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.

Shas'o_Longshot wrote:
Well, if you're not including Sisters because their codex is too old, you also can't include Blood Angels, Space Marines, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Black Templars, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids or Space Wolves...

No... JUST SISTERS AND SPACE MARINE OFFSHOOTS!!!

Argue all you want, the correct answer remains, as it always has, "Squats".

I don't understand why this thread has lasted so long. Kind of a silly question, and even excluding Black Templar.

Maybe you question should be:

"What is the least popular Xeno army?"

Troike wrote:So what you're saying is that they didn't sell as well as the others in the early days, so GW is justified in bascially ingoring them from that point onwards?

Yes.

That's how business works. Games Workshop isn't a charity. The fact that Sisters have gotten rules updates is probably somewhat charitable as is. Somebody above talked about New Coke. As disastrous as it was for the brand, a fair number of people actually liked New Coke. But it's no longer sold.

Alternatively, one can take the view the Sisters were hamstrung in this regard by their expensive metal models, and weren't marketed as hard as the 'crons. GW's itself was still very much an influence here.

Imperial Guard was all metal for a long time. Then it was only plastic if you wanted those awful Catachan figs. It still sold. Necrons only had one plastic troop choice, everything else was metal. Sisters were never hamstrung. In fact, the exact opposite. They were given a fair second chance to succeed when being an all-metal army wasn't a hindrance.

For whatever reason, the Sisters have never been popular. I could suggest a few reasons, but they are irrelevant since we don't know for certain why, and I doubt GW is going to ever tell us if they did any market research on it. My best guess is either "All girl army in a hobby dominated by guys" or "They're like Space Marines, only not as good". Or both.

Onus is on GW to do something or drop them

Or, do nothing, like they have been. The problem is you look at this from the perspective of a frustrated player, and not from a business perspective. If GW can continue to make a smalll profit with minimal production cost, and do the basic customer service of keeping the army playable, then there's no need for them to do anything at all. I work in marketing for a company that is larger than Games Workshop and owns multiple retail brands. Trust me, there are just certain things that get sold because it makes sense to keep selling them, but there's absolutely no interest in spending money to try to increase sales because the product is assumed to not have much room for growth.

I'm fairly certain that's how GW looks at the Sisters. Again, nothing happens in a vacuum. Revamping an entire model line costs a lot of money. Money is a finite resource, so any company has to determine what the best spending budget looks like. Revamping an entire model line also requires a lot of resources, including workforce resources. So if the Sisters need a new line of models and new rules, those are writers, and artists, and sculptors, and whatever else, that are working on Sisters, and not working on another project. This is where the question of relative profitability comes into play. Does Games Workshop see the potential for Sisters to make money, or, with a new edition out, do they work on another army's update instead? In simpler terms, is the cost/benefit of Sisters better than that of another project?

Chicken and egg thing aside, we can at least agree that a real update would probably make them into a well-selling army?

No.

A "better" selling army? Maybe. But realistically, if anyone at GW thought there was potential for the Sisters to sell "well", I'm sure it would have happened by now.

I really want to be clear, because I get accused of hating the Sisters quite often, that I don't. I've had Sisters models since they were first released, and even bought some of the 2nd gen ones. Never made an army because I didn't like 3rd Edition all that much, and fell out of the hobby for a while. I sympathize with the frustration of players at what seems like "unfair" treatment, and feeling like the army has been all but "abandoned". But I've studied business, and I've worked in the business side of retail, and I understand product life cycles and the growth-share matrix, etc. I don't know all the answers because GW never publishes any of that info and I'm not an insider. And really, I don't care. It just seems that a lot of fans don't understand why GW would not update the Sisters, and I try to shed some light on it. GW makes some weird decisions sometimes. But not all of them are evil, or stupid. The plight of the Sisters seems like it is probably fairly clear cut.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Troike wrote:So what you're saying is that they didn't sell as well as the others in the early days, so GW is justified in bascially ingoring them from that point onwards?

Yes.

That's how business works. Games Workshop isn't a charity. The fact that Sisters have gotten rules updates is probably somewhat charitable as is. Somebody above talked about New Coke. As disastrous as it was for the brand, a fair number of people actually liked New Coke. But it's no longer sold.

So you don't see the problem in "this thing didn't sell as well as the others in the early days, therefore we must never give it any meaningful support again"?

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Troike wrote:Onus is on GW to do something or drop them

Or, do nothing, like they have been. The problem is you look at this from the perspective of a frustrated player, and not from a business perspective. If GW can continue to make a smalll profit with minimal production cost, and do the basic customer service of keeping the army playable, then there's no need for them to do anything at all. I work in marketing for a company that is larger than Games Workshop and owns multiple retail brands. Trust me, there are just certain things that get sold because it makes sense to keep selling them, but there's absolutely no interest in spending money to try to increase sales because the product is assumed to not have much room for growth.

I'm not just coming at it as a frustrated player. As I've said, the ball is firmly in GW's court now. If they were to put in effort, they'd probably make quite a bit of money, given that a lot of people are calling out for the Sisters to get some love after years of (more or less) apathy. Also, the fact that they continue to support them, and as you've said, make a profit on them, would imply that GW sees potential in them. If they saw no future for the army, then I doubt they'd see much point in devoting resources to keeping them around.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I'm fairly certain that's how GW looks at the Sisters. Again, nothing happens in a vacuum. Revamping an entire model line costs a lot of money. Money is a finite resource, so any company has to determine what the best spending budget looks like. Revamping an entire model line also requires a lot of resources, including workforce resources. So if the Sisters need a new line of models and new rules, those are writers, and artists, and sculptors, and whatever else, that are working on Sisters, and not working on another project. This is where the question of relative profitability comes into play. Does Games Workshop see the potential for Sisters to make money, or, with a new edition out, do they work on another army's update instead? In simpler terms, is the cost/benefit of Sisters better than that of another project?

There's a definite precedence for substantial model/codex updates being big deals and making GW plenty of money. GW is obviously aware of this, so I doubt they see it as huge a risk as you make out. Since nothing happens in a vacuum, we have to take past revamps into account too.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Troike wrote:Chicken and egg thing aside, we can at least agree that a real update would probably make them into a well-selling army?

No.

A "better" selling army? Maybe. But realistically, if anyone at GW thought there was potential for the Sisters to sell "well", I'm sure it would have happened by now.

You could have made this exact argument for the Dark Eldar. And look what happened there. They were an underperforming, hard to collect army. Then GW gave them a big update, and they became a well-selling army. Also, the DE were neglected for two years (correct me if I'm wrong), so we can't exactly really say "by now" in regards to the SoB's lack of updates.

But you ignore the Necrons.

The Necrons and Sisters have almost an identical product history, and yet the Necrons thrived, and the Sisters did not.

Also, the fact that they continue to support them, and as you've said, make a profit on them, would imply that GW sees potential in them.

No. That's not the way it works. The continue to support them because they have no reason not to, and see a slight benefit in the status quo.

Basically:
As is- Extremely low production cost. Extremely low development cost. Small profit.
Dropping the line - No profit, bad customer service.
Revamping the line - High production cost. High development cost. Uncertain profit.

There's almost no resources involved in producing an abbreviated codex for White Dwarf. [i]White Dwarf gets printed anyway.[i/] Little to no art. Little to no writing. Make a list, playtest it a bit, print, move on. There is a colossal difference between what was done for those two White Dwarfs, and writing, assembling and printing a codex book.

given that a lot of people are calling out for the Sisters

I don't really think there's as many as you seem to think. It's a fringe army, and always has been. More people would probably rather see Necromunda come back than care if Sisters of Battle got another codex.

Except the Necrons were the "first" 6th edition Codex (not really, it's 5th, but obviously written with 6th in mind) and now Necrons are a crazy-popular army.

The exception being that Necrons have a new codex and new models, the Sisterhood does not.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
But you ignore the Necrons.

The Necrons and Sisters have almost an identical product history, and yet the Necrons thrived, and the Sisters did not.

I already addressed the Necrons. They got lots of support and marketing, whereas the Sisters did not. It's not an entirely valid comparison.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Also, the fact that they continue to support them, and as you've said, make a profit on them, would imply that GW sees potential in them.

No. That's not the way it works. They continue to support them because they have no reason not to, and see a slight benefit in the status quo.

Basically:
As is- Extremely low production cost. Extremely low development cost. Small profit.
Dropping the line - No profit, bad customer service.
Revamping the line - High production cost. High development cost. Uncertain profit.

There's almost no resources involved in producing an abbreviated codex for White Dwarf. [i]White Dwarf gets printed anyway.[i/] Little to no art. Little to no writing. Make a list, playtest it a bit, print, move on. There is a colossal difference between what was done for those two White Dwarfs, and writing, assembling and printing a codex book.

So we agree that them being dropped is the least likely outcome, at least?

As for the revamp option, the "high costs" part could be leveled at a lot of things, cheifly, my favourite blunt object in this debate. On paper, the Dark Eldar were "high cost" and not a guranteed success, but they got updated it and it paid off.

Also, if you're considering customer service as a factor, keeping them like this forever certainly isn't good customer service.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Troike wrote:
given that a lot of people are calling out for the Sisters

I don't really think there's as many as you seem to think. It's a fringe army, and always has been. More people would probably rather see Necromunda come back than care if Sisters of Battle got another codex.

Every day when I lurk 40K communities, be it here or /tg/ or elsewhere, I see people wishing that the Sisters would get some attention. Haven't seen Necromunda get mentioned anywhere near as much. There's certainly a strong demand for them.

 Psienesis wrote:
Except the Necrons were the "first" 6th edition Codex (not really, it's 5th, but obviously written with 6th in mind) and now Necrons are a crazy-popular army.

The exception being that Necrons have a new codex and new models, the Sisterhood does not.

I'd wager the Necrons were more popular even when all they had was a not very powerful (Pre new codex) 3rd edition codex, to be honest.

 Troike wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
But you ignore the Necrons.
The Necrons and Sisters have almost an identical product history, and yet the Necrons thrived, and the Sisters did not.

I already addressed the Necrons. They got lots of support and marketing, whereas the Sisters did not. It's not an entirely valid comparison.

I've actually shown the historical difference in the past, and that's just not the case.

Sisters got a codex book with a stand-alone army list, and the cover of White Dwarf when they first came out. Necrons got a blurb in the bottom corner and rules for use in special scenarios. The Sisters were given a lot of marketing support, for what they were. Necrons didn't really get much at all.

Remember, this is fifteen years we're talking about here. Necrons got a new Codex because their previous one generated a fair amount of support. What has happened in the last few years is irrelevant. Something happened in the first few years of their product life that got the Necrons promoted from "Hey, these guys might be fun to use in some kind of one-off game" to "Here's a whole army of goofy looking Egyptian Space Terminators" in 2002. The likely answer to that is demand.

Everything else in 40K has been a result of demand. Most of it we can easily pinpoint, such as the reason why Space Marines dominate the releases. They sell more models, so more models get made for them. Why would we assume the Sisters of Battle are this one exception where there's all this hidden demand that has never existed in their nearly 15 year existence, and they're a wildly successful product just waiting to happen?

Sisters don't sell well now because they didn't sell well in 1997, or in 2003. Revamping the line is probably seen as too much of a threat of throwing good money after bad. If the line has failed twice, what's the hope for the third time being the charm?

Also, if you're considering customer service as a factor, keeping them like this forever certainly isn't good customer service.

It's better than not supporting them at all. That's the other option. Dropping the Squats was bad customer service. The Squats were a product Games Workshop wasn't interested in continuing to develop. So they dropped them completely. There was a lot of backlash, and they ended up having to be bothered about the Squats for 20 years because of it. It got so bad that they began to remove mentions of Squats from their official forums, and there was even the suggestion that all the Squats were eaten, as some kind of giant "Go F yerselves!" to those fans who had the very legitimate complaint of "Hey, I paid you money for these models and you made them worthless."

So yes, what they are doing is certainly good customer service, lol. Because the alternative was letting the model line rot completely. What the Sisters got were updated rules so that the models were still viable in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Except the Necrons were the "first" 6th edition Codex (not really, it's 5th, but obviously written with 6th in mind) and now Necrons are a crazy-popular army.

The exception being that Necrons have a new codex and new models, the Sisterhood does not.

I'd wager the Necrons were more popular even when all they had was a not very powerful (Pre new codex) 3rd edition codex, to be honest.

This is all but a certainty.
Necrons got new models because the previous ones sold as well.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
But you ignore the Necrons.
The Necrons and Sisters have almost an identical product history, and yet the Necrons thrived, and the Sisters did not.

I already addressed the Necrons. They got lots of support and marketing, whereas the Sisters did not. It's not an entirely valid comparison.

I've actually shown the historical difference in the past, and that's just not the case.

Sisters got a codex book with a stand-alone army list, and the cover of White Dwarf when they first came out. Necrons got a blurb in the bottom corner and rules for use in special scenarios. The Sisters were given a lot of marketing support, for what they were. Necrons didn't really get much at all.

Remember, this is fifteen years we're talking about here. Necrons got a new Codex because their previous one generated a fair amount of support. What has happened in the last few years is irrelevant. Something happened in the first few years of their product life that got the Necrons promoted from "Hey, these guys might be fun to use in some kind of one-off game" to "Here's a whole army of goofy looking Egyptian Space Terminators" in 2002. The likely answer to that is demand.

Everything else in 40K has been a result of demand. Most of it we can easily pinpoint, such as the reason why Space Marines dominate the releases. They sell more models, so more models get made for them. Why would we assume the Sisters of Battle are this one exception where there's all this hidden demand that has never existed in their nearly 15 year existence, and they're a wildly successful product just waiting to happen?

Sisters don't sell well now because they didn't sell well in 1997, or in 2003. Revamping the line is probably seen as too much of a threat of throwing good money after bad. If the line has failed twice, what's the hope for the third time being the charm?

But this is just going back to my previous point about apparent underperformance in the early days resulting in the Sisters being given little attention from that point onwards. by your telling, their underperformance in said early days makes GW completely justified in ignoring them forever.

Also, if that 2003 update didn't include plastic models then it's hardly a substantial update, is it?

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Also, if you're considering customer service as a factor, keeping them like this forever certainly isn't good customer service.

It's better than not supporting them at all. That's the other option. Dropping the Squats was bad customer service. The Squats were a product Games Workshop wasn't interested in continuing to develop. So they dropped them completely. There was a lot of backlash, and they ended up having to be bothered about the Squats for 20 years because of it. It got so bad that they began to remove mentions of Squats from their official forums, and there was even the suggestion that all the Squats were eaten, as some kind of giant "Go F yerselves!" to those fans who had the very legitimate complaint of "Hey, I paid you money for these models and you made them worthless."

So yes, what they are doing is certainly good customer service, lol. Because the alternative was letting the model line rot completely. What the Sisters got were updated rules so that the models were still viable in the game.

While it's decent of them to not drop the Sisters since they're aware of how the fans would react, by that same token surely they're going to be wary of customer reaction in just keeping them in limbo? I've seen a lot of people saying they've sent emails out, so they're aware that people are wanting an update for them.

Also, I've noticed that you don't seem to ackowledge the whole parell with the Dark Eldar. it's more or less the same situation, and all it took was a meaningful update to get the DE out of their slump. Clear historical precedence, yadda yadda.

Well, I think its SoB and DE in this order.

The parallel between the DE and the SoB is not strictly true for some important reasons. First of all, you could always order a copy of the DE codex but there is no way to obtain a copy of the SoB Codex from GW. Maybe you think this is not important but I think it is huge. There is just no reason to buy those SoB models if you cant get the codex. Do you think this point is lost on GW?

The finecast experiment has failed, leaving GW with no good option on how to mass produce a miniature line that does not scale up to the economics of plastic production methods.

The big parallel that does hold true between the DE and the SoB is a huge disadvantage, the fact that the entire line needs to be redone. I think the time could not be worse for the SoB to require a complete revamp.

GW has been undertaking a lot of cost cutting measures in recent months and they seem to be interested in churning out books that require rather minimal model support. You can rely on the following books coming out before the SoB:

Space Marines
IG
Tyrannids
Orks
SW
BT (big maybe on this one)
Lizardmen
Dwarves
Dark Elves
Orcs (fantasy)
WHFB 9th edition

Unless something changes dramatically the SoB are not in even the intermediate future.

JWhex wrote:
The parallel between the DE and the SoB is not strictly true for some important reasons. First of all, you could always order a copy of the DE codex but there is no way to obtain a copy of the SoB Codex from GW. Maybe you think this is not important but I think it is huge. There is just no reason to buy those SoB models if you cant get the codex. Do you think this point is lost on GW?

The finecast experiment has failed, leaving GW with no good option on how to mass produce a miniature line that does not scale up to the economics of plastic production methods.

The big parallel that does hold true between the DE and the SoB is a huge disadvantage, the fact that the entire line needs to be redone. I think the time could not be worse for the SoB to require a complete revamp.

GW has been undertaking a lot of cost cutting measures in recent months and they seem to be interested in churning out books that require rather minimal model support. You can rely on the following books coming out before the SoB:

Space Marines
IG
Tyrannids
Orks
SW
BT (big maybe on this one)
Lizardmen
Dwarves
Dark Elves
Orcs (fantasy)
WHFB 9th edition

Unless something changes dramatically the SoB are not in even the intermediate future.

I think that it's an entuirely valid comparison. Partly, because it discredits a lot of Veteran Sergeant's logic. By the reasoning he was using, GW had absolutely no reason to update the DE. They must have gotten to that point by selling badly, right? But GW did a revamp on them anyway, depsite this, and it paid off. It's not as clean cut as it's being made out to be. Also, they're really far more similar than they are dissimilar. Both underplayed, undersupported armies with aging codexes and an order-only army.

Anyway, in regards to the codex, I can agree that it's an important factor. I think we can all agree that GW's refusal to sell it online is baffling. However, the community has also adapted to it. There's a fan-made PDF of their codex floating around, and most places (even GW stores!) are fine with people using it, in light of people not being able to easily get ahold of the WD codex. It doesn't sting as bad as you'd think, as long as you're able to use google.

Anyway I don't mind if the SoB take a while to get an update. I just got here, I can wait.

JWhex wrote:The parallel between the DE and the SoB is not strictly true for some important reasons. First of all, you could always order a copy of the DE codex but there is no way to obtain a copy of the SoB Codex from GW. Maybe you think this is not important but I think it is huge. There is just no reason to buy those SoB models if you cant get the codex. Do you think this point is lost on GW?
As said, there is a fan-made copy of the official info available.
As far as I know, even though there's been no attempts to hide it and it's being used in GW stores and at official events, there's been no action on GWs part to have it removed, and no problem among staff.
The finecast experiment has failed, leaving GW with no good option on how to mass produce a miniature line that does not scale up to the economics of plastic production methods.
To be honest - Plastic would be fine for most of it , as you could do the whole current line in 5 Finecast and 7-9 Plastic kits:

Spoiler:

Finecast: 8: 5 new
Saint Celestine
Arch-Confessor Kyrinov
Uriah Jacobus
Dialogus
Hospitalier
Death Cult Assassin (Existing FC kit)
Arco Flagellant (Existing FC kit)
Crusader (Existing FC kit)

Single Model Plastic: 2: 2 new
Cannoness
Ecclesiarchy Priest / Preacher

Plastic Kits: 7-9: 5-7 new
Repentia
Battle Sisters (makes Command Squad, Celestians, Battle Sisters, Dominions, Retribibutors)
Seraphim (Could potentially combine with Battle Sisters box)
Rhino (Existing plastic kit)
Immolator (Existing plastic kit)
Repressor (could potentially combine with Immolator kit)
Exorcist
Penitent Engine
Avenger Strike Fighter (or other flyer)

Possibly with an additional 1-2 plastic kits for new units (giant something and/or random flavour unit) and 1-3 new Finecast CharactersThe big parallel that does hold true between the DE and the SoB is a huge disadvantage, the fact that the entire line needs to be redone. I think the time could not be worse for the SoB to require a complete revamp.

Spoiler:

GW has been undertaking a lot of cost cutting measures in recent months and they seem to be interested in churning out books that require rather minimal model support. You can rely on the following books coming out before the SoB:

Space Marines
IG
Tyrannids
Orks
SW
BT (big maybe on this one)
Lizardmen
Dwarves
Dark Elves
Orcs (fantasy)
WHFB 9th edition

Unless something changes dramatically the SoB are not in even the intermediate future. The Blood Angels codex came out 3 years after its White Dwarf codex.

Being this is the release schedule for the Codexes so far: They are blitzing the oldest books - all those still on a 4th edition book are being brought to current.
This says to me that Orks and Black Templar will be next in line (the last 4th ed books), with Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Tyranids, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard and Space Marines, (the 5th ed books - not in that order though) in the following months. (8 codexes total)
Then we'll finally see Sisters, Grey Knights and Necrons (5th for 6th) books.

Assuming that they're trying to bring every book up to 6th edition, and continue their current release schedule: we'll have the remaining 11 books within 12-18 months! (doubtful, but one can hope xD)

Troike wrote:
I think that it's an entuirely valid comparison. Partly, because it discredits a lot of Veteran Sergeant's logic.

So, it's not really valid... it just says what you want to hear.

Fair enough. But you need to keep the snootiness to a minimum because it's only liable to get embarrassing for you.

By the reasoning he was using, GW had absolutely no reason to update the DE. They must have gotten to that point by selling badly, right?

Maybe, maybe not. But we know that they did update the Dark Eldar, and they didn't update the Sisters. So maybe, and this will be shocking, there's a difference between levels of how badly a product underperforms, and difference in the kinds of expected growth for a target segment.

This one is actually fairly simple, and it won't have been on your mind if you're a younger/newer player of the game. But the Dark Eldar existed long before 3rd Edition, but in the form of converted Chaos Eldar armies that made regular appearances at GW tournaments and placed highly in Golden Demon contests. The creation of the Dark Eldar as an army was in response to perceived demand. So there was already an established fan base. And Dark Eldar sold really well at first, before it became apparent the army wasn't very good.

So no, they aren't really that similar. What Games Workshop believed about the Dark Eldar was that the potential was there, but the product had been sub par. It's basically like designing a car that everyone thinks is awesome, and making it affordable, but then the sales die off because the car is unreliable and the interior tends to fall apart after a year. The company knows if it can make a reliable, high quality version of that car, that it will sell like hotcakes. The revamp of the Dark Eldar was taking a product that they knew people wanted (evil space elves), and making it something they would be willing to live with having purchased (evil space elves that win tabletop battles).

The Sisters, on the other hand, didn't sell models at all. Twice. That means there is no past performance, and no perceived demand. Remember, no matter how many times you see people talk about wanting Sisters on different sites, remember two things. They're all the same small group of people, lol. And that ultimately, there are a ton of armies in 40K already. So there has to be something about each one that appeals to a target segment. Like the money GW has to spend, its target audience also has only a finite amount of money to spend on the products. And since plastic toy soldiers are a luxury item, GW competes for their "share of wallet". What drives a player to buy Sisters instead of another army that already exists? The answer is, most of the time, nothing.

Now, the funny part is, something I've suggested more than once is that what the Sisters need isn't a revamp, but an entire overhaul and face lift. Ladymarines With Fire never resonated with the market. Maybe making them less individually elite power armored Space Marine spinoffs, and instead be a top tier unit for a "Crusade" style army more akin to Lady Stormtroopers. You could even use most of the existing models since SoB power armor looks nothing like power armor at all aside from the backpack. Of course, that idea never goes over at all with Sisters players, who inevitably get super defensive, angry, start throwing insults, and generally scoffing at the idea, because, well, in reality, hardcore Sisters fans enjoy being able to pretend they are a persecuted 40K minority. And they'd rather the army languish in barely-supported obscurity than accept anything else.

Speaking of the Sisters, I was provided this link to a downloadable compilation of the most-current SoB rules, considering that one's only other alternative is Ebay or a lucky find at a used book store:

[MOD EDIT - Please do not post links to pirated materials. Thanks! Alpharius]

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
~snip~
Now, the funny part is, something I've suggested more than once is that what the Sisters need isn't a revamp, but an entire overhaul and face lift. Ladymarines With Fire never resonated with the market. Maybe making them less individually elite power armored Space Marine spinoffs, and instead be a top tier unit for a "Crusade" style army more akin to Lady Stormtroopers. You could even use most of the existing models since SoB power armor looks nothing like power armor at all aside from the backpack. Of course, that idea never goes over at all with Sisters players, who inevitably get super defensive, angry, start throwing insults, and generally scoffing at the idea, because, well, in reality, hardcore Sisters fans enjoy being able to pretend they are a persecuted 40K minority. And they'd rather the army languish in barely-supported obscurity than accept anything else.

No, I think the reason they get offended by that suggestion, is your suggestion is 'lets take your entire army, completely change what it is (power armoured zealots to some sort of veteran unit) and make it a small part of something elses army.

What would your reaction be to making Ultramarines into a 'top-tier unit for a 'Blitzkrieg' style army, akin to drugged up super-stormtroopers?
How would you feel if someone wanted to nullify your whole army, that you've spent a lot of time and a LOT of money on, and turn the entire thing into 1 unit in another army, that bears minimal relation to what your army actually is?

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Unless you're a normal person I guess. I mean, who has cake and just looks at it?

Regardless, the reality is that Sisters have never succeeded as an army, and all evidence points to it being because the army has never been able to generate significant appeal.

Look at the way companies like Apple, Ford, etc, re-imagined themselves to create successful companies out of failing ones. That's probably what GW needs to do with the Sisters. When they were first imagined way back in the long long ago, they were literally Lady Space Marines. Same organization, same weapons, same vehicles.

Well, they didn't catch on. Probably because there are already plenty of actual Space Marines to play as (viking ones, vampirey ones, and even evil spiky ones), and girls don't play 40K (in any significant quantity, and they still like all the foofoo stuff girls like, like elves).

It's still the same army. Crazy lady zealots. Just costed down, and given a better and more flexible army list than they have ever had before.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Troike wrote:
I think that it's an entuirely valid comparison. Partly, because it discredits a lot of Veteran Sergeant's logic.

So, it's not really valid... it just says what you want to hear.

Fair enough. But you need to keep the snootiness to a minimum because it's only liable to get embarrassing for you.

No, they really do go against your above logic. That's fact, and relevant to the debate since those were the reasons you were giving for why they'd never be updated.

And there's no need to resort to personal attacks there, bud. Thought we was having a nice, civil debate?

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Troike wrote:By the reasoning he was using, GW had absolutely no reason to update the DE. They must have gotten to that point by selling badly, right?

Maybe, maybe not. But we know that they did update the Dark Eldar, and they didn't update the Sisters. So maybe, and this will be shocking, there's a difference between levels of how badly a product underperforms, and difference in the kinds of expected growth for a target segment.

This one is actually fairly simple, and it won't have been on your mind if you're a younger/newer player of the game. But the Dark Eldar existed long before 3rd Edition, but in the form of converted Chaos Eldar armies that made regular appearances at GW tournaments and placed highly in Golden Demon contests. The creation of the Dark Eldar as an army was in response to perceived demand. So there was already an established fan base. And Dark Eldar sold really well at first, before it became apparent the army wasn't very good.

So no, they aren't really that similar. What Games Workshop believed about the Dark Eldar was that the potential was there, but the product had been sub par. It's basically like designing a car that everyone thinks is awesome, and making it affordable, but then the sales die off because the car is unreliable and the interior tends to fall apart after a year. The company knows if it can make a reliable, high quality version of that car, that it will sell like hotcakes. The revamp of the Dark Eldar was taking a product that they knew people wanted (evil space elves), and making it something they would be willing to live with having purchased (evil space elves that win tabletop battles).

The Sisters, on the other hand, didn't sell models at all. Twice. That means there is no past performance, and no perceived demand. Remember, no matter how many times you see people talk about wanting Sisters on different sites, remember two things. They're all the same small group of people, lol. And that ultimately, there are a ton of armies in 40K already. So there has to be something about each one that appeals to a target segment. Like the money GW has to spend, its target audience also has only a finite amount of money to spend on the products. And since plastic toy soldiers are a luxury item, GW competes for their "share of wallet". What drives a player to buy Sisters instead of another army that already exists? The answer is, most of the time, nothing.

Now, the funny part is, something I've suggested more than once is that what the Sisters need isn't a revamp, but an entire overhaul and face lift. Ladymarines With Fire never resonated with the market. Maybe making them less individually elite power armored Space Marine spinoffs, and instead be a top tier unit for a "Crusade" style army more akin to Lady Stormtroopers. You could even use most of the existing models since SoB power armor looks nothing like power armor at all aside from the backpack. Of course, that idea never goes over at all with Sisters players, who inevitably get super defensive, angry, start throwing insults, and generally scoffing at the idea, because, well, in reality, hardcore Sisters fans enjoy being able to pretend they are a persecuted 40K minority. And they'd rather the army languish in barely-supported obscurity than accept anything else.

We can't actually say that they "didn't" update the Sisters. Other races have been left unupdated longer than this, so all we can saty is "not yet".

And the Dark Eldar's origins don't really have any bearing on the argument I'm making. Fact of the matter is, they were pretty much in the situation that the Sisters are in no. Order-only, codex from an older addition, underplayed (and again, by your logic, they got that way because of the all important reason of not selling) Furthermore, your whole analogy about cars holds up for the Sisters too. GW knows that redesigning and revamping a car makes them a lot of money. They have revamped a lot of cars over the years, so there's no real reason for them to look at our churchy, fire-spewing car and see asolutely no hope for it.

In regards to your point about the demand not actually existing, it really does. Since I've started properly lurking 40K sites, I've seen a least two attempts at email campaigns. On top of that, several posts wishing that the Sisters would get some love. You can say it's the same small group of people, and honestly neither of us can prove it either way. All I know is I've seen consistent and numerous demands for them on various 40K sites. Demand is certainly there.

As said above, your suggestion to totally change who they are is, well, pretty bad. Remember, you said that good customer service was a factor for GW. Why would they completely change the look, feel and (presumably) backstory of a race? Of course that'd go down badly. Of course soB players would be annoyed by that. What army's fans wouldn't be? Also, that would likely invalidate the older models completely. Do you think that invalidating people's entire army would be good customer service?

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Unless you're a normal person I guess. I mean, who has cake and just looks at it?

Regardless, the reality is that Sisters have never succeeded as an army, and all evidence points to it being because the army has never been able to generate significant appeal.

Look at the way companies like Apple, Ford, etc, re-imagined themselves to create successful companies out of failing ones. That's probably what GW needs to do with the Sisters. When they were first imagined way back in the long long ago, they were literally Lady Space Marines. Same organization, same weapons, same vehicles.

Well, they didn't catch on. Probably because there are already plenty of actual Space Marines to play as (viking ones, vampirey ones, and even evil spiky ones), and girls don't play 40K (in any significant quantity, and they still like all the foofoo stuff girls like, like elves).

It's still the same army. Crazy lady zealots. Just costed down, and given a better and more flexible army list than they have ever had before.

You're over-simplifying them a bit. I think thart the whole "oh, they're just space marines but women" thing comes much more from the fans than GW. GW material depicts them as devout, flame-thrower wielding zealots who are the soldiers of the church and an Ordos Militant of one of the Inquisition's main branches. They're quite distinct from marines.

Aren't the fans the ones buying the models? I think the disconnect we're having is that I'm talking about the product, and you're talking about the fluff. Fluff doesn't generate revenue.

But it's clear that we're not actually having a debate. See, a debate is an exchange of ideas. The problem is, my argument is based on simple logic and business principles. Yours is based on emotion. We're not exchanging ideas.

I guess not that I ever hoped to. I think the only reason I reply is so that other people reading, who aren't emotionally invested, understand what is actually going on, and don't get distracted by the usual chatter.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Aren't the fans the ones buying the models? I think the disconnect we're having is that I'm talking about the product, and you're talking about the fluff. Fluff doesn't generate revenue.

But it's clear that we're not actually having a debate. See, a debate is an exchange of ideas. The problem is, my argument is based on simple logic and business principles. Yours is based on emotion. We're not exchanging ideas.

I guess not that I ever hoped to. I think the only reason I reply is so that other people reading, who aren't emotionally invested, understand what is actually going on, and don't get distracted by the usual chatter.

Right, and the fans buy them as they are now because they like the models. But, obviously, they can't do that as easily due to the high prices.

Also, it's kind of underhand to simply dismiss all of my points as "emotion", isn't it? Debates should focus on the issue at hand and the validity of the points raised, not the supposed emotions of the debators. The Dark Eldar, and GW's apathy, very valid points to bring up in this discussion. Hardly knee-jerk emotional responses.

How about we just agree to disagree? I think it's pretty clear we'll never see eye to eye on this.

I want to add that my post was not trying to descredit any particular theory, that is just how I see things stacking up.

The Blood Angels are raised in these discussions a lot because they also had a codex that was in the WD and a fairly long time elapsed before they received a stand alone codex. I dont think much at all can be inferred from that in trying to divinate what may happen to the SoB because

1) The BA are marines, the SoB are not. Marines butter GW's bread whether you like it or not.

2) The Blood Angel WD codex was available online as a free pdf, the SoB codex is not available at all from GW.

3) Different times, different priorities. There have been substantial changes in the attitude and practices of GW in recent years.