I have seen a lot of posts about peoples dreams of GW releasing a plastic sisters of battle line. It's something I would definitely sink a lot of money into much to the frustration of my fiancé.
I was wondering though what exactly GW are doing if anything about this demand because in my mind there appears to be a very high demand for a (comparatively) affordable sisters line. I understand that GW still possibly has a lot of metal models they want to shift before releasing plastic sets but it doesn't appear to me to make any kind of business sense to kill a potential money maker on the basis of having old stock you can't shift. Run it down into the accounts with depreciation.... By the Emprah they must have had those models long enough and bring a new range out and they're sure to see a good return.
Anyone else agree?
If GW are actually making some headway I'd like to know and if not why?
And if not what can we realistically do to change that?
Hi. Here's the elephant in the room. People dream about plastic sisters. My opinion is that GW are doing nothing about those dreams, because that's what they are: dreams. Why put effort into (waits for the Immolater flame) a minority army, when the same effort on Space Marines will bring in x times the revenue?
Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see more sisters. In 20 mumble mumble years of gaming I've seen precisely 1 sisters army. But, like any other company, you go where the money is, not where it might be. Sorry - but - don't stop dreaming!
stroller wrote: Hi. Here's the elephant in the room. People dream about plastic sisters. My opinion is that GW are doing nothing about those dreams, because that's what they are: dreams. Why put effort into (waits for the Immolater flame) a minority army, when the same effort on Space Marines will bring in x times the revenue?
Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see more sisters. In 20 mumble mumble years of gaming I've seen precisely 1 sisters army. But, like any other company, you go where the money is, not where it might be. Sorry - but - don't stop dreaming!
Abolsutely agree, but then Dark Eldar were in exactly the same position for a long time - very much a 'minority' army with little support. Then GW created a market by totally reworking the whole faction and releasing them with a new Codex. Old Dark Eldar players got in on the action, but I imagine the majority of DE players around then came to DE because of the new release.
I agree that it's easier to just go with reliable markets like Space Marines, but I do think GW have the power to do the same thing to Sisters - it's just a lot more work!
It's been proven through the previous range that they didnt sell very well.
What 16 year old boy, the target demographic, wants to play with girls?
Not the type who like warhammers is the answer.
For the veterans I feel it's a 'grass is greener on the other side' kind of deal. It's an aspirational hobby and we aspire to what we can't get. When it's finally within reach we get bored or set the bar higher.
How many Genestealer Cult and full plastic Storm Trooper armies have we seen since the release? Not many.
Maybe that's a bad rules issue as Ad Mech seem to be doing well.
GW is stupid, plain and simple. Or if you don`t like the term "stupid" then maybe you can also call it a lack of information on their side.
The one excuse they always told people were that plastic sisters wouldn`t be possible because of the complexity of the model. Well that is total bulls.... and everyone knows it by now. Not only have there been real plastic sisters from a russian manufacturer, no but some alternatives like the Sci-Fi Sisters from Raging Heroes also prove that statement to be wrong.
On top of that Raging Heroes got a lot of money with their Kickstarters and they even stated in one of their recent posts that the Sci-Fi sisters are right now the biggest seller, so I can safely assume that many people have pledged that Kickstarter because they no longer wanted to wait for GW to do something about the Sisters.
Which leads me back to point 1. GW thinks that there isn`t a high demand for sisters. I think that is mainly because they only look at their own numbers and that makes sense. No one wants to start a GW army that is currently weak, only in metal, and has such a high price tag that you could think you are paying australian prices. So instead they only do another Space Marine thing, while other companies will gladly take their share of the cake that GW is not interested in.
I'm not sure, when I played as a kid until I was 13/14 sisters were a dream army to me even then. Cost was a major factor then. Now I'm older, having started again, I still can't shake the longing.
I know some children wouldn't want to play with girls but from my own observations, and I might be wrong, the majority of people in the hobby are older than that. And one thing the majority of adult men want to do is play with members of the opposite sex.
Even so I agree a number of people probably do just that and get bored easily.
Question is though what would it take to get GW to actually do something?
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: It's been proven through the previous range that they didnt sell very well.
What 16 year old boy, the target demographic, wants to play with girls?
Not the type who like warhammers is the answer.
For the veterans I feel it's a 'grass is greener on the other side' kind of deal. It's an aspirational hobby and we aspire to what we can't get. When it's finally within reach we get bored or set the bar higher.
How many Genestealer Cult and full plastic Storm Trooper armies have we seen since the release? Not many.
Maybe that's a bad rules issue as Ad Mech seem to be doing well.
I think we would see more genestealer cult armies if they were more widely available with a proper codex. And not allies of convenience with Nids
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: It's been proven through the previous range that they didnt sell very well.
What 16 year old boy, the target demographic, wants to play with girls?
I dunno, the John Blanche artwork in the 3rd ed rulebook made a strong impression on me and the Witch Hunters release seemed quite popular. I think it's more likely that expensive metal kits are just too much of a barrier for younger players or those with less disposable income. The gradual increase in the scale of the average 40k game would only exacerbate this. I can't even begin to imagine the expense of a 1850pts Sisters of Battle army being collected from scratch.
Cheaper, plastic kits for armies more easily available with regular updates are of course going to be more popular, but it's a shame that SoB never even got as far as finecast .
I would hazard a guess that Sales of Sisters at the time of their release were not great enough to prompt more promotion coupled with a studio which was probably lacking in direction when it came to the Soritas
And cry over the pricing all you want but there has been a codex and models available since 1997, If they were iconic enough and buyers were lapping up the models from the off then it stands to reason they would have gotten some plastic love, even taking ques from the original metals - there would be none of this 'can't make the hair, flowing robes' gibberish that spread a while ago.
Not gonna read the thread because I'm assume it's about why don't we have plastic sisters.
Short answer: there is no rea demand for it, so they are not going to make them.
Long answer: GW is a business, if you want them to change you need to show it with your wallet not with crying. You can kick scream and yell from the mountain tops about how you want plastic sisters, but until there is a probable profit to be had, it's not going to happen. Iirc there was a game day were they even showed off plastic sisters they had made. The thing is, they won't start making up until their current stock, the metal ones, are moved out. And even then, they need to be bought out quickly to show there is a demand. When everyone keeps asking for it, but GW still is noticing the sister products they have, why make more? If you want new sisters, you need to buy what's still in stock then and only then will GW start to even consider making plastic models.
Backspacehacker wrote: Iirc there was a game day were they even showed off plastic sisters they had made. The thing is, they won't start making up until their current stock, the metal ones, are moved out.
You know, I'm used to the argument that GW will release plastic sisters if just enough people are willing to buy the ageing metal ones for a mere twice the price, I'm not used to people taking it seriously, but I've heard it enough not to be surprised when it comes up. But if you're going to claim prototype models have shown up at a games day you're going to have to back that up with photographs or an article or -something-.
Because no, if GW had plastic sisters waiting in the wings but wanted to move the metal stock first, they would not be showing said plastics off. Full stop.
GW released plastic Grey Knights with a complete revamp when they previously occupied the same niche as sisters. They released plastic dark eldar with a complete revamp when people thought they were going to be squatted. They released plastic mechanicum when the entire concept was considered conversion and fandex fodder!
Today they're releasing plastic deathwatch kits. Do you mean to tell me that the old metal deathwatch upgrade sprue sold better than sisters of battle? Or that they're somehow more prolific? I'm the only person at my local GW store who's ever run a deathwatch army, the blueshirts running the store thought I had made them up.
To your point: No, people buying up the stock of $100 battle sister troop boxes will not convince GW to release plastic sisters. It will only convince them that they're not charging enough for the other troop boxes.
We cornered the Forge Wold guys at GenCon and my wife asked about sisters. Sisters of Silence was all they would commit to, but we all know that was going to be part of FW anyway as they are in the next HH book.
She also asked about sisters on bikes. Zipping around, burning the heretics with Flamers and Meltas.
The guy said 'That sounds cool! But it's never going to happen..."
Backspacehacker wrote: Iirc there was a game day were they even showed off plastic sisters they had made. The thing is, they won't start making up until their current stock, the metal ones, are moved out.
You know, I'm used to the argument that GW will release plastic sisters if just enough people are willing to buy the ageing metal ones for a mere twice the price, I'm not used to people taking it seriously, but I've heard it enough not to be surprised when it comes up. But if you're going to claim prototype models have shown up at a games day you're going to have to back that up with photographs or an article or -something-.
Because no, if GW had plastic sisters waiting in the wings but wanted to move the metal stock first, they would not be showing said plastics off. Full stop.
GW released plastic Grey Knights with a complete revamp when they previously occupied the same niche as sisters. They released plastic dark eldar with a complete revamp when people thought they were going to be squatted. They released plastic mechanicum when the entire concept was considered conversion and fandex fodder!
Today they're releasing plastic deathwatch kits. Do you mean to tell me that the old metal deathwatch upgrade sprue sold better than sisters of battle? Or that they're somehow more prolific? I'm the only person at my local GW store who's ever run a deathwatch army, the blueshirts running the store thought I had made them up.
To your point: No, people buying up the stock of $100 battle sister troop boxes will not convince GW to release plastic sisters. It will only convince them that they're not charging enough for the other troop boxes.
That's why I said iirc it could have bee another event and a 3rd party making them, so I would ask that you "pump the breaks."
Secondly yes, they were and are selling more of the deathwatch because here is the thing, like it or not the community loves space marines and loves all flavors of them.
And again unfortunately yes, that's how a business works, there is no real demand for it. Here is the problem we have
People want sisters, aright cool.
People are not buying the metal ones, GW has no reason to make a product not being moved
So what happens? 3rd parties start making sister models
People are going to them, again small numbers in comparison to their other products
GW has even LESS inventive to make sisters because the models they have are not selling, and people are already established with the 3rd party companies
Furthermore, how many sister players do you actual, personally, know and see on the table? Now compare that to people who play flavors of space marines. It's a very small market that is already no buying from GW so why bother?
You might think wel that's just bad practice GE should try and get them back! You are right, but the players are not the egg heads in the marketing departments they don't live in should land, they live in profit land, and the time, energy and money toake a product that is in such low demand and would not sell well is not going to make it past the cutting board.
That's the truth, I'm sorry it's crappy, I'm sorry you are not going to get plastic sisters, but until GW sees actual profit to be had its not going to happen. I would like it! But it's a pipe dream.
People are not buying the metal ones, GW has no reason to make a product not being moved
Maybe people just don't want to invest a lot of money and time into an undersupported army with expensive metal miniatures that are 12-19 years old?
SoB may not be best sellers historically, but with the price difference and quality difference of the SoB miniature range compared the other 40k factions, that's not gonna change unless GW does something to reinvigorate them. Dark Eldar wouldn't have been in too dissimilar a position prior to their 5th ed release, so it's not an inconceivable idea that an underselling faction can get an overhaul.
People want thwm but for some reason GW cannot see this. This is probably a result of GW not realising that no one out there wants to pay £50.00 for ten 1990's era sculpt models and so getting into the mistaken belief that Sisters are just not that popular and all that online stuff is well, online and so doesnt count.
In the meantime many 3rd party kits are available and I recommend them. They are cheaper and look a lot better.
Oh I agree there is a demand, no argument here. But on paper, there is no demand.
The GW dark wizards of the marketing department don't go to our forums or stores, they only look at the numbers. If they don't see anything of sisters being bought to them that means the community is not interested.
GW sees numbers when it comes to SM so what should they do? Create a new space marine army that uses the old molds save for 2 or 3 new sprus and charge 10 bucks more for it because people like sm.
Same with eldar, let's power tune the wraith knight to get it to sell faster.
Maybe such people are a small minority of the 40k loving fan base?
GW could have produced a simple monopose sprue of sisters back in the day. We had chest on bolter marines and static Orks and Eldar at the same time. Why not Sisters? Something prevented them doing it which in the (ahem) 'good old days' they could easily have managed.
Pr3Mu5 wrote: I was wondering though what exactly GW are doing if anything about this demand
Here is an image that adequately explains GW's reasoning on ignoring the fairly substantial demand for plastic Sisters of Battle:
I'm not even joking, that pretty much explains it as far as I can tell. They just don't care, and are more interested in making stuff and then telling people they want to buy it, rather than figuring out what people want to buy and making it. People claim this has changed, but I see no evidence of it.
Many moons ago in a White Dwarf it was remarked that Codexes and models often followed what the sculptors wanted to make. The rules followed after cool new models were created.
When we end up with a sub-par codex with little to no new models, that's a sign of someone doing work they were assigned instead of something they really wanted to work on.
With the model production shifting entirely to plastic, there is a significant amount of lead time required, and I suspect more assigned work than guilty pleasures.
Sisters will get some love from GW when someone at GW actually wants to work on them and pushes for it.
FFS, we've got Genestealer Cult Models and Rules, with a codex rumored to be right around the corner, and Genstealer Cults were dead in the official rules, since about the time Sisters came into existance.
adamsouza wrote: Many moons ago in a White Dwarf it was remarked that Codexes and models often followed what the sculptors wanted to make. The rules followed after cool new models were created.
When we end up with a sub-par codex with little to no new models, that's a sign of someone doing work they were assigned instead of something they really wanted to work on.
With the model production shifting entirely to plastic, there is a significant amount of lead time required, and I suspect more assigned work than guilty pleasures.
Sisters will get some love from GW when someone at GW actually wants to work on them and pushes for it.
FFS, we've got Genestealer Cult Models and Rules, with a codex rumored to be right around the corner, and Genstealer Cults were dead in the official rules, since about the time Sisters came into existance.
Would you agree that the time for plastic was during the original release? Every man and his dog at that point had an extensive model range in metal and/or some plastic. We would not see a completely new plastic army until Necrons and DE for third (and DE were just Evil Eldar twins).
Melissia wrote: The original release of Sisters of Battle were back in the 1990s (and that release of models are the same ones they're still selling today btw).
They didn't do plastic back then for the most part.
And when they did, hilarity insued like making a tank body plastic, but making the massive cannon on it metal, OH and it's a slimmer so it sits on a plastic stand and tips over all the time
Maybe they're in the position the squats were in where they can't really think of what else to do with them since in that time half a dozen marine chapters have popped up to do every different style of play they could think of I guess. Sisters then currently fill the role of the more generic flamer based marines, especially doesn't help when the blood angels stole the immolators.
If they were to rerelease them they'd probably change a bit around to try to give them their own more unique style. They don't need it, but I don't really think they'd go with a generic living saint as a lord of war despite how much the model could be nice looking at the bigger character kits for AoS as it'd better be that size as a somewhat expensive centerpiece rather than some sister with wings on a 60mm base.
Melissia wrote: The original release of Sisters of Battle were back in the 1990s (and that release of models are the same ones they're still selling today btw).
They didn't do plastic back then for the most part.
Most of their ranges at that time were metal AND had a sprue of some kind, even something monopose. Squats had some plastic IIRC.
That the plastic revolution continued with new armies such as Necrons and DE must say something as to how sister were perceived within GW and may be factored against sales.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote: Maybe they're in the position the squats were in where they can't really think of what else to do with them since in that time half a dozen marine chapters have popped up to do every different style of play they could think of I guess. Sisters then currently fill the role of the more generic flamer based marines, especially doesn't help when the blood angels stole the immolators.
If they were to rerelease them they'd probably change a bit around to try to give them their own more unique style. They don't need it, but I don't really think they'd go with a generic living saint as a lord of war despite how much the model could be nice looking at the bigger character kits for AoS as it'd better be that size as a somewhat expensive centerpiece rather than some sister with wings on a 60mm base.
What with 3rd party models I would expect an overhaul of the aesthetic...If GW thinks its worth it.
GW has limited resources. Producing a model line that sells well is not a good move if you could produce a line that sells even better (obviously doing both would be even better, but again, limited resources).
They just released Deathwatch. Instead of working on that, they could have done sisters instead. I suppose they went the DW way because they assumed that DW would sell even better than plastic SoB would. If they have a long list of model lines that, in their mind, would sell better than sisters, then they will work on these projects first. It could very well mean that we will never see plastic SoB, even if they would sell well.
fresus wrote: GW has limited resources. Producing a model line that sells well is not a good move if you could produce a line that sells even better
Therefor, why sell anything but Marines? Drop all the other armies, they don't sell as well as Marines do, just sell Marines and nothing else-- after all, why produce non-Marines when more Marines would sell?
Your logic doesn't even work in basic Economics 101 logic.
fresus wrote: GW has limited resources. Producing a model line that sells well is not a good move if you could produce a line that sells even better
Therefor, why sell anything but Marines? Drop all the other armies, they don't sell as well as Marines do, just sell Marines and nothing else-- after all, why produce non-Marines when more Marines would sell?
Your logic doesn't even work in basic Economics 101 logic.
Mr. Burning wrote: Why didn't GW produce sisters plastics during their 'happy time'?
Because there's no one in GW who's a big enough fan to push for it. GW doesn't make decisions on marketability, market demand, or what the customers want. It makes decisions based on what its core team of big names want to do.
Mr. Burning wrote: Most of their ranges at that time were metal AND had a sprue of some kind, even something monopose. Squats had some plastic IIRC.
That the plastic revolution continued with new armies such as Necrons and DE must say something as to how sister were perceived within GW and may be factored against sales.
Dark eldar were introduced a little over a year after sisters, a whole edition came out between them, necrons were introduced four years after that and everything other than the monolith and warriors were still metal (all of which have been either revamped to superior plastic counterparts or replaced entirely in the fiery birth of the 'newcrons'.)
My understanding of the plastic/metal hybridization was that GW was cannibalizing plastic parts from other plastic kits, space marine backpacks and the like.
fresus wrote: GW has limited resources. Producing a model line that sells well is not a good move if you could produce a line that sells even better
Therefor, why sell anything but Marines? Drop all the other armies, they don't sell as well as Marines do, just sell Marines and nothing else-- after all, why produce non-Marines when more Marines would sell?
Your logic doesn't even work in basic Economics 101 logic.
Marines are the best selling model line. So yes, if you could produce only one model line, you should make marines.
However, if you can produce two model lines, making marines + another faction can be better than producing twice as many marines, even if the marine model line as a whole sells better than the other one.
My point was that out of all the new models that GW can make, SoB might not be the best choice for them. Because even if many people want them, maybe even more people want another faction (or a revamp of an existing faction).
With unlimited resources, you should produce all the things that would turn a good profit.
With limited resources, you should produce the things that will turn the highest profit (which means that you end up not producing things that could sell well).
Therefor, why sell anything but Marines? Drop all the other armies, they don't sell as well as Marines do, just sell Marines and nothing else-- after all, why produce non-Marines when more Marines would sell?
Therefor, why sell anything but Marines? Drop all the other armies, they don't sell as well as Marines do, just sell Marines and nothing else-- after all, why produce non-Marines when more Marines would sell?
Doesn't that basically describe 30K?
I would +1 this more than once, but alas, Dakka doesn't allow it.
Plenty of lines of miniatures have been released in this and other games for which there was no real demand before the release. There was no demand for the original Sisters back in the 90s. There was no huge demand for Tau, or for Necrons, or for Dark Eldar when they were released originally OR when they finally got updated.
GW create demand through the universe, the game, and the fact that something is new or cool.
They don't need there to be a big existing fan base 'demanding' a line to make that line a success.
Hey I'm the OP.
Strangely there were actually staff from head office in my GW today at 40k night.
I mentioned to one of the head office bods that they should mention getting SoB done in plastic when she goes back to Nottingham and she literally just laughed at the comment.
What I then found funny was that 3 other people then jumped in on the conversation and all said Yeh they'd love plastic sisters.
The head office woman then just stood there and smiled. This episode just indicates even further to me that there is definitely a demand for sisters and by just laughing it off GW staff don't really seem to take it seriously, obviously just looking at the sales figures and assume no-one wants a new range.
Even after everyone having a discussion while she stood and listened and all 4 of us agreed that price and the 90s modelling was what stopped us from starting a sisters force.
My guess is that GW actually probably do very little in terms of research through focus groups.
If they did they'd head this a lot more and actually take the prospect of a new line seriously.
Pr3Mu5 wrote: Hey I'm the OP.
Strangely there were actually staff from head office in my GW today at 40k night.
I mentioned to one of the head office bods that they should mention getting SoB done in plastic when she goes back to Nottingham and she literally just laughed at the comment.
What I then found funny was that 3 other people then jumped in on the conversation and all said Yeh they'd love plastic sisters.
The head office woman then just stood there and smiled. This episode just indicates even further to me that there is definitely a demand for sisters and by just laughing it off GW staff don't really seem to take it seriously, obviously just looking at the sales figures and assume no-one wants a new range.
Even after everyone having a discussion while she stood and listened and all 4 of us agreed that price and the 90s modelling was what stopped us from starting a sisters force.
My guess is that GW actually probably do very little in terms of research through focus groups.
If they did they'd head this a lot more and actually take the prospect of a new line seriously.
Maybe she was laughing because they have some in the pipeline....
Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead? Space Marines sell, Sisters don't. Ergo, GW makes more Space Marines. That is why we now got Deathwatch, and still no Sisters. Which really is a vicious cycle, because the lack of support and updates probably is one of the major reasons SoB aren't selling well, which is the cause for the lack of support and updates.
In any case, there is a guy here in Russia making really nice plastic Sisters
As much as I dislike a lot of GW's business decisions I can't really fault them. Sisters aren't a very big seller - never have been. I still think the best option is a Deathwatch-style board game release to get some new plastics into the market without "dedicating" themselves to a proper Sisters army revamp.
I've noticed a few people have the same argument. That being that in order to measure demand within a customer base GW just look at current sales figures.
This is an obvious fallacy because big businesses do a lot more research than that when looking at product lines for the future.
If they didn't how did GW know that they could cash in on the massive surge in popularity of Japanese products (gundam, animal etc.) which was obviously drawn upon in the development of the Tau?
They wouldn't have expended all the money they did in developing this line if they didn't have solid reasons to support the conclusion that this would turn a tidy profit.
Obviously the massive strength of the faction in terms of gameplay helped make them a success but this tends to happen with new products anywhere.
The point is that they must have dome some rather substantial market research. Now what form does that research take and what is GWs attitude towards conducting research now?
If focus groups and surveys are taken how is this done and what is the selection criteria?
What pool are they selecting from? Let's be honest they will do this in multiple market segments if those running the company are in the least bit competent. This is due to the different trends in seperate market areas.
GW is a business and is run as such, you can see that in the way that the majority of releases target the SM players as the most highly represented faction.
That does not however detract from the fact that as everything is based on supply and demand and where there appears to be a large demand for better modelled sisters for a more affordable price GW is lagging behind in supply.
The notion that they want to sell all the old metal models to warrant the production and release of new sisters makes no business sense in the slightest.
Anyone who owns or is employed in the operation of a business should spot the flaw in this argument.
An analogy would be that a shop that sells shoes has a range of footwear of different styles everything is kept new and up to date with current trends all except for the section for trainers (or sneakers for you lovely yanks). Now why would the shop refuse to get in the latest fashion of trainers on the grounds that the old trainers aren't selling well enough to support the conclusion that people want trainers?
Especially if the trainers are more expensive than all the other products available?
Yes there are flaws in this analogy but it is a simplified way of looking at the explanation people are putting forward.
It doesn't make business sense.
Stock is not an asset which will permanently retain its value that's why companies account for depreciation on all these items.
GW must be doing some kind of market research on what current customers and potential new customers want and this is not showing the demand, that I along with what appears to be a lot of others are seeing, for an update to sisters.
This leads to one of 2 obviously conclusions. Either the current GW methodology of conducting market research is flawed or all of us who keep harping on about wanting new sisters live in isolated bubbles that do not reflect the community as a whole.... And from looking at GWs track record and the ongoing trend of ever decreasing profits year on year I think I know which is more likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: As much as I dislike a lot of GW's business decisions I can't really fault them. Sisters aren't a very big seller - never have been. I still think the best option is a Deathwatch-style board game release to get some new plastics into the market without "dedicating" themselves to a proper Sisters army revamp.
This would be a good means by which GW could test the waters but that would have to be after a decision has been made at GW that there is sufficient evidence to support putting them in the box set in the first place.
When you consider that as an imperial faction they would have to be paired against a xenos force, they'd need a heavily supported faction to help boost the sales to reduce the risk factor involved.
There though lies the issue with this plan, they'd have to pick Tau or eldar as popular factions to draw more interest but these forces are too far away from sisters in terms of power for the game to be balanced and would only highlight the deficiencies in the Sororita codex and push people away from sisters. They'd need to update the codex to buff the nuns (let's be honest they're not going to nerf Tau or eldar).
They would therefore need to see some indicator that there is a demand out there.
Now my assertion is that there is a demand, now this is only anecdotal but I don't appear to be the only person under this impression.
Then you must ask why do GW not see this demand?
The OP was therefore how can we convince GW there is a demand?
If I was an investor at GW this is the kind of thing I'd be asking at the annual general meeting as I'd be rather concerned with the downward trend of profits coinciding with increases in product retail pricing. "what kind if market research is being conducted by GW and what controls are in place to ensure it is accurate and not self confirming?"
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: It's been proven through the previous range that they didnt sell very well.
What 16 year old boy, the target demographic, wants to play with girls?
The reason I didn't was because they were more expensive. Then the prices of
Not the type who like warhammers is the answer.
For the veterans I feel it's a 'grass is greener on the other side' kind of deal. It's an aspirational hobby and we aspire to what we can't get. When it's finally within reach we get bored or set the bar higher.
How many Genestealer Cult and full plastic Storm Trooper armies have we seen since the release? Not many.
Maybe that's a bad rules issue as Ad Mech seem to be doing well.
Uhh, I was a 16 year old boy who wanted to play Sisters of Battle.
The reason I didn't was because a box of Battle Sisters was 50 dollars and a box of plastic infantry was 35 dollars.
And then when Battle Sisters were still 50 dollars for 10 and plastic infantry were 43 dollars for 10, I started playing Sisters of Battle because the price difference wasn't as ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pr3Mu5 wrote: I've noticed a few people have the same argument. That being that in order to measure demand within a customer base GW just look at current sales figures.
This is an obvious fallacy because big businesses do a lot more research than that when looking at product lines for the future.
GW doesn't. They've said openly they don't do any market research whatsoever and rely only on sales figures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pr3Mu5 wrote: Then you must ask why do GW not see this demand?
The number 1 response to "Why don't you play Sisters of Battle?" is "They're way too friggin expensive."
The number 2 response is, "They don't have any plastic infantry."
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: It's been proven through the previous range that they didnt sell very well.
What 16 year old boy, the target demographic, wants to play with girls?
The reason I didn't was because they were more expensive. Then the prices of
Not the type who like warhammers is the answer.
For the veterans I feel it's a 'grass is greener on the other side' kind of deal. It's an aspirational hobby and we aspire to what we can't get. When it's finally within reach we get bored or set the bar higher.
How many Genestealer Cult and full plastic Storm Trooper armies have we seen since the release? Not many.
Maybe that's a bad rules issue as Ad Mech seem to be doing well.
Uhh, I was a 16 year old boy who wanted to play Sisters of Battle.
The reason I didn't was because a box of Battle Sisters was 50 dollars and a box of plastic infantry was 35 dollars.
And then when Battle Sisters were still 50 dollars for 10 and plastic infantry were 43 dollars for 10, I started playing Sisters of Battle because the price difference wasn't as ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pr3Mu5 wrote: I've noticed a few people have the same argument. That being that in order to measure demand within a customer base GW just look at current sales figures.
This is an obvious fallacy because big businesses do a lot more research than that when looking at product lines for the future.
GW doesn't. They've said openly they don't do any market research whatsoever and rely only on sales figures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pr3Mu5 wrote: Then you must ask why do GW not see this demand?
The number 1 response to "Why don't you play Sisters of Battle?" is "They're way too friggin expensive."
The number 2 response is, "They don't have any plastic infantry."
Pouncey, thank you very much sir... im assuming you're a sir that is. Apologies if not.
That would explain then why GW have not recognised the demand for plastic sisters, that makes the conclusions that must therefore be drawn about the longevity of he company even more concerning.
Ive worked with a number of large retail groups and from a strategic planning perspective some kind of market research should be completed as standard.
Have they stated this policy of rejection of market research recently?
The reason why I ask is to go back to the original post, I wanted to know what could be done to evidence the level of demand to see if it supports a proposal to be made to GW.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead?
Because making something for the people who don't buy your most popular line to buy from you is a good idea?
Extrapolate this logic out and you get every manufacturing company only ever making one thing.
I remain skeptical that there was sufficient real world demand for many years to justify the expense, but I don't find it impossible that the lines of decreasing design and production costs and consumer demand will intersect soon, or perhaps already have.
Pr3Mu5 wrote: Pouncey, thank you very much sir... im assuming you're a sir that is. Apologies if not.
I am not, as I have never been knighted. I am male though, if that's what you mean.
That would explain then why GW have not recognised the demand for plastic sisters, that makes the conclusions that must therefore be drawn about the longevity of he company even more concerning.
You could also point to the fact GW stores haven't done a sale event in over two decades. Or the company's behavior toward third party retailers and third party Internet distributors for the past fifteen years.
Ive worked with a number of large retail groups and from a strategic planning perspective some kind of market research should be completed as standard.
Lots of people look at GW's business practices and come to the conclusion they are insane.
Have they stated this policy of rejection of market research recently?
No idea. I have to rely on what other people tell me GW says, because I have no idea where they say it. Their communication with their customers is generally either very poor or non-existent.
The reason why I ask is to go back to the original post, I wanted to know what could be done to evidence the level of demand to see if it supports a proposal to be made to GW.
Well, a year or two ago Dakkites tried to organize a large-scale thing for 40k players to show mass support for Sisters of Battle by having as many people as possible buy a single Sisters of Battle miniature and send an e-mail to GW explaining why they bought it.
Well, a year or two ago Dakkites tried to organize a large-scale thing for 40k players to show mass support for Sisters of Battle by having as many people as possible buy a single Sisters of Battle miniature and send an e-mail to GW explaining why they bought it.
That's really interesting. I haven't seen this, any chance you have a link to any info on this?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632419.page TLDR:
Buy a SOB model on specific day immediately follow it up with an email to Customer services.
The campaign made 50-100 people do this. Figures were woolly/optimistic.
Replies from GW were stock emails.
Some models went out of stock but the orders were either cancelled by customers or fulfilled with a small delay.
Thread degenerates pg 8 into other companies make alternatives and damn I missed this or I didn't have the cash at the time.
Then.....................nothing.
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632419.page
TLDR:
Buy a SOB model on specific day immediately follow it up with an email to Customer services.
The campaign made 50-100 people do this. Figures were woolly/optimistic.
Replies from GW were stock emails.
Some models went out of stock but the orders were either cancelled by customers or fulfilled with a small delay.
Thread degenerates pg 8 into other companies make alternatives and damn I missed this or I didn't have the cash at the time.
Then.....................nothing.
In short, it did not go well in any way whatsoever.
So, totally off topic, but I read the title of this thread. Did anyone else think of the episode of Dexter's Laboratory where he asked for a Spastic Sister? I'm just imagining "Plastic Sisters, that's what you asked for, Plastic sisters. That's what I am, a Plastic Sister."
I have had Sisters of Battle figures since their original release. I only managed to turn them into a full army a couple of years ago, due to being a lot older and having disposable income. I eBay trawled for most of it, particularly the vehicles, because I like the original Mk1 Rhino chassis much more than the new one.
I would love to see plastic Sisters of Battle, so long as they fit with the existing range. I was really cross back when the plastic Cadians were released, because they weren't wearing the same gear as the old metals which my army was built from.
I would also love to see a new Codex for them, one that involves dead trees and can be held in my hands rather than viewed on a screen.
Talking directly to GW on their Facebook page might well be worth doing. Until either all the SoB models go OOP or a plastic range appears, I will continue building my army slowly but surely out of the existing metals. Just got a few more figures to get before Stage 1 is done... then I can start adding the Ecclesiarchical weirdness of arco-flagellants and penitent engines.
Gen.Steiner wrote: I have had Sisters of Battle figures since their original release. I only managed to turn them into a full army a couple of years ago, due to being a lot older and having disposable income. I eBay trawled for most of it, particularly the vehicles, because I like the original Mk1 Rhino chassis much more than the new one.
I would love to see plastic Sisters of Battle, so long as they fit with the existing range. I was really cross back when the plastic Cadians were released, because they weren't wearing the same gear as the old metals which my army was built from.
I would also love to see a new Codex for them, one that involves dead trees and can be held in my hands rather than viewed on a screen.
Talking directly to GW on their Facebook page might well be worth doing. Until either all the SoB models go OOP or a plastic range appears, I will continue building my army slowly but surely out of the existing metals. Just got a few more figures to get before Stage 1 is done... then I can start adding the Ecclesiarchical weirdness of arco-flagellants and penitent engines.
Making the new plastics fit the aesthetic of the old metals is theoretically possible. Grey Knights did it. (minus the swapping of faux latin for english)
I'm not sure where people are getting that plastic sisters would be any cheaper than the current ones. You can't assume GW will make a price break just because they change medium.
nareik wrote: I'm not sure where people are getting that plastic sisters would be any cheaper than the current ones. You can't assume GW will make a price break just because they change medium.
Except plastic models made by GW have always been cheaper than the metal equivalents.
Backspacehacker wrote: Depends, metal legion of the damned were the same price as the finecrap models.
Which doesn't have any impact on what Pouncey said because Finecast isn't plastic.
Yes true, but it goes to show it dont matter what its made out of, GW will still charge you what you are willing to pay.
Which won't be the same price.
we are assuming it wont be the same, going off of what we have seen, GW can change whats its made out of, and still charge the same price. Hell they are swapping out some of their old fine cast with plastic, and they are still the same price.
GW is going to charge what ever you are willing to pay, because no matter what the production cost is very small so they dont really care. -
If they released a ridiculously overpriced $120 kit (costing more than twice as much as ten cadians including two flamers and one sergeant) for ten sisters, plastic minis with bitz and poses and such... it'd still be a better deal than what we currently have.
Melissia wrote: If they released a ridiculously overpriced $120 kit (costing more than twice as much as ten cadians including two flamers and one sergeant) for ten sisters, plastic minis with bitz and poses and such... it'd still be a better deal than what we currently have.
godardc wrote: Did someone buy some of the russian sister yet ?
Yes, but I am still not sure if they ship outside of Russia. Plenty of people ordered (and received miniatures) from them, but all of those were in Russia afaik. I don't know if they've had or fulfilled any non-Russian orders.
nareik wrote: I'm not sure where people are getting that plastic sisters would be any cheaper than the current ones. You can't assume GW will make a price break just because they change medium.
Except plastic models made by GW have always been cheaper than the metal equivalents.
Not always. Plenty of metals have been replaced by plastics of close (or greater) prices. The days of getting 3 times as many plastic than metal for your money are over.
So how much would they cost them then, in your mind, Nareik?
140 USD? If it included a heavy weapons model and special weapons model, that'd still be less than we currently pay.
150 USD? If we had bitz, like in most plastic kits, we'd still basically be getting more than we currently are.
165? Now we're getting in to the realm of ridiculousness, as that's the price an entire Start Collecting pack which includes 10 tacticals, 1 dread, and 1 termie captain. I would honestly be surprised if GW did that for just a basic troops choice and a bare minimum infantry squad, but even if they did, that still wouldn't be much more than we'd pay if it included options for both heavy and special weapons.
I'm not saying they will necessarily be more expensive, but rather manage your expectations on how cheap they will end up being.
GW prices things on how well they think they'll sell. For ranges they think only a few dedicated fans will want they charge a premium (i.e. Sisters).
Regardless of price, plastic is an exciting material for anyone who wants to personalise their models a bit more (a common complaint of the current Sisters range being static/similar poses).
You're kind of missing the point. Sisters are currently by far the most expensive army to collect for, barring a few very niche alternatives.
It's not like people hare are suggesting that Sisters will be as cheap as Cadians, at 57 USD. Only that they'll be cheaper than they are now-- at about 145 USD (or ~150 with a heavy weapon). And since all Sisters infantry save for Seraphim use the same models, people are going to be buying a lot of them for any particular sisters army.
I feel like two arguments are being made repeatedly: 1. There is not enough demand 2. Yes there is, at least from me.
I would like to propose an alternate theory: GW is a business only in the sense that they sell products you're allowed to buy. They do not care one bit what you want, or what the demand is for anything.
Since the sister's rolled out in the 1990s, I have watched as GW has abandoned their most popular ip concepts, like chaos space marines, to utter stagnation. They've made complex plastic kits for things that were only out for a month and abandoned them. They've made staggering volumes of plastic terrain, from wrecked rhinos to no less than four "arcane fulcrums" that gather dust in my local shop.
I just don't think they're as concerned with what customers want as we think. They just make what ever they think is cool, and we agree with them frequently enough that they stay in business. (Albeit, with steadily falling revenues of core product in a time when vastly inflated amounts of core products are being produced)
Are Sisters of Silence ever going to be a thing? I'd like for them to be. Release plastic sisters of silence as a supplement after the sisters of battle release haha
KingCorpus wrote: Are Sisters of Silence ever going to be a thing? I'd like for them to be. Release plastic sisters of silence as a supplement after the sisters of battle release haha
KingCorpus wrote: Are Sisters of Silence ever going to be a thing? I'd like for them to be. Release plastic sisters of silence as a supplement after the sisters of battle release haha
KingCorpus wrote: Are Sisters of Silence ever going to be a thing? I'd like for them to be. Release plastic sisters of silence as a supplement after the sisters of battle release haha
I read Forgeworld are probably working on them.
Oh forgeworld. If thats true, ill be happy
Pretty sure it's 30k only if that makes any difference.
The rumor is they will be included in the next 30K based box game, with plastic models. If this follows how BoC was handled, 40K rules in a White Dwarf would follow.
KingCorpus wrote: Are Sisters of Silence ever going to be a thing? I'd like for them to be. Release plastic sisters of silence as a supplement after the sisters of battle release haha
I read Forgeworld are probably working on them.
So, that's a "no" on plastic Sisters?
Because Forge World does resin models, not plastic ones.
pm713 wrote: Do we have anything on when said box is?
I can't find what thread it was mentioned in now, but I believe it was supposed to be fall of this year. To be honest the Plastic Sisters of Silence mention is what got this latest round of calling for plastic Sisters of Battle started.
GW pricing is as much based on expected unit sales as anything. The argument is that a plastic Sisters kit would be expensive because there's probably not enough potential demand to justify the lower price that Marines can and still turn a profit.
Really, the only people that are convinced that Sisters would sell in huge numbers are Sisters players, who aren't generally viewing the situation objectively.
GW pricing is as much based on expected unit sales as anything. The argument is that a plastic Sisters kit would be expensive because there's probably not enough potential demand to justify the lower price that Marines can and still turn a profit.
Really, the only people that are convinced that Sisters would sell in huge numbers are Sisters players, who aren't generally viewing the situation objectively.
This. Space Marines are popular and thus command lower prices. Hoping your faction will receive the same treatment as GW's golden boys is the first step on the road to disappointment.
GW pricing is as much based on expected unit sales as anything. The argument is that a plastic Sisters kit would be expensive because there's probably not enough potential demand to justify the lower price that Marines can and still turn a profit.
Really, the only people that are convinced that Sisters would sell in huge numbers are Sisters players, who aren't generally viewing the situation objectively.
Fair enough.
If they were priced like the Tempestus Scions though, they'd still be at least 10% cheaper than they are now.
Two boxes of 5 Scions comes to 84 CAD plus taxes.
A squad of 10 Sisters of Battle costs 96.25 CAD plus taxes.
Making 10 Scions 13-14% cheaper than 10 Sisters of Battle.
Azreal13 wrote: Even more, as a plastic kit would likely be available from discounters, at least initially.
It would still make SoB amongst the most expensive armies to collect though. Almost certainly the most expensive power armour army.
But I still wouldn't rule out £25 or £30 for 5 Sisters (Scions are £21)
Still, to make an effective army of Sisters of Battle, you'd need to buy way, WAY more of them than you would Grey Knights or Scions. Grey Knights because they cost more points per model and Scions because they're effectively an Elites choice intended to be fielded with other armies instead of as an entire army in their own right. So GW would reasonably expect that an average Sisters of Battle customer would buy more Sisters than a GK or Scions player would buy Grey Knights or Scions.
The question isn't how many Sisters does a Sisters player need, it's how many people are going to collect Sisters?
You've got a hardcore who would whatever, which aren't likely enough to cater to and there'll be those who buy some if they're appealing to paint, and those who simply buy the new releases and collect everything.
The only ones likely to buy in volume are the hardcore, gamers will only buy if the codex is good and there's going to be a number that will buy in if the whole package is attractive enough.
It's the latter group that would likely make take the whole concept over the line financially, but they're also the least certain to purchase.
Azreal13 wrote: The question isn't how many Sisters does a Sisters player need, it's how many people are going to collect Sisters?
You've got a hardcore who would whatever, which aren't likely enough to cater to and there'll be those who buy some if they're appealing to paint, and those who simply buy the new releases and collect everything.
The only ones likely to buy in volume are the hardcore, gamers will only buy if the codex is good and there's going to be a number that will buy in if the whole package is attractive enough.
It's the latter group that would likely make take the whole concept over the line financially, but they're also the least certain to purchase.
It wouldn't be the first time that a formerly unpopular 40k army got a sudden boost of popularity from a model update.
And I think it's both, since the ultimate figure GW would care about is how many are sold in total. If Sisters of Battle are half as popular as say, Grey Knights, but their armies require twice as many models, then selling Sisters of Battle at the same price as Grey Knights results in the army being just as profitable as GK are.
No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.
These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."
Azreal13 wrote: No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.
These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."
Azreal13 wrote: No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.
These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."
Does GW actually make bad updates on purpose?
On purpose? No
But updates will have budgets, which impose limitations, and will vary depending on how high profile they intend to make it. They do make bad models, at least for some people, and bad rules, even if it isn't deliberate.
Azreal13 wrote: No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.
These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."
Does GW actually make bad updates on purpose?
On purpose? No
But updates will have budgets, which impose limitations, and will vary depending on how high profile they intend to make it. They do make bad models, at least for some people, and bad rules, even if it isn't deliberate.
Considering that Jes Goodwin said in 2006 that they almost had plastic Sisters of Battle figured out, surely it can't require too much extra effort to actually finish those designs, if they're not already finished and just haven't been released yet.
I don't see 5 plastic Sisters for £30 being beyond the realm of possibility.
They'll almost certainly build two unit types, but I don't see it being ridiculously unlikely.
They'll build at least four unit types more likely than not. Battle Sisters, Celestians, Dominions, and Retributors all use the exact same miniatures. Only Seraphim, Repentia, and HQ units use different minis at the moment. And I doubt this will much change-- at most, they might release slightly more expensive Celestian models... but if they can't even produce plastic Battle Sisters, they won't do that.
Azreal13 wrote: The question isn't how many Sisters does a Sisters player need, it's how many people are going to collect Sisters?
There is a constant chorus of people-- new posters and old-- over the years who have said they want to collect Sisters but the price, age of the minis, the metal, the dated and lackluster rules, keep them from doing so.
I suggest you stop assuming competence without evidence.
There's a very simple explanation on why there's no new plastic Sisters, and it has nothing at all to do with demand. Simply put, no one in GW cares enough. There's enough demand for GW to keep them for sale and keep them updated with a half-assed codex full of copy-pasted crap every now and then, and even far more demand for them than there were for Dark Eldar back in their relaunch-- but as far as actually updating them with new rules and minis? No one in GW cares enough about Sisters to do that. They want to make marine minis, or guard minis, or chaos minis, or eldar minis, or ork minis, or tau minis, or necron minis-- not Sisters minis.
And ultimately, that's what determines what minis, fluff, and rules get made. Not demand. GW doesn't do market research.
So you're suggesting I stop assuming competence, yet are happy to make assumptions about the processes that are holding up the release?
When you own your own production facility, keeping something on sale for as long as the moulds are viable is perfectly sensible, it costs almost nothing, and it allows you to satisfy any demand there may be.
They'll know how many copies of the last codex sold, they'll know how many models sell all the way back to the initial release, while they don't have any obvious mechanisms to establish potential players, they will have a handle on roughly how many people are actively collecting now.
Rountree's approach could be the savior of Sisters players, as nuGW does seem to be more willing to explore the niches, if there really is sufficient demand.
I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.
Azreal13 wrote: It would still make SoB amongst the most expensive armies to collect though.
Still, to make an effective army of Sisters of Battle, you'd need to buy way, WAY more of them than you would Grey Knights or Scions.
I am an Imperial Guard player, and I'm pretty sure that you'd need only HALF as many Sisters as you need Guardsmen. My IG army is predominantly metal Tallarn, and GW currently charges $40 per squad of Tallarn (still available!). If moving to plastic, GW should charge the same $80 per squad of 10 Sisters - that would be very fairly priced, very affordable!
But first, GW should finish selling their metal stocks...
Azreal13 wrote: So you're suggesting I stop assuming competence, yet are happy to make assumptions about the processes that are holding up the release?
When you own your own production facility, keeping something on sale for as long as the moulds are viable is perfectly sensible, it costs almost nothing, and it allows you to satisfy any demand there may be.
They'll know how many copies of the last codex sold, they'll know how many models sell all the way back to the initial release, while they don't have any obvious mechanisms to establish potential players, they will have a handle on roughly how many people are actively collecting now.
Rountree's approach could be the savior of Sisters players, as nuGW does seem to be more willing to explore the niches, if there really is sufficient demand.
I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.
No, we know it for a fact.
A GW designer commented a few years ago about why Squats were, well, squatted, and the reason wasn't that there was a lack of demand, or a lack of sufficient sales, or really anything except the simple fact that none of the GW designers really had an interest in updating Squats for 3rd edition, so since no one was willing to fight for them and a huge amount of the game was shifting, they just got rid of them entirely.
The reason that Sisters made it through that was because there was someone willing to fight for them. Jes Goodwin was a prominent advocate for Sisters of Battle and likely is the reason we even got the 2003 update. He was also the one designing the plastic models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.
I can't speak for them, but it could be the constant threads on 40k fan sites with comments about how people would love to collect a Sisters of Battle army except for the models being expensive, made of metal, the rules being what they are, etc.
I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.
To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.
Plenty of lines of miniatures have been released in this and other games for which there was no real demand before the release. There was no demand for the original Sisters back in the 90s. There was no huge demand for Tau, or for Necrons, or for Dark Eldar when they were released originally OR when they finally got updated.
GW create demand through the universe, the game, and the fact that something is new or cool.
They don't need there to be a big existing fan base 'demanding' a line to make that line a success.
Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters,
the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.
The Squats were a joke army, and it's good they were canned when nobody spoke up for them.
The fact that Sisters are one of Jes' favorite's is what's keeping them from being Squatted, but the lack of sales is what's keeping them from getting a lot of new stuff.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.
I can't speak for them, but it could be the constant threads on 40k fan sites with comments about how people would love to collect a Sisters of Battle army except for the models being expensive, made of metal, the rules being what they are, etc.
Well, looking at Dakka, there's you, Melissia, pretre and Hybrid Son of Whatyamacallit are pretty vocal.
I'm not seeing legions of people crying out for them, just a small number of people who are dedicated to the faction, and remarkably adept at making any 40K news and Rumours thread about how Sisters need an update, and maybe a handful who declare they'd make an army if it happened. A percentage of whom may actually start a Sisters army should there be an update.
To paraphrase the former manger of my football team "the fans all have opinion, GW are in the business of making decisions."
oldravenman3025 wrote: Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.
Now, they are one of the popular armies.
Popular in the sense that Tau are invariably the number one pick to be banned / deleted / removed / Squatted in every single Dakka poll I've seen in the past few years...
Azreal13 wrote: I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.
To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.
No, I'm not. I'm the one trying to explain why they may not.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead?
Because making something for the people who don't buy your most popular line to buy from you is a good idea?
Extrapolate this logic out and you get every manufacturing company only ever making one thing.
I remain skeptical that there was sufficient real world demand for many years to justify the expense, but I don't find it impossible that the lines of decreasing design and production costs and consumer demand will intersect soon, or perhaps already have.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not seeing legions of people crying out for them, just a small number of people who are dedicated to the faction, and remarkably adept at making any 40K news and Rumours thread about how Sisters need an update, and maybe a handful who declare they'd make an army if it happened. A percentage of whom may actually start a Sisters army should there be an update.
To paraphrase the former manger of my football team "the fans all have opinion, GW are in the business of making decisions."
Speaking for myself, I would not spend another penny on Sisters if GW updated them. I have a complete, 1,000-pt Sisters Force that can be played on its own, used as a base, or allied to other my other IoM forces. It's a good force.
Of course, the notion of not buying applies to my GW collection in general, which, itself is something I now consider excessive. If anything, I should be more-aggressively paring down my Eldar and SM / CSM collections down to what I am most likely to play...
Azreal13 wrote: I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.
To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.
No, I'm not. I'm the one trying to explain why they may not.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead?
Because making something for the people who don't buy your most popular line to buy from you is a good idea?
Extrapolate this logic out and you get every manufacturing company only ever making one thing.
I remain skeptical that there was sufficient real world demand for many years to justify the expense, but I don't find it impossible that the lines of decreasing design and production costs and consumer demand will intersect soon, or perhaps already have.
Uhh, from what I know about restaurants, the best ones might have a specialty food that they make really, REALLY well and are the main reason people go there, but they also offer good choices of lots of other things for the other people who want to dine with someone else but don't necessarily want the restaurant's specialty. If you like chicken, for example, Swiss Chalet's a good choice, but if they ONLY made chicken, fewer people would eat there since any party where a single member doesn't want chicken wouldn't bother going.
Just because GW makes really cool Space Marines doesn't mean they shouldn't invest in niche armies too. Someone playing and enjoying a niche army is only going to contribute to the enjoyment of Space Marine players, since it gives them a wider variety of opponents and more varied games.
No where near as popular as Sisters, has full plastic model range, and even at $150 a box for Deathwatch, still cheaper than sisters are currently.
I would definitely buy a Sanctuary 101 board game release ala Deathwatch Overkill if GW released plastic SoBs that way.
Heck, I don't even play 7th edition but broke down to buy the cheap Harlies in the Death Masque release.
I had planned on buying a death jester and a 6-man troupe for fan use in DWO but figured for another $60 I could get Death Masque.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.
To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.
No, I'm not. I'm the one trying to explain why they may not.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead?
Because making something for the people who don't buy your most popular line to buy from you is a good idea?
Extrapolate this logic out and you get every manufacturing company only ever making one thing.
I remain skeptical that there was sufficient real world demand for many years to justify the expense, but I don't find it impossible that the lines of decreasing design and production costs and consumer demand will intersect soon, or perhaps already have.
Uhh, from what I know about restaurants, the best ones might have a specialty food that they make really, REALLY well and are the main reason people go there, but they also offer good choices of lots of other things for the other people who want to dine with someone else but don't necessarily want the restaurant's specialty. If you like chicken, for example, Swiss Chalet's a good choice, but if they ONLY made chicken, fewer people would eat there since any party where a single member doesn't want chicken wouldn't bother going.
Just because GW makes really cool Space Marines doesn't mean they shouldn't invest in niche armies too. Someone playing and enjoying a niche army is only going to contribute to the enjoyment of Space Marine players, since it gives them a wider variety of opponents and more varied games.
Not doing so well following the quote tree there sport?
Azreal13 wrote: Not doing so well following the quote tree there sport?
That was my point too.
Then wouldn't that argue for supporting Sisters of Battle at least halfway properly, even though their sales on their own might not be too profitable compared to the other stuff?
Especially since GW's been creating new armies like the Mechanicum that never existed in 40k tabletop before?
Azreal13 wrote: Not doing so well following the quote tree there sport?
That was my point too.
Then wouldn't that argue for supporting Sisters of Battle at least halfway properly, even though their sales on their own might not be too profitable compared to the other stuff?
Especially since GW's been creating new armies like the Mechanicum that never existed in 40k tabletop before?
Show me where I said Sisters shouldn't be updated.
I'll show you plenty of examples where I argued where they may not be, but you won't find one instance where I said they shouldn't or won't be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe you both need to stop getting so excited and read what I'm writing, rather than what you think I'm writing.
Azreal13 wrote: Maybe you both need to stop getting so excited and read what I'm writing, rather than what you think I'm writing.
You're writing an argument that says a logical business would invest in the Sisters of Battle line and then coming to the conclusion that it's not likely to happen.
I said a logical business would offer alternatives to its best selling line, Marines in this case, in response to someone saying that GW should only sell Marines.
Sisters certainly qualify as an alternative, but they aren't the only alternative.
I also said that I am skeptical that there's been sufficient demand to justify the investment, historically, but also believe that due to falling production costs that may not, or may soon not, be the case.
This is why, up to this point, Sisters have not been an alternative to Marines that GW has chosen to offer.
I'm not prepared to accept the truism that there's a huge untapped demand for Sisters models at face value, but I'm absolutely happy for them to get updated if GW deem it appropriate. I probably wouldn't buy any, but then, Deathwatch haven't floated my boat either, doesn't mean I'm not happy to see more options nor pleased to see people that are massively excited for these new releases either.
Pouncey wrote: A GW designer commented a few years ago about why Squats were, well, squatted, and the reason wasn't that there was a lack of demand, or a lack of sufficient sales, or really anything except the simple fact that none of the GW designers really had an interest in updating Squats for 3rd edition, so since no one was willing to fight for them and a huge amount of the game was shifting, they just got rid of them entirely.
The reason that Sisters made it through that was because there was someone willing to fight for them. Jes Goodwin was a prominent advocate for Sisters of Battle and likely is the reason we even got the 2003 update. He was also the one designing the plastic models.
I've said the very same thing in other threads, Sisters are lacking a champion in the GW employee pool, willing to push for them.
Squats were also abandoned because they couldn't find a way to grim dark them enough, while keeping trikes and egg shaped armor. It also didn't hurt that they wanted to get away from direct parities to the Warhammer Fantasy World. It's part of the reason we don't have Space Skaven or Space Lizards. Dark Eldar are a few S&M notches above and beyond Dark Elves, and it let the Craftworld Eldar not be the fools that unleashed Chaos on the 40K universe.
WTH was I rambling about, again ? Oh yeah... We have have Adeptus Mechanicus, Genstealer Cults, Death Watch, and Squats (Demiurg) are in the cold day in Hell catergory of scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas. They've pretty much used up all the other existing forces that didn't have a proper codex.
The sad thing is, Sisters are one of the few armies in 40k (alongside Tau and Tyranids) that aren't actually a direct clone of any army in WFB. Priests are similar to Warrior Priests, but they're a general Imperium thing, rather than a Sisters thing.
I said a logical business would offer alternatives to its best selling line, Marines in this case, in response to someone saying that GW should only sell Marines.
Sisters certainly qualify as an alternative, but they aren't the only alternative.
I also said that I am skeptical that there's been sufficient demand to justify the investment, historically, but also believe that due to falling production costs that may not, or may soon not, be the case.
This is why, up to this point, Sisters have not been an alternative to Marines that GW has chosen to offer.
I'm not prepared to accept the truism that there's a huge untapped demand for Sisters models at face value, but I'm absolutely happy for them to get updated if GW deem it appropriate. I probably wouldn't buy any, but then, Deathwatch haven't floated my boat either, doesn't mean I'm not happy to see more options nor pleased to see people that are massively excited for these new releases either.
It's not like GW hasn't gambled making an entirely new product line unlike any of the others on the chance people might like it. Very recently, too. Mechanicus is the example I'm thinking of.
As new factions go, AM was about as safe a gamble as you could want.
Forgeworld had already dipped their toe in the water presumably with positive results and Imperial Knights had been greatly successful by all accounts. It was also a totally unsupported faction that had just as many, if not more, people as Sisters expressing a desire for the product, and it had absolutely no back catalogue at all.
But, as I've already said, I think there's something that's changed which is allowing these more experimental and likely lower volume releases. Whether that's simply a change in attitude of management, the advent of 3D digital sculpting or something more practical in terms of the physical production, I can't say for sure, but it probably bodes well for a Sisters release.
Azreal13 wrote: As new factions go, AM was about as safe a gamble as you could want.
Forgeworld had already dipped their toe in the water presumably with positive results and Imperial Knights had been greatly successful by all accounts. It was also a totally unsupported faction that had just as many, if not more, people as Sisters expressing a desire for the product, and it had absolutely no back catalogue at all.
But, as I've already said, I think there's something that's changed which is allowing these more experimental and likely lower volume releases. Whether that's simply a change in attitude of management, the advent of 3D digital sculpting or something more practical in terms of the physical production, I can't say for sure, but it probably bodes well for a Sisters release.
So now you're saying that yes, we are in fact likely to see a Sisters release coming at some point?
Pouncey wrote: So now you're saying that yes, we are in fact likely to see a Sisters release coming at some point?
*Sigh*
Az is offering some insights into what *MIGHT* be a factor in seeing SoB released some time. He doesn't speak from a point of authority or with insider knowledge, he's simply extrapolating a possible outcome based on recent changes to GW's operating structure and way of doing business.
From what I've read, he isn't against a SoB update/ reboot. He's simply saying why he believes they have languished for so long. Saying it might be logical for GW to redo them and then saying that they probably won't isn't really contradictory. GW does a lot of illogical stuff and doesn't do some things that would be logical. Of course, we don't have all the information they do so we're looking at an incomplete picture when it comes to their decisions and the things that factor into them.
Pouncey wrote: So now you're saying that yes, we are in fact likely to see a Sisters release coming at some point?
*Sigh*
Az is offering some insights into what *MIGHT* be a factor in seeing SoB released some time. He doesn't speak from a point of authority or with insider knowledge, he's simply extrapolating a possible outcome based on recent changes to GW's operating structure and way of doing business.
From what I've read, he isn't against a SoB update/ reboot. He's simply saying why he believes they have languished for so long. Saying it might be logical for GW to redo them and then saying that they probably won't isn't really contradictory. GW does a lot of illogical stuff and doesn't do some things that would be logical. Of course, we don't have all the information they do so we're looking at an incomplete picture when it comes to their decisions and the things that factor into them.
Okie dokie then.
I guess maybe after over a decade without any new models, an increased likelihood of getting new models is something to be optimistic about. I don't think I should be pessimistic about the odds of a Sororitas update increasing just because it's still not likely.
Melissia wrote: The sad thing is, Sisters are one of the few armies in 40k (alongside Tau and Tyranids) that aren't actually a direct clone of any army in WFB. Priests are similar to Warrior Priests, but they're a general Imperium thing, rather than a Sisters thing.
Sisters of Sigmar
Pouncey wrote: It's not like GW hasn't gambled making an entirely new product line unlike any of the others on the chance people might like it. Very recently, too. Mechanicus is the example I'm thinking of.
It's like calling using an ATM gambling really, that's how sure of a bet it was.
My thinking is the sisters will be saved as I guess you could call it like a safety net, it's an idea they'd know if it'd work or not for some quick cash so they may save it. Or they could be having some issues with where to go with the sisters to fit into what 40k has become in the time they've waited for a update. AM was a safe bet, grimdark and would fit without blinking an eye at some of the larger machines they've given the Imperium lately. Sisters, they have remaking the current kits yes but the question is probably what else to make them stand out more. Cause if a faction, which isnt marines, doesn't really stand out then why would people buy it over whatever marine chapter could already do that job. This is probably the problem they're having with no one really championing the sisters at the moment in the design team. Maybe the sisters of silence stuff will build up enough hype for them to consider just rushing the job in the end, the problem isn't they're old metal models but rather than their range of stuff is just extremely limited.
Nope, if anything GW is running out of ideas (how many brand-new-but-totally-always-there-just-off-screen new Space Marine units can they shoehorn in?!) so they may have to fall back on some older ideas to keep revenue coming in. Hell, this is already happening with Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch.
Melissia wrote: The sad thing is, Sisters are one of the few armies in 40k (alongside Tau and Tyranids) that aren't actually a direct clone of any army in WFB. Priests are similar to Warrior Priests, but they're a general Imperium thing, rather than a Sisters thing.
Sisters of Sigmar
In all fairness, I don't recall Sister's of Sigmar until Mordheim came out, and I'm pretty sure Sisters of Battle predates Mordheim.
Were Sisters of Sigmar in early Warhammer Fantasy Battle ?
Sisters of Sigmar are more a part of the WFB universe (but not actually a part of WB) that were based on Sisters, actually. Heh. Derivative, but in the other direction than most of 40k's factions.
Melissia wrote: Sisters of Sigmar are more a part of the WFB universe (but not actually a part of WB) that were based on Sisters, actually. Heh. Derivative, but in the other direction than most of 40k's factions.
That's what I thought. Sisters of Battle came first.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.
Now, they are one of the popular armies.
Popular in the sense that Tau are invariably the number one pick to be banned / deleted / removed / Squatted in every single Dakka poll I've seen in the past few years...
I think that has more to do with powergaming douchelords, munchkins, and cheese mongers being drawn to the Tau than anything else, rather than the theme of their faction.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.
Now, they are one of the popular armies.
Popular in the sense that Tau are invariably the number one pick to be banned / deleted / removed / Squatted in every single Dakka poll I've seen in the past few years...
I think that has more to do with powergaming douchelords, munchkins, and cheese mongers being drawn to the Tau than anything else, rather than the theme of their faction.
No, it's been pretty consistent for years, even when Tau weren't ridiculously overpowered.
I remember many, MANY complaints about their anime aesthetic back in 2003.
And I also recall a counter-point that Space Marines have a fairly anime-type aesthetic too given their ridiculously large weapons and fething ridiculously-sized shoulder armor.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.
Now, they are one of the popular armies.
Popular in the sense that Tau are invariably the number one pick to be banned / deleted / removed / Squatted in every single Dakka poll I've seen in the past few years...
I think that has more to do with powergaming douchelords, munchkins, and cheese mongers being drawn to the Tau than anything else, rather than the theme of their faction.
No, it's been pretty consistent for years, even when Tau weren't ridiculously overpowered.
I remember many, MANY complaints about their anime aesthetic back in 2003.
And I also recall a counter-point that Space Marines have a fairly anime-type aesthetic too given their ridiculously large weapons and fething ridiculously-sized shoulder armor.
It makes sense that the Space Marines share an anime aesthetic with the Tau. After all, the whole power armor gimmick and "real robot" genre has a common origin: Heinlein's Starship Troopers. And that's in addition to the outrageous dimensions of their gear that you mention.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It makes sense that the Space Marines share an anime aesthetic with the Tau. After all, the whole power armor gimmick and "real robot" genre has a common origin: Heinlein's Starship Troopers. And that's in addition to the outrageous dimensions of their gear that you mention.
I don't see 5 plastic Sisters for £30 being beyond the realm of possibility.
They'll almost certainly build two unit types, but I don't see it being ridiculously unlikely.
They'll build at least four unit types more likely than not. Battle Sisters, Celestians, Dominions, and Retributors all use the exact same miniatures. Only Seraphim, Repentia, and HQ units use different minis at the moment. And I doubt this will much change-- at most, they might release slightly more expensive Celestian models... but if they can't even produce plastic Battle Sisters, they won't do that.
A box of 5 Sisters of battle with two flamers, two meltas, two storm bolters, a heavy bolter, heavy flamer and multi-melta, plus a few weapons for the Sister Superior - say a power maul, power sword and an eviscerator/chainsword for £30? I'd buy it.
Then the only reasonable explanation is that they're just plain not willing to properly support Sisters of Battle.
Not that they can't do it. But that they won't do it.
I think this is probably the answer - I have heard from various GW staffers, ex-staffers, and seen enough rumours to be fairly confident that there are figures ready to be cast and produced, and that they have been for at least six years, but that the final step - actually writing a codex and producing the figures - just hasn't been taken.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.
Now, they are one of the popular armies.
Popular in the sense that Tau are invariably the number one pick to be banned / deleted / removed / Squatted in every single Dakka poll I've seen in the past few years...
That does not make them impopular, just controversial.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It makes sense that the Space Marines share an anime aesthetic with the Tau. After all, the whole power armor gimmick and "real robot" genre has a common origin: Heinlein's Starship Troopers. And that's in addition to the outrageous dimensions of their gear that you mention.
Starship Troopers is anime?
Starship Troopers is a CGI-animated feature, yes. Go watch it.
____
oldravenman3025 wrote: Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.
Now, they are one of the popular armies.
Popular in the sense that Tau are invariably the number one pick to be banned / deleted / removed / Squatted in every single Dakka poll I've seen in the past few years...
That does not make them impopular, just controversial.
I'm pretty sure Tau being the top pick to be kicked out of the game is the very definition of unpopular.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It makes sense that the Space Marines share an anime aesthetic with the Tau. After all, the whole power armor gimmick and "real robot" genre has a common origin: Heinlein's Starship Troopers. And that's in addition to the outrageous dimensions of their gear that you mention.
Starship Troopers is anime?
Starship Troopers is a CGI-animated feature, yes. Go watch it.
I don't think that a single-season North American only CGI animation (if we're talking about Roughnecks: The Starship Troopers Chronicles) that aired between 1999 and 2000 would have had much influence on the design of the Space Marines or the Tau. Starship Troopers the novel is part of a tradition of powered armour mil-SF that includes things like The Forever War and Armor; even E.E. 'Doc' Smith's Lensman series from the 1920s and 30s had powered armour suits.
I think it's fairly clear that Astartes powered armour draws from the general SF tradition of powered armour and adds in medieval full plate and aesthetics from bits of Judge Dredd. There isn't really an anime aesthetic for the Astartes. There certainly is with Tau, however!
oldravenman3025 wrote: It makes sense that the Space Marines share an anime aesthetic with the Tau. After all, the whole power armor gimmick and "real robot" genre has a common origin: Heinlein's Starship Troopers. And that's in addition to the outrageous dimensions of their gear that you mention.
Starship Troopers is anime?
Starship Troopers is a CGI-animated feature, yes. Go watch it.
I don't think that a single-season North American only CGI animation (if we're talking about Roughnecks: The Starship Troopers Chronicles) that aired between 1999 and 2000 would have had much influence on the design of the Space Marines or the Tau.
No, I'm thinking of the more recent CGI-animated movie, Starship Troopers: Invasion.
The Space Marine visual aesthetic was laid down in the late 1980s, so it predates any of the SST movies or other visuals.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It makes sense that the Space Marines share an anime aesthetic with the Tau. After all, the whole power armor gimmick and "real robot" genre has a common origin: Heinlein's Starship Troopers. And that's in addition to the outrageous dimensions of their gear that you mention.
Starship Troopers is anime?
Starship Troopers is a CGI-animated feature, yes. Go watch it.
I don't think that a single-season North American only CGI animation (if we're talking about Roughnecks: The Starship Troopers Chronicles) that aired between 1999 and 2000 would have had much influence on the design of the Space Marines or the Tau.
No, I'm thinking of the more recent CGI-animated movie, Starship Troopers: Invasion.
The Space Marine visual aesthetic was laid down in the late 1980s, so it predates any of the SST movies or other visuals.
...Starship Troopers was a book long before it was ever anything else.
Azreal13 wrote: It may surprise you that it isn't news to many of us.
John probably pre dates the first publication.
Then why does John seem to be saying that 40k Space Marines predate Starship Troopers and basing it solely on the movies and TV shows?
Does the description of power armor in the book not actually contain any references to what it looks like that influenced the concepts of power armor for everything that followed?
Azreal13 wrote: It may surprise you that it isn't news to many of us.
John probably pre dates the first publication.
Then why does John seem to be saying that 40k Space Marines predate Starship Troopers and basing it solely on the movies and TV shows?
Does the description of power armor in the book not actually contain any references to what it looks like that influenced the concepts of power armor for everything that followed?
No idea why he would. A better comparison from the movie would be Cadians vs Starship Troopers, not Space Marines. I never read the book, so I can't say how accurate the description of the Troopers or the Bugs actually is.
For those that don't know since it isn't common knowledge, Starship Troopers is a military science fiction novel by American writer Robert A. Heinlein, published hardcover in December 1959.
Further, founded in 1975 at 15 Bolingbroke Road, London by John Peake, Ian Livingstone, and Steve Jackson (not to be confused with U.S. game designer Steve Jackson), Games Workshop was originally a manufacturer of wooden boards for games such as backgammon, mancala, Nine Men's Morris, and Go. It later became an importer of the U.S. role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons and then a publisher of wargames and role-playing games in its own right, expanding from a bedroom mail-order company in the process.
So, obviously, Games Workshop stole the idea for Cadians from Robert A Heinlein and probably owe him some money or something. At least a pint or a back rub, one would think.
Azreal13 wrote: It may surprise you that it isn't news to many of us.
John probably pre dates the first publication.
Then why does John seem to be saying that 40k Space Marines predate Starship Troopers and basing it solely on the movies and TV shows?
Does the description of power armor in the book not actually contain any references to what it looks like that influenced the concepts of power armor for everything that followed?
Well, err, novels don't include pictures?
What he's saying is that the movies cannot have influenced the Marine aesthetic, as the Marines predate the movies by a decade or so. It is very possible, probable, that ST the book has had more than a passing influence.
It's really puzzling how you've not grasped what he was saying.
Azreal13 wrote: It may surprise you that it isn't news to many of us.
John probably pre dates the first publication.
Then why does John seem to be saying that 40k Space Marines predate Starship Troopers and basing it solely on the movies and TV shows?
Does the description of power armor in the book not actually contain any references to what it looks like that influenced the concepts of power armor for everything that followed?
That would be because the Starship Troopers descriptions of the things in the books are merely words, not pictures of actual or virtual 3-dimensional objects that GW could have used to create their Space Marine design aesthetic.
The iconic GW Space Marine is the Womble-headed mk. VI "beakie", and is a very specific look and design, which has since been refined into the 2E mk. VIII and further refined via the 3E multi-pose plastics that define and codify the very specific proportions and details of what a Space Marine is. At this point in time, there is very little question as to what a GW Space Marine will look like, and GW going backward with the BAC and other 30k stuff only further cements the range of variability that means "GW Space Marine".
The words in the book are largely worthless, because they are too broad and too easily reinterpreted for or against any particular design. GW's objective models trump the subjective words.
Yes, you either love Tau or hate Tau. I'm in the former camp, many other people are in the latter. There's not really much middle ground, except in rare cases.
Azreal13 wrote: It may surprise you that it isn't news to many of us.
John probably pre dates the first publication.
Then why does John seem to be saying that 40k Space Marines predate Starship Troopers and basing it solely on the movies and TV shows?
Does the description of power armor in the book not actually contain any references to what it looks like that influenced the concepts of power armor for everything that followed?
That would be because the Starship Troopers descriptions of the things in the books are merely words, not pictures of actual or virtual 3-dimensional objects that GW could have used to create their Space Marine design aesthetic.
I'm pretty sure a description of how something looks is supposed to evoke mental imagery of what it looks like.
It does for me, anyways. When I get deep enough into a book I actually stop seeing words and start simply imagining what those words are describing. Is that not actually how reading fiction is supposed to work? Do I have a magic superpower other humans don't and never knew it? : D
Automatically Appended Next Post:
adamsouza wrote: The internet is the soap box of the vocal minority.
Tau 26% [ 64]
Vs.
Space Marines + variants 16% [ 40 ]
The Imperium Of Man. All of it. Delete. 5% [ 12 ]
According to this poll, Space Marines, also falling under the Imperium of Man, are only slightly less despised as Tau.
Let's not take this poll seriously.
Uhh, Tau got more than 50% more votes than Space Marines did.
I'm not sure I buy that, in 2016, the faction needs 'a champion' at GW to be released or worked on. That may have been the case in the early 90s, when the business was a lot smaller and people were still mostly sculpting what they felt was cool but now, with much of the universe defined and most possible model ranges released, it's probably clear where potential profit could lie. If they did need 'a champion', Jes Goodwin probably counts.
I think it's more likely that Sisters are potentially 'problematic' as an army. GW already makes very few female models, and while their recent efforts in the Eldar range have been really good at not being particularly sexualised (at least no more than the male wytches, for example), releasing an army of sexy battle nuns in power heels and boob armour might not be a great idea publicity-wise.
To avoid this, you could change the aesthetic of sisters overall - no boob armour or heels, lose the battle makeup or cool hairdos, but then you risk pissing off the current players who like that (and maybe that's not what Jes wants to sculpt).
I'm pretty sure a description of how something looks is supposed to evoke mental imagery of what it looks like.
Seriously kid?
I'm 27, and yes, when I read a book where the author is using words to describe how something looks, I always end up imagining it in my head based on the description given.
You do have an imagination, right? Like, you can picture something in your mind even though you've never seen it before? Like a normal human being?
I'm not sure I buy that, in 2016, the faction needs 'a champion' at GW to be released or worked on. That may have been the case in the early 90s, when the business was a lot smaller and people were still mostly sculpting what they felt was cool but now, with much of the universe defined and most possible model ranges released, it's probably clear where potential profit could lie. If they did need 'a champion', Jes Goodwin probably counts.
I think it's more likely that Sisters are potentially 'problematic' as an army. GW already makes very few female models, and while their recent efforts in the Eldar range have been really good at not being particularly sexualised (at least no more than the male wytches, for example), releasing an army of sexy battle nuns in power heels and boob armour might not be a great idea publicity-wise.
To avoid this, you could change the aesthetic of sisters overall - no boob armour or heels, lose the battle makeup or cool hairdos, but then you risk pissing off the current players who like that (and maybe that's not what Jes wants to sculpt).
Maybe they're just avoiding the whole thing...
I'd be in favor of losing the boob plate, but I would go for more of a pushed out section instead of just being flat. Kinda like what Pharah's armor has in Overwatch, to give you a rough idea of the general concept I'm trying to describe. Please note the triplicate usage of uncertain qualifiers there, it was a deliberate attempt to make you realize I'm not at all saying to just copy Pharah.
Sisters of Battle models never had heels to begin with, that was pretty much only in the artwork. So now I'm starting to wonder if you've even held their models in your hand... Also any woman who has ever worn heels will tell you that they are absurd footwear that both shouldn't exist to begin with and also would heavily reduce your effectiveness in combat. Literally the only reason to even wear high heels at all is to make the woman look more physically attractive through contorting the spine.
The "battle makeup" is generally either a paintjob choice or a fleur de lis tattoo on the cheek, and given that the fleur de lys is the official symbol of the Sisters of Battle, it's not really ridiculous and you don't even have to paint it on your models.
And what's wrong with their current uniform haircut? It's just a bob cut.
I like the current models a lot. I don't think they're overly sexualised, certainly not compared to (say) the Wyches or the Witch Elves or what-have-you. I think they're wearing pretty sensible stuff to be honest - heavy armour, helmets, carry big guns...
Their haircut is a simple battle bob. It's uniform, it's thematic, it's easy to paint. I don't really think they need a redesign.
Gen.Steiner wrote: I like the current models a lot. I don't think they're overly sexualised, certainly not compared to (say) the Wyches or the Witch Elves or what-have-you. I think they're wearing pretty sensible stuff to be honest - heavy armour, helmets, carry big guns...
Their haircut is a simple battle bob. It's uniform, it's thematic, it's easy to paint. I don't really think they need a redesign.
Agree with everything here - the models are great - but need new shiny plastic versions to give us some variation!
Mr Morden wrote: Agree with everything here - the models are great - but need new shiny plastic versions to give us some variation!
Yes, absolutely. Converting the metals is a pain in the bum. I managed it (just about) with my melta Dominions, and giving the mk1 Immolators metal multi-meltas and metal TLHBs was... easier than I expected. But still. New plastic Seraphim would be worth every last penny.
Gen.Steiner wrote: I like the current models a lot. I don't think they're overly sexualised, certainly not compared to (say) the Wyches or the Witch Elves or what-have-you. I think they're wearing pretty sensible stuff to be honest - heavy armour, helmets, carry big guns...
Their haircut is a simple battle bob. It's uniform, it's thematic, it's easy to paint. I don't really think they need a redesign.
Agreed.
Outside of the interenet, where you will find someone who will ineviatabely have an issue with any given thing, I have never heard anyone mention the Adepta Sororita's Asethestic being overly sexualised.
I reject the notion that "boob armor" is what is keeping GW releasing new Adepta Sororitas
Aslo, they are in flat footed power armor, so I don't get where the high heels comment came from as well.
I'm pretty sure a description of how something looks is supposed to evoke mental imagery of what it looks like.
Seriously kid?
I'm 27, and yes, when I read a book where the author is using words to describe how something looks, I always end up imagining it in my head based on the description given.
You do have an imagination, right? Like, you can picture something in your mind even though you've never seen it before? Like a normal human being?
The point you're spectacularly missing is that a given passage of descriptive text will be imagined completely differently by each individual reader.
A visual image will be more or less perceived in exactly the same way.
The fact you didn't appear to grasp something so staggeringly self evident is baffling.
Shorn makes me think of monks, but the wimple would make a nice alternative to the helmets. I must admit to a personal attachment to the bob-cut, I think it looks really good.
As far as the Blanche-heels go, well, yeah, but the figures themselves don't have heels.
Nope. Never seen the film. And besides, the bob-cut is quite clearly established in the artwork - admittedly if they revamp them they can revamp them however they like, but I like the look. Out of interest, your own Sisters army - have you gone for a majority of Sisters in helmets? Most of mine are bare headed with the bob. It gave me a chance to do loads of different hair colours - brown, black, red, blonde, etc. After all, dying your hair smacks of the sin of pride!
My Sisters force is primarily bob cuts; if I could have had all of them swapped for sallet helms, wimples and/or shaved heads, I'd have done it in an instant. But as we both know, that wasn't really an option. The majority of the models were bob cuts in the original model mix, which is when I acquired most of mine.
JohnHwangDD wrote: My Sisters force is primarily bob cuts; if I could have had all of them swapped for sallet helms, wimples and/or shaved heads, I'd have done it in an instant. But as we both know, that wasn't really an option. The majority of the models were bob cuts in the original model mix, which is when I acquired most of mine.
Color-wise, I've gone with natural color.
Natural hair colour is the only way forwards for the faithful!
I hope that any revamp gives helmeted and bare heads in equal number so that one can build an army that's either fully helmed, fully bare headed, or mixed.
JohnHwangDD wrote: My Sisters force is primarily bob cuts; if I could have had all of them swapped for sallet helms, wimples and/or shaved heads, I'd have done it in an instant.
I hope that any revamp gives helmeted and bare heads in equal number so that one can build an army that's either fully helmed, fully bare headed, or mixed.
If GW ever makes plastic Sisters with extra sallet helmets, I will buy the sallet helms, decapitate the bare headed Sisters (like a Grey Knight! ), and put the sallets on them!
Of course, as we know this won't ever happen, I might as well be wishing for a pony to go with them...
Gen.Steiner wrote: I like the current models a lot. I don't think they're overly sexualised, certainly not compared to (say) the Wyches or the Witch Elves or what-have-you. I think they're wearing pretty sensible stuff to be honest - heavy armour, helmets, carry big guns...
Their haircut is a simple battle bob. It's uniform, it's thematic, it's easy to paint. I don't really think they need a redesign.
The boobplate looks pretty dumb. It is my issue with their design.
Their armour is also very thin - particularly noticeable on the thighs and ankles. They shouldn't really be thinner than Scions, but they are.
Gen.Steiner wrote: I like the current models a lot. I don't think they're overly sexualised, certainly not compared to (say) the Wyches or the Witch Elves or what-have-you. I think they're wearing pretty sensible stuff to be honest - heavy armour, helmets, carry big guns...
Their haircut is a simple battle bob. It's uniform, it's thematic, it's easy to paint. I don't really think they need a redesign.
The boobplate looks pretty dumb. It is my issue with their design.
Their armour is also very thin - particularly noticeable on the thighs. They shouldn't really be thinner than Scions, but they are.
That said, their helmet design is awesome.
The new Stormtroopers are bigger because of scale creep; don't forget the Sisters of Battle are 2nd Edition sculpts.
I can't believe people are asking for "more female miniatures" and then arguing that the SoB are too sexualized...
SoB avoided stupid things like heels (God I HATE seeing SoB with heels in fanarts !) and wear full armour, but no, we still have people complaining.
Just play with Space Marines then. Oh but no, I forgot: Space Marines aren't womanish enough...
I think they are the perfect design to make a model looks womanish, without being to sexualized (ok, we might get ride of those boobs plates ).
And I think, if GW revamp the SoB range, thanks to the plastic, they would be awesome and have even more realistic proportions.
godardc wrote: I can't believe people are asking for "more female miniatures" and then arguing that the SoB are too sexualized...
SoB avoided stupid things like heels (God I HATE seeing SoB with heels in fanarts !) and wear full armour, but no, we still have people complaining.
What is stupid about 'I want something, but I do not want it if it is done badly?'
It's like being gifted a car and complaining when it explodes. I would actually complain, and I don't care if you would call me ungrateful.
Given that we have no idea of the composition of their armour plate, I think it's safe to say that, yes, they are indeed fit warrior-nuns in heavy armour.
Gen.Steiner wrote: Given that we have no idea of the composition of their armour plate, I think it's safe to say that, yes, they are indeed fit warrior-nuns in heavy armour.
Say what you like, but let's all be clear that these are (and rightly should be) hyper-sexualized models wearing obvious fetish gear. The 2E Codex cover *is* definitive, and she is depicted wearing fetish boots and a corsetted latex rubbersuit. Pretending that it's at all protective is nonsense. That the Repentia weren't in B&D gear was a major disappointment to me, esp with the whip-wielding leader.
Just as Black Templars are obviously Khornate, Sisters are obviously BDSM Slanneshi.
Melissia wrote: Everyone already knows my opinion of Blanche's "art" "work", so I will not devolve this thread in to a discussion on his "artistic" "capabilities".
I like to think he made it as a satire piece, but GW ended up taking it seriously.
It is less embarrassing than the alternative, that is to be sure!
Insectum7 wrote: IMO the sisters model aesthetic is perfect. Also the Blanche artwork is also one of my favs. Both work.
No, it's not realistic, but I'm not into 40K for realism.
I do not want 40k to be realistic, I just don't want it to be dumb.
Oh, I fully agree. The SOB aesthetic is well into the realm of "not dumb", in my mind. It's crazy, sure, but not dumb.
The Repentia models are interesting to me, I feel like I should like them a lot less. They're wearing ridiculous outfits, but there's a bit of art in the book that goes a long way to selling the idea for me. And even though the outfits are ridiculous, the poses of the models I can still take seriously. Ultimately I think it's the attitude of the model that makes it work, in my opinion.
Insectum7 wrote: IMO the sisters model aesthetic is perfect. Also the Blanche artwork is also one of my favs. Both work.
No, it's not realistic, but I'm not into 40K for realism.
There are "female warrior" models that are oversexualized in ways that would make me not purchase them, but the Sisters are just awesome.
I completely agree with this post. Sisters do not require any amount of redesign, apart from purely technical considerations (such as the classic cloth drapery issue). I would say redesign beyond the technical is much more likely to be a detriment than a positive. They have a very unique and striking look. It ought to be preserved.
I am just utterly sick of boobplate being pasted onto female models in games of all types.
It not only looks dumb, it also is honestly pretty lazy.
There is a whole world of nuance separating the sexes, slapping on a pair of gratuitous tits and calling it a day is just bad, as is armour inexplicably being twodimensional.
I think the Sisters design is superb. Certain elements of their design are undoubtedly present and poorly done in a lot of other places. I don't disagree that endlessly recycling some design element (like the pointing unit NCO) is dumb and lazy. A whole slew of poor examples does not render each and every instance of that same thing terrible. Super soldiers are pretty commonly portrayed in sci fantasy and a lot of them look totally boring; but Space Marines look pretty awesome nonetheless.
Ashiraya wrote: I am just utterly sick of boobplate being pasted onto female models in games of all types.
It not only looks dumb, it also is honestly pretty lazy.
You know what though? I totally agree! I think the overuse of boobplate is damn stupid.
I just think that it happens to work for the SOB for a couple of reasons. One being that unlike so much other boobplate out there, the Sisters remain fully armored. They're not flashing thigh and midriff in the way so many examples do. Sisters are so much more "Catholic-Metal" than whatever a WOW Dark elf is.
The other main reason is that it's right in line with the docorative aspects of the Imperial/Ecclesiarchy's sometimes exorbitant opulence. Cathedrals on titans, pipe organ missile launchers, golden eagles on the prows of starships, the Throne of Judgement, not to mention the Blood Angel nipple armor. It just fit's right in.
I contrast them to the preferred direction for female Cadians, which should be simple, straight forward and practical. The head swap in otherwise completely standard, probably ill-fitting uniforms. Sisters are the military arm of the unimaginably wealthy church that just loves to bask in it's own decadence.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, if we don't like the definitive Sisters of Battle look, then let's look at Witch Hunters:
In particular, the nude Penitent is excellent. That would have been a good alternative to B&D fetish gear.
Yeah that's one of the pieces that I like, too. Although I wonder if they went with the final model because the leather and mask is showing less skin. When I just looked up the models, they showing less skin and were actually more tasteful than I remembered.
Oh man, Sisters flashing skin would be dumb indeed - outside of Repentia, where charging into battle protected only by your faith in the Emperor and the sincerity of your penance is the whole point.
My buddies always lay into me about the Exorcist being a dumb design. I seriously don't get it why they would object to the love child of a tank and a pipe organ in an army of battle nuns. It's pitch perfect!
Just to be clear, I hope you don't think anyone is asking you to be silent. Just disagreeing about my fav faction here. To me, these discussions are always about SoB and not just fastening some wider ideological point onto SoB because they happen to be female warriors. That is, I am a SoB fan particularly; not just a fan of the concept of female warriors generally.
No no, I just meant that I will be happy if that happens. I know no one is trying to silence me.
Except from the Modstapo.
I am rather ambivalent on the concept of SoB as a faction, but surely you must agree that the picture I showed could work just as well? It clearly has the Imperial themes going as well as the flair and fanfare of the Ecclessiarchy, and its design almost makes the suit look like a little cathedral. The back-thingy reminds me of an Imperator.
Ashiraya wrote: I guess I would be okay with the boobplate if the armor did not also look so thin it may as well be metal-painted spandex.
I don't know how thin it really is. Space marines are literal giants, so maybe the model just looks thin in comparison. Maybe it can be thinner because it doesn't have to support as much weight, or maybe because it's made from a fancier material, or maybe it really isn't as good as Space Marine power armor, but in the granularity of the tabletop game it's still good enough to warrant a 3+. I think there's room in there for it to work.
It plainly covers more than carapace armor. If it's made of better stuff you could attain the 3+ without it actually being as thick/protective as Marine armor.
Edit:
That's a pretty cool pic, but I think it suffers a bit from the gigantism syndrome that sometimes happens with armor. I know marines are big and all, but I like the idea that something doesn't have to be big in order to be effective/tough etc. The size of the Primarch models is ridiculous. Once I saw the Guilliman model in person I knew they just weren't for me. The whole "my awesome thing is bigger than your awesome thing" just bugs the heck out of me. Lean and mean has it's place.
I think the gameplay stats are pretty borked in general anyway (I still do not know why your average IG Major can eat two heavy bolter shells while naked and live where any of his men would be blown to pieces in even in armor).
It's a matter of plausibility, I suppose. I do not really buy that SoB armour is as protective as PA if it looks like they are wearing nothing at all.
It's a bit cluttered for me. I think there's so much going on with it it becomes hard to appreciate. Mind you it's still better than some current models.
I hate the shoulder-shields. Honestly the only thing I like about it is the chestplate, the rest I'd prefer current minis' aesthetics for.
I think if they took the current Sororitas minis and gave them the look of a medieval breastplate-- say, something of a more ornate breastplate than this-- but kept the rest, it'd look rather nice.
I'm kind of through with any sort of campaigning against the boob-plate, I just don't care enough any more and would just prefer plastics period, boob-plate or not, but if I WAS given a choice...
People will burn me alive for saying this but I wish GW would discountinue the Space Marines and have Deathwatch take over their slot, then focus on the SoBs
Seriously, they gave so much attention to the Space Marines, which (while technically original) is a very hard to protect IP due to how prolific the concept isit is, but the concept of armored battle nuns is actually fairly unique (I know there are other examples, but none are as famous as the SoBs, while there are enough space marine clones out there that some people do indeed think GW is the one plagarizing it) and probably a whole lot easier to defend.
Honestly yes. SoB is horribly bland and generic. The most interesting SoB stuff usually doesn't look like generic female space marines. It's their crazy cool Repentia models and Pentient Engine. They are fluff wise and look wise so cool looking compared to the rest of the line.
They need more models that show off their extreme faith and religious zealousness (as opposed to the Space Marines warrior zealousness). Stuff that only they can do due to their faith and beliefs. Weapons that only work for them to make them stand out ect. They need to have cheap repentia soldiers/slaves that could act as meat shield units and have explosive collars around their necks.
Make them cool. Make them unique and the players will come GW. It's okay to have them in power armor too, but it shouldn't be the main focus of the faction.
They stand out and give the army a reason to exist other than just female space marines because female space marines.
I don't think the SoB should be squatted, but they do need a moderate reworking from a visual stand point with some minor fluff reworking. I hate the lore of how they were sacrificed to make a space marine stronger by using their blood. That gak is lame and doesn't make me want to play them or even justify their existence.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: People will burn me alive for saying this but I wish GW would discountinue the Space Marines and have Deathwatch take over their slot, then focus on the SoBs
Seriously, they gave so much attention to the Space Marines, which (while technically original) is a very hard to protect IP due to how prolific the concept isit is, but the concept of armored battle nuns is actually fairly unique (I know there are other examples, but none are as famous as the SoBs, while there are enough space marine clones out there that some people do indeed think GW is the one plagarizing it) and probably a whole lot easier to defend.
Whaaaa? GW's Space Marines are the space marines other space marines aspire to.
But I'm wondering why there's yet another new SM faction, the Deathwatch, given a codex while the Sisters languish. Deathwatch, like the Grey Knights, should have remained just a fancy unit or two. The SOB are far more interesting as a faction.
Ashiraya wrote: How on earth is it generic? I have seen nothing of its like before.
I feel like I have seen it a bazillion times, usually as an enemy armor in a video game. I guess the novel part is that a woman is inside of it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: GW's Space Marines are the space marines other space marines aspire to.
Very true. SM are great from a visual design perspective. Calling them boring seems a bit spoiled. But it could be like people complaining about Sisters who don't really like them anyway. "Sisters are terrible because [they are not what I want] and GW should change them [to cater to me even though I don't really care about them]." Ahem, Sisters do have an existing fanbase who already like them, and quite a lot actually!
I think we are made to feel like something MUST be wrong with Sisters because GW ignores them but it's really just another case of something being wrong with GW.
Ashiraya wrote: I guess I would be okay with the boobplate if the armor did not also look so thin it may as well be metal-painted spandex.
Give me this (though it does not have to be as exosuit-ey) and I will be silent.
Spoiler:
But is has boob plate !
When you say that the SoB's power armour is thin, are you speaking about the miniatures ? The Witch Hunter cover or the Blanche's... "art" (I usually love his work, but this one...) ?
I think the sisters' armour on the Witch Hunter codex are okay, and, IIRC, the models too. But, keeping the exact same design, if GW make plastic sisters, they could do them thicker.
Would you be ok with that ? Or do you really have a problem with SoB's design ?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: People will burn me alive for saying this but I wish GW would discountinue the Space Marines and have Deathwatch take over their slot, then focus on the SoBs
Seriously, they gave so much attention to the Space Marines, which (while technically original) is a very hard to protect IP due to how prolific the concept isit is, but the concept of armored battle nuns is actually fairly unique (I know there are other examples, but none are as famous as the SoBs, while there are enough space marine clones out there that some people do indeed think GW is the one plagarizing it) and probably a whole lot easier to defend.
Whaaaa? GW's Space Marines are the space marines other space marines aspire to.
But I'm wondering why there's yet another new SM faction, the Deathwatch, given a codex while the Sisters languish. Deathwatch, like the Grey Knights, should have remained just a fancy unit or two. The SOB are far more interesting as a faction.
You would not believe the number of aspiring video game makers (and I'm not talking amateurs, I mean people who are in a full 4 year college program spending money to do this. Although the mere fact they would spend money on such a program is questionable in of itself) who think the Space Marines i have are woefully generic and uninspired, despite the fact that some of those models predate video games. It's sort of a case of Seinfeld is Unfunny (basically the originator of something is found to be unoriginal because of how prolific it is, but was considered original during the time).
godardc wrote: But is has boob plate ! When you say that the SoB's power armour is thin, are you speaking about the miniatures ? The Witch Hunter cover or the Blanche's... "art" (I usually love his work, but this one...) ? I think the sisters' armour on the Witch Hunter codex are okay, and, IIRC, the models too. But, keeping the exact same design, if GW make plastic sisters, they could do them thicker.
Would you be ok with that ? Or do you really have a problem with SoB's design ?
No, it does not really have boobplate. The breastplate is obviously thick enough, and the boob shape muted enough, to not at all be on the same level.
And all of it really. The blanche art is extreme (the woman on that picture is considerably more slim in armour than most people are outside of it) but the models themselves are also implausibly thin for the armour they wear.
Manchu wrote: I guess the novel part is that a woman is inside of it?
The shape of the breastplate, for example - I am not technically a fan of expressing sexual dimorphism on armour plating that is supposed to be protective first and foremost, but this one seems to be the perfect balance of expression and protection. The proportionally (but not unreasonably - clearly the legs do not reach all the way down to the 'feet') long legs only add further to that image and design, together with the gothic, as said almost cathedral-like design elements and themes.
I do not think it is fair to say that I want to make SoB something they are not; in one way that is redundant since you just mentioned the definition of 'change', but the armour design does not change the background or identity of the faction itself, just like how a Space Marine does not lose his identity just because he swaps to Terminator armour.
I suppose you have kind of accidentally brought up another sore point in my book of grudges, when people want to make Sisters more like Marines, including by putting them in giant suits of slab-like armor. I know from your posts over the years that you personally tend to favor big hulking armor - but that is outside of the design space for Sisters.
That a design space is current does not in itself make it worth keeping. The Imperium has plenty of smaller troops, such as AM, IG and MT. That alone is not a reason to keep SoB with twodimensional armour plating.
I do not think it is fair to say that I want to make SoB something they are not; in one way that is redundant since you just mentioned the definition of 'change', but the armour design does not change the background or identity of the faction itself, just like how a Space Marine does not lose his identity just because he swaps to Terminator armour.
If you feel SoB are so ludicrously shallow that getting rid of their gratuitous boobplate is killing their identity, then honestly, squat them for all I care; nothing of value will be lost.
I do not think it is fair to say that I want to make SoB something they are not; in one way that is redundant since you just mentioned the definition of 'change', but the armour design does not change the background or identity of the faction itself, just like how a Space Marine does not lose his identity just because he swaps to Terminator armour.
If you feel SoB are so ludicrously shallow that getting rid of their gratuitous boobplate is killing their identity, then honestly, squat them for all I care; nothing of value will be lost.
Their boobplate is not gratuitous. It serves an important function in the lore.
If you think that SoB can only be worthwhile if subjected to a thorough redesign then you obviously don't even like SoB in the first place and are just here to talk about the female angle.
Manchu wrote: If you think that SoB can only be worthwhile if subjected to a thorough redesign then you obviously don't even like SoB in the first place and are just here to talk about the female angle.
Generally I wonder why anyone who knows the very most basic thing about Sisters of Battle lore would ever suggest changing any part of their aesthetic that would result in them looking less feminine.
Do you guys really think that removing the boobplate would make everyone suddenly realise that the Ecclessiarchy has exploited a legal loophole for millennia, and start to object?
I know the 'Imperium is stupid' meme is popular, but this is really going a bit far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: If you think that SoB can only be worthwhile if subjected to a thorough redesign then you obviously don't even like SoB in the first place and are just here to talk about the female angle.
Not the SoB themselves, just their armor. For the third time, they will not stop being zealous warrior nuns in the service of a rich gothic sci-fi church just because they get better armor.
Pouncey wrote: Generally I wonder why anyone who knows the very most basic thing about Sisters of Battle lore would ever suggest changing any part of their aesthetic that would result in them looking less feminine.
It usually begins with a rant about high heels and eventually the lore is totally forgotten.
I guess we could compare it to the Space Wolves, who I have similar feelings about. I do not dislike them, but they honestly need a reduction in wolfiness by about 80%.
But I guess that is totally okay to you two, because the Wolves are a more popular target to complain on, even though I'd argue the Sisters design is just as dumb as the santasleigh and Canis Wolfborn added together.
Again, that it is established does not mean that it is not bad.
The look of a faction is one of its key aspects. I don't know how many ways I can explain that I don't care about generic armored female religious warriors - I care about the Sisters of Battle. That's the difference between someone who is here to talk about SoB and someone who is here to talk about boobplate.
Ashiraya wrote: Do you guys really think that removing the boobplate would make everyone suddenly realise that the Ecclessiarchy has exploited a legal loophole for millennia, and start to object?
I know the 'Imperium is stupid' meme is popular, but this is really going a bit far.
They're willing to tolerate the loophole. That loophole is entirely about their physical sex. Thus, you should ensure that when anyone looks at the army you're getting through the fact they're women and not men, they look like women and not men. Because if they're finding it hard to tell that your troops are in fact female, they might start thinking you're also recruiting men, which you're not allowed to do. And then they would organize inspections of your entire army to ensure, for a fact, they are women. Those inspections annoy your troops and prevent them from doing their duties while they're happening.
Ergo, you should ensure that every human being who looks at your female troops, has zero doubt whatsoever that they are, in fact, female, so that the chain of events leading to those inspections doesn't happen.
Which you would do through excessively exaggerating their aesthetic to make them look as female as you can.
Shaved heads are BAD for Sisters of Battle. Longer hair looks more feminine to humans, so a longer, feminine haircut is required.
One of the major things that lets a human know someone is a woman and not a man just by looking at them, is the fact she has breasts. So you ensure that they always appear to have breasts. This necessitates the huge boobplate.
And the design of the rest of the armor has, to my eye, always made them look like very sexy women, even while ignoring the boobplate, so their armor design succeeds in making them look very feminine in general.
High heels could actually play into this as well, because men don't generally wear high heels but women do. However, high heels also make combat nearly impossible, so aren't used since they would detract from their combat role too much.
The look of a faction is one of its key aspects. I don't know how many ways I can to explain that I don't care about generic armored female religious warriors - I care about the Sisters of Battle. That's the differnce between someone who isnherebto talk about SoB and someone who is herebto talk about boobplate.
And they do not stop being Sisters of Battle just because we fix their armour. I still think it is completely absurd that you hinge their entire identity on some badly designed armour plating. It'd be like saying Space Marines are ruined because you remove Centurions. No, it'd be a good thing, not a bad thing!
If the Dark Mechanicus spread a computer virus that disabled all SoB power armour systems, forcing them to use whatever armour is available instead, it does not stop them from being what they are.
Manchu wrote:You don't dislike them but you want them to be 80% different from what they currently are? Well it sounds like you don't like them.
I like what they should be, not what they are.
Pouncey wrote:
They're willing to tolerate the loophole. That loophole is entirely about their physical sex. Thus, you should ensure that when anyone looks at the army you're getting through the fact they're women and not men, they look like women and not men. Because if they're finding it hard to tell that your troops are in fact female, they might start thinking you're also recruiting men, which you're not allowed to do. And then they would organize inspections of your entire army to ensure, for a fact, they are women. Those inspections annoy your troops and prevent them from doing their duties while they're happening.
So where are those constant searches through SoB ranks to ensure that men are not hiding inside that armour and the boobplate is just fake? SoB do frequently use helmets after all.
The answer is that nobody does it because the Ecclessiarchy is not really under any meaningful scrutiny, aside from the Inquisition (who have better things to do than inspect the sex of your soldiers). It is a very rich organisation with the Imperium's omnipresent faith in its control.
You all ascribe some headcanon to SoB that they wear extremely exaggerated armour because it keeps everyone around them too dumb to realise that the Ecclessiarchy completely ignored the spirit of the laws under which it was placed. I do not consider that headcanon part of what makes SoB what they are.
Do you have any actual lore quotes whatsoever speaking of how their armour is designed to be as feminine as possible to avoid retribution due to their violation of the spirit of the Decree Passive?
You like what "they should be"? And what about the folks who like what they are?
Similarly, SoB armor doesn't need to be "fixed" because it is not broken.
If you have lists of things that are "wrong" with a current faction please consider that you may just not like a thing before assuming that what you would prefere is what's right.
You will not find any lore quotes regarding the headcanon you two are trying to pass off as lore, because there aren't any.
SoB armour originates from the design of Vandire himself, who designed it for his harem-bodyguard. That does explain the gratuitous breasts, but it does not give any reason why they chose to keep it!
Is there any particular other reason he would do it? This was before the decree passive.
Speaking of which, I am still waiting for a citation regarding the purpose of SoB power armour in keeping up the letter of the decree passive. It is getting somewhat annoying that you just drop the subject like a hot potato the moment someone calls you out on it.
Seriously what did you just complain about, regarding headcanon?
You have zero right to call me out on a claim I didn't make. I don't purport that there is any fluff passage that explains why SoB armor looks like it does. I do agree that there is no fluff reason to make them less feminine looking.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to explain why you are the arbiter of what is right and wrong when it comes to other peole's favorite factions.
Ashiraya wrote: I do not dislike them, but they honestly need a reduction in wolfiness by about 80%.
You don't dislike them but you want them to be 80% different from what they currently are? Well it sounds like you don't like them.
It's more fair to talk about Space Wolves that way because they used to be less wolfy, or at least used to be more open to interpretation if you wanted them wolfy or vikingly.
I liked SW before they had flying dog's heads, space marines riding giant wolves who might be failed aspirants, logan sleigh, on so on.
Sisters have (as far as I'm aware) always been the way they are, at least going back to 2nd edition.
I don't have any sympathy for people who tell me my favorite faction is dumb, boring, immoral, or whatever because it doesn't live up to their idiosyncratic, WoW-based aesthetic preferences, espeically regarding a peculiar attachment to the idea that women warriors are best portrayed as seven-foot-tall suits of androgynous armor.
Not quite. Since things are apparently a-OK if they are existing or previous lore, consider this.
That is not so bad, considering its age. Not perfect, but some things are better to be sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don't have any sympathy for people who tell me my favorite faction is dumb, boring, immoral, or whatever because it doesn't live up to their idiosyncratic, WoW-based aesthetic preferences, espeically regarding a peculiar attachment to the idea that women warriors are best portrayed as seven-foot-tall suits of androgynous armor.
No, I am telling you that their armour (for the fifth time, =/= their faction) is dumb because not only does it probably not work under scrutiny (much like many other 40k elements), it also does not look like it would work even at a glance.
The concept picture I linked at the start is also far from androgynous, which I also feel I addressed thoroughly.
It honestly doesn't matter how many times you declare that redesigning the look of Sisters is fine and dandy with you and your conception of them; you could state this a thousand times, and it still would not matter one iota to me because I am a fan of the SoB, not some hypothetical faction that suits your tastes.
The idea that anything at all in 40k needs to look like it could actually work is endlessly laughable.
And it honestly doesn't matter how many times you declare that their grating PA design is fine and dandy with you and your conception of them; you could state this a thousand times, and it still would not matter one iota to me because I like armour that at least looks like at a glance like it would reasonably work, and I find it completely implausible that the SoB as a faction are so reliant on a foundation of armour globe-tits that the entire faction collapses if they are removed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: The idea that anything at all in 40k needs to look like it could actually work is endlessly laughable.
I'd argue that the SoB boobplate reliance is the more laughable thing.
Of the two of us, you are the one utterly obsessed with their tits. You consistenly come back to them again and again and sublimate your bizarre fetish of this issue onto everyone else, which is why I already explained the difference between being interested in the actual faction and just being way, way too into their boobies.
It truly boggles the mind how people get so obsessed with SoB boobs. Why not spend your time posting about how Eldar Harlequin look ridiculous or something? The reason: it's not about titties.
I am saying that there is nothing wrong with the factions existing visual design. You are the one who has twisted that argument into a commentary solely concerning boobs, which would be typical of your apparent obsession with them. Just because that is all you care about doesn't mean that when I say the existing design is great I am only talking about tits.
It only looks like I have an 'obsession' with them because you constantly state that their removal would destroy the faction, and I cannot find a reason why.
No, I post why I think we should get rid of the breast bits on their chestplates (or at least tone them down considerably) and you say that I obviously don't like anything about the SoB faction.
You readily admitted ITT that you are ambivalent about SoB as a faction. So you approach this overall concept, which you are ambivalent about, and all you care about are the titties. You're here posting ITT because of boobs, not because of Sisters. You want their boobs gone. Fine. Would you also like purple orks? How about some fat Eldar? i mean, please tell me what you don't like about all the factions that don't matter to you. SoB fans are just dying to hear, for the gazillionth time, all about the boobs because lord knows the SoB are stupid and need to be fixed, starting with their titties, and who is the best person to do it? That's right, someone who is willing to say outright that they don't really care - other than about the tits, the tits are a major issue, I get it.
Manchu wrote: You readily admitted ITT that you are ambivalent about SoB as a faction. So you approach this overall concept, which you are ambivalent about, and all you care about are the titties. You're here posting ITT because of boobs, not because of Sisters. You want their boobs gone. Fine. Would you also like purple orks? How about some fat Eldar? i mean, please tell me what you don't like about all the factions that don't matter to you. SoB fans are just dying to hear, for the gazillionth time, all about the boobs because lord knows the SoB are stupid and need to be fixed, starting with their titties, and who is the best person to do it? That's right, someone who is willing to say outright that they don't really care - other than about the tits, the tits are a major issue, I get it.
And yet here you are conflating the Sister's identity as a faction with their tits.
After a fashion. I mean, It's super frustrating when people who don't care about your faction think of it as a problem that they need to come along and solve. And even worse when they boil down your favorite faction to an argument about titties and then claim actually you are the one who is obsessed with boobs.
Manchu wrote: You readily admitted ITT that you are ambivalent about SoB as a faction.
In their current state. I would not spend this long arguing with you if I did not care. My ambivalence is subject to change depending on what ends up happening with this faction. I'd place my bets on a squatting at this point, but I'd much rather see an overhaul - think Dark Eldar.
So you approach this overall concept, which you are ambivalent about, and all you care about are the titties.
Not really, no. It is the most obvious problem, of course, and pretty glaring, but the armour is also a bit thin. There are also a few more issues but most of those can be chalked down to sculpt age rather than deliberate design, such as pose limitations and what have you.
You're here posting ITT because of boobs, not because of Sisters.
Again, I post here to begin with because I'd like to see a reason for my ambivalence to change.
Would you also like purple orks? How about some fat Eldar?
I am not sure if either of those are even biologically possible in 40k. I strongly suspect, however, that forging a reasonably flat chestplate is.
i mean, please tell me what you don't like about all the factions that don't matter to you.
Hopefully, they one day will. I really really hope they will.
They're willing to tolerate the loophole. That loophole is entirely about their physical sex. Thus, you should ensure that when anyone looks at the army you're getting through the fact they're women and not men, they look like women and not men. Because if they're finding it hard to tell that your troops are in fact female, they might start thinking you're also recruiting men, which you're not allowed to do. And then they would organize inspections of your entire army to ensure, for a fact, they are women. Those inspections annoy your troops and prevent them from doing their duties while they're happening.
So where are those constant searches through SoB ranks to ensure that men are not hiding inside that armour and the boobplate is just fake? SoB do frequently use helmets after all.
The answer is that nobody does it because the Ecclessiarchy is not really under any meaningful scrutiny, aside from the Inquisition (who have better things to do than inspect the sex of your soldiers). It is a very rich organisation with the Imperium's omnipresent faith in its control.
You all ascribe some headcanon to SoB that they wear extremely exaggerated armour because it keeps everyone around them too dumb to realise that the Ecclessiarchy completely ignored the spirit of the laws under which it was placed. I do not consider that headcanon part of what makes SoB what they are.
Do you have any actual lore quotes whatsoever speaking of how their armour is designed to be as feminine as possible to avoid retribution due to their violation of the spirit of the Decree Passive?
You literally could've kept reading where I describe all the things you hate about their aesthetic and why those things mean those searches do not happen. You know, the part of my post you cropped out.
And actually Sisters frequently DON'T use their helmets. The vast majority of my Sisters of Battle infantry are helmetless and I didn't even make that happen on purpose.
TheCustomLime wrote: And yet here you are conflating the Sister's identity as a faction with their tits.
Yeah I can totally see how you would come to that conclusion, if you had ignored everything I have posted. So one more ti ]me: there is nothing wrong with the current design of Sisters, and that includes but is not limited to their boobs, and there is no good reason to say, okay, I just want to change their boobs, except that soemone is focused in on boobs for reasons only they will ever truly know, I suppose.
You literally could've kept reading where I describe all the things you hate about their aesthetic and why those things mean those searches do not happen. You know, the part of my post you cropped out.
That was fanfiction and speculation, though. I do not consider that evidence.
And actually Sisters frequently DON'T use their helmets. The vast majority of my Sisters of Battle infantry are helmetless and I didn't even make that happen on purpose.
About a third of them are helmeted, if the pictures on the GW website is any indication? That is a considerable percentage.
(I would also really like to stress that the boobplate is not the only issue; it is just the most glaring one. See my previous post for elaboration.)
Normally I'd be arguing for more realistic designs but the SoBs (along with Eldar) are the only ones who actually have a legitimate reason to keep it.
Like many people have stated, the whole faction is suppose to emphasis them being female to get around that whole "no men under arms" thing. The boob-plate, corsets, hourglass figure and high heeled boots (at least in art, I don't think I remember actual models having these, at least not official ones) are not practical in the slightest but further this idea. Practicality was never their hat, that belongs to the Imperial Guard.
One of the reason that removing it would be weird would be where does it end? Get rid of the corset armor, the heels, etc, and we have something that's a cross between the scion armor and space marine power armor. That's functional, for sure, but...what sets it apart from those factions? I know they still have their faith, their fluff and whatnot, but from a casual glance, how do I tell that these are the warrior-nuns of the 41st millenium and not generic spartan clone #203? An important part about design, especially for one so iconic, is that you show it, not tell it through a 20 page document.
Also I'm not gonna dance around the subject. Yes they're hyper-sexualized. That's a given. Then again this is 40k, where we have a literal god of lust and perverse sex, a whole race of aliens who's 50% naughty tentacles, 35% muscle spasm shooting, and 15% stabby, a monstrous Orc that is rumored to be named after their home country's own prime minister, and a whole slew of other horrible implications. The Ecclesiarchy itself also doesn't paint a good picture of religion if you take it at face value. Unfortunate Implications is sort of the price of entry for 40k.
Also the boob plate could theoretically still be good; nothing says those molded on pieces are actually compartments; for all we know they might as well be solid blocks of ceramite. Calgar has half a chapel molded onto his collar and every grey knight has that book through the sword on their chest and arcane writing on their shoulder pads (which definitely compromises it as it's basically creating man-made microfractures) so it wouldn't be a stretch that the "boobs" are just more decoration rather than slots for the women to put it in.
You know what? I kinda want to play Space Marines. But I hate their ridiculously bulky shoulder armor. And it's actually ridiculously big, so let's cut it down to a more reasonable size. Hey. Space Marine players, you can't complain I wanted to change your miniatures, I improved them.
Like many people have stated, the whole faction is suppose to emphasis them being female to get around that whole "no men under arms" thing.
As was pointed out, though, there isn't really anything more than fanfiction that says this.
so it wouldn't be a stretch that the "boobs" are just more decoration rather than slots for the women to put it in.
Consider just how tight that armour is, though. I mean, you can flatten your breasts fairly effectively through binding them, but that will not work forever, especially not on armour that is so tight.
You literally could've kept reading where I describe all the things you hate about their aesthetic and why those things mean those searches do not happen. You know, the part of my post you cropped out.
That was fanfiction and speculation, though. I do not consider that evidence.
And actually Sisters frequently DON'T use their helmets. The vast majority of my Sisters of Battle infantry are helmetless and I didn't even make that happen on purpose.
About a third of them are helmeted, if the pictures on the GW website is any indication? That is a considerable percentage.
(I would also really like to stress that the boobplate is not the only issue; it is just the most glaring one. See my previous post for elaboration.)
Ohh, so you want an actual lore justification and not just a reasonable argument.
Can I get your actual, solid lore quote about how each and every one of the things you want to change is something the Sisters of Battle would be improved by, instead of your own speculation on what would be better? I want quotes from the ACTUAL lore.
Pouncey wrote: You know what? I kinda want to play Space Marines. But I hate their ridiculously bulky shoulder armor. And it's actually ridiculously big, so let's cut it down to a more reasonable size. Hey. Space Marine players, you can't complain I wanted to change your miniatures, I improved them.
If SM players resent the idea, it's because they are obsessed with shoulder armor ... ?
Pouncey wrote: You know what? I kinda want to play Space Marines. But I hate their ridiculously bulky shoulder armor. And it's actually ridiculously big, so let's cut it down to a more reasonable size. Hey. Space Marine players, you can't complain I wanted to change your miniatures, I improved them.
If SM players resent the idea, it's because they are obsessed with shoulder armor ... ?
Scouts. Or you can just pick another armour mark. They have quite different elements; I have seen artwork with SM that have pauldrons hardly any bigger than the SoB ones. A Black Templar IIRC? I can find you the picture tomorrow. Now I need sleep. Nightynight!
TheCustomLime wrote: And yet here you are conflating the Sister's identity as a faction with their tits.
Yeah I can totally see how you would come to that conclusion, if you had ignored everything I have posted. So one more ti ]me: there is nothing wrong with the current design of Sisters, and that includes but is not limited to their boobs, and there is no good reason to say, okay, I just want to change their boobs, except that soemone is focused in on boobs for reasons only they will ever truly know, I suppose.
Well, you did imply in that post that removing their boob plate would be like removing some core aesthetics of other factions hence my post. While I think the fleur-de-lis and gothic style armor are more relevant to their identith I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.
Disclaimer: I am not opposed to the current design of SOB. 40k designs in general are garish, nonsensical and overblown. To me boob plate is dumb but so is adorning every surface with skulls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: You know what? I kinda want to play Space Marines. But I hate their ridiculously bulky shoulder armor. And it's actually ridiculously big, so let's cut it down to a more reasonable size. Hey. Space Marine players, you can't complain I wanted to change your miniatures, I improved them.
Ashiraya wrote: Scouts. Or you can just pick another armour mark. They have quite different elements; I have seen artwork with SM that have pauldrons hardly any bigger than the SoB ones. A Black Templar IIRC? I can find you the picture tomorrow. Now I need sleep. Nightynight!
Aww, no, don't go to bed! I was about to tear into your argument about how you won't accept decent reasoning and want an actual lore quote when everything you presented for your argument was your own reasoning with no lore quotes whatsoever.
Ashiraya wrote: the boobplate is not nearly as much a part of their identity for me as it is for you
Could you please stop sublimating your obsession with SoB boobs onto me? I mean, for me they are only one part of an overall design that I think is great and don't want to change because I like SoB. Whereas for you, they are so offensive as to ruin the design and MUST be eliminated, and on that condition, maybe MAYBE you might like them maybe, but you'll have to see what else needs fixing of course.
Ashiraya wrote: the boobplate is not nearly as much a part of their identity for me as it is for you
Could you please stop sublimating you obsession with SoB boobs on me? I mean, for me they are only one part of an overall design that Inthink is great. Whereas for you, they are so offensive as ruin the design and MUST be eliminated.
I didn't realize I'd stopped paying attention to this thread for long enough that it'd go this far afield...
Ashiraya wrote: the boobplate is not nearly as much a part of their identity for me as it is for you
Could you please stop sublimating you obsession with SoB boobs on me? I mean, for me they are only one part of an overall design that Inthink is great. Whereas for you, they are so offensive as ruin the design and MUST be eliminated.
Personally, I think they should keep their boobplate and every part of their current aesthetic in the plastics. Because their aesthetic is entirely unique and thematic, and their models actually still look good despite being designed 20 years ago so they don't need an aesthetic update at all.
I helped a girl with D-cups into a sports bra once. You'd be surprised at how far they can bind. And according to her it's not all that uncomfortable either if done properly (you don't pancake them Wile-E-Coyote style). In addition, the models are 2nd edition vintage. Take a look at Space Marine models of the time, they grip the bolters so hard that the handles must be like a string of silly putty for their hand sculpts to work. Hell look at Abaddon's Chewable Vitamin Pill sword and try to make sense of that. It was a limitation of the time. Everything up to late 4th edition had that problem, it's just more pronounced on the sisters because they haven't had a new model since then.
Also the Decree Passive is not fan fiction. Page 5 of the Witch Hunter Codex 3rd Edition has it word for word. It even states how the High Lords of Terra were uncomfortable with this decision. It's mentioned again in the 6th edition codex under "The Reformation of the Ecclesiarchy" and this time even points out the loophole abuse. I don't even play them and I know this.
You must be new. Threads about SoB always bring out people who don't much care about the faction to tell their actual fans everything that is wrong with them and how to fix it - and they always want to talk about boobies.
Pouncey wrote: Personally, I think they should keep their boobplate and every part of their current aesthetic in the plastics. Because their aesthetic is entirely unique and thematic, and their models actually still look good despite being designed 20 years ago so they don't need an aesthetic update at all.
Needless to say, I agree. It's heartening that in the few moments when GW has deigned to portray SoB, The Powers That Be also seem to agree. The SoB design is not something I think GW would have been able to come up with today; it's too novel for what I have seen coming out over the last decade (despite the company getting better and better technically). I honestly don't trust GW to do any better than they already have - and I mean that in the sense that the SoB design is already a very, very high bar, not only in the sense that GW is more conservative nowadays.
Backspacehacker wrote: Not gonna read the thread because I'm assume it's about why don't we have plastic sisters.
Short answer: there is no rea demand for it, so they are not going to make them.
Long answer: GW is a business, if you want them to change you need to show it with your wallet not with crying. You can kick scream and yell from the mountain tops about how you want plastic sisters, but until there is a probable profit to be had, it's not going to happen. Iirc there was a game day were they even showed off plastic sisters they had made. The thing is, they won't start making up until their current stock, the metal ones, are moved out. And even then, they need to be bought out quickly to show there is a demand. When everyone keeps asking for it, but GW still is noticing the sister products they have, why make more? If you want new sisters, you need to buy what's still in stock then and only then will GW start to even consider making plastic models.
If you want new, start buying the old.
There have been several times in the past years when various items in the Sisters catalog have gone "Out of Stock", sometimes for several weeks, before being returned to inventory so... you basically have no idea what you're talking about. Sisters do sell, and have traditionally sold as well as any other third-tier army which would be Necrons, Dark Eldar and Tyranids... all of which have received major revamps in the past, some more recently than others.
I also like GW's LotR game, I mean it is one of my favorite games - and GW sort of half-assed it with the support for a while (not in small part because of things beyond their control) and stuff started to go OOS and OOP and all the wisemen of the internet gathered to tell how GW is a business and cannot be expected to support a game no one plays because after all they have never seen it played at their store.
And then, earlier this year, GW decided to start supporting the game again and lo and behold they invited the game's extensive, well-organized British fanbase to come in for a day celebrating the game, to compete in an official tournament, and they announced not only that OOP models would go back into production but that there would even be new models and a new supplement.
Where are the wisemen of the internet now? Busy telling us that GW is a business and cannot be expected to support a faction like SoB that no one wants or plays ...
Manchu wrote: Oh man, Sisters flashing skin would be dumb indeed - outside of Repentia, where charging into battle protected only by your faith in the Emperor and the sincerity of your penance is the whole point.
And that contrast is precisely why Repentia are better as nude but for literally wearing their litany of crimes against the Emporer.
And my comments result in EXACTLY the argument I was saying GW would want to avoid!! I actually wasn't exhibiting a preference for the current design or the other, I was just thinking of it from a PR standpoint.
In the UK at least, GW stores are present on every town's high street, with models in the windows and big banners with artwork to support the current release. They have vastly more visibility than a small niche company (some of whom do make more sexualised models), and the people who see this publicity on their high street are, mostly, not gamers.
While the models themselves don't have high heels and you'd have to paint on the makeup, the artwork is different. At the moment, the imagery surrounding them is very fetish-y and sexualised, IMO.
If GW made other female ranges, they might be able to counterbalance that. The sisters might look a bit Catholic-BDSM-fantasy but then they would be in the same world as their more 'military' looking range of female Cadians for example. But, unfortunately, they don't.
For a large, publicly traded company - a well known high street retailer in the UK - to present the current Sisters imagery as practically their ONLY depiction of women is a PR nightmare waiting to happen.
So, I can totally see why they're not getting done - it's that or change the aethetic and risk annoying the last three pages of posters on this thread (and the fanbase they represent) who like the current imagery.
If you look around in the world of pop culture, sexy looking dudes and ladies are actually ... the norm. SoB are not pornographic by any stretch of the reasonable person's imagination. Even in this age of rather Victorian stodginess when it comes to the politics of sex, SoB would never get anything beyond the seconds-long glimpse mainstream media occasionally affords 40k and miniatures gaming generally. Dawn of War reached more people than White Dwarf ever will or could hope to, and there was no hue and cry when Soul Storm was release - at least not about the visual design of Sisters.
A woman in an outfit that is shaped like a woman is not Hypersexualised.
Honestly, I think that single codex cover, from 20 years ago, gave the teenage version of some of you an impression of Adepta Sororitas you can't shake.
A lot of those are still better than the minis in terms of proportions, and certainly better than anything by Blanche.
Also, one of them is an Inquisitor and does not have Sororitas power armor.
In fact, the canoness mini you linked is kind of emblematic of the problem many people have with the boob-plates. They look more like gag-boobs or robo-girl-missiles than something crafted to be "shaped like a woman".
If they were more subtle there'd be far fewer complaints about them.
The Repentia aren't that much worse than something out of a Rhianna or Christina Aguilera video to be perfectly honest, or indeed any of the over sexualised action men of today's video games or movies. Sure they are scantily clad bdsm inspired torture women. But that's not exactly that bad in today's society.
You must be new. Threads about SoB always bring out people who don't much care about the faction to tell their actual fans everything that is wrong with them and how to fix it - and they always want to talk about boobies.
Sort of. I usually end up over in Proposed Rules having arguments about how Acts of Faith should work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
adamsouza wrote: A woman in an outfit that is shaped like a woman is not Hypersexualised.
Honestly running off the in-universe logic I'm with Pouncey's point on the Decree Passive here. The outfits are there to make it obvious that they're female as a sort of sarcastic poke at the loophole under which they exist as an army in the first place.
If the models and the art got an update I doubt there would be much debate left on the subject. They look sexualized because the in-universe logic got buried in the 2nd-edition bizarrely over-the-top/comic-book art style, the models are the way they are because the designers wanted to try and ensure people could tell they were female from normal-play distance in an era of misshapen/exaggerated features.
I can point at newer coed WHFB elf kits where the female models manage to look female without looking unrealistically exaggerated as evidence that at least one of GW's sculptors has the skill to pull off a sensible redesign where they didn't have the skill to do it in 2e.
Well, just to add my tuppence ha'penny to the conversation: I really like the Sisters of Battle as they are. I think the models are excellent, in keeping with most of the 2nd Edition metal figures, and I think their aesthetic appearance is spot on - gothic, archaic, sinister, religious. These are not Catholic nuns, these are warriors of the God-Emperor, who fight with faith and fury. This shouldn't be changed, only improved, with more options - heads with wimples (as was suggested earlier), say.
Can't tell if trolling or serious. If it was serious, I will just say that focusing on one of the older picture on the subject, that is directly contradicted by literally every picture since then, including pictures from the very same 2nd edition codex, AND every miniature ever released, doesn't make much sense.
Ashiraya wrote: I guess I would be okay with the boobplate if the armor did not also look so thin it may as well be metal-painted spandex.
Give me this (though it does not have to be as exosuit-ey) and I will be silent.
Spoiler:
This looks good but I also really like some part of the current design. A good mix of both would be awesome.
Ashiraya wrote: For the third time, they will not stop being zealous warrior nuns in the service of a rich gothic sci-fi church just because they get better armor.
Whoa I never thought I would say that, but really Ashiraya gets Sisters of Battle much better than most posters in here .
ArbitorIan wrote: If GW made other female ranges, they might be able to counterbalance that.
One could argue that Cadia has entire divisions composed entirely of female troops, that half of the entire Cadian military is female. Wearing their helmets and armor, there is no way to determine the gender of the Trooper, Tanker or Pilot.
ArbitorIan wrote: If GW made other female ranges, they might be able to counterbalance that.
One could argue that Cadia has entire divisions composed entirely of female troops, that half of the entire Cadian military is female. Wearing their helmets and armor, there is no way to determine the gender of the Trooper, Tanker or Pilot.
Statistically speaking, if you don't care whether your troops are male or female, a 20,000-person strong IG regiment that consists solely of either women or men is so unlikely that the Imperium has, in all probability, never seen it happen.
If an all-male or all-female IG division does exist, it's not through random chance, but through someone making it happen on purpose.
ArbitorIan wrote: If GW made other female ranges, they might be able to counterbalance that.
One could argue that Cadia has entire divisions composed entirely of female troops, that half of the entire Cadian military is female. Wearing their helmets and armor, there is no way to determine the gender of the Trooper, Tanker or Pilot.
Statistically speaking, if you don't care whether your troops are male or female, a 20,000-person strong IG regiment that consists solely of either women or men is so unlikely that the Imperium has, in all probability, never seen it happen.
If an all-male or all-female IG division does exist, it's not through random chance, but through someone making it happen on purpose.
Last I checked most planets' regiments are segregated. The Ciaphas Cain books have a regiment that became integrated through amalgamating understrength regiments, and they make a point of it being unusual.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason GW don't do anything with Sisters is because they read any thread on a forum about Sisters and think "Yeah, lets not touch that with a barge pole".
ArbitorIan wrote: If GW made other female ranges, they might be able to counterbalance that.
One could argue that Cadia has entire divisions composed entirely of female troops, that half of the entire Cadian military is female. Wearing their helmets and armor, there is no way to determine the gender of the Trooper, Tanker or Pilot.
Statistically speaking, if you don't care whether your troops are male or female, a 20,000-person strong IG regiment that consists solely of either women or men is so unlikely that the Imperium has, in all probability, never seen it happen.
If an all-male or all-female IG division does exist, it's not through random chance, but through someone making it happen on purpose.
Last I checked most planets' regiments are segregated. The Ciaphas Cain books have a regiment that became integrated through amalgamating understrength regiments, and they make a point of it being unusual.
So... Yes, it is in fact due to people making it happen on purpose?
ArbitorIan wrote: If GW made other female ranges, they might be able to counterbalance that.
One could argue that Cadia has entire divisions composed entirely of female troops, that half of the entire Cadian military is female. Wearing their helmets and armor, there is no way to determine the gender of the Trooper, Tanker or Pilot.
Statistically speaking, if you don't care whether your troops are male or female, a 20,000-person strong IG regiment that consists solely of either women or men is so unlikely that the Imperium has, in all probability, never seen it happen.
If an all-male or all-female IG division does exist, it's not through random chance, but through someone making it happen on purpose.
If you go back to when the IG had Doctrines, an female Guard troopers were included in the examples.
The US has deliberately fielded racially-segregated military units in WW2, and did not integrate the sexes unit decades thereafter. The notion of Cadia creating women-only divisions is not at all out of the question.
But that would look like a) looking for user feedback and b) acknowledging that the internet exists!
While I acknowledge A as a problem... they do actually have people reading wargaming forums.
Because a couple of years ago, when I posted photos of a White Dwarf I received in the mail a few days early, those photos were taken down within 4 hours of being posted due to GW filing a cease and desist order with the image hosting site.
Just to go back to the Repentia, one of my favourite bits of Sisters art is the double-page spread in Codex: Witchhunters with the battle cathedral and the puritan-hat-Inquisitor ... and the naked Repentia with sheets of confessions (?) pinned to them - and, in one case, pins through the eyes. This level of self-mutilation and death-wish-lunacy is something that the figures don't really portray, but it would be awesome to see. Doubt it'll happen outside of a third-party company though.
Gen.Steiner wrote: Just to go back to the Repentia, one of my favourite bits of Sisters art is the double-page spread in Codex: Witchhunters with the battle cathedral and the puritan-hat-Inquisitor ... and the naked Repentia with sheets of confessions (?) pinned to them - and, in one case, pins through the eyes. This level of self-mutilation and death-wish-lunacy is something that the figures don't really portray, but it would be awesome to see. Doubt it'll happen outside of a third-party company though.
Pins... through the eyes...
I might need to glue those two pages together so I can never see that, because I never noticed that and now I might not be able to resist looking for it.
Gen.Steiner wrote: Just to go back to the Repentia, one of my favourite bits of Sisters art is the double-page spread in Codex: Witchhunters with the battle cathedral and the puritan-hat-Inquisitor ... and the naked Repentia with sheets of confessions (?) pinned to them - and, in one case, pins through the eyes. This level of self-mutilation and death-wish-lunacy is something that the figures don't really portray, but it would be awesome to see. Doubt it'll happen outside of a third-party company though.
Pins... through the eyes...
I might need to glue those two pages together so I can never see that, because I never noticed that and now I might not be able to resist looking for it.
Yeah! Pins through the eyes. And there's another Repentia whose eyes are covered in a parchment 'bandage' with blood pouring down her cheeks, running forwards with one hand on the shoulder of the one in front.
Gen.Steiner wrote: Just to go back to the Repentia, one of my favourite bits of Sisters art is the double-page spread in Codex: Witchhunters with the battle cathedral and the puritan-hat-Inquisitor ... and the naked Repentia with sheets of confessions (?) pinned to them - and, in one case, pins through the eyes. This level of self-mutilation and death-wish-lunacy is something that the figures don't really portray, but it would be awesome to see. Doubt it'll happen outside of a third-party company though.
Pins... through the eyes...
I might need to glue those two pages together so I can never see that, because I never noticed that and now I might not be able to resist looking for it.
Yeah! Pins through the eyes. And there's another Repentia whose eyes are covered in a parchment 'bandage' with blood pouring down her cheeks, running forwards with one hand on the shoulder of the one in front.
See?
What part of what I said made it sound like I wanted you to post it for me to see?
I would like to see the sisters get some DeathWatch sized attention, at the very least. For the base kit, a box of 5 or 10 sisters with either the Bob cut or the helmets would be fine, along with each of the special and heavy weapons could work.
