I have been able to stop buying this past months any warhammer kits because I have a inmense pile of grey plastic and now I'll have to buy a full box of space marines and Sisters of Battle are becoming more and more hard to res... who I'm kidding I have accepted I'll buy a entire SoB army the moment they go into sale.
1. like that the model retains enough of the old aesthetic as to not make the old metals obsolete.
2. will use new plastics to finish an old project left behind because... no (affordable, interesting) models.
____
3. therefore, GUARANTEED SALES as 3 million old fat guys like myself come back to the table.
But that aside, sisters should not be a viable army solo at points levels over 1500 in my opinion. I think that the solution to the problem now isn't allies and so on but having stricter faction identities. So, GW will likely do this anyway, have 4 main factions and then subgroups can fill out detachment templates. So, like epic really, but with bigger models, and at the expense of modifyability as well.
This leaves the "hobbyist" in a position where s/he has to buy different trademarked models (eliminators?... jeez.) in order to gain use of the extended or special abilities that would have, in the past, been represented with conversions of other models.
I see sisters being some subunit that can be purchased to provide this variability within the rules as written.
They lose a lot of people in such a transition though.
The hobbyist who liked to use their stuff in a more RPG minded system to build new stuff.
Anyways, I am dumping a lot of old kit soon I figure,
as 8th ed rules still can't get me back to the table -
but I want to use my 30euro airbrush to paint some of the very nice new models alongside the old metal sisters that I have had shipped across the world twice, in black primer, over the past 20 years.
cygnnus wrote: Figure looks great! But is that seriously a 32mm base she’s standing on? I know scale creep is a thing, but come on GW...
Valete,
JohnS
How dare you insult the primaris sistorum.
Stupid joke aside, could be she's sitting on a larger base since she has the relic, I've had some interesting times fitting some of my banner bearers onto 25 mm after not paying quite enough attention during assembly.
cygnnus wrote: Figure looks great! But is that seriously a 32mm base she’s standing on? I know scale creep is a thing, but come on GW...
Scale creep?
She would be ludicrously tiny if that was just 33 mm, my guess is 40 mm. Just look at primaris, they normally fit on 33 mm no problem, but banner bearer has to go on 40 mm to fit the pole despite much more sensible pose. Seeing there is some space around the rim still, it looks about right for normally 25 mm mini with banner and robe both fitting in the base...
Also I fully expect Sisters to be all 32mm, the resin Sister Superior we got last time and the two body guards to Celestine have also been on 32.
Plus my theory so far seems to be holding out, that any new kits with T4 or a 3+ save are going onto 32s. Sometimes it also effects models with multiple wounds.
Just got my female inquisitor down who I based on a 32, and yeah it is 32. For some reason I thought the sister profile would be wider, but the Inquisitor takes up about the same room on her 32 and she has a very similar armour on to a Sister.
Yeah I hope the base size they will be on is confirmed soon. I have a box of sisters I want to paint but I want to make sure I won't have to rebase them anytime soon.
I hope that one stop shop they're talking about will get more than we've seen for the last year, quickly. Whole thing is pretty meh to me until I see Repentias.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Yeah I hope the base size they will be on is confirmed soon. I have a box of sisters I want to paint but I want to make sure I won't have to rebase them anytime soon.
The Sister render they showed last year was on 32mm (including base filling scenic topper) as well. While it's not confirmation just yet, I know which way I'd lean if I had to guess GW's intent.
Alternatively you'll just have to choose the option that annoys me the most, as GW does. There's your confirmation that it'll be 32mm bases...
Geifer wrote: I hope that one stop shop they're talking about will get more than we've seen for the last year, quickly. Whole thing is pretty meh to me until I see Repentias.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Yeah I hope the base size they will be on is confirmed soon. I have a box of sisters I want to paint but I want to make sure I won't have to rebase them anytime soon.
The Sister render they showed last year was on 32mm (including base filling scenic topper) as well. While it's not confirmation just yet, I know which way I'd lean if I had to guess GW's intent.
Alternatively you'll just have to choose the option that annoys me the most, as GW does. There's your confirmation that it'll be 32mm bases...
50mm square bases is what I heard. You'll have to ebay them though, they won't come in the box.
Galas wrote: I have been able to stop buying this past months any warhammer kits because I have a inmense pile of grey plastic and now I'll have to buy a full box of space marines and Sisters of Battle are becoming more and more hard to res... who I'm kidding I have accepted I'll buy a entire SoB army the moment they go into sale.
I earmarked money to buy a SoB army the minute they announced they were working on it. Can't resist the sisters.
Galas wrote: I have been able to stop buying this past months any warhammer kits because I have a inmense pile of grey plastic and now I'll have to buy a full box of space marines and Sisters of Battle are becoming more and more hard to res... who I'm kidding I have accepted I'll buy a entire SoB army the moment they go into sale.
I earmarked money to buy a SoB army the minute they announced they were working on it. Can't resist the sisters.
Yep - I have a reserve of about £500 to buy with, more if needed...
Def a good model and pleased with work so far looking forward to the "bulletin"
Geifer wrote: I hope that one stop shop they're talking about will get more than we've seen for the last year, quickly. Whole thing is pretty meh to me until I see Repentias.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Yeah I hope the base size they will be on is confirmed soon. I have a box of sisters I want to paint but I want to make sure I won't have to rebase them anytime soon.
The Sister render they showed last year was on 32mm (including base filling scenic topper) as well. While it's not confirmation just yet, I know which way I'd lean if I had to guess GW's intent.
Alternatively you'll just have to choose the option that annoys me the most, as GW does. There's your confirmation that it'll be 32mm bases...
50mm square bases is what I heard. You'll have to ebay them though, they won't come in the box.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Lol. Some skulls are holy relics, others are just littered across the floor like so much useless trash. Grimdark1!
From what I understand most land masses in 40k rest on a bed of rolling skulls which is what causes the occasional skull quake.
(learned geology from Realms of Battle boards)
Can confirm - it's a scientifically proven fact.
But that's just skulls of the unworthy. If you're worthy, you get to be a servo skull, a throne or a holy relic. Or window dressing. Or wall decoration. Or...
Well, alright. Pretty sure skulls get assigned based on a D66 table.
Galas wrote: I have been able to stop buying this past months any warhammer kits because I have a inmense pile of grey plastic and now I'll have to buy a full box of space marines and Sisters of Battle are becoming more and more hard to res... who I'm kidding I have accepted I'll buy a entire SoB army the moment they go into sale.
I earmarked money to buy a SoB army the minute they announced they were working on it. Can't resist the sisters.
Yep - I have a reserve of about £500 to buy with, more if needed...
Def a good model and pleased with work so far looking forward to the "bulletin"
I've had a Sisters slush fund for years. Then I spent it on something that was actually going to exist. Shortly afterwards we got the announcement for plastic Sisters...
Maybe its the different shades of grey but the greaves+lower robe+corset+shoulder pads (of doom)+anachronistic helmet don't create a unified model. Too piecemeal, too many unrelated aesthetics layered on top of each other
Voss wrote: Maybe its the different shades of grey but the greaves+lower robe+corset+shoulder pads (of doom)+anachronistic helmet don't create a unified model. Too piecemeal, too many unrelated aesthetics layered on top of each other
I kinda disagree? It's really more cloth parts + metal parts together, and I think it works. Ideally you'd paint the robes a more matte color while the armor is metal.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Lol. Some skulls are holy relics, others are just littered across the floor like so much useless trash. Grimdark1!
I get that it's fun to harp on the setting's aesthetics and all, but that's hardly an egregious example.
I'm pretty sure the Catholic church sets a good precedent for treating some human remains with undue reverence because they allegedly came from saintly individuals vs. leaving others in the charnel-house because, well, who cares?
I like it. Always wanted a sisters army but never was going to buy in 2000 points worth. Excited to see how they're released and how I can fit them in with the rest of my inquisition.
Or 16th century plate armour The greaves and helmet are obviously based upon historic designs, and the breastplate is essentially a mid-15th century/ maybe early peascod breastplate with breasts attached over the top (use your own headcannon for whether these are decorative or not). The only way the sallet is anachronistic is that it fell out of fashion about 50 years before the peascod came in...
Well I think this model looks awesome, as does Celestine, Veridia and all the battle sisters concepts models. I shall be putting aside a fair wedge of cash for this release!!
Vey nice, very catholic, hope we'll get even more skulls everywhere though. The Sisters is really the faction where skulls are the most appropriate in the skull universe of skulls that is Warhammer "40 000 Skulls".
I mean, catholics do this:
Gotta throw some shade - I find the shoulders excessive - though I think it is just the way they stick up in that pose perhaps. The bolter is also too big - I know that is a silly thing to complain about in 40K, but I swear the older ones were a bit slimmer and better scaled to the models. That shrine is awesome though and I am generally glad to see no major change to the aesthetic.
I just don't like 4 different aesthetics jammed together like a layer cake (I'll admit the hat and legs kinda match)
@Meliessia- problem is, for me I wouldn't want to paint any of it metal, but the only metal looking parts are the legs, shoulder pad/gorget array, helmet and maybe the breast cups. It would look pretty wacky.
Also the rebreather gorget, which is bizarrely fixed in place to shoulder pads that literally can't be (or else she can't lower that right arm, or at least that shoulder pad would always be sticking up at that weird angle)
The corset, sleeves, gloves and robe all look like cloth, and with the exception of the gloves and corset, the same cloth, with the corset oddly fastened over an inner robe... somehow. [the alternative is the lower robe and sleeves don't attach to anything at all] She's got multiple layers from foot to head, and multiple layers of stuffing over her skin. At minimum a robe with a corset over it then breast cups over that, then everything pinned down by the massive gorget/shoulder pad array, and a backpack sort of stapled onto... something from behind, and the breast cups have to be attached by either glue or as if they're suction cups. But her legs just have one layer of armor, I guess? It's just a baffling composite.
Even worse now that I'm not looking at it on a phone.
Voss wrote: @Meliessia- problem is, for me I wouldn't want to paint any of it metal
Even if you don't paint metal parts metallic, it's a prime spot for different colors. Also, the arms aside from the sleeves, the shoulders, the legs, and the helmet would all appear to be metal. The chest part has a layer of cloth on the outside as part of decoration, the "corset" look that many people don't like. But it is still power armor they're wearing.
Maybe its the different shades of grey but the greaves+lower robe+corset+shoulder pads (of doom)+anachronistic helmet don't create a unified model. Too piecemeal, too many unrelated aesthetics layered on top of each other
Do you think the same of the current models? All those are features that are present on the older stuff as well, with only slight differences.
The Sister looks like a Sister. That's the important part. No radical redesign, no attempt to appease certain noisy minority groups screaming about certain elements of the armour or footwear - just a Sister, dressed like a Sister, being a Sister.
Good. That's the way should.
[EDIT]: But yeah, those hinges are on the wrong side.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: From what I understand most land masses in 40k rest on a bed of rolling skulls which is what causes the occasional skull quake.
(learned geology from Realms of Battle boards)
They're not actually skulls. It's a fictional element found throughout the galaxy known as "skulldanium".
GaroRobe wrote: Wait...could Catholics actually be Flesh Eaters?
Well we believe the body and blood of our Lord is truly present in communion so ...
As for the hinges, sometimes you do find them on the inside (for example, contemporary kitchen cabinet designs). I’m not sure I quite understand how the ones depicted on the render are supposed to work and my guess would be that they are present because the little sub-reliquary doors are too plain otherwise.
I just don't like 4 different aesthetics jammed together like a layer cake
This render reflects one aesthetic; namely, the aesthetic of the Adepta Sororitas, established decades ago and faithfully represented by this latest render. As you yourself noted, that’s definitely a Sister. The Adepta Soroitas aesthetic obviously incorporates a variety of IRL historical references but at this point it is so iconic as to be practically synonymous with the faction’s identity.
I’ll apologize in advance if I’m coming across as splitting hairs but the background on this, going back many years now, is certain posters claiming they like Sisters but simultaneously arguing that Sisters should look radically different than they actually do, in terms of being redesigned (as opposed to simply updating the sculpts for better detail, proportion, etc). That makes no sense to me. Calling for major redesigns is a pretty clear indication of not liking the faction to the point of wanting it transformed into something else.
So I’m not trying to pick on you specifically and I admit my initial reply was too terse. You’re right, I was making assumptions. That’s my bad, it’s a kneejerk reaction to a decade of defedning the actual faction, my favorite faction. And now that GW has shown it will allow actual Sisters of Battle to return in plastic, I should probably not be so defensive. Old habits die hard!
Well, IMHO they are succeeding in making them look like the old sisters of battle made with modern tech, so that's definitely a plus.
I might have liked a slightly more drastic redesign of some stuff, and some proportions could be a smidge better, but the previews have been great so far, and I feel I'm going to spend a lot of money there.
Plus, they just might be a bit more drastic with new units while keeping the classic ones... well, classic. That would be cool too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I’ll apologize in advance if I’m coming across as splitting hairs but the background on this, going back many years now, is certain posters claiming they like Sisters but simultaneously arguing that Sisters should look radically different than they actually do, in terms of being redesigned (as opposed to simply updating the sculpts for better detail, proportion, etc). That makes no sense to me. Calling for major redesigns is a pretty clear indication of not liking the faction to the point of wanting it transformed into something else.
Well, people can like something and still want that something to be better (for their own definition of "better", of course). I may love Imperial Guard and still think that Catachans and Cadians are kind of crap, and that a redesign using some of the old Jes Goodwin sketches would look dope and much better, after all. Or I might have loved the dark eldars from the start and still think that the complete redesing of the whole line was absolutely incredible. That wouldn't make me "not like" the faction. Some other people may like the fluff but the models not so much, or whatever. Different people will have different pet peeves, and dismissing them off hand with a simple "well, it seems you don't like that thing you like" may be a tad reductionist.
I for example love sisters, and I'm loving the previews, and I still would not have minded if they had gone farther with the redesign... or rather, I might not have minded, since it would depend a lot on implementation. I could also have hated it. I like the ones we're getting, so far. And as you say, we still haven't seen repentia...
I’ll have to push back on the idea that this is all merely subjective, if that’s the right term. Again, there’s a reason why this render is unambiguously, inarguably a Sister of Battle to every rational observer. In contrast, for example, Primaris SM incorporate a lot subtle and not-so-subtle design elements that together represent a sharp discontinuity with “traditional” SM. But of course, that’s the point. Primaris Marines aren’t the same as the old Marines. Now, whether someone thinks that’s a good thing or not, no one can say Primaris must look more like the old ones. But this doesn’t apply to the long-awaited redesign of Sisters of Battle. This isn’t a seperate (sub)faction; this is supposed to be the same faction.
When GW announced this strange tip-toe approach to the re-release, I was really skeptical and critical. I still am. I can’t shake the feeling that I need to hold my breath waiting for an unpleasant suprise. And that could be what happens with Repentia.
Here are some Sisters I have just painted... these new one look like they’ll fit right alongside them without looking too out of place (though I may paint them as another order).
That’s all I can ask really. I didn’t want a massive redesign... just a modernisation into beautiful crisp plastic!
GaroRobe wrote: That shield of bones looks a lot like charnel throne terrain for the Flesh Eater Courts.
It's from the Sedlec ossuary. If you look closely, you can see a small bird (made of human bone) eating the eye of a corpse (made of, well… human bone lol), which was a way to celebrate some military victories over… Ottomans if I recall correctly, and how birds ate the eyes of the defeated ottomans. Nice!
Reality is more over-the-top than 40klol.
One of the things I like about that Sister model is they have taken the time to clamp each skull to the back of the reliquary Looks great with the clamps through the face.
I think some of what's bothering me about it is the increased detail of the render. Some of the elements that were blurred on the metal models (or hidden by their guns, poses and paint jobs) really jump out on this picture, and my brain is resistant to resolving them into coherent look rather than very distinct elements that don't really go together.
Part of that too is different subsections have a distinct different tint to them. If it was mostly black with red sleeves and robes (as in those pictures of the metals), my reaction might different.
But the focus of this, to me, is how distinct the different elements of her armor are
Manchu wrote: I’ll have to push back on the idea that this is all merely subjective, if that’s the right term. Again, there’s a reason why this render is unambiguously, inarguably a Sister of Battle to every rational observer. In contrast, for example, Primaris SM incorporate a lot subtle and not-so-subtle design elements that together represent a sharp discontinuity with “traditional” SM. But of course, that’s the point. Primaris Marines aren’t the same as the old Marines. Now, whether someone thinks that’s a good thing or not, no one can say Primaris must look more like the old ones. But this doesn’t apply to the long-awaited redesign of Sisters of Battle. This isn’t a seperate (sub)faction; this is supposed to be the same faction.
When GW announced this strange tip-toe approach to the re-release, I was really skeptical and critical. I still am. I can’t shake the feeling that I need to hold my breath waiting for an unpleasant suprise. And that could be what happens with Repentia.
But so far? So good!
I do agree that so far so good, and that the renders shown so far are unmistakingly SoBs. And I din't mean that it is subjective, not exactly, but rather that someone can like a faction, or the idea of it, or the fluff, and still not like the actual, physical intepretation of them.
Going back to one of my examples, the rebooted Dark Eldars are still unmistakingly Dark Eldars, I would say, and still anything and everything is better than what was before. So far, with these SoBs we have exactly what we had before, except more defined and with better detail, but it is 100% what was before, with little or no redesign whatsoever. I do like them, a lot, so far. But I don't know wether or not I would have liked them if they had strayed more from that, because they haven't, at least not so far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: I think some of what's bothering me about it is the increased detail of the render. Some of the elements that were blurred on the metal models (or hidden by their guns, poses and paint jobs) really jump out on this picture, and my brain is resistant to resolving them into coherent look rather than very distinct elements that don't really go together.
Part of that too is different subsections have a distinct different tint to them. If it was mostly black with red sleeves and robes (as in those pictures of the metals), my reaction might different.
But the focus of this, to me, is how distinct the different elements of her armor are
The renders are one thing, but they aren't the full (or final) picture, not by a long shot. I'm pretty sure they will look better in the flesh, so to speak.
Voss wrote: I think some of what's bothering me about it is the increased detail of the render. Some of the elements that were blurred on the metal models (or hidden by their guns, poses and paint jobs) really jump out on this picture, and my brain is resistant to resolving them into coherent look rather than very distinct elements that don't really go together.
Part of that too is different subsections have a distinct different tint to them. If it was mostly black with red sleeves and robes (as in those pictures of the metals), my reaction might different.
But the focus of this, to me, is how distinct the different elements of her armor are
I see your points, but for me those components do not look so disjointed. It really is just plate armour with extra cloth and some scifi greeblings.
Lengthen the tabard, add some sleeves, add the backpack and respirator tube, and a couple of decorative domes on the chest, and this armour would look remarkably close to the Sister armour. It even has giant pauldrons!
Spoiler:
Sure, that is a lot of small changes, but they are applied over a coherent base of well defined plate armour features. Even the corset look is pretty much found within plate armour, especially the later versions as above. Cloth coverings over armour were also common.
I think you are right- if the model was painted, it would pull the features in together.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally, this was practical armour, not just decorative. Used for jousting (with additional armour plates added), foot tourneys, and apparently also intended for field use. So real, effective armour, despite the decoration. I don't know if it was proofed, but coming out of Greenwich at that time means it would likely have been effective at stopping pistols and most firearms of the day.
If they redesign the Repentia like they did with the Dark Eldar Mandrakes I would be rapt.
Repentia just don't look good and the concept they are trying to represent works better if they are more similar to flagelants than to BDSM nuns with giant chainswords (Even if I think BDSM nuns with giant Chainswords are amazing). But I wouldn't mind BDSM nuns with giant chainswords in new plastic technology. I just think those models don't match with their fluff.
I would like to see Repentia along the lines of wrapped-in-scripture as opposed to the whips-and-leather thing they've got going.
That said, I really like this imagifier. She maintains the existing aesthetic, and while new ones will certainly be larger than m,y existing ones, they should all fit right in.
I don't look forward to re-basing everyone to 32's, though. That's going to be "FUN".
Current Repentias suffer a little from being surprisingly modestly clad for naked Sisters with giant chainswords and some stapled on scripture. It gives the impression of the oft quoted BDSM nun much more than the raging zealots they're supposed to be.
GW should at least drop the armor bits on the new ones. While they serve to tie the models in with the other Sisters, they do detract from the idea behind Repentias. Galas isn't wrong to mention Flagellants in this regard. Do they need puffy arms and giant feathers for you to know they're a legitimate Empire unit? No. And their ragtag look even enhances the appearance of a Warrior-Priest in the unit with the direct poor fanatics/rich clergy contrast.
She looks great. I see no need to change or ”develop” the look of the battle sisters. The existing aesthetic in plastic is all I need. Better to focus on the Repentia, and maybe a couple of new vehicles? Some militia chaff maybe...
Geifer wrote: Current Repentias suffer a little from being surprisingly modestly clad for naked Sisters with giant chainswords and some stapled on scripture. It gives the impression of the oft quoted BDSM nun much more than the raging zealots they're supposed to be.
GW should at least drop the armor bits on the new ones. While they serve to tie the models in with the other Sisters, they do detract from the idea behind Repentias. Galas isn't wrong to mention Flagellants in this regard. Do they need puffy arms and giant feathers for you to know they're a legitimate Empire unit? No. And their ragtag look even enhances the appearance of a Warrior-Priest in the unit with the direct poor fanatics/rich clergy contrast.
Repentias could be that.
Also, boobies.
My personal take on Repentias it's similar to the Wulfen look, just rag tag and worn off armor, the Repentias are sisters so mad/devoted just focus in going from battle to battle and praying for attonement, never caring for their armour.
I agree that a better look for Repentia would be to have them covered in scrolls, rather than the current look. It is the style seen on the Witchhunters Codex cover.
With a suitable amount of scripture and paper stapled on, the models will be plenty modest enough to sell to kids' mums. Yet, wearing only paper, they will still be unarmoured and vulnerable in their penance.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Vey nice, very catholic, hope we'll get even more skulls everywhere though. The Sisters is really the faction where skulls are the most appropriate in the skull universe of skulls that is Warhammer "40 000 Skulls".
I mean, catholics do this:
Yeah but only on special occasions, during ordinary time two or three skulls tastefully arranged is more than enough
Geifer wrote: Current Repentias suffer a little from being surprisingly modestly clad for naked Sisters with giant chainswords and some stapled on scripture. It gives the impression of the oft quoted BDSM nun much more than the raging zealots they're supposed to be.
GW should at least drop the armor bits on the new ones. While they serve to tie the models in with the other Sisters, they do detract from the idea behind Repentias. Galas isn't wrong to mention Flagellants in this regard. Do they need puffy arms and giant feathers for you to know they're a legitimate Empire unit? No. And their ragtag look even enhances the appearance of a Warrior-Priest in the unit with the direct poor fanatics/rich clergy contrast.
Repentias could be that.
Also, boobies.
My personal take on Repentias it's similar to the Wulfen look, just rag tag and worn off armor, the Repentias are sisters so mad/devoted just focus in going from battle to battle and praying for attonement, never caring for their armour.
I actually like the idea that they think that “the Word of the Emperor” (i.e. written on bits of paper) is greater armour than anything the Mechanicum could devise. Might even be true against daemons...
I'd like to see Repentia wearing very similar gear to Pious Vorne from BSF. Looks similar to the SoBPA but a with the bling stripped away and not Powered Armour.
Second render of nuSOB we've seen, and a second one showing combat boots rather than combat heels.
I think we can - unless further evidence presents itself - confirm that GW won't be adding combat heels to a SOB range that never had them in the first place
Geifer wrote: Current Repentias suffer a little from being surprisingly modestly clad for naked Sisters with giant chainswords and some stapled on scripture. It gives the impression of the oft quoted BDSM nun much more than the raging zealots they're supposed to be.
GW should at least drop the armor bits on the new ones. While they serve to tie the models in with the other Sisters, they do detract from the idea behind Repentias. Galas isn't wrong to mention Flagellants in this regard. Do they need puffy arms and giant feathers for you to know they're a legitimate Empire unit? No. And their ragtag look even enhances the appearance of a Warrior-Priest in the unit with the direct poor fanatics/rich clergy contrast.
Repentias could be that.
Also, boobies.
My personal take on Repentias it's similar to the Wulfen look, just rag tag and worn off armor, the Repentias are sisters so mad/devoted just focus in going from battle to battle and praying for attonement, never caring for their armour.
I actually like the idea that they think that “the Word of the Emperor” (i.e. written on bits of paper) is greater armour than anything the Mechanicum could devise. Might even be true against daemons...
The way I roll saves for power armor it's true for more than just Daemons. Empirical evidence FTW!
Dysartes wrote: Second render of nuSOB we've seen, and a second one showing combat boots rather than combat heels.
I think we can - unless further evidence presents itself - confirm that GW won't be adding combat heels to a SOB range that never had them in the first place
I have my doubts that the crowd that goes nuts over non-existant high heels will be swayed by evidence...
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Yeah but only on special occasions, during ordinary time two or three skulls tastefully arranged is more than enough
I'm not saying every Catholic has skulls in his living room. I'm just saying I don't know of any other religion that has multiple churches with enshrined human remains in golden transparent containers, or the whole “make sculpture out of human bones” things.
Thats what happens to your religion when his beginnings are in the crypts behind Rome to avoid persecution. You end up with a fetish for bones and human remains.
Well, Sisters of Battle would have looked how GW wanted, just like new dark eldar are as much or more Dark Eldar than the old BDSM ones. Just like Metal-Plated Black Orcs are as orcs as the old horned-helmet silly ones.
But I prefer for them to keep this style. I love it. And unlike the old dark eldars they still look cool by today standards from a design point of view.
Galas wrote: Well, Sisters of Battle would have looked how GW wanted, just like new dark eldar are as much or more Dark Eldar than the old BDSM ones. Just like Metal-Plated Black Orcs are as orcs as the old horned-helmet silly ones.
But I prefer for them to keep this style. I love it. And unlike the old dark eldars they still look cool by today standards from a design point of view.
The difference is, the old Dark Eldar models looked crap. The design of the old sisters was fine, it’s just the sculpts/material hasn’t quite held up.
^ This. The old DE (and I have a few) look absolutely dreadful when put next to the new(er) incarnations. SoB look great next to my templars, but metal/age makes the models hard to work with, and definitely deserving of a revamp.
Given the expectations have been building for quite some time on this, I think playing it safe with the previews and keeping to the original and much-beloved aesthetic was a smart move. Any change would have been hyper analysed and most likely fragment the community. This gives them a much safer run-out of the new line which, having analysed performance, can be fleshed out/played with later down the line.
What sort of revised design were you hoping for, and would they still have looked like Sisters of Battle after your changes?
Well, I like some parts and dislike others.
While I agree that DEldar were in greater need of an overhaul, I feel like SoB are very dated too.
Wouldn't just throw out everything, mind you. Their helmets, for example, are one of my favourite designs in the setting - possibly my favourite.
But I would have liked GW to take a bold new overall design approach in the vein of the 2010 DEldar regardless. I am no designer, only a consumer.
Maybe something less extreme than 3rd ed > 5th ed DEldar, and something more akin to marines > primaris? I could write a long post about specifics, but that's been done to death before and would probably derail things.
Ashiraya wrote: Wouldn't just throw out everything, mind you. Their helmets, for example, are one of my favourite designs in the setting - possibly my favourite.
Someone in 40k general just asked if he was the only one to dislike the helmet. Everyone else answered basically that yes, he was the only one to dislike it. And it's been in my sig for years too!
I did some cleaning up and would like to remind everyone partaking in this topic to remain civil and to remember that Rule #1, to be polite, is not an optional feature on these forums.
Albertorius wrote: Going back to one of my examples, the rebooted Dark Eldars are still unmistakingly Dark Eldars, I would say, and still anything and everything is better than what was before. So far, with these SoBs we have exactly what we had before, except more defined and with better detail, but it is 100% what was before, with little or no redesign whatsoever. I do like them, a lot, so far. But I don't know wether or not I would have liked them if they had strayed more from that, because they haven't, at least not so far.
So first of all, in a thread about Sisters, it’s always important to emphasize agreement where possible so yeah keeping in mind we both agree, along with many others, that what we have seen so far looks very good indeed ...
I’m not sure what the DE comparison tells us. The new DE are completely in line with the previous ones, albeit of course much better proportioned and more detailed. That’s exactly what I think needs to happen with Sisters. And to the extent that there are some genuinely new aspects, I don’t see a problem because as near as I can tell they are in addition to rather than subtracting from the established aesthetic of DE. The other issue is DE have never been picked apart piece by piece of the course of a deacde (or more) by hyper critical posters who insist they are fans while it seems like their main point of contact with the faction is telling the rest of us what’s wrong with the faction.
Moreover, I’m not a fan of DE. I mean, I like them and I think they look cool and have a cool background — but that doesn’t make me a fan. I think perhaps “fan” is used too lightly in these conversations. Thinking DE are neat, like I do, is one thing but I’m not invested in the preservation of the DE faction identity. So I’m not very sensitive to where the specific line is about what makes them what they are. If I wanted to learn about that, I’d ask a DE fan.
Manchu wrote: The other issue is DE have never been picked apart piece by piece of the course of a deacde (or more) by hyper critical posters who insist they are fans while it seems like their main point of contact with the faction is telling the rest of us what’s wrong with the faction.
- Sisters shouldn’t have “boob armor”
- Sisters shouldn’t have bobs
- Sisters shouldn’t have corsets
- Sisters shouldn’t have “combat heels” (even though they don’t)
etc.
And addtionally, some of them have given examples of what Sisters should (in their opinion) look like and it’s nothing like what they are.
I’m not going to name names when anyone can look back into the record.
Ashiraya wrote: Wouldn't just throw out everything, mind you. Their helmets, for example, are one of my favourite designs in the setting - possibly my favourite.
Someone in 40k general just asked if he was the only one to dislike the helmet. Everyone else answered basically that yes, he was the only one to dislike it. And it's been in my sig for years too!
I like the helmets, but I vastly prefer sisters without them. In my opinion the classic black hairstyle is THE defining visual element of the Sisters of Battle. Having a few helmets, or helmets on specific units is cool, but to me they aren't sisters unless the majority of the models have that hairstyle.
How is the black hairstyle the classic when Sisters have been white-haired in like 90% of their depictions?
Of course I love the bob-cut of sisters of battle but we can't forgot that was a limitation of the time. I would prefer if they offer us the same choice as with Primaris marines, with enough heads for a all-helmeted squad or not.
Manchu wrote: - Sisters shouldn’t have “boob armor” - Sisters shouldn’t have bobs - Sisters shouldn’t have corsets - Sisters shouldn’t have “combat heels” (even though they don’t)
They should have bob armour, combat corsets, and boob heels!!!
Frankly I don't understand the calls to drastically change the way Sisters look. Honestly, it's like saying "Regular Space Marines shouldn't have backpacks and giant pauldrons!"** or "Tyranids should only have 4 limbs and wear armour!". If you're going to utterly change the aesthetic of something, why not just create something new rather than destroying what already exists.
I said in my first reaction to the new Sister is that the best part about her is the fact that she looks like a Sister. Updating the range without losing the core aesthetic of the entire faction is a big deal, and from what little GW have shown so far they are absolutely nailing it.
Galas wrote: ... I would prefer if they offer us the same choice as with Primaris marines...
Never seen anyone associate options/choice with Primaris Marines, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
**"But Scouts!" I said regular Marines for a reason.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Frankly I don't understand the calls to drastically change the way Sisters look.
It makes sense, of course, if the one calling for it does not like them.
Updating the range without losing the core aesthetic of the entire faction is a big deal, and from what little GW have shown so far they are absolutely nailing it.
Yes, and we can only hope that they are dribbling it out this way for some reason OTHER THAN slowly earning trust before showing us something quite bad.
I bought both Sisters (2nd edition) and Dark Eldar (3rd edition) pretty much the days they were released. I've been a fan of both since they appeared, Sisters more so.
Dark Eldar needed an overhaul. They were okay at the time of release but the 3rd edition models are no where near today's standards in proportion or clarity. I've made recent conversions combining pieces from both incarnations of DE.
Sororitas, to this day, still look good. They're bobble headed of course, as was the case for all GW figures for many years, but they still hold up in overall quality. Exceptions are later stuff like the Dialogus (which doesn't have a Sororitas symbol and was originally just an Inquisition Acolyte) and Repentia Mistress. The most recent canoness doesn't have great proportions either tbh. The earlier Jes Goodwin sculpts have stood the test of time, as have his sculpts across many factions.
I predict the stuff getting the overhaul treatment are the later stuff- Arco-flagellants, Penitent engines, Repentia, etc. Original Sororitas designs are solid and iconic and are likely going to stay pretty similar, just as the Eldar have for decades.
Most sisters fans just want plastic versions of old favorites as far as I can tell. I for one am sick of trying to convert metal.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Frankly I don't understand the calls to drastically change the way Sisters look.
Although I would normally advocate for sensible female armour*, Sororitas are a rare case where this kind of armour design makes some sense.
After all, their role as the Ecclesiarchy's armed forces is a bald-faced attempt to get away with gratuitously exploiting the loophole of not being able to have "men under arms"; in that context, deliberately emphasising that their forces are women is about as reasonable an argument as you can ever really have for such a thing. (And let's be honest, we can't really argue that sensible armour design is a constant in the 41st millennium. "Yes, I will go into battle in shiny gold armour, because I want to make it as easy as possible for the enemy to know where I am.")
* And I have been known to put stupid amounts of time and effort into that...
Ridiculous and unpractical armor makes sense for all factions in 40K. This is a setting where normal men choose to run across open battlefields with nothing but swords and pistols.
Personal tastes abound, but as far as what 40K "is about", so to speak, practicality is the last thing on any factions' mind. Tau used to be the closest we had to a sensible aesthetic, and then they threw 50 big, dumb mechas at it.
Galas wrote: How is the black hairstyle the classic when Sisters have been white-haired in like 90% of their depictions?
It's "classic" because the models were depicted with black hair when the army was introduced. The white hair only came later (presumably to make the heads stand out more from the armour). Personally I like the haircut. And the heads on the metal models; I never undserstood what people didn't like about them.
Agreed. All my line-Sisters will be bobheads, if the sprues permit. Only Celestians get helmets, having sufficiently proven their faith in the Emperor and His favour of them by surviving for so long without one
Manchu wrote: Yes, and we can only hope that they are dribbling it out this way for some reason OTHER THAN slowly earning trust before showing us something quite bad.
We already know the classic armour is here to stay. Realistically, what could GW even mess up at this point, design wise?
Galas wrote: How is the black hairstyle the classic when Sisters have been white-haired in like 90% of their depictions?
It's "classic" because the models were depicted with black hair when the army was introduced. The white hair only came later (presumably to make the heads stand out more from the armour). Personally I like the haircut. And the heads on the metal models; I never undserstood what people didn't like about them.
Well, if they had classic bobs their hairstyle would be timeless. Unfortunately they all have turned under bobs which look horribly dated. Basically they all look my mum did in the seventies
Manchu wrote: Most obviously, Repentia. But there could also be some new units.
Unlike the normal sisters I don't think Repentia have anything worthwile modelwise that should be any kind of benchmark or standard of how well GW has redo the Sisters miniature line. (With the exception of the Eviscerator, Eviscerators are the coolest weapon in all of 40k alongside Lighting Claws and we need more of those)
But of course this comes down to personal tastes, and I have make clear my own opinion about how the new Repentia should look.
yeah look at Centurions - OMG or Grey Night Baby carriers...
While I can understand the fear of the 'what if it's a Centurion', it does feel like both of those were the poster children of bean counter design, something GW seemingly left behind in the past couple years.
Manchu wrote: Most obviously, Repentia. But there could also be some new units.
I think GW should lean in on the fetish aspects, go really heavily on the Penitent side of the army. Go with the naked Repentia per the WH cover. Do similar with the Pengine, but go bigger, and have more variants. Similar with Arco-Flagellants and other mind-wipe / Clan Moulder-esque stuff, but with the advantage of starting with naked women vs giant rats.
Also, Frateris Militia. In plastic. 40k Empire Flagellants.
MarcoSkoll wrote: After all, their role as the Ecclesiarchy's armed forces is a bald-faced attempt to get away with gratuitously exploiting the loophole of not being able to have "men under arms"; in that context, deliberately emphasising that their forces are women is about as reasonable an argument as you can ever really have for such a thing.
Well I'll have to disagree here. In the original, more detailed fluff about the Trial of Sebastian Thor and the reformation of the Ecclesiarchy, it seems like the wording of this rule is more of a way to save face by the other Imperial officials trying to coerce Sebastian Thor into becoming Ecclesiarch when Thor pressure them into accepting keeping the Sororitas than anything else. And I like this version better, I love the trial!
- Sisters shouldn’t have “boob armor”
- Sisters shouldn’t have bobs
- Sisters shouldn’t have corsets
- Sisters shouldn’t have “combat heels” (even though they don’t)
etc.
I would be fine with sisters losing the boob armor.
I hope the new heads will give option for full bobs, other haircut, and full helmet.
Some Sisters model don't have corset already (but I think they aren't really good though)
I want Sisters to stay without combat heels.
I… might be one of those people ^^'.
jake wrote: I like the helmets, but I vastly prefer sisters without them. In my opinion the classic black hairstyle is THE defining visual element of the Sisters of Battle. Having a few helmets, or helmets on specific units is cool, but to me they aren't sisters unless the majority of the models have that hairstyle.
As I wrote above, I hope we get enough head to get plenty of choice on the matter!
Manchu wrote: Yes, and we can only hope that they are dribbling it out this way for some reason OTHER THAN slowly earning trust before showing us something quite bad.
Come on, don't be paranoid. When they finally release some model that looks horrible, it will be in a completely oblivious manner rather than a calculated one .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I would be fine with sisters losing the boob armor. I hope the new heads will give option for full bobs, other haircut, and full helmet. Some Sisters model don't have corset already (but I think they aren't really good though) I want Sisters to stay without combat heels.
Sounds about right.
I am a bit bothered by the attitude towards those who do want something changed though. If someone walked into a SW thread and said 'I do like SW, but I wish they dialed down on the wolfiness a bit' they wouldn't be told 'yeah well clearly you don't like space wolves as they are, and if you changed them in any way they would not be space wolves, so there is your problem'. But that seems to be a common attitude in SoB threads.
Maybe they should do it the Runescape way - leave the originals untouched for the old fans and keep the designs moving for those who prefer that.
Ashiraya wrote: I am a bit bothered by the attitude towards those who do want something changed though. If someone walked into a SW thread and said 'I do like SW, but I wish they dialed down on the wolfiness a bit' they wouldn't be told 'yeah well clearly you don't like space wolves as they are, and if you changed them in any way they would not be space wolves, so there is your problem'. But that seems to be a common attitude in SoB threads.
Anyone who actually minds the overt Viking/wolf motif use can simply paint some generic Marines grey and call them Space Wolves. The discussion over 'proper' SoB design revolves around elements that cannot be fixed/undone by a lick of paint.
Hence the vehemence.
Ashiraya wrote: Maybe they should do it the Runescape way - leave the originals untouched for the old fans and keep the designs moving for those who prefer that.
I'm sure that would never breed any sort of resentment.
His Master's Voice wrote: Anyone who actually minds the overt Viking/wolf motif use can simply paint some generic Marines grey and call them Space Wolves
In this particular comparison, it was wolfiness half specifically (the viking half rarely seems to be complained about in comparison). The two halves together are what makes them SW.
SoB are similar - they are a collection of different design aspects, rather than only a single one.
Wait, those heads are coming from Games Workshop? Oh. Oh...
They look bad. Like, really, really bad. The proportions are both shallow in places, and exaggerated in others. For one the noses are just awful. Neither do they look particularly feminine. And overall there isn't a great deal of detail, instead going for a chunkier approach which I guess is to fit in with some aesthetic, but which is the opposite of what some of their competitors have been doing with their own figures.
And I say all of this, as they must know that Statuesque Miniatures exists. That company will certainly be seeing a bump in sales for their products if Games Workshop are putting out this sort of quality. :/
Wyrmalla wrote: Wait, those heads are coming from Games Workshop? Oh. Oh...
They look bad. Like, really, really bad. The proportions are both shallow in places, and exaggerated in others. For one the noses are just awful. Neither do they look particularly feminine. And overall there isn't a great deal of detail, instead going for a chunkier approach which I guess is to fit in with some aesthetic, but which is the opposite of what some of their competitors have been doing with their own figures.
And I say all of this, as they must know that Statuesque Miniatures exists. That company will certainly be seeing a bump in sales for their products if Games Workshop are putting out this sort of quality. :/
Renders are generally more exaggerated in certain places, because parts have to be for the mould to catch the details. They’ll probably look a lot better in plastic.
Wyrmalla wrote: Wait, those heads are coming from Games Workshop? Oh. Oh...
They look bad. Like, really, really bad. The proportions are both shallow in places, and exaggerated in others. For one the noses are just awful. Neither do they look particularly feminine. And overall there isn't a great deal of detail, instead going for a chunkier approach which I guess is to fit in with some aesthetic, but which is the opposite of what some of their competitors have been doing with their own figures.
And I say all of this, as they must know that Statuesque Miniatures exists. That company will certainly be seeing a bump in sales for their products if Games Workshop are putting out this sort of quality. :/
Renders are generally more exaggerated in certain places, because parts have to be for the mould to catch the details. They’ll probably look a lot better in plastic.
Galas wrote: I'm the only one that doesn't like Statuesque Heads? They look just too... inhumane to me. Too... statuesque?
I don't like any of their models.
Just took a look at their out of focus site.
All their males give comically large noses and their female heads all have Mohawks and cyborg eyes.
No thanks.
Galas wrote: I'm the only one that doesn't like Statuesque Heads? They look just too... inhumane to me. Too... statuesque?
I don't like any of their models.
Just took a look at their out of focus site.
All their males give comically large noses and their female heads all have Mohawks and cyborg eyes.
No thanks.
Not that I have any investment in that company, but I'd have to interject. This is a misrepresentation of their ranges. Out of their "Heroic Scale" heads, 1/5th have Bionic eyes ...presumably as they're in their specific heads with bionics sets, and the same again for mohawks - as Bionics =/= cyberpunk. The male figures with the large noses seem to be in their cartoony fantasy range (where most are Dwarves or an old wizard), with not many of the men from the Pulp range have out of proportion faces. Whilst the two sci-fi men have large noses, they aren't comically large, but well chalk it up to personal taste.
So whilst I can admit that yes, Statuesque Miniatures may not be for everyone, the sculpts shown in that image from Games Workshop are unobjectively poor, and not what I would expect from a professional.
SW are an interesting case (as are Necrons). They underwent a series of releases that took their established aesthetic in a markedly different direction than previously. And some people have complained that this is the wrong direction, in their opinion. They already liked SW; they consider dramatically changing the faction focus to emphasize some kind of cartoonish werewolf theme as a negative. I certainly sympathize with people who like SW less because of the changes. I symapthize with people who would like to see development BACK to the previous direction.
This is very different from Sisters. As a playable faction, Sisters have never undergone a major shift in design. There is a unified, coherent aesthetic that has become iconic.
Going back to Necrons. I like the changes GW made to them. But I will readily admit that’s because I thought they were reallly boring before, despite the fact I liked the basic design of the Necron Warrior. I didn’t like Necrons as a faction, however (I certainly didn’t claim to be a fan) — which is exactly why I like the fact that GW changed them. But I didn’t show up in every Necron thread arguing that they should be radically redesigned to suit my taste because I’m a fan and I have special insight into how they should be. Rather, the changes came around and I took a greater interest in Necrons than previously.
Manchu wrote: Going back to Necrons. I like the changes GW made to them. But I will readily admit that’s because I thought they were reallly boring before, despite the fact I liked the basic design of the Necron Warrior. I didn’t like Necrons as a faction, however (I certainly didn’t claim to be a fan) — which is exactly why I like the fact that GW changed them. But I didn’t show up in every Necron thread arguing that they should be radically redesigned to suit my taste because I’m a fan and I have special insight into how they should be. Rather, the changes came around and I took a greater interest in Necrons than previously.
Excluding the definition of a 'radical' change in this context, which can be debated at a later date;
In the hypothetical situation that a player would have a similar approach to SoB as described in your necron example, do you feel those people should not be allowed to discuss those opinions in the SoB threads?
In what other faction's threads would those discussions be more appropriate?
What if they already have some level of interest in the faction (certainly more than you describe you had with the oldcrons) but still prefer that some changes be made?
Wyrmalla wrote: Wait, those heads are coming from Games Workshop? Oh. Oh...
They look bad. Like, really, really bad. The proportions are both shallow in places, and exaggerated in others. For one the noses are just awful. Neither do they look particularly feminine. And overall there isn't a great deal of detail, instead going for a chunkier approach which I guess is to fit in with some aesthetic, but which is the opposite of what some of their competitors have been doing with their own figures.
And I say all of this, as they must know that Statuesque Miniatures exists. That company will certainly be seeing a bump in sales for their products if Games Workshop are putting out this sort of quality. :/
I like the new heads. I do think they look feminine, and yeah, some of the features are a bit out of whack on the initial renders, but considering the work GW has been coming out with, I like the synthases of nun/80's punk/modern soldier. I don't like the satuesque's take on that aesthetic.
Ashiraya, it’s never been about who is allowed to say what they want. That’s sort of a fundamental misconception, that we’re debating who gets to post their opinion. Anyone can post their opinion, obviously. But that opinion is also up for analysis. And it’s worth pointing out that some peole, like myself, want new Sisters models as opposed to other people, seemingly including you, who want a new take on Sisters. That’s a radical difference in perspective.
Manchu wrote: SW are an interesting case (as are Necrons). They underwent a series of releases that took their established aesthetic in a markedly different direction than previously.
This is very different from Sisters. As a playable faction, Sisters have never undergone a major shift in design.
Manchu wrote: And it’s worth pointing out that some peole, like myself, want new Sisters models as opposed to other people, seemingly including you, who want a new take on Sisters. That’s a radical difference in perspective.
For me those are not mutually exclusive, mind you.
More to the point, why did you argue for the non-participation of the latter group by using yourself as the example with Necrons if you did not intend to have that effect?
Though stepping back on the bondage gear and having them wear a mix of the existing cloth elements featured on the regular Sisters models, along with wrapped scripture could work too. Less sexualised nuns, and more raving flagellants (though given the regular Sisters are wearing corsets and have boob armour, that's maybe a big ask. I wonder if they'll include enough helmets in the sets to have them all fully armoured, or if showing off those pretty faces will be the default like the existing range...).
No, please take another look at what I wrote: I did not claim to be a fan, and therefore that Necrons should change according to my taste, while criticizing Necrons. Let’s just be honest: I did not like Necrons previously; that’s the actual basis for my opinion that they needed changing. But all I could say, as to why I wanted different Necrons, is that the existing ones did not suit my personal taste. To which, someone else might reasonably respond “so what?”
So there is this fundamental misconception that, because some people don't like some aspect of the current SoB formula, they don't like SoB at all?
Trust me, I wouldn't spend this much effort posting in SoB threads if I didn't care about them. I'd do like I do with IG threads and just not enter them.
Wyrmalla wrote: Wait, those heads are coming from Games Workshop? Oh. Oh...
They look bad. Like, really, really bad. The proportions are both shallow in places, and exaggerated in others. For one the noses are just awful. Neither do they look particularly feminine. And overall there isn't a great deal of detail, instead going for a chunkier approach which I guess is to fit in with some aesthetic, but which is the opposite of what some of their competitors have been doing with their own figures.
And I say all of this, as they must know that Statuesque Miniatures exists. That company will certainly be seeing a bump in sales for their products if Games Workshop are putting out this sort of quality. :/
I like the new heads. I do think they look feminine, and yeah, some of the features are a bit out of whack on the initial renders, but considering the work GW has been coming out with, I like the synthases of nun/80's punk/modern soldier. I don't like the satuesque's take on that aesthetic.
Same here, as long as there is good variety of head (i.e. enuff to do whole squad helmet or not) options to choose from. Some should look feminine, some less so. to represent the female form correctly it should include all types, it's more realistic.
I'm hoping for scarring, bionics, serene, angry faces & great haircuts.
Wyrmalla, as to that Repentia art, I like it overall and it looks a lot like the existing models except that she looks a bit too well armed and armored. But that’s the right ballpark, along with the horrific art from the codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: So there is this fundamental misconception that, because some people don't like some aspect of the current SoB formula, they don't like SoB at all?
This isn’t related to our line of conversation, so far as I can tell. Comes off as disregarding what I actually said and instead putting words in my mouth.
Considering GW is using the two unit types per kit formula, we could easily get two variations of a Repentia-type unit. I think a dual pistol fallen-seraphim sans wings would be pretty sweet.
Wyrmalla wrote: Wait, those heads are coming from Games Workshop? Oh. Oh...
They look bad. Like, really, really bad. The proportions are both shallow in places, and exaggerated in others. For one the noses are just awful. Neither do they look particularly feminine. And overall there isn't a great deal of detail, instead going for a chunkier approach which I guess is to fit in with some aesthetic, but which is the opposite of what some of their competitors have been doing with their own figures.
And I say all of this, as they must know that Statuesque Miniatures exists. That company will certainly be seeing a bump in sales for their products if Games Workshop are putting out this sort of quality. :/
You seem to think that GW artists have ever actually seen humans before. Remember, they've officially, under oath, never seen any robots depicted in anything ever. Or animals. Or the middle ages.
Is it any wonder they can't sculpt a non screaming bald male head for gak?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I would be fine with sisters losing the boob armor.
I hope the new heads will give option for full bobs, other haircut, and full helmet.
Some Sisters model don't have corset already (but I think they aren't really good though)
I want Sisters to stay without combat heels.
Sounds about right.
I am a bit bothered by the attitude towards those who do want something changed though. If someone walked into a SW thread and said 'I do like SW, but I wish they dialed down on the wolfiness a bit' they wouldn't be told 'yeah well clearly you don't like space wolves as they are, and if you changed them in any way they would not be space wolves, so there is your problem'. But that seems to be a common attitude in SoB threads.
Maybe they should do it the Runescape way - leave the originals untouched for the old fans and keep the designs moving for those who prefer that.
I'm a bit bothered that people who want to make changes to a classic aesthetic seem to think they should be allowed to push for that outcome without any resistance. It's almost as if they're aware their viewpoint on this and similar issues is a minority one that won't get anywhere with the bean counters pulling the strings at GW, unless they can quiet down those who disagree and create the perception that the "change it" faction is much bigger than they actually are.
Space Wolves as an army have been supported pretty much non-stop since 2nd edition. They have an extensive plastic range, and always have. Anyone collecting them has access to the full and complete range of potential interpretations of their aesthetic through the SW and Marine model range.
Sisters have been pretty much abandoned since 2nd ed. They have no plastics, and chunks of their metal range have been unavailable for long stretches of time. If their new incarnation was to deviate from the established aesthetic, existing fans would have zero practical options for representing their preferred(and currently, the only) aesthetic. And frankly, since pretty much the only reason the Sisters are getting a new release at all is those existing fans keeping their appreciation for the faction going for twenty years while GW ignored them and the "change faction" denigrated them as weirdo pervs or cryptomisogynists, I'd say catering to their preference first and, frankly, exclusively is entirely fair.
Also, err, you do get that in your example, you wouldn't be the person asking for the Wolves to be less wolfy-wolf, right? You'd be the person insisting that Thunderwolves and Santa Grimnir's Hoversleigh were valid changes to the existing SW aesthetic of space-vikings, because it's that original aesthetic that is equivalent to Sisters.
Exactly, what would be the point of bringing a beloved and neglected faction back (by request from the loyal fans, no less) into the light, only to change what makes them so beloved in the first place?
I've loved the Adepta Sororitas aesthetic since I bought and painted my first sister back in... 1997 or so? And the previews (including the heads) look great to me - just enough of keeping the aesthetic and developing it by widening variety of poses and personality.
Some people are very quick to judge though, even based on early concept designs. Tell me about it, I work as a designer, and sometimes I dread showing concepts to certain people because they cannot grasp the concept of "work in progress" and that you by showing early work are asking for feedback in order to keep developing it. Also, constructive feedback is always welcome but comments like "oh, those look horrible, I can't imagine how they could do this, it is very unprofessional" etc. is frankly quite useless.
Dunno, I like what I'm seeing so far, but some new stuff would be cool too. Maybe heavier-armored sisters, for example (more like Mk II SM breachers or something, not really terminators). Doing new stuff could allow them to diverge somewhat from the already established stuff (we've already seen they are being faithful with those, so far) while keeping the aesthetics.
Part of it is that simply there isn't much point in bringing back the line and being too conservative with the launch. The beta codex is one example of this- bland mediocrity with yet another unreliable faith gimmick. Again. (Yes, I'm sure someone has found something to cheese, whatever)
For the models, jamming every single element that makes up their aesthetic is an equally conservative mistake. They can keep the aesthetic sane and grow it a bit with new things. So far, if they're doing that at all they aren't showing it.
It feels like they're plasticizing the metals because they received a mandate from the survey, not because they have any enthusiasm or ideas for the project. But an uninspired, conservative rehash of the same old stuff with the same old rules problems isn't healthy for the long term growth of the line.
If it flounders, they're very likely to just kill it for good.
I don't see why the two options cannot coexist either. GW will not do the Sisters release without some new kit or options that were not previously represented. Every major rebuild of a 40k force has done this- Necrons, DE, GSC all got a plethora of new units alongside the updated core. Some of these were alternate duel-builds (like Necron Immortals), some were straight-up new, like Aberrants or the flyers.
So we will most likely get the core Sisters units- battle sisters/dominions/retributors, celestians, repentia, canoness, seraphim. But many of those are likely to have a duel-build alternative with a similar aesthetic to the classic design.
However we are also likely to get a brand new unit kit or two. These could easily be a fairly radical aesthetic change that still ties in. Something like lightly-armoured infiltrators or heavily armoured Terminator equivalents perhaps. Both of these would be great candidates for Sisters models with moulded breasts on the armour, for example. That way, we get a variety of complementary aesthetics within the faction, people can build their force as they see fit, and the range is richer for the variety.
Manchu wrote: Wyrmalla, as to that Repentia art, I like it overall and it looks a lot like the existing models except that she looks a bit too well armed and armored. But that’s the right ballpark, along with the horrific art from the codex.
Meh, she doesn't look very repentant to me. Where's the religious fervor and punishment of self? She could be a Seraphim in beachwear.
Voss wrote: Part of it is that simply there isn't much point in bringing back the line and being too conservative with the launch. The beta codex is one example of this- bland mediocrity with yet another unreliable faith gimmick. Again. (Yes, I'm sure someone has found something to cheese, whatever)
For the models, jamming every single element that makes up their aesthetic is an equally conservative mistake. They can keep the aesthetic sane and grow it a bit with new things. So far, if they're doing that at all they aren't showing it.
It feels like they're plasticizing the metals because they received a mandate from the survey, not because they have any enthusiasm or ideas for the project. But an uninspired, conservative rehash of the same old stuff with the same old rules problems isn't healthy for the long term growth of the line.
If it flounders, they're very likely to just kill it for good.
Out of interest, how do you propose a less conservative approach to look like. I have a little trouble seeing what you mean,
We have the short haircut so far an at least speculation that it belongs to a novitiate, so we might get something along the lines of a Sister equivalent of Scout to full Marine. No certainty yet, of course, but considering that the bob is part of the uniform and we have evidence that that's not the only haircut available, there's evidence that GW is willing to broaden the Sisters aesthetic to a degree.
On the point of enthusiasm and ideas, do you think Sisters would have suffered 20 years of neglect if there was any of that in anyone remotely in a position to push for new Sisters releases? I'll take conservative any day not just because I don't like undue change to faction aesthetic, but because I expect the designers to do their fething job instead of jerking around and doing only the projects they care about.
Less conservative? Not every model has to have a corset AND robes AND armored boots AND shoulder pads that would stagger a marine. Leaving several out would keep the model looking like a Sister without overloading each one.
When I (and I suspect others) say 'Definitely looks like a Sister.'. That isn't a compliment. It's that they've done the minimum necessary to replicate an old model for mass production in plastic. There is zero 'wow' factor. Just an acknowledgement that they've successfully passed the lowest bar possible, and it can join the third (fourth? Fifth?) iteration of tactical marines as a box on the shelf. Not that it will ignite fervor and produce lots of sales.
As to the other, I'm not sure what you mean. Several factions were neglected for decades because GW didn't know where to go with them, several flavors of elf in both systems, Bretonnians, tomb kings. Without a designer pushing a project, GW has a history of producing nothing at all.
Their jobs as you put it, is to make models or rules. It isn't to reproduce the back catalog of citadel miniatures. They're either put on projects by management or they successfully argue why their pet project would be good for the company. If management doesn't want to do wood elves and no one had a convincing plan for wood elves, then a decade passed without any wood elves. Which actually happened. Sisters are nothing special in that regard.
I expect the basic sister to look like a Sister of Battle.
They have room for making new units and double-builds to sprinkle all that variety. I also expect things like Seraphim and Celestiants to become more ornate and different from the basic Sister of Battle as all elite units have become (Like Vanguard and Sternguard veterans), instead of just being the basic model with a halo or something like that.
Well good news! Their pauldrons are already smaller!
As for the rest, they are called uniforms for a reason...
And for most people 'Definitely looks like a sister' is a complement. As in GW didn't do anything stupid like make them generic fem-marines.
No one wants them to reproduce the old models. Most of us however want to keep the same aesthetic, and improve on overall quality. To have SISTER models that are as good as the best that GW has made for other lines.
Voss wrote: Less conservative? Not every model has to have a corset AND robes AND armored boots AND shoulder pads that would stagger a marine. Leaving several out would keep the model looking like a Sister without overloading each one..
I see, thanks.
Not that I agree. Sisters are an army, and not just any army but one highly representative of it parent organization that is both rich and rigid in its doctrine. It seems strange to me to apply a ragtag revolutionary army look to an army that has the means and the purpose to look uniform and representative of the faith and church it represents.
Now variance in devotional items, purity seals and the like, sure. I couldn't object to that. But the basic uniform?
Voss wrote: When I (and I suspect others) say 'Definitely looks like a Sister.'. That isn't a compliment. It's that they've done the minimum necessary to replicate an old model for mass production in plastic. There is zero 'wow' factor. Just an acknowledgement that they've successfully passed the lowest bar possible, and it can join the third (fourth? Fifth?) iteration of tactical marines as a box on the shelf. Not that it will ignite fervor and produce lots of sales..
It's a compliment when I say it, for what it's worth. Regardless of that, I wouldn't equate the first plastic kit Sisters get to the umpteenth iteration of Tactical Marines, not the least because those Tactical Marines will still outsell Sisters because Space Marines.
We've had Necrons in this thread before, and as a big Necron fan (up to a certain day in August 2011) and I've been the recipient of an update that wowed a certain kind of people, but as an owner of that army, invested in that army, and very much desiring to get new stuff that fit my army, I would have chosen zero wow factor over what we actually got. And saying that, I don't consider the Necron update of 5th ed catastrophic, model-wise. I think updated Sisters have a much greater potential for disappointing existing Sisters fans because the sculpts are so old and there is no plastic legacy GW needs to consider when overhauling the range. I credit them for staying true to the original design, even if a byproduct of it is that it's a quick job on part of the designers because they don't have to add or redo anything of significance.
Voss wrote: As to the other, I'm not sure what you mean. Several factions were neglected for decades because GW didn't know where to go with them, several flavors of elf in both systems, Bretonnians, tomb kings. Without a designer pushing a project, GW has a history of producing nothing at all.
Their jobs as you put it, is to make models or rules. It isn't to reproduce the back catalog of citadel miniatures. They're either put on projects by management or they successfully argue why their pet project would be good for the company. If management doesn't want to do wood elves and no one had a convincing plan for wood elves, then a decade passed without any wood elves. Which actually happened. Sisters are nothing special in that regard.
Yeah, I'm not upset because that's a problem of Sisters alone, but because it isn't. I am hardly alone in criticizing GW for letting certain armies and kits languish for years and decades.
I have standards and expect a company the size of GW, and with its output, to keep a minimum quality to all its supported ranges. Necron Warriors, for instance, are quite old by now, but they're in plastic (the standard these days) and largely in line with the rest of the range. I'm not asking for a redo of that kit because it's still perfectly serviceable .High Elf Spearmen, on the other hand, became obsolete a long time before they seized being a core element of the High Elf army. Emprah's Kiddies still use a metal turned resin upgrade kit from fifteen years ago to make their Troops choice. The list goes on. It can't be hard to have a manager who insists that certain kits are redone to preserve the integrity of an army and set a minimum standard for the appearance of the units, old and new, within that army.
That's obviously not how GW works. And to me, that's a problem. Model designers treating their job like a hobby and doing only what they feel like will only get you so far.
Voss wrote: When I (and I suspect others) say 'Definitely looks like a Sister.'. That isn't a compliment.
It's that they've done the minimum necessary to replicate an old model for mass production in plastic.
There is zero 'wow' factor.
Not that it will ignite fervor and produce lots of sales..
Actually, it is. Looking like a Sister is what a Sister model *should* look like. To say otherwise is simply ridiculous and bad faith argument. If you don't like Sisters aesthetic, that's fine, go play something else. Don't keep on with this nonsense about how Sisters shouldn't be Sisters, because that's just trolling, and I'm going to report you for it from here on out.
The proposed plastic model is a clear translation of the Goodwin design into modern plastic, and that's a good thing. The original design (aside from the haircut) is excellent, and deserves to carry on. There's no need for a "mk.2" redesign, nor a revamp like Necrons or AoS, nor is there any particular desire for such from the people who actually own Sisters forces, nor the people who want plastic Sisters because plastic.
Sisters in plastic *is* the "wow".
No flavor of "girl army" is ever going to produce lots of sales on the scale of Space Marines. They're not the poster children of 40k, and it's not their job. They're a labor of love from the design team to the players, simple as that. All they need to do is cover their costs, which should happen soon enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geifer wrote: I think updated Sisters have a much greater potential for disappointing existing Sisters fans because the sculpts are so old and there is no plastic legacy GW needs to consider when overhauling the range.
I credit them for staying true to the original design, even if a byproduct of it is that it's a quick job on part of the designers because they don't have to add or redo anything of significance.
No plastic legacy???
I believe that is all-new plastic tooling there, and the design is a solid match for the recent release, aside from the palette swap and backpack vs jump pack.
Translating metal to plastic, is not insignificant. There was obviously cleanup done on the design, as the models and parts were rescaled. The footgirl is exactly what she should have been, and matching Jes' elegant sculpts should not be underrated.
On the point about Sisters not being a poster faction —
YES and THANK THE EMPEROR
Looking at the upcoming new intro box, the poster factions are looking more bland than ever IMO. Presumably because they’re aimed at children the horror elemens are rounded out to more cartoonish proportion.
Contrast with another non-poster faction, GSC — the new GSC bring a lot of horrific elements that make them all the cooler and more evocative.
I would be most happy with the same approach to Sisters, especially Repentia (fetishistic zealotry is a horror element).
I think it looks good, especially the extensions of the robes and such. That really brings out the Ecclesiastic element well and reduces the need for needless clutter. I always pictured Sisters as the utilitarian aspect of the Ecclesiarchy, focused on the mission regardless of the blatant corruption, decadence and hypocrisy of the Ecclesiarchy, cause Emprah.
just hope they do something different with Repentia and loose the universal haircut thing. Thats all. Would I like to see an end to boob plate? Sure but i can get over it if thats not happening. As JohnHwang said, the plastic is the wow here. Can't wait to easily magnetize inferno/bolt/plasma pistols on my superiors.
I'm not against catering to other tastes myself. Adding in a few extra non-corset torso bits is fine, as long as it's not at the expense of the core aesthetic.
--
Based on the rendered examples, there are going to be a few options for hair, besides bob, bob, or helmet.
I hope there's enough though that all of one specific type don't have to be used. And enough to give everyone a helmet.
--
I would like to see an expansion to the repentia idea. I wasn't in the hobby when the pistol repentia were around, but that sounds cool.
Voss wrote: When I (and I suspect others) say 'Definitely looks like a Sister.'. That isn't a compliment. It's that they've done the minimum necessary to replicate an old model for mass production in plastic. There is zero 'wow' factor. Just an acknowledgement that they've successfully passed the lowest bar possible, and it can join the third (fourth? Fifth?) iteration of tactical marines as a box on the shelf. Not that it will ignite fervor and produce lots of sales.
Then you don't get the appeal. I have a small pile of old metal genestealer cult up stairs, the new ones were little more than the bare minimum to update them to mass production last edition. It was enough for me to drop hundreds of dollars on them. Why? Because I'd wanted them since they were metal, I was still buying lots of metals occasionally when I had the money up till I had enough that I couldn't justify any more without rules. I love those dopey little doomed bastards and their stupid ribbed mining gear. All they had to do was put that into plastic and give it rules and I'm in, then they've given me another entire set of miniatures just now to dump another damn near a grand so far.
I'm actually hoping sisters take a while so I have some money together again by the time they come out, because if they do for Sisters what they did for the cult, even just the initial release, it will be something I've wanted for years. There's an inherent wow factor there, I've got some friends who might buy some just to say they own some plastic sisters even if they aren't that great just because it's been that much of a thing for so long.
If you don't see the appeal in hilariously overly ornamented flamer wielding war nuns... I don't know what to tell you. You're clearly not interested in sisters unless they conform to your rather specific view of things which is significantly different than what most folks seem to have been asking for.
Yodhrin wrote: It's almost as if they're aware their viewpoint on this and similar issues is a minority one that won't get anywhere with the bean counters pulling the strings at GW, unless they can quiet down those who disagree and create the perception that the "change it" faction is much bigger than they actually are.
It took 15 years of constant complaining to finally get even the idea of Sisters of Battle getting new stuff anywhere near the bean counters pulling the string at GW. Of course everyone knows it take a LOT to get an idea near those bean counters.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The original design (aside from the haircut) is excellent, and deserves to carry on.
So the haircut doesn't deserve to carry on? Which aspects of the original design deserve to carry on, which one doesn't, and why?
Manchu wrote: SW are an interesting case (as are Necrons). They underwent a series of releases that took their established aesthetic in a markedly different direction than previously. And some people have complained that this is the wrong direction, in their opinion. They already liked SW; they consider dramatically changing the faction focus to emphasize some kind of cartoonish werewolf theme as a negative. I certainly sympathize with people who like SW less because of the changes. I symapthize with people who would like to see development BACK to the previous direction.
With the Woofs it was a clear case of Flanderisation.
They went from wolf-themed Vikings to Wolfy "The Wolf" McWolf, riding a wolf, using Wolf Claws, protected by a Wolf Helm, bringing the power of the Wolftime with his Wolfkin and Jesus just make it stop!!!
GW lost all sense of balance with that army's iconography and style (Blood Angels copped a bit of this in Ward's Codex, but certainly not to the same degree).
I don't see Sisters suffering the same problem.
Oh, and Manchu, whilst I've got you, and with the previous page's discussion about Necrons, what would you say to a Return to Sanctuary 101 campaign box that had new Sisters and Necrons as the opposing force?
Voss wrote: When I (and I suspect others) say 'Definitely looks like a Sister.'. That isn't a compliment.
Sure was for me. The worst thing that GW could have done would have been to give us SINO - Sisters In Name Only. Them looking like the Sisters we know already shows that they're committed to (*ahem*) making this army great again (again?). Giving it a real go, the first real go since the dying days of 2nd Ed. I remember that release, and how it felt so tacked on. It was the shortest lived Codex in the entire 2nd Ed line, and since then they never got another look-in outside of Witch Hunters.
What we're seeing so far just indicates that this is a major step forward for the army. Why poo-poo over something that's starting off so strong?
Mmmpi wrote: And for most people 'Definitely looks like a sister' is a complement.
That is certainly the way I intended it. We've only seen two examples of the new Sisters, and the fact that they look so completely like what Sisters are is fantastic (IMO). I also really like all the heads from the last page, and am glad that we'll get a variety of different styles. The only caveat to that is that it'd be nice if each set had enough to do all helmets and all helmetless, as the Sisters helmet is great, and would look great in ranks, but some people still prefer the old-skool haircuts on all their models, which is equally as valid.
Albertorius wrote: Dunno, I like what I'm seeing so far, but some new stuff would be cool too.
100% it would be cool. I love the idea of Sisters with a heavier type of power armour, but not quite Termies, just as you suggested. Make them more fleshed out than just the same miniatures in squads with different names.
That's why that original Repentia artwork from a page back doesn't do it for me. It's too... samey. It's too safe. And it's not horrifying, which is what Repentias (and Penitent Engines, IMO) should be.
Yodhrin wrote: Sisters have been pretty much abandoned since 2nd ed. They have no plastics, and chunks of their metal range have been unavailable for long stretches of time. If their new incarnation was to deviate from the established aesthetic, existing fans would have zero practical options for representing their preferred(and currently, the only) aesthetic.
Hi there! Big Necromunda fan here, and this is 100% my take on the new Delaque miniatures.
I'd hate for die-hard Sisters players to have yet another thing to complain endlessly about to suffer the same fate and end up with a "new" version of their army that has only the scarcest touchstones of aesthetic compatibility.
Geifer wrote: I think updated Sisters have a much greater potential for disappointing existing Sisters fans because the sculpts are so old and there is no plastic legacy GW needs to consider when overhauling the range.
I credit them for staying true to the original design, even if a byproduct of it is that it's a quick job on part of the designers because they don't have to add or redo anything of significance.
No plastic legacy???
Spoiler:
I believe that is all-new plastic tooling there, and the design is a solid match for the recent release, aside from the palette swap and backpack vs jump pack.
Translating metal to plastic, is not insignificant. There was obviously cleanup done on the design, as the models and parts were rescaled. The footgirl is exactly what she should have been, and matching Jes' elegant sculpts should not be underrated.
One character is not enough, and while it may well be a matter of interpretation, I stand by what I said. Celestine is a good sign, but not a sure sign. GW's catalogue is full of characters whose appearance deviates from the standard uniform of their faction (because they are allowed to look different for one reason or another) and it would be easy to justify for GW if they opted for a different aesthetic for the army and still kept Celestine around, especially now that they moved on the timeline.
For instance, Celestine is a character from the distant past who doesn't die and keeps wearing her historical armor versus the Ecclesiarchy at large upgrading to some cawl, new designs.
It's simple, and I don't trust GW not to do anything like it until I see actual proof. Which, with those renders, I did.
Still leaves Repentias up in the air, though...
Mmmpi wrote: I would like to see an expansion to the repentia idea. I wasn't in the hobby when the pistol repentia were around, but that sounds cool.
No one was in the hobby when pistol Repentia were around.
Voss wrote: When I (and I suspect others) say 'Definitely looks like a Sister.'. That isn't a compliment. It's that they've done the minimum necessary to replicate an old model for mass production in plastic. There is zero 'wow' factor. Just an acknowledgement that they've successfully passed the lowest bar possible, and it can join the third (fourth? Fifth?) iteration of tactical marines as a box on the shelf. Not that it will ignite fervor and produce lots of sales.
Then you don't get the appeal. I have a small pile of old metal genestealer cult up stairs, the new ones were little more than the bare minimum to update them to mass production last edition. It was enough for me to drop hundreds of dollars on them. Why? Because I'd wantd them since they were metal, I was still buying lots of metals occasionally when I had the money up till I had enough that I couldn't justify any more without rules. I love those dopey little doomed bastards and their stupid ribbed mining gear. All they had to do was put that into plastic and give it rules and I'm in, then they've given me another entire set of miniatures just now to dump another damn near a grand so far.
I'm actually hoping sisters take a while so I have some money together again by the time they come out, because if they do for Sisters what they did for the cult, even just the initial release, it will be something I've wanted for years. There's an inherent wow factor there, I've got some friends who might buy some just to say they own some plastic sisters even if they aren't that great just because it's been that much of a thing for so long.
If you don't see the appeal in hilariously overly ornamented flamer wielding war nuns... I don't know what to tell you. You're clearly not interested in sisters unless they conform to your rather specific view of things which is significantly different than what most folks seem to have been asking for.
Uh, actually, NO. I'm the one arguing -against- the idea that they must conform to a single rather specific view. In fact, I'm apparently being 'threatened' by being reported as a non-conformist, and having my own opinions. And somehow advocating they should look like revolutionaries (I don't even know where that came from). I'm saying they have a whole range to get out, and not every single model has to have every single aesthetic element ever associated with sisters in it. That's all- this reliquary bearer looks over designed to me, and has too many disparate elements on different parts of her body and it doesn't create a unified look. The end.
Manchu wrote: SW are an interesting case (as are Necrons). They underwent a series of releases that took their established aesthetic in a markedly different direction than previously. And some people have complained that this is the wrong direction, in their opinion. They already liked SW; they consider dramatically changing the faction focus to emphasize some kind of cartoonish werewolf theme as a negative. I certainly sympathize with people who like SW less because of the changes. I symapthize with people who would like to see development BACK to the previous direction.
With the Woofs it was a clear case of Flanderisation.
They went from wolf-themed Vikings to Wolfy "The Wolf" McWolf, riding a wolf, using Wolf Claws, protected by a Wolf Helm, bringing the power of the Wolftime with his Wolfkin and Jesus just make it stop!!!
Technically, "maximum wolf" has gone down since seventh edition. When I used to run my space wolves occasionally I'd always have my warlord be "maximum wolf" and you could do the following:
Wolf lord of the wolf on a wolf with a wolftooth necklance, mark of the wolfen and a wolf talisman wolf claws with two wolves.
In seventh, the maximum wolf shifted a bit requiring the use of relics, so you had
wolf lord on a wolf with a wolf claw and the fangsword of the deathwolf (or the wolfenstone) with two wolves as part of a Heralds of the Greatwolf formation in a Wolf Claw Strikeforce.
Optional variant was "in a stormwolf" which was acceptable though you could not have him both on a wolf and in a wolf because the stormwolf could not carry big wolves only small wolves.
I believe in 8th though I don't play them anymore I did check the current levels of maximum wolf, and we're now at
Wolf lord on a wolf of the wolf with wolf claws and the wolfenstone accompanied by two wolves.
So, TECHNICALLY we reached peak wolf in 7th because of formations and decurions, but since seventh and thanks to the staunch wolf of envirwolfmentalists we have reduced levels of wolf emissions by over 25%.
Voss wrote: Uh, actually, NO. I'm the one arguing -against- the idea that they must conform to a single rather specific view. In fact, I'm apparently being 'threatened' by being reported as a non-conformist, and having my own opinions. And somehow advocating they should look like revolutionaries (I don't even know where that came from). I'm saying they have a whole range to get out, and not every single model has to have every single aesthetic element ever associated with sisters in it. That's all- this reliquary bearer looks over designed to me, and has too many disparate elements on different parts of her body and it doesn't create a unified look. The end.
Ragtag revolutionary army, as in a force that makes due with what it can get in contrast to an army equipped by a state or institution that has the financial and industrial means to ensure uniformity was my takeaway from your idea that a Sister sculpt is to be considered conservative if she wears the full uniform of her order.
Mmmpi wrote: I would like to see an expansion to the repentia idea. I wasn't in the hobby when the pistol repentia were around, but that sounds cool.
No one was in the hobby when pistol Repentia were around.
Didn't she show up in =][= at some point, or is my memory failing me?
I was tempted to add an Inquisitor disclaimer at the end. Then I thought, what good does anybody do a 54mm model for a different game when we're talking about models for a 40k army.
I always wondered if the name of that model wasn't a case of crossed wires or perhaps a joke. Like maybe that specific character's name is Elisabeth Marianne Repentia-Kowalski and she just goes with Repentia for convinence's sake.
That's clearly the only way a jumppackless Seraphim could have that name.
I like the plastic SoB minis and the previews. I think they've translated them well from their original sculpts and art.
As an aside, I've always wanted to see SoB play off the imagery of the mythological Valkyries, where they ride winged mechanical horses as some sort of jetbike type unit.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, it's a crime that Black Templars aren't more prominent - they're way better poster children for "grimdark" than Girlyman's sissies ever can be.
From what GW's designers have said they don't think it makes sense for a Marine chapter to be driven so drastically by a hatred of psykers and witches when warp travel is a necessity.... I think someone had this moment where they had this thought, shared it, and the collective team just accepted that they had put out something that was fundamentally flawed, and that they should back away from it rather than embrace the grim dark hypocrisy or otherwise retcon it. I think its a shame because I agree with you, they are much more grim dark than many of the other Marine chapters. While their inclusion in the Space Marine codex has given them access to everything normal marines have, there fluff says that isn't really the case, although its easy to imagine at this point even with their own codex they'd have access to most of the toys anyways. I think at the same time its easy to imagine that GW sees better ways of drawing on the ecclesiastically driven army theme, without doing yet another marine army.
That makes no sense though, unless they also plan to expunge the whole concept of Mondominance from both the Ecclesiarchy and Inquisition. Also the whole Redemption.
Of course it's a hypocrisy, that's the whole point.
If that's really what folk at the studio think these days, they really have completely lost the ability to grasp their own IP.
Eh, the whole 'suffer not the witch to live' angle never made sense for the Templars. They were thematically meant to be crusaders, not witch hunters. It also makes little sense for Marines in particular to hold views like that, especially those from the second founding.
I'll shed not tears if they lose that particular trait.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yeah, it's a crime that Black Templars aren't more prominent - they're way better poster children for "grimdark" than Girlyman's sissies ever can be.
Eh, the world could use a bit less of purity obsessed religious fanatics bearing iron crosses (yes I know it's a maltese cross, but there's enough artwork where it hews close enough to German Iron crosses to my eye) and a lot more Ultramarines in it.
His Master's Voice wrote: Eh, the whole 'suffer not the witch to live' angle never made sense for the Templars. They were thematically meant to be crusaders, not witch hunters. It also makes little sense for Marines in particular to hold views like that, especially those from the second founding.
I'll shed not tears if they lose that particular trait.
With the current happening in the lore and what seems like an inevitable expansion of the model range to include more Chaos cultists... heck I'm sure they'd have as much issue with Genestealer cultists... it seems easy to realign them to more broadly go after anything that challenges the imperial faith... thus emphasizing the religious crusader over the witch hunter stuff... Inquisitors should really get to keep that any way.
Yodhrin wrote: That makes no sense though, unless they also plan to expunge the whole concept of Mondominance from both the Ecclesiarchy and Inquisition. Also the whole Redemption.
Of course it's a hypocrisy, that's the whole point.
If that's really what folk at the studio think these days, they really have completely lost the ability to grasp their own IP.
I agree hypocrisy is a big part of the grim dark theme.
40k is about strange extremes, it seems like someone dialed BT up to 11 and was surprised that it was crazy. From interviews and such, it seems like there are people in the studio that when they speak, the other designers just accept it and move on. I think that's what's happened here. I think its less a case of losing grasp, and more a case that none of the prominent voices is really big on them, this particular realization seems to have been shared and people said "you're right"... and just never really gave it a second thought but have repeated it more than once.
With how fluff has evolved I'm sure they could easily rethink it, to make it work better. While hatred of witches and psykers can continue as a strong motivator adding a layer of reasoned rationale to the Black Templars' choice... like that psykers thin the veil that separates the material and immaterial world and the Templars are waging a scorched earth strategy against potential daemonic incursion... its an obvious reaction and extension of their mindset after the galaxy was split in half by chaos. Some are obviously overzealous, but it doesn't mean that they would have as problematic a relationship with Navigators and other sanctioned psykers as GW seems hung up on. Without an explanation how do they reconcile that sanctioned psykers effectively have the Emperor's acceptance or licensing or whatever... while I doubt psykers have any rights, they can't go burning agents of the Emperor without more reason... nut it only takes a couple lines of text to "fix", if it even needs to be.
aka_mythos wrote: As an aside, I've always wanted to see SoB play off the imagery of the mythological Valkyries, where they ride winged mechanical horses as some sort of jetbike type unit.
I think that would be better for Sisters of Silence...they already give me a valkyrie vibe.
SoBs have the Rogue Trader battle nun aesthetic that Jes wanted using Siouxsie Sioux and Louise Brooks as his muses. Jes wasn't a punk rocker, he was a Goth rocker. Knowing that, you're better off looking down that path for inspiration.
Geifer wrote: I think updated Sisters have a much greater potential for disappointing existing Sisters fans because the sculpts are so old and there is no plastic legacy GW needs to consider when overhauling the range.
I credit them for staying true to the original design, even if a byproduct of it is that it's a quick job on part of the designers because they don't have to add or redo anything of significance.
No plastic legacy???
Spoiler:
I believe that is all-new plastic tooling there, and the design is a solid match for the recent release, aside from the palette swap and backpack vs jump pack.
Translating metal to plastic, is not insignificant. There was obviously cleanup done on the design, as the models and parts were rescaled. The footgirl is exactly what she should have been, and matching Jes' elegant sculpts should not be underrated.
One character is not enough,
If you would have looked a bit more carefully, you might have noticed that there are also 2 regular Seraphim Superior / Veteran Seraphim who are not Characters. They carried the Seraphim aesthetic with almost no change from the metals. Celestine herself was lightly updated with new wings, but her armor was a match.
It's insane that you are arguing a counterfactual. You said there was no plastic legacy, and I posted an exact picture. Then you're saying it doesn't count? That is nonsense.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yeah, it's a crime that Black Templars aren't more prominent - they're way better poster children for "grimdark" than Girlyman's sissies ever can be.
Eh, the world could use a bit less of purity obsessed religious fanatics bearing iron crosses (yes I know it's a maltese cross, but there's enough artwork where it hews close enough to German Iron crosses to my eye) and a lot more Ultramarines in it.
Do you want boring? Because that's how you get boring. Ultramarines are the lamest of the Chapters from a thematic and and ideological standpoint. They should be eaten by 'Nids. The entire point of 40k is supposed to have unchecked insanity in it, so obsessive fanatic running things is *better* for the game universe.
And no, the BT Maltese Cross looks *nothing* like an Iron Cross, aside from being generally cross-shaped. ____
JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, it's a crime that Black Templars aren't more prominent - they're way better poster children for "grimdark" than Girlyman's sissies ever can be.
From what GW's designers have said they don't think it makes sense for a Marine chapter to be driven so drastically by a hatred of psykers and witches when warp travel is a necessity.... I think someone had this moment where they had this thought, shared it, and the collective team just accepted that they had put out something that was fundamentally flawed, and that they should back away from it rather than embrace the grim dark hypocrisy or otherwise retcon it. I think its a shame because I agree with you, they are much more grim dark than many of the other Marine chapters. While their inclusion in the Space Marine codex has given them access to everything normal marines have, there fluff says that isn't really the case, although its easy to imagine at this point even with their own codex they'd have access to most of the toys anyways. I think at the same time its easy to imagine that GW sees better ways of drawing on the ecclesiastically driven army theme, without doing yet another marine army.
If that's the epiphany they had, it was wrong in the same way that they backed away from Slaanesh. The BT employ slave-Psykers out of necessity, then fed to the Emprah when their usefulness is at an end. An aesthetic where every Imperial Psyker is literally chained and bound as a penitent would have been a good one, with massive iron explosive collars and heavy iron chain... that would be delightful and appropriate. GW absolutely should have leaned into abhumans and mutants as sub-human things to be used and discarded vs Knightly Germanic Astartes as ubermenshen. It's a strong theme, and taking it OTT makes for a great look characterizing a truly grimdark universe.
His Master's Voice wrote: Eh, the whole 'suffer not the witch to live' angle never made sense for the Templars. They were thematically meant to be crusaders, not witch hunters. It also makes little sense for Marines in particular to hold views like that, especially those from the second founding.
I'll shed not tears if they lose that particular trait.
With the current happening in the lore and what seems like an inevitable expansion of the model range to include more Chaos cultists... heck I'm sure they'd have as much issue with Genestealer cultists... it seems easy to realign them to more broadly go after anything that challenges the imperial faith... thus emphasizing the religious crusader over the witch hunter stuff... Inquisitors should really get to keep that any way.
Yodhrin wrote: That makes no sense though, unless they also plan to expunge the whole concept of Mondominance from both the Ecclesiarchy and Inquisition. Also the whole Redemption.
Of course it's a hypocrisy, that's the whole point.
If that's really what folk at the studio think these days, they really have completely lost the ability to grasp their own IP.
I agree hypocrisy is a big part of the grim dark theme.
40k is about strange extremes, it seems like someone dialed BT up to 11 and was surprised that it was crazy. From interviews and such, it seems like there are people in the studio that when they speak, the other designers just accept it and move on. I think that's what's happened here. I think its less a case of losing grasp, and more a case that none of the prominent voices is really big on them, this particular realization seems to have been shared and people said "you're right"... and just never really gave it a second thought but have repeated it more than once.
With how fluff has evolved I'm sure they could easily rethink it, to make it work better. While hatred of witches and psykers can continue as a strong motivator adding a layer of reasoned rationale to the Black Templars' choice... like that psykers thin the veil that separates the material and immaterial world and the Templars are waging a scorched earth strategy against potential daemonic incursion... its an obvious reaction and extension of their mindset after the galaxy was split in half by chaos. Some are obviously overzealous, but it doesn't mean that they would have as problematic a relationship with Navigators and other sanctioned psykers as GW seems hung up on. Without an explanation how do they reconcile that sanctioned psykers effectively have the Emperor's acceptance or licensing or whatever... while I doubt psykers have any rights, they can't go burning agents of the Emperor without more reason... nut it only takes a couple lines of text to "fix", if it even needs to be.
But that's what I mean, there's nothing particularly ridiculous about the Templars from a 40K standpoint, it doesn't need to be rethought, or explained. They just express openly what most "right thinking" Imperial citizens feel and believe - abhorrence and disgust at the mere presence of a psyker - and continuing to make use of psykers isn't incompatible with that, they're just honest about seeing them as subhuman filth. The BT attitude to psykers compared to the broader Imperium is one of degree, not category. They're still willing to tolerate the existence of whatever minimum number of psykers is required for their broader objectives to be achieved, they just treat them like garbage, and dispose of them when they cease to be of use. And remember, with the way the Imperium raises its citizens, a decent number of pyskers would agree with how the BT see them, they would see service with the Templars to be repentance for the sin of their existence, the more miserable that service the better it purifies them before they meet the Emperor in the afterlife.
Which brings me back to "they don't seem to understand their own setting any more". Whether that's all of them, or just a few bigwigs and everyone else just goes along with it - the whole point of 40K is to be riddled with hypocrisies and contradictions and extremes.
His Master's Voice wrote: Eh, the whole 'suffer not the witch to live' angle never made sense for the Templars. They were thematically meant to be crusaders, not witch hunters. It also makes little sense for Marines in particular to hold views like that, especially those from the second founding.
I'll shed not tears if they lose that particular trait.
With the current happening in the lore and what seems like an inevitable expansion of the model range to include more Chaos cultists... heck I'm sure they'd have as much issue with Genestealer cultists... it seems easy to realign them to more broadly go after anything that challenges the imperial faith... thus emphasizing the religious crusader over the witch hunter stuff... Inquisitors should really get to keep that any way.
Yodhrin wrote: That makes no sense though, unless they also plan to expunge the whole concept of Mondominance from both the Ecclesiarchy and Inquisition. Also the whole Redemption.
Of course it's a hypocrisy, that's the whole point.
If that's really what folk at the studio think these days, they really have completely lost the ability to grasp their own IP.
I agree hypocrisy is a big part of the grim dark theme.
40k is about strange extremes, it seems like someone dialed BT up to 11 and was surprised that it was crazy. From interviews and such, it seems like there are people in the studio that when they speak, the other designers just accept it and move on. I think that's what's happened here. I think its less a case of losing grasp, and more a case that none of the prominent voices is really big on them, this particular realization seems to have been shared and people said "you're right"... and just never really gave it a second thought but have repeated it more than once.
With how fluff has evolved I'm sure they could easily rethink it, to make it work better. While hatred of witches and psykers can continue as a strong motivator adding a layer of reasoned rationale to the Black Templars' choice... like that psykers thin the veil that separates the material and immaterial world and the Templars are waging a scorched earth strategy against potential daemonic incursion... its an obvious reaction and extension of their mindset after the galaxy was split in half by chaos. Some are obviously overzealous, but it doesn't mean that they would have as problematic a relationship with Navigators and other sanctioned psykers as GW seems hung up on. Without an explanation how do they reconcile that sanctioned psykers effectively have the Emperor's acceptance or licensing or whatever... while I doubt psykers have any rights, they can't go burning agents of the Emperor without more reason... nut it only takes a couple lines of text to "fix", if it even needs to be.
But that's what I mean, there's nothing particularly ridiculous about the Templars from a 40K standpoint, it doesn't need to be rethought, or explained. They just express openly what most "right thinking" Imperial citizens feel and believe - abhorrence and disgust at the mere presence of a psyker - and continuing to make use of psykers isn't incompatible with that, they're just honest about seeing them as subhuman filth. The BT attitude to psykers compared to the broader Imperium is one of degree, not category. They're still willing to tolerate the existence of whatever minimum number of psykers is required for their broader objectives to be achieved, they just treat them like garbage, and dispose of them when they cease to be of use. And remember, with the way the Imperium raises its citizens, a decent number of pyskers would agree with how the BT see them, they would see service with the Templars to be repentance for the sin of their existence, the more miserable that service the better it purifies them before they meet the Emperor in the afterlife.
Which brings me back to "they don't seem to understand their own setting any more". Whether that's all of them, or just a few bigwigs and everyone else just goes along with it - the whole point of 40K is to be riddled with hypocrisies and contradictions and extremes.
QFT.
It's like people have forgotten that the Imperium are the bad guys, and only appear "good" because they're human-shaped like we are.
Let's remember that the Imperium is basically what you get when the Nazis win, when the CCP runs things. It's an extremely brutal, xenophobic, racist dystopia, excused only by the extreme existential threats popping up from all corners, where your child might be a mutant, your sister a latent gateway to Chaos, and your father a cultist of the Allfather - all while under threat of 7-foot fungus monsters and devouring bugs from another galaxy. In the 40k universe, the Nazis are the good guys. The Soviet military are our saviours.
Let's also remember that the Imperium codifies Colonial-era racism where abhuman "races" and psykers are thin veneers for non-whites from a British perspective. etc. etc.
Within that context, yes, it's a HUGE mistake not to push the Black Templars as the model, and the Ultramarines as abberrant. ____
Follow-up, with that revelation, it's now clear that my Imperial Guard Primaris Psyker needs to be an OOP metal Empire Flagellant. Off to eBay!
JohnHwangDD wrote: Let's remember that the Imperium is basically what you get when the Nazis win, when the CCP runs things. It's an extremely brutal, xenophobic, racist dystopia, excused only by the extreme existential threats popping up from all corners, where your child might be a mutant, your sister a latent gateway to Chaos, and your father a cultist of the Allfather - all while under threat of 7-foot fungus monsters and devouring bugs from another galaxy. In the 40k universe, the Nazis are the good guys. The Soviet military are our saviours.
Now available in children's books! Let your 8 years old daughter learn about that universe where the Soviet Nazi of Death are the good guys!
The world is a weird place.
Manchu wrote: SW are an interesting case (as are Necrons). They underwent a series of releases that took their established aesthetic in a markedly different direction than previously. And some people have complained that this is the wrong direction, in their opinion. They already liked SW; they consider dramatically changing the faction focus to emphasize some kind of cartoonish werewolf theme as a negative. I certainly sympathize with people who like SW less because of the changes. I symapthize with people who would like to see development BACK to the previous direction.
I was not a SW player before, and I will not be in the future: I'm not building any more Marines. However, as a dispassionate observer with no skin in the SW game, I think the models got objectively stupider. As HBMC said, it went to a very silly and dumb place.
Manchu wrote: Going back to Necrons. I like the changes GW made to them. But I will readily admit that’s because I thought they were reallly boring before, despite the fact I liked the basic design of the Necron Warrior. I didn’t like Necrons as a faction, however (I certainly didn’t claim to be a fan) — which is exactly why I like the fact that GW changed them. But I didn’t show up in every Necron thread arguing that they should be radically redesigned to suit my taste because I’m a fan and I have special insight into how they should be. Rather, the changes came around and I took a greater interest in Necrons than previously.
Well, what also made the Necron revamp more palatable, if you will, was that there was nothing stopping you from playing them as you did before while still being in-line with currently lore. They added the option of many new dynasties and fluff, but also alluded to malfunctioning dynasties that worked... well, pretty much as Necrons did before. The only really negative things in the revamp were (imo) the way the screwed up the C'tan, but again, that wasn't a retcon so much as actually moving the story forward, something fans have been clamoring for for decades. So it would be pretty squirrely to complain they don't move the story forward and then complain you didn't like where they took it when they did.
Also helping that go down a little smoother would be that, with a single exception, Necrons had a very limited range and now had and much larger and better one. Yeah, you lost Pariahs, but was anyone really salty about the $14 monopose metal models that you needed 10 of to field, and oh, by the way, you can use them as Lychgard now if you did buy them?
I think there were a lot of things about how the Necron revamp went that made it a success. I also think that by and large, their range revamps have been very successful as a rule, except for SW really. I don't like Primaris but they are objectively good looking. The "new" Dark Elves look way better. So on, and so forth.
I am looking forward to collecting Sisters when they finally launch.
I like the Intercessors and Hellblasters but am pretty dubious about how the rest of the Primaris range is unfolding.
With Necrons, it’s true that the newer units don’t force one into playing the more, er, lively type of dynasty. The units look cool to me. But again my main point was, I’m not and wasn’t previously a fan of Necrons the same way I am a fan of Sisters. Additionally, there really was never the same amount of commentary from people unhappy with how Necrons previously were as there has been from folks who currently wither just don’t like Sisters and hope they are significantly changed or, if you prefer, people who “like Sisters BUT” want them significantly changed anyhow.
So you are saying that nobody pushed for a change among Necron and yet they still got a change, and now lot of people call for a change for Sisters?
Food for thought, Manchi, food for thought!
Well, if I understand it correctly, the people who want different Sisters want different looking Sisters rather than different Sisters fluff. The Necron example was quite different: they needed an expanded background, which generated new units.
Sisters will probably also get some new units but I don’t think their background needs to be changed to do this.
And certainly nothing about their iconic design needs to change.
For me this is a chance at getting a modular, customisable Sisters kit that can do a variety of weapon and wargear combinations, all perfect for Dark Heresy.
Of course, this is modern GW, so we're just as likely to get a mono-pose optionless kit as we are something actually modular like the GSC or Skitarii kits.
As much as I am loving some of what they doing now, the two things I really dislike are monopose, and how busy some models have been (although they seem to have started backing off of this maybe a little).
Still, if it's plastic can't cry too much. Hardly difficult to alter to your liking.
Ouze wrote: As much as I am loving some of what they doing now, the two things I really dislike are monopose, and how busy some models have been (although they seem to have started backing off of this maybe a little).
Well the old chestnut we mulled over for years was Jes Goodwin talking about how the sleeves were hard to square with multipose. And it looks like our girls still have their sleeves.
Anyhow, I do not mind monopose as much when the poses are so good.
You will when Squad X can't get Storm Bolters because it's only on the sprue for Squad Y, even when both units end up being reasonably identical Sisters in Power Armour.
Robes means legs+torso go together. But as long as they let variety for heads and arms then is all good. (I know SoB don't use robes but with all that cloth is like Death Guard with their chain mal and tentacles)
The problem with the Skitari kit is not that legs and torsos go a fixed way, is that arms go too.
The Dark Angel Veteran kit, as old as it is, allows for customization even when you only really have 5 bodies (But you have options for the chest part)
Um, not only do minis exist that this is not true, but even *I* can sculpt a mini that this is not true. You put the break directly under the belt and cinch the robe in there. Voila! Multipose robed figures. If Jes Gooswin can't figure this out, it's time GW got a new art department.
Um, not only do minis exist that this is not true, but even *I* can sculpt a mini that this is not true. You put the break directly under the belt and cinch the robe in there. Voila! Multipose robed figures. If Jes Gooswin can't figure this out, it's time GW got a new art department.
These sort of part breakdowns has more to do with the number of sprues in the kit than the miniatures aesthetic design. We’ve seen kits both ways.
What is so odd about this to me is that
the people who have been waiting for these kits for so long
want to model the kits.
There is the no model no rules issue,
I guess this motivates to monopose fixed wargear named unique plastics for every unit,
and the move into Hasbro toyland with 40k which is
... not a good use of flagship resources
but sure, if the short-sighted aim is to sell lots of IP plastics
then make them obsolete and retool yet again for ever younger kids with credit cards,
then I suppose I can see why GW has done what it has been doing.
On the other hand, if they include the options in the box
then they make the model, right?
I don't understand their legal problems,
but when it comes to no model no rules
why not allow for both by crafting genius multipose everything?
People will pay more for the flexibility
and never use most of it, but, when torsos and left arms become the limiting factors,
more box sets must sell...
I'm gonna have to stop ya there; monopose doesn't necessarily mean fixed wargear for every model. Even with Sisters pewter you could swap out what weapons they held most of the time for basic battle sisters as the bolter, flamer, or melta basic weapons were separate parts.
Well, that's not much different from the metal sisters. I'll be happy with weapon swaps (including alternate weapon holding) and being able to pose the head. Look at Eldar Guardians - they're pose-able models, but the posing is basically head position and a torso twist and how high the gun is held. I'll be surprised if Sisters come with a torso twist option, but I won't be disappointed if they cannot.
I don't need to be able to pose my models, I don't need every person in the unit in some special snowflake pose or dabbing or what ever. What I need is a full range of plastic Sisters of Battle. Make that, and I don't care if they are plug and play like the Macragge set.
Just Tony wrote: I don't need to be able to pose my models, I don't need every person in the unit in some special snowflake pose or dabbing or what ever. What I need is a full range of plastic Sisters of Battle. Make that, and I don't care if they are plug and play like the Macragge set.
See, I'm the flip side of that. For me the art is primary and the actual gaming something of an afterthought. Customization, creativity, painting, these are all the important bits. Mono-pose sisters would be a worse letdown than no sisters at all.
But then, players like you are now banned from all GW events, since the new requirements for minis. Ironic that.
Melissia wrote: I'm gonna have to stop ya there; monopose doesn't necessarily mean fixed wargear for every model. Even with Sisters pewter you could swap out what weapons they held most of the time for basic battle sisters as the bolter, flamer, or melta basic weapons were separate parts.
But it means that one torso/set of arms gets the Melta, rather than there being generic arms that fit everyone, meaning the Melta can go on everyone.
To me it means all the work of a multipart model and none (or very little of) the fun. If I have to worry about arm 43 only going with torso 13 then I may as well be making WWII models.
Going all the way back to RT the ability to kit bash models and pick and choose the bits I was to use has been the fun of GW models. If a model can only be built one way, I'd rather have a one piece metal model so I can get to painting.
Yeah with a file and green stuff and work anything can be converted, but I want kits that are ready to bash from the get go.
No point in doing multi part plastic models if they are monopose and can only be armed one specfic way. One of the great advantage of GW kit is the kitbashing potential, and they seem to insist on losing it
I remember when I was building my fantasy orcs (A kit that sadly was discontinued a couple of weeks ago after so many years of good service on the frontline), how you basically clip out of the sprue all parts, put them in little bit-piles, and then just take one of each to start making truly random and unique orcs.
No point in doing multi part plastic models if they are monopose and can only be armed one specfic way.
I get it, some people want their models to be like LEGOs, but let's not pretend dynamism, intricacy of design and the general benefits of plastic as a medium have no value.
I get it, some people want their models to be like LEGOs, but let's not pretend dynamism, intricacy of design and the general benefits of plastic as a medium have no value.
Well, to be honest, what passes for those things with GW is... pretty worthless. You have seen some of these minis, right?
Maybe it's me working that art school education, but... yeah.
Galas wrote: I remember when I was building my fantasy orcs (A kit that sadly was discontinued a couple of weeks ago after so many years of good service on the frontline), how you basically clip out of the sprue all parts, put them in little bit-piles, and then just take one of each to start making truly random and unique orcs.
I remember doing something similar with high elves.
A box of spearmen, box of archers, and two boxes of silver helms.
Ended up with a 30 man seaguard unit that looked like a hedge of spears, 10 heavy cav, five light cav, and three characters, BSB, Mage (on foot) and mounted noble.
Even the monopose plastic 'Easy to Build' kits GW are doing nowadays are vastly superior to one-piece metal castings. Compare these guys:
Spoiler:
To these:
Spoiler:
Even ignoring the superiority of detail and ability to do proper undercuts (e.g. a loincloth that actually looks like a separate piece of hanging fabric rather than a solid cuboid between the model's thighs), plastic is easier to modify than metal, so something that's sold as monopose needn't remain so. You don't need a jeweller's saw, pin vise and brass rod to do a simple weapon or head swap with plastic.
How about comparing a modern GW plastic to a modern metal casting from another company, rather than a GW model from the sodding 90's.
Look I get it, I really really dislike metal as a medium - it's a pain to carry around in quantity, it's hard to convert, it snaps and comes unglued and chips the paint easily, pinning and gap filling can be a nightmare. All of that is true, and plastic monopose avoids it all.
But there *is* a happy medium that GW have been refusing/failing to hit with many recent kits. "monopose" does not have to mean "assemble exactly these parts in exactly this order, and good luck trying anything else because they're all keyed and the splits are all over the place rather than at consistent points like joints".
And it's not like they can't - pairs of arms, with separate weapons, with keyed ball-joints at the shoulder, plus anywhere else the sprue design allows for(mostly, you'd assume, heads, but surely at least *some* waists). They'd still be zero-effort assemblies for most people, since with keyed joints they only go together one way if you follow the instructions, but with a few quick snips and, importantly, zero greenstuff work you would have interchangeable arms, weapons, heads, and bodies at-minimum.
Honestly, all truly multipart kits led to was people creating whole armies of badly posed, crappy looking models. The limitations on modern kits gives better looking minis. I no longer have to spend hours cutting, filing and green stuffing multi part minis to create something that looks like a natural pose.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Honestly, all truly multipart kits led to was people creating whole armies of badly posed, crappy looking models. The limitations on modern kits gives better looking minis. I no longer have to spend hours cutting, filing and green stuffing multi part minis to create something that looks like a natural pose.
Well, that's your wrong judgemental opinion and you're entitled to it. But even after you get past the snobbery, err, it's nonsense - as pointed out above, it's entirely possible to design a kit that is both pre-posed and customisable, for those of us who're not horrified by the idea of doing some actual hobby work in our hobby...
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Honestly, all truly multipart kits led to was people creating whole armies of badly posed, crappy looking models. The limitations on modern kits gives better looking minis. I no longer have to spend hours cutting, filing and green stuffing multi part minis to create something that looks like a natural pose.
Well, that's your wrong judgemental opinion and you're entitled to it. But even after you get past the snobbery, err, it's nonsense - as pointed out above, it's entirely possible to design a kit that is both pre-posed and customisable, for those of us who're not horrified by the idea of doing some actual hobby work in our hobby...
Indeed. I was being hyperbolic for effect
In all seriousness, I totally agree with your point and I think the majority of new kits have hit that sweet spot. Look at genestealer cults, skitarii or Primaris. Integrating legs and torsos gives more natural poses, but then you can place any arms on any torso and angle the heads (which has the biggest effect of all on how the pose reads). Add to that how easy it is to cut, file and convert plastic and I honestly think GW minis have never been better.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Honestly, all truly multipart kits led to was people creating whole armies of badly posed, crappy looking models. The limitations on modern kits gives better looking minis. I no longer have to spend hours cutting, filing and green stuffing multi part minis to create something that looks like a natural pose.
Well, that's your wrong judgemental opinion and you're entitled to it. But even after you get past the snobbery, err, it's nonsense - as pointed out above, it's entirely possible to design a kit that is both pre-posed and customisable, for those of us who're not horrified by the idea of doing some actual hobby work in our hobby...
Agreed. One of my main points of pride in my 6/7k+ CSM army is that there are no repeat minis (every marine is different and heavily converted to actually look like it's a renegade who's fought for 10k years), it shows off its owner's style rather than just GW's and it actually has some deeper character to it than some out of the box mono-pose model. Fair enough if not having such suits some, we've all got to enjoy ourselves, but if we can get the best of both worlds, then why the hell not?
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Honestly, all truly multipart kits led to was people creating whole armies of badly posed, crappy looking models. The limitations on modern kits gives better looking minis. I no longer have to spend hours cutting, filing and green stuffing multi part minis to create something that looks like a natural pose.
Well, that's your wrong judgemental opinion and you're entitled to it. But even after you get past the snobbery, err, it's nonsense - as pointed out above, it's entirely possible to design a kit that is both pre-posed and customisable, for those of us who're not horrified by the idea of doing some actual hobby work in our hobby...
Agreed. One of my main points of pride in my 6/7k+ CSM army is that there are no repeat minis (every marine is different and heavily converted to actually look like it's a renegade who's fought for 10k years), it shows off its owner's style rather than just GW's and it actually has some deeper character to it than some out of the box mono-pose model. Fair enough if not having such suits some, we've all got to enjoy ourselves, but if we can get the best of both worlds, then why the hell not?
Good for you. My mini collection is similar. Nothing is built as intended, but ignoring the fact I didn’t think anyone would take my post entirely seriously (I keep forgetting how that works ), I do think the current crop of kits are more beginner friendly and actually give more interesting bits for conversions.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Honestly, all truly multipart kits led to was people creating whole armies of badly posed, crappy looking models. The limitations on modern kits gives better looking minis. I no longer have to spend hours cutting, filing and green stuffing multi part minis to create something that looks like a natural pose.
Well, that's your wrong judgemental opinion and you're entitled to it. But even after you get past the snobbery, err, it's nonsense - as pointed out above, it's entirely possible to design a kit that is both pre-posed and customisable, for those of us who're not horrified by the idea of doing some actual hobby work in our hobby...
Agreed. One of my main points of pride in my 6/7k+ CSM army is that there are no repeat minis (every marine is different and heavily converted to actually look like it's a renegade who's fought for 10k years), it shows off its owner's style rather than just GW's and it actually has some deeper character to it than some out of the box mono-pose model. Fair enough if not having such suits some, we've all got to enjoy ourselves, but if we can get the best of both worlds, then why the hell not?
Good for you. My mini collection is similar. Nothing is built as intended, but ignoring the fact I didn’t think anyone would take my post entirely seriously (I keep forgetting how that works ), I do think the current crop of kits are more beginner friendly and actually give more interesting bits for conversions.
Ha. I was more agreeing with Yodhrin's overarching point than taking much from yours but I don't disagree there's some leagues for newbies with this style of kit.
Apropos Sororitas, i'm looking forward to them either way. Always fancied a SOB army in some capacity but i've held off for years due to their limbo-like state.
His Master's Voice wrote: Not afraid to do some hobby work in your hobby, but a knife and some green stuff is too much?
That 'happy medium' you mentioned sounds pretty arbitrary to me.
Have a wee gander at my(woefully, woefully outdated) blog link, I struggle not to apply green stuff to models. I'm also not even remotely typical - the vast majority of conversions are bits swaps, and a lot of people aren't comfortable hacking away at expensive models that they don't really know how to repair if it goes wrong. Whether you make your models in fewer parts, or you make them in lots of parts with really awkward joins between them, or both at once, you're limiting the ability of most of your customers to do anything other than assemble them according to the instructions without deviation.
And actually no it's not arbitrary, it's me looking at what people here are saying about the things they like about monopose plastics, and pointing out that there's ways of achieving those things AND satisfying people who want more customisability out of the box. There could be even more customisability out of the box, yes, but not without compromising the first imperative.
It’s clear that different people want different things from their minis. There are valid arguments in favour of more monopose miniatures and valid argument against.
The only thing I have any real argument with is people using “monopose” to describe miniatures that I don’t think are.
The miniatures in Dark Imperium, Soul Wars or Blackstone Fortress are monopose. There are some very good reasons why they should be. All new character minis are monopose, I think that’s lead to better, more characterful minis.
However, I’ve seen people describe Primaris Intercessors as monopose simple because the legs and torso are one sculpt. That just doesn’t fit my idea of what monopose is.
Then there’s the instructions. Increasingly they show how to make the minis one way for beginners. Doesn’t mean they can’t be assembled in other ways. I’ve been surprised by just how customisable some kits I’ve been told are monopose actually are.
In all seriousness, I totally agree with your point and I think the majority of new kits have hit that sweet spot. Look at genestealer cults, skitarii or Primaris. Integrating legs and torsos gives more natural poses, but then you can place any arms on any torso and angle the heads (which has the biggest effect of all on how the pose reads). Add to that how easy it is to cut, file and convert plastic and I honestly think GW minis have never been better.
Yep. I expect the new Sisters models to be like this. Plenty of opportunity to create custom poses.
Yodhrin wrote: And actually no it's not arbitrary, it's me looking at what people here are saying about the things they like about monopose plastics, and pointing out that there's ways of achieving those things AND satisfying people who want more customisability out of the box.
Okay, and this is not an attempt at 'gotcha', can you point to a GW kit that fulfils those requirement? I'm trying to understand what level of customisability would satisfy the people you mentioned.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: It’s clear that different people want different things from their minis. There are valid arguments in favour of more monopose miniatures and valid argument against.
The only thing I have any real argument with is people using “monopose” to describe miniatures that I don’t think are.
The miniatures in Dark Imperium, Soul Wars or Blackstone Fortress are monopose. There are some very good reasons why they should be.
The DI Primaris miniatures may be monopose but you can do some parts swapping as most of the arms fit most the torsos with some very minor trimming of tabs.
I do wonder if GW will be releasing DI style monopose sisters first in a 'versus' box before releasing proper sisters boxes. It's something the seem to like doing these days - not to mention including unique character sculpts in the same box. If GW wanted to print money they'd release a box of SoB versus new Chaos Cultists.
Yodhrin wrote: How about comparing a modern GW plastic to a modern metal casting from another company, rather than a GW model from the sodding 90's.
But why? The technology of making one-piece metal models hasn't really changed since then. The same limitations apply vis a vis stuff like hanging cloth/chainmail, dynamic poses etc. I used the old metal Marauders as an example simply because there's a recent ETB plastic kit (the Godsworn Hunt) that's attempting to be basically the same thing (making it a relevant comparison), and also because I own both. But, fine, here are some non-GW metal minis (that I also own a set of) that are similar to the Godsworn Hunt's spear-chucking woman:
Spoiler:
Those loincloths are still just big chunks of solid metal. The poses are still pretty awkward thanks to each model having to be basically 'flat' in the mould. I think the Godsworn Hunt ETB plastic version is an order of magnitude better. Plastic lets you do stuff you just can't do in single-piece (or even 2-3 piece) metal.
In any case, I'm not arguing against proper multi-part multi-pose plastic kits. I'm just saying I'd rather have ETB monopose plastic models than anything metal. If the new SoB range is entirely ETB/monopose, that will be a shame and a missed opportunity, but it will still be a vast improvement over what we have now.
Not what I was expecting, but it's some nice art nonetheless. Except for that weird sketch on the third page. Is it a flaming head in a chalice? A flaming head in some sort of armor? I'm not sure what I'm looking at it, but I don't like it XD
overtyrant wrote: Meh, can't please everyone. I'm loving the new direction GW are taking their kits.
Will you still love it when the next codex makes the old kits unusable?
Is Trump threatening to sign some kind of executive order? It would still be okay because It would never get through the courts.
I find it weird that there is so much negativity over what should be a joyous occasion. I guess there is just too much potential.flux in the system so.far for people to judge one way or the other.and that makes people feel.insecure. However, one thing is guaranteed. There is still.no one or nothing that can force you to stop.enjoying your toy soldierettes.
Will you still love it when the next codex makes the old kits unusable?
What old kit ? The Immolator ? Everything else are metal miniatures (with one resin exception, and it's a special character always meant for collection first anyway). It's not like you can "customize" them or built them otherwise.
Celestine with her fangirls are guaranted to stay in the new codex. What I'm expecting though is new options with the new plastic kits.
Rebasing ? We've seen what's like with the Space Marines - we'll still have people keeping the "small" bases and it works just fine. That's not a big deal.
Anyway, no need to freak out so soon. Just wait when it will be actually here with new infos.
Yodhrin wrote: And actually no it's not arbitrary, it's me looking at what people here are saying about the things they like about monopose plastics, and pointing out that there's ways of achieving those things AND satisfying people who want more customisability out of the box. There could be even more customisability out of the box, yes, but not without compromising the first imperative.
Except what you described can't exist. Period. Just look at primaris, one guy twists torso to the left, and the cables on the plate naturally follow. The other has right foot forward, making the cables twist lightly to the right. How the hell you'd swap torso between them without making both really unnatural and making some sort of weird butt dance? In case you missed it, GW tried to make it work for decades and the end result was always the same, marine doing squat "I am about to take dump" with legs spread and the torso rigidly aligned parallel with pants. How exactly is it better than real, natural multipose of primaris, again?
Never mind the fact that you obviously never tried to put together any of the more detailed deviant chapter "customizable" minis together because when GW tried to make them look nicer, they stopped fitting each other. See SW wolf termies, for one, chains with teeth dangling from some torsos will only fit the legs with flat belts, wolf skin loincloths and russ belts pad the codpieces to the point they won't fit with more ornamental breastplates - gee, it's almost exactly like primaris, except uglier and not fitting anywhere near as naturally together. BA termies after that just skipped the pretense and made legs and bodies one bit - and these are actually one of the best, nicest terminator kits in the entire GW/FW range. Go figure...
If you mean hands and heads, you can swap them with trivial ease on all primaris, both ETB (just snip off peg) and complete kit, you can swap hands (well, besides some character models with wrist protectors but regular SM have these too), and most importantly, all their arms are doing varied, interesting things (and you have a lot more sets of them than torsos allowing for lots of no-repeats). Again, how is that worse than old, boring "I am clutching me bolter across chest obscuring all details in a way that makes me looks like an idiot who never actually shot any guns"?
overtyrant wrote: Meh, can't please everyone. I'm loving the new direction GW are taking their kits.
Will you still love it when the next codex makes the old kits unusable?
Yup, the previews they shown us totally aren't girls in power armour with bolters.
Oh wait, they are! Mind explaining to us how exactly diabolical GW will make two identically clad models with identical wargear so different they will stop being essentially the exact same thing?
Irbis wrote: Mind explaining to us how exactly diabolical GW will make two identically clad models with identical wargear so different they will stop being essentially the exact same thing?
It's not hard to have the basic Sister as mono-pose body for legs + torso. The just have a few plug-ins:
* head
* backpack
* weapon arm
That's like 90% of the customization anybody would ever need (or want!)
Besides, they're still plastic, so they're super-easy to re-pose if that's what you want to do.
Lately, I have been building multi-part Warhammer Fantasy Empire Soldiers, and it's annoying. I so much wish that those models were fewer pieces and faster to build. The mono-pose metals were far easier to get playable. Do that!
overtyrant wrote: Meh, can't please everyone. I'm loving the new direction GW are taking their kits.
Will you still love it when the next codex makes the old kits unusable?
I'm clearly quite put out that I can't have power swords on my GSC acolytes. I demand they support my miniatures from thirty years ago that didn't receive rules support for most of that time.
Seriously, at some point, yes, they're going to start dropping support for old units. The game is entirely too bloated with extra super special elite of the elite hyper mega enhanced holy solider of the whale, it needs to happen. That or I want limos back.
overtyrant wrote: Meh, can't please everyone. I'm loving the new direction GW are taking their kits.
Will you still love it when the next codex makes the old kits unusable?
I'm clearly quite put out that I can't have power swords on my GSC acolytes. I demand they support my miniatures from thirty years ago that didn't receive rules support for most of that time.
Seriously, at some point, yes, they're going to start dropping support for old units. The game is entirely too bloated with extra super special elite of the elite hyper mega enhanced holy solider of the whale, it needs to happen. That or I want limos back.
I'm down for limos!
as long as my chaplain from 1988 w powersabre and bolt pistol is legal.
all kidding aside, if they did limos with the level of detail from the recent releases, I'd start an army, but only after Sororitas.
It's not hard to have the basic Sister as mono-pose body for legs + torso. The just have a few plug-ins:
* head
* backpack
* weapon arm
That's like 90% of the customization anybody would ever need (or want!)
Besides, they're still plastic, so they're super-easy to re-pose if that's what you want to do.
Lately, I have been building multi-part Warhammer Fantasy Empire Soldiers, and it's annoying. I so much wish that those models were fewer pieces and faster to build. The mono-pose metals were far easier to get playable. Do that!
1. What you descibed isn't mono-pose, though still not quite as customizable as I'd like.
2. Why should I have to break out the razor saw and hope I get all the figures cut in the same place, when they can just make the torso a large ball and socket joint?
3. I enjoyed making empire soldiers.
Make mono-pose duel force boxes with sisters + X, sure. Don't do it for the actual kits.
Battle Sister Bulletin: Part 1 – Adepta Sororitas Iconography
Welcome to your very first Battle Sister Bulletin! As promised in the Las Vegas Open Warhammer Preview, we’re going to be keeping you up to date throughout the entire process with all the latest developments as the new miniatures range takes shape. In our inaugural bulletin, we’ll be taking a look at some of the concept art that has helped to define the iconography across the new range.
One of the most integral features of Warhammer 40,000 is the iconography that helps define each faction (apart from the Tyranids – though we’re sure that the Hive Mind probably experimented with bio-banners at some point…). From the symbolic allegiance denoted by the Imperial Aquila to icons such as the blood drop of the Blood Angels or the skull rune of Khorne’s followers, such imagery is an intrinsic part of Warhammer 40,000. When it came to redesigning the Adepta Sororitas range, the iconography was, therefore, one of the first aspects that the design team looked at.
Here is a selection of some of the earliest concept sketches, and they feature an interesting juxtaposition within them. Many contrast softer themes such as wings, angels and flowers with stronger, more aggressive ones – the roses are complemented by thorny briars and clenched fists, while the ornate chalices are accompanied by skulls, swords and flames. The iconic fleur-de-lys – the unifying symbol used by the Adepta Sororitas and the non-militant orders that support them – also regularly appears throughout.
Of course, each Order of the Adepta Sororitas has its own iconographical nuances too. As the spiritual inheritors of the Daughters of the Emperor, the Order of the Ebon Chalice, for example, take much of the inspiration for their iconography from their part in the execution of the traitorous High Lord Goge Vandire. Images such as severed heads and relic blades are clear references to the violent, but storied, origins of the Order.
Once the Adepta Sororitas iconography has been conceptualised, it can help to influence some of the details on the miniatures themselves. These themes may eventually feature on their armour, banners, wargear and transfer sheets, or even in their artwork, though the purpose of concept art is to inspire rather than dictate.
We hope you enjoyed your inaugural Battle Sisters Bulletin. Let us know what you’re most looking forward to learning about the new range on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page. We’ll see you in two weeks!
If the new exorcist(edited) doesn’t have at least one of each of these drawings in it in some form or fashion the entire new plastic sisters range is trash.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We need to over-analyse these and judge all future SoB releases based on nothing but these icon concept art pieces.
These made me hopeful we can get that sword with a grail shaped guard and a rose hilt I always wanted... if only it'll be on fire too... these are so close.
Just noticed image #3 has both a helmet with a flaming grail on it AND a sister with her head on fire. It's like Ghost Rider and Firestorm had their own fantatical cults.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Just noticed image #3 has both a helmet with a flaming grail on it AND a sister with her head on fire. It's like Ghost Rider and Firestorm had their own fantatical cults.
That's actually my least favorite. It looks so wonky. The proportions seem a bit off and the head looks xeno like. Especially since it looks like there are shoulder pads attached to the bottom, so is it like some sort of penance helmet? You've been bad, you're going in the flaming grail, Sister!
H.B.M.C. wrote: We need to over-analyse these and judge all future SoB releases based on nothing but these icon concept art pieces.
I think that's why they weren't posted. Thought about it, then I reconsidered.
Also, I am wondering if they are getting Valkyrie flying transports built out for them. That for one reason or another would add another level of cool to them.
JohnnyHell wrote: The invitation is to be excited and feel informed/involved, but however you wanna read it. ;-)
I really love that they are doing it and get excited and feel involved but I just don't have much to discuss, I'm just quietly happy.
I'm a bit apathetic about it. All those elements have been there for twenty years or are easy derivatives. Now I've said before that GW staying true to the original aesthetic is a good thing, but as far as sneak peeks go, this is the fourth instance of GW telling us that yes, the aesthetic is going to stay true to the original. I'm just not getting any novelty or value out of it anymore.
That said, they said to come back in two weeks. If they want to fill a wait of six months with a new article every two weeks, I guess they'll have to hand out new stuff sparingly.
master of ordinance wrote: So.... Despite the promised 2019 release and the December 2018 sample figure we have still seen..... Nothing?
Classic GW.
There is a lot of 2019 left... In my opinion the absolute earliest we'll see images of miniatures are if they show us prototypes right before they go to manufacturing. Sometime this summer.
As a process engineer I have designed manufacturing lines and then spun them up to initial production... If what we've seen is an accurate representation of their progress, I'd say we're looking at a mid to late fall 2019 release. They're still in modeling. Once they're done making all the pieces, someone has to design the sprue layouts. I'd estimate they'd hit this point midsummer. Then a tool/mold has to be made, where they will do test runs and approve or rework the tool; 2-4 wks. Then they'll spend 3 months producing the volume needed for an initial release. This puts them ready to launch October - November. If this is a real priority October, if any kits have to sit in a queue before any step of the process November.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geifer wrote: I'm thinking less cathedral plane and more something like a Silver Tower, Fozzrik's Flying Fortress, tarted up blimp.
The less aerodynamic the design needs to be, the more cathedral you can stuff into it.
Designing a flyer will be an interesting challenge for GW, its something of a clean slate. A flyer will go a long way to setting the tone of this army and so I think it comes down to whatever underlying theme GW chooses to tie the codex together.
While the SoB are primarily the combat arm of the Ecclesiarchy, they are something of a propaganda tool... the saintliness of them and the manifestation of their faith being used as proof of the Emperor's divinity. So I think there is something to be said for something like what you're saying.
I think an interesting thing to wait and see is the balance GW strikes between the elements of the SoB, like Rhinos, that are distinctly a marine aesthetic and units like the Penitent engine which are more in line with the aesthetic of the rest of the Imperium. I think that will be a significant driver for whatever type of flyer SoB end up with.
While a big mobile shrine or cathedral is the sort of thing we'd expect, I think its the sort of thing where GW will see its obvious and for that reason alone go with something different out of their desire to surprise us.
I know in more than one instance they've been shown using Valkyries... so an off the shelf option like that frees up GW to put resources towards other units. Maybe they'd even bring back the Aquila lander... and produce it as kit that assembles as either a shuttle or something that could look like a heavy fighter.
The Repressor Rhino variant and Avenger fighter from Forge World are already described as Ecclesiarchy / Sororitas vehicles. On the other hand, Forge World have tended to go for a less ornate style in their vehicle kits than the main studio, so I'd expect some changes if those were to follow the Baneblade and Valkyrie across from resin to plastic.
master of ordinance wrote: So.... Despite the promised 2019 release and the December 2018 sample figure we have still seen..... Nothing?
Classic GW.
There is a lot of 2019 left... In my opinion the absolute earliest we'll see images of miniatures are if they show us prototypes right before they go to manufacturing. Sometime this summer.
As a process engineer I have designed manufacturing lines and then spun them up to initial production... If what we've seen is an accurate representation of their progress, I'd say we're looking at a mid to late fall 2019 release. They're still in modeling. Once they're done making all the pieces, someone has to design the sprue layouts. I'd estimate they'd hit this point midsummer. Then a tool/mold has to be made, where they will do test runs and approve or rework the tool; 2-4 wks. Then they'll spend 3 months producing the volume needed for an initial release. This puts them ready to launch October - November. If this is a real priority October, if any kits have to sit in a queue before any step of the process November.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geifer wrote: I'm thinking less cathedral plane and more something like a Silver Tower, Fozzrik's Flying Fortress, tarted up blimp.
The less aerodynamic the design needs to be, the more cathedral you can stuff into it.
Designing a flyer will be an interesting challenge for GW, its something of a clean slate. A flyer will go a long way to setting the tone of this army and so I think it comes down to whatever underlying theme GW chooses to tie the codex together.
While the SoB are primarily the combat arm of the Ecclesiarchy, they are something of a propaganda tool... the saintliness of them and the manifestation of their faith being used as proof of the Emperor's divinity. So I think there is something to be said for something like what you're saying.
I think an interesting thing to wait and see is the balance GW strikes between the elements of the SoB, like Rhinos, that are distinctly a marine aesthetic and units like the Penitent engine which are more in line with the aesthetic of the rest of the Imperium. I think that will be a significant driver for whatever type of flyer SoB end up with.
While a big mobile shrine or cathedral is the sort of thing we'd expect, I think its the sort of thing where GW will see its obvious and for that reason alone go with something different out of their desire to surprise us.
I know in more than one instance they've been shown using Valkyries... so an off the shelf option like that frees up GW to put resources towards other units. Maybe they'd even bring back the Aquila lander... and produce it as kit that assembles as either a shuttle or something that could look like a heavy fighter.
With a reveal as early as this in the year I'm going to stick my neck out and assume we are looking at a spring/summer release. October/Novermber really looks too late to me.
1) The flaming skulls don't appear to jive with the established aesthetic of the Sisters of Battle.
2) Love the flowers, thorns, and fleur de lis. That is SOB.
3) The cloaked figures carrying huge swords is iconic of the Dark Angels. Don't reuse something so specific to a pre-existing army.
4) The ankh reminds me too much of Necrons.
Second
The chalices are fine too. But they are reminiscent of blood angels. With so much that is similar iconography wise to what is already there, at this, the sisters are going to have a hard time standing apart in this department.
Actually I think the skull banner barer has a simple and matching SOB iconography but if I say that it might suggest to GW that we need MORE SKULLZZ too (which we certainly don't). So that is really not what I want either. Like Norchack said the flower/rose and thorns design say SOB to me more than anything else on there.
Geifer wrote: I'm thinking less cathedral plane and more something like a Silver Tower, Fozzrik's Flying Fortress, tarted up blimp.
The less aerodynamic the design needs to be, the more cathedral you can stuff into it.
Designing a flyer will be an interesting challenge for GW, its something of a clean slate. A flyer will go a long way to setting the tone of this army and so I think it comes down to whatever underlying theme GW chooses to tie the codex together.
While the SoB are primarily the combat arm of the Ecclesiarchy, they are something of a propaganda tool... the saintliness of them and the manifestation of their faith being used as proof of the Emperor's divinity. So I think there is something to be said for something like what you're saying.
I think an interesting thing to wait and see is the balance GW strikes between the elements of the SoB, like Rhinos, that are distinctly a marine aesthetic and units like the Penitent engine which are more in line with the aesthetic of the rest of the Imperium. I think that will be a significant driver for whatever type of flyer SoB end up with.
While a big mobile shrine or cathedral is the sort of thing we'd expect, I think its the sort of thing where GW will see its obvious and for that reason alone go with something different out of their desire to surprise us.
I know in more than one instance they've been shown using Valkyries... so an off the shelf option like that frees up GW to put resources towards other units. Maybe they'd even bring back the Aquila lander... and produce it as kit that assembles as either a shuttle or something that could look like a heavy fighter.
I don't know how well it would go down if all Sisters got in the flyer department was an armed shuttle.
Speaking of things I don't know, it never occurred to me to think about what GW might consider too obvious to make since by and large I don't think of them as a very subtle company. I always thought if the most obvious idea happens to be the most fitting one, that's what we'll get.
The problem I see with Valkyries is that I don't think the crew fits Sisters at all, which would require an upgrade sprue. I can't recall the last time GW did something like that, aside from the extra Wrack meant to crew Dark Eldar vehicles.
master of ordinance wrote: So.... Despite the promised 2019 release and the December 2018 sample figure we have still seen..... Nothing?
Classic GW.
There is a lot of 2019 left... In my opinion the absolute earliest we'll see images of miniatures are if they show us prototypes right before they go to manufacturing. Sometime this summer.
As a process engineer I have designed manufacturing lines and then spun them up to initial production... If what we've seen is an accurate representation of their progress, I'd say we're looking at a mid to late fall 2019 release. They're still in modeling. Once they're done making all the pieces, someone has to design the sprue layouts. I'd estimate they'd hit this point midsummer. Then a tool/mold has to be made, where they will do test runs and approve or rework the tool; 2-4 wks. Then they'll spend 3 months producing the volume needed for an initial release. This puts them ready to launch October - November. If this is a real priority October, if any kits have to sit in a queue before any step of the process November.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geifer wrote: I'm thinking less cathedral plane and more something like a Silver Tower, Fozzrik's Flying Fortress, tarted up blimp.
The less aerodynamic the design needs to be, the more cathedral you can stuff into it.
Designing a flyer will be an interesting challenge for GW, its something of a clean slate. A flyer will go a long way to setting the tone of this army and so I think it comes down to whatever underlying theme GW chooses to tie the codex together.
While the SoB are primarily the combat arm of the Ecclesiarchy, they are something of a propaganda tool... the saintliness of them and the manifestation of their faith being used as proof of the Emperor's divinity. So I think there is something to be said for something like what you're saying.
I think an interesting thing to wait and see is the balance GW strikes between the elements of the SoB, like Rhinos, that are distinctly a marine aesthetic and units like the Penitent engine which are more in line with the aesthetic of the rest of the Imperium. I think that will be a significant driver for whatever type of flyer SoB end up with.
While a big mobile shrine or cathedral is the sort of thing we'd expect, I think its the sort of thing where GW will see its obvious and for that reason alone go with something different out of their desire to surprise us.
I know in more than one instance they've been shown using Valkyries... so an off the shelf option like that frees up GW to put resources towards other units. Maybe they'd even bring back the Aquila lander... and produce it as kit that assembles as either a shuttle or something that could look like a heavy fighter.
With a reveal as early as this in the year I'm going to stick my neck out and assume we are looking at a spring/summer release. October/Novermber really looks too late to me.
As I understand it GW only has a certain flexibility in its manufacturing schedule towards the end of its planned releases, which has historically been 18-24 months in advance. They also need that time to design everything. Everyone would like to have Sisters sooner rather than later, but I don't think anything before October is realistic.
Also let's not forget that GW topped off their announcement of Sisters in 2019 with an "Emperor willing" ( ). That hardly inspires confidence that there will be much of 2019 left if they have to add such a disclaimer.
Happily they did announce the teaser Sister coming earlier than the main release, so there's that.
1) The flaming skulls don't appear to jive with the established aesthetic of the Sisters of Battle.
2) Love the flowers, thorns, and fleur de lis. That is SOB.
3) The cloaked figures carrying huge swords is iconic of the Dark Angels. Don't reuse something so specific to a pre-existing army.
4) The ankh reminds me too much of Necrons.
Second
The chalices are fine too. But they are reminiscent of blood angels. With so much that is similar iconography wise to what is already there, at this, the sisters are going to have a hard time standing apart in this department.
Actually I think the skull banner barer has a simple and matching SOB iconography but if I say that it might suggest to GW that we need MORE SKULLZZ too (which we certainly don't). So that is really not what I want either. Like Norchack said the flower/rose and thorns design say SOB to me more than anything else on there.
That does ignore that the iconography of the various orders has been set in stone for a long time, though. That you guys associate all that stuff with with Blood Angels, Dark Angels and whatever goes to show how much wolf wolf and blood blood overload Marines suffered to be so intrinsically associated with them.
Be good to see Sisters finally get an actual presence to remedy that.
That does ignore that the iconography of the various orders has been set in stone for a long time, though. That you guys associate all that stuff with with Blood Angels, Dark Angels and whatever goes to show how much wolf wolf and blood blood overload Marines suffered to be so intrinsically associated with them.
Be good to see Sisters finally get an actual presence to remedy that.
You're right that the ankh and the flaming chalice have been symbols of one order of SOB or another since their inception. I wouldn't be against their continued inclusion, though I believe most players associate the ankh with Necrons.
However, the cloaked figure with large sword is a Dark Angels trademark. It would be like having a unit of SOB use a wolf's head or winged blood drop as their emblem. j
AndrewGPaul wrote: The Repressor Rhino variant and Avenger fighter from Forge World are already described as Ecclesiarchy / Sororitas vehicles. On the other hand, Forge World have tended to go for a less ornate style in their vehicle kits than the main studio, so I'd expect some changes if those were to follow the Baneblade and Valkyrie across from resin to plastic.
The Avenger isn't actually classed as an Ecclesiarchy/Sororitas vehicle. Pulling from the product info:
The Avenger is an ancient design, believed to originate on Ancient Terra sometime during the Age of Strife. It was adopted by forces loyal to the Divine Saint Sebastian Thor during the bloody wars of faith and schism now called the Age of Apostasy. Its effectiveness is such that it is now a staple of any Imperial Navy air support mission, holding a glamour of holy import in the wider Imperium. The Avenger is often specifically requested by the Adeptus Sororitas should they require close support in their purgations,
It's a Navy asset that is commonly requested by the Sororitas and was used by Thorian forces in the Age of Apostasy.
That does ignore that the iconography of the various orders has been set in stone for a long time, though. That you guys associate all that stuff with with Blood Angels, Dark Angels and whatever goes to show how much wolf wolf and blood blood overload Marines suffered to be so intrinsically associated with them.
Be good to see Sisters finally get an actual presence to remedy that.
You're right that the ankh and the flaming chalice have been symbols of one order of SOB or another since their inception. I wouldn't be against their continued inclusion, though I believe most players associate the ankh with Necrons.
However, the cloaked figure with large sword is a Dark Angels trademark. It would be like having a unit of SOB use a wolf's head or winged blood drop as their emblem. j
The flaming skull just looks out of place on SOB.
I'd have to check my Monolith's door, but I don't think an actual ankh has been on a Necron model since the original Necron Lord. Granted, what today is the Triarch symbol is just a stylized variety of ankh, but it's not the same thing.
I can certainly agree that the hooded sword bearer is not very well executed when you consider that it is, as you say, the trademark icon of the Dark Angels and quite possibly even more recognizable than their winged sword chapter batch. That said, the Sisters vehicle upgrade sprue has a sword wielding nun and an outfit and maybe pose that distinguishes the SIsters symbol from the avenging angel would be better.
May i ask why you have a problem with the flaming skull? The Imperial skull fetish is hardly a secret and with Sisters being associated with cleaning flames as much as they are, I have a hard time seeing and argument for it.
May i ask why you have a problem with the flaming skull? The Imperial skull fetish is hardly a secret and with Sisters being associated with cleaning flames as much as they are, I have a hard time seeing and argument for it.
Thanks to Marvel Comics, I tend to associate a flaming skull with biker gangs. In 40K, I associate it with Legion of the Damned.
With a reveal as early as this in the year I'm going to stick my neck out and assume we are looking at a spring/summer release. October/Novermber really looks too late to me.
"Reveal"? Last year they told us they intended on updating us with their progress and all they've really shown us is a beta codex, concept drawings, and a few 3d models. So this is very far removed from the teasers and reveals they give us leading upto something being released. This is their development cycle, they've stated its an 18 month development cycle. Development doesn't include manufacturing. They started work, beginning of 2018. 18 months puts them midsummer for completion of development. You add the 3 month manufacturing lead time to release GW's designers have mentioned before and you have them ready to ship end of September. Coming out of Adepticon last year a rumor was that SoB were slated as a Q3 - 2019 release, which is consistent with what we know about GW's full process.
Anything they show us in the coming months are likely to be 3d models, 3d printed mockups or casts of mockups. They're just getting to a point where they've caught up with the unprecedented demand that keeps knocking kits "temporarily out of stock". GW's history does not indicate they can release SoB much faster than the fall release I'm talking about. In the past GW's designers have said there can be more than a year or more lag between when they worked on something to when its released. While the SoB seemed to be getting some priority treatment, likely because GW have chosen to be more transparent with their process, there is nothing to indicate the SoB are far enough along to be moving to full production. As far as they've shown they're working on illustrations for the codex and digitally modeling miniatures still, nothing they've shown indicates anything is done. Everything would need to be complete and ready for production today to meet the kind of aggressive schedule to make a June release.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The Repressor Rhino variant and Avenger fighter from Forge World are already described as Ecclesiarchy / Sororitas vehicles. On the other hand, Forge World have tended to go for a less ornate style in their vehicle kits than the main studio, so I'd expect some changes if those were to follow the Baneblade and Valkyrie across from resin to plastic.
The Avenger isn't actually classed as an Ecclesiarchy/Sororitas vehicle. Pulling from the product info:
The Avenger is an ancient design, believed to originate on Ancient Terra sometime during the Age of Strife. It was adopted by forces loyal to the Divine Saint Sebastian Thor during the bloody wars of faith and schism now called the Age of Apostasy. Its effectiveness is such that it is now a staple of any Imperial Navy air support mission, holding a glamour of holy import in the wider Imperium. The Avenger is often specifically requested by the Adeptus Sororitas should they require close support in their purgations,
It's a Navy asset that is commonly requested by the Sororitas and was used by Thorian forces in the Age of Apostasy.
And I'd love for that to continue to be the case and for the Sisters release to lead to a plastic Avenger, but since FW are pretty much the only part of GW that seems to give a gak about the whole "separation of warfare into branches" aspect of the background these days, if Sisters get a flyer it will be flown by a Sister and probably unique to them, but even if it is the Avenger it won't be a Navy one(there will be some guff about a special-snowflake version that's just for Sisters, or Rowboat changed things to remove the prohibition on non-Navy forces operating combat aircraft).
Something people really need to get used to is that "old" 40K material essentially doesn't exist any more unless one of the present design team thinks it's cool/nostalgic.
Honestly, I don't think they'd get a Flyer. We didn't see one for Harlequins or Genestealer Cults or AdMech.
That said, I wouldn't be opposed to the Ecclesiarchy having a churched up version of the Avenger loaded with incendiary bombs and the heavy stubber in the back replaced with a flamer or something wild like that.
Something people really need to get used to is that "old" 40K material essentially doesn't exist any more unless one of the present design team thinks it's cool/nostalgic.
It really does seem that GW is using 8th edition as an opportunity to redefine core aspects of 40K.
Ketara wrote: They had Lightning Fighters in Dawn of War. Wouldn't be too hard to bling up that design a little.
The old Lightining (Cypra Mundi pattern?) does look very SoB. Personally I prefer how the newer Voss pattern Lightning and Avenger look, but I can't deny the old model fits the aesthetic better.
If GW release a plastic Aquila lander though, I'll be all over it. The Aquila lander would be a perfect transport for a Cardinal or Canoness with a small retinue.
I think the latter concept is a better fit- cathedral-skimmers already exist in the Ecclesiarchy background. Could even be the basis for a SoB super heavy!
1) The flaming skulls don't appear to jive with the established aesthetic of the Sisters of Battle.
2) Love the flowers, thorns, and fleur de lis. That is SOB.
3) The cloaked figures carrying huge swords is iconic of the Dark Angels. Don't reuse something so specific to a pre-existing army.
4) The ankh reminds me too much of Necrons.
The cloak theme might be leaving the Dark Angels. Was just looking at the website and the only cloaks are on a few characters and the DW knights. The cloaked infantry are gone.
I'll be glad to be proven wrong.
In addition to this though, cloaks could be used by more than one faction, though with an emphasis on 'purity' rather than stealth or secrets.
1.I agree on the flaming skulls, but if there's room for the stuff I do like (most of the rest), than I'm not going to rain on the parade of everyone who does like it.
2. I feel that this is new, at least with seeing it to this degree. And yes, it's all great.
3. See above for my take.
4. It is an early christian symbol, but I know what you mean.
Mmmpi wrote: The cloak theme might be leaving the Dark Angels. Was just looking at the website and the only cloaks are on a few characters and the DW knights. The cloaked infantry are gone.
This may be a localisation thing - that, and the fact that the set is currently listed as "Temporarily Out of Stock" on the UK site, but listed as Fallen rather than Company Veterans (though the box image still says Company Veterans - go figure).
There are still robes in the Ravenwing box - and, as you've noted, every DA-specific character sculpt seems to feature robes somewhere.
Mmmpi wrote: The cloak theme might be leaving the Dark Angels. Was just looking at the website and the only cloaks are on a few characters and the DW knights. The cloaked infantry are gone.
This may be a localisation thing - that, and the fact that the set is currently listed as "Temporarily Out of Stock" on the UK site, but listed as Fallen rather than Company Veterans (though the box image still says Company Veterans - go figure).
There are still robes in the Ravenwing box - and, as you've noted, every DA-specific character sculpt seems to feature robes somewhere.
Yeah, Dark Angels will keep wearing nightgowns. If GW wanted to get rid of that look, they wouldn't have given it to the Dark Angels Primaris Lieutenant.
Fallen are of course Company Veterans because they were never released in their own box (not that such a thing would be necessary or even a good idea). The only reason "Fallen" exist as an online shop entry is GW's obsession with having every unit/datasheet get its own store page, instead of presenting a box with the variety of units the kit creates as a single page as they used to do before switching to this store software.
Battle Sister Bulletin: Part 1 – Adepta Sororitas Iconography
Welcome to your very first Battle Sister Bulletin! As promised in the Las Vegas Open Warhammer Preview, we’re going to be keeping you up to date throughout the entire process with all the latest developments as the new miniatures range takes shape. In our inaugural bulletin, we’ll be taking a look at some of the concept art that has helped to define the iconography across the new range.
One of the most integral features of Warhammer 40,000 is the iconography that helps define each faction (apart from the Tyranids – though we’re sure that the Hive Mind probably experimented with bio-banners at some point…). From the symbolic allegiance denoted by the Imperial Aquila to icons such as the blood drop of the Blood Angels or the skull rune of Khorne’s followers, such imagery is an intrinsic part of Warhammer 40,000. When it came to redesigning the Adepta Sororitas range, the iconography was, therefore, one of the first aspects that the design team looked at.
Here is a selection of some of the earliest concept sketches, and they feature an interesting juxtaposition within them. Many contrast softer themes such as wings, angels and flowers with stronger, more aggressive ones – the roses are complemented by thorny briars and clenched fists, while the ornate chalices are accompanied by skulls, swords and flames. The iconic fleur-de-lys – the unifying symbol used by the Adepta Sororitas and the non-militant orders that support them – also regularly appears throughout.
Of course, each Order of the Adepta Sororitas has its own iconographical nuances too. As the spiritual inheritors of the Daughters of the Emperor, the Order of the Ebon Chalice, for example, take much of the inspiration for their iconography from their part in the execution of the traitorous High Lord Goge Vandire. Images such as severed heads and relic blades are clear references to the violent, but storied, origins of the Order.
Once the Adepta Sororitas iconography has been conceptualised, it can help to influence some of the details on the miniatures themselves. These themes may eventually feature on their armour, banners, wargear and transfer sheets, or even in their artwork, though the purpose of concept art is to inspire rather than dictate.
We hope you enjoyed your inaugural Battle Sisters Bulletin. Let us know what you’re most looking forward to learning about the new range on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page. We’ll see you in two weeks!
One thing I noticed.
If GW started Sisters because of feedback from the Community Survey (which I think I've read elsewhere?), they must have really got on to it quickly - the survey closed on the 7th December 2017, and these images are stamped with 2017.
Battle Sister Bulletin: Part 1 – Adepta Sororitas Iconography
Welcome to your very first Battle Sister Bulletin! As promised in the Las Vegas Open Warhammer Preview, we’re going to be keeping you up to date throughout the entire process with all the latest developments as the new miniatures range takes shape. In our inaugural bulletin, we’ll be taking a look at some of the concept art that has helped to define the iconography across the new range.
One of the most integral features of Warhammer 40,000 is the iconography that helps define each faction (apart from the Tyranids – though we’re sure that the Hive Mind probably experimented with bio-banners at some point…). From the symbolic allegiance denoted by the Imperial Aquila to icons such as the blood drop of the Blood Angels or the skull rune of Khorne’s followers, such imagery is an intrinsic part of Warhammer 40,000. When it came to redesigning the Adepta Sororitas range, the iconography was, therefore, one of the first aspects that the design team looked at.
Here is a selection of some of the earliest concept sketches, and they feature an interesting juxtaposition within them. Many contrast softer themes such as wings, angels and flowers with stronger, more aggressive ones – the roses are complemented by thorny briars and clenched fists, while the ornate chalices are accompanied by skulls, swords and flames. The iconic fleur-de-lys – the unifying symbol used by the Adepta Sororitas and the non-militant orders that support them – also regularly appears throughout.
Of course, each Order of the Adepta Sororitas has its own iconographical nuances too. As the spiritual inheritors of the Daughters of the Emperor, the Order of the Ebon Chalice, for example, take much of the inspiration for their iconography from their part in the execution of the traitorous High Lord Goge Vandire. Images such as severed heads and relic blades are clear references to the violent, but storied, origins of the Order.
Once the Adepta Sororitas iconography has been conceptualised, it can help to influence some of the details on the miniatures themselves. These themes may eventually feature on their armour, banners, wargear and transfer sheets, or even in their artwork, though the purpose of concept art is to inspire rather than dictate.
We hope you enjoyed your inaugural Battle Sisters Bulletin. Let us know what you’re most looking forward to learning about the new range on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page. We’ll see you in two weeks!
One thing I noticed.
If GW started Sisters because of feedback from the Community Survey (which I think I've read elsewhere?), they must have really got on to it quickly - the survey closed on the 7th December 2017, and these images are stamped with 2017.
Certainly seems like it.
One assumes they would have gotten a preliminary analysis quickly, giving them the obvious top requests without analyzing the survey in depth.
As has been said a number of times, the themes of these drawings aren't really new so anyone who would have been assigned to draw something up could have done that fairly quickly without having to worry about fundamental questions too much.
I guess a concept artist's afternoon doodles don't cost GW much and they could have asked for those without a firm decision whether Sisters will actually be released or not.
The greaves and helmet are obviously based upon historic designs, and the breastplate is essentially a mid-15th century/ maybe early peascod breastplate with breasts attached over the top (use your own headcannon for whether these are decorative or not). The only way the sallet is anachronistic is that it fell out of fashion about 50 years before the peascod came in...
). That hardly inspires confidence that there will be much of 2019 left if they have to add such a disclaimer.
