# Sisters of Battle codex reply from Cruddace



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

As some of you know I wrote a 50 page document I wanted to hand Cruddace at gamesday, as he wasn't there and they dont really accept work from people during gamesday I had to post it to him. I received a reply from him today and figured I'd let you guys know what he wrote.



Robin Cruddace said:


> "I'd like to thank you for sending us your thoughts on Sisters of Battle. It was very interesting and you've clearly put a lot of thought into what you've submitted - it's great to see that you're so passionate about the Sisters of Battle. I was impressed with your comprehensive commentary throughout your manuscript, in particular with your analysis on Acts of Faith, which I think shed valuable light onto the way the army plays.
> 
> We're always grateful for thoughts and feedback from our customers as it helps us to keep in touch with the 'grass roots' of the hobby and improve both our rules and background.
> 
> Rest assured your ideas, comments and suggestions on Sisters of Battle will be carefully considered by the Games Development team."



I can't share my document as it's GW property now but I'm sure people would enjoy what I put together. I've done what I can for the Sisters of Battle, it's up to GW now to listen to peoples requests and produce a codex worthy enough to be called Codex: Sisters of Battle.


On another note I've been reading Hammer & Anvil and the sisters use Arvus Lighters in it as they did in Red & Black. For those that dont know in Imperial Armour Apocalypse: Second Edition the Sisters of Battle were given access to the Arvus Lighter transport vehicle and now they've been using them in 2 BL titles, though by the same author James Swallow.

They also make use of a modified Venator. Difference with the Elysian Tauros Venator from FW is that the Sisters one doesn't come with a weapon on top, instead it has been given an enclosed crew compartment large enough for 5 passengers. So will they be getting a plastic kit for this vehicle? It wouldn't surprise me as it's mentioned by name so many times in the book and I've only read the first 200 pages so far.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhamm...ysian_Drop_Troops/ELYSIAN-TAUROS-VENATOR.html


The only thing we can do now is wait, we might be in for a very long wait before we get a proper codex. Sometime in the middle of 6E has been speculated, so expect to be waiting for a year or three before we hear anything new about the sisters.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

At least someone is doing something instead of just whining.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Good to hear you got feedback and that he read it. I'll be interested in seeing what this leads to. Who knows, may it'll be the thing they need to inspire them to really expand the army into something awesome!


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

I was impressed to see that it looks like he actually read what you sent him. That alone is a victory for you. Most fan based material is shit-canned and dismissed instantly without a second thought or look by almost all companies. If they actually take a harder look at your submission, well, that is doubtful, but you at least got his attention.


----------



## Entarion (Oct 25, 2009)

*MadCowCrazy:* Hello. I actually dont know that you wrote this document but this post caught my eye! I am really looking forward to new Sisters but I am quite afraid = new GK (totally dissappointed  )
I thought that Fall will bring new Sisters but I was suprised by leaked pictures of new Necrons. So you think that sisters are planned more later? For example next summer ?
I would like to know more about this document you wrote. What is it about if you can be more specific. Thank you in advance for your answer


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

Entarion said:


> *MadCowCrazy:* Hello. I actually dont know that you wrote this document but this post caught my eye! I am really looking forward to new Sisters but I am quite afraid = new GK (totally dissappointed  )
> I thought that Fall will bring new Sisters but I was suprised by leaked pictures of new Necrons. So you think that sisters are planned more later? For example next summer ?
> I would like to know more about this document you wrote. What is it about if you can be more specific. Thank you in advance for your answer


Since they came out with the WD dex I see no reason for them to publish a proper book with models any time soon. I fear that we are in for a very long wait before the Sisters get the codex they deserve. Blood Angels had to wait 3 years before they got a proper codex, does this mean the Sisters will get a new codex in 3 years?
Personally I'm hoping for a release within 2 years but you never know, I wonder if all space marine codices will get updated again before the Sisters get a proper book, it wouldn't surprise me.

What the rumours say is basically that after Necrons there might be 1 codex released before 6E and that once 6E hits it will be Black Templars vs Chaos Legions (new CSM book) in the starter set. A starter set with 2 space marine armies in it... as if the market wasn't already flooded with sm models.
Anyway, after this there are rumours on Tau and Eldar.

Here is my personal guess.
Black Templars
Chaos Legions
Tau
Dark Angels
Eldar
Space Marines
Orks
Blood Angels
Tyranids
Space Wolves
Chaos Daemons
A new space marine army
WD update for Sisters of Battle
7th Edition

It's actually not unlikely. If GW could get away with it they'd have a codex for every single Space Marine Chapter. This would on the other hand lead to codicies getting updated once every 30 years.


----------



## Entarion (Oct 25, 2009)

Wow so long for new sisters? That is quite unexpected for me. I thought that new codex in WD is just begining for new models. But on the other hand I will rather wait 2 years if new codex will be excellent.

Even though I play SM I dont like much that most famous chapters has it's own codices, though I understand the concept of it. Because of this BT and DA are now one of the oldest and unplayable :/ If even CSM legions will have their own...well..that's quite bad.

But it is all about more money, isn't it? More codices, more models, more £ 

But If you wrote to GW some suggestions about new Sisters codex, lets pray for the Emperor that yours and other players wishes come true


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Sisters using the Venator, eh?

I could get behind that.

Les keen on the Arvus which is so clearly not a combat vehicle, nor does it serve any role in the Ecclesiarchy's army that an Aquilla or dropship couldn't serve better.


Moving swiftly on. When I contacted Matthew Farrer to compliment him on the Shira Calpurnia serries (and his portrayal of the sororits therein) he told me that the Sarissa - the Sisters bayonet - first appeared in his books, it was his own creation and was only later adopted for the, then new, Codex witch Hunters. (of course, Farrer's Sarissas were power-weapons, but you cannot have everything).

So it'd not be the first time that elements from a BL novel are incorperated into a codex.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MadCowCrazy:

Did you include my point about the Superiors being veterans so they should all be WS/BS4?

I've been actually considering writing up some Sisters stuff but without a clear intent on what GW wants to do with them. 

Though a Living Saint HQ choice would be pretty bad ass. Something relatively generic but customizable. I'd have fun with one of those.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

Zion said:


> MadCowCrazy:
> 
> Did you include my point about the Superiors being veterans so they should all be WS/BS4?


Yes, I believe I did.


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

I still don't see why giving your material to GW precludes doing whatever else you want to with it. You still own rights to it even if you give GW the right to use anything.

At best I would expect them to only use a portion of whatever you wrote, to be released at some far point in the future. It would never be of use to people trying to predict what rules they would release. It really wouldn't be usefull to any of us on the forums either TBH, so I guess it doesn't matter that way either.

Well maybe I'll submit something myself to them in the future here, it won't be 50 pages though. Mostly it is finding out what the niche playstyle for the army is that really determines how to write the book.

Like do you give them even more special weapons to make them really deadly in ranged combat, but leave them lacking in assaults? With all the short range weapons for them this is almost the definition of their niche, although GK follow this somewhat also but are good in assaults too.


----------



## Cypher871 (Aug 2, 2009)

I have to agree with Suijin MCC, how does a letter you wrote become the property of GW. Did you sign a non disclosure document stating that you agree to not to divulge any of the content you wrote or are they simply blackmailing you threatening not to act on anything you sent if you release it to the general public?

I had stuff published in the Citadel Journal years ago - it still remains my property. I am no legal whizz and I don't get this.


----------



## yostu (Feb 19, 2010)

MadCowCrazy said:


> Since they came out with the WD dex I see no reason for them to publish a proper book with models any time soon. I fear that we are in for a very long wait before the Sisters get the codex they deserve. Blood Angels had to wait 3 years before they got a proper codex, does this mean the Sisters will get a new codex in 3 years?
> Personally I'm hoping for a release within 2 years but you never know, I wonder if all space marine codices will get updated again before the Sisters get a proper book, it wouldn't surprise me.
> 
> What the rumours say is basically that after Necrons there might be 1 codex released before 6E and that once 6E hits it will be Black Templars vs Chaos Legions (new CSM book) in the starter set. A starter set with 2 space marine armies in it... as if the market wasn't already flooded with sm models.
> ...


please stop with thoose marines-noob-armyes.. 80% of the world play marines (americans mostly) pffff... boring.. 
ofc GW will pop up marine codexes every 2 month.. also if there are lots of other armies needing of refreshing..:ireful2:


----------



## Cypher871 (Aug 2, 2009)

yostu said:


> please stop with thoose marines-noob-armyes.. 80% of the world play marines (americans mostly) pffff... boring..
> ofc GW will pop up marine codexes every 2 month.. also if there are lots of other armies needing of refreshing..:ireful2:


Upon what evidence do you base your assumptions? 80% of the world plays Marine Armies (not armyes by the way). This would mean that four fifths of GW's total income for the 40K range is solely from Marine armies...I think not.

If you were to carry out some research I think you would find a good spread of all the armies in use across the 40K playing world. 

Do you have a particular problem with our American cousins? There are just as many players who like to play 'other races' for their unique challenges, look, background and general coolness as there are players of Marine armies.

I for example have a Marine army of my own devising but I also play Tau. When I first started playing 40K way back in 1990 my army was Eldar and remained so for nearly 10 years...I didn't start playing Marines for a long old time, in fact I was so used to using my Eldar I found Marines a bit difficult to get used to at first. 

Marines will always be the poster boys for 40K but that doesn't exclude the merits of all the other races. Indeed you are correct that there are other armies that need a refresh but GW will always work on those armies they deem to be the most lucrative first. That's why the Sisters of Battle were relegated to a crappy WD release...there are a hard core of Sisters players but not nearly enough (in GW's eyes) to justify a full blown Codex.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

Cypher871 said:


> Marines will always be the poster boys for 40K but that doesn't exclude the merits of all the other races. Indeed you are correct that there are other armies that need a refresh but GW will always work on those armies they deem to be the most lucrative first. That's why the Sisters of Battle were relegated to a crappy WD release...there are a hard core of Sisters players but not nearly enough (in GW's eyes) to justify a full blown Codex.


I'm still hoping the true renaissance of dark eldar (and hell, even demonhunters in the form of GKs) will teach GW that a solid release will sell, no matter how big/small the previous fanbase might have been.

I really hope the necrons exceed their expectations of sales again, so imperial stuff will take the backseat for a while in releases, just so the xenos can catch up. Not that I have anything against imperial armies (I only play imperial atm), but I do think xenos players in general deserve some of the love.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

yostu said:


> please stop with thoose marines-noob-armyes.. 80% of the world play marines (americans mostly) pffff... boring..
> ofc GW will pop up marine codexes every 2 month.. also if there are lots of other armies needing of refreshing..:ireful2:





Cypher871 said:


> Upon what evidence do you base your assumptions? 80% of the world plays Marine Armies (not armyes by the way). This would mean that four fifths of GW's total income for the 40K range is solely from Marine armies...I think not.
> 
> If you were to carry out some research I think you would find a good spread of all the armies in use across the 40K playing world.



Of the seven most regular atendees at my club, four play Marines exclusively, one plays Marines and non-Marines. Only two of us do not play Marines.

If one includes everyone who has ever played 40k at the club, the number of people who don't play Marines is... three. One member has Three marine armies.


It is very very difficult to over-estimate the Marine saturation.

Last I heard, Marines accounted for fully half of GW's income. That is to say, as much as every non-Marine 40k army, AND every Fantasy Army AND Lord of the Rings AND specialist games combined.

That's why GW will continue to push them.

It is a given that there will be a new Marine codex every nine months or so. We don't have to like it, but that's how it is.


----------



## Revarien (Jul 20, 2011)

First, thanks MCC for the heads up... I hope my inferno/promethium grenade for dangerous terrain tests was in there, and just the acknowledgement that they were missing 'flavor' ... but it really sounds like he read it... I've received the 'thanks for the letter'-letter before and it actually sounds like he took the time to read it... I wonder if they were hurting for ideas on Sisters of Battle.

Second, to the 'marine's make up 80% of the player base, especially in the US'-comment... I really don't see that here in Oklahoma, US. At my FLGS, I own marines (hard not to at .50$ USD/per marine offerings), they are even painted, but I don't play them (sisters, crons and daemons are my favorites), and I'm only 1 of 3 at our shop that owns marines... out of about 12-13 players... I'd say far more people own orks, tau, and daemons. Also, at one of the conventions hosted in Oklahoma this last year, I can count only 3 pure marine players (vulkan list, blood angels, calgar list) and 1 daemonhunters (was right before grey knight codex popped out), if you want to include them. This was out of 18 folks.

Though, there were a lot of Dark Eldar, Eldar, Daemons and Chaos Marine players.

Anywho, my thoughts on it are that folks own marines because they are easy to attain... not because they play them much: remember, Marines make up 50% of every starter set release... of course they'll make up a ton of people's overall collection, there are a TON floating around on the 2nd hand market.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MadCowCrazy said:


> Yes, I believe I did.


Sweet. That's something that's bugged for a while. I know it only affects the Sisters when they get up into WS 7/8 area for hitting on 5s, but a veteran Sister hitting Joe Blow, Adverage Guardsman on 4s seems a bit silly when most of the other Veterans of the force hit the same Guardsman on 3s.



Suijin said:


> I still don't see why giving your material to GW precludes doing whatever else you want to with it. You still own rights to it even if you give GW the right to use anything.
> 
> At best I would expect them to only use a portion of whatever you wrote, to be released at some far point in the future. It would never be of use to people trying to predict what rules they would release. It really wouldn't be usefull to any of us on the forums either TBH, so I guess it doesn't matter that way either.
> 
> Well maybe I'll submit something myself to them in the future here, it won't be 50 pages though. Mostly it is finding out what the niche playstyle for the army is that really determines how to write the book.





Cypher871 said:


> I have to agree with Suijin MCC, how does a letter you wrote become the property of GW. Did you sign a non disclosure document stating that you agree to not to divulge any of the content you wrote or are they simply blackmailing you threatening not to act on anything you sent if you release it to the general public?
> 
> I had stuff published in the Citadel Journal years ago - it still remains my property. I am no legal whizz and I don't get this.


Because of this:



> *Who owns the ideas that I submit to you?*
> For legal reasons we will only accept your submission if you agree to assign all intellectual property rights in it to us. This means that by making a submission you automatically give Games Workshop ownership and exclusive rights to use your submission for any purpose. It is important that you are comfortable with this before making a submission to us. Please do not make a submission if you do not agree to this.


It's the magic of consent. By sending them something you are consenting that they now own the idea. So by making the submission of that 50 page document MadCowCrazy was giving GW consent to make it their legal property. Hence why MadCowCrazy can't share it now.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

As for my document I made a verbal agreement with Ben at games day whom was the only one there to accept my document and it's also posted on GWs website under user submitted material in the legal section. Basically everything in it became GW property that they may use in whatever way they want. It's basically a way of making sure they could actually use anything of what I had written without the risk of getting sued for copyright infringement.

I may still hold the rights to it as the author but GW also has the rights to do as they please with the document. You could write the best codex in the world but unless you agreed to give GW copyright of it they would never use it.

I wrote the document for a single purpose, to give it to Robin Cruddace to point out what I see as flaws in the WD Codex. It's all just my own opinions put to paper with ideas on how to fix it, how it could work and how to balance it. It's not much different from anyone writing to them telling them their shit sucks, the only difference with my document is that I do it in a polite, constructive and creative way. I not only explain why certain things are bad or poorly balanced I provide examples using math, suggest changes and provide the math for it.

The WD dex could be awesome if there were just some slight tweaks to it, new faith system, new wargear, change in points costs, rules and statlines.

I will give an example.

Sisters Repentia cost 17 points, has an Eviscerator, FNP, Rage, Fleet, Fearless, Acts of Faith and Shield of Faith. They have the Spirit of the Martyr AoF which allows a model killed in assault to still be able to make a single attack.

There are many things wrong with this unit, first of all it's too expensive for what you get. I compare it to Death Cults, Arco-Flagellants and Crusaders.
Death Cult hit at high initiative, with average Strength, has good WS and 4 attacks on the charge.
Arco-Flagellants hit at below average initiative, at average Strength, with good WS and 5 attacks on the charge (should be 6 as they come with 2 arco-flails but it only counts as a single ccw).
Crusaders hits at below average initiative, at below average Strength, has average WS and 2 attacks on the charge but has great survivability.
Sisters Repentia hits at I1, with very high Strength, has average WS and 3 attacks on the charge.

They are all basically extremes of one another with Death Cults being at the top because of power weapons, many attacks and high initiative. Repentia has a good number of attacks, that hit very hard but they also hit at I1, on top of this they have Rage, have no dedicated transport though you could get them into one but you have to bunch up your vehicles so as to block line of sight to the nearest enemy unit to do so. Their save is FNP and they have Fearless on top of this, as they have to run across the board in most cases they will simply get shot down before they can even make it into assault. They only get a 7-12" run move each turn. They might have a 18" threat range but you have to be very good with your run and perhaps difficult terrain rolls for this.

Rage makes them extremely easy to predict and in most cases I'd expect your opponent to get the charge on them, did I mention their AoF doesn't work in your opponents turn so if he charges them they wont get the 50% chance to be allowed to hit back with 1 attack even if killed?

Sure they got cheaper than before but they also received nerfs in the form of movement speed, Holy Rage is actually better than Rage and Fleet put together. The reason is with Holy Rage your threat range is still 18" but you also have the chance of moving 18" in a turn (Holy Rage move +D6, plus run move) wile Range and Fleet has a max movement of 12" regardless.

My suggestions were simple. 14-15pts each, Holy Rage, Fleet, Fearless, Adepta Sororitas (allowed to use Acts of Faith). Spirit of the Martyr as a unit special rule so that they could use it even if killed in your opponents turn and without having to make a test to see if you could do it. The option to take a transport but once you left it you may not embark on another one for any reason.
As for the Mistress her neural whips are not that good either, S8 but rolling to wound against your opponents unmodified LD? This makes it almost useless against most units in the game. Heck you have a better chance to wound a Carnifex than you do a regular Guardsman. My suggested change was simple, S8 that always wounds on 4+. Simple change that makes the weapon useful in all situations instead of just vs Carnifexes and Conscripts.
Also gave the Mistress a piece of wargear that would allow the entire unit to benefit from Frag Grenades and the option to give the entire unit the Scout rule for 50ish points.

All fluff says that Repentia and Penitent Engines are amongst the fire to enter combat and the last to leave in their desperate struggle to find redemption.

Frag Grenades? I hear you ask, well my changes to the AoF system was similar to the ones in C:WH but Ld tests instead of over, under or 4+. My Initiative altering AoF allowed models who would normally strike at I1 strike at their base I instead. Repentia striking at I3 with Eviscerators is hardly op but would give them an option if they were assaulted in terrain by someone without grenades like Death Cults or Genestealers.

My AoF were also limited to 1 per unit per phase and if you ever failed the Ld of the failed unit would be reduced to 7 until the players next game turn, the unit would lose any special Ld modifying effects like Stubborn, Fearless and could not benefit from things that allowed for re-rolls of such tests like banners etc. You could perform no more Acts of Faith that game turn and the unit also lost any previous successful AoF, ICs allowed for an AoF so if you had 2IC in a unit the unit could try 3 AoF in a turn but if you failed the test.....

5 Different AoF that were all useful and in all circumstances of the game. No matter what you were doing each Act of Faith was tempting but as I said, you were limited to 1 per unit unless it had ICs in it, but The Price of Failure as I called the rule could be steep.

There were also other changes done but you get the picture. What I was trying to do was give the army synergy, make the AoF part of what the army is supposed to be.
GW didn't seem sure on what they wanted the AoF to be, in the WD dex it said the design philosophy was that it was an extra perk that you couldn't rely on but was rather a small bonus. On the website in the Sisters guide it says that the Sisters live and die based on their Acts of Faith.

To me Acts of Faith is what makes the army unique, without them they are just Veterans with better gear but worse options. Making AoF mundane for the Sisters is like making Psychic powers mundane for Grey Knights. Every army has something that makes them special, for the Sisters if has almost always been the Acts of Faith. The watered down version we got in the WD made AoF rather pointless, a small bonus you could never rely on and when you are limited in options like the sisters are this makes them inferior in almost all aspects of the game.

Then again these are my opinions and I could be wrong...


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

40% of *all* WH40K sales are marine-based. This has been true for over a decade, was true 3 years ago in the meeting where all the sales figures were explained by Mark Wells, and I very much doubt that trend has changed since then.


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

By definition you can't be wrong if it is your opinion.

Mostly I was just curious as stated above, and thinking about ideas myself of how to do it better.

Like:
Repentia Mistress has no current purpose in the WD Dex, she does nothing to control the unit. I thought she might provide anti-Rage until they are involved in their first assault, and then be perma-Raged after that. I also thought that the current faith powers really need to be able to be used in the opponent's turn. I also agree on the power whips the mistress uses, but overall the repentia themselves should be the hard hitters so it didn't bother me much. It just bothered me that the Mistress did nothing to control the unit at all.

Might be at the heart of it all they want to not only remake the current models, but introduce at least a few new choices for units. Other than something like the Repressor vechicle I can't really think of units that would fit well in the army without detracting from the sisters. I suppose it does mean changing them at least that far to put new units in game, but in reality they have the basic functions already (except maybe a vehicle fixing unit, but they are not used much or popular in armies).

Thanks for writing the document and sending it in. Anything that may help speed a real codex along is appreciated.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

Suijin said:


> Repentia Mistress has no current purpose in the WD Dex


This is exactly what I thought. I made allot of suggestions on how to make her interesting. The fluff says that she is the only one who can grant a Repentia repentance if they have shown themselves worthy at the end of a battle, she is also responsible for pretty much everything in their lives. As she is so important to them this should be represented on the gaming table. One thing I did was that the unit could not use AoF if she died, another was bring back the WH codex rule that if she died the unit immediately makes a Holy Rage move towards the unit responsible for her death. She also carried some wargear like the grenades that made every model in the unit count as having frag grenades.

The question I wanted the gamer to ask themselves was do I keep her alive so she can provide all the bonuses to the unit or do I let her die so they can get the Holy Rage move towards the enemy, but if I do this they lose the ability to use AoFs, some of which were quite nice...


----------



## Grogbart (Aug 29, 2010)

This is the second time you got a positive response from sending in suggestions, isn't it? Congratulations, MCC!

Having read GW's (German) statement about submitting ideas, I was wondering about your courage to send them, getting a replay and even more so a positive one!

When looking at the English version I noticed the whole passage about "I've got an idea..." is missing from the submission policy (GW homepage, "Contact us" bottom right, "submission policy" point 15 on the left).

I ain't got the time translating it today, but let me tell you, it's a rather 'friendly' advise not to send them any ideas.
I'd be glad if someone could reaffirm this and maybe even help me with a translation tomorrow, as my English isn't the best, especially with such juristic expressions. (MCC, was German among the many languages speak?)


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

Grogbart said:


> (MCC, was German among the many languages speak?)


No, sorry. I only speak or understand all the scandinavian languages and english so I'm not of much use there. I do understand a bit of german but I am by no means fluent or literalistic in the language.


As for my courage? I just dont want to sit here and brood over how much I dislike this rule or that pointcost, I'd rather voice my concerns, put them to paper and send them in. I've been told they read everything they get but I think it's more like skimming over everything they get, so if you want them to actually read something you submit I would suggest you pace it well. Basically a wall of text gets tiresome really fast, imagine a codex without a single picture, just text. So I suggest you put some pictures in there, space everything into small readable segments and organise everything so that you talk about one problem in one part of your text and not have it split up here and there. The most important part is to be objective in your criticism, if you just say everything sucks and GW dont know what they are doing your submission will be thrown in the trash before the first page has been read. Criticism is good, it's what makes things better but you need to explain why something doesn't work or is bad and if possible provide a solution to the problem. If all else fails try to bribe them, I sent a chocolate bar with my first submission, simply so that Robin would have something to eat while reading the document. This is also a way to make sure they reply, who could accept some nice tasty chocolate without thanking the person who sent it?


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

Congratulations on getting though, MCC. When I tried a one page submission a year ago, I got no response and the WD update didn't show any signs that they'd read it.



Zion said:


> Because of this:
> 
> It's the magic of consent. By sending them something you are consenting that they now own the idea.


To meet the legal standard of consent, GW would have to go out of their way to bring these terms to MCC's attention. Just posting it on the internet doesn't count.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

AlexHolker said:


> To meet the legal standard of consent, GW would have to go out of their way to bring these terms to MCC's attention. Just posting it on the internet doesn't count.


Like I said, when I handed my document to Ben at Games Day he told me that it then and there became GW property and I explained that I did not care, that all I wanted was for them to read it through and perhaps, just perhaps they would consider something I had written. I wrote the document because I want to help GW make the best possible SoB codex that they can. I got the impression they did not know in what direction to take the codex and I put my own thoughts to paper and handed it over. If you check out my video on youtube from games day you will hear my thoughts a few seconds after handing my document to Ben. In the end it's all up to GW, we dont know what they have planned for the codex or the direction they intend to take the army. In the end all we can hope is that they create a good codex with allot of interesting units and fluff.


----------



## Grogbart (Aug 29, 2010)

Thanks to some unexpected free time, I could finished the translation today. I'd still be glad if someone who also speaks German, would look over it, so I didn't do any major mistakes. (I suspect those extra lines are also present on the Spanish and Italian homepages, but that's just from comparing text length and email-address positions, rather than me actually being able to read it!?)

This is the mentioned section of GW's submission policy translated by me, from the German GW homepage: 


> *I have an idea, which I think Games Workshop should further develop*
> Sometimes people approach us with ideas. If you read this page, you might have one yourself; but before sending us your concept, you should definitely read the guidelines listed here:
> 
> *I had a bright idea! Should I submit it to Games Workshop?*
> ...


I noticed a slight difference in philosophy on submissions, between this and the reply MCC got!

As for the courage bit. Yes, I did not really feel encouraged, sharing ideas with GW, when first reading those lines. But to be honest, a far greater reason I'm not confident about sending ideas about 40K anywhere, is, that I couldn't even get someone here at heresy interested in any of my ideas. (Yeah, I probably shouldn't be the one to complain, as I'm not exactly the most encouraging type either:blush
And of cause the huge amount of time it takes me, to translate my ideas not only form German into English, but also from my thoughts into speech in general!:scratchhead:


----------



## Wax (Jan 6, 2010)

Sisters get a real 'dex and plastic models in the first quarter of next year. You heard it here first.


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

You know, wild guessing has kinda become the standard fare since July.
Oh, not to say that it wasn't the case before then but since then, wild guesses and wish-listing is more or less the only things we hear.

Before the WDex came out, rumours were flying about but since then, everyone went quiet.
This, despite the rumour blackout, still suggests that any eventual SoB releases are far further away then in the next five months.
Since then, everything we have heard has been naught but wishlisting.

So, unless you have something more?


----------



## Cypher871 (Aug 2, 2009)

MadCowCrazy said:


> Like I said, when I handed my document to Ben at Games Day he told me that it then and there became GW property and I explained that I did not care, that all I wanted was for them to read it through and perhaps, just perhaps they would consider something I had written. I wrote the document because I want to help GW make the best possible SoB codex that they can. I got the impression they did not know in what direction to take the codex and I put my own thoughts to paper and handed it over. If you check out my video on youtube from games day you will hear my thoughts a few seconds after handing my document to Ben. In the end it's all up to GW, we dont know what they have planned for the codex or the direction they intend to take the army. In the end all we can hope is that they create a good codex with allot of interesting units and fluff.


Hi MCC, I did try and reply to you the other day but the site kept dropping and I got fed up in the end. Anyway, I just wanted to say fair comment to your reply regarding ownership...I wasn't actually aware that GW had such a clause to submitting IP for their own use.

Does that clause also state that you can no longer re-produce or publish the content submitted? Just curious is all. :scratchhead:

Cy


----------



## HollowMan (Nov 1, 2011)

MadCowCrazy said:


> I will give an example.
> 
> Sisters Repentia cost 17 points, has an Eviscerator, FNP, Rage, Fleet, Fearless, Acts of Faith and Shield of Faith. They have the Spirit of the Martyr AoF which allows a model killed in assault to still be able to make a single attack...
> 
> My suggestions were simple. 14-15pts each, Holy Rage, Fleet, Fearless, Adepta Sororitas (allowed to use Acts of Faith). Spirit of the Martyr as a unit special rule so that they could use it even if killed in your opponents turn and without having to make a test to see if you could do it. The option to take a transport but once you left it you may not embark on another one for any reason.


 There's no question that the WD codex was a hastily thrown together piece that messed up a lot of things, but it isn't terrible enough to warrant a 50 page rebuttal either. I'm not certain most of the net wishlists are that desirable either, or any more play tested.

Taking the example here, sisters repentia are one of the main components of my army, and I rely on them to accomplish a lot. I would love a dedicated transport so I don't have to load them up in the backfield on turn one, I would love for their AoF to be automatic, I like holy rage but I see how it complicates things needlessly.

But I look at your proposed changes, and I don't see any kind of save. With 6++ and feel no pain, I can count on my repentia winning the majority of combats they get into, and I can generally count on them hitting at least two more units, albeit with diminishing returns and numbers. They get far more done than my death cultists, certainly. Without these saves, I doubt they would win even their first combat, and getting off a few spirit of the martyr hits doesn't even begin to cover the loss of utility. They would never survive a counter charge. I can't see taking that unit, even with the point drop.

On the other hand, if they have some kind of 4++ save (like they used to have) AND the changes you have made, you would be a fool not to take them at that price. Losing the 6++ on top of the 4+ would hurt a bit, but losing the vulnerability to instant death is more than worth it. I'd love that unit, but people would call cheese, and rightly so. Repentia have a larger threat range, are more durable, and can kill a much wider range of targets than DCA. At 14 points, improved abilities and a transport, they would be a steal.

Your changes either take away all their weaknesses, or turn them into a suicide unit that will generally die *before* getting off their suicide attacks. I'm not sure I think either direction is an appropriate way to go - but if you have to convince games Workshop of one, I suppose I would prefer the former  

Honestly, the only fix I feel repentia need is a dedicated transport, and maybe a way for the mistress to override rage for a turn when you really need to nudge them another direction.


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

HollowMan said:


> There's no question that the WD codex was a hastily thrown together piece that messed up a lot of things, but it isn't terrible enough to warrant a 50 page rebuttal either. I'm not certain most of the net wishlists are that desirable either, or any more play tested.
> 
> Taking the example here, sisters repentia are one of the main components of my army, and I rely on them to accomplish a lot. I would love a dedicated transport so I don't have to load them up in the backfield on turn one, I would love for their AoF to be automatic, I like holy rage but I see how it complicates things needlessly.
> 
> ...


If you read more of the posts closer you will see it wasn't meant as a rebuttal, but as trying to help with ideas/rules to use or not use as they see fit.

Also the rules about repentia were not on their own without other rules changes. It is hard to really comment on exact point costs of units without knowing the other rules.

Some of the posts also describe how you can submit ideas of your own, even hints on writing styles/ways to make it easier to read. Anyone is free to submit something better.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I'm actually working on something myself (I've got some ideas I'm trying to tweak out, like a Witch Hunter for some anti-psyker goodness for the army, a generic Living Saint HQ choice and a few other ideas I've been kicking around (fast pred with Inferno Cannon or Melta Cannon (or maybe non-fast?) options).

Anyways, I'm still trying to polish the ideas and work on some more since the whole thing is still pretty rough in my head.


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

I do too, but there are two levels to a redesign:
1. All the current models, no new ones, and as close to the WD Dex as possible
2. Wish listing it/total new real codex design with new models possibly added etc.

Either way, it is hard to decide on some army-wide concept rules that define the army, make them fun to play, different than other current armies, still allow different builds within the army, etc.

Seems like that is the first step to me anyway.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Suijin said:


> I do too, but there are two levels to a redesign:
> 1. All the current models, no new ones, and as close to the WD Dex as possible
> 2. Wish listing it/total new real codex design with new models possibly added etc.
> 
> ...


I'm shooting for a number #2 myself, working on something comprehensive/fair to submit in for them to use (well, maybe...they don't have to use any of my suggestions. I just want to offer something that I'd play AND would be willing to have played against me).


----------

