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.

ClockworkZion wrote:
If we go the Daemons book route then we'll be getting a down right BROKEN army that'll ROFL-stomp it's way into legend than is then toned down into something more reasonable later.

Well, according to that quote. That's almost exactly what we'd be getting.

Nothing about that list is balanced.

 pretre wrote:
Dig deeper. We have gotten mini updates MANY times over the years.

2nd Edition SOB - '97
3rd Ed book list - '98
CJ lists - '01 or so
WD List - '01
Chapter Approved Compilation - '02
C:WH - '03
C:WH on the website with slight updates - '08-ish?
WD List again - '11
Update to WD List in Digital Form? - '13

True, but look at the times in which this happened. Mostly from '03 and backwards, a time when a lot more of models would have still been in metal, right? So the all-metal thing might not have been such an issue at that point. Things really dry up from '03 onwards, though, suggesting that at that point the Sisters were deemed low priority for whatever reason, likely due to their modelling issues.

 pretre wrote:
No surprise. Just because they did not say they fixed the modelling issues before doesn't mean they didn't say 'Yeah, we're working on X and we're hopeful'. They've been saying it.

Right, but again, plastics seem to have been the main factor in this, so that's the what I'd focus on the most. It seems that it has just been vague assurances before this. A reliable source also said in 2011 that they unsuccessfully tried to make plastics, suggesting that plastics are their big plan for the Sisters. But now, apparently, they're able to make plastics, so they can move forward on them.

 pretre wrote:
Add to that rumors of Plastic SOB

Ah, but this is a comment straight from the devs, at a public Q&A session. So I'd assign it a bit more weight than some rumour-mongerer saying that plastic Sisters are incoming.

On a related note, it's the UK Games Day soon, yes? Hopefully somebody will ask the devs about the Sisters again, and maybe bring more information to light.

Hawkroot or Kroothawk?

pretre wrote:Dig deeper. We have gotten mini updates and promises of 'we're working on it' MANY times over the years.
[...]

To be fair, CJ wasn't really an update but experimental rules missing the Chapter Approved stamp, relying on opponent's consent.

What exactly was the update in the digital WH Codex? Aside from the missing fluff.

Troike wrote:Things really dry up from '03 onwards, though, suggesting that at that point the Sisters were deemed low priority for whatever reason, likely due to their modelling issues.

"Modelling issues", for ten years? Really? I think it's far more likely because Andy Hoare - THE advocate for anything Sororitas - has left the studio. From what I can see, none of the primary designers at GW has much of an interest in the Sisters. They probably had to draw straws as to who would be forced to write the WD 'dex. What they're missing is a champion like Andy who loves them for their fluff and style, rather than just seeing them as an adjunct stepchild of the game. Who knows, maybe he even left partially because he was unable to push for more SoB stuff.

 pretre wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
If we go the Daemons book route then we'll be getting a down right BROKEN army that'll ROFL-stomp it's way into legend than is then toned down into something more reasonable later.

Well, according to that quote. That's almost exactly what we'd be getting.

Nothing about that list is balanced.

You mean the rumors we can't seem to source, right?

 Lynata wrote:

Troike wrote:Things really dry up from '03 onwards, though, suggesting that at that point the Sisters were deemed low priority for whatever reason, likely due to their modelling issues.

"Modelling issues", for ten years? Really? I think it's far more likely because Andy Hoare - THE advocate for anything Sororitas - has left the studio. From what I can see, none of the primary designers at GW has much of an interest in the Sisters. They probably had to draw straws as to who would be forced to write the WD 'dex. What they're missing is a champion like Andy who loves them for their fluff and style, rather than just seeing them as an adjunct stepchild of the game. Who knows, maybe he even left partially because he was unable to push for more SoB stuff.

Kelly was stated to have said that they have a few people who play Sisters in the dev department, and Cruddace has a Sisters army, so I wouldn't go as far as saying there isn't -any- interest.

And honestly, if they say they have issues casting the models they're trying to make I don't have a reason to doubt them because I have no proof of anything else. Seriously, it's not all a conspiracy you know.

 Lynata wrote:
"Modelling issues", for ten years? Really?

Yes. That's what they said in 2011. Modelling issues. I believe his exact words were that they "really wanted to crack on with the Sisters", but couldn't because of modelling problems.

 Lynata wrote:
I think it's far more likely because Andy Hoare - THE advocate for anything Sororitas - has left the studio. From what I can see, none of the primary designers at GW has much of an interest in the Sisters.

This has likely also been a factor, but I'd still put it second to the modelling issues. Ward showed us that he could write their fluff properly in the WD codex (Praxedes aside, before you say it ), Kelly expressed interest in them at Enter the Citadel, and we have three dedicated SoB players on the staff, too. It's not like there's no enthusiasm.

According to the Enter the Citadel quote, it was a matter of technology anyway. It's possible that they couldn't have made plastic Sisters before now anyway, regardless of enthusiasm.

Quick question, how long has the sister vehicles been direct order only? The immolator has been removed from FW but is still in GW online store it seems.

Neronoxx wrote:
Quick question, how long has the sister vehicles been direct order only? The immolator has been removed from FW but is still in GW online store it seems.

Sometime before I got back in the game in 5th. So pre-2008?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the plastic Immolator has always been a GW product. I don't recall the FW one though. Maybe I'm forgetting it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found an image of one online. Yeah I don't recall seeing that. But I wasn't keen on FW for a long while so maybe I missed it.

Here's a good one that proves that this nonsense has been going on for at least 12 years.

Feb 2001
http://www.warrealm.iwarp.com/rumors.html

1) We have various requests for more information about Codex : Sisters of Battle:

Andy Chambers replies: Codex Sisters of Battle will be released in Spring 2002, and is written by Gav Thorpe and Pete Haines.
The army is intended to be expanded beyond the pure Sisters list in 40K to include Martyrs, Redemptionists, Archo-flagellants etc. for more of a Crusade feel. We're also hoping to do a box of plastic Sisters.

Other ones:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
Hawkroot or Kroothawk?

Kroothawk said it wasn't him, btw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another confirmation of the digidex:

 cerbrus2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Just been flicking through the new white dwarf,

Confirm the SOB/BA Digidex?

Yes SOB and BA are mentioned SOB have new rules updated to 6th edition with Warlord traits, and BLood angels are mentioned having just new 360 degree photos and auto updating rules, Nothing else for them.

Awesome! Thanks.

Ouch, 12 years.

Well, at least the intent for plastic Sisters has been there for quite a while then.

Also, shame that, apparently, we almost got a 3E Codex:SoB before we got hijacked by the Inquisitor RPG.

ClockworkZion wrote:Kelly was stated to have said that they have a few people who play Sisters in the dev department, and Cruddace has a Sisters army, so I wouldn't go as far as saying there isn't -any- interest.

How often and how many, though? And Cruddace' army that was half unpainted, which is probably why they took his photos down from the website because it was so embarassing to have GW showcase an army with unpainted minis?

It may not be a "conspiracy", but working in a corporate employment of the gaming sector myself I am well versed with the concepts of PR and community placation. There doesn't need to be anything malicious about it, just the simple possibility that none of them really wants to commit to an army they don't find interesting. Personal preferences, something I could perfectly understand. As much as GW pricing and policies may be influenced by beancounters in the business department, I believe that the design studio itself is still manned by nerds, as it should be.

I admit that they *can* get the wording in the fluff nice, as Troike said, though. The various White Dwarf articles, from the Codex to the subsequent guides, missions and Apoc formations, all had fluff that (imho) hit the right tone, so to say.

PS: just browsing to check what they say on Warseer. Found this and lol'd:

 Troike wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Can't see the picture.

It is only visible to the faithful. Unbelievers merely see a small, nondescript square.

What? I thought I was faithful.

*sulks off to torture fallen in an attempt to become more faithful*

 pretre wrote:
Here's a good one that proves that this nonsense has been going on for at least 12 years.

Feb 2001
http://www.warrealm.iwarp.com/rumors.html

1) We have various requests for more information about Codex : Sisters of Battle:

Andy Chambers replies: Codex Sisters of Battle will be released in Spring 2002, and is written by Gav Thorpe and Pete Haines.
The army is intended to be expanded beyond the pure Sisters list in 40K to include Martyrs, Redemptionists, Archo-flagellants etc. for more of a Crusade feel. We're also hoping to do a box of plastic Sisters.

He did say "hoping", though. To me, that sounds like it was something we wanted to do, not something that he knew he could do.

 pretre wrote:
July 2013
natfka.blogspot.com/2013/07/sisters-of-battle.html‎
Phil Kelly speaks

But he's not saying that plastics are, or even might be, coming. Just that he heard that they were having issues.

Oh yeah, one last thing about the Sisters of Battle. According to Phil Kelly, the reason why they never got plastic minis was because they couldn't be plastic moulded by the current process. He wasn't really sure what the issue was, but there was something about the sculpt which meant that it could only be cast in metal.

Supports what I've been saying, in fact. Long-standing modelling issues holding them back. Straight from the mouth of a developer and quite recent.

Those other two sources are from rumour mongerers and not straight from a dev, so I'm going to stick with what Kelly said. However, what those two guys saw may have been the alleged 2011 attempt at Sisters? I think I recall Harry saying that they "weren't happy" with that attempt.

 pretre wrote:
Another confirmation of the digidex:

 cerbrus2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Just been flicking through the new white dwarf,

Confirm the SOB/BA Digidex?

Yes SOB and BA are mentioned SOB have new rules updated to 6th edition with Warlord traits, and BLood angels are mentioned having just new 360 degree photos and auto updating rules, Nothing else for them.

Awesome! Thanks.

Woo! Thanks for keeping us updated.

So, "new rules" with warlord traits? It's more than just warlord tables, then?

Its about time they get a codex.

 Troike wrote:
He did say "hoping", though. To me, that sounds like it was something we wanted to do, not something that he knew he could do.

Splitting hairs. The most recent stuff says basically the same thing. It just outlines my point. This has been going on for at least 12 years. To think that right now is any different is just wishful thinking. Could it happen? Sure. Am I holding my breath? No, because if I was apt to do that I would have died 12+ years ago.

 pretre wrote:
Splitting hairs. The most recent stuff says basically the same thing.

How? That was just a dev making a vague statement about "hoping" to be able to make plastic Sisters. Nothing about any modelling problems, just a desire to make plastics. Which obviously didn't bear fruit. Kelly, on the other hand, explicitly says that they've had significant problems with making new SoB models, and certainly makes no inferences that they're coming, since he also says that he doesn't know exactly what's going on with that.

 pretre wrote:
To think that right now is any different is just wishful thinking.

Not quite.

http://the-responsible-one.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/enter-citadel-ask-audience-we-want-to.html

A couple of these ones got some further points. It was mentioned that originally there had been a technical problem with developing Sisters plastics, but that Games Workshop would now have the technology to be able to do them.

That's even worse. That doesn't say that they want to do them, just that they could. You are obviously very set on this and I guess that's good to have so much optimism.

I just don't want you to be crushed in a year when you're still waiting.

 Lynata wrote:
Ouch, 12 years.

Well, at least the intent for plastic Sisters has been there for quite a while then.

Also, shame that, apparently, we almost got a 3E Codex:SoB before we got hijacked by the Inquisitor RPG.

ClockworkZion wrote:Kelly was stated to have said that they have a few people who play Sisters in the dev department, and Cruddace has a Sisters army, so I wouldn't go as far as saying there isn't -any- interest.

How often and how many, though? And Cruddace' army that was half unpainted, which is probably why they took his photos down from the website because it was so embarassing to have GW showcase an army with unpainted minis?

It may not be a "conspiracy", but working in a corporate employment of the gaming sector myself I am well versed with the concepts of PR and community placation. There doesn't need to be anything malicious about it, just the simple possibility that none of them really wants to commit to an army they don't find interesting. Personal preferences, something I could perfectly understand. As much as GW pricing and policies may be influenced by beancounters in the business department, I believe that the design studio itself is still manned by nerds, as it should be.

I admit that they *can* get the wording in the fluff nice, as Troike said, though. The various White Dwarf articles, from the Codex to the subsequent guides, missions and Apoc formations, all had fluff that (imho) hit the right tone, so to say.

PS: just browsing to check what they say on Warseer. Found this and lol'd:

Yay hyperbole humor. Let's fail to take into account all the adjustments that'd have to be made anyways to make it better work with an e-reader!

We've seen Devs work on projects they don't want to do before (Ward doing Orcs and Goblins) so a "lack of interest" isn't really a theory we can bank on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
That's even worse. That doesn't say that they want to do them, just that they could. You are obviously very set on this and I guess that's good to have so much optimism.

I just don't want you to be crushed in a year when you're still waiting.

I've been optimistic since 2011. I refuse to be crushed!

Just got the codex early (somehow) and this is real, as well as a codex Blood angels.

 DAWARBOSS wrote:
Just got the codex early (somehow) and this is real, as well as a codex Blood angels.

You mean the WD? or the Codex? If you got the codex, we're going to need details.

 DAWARBOSS wrote:
Just got the codex early (somehow) and this is real, as well as a codex Blood angels.

How is a digital only codex already available?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 DAWARBOSS wrote:
Just got the codex early (somehow) and this is real, as well as a codex Blood angels.

You mean the WD? or the Codex? If you got the codex, we're going to need details.

Details nothing, we're going to need proof too!

Uh, how is devs saying that they can now get past the modelling issues "worse"? A reliable source tells us that they've been trying to do them, so why would they stop when they've got the technology to do so? And why would they not make them when we've seen in this very thread that they're still interested in updating the Sisters?

I'm not just "very set on" it, there is valid evidence to support what I'm saying. And I didn't say that they'd take a year, either. It could be 2015 when we get them.

The 'warseer' rumor thing was fake, btw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:
Uh, how is devs saying that they can now get past the modelling issues "worse"? A reliable source tells us that they've been trying to do them, so why would they stop when they've got the technology to do so? And why would they not make them when we've seen in this very thread that they're still interested in updating the Sisters?

Because in the past they said they wanted to do them and were working on them. That just says they can. Not that they want to.

I'm not just "very set on" it, there is valid evidence to support what I'm saying. And I didn't say that they'd take a year, either. It could be 2015 when we get them.

There's been valid evidence in the past and it hasn't gone anywhere. Just because yours references them fixing the problems doesn't make it any more likely. :(

I'm sure we all believe sisters will get a new book and models, its just when.

And it's been established that they couldn't properly work on them before because of the modelling issues.

And again, really, we know that they're willing. This thread shows it, and as Zion pointed out, accusations of a lack of interest in them aren't exactly concrete evidence.

 pretre wrote:

There's been valid evidence in the past and it hasn't gone anywhere.

Where? All you linked to earlier was rumour mongerers claiming to have seen prototype plastics, which could well have been the attempt that Harry mentioned. Assuming they were even telling the truth. Meanwhile, the evidence I posted has the devs, in a public Q&A, saying that they now have the technology to do plastic Sisters.

 pretre wrote:
Just because yours references them fixing the problems doesn't make it any more likely. :(

As opposed to when they literally couldn't make the models because they didn't have the technology? I'm not understanding your logic, here. How does them gaining the ability to make plastic Sisters change nothing about the chances of getting plastic Sisters?

/shrug See you again this time next year for the plastic SOB discussion?

From Bolter and Chainsword:

Areopig wrote:I have a copy of WD and it's not a wind up. There is very little fanfare though so I don't expect much more than a new digital copy of the WD codex with a warlord table. You never know though. I'll find out when it's live on black library I guess.
Back to top
Quote

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
/shrug See you again this time next year for the plastic SOB discussion?

Why not? We can make it an event with such fun games as "Purge the Heretic" and have a Tau tossing contest! Oh! I'll bring the macaroni salad!

Any idea when we can expect the digital 'dex's release? I'm eager to see what they've done with it.

 Troike wrote:
Any idea when we can expect its release? I'm eager to see what they've done with it.

Next month is my bet. Likely about the time Dark Elves drop.

pretre wrote:Because in the past they said they wanted to do them and were working on them. That just says they can. Not that they want to.

Pretre has a point there. If they would still "want" and now also "can", then they would say they "will" or "already do".

ClockworkZion wrote:Yay hyperbole humor. Let's fail to take into account all the adjustments that'd have to be made anyways to make it better work with an e-reader!

People are obviously referring to adjustments to how they play, not how the book reads. The former is what people hope for, the latter is a mere necessity by medium.
And creating a PDF (or similar file) is still largely a copypaste job.

I do hope for some new fluff at least, though, if only because they need to fill the pages.

ClockworkZion wrote:We've seen Devs work on projects they don't want to do before (Ward doing Orcs and Goblins) so a "lack of interest" isn't really a theory we can bank on.

It would nicely explain the delay, though. From how I understood GW to operate, a designer's personal preferences hugely influence what they are actually working on. It's why most SoB fluff was penned by Andy Hoare back then. Something they are enthusiastic about would ultimately receive more material than something where the company needs to "force" people to write it by pointing to their contracts. The latter would be put off again and again until there's enough pressure that someone goes "oh alright" and sits down to work out a half-assed update ... sounds familiar?

(would also explain certain mistakes in the WD 'dex such as mislabeled photos or conflicting unit profiles in parts 1 and 2)

I know, I must sound incredibly pessimistic. It is a safer approach, tho ...

 Lynata wrote:
Pretre has a point there. If they would still "want" and now also "can", then they would say they "will" or "already do".

And they have said that, pretty much.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?34864-Gamesday-Germany-2013-Master-Roundup/page2