Do Sisters have spaceships? I'm so confused...

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.

**Lynata**

Oh yes. A pity it could be somewhat awkward for my phone to yell "Death to the Heretics!" when I'm in office.

List of unit quotes

**Melissia**

Psienesis wrote:
Man... can you imagine flying into a cloud of flaming gasoline in space? Do starships even have windshield wipers?

They would have to, to be of any use in areas like Nebulae.

**Psienesis**

When they stop to take on supplies, do random Xenos come up and knock on the view-screen, squeegee in hand?

**Pendix**

Lynata wrote:

Plus, I still like the idea of lasgun-wielding novices.

Dam it. Now I want to make some novice models for my SoB army. I think I've seen that design for a Novice's outfit before, do you know where it comes from originally.?

Exergy wrote:

The Ecclesiachy doesnt get along too well with Mars(I mean sure it is all one big happy family, but the way the Techpriests worship big E is kind of indirect and definitly not through the Ecclesiachy)

While they must certainly have theological differences, they must have a good 'economic' relationship. The Ecclesiachy is obseenly wealthy, and they have to get the (obiviously expensive) tech used by the SoBs from somewhere. I suspect that the Ecclesiachy maintains relationships with certin Forgeworlds that are standoffish but still involve a massive exchange of money for power-armour, bolters, rinos, multi-meltas, jump-packs (maintance servitors) etc. As other's have speculated; the SoB probably have internal maintance staff, but they wouldn't build their own tech, and would periodically have to replace equipment with new versions, purchased, wholesale, from the Mechanium.

**Troike**

Pendix wrote:
Dam it. Now I want to make some novice models for my SoB army.

Yeah, I've also been tempted to model some IG as Novices at some point. Whilst it would be a lot of fun to do the conversions for them, the problem is that the fluff seems to say that Novices wouldn't be properly deployed to a warzone like their SoB comrades would, and that would bother me. Damn my adherence to the fluff.

**SisterSydney**

You could always say the Novices were in the field as a desperate measure -- and there are plenty of desperate measures in the 40K grimdarkverse, all the time. It wouldn't have to be defending the convent: it could be an "all hands on deck" dash to defend a shrineworld or any number of things.

Also, we're getting gloriously off topic. Anyone want to spin off a new thread on novices or technical distinctions among types of tanks -- dammit, now I'm doing it -- types of armored vehicles? We can keep this thread going for Sisters' aerospacecraft & the requisite logistical, procurement, and relationships with the other Imperial organizations from the Navy to the Adeptus Mechanicus.

**Lynata**

Pendix wrote:Dam it. Now I want to make some novice models for my SoB army. I think I've seen that design for a Novice's outfit before, do you know where it comes from originally.?

Glad you like it! I confess, that originally came from one of my crappy sketches. Since I'm no longer finding the time to further develop my own artistic skills, but still enjoy designing stuff, I occasionally commission proper artists to work from my sketches.

In case of the novice design, however, I know of at least one case where someone picked it up without me paying them to do so. Makes me happy to see that it has found people who like it that much.

Pendix wrote:While they must certainly have theological differences, they must have a good 'economic' relationship.

Undoubtedly. It's an interesting back and forth with one faction occasionally trolling the other over details. The background on the Immolator tank in the 2nd Edition Codex SoB goes a little into detail regarding this subject:

"Securing their find, the Missionary in charge, Morben the Devout, negotiated a deal with the adepts of the Cult Mechanicus. In return for the material support of Mars, the Ministorum would turn over the factory to the Fabricator General's investigators. In addition, the Ministorum laid exclusive claim to any new technologies that were discovered by the Adeptus Mechanicus.
This contract has proved invaluable to the Adeptus Ministorum over the millennia, providing them with supplies of weaponry and allowing them to arm and armour the Adepta Sororitas to the highest standards. The only new designs to be culled from the ancient factory were some half-complete files detailing a flame-thrower tank. These were modified with existing Imperial technology to produce the Immolator now used by the Adepta Sororitas. Later on, the Adeptus Mechanicus also developed the more sophisticated Imperial Guard Hellhound from its finds, but the source of its design has been kept secret from the Ecclesiarchy."

SisterSydney wrote:You could always say the Novices were in the field as a desperate measure

Or a "rite of passage / trial by fire" kind of thing.

SisterSydney wrote:Anyone want to spin off a new thread on novices or technical distinctions among types of tanks -- dammit, now I'm doing it -- types of armored vehicles? We can keep this thread going for Sisters' aerospacecraft & the requisite logistical, procurement, and relationships with the other Imperial organizations from the Navy to the Adeptus Mechanicus.

Oh, I think we're pretty much all in agreement regarding t-.. armoured vehicles.

Sometimes I wish dakka had army-specific subforums, though!

**Pendix**

Lynata wrote:
Glad you like it! I confess, that originally came from one of my crappy sketches. Since I'm no longer finding the time to further develop my own artistic skills, but still enjoy designing stuff, I occasionally commission proper artists to work from my sketches.

In case of the novice design, however, I know of at least one case where someone picked it up without me paying them to do so. Makes me happy to see that it has found people who like it that much.

Ah HA! yes, that is totally where I've seen it before. Man, I must have had that sketch kicking around in my '40k art' folder for, well, a long time. It's nice to be able to attach an actual person to the art.

SisterSydney wrote:
Also, we're getting gloriously off topic. Anyone want to spin off a new thread on novices or technical distinctions among types of tanks -- dammit, now I'm doing it -- types of armored vehicles? We can keep this thread going for Sisters' aerospacecraft & the requisite logistical, procurement, and relationships with the other Imperial organizations from the Navy to the Adeptus Mechanicus.

Maybe we just need an Everything Sisters of Battle Thread? I'd be down with that.

**SisterSydney**

An "everything"thread is going to be a bit.... unfocused. Better to start with a specific question about background, tactics, or a proposed rule (according to forum) and let it go from there.

**Talizvar**

SisterSydney wrote:
Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:

Spoiler:

When I read all your views, I immediately thought of a real life example. I was having dinner with a big group with the CEO of a big engineering firm. One of their divisions was military vehicles: attack helicopters, tanks, etc.
Someone asked something along the lines of, "Oh, I heard you're making TANKS for the United Nations."
Immediately, the CEO said something very much like, "No, we don't. We make Armoured Personnel Carriers for the U.N."
The guy then said something like, "Well...aren't tanks and APCs the same thing?"
The CEO replied, and I only remember some phrases, "No, they're not...the U.N. uses APCs for Police Actions. Tanks are designed for war." It was something like that.
I remember it because it came out so fast, so perfectly, like it was scripted. Apparently, the distinction between APCs and Tanks, Police Actions and war was important. Probably politics involved.

[rant] Actually, it's a big, big deal. Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) are like Rhinos: lightly armed and armored troop transports; real life US examples include the M113 (tracked) and the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (wheeled).
"Tanks" in modern military English refers to tracked, well-armored vehicles with a big gun in a turret -- typically a "main battle tank" like the M1 Abrams or Leopard II, but sometimes you hear talk of "light tanks," though those are largely extinct.
If it's got a powerful main weapon for killing tanks but no turret and/or light armour , it's a tank destroyer. The Germans were famous for heavily armored, turretless tank destroyers in WWII (Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger), while the Americans did lightly armored tank destroyers that DID have turrets (e.g. M10, M36). The key point is these vehicles lack either the armor protection, tactical flexibility of a turret, or both that you need to compete with actual tanks, so they have to fight from defensive positions or with a lot of support.
If it's got a powerful weapon for long-range artillery fire, but light armor, it's a or self-propelled artillery gun (SPG); nowadays these mostly have turrets (M109 Paladin) but historically many had a fixed weapon or even a gun mounted on top with the crew exposed (M110).
Finally, in between APCs and MBTS are IFVs, infantry fighting vehicles, which can carry infantry but also have considerable firepower of their own, albeit less than tanks (M2 Bradley).
Sadly, there's no one-word term in English for all these things, though WH40K calls them all "tanks." The best you get is "armored fighting vehicle" (AFV).[/rant]

My historical war gaming background just got all excited about this rant (and my "so wrong" military hardware fascination).

It is all about the right tool in the right place (that is not sounding quite right...) and this "rock paper scissors" of different hardware.
It is identifying the weakness of each type of unit to exploit in order to carry the day.
Nothing quite as gratifying as deep-striking and taking out the big guns (why is all this sounding so wrong to me???).

Anyway, cold shower and time to read a thesaurus and I will come back to this topic.

**BaronIveagh**

SisterSydney wrote:
but sometimes you hear talk of "light tanks," though those are largely extinct.

My AMX 13 and the Russian Sprut would like to have a word with you.

(Point of fact, even the Stuart is still used by some countries, but most of them are so radically overhauled you'd never know it was an M5 under all that hardware)

That said, the Stryker MGS is nice, but it's no tank.

You also have tankettes which were even lighter than light tanks. The only current one is the Wiesel.

**Melissia**

No one uses sponson turrets anymore either, but the Imperium uses them. Not everything the Imperium does makes sense to modern sensibilities. Sometimes, it's just because it's cool, other times it's because it makes sense from their perspective but not ours, other times, it's a practical consideration given a different tactical reality.

**BaronIveagh**

Melissia wrote:
No one uses sponson turrets anymore either, but the Imperium uses them. Not everything the Imperium does makes sense to modern sensibilities. Sometimes, it's just because it's cool, other times it's because it makes sense from their perspective but not ours, other times, it's a practical consideration given a different tactical reality.

I might point out the only reason the Imperium uses them is that GW only had the rights to a WW1 tank mini. If they'd had, say, a Patton, the Imperium wouldn't use them either,

**Melissia**

Which is irrelevant because they have them.

**Grey Templar**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Melissia wrote:
No one uses sponson turrets anymore either, but the Imperium uses them. Not everything the Imperium does makes sense to modern sensibilities. Sometimes, it's just because it's cool, other times it's because it makes sense from their perspective but not ours, other times, it's a practical consideration given a different tactical reality.

I might point out the only reason the Imperium uses them is that GW only had the rights to a WW1 tank mini. If they'd had, say, a Patton, the Imperium wouldn't use them either,

You can't patten historical or IRL mini design. they could have easily chosen the cold war as their design base.

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:

You can't patten historical or IRL mini design. they could have easily chosen the cold war as their design base.

Yes and no. You can't sue someone for, say, making the Battleship Yamato, but they can't rip off your version of the model.

**Grey Templar**

I imagine it would be almost impossible to point out what exactly makes your historical model special unless you have made an explicit historical deviation.

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:
I imagine it would be almost impossible to point out what exactly makes your historical model special unless you have made an explicit historical deviation.

, no, what they do is show how the model goes together and what it looks like unassembled. There's also the degree of detail, etc. I dunno if you ever noticed this, but very few model kits even of the same tank are actually identical.

**Psienesis**

If you base an original design on something that existed in real life... say, you were inspired to make a Reman Luss main battle tank based on some WW2 super-tank... you can most certainly get a copyright on the design of your new model.

You can't copyright the original design (unless you already owned it) but derivative works are open to copyright and patents.

**SisterSydney**

I think the issue for GW was having to pay to design a new model (whatever tank it was of) and set up manufacturing -- far easier just to keep pumping out something they already had the rights & production facilities for.