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.

Baneblade/Shadowsword is what, 8 different sprues? for $140
Knight is 3 different sprues for $140
Thunderhawk, based on size and design, would be in the 8-10 sprue range. Given modern pricing, that would put it at somewhere in the $275/$300 range.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Unlike sisters of battle's robes which aren't monopose?

I don't buy the "we can't make them" thing. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. The robes excuse is silly, sure, you can't make robes that flow in any which way you want for any which pose you want, but you CAN make them look sufficiently good and GW have models new and old that prove that.

Here's how Jes Goodwin said it:

This isn't such an issue with Sisters armed with Bolt Guns as the pose will be pretty much set, but when you get things like Seraphim or models armed with close combat weapons you would get a very limited number of poses. This is because if you had the arm held up high the robes may stick out in a gravity defying way, which would look very unnatural.

So it sounds like they're set on having quite dynamic, posable models, but the arm robes are causing them trouble with certain types of Sisters. As I've said before, one could certainly argue that they've perhaps gotten too fixated on having certain elements present with the models and have needlessly delayed a release. But one could also argue that the SoB's unique look, arm robes and all, is very much worth preserving into the more dynamic material that is plastic. Maybe there's a workaround or solution by now, but it'll probably be a little while at least before we see a release of any kind.

Actually, that's not how Jes said it, that's how someone who supposedly spoke to Jes at the Dark Eldar Launch Party explained that Jes said something along those lines. It's not like we have the published words of someone on the model design team, we have a report of a conversation from a 3rd party.

GW have other robed models, they're also not afraid to limit the poses if necessary. I just find it very hard to buy the argument that GW haven't made plastic SOBs because Seraphims would end up with limited poses. Even if they did, why not make plastic bolter sisters and ignore the Seraphims? Or just limit the poses of the Seraphim? Include a few arms that are designed to be down at their sides and a few arms that are raised so people have some options? If it was actually stated somewhere officially I might believe it slightly more, but we don't even have that.

Someone (supposedly) asked Jes why there weren't plastic Sisters and was thrown this line... yet somehow it's remained something that we hold on to hoping that GW just haven't ignored the Sisters when the more likely thing it was just a throwaway line to diffuse the question of "so, err, why has nothing good happened to Sisters in the past 15 years?".

I would buy one if they made them, but I also want a Thunderbolt. I will have to argue that resin makes a better detailed model than plastics do. Comparing my plastic Baneblade to my friends FW resin one they both have things that look better than the others but I think the FW one has better lines and some of the detail is far sharper.

If there was a plastic Thunderbolt, I would buy 3 of them. As long as they looked mostly like the FW model, I'd happily throw down a couple of hundred bucks to get a squadron of them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Actually, that's not how Jes said it, that's how someone who supposedly spoke to Jes at the Dark Eldar Launch Party explained that Jes said something along those lines. It's not like we have the published words of someone on the model design team, we have a report of a conversation from a 3rd party.

Sure, but I don't see why the person reporting what he said would get the actual meaning of what he said wrong. Additionally, Phil Kelly also referred to modelling issues just last year at Enter the Citadel, so it doesn't seem to have been a miscommunication or anything, seems to be an actual thing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I just find it very hard to buy the argument that GW haven't made plastic SOBs because Seraphims would end up with limited poses. Even if they did, why not make plastic bolter sisters and ignore the Seraphims? Or just limit the poses of the Seraphim? Include a few arms that are designed to be down at their sides and a few arms that are raised so people have some options?

As I said, this is a valid argument. From what Jes said, it seems that they're fairly fixed on having a certain look with the Sisters as well as good posability. I can understand the reasoning behind it, they want to maintiain the distinct SoB look whilst keeping them up to standard with all of the other 40K models. But maybe they'll do a workaround like you said, or maybe they've found a way around.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
more likely thing it was just a throwaway line to diffuse the question of "so, err, why has nothing good happened to Sisters in the past 15 years?".

I don't think it was a throwaway line. When Phil Kelly referenced the modelling issues last year, he said something to the effect of him not really fully knowing what the problems had been. If it was a lie to be maintained, then I doubt he would profess to any lack of knowledge on it. The detail that Goodwin gave also seems to hint at an actual problem rather than some throwaway line meant to shush inquisitive players.

We don't actually know how much detail Jes went in to because those aren't his words, Jes could have just said "Umm, yeah, the robes around the arms, the hair and the detail is tricky for plastic sisters" then the rest could be elaboration by the 3rd party who is relaying the infromation. I'm not sure what Phil Kelly has said on the matter, but it does seem that we've just clung to this idea of "it can't be done!!!" when IMO the evidence more just points to "they haven't felt it's worth doing over other projects" or "they don't want to do it over other projects".

What I know first-hand is that when I asked Cruddace about getting new stuff for Sisters when I saw him at the French Games Day after the WDex, his answer was that “It would require a lot of resources”. Nothing about there being technical difficulty. And, really, nothing more than this sentence, that can be understood in a variety of way. The way I personally understand it is “We cannot be arsed to do the amount of work it would required, so let us focus on armies that can just work with the addition of a few new kits”.

You guys are all pushing for a plastic thunderhawk, and I am the only one over here still trying to get my hands on a metal one.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
We don't actually know how much detail Jes went in to because those aren't his words, Jes could have just said "Umm, yeah, the robes around the arms, the hair and the detail is tricky for plastic sisters" then the rest could be elaboration by the 3rd party who is relaying the infromation. I'm not sure what Phil Kelly has said on the matter, but it does seem that we've just clung to this idea of "it can't be done!!!" when IMO the evidence more just points to "they haven't felt it's worth doing over other projects" or "they don't want to do it over other projects".

Well, reading the full account doesn't give the impression of some off-hand answer. Rather, we get information on a number of points about Sisters and otherwise, suggesting that it wasn't just a single-sentence brush-off remark as you're implying.

I do admit that there may be some degree of favoritism at work in terms of what army gets updated. But, conversely, I think there's good evidence for them wanting to and having sufficient reason to do plastic Sisters. I certainly don't think that the developers and sculptors simply don't want to work on the Sisters at all.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What I know first-hand is that when I asked Cruddace about getting new stuff for Sisters when I saw him at the French Games Day after the WDex, his answer was that “It would require a lot of resources”. Nothing about there being technical difficulty. And, really, nothing more than this sentence, that can be understood in a variety of way. The way I personally understand it is “We cannot be arsed to do the amount of work it would required, so let us focus on armies that can just work with the addition of a few new kits”.

I can believe that more.

nobody wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
For the longest time, GW was on record saying that they weren't going to make any models that Forge World already had, to avoid stealing business from themselves. Or... Something?
But I would love a plastic Thunderhawk.

Pretty sure that went out the window when they started robbing from Forgeworld to populate codices like Tau (Piranhas and Skyrays), and making superheavies like the Baneblade and Stompa.

Actually, they said it after the a trygon. The only Forgeworld imports after they said it have been units they put in codices and hadn't made yet, like the upcoming Hydra (or is it already out?). That's why we're getting dog gak like the Taurox and the Heldrake, with very few diamonds in the rough coming through.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What I know first-hand is that when I asked Cruddace about getting new stuff for Sisters when I saw him at the French Games Day after the WDex, his answer was that “It would require a lot of resources”. Nothing about there being technical difficulty. And, really, nothing more than this sentence, that can be understood in a variety of way. The way I personally understand it is “We cannot be arsed to do the amount of work it would required, so let us focus on armies that can just work with the addition of a few new kits”.

Seems to fit in with what the other devs have said, in that there's notable modelling problems to be addressed.

Also, Cruddace has said that the Sisters are one of his favourite armies, so I doubt he's outright apathetic about them.

 Troike wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
We don't actually know how much detail Jes went in to because those aren't his words, Jes could have just said "Umm, yeah, the robes around the arms, the hair and the detail is tricky for plastic sisters" then the rest could be elaboration by the 3rd party who is relaying the infromation. I'm not sure what Phil Kelly has said on the matter, but it does seem that we've just clung to this idea of "it can't be done!!!" when IMO the evidence more just points to "they haven't felt it's worth doing over other projects" or "they don't want to do it over other projects".

Well, reading the full account doesn't give the impression of some off-hand answer. Rather, we get information on a number of points about Sisters and otherwise, suggesting that it wasn't just a single-sentence brush-off remark as you're implying.

I'm not trying to imply that, just offering it as a suggestion. It's not "Jes said" it's "this other guy who spoke to Jes said Jes said something along these lines". It's entirely spoken from the perspective of StraightSilver, NOT Jes.

I'd be glad to see some new Sisters models. I briefly flirted with the idea of a Sisters army back when they came out in 2nd edition, decided against it because even back then, being all metal, they were a very expensive army and I was already collecting Space Wolves and Necrons which were also all-metal armies that were quite expensive.

Maybe they genuinely don't want to compromise the aesthetic, but at the moment given Sisters have just a crappy digital-only Codex and a pathetic excuse for an army, it's hard to feel like GW cares about them enough to put them ahead of other armies who have gotten multiple revisions of models in the same time Sisters are still using their ancient ones. Space Wolves had perfectly good looking metals at the same time Sisters were around, since then we're now on our 2nd iteration of plastic Space Wolves + updates in between.

My Bretonnians and Wood Elves are feeling similarly unloved, but luckily they got plastic updates before GW decided to forget about them for 10 or 11 years.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not trying to imply that, just offering it as a suggestion. It's not "Jes said" it's "this other guy who spoke to Jes said Jes said something along these lines". It's entirely spoken from the perspective of StraightSilver, NOT Jes.

Okay. I'm sorry if I came off as being rude, there.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
but at the moment given Sisters have just a crappy digital-only Codex [...] it's hard to feel like GW cares about them enough to put them

Sure, I understand that. Though I doubt you'll see it the same way, I think of the digital-dex as a stopgap until some models are good to go. And maybe the SoB aren't the favoured child, but GW has at the very least kept them around.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
a pathetic excuse for an army

Utter heresy. The current SoB codex is, in fact, pretty good. It's certainly an improvement over the last one and can certainly hold its own.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
My Bretonnians and Wood Elves are feeling similarly unloved, but luckily they got plastic updates before GW decided to forget about them for 10 or 11 years.

Wood Elves are coming up in May, actually, according to the rumours. So hopefully your Elves will get some love soon.

The no sisters excuse is bullgak for one single reason.

If plastic isn't be possible, why is metal?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
The no sisters excuse is bullgak for one single reason.

If plastic isn't be possible, why is metal?

 Troike wrote:
Here is what Jes Goodwin had to say about it. He goes into detail in the first half of the interview.

I don't think I would buy a ThunderHawk even if it was plastic - I was tempted by the Stormeagle looks but put off as its resin and heard bad things about it.........

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
The no sisters excuse is bullgak for one single reason.

If plastic isn't be possible, why is metal?

Metal models use flexible moulds. As do resin, flexible silicone moulds. Plastic uses solid metal moulds. This means you can have details on the SIDE of a metal model as the mould will flex as you remove it, you can't on a plastic model. Also, metal and resin typically allows for more details, though I think these days that's not really as true as it used to be as many plastic kits now have a lot of detail.

 Troike wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
The no sisters excuse is bullgak for one single reason.

If plastic isn't be possible, why is metal?

 Troike wrote:
Here is what Jes Goodwin had to say about it. He goes into detail in the first half of the interview.

It still does not answer my question.

If things like Space Wolf and Wych hair can be done in plastic, so can SoB.

If something like DA robes can be made in plastic, so can SoB.

the size difference between a thunderhawk and pretty much anything in the normal GW range is rather extreme, if you havent seen the model its a rather crazy haha, and basing it for a "Normal" game where it needs to go on a 6x4... easier than a titan i spose... not by much but.
here is a couple of pics in the spoiler tags, with it next to a storm raven, ravens a wip haha so dont hate on it



add to it all GW has more they should be working on before a plastic thunderhawk, certain armies, rule sets ( HAHAHA ) and whatever else, though i have been hearing that the thawks mould is getting older but thats no suprise, its not a big seller at 400quid. though even if it was plastic i reckon youd struggle to get it under 300-350 anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there was a plastic Thunderbolt, I would buy 3 of them. As long as they looked mostly like the FW model, I'd happily throw down a couple of hundred bucks to get a squadron of them.

Well if this comment is true, you can see for the people who won't buy it, someone will buy more than one so again, don't matter to GW, they are still selling.

What I don't understand is "couple of hundred bucks". That is only $200. No way you will be buying 3 for that price. Maybe one, but no more than one. Unless you mean "couple of hundred" for each one.

Davor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there was a plastic Thunderbolt, I would buy 3 of them. As long as they looked mostly like the FW model, I'd happily throw down a couple of hundred bucks to get a squadron of them.

Well if this comment is true, you can see for the people who won't buy it, someone will buy more than one so again, don't matter to GW, they are still selling.

What I don't understand is "couple of hundred bucks". That is only $200. No way you will be buying 3 for that price. Maybe one, but no more than one. Unless you mean "couple of hundred" for each one.

I was talking about the Thunderbolt because it was mentioned, which is a fighter-type aircraft. Most recent fighter-type aircraft are $76AUD, under $70 at discount places, so a squadron of 3 would be a bit over $200. If they turned out to be $100 each, I'd probably buy 3 of them still, so a "few hundred" It could easily be more expensive because it is a larger aircraft even though it's only a fighter, so I could live with paying ~$100 each for them.

If we're talking about the Thunderhawks, I'd buy 1 if it were ~$200, probably just for the sake of owning one as I doubt I'd ever use it in a game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Davor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If there was a plastic Thunderbolt, I would buy 3 of them. As long as they looked mostly like the FW model, I'd happily throw down a couple of hundred bucks to get a squadron of them.

Well if this comment is true, you can see for the people who won't buy it, someone will buy more than one so again, don't matter to GW, they are still selling.

What I don't understand is "couple of hundred bucks". That is only $200. No way you will be buying 3 for that price. Maybe one, but no more than one. Unless you mean "couple of hundred" for each one.

I was talking about the Thunderbolt because it was mentioned, which is a fighter-type aircraft. Most recent fighter-type aircraft are $76AUD, under $70 at discount places, so a squadron of 3 would be a bit over $200. If they turned out to be $100 each, I'd probably buy 3 of them still, so a "few hundred" It could easily be more expensive because it is a larger aircraft even though it's only a fighter, so I could live with paying ~$100 each for them.

If we're talking about the Thunderhawks, I'd buy 1 if it were ~$200, probably just for the sake of owning one as I doubt I'd ever use it in a game.

Ah sorry I misread it. Damn glasses. Don't have bifocals on. I thought I read thunder hawk.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
If something like DA robes can be made in plastic, so can SoB.

DA robes don't have the same problem that the SoB arm robes do. Check out the part where he's talking about Seraphim.

They can easily scale the size back, alot of 40k tanks are too small like the think, no one cares so a more compact plastic thunderhawk would sell just fine.

hobojebus wrote:
They can easily scale the size back, alot of 40k tanks are too small like the think, no one cares so a more compact plastic thunderhawk would sell just fine.

scale it back? BS to that notion.... want that play epic.... look at the size of a baneblade next to a predator, its what 2-3.5x the size.. and that just a basic tank, not the super hauler of the space marines... look at the titans Revenant, Reaver, Warhound etc. those things are MASSIVE... they are already at the right scale....

I don't believe for a second that GW is eager to do SOB but some technical issue is stopping them. They've shown that they can make many intricate and well done models.
What's more likely the reason is that they just can't be bothered. It's not a priority with them. It might be on their "to do list" but something else always gets added to that list that takes a higher priority. So what we have is a line of metal 2nd edition figures that haven't seen updates in a decade. That's inexcusable. If they wanted to, they could. But they don't so they won't.

 Troike wrote:
Also, Cruddace has said that the Sisters are one of his favourite armies, so I doubt he's outright apathetic about them.

Well, he did not seem very passionate about it. But then again, I am basing myself mainly on his tone during a very short exchange.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:
Utter heresy. The current SoB codex is, in fact, pretty good. It's certainly an improvement over the last one and can certainly hold its own.

Uh, what ?

There seems to be a disconnect between what GW says about SOB and what GW does about SOB.

They say they're interested and are working on them.
What they do is nothing and release a stop gap digital only dex (where lesser supplements get a paper version.) with no new models in ten years.

Hmmm....I don't know about you, but I judge people and organizations on their actions.
It's maybe why I don't like either political party. GW has used up its good will. It's time to ___ up or shut up for GW.