Chaos Sisters of Battle

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.

**AlexHolker**

focusedfire wrote:@Alex-Just wanted to say that your above post kinda comes across as if you take the fluff seriously and possibly a bit too literally. Not trying to start anything, just stating how it came across to me.

I'd, also, like to point out that the back story is a work of fiction in which nothing is permanent or truly cannon. This is because GW changes this back story whenever it suits their sales need.

I enjoy talking about such things. It's unimportant in everyday life, but within the context of a discussion about whether or not a Sister of Battle would fall to Nurgle, I am going to take the fluff seriously.

And while it is a work of fiction, there are some parts of the canon that Games Workshop is never going to change. Horus will never not have betrayed the Emperor, Kharne is never going to be a pacifist, and the Sisters of Battle are never going to stop being Joans of Arc IN SPACE.

**BloodQuest**

AlexHolker wrote:Horus will never not have betrayed the Emperor

Actually, as it turns out, it was all a bit of a misunderstanding really...

**focusedfire**

AlexHolker wrote:I enjoy talking about such things. It's unimportant in everyday life, but within the context of a discussion about whether or not a Sister of Battle would fall to Nurgle, I am going to take the fluff seriously.

And while it is a work of fiction, there are some parts of the canon that Games Workshop is never going to change. Horus will never not have betrayed the Emperor, Kharne is never going to be a pacifist, and the Sisters of Battle are never going to stop being Joans of Arc IN SPACE.

1) Never is a long-time, but I'll agree to point in that before GW made such a drastic change they would most likely just write the chatacter out of their history. Then again GW might run a redemption story on one of them while letting another hero fall. Gw has done crazier things.

2) While a Horus and Kharne might never change, It would only be due to how central they are to the back story and that they are individuals. While a few individals are thus protected, the various factions of the Imperium can not make such a claim and Sisters are no more important than any other faction in this regard. Look at the changes made to the SMs over the years. I believe one of the first pictures of a SM was a BT and now they are a second founding. Ultras went from almost destroyed to the largest chapter. SW 13th company has gone from heros on a mission lead by Russ to a possible choas faction.

3)Yes, Jeanne d'Arc- A living Saint that was manipulated to her undoing by the ruinous powers of politics.

Now I agree that it only would be one or two isolated individuals, but they wouldn't just run away. They would go back to the convent, receive the rewards for surviving and wait until they had a mission leading other, less experienced, Sisters on a remote mission where they could corrupt a few of them.
It is not hard to see how this could lead to the fall of a lesser sisterhood.

Now, I've got a feeling that the Sisters next codex is going to give the SoBs the separation from the Inquistion that many of their fans have hoped for, but the changes to the backstory will cause more nerd rage than all of the nipple armour ever created. Why? It is what GW does. So far, every 5th ed codex has had such background changes. I don't believe it will stop just for the sisters. As such, while there may be a few sacred cows in 40K, the sisters are not one of them.

**Vene**

AlexHolker wrote:
Vene wrote:Torture? No, he's giving her presents, lots of them, presents that he worked very, very hard on.

You joke, but there's a reason I called Nurgle an abusive husband earlier. His actions are completely without merit, no matter what his in-universe apologists say.

What do you expect from the god fueled by despair? He's what happens when people crack.

**Emperors Faithful**

I would be interested to see these Chaos Sister rules. Acts of Faith from the Chaos Gods?

@focus:
1) It can happen.

2) That's still part of Ultra fluff. GW still states that Maccrage devestated the Ultramarine chapter, but several centuries later they have now recovered.

3) Possibly a single squad led by a corrupted Celestian, but there's little in canon to suggest that an entire convent would fall so easily.

What happened to Guard in 5th?

**SaintHazard**

Kroothawk wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:Black Library is just as canon as that codex you love so much, Melissia. As much as it may hurt to recognize it, it's the truth.

There is some standard quote on that, that all BL books are canon only in the sense that there is someone in the 40k universe telling this story, which must not necessarily be true.
And take any Goto novel and you know that not everything written by BL makes sense or can be right in the 40k universe. Bad editing led to this situation. But even Abnett takes his freedoms.

PC games are even less trustworthy, as by game mechanics they must provide multiple endings for their campaigns that can't all be true.

Canon is determined by the people who own the IP.

GW owns the 40k IP and the company that publishes the novels.

GW says the novels are canon.

That's good enough for me.

See, 40k has the disadvantage of being ambiguous enough about what is and is not canon that fans often get confused. Lines have to be drawn.

For example, if someone writes a Star Trek TV series or novel, Paramount can say, "This is canon," or, "This is not canon." It's done entirely on a case-by-case basis, and only a few sources other than TV series produced by Paramount can be claimed as canon in the Star Trek universe.

On the other hand, Games Workshop has simply made generalized statements about what is and is not canon - and they have to, since there are far too many sources published to call each one "canon" or "not canon" individually. Black Library publishings are on the list of "canon," as are any video games with Games Workshop's logo attached to them.

**Melissia**

SaintHazard: You said it was good enough for you. But it isn't for me.

focusedfire wrote:@Alex-Just wanted to say that your above post kinda comes across as if you take the fluff seriously

So what, you expect everyone to be just like you, to take the fluff as if it's a piece of trash to be kicked around, pointed at and laughed at?

**SaintHazard**

So then please tell us, Melissia - show us the truth and let us be enlightened - what defines canon for you, if not the words of the creators?

If a writer writes a novel, can you simply omit a chapter of the novel, as if it never existed, simply because it doesn't agree with your idea of what that novel should be?

If a painter paints a portrait, can you simply omit the hands, because they don't look feminine enough for you?

If a blacksmith forges a suit of armor, can you simply omit the breastplate because it doesn't have enough rivets?

**Melissia**

SaintHazard wrote:So then please tell us, Melissia - show us the truth and let us be enlightened - what defines canon for you, if not the words of the creators?

You work under a false dichotomy. I never said there was "canon or not canon". I would say there's varying levels of canon. Or are you going to claim that C.S.Goto's work is equivalent to Andy Hoare, Jervis Johnson, and Matt Ward?

**SilverMK2**

SaintHazard wrote:If a blacksmith forges a suit of armor, can you simply omit the breastplate because it doesn't have enough rivets?

Well, you can in 40K...

**SaintHazard**

Melissia wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:So then please tell us, Melissia - show us the truth and let us be enlightened - what defines canon for you, if not the words of the creators?
You work under a false dichotomy. I never said there was "canon or not canon". I would say there's varying levels of canon. Or are you going to claim that C.S.Goto's work is equivalent to Andy Hoare, Jervis Johnson, and Matt Ward?

In quality? No.

In authenticity and canon? Yes.

**Haddi**

BloodQuest wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:Horus will never not have betrayed the Emperor

Actually, as it turns out, it was all a bit of a misunderstanding really...

Pfah, everyone knows it was Proud Sanguinius who slew the Emperor. It was actually the Emperor who first reached Horus, but his mere presence brought Horus back to the light. Sanguinius, tainted easily (As proven by his hideous mutations) both slew Horus and fatally injured the Emperor in a fit of Chaos-Fueled rage. The Emperor mererly elected to keep this secret, and the Death Companies "Visions of the Battle" drive them to a guilt-filled rage, not a homicidal one. That is why they paint themselves Black and throw themselves into combat, renouncing the colors of their Chapter, and hoping to die serving the Emperor. The Red Thirst is Sanguinius, who took place as a Daemon Prince for his success, psychically attacking his sons, driving them ever closer to Chaos. The surge of fallen Blood Angels is him growing in power, preparing to come back, claim his chapter for Slaanesh, and finish the job he started. That's also why Chaos endeavored to kill the clones of Horus, for they were not clones of the Disgusting Monster-Primarch who slew the emperor, but clones of a milksop weakling who betrayed the Gods in the end!

**Melissia**

Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree or this will continue ad infinitum.

**SaintHazard**

Haddi, you might enjoy my post in the "Blood Angels serving Chaos" thread.

**KingDeath**

Melissia wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:So then please tell us, Melissia - show us the truth and let us be enlightened - what defines canon for you, if not the words of the creators?
You work under a false dichotomy. I never said there was "canon or not canon". I would say there's varying levels of canon. Or are you going to claim that C.S.Goto's work is equivalent to Andy Hoare, Jervis Johnson, and Matt Ward?

There is no such thing as a C.S. Goto. Continuing to mention a C.S. Goto will make chaptermaster Kyras angry. Do you want him angry?

**Terminus**

For whatever it's worth, there were Slaaneshi Sisters of Battle in Daemonifuge.

**SaintHazard**

Terminus wrote:For whatever it's worth, there were Slaaneshi Sisters of Battle in Daemonifuge.

Dude!

Don't say that again, you'll stir Melissia up into an anti-canon fervor a third time!

Do you really want that?

**Terminus**

Yes! It's cold in here and I need some fire!

**Haddi**

SaintHazard wrote:Haddi, you might enjoy my post in the "Blood Angels serving Chaos" thread.

...

Go on...

(As in, post link...)

**Terminus**

Melissia wrote:You work under a false dichotomy. I never said there was "canon or not canon". I would say there's varying levels of canon. Or are you going to claim that C.S.Goto's work is equivalent to Andy Hoare, Jervis Johnson, and Matt Ward?

Yeah, C.S. Goto and Ward are equally terrible at writing fluff. Jervis' rules are as bad as Goto's fictions.

**SaintHazard**

Haddi wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:Haddi, you might enjoy my post in the "Blood Angels serving Chaos" thread.

...

Go on...

(As in, post link...)

It's right over here.

**The Dizzler**

AlexHolker wrote:What happens if you find a square circle? Not only does the concept of a SoB's faith failing in the face of adversity go against the defining feature of the Sisters of Battle and their Joan of Arc origins, it doesn't even make sense. Like I said, her faith is backed up with honest to god miracles. A Sister of Battle who comes to the conclusion that the Emperor does not care about her plight is basically a Flat Earth Atheist.

Even if by some amazing fluke it did happen, it would happen to a single Battle Sister, not whole squads at a time.

First of all, I'm not saying that SoB fall to Chaos every time you turn around. I'm simply suggesting hypothetical situations that could justify the possibility of it happening.

Second, so what if their faith has proof through supposed miracles? They're still not immune to fear, doubt and despair. It just means that if their faith does fail them, it's all the more devastating. If they've seen evidence of the Emperor's divine providence and know he's watching them, why didn't he protect them from that rogue psyker that slaughtered their sisters?

**Melissia**

To answer that in a "fluffy" way:

As said by Saint Sebastian Thor, just as the Emperor is our father and guardian, so too must we guard the Emperor-- for he has sacrificed much for us, and suffers for humanity every day.

IE, the Emperor protects, but so does shooting the enemy in the face. Believe in His protection, but do not rely on it-- the Emperor is all powerful, yet even his unbelievable might must be spread over the vastness of the Imperium, and we humans are but small specks of ember amidst the vast bonfires of each world's population.

**Monster Rain**

The Dizzler wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:What happens if you find a square circle? Not only does the concept of a SoB's faith failing in the face of adversity go against the defining feature of the Sisters of Battle and their Joan of Arc origins, it doesn't even make sense. Like I said, her faith is backed up with honest to god miracles. A Sister of Battle who comes to the conclusion that the Emperor does not care about her plight is basically a Flat Earth Atheist.

Even if by some amazing fluke it did happen, it would happen to a single Battle Sister, not whole squads at a time.

First of all, I'm not saying that SoB fall to Chaos every time you turn around. I'm simply suggesting hypothetical situations that could justify the possibility of it happening.

Second, so what if their faith has proof through supposed miracles? They're still not immune to fear, doubt and despair. It just means that if their faith does fail them, it's all the more devastating. If they've seen evidence of the Emperor's divine providence and know he's watching them, why didn't he protect them from that rogue psyker that slaughtered their sisters?

Agreed.

The majority of the Sisters in the unit might not even realize it was happening right away anyway. The degeneration of the Emperor's Children in Fulgrim is a wonderful example of a large number of the Emperor's servants falling to Slaanesh. Only a few were infected at first, then the taint spread through the entire ship.

**andrewm9**

Terminus wrote:For whatever it's worth, there were Slaaneshi Sisters of Battle in Daemonifuge.

They were not worshipping Slaanesh folks. I've read Daemonifuge and unless I am highly deluded and my reading skills degraded for those moments they did not worship Slaanesh. One sister was controlled by some daemon thing attached to her and she was killed along with it. The Order did not worship Slaanesh either. The Keeper used his powers to breach their Shield of Faith and tricked them into killing each other by fannign their desire for purity as I recall. These same sisters whose souls he tried to consume used their purity and knowledge to help Ephrael Stern and Silas Hand defeat it.

For those of you who think this is canon, the sisters within were flying on an Ecclesiarchy cruiser and went to the surface in drop pod like vehicles. The Ecclesiarchy is expressly forbidden from having its own forces since that would constitute men under arms other than the Sisters. The Sisters were not in charge of the vessel either.

**cadian512**

somthing like this happened in tales of heresy where a siste makes 'dark pacts' to use the warp to tell herself about what going to happen

**Terminus**

andrewm9 wrote:They were not worshipping Slaanesh folks. I've read Daemonifuge and unless I am highly deluded and my reading skills degraded for those moments they did not worship Slaanesh. One sister was controlled by some daemon thing attached to her and she was killed along with it. The Order did not worship Slaanesh either. The Keeper used his powers to breach their Shield of Faith and tricked them into killing each other by fannign their desire for purity as I recall. These same sisters whose souls he tried to consume used their purity and knowledge to help Ephrael Stern and Silas Hand defeat it.

For those of you who think this is canon, the sisters within were flying on an Ecclesiarchy cruiser and went to the surface in drop pod like vehicles. The Ecclesiarchy is expressly forbidden from having its own forces since that would constitute men under arms other than the Sisters. The Sisters were not in charge of the vessel either.

Ah, then I stand corrected. It must have been one of those nuns with guns hentais.

**Kroothawk**

SaintHazard wrote:GW says the novels are canon.
That's good enough for me.

Funny, as Marc Gascoigne, publisher of BL at the time of the quote, says something quite different:

“Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note that answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.“

Sorry that I have proven you wrong, but it is not easy to fool me

**cygnnus**

Melissia wrote:Aside from the fact that it's completely unfluffy? I suggest using e-bay, because GW has had an aneurysm and decided to not sell the ten model box anymore and therefor it will take upwards of sixty bucks to get a single squad from GW (without any special weapons).

Why completely unfluffy? Did you read any of the Daemonifuge series? All of the Emperor's servants are capable of turning to Chaos. That's the root of the threat...

Valete,

JohnS

**SamplesoWoopass**

So, if some of it is and some of it isn't, who is anyone to decide so definitively?