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.

So I've read this whole thread (phew) and I'm almost scared to post anything at this point but hey I'll give it a shot.

So staying OT I have a hard time imagining that it'd be too difficult for GW to reboot the line in plastic. Our rhino and immo is already a plastic kit (and it's fantastic IMO), exorcist only needs a plastic top to go on the already mass-produced rhino chassis. As for the sisters themselves we have the advantage of having mostly one body and loadout determines battlefield role. I imagine a box set much like the tempestus scions would work wonderfully: 5 bodies, one of each special and heavy weapon, 5 un-helmeted heads, 5 helmeted heads, flag for simulacrum imperialis and lastly some bits to convert them into the command squad/celestians. One box covers retribultors, dominions, celestians, BSS, command squad.

At that point you'd need a separate kit for the seraphim, repentia and penitent engines. It's not as small a release as the tempestus scions were but it's roughly on par with the skitarii release. I have no evidence to back it up but I feel that a plastic SoB force would do fine for GW, I'm not saying it'll blow sales outta the water and make them massive profits but I feel it'd be a well received and welcomed addition to their line-up. They won't lose money over it what I'm saying.

On to the design choices. I'm going to tread this minefield and I want to say first that this is my opinion, I'm not trying to change minds or anything I just want to say a couple things based on my observations.

Firstly I see both sides of the armor design argument. I think female soldiers who look like soldiers first are awesome (Brienne of Tarth is one of my favourite characters in any book/show I look forward to seeing her in the new Star wars too) and I think they can be very badass. Those Eisenkern models someone linked to are great models and very tastefully shows off how female soldiers can be modelled. The flip side is that I also love the aesthetic of the current gothis SoB design. They seem equal parts soldier and church adornment and I think that fits their roles quite well. I believe the word "sexualisation" has been thrown around unnecessarily here as it gives too strong a sense of the issue. Pardon the pun but it's making mountains out of molehills. The BSS models aren't suggestively posed or missing convenient armor plates to show off "assets", that is sexualisation. The pointy boob plates are not there to make us lust after our models, I feel this is a poor example of "sexualisation". The current models have one feature (two if you want to get technical) that is exaggerated and could be toned down in a plastic kit. I feel the "boob plates" could stay but be tastefully modelled to maintain the SoB design aesthetic but also not be so prominent and noticeable.

One poster has stated that he doesn't want to have "sexy SoB" but that he wants them to still be recognizable as females on the table top without much difficulty. Ultimately I agree with this and would be happy with a plastic kit that accomplishes this goal while maintaining the core style of their armor.

SoB helmets are my favourite helmet design of the entire 40K line. I'd love to have the option to have more of them on my units.

TLDR: Sisters could be a welcome reboot army and a kit similar to the Scions kit should work for a good deal of their needs.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
One thing that I think is worth considering is that people will be much quicker to label an image of a woman as "sexualised" if she's seen as being impractically dressed, striking a certain pose, etc, whereas an image of a man needs to go to real extremes to get the same label.

I do not agree. I think women are much more often sexualized, because they are much more often impractically dressed in ways that put a deliberate emphasis on body part is conventionally considered sexually attractive, striking poses that do the same, than men. Especially true if we look at ratio of images doing so rather than sheer number…

I feel the issue of sexualisation is far too broad and grey to truly cover in a thread on the internet. It runs far too deep into our cultures and societal norms. I agree with elemental that what one person views as sexualisation may not be perceived as such by another. Neither person is wrong as it's a matter of opinion. Consider what some people find attractive amongst cultures that have more conservative clothing for the women amongst them. You could even look at it chronologically, what was considered sexy in the 1950's is now far too tame for todays standards, bathing suits come to mind for this, every year they get smaller and smaller in order to maintain their sexiness. I also don't think looking at the ratio of male to female sexualized content is fair either as it seems to me (my opinion based on personal observations mind you) that the demand to see sexualised women is greater than the demand to see sexualised men. Simple supply and demand would tell us that we should expect these ratios to exist. It's hard to draw a direct comparison amongst the sexualisation of men and women too since what would be seen as blatant sexualisation varies wildly across the genders. If a man strikes the poses sexualized women make then it's a parody, it's just not sexy.

It's hard to draw lines to say what is and isn't sexualisation because that varies wildly depending on who/when/where you are. All we can do as consumers is make our own decisions on what we like and invest our money into based on our own tastes. Will GW design a plastic SoB kit that appeals to everyone? Absolutely not, to some it'll always be either too sexy, not sexy enough, needs thicker armor, don't like the concept of a pipe organ pretending it's a missile launcher, penitent engines don't make sense why wouldn't you just shoot the unprotected guy in it's centre, ughh SoB haircuts are awful, oooh SoB haircuts are so practical, their faces are too manly, their faces are great they look like mean warrior women. It's all taste and opinions, a war you will never win but can only hope that as a company you fight well enough in to turn a profit. Looking at the wishlisting for the SoB re-design in plastic (or simple conversion to plastic with little to no re-design) it's clear that GW won't please us all, too many varying tastes, but what they can do is still try to make something awesome that appeals to enough people (or is easy enough to convert to what you want) that the army becomes a welcome addition to their stock shelves in stores.

Yeah to see new rules come out with the models would be great. I'm more or less ok with them having bolters, I like the holy trinity concept but having some unique weapons would be fun too. I think a unique melta variant, bolter variant (kind of have that in the condemner I suppose) and flamer variant that have special rules would be fun.

I'd also like to see the AoF rule changed. Perhaps instead of a once per game per unti rule maybe run it more like the khorne daemonkin blood tithe system? A set of conditions that increases your faith points and a set of bonuses or abilities you can "purchase" at the beginning of a round using your faith points. I really like the formation in daemonkin that allows you to use blood tithe to get one bonus and get a lower tier bonus for free as well. This would open up some fun options for formation and how they interact with faith generation.

Another idea is instead of the psyker phase we could have something called a "communion" phase or something like that. We can use faith powers in the psyker phase using our own variant rules. Just a thought anyways.

So with a plastic sisters release would you kind folks like to see another digital codex or have GW release a hardcover book? Personally I prefer to have a book. I'm not as worried about it as I am with my ipad and it may sound weird but there's just no replacement for manually flipping through pages with your fingers and using three fingers to bookmark pages as you search up rules and stats.

What was the sororitas helmet called again? Sabbat pattern? It reminds me a lot of the old Sallet helmets of which I am also a fan. I like the hard gorget guard that many sallet helmets had to protect the lower portion of the wearers neck and chin as a Sallet helmet only covered you to your lips. It's an interesting design as it gives you freedom of speech, movement and breathing with just the helmet or you can wear the gorget too for added protection. That design would be fun to model and give extra head options for the SoB models.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
Consider what some people find attractive amongst cultures that have more conservative clothing for the women amongst them. You could even look at it chronologically, what was considered sexy in the 1950's is now far too tame for todays standards, bathing suits come to mind for this, every year they get smaller and smaller in order to maintain their sexiness.

And yet, when watching Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, the sexualization (of basically the whole women cast and of Vegetable (yes, that's the name of one of the male characters)) is pretty goddamn obvious (it's pretty refreshing to see they did it to Vegetable too btw). Similarly, if I see this nose art done in 1944, it's pretty obvious sexualization. Yet, when I watch Kirikou, no amount of naked breast is going to convince anyone but the most bigot that there is any sexualization going on. Or, say, this music video. The amount of flesh that is socially acceptable to show vary, but that's irrelevant to spotting sexualization…

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
I also don't think looking at the ratio of male to female sexualized content is fair either as it seems to me (my opinion based on personal observations mind you) that the demand to see sexualised women is greater than the demand to see sexualised men. Simple supply and demand would tell us that we should expect these ratios to exist.

And do you just stop at this? You do not feel like trying to understand why the demand is different, you leave it as “It's only natural”?

It seems to me that society focuses a lot more on women's appearance than men's appearance. For instance, why is it socially expected for women to put on make-up, but not for men? Is there not many more stories where the female love interest's desirability is basically all contained in her being beautiful and not a total jerk, while the male protagonist has to demonstrate his own desirability by his actions, than the other way around? Or is it just my bias speaking here?
More specifically about sex, when and how is the male body used to advertise sex? The female body is used to advertise sex in tons of place. From daemonettes being the only daemons with a clear gender indicator, to the totally-idiotic assumptions that goddesses are inherently sexually attractive and linked to sex (Yeah, Kali is NOT linked in any way to sex, and that guy is a goddamn idiot for not fact-checking his assumptions when the internet exist. Also neither is Nemesis, but on the other hand Zeus is a goddamn sex machine, and not exactly a monogamous or consensual one at that, but you would not tell from his in-game appearance…).
“Women's magazine” very often have pictures of naked women on them because they have articles inside telling them how they could look like that. “Men's magazine” tend to have pictures of naked women for the guys to ogle at (though, it's true, there are also men's magazine that do the same a women's magazine now, like Men's health).
Would you disagree that our society pushes men to make advances to women rather than the other way around too?
Do you think all this is due to “biological differences” rather than the influence of societal norms we are exposed to all our lives?

I see what you're saying about Faster pussycat but my point was simply that depending on who/where/when you are your predispositions about what is sexualisation and what is not will wildly differ. Some things are so far overboard on it that almost universally (note I said almost because there are always exceptions) people can agree that it is sexualisation but then there are other instances where it is much more subtle and some will think it is while others won't. My point stands that sexualisation is a big grey area and depending on the individual they will perceive it as such, there isn't a clear line in the sand that separates sexualized things from those that are not. For the nose art on warplanes I think it would be prudent to ask those involved what they think about it. The artists, the pilots, gunners, those dogfighting with them. Their perceptions on whether they believe it to be sexualisation may differ from yours now, but most importantly it's what you think of it, if you think it is sexualisation then to you it is, if they don't think it is then to them it isn't. I'm not trying to tell you what to think is sexualisation but merely trying to say that it's up to YOU whether you believe it to be and to make decisions based on that. same goes for Kirikou and that music video, I don't perceive any sexualisation out of them because for Kirikou I know enough about African cultures to know that nudity is a norm there and so I try to see it emphatically as they do. The music video is depicting some tribal motif, again where nudity is a norm and so I see it through that lens and don't see it as sexualisation. that's MY interpretation and it may differ from the opinion of another individual. Their view is no less valid than mine and I would respect it even if I don't agree with it.

On to the second point: The statement I made about supply and demand I stand by and the reason I did not continue that thought is because as I stated earlier this topic is far too large to cover in this thread. I stopped there because I felt further explanation was unnecessary to make my point about the differing ratios. I'm always open to further discussion and more information concerning the WHY of this topic but I just felt it didn't belong on dakka. I have my views on why the demand for female sexualisation is more common than the demand for male sexualisation but given that this is a tabletop wargaming community I felt those views and the discussion about them is best left to other venues designed more for this conversation. I would like to clear one thing up though: I feel you seem to think that I believe it is only natural that the ratio is skewed one way and that this is ok. In fact I believe it is a combination of many things but very strongly our societal norms play a huge role in this. If our societal norms were to change and the demand for male sexualisation was demanded more then to see the ratio shift would make sense. In fact I think our cultural norms in north America are shifting because movies like Magic Mike are coming out and they even do quite well for themselves and get sequels, this may be the pre-cursor to a shift showing the rise of male sexualisation in the more traditional sense that it has been happening to women and we may see a bridge between the demand ratios. But I digress... Please don't misunderstand me and say that I said "it's only natural" concerning WHY the demand is different, I never said that at all, but what I was trying to say is that if the demand is higher for sexualisation of women then it is natural that the supply would be higher to match it.

To answer a couple of your questions at the end there: I can't speak to your region of the world but I know in my region it is the norm for the male to express interest in the female first when it comes to asking someone on a date and as is traditional I'm sure in many places for the man to ask the girl to marry him. In recent years however I have noticed that more and more girls are asking guys to date them and I even know one couple now where the female proposed to the male. Second question: I don't pretend to know enough about human biology or how our brains work to give a full response other than to say that it is possible that our biological difference may influence our desires for sexualised material, maybe it does but truthfully I don't know. Societal norms are a key player in what is sexualised and informing demand and I think you can objectively look at that by viewing other cultures and seeing how, despite being human like everywhere else, they have different views on sexualisation.

I don't pretend to have all the answers Hybrid, and I don't mean to offend with anything I post and I hope you don't take it that way. I simply shared some of my thoughts on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's an awesome helmet Furyou, you make that yourself? What materials were used?

It's funny how as old as the SoB models are I feel they aged much better than some of the other models of their era. Anyone else feel this way?

Hybrid, we will leave this topic discussion alone then, suffice to say I feel we got a good discussion and it was, to my perceptions, handled fairly maturely especially given the subject matter. Thank you kind Sir or Madam for an enjoyable internet discussion with me that didn't devolve horrendously, those seem rare nowadays looking at many comments sections on the internet. I tip my hat to you. Also is that one of your models that you painted? It looks good, I used that model as my sister superior for my retributor squad, minus the flames on her power pack of course.


Manchu, I apologize for the OT discussion and thank you for your patience. I'm sure as a mod you cringed as this topic came up fearing what it may become. Thank you as well Sir or Madam.

BaronIveagh, I completely agree with you, the two extremes tend to be the loudest and the people with very valid, very sane ideas get lost in the middle. I feel a plastic re-design done somewhere in the middle as you suggest could work very well and keep many people happy.

So if they do re-release plastic sisters how do you guys feel about tanks like the exorcist? Would you want them to make a plastic pipe organ top piece or re-design the tank to perhaps look more like a missile platform?

pm713 wrote:
In an attempt to move the discussion forwards I suggest a new topic: In terms of gameplay what could be emphasised to make SoB more different compared to Space Marines?

Overall I think they are just different enough to be outside the realm of "Just another marine army" but if I was to start getting greedy I would say perhaps we get some unique weapons. Maybe one unique weapon for each weapon of the holy trinity and one unique melee weapon. Perhaps some sort of flail with the burning ashes of a revered SoB in it. For each unsaved wound caused in combat with it the user and any allied SoB model in combat with her get a bonus for that round? I'd also like to see new priest models, I'm not a fan of the current offerings from GW and think they could design a much more interesting space priest model. I'm not a fan of the current AoF system, it's ok but it takes some bookkeeping and it just doesn't feel epic enough. The systems described above me sound more fun with a total tally at the beginning and then more at the end as your sisters are martyred. Any idea how to get that out of being an MSU spam tactic though?

I feel like seraphim have their own niche thanks to gunslinger and hand flamers. Some other special rules to make them stand out would be lovely too. Do they come standard with hit and run or is that a celsestine thing?

As for their jump packs, I'm indifferent either way. Personally I would prefer not to have actual wings, I feel DE already have them and there's lots of other armies with winged units too. Blood angels and Eldar I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe a "wings of light" thing they did for the sigmarite winged dude would be cool, just on a smaller scale? Even if they keep the pack as it is now I'd be happy too, it's not ugly by any stretch either way. At the end of the day though I totally understand the desire to convert angel wings on them and I've seen some that are ridiculously gorgeously converted (using DE wings I believe). People should make their models exactly what they want them to be, you spent good money, time and effort on them to get them on the table so they should be something you are proud of, angel wings or jump pack are both valid options.

nevelon you mentioned blessed ammunition, I gotta say that got me thinking and maybe a way to make our elite slot celestians worth taking? So all celestians have blessed ammunition, and the ammunition functions differently based on what prayers you recite.You could have one prayer for each of the weapons in the holy trinity. For example:

-Prayer of Purging: All bolters with blessed ammunition change their weapon type to Torrent S3 AP6
-Hymn of Purity: All bolters with blessed ammunition change their weapon type to Salvo 3/5 S4 AP5
-Litanies of Annihilation: All bolters with blessed ammunition change their weapon type to Assault 1 Melta S4 AP1 18" range

So the idea is the celestians in our elite slot now have a very versatile and unique role and we could even extend the option to upgrade any veteran sister superior to have blessed ammunition for a points cost. I like the mental image of a unit of decked out celestians marching into battles reciting prayers while firing their weapons and in unison switching prayers on the fly and having their weapons bark out different flavours of the emperors holy justice. Obviously the stats I put above are just ballparking any semblance of balance but what do you guys think? Is this a good way to make celestians feel better than one shot combi-weapon monkeys like the chaos chosen are?

 Nurgle wrote:
Money and lack of a playerbase.
I would love to play the Nuns with Guns but they are more expensive than ForgeWorld.

Seriously, I can get a cheaper ForgeWorld army than I can with SoB.

Sadly I feel this sums up a huge problem with a remake of SoB currently. GW doesn't want to reboot them because they don't sell well, they don't sell well because the model line is old pewter and super expensive, GW doesn't want to reboot them cause... you get the point. It's one big spiral that unless buying up ALL the old pewter stock becomes a huge trend amongst the player base and demand sky-rockets we won't see any interest from GW in re-booting them in plastic. Or maybe GW does plan to anyways and we just don't have the slightest inkling as to their insane release schedule for when they think would be a good time to drop them out. I have heard that they tend to sit on completed sculpts for a very long time before finally releasing them, the Eldar jetbike comes to mind for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and btw nurgle I love your user pic. That's an adorable little nurgling from one of my favourite Nurgle based artworks from the old chaos codex. If memory serves there was about 3 or 4 adorable nurglings from that image, one had huge black eyes and was eating something. Good choice of image all the same.

Sadly Hybrid I don't see those changes to celestians making them worthwhile at all. They lack a good delivery method, they have no true mobility outside of a transport, S3 T3 isn't an impressive fighter without some other nice benefits added. I just have a hard time imagining they'd ever make their points back or do anything other than get blown out of their transport then spend all game getting kited while they try to chase units down that are just going to move 6" a turn and fire. They'd need a lot more than just artificer armor and power weapons to make them good at melee, or getting there for that matter.

I understand the sentiment of wanting them to be good at melee but I just don't see GW making the huge changes to them necessary for that to happen, I think blessed ammunition seems much more likely as there is a unit for SM that functions similarly that I could see GW basing them on. Unless GW wants to base them on something like striking scorpions or howling banshees (which I see as unlikely) I can't imagine them being good at melee or getting into melee.

I also don't see much fluff about sisters ever wanting to get into melee with an enemy, they seem like a shooting army to me. I think GW should just make the changes to repentia and penitent engines to make them useable and we can use those as our melee units.

I know a couple people have also mentioned changing repentia to be essentially suicide bombers. Whether I think this is in poor taste or not (I think it is in poor taste btw) is irrelevant to the fact that it really doesn't fit the fluff for them. The idea for some repentia (not all) is that they can be redeemed by their actions as a repentia and be accepted back into the fold. I read of one cannoness who willingly threw away her armor and joined the ranks of the repentia to prove to herself and her sisters that she is worthy of them. She felt if the emperor had plans for her then he would carry her through and she would be able to repent and be accepted back into the sisterhood. She survived her stint as repentia and later became a cannoness. Surviving being a repentia is designed to be incredibly unlikely but if you do it's made to redeem oneself and join the sisterhood again. Strapping bombs to oneself does not have the same sentiments that repentia are made to showcase in my opinion.

Just my two cents

Hybrid: I'd worry then with power weapons, artificer armour and then loaded up with master crafted range weapons the celestians would come at an unholy points cost. Looking at the history of GW points costs for things such as melta guns, which are a standard price to equip on almost any IoM model, then the points cost for celestians would reach crazy high numbers and at the end of the day they are still a S3 T3 W1 model. Even with a 2+ save I don't think they'd have the survivability to make back the points they'd cost.

A fair points cost can justify almost any unit but in all honesty I see a celestian with artificer armour and power weapon to probably be priced around the 25 points mark. Add in any special weapons cost, like the suggested meltagun and suddenly you're at 35 points for the model assuming the master crafted rule comes for free. An Eldar fire dragon is 22 points a model and while having a melta gun himself he also has melta bombs and a unit-wide rule that makes them even more amazing at popping vehicles. I just have a hard time imagining celestians ever being worth their points investment like this.

I think my greatest gripe however is that ultimately they would feel bland. Celestians with melta guns? Why not dominions then? Celestians with heavy weapons? Why not retributors instead? They wouldn't add anything unique to the army. Now celestians with power weapons and artificer armor still has all the drawbacks of current assault rules, delivery method and mobility being two huge ones coupled with S3 T3 W1, they wouldn't hold a candle to some of the other solid melee units out there.

I'd like to see clestians fill a unique role within the SoB army that makes them a fun option to play. The variable blessed ammunition rule I proposed sounds fun to me and makes them unique and greatly versatile. I'm open to hearing other suggestions about ways to make them a desirable option, including options to make them our premiere SoB melee unit without going into repentia. Ultimately what I feel they need is to be unique and fun to play while still filling a role that may otherwise be left open by our army.

As for those discussing the fluff and Frateris Militia stuff. It's been my observation across many threads when fluff is involved that a few things stick out. Given that these are works of fiction of the written word some people get different impressions of the same subject matter, it's not a matter of who's right or wrong but a matter perspective and peoples interpretations of our language. Secondly is that many people tend to cite sources, which I think is fantastic, but quite often two sources of fluff from different mediums and authors will contradict each other. GW is not innocent of breaking their own fluff and so it depends on which book you read as to what version of fluff you'll be presented. With a universe as large as the 40K universe with as many writers as it has I think it's near impossible not to break your own fluff every once in a while. Or depending on how far back you go into the history of 40K like RT days certain aspects of fluff are brushed under the carpet as if they never happened because it is no longer the image GW desires for their Grimdark universe even though they don't officially state it is no longer cannon. Just in short I think many arguments concerning fluff may be best served by simply admitting you have differing perspectives on the subject and then moving on from it.

Just my opinion anyways, carry on.

Sorry for missing a huge chunk of this convo but I'll try and clarify my stance here a bit.

First of all I have no problems with celestians being an assault unit, my concerns were only that unless they got significant changes beyond wargear they wouldn't be able to do it effectively and that compared to the blessed ammunition idea the melee variant seemed boring to me, that was my opinion. Adding a new assault transport (and not a land raider because those are way too expensive and too much of an investment for a passable melee unit) had not been mentioned yet and so it was not something a had considered. If they had access to jump packs or a viable assault transport then that solves the delivery method problem. They need something that makes up for S3 T3, striking scorpions come base at S4 thanks to their weapons and they have a great number of attacks including one that auto-wounds anything on a 4+ at I10. Howling banshees deny overwatch and come base with dual power swords for a good bargain and they have great mobility for a foot slogging unit.

I mentioned the points cost for the clestians loadout for melee and that concern was from my opinion that GW would not likely put a fair point cost on them. There is a breaking point where the unit would be worth taking for their points but I don't know what that is.

Matt Kingsley hit the nail on the head concerning wargear though. Giving the squad tons of options for wargear such as melta guns or flamers and such would get very expensive very fast. GW prices these weapons statically, they cost the same for anyone to take, whereas if a weapons is part of your basic loadout they tend to be cheaper. If clestians are to be a generalist melee/ranged unit then I think they would be best served having a static loadout with artificer armor, power weapon and combi-weapon or something. Maybe a special bolter? Oh and a bolt pistol for +1 A to offset for S3. Then they could be fairly costed as a unit and PPM and since you're not tacking on weapon options that cost 1/2 the points of the model they are equipped to the cost of the unti can be equal to it's effectiveness (theoretically speaking). they'd still need a delivery method or boost to mobility somehow.

I agree with Vandire though on a few points, one of which I'll mention here. Generalist run into a problem against focus units. In this case our generalist Celestians wouldn't be able to take on a dedicated melee unit of equal points cost in CC and likely wouldn't be able to shoot them off the table sufficiently to save their butts if they get assaulted. Likewise they don't have the ranged firepower to shoot against dedicated ranged units and don't have the built in mobility to get to those units to hurt them in melee (or by the time they get there so many of them are shot to death that there isn't enough o win in assault). Could they be given the special rules and equipment to do both effectively and be worth their points? Absolutely, but this is a precarious balancing act and I'm not sure if GW is up to task on this.

Another issue I have with the melee loadout with ranged weapon options is that it would make sense to give them all the same weapon to focus a target, all flamers or all meltas. Truth be told I find this boring because we already have dominions that we use in this manner, they just lack the melee option. I say if we make celestians a melee unit then that should be what they're good at and should be focused on it, if we make them a ranged unit then give them fun ranged weapons rules that distinguish them from dominions, retributors and BSS.

At the end of the day I suppose I don't care what GW does to celestians as long as they:
A) Make them a unique unit from other units in the codex
B) Make them fun to use
C) Make them effective at what they should be doing so they are a desirable addition to the codex.

melee or shooting or generalist as long as they tick those three boxes I'll be happy. I feel a good example of this is perhaps all the different aspect warriors in the CWE codex. They fill a role unique to themselves, do it effectively and each unit has one rule for the unit that is unique and one rule for the exarch that is unique. I find this to be a good example of codex writing (balance aside for the sake of this convo, note I'm not talking about jetbikes or wraithknights, just the aspect warriors).