Switch Theme:

[Adepta Sororitas] Preoder Nov 16  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Been Around the Block




Given the nature of GW releases we don't know for sure that the renders shown are from the standard sister set or if they are part of a big box release like Shadow spear , we also don't know how these renders s will divide up, at this point we know very little.

At least wait for the sprues before knocking them.
Also GW won the chapter house case, they won damages.
Why do people believe they lost.
   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader






 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
... but this is Dakka. You can’t say you like something without somebody trying to prove you’re wrong.
Weirdly enough, pointing out how wrong you are (and you are), actually proves you right.



See ... told ya!


Seriously though, of course I’m not talking about anyone and everyone who disagrees with, or has a different opinion to somebody. I’m referring to those individuals who try to “objectively prove” why the option you’ve stated is wrong and you are wrong to hold it. A small, but sadly vocal, minority of the Dakka community. I generally try to ignore them.

... such as the person a few posts back (a MOD no less, who should know better) who tried to tell me that I hold an opinion that I don’t actually hold, then explain to me why the option (that I don’t actually hold) is wrong

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/10 06:43:55


 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Leicester

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tiberius501 wrote:
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.

Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.

We did.


I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in jp
Regular Dakkanaut




 Jadenim wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tiberius501 wrote:
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.

Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.

We did.


I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?


I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/10 08:07:00


 
   
Made in au
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws






mortar_crew wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tiberius501 wrote:
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.

Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.

We did.


I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?


I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...


But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.

They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/10 08:29:21


 
   
Made in jp
Regular Dakkanaut




 Tiberius501 wrote:
mortar_crew wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tiberius501 wrote:
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.

Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.

We did.


I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?


I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...


But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.

They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.


True.
But as far as the ork stuff is concerned, option are toasted.
So one may worry about the issue...
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 Tiberius501 wrote:


But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.

They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.

About as rampant as the tendency to imbue criticism with a level of anger than isn't actually present in the comments being made.

 
   
Made in de
Poisonous Tomb Scorpion






 Tiberius501 wrote:
Spoiler:
mortar_crew wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tiberius501 wrote:
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
No. Lots of us are looking forward to them, but a lot of us also lament the style that GW has fallen into with optionless monopose miniatures.

Turns out GW didn't lose the Chapterhouse case.

We did.


I think the key word here is “optionless”; most people won’t mind a limited number of torso/leg poses or combinations (with a reasonable argument against the extreme distinctive poses, e.g. standing on a flaming rock), providing you get a decent number of weapons, heads and other accessories to a) give models individuality and b) provide options and customisation in the rules. The new Ork buggies are a classic example; they look cool, but have zero options or customisability, criminal for an Ork kit. Would it really have killed to have those chassis’, but with two or three common weapon options, such that I could have three different looking buggies with a rivet kannon?


I agree. To add insult to the injury, they had to remove the "classic" buggy from the codex list. So no choice...


But we haven’t seen what the full range is like, or even what a full kit will have in it. A lot of people seem to be annoyed because they look like they’re monopose and have no options, but we don’t know this until they show the sprues. So it seems a little pointless to argue about and get angry over. All we’ve seen are a couple of renders haha.

They may be pure monopose with no options, and that would suck, but instantly jumping to conclusions and then getting annoyed like it’s fact seems to run rampant through this hobby.


Just to point out, extrapolating is not the same as jumping to conclusions.

We know for a fact that the number of multipart multipose kits GW used to produce has gone down while seeing a rise both in multipart monopose and easy to build kits.

Sisters of Battle have a specific design, as mentioned multiple times over the last two pages, where the robes and especially sleeve design pose a difficult obstacle to making them multipose. You don't need Jes Goodwyn to tell you that, but having his opinion on the matter certainly doesn't hurt.

We now have renders of models that make ample use of tactical rocks. Not excessively like Witch Elves, but considering the inherent limitations of building a pose around an object on a base, we know that this is an area where choice is cut down.

You don't have to believe that this is a bad sign for the posability of the coming models, and obviously we won't strictly know until around the time the kit is released, but we do have facts to base our speculations on and it may not be the worst approach to get used to the idea that the army will be pretty monopose now. It'll save you disappointment later, and if it turns out that this suspicion is incorrect, so much the better.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of! 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*looks at Dark Angel and Black Templar plastics*

Umm...

You mean the minis that look like chunk of granite the sculptor abandoned midway out of boredom? Yeah, that sure would work for slender bodies

By the way, dunno if you ever saw DA veterans up close, but they pretty much prove you wrong. They don't have flowing sleeves, but a lot of DA models have stuff dangling from their arms, and assembling that is a real chore. Either you glue them in the only way that makes sense with the dangly bits (so much for "multipose" claim...) or you try to bend them carefully into new position (risking breaking them off, and besides, this only adds a handful of new positions). Anything else produces immersion breaking mini with antigrav bling - and this would be only much worse and more evident with Sister robes...
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Thanks buddy. Think we covered that off a page ago.

   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






So is there any particular reason for assuming that the arms wouldn't be separate? I don't think anything I see in the pictures necessitates such.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in de
Poisonous Tomb Scorpion






 Crimson wrote:
So is there any particular reason for assuming that the arms wouldn't be separate? I don't think anything I see in the pictures necessitates such.


Realistically, we can't say. We might get a complete arm that's separate from the torso, with or without a weapon attached. We might get an arm with only half of the sleeve attached and the other half a separate bit. We might get jigsaw parts that defy the human mind like Celestine and the twins. We might get all of that across the Sisters range, or even in a single kit.

For the longest time, Marine kits have been cast in the discrete body parts that you could simply stick together and that were easily recognizable for what they were and how they were supposed to go together. Primaris, or Mk.III to a degree if I recall, added more fiddly bits such as separate shin armor to allow casting legs in more dynamic poses. One of the Fiends of Slaanesh has a bit that slots in to complete the back, shoulder, possibly also the arm and the neck. It's very fiddly and was probably separated because otherwise it would have lost surface detail.

Unless you are involved with mold making or CAD sculpting, I think it's very hard to predict how something with as complex lines as Sister have will be cast. I certainly can't do it, but then I also took exception to that Fiend bit.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of! 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





Belgium

I expect these kits to be like the recent we had - for example, the Chaos Space Marines new kit. They are indeed more restricted in the variety of poses in comparison to, said, the old Space Marine kit with strict separate parts for legs, torso, arms and head, but they still have options.

So far, as long as we don't see the actual sprue of these sisters, no one can say they will be "optionless".

I have faith they will be very enjoyable to work with. And I'm sure we'll quickly see some Chaos scum making a heresy with them as well.

Cuteness for the Cute Goddess! 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






 Geifer wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
So is there any particular reason for assuming that the arms wouldn't be separate? I don't think anything I see in the pictures necessitates such.


Realistically, we can't say. We might get a complete arm that's separate from the torso, with or without a weapon attached. We might get an arm with only half of the sleeve attached and the other half a separate bit. We might get jigsaw parts that defy the human mind like Celestine and the twins. We might get all of that across the Sisters range, or even in a single kit.

For the longest time, Marine kits have been cast in the discrete body parts that you could simply stick together and that were easily recognizable for what they were and how they were supposed to go together. Primaris, or Mk.III to a degree if I recall, added more fiddly bits such as separate shin armor to allow casting legs in more dynamic poses. One of the Fiends of Slaanesh has a bit that slots in to complete the back, shoulder, possibly also the arm and the neck. It's very fiddly and was probably separated because otherwise it would have lost surface detail.

Unless you are involved with mold making or CAD sculpting, I think it's very hard to predict how something with as complex lines as Sister have will be cast. I certainly can't do it, but then I also took exception to that Fiend bit.


Mk. III was still modular, the legs just weren’t in one bit so that they could do different poses.

I swear I'm not a paid shill for Anvil Industry. I’d be willing if they wanted to pay me.

"That's Warhammer 40,000 where instead of using Victory Points to determine the victor you roll a D6 and compare receipts. Highest total receipts wins. I'm not sure what the D6 is for." - Abadabadoobaddon, on Reciepthammer 40k

"I cross the void beyond the mind,” - The Doctor

"It's better to just roll a D6 and discount anything I say on a 3+" - NivlacSupreme, on himself and his sanity. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
Hell no. I'm glad they're of much, much higher quality than the old minis. I wish they were even better.

Actually what I hope for even more is that they have new UNIT TYPES as much as they do new plastic miniatures. Sisters have been stagnating with the same 2hq/2elite/1troop/2fa/1heavy infantry choices and a tragically small vehicle base for way too long.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





And with the current set up and rule of 3 that lack of options really hurts.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





Belgium

Well, GW *could* add more infantry types to the sisters with the same plastic kits, but I'm not sure it would be really relevant. I think it's better to have different choices that have a clear purpose distinct from the others rather than the same unit type doing practically the same job but one is being simply better than the other (celestians were in that spot for quite a long time now - they were added as an elite choice with the intent of using the base sisters with conversions, but they kinda filled the same job in the end with more or less interest as editions went on).

So far, I feel like the infantries we have now are good enough. What sisters could use, however, is more vehicles and...more Adeptus Ministorum units, actually. The Frateris Militia can bring a specific role to a sister army akin to Cultists in a Chaos Space Marine army, but they're clearly not part of the Adepta Sororitas.

But sure, they could make different kinds of Seraphim-like units for example (like one with melee weapons rather than pistols). But the "base sisters" ? Dominions have the special weapons, Retributors have the heavy weapons, celestians are bodyguards/veterans...what would be next, Primaris sisters ? Not sure it's that needed.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/11 10:04:49


Cuteness for the Cute Goddess! 
   
Made in es
Skilled SDF-1 Pin-Point Barrier Jockey






Well, I dunno... Scout/light skirmisher sisters? Gunslinger repentias? More varied penitent engines? Reworked arch flagellants? Gunned arch flagellants? Bikers? Non-penitent walkers? More vehicles?

I mean, there are lots of options of stuff they could add... (then again, I don't think any of those would use the base plastics)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/11 10:47:24


 
   
Made in gb
Princeps of the Emperor's Titan!






 Melissia wrote:
 Tiberius501 wrote:
Man... am I the only one just looking forward to some plastic sisters here?
Hell no. I'm glad they're of much, much higher quality than the old minis. I wish they were even better.

Actually what I hope for even more is that they have new UNIT TYPES as much as they do new plastic miniatures. Sisters have been stagnating with the same 2hq/2elite/1troop/2fa/1heavy infantry choices and a tragically small vehicle base for way too long.


I think we can reasonably expect new toys for Sisters.

I mean, GSC got some loving recently. They went from a defunct line, to splitting Hybrids into two units, Aberrants, Abominants, Bikers and Quadbike, Truck x 2 and the Big Buggy, plus a poop load of new characters. They've flesh them out pretty nicely, even though they've also got access to the vast majority (entirety?) of the AM Codex.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives?Why not join us?

 
   
Made in gb
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





The Shire(s)

A dual-build Celestians "veteran" kit would be cool- make the original bolter-wielders into a kind of Sternguard equivalent with access to combi-weapons (including combi-crossbows and some expensive Ecclesiarchy-bought equipment), and have a melee version styled like the Swiss Guard with fancy polearms or somesuch. They could call the polearms sarissas and actually use that name for a weapon at least vaguely similar to the Macedonian pike, rather than for a boltgun bayonet...

The melee version could also have wristmounted pistols (usual selection for AS), or some other kind of hands-free firearm. Really make them look like they are veterans backed by one of the richest institutions within the Imperium, not just Battle sisters with some fancy robes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/11 11:14:57


 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists, and it's not likely given how GW have been breaking everything up into microfactions of late, but "generic raggedy cultists" is right up there with "basic human-size servitors" in the Why Haven't GW Done This Obvious Thing Yet sweepstakes.

There's only so many variations on "Sisters in armour" and "Sisters not in armour" you can do - especially without just cloning Marines - and most have been done. Beyond a specific box for Celestians, a melee variant of Seraphim, a non-melee variant of Repentia, a shooty or heavy version of the Penitent Engine, I'm not sure there's much they can really satisfyingly do with Sisters without dipping into the broader Ecclesiarchy.

All that said, my expectations for the release are that they'll give us the existing options in plastic, plus a smattering of new character models, and maybe one new kit and/or a couple of the existing units would dual-build as something else. Better to keep expectations minimal and be happily surprised.

EDIT: Also, recall that GSC got all those things in two distinct waves a fair wee while apart.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/11 11:14:48


I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 Yodhrin wrote:
I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists, and it's not likely given how GW have been breaking everything up into microfactions of late, but "generic raggedy cultists" is right up there with "basic human-size servitors" in the Why Haven't GW Done This Obvious Thing Yet sweepstakes.

There's only so many variations on "Sisters in armour" and "Sisters not in armour" you can do - especially without just cloning Marines - and most have been done. Beyond a specific box for Celestians, a melee variant of Seraphim, a non-melee variant of Repentia, a shooty or heavy version of the Penitent Engine, I'm not sure there's much they can really satisfyingly do with Sisters without dipping into the broader Ecclesiarchy.

All that said, my expectations for the release are that they'll give us the existing options in plastic, plus a smattering of new character models, and maybe one new kit and/or a couple of the existing units would dual-build as something else. Better to keep expectations minimal and be happily surprised.

EDIT: Also, recall that GSC got all those things in two distinct waves a fair wee while apart.


I'm guessing we see most of the new stuff as dual kits - a new set of weapons for seraphim, a new tank that's a slightly different exorcist, a new weapon for penitent engines.

Given we ate almost guaranteed a penitent engine kit, ecclesiarchy will probably exist in at least some fashion, buy beyond a mini storm priest in plastic I'd be surprised.

I'll take cawdor cultists for 200, Alex.
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Cronch wrote:
There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Cronch wrote:
There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?


IIRC the Penitent Engine has been officially a "Ministorum unit" since its release, the larger analogue of the arco-flagellant. I would definitely be surprised if they released any new ministorum units, but I would be amazed if the Engine didn't make a return in plastic, considering they mention it basically every time Sisters gets mentioned.

Also, dunno why ministorum units are assumed to be exclusively male. Of their units currently, you've got:

-Priest, Jacobus (All the models for these have been male IIRC)
-Arco-flagellant: N/A?
-Death Cult Assassin: All the models have been ladies
-Crusaders: Person wearing huge armor, so, your guess is as good as mine.
-Penitent Engine: Current ancient model has male and female variants.

I don't think there's a reason we couldn't have a female ministorum priest, or Crusaders, or arco-flagellants ( more female representation in body horror torso monsters!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A.T. wrote:
Cronch wrote:
There's enough male-only armies in 40k, do we really need to bring them into the one army that isn't 100% sausagefest?
Returning them to the codex you mean. Zealots and the priestly delegations were among those cut when the sisters were shoehorned in with the inquisition, but were one of those things that helped the sisters be something other than T3 marines with most of the units missing.


But even if they do stay out, functionally speaking what's the difference if you buy some boxes of Cawdor gangers and run them as Catachan guardsmen with flamers, a lord commissar, and some ministorum priests?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/11 13:23:08


 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, dunno why ministorum units are assumed to be exclusively male.
Because GW does exactly that for a lot of Ecclesiarchy units.

For example, there's not a single model for a priestess in GW's current line, and I can't remember them ever making one in the past.

To be fair, you're right, there's no reason they have to be.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in gb
Calm Celestian





England

 Yodhrin wrote:
I've still got my fingers crossed for Ecclesiarchy stuff. I know that would annoy some of the Sisters purists...
.


Sisters of Battle had Ecclesiastical units from the get go.

And as you say, GW is quite likely to add female priests in this time around.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Please don’t necro to ask if there’s been any news.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
But even if they do stay out, functionally speaking what's the difference if you buy some boxes of Cawdor gangers and run them as Catachan guardsmen with flamers, a lord commissar, and some ministorum priests?
Holding out for the redemptionists myself.

The functional difference these days is that GW doesn't do rules without models so your zealots would be limited to whatever the catachans have (and some lesser issues with awkward split detachments, transport and deployment limitations, tournament classification, etc)
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

 Melissia wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Also, dunno why ministorum units are assumed to be exclusively male.
Because GW does exactly that for a lot of Ecclesiarchy units.

For example, there's not a single model for a priestess in GW's current line, and I can't remember them ever making one in the past.

To be fair, you're right, there's no reason they have to be.


Also to be fair, there weren't many female anything except Sisters in the periods they've previously done Sisters. They've taken their first steps towards rectifying that recently, I'd hope they continue with Ecclesiarchy units - I maintain that any human faction that isn't explicitly monosex should, at a minimum, have 1/3 of their infantry and character models be female, for the sake of simple variety if nothing else. I'd hope that would apply to a Frateris Militia box as well.

A.T. wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
But even if they do stay out, functionally speaking what's the difference if you buy some boxes of Cawdor gangers and run them as Catachan guardsmen with flamers, a lord commissar, and some ministorum priests?
Holding out for the redemptionists myself.

The functional difference these days is that GW doesn't do rules without models so your zealots would be limited to whatever the catachans have (and some lesser issues with awkward split detachments, transport and deployment limitations, tournament classification, etc)


Also, the Cawdor have a very specific and uniform appearance. When & if GW do Frateris, I'd want them to do a grimdark version of the Broken plastic infantry from Maelstrom's Edge - different styles of dress(though all raggedy), different gear, something that really fits the idea that these are a bunch of Imperial citizens from all walks of life who've just left it all behind to serve the Emperor and been handed whatever basic guns that were lying about the place.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/11 14:27:36


I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





True, that'd be great. ...But I doubt it'd happen. GW definitely seems loathe to make things that aren't distinctive, probably because it makes it more difficult for someone to use something like, I dunno, Maelstrom's Edge Broken models instead of signifciantly more expensive GW official models for that purpose.

We don't even have an actual multipart plastic chaos cultist kit. It's been 2 full editions. Of course, if you dont' mind not having autoguns Chaos Cultists are one of the easiest kits ever to kitbash - mine are all egyptian styled cultists from their AOS oilchest birdmaskfellows kit because I play thousand sons. And 20 for 50 is a surprisingly good deal on a new GW kit.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: