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.

SoB is "undesirable" not because they are "that girl army"* and we know (insecure) boys can't play girls; the game-police will come and remove their balls, forcibally, and I'm not talking about football; but it's a situation created by GW themselves, their "codex" is hard to find, if not impossible, can you imagine being a newbie to this hobby, looking up the GW site and going "hey, sisters of battle! I'd like an army of boobs!" then they look through the entire section failing to find the bloody codex so they can find out how to bloody run the army, so they look at DE and go "Ah, spikey boobs! My second favourite."(may or may not be personal account!); their models are outdated and who the hell wanna pay £40+ to build a single 10 sisters troop unit? Did I mention they're outdated ugly models as well? May be I should mention that twice! The army themselves, contrary to popular belief, do have their own unique playstyle, I'd say they're more unique than all the marine variants out there, but I'm a marine-hater, so I think I'm a bit biased on that!

But as some others have said, if GW doesn't want my money, I'll just take my business elsewhere.

 cybogoblin wrote:
I'm pretty sure the plastic Sisters are in the same place as the Squats. Slowly digesting in the belly of the Tyranid hive mind.

That implies plastic Sisters existed.

Here's some random pics of my SoB army. Warning large images.

 Bitz_Addict wrote:
Anyone here have an actually SoB army? If so, lets see some pics.

Army has increased in size. I really need to work on painting basics. First army painted so I have learned a lot since then. My wife has pink hair so I have my army with mostly pink hair.

I have an army as well, will post photos this weekend when I next play, hopefully.

Now that said, time for me to say the unpopular thing. But I need to be honest, if Raging Heroes is doing a SoB kind of army...I am dreading it.

I absolutely HATE their "Toughest Girls in the Galaxy" series, pretty much without exception. Almost all of them are just grossly oversexualized to the point of being just gross and creepy to ever want or put on a table. Do SoB have some sexualized models (ie Repentia) sure, but the thought of RH doing a whole army in this style just makes me shudder.

 conker249 wrote:

 Bitz_Addict wrote:
Anyone here have an actually SoB army? If so, lets see some pics.

Army has increased in size. I really need to work on painting basics. First army painted so I have learned a lot since then. My wife has pink hair so I have my army with mostly pink hair.

Haha, oh wow, your colour scheme is quite similar to mine.

Red and grey/silver is a nice look.

 curran12 wrote:
I have an army as well, will post photos this weekend when I next play, hopefully.

Now that said, time for me to say the unpopular thing. But I need to be honest, if Raging Heroes is doing a SoB kind of army...I am dreading it.

I absolutely HATE their "Toughest Girls in the Galaxy" series, pretty much without exception. Almost all of them are just grossly oversexualized to the point of being just gross and creepy to ever want or put on a table. Do SoB have some sexualized models (ie Repentia) sure, but the thought of RH doing a whole army in this style just makes me shudder.

Repentias are pretty much the only ones that're sexualised, though. And if and when GW gets around to redesigning them, they'd probably lose some of that. Case in point, the Daemonettes.

And yeah, I've never seen anybody do good Sisters knockoffs. Saw some buyable minis on /tg/ that came so damn close to being good alternatives to the GW models... but they had high heels.

gork and possibly mork wrote:They're not complaining when it dies, they're waiting eagerly for it to die so the y can throw it away and forget about it.

I could never quite follow this line of reasoning. If GW really wanted to get rid of them completely, they would not have:
- given them a new Codex, as crappy as it may be
- revamped their army page on the website
- granted them a full presentation in the 6E rulebook (considerably larger than in the 5E one)
- devoted a series (yes, series) of articles in newer issues of WD to them

Instead, they would have simply done ... nothing. But they did, hence this army is merely running on "pilot light", so to speak. Minimum effort, to keep things going. The SoB will never "die" this way, they just won't ever live up to their full potential either. It is merely a nigh-total lack of interest on part of the company. Nothing malicious, just ... neglect.

Which fits to the scuttlebutt about Andy Hoare having been the only one who liked and pushed them in the studio. With him gone, they just don't have the necessary support amongst the designers and are relegated to a weird status of stepchildren. They belong to the family and need to be fed at the table, but they won't ever get quite the same love as the other armies, all of whom I imagine have at least one or two core designers who like and maybe even actively play them.


Little hijack:

TheDraconicLord wrote:At least SoB aren't forgotten in the Black Library. There are few, but sisters had 2 books dedicated and 1 audiobook. One book I can't recommend enough is the "The Death of Antagonis": It has one of the coolest 40k chars I have seen in so much time, a canoness. Here's a quote from a review: [...]

Am I correct in assuming that "Canoness Errant" is a sort of title, like a Knight Errant? I know it's just another BL idea and not based on GW fluff at all, but I have to admit, I kind of like the idea, and envision it could be used as a honorary designation for a senior Sororitas Commander who either does not have a fixed convent and just travels around a lot, or has earned a writ to found a new convent, such as a Palatine taking a portion of an established convent's Sisters and embarking on a crusade with the intention of founding a daughter-house at the campaign's culmination.

I might adopt this into my own personal vision of the setting and something I'm occasionally writing on, so if you happen to have any information on how this novel treats that designation, it'd be most welcome as inspiration!

Plastic sisters have been rumored for as long as I've played almost. They are in no hurry.

As for TGG, I just haven't had any urge to jump in. The closest are Kurganovas. Maybe as we get more 3d sculpts, I'll feel it more.

And here's my girls. Been rocking SOB since beginning of 3rd.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-20774-21688_Sisters%20Of%20Battle.html

 Lynata wrote:
Little hijack:

TheDraconicLord wrote:At least SoB aren't forgotten in the Black Library. There are few, but sisters had 2 books dedicated and 1 audiobook. One book I can't recommend enough is the "The Death of Antagonis": It has one of the coolest 40k chars I have seen in so much time, a canoness. Here's a quote from a review: [...]

Am I correct in assuming that "Canoness Errant" is a sort of title, like a Knight Errant? I know it's just another BL idea and not based on GW fluff at all, but I have to admit, I kind of like the idea, and envision it could be used as a honorary designation for a senior Sororitas Commander who either does not have a fixed convent and just travels around a lot, or has earned a writ to found a new convent, such as a Palatine taking a portion of an established convent's Sisters and embarking on a crusade with the intention of founding a daughter-house at the campaign's culmination.

I might adopt this into my own personal vision of the setting and something I'm occasionally writing on, so if you happen to have any information on how this novel treats that designation, it'd be most welcome as inspiration!

Yep, that's more or less what the Canoness errant does in that book. Basically, something happened to her Order and now she just roams around doing her own thing.

Troike wrote:Yep, that's more or less what the Canoness errant does in that book. Basically, something happened to her Order and now she just roams around doing her own thing.

Oh, so unlike a Knight Errant where it's a step before becoming a fully-fledged knight, it is something that happens after being a normal Canoness?

Hmmh, not sure I don't prefer my idea. But it is something to think about. I may end up trying a merger of both versions. Thanks for the explanation!

 Troike wrote:

Repentias are pretty much the only ones that're sexualised, though. And if and when GW gets around to redesigning them, they'd probably lose some of that. Case in point, the Daemonettes.

And yeah, I've never seen anybody do good Sisters knockoffs. Saw some buyable minis on /tg/ that came so damn close to being good alternatives to the GW models... but they had high heels.

Is it some kind of Raging Heroes law that if they have a female model it must have one or more of the following:

1. Enormous breasts
2. Exposed midriff
3. Pose in such a way to show off crotch/ass
4. Skintight everything

I imagine their treatment of SoB is going to follow the same route. People complain about boob armor for Sisters, oooooh man they have not seen anything yet. Not sure how far they are going, but anyone want to put money on their Repentia and Penitent Engines being porn?

Breotan wrote:
GW dropped the ball on this and they've got nobody to blame but themselves.

It's a niche market that a small company can exploit to turn a small profit.

The thing is, GW is a large company, that already turns a larger profit selling other products. While they might be able to make money off a line of plastic Sisters, does that come at the cost at not being able to make something else that would be more profitable?

See, businesses don't operate in a vacuum. There's a limited amount of resources available at any given time, because every person working on plastic Sisters is somebody not working on a different project instead. And they still have salaries that have to be paid. Then you have to make the molds, and the packaging, etc. This all costs money and takes time.

GW obviously has, to this point, found better uses for their money and time than plastic Sisters. I mean, think about the reasoning you and others are using. How long did the Eldar army sit more or less ignored? You could have easily said "If they had made more plastic Aspect Warriors, they'd have made a ton of money off of the Eldar!". Well, they didn't, for whatever reason, for years. Which means the guys making the models and molds were busy doing something else and new Eldar were not a priority. Dark Eldar were treated similarly. Just not a priority. Probably lower sales numbers, and lower projected growth than other projects that were given a higher priority.


People will misunderstand what I'm saying here, I'm sure, because it always happens. I'm not against plastic Sisters. I'm actually fairly certain they'd sell a reasonable number of models. I just can't stand reading the misguided posts where people suggest that GW has not made Sisters because the GW team is stupid,and has no idea what they are doing.

Who are sisters of battle?

Seriously though, GW don't appear to be in a position to take any risks right now, but if they change hands or sales rise considerably they might consider releasing some plastic sisters.

Repentia will probably be toned down. I love seeing other players with sisters of battle. If they happen to get plastic kits I will be happy. Until then I have grown fond of the metal minis. Well, more than FineCast....that's a different thread though.

 Lynata wrote:

Troike wrote:Yep, that's more or less what the Canoness errant does in that book. Basically, something happened to her Order and now she just roams around doing her own thing.

Oh, so unlike a Knight Errant where it's a step before becoming a fully-fledged knight, it is something that happens after being a normal Canoness?

The classical Knights Errant were sometimes knights in waiting, but the term itself has a broader meaning. The idea of wandering around to do knightly things is more important than the actual status of not yet being a knight.

I'd assume the Canoness-Errant is probably just a Canoness who wanders around doing Sistery stuff.

 Bitz_Addict wrote:
Anyone here have an actually SoB army? If so, lets see some pics.

No because I like to give an army my own theme and flavour. You can't really do it with metal cos its such a bitch to convert. I would start on plastic sisters in an instant though. I'm not the type of guy to splurge on an entire army on one Saturday release day though so GW aren't really interested in me.

I had a 1600 dollar 3k sisters army, 4k with all guard attached. It wrecked everything in the game by hardly trying. I have over 20 melta shots every turn at my disposal with a 185 point flak brick. 20 shots rending, hitting on 3's. I don't care if they expand the codex I will though take a decent flier to remove the need for guard in my lists though.

I only traded my sisters because a good friend offered me a one of a kind item in trade.

 Troike wrote:

I was referring more to your second line, actually. You wrote off people complaining about the SoB as simply enjoying complaining. Unless you're a mind-reader, you can't state that as a fact.

I'd be interested in how the other side, the SoB fans who frequently claim there's a huge demand for SoB, know sthat there truly is a huge demand for said miniatures. Any data or reliable source.

 curran12 wrote:

 Troike wrote:

Repentias are pretty much the only ones that're sexualised, though. And if and when GW gets around to redesigning them, they'd probably lose some of that. Case in point, the Daemonettes.

And yeah, I've never seen anybody do good Sisters knockoffs. Saw some buyable minis on /tg/ that came so damn close to being good alternatives to the GW models... but they had high heels.

Is it some kind of Raging Heroes law that if they have a female model it must have one or more of the following:

1. Enormous breasts
2. Exposed midriff
3. Pose in such a way to show off crotch/ass
4. Skintight everything

I imagine their treatment of SoB is going to follow the same route. People complain about boob armor for Sisters, oooooh man they have not seen anything yet. Not sure how far they are going, but anyone want to put money on their Repentia and Penitent Engines being porn?

To be fair, raging heroes deamonettes are what deamonettes are supposed to look like GW's "new" deamonettes are fugly beyond belief, and considering we are talking about "PORN FOR THE PORN GOD!" deamons, it kinda makes no sense. (2nd edition deamonettes were beautiful, tho.)

I also understand those 4 points for Dark Eldar and I really like most "toughest girls" but yeah, I hope it's a bit toned down for their SoB. I hope they look good and beautiful with good ol' boob armor, but without too much craziness... after all, it's my chance to have a SoB army

JWhex wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Never understood all the Sisters hype. I was there when they came out in 2e, they added very little to the game even back then.

It is the "Dead Has Been Star" effect.

When Elvis died it was his best career move in two decades. The squats became more popular after they were cancelled. People just like to complain about stuff they cant have as well. Then you also have the faction of forumites that are looking for ANY reason to complain about GW.

There are SoB fans though and they are very outspoken so what they dont have in numbers they have in persistence.

Also factually inaccurate, as the Squats sold better than some other armies of their era that did not get cancelled.

That said... I'm tired of waiting for GW. When the entire TGG line is done, they're going to become my 3K SOB army.

With the right models and a good codex, a plastic sisters relaunch could be a big hit. Look what it did for Dark Eldar.

 BunkerBob wrote:
I had a 1600 dollar 3k sisters army, 4k with all guard attached. It wrecked everything in the game by hardly trying. I have over 20 melta shots every turn at my disposal with a 185 point flak brick. 20 shots rending, hitting on 3's. I don't care if they expand the codex I will though take a decent flier to remove the need for guard in my lists though.

I only traded my sisters because a good friend offered me a one of a kind item in trade.

See, this is my point. They have a lot of potential and great weapons options. They fall in the perfect niche between Space Marines and IG. They are a great option for those gamers that want an imperial army without having to buy and IG army and don't want to be Marines like 7 out of 10 other people.

gork and possibly mork wrote:
They're not complaining when it dies, they're waiting eagerly for it to die so the y can throw it away and forget about it. When ever a thread like this comes about, it inevitably ends with gw dont care about SoB-because they dont. From my personal experience, not sure about everyone else, the current prices are too expensive for people to start a new army at square one, therefore they'll be aprehensive to Re-do SoB because pretty much everyone would have to start at square one.

If GW actually cared how much it cost to start a new army they wouldn't be in a continued pattern of constantly raising prices each year to make up for lower sales figures. Sales drop, prices rise to cover shortfalls in sales due to loss of volume, so sales drop again, and the prices rise again and so on and so on. Instead of doing things to increase sales they just keep raising prices to make the numbers look OK, even though when you look at the details behind the numbers it is clear that their sales just keep going down. GW wants people to buy full armies from square one because it results in more revenue for them.

These threads regularly end at the stupid conclusion that GW would invest time/money in them if people bought more of them. Of course this ignores the simple fact that if people don't like what is available now they aren't going to "suddenly" wake up and decide to buy a SoB army. If GW invests the time and money people *will* buy them. Tau were very rare and now with the new book and new models Tau sales are more than brisk. Sisters of Battle could see the same kind of resurgence, but they would need a serious overhaul and serious mini line upgrade for it to happen. If GW invest nothing into them, then they guarantee that their sales for SoB will never be worth much ever again.

Skriker

 curran12 wrote:
I have an army as well, will post photos this weekend when I next play, hopefully.

Now that said, time for me to say the unpopular thing. But I need to be honest, if Raging Heroes is doing a SoB kind of army...I am dreading it.

I absolutely HATE their "Toughest Girls in the Galaxy" series, pretty much without exception. Almost all of them are just grossly oversexualized to the point of being just gross and creepy to ever want or put on a table. Do SoB have some sexualized models (ie Repentia) sure, but the thought of RH doing a whole army in this style just makes me shudder.

This is a good point. Personally I wouldn't want to build a SoB army out of TGG models because they are so over the top. They remind me more of anime than table top gaming. If GW ever revamped the SoB, I would hope they wouldn't take the same course. The original models were pretty rad and they just need some tweaking. Again, my example of this is Grey Knights. Look it how they went from a limited line of metal models to some amazing plastic kits without completely changing the core design,

 Bitz_Addict wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I have an army as well, will post photos this weekend when I next play, hopefully.

Now that said, time for me to say the unpopular thing. But I need to be honest, if Raging Heroes is doing a SoB kind of army...I am dreading it.

I absolutely HATE their "Toughest Girls in the Galaxy" series, pretty much without exception. Almost all of them are just grossly oversexualized to the point of being just gross and creepy to ever want or put on a table. Do SoB have some sexualized models (ie Repentia) sure, but the thought of RH doing a whole army in this style just makes me shudder.

This is a good point. Personally I wouldn't want to build a SoB army out of TGG models because they are so over the top. They remind me more of anime than table top gaming. If GW ever revamped the SoB, I would hope they wouldn't take the same course. The original models were pretty rad and they just need some tweaking. Again, my example of this is Grey Knights. Look it how they went from a limited line of metal models to some amazing plastic kits without completely changing the core design,

I think that we're pretty safe from this. Repentia aside, GW treated the Sisters with respect. They al look like soldiers, not unrealistic for what they are at all. And if you're still worried about GW making the Sisters too "over the top", just look what happened to the Daemonettes...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Troike wrote:

I was referring more to your second line, actually. You wrote off people complaining about the SoB as simply enjoying complaining. Unless you're a mind-reader, you can't state that as a fact.

I'd be interested in how the other side, the SoB fans who frequently claim there's a huge demand for SoB, know sthat there truly is a huge demand for said miniatures. Any data or reliable source.

I can't give you any solid and objective data, and I doubt any source can. But what I can tell you is that I see demand for updated SoB every day when lurking 40K sites. Either SoB fans are one of the most vocal minorities ever, or there are quite a lot of people who actually want them.

With the new release schedule of a new codex every other month, it shouldn't take that long (2/3yrs?) for them to finish revising all the other armies. At that point you would assume SoB will finally be brought up to speed, in time for 7th Ed. If you're lucky they might get done before GK/Necrons who are already 6th Ed-ready...
Just my speculation though.

While browsing in am across this gem from Sisters Of Battle

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/503209-Seraphim%20Superiors.html

Now this is a good start that GW should run with.

As I told the creator, those are a bit OTT.

 pretre wrote:
As I told the creator, those are a bit OTT.

The wings, yes. The basic concept, nah. Good start.

 BunkerBob wrote:
I had a 1600 dollar 3k sisters army, 4k with all guard attached. It wrecked everything in the game by hardly trying. I have over 20 melta shots every turn at my disposal with a 185 point flak brick. 20 shots rending, hitting on 3's. I don't care if they expand the codex I will though take a decent flier to remove the need for guard in my lists though.

I only traded my sisters because a good friend offered me a one of a kind item in trade.

That go me thinking of how much I have in that army,(I REALLY didnt want to) and the total is currently $1477, eye opener lol. they are just so much fun to play.

Unsure if there is money in the Sisters of Battle? Raging Heroes funding of TGG has pledged more than $300,000 in less than two days.

Something to think about...