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:
I think the Order of Our Martyred Lady gives us a loophole to abuse for alternate colors: significance to the order due to a historical event in their past. It's the only reason Martyred Lady has red robes after all.

Yep, that's a great point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Maybe this digital one will include some fluff?

Someone's been taking their crazy pills.

It's getting to be super frustrating with GW on this SoB issue. It's one thing that they say nothing generally to their customers about releases but I think we're in a separate zone with the SoB where it really is a matter of faith. Which I suppose is fitting in a typically cruel way. Never will I understand why this company is so adverse to its customers.

 pretre wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Maybe this digital one will include some fluff?

Someone's been taking their crazy pills.

Remember, the blue ones keep you from screaming.

Troike wrote:No, because that's a major contradiction of their established background. Different coloured Sisters, on the other hand, hardly seem like such a major transgression. [...] I didn't know about it at the time. I just fiddled with the Soulstorm painter until I got a colourscheme that I liked the look of.

Ahh. Well, for what it's worth I would certainly agree that GW could have made it much more obvious. I still like the idea, but at the same time I feel sorry you got caught in this trap.

What is and isn't a major contradiction seems to hinge largely on how often something is pointed out in the material here. If only the painting guides would tell us about Space Marines having to be male, how would this affect public perception? Same thing for the Imperial Guard, though ironically there it's people argueing they supposedly don't have female troops. Again a matter of representation.

Troike wrote:You yourself don't like Ward's Praxedes retcon.

And I'm still struggling with this...

ClockworkZion wrote:I think the Order of Our Martyred Lady gives us a loophole to abuse for alternate colors: significance to the order due to a historical event in their past. It's the only reason Martyred Lady has red robes after all.

Although red was already a "sanctioned" colour long before Armageddon... it's one of the three that were part of the original uniforms of the Daughters of the Emperor.

I'm sorry! No, not the whip!

pretre wrote:

Manchu wrote:Maybe this digital one will include some fluff?

Someone's been taking their crazy pills.

You guys certainly make it much easier to deal with how GW treats us. Thanks.

 Manchu wrote:
Somebody might really want to paint their Ultramarines red and the Blood Angels blue.

That's accounted for, though. Both of those Chapters can spawn successors. Changing a canon faction's paintscheme would obviously be a major fluff violation, but making your own faction and giving them unique colours? Not a problem.

 Manchu wrote:
But that doesn't get you to painting your Sisters hot pink and orange ...

The Marines and the Guard also get to be pretty much any colour they want. Again, it's a matter of creativity. If the fluff of most other armies let's them utilise every colour avliable, I think it's unfair to limit SoB players in such an extreme way.

 Manchu wrote:
but at that point, I think we're in red Ultramarines territory.

We would be, were anybody advocating that we can have yellow Martyred Lady Sisters, or Valorous Heart Sisters with purple gauntlets. But Minor Orders are not established factions, and specifically exist to let the players make their own custom faction. In light of this given customisibility, in fact, a three colour limit seems especially odd. "Oh sure, make your own unique faction, just don't go beyond these three colours!"

 Manchu wrote:
All of this could be settled with a new dex of course. Maybe this digital one will include some fluff?

Don't know about the digital one, but the actual one sure will.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:I think the Order of Our Martyred Lady gives us a loophole to abuse for alternate colors: significance to the order due to a historical event in their past. It's the only reason Martyred Lady has red robes after all.

Although red was already a "sanctioned" colour long before Armageddon... it's one of the three that were part of the original uniforms of the Daughters of the Emperor.

I'm sorry! No, not the whip!

Stop struggling and it won't hurt as much!

More seriously, the point was they changed their colors due to significance, opening the door for others to do the same. As long as you can justify a historical meaning then it's not an issue.

 Troike wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Somebody might really want to paint their Ultramarines red and the Blood Angels blue.

That's accounted for, though. Both of those Chapters can spawn successors.

That's not what I said. I said there are probably people who want to paint their Ultramarines red.

 Troike wrote:
But Minor Orders are not established factions, and specifically exist to let the players make their own custom faction

Hey no one is going to stop you from painting your Sisters hot pink or whatever. Whether anyone else in the world would say "yeah, that makes sense given the published fluff" is a different issue.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
I'm sorry! No, not the whip!

Stop struggling and it won't hurt as much!

I sense a disturbing lack of contrition ...

Yes, red was already one of the trifecta hues BUT the point about changing livery thanks to history remains valid. The real question, as things stand, is about "minor modifications." And it's not answerable on the face of the text if one is unwilling to include FW as "canon" material.

 Manchu wrote:
That's not what I said. I said there are probably people who want to paint their Ultramarines red.

Right, and I also said that changing an established faction was different than customising the colours of your own custom factions. Successors merely provide a way of getting "clones" of these Chapters without actually clashing with the fluff.

 Manchu wrote:
Hey no one is going to stop you from painting your Sisters hot pink or whatever. Whether anyone else in the world would say "yeah, that makes sense given the published fluff" is a different issue.

But it's not just a matter of "obnoxious" colours. There's also colours like blue or tan, fairly neutral, "serious" colours that wouldn't look silly.

This issue still exists with the "fully customisible" IG and Marines, anyway. Would it make any more sense to have them in pink? Not really, and yet those armies have no barriers to what colours they can be painted. Silliness is silliness, but far from all colours would look silly on the Sisters.

 Troike wrote:
But it's not just a matter of "obnoxious" colours.

Well it is important to read the whole post ...

 Manchu wrote:
The real question, as things stand, is about "minor modifications." And it's not answerable on the face of the text if one is unwilling to include FW as "canon" material.

Manchu wrote:The real question, as things stand, is about "minor modifications."

I think the sentence following that one in the text is the actual problem:

"The Orders Militant make use of three main colours in the design of their uniforms; black, white and red."

Of course, then we could still argue about the definition of what "main colours" means, since this obviously opens a door for limited use of "secondary colours". But even then we'd still have the WD painting guide to deal with:

"Whether you decide to paint your Sisters of Battle in the uniform of one of the major convents or want to create your own using the same heraldry, the same colours and techniques should still prove useful. Of course, you may simply choose to use a whole new colour scheme from your own imagination. Here are a few examples of dramatically different colour schemes to get the inspiration flowing."

The last two sentences are also important, though - GW is completely fine with gamers using colour schemes not supported by the fluff, and even supports the idea by having posting examples of such colour schemes in WD. I still understand the concerns regarding the conflict with what the Codex says, though, and think Troike basically got cheated by the fluff not being "available enough"...

Actually, re-reading the text, with much goodwill one could still argue for different colours just because it's written so vague.

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing why everyone is so hung up about the colors of Sisters of Battle.

If you want their skin to be green and their hair hot pink and their armor a rainbow to rival the most colorful clowns, that's your prerogative. I've seen Hello Kitty Necrons, I've seen Space Goats, I've seen an entire IG regiment made of converted Skaven, and I've seen a whole Space Marine force made to look like old fashioned diving suits. And then there's the Angry Marines.

If you want to make your own fluff, what's stopping you? If you want to devote your force to an established army, do that, there's lots of people that do. If you want to create a new faction of the Sisters of Battle, go for it! Convert them to Chaos, convert them to the Greater Good, convert them to the Waaagh!, it's YOUR ARMY. You spend hundreds of dollars on those figures, don't get hung up on some bit of fluff that some egghead in the UK wrote up!

@Lynata:

Well we already know that not every Order uses all three colors -- and that's before we get into the area of "minor modifications."

The trifecta hues are "main" colors, just as it says. This what I mean about the Blue Robe reasonably interpreted as a "minor modification." We've got white and blue; one of the main colors is present.

Also you underlined "the same colours" but please read the sentence to its end: "should still prove useful" -- it doesn't say "must always be present."

drbored wrote:If you want to make your own fluff, what's stopping you? If you want to devote your force to an established army, do that, there's lots of people that do. If you want to create a new faction of the Sisters of Battle, go for it! Convert them to Chaos, convert them to the Greater Good, convert them to the Waaagh!, it's YOUR ARMY. You spend hundreds of dollars on those figures, don't get hung up on some bit of fluff that some egghead in the UK wrote up!

And that's even what said "eggheads" are saying themselves!

But some people just really like the original material and strive to stick close to it as a matter of principle. What we have here is an issue where a detail was noticed too late.

Manchu wrote:The trifecta hues are "main" colors, just as it says. This what I mean about the Blue Robe reasonably interpreted as a "minor modification." We've got white and blue; one of the main colors is present.

With the robes as a whole being a rather major part of the outfit, *I* would not call that a minor modification anymore. The difference between main colours and others is, I think, that the main colours are the defining ones, the ones that dominate the uniform. An example for a minor modification could be, say, a blue stripe on a white robe.

But that's just my interpretation, and whenever interpretation is involved then it cannot be a crystal-clear fact, so there is that.

Manchu wrote:Also you underlined "the same colours" but please read the sentence to its end: "should still prove useful" -- it doesn't say "must always be present."

Yep, that's why I edited my post. More because of the sentence following that one, though, as it doesn't explicitly disconnect such schemes from the Minor Orders.

drbored wrote:
I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing why everyone is so hung up about the colors of Sisters of Battle.

Same reason anyone gets hung up on any fluff in 40k ...

 Manchu wrote:

 Troike wrote:
But it's not just a matter of "obnoxious" colours.

Well it is important to read the whole post ...

 Manchu wrote:
The real question, as things stand, is about "minor modifications." And it's not answerable on the face of the text if one is unwilling to include FW as "canon" material.

I don't understand. The issue isn't just about minor modifactions, but modifications of any kind, which is what this fluff bars.

drbored wrote:
I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing why everyone is so hung up about the colors of Sisters of Battle.

If you want their skin to be green and their hair hot pink and their armor a rainbow to rival the most colorful clowns, that's your prerogative. I've seen Hello Kitty Necrons, I've seen Space Goats, I've seen an entire IG regiment made of converted Skaven, and I've seen a whole Space Marine force made to look like old fashioned diving suits. And then there's the Angry Marines.

If you want to make your own fluff, what's stopping you? If you want to devote your force to an established army, do that, there's lots of people that do. If you want to create a new faction of the Sisters of Battle, go for it! Convert them to Chaos, convert them to the Greater Good, convert them to the Waaagh!, it's YOUR ARMY. You spend hundreds of dollars on those figures, don't get hung up on some bit of fluff that some egghead in the UK wrote up!

But this doesn't just affect extreme ideas like that. It also effects people who make Sisters who are "SoB to the core" in their background, with their only difference being cream coloured armour, or something like that. Different coloured armour is hardly as outlandish as Orky Sisters.

 Lynata wrote:
What we have here is an issue where a detail was noticed too late.

Sorry, are you arguing that FW would not have invented the Blue Robe had they, as you are assuming, not forgotten to read that blurb from the dex? That's kind of privileging your POV, wouldn't you say?

 Troike wrote:
The issue isn't just about minor modifactions, but modifications of any kind, which is what this fluff bars.

That's simply incorrect. Lynata provided the quotation a page or so back.

 pretre wrote:
Yeah, the OP should be updated with this:

Thanks (and thanks to Manchu for updating the OP!)

So, it really just looks like a digital rerelease of the old WD codex, since the Blood Angels codex language below it says "also gets a release as an Ipad Edition".

 RiTides wrote:
So, it really just looks like a digital rerelease of the old WD codex, since the Blood Angels codex language below it says "also gets a release as an Ipad Edition".

Seems so -- and thanks for bringing up an important point ... digital dexes aren't still iPad only, right? But the BA blurb only mentions and iPad release (with the iPad bells & whistle auto FAQs) ... so could the Sisters dex be iPad only? I'm stretching the words here but that would be awful. I mean, I won't even get the android version but it would be really awful to make it iPad only, especially since everyone knows there will be no FAQs.

 S'jet wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
"Adeptus" lol.

They can't even remember how to spell the factions name. Epic Fail.

Don't be so quick with blaming GW's bad memory (that's the official 2nd edition Codex in German):

 Manchu wrote:

 Troike wrote:
The issue isn't just about minor modifactions, but modifications of any kind, which is what this fluff bars.

Sorry, that's simply incorrect. Lynata provided the quotation a page or so back.

I don't think that you understand my complaint. I don't care that they've implicitly allowed for "minor variations", I'm opposed to the the colour limit itself. I've seen lots of nice looking SoB minis painted with primary colours that weren't one of the allowed colours, yet by the 2e fluff, these players are "doing it wrong".

 Kroothawk wrote:
(that's the official 2nd edition Codex in German)

So ... there was a bad translation in 1997? (IIRC the English dex has "Adepta" throughout.) And an editorial slip in 2013. Not seeing how the former justifies the latter.

It also got called "Adeptus Sororitas" in the UK(!) White Dwarf Rhinos article once. It happens. Maybe it even was the same writer.

Manchu wrote:Sorry, are you arguing that FW would not have invented the Blue Robe had they, as you are assuming, not forgotten to read that blurb from the dex? That's kind of privileging your POV, wouldn't you say?

Hum? No, I'm saying Troike wouldn't have picked blue as a colour.

As far as FW is concerned, I believe they just don't know or care too much about the Sisters in general. This includes the colour detail. And in this they are no different from a lot of BL novel authors.


PS: This "chat" is moving too fast. Is anyone even reading my edits?

 RiTides wrote:
So, it really just looks like a digital rerelease of the old WD codex

I'm not sure... it does say "background, photography and rules (all updated for Warhammer 40,000 6th edition". Doesn't this imply that the rules may have been updated, Warlord traits aside? Same for the fluff and photography.

WTB Adamantium Will!

 Troike wrote:
I don't care that they've implicitly allowed for "minor variations", I'm opposed to the the colour limit itself. and that is a problem. I've seen lots of nice looking SoB minis painted with primary colours that weren't one of the allowed colours, yet by the 2e fluff, these players are "doing it wrong".

I think he's quoting the Witch Hunters dex, which is Third IIRC. As to your complaint, again it's a matter of hard and soft fluff. So forget about "obnoxious" v. "reasonable" colors. Imagine instead a table full of tan Orks (I say tan because you earlier said tan was a "serious" color). I don't mean they have tan pants/shirts on or are dusty; I mean instead of green skin they have tan skin.

 Lynata wrote:
But that's just my interpretation, and whenever interpretation is involved then it cannot be a crystal-clear fact, so there is that.

Unless you are willing to consider Imperial Armour as authoritative as a dex; then there is a clear answer. But this is our age-old debate; where you say something like all and nothing, pointing to ex-employees and I say if anything then everything, pointing to logic. Funny thing is, we end up at the same place: it ends up being whatever we personally want ... "within reason."

"The Orders Militant make use of three main colours in the design of their uniforms; black, white and red."

Argent Shroud, one of the major orders have silver armour.... which presents a little dilemma.

 Troike wrote:
I'm not sure... it does say "background, photography and rules (all updated for Warhammer 40,000 6th edition". Doesn't this imply that the rules may have been updated, Warlord traits aside? Same for the fluff and photography.

If this was the "real" SoB dex release, and not just a dust off of the WD dex, that would be really tragic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 S'jet wrote:
"The Orders Militant make use of three main colours in the design of their uniforms; black, white and red."

Argent Shroud, one of the major orders have silver armour.... which presents a little dilemma.

Accounted for:

 Manchu wrote:
Well we already know that not every Order uses all three colors -- and that's before we get into the area of "minor modifications."

The trifecta hues are "main" colors, just as it says. This what I mean about the Blue Robe reasonably interpreted as a "minor modification." We've got white and blue; one of the main colors is present.

Manchu wrote:But this is our age-old debate; where you say something like all and nothing, pointing to ex-employees and I say if anything then everything, pointing to logic. Funny thing is, we end up at the same place: it ends up being whatever we personally want ... "within reason."

Just to clear something up, "ex-employees" sounds like they'd have nothing more to say. Three of those people were, at that point in time, still working as freelancers for Black Library (and thus obviously in the position to tell us "how it works"), and a 4th statement was printed in White Dwarf by the then-current Chief Editor of BL, Marc Gascogne.

Plus, it just makes sense. What is your explanation for the contradictions? The only other alternative would be that, yes, everything is canon, but then the newer source overrides the older one regardless where it comes from? Because that would create a rather "dynamic" universe, given the many differences throughout all the official fluff.

S'jet wrote:Argent Shroud, one of the major orders have silver armour.... which presents a little dilemma.

In heraldry, silver and white are the same - just like gold and yellow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(heraldry)#Basic_tinctures

Seeing as the pic in the OP does not link to the gallery and the disclaimer, could a mod PLEASE add in the following disclaimer to the OP, lest stores suffer from GW reprisals or overzealous idiots acting in their name: Picture taken at comic shop, it was not on sale at the time of the picture being taken, but I was allowed to leaf through it.

 Lynata wrote:
What is your explanation for the contradictions?

I favor the other one, also given by ex-employees/freelancers, that the fluff represents a subjective viewpoint rather than a crystal-clear lens.

 Lynata wrote:
In heraldry, silver and white are the same - just like gold and yellow.

Wow. I didnt actually know that. Cheers.