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.

I leave for a couple hours and you guys make 2 pages of crazyness. I'm giving up.

Basically, I'm arguing that if you want to revitalize the Sisters/Ecclesiarchy, you need to make a codex that gets people to think "DAMN, I want to buy THAT!"

Well then that tells you something about the army's concept, and why it probably hasn't been that big of a draw to begin with.

Without them pulling a ton of things out of their ass, it's just not that interesting outside of the Zealotry theme.

And by the by?
Valkyries are by no means new(and it's debatable that the Vendetta is, given that the effectiveness of it was easily mimicked by the earlier incarnation's ability to take heavy weaponry--or the fact that it's essentially a knockoff of the Vulture), nor are the vast majority of the things added to the Guard list. The only really new thing I can think of is the Eradicator, the Punisher, the Vendetta, and the Bane Wolf/Devil Dog.

As for choice? Guard lost a ton of choice. I can no longer field my all Stormtrooper army because of it. I can no longer have Heavy Weapons Platoons in lieu of tanks either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Last part was @ Melissia's earlier post.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Nope. What I did was claim that your invented units do not match the core concept. (You got it backwards.)

Which, itself, is a laughably false claim, but I won't argue it here. That discussion belongs in a different thread (And you can try to argue that there if you really want).

Lol, suit yourself.

Melissa wrote:If you aren't creating a fifth edition codex, you aren't doing a good job re-establishing the army, because quite frankly it just wouldn't fit in with the rest of hte codices.

You don't seem to understand the point of this discussion. I'm not asking for advice on creating a fandex or review of that dex. I'm dealing in big picture stuff, explicitly staying away from starting with a complete dex. What's the point of me writing a dex? I personally would never play a fandex or play against one. This is about what GW should do. Not what I would do if I was GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I leave for a couple hours and you guys make 2 pages of crazyness. I'm giving up.

Ha, this is how I felt reading your posts form earlier.

The Valkyrie wasn't in third edition C:IG.

Slarg232 wrote:

pretre wrote:I think it's the first time in weeks we haven't been trying to cut each other.

DAMN YOU! You see what you did, saying that?

I leave for a couple hours and you guys make 2 pages of crazyness. I'm giving up.

See what you did, heretic?

But it was in Volume One of Imperial Armour as an option for C:IG armies.

It's been canon since at least 2003.

Necrosis wrote:Try reading nightbringer.

Finally bought it last weekend, along with Redemption Corps. Can't decide what to read first.

Redemption Corps.

Graham McNeil is a shoddy writer.

Nightbringer, Redemption Corps is a book that doesn't follow the fluff.

Negative.

"Redemption Corps" was written as current background material.

There's a reason they're having a lot of their authors go back and rewrite their earlier stuff. Abnett's had to do it for some of the Gaunt's Ghosts stuff(specifically "The Founding" omnibus had some issues where the Iron Warriors Terminator was using a weapon option that no longer exists for them).

Kanluwen wrote:Redemption Corps.

Graham McNeil is a shoddy writer.

Oh haha, I made another mistake confusing Night Bringer with Soul Hunter. McNeill is awful.

Kanluwen wrote:Negative.

"Redemption Corps" was written ascurrent background material.

There's a reason they're having a lot of their authors go back and rewrite their earlier stuff. Abnett's had to do it for some of the Gaunt's Ghosts stuff(specifically "The Founding" omnibus had some issues where the Iron Warriors Terminator was using a weapon option that no longer exists for them).

Where going to have to agree to disagree.

Not really.

Things being currently written and released take precedence in terms of validity over things published in past editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Redemption Corps.

Graham McNeil is a shoddy writer.

Oh haha, I made another mistake confusing Night Bringer with Soul Hunter. McNeill is awful.

If it's a choice between Redemption Corps and Soul Hunter?

Soul Hunter. For sure. It's not often you actually root for a servant over an Astartes.

Kanluwen wrote:
If it's a choice between Redemption Corps and Soul Hunter?

Soul Hunter. For sure. It's not often you actually root for a servant over an Astartes.

God, you won't even agree to disagree?
If I read a novel that says 100 grey knights fell to chaos am I going to accept it as fluff. Hell no.
Books are written from a certain perspective. GW wrote two books at the same time about the same battle but from different perspectives.
The result was the two books clearly contradicted each other. Hence why BL isn't considered fluff.

Kanluwen wrote:But it was in Volume One of Imperial Armour as an option for C:IG armies.

And? It wasn't in 3rd edition C:IG, and so quite a few people never knew about it, nevermind used it, until fifth edition C:IG. It is now an official choice that everyone knows about just by opening up the army book. Therefor it has been added in. The only reason I can get people to agree to using Imperial Armour Rhinos is because I have a printed FAQ anyone can look up for free, and the change most people agree are both necessary and balanced.

Manchu wrote:This is about what GW should do. Not what I would do if I was GW.

What I think GW should do with the Sisters is not all that different from what I would do if I were GW. But then, I believe the Sisters need more "press" (IE, a new BL book that actually puts them in a positive light for once, for example, as well as at least SOME presence in the month to month White Dwarf articles-- currently Sisters have a presence in three of the monthly magazines over the course of around two decades, which is less than one percent), more fluff, more units, more paint schemes. and so on. I think GW should do this, and I would want to do it if I were GW, to both drum up support for the army and to try and get more people into it. Making the image of the Sisters more broadly appealing while still allowing for a religious freakshow army can easily be done in a fifth edition codex with how many choices there are in said codices, and would go a LONG way to revitalizing the army and ensuring that GW sells its models.

Melissia wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But it was in Volume One of Imperial Armour as an option for C:IG armies.

And? It wasn't in 3rd edition C:IG, and so quite a few people never knew about it, nevermind used it, until fifth edition C:IG. It is now an official choice that everyone knows about just by opening up the army book. Therefor it has been added in. The only reason I can get people to agree to using Imperial Armour Rhinos is because I have a printed FAQ anyone can look up for free, and the change most people agree are both necessary and balanced.

Bullhonky. Valkyries were in the first 4 Imperial Armour books, including the Inquisition & Space Marine one(as an option for Inquisitorial Stormtroopers and Inquisitors) and then even in the Dawn of War games at the same time.

The only reason people didn't readily agree to play against it was the perception of being overpowered that was brought about by the fact that operated as an aircraft rather than a skimmer, along with the reason most people didn't take it due to it being a Forge World priced model that was a huge chunk of resin that was overcosted.

Thank you for adding even more credence to my point

Melissia wrote:Thank you for adding even more credence to my point

I really dislike it when people say this. Please explain how this make your point better instead of just saying that it does.
Or else it seems your running out of ideas/points to argue.

Change that to "running out of desire" and you'd be right... The thread's gone on for sixteen pages, and I was in quite a few of those pages...

Melissia wrote:But then, I believe the Sisters need more "press" (IE, a new BL book that actually puts them in a positive light for once, for example, as well as at least SOME presence in the month to month White Dwarf articles-- currently Sisters have a presence in three of the monthly magazines over the course of around two decades, which is less than one percent), more fluff, more units, more paint schemes. and so on. I think GW should do this, and I would want to do it if I were GW, to both drum up support for the army and to try and get more people into it. Making the image of the Sisters more broadly appealing while still allowing for a religious freakshow army can easily be done in a fifth edition codex with how many choices there are in said codices, and would go a LONG way to revitalizing the army and ensuring that GW sells its models.

We agree on everything in this paragraph (with the possible exception of more paint schemes).

Melissia wrote:Change that to "running out of desire" and you'd be right... The thread's gone on for sixteen pages, and I was in quite a few of those pages...

One can rest when one is dead.

I'm fairly certain there's a book called "Faith and Fire" coming out late next year that's being written by Sandy Mitchell exclusively focusing on the Sisters of Battle.

So I sincerely doubt it won't be "putting them in a positive light".

Necrosis wrote:

Melissia wrote:Change that to "running out of desire" and you'd be right... The thread's gone on for sixteen pages, and I was in quite a few of those pages...

One can rest when one is dead.

I murdered thousands for the Emperor and he gave me nothing but his damning silence. Now his lapdogs yap for every life I take, while the Gods promise me the Galaxy.

Join Chaos, and the Dark Sisterhood.

Another Faith & Fire???

Manchu wrote:Another Faith & Fire???

Was there already one?

I just remember him stating that he's working on a Sisters of Battle book recently.

Faith and Fire was written by James Swallow back in 2006. It was just about the only book that tried to make Sisters into protagonists or at least somewhat heroic. Not perfect, but it's good.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm fairly certain there's a book called "Faith and Fire" coming out late next year that's being written by Sandy Mitchell exclusively focusing on the Sisters of Battle.

So I sincerely doubt it won't be "putting them in a positive light".

Faith and Fire is already out. Been out for a while. It's a scooby doo story.

@Slarg232

But the Emperor gives us rending bolters and 3+ invu saves and living saints.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:Another Faith & Fire???

Was there already one?

I just remember him stating that he's working on a Sisters of Battle book recently.

It's the prequel to Faith and Fire.

Well. Interesting development time then.

Swallow did "Faith and Fire", and Mitchell's doing a SOB book.

Interesting.

Faith&Fire good? It's tolerable because it's almost all we got. I feel like even that book suffered from the Sisters being watered down.