Alpharius wrote: These renders (and accompanying text) seem to indicate that there won't be a lot of customizing minis here, aside from "helmet" and "no helmet", unless I'm missing something?
Probably easier this way given all the flowing robes, tabards, etc. but still slightly disappointing.
I think that's the solution they found that checked all the boxes (fit phsycially on the sprues, kept the expected flowing robes/hair/detail intact, and allowed proper material flow throughout the mould during injection). If the sprue isn't jam packed and instead has big empty spots like the older space marine scout sprue then I'm obviously wrong. FWIW, I'm ok with the monopose nature as long as there is enough variety amongst the 10 woman squad. The Space Hulk 2008 kit is a fantastic example of how to do that right IMO.
I think the bigger issue is the apparent invasion of the Infinity Tactical Rock/BoxTM into the 40k universe. It's always been present to some degree but it seems to have taken over the SOB faction like an Enslaver infestation. I'm telling the God-Emperor right away the first time a rage fistTM appears.
Yodhrin wrote: TBH I could stomach the limited poses despite my preference for more customisation, were it not for the fact that several of them are far too "iconic" for their own good. Looks like a minimum of two "tactical footrests" per squad, and if it's as much of a pain in the arse to swap the arms as it has been on many recent GW kits then most Sister Superiors will also be striking exactly the same pose. Bog standard firing, aiming, walking, running etc poses might not have quite as much pizazz as the "heroic" ones, but it's also expected that most of your models will look like the former so a few small variations(different head, change the angle of the head, armswap where practical, change the angle of the arms where practical, etc) goes a long way. Trying to differentiate the more striking poses takes a lot more work.
Aesthetically, the models are bang on, very pleased. Suspect I'll be less pleased when we see the pricetag
Just wanted to chuck out that these renders may not be from the multi part kit, they could very well be from a shadowspear type set ,much like deathguard,primaris, vanguard and deamonkin...
Another point of note is that this particular Battle Sister is wearing a helmet – you’ll be pleased to know that each model in the kit can be assembled with or without a full helm.
You are probably right, but it’s not unprecedented for monopose or easy to build minis to have a choice of heads.
None of the Infiltrators did. Only the Eliminators did, and even then it was just the 'rank and file' versions.
It might not be unprecedented, but it is slightly uncommon.
Another point of note is that this particular Battle Sister is wearing a helmet – you’ll be pleased to know that each model in the kit can be assembled with or without a full helm.
You are probably right, but it’s not unprecedented for monopose or easy to build minis to have a choice of heads.
None of the Infiltrators did. Only the Eliminators did, and even then it was just the 'rank and file' versions.
It might not be unprecedented, but it is slightly uncommon.
Indeed, but I can see Sisters being that exceptional case. It’s usually been the case in the past that monopose minis are more dynamically posed than the standard box with options. We saw that with the Intercessors in Dark Imperium, with the Stormcast in Soul Wars and now with Shadowspear. That’s just what these renders look like to me. I’m not claiming to be right here, just hoping that I am.
Love the models, they look great! Also nice to see that you can choose between the helmets and bare heads.
The details look a bit "chunky" compared to Amalia Novena (which I just painted), but I guess that's how the 3D files are made - the actual plastic shrinks a bit which gives the finer detail in manufacturing.
I wonder how many new things they add to the army - all that we've seen so far is very faithful to the originals, I wonder if they also will add anything new. I guess it will be a pretty thin codex otherwise - it would be nice to have at least 2 or 3 options for each battlefield role.
As cool as they look, I'm getting ominous vibes about the construction and compatability of the kits, like Van Saar levels of petty stinginess on GW's part.
One of the issues with van saar was one out of every 5 bodies had it's foot up on the same box. And I don't want to see that repeated here...and it looks like it might be.
Yep, as much as I don't mind monopose minis at all...that kind of design decision is a downfall, big time. My buddy plays Steel Legion and he's miffed that he has three or four sergeants all carrying the same stupid Ork head.
That kind of silliness is best left to named/special characters.
I'm sure the weapons will be swappable at the very least, but... I'm concerned about that sister superior. I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of the exact same sister superior leading all of the sisters of battle squads...
I expected essentially monopose with weapon and head swaps from the beginning. The design of Sisters really doesn't facilitate torso twists. Given a box set of ten sisters, even if it's a 2x5 pose configuration (like Primaris), weapon and head swaps/positioning will make enough of a difference. It's not like metal SoB had great variety or could be posed at all in the first place. If we're very lucky, there will be extra arms that allow variant poses, at least with bolters.
And there will probably be some alternate sculpts in a battle box set and maybe some Easy To Build sisters to mix it up as well.
The Phazer wrote: (Edit: I'm aware that sisters with storm bolters isn't new, but I guess I'm surprised they didn't at least make it look like it needed the arm to be reinforced or the gun to have ground support or somesuch, given storm bolters are supposed to have too much kickback for a marine in power armour to hold unless it's special and mastercrafted or somesuch.)
Uh, no. Where that came from? Every single SM sarge can be given one, veteran and sternguard can have full squads of them, DW guys in regular PA also use them.
Plus, Sisters can lift heavy bolters/flamers, a storm bolter is really nothing in comparison, old Sisters used them perfectly fine too...
John Prins wrote: I expected essentially monopose with weapon and head swaps from the beginning. The design of Sisters really doesn't facilitate torso twists. Given a box set of ten sisters, even if it's a 2x5 pose configuration (like Primaris), weapon and head swaps/positioning will make enough of a difference. It's not like metal SoB had great variety or could be posed at all in the first place. If we're very lucky, there will be extra arms that allow variant poses, at least with bolters.
And there will probably be some alternate sculpts in a battle box set and maybe some Easy To Build sisters to mix it up as well.
Sure, but I expect them to go the extra step and make the bits incomplete on their own. Like, the helmets will have a con cavity on one side where they fit against the shoulder pads, or the guns can only be glued one way to create a whole weapon in a whole hand. Not only will extra bits be unusable, but any kind of outside-the-box posing will be entirely beyond a beginner's skill.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: As cool as they look, I'm getting ominous vibes about the construction and compatability of the kits, like Van Saar levels of petty stinginess on GW's part.
Alpharius wrote: These renders (and accompanying text) seem to indicate that there won't be a lot of customizing minis here, aside from "helmet" and "no helmet", unless I'm missing something?
Probably easier this way given all the flowing robes, tabards, etc. but still slightly disappointing.
So just like pretty much all GW releases these days.
I just got the new CSMs and Havocs. Each mini has a set pose, with 2 options for a front, and two options for a weapon. No deviation, and as one torso takes special/heavy weapon X you have to use the same mini over and over again to get that special/heavy weapon, and it makes some options mutually exclusive given the way the minis go together.
While I'm a bit bummed that these do look to be following the monopose formula of late (along with YET MORE smoke effects... holy christ does someone at the sculpting team have an undying hardon for smoke, fog, vapor and cloud. As of the smoke grenade on the newest round of primaris marines I'm officially sick to the back teeth of it, that charred corpse is getting replaced with rubble) I love how faithful they are to the originals, and hope that there are at least ample options to keep loadouts nice and varied, if nothing else. Might have to grab an exorcist before they retire the metals for good...
warboss wrote: The Space Hulk 2008 kit is a fantastic example of how to do that right IMO.
How? You don't build an army with that Space Hulk Terminators. Imagine having every squad being repeats of those same Terminators over and over again.
It's called converting. Is it the same thing as having actually differently sculpted minis? No, of course not. But cutting limbs and putting the same base model post conversion in different squads really does help. As for imagining what it would look like, I'm way past that. I bought three boxes.
1. Should not be required to build squads that look different from one another.
2. Would not be required if the kits weren't all mono-pose to begin with.
Looking at the images again it looks like there is at least six distinct bodies, which leads me to think there might be ten unique bodies total. I can see them doing either 5 or ten, but not just six bodies only. The main studio put all their effort into this project since it was announced so i'll reserve final judgement until we see the whole squad painted and the full contents of the kit.
If I remember these were sculpted by the guy who did the skitarii rangers, and that kit had ten unique bodies and lots of head options. I'd expect some similarities there.
God damn they’re lovely, and that painted one is legitimately beautiful... I guess it’s yet another army to add to my back log (except it’ll get pushed to the front because they look phenomenal.)
For the love of god just release them already... they've been teasing this (full on legit teasing, not offhand mentions and jokes) for what, 2 years? JUST DO IT.
MajorTom11 wrote: For the love of god just release them already... they've been teasing this (full on legit teasing, not offhand mentions and jokes) for what, 2 years? JUST DO IT.
Yeah this strip tease has been too long. Luckily they’re beautiful so it’ll be worth the wait.
Rewind back to a couple of months before GW actually announced the return of Sisters of Battle. If you recall there was a somewhat bizarre burst of third-party Sisters-styled Kickstarters. I remember at least two Kickstarters and another release from Raging Heroes(?) etc. Anyway there was a bizarre glut of Sisters of Battle releases from everyone but GW. I think we had Sisters of the Burning Rose from Anvil, the Shieldwolf War Maidens and one of the "baddest chicks in the galaxy" releases or some such.
Then a month or two later GW confesses they're going to make the army and unlike any other thing they've done - they give people a year or more heads up?
I genuinely think that somewhere, someone slipped up and the word got out (albeit very minimally) where GW were going. I feel like the third-party companies dove on the news. GW then responded by throwing out their news way too early (they weren't exactly short on releases or news and had little to no reason to do so...) to try to stall players from buying up all the third-party sisters stuff.
It may not have been the case, but it was awfully suspicious timing...
1. Should not be required to build squads that look different from one another.
2. Would not be required if the kits weren't all mono-pose to begin with.
The phase (and thankfully it was just a phase) where every torso, pair of legs, head and set of arms were separate pieces led to years of bad looking miniatures. You had convert them to make something that didn’t look like a toy. Limited options is just the price you have to pay to get better looking miniatures.
1. Should not be required to build squads that look different from one another.
2. Would not be required if the kits weren't all mono-pose to begin with.
The phase (and thankfully it was just a phase) where every torso, pair of legs, head and set of arms were separate pieces led to years of bad looking miniatures. You had convert them to make something that didn’t look like a toy. Limited options is just the price you have to pay to get better looking miniatures.
Putting aside that I strongly disagree with your basic premise that the multipart style looked bad, and also putting aside that even if it were accurate it's demonstrably true that it's easier to do such conversions when the models are designed from the ground up to facilitate them rather than to make it as much effort as possible(and beyond the skill of many); even then, the idea that things have to be as limited as many modern GW kits is just pure nonsense on toast.
There is no technical or practical reason that a kit must permit only Torso A, Head C, and Weapon/Arms D to fit together without significant resculpting if you want to use, say, Head Y or Weapon/Arms G from the same kit. GW are perfectly capable of designing a kit where most of the parts are interchangeable, it just requires that the designer restrain themselves a little and leave the prancing, heroic strutting, and tactical footrest type poses out of basic infantry boxes that you'll be buying multiples of.
1. Should not be required to build squads that look different from one another.
2. Would not be required if the kits weren't all mono-pose to begin with.
The phase (and thankfully it was just a phase) where every torso, pair of legs, head and set of arms were separate pieces led to years of bad looking miniatures. You had convert them to make something that didn’t look like a toy. Limited options is just the price you have to pay to get better looking miniatures.
Putting aside that I strongly disagree with your basic premise that the multipart style looked bad, and also putting aside that even if it were accurate it's demonstrably true that it's easier to do such conversions when the models are designed from the ground up to facilitate them rather than to make it as much effort as possible(and beyond the skill of many); even then, the idea that things have to be as limited as many modern GW kits is just pure nonsense on toast.
There is no technical or practical reason that a kit must permit only Torso A, Head C, and Weapon/Arms D to fit together without significant resculpting if you want to use, say, Head Y or Weapon/Arms G from the same kit. GW are perfectly capable of designing a kit where most of the parts are interchangeable, it just requires that the designer restrain themselves a little and leave the prancing, heroic strutting, and tactical footrest type poses out of basic infantry boxes that you'll be buying multiples of.
I think the old multipart kits did look bad, but that’s entirely subjective. I’d rather have beautifully sculpted single pose minis than multi pose action figure style. Again, subjective.
Here’s where we fundamentally disagree ...
Making an arm or a head fit onto a torso it wasn’t designed for, is not difficult and does not require “significant resculpting”. I’m still thinking though, based on the style of these miniatures, that we could be looking at Shadowspear style single pose sculpts here and more customisable boxes will follow.
More modular kit just meant the designer had to spend more time brainstorming.
Custodian Guard kit is some of GW last super modular kit. Further Custode kit are all monopose with arm and hand in 1 piece.
And remember that time they make The Elven Union bloodbowl team with interchangable head and arm between all body, took them 9 months to release that kit.
With GW's heavily release schedule it's necessary for all designers to make monopose kit to save time.
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to do an infantry horde army of all 1 sculpt and 1 pose just to mess with people's OCD.
You may laugh, but back in the day I’ve seen close to that when an entire range of some obscure period of metal historical consisted of maybe 12 sculpts.
I’m with the idea these are for a Shadowspear style box set. It’s probably not true, but I’ve never seen scenic bases on troops unless they’re easy build in some way. Another example of this is the new Stormcast.
Tiberius501 wrote: I’m with the idea these are for a Shadowspear style box set. It’s probably not true, but I’ve never seen scenic bases on troops unless they’re easy build in some way. Another example of this is the new Stormcast.
Agreed. The retributors they showed us before looked far more like standard, modern GW kits, with what looks to be a single piece torso and legs.
Tiberius501 wrote: I’m with the idea these are for a Shadowspear style box set. It’s probably not true, but I’ve never seen scenic bases on troops unless they’re easy build in some way. Another example of this is the new Stormcast.
Harlequins, Van Saar, and to a lesser extent Cawdor, immediately spring to mind.
Tiberius501 wrote: I’m with the idea these are for a Shadowspear style box set. It’s probably not true, but I’ve never seen scenic bases on troops unless they’re easy build in some way. Another example of this is the new Stormcast.
Harlequins, Van Saar, and to a lesser extent Cawdor, immediately spring to mind.
Yes, you can legitimately argue this either way. The fact is, there is no rule that all GW releases conform to. Time, as they say, will tell.
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to do an infantry horde army of all 1 sculpt and 1 pose just to mess with people's OCD.
You may laugh, but back in the day I’ve seen close to that when an entire range of some obscure period of metal historical consisted of maybe 12 sculpts.
You might be thinking of the original metal sisters :p
(12 battle sisters including squad leaders and special weapons, 4 seraphim, 3 retributors, a banner, and a canoness. Even the second wave characters and seraphim were arm/head swaps of the first wave).
1. Should not be required to build squads that look different from one another.
2. Would not be required if the kits weren't all mono-pose to begin with.
The phase (and thankfully it was just a phase) where every torso, pair of legs, head and set of arms were separate pieces led to years of bad looking miniatures. You had convert them to make something that didn’t look like a toy. Limited options is just the price you have to pay to get better looking miniatures.
Putting aside that I strongly disagree with your basic premise that the multipart style looked bad, and also putting aside that even if it were accurate it's demonstrably true that it's easier to do such conversions when the models are designed from the ground up to facilitate them rather than to make it as much effort as possible(and beyond the skill of many); even then, the idea that things have to be as limited as many modern GW kits is just pure nonsense on toast.
There is no technical or practical reason that a kit must permit only Torso A, Head C, and Weapon/Arms D to fit together without significant resculpting if you want to use, say, Head Y or Weapon/Arms G from the same kit. GW are perfectly capable of designing a kit where most of the parts are interchangeable, it just requires that the designer restrain themselves a little and leave the prancing, heroic strutting, and tactical footrest type poses out of basic infantry boxes that you'll be buying multiples of.
While I agree with you on multi-pose vs mono-pose for an entire force (mono-pose can be fine if you only have one squad. The minute you have two I think it starts to look silly), I'm not sure GW necessarily has the skill to make multi-pose models anymore. The last kit released was what? Two years ago?
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to do an infantry horde army of all 1 sculpt and 1 pose just to mess with people's OCD.
You may laugh, but back in the day I’ve seen close to that when an entire range of some obscure period of metal historical consisted of maybe 12 sculpts.
You might be thinking of the original metal sisters :p
(12 battle sisters including squad leaders and special weapons, 4 seraphim, 3 retributors, a banner, and a canoness. Even the second wave characters and seraphim were arm/head swaps of the first wave).
While it does closely fit the metal sisters, I've seen more than a few historicals companies that sell infantry in a bag, one of each sculpt, with that being the entire range for that army's basic trooper models.
1. Should not be required to build squads that look different from one another.
2. Would not be required if the kits weren't all mono-pose to begin with.
The phase (and thankfully it was just a phase) where every torso, pair of legs, head and set of arms were separate pieces led to years of bad looking miniatures. You had convert them to make something that didn’t look like a toy. Limited options is just the price you have to pay to get better looking miniatures.
Putting aside that I strongly disagree with your basic premise that the multipart style looked bad, and also putting aside that even if it were accurate it's demonstrably true that it's easier to do such conversions when the models are designed from the ground up to facilitate them rather than to make it as much effort as possible(and beyond the skill of many); even then, the idea that things have to be as limited as many modern GW kits is just pure nonsense on toast.
There is no technical or practical reason that a kit must permit only Torso A, Head C, and Weapon/Arms D to fit together without significant resculpting if you want to use, say, Head Y or Weapon/Arms G from the same kit. GW are perfectly capable of designing a kit where most of the parts are interchangeable, it just requires that the designer restrain themselves a little and leave the prancing, heroic strutting, and tactical footrest type poses out of basic infantry boxes that you'll be buying multiples of.
I think you have to separate old multi-part and newer kits; Tau are a great example, the old Firewarrior kit basically had standing or kneeling and firing from the shoulder or hip. Really difficult to get the models to do anything else, despite being a full multi-part kit and could easily have been monopose or the current “semi-posable”(?). The new Pathfinder kit on the other hand is magnificent; standing, kneeling and advancing legs with firing, advancing and a whole load of other arms (reloading, communications, sensors, gestures), plus multiple special weapons, giving a huge variety of outputs.
I'm not worried about duplicate poses. Somebody staring at my 20+ strong infantry section will almost definitely eventually be able to pick out some duplicated leg/torso sections but it won't make my army look bad. They're rank and file troops performing effectively the same function as each other. There's never been so much variety in GW miniature armies as there is now, so the idea that the highly detailed monoposes of the last few years are some kind of step backwards is simply nonsense.
But hey, guess some people need something to complain about.
GW: Here are some extremely detailed, dynamically posed miniatures for your army.
Customer: HOW VERY DARE YOU
ekwatts wrote: I'm not worried about duplicate poses. Somebody staring at my 20+ strong infantry section will almost definitely eventually be able to pick out some duplicated leg/torso sections but it won't make my army look bad. They're rank and file troops performing effectively the same function as each other.
With simple and functional poses that's true. With prancing and showboating ones, not so much.
MajorTom11 wrote: For the love of god just release them already... they've been teasing this (full on legit teasing, not offhand mentions and jokes) for what, 2 years? JUST DO IT.
What's interesting is that GW normally doesn't tease nor preview like that. I get the feeling its a big marketing test for them. Their typical approach in the past was to tease almost nothing until right up close to the release window. That's advanced and now they generally tease perhaps 3 or 4 months up to the release window. Sisters they've teased for a few years up to the release window.
I guess for GW the big risks are:
1) That they tease too much early on and end up missing their release window due to unforeseen issues. Always a big risk and can deflate a markets interest very fast if that release window is missed by a large margin. Or if the release window turns into a "well we don't know now but its coming "soon""
2) That they market this thing coming so far off and their customers end up saving instead of spending on the more current releases
3) That they tease material a little too early and it changes significantly through the duration of the project so that what was shown early isn't what is delivered later.
Honestly I feel like points 1 and 2 they've handled really well. They only gave 2019 as the release window and they've steadily kept to that target. Meanwhile they didn't tease too much early on which meant that whilst we were hungry for more info we didn't get spoilt and urn out of stuff to be previewed and what we saw then is what we are seeing now.
ekwatts wrote: I'm not worried about duplicate poses. Somebody staring at my 20+ strong infantry section will almost definitely eventually be able to pick out some duplicated leg/torso sections but it won't make my army look bad. They're rank and file troops performing effectively the same function as each other. There's never been so much variety in GW miniature armies as there is now, so the idea that the highly detailed monoposes of the last few years are some kind of step backwards is simply nonsense.
But hey, guess some people need something to complain about.
GW: Here are some extremely detailed, dynamically posed miniatures for your army.
Customer: HOW VERY DARE YOU
etc.
Citation needed, I think. Looking at GW releases, variety has definitely gone down. Both in what's produced overall (replacements come and we get lots of variations of the same thing (6 ork buggies, marines with rifle replacements, eldar wraith wraith wraith), but the same holes remain in ranges) and what's in a box. Set bodies with swap X weapon for Y weapon.
Looking at GW releases, variety has definitely gone down. Both in what's produced overall (replacements come and we get lots of variations of the same thing (6 ork buggies, marines with rifle replacements, eldar wraith wraith wraith), but the same holes remain in ranges) and what's in a box. Set bodies with swap X weapon for Y weapon.
It's very true - GW plastic kits are less varied than before in the poses, but that's not really a problem - the material is still easy to work and you can always convert a bit to make them different.
Otherwise, it's still funny to see people complaining about that when you know the metal sisters are more than quite rigid with the same poses repeating themselves over and over (and a real pain in the ass to convert). True sisters players know these on the Warhammer Community will already be a huge improvement compared to now (and soon before ?).
On a more serious note, when you have miniatures with floating long piece of clothes, it's better to have a specific set pose that is meant to be used with set arms so that the whole still looks coherent. Unless you want to have a miniature that looks like it's caught in a chaotic wind blowing in all directions at the same time. So I believe this design choice is actually made for the sake of having better looking miniatures.
Looking at GW releases, variety has definitely gone down. Both in what's produced overall (replacements come and we get lots of variations of the same thing (6 ork buggies, marines with rifle replacements, eldar wraith wraith wraith), but the same holes remain in ranges) and what's in a box. Set bodies with swap X weapon for Y weapon.
It's very true - GW plastic kits are less varied than before in the poses, but that's not really a problem - the material is still easy to work and you can always convert a bit to make them different.
Otherwise, it's still funny to see people complaining about that when you know the metal sisters are more than quite rigid with the same poses repeating themselves over and over (and a real pain in the ass to convert). True sisters players know these on the Warhammer Community will already be a huge improvement compared to now (and soon before ?).
On a more serious note, when you have miniatures with floating long piece of clothes, it's better to have a specific set pose that is meant to be used with set arms so that the whole still looks coherent. Unless you want to have a miniature that looks like it's caught in a chaotic wind blowing in all directions at the same time. So I believe this design choice is actually made for the sake of having better looking miniatures.
Sure, at least partially. I suspect it also will coincidentally restrict how many special weapons are on the sprue.
But the general trend is less variety in favor of more posing and restrictive parts.
Any WFB army from the late 90s will do. My High Elf army had over a hundred of the models from the 4th edition starter; one spearman pose and one archer pose. Same went for the other armies.
I still prefer those single-part High Elf plastic troops to the multi-part spearmen and archers released for 6th edition. I did buy a box of the archers because they weren't wearing armour so I could save a point per model using those ones instead of the older models in scale armour, but they're ugly models. I didn't get round to actually painting them until a couple of years ago when I used them for AoS.
My 20-man Tactical Squad of Marines for Horus Heresy are all in essentially the same pose; rifle held at the waist. Some are looking left, some to the right, the rifles are at three different heights, but essentially it's 20 guys all doing the same thing.
Looking at GW releases, variety has definitely gone down. Both in what's produced overall (replacements come and we get lots of variations of the same thing (6 ork buggies, marines with rifle replacements, eldar wraith wraith wraith), but the same holes remain in ranges) and what's in a box. Set bodies with swap X weapon for Y weapon.
It's very true - GW plastic kits are less varied than before in the poses, but that's not really a problem - the material is still easy to work and you can always convert a bit to make them different.
Otherwise, it's still funny to see people complaining about that when you know the metal sisters are more than quite rigid with the same poses repeating themselves over and over (and a real pain in the ass to convert). True sisters players know these on the Warhammer Community will already be a huge improvement compared to now (and soon before ?).
On a more serious note, when you have miniatures with floating long piece of clothes, it's better to have a specific set pose that is meant to be used with set arms so that the whole still looks coherent. Unless you want to have a miniature that looks like it's caught in a chaotic wind blowing in all directions at the same time. So I believe this design choice is actually made for the sake of having better looking miniatures.
"True Sisters players" were perhaps looking forward to more than a slight improvement on the posing/variety score from 20+ year old metals...
Looking at GW releases, variety has definitely gone down. Both in what's produced overall (replacements come and we get lots of variations of the same thing (6 ork buggies, marines with rifle replacements, eldar wraith wraith wraith), but the same holes remain in ranges) and what's in a box. Set bodies with swap X weapon for Y weapon.
It's very true - GW plastic kits are less varied than before in the poses, but that's not really a problem - the material is still easy to work and you can always convert a bit to make them different.
Otherwise, it's still funny to see people complaining about that when you know the metal sisters are more than quite rigid with the same poses repeating themselves over and over (and a real pain in the ass to convert). True sisters players know these on the Warhammer Community will already be a huge improvement compared to now (and soon before ?).
On a more serious note, when you have miniatures with floating long piece of clothes, it's better to have a specific set pose that is meant to be used with set arms so that the whole still looks coherent. Unless you want to have a miniature that looks like it's caught in a chaotic wind blowing in all directions at the same time. So I believe this design choice is actually made for the sake of having better looking miniatures.
"True Sisters players" were perhaps looking forward to more than a slight improvement on the posing/variety score from 20+ year old metals...
I’ll take a slight improvement in posing with a massive improvement everywhere else.
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's the norm for lots of games, including 40k for a significant time.
Due to limitations in casting and production. Do you think GW created monopose Orks for the 2nd Ed starter set because they thought it'd be cool, or because their ability to make plastic miniatures wasn't what it is now?
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's the norm for lots of games, including 40k for a significant time.
Due to limitations in casting and production. Do you think GW created monopose Orks for the 2nd Ed starter set because they thought it'd be cool, or because their ability to make plastic miniatures wasn't what it is now?
The same is true though for your own criticisms of the currently previewed pics. It's obviously a judgement call though whether you think flowing robes and ribbons, dynamic poses, etc are worth the limited variety of poses possible out of the box without moderately more effort.
"True Sisters players" were perhaps looking forward to more than a slight improvement on the posing/variety score from 20+ year old metals...
I’ll take a slight improvement in posing with a massive improvement everywhere else.
Pretty much - plastic is already a massive improvement from metal, really. I got rid of my 200+ metal sisters precisely because of these future plastic kits. Starting over with that material will be much more fun than trying to convert/build the metal ones.
Rewind back to a couple of months before GW actually announced the return of Sisters of Battle. If you recall there was a somewhat bizarre burst of third-party Sisters-styled Kickstarters. I remember at least two Kickstarters and another release from Raging Heroes(?) etc. Anyway there was a bizarre glut of Sisters of Battle releases from everyone but GW. I think we had Sisters of the Burning Rose from Anvil, the Shieldwolf War Maidens and one of the "baddest chicks in the galaxy" releases or some such.
Then a month or two later GW confesses they're going to make the army and unlike any other thing they've done - they give people a year or more heads up?
I genuinely think that somewhere, someone slipped up and the word got out (albeit very minimally) where GW were going. I feel like the third-party companies dove on the news. GW then responded by throwing out their news way too early (they weren't exactly short on releases or news and had little to no reason to do so...) to try to stall players from buying up all the third-party sisters stuff.
It may not have been the case, but it was awfully suspicious timing...
This seems likely. If they had done the same thing when the 5th edition Space Wolves codex was released, there would have been far fewer dodgy resin not-Thunderwolves on gaming tables around the world...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chopstick wrote: More modular kit just meant the designer had to spend more time brainstorming..
Not exactly. Because of the casting limitations of plastic, you're essentially forced to choose between 'super-modular' or 'Super-detailed'. Making both, particularly with details like flowing robes, is practically impossible. This is precisely the reason that GW haven't done plastic sisters before now (as stated by Jes Goodwin on multiple occasions)... so long as GW was focused on producing modular models, there was just no practical way to make plastic sisters without a considerably redesign, which nobody wanted. These models literally only happened now because of GW's shift away from modular models and back towards less customisable but more detailed models. We're essentially back in the same design ethos as existed when the models were made of metal, just updated to plastic.
But hey, guess some people need something to complain about.
GW: Here are some extremely detailed, dynamically posed miniatures for your army.
Customer: HOW VERY DARE YOU
etc.
It's certainly easier to dismiss it as people looking for things to complain about than to understand that different people like different things. For some, the ease of customisation with modular minis is more important than having this level of detail. And for everyone who appreciates dynamically-posed models, there's someone who dislikes having every heavy weapon model in the army look identical.
It's not 'needing something to complain about'... it's just having different preferences.
I think the old multipart kits did look bad, but that’s entirely subjective. I’d rather have beautifully sculpted single pose minis than multi pose action figure style. Again, subjective.
Here’s where we fundamentally disagree ...
Making an arm or a head fit onto a torso it wasn’t designed for, is not difficult and does not require “significant resculpting”. I’m still thinking though, based on the style of these miniatures, that we could be looking at Shadowspear style single pose sculpts here and more customisable boxes will follow.
Aren't you basically pining for the days of metal or resin then?
The 2nd edition guard for example had great natural poses and flowing lines. When a model was running it looked great because the whole model was sculpted in a running pose, not just the legs. They got repetitive (especially in a guard army!) but at least you could take them out of the blister, prime them, and get to work.
The problem with mono-pose multi-part plastics is they're just as repetitive, but now you have to spend a night or two assembling them before you can even get to painting.
And unlike the multipart, multi-pose ones, assembling is a real chore, where only Head X32 can fit onto body Q44 and heaven help you if you accidentally put gun barrel Bx22 on Rifle Q17.
Either give me lego like kits where anything can go anywhere, or give me one piece models, don't give me the worst of both worlds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to do an infantry horde army of all 1 sculpt and 1 pose just to mess with people's OCD.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: [
The 2nd edition guard for example had great natural poses and flowing lines. When a model was running it looked great because the whole model was sculpted in a running pose, not just the legs. They got repetitive (especially in a guard army!) but at least you could take them out of the blister, prime them, and get to work.
After clipping off all the metal vents and filing down the mold lines. At least they were still lead?
I had to have them in six squads because of the ZM rules. I think I managed to fit two of them in the deployment zone (along with my other Orks) and got another squad in from reserves. The other 45 sat out the entire time.
They couldn't figure out how to make plastic robes? Please. Zvezda cracked that problem years ago with their Ring of Rule Wizard. ...by splitting it into about 27 fiddly pieces. Stupid frustrating wizard.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They couldn't figure out how to make plastic robes? Please. Zvezda cracked that problem years ago with their Ring of Rule Wizard. ...by splitting it into about 27 fiddly pieces. Stupid frustrating wizard.
It's not 'figuring out plastic robes'... it's figuring out plastic robes (or hanging sleeves, in this specific example) that don't look weird unless they're assembled in one specific position. Monopose minis get around that problem by only offering one way to assemble them, but when GW's design ethos was for multi-part models, it was an issue.
And no, Zvezda didn't 'crack' that problem. That wizard looks ridiculous unless the arms are positioned just right.
Insaniak, given the small size text I'm pretty sure Bob was joking and didn't think that Zvezda cracked the problem, they just wanted to poke fun at the 27 pieces ^^.
I think they look great. Having replaced all my Space Marines with Primaris mods. I don't have a problem with them being essentially mono-posed, as long as they look good and have the required options. Besides this is current GW. We'll probably get 4-5 different characters and differently posed easy build variants. Maybe even a box-set of some kind.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They couldn't figure out how to make plastic robes? Please. Zvezda cracked that problem years ago with their Ring of Rule Wizard. ...by splitting it into about 27 fiddly pieces. Stupid frustrating wizard.
It's not 'figuring out plastic robes'... it's figuring out plastic robes (or hanging sleeves, in this specific example) that don't look weird unless they're assembled in one specific position. Monopose minis get around that problem by only offering one way to assemble them, but when GW's design ethos was for multi-part models, it was an issue.
And no, Zvezda didn't 'crack' that problem. That wizard looks ridiculous unless the arms are positioned just right.
The robe 'solution' would be to just make the robes over the shoulders be a separate piece, like the pauldrons on a marine model. Leave a few places where it could slot in on the torso robes, that could be painted as wrinkles/folds, and you'd be set.
This is precisely the reason that GW haven't done plastic sisters before now (as stated by Jes Goodwin on multiple occasions)...
And that is probably the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard. He probably also had some cool insight excuse for why plastic Aspect warrior isn't a thing for decade.
The robe 'solution' would be to just make the robes over the shoulders be a separate piece, like the pauldrons on a marine model. Leave a few places where it could slot in on the torso robes, that could be painted as wrinkles/folds, and you'd be set.
If the robe solution was to 'just' do anything, we would have seen plastic Sisters a decade ago.
There are plenty of ways it could have been done. But if Jes Goodwin says that there was no way to do it well, at least with GW's manufacturing capabilities, it's probably fairly safe to take that as written.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *looks at Dark Angel and Black Templar plastics*
Umm...
Unlike Sisters though, the Black Templar and Dark Angel models don't have free-flowing robe sleeves.
A hood, robed torso and tabard are one thing - as it's hard to assemble a model in a way where they won't be hanging vertically - however, given how many ways an arm can be posed though, it's really easy to have the sleeve hanging at an odd, unnatural angle.
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
I totally agree it would be nice if they are more customizable, (and they still might, all we’ve seen are mostly renders of what could be easy build) but I’m not sure it’s worth getting mad about, especially as they have shown hardly anything to suggest what we’re getting as a whole.
We’re getting plastic sisters! That wouldn’t have even happened a couple of years ago! Be happy about something!
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
I totally agree it would be nice if they are more customizable, (and they still might, all we’ve seen are mostly renders of what could be easy build) but I’m not sure it’s worth getting mad about, especially as they have shown hardly anything to suggest what we’re getting as a whole.
We’re getting plastic sisters! That wouldn’t have even happened a couple of years ago! Be happy about something!
No you’re not. I’m really looking forward to them...
... but this is Dakka. You can’t say you like something without somebody trying to prove you’re wrong.
... but this is Dakka. You can’t say you like something without somebody trying to prove you’re wrong.
Somebody pointing out that they would prefer multipart models isn't saying that you're wrong for liking these ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: *looks at Dark Angel and Black Templar plastics*
Umm...
The sleeves were the specific thing that Jes always said was a problem. Neither DA nor BT plastics have sleeves.
The problem is the way loose sleeves hang. You have to sculpt them to hang a certain way, which restricts the arm to only being put on the model that one way. When your goal is multipart, poseable models, that doesn't work. You just wind up with multipart models that only go together one way.
Given the nature of GW releases we don't know for sure that the renders shown are from the standard sister set or if they are part of a big box release like Shadow spear , we also don't know how these renders s will divide up, at this point we know very little.
At least wait for the sprues before knocking them.
Also GW won the chapter house case, they won damages.
Why do people believe they lost.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: ... but this is Dakka. You can’t say you like something without somebody trying to prove you’re wrong.
Weirdly enough, pointing out how wrong you are (and you are), actually proves you right.
See ... told ya!
Seriously though, of course I’m not talking about anyone and everyone who disagrees with, or has a different opinion to somebody. I’m referring to those individuals who try to “objectively prove” why the option you’ve stated is wrong and you are wrong to hold it. A small, but sadly vocal, minority of the Dakka community. I generally try to ignore them.
... such as the person a few posts back (a MOD no less, who should know better) who tried to tell me that I hold an opinion that I don’t actually hold, then explain to me why the option (that I don’t actually hold) is wrong
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.
Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.
We did.
I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.
Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.
We did.
I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?
I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.
Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.
We did.
I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?
I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...
But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.
They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.
Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.
We did.
I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?
I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...
But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.
They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.
True.
But as far as the ork stuff is concerned, option are toasted.
So one may worry about the issue...
But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.
They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.
About as rampant as the tendency to imbue criticism with a level of anger than isn't actually present in the comments being made.
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.
Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.
We did.
I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?
I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...
But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.
They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.
Just to point out, extrapolating is not the same as jumping to conclusions.
We know for a fact that the number of multipart multipose kits GW used to produce has gone down while seeing a rise both in multipart monopose and easy to build kits.
Sisters of Battle have a specific design, as mentioned multiple times over the last two pages, where the robes and especially sleeve design pose a difficult obstacle to making them multipose. You don't need Jes Goodwyn to tell you that, but having his opinion on the matter certainly doesn't hurt.
We now have renders of models that make ample use of tactical rocks. Not excessively like Witch Elves, but considering the inherent limitations of building a pose around an object on a base, we know that this is an area where choice is cut down.
You don't have to believe that this is a bad sign for the posability of the coming models, and obviously we won't strictly know until around the time the kit is released, but we do have facts to base our speculations on and it may not be the worst approach to get used to the idea that the army will be pretty monopose now. It'll save you disappointment later, and if it turns out that this suspicion is incorrect, so much the better.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *looks at Dark Angel and Black Templar plastics*
Umm...
You mean the minis that look like chunk of granite the sculptor abandoned midway out of boredom? Yeah, that sure would work for slender bodies
By the way, dunno if you ever saw DA veterans up close, but they pretty much prove you wrong. They don't have flowing sleeves, but a lot of DA models have stuff dangling from their arms, and assembling that is a real chore. Either you glue them in the only way that makes sense with the dangly bits (so much for "multipose" claim...) or you try to bend them carefully into new position (risking breaking them off, and besides, this only adds a handful of new positions). Anything else produces immersion breaking mini with antigrav bling - and this would be only much worse and more evident with Sister robes...
Crimson wrote: So is there any particular reason for assuming that the arms wouldn't be separate? I don't think anything I see in the pictures necessitates such.
Realistically, we can't say. We might get a complete arm that's separate from the torso, with or without a weapon attached. We might get an arm with only half of the sleeve attached and the other half a separate bit. We might get jigsaw parts that defy the human mind like Celestine and the twins. We might get all of that across the Sisters range, or even in a single kit.
For the longest time, Marine kits have been cast in the discrete body parts that you could simply stick together and that were easily recognizable for what they were and how they were supposed to go together. Primaris, or Mk.III to a degree if I recall, added more fiddly bits such as separate shin armor to allow casting legs in more dynamic poses. One of the Fiends of Slaanesh has a bit that slots in to complete the back, shoulder, possibly also the arm and the neck. It's very fiddly and was probably separated because otherwise it would have lost surface detail.
Unless you are involved with mold making or CAD sculpting, I think it's very hard to predict how something with as complex lines as Sister have will be cast. I certainly can't do it, but then I also took exception to that Fiend bit.
I expect these kits to be like the recent we had - for example, the Chaos Space Marines new kit. They are indeed more restricted in the variety of poses in comparison to, said, the old Space Marine kit with strict separate parts for legs, torso, arms and head, but they still have options.
So far, as long as we don't see the actual sprue of these sisters, no one can say they will be "optionless".
I have faith they will be very enjoyable to work with. And I'm sure we'll quickly see some Chaos scum making a heresy with them as well.
Crimson wrote: So is there any particular reason for assuming that the arms wouldn't be separate? I don't think anything I see in the pictures necessitates such.
Realistically, we can't say. We might get a complete arm that's separate from the torso, with or without a weapon attached. We might get an arm with only half of the sleeve attached and the other half a separate bit. We might get jigsaw parts that defy the human mind like Celestine and the twins. We might get all of that across the Sisters range, or even in a single kit.
For the longest time, Marine kits have been cast in the discrete body parts that you could simply stick together and that were easily recognizable for what they were and how they were supposed to go together. Primaris, or Mk.III to a degree if I recall, added more fiddly bits such as separate shin armor to allow casting legs in more dynamic poses. One of the Fiends of Slaanesh has a bit that slots in to complete the back, shoulder, possibly also the arm and the neck. It's very fiddly and was probably separated because otherwise it would have lost surface detail.
Unless you are involved with mold making or CAD sculpting, I think it's very hard to predict how something with as complex lines as Sister have will be cast. I certainly can't do it, but then I also took exception to that Fiend bit.
Mk. III was still modular, the legs just weren’t in one bit so that they could do different poses.
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
Hell no. I'm glad they're of much, much higher quality than the old minis. I wish they were even better.
Actually what I hope for even more is that they have new UNIT TYPES as much as they do new plastic miniatures. Sisters have been stagnating with the same 2hq/2elite/1troop/2fa/1heavy infantry choices and a tragically small vehicle base for way too long.
Well, GW *could* add more infantry types to the sisters with the same plastic kits, but I'm not sure it would be really relevant. I think it's better to have different choices that have a clear purpose distinct from the others rather than the same unit type doing practically the same job but one is being simply better than the other (celestians were in that spot for quite a long time now - they were added as an elite choice with the intent of using the base sisters with conversions, but they kinda filled the same job in the end with more or less interest as editions went on).
So far, I feel like the infantries we have now are good enough. What sisters could use, however, is more vehicles and...more Adeptus Ministorum units, actually. The Frateris Militia can bring a specific role to a sister army akin to Cultists in a Chaos Space Marine army, but they're clearly not part of the Adepta Sororitas.
But sure, they could make different kinds of Seraphim-like units for example (like one with melee weapons rather than pistols). But the "base sisters" ? Dominions have the special weapons, Retributors have the heavy weapons, celestians are bodyguards/veterans...what would be next, Primaris sisters ? Not sure it's that needed.
Tiberius501 wrote: Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
Hell no. I'm glad they're of much, much higher quality than the old minis. I wish they were even better.
Actually what I hope for even more is that they have new UNIT TYPES as much as they do new plastic miniatures. Sisters have been stagnating with the same 2hq/2elite/1troop/2fa/1heavy infantry choices and a tragically small vehicle base for way too long.
I think we can reasonably expect new toys for Sisters.
I mean, GSC got some loving recently. They went from a defunct line, to splitting Hybrids into two units, Aberrants, Abominants, Bikers and Quadbike, Truck x 2 and the Big Buggy, plus a poop load of new characters. They've flesh them out pretty nicely, even though they've also got access to the vast majority (entirety?) of the AM Codex.
A dual-build Celestians "veteran" kit would be cool- make the original bolter-wielders into a kind of Sternguard equivalent with access to combi-weapons (including combi-crossbows and some expensive Ecclesiarchy-bought equipment), and have a melee version styled like the Swiss Guard with fancy polearms or somesuch. They could call the polearms sarissas and actually use that name for a weapon at least vaguely similar to the Macedonian pike, rather than for a boltgun bayonet...
The melee version could also have wristmounted pistols (usual selection for AS), or some other kind of hands-free firearm. Really make them look like they are veterans backed by one of the richest institutions within the Imperium, not just Battle sisters with some fancy robes.
I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists, and it's not likely given how GW have been breaking everything up into microfactions of late, but "generic raggedy cultists" is right up there with "basic human-size servitors" in the Why Haven't GW Done This Obvious Thing Yet sweepstakes.
There's only so many variations on "Sisters in armour" and "Sisters not in armour" you can do - especially without just cloning Marines - and most have been done. Beyond a specific box for Celestians, a melee variant of Seraphim, a non-melee variant of Repentia, a shooty or heavy version of the Penitent Engine, I'm not sure there's much they can really satisfyingly do with Sisters without dipping into the broader Ecclesiarchy.
All that said, my expectations for the release are that they'll give us the existing options in plastic, plus a smattering of new character models, and maybe one new kit and/or a couple of the existing units would dual-build as something else. Better to keep expectations minimal and be happily surprised.
EDIT: Also, recall that GSC got all those things in two distinct waves a fair wee while apart.
Yodhrin wrote: I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists, and it's not likely given how GW have been breaking everything up into microfactions of late, but "generic raggedy cultists" is right up there with "basic human-size servitors" in the Why Haven't GW Done This Obvious Thing Yet sweepstakes.
There's only so many variations on "Sisters in armour" and "Sisters not in armour" you can do - especially without just cloning Marines - and most have been done. Beyond a specific box for Celestians, a melee variant of Seraphim, a non-melee variant of Repentia, a shooty or heavy version of the Penitent Engine, I'm not sure there's much they can really satisfyingly do with Sisters without dipping into the broader Ecclesiarchy.
All that said, my expectations for the release are that they'll give us the existing options in plastic, plus a smattering of new character models, and maybe one new kit and/or a couple of the existing units would dual-build as something else. Better to keep expectations minimal and be happily surprised.
EDIT: Also, recall that GSC got all those things in two distinct waves a fair wee while apart.
I'm guessing we see most of the new stuff as dual kits - a new set of weapons for seraphim, a new tank that's a slightly different exorcist, a new weapon for penitent engines.
Given we ate almost guaranteed a penitent engine kit, ecclesiarchy will probably exist in at least some fashion, buy beyond a mini storm priest in plastic I'd be surprised.
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
IIRC the Penitent Engine has been officially a "Ministorum unit" since its release, the larger analogue of the arco-flagellant. I would definitely be surprised if they released any new ministorum units, but I would be amazed if the Engine didn't make a return in plastic, considering they mention it basically every time Sisters gets mentioned.
Also, dunno why ministorum units are assumed to be exclusively male. Of their units currently, you've got:
-Priest, Jacobus (All the models for these have been male IIRC)
-Arco-flagellant: N/A?
-Death Cult Assassin: All the models have been ladies
-Crusaders: Person wearing huge armor, so, your guess is as good as mine.
-Penitent Engine: Current ancient model has male and female variants.
I don't think there's a reason we couldn't have a female ministorum priest, or Crusaders, or arco-flagellants ( more female representation in body horror torso monsters!)
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
But even if they do stay out, functionally speaking what's the difference if you buy some boxes of Cawdor gangers and run them as Catachan guardsmen with flamers, a lord commissar, and some ministorum priests?
the_scotsman wrote: But even if they do stay out, functionally speaking what's the difference if you buy some boxes of Cawdor gangers and run them as Catachan guardsmen with flamers, a lord commissar, and some ministorum priests?
Holding out for the redemptionists myself.
The functional difference these days is that GW doesn't do rules without models so your zealots would be limited to whatever the catachans have (and some lesser issues with awkward split detachments, transport and deployment limitations, tournament classification, etc)
the_scotsman wrote: Also, dunno why ministorum units are assumed to be exclusively male.
Because GW does exactly that for a lot of Ecclesiarchy units.
For example, there's not a single model for a priestess in GW's current line, and I can't remember them ever making one in the past.
To be fair, you're right, there's no reason they have to be.
Also to be fair, there weren't many female anything except Sisters in the periods they've previously done Sisters. They've taken their first steps towards rectifying that recently, I'd hope they continue with Ecclesiarchy units - I maintain that any human faction that isn't explicitly monosex should, at a minimum, have 1/3 of their infantry and character models be female, for the sake of simple variety if nothing else. I'd hope that would apply to a Frateris Militia box as well.
the_scotsman wrote: But even if they do stay out, functionally speaking what's the difference if you buy some boxes of Cawdor gangers and run them as Catachan guardsmen with flamers, a lord commissar, and some ministorum priests?
Holding out for the redemptionists myself.
The functional difference these days is that GW doesn't do rules without models so your zealots would be limited to whatever the catachans have (and some lesser issues with awkward split detachments, transport and deployment limitations, tournament classification, etc)
Also, the Cawdor have a very specific and uniform appearance. When & if GW do Frateris, I'd want them to do a grimdark version of the Broken plastic infantry from Maelstrom's Edge - different styles of dress(though all raggedy), different gear, something that really fits the idea that these are a bunch of Imperial citizens from all walks of life who've just left it all behind to serve the Emperor and been handed whatever basic guns that were lying about the place.
True, that'd be great. ...But I doubt it'd happen. GW definitely seems loathe to make things that aren't distinctive, probably because it makes it more difficult for someone to use something like, I dunno, Maelstrom's Edge Broken models instead of signifciantly more expensive GW official models for that purpose.
We don't even have an actual multipart plastic chaos cultist kit. It's been 2 full editions. Of course, if you dont' mind not having autoguns Chaos Cultists are one of the easiest kits ever to kitbash - mine are all egyptian styled cultists from their AOS oilchest birdmaskfellows kit because I play thousand sons. And 20 for 50 is a surprisingly good deal on a new GW kit.
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
If they add back arcos and crusaders then fine. Frateris militia and the like are 100% no go.
Why? Because if frateris militia get added in you'll never see a battle sister on the table again. Because that's how cheap infantry works in 40k.
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
If they add back arcos and crusaders then fine. Frateris militia and the like are 100% no go.
Why? Because if frateris militia get added in you'll never see a battle sister on the table again. Because that's how cheap infantry works in 40k.
By that logic, sisters won't sell at all because people will just bring Guard.
Yodhrin wrote: I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists...
.
Sisters of Battle had Ecclesiastical units from the get go.
And as you say, GW is quite likely to add female priests in this time around.
Is it? If it were AoS, I'd be reasonably expecting a mix of female and male models, but 40k seems to be, modelwise, holdout of Boys Only club, even excluding marines, which "have to" be male.
I fully expect the logic to be "The Sisters are female, so the militia and priests have to be male so they stand out". Just like the initial fratris militia from 2nd ed were. Ladies apparently can only wear power armor (SoB) or fetish gear (death cult assasins, penitents/pentient engines).
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
If they add back arcos and crusaders then fine. Frateris militia and the like are 100% no go.
Why? Because if frateris militia get added in you'll never see a battle sister on the table again. Because that's how cheap infantry works in 40k.
That's how power gamers work. If GW makes elite infantry sucky, they'll use Frateris Militia. If GW makes horde stuff sucky, they'll play Sisters. With the caveat that they'll likely play neither regardless because other factions have flat out better rules than anything in the Sisters codex.
To normal players Frateris Militia will be an additional unit. If someone plays Sisters for Sisters, they'll keep using Sisters. If someone wants a mixed Ecclesiarchy army, they now have the option. Outside the fabled competitive high end of 40k, there's no downside.
Yodhrin wrote: I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists...
.
Sisters of Battle had Ecclesiastical units from the get go.
And as you say, GW is quite likely to add female priests in this time around.
Is it? If it were AoS, I'd be reasonably expecting a mix of female and male models, but 40k seems to be, modelwise, holdout of Boys Only club, even excluding marines, which "have to" be male.
I fully expect the logic to be "The Sisters are female, so the militia and priests have to be male so they stand out". Just like the initial fratris militia from 2nd ed were. Ladies apparently can only wear power armor (SoB) or fetish gear (death cult assasins, penitents/pentient engines).
Kind of a scheduling issue. Since GW found out there's two varieties of man-things, they haven't really released any normal human models for 40k. Notably Genestealers got some in their second wave release, and while it's hardly enough two Necromunda gangs also feature a token female.
Baby steps. GW is slow to change, but the change is there. There's no guarantee Sisters/Ecclesiarchy will benefit from GW's changed attitude, but theoretically they've been conceived at a time when it's at least a possibility worth considering.
Interestingly when Combat Arena releases we'll have more female Rogue Traders than male ones. GW seems to like spearheading the push for more female models with characters.
Yodhrin wrote: I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists...
.
Sisters of Battle had Ecclesiastical units from the get go.
And as you say, GW is quite likely to add female priests in this time around.
Is it? If it were AoS, I'd be reasonably expecting a mix of female and male models, but 40k seems to be, modelwise, holdout of Boys Only club, even excluding marines, which "have to" be male.
I fully expect the logic to be "The Sisters are female, so the militia and priests have to be male so they stand out". Just like the initial fratris militia from 2nd ed were. Ladies apparently can only wear power armor (SoB) or fetish gear (death cult assasins, penitents/pentient engines).
Pretty sure the lady sculpt on the penitent engine is wearing like a full body white robe and hood, isn't she?
In terms of recent 40k model releases, we haven't had a ton of humans in a while. We had the recent Genestealer Cult releases (which all had women in the more human kits and where we got an alternate sculpt female magus), the new specialist games rogue trader boxes like Arena and Blackstone fortress, all of which had female humanoids. The only weirdly sexualized models in those releases were the ninja lady in Rogue Trader and the eldar pathfinder in BSF, whose pose I can only describe in "That one Beyonce picture from the superbowl a couple years back". The female genestealer cultists and renegade guard, the female rogue trader and medical officer, the female commissar and female necromunda gangers have all been relatively tasteful IMO. At least, I gauge that based on whether people whine about them being too ugly, anyway.
But like...there's just a much smaller fraction of the factions where you actually can put humanoid females in in 40k. Only big one that's still lacking is guard, and I can't really fault them that hard when they haven't had a model release since like...the start of 7th, and their basic troop kit is one of the most ancient plastic kits still in use.
Same in new/expanded AoS ranges: both the Sigmarines and the mortal followers of Chaos (in the Shadespire gang as well as the previewed Warcry warbands) feature, what, around 30-50% female models? Idoneth too, but being (sort of) Elves that's not as revolutionary. In other words, if it's new, and if it fits, there's a lot more gender diversity than you would have seen even just a few years ago. Quite interesting how they quite suddenly decided to go for it. (In a similar vain, those same figures, Idoneth excluded, have been painted in the examples to display a range of ethnic origins.)
We also have yet to see what a modern version of the repentia will be like.
I wonder just how many additional kits they might create for the Sororitas release. Purely recreating the existing options in plastic is a decently sized release, but given the big deal they're making out of it, you'd expect at least one or two surprises, something novel for existing players and to draw in new ones.
I'm hoping they take a similar approach to AdMech, Custodes and Genestealer Cults by making it a two-part release. Bring out another Talons of the Emperor or Deathwatch Overkill style boxed set with the basic troop & HQ models so people have time to work on those, before the main codex release with the rest of the range. Otherwise there just won't be much depth to the army.
xttz wrote: I'm hoping they take a similar approach to AdMech, Custodes and Genestealer Cults by making it a two-part release. Bring out another Talons of the Emperor or Deathwatch Overkill style boxed set with the basic troop & HQ models so people have time to work on those, before the main codex release with the rest of the range. Otherwise there just won't be much depth to the army.
There's really nothing stopping them from just releasing a bunch of kits all at once other than the fact that they just haven't in a while.
Plus again, the army is incredibly small. Even a deathguard size release will have the potential for new units is they make things like seraphim, celestians, and penitent engines dual kits.
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
If they add back arcos and crusaders then fine. Frateris militia and the like are 100% no go.
Why? Because if frateris militia get added in you'll never see a battle sister on the table again. Because that's how cheap infantry works in 40k.
By that logic, sisters won't sell at all because people will just bring Guard.
People already shouldn't be buying sisters in favor of buying guardsman.
The only justification for taking sisters currently is getting to say you're running a Sisters army and MAYBE the whole 4++ bubble thing. If you add a unit that is still technically under the banner of 'sisters of battle/adepta ministorum' but is cheaper, then there really isn't any reason to ever run battle sisters in even semi-competitive sisters builds anymore. If they also get the 4++ then there's no reason to even make BSS kits.
Look at how terrible having cultists is for actual CSM. I have literally never seen an actual chaos space marine in all of 8th edition because of how horrendous they are compared to cultists.
Cronch wrote: There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
If they add back arcos and crusaders then fine. Frateris militia and the like are 100% no go.
Why? Because if frateris militia get added in you'll never see a battle sister on the table again. Because that's how cheap infantry works in 40k.
That's how power gamers work. If GW makes elite infantry sucky, they'll use Frateris Militia. If GW makes horde stuff sucky, they'll play Sisters. With the caveat that they'll likely play neither regardless because other factions have flat out better rules than anything in the Sisters codex.
To normal players Frateris Militia will be an additional unit. If someone plays Sisters for Sisters, they'll keep using Sisters. If someone wants a mixed Ecclesiarchy army, they now have the option. Outside the fabled competitive high end of 40k, there's no downside.
See this is a myth. It's not about 'high end competitive' it's about feeling handicapped when playing your friends.
The best example is CSM. Even in casual games you almost never see CSM. I'm not even sure the chaos players in our area even still own any CSM. Sure, in some areas there are people still clinging along to their old models, but they're very much aware of how bad they are and how much better running cultists would be. Same for tac marines. Running tacs over scouts is silly, which is why every tac marine on the planet has an inch thick coat of dust on it.
Releasing a troop unit that does the exact same thing as another troop unit, only cheaper always ends up with one of those units never coming off the shelves.
The best thing for them to do would be to release a specialized unit in the troop slot. Maybe troop bikers? Or a unit with infiltrator that has some kind of gimmick to it like they all have to take snipers or they have deepstrike denial or provide auspex scan style protection.
Anything other than 'this unit is a cheaper version of that unit'.
GW being garbage at balancing for competitive play isn't a particularly persuasive argument for not releasing a unit which is part of the faction in the lore, would add to the army visually, would give non-hardcore competitive types more options in listbuilding, and which would likely just be very cool models.
If there are problems with cheap infantry in 8th, advocate they fix that problem rather than bolting the stable door after the horse is six counties away and still running.
EDIT: Also, I call nonsense on your claim that literally nobody uses Tacs/CSM any more(except for the people you mention who're using them even though they know they're bad, but they don't count because...?), or that any local meta where people exclusively select the most "efficient" units is even remotely casual/non-competitive.
Melissia wrote: "I think this unit is bad, and if anyone uses it, they're not a serious player even if they enter and win tournaments." -- Dakka in a nutshell.
That's not 'Dakka' at all. That's a small subset of people with a specific mindset towards the game. 'Dakka' is not a gestalt hivemind that all thinks a certain way... as evidenced by the disagreement right here in this thread over that mindset.
Pretty sure the lady sculpt on the penitent engine is wearing like a full body white robe and hood, isn't she?
Not really...more like a hood and a piece of cloth barely covering her front body...
Spoiler:
Let's be honest, GW's change of attitude about females in their miniatures is fairly recent in comparison with time. Yes, they began to add more females in 40k - the last Genestealer Cults do indeed have women, but it still is far from being a shower of girls everywhere. Presence of the ladies is also more showing in their novels/stories, they tend to add a woman in position of power as soon as they can. Still no female Space Marine, of course.
I also expect the new range of sisters to follow the same recent pattern.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
Other than legs, I had a pretty good time customizing my eschers. I also thought the faces and hair being separate was a pretty neat touch.
There were a couple paired arms but for the most part they were one hand holds, so I could make some creative cuts to make weapons that didn't come in the box.
Only thing that annoyed me with the necro boxes was the 2x duplicate sprue thing.
Melissia wrote: "I think this unit is bad, and if anyone uses it, they're not a serious player even if they enter and win tournaments." -- Dakka in a nutshell.
That's not 'Dakka' at all. That's a small subset of people with a specific mindset towards the game. 'Dakka' is not a gestalt hivemind that all thinks a certain way... as evidenced by the disagreement right here in this thread over that mindset.
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
The Escher are quite customisable. Even more so if you buy a knife.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
I’ll let you into a secret. Unless you converted, kitbashed or resculpted all of your troops, your army always did look like everyone else’s.
Melissia wrote: "I think this unit is bad, and if anyone uses it, they're not a serious player even if they enter and win tournaments." -- Dakka in a nutshell.
That's not 'Dakka' at all. That's a small subset of people with a specific mindset towards the game. 'Dakka' is not a gestalt hivemind that all thinks a certain way... as evidenced by the disagreement right here in this thread over that mindset.
Yeah, I know. Was an exaggeration.
Apparently the Aussies are too busy hiding from the plethora of venomous creatures infesting their country to teach their children about the literary concept of "hyperbole".
Melissia wrote: Apparently the Aussies are too busy hiding from the plethora of venomous creatures infesting their country to teach their children about the literary concept of "hyperbole".
I think hyper bowl was what they used against us in the cricket when I was growing up.
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs.
My Escher gang is metal, but still has conversions in it. Would have been so much easier if the models had been plastic...
Monopose doesn't mean you actually have to build them stock standard. It just means it can take a little more work to modify them... But the end result is more likely to actually be unique.
Anyone with the skill and desire to make a good looking converted army will do it regardless of the medium. For all of us, it's much better looking to let the professionals handle the sculpting. It looks better.
insaniak wrote: The Aussie understands hyperbole just fine, and is a little sick and tired of seeing it used to miscategorise an entire community of people.
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs.
My Escher gang is metal, but still has conversions in it. Would have been so much easier if the models had been plastic...
Monopose doesn't mean you actually have to build them stock standard. It just means it can take a little more work to modify them... But the end result is more likely to actually be unique.
...and having said that, I still tend to lean towards multi-part minis where possible, simply because having some ability to modify the look of the model without having to cut things up certainly helps to avoid cookie-cutter squads.
I do recognise, though, that not every design is suited to making multi-part models.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
I’ll let you into a secret. Unless you converted, kitbashed or resculpted all of your troops, your army always did look like everyone else’s.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
I’ll let you into a secret. Unless you converted, kitbashed or resculpted all of your troops, your army always did look like everyone else’s.
Not if you paint them.
Something so simple, yet impossible for some. You'd be surprised how different a fully painted army looks compared to the same army in gray.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
I’ll let you into a secret. Unless you converted, kitbashed or resculpted all of your troops, your army always did look like everyone else’s.
Not if you paint them.
Something so simple, yet impossible for some. You'd be surprised how different a fully painted army looks compared to the same army in gray.
That works for monopose or multipose models though, and I dunno why we’re assuming they didn’t paint their models. And I don’t think anyone is really surprised that a full painted army looks different to a grey one.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
I’ll let you into a secret. Unless you converted, kitbashed or resculpted all of your troops, your army always did look like everyone else’s.
I was being somewhat facetious, but to imply that two armies of the same models cannot be distinguished from another once painted is absurd as well. SoB players have been working with a set amount of sculpts, zero pose options for decades and I didn't see the complaint being "my models are the saaaaaaaaame as everyone else!", it was cost and having to work with/lug around metals.
We don't have images of sprue layouts, we don't know how many different sets of arms and heads there are to go with each body. We don't know if these renders are ETB or "Versus" box set miniatures with zero options or if they're the baseline kits. If all three of these things exist, you've probably got 23-odd different baseline sisters sculpts, including 2-3 Sister Superiors, and head swapping from the baseline kit to ETB/Versus kits adds more variety. So how many unique baseline sisters sculpts do we need before the monopose/multipart argument because largely immaterial? My multipart CWE Guardians are all so terribly unique, after all.
Overread wrote: I'm really liking the poses they've given them! It might cut down some on the alternate builds, but at the same time they really look outstanding. Full of motion and energy and when they stand to pose they are choosing some really iconic poses for them to hold.
There's arn't warriors just standing around or on parade they are marching and charging into battle bolters firing!
See, I couldn't even finish my Escher gang I got so frustrated with this monopose limited bs. It's totally killed my interest in these new Sisters. When they said 'Plastic' I got behind the idea because I said 'Hey, more customization, so my army won't look like EVERYONE ELSES!' well, F U very much GW, I refuse to buy this.
This is exactly where I was standing in the GW shop looking at those new ork buggies that I wanted to want so badly, but in the end just didn't want, for those very reasons.
Too paint by numbers, now.
Just a card game with expensive cards.
Ick.
I’ll let you into a secret. Unless you converted, kitbashed or resculpted all of your troops, your army always did look like everyone else’s.
*Points to his gallery.*
You must have missed my posts in the conversions threads. Generally speaking, if its plastic or resin, I may have a mini or two that's not modified in some way in an entire army or fleet.
I’ll let you into a secret. Unless you converted, kitbashed or resculpted all of your troops, your army always did look like everyone else’s.
*Points to his gallery.*
You must have missed my posts in the conversions threads. Generally speaking, if its plastic or resin, I may have a mini or two that's not modified in some way in an entire army or fleet.
I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make anymore. You won’t buy monopose because you want your minis to look different from other peoples, but you convert all of your minis?
I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make anymore. You won’t buy monopose because you want your minis to look different from other peoples, but you convert all of your minis?
Erm ... ok.
Dude, I've SEEN your gallery, I KNOW you know what I'm talking about. Multipose minis are WAY easier to convert well then monopose, particularly in bulk, where you can sculpt several bits and then cast as many as you need. Monopose you have to cut up and then reculpt every single mini with greenstuff to get hte same level of individuality. While for something like Kill team, that's fine, but with regular 40k armies it becomes a pain in the ass.
I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make anymore. You won’t buy monopose because you want your minis to look different from other peoples, but you convert all of your minis?
Erm ... ok.
Dude, I've SEEN your gallery, I KNOW you know what I'm talking about. Multipose minis are WAY easier to convert well then monopose, particularly in bulk, where you can sculpt several bits and then cast as many as you need. Monopose you have to cut up and then reculpt every single mini with greenstuff to get hte same level of individuality. While for something like Kill team, that's fine, but with regular 40k armies it becomes a pain in the ass.
We’re possibly way off topic, but there’s a difference between a simple kitbash and a full on conversion. Kitbashing is a great way to tweak the look of basic troops, but I think you’re kidding yourself if you think it creates real individuality. I’ve seen a lot of pretty much identical kitbashes using the same bits. So I don’t really see monopose as an issue. You can still cut off and swap heads, arms, weapons because plastic makes all of that easy.
Besides, when it comes to my own minis, my favourite conversions of mine are all based on monopose mins
We’re possibly way off topic, but there’s a difference between a simple kitbash and a full on conversion. Kitbashing is a great way to tweak the look of basic troops, but I think you’re kidding yourself if you think it creates real individuality. I’ve seen a lot of pretty much identical kitbashes using the same bits. So I don’t really see monopose as an issue. You can still cut off and swap heads, arms, weapons because plastic makes all of that easy.
Besides, when it comes to my own minis, my favourite conversions of mine are all based on monopose mins
Yes, we're a bit off topic atm and you have your opinions, I have mine.
I was being somewhat facetious, but to imply that two armies of the same models cannot be distinguished from another once painted is absurd as well. SoB players have been working with a set amount of sculpts, zero pose options for decades and I didn't see the complaint being "my models are the saaaaaaaaame as everyone else!", it was cost and having to work with/lug around metals.
Are you talking about those metal sisters that everyone had and sold so well? I guess GW is just hoping to make their plastics as successful as those old metals, then.
PS: Did you just say you didn't hear complaints from SOB players in decades?
We don't have images of sprue layouts, we don't know how many different sets of arms and heads there are to go with each body. We don't know if these renders are ETB or "Versus" box set miniatures with zero options or if they're the baseline kits. If all three of these things exist, you've probably got 23-odd different baseline sisters sculpts, including 2-3 Sister Superiors, and head swapping from the baseline kit to ETB/Versus kits adds more variety. So how many unique baseline sisters sculpts do we need before the monopose/multipart argument because largely immaterial? My multipart CWE Guardians are all so terribly unique, after all.
I'd prefer for them to be closer to marine and guard plastics in terms of swappability and convertibility than to Van Saar. Van Saar may have technically had "enough" options for a creative modeler, but that kit became frustrating surprisingly quickly.
Voss wrote: They just showed off the squad.
And its a regular article feature.
Not sure what more a spare nut would buy
Moar! I need MOAR!
Sisters are in a bit of a funny position. On the one hand, we're entering that 3-4 month window GW likes to start teasing big releases in, for which Sisters surely qualify. Presumably at this point it's a given that we'll get more information and you don't need to pay in body parts for it. On the other hand, with the Battle Sister Bulletin as a prominent marketing tool that they need enough material to to make at least passable articles every other week, Sisters might actually get less in the way of big reveals at events than other releases.
Anyway, August 3 may be the day to look out for with an Apocalypse event at Warhammer and the following as per Warhammer Community:
As part of the celebrations, you’ll be treated to a special Warhammer Preview of some of the awesome new stuff that’s on its way for Warhammer 40,000!
I was being somewhat facetious, but to imply that two armies of the same models cannot be distinguished from another once painted is absurd as well. SoB players have been working with a set amount of sculpts, zero pose options for decades and I didn't see the complaint being "my models are the saaaaaaaaame as everyone else!", it was cost and having to work with/lug around metals.
Are you talking about those metal sisters that everyone had and sold so well? I guess GW is just hoping to make their plastics as successful as those old metals, then.
They sold well enough to keep the Sisters from being squatted. That's better than Squats, Brettonians or Tomb Kings - both of the latter two actually had large parts of their ranges in plastics!
PS: Did you just say you didn't hear complaints from SOB players in decades?
No, if you read what I wrote, the complaints were about the miniatures being METAL, heavy and expensive. People wanted plastic sisters. Sure, people wanted them to be updated as well, but I don't think anyone reasonable was thinking we could get multi-pose plastics that matched the original aesthetics without running into some other unacceptable compromise, like 30 part infantry miniatures. Which GW wasn't ever going to do, because GW likes their stuff being accessible to new players.
Alpharius wrote: You'll get 20% tactical rocks and/or skulls and you'll like it!!!
If it means 10 unique poses in the box I'm good with that. I can chop them off and toss my own little something down there to vary it up if it bothers me.
I like them chopping pose, very brutal. no marine's lame pose
Not quite the civilian clothes I was ideally hoping for, but I’ll take it as a compromise between their classic look and not looking like a cartoonish idea of fetish gear.
The more I see them the more I like it. It's very punk. And the fact that Repentia can prove themselves and rejoin their Order is a plus-- that wasn't ever talked about before.
Very awesome. I think it's one of the best Sisters bulletin, it really shows us new things! The rest was very close to the current look, those are different.
But how will the Mistress of redemption look like?
I like them. I liked the nekkid crazies, too. In the end it's wash for me if they're more or less clothed crazy zealots, but the poses are a lot better than the old ones, so they win.
Per the last two images in the article they appear to be designed with modular arm-swaps in mind. So much like the Daughters of Khaine range you can build a set number stock then build the next set with the previous sister's arms and the next sister's head and so on for more variety. May require a little bit of green stuff or a shave here or there.
I actually like the design over the metal Repentia in that they look like they didn't just carve through the laundry hamper, neither are a real reflection of the art depicting a bald woman with only strategically nailed purity seals but I won't miss it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yeah, correct me if I'm wrong but I think these power armour plugs haven't been mentioned before. Basically suggesting power armour requires a degree of cybernetics augmentation even without the black carapace?
changemod wrote: Well, they aren't. Since they're limited fully cybernetic implants for adults rather than a biological modification to adolescents.
Plus rejuvenat for Canoness.
But they also aren't Female Marines because they are one of the only very centralized force in the setting, while marines are each chapter for itself, and they are church internal affairs police, and so many other differences!
I guess now we can see why models rarely have their bionic limbs inside their armour - nobody thought to attach plug ports to the bionics...
Not a fan of the weird dresses they're wearing. I would have preferred longer robes which didn't require purity seals to keep the crotch covered, or whatever peculiar short shorts the first model is wearing.
It is the antitheses of the 'grimdark/gothic' style isn't it. The model design actually makes the seals, mask, etc look out of place. They don't even have the chained hands of the originals.
It might look better painted. I can't help but feel that something more flowing like a tattered dress/robes/surcoat would have worked better. Even with a giant chainsaw they just look too... civilized.
Melissia wrote: That Repentia post also includes a nice bit of lore too, on how Sisters interface with their power armor.
I'm actually not a fan of those totally not black carapace ports both from a lore perspective nor a visual/modelling one. Was that ever stated in prior lore (whether 40k proper, RPGs, novels, etc) or is this a retcon? Or worse yet, a modelling booboo that they're trying to cover up with new lore?
Melissia wrote: That Repentia post also includes a nice bit of lore too, on how Sisters interface with their power armor.
I'm actually not a fan of those totally not black carapace ports both from a lore perspective nor a visual/modelling one. Was that ever stated in prior lore (whether 40k proper, RPGs, novels, etc) or is this a retcon? Or worse yet, a modelling booboo that they're trying to cover up with new lore?
It never really was discussed how non-Astartes interfaced with the armor--at least that I can recall. Just that the interfacing wasn't as clean as the Black Carapace was, which works quite well with this setup.
Melissia wrote: That Repentia post also includes a nice bit of lore too, on how Sisters interface with their power armor.
I'm actually not a fan of those totally not black carapace ports both from a lore perspective nor a visual/modelling one. Was that ever stated in prior lore (whether 40k proper, RPGs, novels, etc) or is this a retcon? Or worse yet, a modelling booboo that they're trying to cover up with new lore?
Not for Sisters as such but Inqusitor Vail wears a bodyglove with neural plugs that replicate the Black Carapace /these cyber implants.
Looking forward ot mixing and matching the Repentia models
warboss wrote: I'm actually not a fan of those totally not black carapace ports both from a lore perspective nor a visual/modelling one. Was that ever stated in prior lore (whether 40k proper, RPGs, novels, etc) or is this a retcon? Or worse yet, a modelling booboo that they're trying to cover up with new lore?
Certainly the vast majority of (all?) previous artwork showing Sisters outside of their armour has them without the ports.
Melissia wrote: That Repentia post also includes a nice bit of lore too, on how Sisters interface with their power armor.
I'm actually not a fan of those totally not black carapace ports both from a lore perspective nor a visual/modelling one. Was that ever stated in prior lore (whether 40k proper, RPGs, novels, etc) or is this a retcon? Or worse yet, a modelling booboo that they're trying to cover up with new lore?
You need to have a clean model before putting those notes on. plus milling them on the mold also waste more time. Nobody would do all that if he wasn;t specifically asked to.
The Cain books describe battle sisters training to be able to get used to the way power armour moves (by marching to and fro, for example) with it either stated or implied that they need to because they lack an interface like the black carapace.
In FFG's RPGs I think power armour didn't require cybernetics but did require training?
Chopstick wrote: You need to have a clean model before putting those notes on. plus milling them on the mold also waste more time. Nobody would do all that if he wasn;t specifically asked to.
Unless the artist is a freelancer not intimately familiar with the universe who just google image searched and saw that others (namely marines) have the ports so added them on. If it wasn't caught early enough, it might have been cheaper to just say "we'll fix it in the fluff" instead of paying for a revision. That is of course speculation and just one (admittedly unlikely possibility). GW is of course free to retcon/screw up their own IP/fluff after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captain Joystick wrote: The Cain books describe battle sisters training to be able to get used to the way power armour moves (by marching to and fro, for example) with it either stated or implied that they need to because they lack an interface like the black carapace.
In FFG's RPGs I think power armour didn't require cybernetics but did require training?
I'm also familiar with the old FFGrpgs where they flesh out things like that and also didn't recall any mention of the ports or interface either for sisters or anyone other than marines. I'd have personally preferred if they had left the ports exclusively for black carapace and instead just had dermal sensors/connections or maybe a single port on the back of the next connecting to the spine instead. YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: Certainly the vast majority of (all?) previous artwork showing Sisters outside of their armour has them without the ports.
I don't recall much official art of the SOB out of their armor other than maybe previous repentia. I'll have to do a search tonight.
Chopstick wrote: You need to have a clean model before putting those notes on. plus milling them on the mold also waste more time. Nobody would do all that if he wasn;t specifically asked to.
Unless the artist is a freelancer not intimately familiar with the universe who just google image searched and saw that others (namely marines) have the ports so added them on.
You really think GW would get a freelancer in to help remake one of their most iconic and hyped model lines? Incredibly doubtful. This is a retcon (well, more like a fleshing out of barely-known lore), and I'm happy for it.
Chopstick wrote: You need to have a clean model before putting those notes on. plus milling them on the mold also waste more time. Nobody would do all that if he wasn;t specifically asked to.
Unless the artist is a freelancer not intimately familiar with the universe who just google image searched and saw that others (namely marines) have the ports so added them on. If it wasn't caught early enough, it might have been cheaper to just say "we'll fix it in the fluff" instead of paying for a revision. That is of course speculation and just one (admittedly unlikely possibility). GW is of course free to retcon/screw up their own IP/fluff after all.
I'm sure they look at the models closely before approving them for very expensive mold making process. Delete the notes wouldn't be a big problem as far as my 3d modelling experience can tell.
Also there're the concept art (usually done/inspired by GW's veteran artists like Blanche) phase where GW had to approve the 2d drawing first, then there're the resin/greenstuff/3d printed prototype phase. These stuff need to be approved multiple time before hitting the mold. They aren't chucking them like potatoes.
1) models 2-4 actually look better than the first one to my eyes, slightly odd choice for the focus of the article.
2) I think these are a good re-envision of the unit; I like the concept of them stripped bare to only the purity seals, but very hard to make a publicly acceptable model that way
3) I like that they’re using the same technique as the Escher models, where the same body can be fitted with quite radically different arms and heads, to give variety.
4) I can’t unsee the 40k running shoes! How long before someone paints one of these in a colourful anime style? Actually, could be a good base for a near future conversion, hmmm.
5) How long until SoB training shoes become part of the clothing range they’ve got going?!
I'm sure they look at the models closely before approving them for very expensive mold making process. Delete the notes wouldn't be a big problem as far as my 3d modelling experience can tell.
Also there're the concept art phase where GW had to approve the 2d drawing first, then there're the resin/greenstuff/3d printed prototype phase. These stuff need to be approved multiple time before hitting the mold. They aren't chucking them like potatoes.
Even knowledgeable long time employees may not be experts on everything. Pumbagores happen.
Captain Joystick wrote: The Cain books describe battle sisters training to be able to get used to the way power armour moves (by marching to and fro, for example) with it either stated or implied that they need to because they lack an interface like the black carapace.
In FFG's RPGs I think power armour didn't require cybernetics but did require training?
I'm pretty sure none of them have any knitting to do that might prevent them from marching up and down the square with the Sister Superior.
I don’t think the ports are a mistake, just an evolution of the background. The lore evolves all the time, sometimes in ways we might like, sometimes in ways we don’t, and that’s fine.
Personally I love the minis. I’m glad they’re a bit covered up and glad that their clothing is so basic. It means that their defining feature becomes the shorn hair, the brands etc. as it should be.
Even knowledgeable long time employees may not be experts on everything. Pumbagores happen.
What's your points? That model was made in resin, which isn't very expensive compared to plastic.
And it was made by old GW decade ago, who i recalled, still make multipose kit with tons of option (or what new GW would considered "unecessary bits" and "waste of money")
Melissia wrote: And the fact that Repentia can prove themselves and rejoin their Order is a plus-- that wasn't ever talked about before.
Yes it was. Thats the "repent" part of repentia. It just never happened because they either died or never forgive themselves for their sins.
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all. Also I have no idea why they're not barefoot.
Jadenim wrote: 4) I can’t unsee the 40k running shoes! How long before someone paints one of these in a colourful anime style? Actually, could be a good base for a near future conversion, hmmm.
Not long. You have to admit they go well with the beach party outfit.
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all.
Being branded on the forehead and sticking massive bodkins through the flesh of your thigh doesn’t connote religious zeal?
Even knowledgeable long time employees may not be experts on everything. Pumbagores happen.
What's your points? That model was made in resin, which isn't very expensive compared to plastic.
And it was made by old GW decade ago, who i recalled, still make multipose kit with tons of option (or what new GW would considered "unecessary bits")
Metal, actually. The point, I presume, is that some miniature designs of dubious value make it through any control mechanisms GW might have in place.
That said, the idea that the power armor ports made it through by accident is silly. There's no way it's not a conscious choice, and considering Primaris exist it really shouldn't be such an outlandish idea that the miniature designers think of something as a good idea and then the background writers have to sit down and come up with an explanation.
And, frankly, unlike the Pumbagor which as a full model should be reviewed before it's okayed these ports are a small extra thrown on to add a bit of detail to the model, to give it a touch of sci-fi aesthetic. I very much doubt anybody agonized over whether they were a good idea.
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all.
Being branded on the forehead and sticking massive bodkins through the flesh of your thigh doesn’t connote religious zeal?
Not the extent that the artwork depicts them as doing.
I like them, but the one worry I have is these 'unclothed' sisters will end up looking too similar size wise compared to the full armoured versions, and so look overly chunky by comparison,
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I don’t think the ports are a mistake, just an evolution of the background. The lore evolves all the time, sometimes in ways we might like, sometimes in ways we don’t, and that’s fine.
I agree that is the most likely scenario by far. I just find it amusing that folks think it is impossible that GW makes a mistake at any point in the production process that ultimately ends up going through to the end for various reasons.
As someone who has collected, painted and played SOB since 1999, and still owns a 6,000 army of the faction, I am deeply unimpressed by those Repentia models.
Each new preview has in fact been reducing my enthusiasm for plastic sisters. So far it just looks like GW are not introducing any new ideas at all, and simply re-releasing the existing units. I was particularly disappointed when I opened Amalia Novena's rules booklet to find that she's nothing more than a regular squad leader, instead of a unique character.
I have been hoping for an expanded line featuring lots of new imaginative ideas and reintroduction of longstanding gaps in the army. Given the recent fun additions to Genestealer Cults, I was hoping for entirely new units plus updated rules for all the old favourite characters, plus fun additions for playing a Kill Team and other spin-off products.
Everything I've seen so far has however suggested that none of this is going to happen.
I want an SOB character section that allows a player to select from 3-4 different living saints, includes multiple named Canoness characters, and unique rules for Miriya and Verity, Ephrael Stern, Saint Katherine, Veridyan, and Amalia Novena, etc. I'd like to see the concept of Seraphim expanded so that we see more of the ancient original SOB technology - bikes, land speeders, flyers; plus the return of secondary units like Fraternis Militia, Sisters Famulous (etc), heavy weapon crews and special terrain pieces.
If all we get out of this long, LONG awaited update is a plastic Canoness, Battle Sister Squad, Seraphim Squad, Repentia Squad plus extra sprues to create Celestians, Doms and Retributors, then I'm not sure why GW are even bothering.
Where's the innovation? Why can't Sisters get a weaker equivalent of Terminator Armour? Or their own Knights? Are we even going to get the Avenger back into the line? What about sci-fi equivalents of the Skaven censer bearers/goblin fanatics? Or a mobile confessional/torture centre that mirrors the Dark Eldar Tantalus? What about actual (cyber?)horseback cavalry, with power lances? There are SO MANY things you can do to bulk up the SOB army list, and I'm sad that it sounds like all we're going to get is the same limited and terminally dull choices that have been on offer for the past 20+ years.
Jadenim wrote: Thoughts:
1) models 2-4 actually look better than the first one to my eyes, slightly odd choice for the focus of the article.
It's the angle. The first picture exaggerates how broad the shoulders are and the belt hides any curve of the body giving the model a distinctly masculine shape while all the other images are angled.
I was a little bit worried about these, but they actually look really good. I will have to do those running shoes with three stripes or a tick on the side.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I don’t think the ports are a mistake, just an evolution of the background. The lore evolves all the time, sometimes in ways we might like, sometimes in ways we don’t, and that’s fine.
I agree that is the most likely scenario by far. I just find it amusing that folks think it is impossible that GW makes a mistake at any point in the production process that ultimately ends up going through to the end for various reasons.
But I never said I thought it was impossible. I said that I think this particular thing is a deliberate evolution of the background. It just didn’t make sense that astartes require a physical interface with their power armour but nobody else does.
A) Wow bad models, look like Catachans given big chainswords.
B) Blatantly snap fit / easy build. You can tell from the pose where she’s balanced on the top of her foot that the rock mound is sized to support a base peg.
I was considering selling up my Desth Guard to finance this army but now I’ll wait til we see more as I wouldn’t buy these even if they were the most meta destroying unit ever.
I might need to make a unit of Repentia just so I can have the part. I think it'd look great on a Canoness second in command.
She looks like a tennis player who brought an Eviscerator instead of a racket. I genuinely would not be surprised if the designer had used tennis player footage as the basis of the poses and proportions.
Swapping the faces from these girls onto other battle sisters will make for some excellent variety. Especially with the whole "sisters that survive being a repentia and rejoin their squads are highly respected" bit. Your cannoness or sister superiors could have these heads as reminders of their time as repentia.
Well they sure are different from former Repentias. They have quite believable muscles to handle two handed reaper swords, I must say. They are not oversized like catachans, though they are still "heroic scale" for sure.
I'll admit I'm a bit sceptic about the "shirt and pants sport outfit", but wonder what she will look like once painted. Maybe stick more scrolls and seals above her clothes to have the former repentia feeling ?
I'll admit I'm a bit sceptic about the "shirt and pants sport outfit", but wonder what she will look like once painted. Maybe stick more scrolls and seals above her clothes to have the former repentia feeling ?
Looks more like she wearing a sack, I think those are bare legs with the needles shoved through them.
It largely depends on how you paint them. Go for a drab gray or brown and you have course fatigues that are uncomfortable and spartan. Go for a really saturated colour like navy blue or even black and you have a bathing suit.
You can always add more purity seals, if worse comes to worse.
Those Repentia are awful and fail on every level for me. I'm actually a bit shell shocked that GW could mess up so bad. GW don't always make things that I like, but rarely anything that I think is just plain bad. Somebody already mentioned the Razorgors but I'm having flashbacks to that too.
I'll admit I'm a bit sceptic about the "shirt and pants sport outfit", but wonder what she will look like once painted. Maybe stick more scrolls and seals above her clothes to have the former repentia feeling ?
Looks more like she wearing a sack, I think those are bare legs with the needles shoved through them.
It's hard to see from the renders, to me it feels like she's wearing a one piece outfit like those for sport. But now that's you're talking about this, it's indeed a good idea. I would add a bit of ripped pieces on the shoulders and thighs to give more of that sack/rags feeling.
Animus wrote: Somebody already mentioned the Razorgors but I'm having flashbacks to that too.
Seriously, comparing those to Razorgors is really overdoing it. You can be not a fan of the new design and I would understand it, though.
I find it most interesting that they've got implants for interfacing with their power armour, back then it was, IIRC, more like a bodyglove they wore under the armour that did the interfacing.
BrookM wrote: I find it most interesting that they've got implants for interfacing with their power armour, back then it was, IIRC, more like a bodyglove they wore under the armour that did the interfacing.
True. I always assumed the implants were actually part of the Space Marines' black carapace. This is a part about the sisters that was never showed so far. The old repentias don't have anything else than scars on their naked skin.
Sarouan wrote: Seriously, comparing those to Razorgors is really overdoing it. You can be not a fan of the new design and I would understand it, though.
I don't think it is, that's the last time I can recall having actually cringed away from a model a little bit.
But you also have yet to explain WHY you find these cringy. Is it because they're muscular women? Is it the battle-scars or ritual scarification? Is it simply the style of clothing? The posing?
Sarouan wrote: Seriously, comparing those to Razorgors is really overdoing it. You can be not a fan of the new design and I would understand it, though.
I don't think it is, that's the last time I can recall having actually cringed away from a model a little bit.
I had that reaction with Marine Flyers and Centurions - but I love these - different strokes and all that !
Do you prefer the old models or is thre something specfiic that makes you cringe?
Melissia wrote: But you also have yet to explain WHY you find these cringy. Is it because they're muscular women? Is it the battle-scars or ritual scarification? Is it simply the style of clothing? The posing?
I don't find it cringy nor do I have an issue with any other of the specific things you mention (scars, muscles, clothing) but I'm not a fan of the overall look largely because of the ports. It makes them look a bit too GITS/cyberpunk bionic for my tastes.
Sorry that it wasn't clear but I wasn't referring specifically to you.
No worries mate.
Besides we all know GW does make mistakes. Like that time they brought a loyalist primarch into 40k
... never tire of saying how much I hate that.
Back on topic. I can understand why some people don’t like the redesign, it is a bit of a departure from the established look of bare, naked ladies with masks and chainswords. Personally I think the new ones are such a massive improvement that I’m already planning how to paint them. I reckon those simple clothes will look less like modern sportswear if they’re painted more along the lines of medieval heraldry. Not brightly coloured though, more the muted, mud and blood splattered grimdark version of medieval.
Captain Joystick wrote:Per the last two images in the article they appear to be designed with modular arm-swaps in mind.
Yes. So glad to see that. Especially in a group of very distinctive figures, modularity is an absolute need as every duplicate will clearly stand out. Good stuff, and a good sign.
Pretty happy with the design overall. Good sense of movement and not too many, but not too few little details to pick out. (The fact that they're not too extreme also makes them fairly feasible as a basis for Mordheim Sisters of Sigmar, which can't be a bad thing...)
Casbyness wrote:[...]
So far it just looks like GW are not introducing any new ideas at all, and simply re-releasing the existing units.
[...]
The operative words being "so" and "far". Of course they will start previews with things people expect to see. You don't open with a big surprise reveal, and then show boring basic units afterwards.
Melissia wrote: But you also have yet to explain WHY you find these cringy. Is it because they're muscular women? Is it the battle-scars or ritual scarification? Is it simply the style of clothing? The posing?
They're ugly but fail at the mutilation aspect, they're not so much muscled as outright masculine, they're wearing boxers, wife beaters, and slippers for some reason, and they're covered in plugs.
For years we had "I want plastic sisters of battle ,I won't buy them until GW do them.in plastic"
2019 comes along
" I'm not buying these plastic sisters they are **insert entitled reason here**"
I don't know how to feel about these yet, but my initial reaction was sanitation. They don't look particularly female to me at a glance, which is weird to me that the armored ones look more like women than these do. These are definitely my least favorite preview for the redone army so far. And yeah the tank tops are a wonky choice, and the slippers....the other artwork that was posted earlier that was almost horror-grotesque is more what I wanted.
About the Matrix style "ports" in the skin. Here's my issue with those:
Sisters wear habits under their power armour. Robes long enough that the sleeves and bottoms fall out of said armour to a significant degree.
Are we now saying those robes have multiple holes punched through them, so the sister's body can interface directly with the armour? Really?
Try sticking something to your forearm and upper arm, then making holes in a top so that they accommodate the objects that are stuck in place, when your arm is outstretched. Now try bending your arm at the shoulder or elbow, and see what happens to the clothing.
Now imagine you have the same issue of the robe being tugged and ripped every which way, each time you twist your body or bend your spine.
Now imagine you're a Seraphim, jumping flying and bouncing all over the battlefield, wearing power armour locked directly to your body in fixed locations, like a Space Marine, but with an intervening robe chafing constantly in-between.
Obispudkenobi wrote: For years we had "I want plastic sisters of battle ,I won't buy them until GW do them.in plastic"
2019 comes along
" I'm not buying these plastic sisters they are **insert entitled reason here**"
I'm okay with these Repentia. I was unlikely to field them anyways, unless they get rules that make them actually good rather than overpriced distractions. But sisters being buff? Totally makes sense - heck, they're probably subjected to muscle-growing chemical regimens from the get go. Cybernetic implants to help with power armor interface? Also makes sense, but still nowhere near the level of the black carapace. Military grade underwear and beach shoes? Sure, why not. Barefoot is no good for going into a combat zone, even for suicide troops.
I think the ports are there cause they didn't know what to do to give them more detail. And the arms/legs look plain without em. I personally would have nailed more parchments and purity seals all over them but they decided to go a techy route with the ports. I hope they give these another pass but at this point they're probably finalized.
I get that they didn't want to make them Witch Elves in space, but if they're going to be dressed, make that dress more interesting.
Technically good models, just not very interesting.
Not seeing any spandex. The trainer style shoes make a lot of sense. Only a complete idiot would go into battle barefoot, no matter what they're trying to prove or atone for. A warrior stripped of her sacred armor trying to atone through battle would still wear some shoes, and flexible athletic shoes with good grips makes the most sense. Its likely that what the repentia are wearing here is very similar to what sisters wear when not in full combat armor. Running shoes included.
I suppose its subjective, but I'd say that these new models are waaaaay more interesting than the old ones. the sculpting and poses are also much, much better.
Looking at some of the other complaints in this thread... Jesus, you people are just desperate to find things to complain about, no matter what. GW finally gives us good looking Repentia and you spend pages whining about power armor connector port, lack of nudity and sensible shoes.
Casbyness wrote: About the Matrix style "ports" in the skin. Here's my issue with those:
Sisters wear habits under their power armour. Robes long enough that the sleeves and bottoms fall out of said armour to a significant degree.
Are we now saying those robes have multiple holes punched through them, so the sister's body can interface directly with the armour? Really?
Try sticking something to your forearm and upper arm, then making holes in a top so that they accommodate the objects that are stuck in place, when your arm is outstretched. Now try bending your arm at the shoulder or elbow, and see what happens to the clothing.
Now imagine you have the same issue of the robe being tugged and ripped every which way, each time you twist your body or bend your spine.
Now imagine you're a Seraphim, jumping flying and bouncing all over the battlefield, wearing power armour locked directly to your body in fixed locations, like a Space Marine, but with an intervening robe chafing constantly in-between.
The ports are complete nonsense.
The robes are on the outside of the arm armor. They are likely not really habits at all but some decorative fabric added to the armor to simulate a habit.
Obispudkenobi wrote: For years we had "I want plastic sisters of battle ,I won't buy them until GW do them.in plastic"
2019 comes along
" I'm not buying these plastic sisters they are **insert entitled reason here**"
Not liking models isn’t entitlement.
When someone accuses another person of entitlement, what they usually mean is "shut up and consume the product, your perfectly reasonable protests are discouraging other consumers from consuming the product."
Customers can act as "entitled" as they want. If the supplier wants the customer's money, that had better listen to the customer's sense of entitlement, otherwise they aren't going to sell anything.
I've spent over £5,000 on SOB miniatures. I buy what I like. I do not like these Repentia. I would not paint or field them if you mailed them to me for free. If you don't like that, then you need to learn that other people are not always going to do what you want them to do.
John Prins wrote: I'm okay with these Repentia. I was unlikely to field them anyways, unless they get rules that make them actually good rather than overpriced distractions. But sisters being buff? Totally makes sense - heck, they're probably subjected to muscle-growing chemical regimens from the get go. Cybernetic implants to help with power armor interface? Also makes sense, but still nowhere near the level of the black carapace. Military grade underwear and beach shoes? Sure, why not. Barefoot is no good for going into a combat zone, even for suicide troops.
And that's where they fall flat for me. They're...sensible. Like someone sat down and thought "OK, now how do we make a plausible version of this idea...", resulting in comfy sportswear, velcro-strap trainers, and substantially lower levels of impractical self-mutilation.
I mean, we all knew they wouldn't live up to the artwork, there's zero chance modern GW would open themselves up to the level of vitriolic backlash that would happen if models based on the "nudey girls with purity-pasties" got out into the normiesphere, at which point the "why" doesn't matter, the mere fact of nigh-nudity would be enough to kickstart the outrage machine.
But.
They didn't have to be reasonable. More mutilation. More chains. Keep the bare feet, and if the little plastic figures must be made chaste and modest, how about a nice ragged sackcloth tunic?
I don't care for the addition of plugs that look almost exactly like the Black Carapace plugs but totes aren't honest, but they're neither here nor there when it comes to the reason I don't care for the actual models - they're too tame.
I like the new Repentia design a whole lot better than the old, but I probably still won't buy them. I can stomach $50 for 5 of ther iconic power armored sisters minis...once. We're looking at what, $35 for 5 Repentia? My heart sings of love unfulfilled. And my wallet says hell no.
One of my favorite gags from the Spenser novels was the way he would size up every opponent before a fight and figure out what sport they play or training regimen they use to achieve their physique. The first thing the new pics brought to mind is that the repentia play a lot of tennis.
I really like them - they look tough, dangerous and most important of all - not overly sexualized. The old ones makes me cringe a bit, and I would never paint them, but these ones look like they will be really fun to paint. Let’s just hope the rules makes them useful on the battlefield, dedicated elite cc units are currently very hit or miss.
These are a swing and a miss for me. I get why they would want to move away from the previous, mostly-naked look for Repentia, but something like the normal Sister robes just without the armour would have been far more interesting, and looked far more 40K than this.
The poses are great, but the models themselves are just dull, and look more like they belong in Infinity than 40K.
Oguhmek wrote: I really like them - they look tough, dangerous and most important of all - not overly sexualized. The old ones makes me cringe a bit, and I would never paint them, but these ones look like they will be really fun to paint. Let’s just hope the rules makes them useful on the battlefield, dedicated elite cc units are currently very hit or miss.
I don't think the old ones looked sexualized. They looked like a concept that had become sexualized... Like a school girl is not sexual... but because of a fetish, dressing something as a school girl is now sexual... but hooded, scarred women with weapons in itself was not really sexual...
I kind of like them, except the heads... and the clothing choice... If a 3rd party makes some hooded heads like the old art, then they will be fine...
I think the poses are good, and the ports are a nice little expansion of the lore. The heads are great.
On the other hand I kind of hate the outfits they're wearing. I guess they're supposed to be sack cloths but truthfully they just look like rompers to me.
I'm not saying to go back to what they used to be, but I think I would have liked tabards or torn robes a lot better.
I don't hate them but they could have definitely been better.
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all.
Being branded on the forehead and sticking massive bodkins through the flesh of your thigh doesn’t connote religious zeal?
Not the extent that the artwork depicts them as doing.
Except if you look, only the middle one really is doing that. She is an exception, the one next to her has a single spike and the other three have zero visible ones. So, you pretty much shoot your own argument dead.
Incidentally, the middle girl also has the two visible armour ports that are supposedly 'retcon' according to some (on head and neck, painted shiny and reflective unlike seals). So, that complain is pretty much dead too
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I like them, but the one worry I have is these 'unclothed' sisters will end up looking too similar size wise compared to the full armoured versions, and so look overly chunky by comparison
I am pretty sure they will, repentia are well built, while sisters in armour shown so far look like anorexic teenagers who ate last meal weeks ago (or the armour is painted on, there is no way someone as buff as these repentia can fit inside of it).
It is the antitheses of the 'grimdark/gothic' style isn't it. The model design actually makes the seals, mask, etc look out of place. They don't even have the chained hands of the originals.
It might look better painted. I can't help but feel that something more flowing like a tattered dress/robes/surcoat would have worked better. Even with a giant chainsaw they just look too... civilized.
I don't know, I find it kind of funny something worn by actual religious fanatics during actual medieval Gothic era is somehow not 'gothic', whatever that means
More mutilation. More chains. Keep the bare feet, and if the little plastic figures must be made chaste and modest, how about a nice ragged sackcloth tunic?
Show me any miniature and I’ll show you a piece of art that’s better. Not a fair comparison. What is though, is to compare them with the original Repentia sculpts. These new ones actually have more mutilation than the old ones. Keep the bare feet? The old ones didn’t have bare feet either.
As for the ragged sackcloth tunic, that’s how I’m going to paint them
I’m also not seeing trainers. They look like medieval style shoes to me without a heel and the strap seems to have some fleur de lys shaped fastening rather than Velcro.
They are pretty much exactly how I expected them to be. I think I anticipated that they'd be wearing some kind of simple torso armor but they look about what I wanted.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: What is though, is to compare them with the original Repentia sculpts. These new ones actually have more mutilation than the old ones. Keep the bare feet? The old ones didn’t have bare feet either.
And the old Repentia are almost universally regarded as being pretty terrible models in terms of execution...
MonkeyBallistic wrote: What is though, is to compare them with the original Repentia sculpts. These new ones actually have more mutilation than the old ones. Keep the bare feet? The old ones didn’t have bare feet either.
And the old Repentia are almost universally regarded as being pretty terrible models in terms of execution...
Not really sure what your point is seeing as I’m arguing they’re better than the old ones in every way.
If it were a tabard-like design and/or rough surfaced with some kind of bindings i'd agree.
But the models are wearing wifebeaters. Hopefully unfinished - I can help but see that join point at the top of their shoulders and just how badly the arms match the bodies and make the top look like a half inch thick rubber shirt. It's the left arm on the third image that looks really, really badly fitting.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They completely sanitised the Repentia. There's nothing horrific about them.
Yeah cos if I saw a woman in the street who’d branded herself on the forehead and stuck massive needles through her thighs, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid either
Yeah cos if I saw a woman in the street who’d branded herself on the forehead and stuck massive needles through her thighs, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid either
Context matters. Brands and piercings have always been fairly standard streetwear in 40K. Repentia needed to be more over-the-top. These aren't. They're too neat.
They're certainly nicely done models in themselves, but at the same time I really don't think they've managed to properly capture the right sort of vibe, they're far too...tame? The whole idea of them before was that they were Battle Sisters who had commited some sort of sin or failing but were given a final chance to be worthy of taking their place alongside the Emperor through self-punishment and finding a worthwile sacrifice. The artwork of them going to the extent of blinding themselves, pinning iconoghraphy and wrapping themselves in parchment and purity seals or the chains and face coverings of the previous miniatures gave the impression that they considered themselves no longer worthy of being seen as individuals and could only be forgiven by going to those severe lengths, and their pennance was so they'd potentually end up "finding in death the absolution denied to them in life". These don't give that sort of impression to me at all. I get the impression they've changed the concept of them to something where it's more just a temporary punishment where it''s closer to "You've been bad, so you have to use a melee weapon and no armour for a while" without so much the fanatical or severe repenting side of things they had before.
There's the brand and the needles, but neither of those are really something with anywhere near the same sort of feel. They just look like un-armoured Battle Sisters for the most part.
Oh I thought those were stored knives at first. I see some of them have small rings around their thighs as well. Incredible.
These miniatures have committed the cardinal sin of entertainment: They're not bad, they're boring. They're just angry women with shaved heads swinging giant chainswords around. There's nothing to indicate that they're torturing themselves for a perceived lapse in faith. They don't look repentant, they look determined and angry. They're about as generic as one can get. The Electro-Priests are more horrific than them.
They took the horror out of Repentia and replaced it with comfortable sneakers and generic angry faces.
Oh I thought those were stored knives at first. I see some of them have small rings around their thighs as well. Incredible.
These miniatures have committed the cardinal sin of entertainment: They're not bad, they're boring. They're just angry women with shaved heads swinging giant chainswords around. There's nothing to indicate that they're torturing themselves for a perceived lapse in faith. They don't look repentant, they look determined and angry. They're about as generic as one can get. The Electro-Priests are more horrific than them.
They took the horror out of Repentia and replaced it with comfortable sneakers and generic angry faces.
Wow, I don't even vaguely agree. I can't even see what you're seeing.
They're scarred, impaled, branded (and sometimes gagged or blinded), and running into battle with no protection.
They're practical repentance, not overblown grimderp.
It's amazingly refreshing.
These miniatures have committed the cardinal sin of entertainment: They're not bad, they're boring. They're just angry women with shaved heads swinging giant chainswords around. There's nothing to indicate that they're torturing themselves for a perceived lapse in faith. They don't look repentant, they look determined and angry. They're about as generic as one can get. The Electro-Priests are more horrific than them.
To be honest, the old metal miniatures are pretty much the same effect.
They had covered heads and scraps of their power armors on their lightly covered body, but that's pretty much it. The real horror was always from the famous picture from the codex and in the background.
And Repentia sisters were always determined and angry. Angry by themselves, determined to wash their sins by slaughtering heretics. They can't forgive themselves for their perceived sins, which is why they are Repentia sisters.
Same for flagellants (kits from Empire) and Electro-Priests. In themselves, they may look "tamed" as miniatures.But in the background ? They're pretty scary if you think about it. It's all about perception, in the end.
But yeah, the horror isn't showing that much on the miniatures. Nothing new on that topic from the old ones, though.
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all. Also I have no idea why they're not barefoot.
I'm with ya. Short shorts, tank tops/rompers and slippers/running shoes? With "tattoos" that are thicker than the forehead skin and skull thickness combined? Should be seeing brain at the bottom of those crevasses...
The previously posted BW pic and the pic below are is what I think of for Repentia. Completely crazed/berserk with righteous fury, with no F's left to give. GW went the PC route and made sensible figs wearing sensible shoes, the EXACT opposite of what these women are.
Will stick with the old ones (such as they are-not great) and add more paper purity seals and perhaps take another look at the Raging Heroes Davidians that are somewhere in thee great pile of unpaint...
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all. Also I have no idea why they're not barefoot.
I'm with ya. Short shorts, tank tops/rompers and slippers/running shoes? With "tattoos" that are thicker than the forehead skin and skull thickness combined? Should be seeing brain at the bottom of those crevasses...
The previously posted BW pic and the pic below are is what I think of for Repentia. Completely crazed/berserk with righteous fury, with no F's left to give. GW went the PC route and made sensible figs wearing sensible shoes, the EXACT opposite of what these women are.
Will stick with the old ones (such as they are-not great) and add more paper purity seals and perhaps take another look at the Raging Heroes Davidians that are somewhere in thee great pile of unpaint...
I think you’ll find that the Raging Heroes models are incredibly unsuited to use as Repentia... basically they’re bikini models in underboob tank tops and heavily armoured legs posing for the camera. They look like something you’d see in an anime aimed at teenage boys, never in 40k.
Oh I thought those were stored knives at first. I see some of them have small rings around their thighs as well. Incredible.
These miniatures have committed the cardinal sin of entertainment: They're not bad, they're boring. They're just angry women with shaved heads swinging giant chainswords around. There's nothing to indicate that they're torturing themselves for a perceived lapse in faith. They don't look repentant, they look determined and angry. They're about as generic as one can get. The Electro-Priests are more horrific than them.
They took the horror out of Repentia and replaced it with comfortable sneakers and generic angry faces.
She’s got a blindfold, a scarred face, huge needles piecing her flesh and what looks like something fairly horrific going on with the side of her head. I just don’t know what you’re seeing.
I don't like the plugs. They are missing tabards and hoods. Hoping there are some head swaps and tabard bits in the kit. They will struggle to find a home in an army visually if they have no way to show their livery. A paint job might help, the clothing isn't ragged enough and they are missing the lash marks of the Mistress driving them on. All in all they are the first set of previews that I find underwhelming. Makes me glad that I have all the old ones I will ever need.
More Pious Vorne would have been nice.
Really missing some form of rules update. Repentia as a unit have far bigger problems than their fashion choices.
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all.
Being branded on the forehead and sticking massive bodkins through the flesh of your thigh doesn’t connote religious zeal?
Not the extent that the artwork depicts them as doing.
Except if you look, only the middle one really is doing that. She is an exception, the one next to her has a single spike and the other three have zero visible ones. So, you pretty much shoot your own argument dead.
Oh do come off it. The lady on the left there has rammed spikes up through her face and her eyes. Half of them are weeping blood from what are apparently other self-blindings. At least two have pinned their faces to their tongues.
Incidentally, the middle girl also has the two visible armour ports that are supposedly 'retcon' according to some (on head and neck, painted shiny and reflective unlike seals). So, that complain is pretty much dead too
Yes, because a single spinal plug and a single cranial plug are totally exactly the same thing as having interface plugs all over the body in a way that far more resembles depictions of unclothed Marines than the pictured artwork. Completely and utterly 100% the same. Literally zero difference between the two.
More mutilation. More chains. Keep the bare feet, and if the little plastic figures must be made chaste and modest, how about a nice ragged sackcloth tunic?
Show me any miniature and I’ll show you a piece of art that’s better.
Erm, putting aside the differences between concept, execution, and form for a moment; I can show you two models that live up to their art among the newer Sisters models alone; Amelia Novena and Canoness Veridyan. Whether a model lives up to a piece of artwork is largely a subjective judgement unless the model is a complete potato.
Not a fair comparison. What is though, is to compare them with the original Repentia sculpts.
I disagree firmly and completely. I'm not interested in whether the models surpass previous models I also didn't care for, I'm interested in whether the models meet the standard I'm judging them by, which is how well they execute the concept of Repentia, as depicted and described previously in multiple sources which are summed up very nicely in that piece of artwork. GW could have produced a set of basic Battle Sisters that were superior to the original metals in every technical respect, but if their design aesthetic had radically deviated from what I expect a Battle Sister to look like I would have judged them as poor Battle Sisters models, and been entirely justified in doing so.
These new ones actually have more mutilation than the old ones. Keep the bare feet? The old ones didn’t have bare feet either.
Like I say, the old models could have been wearing ballet gear for all I care - one execution of the concept failing to live up to that concept doesn't excuse a second.
As for the ragged sackcloth tunic, that’s how I’m going to paint them
I’m also not seeing trainers. They look like medieval style shoes to me without a heel and the strap seems to have some fleur de lys shaped fastening rather than Velcro.
You can paint it however you like, they need a thorough putty job if you want them to actually look like they're wearing ragged sackcloth tunics and not beachware.
As for the shoes, all I can say is either you've seen very different medieval shoes, or very odd trainers.
The only bit I dislike is the heads with a fleur-de-lis/=][= sunk into their head. For some reason, it actually disturbs me quite a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lash marks would look equally weird moulded on. It’s not that hard to paint a few fine red stripes down a model’s skin. I managed to do a scar over the eye of the first marine sergeant I ever painted.
I'm meh on the new sculpts. I liked the art where they were dressed in pinned on script. It took their religious fervour to extreme, terrifying levels. These sculpts just look like angry civilians, I don't get a "women driven to religious insanity by guilt seeking forgiveness in death" at all.
Being branded on the forehead and sticking massive bodkins through the flesh of your thigh doesn’t connote religious zeal?
Not the extent that the artwork depicts them as doing.
Except if you look, only the middle one really is doing that. She is an exception, the one next to her has a single spike and the other three have zero visible ones. So, you pretty much shoot your own argument dead.
Oh do come off it. The lady on the left there has rammed spikes up through her face and her eyes. Half of them are weeping blood from what are apparently other self-blindings. At least two have pinned their faces to their tongues.
Incidentally, the middle girl also has the two visible armour ports that are supposedly 'retcon' according to some (on head and neck, painted shiny and reflective unlike seals). So, that complain is pretty much dead too
Yes, because a single spinal plug and a single cranial plug are totally exactly the same thing as having interface plugs all over the body in a way that far more resembles depictions of unclothed Marines than the pictured artwork. Completely and utterly 100% the same. Literally zero difference between the two.
More mutilation. More chains. Keep the bare feet, and if the little plastic figures must be made chaste and modest, how about a nice ragged sackcloth tunic?
Show me any miniature and I’ll show you a piece of art that’s better.
Erm, putting aside the differences between concept, execution, and form for a moment; I can show you two models that live up to their art among the newer Sisters models alone; Amelia Novena and Canoness Veridyan. Whether a model lives up to a piece of artwork is largely a subjective judgement unless the model is a complete potato.
Not a fair comparison. What is though, is to compare them with the original Repentia sculpts.
I disagree firmly and completely. I'm not interested in whether the models surpass previous models I also didn't care for, I'm interested in whether the models meet the standard I'm judging them by, which is how well they execute the concept of Repentia, as depicted and described previously in multiple sources which are summed up very nicely in that piece of artwork. GW could have produced a set of basic Battle Sisters that were superior to the original metals in every technical respect, but if their design aesthetic had radically deviated from what I expect a Battle Sister to look like I would have judged them as poor Battle Sisters models, and been entirely justified in doing so.
These new ones actually have more mutilation than the old ones. Keep the bare feet? The old ones didn’t have bare feet either.
Like I say, the old models could have been wearing ballet gear for all I care - one execution of the concept failing to live up to that concept doesn't excuse a second.
As for the ragged sackcloth tunic, that’s how I’m going to paint them
I’m also not seeing trainers. They look like medieval style shoes to me without a heel and the strap seems to have some fleur de lys shaped fastening rather than Velcro.
You can paint it however you like, they need a thorough putty job if you want them to actually look like they're wearing ragged sackcloth tunics and not beachware.
As for the shoes, all I can say is either you've seen very different medieval shoes, or very odd trainers.
Ok, you’ve convinced me. I’ve decided to hate them now.
... only joking. You have however convinced me of the utter pointlessness of arguing subjective things. Agree to disagree and all that.
Worth noting, last time I saw repentias mentioned in 40k 'clothed in sackcloth' was already a thing, and it looks like it's holding here.
I largely like them, they're a little more practical than I hoped, but in a 'we will live long enough to die for the emperor' kinda way. Only thing I can pick out as not being a huge fan of is the shoes, which I'd complain about if not for how easy they look like they'll be to paint.
Would a compromise between "fully clothed" and "horrifically repentant" be something like barbed wire shibari harnesses over robes or sackcloth tunics? More facial and extremity piercings and scarification? What should the third party miniatures sculptors aim for?
dracpanzer wrote: They are missing tabards and hoods. Hoping there are some head swaps and tabard bits in the kit.
They said I was mad to keep all those Ravenwing purity seals. Mad! But who's laughing now?
I like them. The neural ports are a welcome addition to the lore and the models. I like that they're all swole. They're melee fighters for one of the richest organization in the Imperium. I'm sure the Ecclesiarchy can afford their high protein diet. I think they look great all things considered. Amalia Novena does look a bit frail in comparison. But who knows what kinda of "gear" those Repentia are taking. They could be juiced up with stimms, albeit to a lesser degree than Arco-flagellants. A few additional purity seals and the good paint job should be enough. But it should be easy to add additional cloth details.
insaniak wrote: These are a swing and a miss for me. I get why they would want to move away from the previous, mostly-naked look for Repentia, but something like the normal Sister robes just without the armour would have been far more interesting, and looked far more 40K than this.
The poses are great, but the models themselves are just dull, and look more like they belong in Infinity than 40K.
Really not seeing what Infinity you’re seeing in these?
I'll take "how you wouldn't have described repentia yesterday" for $100.
If you would not have described repentia yesterday as “bald”, then it's pretty weird because both the models, the illustrations and the lore depict them has having shaved hair more than often. I think there is literally only 1 repentia with hair in the whole of all official illustrations, and that one is on a picture with a shave hair one.
Where did you get your information about repentia from?
As for broad shouldered, of course Sisters are going to have a strong frame.
Mentlegen324 wrote: The artwork of them going to the extent of blinding themselves, pinning iconoghraphy and wrapping themselves in parchment and purity seals or the chains and face coverings of the previous miniatures gave the impression that they considered themselves no longer worthy of being seen as individuals and could only be forgiven by going to those severe lengths, and their pennance was so they'd potentually end up "finding in death the absolution denied to them in life". These don't give that sort of impression to me at all.
Well one of them does, the one with the metal blinders and the fleur de lys pin head poking out of her head. I also plan to paint the inside of the carved symbols on 2 and 3 heads bone white, and make the skin near it red and purple for a pretty grim-dark tone too. And the flesh near those plugs ain't gonna look pretty either lol.
H.B.M.C. wrote: [They're not bad, they're boring. They're just angry women with shaved heads swinging giant chainswords around.
Does your first sentence know what your second sentence says ^^?
I agree they could have gone with more tattered clothes and more mutilation, though. But it's definitely going to be easier to add it to those than to the original, the and poses are just great!!!
insaniak wrote: These are a swing and a miss for me. I get why they would want to move away from the previous, mostly-naked look for Repentia, but something like the normal Sister robes just without the armour would have been far more interesting, and looked far more 40K than this.
The poses are great, but the models themselves are just dull, and look more like they belong in Infinity than 40K.
Really not seeing what Infinity you’re seeing in these?
It's not that they look specifically like anything from Infinity. It's that the outfits make them look more like generic cyberpunk than 40K's more fantasy-skewed styling. I'd expect to see an Infinity model sans armour wearing boxers, singlet and shoes. On a 40K model, I expect something a little less ordinary.
I think we'll have a differant view once we see it fully painted. given the shorn hair but not completely bald, the sac cloth robe.. I almost wonder iof they where going for a slightly cersi lannister and the walk of shame vibe. combined with physically strong melee fighter.
In an attempt to be more constructive, this is how I'd expect updated Repentia to look:
1) Take the Dreadscythe Harridans as a starting point
2) Give them human bodies (so the ghostly bodies become cloaks/cowls)
3) Replace the claws with Eviscerators
4) Retain exactly the same huge-eyed, souless screaming expressions, except apply them to human heads
5) Make the poses even more suicidal - the models should be running and leaping full-tilt at the enemy with no form to their stance or defensive use of their weapon at all. Some poses should even have the Eviscerator trailing behind them, or held high over their head with no grace whatsoever
6) They should not look angry, tough, well-muscled, or like they are wielding the Eviscerators with any degree of skill. They should instead look like emaciated, barely-alive, wide-eyed maniacs whose only goal is to die. Hence starting with the Harridans as a baseline. They should look like the Undead models for Banshees and Ghosts, not Escher Gangers
Repentia are people who have built their entire existence around worshipping the Emperor, and then been told that they have failed at this sole purpose. They should look so broken and horrifying that even a purestrain Genestealer would think "umm...yikes" when charged by them.
They should look like the Briar Queen with a human face, not Vasquez from Aliens.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: (1) If you would not have described repentia yesterday as “bald”, then it's pretty weird because both the models, the illustrations and the lore depict them has having shaved hair more than often. I think there is literally only 1 repentia with hair in the whole of all official illustrations, and that one is on a picture with a shave hair one.
(2) Where did you get your information about repentia from?
(3) As for broad shouldered, of course Sisters are going to have a strong frame.
(1) I was trying to describe the new model in general, rather than picking out a few specific points which would have been disingenuous.
(2) Every prior visual representation of them ever, and the old models.
(3) The top image (head on model) stands out in particular. It might just be the angle or the pose, the badly positioned shoulder pegs, the bulge in his shorts, or the huge figure-concealing belt, but it's masculine enough that if forgeworld had released it as a hired gun called "Mr Johnson" no-one would have been the wiser save for the fluers on the sword.
Though this last one might be down to GWs ability to always display their models from the least flattering angle possible.
I can understand why some people think they are too ordinary to be 40k, but I see them more as an almost blank canvas that can be embellished to taste.
If you like the plain look, the models have you covered. If on the other hand you want them to be MORE grimdark, well you have a nice base to start with, that won't need a lot of work to get to where you want them to be.
timd wrote: I'm with ya. Short shorts, tank tops/rompers and slippers/running shoes? With "tattoos" that are thicker than the forehead skin and skull thickness combined? Should be seeing brain at the bottom of those crevasses...
The previously posted BW pic and the pic below are is what I think of for Repentia. Completely crazed/berserk with righteous fury, with no F's left to give. GW went the PC route and made sensible figs wearing sensible shoes, the EXACT opposite of what these women are.
They're repentant nuns in the middle of a battle. Should they be wearing Nikes instead?
I find it bitterly hilarious that people are complaining about "sensible shoes" given the various cultural baggage/contexts of that phrase.
Those shoes are literally looking like just some cheap leather strapped together around the feet with a very basic sole made of slightly thicker leather. Some kind of advanced shoe technology they are not.
Casbyness wrote: They should look like the Briar Queen with a human face, not Vasquez from Aliens.
This. This right here is the crux of the whole thing.
There's not 'repentant' about these. These miniatures don't look like people who are broken with grief and the need to make up for sin (real or otherwise). They're just determined angry buzz-cut girls wielding giant swords. And that'd be fine, if these weren't meant to be Sisters Repentia.
I did see one hilarious/cringe comment on GW's Facebook: "I'm so glad there isn't a Mistresses of Repentance there robbing them of their agency!"
Casbyness wrote: They should look like the Briar Queen with a human face, not Vasquez from Aliens.
... no?
The Briar Queen doesn't even have legs. Or a torso. She's an pair of arms and a head barely holding together a ragged robe.
Repentia are penitent warrior-women looking to earn redemption through self-sacrifice and fearless service.
If you want to compare them to anything, I'd compare them to WFB's dragonslayer/demonslayer dwarves.
And in that regard, they're pretty accurate!
You know what I meant The general appearance. You throw the Briar Queen's shape over a human torso, so the ethereal "body" she has becomes a cloak, etc. Heck, the Nighhaunts in general are a good match for Repentia - you've got the chains, the nooses around necks, the collars, the jarring angles and emaciation, etc.
And Repentia are not in any way shape or form "looking to earn redemption". Even regular SOBs are not looking for reward, advancement or personal gain in anything they do - their lives are solely driven by worship of the Emperor and a failed sister is motivated only by the need to lessen her sense of failure by taking as many enemies as possible with her when she dies. In the few cases when a Repentia is saved, it's either through others forcing them to return to their senses and accept they haven't actually failed at life quite so totally, or via something miraculous that elevates them to sainthood or the like.
Repentia aren't trying to prove themselves in battle, they ae deemed worthy of redemption precisely by fighting without any regard for ego or personal value.
Agreed
