anyone who uses a TLDR list of "OP" units as a shopping list is fucking moron. Battlegrinder (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Clestine and spirit of the martyr AoF

Can a Geminae bring back Celestine after her second death using the Spirit of the Martyr AoF? RAW seem to allow it or we could have miss a FAQ and/or clarification.

Thanks

Moinsen, i guess: The whole thing got the Charater Keyword. So yes you coud, RAW i guess, do an AoF if 1 geminae dies at the End f the phase - But still you can only do 1 Aof per turn with 1 Unit. But if every Geminae is a single Charater (since the whole unit got the Charater keyword) this might just enable a shittone of fire :,D Funny, but somehing boggers me.

ok found what boggered me and can not find a solution:

Use this Stratagem at the end of a phase in which an ADEPTA "SORORITAS CHARACTER from your army has been slain. Remove that unit from the battlefield."

Even if you use this when 1 Geminae dies, you must remove the whole unit. Wich means you would remove Clestine (and so she does not come back) - if you want to trigger it with the geminae - i can not find a way to surpase this. In Magice there are enough tricks, but not in 40k. So the idea was realy nice and all but it will not work, or i can not make it work. Also when she dies the first time. she pops up right away back. If you use the stratagem you would outright just kill her again. Sinst you must reove that unit wich triggered the stratagem. Yeah i am sorry. But i see now way to make this work, sadly. BR ironfist

Thanks, I understand what you mean about the stratagem, but the question was about the AoF in which you can heal d3 wound, or bring back a model at 1W.

you can, but you can not trigger it with a geminea or Celestine herself :) Seh got AoF, it triggers a single AoF But most of the time Celestine allready did an AoF - and she still can only do one per Turn.

How bad is the Exorcist really?

I've been looking at the Exorcist a bit and I've been wondering what's with the hate? I put it next to a Lazerback and I think it compares moderately well.

Stats	Cost	Strength	Toughness	Wounds	Saves		Attacks	Strength	Armor Pen	Damage
Laserback	120	6	7	10	3+		2	9	-3	D6
Exorcist	135	7	8	12	3+/6++		D6	8	-4	D3

Aside from above, the fact that the Exorcist trades 6 transport capacity for Shield of Faith and takes up a Heavy Support slot instead of a DT slot, the two have identical stats and wargear options. Mathematically, it even does better on average against lighter vehicles. I would think that, seeing as how the sister's Heavy Support options are all sort of middling in the first place, why they would be so bad? I could see a Spearhead of 3 of them + a canoness being an effective supporting force against vehicles that are lower priority then your Dominion targets.

>Because of the absolute lack of reliability you get from it. lasscan razorbackak are not great either anyway. It was Girlymann Assaultcanon bubble razorback that were powerful before their points increase. >A huge reason they get so much hate is that they used to be literally the only good part of the army in some older editions, while now they are average on their best day.

• Alternate Take Or we could look at the fact the Exorcist launcher has the exact same stats as a battle cannon, but better, coupled with a better BS. The only place the Battle Cannon outperforms the Exorcist is range, and four feet still more than enough. In exchange for not having the BC's six though, you get a -4 AP, significantly better. Also, sure, if you get your toughness three sister within three inches of the enemy, the two inferno pistols out perform the Exorcist (by about 1 wound). This does it, at T8, from range, and with more shots for better Terminator terminating. Sure, a static D 3 would have been better, but its still a better, cheaper battle cannon. What's wrong with that?
• Alternate Alternate Take Probably the fact said Battle Cannon gets to fire twice per turn and at full BS when moving at half speed ( Reminder that if the Exorcist ever moves, it actually has the Leman Russ' BS ) for around 20 pts more ( Which includes a heavy bolter which may be replaced with other stuff ) and benefits from a few buffs from the rest of the IG codex, like tank orders or doctrines. The Exorcist was indeed a better Leman Russ before the IG Codex, but is now a worse one, and the thing is, not only does that make it a lackluster choice at the powerlevel we now operate in ( The same way the entire SoB index has virtually gotten worse over time as other armies got better with their Codices ), the Leman Russ was a bad choice before the Codex anyway.
• Someone teach this guy math? Against a tank with a 3+ save (You know, most tanks), they're equal. Against Land Raiders the Exorcist edges it out (Same for things like say, Meganobz). The tanks are more supportable, but they aren't necessarily worth the support. They have a mobility advantage, but baring a dense, blocks line of sight strewn board, it's questionable how useful that is. They aren't top tier, but neither is this army, yet I do not understand how salty the tone of this entire page is. Some final thoughts: The Exorcist will off a couple elites, or put out small but consistent damage on tanks, but lacks the overwhelming punch of a half dozen meltas. Not awful for its cost, but not great. You can get two for about the cost of a Dominion squad, fully decked out, in a melta Immolator though. See your local meta to see if its worth it.
• That is kind of the point, though: The Exorcist is slightly better against its best targets ( Said best targets not being good in the current meta to begin with, so it's unlikely to find any to shoot at for that value ), equal against the next best case, and worse against everything else. Not to mention that the only thing the Exorcist edges the Leman Russ over is what we already have some of the best units for, namely, tank popping, with our melta dominions. The Exorcist is already worse on a practical average than the Leman Russ ( Because good luck finding a Land Raider, Terminators or Giganobz to shoot at often ), but then you consider the only time it might outshine the Leman Russ is at a job we'd rather have another unit do.

Moved the above section here to the talk page, because the article really doesn't need four bullet points of conflicting opinions, or the massive strikethrough of the second point, or the first person commentary. ("...I do not understand..."). There will be some better way to consolidate all of this in a manner that doesn't look like several people arguing on a forum. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hand Flamers

Since the Sororitas rules seem to be the only part of Chapter Approved that hasn't been scanned, just skimmed over in YouTube reviews, there's an edit war going on with hand flamers. The "they only have d3 hits" person is using "FAQ'ed round 2017, latest profile for handflamers can be found in CODEX: Deathwatch" as their reasoning. However I just went through all the FAQs on Warhammer Community and I cannot find anything that says "use the most recent codex for weapons that appear in other codicies", so where is that citation coming from?2600:1700:BF90:B950:4C18:977C:B897:8305 06:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

read the warhammer 40000 Designers Commentary PDF. pg.6 Special:Contributions/Leeroy_002 10:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Rules as written, I cannot possibly find a way to interpret that flowchart to mean "take the Seraphim as they appear in their own codex, but use the hand flamer profile in somebody else's codex". 2600:1700:BF90:B950:4C18:977C:B897:8305 17:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Chapter Approved 2018 actually gives an explicit statement saying that hand flamers have been improved to Pistol D6, and will be reflected in future publications.Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC) [1]

Sisters in Close Combat

Lets not pretend that Order of the Bloody Rose is some magic wand that makes Sisters somehow good in close combat, and looking at online forums and some of the earlier edits, I'm not the only one who shares this sentiment. As far as I know, Regular Sisters, Dominions and Retributors have WS 4+ from the index, only Celestians, Seraphim and Repentia have WS 3+ and leaks suggest that this remains the same in the Beta, though I have not seen this personally to confirm and will be perfectly content to be shown where this different. So that means even if they get an extra +1 Strength and +1 Attack, they still only hit half the time. So five standard Bloody Rose Sisters get ten attacks, but only five hits, which at S4 will wound MEQs on 4+ resulting in 2.5 wounds and 0.83 failed saves. Compare to five standard MEQs, who attack five times, get 3.3 hits, wounds T3 on a 3+, resulting in 2.2 wounds and 0.74 failed saves. The difference is hardly staggering, but somehow comparing them to a full ten man MEQ squad is laughable, since that only doubles the marines output.

• Hypothetically: If we agree that their basic WS is now 3+ then FINE; five regular sisters will create a wound output against MEQs of 1.1 on the charge and this does indeed match the 10 x 3+/S4/sv output of a vanilla ten man tactical squad, but no-one uses a tactical squad as a melee unit when he would be better shooting. Also, since this bonus applies only when charging or receiving a charge, Sister will have to suffer Overwatch before they get the bonus: Which against those ten dudes with standard issue bolters (not to mention any other weapons or rerolls they might get) means they can expect to suffer unsaved wounds before they even get to throw their own attacks, so we can say they aren't encouraged to make that charge in the first place.
  • When receiving a charge Sisters do indeed get their own overwatch so this comparison does work both ways, but MEQs are tougher and more likely to shrug it off than Sisters, plus a sensible player shouldn't charge with a shooting squad unless he absolutely has to, so continuing with the comparison gets silly.
  • We can change the opponent, but then the comparison loses its weight. Sisters can expect to beat Imperial Guardsmen and Tau in close combat most of the time anyway, and can expect to lose against Orks and Tyranids. While the price point for the same number of attacks as MEQs is valid, the statement is lacking in any sort of context and assumes that those units just "appear" in melee and get their mathematical output and also neglects other reasons why there is a price difference, such as higher toughness and more guns. In real situations using regular sisters as a melee squad simply isn't worth it and the comparison to a 10-man tactical squad is just bad...
• Repentia, Celestians and characters do get markedly improved by the Order of the Bloody Rose and are definitely worth more investigation. But having an entire detachment tactic on a handful of elite units would essentially waste the tactic on units which would much rather be shooting, such as Retributors and regular Sisters.
• Again, I'll be happy to have it shown where Sisters get WS3+, but right now I'm just not seeing it. But it doesn't change the outcome in any meaningful way --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Order of the Bloody Rose vanguard detachment
• Mistress of Repentance
• 8 Repentia
• and a Priest (like Taddeus The Purifier)
• in a Rhino
• You have a unit that can easily swing 32 (re-rolling hits) times an activation with S8 Eviscerators... That's seriously rivaling Chaos's Khorn Zerker party wagon levels of destruction

why YES PLEASE, I DO want two more units of Repentia like the above in my vanguard detachment! It be a REAL shame if I were to use "The Passion" AoF every turn I could too, huh?

Point, set, match, GAME.

stats from the index (may be different from the beta codex)

As was already mentioned, Repentia, Celestians and characters do get the buff, there is no disputing that. But that's not how 45 points worth of regular battle sisters that hit on 4+ somehow matching three times its value of tactical marines, not even close. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Canones eviscerator

Can someone please tellme whete in the ca2018 says eviscerator is 12 points or even available for canoness? Thx

It's called an 'Index' --2001:8003:380A:5200:28E4:6436:5D1F:B6C 12:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why WAAC?

No other tactica section opens with "this army is trash" and then goes down the list of why ever unit in it is rubbish. Why is this the default tone of this tactica section?

It's likely due to the underdog attitude of most AdSor players. In terms of both fluff and crunch, we were at (or close to) the bottom of the pile for nearly 15 years before GW started giving us love again. Going back to 5th edition, pretty much all of the Sisters tacticas have been written in a similarly bleak tone and that got transferred to this one as well. That being said, I agree that we should change the article to a more optimistic tone, since GW's finally giving our girls the attention they deserve. --Conqueror (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Running something else than melta on Dominions

Dominions are basic sisters of battle with two simple changes :

-They have a scout move that works in vehicles (Represssors)

-They can take 5 special weapons instead of 3

If you are playing optimally (meaning you are playing to win, if not of course do whatever the fuck you want), you want to maximize the potential of each spent point -meaning everything has an opportunity cost, due to detachment taxe and Rules of 3-, as well as being able to counter both armor and hordes units.

Point in case, sisters have a potential of 6 anti tank units :

-Multi-Melta Immolator

-Multi-Melta Rets

-Melta Seraphims

-Melta Dominions

-Exorcists

-BSS

Since the Beta Codex, the AoF nerf made Seraphims much more risky to use while exorcists when from garbage to average damage output but tough AT-Platforms. Multi-Melta anything is overcosted, too short range immobile garbage. Dominions are better than BSS at everything except being cheap objective holders.

Hence, bar the unreliable exorcists, most of the AT of sisters of battle is gonna come from dominions. The other role they can fulfill is : Anti-Horde (wasting their scout movement) with spammed storm bolter. Anti-Horde with Flamers.

The Flamer option is done better by Heavy Retributors, by virtue of Repressor firing not caring if the vehicle have advanced and better S/AP.

The Storm Bolter option is also the preferred target of the Blessed Bolt Stratagem (if your dominion are not inside a repressor, as embarked units can't be the target of such stratagems). However, against their preferred target (Primaris), they will only average one extra casuality over a BSS of 3SB. You removed 1/3 of your army good AT for averaging one more Primaris kill when using a stratagem...

The only reason to not run melta dominions is when you have more AT than acceptable compared to your opponent list ie. you are not playing in a competitive meta and hence anything is "viable" anyway. And even then, a Melta Dominion is worth 24pts over a 12pts storm bolter dominion and is still more cost efficient than them at killing multi wound elite infantry -without needing any stratagem to do so- while able to do it from a repressor while SB dominion need to put foot on the ground and will be decimated by the return fire.

If dominions were troop (and hence unlimited datasheet use and Detachment filling), then of course sisters of battle armies would be 3 Battalions of only Dominions and canoness, with dominions coming with either Storm Bolter or Melta. Sadly dominions are not troop, you can only run 3 of them, and they are the only one in the codex able to reliably kill high Toughness Multi-Wounds target. Do not waste them on a job that the rest of your codex can do nearly as good.

TL;DR : Always run 3 squad of melta doms in repressor or don't pretend you are trying to win.

Except 40k is not a cookie-cutter game and, as this tactica says, this is not WAAC. There is nothing wrong with bringing with bring alternate options, especially if such options have a stratagem best used on them and if, as the article says, you can easily take allied options to deal with anti-tank. For all means, mention that Dominions are your best way to deal with VEHICLES, but don't remove any other way to run them like you're scared of new ideas. --139.218.16.151 18:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, and why not flamers while we are at it ? Or mix flamers with botlers and melta because there is a stratagem for it (lol) ? The goal of a tactica is to get better at the game, not worst. If you want to hunt TEQs and primaris, meltas doms in repressor do it better than SB doms on foot.

Meltas doms will always 3+ 2+ no save elite infantry. Sb Doms on foot will need to be deployed in number to avoid getting leafblowed, only one squad a turn can use this strat, you have to pay ablative wounds for whatever efficiency you gain over BSS, making this whole stratagem moot on doms.

The goal of a tactica, is to help you get better, and have a laugh at the same time, and lemme introduce you to the Adeptus Custodes and the Death Guard, or smegging anything with an invuln/FNP. This doesn't make you any worse at the game. In fact, it makes you better, because you are aware of other options. There's a reason Your Dudes exists mate. And if you're hunting Primaris with Melta's, your target priority is already fucked. Against TEQs, they will likely have an invuln save that will just say "Fuck Off" to your AP.

>And if you're hunting Primaris with Melta's, your target priority is already fucked

t. SB_on_Dominions.

Your dudes have nothing to do with the most efficient way to play things. If your dudes have flamers, fine. If your dudes always mix bolter/flamer/melta in their squad because of the stratagem fine too. Playing <Your Dude> come before trying to win, because <YourDude> will try to win with what they got, irrelevant of the most optimal list building. But presenting sub-optimal choice as something you should is facebook tier at best, predatory red shirt selling unsold shit to unsuspecting teenager at worst.

On the Acts of Faith rework.

Is it just me, or is it much harder to get Acts of Faith now? They said that since you get a faith point every time you have 10+ models with the Act of Faith ability it'll scale better, but I'm not seeing it. Before I could pick up a few Imagifier's, Celestine and I'd easily get between 3-5 AoF per turn, now however it feels like I'm getting a fraction of what I used to and the Acts of Faith seem to happen less often. In the old system with old Celestine at least you'd be guaranteed an act you wanted (and more often than not, you'd get 2), now you're going to be holding onto those faith points like no tomorrow, when you spend them you're lucky to get the act you need since the requirements for it are more punishing, and if you fail the test you still lose the faith point which feels really shitty. Currently the army feels like I'm playing an even weaker version of Space Marines (practically anything you can do here, they can do better), and it's a shame since if they didn't change the AoF system I feel like the army would've been way better off. -- Triacom (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

AoF definitely don't feel as effective as they used to, though I'm not sure if that's due to the Devotion values or how some of them have been nerfed (probably both). Divine Guidance is nowhere near as good as it was before, and Hand of the Emperor is functionally useless now (especially considering it's cost). I don't think this would bother me too much if they gave sisters buffs in other areas to compensate, but since we're functionally playing with the same units and wargear we were before, this definitely feels like a unilateral nerf. As an aside, I've never been a fan of the concept of Faith Points; faith in 40k is an esoteric, unreliable phenomenon which is ill-understood. IMO it shouldn't be represented by something easily quantifiable like faith points. I thought the pre-CA rules captured the mysterious nature of faith far better. --Conqueror (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've mixed feelings on faith points, partially because I loved the Witch Hunters codex as a whole though that doesn't include the faith points. At least in that one it made a little more sense since you could gain faith points when your units died because the other sisters were inspired by their martyrdom, the system we used to have in the Index I liked too because as you say, it captured the feel of it better. I also think they could've easily solved the whole "army scaling" issue by just uncapping how many Imagifier's you could get and letting them have jump packs (or keeping the system the same and letting the units by a simulacrum), that solves your issue right there. To me the Sisters don't feel like the Sisters if you don't want to use your Acts of Faith, the idea that you can have the option of using them but that it's also a terrible idea (because the points are so limited, they have reduced effects and have such a high chance of not working) just feels like an inherently bad one. -- Triacom (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Crusaders or Arco-Flagellants?

I don't get why the arco-flagellants are consider the default CC unit for the Sororitas' lists, but the crusader is to be avoided, according to the article. The crusader is cheaper points/unit, it has 3++ and a power sword, whereas the arco-flagellant's only advantage for it is seemingly the D3 for each attack. Am I missing something here? --Alumno Alumno (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Arco-Flagellants have 2D3 attacks per model, they hit at Strength 5 and have 2 Wounds, whereas Crusaders have 2 attacks per model and hit at Strength 3 with only 1 Wound. Sure Crusaders might be 2 points cheaper and have more AP, but they're still going to struggle to kill anything. Let's pit them in combat against a Marine, on the first round of combat the Arco-Flagellant will mathematically overkill the Marine by a little bit, causing 1.185 wounds. The Crusader on the other hand will mathematically cause 0.494 wounds on the Marine (and that's rounding up). Even if we pit them against each other the Arco-Flagellant causes 0.790 wounds on the Crusader (the same damage he'd do to anyone who isn't a Custodes wearing a Storm Shield) while the Crusader only hits him for 0.593 wounds (again, rounding up). He'd die well before the Arco-Flagellant even if he can attack first both times. Crusaders are a fine tarpit for the enemy elite, because it takes a long time for high Damage and high AP to chew through them since they give the middle finger to both, but as far as mainline fighters go they're not going to cut it. -- Triacom (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I should also mention that Arco-Flagellants have a great Stratagem especially when combined with a Missionary. They go from causing 1.185 Wounds on Marines to 2.666 wounds on Marines, meaning they'll easily take out their weight in Primaris (and they cause 1.77777 wounds on Terminators). If you sent a full squad of them against Abaddon and popped the Stratagem you'd cause 8 wounds on Abaddon, which will kill him. If you had a Missionary nearby you could even lose 1/3rd of the squad and still kill him, as a full squad with a Missionary will overkill Abaddon by causing 12 Wounds in total (not including the Missionary's attacks in that). You can also use this to kill Custodes Shield Captains as well as characters like Trajann Valoris. -- Triacom (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page?

So given how different the January codex and army list will be, as well as I believe another name chande should we start from scratch with a new page and leave this one here for people using the index/beta codex?

I think the name should be changed and a thorough pruning be done, but a new page? I don't think so. 2601:600:C700:D5C0:F0A0:E64F:1B78:C563 Shane

We didn't make a new page for any of the other factions, I fail to see why we'd make a new page for this one. -- Triacom (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the beta codex/index codex won't be legal anymore, it'd be best to update/rename this page. --203.40.34.31 08:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It's all still the Ministorum anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Duuuhhhh

Looks like Dominions have lost the vehicle scout move, this page talks about it a lot (esp in the context of it being the only good things "we" have). How should that be addressed?

First you make an actual topic instead of dropping your question somewhere in the middle of a different topic where people won't see it. After that, you delete all references to it if they've lost it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I undid the last batch of changes. My reasoning is as follows: 1) Kevin bashing is unfunny at best 2) Heavy Bolter in heavy weapon squads do hit on 2+ in the shooting phase, but don't get any benefit to hit rolls in overwatch One could make it clearer in the tactica itself, but in my opinion it's allready quite clear and the edit I undid was wrong 3) Multimelters in the heavy weapons squad may have a damage potential of 7. The edit I undid added unnecessary additions, readers should know about the variable damage on the Multimelter and that 7 damage is only reached when getting 6 damage without modifiers, which the current version makes clear. 4) The Blade of Ass-kicking is the Blade of Admonition, not the relic chainsword. That part of the tactica is from when we had the Index & Chapter Approved '17 only. Sure, the relic chainsword is good and could use a passage in the tactica going more in depth, but it's restricted to Bloody Rose, so would best fit in their part of the tactica and the Blade of Admonition is better in most cases anyway.

Any objections?