Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

we've had a mini discussion in another thread so i've decided to stop derailing that one and simply make a new thread/poll with the question:

do the current line of sister of battle miniatures VISUALLY look like they have a 3+ armor save? (obviously they have full power armor according to the fluff)

What it looks like is irrelevant. Sisters wear power armor. It's not supposed to be textured like leather (and indeed, I paint it as metal).

I agree it needs to be redesigned, but it's still power armor regardless-- and the fluff agrees. C:WH specifically says that it provides the same protection Astartes power armor does.



This is power armor.

this line up of different 40k imperial troopers show's my opinion. the fluff doesn't say that the SOB armor is any more advanced than a marine's mk8 armor yet is supposed to provide the same protection as the noticeably heavier and bulkier marine's armor. while i agree that the fluff says they have full 3+ power armor, the models don't in my opinion. gw chose sexy over protection in the case of SOB when they didn't have to. it's entirely possible to have believable 3+ armor and still be sexy.

[delete]

Melissia wrote:What it looks like is irrelevant. Sisters wear power armor.

half right, half wrong. yes, they do wear power armor BUT what it looks like is relevant. this is a visual medium and a large portion of the 40k player base likes to see well sculpted painted models that accurately depict the fluff.

And we have it. See the picture I posted. GW's crappy artists are kinda irrelevant, the picture you posted odes not look like the models I have.

If you don't like the pic I posted, try this, directly out of C:SoB.



That definitely looks like power armor.

Melissia wrote:And we have it. See the picture I posted. GW's crappy artists are kinda irrelevant, the picture you posted odes not look like the models I have.

If you don't like the pic I posted, try this, directly out of C:SoB.

That definitely looks like power armor.

that's your opinion and mine differs. to me, that looks like 4+. it may be powered and fully environmental/zero-g vacuum rated but doesn't offer the protection necessary to be 3+ VISUALLY. the pic you posted earlier with the metal armor with rivets might warrant it (as does the pic below) but the current model range doesn't in my opinion. power armor doesn't HAVE to be 3+; there are plenty of fluff benefits to having that type of armor over just simple plates like kasrkin have. form fitting paper thin sexy armor =/= 3+. when and IF gw gets around to updating the 2nd edition SOB models, i hope that they bulk them up. I WANT them to have 3+ armor and am not trying to start some online petition to have it changed to 4+; i simply think they don't currently have it modelled.

"...The less it covers, the higher AC you get..."

Anyway, I voted a 4+, after that side by side comparison.

... and since the models are from second edition, you should use the pictures from that codex.

For that matter, why not look at the models?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat30048&prodId=prod1080208

Notice it's all painted as metal, not leathery corset.

I think it should be modelled a little better. I don't need them to have skin tight armor. A little bulkier like the Samus picture above or the picture that picture warboss posted works for me.

You must also remember that the Marine underneath the armor in that comparison is a physical freak with massive bulging muscles.

lol, i could paint a catachan's tshirt as metal but that doesn't mean he actually deserves a 5+ either. i'm quite familiar with the SOB range of models and the armor doesn't look like 3+ to me on that fig. this thread is about opinions, not facts. the fact is that SOB have 3+ power armor; the opinion and purpose of the poll is whether or not GW did a good job showing that.

I never understood how these get a 4+ save:





When these are wearing full armor..




And how can sisters get a 3+ when crisis suits are fully enclosed and actually impact the model's statistics and only provide a 3+?
Oh I get it. It's protective enough to give increased strength and toughness and fly but not enough to give a nicer save....yeah, that makes complete sense.

broken links?

Sisters armor is also fully enclosed, as well?

Melissia wrote:Sisters armor is also fully enclosed, as well?

What? The leather masks protect them from the vacuum of space?

Seriously. How can a sister have the same protection as a crisis suit?

The answer is that rules trump looks and if they had a 4+, or worse, even fewer people would be playing SoB.

Sisters don't look like 3+ I'd have to say. But that does not mean they shouldn't be. Sisters as 4+ would essentially be zealous female Stormtroopers with bolters. However, there is also styling to consider. If you buffed up Sisters to look like 3+, they'd be Space Marines with breasts, which wouldn't be that interesting.

You've got to remember that Space marine armor is bulky because space marines themselves are bulky. Power armor used by normal humans is much smaller compared to the walking refrigerators

agnosto wrote:The leather masks

These look more like proper helmets than Space Marine helmets do.

Source, by the way, is C:WH.

Skinnattittar wrote:If you buffed up Sisters to look like 3+, they'd be Space Marines with breasts, which wouldn't be that interesting.

i dunno. the samus pic i posted is still pretty hot and the marines below aren't bad either. SOB were sculpted the way they are specifically to look sexy; GW can keep that yet give them believable armor. while i'd prefer the functional samus look, i'd be ok with the "look at me, i'm sexy!" female space marine look also to a lesser extent.

Melissia wrote:

agnosto wrote:The leather masks

These look more like proper helmets than Space Marine helmets do.

I don't see the giant sword wielding S&M freaks wearing those.

Repentia aren't Sisters.

They also do not wear power armor.

warboss wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:If you buffed up Sisters to look like 3+, they'd be Space Marines with breasts, which wouldn't be that interesting.

i dunno. the samus pic i posted is still pretty hot and the marines below aren't bad either. SOB were sculpted the way they are specifically to look sexy; GW can keep that yet give them believable armor. while i'd prefer the functional samus look, i'd be ok with the "look at me, i'm sexy!" female space marine look also to a lesser extent.

Neither of these pictures look like 3+ armor though.... they look like cosplay 5+ armor. Stormtroopers are more heavily armored looking!

warboss wrote:

Damn, if the sisters all looked like that I'd play them.

Melissia wrote:Repentia aren't Sisters.

They also do not wear power armor.

Same codex. Besides, they get a 4+ but wear less armor than an Ork....or even a Kroot.

Besides. A crisis suit is basically a dreadnought but only has a 3+ while a sister (and even if the codex has pictures of helmets, I've never seen a model with one) has a 3+.

Like I said. Nobody would play sisters if they all had a 4+ or worse so there's no point in comparing things based completely on looks of the model.

Half the models of Sisters have helmets. Just because a player decides not to use them doesn't mean anything. Marines have fewer helmets than Sisters.

Furthermore, repentia suck, and nobody uses them. Repentia are just about the worst unit in the game, if not the defacto worst unit.

Melissia wrote:
Furthermore, repentia suck, and nobody uses them. Repentia are just about the worst unit in the game, if not the defacto worst unit.

Really? Must I remind you of this extremely high pile of steaming excrement?



I wish I could edit that photo and put, "I suck!" under the model.

agnosto wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Furthermore, repentia suck, and nobody uses them. Repentia are just about the worst unit in the game, if not the defacto worst unit.

Really? Must I remind you of this extremely high pile of steaming excement?

I wish I could edit that photo and put, "I suck!" under the model.

that made me laugh. yeah, i think the ethereal takes the cake in that discussion but let's keep on track, shall we?

No, I'm fairly certain Repentia are worse.

I think it looks like they would get a 4+ save. The armor looks just a tad lighter than marine armor plus the fact that sisters are not gene enhanced killing machines with bodies able to take as much punishment as an astartes. And while we are on the subject of armor saves whats up with IG vets. getting 4+ saves? Are they like the equivalent scouts in an SM army?

While this isn't a debate with a right or wrong answer, I have a really tough time understanding how anyone can think the SoB armor, which is very obviously much smaller than a tactical marines, confers the same bonuses. The SM look like they're slogging along in a dumpster. Now, the only thing I can think of justify this in a fluff sense is that the SM armor provides more in terms of extra goodies. Like I was reading in Thousand Sons how the armor recycles their moisture and another book had some self-repair stuff and whatnot. So I can pretend you take all that out and they are the same size, the tactical SM armor just has more optional features like cruise control and heated seats.

Oh, I guess there are a few other ideas. All that extra flair is just looks on the SM armor and the actual power armor is all the same size. Another option is they added a ton of extra metal so they get a work out while walking around so they don't get Astartes fat.