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

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:I don't require 3rd party models to make my point.

Sure, that's why you didn't say "But there are also 3rd party outlets which offer more options", did you?

GW makes the point for me by showing a wider variety of lowly Guardsmen from different regiments than yes, even your (cherry picked) veteran UM vs. veteran SW example.

And how many of those regiments are still marketed?

*Showed, is perhaps a better way to describe your comment.

Also, I don't hear you saying how those two pictures I showed (which are completely standard images for those factions) are the same thing. Strange.

If you paint Intercessors Gray and put a wolf on them, they're Space Wolves. If you paint them blue and put an inverted omega on them, they're Ultramarines.

If you paint Catachans blue they don't become Mordian Iron Guard.

But if you paint Cadians in white and black, they become the "Truskan Snowhounds", or the "Faeburn Vanquishers". Sorry, but again, Guardsmen are just as guilty of being reduced down to colour schemes.

However, in your example, if I take a Space Wolves model, with all the trappings that Space Wolves *are entirely supported as having*, and paint it blue, it ain't an Ultramarine. If I take an Ultramarine, bedazzled in all the finery of Macragge, as they have also been outlined to be able to look like, they would never look like a Space Wolf. You see, that's because GW have made it clear that Space Wolves and Ultramarines can have drastically different appearances, if you so wanted them to - the same cannot be said of the Sororitas.

You see - we can both play this little game.

If you have the current Sisters codex, find a statement that minor Orders Millitant don't deviate from the major ones, and that local convents don't have their own heraldries/traditions etc.

If you have it, can you show me an example of a minor Order Militant that does, because that was the main point I've been making this whole time.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to justify that Sisters aren't diverse. I'm not. I'm stating that they have never been portrayed as diverse in the same way that Space Marines or Guardsmen are. Can you disprove that?

Are you a Lawyer Smudge??

Because you certainly argue as if you were in court trying to get your client - who you know its guilty- declared not guilty.

Thats just how regular people have discussions. Insectum and Smudge are the doing the exact same things as each other because that's how discussions work.
They both look at the other person's points and discuss them. However, Insectum is arguing "Sisters are X" and then asking to be proved wrong instead of proving themselves right by providing evidence that supports their claim.

Karak Norn Clansman wrote:It is crucial to remember that any official range we see in Warhammer 40'000 these days will be streamlined and monolithic in looks. This is not how things actually look in-setting, but a necessity enforced upon Games Workshop by the Codex threadmill, army book straitjacket and need to supply ever-growing army ranges with expensive plastic moulds.

Outside of the ever-popular Space Marines in all their various flavours, only once did GW truly dabble in releasing a swathe of different Imperial forces of the same army but from different worlds: The 1990s Imperial Guard range.

1980s Imperial Army was all Necromundan.

1990s Imperial Guard did a swathe of different regiments.

2000s and 2010s Imperial Guard was all Cadian, with Catachan command kit and Vostroyans as the last spurt of brilliant creativity for niche Guard regiments. They did have some variant regiments in a White Dwarf article, including highlanders and Savlar Chem Dogs.

Forgeworld did pick up the slack with Elysians and Death Korps of Krieg, but both required extensive model ranges and could not just be done with max three kits and call it a day. Unlike 1980s Warhammer releases, mind you.

Adepta Sororitas have been neglected for so long, that only now may we see them grow into a whole flora of peculiar local orders and strange insular microcultures. This process is well under way among fan artists, some of whose concepts' look very good. Eventually we may see Sisters of Battle receive a treatment of variant flavours, if their popularity prove high enough and if GW designers have ideas they want to add to the setting.

The easiest way to implement it is to add conversion kits as add-ons to existing kits. But there must exist a striking enough aesthetic with popular enough demand for this to make commercial sense. This is where background and art comes into play, in order to create demand.

The bottom line is this:

Do not confuse the streamlined official artwork and model lines with the incredibly varied Imperium of Man. The need for plastic kits for vast army ranges has enforced creative limits on Games Workshop, ones the studio has fought back against every decade. Specialist Games, Dreadfleet, Space Hulk and so on are all attempts to break free from the straitjacket and recapture the freewheeling 1980s creativity that characterized the studio.

If GW don't do weird orders and peculiar local cultural variants, then we, the community, will have to do so. True to the spirit of the setting.

I for one hope to doodle an Ethiopian nun in space Sororitas down the line.

I am in agreement with this, absolutely. I've bolded the sections of this (very well put) point to reinforce what I'm *actually* saying: that GW chooses to let Space Marines (and Guardsman, in earlier years) have more opportunities and creative space for customisation, and chooses not to give those same flexibilities to Sororitas. GW might have a universe which *should* accommodate for all kinds of player flexibilities, but they certainly don't give every faction the same creative freedoms and flexibilities right now.

Sisters are not afforded the same diversity that is given to other factions. This is simply a fact. It doesn't have to be true for the future, and it doesn't have to stop anyone from making their own unique Sororitas. I'm not saying that Sisters shouldn't be customisable right now, or that I don't want GW to make them more customisable, but simply answering the question in the OP that they are currently not regarded with the same kind eye that GW has afforded Astartes and Guardsmen.

Is this an incorrect statement to make?

Vatsetis wrote:Are you a Lawyer Smudge??

Because you certainly argue as if you were in court trying to get your client - who you know its guilty- declared not guilty.

No, I am neither of these things, and you appear to be making inferences that do not exist in my post. I have no idea what on earth you're going on about, only that you've chosen not to comment on the actual discussions raised on your own thread.

If you can prove the "guilt" of this hypothetical client, please, raise your point. I'll debunk it like all your other ones.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:I don't require 3rd party models to make my point.

Sure, that's why you didn't say "But there are also 3rd party outlets which offer more options", did you?

GW makes the point for me by showing a wider variety of lowly Guardsmen from different regiments than yes, even your (cherry picked) veteran UM vs. veteran SW example.

And how many of those regiments are still marketed?

*Showed, is perhaps a better way to describe your comment.

Also, I don't hear you saying how those two pictures I showed (which are completely standard images for those factions) are the same thing. Strange.

If you paint Intercessors Gray and put a wolf on them, they're Space Wolves. If you paint them blue and put an inverted omega on them, they're Ultramarines.

If you paint Catachans blue they don't become Mordian Iron Guard.

But if you paint Cadians in white and black, they become the "Truskan Snowhounds", or the "Faeburn Vanquishers". Sorry, but again, Guardsmen are just as guilty of being reduced down to colour schemes.

However, in your example, if I take a Space Wolves model, with all the trappings that Space Wolves *are entirely supported as having*, and paint it blue, it ain't an Ultramarine. If I take an Ultramarine, bedazzled in all the finery of Macragge, as they have also been outlined to be able to look like, they would never look like a Space Wolf. You see, that's because GW have made it clear that Space Wolves and Ultramarines can have drastically different appearances, if you so wanted them to - the same cannot be said of the Sororitas.

You see - we can both play this little game.

-deleted, quoting was a mess and I accidentally deleted my actual post trying to fix it

Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:I don't require 3rd party models to make my point.

Sure, that's why you didn't say "But there are also 3rd party outlets which offer more options", did you?

GW makes the point for me by showing a wider variety of lowly Guardsmen from different regiments than yes, even your (cherry picked) veteran UM vs. veteran SW example.

And how many of those regiments are still marketed?

*Showed, is perhaps a better way to describe your comment.

Also, I don't hear you saying how those two pictures I showed (which are completely standard images for those factions) are the same thing. Strange.

If you paint Intercessors Gray and put a wolf on them, they're Space Wolves. If you paint them blue and put an inverted omega on them, they're Ultramarines.

If you paint Catachans blue they don't become Mordian Iron Guard.

But if you paint Cadians in white and black, they become the "Truskan Snowhounds", or the "Faeburn Vanquishers". Sorry, but again, Guardsmen are just as guilty of being reduced down to colour schemes.

However, in your example, if I take a Space Wolves model, with all the trappings that Space Wolves *are entirely supported as having*, and paint it blue, it ain't an Ultramarine. If I take an Ultramarine, bedazzled in all the finery of Macragge, as they have also been outlined to be able to look like, they would never look like a Space Wolf. You see, that's because GW have made it clear that Space Wolves and Ultramarines can have drastically different appearances, if you so wanted them to - the same cannot be said of the Sororitas.

You see - we can both play this little game.

None of your above responses hold up to any respectable scrutiny, and I'll leave you with that.

And likewise, your lack of response (especially about the reskinned "Cadians") says all the same. Happy to leave it there though.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If you have the current Sisters codex, find a statement that minor Orders Millitant don't deviate from the major ones, and that local convents don't have their own heraldries/traditions etc.

If you have it, can you show me an example of a minor Order Militant that does, because that was the main point I've been making this whole time.

The Rise of the Lesser Orders Militant
. . . These small, scattered bases . . .over time became independent of the Orders that founded them, establishing their own traditions, doctrines, livery and titles.

-Witch Hunters Codex pg. 6

I believe the question we both posed was "current Sisters Codex", not the Witch Hunters Codex? I'll say again - if you have the current Sisters codex, can you show me an example of minor Order Militant that does deviate significantly?

Even ignoring that you weren't able to find what we both asked for, does the Witch Hunters Codex present any examples of these lesser orders? Any detailed accounts of their diversity, in the same way that GW were more than happy to do for Guardsmen and Space Marines at the same time, and in the decades since?

 Gert wrote:
However, Insectum is arguing "Sisters are X" and then asking to be proved wrong instead of proving themselves right by providing evidence that supports their claim.

I'm asking for you to provide evidence of your assertions, of which none has been provided.

The evidence of my assertions comes in what I'm asserting - that there's been no effort on GW's part to treat Sisters as being as diverse as Space Marines or Guardsmen, for which the absence of evidence proves the assertion. The assertion comes from that there *is* no evidence contrary, seeing as it took you having to go into the Witch Hunters Codex to even find a mention of this, a mention which is bereft of seemingly any support that would even hold a candle to the glow that Space Marines and Guardsmen bask in.

Do you actually know what I'm asserting, because this response seems to make me think you don't?

I'm not asserting that Sisters *can't* have diversity. I'm asserting that GW has not given Sisters the same nourishment and opportunities for that diversity that they've given to other factions. The evidence exists in that there *are* no diverse depictions of Sisters from GW - which I must assume is the case, given how your only example was a single line in the Witch Hunters Codex.

Does that make my stance clearer to you? Do you have an objection to it? If so, would you care to explain where?

I've given written evidence that Sisters can (and are) varied beyond their primary Orders.

I've given evidence that IG are more varied than Space Marines.

I've seen nothing that states the contrary of either, other than some bizarre notion that because GW hasn't continued to make Valhallan models, they must no longer exist.

This appears to be over.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I've given written evidence that Sisters can (and are) varied beyond their primary Orders.

That's not what we both asked for, was it - you explicitly asked it to be from the current Sisters Codex. I asked you the same, and you failed to provide anything.

Don't blame me for your own inability to hold yourself to the standard you set. I yet again ask for *examples* of these diverse Orders, and while I normally wouldn't ask this, as you brought it up, I want to see it from the *current Sisters Codex* - as that was the standard you set.

I've given evidence that IG are more varied than Space Marines.

That's hardly what I'm really bothered about discussing right now. As far as I'm concerned, Astartes and Guardsmen are both head and shoulders over Sisters of Battle when it comes to the customisation afforded to them, and I've evidenced this repeatedly.

I've seen nothing that states the contrary of either, other than some bizarre notion that because GW hasn't continued to make Valhallan models, they must no longer exist.

That's not what I've been claiming at all, so you've done an excellent job of making my last post all the more necessary. I suggest you re-read it, but, as we both seem to agree:

This appears to be over.

You're right - if you can't understand what I'm actually saying, and would rather make up what I'm claiming instead, then this is a waste of both our time.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I am in agreement with this, absolutely. I've bolded the sections of this (very well put) point to reinforce what I'm *actually* saying: that GW chooses to let Space Marines (and Guardsman, in earlier years) have more opportunities and creative space for customisation, and chooses not to give those same flexibilities to Sororitas. GW might have a universe which *should* accommodate for all kinds of player flexibilities, but they certainly don't give every faction the same creative freedoms and flexibilities right now.

Sisters are not afforded the same diversity that is given to other factions. This is simply a fact. It doesn't have to be true for the future, and it doesn't have to stop anyone from making their own unique Sororitas. I'm not saying that Sisters shouldn't be customisable right now, or that I don't want GW to make them more customisable, but simply answering the question in the OP that they are currently not regarded with the same kind eye that GW has afforded Astartes and Guardsmen.

Is this an incorrect statement to make?

Thank you kindly. I'm not yet read up on the latest publications, but I've followed miniature and artwork with great interest, and from what I can glimpse here in this thread and from the visuals, then it is a correct statement to make.

It's not much different from other new factions, such as the Adeptus Mechanicus (even more neglected until recently than Adepta Sororitas). I know there are older references to varied Skitarii aesthetics, including feathers and pelts on some forgeworlds. But I highly doubt there are any officially published conversion guides for converting exotic Skitarii, especially since that could throw a bone for third party producers. This streak of IP mania is destructive for creativity, no doubt about it. Though it does not mean we may not eventually see an injection of visual diversity beyond colour schemes for the Adeptus Mechanicus or Adepta Sororitas.

The Sisters of Battle is a no-brainer. Give them the Space Marine Chapter treatment. Come up with all manner of wacko insular orders, some based upon crazed themes, others upon historical nun orders. Any writings about all Orders following the same tenets strictly should be thrown out the window as shoddy worldbuilding unworthy of 40k. Akin to that 1990s lone corrupted Sister of Battle background, said to be the only Sororitas to have fallen to Chaos. Yawn, did that really show up in an official GW publication? The Battle Sisters' background is wonderful and plays to the spirit of the setting so well on so many levels (female Space Marines can go to hell), but there seem to be a few odd ugly warts which GW never would have given the Space Marines or Imperial Guard even in the very beginning. Amateurish. But I guess they just lack ideas for injecting bizarre variety into the Sororitas like they've done the Astartes and Militarum?

At any rate 5'000 years is plenty of time for sprawling institutions to mutate and pop off all manner of parochial microcultures. They can not all be standardized. And they should not.

GW has always been good at building grimdark sandboxes, opening for people to build their own corners of the universe. GW has always been good by leading with example, coming up with all manner of strange subfactions. The same should obviously be done to the Mechanicus and the Sororitas. Insular microcultures is at the core of Warhammer 40'000.

That said, the monolithic streamlined look itself is being handled very well. The new Sororitas artwork with a religious procession is stunning. And having new models released in this day and age means that they are both exquisitely made, and lovingly given fun details like pigeons and a hilarious scorched heretic carcass. I would start a Sororitas army over an Astartes one any day of the week. 40k as a whole is being handled with a lot more care and respect for its bonkers, dark and ironic roots than most people give Games Workshop credit for. It's in a far better shape after 30 years than one could expect it to be.

Viva Imperator!

I wonder, is the Eccleisarchy truly uniform at the highest levels? I'm not talking about local variations on some backwater planet, I'm talking about the Church itself.

We know the Inquisition isn't a monolithic organization as you have puritan groups like Thorians and more radical groups who are fine with creating demon hosts, so wouldn't the Church also have several denominations? Much like how irl we have Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox? I would think that a parody of religion would mock the existence of there being different variations of the same core tenets of belief.

Wouldn't such denominations influence Sororitas as well?

Another thought, if the Imperium is so large and unwieldy that effective communication is impossible, would a complex, uniform belief system be even possible beyond a simple set of tenets?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I wonder, is the Eccleisarchy truly uniform at the highest levels?

We know the Inquisition isn't a monolithic organization as you have puritan groups like Thorians and more radical groups who are fine with creating demon hosts, so wouldn't the Church also have several denominations? Much like how irl we have Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox? I would think that a parody of religion would mock the existence of there being different variations of the same core tenets of belief.

Wouldn't such denominations influence Sororitas as well?

Of course. All of the Imperium is built upon a parody of schismatic religioys splits and theological mutations resulting in aggressively myopic violence. It's all a grand parody of Byzantine religious strife, medieval religious strife and of early modern religious strife in particular.

And there is a lot of historical religious strife outside of European contexts to milk for inspiration in the future: Take medieval Buddhist warlords presenting severed heads to their Buddha statues in Central Asia, for instance. GW has only scratched the surface. Look to their Redemptionists and House Cawdor on Necromunda for clues.

Insular microcultures is key to the retrograde, depraved and parochial nature of the Imperium of Man. They must exist everywhere, at every level. Only the Custodes may be small and focused enough to escape it (unless you subscribe to TTS' joke version of a... sensual schism within the Adeptus Custodes).

The Ecclesiarchy in particular should be highly fractured and highly schismatic, with lots and lots of religious infighting. Check out Kid_Kyoto's writing on civilian life on an Imperial world for a brilliant example. Schismatic violence is part of everyday life.

This is pivotal to 40k worldbuilding: Nothing human in can be uniform in the Age of Imperium. That kind of thing only existed during the Dark Age of Technology.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I've given written evidence that Sisters can (and are) varied beyond their primary Orders.

I've given evidence that IG are more varied than Space Marines.

I've seen nothing that states the contrary of either, other than some bizarre notion that because GW hasn't continued to make Valhallan models, they must no longer exist.

This appears to be over.

+1 to you.
And that's before even addressing how in lore there are variants of everything from lasguns up through titans based purely on the Forge World and sometimes year that something was produced on.

Not to mention all the instances of rules/models not reflecting practical deviations that make sense in a living universe. Things like Skitarii being outfitted with lasguns and using Rhinos, ad-hoc situational troop formations, or Orks looting all manner of enemy weapons.

Plus (I think it was either you or Fezzrik) made a good point that with the Cicatrix Maledictum there's an entire half of the Imperium cut off from Mars. So even if we assume that up until Gathering Storm all SoB power armor was made on Mars, well going forward you'll probably start seeing a lot of Nihilus Sisters using jury-rigged or locally sourced replacement parts leading to increased variance.

The reality though is that Smudge is trying to double down on SoB being "overly restrictive" because it supports one of his constantly repeated strawmen from the female Space Marines thread about how Space Marines are the only army in the game that allow creativity, ergo not having female Space Marines is discrimination against female players.

That's why he keeps trying to ignore/downplay the wide amount of canonical variance in IG, Orks, Chaos, etc and why he's suddenly so concerned about the sanctity of the lore. Otherwise it would weaken his arguments elsewhere on the forum...

Smudge isn't saying "There should be no variance in SoB!"

They're saying that, as presented, there isn't much variance from GW. Is that incorrect?

Also, Smudge is not he. They use gender-neutral pronouns. (Check their sig.)

 JNAProductions wrote:
Smudge isn't saying "There should be no variance in SoB!"

They're saying that, as presented, there isn't much variance from GW. Is that incorrect?

No, it's irrelevant.

The question in the OP is as follows:

Vatsetis wrote:
Is there any reason why Sorotitas cant be diverse likes astartes or astra militarum... Sure they all follow the same faith and have the same armor... But cant they be diverse (in lore and aesthetics) as the other main IOM factions... Afterall Catholics (main inspiration for SOB) in Africa, America, Ireland, Italy or Poland dont look or behave in similar manner outside some common features?

The answer that Smudge keeps repeating is: "well the pictures and models all look the same, but the Space Marines look different, so if A=B then B=C!"

Which doesn't actually answer the question outside of some reason Smudge made up by Smudgeself about how it's heretical or something for SoB to look different (?). Citation needed.

Also arguing using the art and models is completely disingenuous because they are not reflective of the entire lore, mostly just the sliver of it that GW is able to put into production and sell.

So no, you and Smudge fail on both counts.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Smudge isn't saying "There should be no variance in SoB!"

They're saying that, as presented, there isn't much variance from GW. Is that incorrect?

Not really, no. Here is an excerpt from their first post in the thread:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In as much diversity as the Ecclesiarchy allow them to have. The issue is that Sisters are much more centrally organised than Space Marines, who are diverse by virtue of being able to rule their own independent fiefdoms, and less numerous than Guardsmen, who are diverse because trying to create some unified single type of Guardsman is both logistically and culturally nightmarish.

Sisters are much more closely tied to the Ecclesiarchy and to their major convents and holy sites - they exist because of the Ecclesiarchy, not the other way around, and therefore are very closely tied to the decrees and edicts that it presents. As a result, they are less likely to have that same free reign that many other Imperial organisations have (such as the Space Marines, Guardsmen, Knights, AdMech, and Inquisition).

From an aesthetic design perspective too, Sisters are very limited in their options as well.

Not to mention seemingly to argue that Space Marines are somehow more varied than Guard, which is canonically obviously false.

There isn't a good reason to believe that Sisters are somehow more restricted than Space Marines in terms of appearance or doctrine, and the only reason we see more variation in Space Marines is because GW sells lots and lots of Space Marines, and therefore lavishes attention on them.

Well I suppose that if the FSM are to have a design space of their own... then there is a need for SOB to be framed as a niche faction akin to the Custodes (which implies a fixed aesthetics)... rather than the female counterpart of adeptus astartes (which would allow more freedom model wise).

Its an interesting ideological debate... with profound implications about the relationship between container and content.

Talking about ideological schism in the ecclesiarchy.

Karak Norn Clansman wrote:The Sisters of Battle is a no-brainer. Give them the Space Marine Chapter treatment. Come up with all manner of wacko insular orders, some based upon crazed themes, others upon historical nun orders. Any writings about all Orders following the same tenets strictly should be thrown out the window as shoddy worldbuilding unworthy of 40k.
...
At any rate 5'000 years is plenty of time for sprawling institutions to mutate and pop off all manner of parochial microcultures. They can not all be standardized. And they should not.

GW has always been good at building grimdark sandboxes, opening for people to build their own corners of the universe. GW has always been good by leading with example, coming up with all manner of strange subfactions. The same should obviously be done to the Mechanicus and the Sororitas. Insular microcultures is at the core of Warhammer 40'000.

Yes to the idea that Sisters should get Chapter treatment. 40k *should* be a sandbox, for all things regarding player creativity - including the single part of your post that I think falls into the same "shoddy worldbuilding unworthy of 40k" category.

That's what my comments have been in support of this whole thread - that Sisters *aren't* given that same treatment (answering OP's question), but that they *should*.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I wonder, is the Eccleisarchy truly uniform at the highest levels? I'm not talking about local variations on some backwater planet, I'm talking about the Church itself.

Again, while in practice, and if we were to understand that nothing in the lore is truly set in stone, I'd absolutely bet that the Ecclesiarchy is varied. However, we rarely see this variation in practice, unlike with things like the Guard and Space Marines.

Don't take that to mean the Ecclesiarchy *isn't* varied, but that it is not shown as such.

Another thought, if the Imperium is so large and unwieldy that effective communication is impossible, would a complex, uniform belief system be even possible beyond a simple set of tenets?

A lot of the strength of the Ecclesiarchy and the belief system it spreads comes from it's simplicity. The actual doctrine used to hold power over the people is incredibly versatile and flexible to local beliefs. The issue comes from how Sisters and higher ranking Ecclesiarchial personnel are highborn, and come from centralised power structures and institutions. Because of that centralisation, the higher ranks probably would be more uniform - very much being a case of the lower class citizens believing a very different set of rules to the upper classes.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I've given written evidence that Sisters can (and are) varied beyond their primary Orders.

I've given evidence that IG are more varied than Space Marines.

I've seen nothing that states the contrary of either, other than some bizarre notion that because GW hasn't continued to make Valhallan models, they must no longer exist.

This appears to be over.

+1 to you.
And that's before even addressing how in lore there are variants of everything from lasguns up through titans based purely on the Forge World and sometimes year that something was produced on.

No-one's disputing that, because we can *see* those variants to lasguns.

Can you show me these variants of Sisters? No, because that's the point I'm making - GW haven't showcased the variety in the Sororitas. Prove me wrong, show me some noticeably varied Sisters from GW. That's literally all you need to do.

Not to mention all the instances of rules/models not reflecting practical deviations that make sense in a living universe. Things like Skitarii being outfitted with lasguns and using Rhinos, ad-hoc situational troop formations, or Orks looting all manner of enemy weapons.

Skitarii didn't exist in rules until recently - their background being a varied, eclectic mix has more weight than their model line - and you can see the remnants of other weapons *in* various Ork weapons, especially Lootas and Flash Gitz.

But throughout the history of the Sisters existing, I don't think I've ever seen a Sister that didn't fit GW's set aesthetic design for them. With Skitarii, we've seen multiple written examples of their difference before they got models. We see ad-hoc troop formations in nearly every book. We see Orks looting weapons literally in their model designs. But where do we see varied Sisters?

Again - GW are happy to make other things varied, but not with Sisters. That's not me claiming that Sisters *can't* be varied, but simply that GW don't do it.

Plus (I think it was either you or Fezzrik) made a good point that with the Cicatrix Maledictum there's an entire half of the Imperium cut off from Mars. So even if we assume that up until Gathering Storm all SoB power armor was made on Mars, well going forward you'll probably start seeing a lot of Nihilus Sisters using jury-rigged or locally sourced replacement parts leading to increased variance.

Would we also perhaps be seeing Space Marines with replacement parts and non-standard forms of recruitment, given how they're cut off as well?

Again, you're absolutely missing my comments. It's not that non-standard Sisters can't be a thing. Read my comments, I explicitly say that people should do what they want with their models, with whatever justification they want for it. All I am mentioning is that GW don't do this, and haven't shown off the wonderful variety that Sisters could have. You can prove me wrong by *showing* me some of these varied Sisters, but it seems you are unable to as well.

The reality though is that Smudge is trying to double down on SoB being "overly restrictive" because it supports one of his constantly repeated strawmen from the female Space Marines thread about how Space Marines are the only army in the game that allow creativity, ergo not having female Space Marines is discrimination against female players.

Actually, that's not my point at all.

I'm not saying that Sisters *can't* have creativity - only that they are not presented as it. You could debunk this claim if you could find me presentations of Sisters which are customised. However, evidently, you can't.

However, I find it absolutely hilarious the hoops that people are jumping through to say "BUT THERE'S NO WAY THE IMPERIUM COULD BE STANDARDISED AND HOW THERE COULD NEVER BE ANY DIFFERENCES, HOW DARE YOU SAY MY SISTERS CAN ONLY LOOK ONE WAY!!!", and in the same breath will fight to standardise how Space Marines can be recruited.
Read my posts - I'm not fighting for standardisation. I'm arguing for player freedoms and choices - but that can only be done if we acknowledge that GW aren't exactly being 100% fair in their presentation of various factions.
I'm 100% pro-creativity in the Adepta Sororitas - but that comes with understanding that the Sororitas are currently not incentivised to be a creatively free as other factions. If you wish to disprove this, show me some customised Sisters that GW have promoted.

That's why he keeps trying to ignore/downplay the wide amount of canonical variance in IG, Orks, Chaos, etc and why he's suddenly so concerned about the sanctity of the lore. Otherwise it would weaken his arguments elsewhere on the forum...

Again, this is blatantly untrue for two reasons.
First, "he" didn't say anything.
Second, did you miss where I outright called for all lore that prevented player customisation to be thrown out? I'm the furthest thing away from "sanctity of the lore" you can get - all I'm saying is that GW aren't giving the Sisters of Battle fair treatment.

Seriously, actually read what the argument is.

JNAProductions wrote:Smudge isn't saying "There should be no variance in SoB!"

They're saying that, as presented, there isn't much variance from GW. Is that incorrect?

Also, Smudge is not he. They use gender-neutral pronouns. (Check their sig.)

Spot on. It's not that Sisters shouldn't be varied, but that right now, they're not.

It'd be like saying "there's no food in my fridge". That's not to say that there *shouldn't* be food in my fridge, or that I'm not allowed it, but simply that at the current moment, there is no food in there.

And I appreciate the latter.

Jack Flask wrote:No, it's irrelevant.

The question in the OP is as follows:

Vatsetis wrote:
Is there any reason why Sorotitas cant be diverse likes astartes or astra militarum... Sure they all follow the same faith and have the same armor... But cant they be diverse (in lore and aesthetics) as the other main IOM factions... Afterall Catholics (main inspiration for SOB) in Africa, America, Ireland, Italy or Poland dont look or behave in similar manner outside some common features?

The answer that Smudge keeps repeating is: "well the pictures and models all look the same, but the Space Marines look different, so if A=B then B=C!"

The OP asks "is there any reason why Sororitas can't be as diverse" - the answer to that is "no, there is no reason Sisters can't be diverse, but GW don't recognise or promote this diversity".

This isn't difficult to understand, unless you're being wilfully obtuse. Space Marines were only brought up because OP decided to compare them.

Which doesn't actually answer the question outside of some reason Smudge made up by Smudgeself about how it's heretical or something for SoB to look different (?). Citation needed.

When did I say that Sororitas looking different was heresy?
What I *said* was that GW don't show Sororitas looking any different, you can do what you like. Gee, it's almost the exact stance I've repeated said about 40k lore - that the lore should encourage people to do what they want, instead of try and fit into pr-eset categories.

Also arguing using the art and models is completely disingenuous because they are not reflective of the entire lore, mostly just the sliver of it that GW is able to put into production and sell.

What lore is there that paints the Sisters as varied? One line from an outdated publication? I can also find you other slivers of lore from outdated publications - are they also reflective of the lore?

And before you paint this as "Smudge says that old lore is irrelevant!" or "Smudge says the Sisters shouldn't be varied because it's not mentioned in modern books", that's precisely the opposite of what I'm saying - I'm saying that GW should make their lore more reflective of customisable Sisters, and actually include some alternative designs, instead of their only mention being in a nearly two-decades old Codex.

Again - GW clearly care about diversity and customisation in Space Marines and Astra Militarum lines to feature conversions and custom Chapters regularly. They don't with Sisters. Why do they treat them so differently?

Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Smudge isn't saying "There should be no variance in SoB!"

They're saying that, as presented, there isn't much variance from GW. Is that incorrect?

Not really, no. Here is an excerpt from their first post in the thread:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In as much diversity as the Ecclesiarchy allow them to have. The issue is that Sisters are much more centrally organised than Space Marines, who are diverse by virtue of being able to rule their own independent fiefdoms, and less numerous than Guardsmen, who are diverse because trying to create some unified single type of Guardsman is both logistically and culturally nightmarish.

Sisters are much more closely tied to the Ecclesiarchy and to their major convents and holy sites - they exist because of the Ecclesiarchy, not the other way around, and therefore are very closely tied to the decrees and edicts that it presents. As a result, they are less likely to have that same free reign that many other Imperial organisations have (such as the Space Marines, Guardsmen, Knights, AdMech, and Inquisition).

From an aesthetic design perspective too, Sisters are very limited in their options as well.

Not to mention seemingly to argue that Space Marines are somehow more varied than Guard, which is canonically obviously false.

Where in my first post do I say that Sisters absolutely shouldn't be customised? I said that they have as much freedom as the Ecclesiarchy allows for - the same can be said of Guardsmen and Space Marines.

Oh yeah, and what happened to the *rest* of my post, which you blatantly refused to quote? Here, let me repost it here, in case it slipped your mind:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Their designs are much more ornate, their details less conducive to the easy modification and variety that Space Marines have been afforded. Sisters are very strongly (and consistently) drawn from specifically European Catholicism and Medieval/Renaissance trappings - unlike the variety of "holy warrior" traditions that Space Marines find themselves drawn from - therefore, drawing from other branches of Catholicism isn't what we see GW doing with their specific design cues for the Sororitas. Even *if* the Sisters' lore was more conducive to them being decentralised and being able to create radically different religious and cultural identities, their model range and GW's aesthetic design for them has not supported this, in the same way that Necrons are strongly linked specifically to Egyptian designs and cultural coding. Maybe you *could* create a Necron dynasty which more closely reflects the culture of, say, feudal Europe, but aesthetically, their design does not reflect this, and therefore are not inherently as diverse a faction as Space Marines or Guardsmen. This isn't to say that creativity is impossible, but that it is simply not as promoted in certain factions as it is in others, and you would be actively fighting against the factional aesthetic design established if you were to deviate too far from that core design.


TL;DR - due to how they are described as a faction, and how GW treats them on a design standpoint, Sisters are not as conducive to player creativity as certain other factions.


EDIT: Oh, and in regard to ethnicity? There is no reason in the first place that any Imperial faction would be mono-ethnic. GW definitely don't present Sisters as mono-ethnic.

In case you're put off by all that text, I've emphasised the points that I make where I make clear that Sisters should be more creativly free, but that GW don't present it as such.

Seriously, if you're going to claim to reference my first post in this topic, actually reference the whole first post.

There isn't a good reason to believe that Sisters are somehow more restricted than Space Marines in terms of appearance or doctrine

Great - so show it to me.

and the only reason we see more variation in Space Marines is because GW sells lots and lots of Space Marines, and therefore lavishes attention on them.

Bolded for emphasis.

That's literally my whole point - we see more variation in Space Marines.

Thank you for making my point for me. That's literally all there was. Glad you could finally get there.

Vatsetis wrote:Well I suppose that if the FSM are to have a design space of their own... then there is a need for SOB to be framed as a niche faction akin to the Custodes (which implies a fixed aesthetics)... rather than the female counterpart of adeptus astartes (which would allow more freedom model wise).

I have no idea what you're suggesting here, but I'm entirely on board for both women Astartes and more customisable Sisters. I see no reason why one should come at the expense of the other.

But this isn't about women Astartes, is it?

Do we actually have a good idea of what number of Soriritas exist? Both combatant and overall numbers?

Given the vast majority of the Soritas are directly affiliated with the Orders Majoris and relatively centralised, it seems likely that Sisters on the whole will conform to their defined aesthetic. However, that in no way precludes a huge amount of aesthetic (and cultural) variety in the more isolated Orders Minoris, even if the actual numbers of Sisters in such Orders are relatively small.

I think that allows for an organisation that, on the whole, is more homogenous than Marines and certainly than Guard and PDFs, but still accommodates a great deal of variety in the fringe sufficient to allow whatever player theme they fancy. In other words, both aspects are not contradictory together because they are not absolutes. You see this in Guard and Space Marine fluff too (mostly to justify the limited model lines...): many Guard regiments copy the illustrious Cadians, and many Space Marine Chapters are descended from and/or choose to copy the Ultramarines as the originators of the Codex Astartes.

It is not at all difficult to come up with lore-consistency backstories for the aesthetic of a given Order. You could have an especially puritanical order that eschews the gaudy bling of others (trim off the gubbins on the model). You could have an order that sees artistry as an expression of religion and has a strong theme of covering themselves in illuminated manuscripts- this would perhaps blend well with a more medieval Celtic/Irish style of catholicism. You could have a far-flung order that has chronic supply issues and has negotiated a supply contract with the local forge world, and therefore all their power armour has a completely different style (perhaps a more Byzantine cataphractii style, if keeping to Christian cultures with easily switchable iconography. Armour based on styles elsewhere is entirely doable, just more work to blend with the model range and iconography). An order could be on a permanent pilgrim crusade and therefore have no fixed supply lines, so their armour is a mishmash of repaired and salvaged pieces, supplemented with whatever local patterns of power armour can be purchased through donations and gifts to their mission.

The more they deviate, the more backstory you can use to fill the gap.

Will other Soriritas declare yours heretics? Maybe. Sounds like a great background story to a Sister-vs-Sister mirror match on the tabletop! Some of the Imperium's biggest civil wars were about religious schisms, including the very war that brought the Sisters into prominence under Goge Vandire. Internecine Ecclesiarchical conflicts will happen all the time, so this is absolutely no barrier to creating a unique aesthetic and can add some tension to stories and campaigns involving more "vanilla" Sisters conforming closely to core doctrines.

 Haighus wrote:
Do we actually have a good idea of what number of Soriritas exist? Both combatant and overall numbers?

More than Space Marines, for sure - my guess would be in the several billions, across the galaxy?

Given the vast majority of the Soritas are directly affiliated with the Orders Majoris and relatively centralised, it seems likely that Sisters on the whole will conform to their defined aesthetic. However, that in no way precludes a huge amount of aesthetic (and cultural) variety in the more isolated Orders Minoris, even if the actual numbers of Sisters in such Orders are relatively small.

I think that allows for an organisation that, on the whole, is more homegenous than Marines and certainly than Guard and PDFs, but still accommodates a great deal of variety in the fringe sufficient to allow whatever player theme they fancy.

That's the general vibe I have too. Sisters definitely should have freedom to be customised, and there's enough Sisters out there in the galaxy that it wouldn't be particularly egregious to have lots of non-standard Sororitas out there, but also that, more often, they are more aesthetically homogenous, in the same way that *most* Space Marines follow the Codex Astartes. However, that doesn't prevent players from picking and choosing what works for their own little toy soldiers.

Also, in terms of ease of creating a new aesthetic for a given person's Sisters, I do think it will generally be easier to take themes from other real-world Christian aesthetics- like the aforementioned Ethiopian branch of Christianity, or Coptics, Orthodox, various Protestant groups, local flavours of Catholicism etc- and adapt the GW models accordingly.

Mainly because real life has already gone to the trouble of blending the iconography and trappings with pre-existing local cultures

As Christian missionaries tried their hand just about everywhere, there is a pretty broad range of aesthetics to start with.

I'm still disappointed they haven't taken advantage of the Great Rift yet. Seeing an alternate Imperium that arose after being split from Terra and the Eccleisarchy there diverging from Terra's version would be neat.
It would be like the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

I'm excited for the Dawn of Fire series where we definitely get onto the other side of the Rift eventually. Spear of the Emperor gives a cursory glance at how an Astartes Chapter might operate, i.e. using Navy vessels in the fleet even though its technically illegal.
The kind of conflict I want to see is between a group of Imperials who flat out refuse to expand their domain and Guilliman/Custodes who are ordering them to disperse their forces.

I was excited for it too, until I read it. It's better left unread and unpurchased. Until GW gets some idea of where it's lore is going, I'm sick of reading new lore that trips over if not completely breaks established lore. DoF series might as well be a return to GoTo's Backflipping Terminators with Lasguns.

Also, +1 to Smudge is a force for good in these forums, and is generally a font of wisdom in these discussions. They are arguing for GW to promote MORE customization, which they have had an extremely difficult time of in the last 3 editions. Look on all the how to paint videos. They are how to paint the models on the cover. GW doesn't promote kitbashing, customization of their core models, or diversity in their models. Because that doesn't generate the profit machine to go chug chug.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I was excited for it too, until I read it. It's better left unread and unpurchased. Until GW gets some idea of where it's lore is going, I'm sick of reading new lore that trips over if not completely breaks established lore. DoF series might as well be a return to GoTo's Backflipping Terminators with Lasguns.

How so?
There's been 2 books and neither have trampled any sort of previous background I have seen.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I was excited for it too, until I read it. It's better left unread and unpurchased. Until GW gets some idea of where it's lore is going, I'm sick of reading new lore that trips over if not completely breaks established lore. DoF series might as well be a return to GoTo's Backflipping Terminators with Lasguns.

Also, +1 to Smudge is a force for good in these forums, and is generally a font of wisdom in these discussions. He's arguing for GW to promote MORE customization, which they have had an extremely difficult time of in the last 3 editions. Look on all the how to paint videos. They are how to paint the models on the cover. GW doesn't promote kitbashing, customization of their core models, or diversity in their models. Because that doesn't generate the profit machine to go chug chug.

Aye, I noticed that too. I remember how on the website and rule books there used to be hobbying articles. How to convert, how to make terrain, how to paint, alternate army lists to represent more esoteric forces.
They don't have those nowdays, nowadays it's "buy this" and "paint your dudes to look like this company approved denomination"
Oh sure, they don't outright forbid you from converting or painting how you want, but they don't encourage it as much as they used to anymore outside the odd token showcase of someone's army.
I think that's a pity.

I mean there's a consistent feature in WD (Galactic Warzones) that showcases conversions. Index Astartes features conversions all the time. Whenever guest armies are shown on WarCom they usually feature heavy conversions. Tale of 4 Warlords often has lots of converted stuff. Chris Peach is basically the GW Converted Model presenter on Warhammer TV and most other presenters do it as well, Nick Bayton's Primaris Terminators or Ben Bailey's Jade Paladins for example.
Just because it isn't in primary marketing (which it hasn't been for a very very very long time) doesn't mean it isn't there.

The most notable examples of any kind of GW "promoted" customisation (emphasis on promoted, as in, GW actively showcasing and revealing custom schemes, and how to fully customise your own models, not just showcasing creations from other hobbyists) I'd have to say come from the Astra Militarum Codex and White Dwarf multi-part series for the Tome Keepers Chapter.

In the case of the Militarum, GW readily show kitbashes and how these could be widely applied across an army for a unique custom look. In the case of the Tome Keepers, GW showcase model customisation, homebrew lore, bespoke rules, and conversion of not just the army, but of individual characters within the Tome Keepers roster.

As I said - it's not that Sisters can't be customised, or that they shouldn't be, but that they aren't afforded the same treatment that Guardsmen and Space Marines have both historically had. That's the main point that I'm making here.

I'm so wrong, I just realized I mis-labeled you smudge and I wanted to publicly call it out. I will edit it now, and I apologize.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
?

Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Smudge isn't saying "There should be no variance in SoB!"

They're saying that, as presented, there isn't much variance from GW. Is that incorrect?

Not really, no. Here is an excerpt from their first post in the thread:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In as much diversity as the Ecclesiarchy allow them to have. The issue is that Sisters are much more centrally organised than Space Marines, who are diverse by virtue of being able to rule their own independent fiefdoms, and less numerous than Guardsmen, who are diverse because trying to create some unified single type of Guardsman is both logistically and culturally nightmarish.

Sisters are much more closely tied to the Ecclesiarchy and to their major convents and holy sites - they exist because of the Ecclesiarchy, not the other way around, and therefore are very closely tied to the decrees and edicts that it presents. As a result, they are less likely to have that same free reign that many other Imperial organisations have (such as the Space Marines, Guardsmen, Knights, AdMech, and Inquisition).

From an aesthetic design perspective too, Sisters are very limited in their options as well.

Not to mention seemingly to argue that Space Marines are somehow more varied than Guard, which is canonically obviously false.

Where in my first post do I say that Sisters absolutely shouldn't be customised? I said that they have as much freedom as the Ecclesiarchy allows for - the same can be said of Guardsmen and Space Marines.

Oh yeah, and what happened to the *rest* of my post, which you blatantly refused to quote? Here, let me repost it here, in case it slipped your mind:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Their designs are much more ornate, their details less conducive to the easy modification and variety that Space Marines have been afforded. Sisters are very strongly (and consistently) drawn from specifically European Catholicism and Medieval/Renaissance trappings - unlike the variety of "holy warrior" traditions that Space Marines find themselves drawn from - therefore, drawing from other branches of Catholicism isn't what we see GW doing with their specific design cues for the Sororitas. Even *if* the Sisters' lore was more conducive to them being decentralised and being able to create radically different religious and cultural identities, their model range and GW's aesthetic design for them has not supported this, in the same way that Necrons are strongly linked specifically to Egyptian designs and cultural coding. Maybe you *could* create a Necron dynasty which more closely reflects the culture of, say, feudal Europe, but aesthetically, their design does not reflect this, and therefore are not inherently as diverse a faction as Space Marines or Guardsmen. This isn't to say that creativity is impossible, but that it is simply not as promoted in certain factions as it is in others, and you would be actively fighting against the factional aesthetic design established if you were to deviate too far from that core design.


TL;DR - due to how they are described as a faction, and how GW treats them on a design standpoint, Sisters are not as conducive to player creativity as certain other factions.


EDIT: Oh, and in regard to ethnicity? There is no reason in the first place that any Imperial faction would be mono-ethnic. GW definitely don't present Sisters as mono-ethnic.

In case you're put off by all that text, I've emphasised the points that I make where I make clear that Sisters should be more creativly free, but that GW don't present it as such.

Seriously, if you're going to claim to reference my first post in this topic, actually reference the whole first post.

There isn't a good reason to believe that Sisters are somehow more restricted than Space Marines in terms of appearance or doctrine

Great - so show it to me.

and the only reason we see more variation in Space Marines is because GW sells lots and lots of Space Marines, and therefore lavishes attention on them.

Bolded for emphasis.

That's literally my whole point - we see more variation in Space Marines.

Thank you for making my point for me. That's literally all there was. Glad you could finally get there.

Saying they sky is blue doesn't absolve any culpability for claiming trees are purple. You've tried to make a lore centric argument (the actual topic of the thread) that SOBs will have less variety than Space Marines. I've just pointed out that's not necessarily true, and provided an actual quote to back it up.

You could make a completely equivalent quote about Space Marine variety in regards to codex adherence, roughly that "The vast majority of chapters are heavily codex adherent, but there are some that are less so."

If you can bring some actual research to the table, like a quote from a recent publication that overwrites my 3rd ed book, please provide it. So far you haven't provided much beyond the absurd claim that because specific models dont exist they must not exist in the lore.

If your source for diversity is a book almost older than I am, and you’ve nothing else to back it up, your point is not a strong one.

You’re asking Smudge to prove a negative-a notoriously difficult task. Whereas all you need to do is provide some more up to date examples. Just one or two would do.

I mean, SoB have novels, right? Can you find some “model” diversity there? Or in their current codex? Or anywhere that’s not close to two decades old?