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.

 Fafnir wrote:
Also, John Blanche's artwork is cheesy, dated, bereft of technical skill, and ridiculously overindulgent. I love it, I love Veridyan's original artwork, I love the aesthetic he created for the 40k setting, and I love Veridyan's model. If we got more models like that (not just limited to the Sisters range, even), I'd be in heaven.

Same, for me, (even though I was born long after) Blanche's artwork is 40k. Weirdly back when he had a segment in the old White dwarves a decade ago I hated it, but now I love it.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Looks like GW just blew up any ideas of you know what this summer. Last time Sisters got new models (if only one resin and 3 plastic) they pulled everything, putting a patrol force up on the website of our beloved metal bolter girls to me at least implies we can expect them to be around awhile longer. (No surprise to me.)

With the current political climate being what it is, i would expect a new sisters range sooner than later to dodge the diversity folks. Its happened in comics and it may just happen here. I have zero problems with sista's getting a new range, I think the dark eldar release kinda cooled GW's jets on releasing the lesser popular factions, tbh. And its sad. If I where to ever play vs sisters (which has not happened yet) i would like it to be vs a player who was happy with his range and put passion into it. Bring on the nuns with guns I say.

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Love the skull boobs, love the heels, and I'm loving Veridyan a lot more than Celestine. It's alright to be silly. 40k used to be all about being silly.

Gothic oldschool badass vs. Nu anime winged waifu. Death battle!

It's like I don't know, Bayonetta vs. Supergirl (no offense to fans of Sups). One is something you have never seen anywhere and won't see again, another is a reiteration.

Spoiler:

(Yeah, Dante, but still quire unique for what it is)

Although you probably won't want whole army of fabulous narcissistic overpowered daemon hunting super oooh right they just did Custodes.

How is bayonetta something you've never seen anywhere? She's wearing a catsuit and highheels, that's not exactly a 'rare look' the fact that her outfit is made out of her hair (iirc) doesn't change the fact that she just looks like an even sluttier black widow/female james bond villain/catwoman.

Slutty, especially in gaming, is the most common, cliched look around. It beats out 'muscle-bound' for ubiquity.

Yeah, Bayonetta was made as a parody of the ultra slutty design in female characters, but like many parodies, the original intent can be lost. (Specially in the second game)

 Geifer wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

nateprati wrote:
Why exactly is john blanche's work tasteless?

High heels and skull-breastplate.

I like skull boobs. It's just making use of empty space by filling it with established iconography to signify rank. No different from the more elaborate skull or eagle shoulder pads we occasionally get on Marines, or the chest eagle of what's his name? The Eisenstein dude? Or a fur topped cape. That's just the way the Imperium rolls.

High heels, yeah, Not to my taste, personally, but looking at Blanche artwork he seems to have a thing for high heels. Death Cult Assassins with blade heels spring to mind immediately. I'd prefer if they didn't make it on models in general, but as a homage to his artwork I understand why they do. And to be honest, I'd rather have a faithful homage than a looser interpretation like the Crimson Fists Captain who got a modern plasma pistol instead of his wrist mounted gun.

I dunno, I think skull boobs are more comparable to say the next Space Marine officer being released with a giant codpiece in the shape of a skull than a cape...

Skull Boobs are like Metal Nipples in Blood Angel marines. They are fine for elite and ornated units, HQ's, etc... but not for everyone.

kurhanik wrote:
I dunno, I think skull boobs are more comparable to say the next Space Marine officer being released with a giant codpiece in the shape of a skull than a cape...

In fact, it's even worse, when GW artist went nowhere as far with Agressors and their cod-relics dangling from belts, most of people ridiculed these 'boners'. Despite being nowhere as laughable and attention drawing as Blanche stuff. Double standards, what's that?

I really despise Blanche 40K art. The man can draw - I saw his good pieces. All pictures he did for 40K, though, look utterly amateurish, primitive, always pictured from front or side perfectly, never any variation, all if it looks like it was smeared on canvas by 6 year old kid. Never mind sexualization and dumbness of what was portrayed, it looked horrifically awful from technical side. If that was the face of 'classic' 40K, I'd never jumped aboard, thankfully old GW had much better artists.

I'll say only this, I love Sisters, but I've never considered buying Veridyan. I'd maybe do it if she had helmet option, but as it is, she looks terrible due to Blanchisms, doesn't fit the range at all (just look how out of place she looks at the OP photo, like 3rd party model), has terrible proportions, and is just ugly. Why GW couldn't take art by Kopinski as a base?

Karl Kopisnki is my favourite warhammer artist of all time. What an artist.

 Galas wrote:
Skull Boobs are like Metal Nipples in Blood Angel marines. They are fine for elite and ornated units, HQ's, etc... but not for everyone.

Also, eh, I see this argument a lot and I don't really agree with it. If you don't like BA nipples, all you need is spending zero seconds to scrap them away with knife. Then you're left with plate emphasizing stylized musculature, ergo how strong wearer is. This was actual historical thinking behind several real-life armour sets showing off the wearer's supposed prowess by making him look strong/dangerous. What, on the other hand, the boob plate emphasizes? How good wearer is in bed? Because it sure doesn't point to any sort of battlefield traits. That's, if you will, difference between showing off muscles of a veteran warrior, and showing off tits of porn actress. It's difference between making model naturally attractive vs reducing it to one dimensional object.

Table wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Looks like GW just blew up any ideas of you know what this summer. Last time Sisters got new models (if only one resin and 3 plastic) they pulled everything, putting a patrol force up on the website of our beloved metal bolter girls to me at least implies we can expect them to be around awhile longer. (No surprise to me.)

With the current political climate being what it is, i would expect a new sisters range sooner than later to dodge the diversity folks. Its happened in comics and it may just happen here. I have zero problems with sista's getting a new range, I think the dark eldar release kinda cooled GW's jets on releasing the lesser popular factions, tbh. And its sad. If I where to ever play vs sisters (which has not happened yet) i would like it to be vs a player who was happy with his range and put passion into it. Bring on the nuns with guns I say.

Sooner than the twenty years most of the line has been for sale? Maybe, not this summer.

I have played Sisters since they were released. Love the models, love the aesthetic. Love the index list and CA update. I'm up for a game anytime.

 Irbis wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skull Boobs are like Metal Nipples in Blood Angel marines. They are fine for elite and ornated units, HQ's, etc... but not for everyone.

Also, eh, I see this argument a lot and I don't really agree with it. If you don't like BA nipples, all you need is spending zero seconds to scrap them away with knife. Then you're left with plate emphasizing stylized musculature, ergo how strong wearer is. This was actual historical thinking behind several real-life armour sets showing off the wearer's supposed prowess by making him look strong/dangerous. What, on the other hand, the boob plate emphasizes? How good wearer is in bed? Because it sure doesn't point to any sort of battlefield traits. That's, if you will, difference between showing off muscles of a veteran warrior, and showing off tits of porn actress. It's difference between making model naturally attractive vs reducing it to one dimensional object.

I actually don't like skull boobs or boob plate in general, I have seen some redesigns of SoB without boo plate and they look in my opinion much better, but I can see the argument for keeping the ornament. You have a very valid point too, of course.
But we should also remember the background for the Sisters of Battle (The Brides of the Emperor in their origin), and how in-universe is such a big deal that they are femalel and not male. You can say that background is a little...inappropiate? Yeah it is. Specially because we don't have a male equivalent for that. But alas, time will tell how GW approach this.

Get is probably just trying to move old stock

kurhanik wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

nateprati wrote:
Why exactly is john blanche's work tasteless?

High heels and skull-breastplate.

I like skull boobs. It's just making use of empty space by filling it with established iconography to signify rank. No different from the more elaborate skull or eagle shoulder pads we occasionally get on Marines, or the chest eagle of what's his name? The Eisenstein dude? Or a fur topped cape. That's just the way the Imperium rolls.

High heels, yeah, Not to my taste, personally, but looking at Blanche artwork he seems to have a thing for high heels. Death Cult Assassins with blade heels spring to mind immediately. I'd prefer if they didn't make it on models in general, but as a homage to his artwork I understand why they do. And to be honest, I'd rather have a faithful homage than a looser interpretation like the Crimson Fists Captain who got a modern plasma pistol instead of his wrist mounted gun.

I dunno, I think skull boobs are more comparable to say the next Space Marine officer being released with a giant codpiece in the shape of a skull than a cape...

What's wrong with a skull crotch? This guy's got a skull crotch:



It's less an overt hierarchical sign, granted. But it's there and it looks damn good at that. The armor plate is there either way. May as well make use of all that space.

 Galas wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skull Boobs are like Metal Nipples in Blood Angel marines. They are fine for elite and ornated units, HQ's, etc... but not for everyone.

Also, eh, I see this argument a lot and I don't really agree with it. If you don't like BA nipples, all you need is spending zero seconds to scrap them away with knife. Then you're left with plate emphasizing stylized musculature, ergo how strong wearer is. This was actual historical thinking behind several real-life armour sets showing off the wearer's supposed prowess by making him look strong/dangerous. What, on the other hand, the boob plate emphasizes? How good wearer is in bed? Because it sure doesn't point to any sort of battlefield traits. That's, if you will, difference between showing off muscles of a veteran warrior, and showing off tits of porn actress. It's difference between making model naturally attractive vs reducing it to one dimensional object.

I actually don't like skull boobs or boob plate in general, I have seen some redesigns of SoB without boo plate and they look in my opinion much better, but I can see the argument for keeping the ornament. You have a very valid point too, of course.
But we should also remember the background for the Sisters of Battle (The Brides of the Emperor in their origin), and how in-universe is such a big deal that they are femalel and not male. You can say that background is a little...inappropiate? Yeah it is. Specially because we don't have a male equivalent for that. But alas, time will tell how GW approach this.

Approach what? The Sisters background is a very overt comment on powerful organizations using the tiniest loophole to get what they want while staying nice and legal and untouchable.

I doubt even the hacks that currently write for GW would change that because it's a detail that doesn't get in the way of comic book heroes and villains punching each other all day long.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Get is probably just trying to move old stock

Doubtful. One youtuber made the observation that it's just a method of reminding people that the cool new Celestine model actually has an army to call home, rather than being a funky special character that's good for most any Imperial army to use. Not sure I entirely agree, but it makes more sense than "We need to move out this Sisters stock that's clogging up the warehouse", because it surely is not doing that.

So they post up St. Celestine on her lonesome (threesome, really), but also post up the holy trio with a bunch of other SoB stuff in a bundle. Because it costs them literally nothing to do this and they might get a sale by doing this on the strength of St. Celestine alone. Maybe it's easier to sell people on bundles than to get them to buy each part individually? Some sort of psychology going on there. Aside from the wallet breaking price of the package, none of the units listed are actually bad - except maybe the command squad, which is just broken up in Index: Imperium 2.

 Irbis wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Skull Boobs are like Metal Nipples in Blood Angel marines. They are fine for elite and ornated units, HQ's, etc... but not for everyone.

Also, eh, I see this argument a lot and I don't really agree with it. If you don't like BA nipples, all you need is spending zero seconds to scrap them away with knife. Then you're left with plate emphasizing stylized musculature, ergo how strong wearer is. This was actual historical thinking behind several real-life armour sets showing off the wearer's supposed prowess by making him look strong/dangerous. What, on the other hand, the boob plate emphasizes? How good wearer is in bed? Because it sure doesn't point to any sort of battlefield traits. That's, if you will, difference between showing off muscles of a veteran warrior, and showing off tits of porn actress. It's difference between making model naturally attractive vs reducing it to one dimensional object.

In no way do I see skull-breast plate reducing the character to a one dimensional object.

ERJAK wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Love the skull boobs, love the heels, and I'm loving Veridyan a lot more than Celestine. It's alright to be silly. 40k used to be all about being silly.

Gothic oldschool badass vs. Nu anime winged waifu. Death battle!

It's like I don't know, Bayonetta vs. Supergirl (no offense to fans of Sups). One is something you have never seen anywhere and won't see again, another is a reiteration.

Spoiler:

(Yeah, Dante, but still quire unique for what it is)

Although you probably won't want whole army of fabulous narcissistic overpowered daemon hunting super oooh right they just did Custodes.

How is bayonetta something you've never seen anywhere? She's wearing a catsuit and highheels, that's not exactly a 'rare look' the fact that her outfit is made out of her hair (iirc) doesn't change the fact that she just looks like an even sluttier black widow/female james bond villain/catwoman.

Slutty, especially in gaming, is the most common, cliched look around. It beats out 'muscle-bound' for ubiquity.

Because she's a character built around the idea of sexual confidence and intimidation, as opposed to being a sexual object. Where as many women in games media exist as either innocent dolls meant to be preyed upon, or hungry vamps and succubi that exist to please you (or take advantage of you), Bayonetta's enter stchick is that she flaunts her sexuality while also making it patently apparent that you, the viewer, aren't even remotely in her league. She's in it for her own interest, and doesn't care at all about pleasing you. Her outfit isn't even particularly 'slutty.' It's an idealized form with an extravagant costume with some S&M overtones, but it's not particularly skimpy, and fits well with the high-fashion aesthetic that the character was clearly designed around, and it's right at home with the male characters that her creator is responsible for (shirtless, fair haired pretty-boy with a swimmers bod...). She'd be out of place walking down the street, but in a pulpy, larger than life super-hero setting, she's right at home.

Now, there's a lot that can be said about the problems of relegating the idea of weaponizing sexuality and sexual expression as a whole to female characters and feminine characteristics in general, and that's definitely a legitimate problem. But as a character in her own right, Bayonetta's awesome, and unique.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

nateprati wrote:
Why exactly is john blanche's work tasteless?

High heels and skull-breastplate.

Both perfectly in line with the Imperial aesthetic.

when I think of 40k the first thing I think of is the cover of RT, but second I think of all the Blanche artwork. It just feels like it all fits the "asthetic" of 40k. while the art major in me sees all the little things that he doesn't do technically perfect, he definitely captures what it would be like to (not that anyone would want to) live in it.

 Fafnir wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Love the skull boobs, love the heels, and I'm loving Veridyan a lot more than Celestine. It's alright to be silly. 40k used to be all about being silly.

Gothic oldschool badass vs. Nu anime winged waifu. Death battle!

It's like I don't know, Bayonetta vs. Supergirl (no offense to fans of Sups). One is something you have never seen anywhere and won't see again, another is a reiteration.

Spoiler:

(Yeah, Dante, but still quire unique for what it is)

Although you probably won't want whole army of fabulous narcissistic overpowered daemon hunting super oooh right they just did Custodes.

How is bayonetta something you've never seen anywhere? She's wearing a catsuit and highheels, that's not exactly a 'rare look' the fact that her outfit is made out of her hair (iirc) doesn't change the fact that she just looks like an even sluttier black widow/female james bond villain/catwoman.

Slutty, especially in gaming, is the most common, cliched look around. It beats out 'muscle-bound' for ubiquity.

Because she's a character built around the idea of sexual confidence and intimidation, as opposed to being a sexual object. Where as many women in games media exist as either innocent dolls meant to be preyed upon, or hungry vamps and succubi that exist to please you (or take advantage of you), Bayonetta's enter stchick is that she flaunts her sexuality while also making it patently apparent that you, the viewer, aren't even remotely in her league. She's in it for her own interest, and doesn't care at all about pleasing you. Her outfit isn't even particularly 'slutty.' It's an idealized form with an extravagant costume with some S&M overtones, but it's not particularly skimpy, and fits well with the high-fashion aesthetic that the character was clearly designed around, and it's right at home with the male characters that her creator is responsible for (shirtless, fair haired pretty-boy with a swimmers bod...). She'd be out of place walking down the street, but in a pulpy, larger than life super-hero setting, she's right at home.

Now, there's a lot that can be said about the problems of relegating the idea of weaponizing sexuality and sexual expression as a whole to female characters and feminine characteristics in general, and that's definitely a legitimate problem. But as a character in her own right, Bayonetta's awesome, and unique.

None of that is in anyway unique to Bayonetta. It's not as ubiquitous as 'girl-next-door' or 'Vamp' but it hasn't been rare since the 80s.

Racerguy180 wrote:
when I think of 40k the first thing I think of is the cover of RT, but second I think of all the Blanche artwork. It just feels like it all fits the "asthetic" of 40k. while the art major in me sees all the little things that he doesn't do technically perfect, he definitely captures what it would be like to (not that anyone would want to) live in it.

Seconded, it's mostly a wash of badly proportioned orange, but it just makes me feel it, if you understand that.

In the realm of videogames, it sure as hell is.

Bayonetta is a combination of a good idea (a female character designed to be attractive to the female gaze more so than the male) and Kamiya being unable to suppress his pervy nature (the camera movement, the whole hair/get naked gimmick, the extra costumes). This is pretty clear from interviews. So it’s somewhat unique but not really a stellar example of subverting tropes, since it falls into them more often than not. Great games though. Sisters of Battle also range from the very cool, badass ladies to the... not very cool, depending on the artist depicting them. On the whole I think the direction GW are taking it with Celestine is to embrace the former and not the latter, and I doubt we’ll see any more Sisters Superior wielding leather whips...

 Irbis wrote:
Why GW couldn't take art by Kopinski as a base?

 Galas wrote:
Karl Kopisnki is my favourite warhammer artist of all time. What an artist.

Karl Kopinski art is pretty good but can we talk about Andrea Uderzo?

ERJAK wrote:
It beats out 'muscle-bound' for ubiquity.

Muscle-bound is pretty damn rare! Can't think of many example. There is Glory in the Keatinge and Campbell run.

 Yodhrin wrote:
See, I'd love to believe this is GW trying to use Celestine to clear out stock of the metals to prep for an upcoming plastic release, but lets be real - they're going to use the sales of this direct-only no-saving bundle of mostly twenty year old metals as a metric to see if people want new Sisters, because of course they are.

Do GW even have stock of metal miniatures? Or do they just cast on demand? And if they were trying to get rid of them, would they do something like this or simply sell the metal?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
See, I'd love to believe this is GW trying to use Celestine to clear out stock of the metals to prep for an upcoming plastic release, but lets be real - they're going to use the sales of this direct-only no-saving bundle of mostly twenty year old metals as a metric to see if people want new Sisters, because of course they are.

Do GW even have stock of metal miniatures? Or do they just cast on demand? And if they were trying to get rid of them, would they do something like this or simply sell the metal?

Everything listed on the web store for Sisters is in stock (unless it isn't, but then it says so). It has been suggested by people watching this closer that with how often items go out of stock, stock levels are generally low. But they're there.

Edit: There's no indication that GW casts on demand outside of made to order runs.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Also, John Blanche's artwork is cheesy, dated, bereft of technical skill, and ridiculously overindulgent. I love it, I love Veridyan's original artwork, I love the aesthetic he created for the 40k setting, and I love Veridyan's model. If we got more models like that (not just limited to the Sisters range, even), I'd be in heaven.

Same, for me, (even though I was born long after) Blanche's artwork is 40k. Weirdly back when he had a segment in the old White dwarves a decade ago I hated it, but now I love it.

I agree, although if you look through the Inquisitor rulebook you'll see Blanche (and his constituents) have a very good feel for what "grimdark" is. My complaint with the current GW artists is everything seems cartoonish/comic stylized vs the dark and gritty feel of yesteryear. Blanche has inspired some of my "creepiest" conversions. and my FAVORITE segment of white dwarf is Blancheitsu

Wow. That Sisters deal really is trash, its like they are mocking them at this point.

I've only recently seen Mistress Skull Boobs, and honestly, I quite like the model. (btw, large breasts don't necessarily equate to good prowess in the bedroom) The skull bra is more along the lines of a telling example of the grimdark nature of 40k. Heavy breasts could (pre-silicon days, at least) be a sign of fertility...of life bringing...but here they're covered with reminders of death. Nice and nihilistic.

As to the army set...I'm not even considering it. I like my women folk like I like my men folk, and my Elf folk and fungus folk and my fish folk and my scary bug folk and killer robot folk: in plastic, multipose, preferably variable unit kits. If we get a box or two of plastic Sisters that can be used to create a variety of units, maybe even an HQ or two, I'd definitely consider adding some to my collection, if only to run a detachment with Celestine alongside my BA. The standard nuns with guns colourscheme would work well with my man-nipple armoured space He-Mans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Wow. That Sisters deal really is trash, its like they are mocking them at this point.

it isn't a deal, it's a shortcut to ordering all the units individually. 0% savings is another good reason to pass.