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.

 Absolutionis wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Sexy demons vs. Chaste nuns.


....yeah, there's not a porno plot in there or anything.

Tzeentch is the Chaos God of magic/trickery, etc. Their monsters look like stingrays, blobs, and birds.

You're thinking of a 12-year-old's understanding of Slaanesh combined with a 12-year-old's fantasy of the only reasonable predominantly female faction in 40k. Get well soon.

...you don't find birds sexy?











(but yeah, I fethed up hehe)

Sad Panda wrote:
I think it is worth remembering that the Bloodthirster is an End Times mini. No more End Times beyond Archaon in 2015. No more Greater Daemons in 2015.

While Fantasy has been taking the lead as far as Daemons go, GW has been mixing things up. What is to stop them from doing a new Lord of Change like the Bloodthirster, with builds for Fateweaver and another, as part of a 40K focused release? They could then put fantasy rules for it in a supplement or WD or Campaign book for fantasy.

Not arguing the veracity of this particular rumor, just wondering why you are so convinced that we will not see one or more of the other greater Daemons updated to plastic his year, when GW has been throwing out curve-balls release wise.

Sad Panda wrote:
I think it is worth remembering that the Bloodthirster is an End Times mini. No more End Times beyond Archaon in 2015. No more Greater Daemons in 2015.

No Sisters in 2015 either, sorry.

And no summer campaign.

As mentioned elsewhere, this summer on the 40K-side of things is mostly about the folks from Mars (but no campaign), as well as a few 1-week-releases (think Necrons). And of course, the new Fantasy kicking off Q3.

Funny because from what I've heard from a source I know I can trust, 2015 isn't off limits to Sisters, just that the BoLS rumor of May is too soon.

Also confirmation of new models with a "Blanche feel".

So do you have a source our are you speculating?

I, and several others I've seen, have asked Panda for a source, he/she is yet to respond that I've seen.

They've been quite accurate in all they've said so far though, albeit on much shorter time frames than this.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I, and several others I've seen, have asked Panda for a source, he/she is yet to respond that I've seen.

They've been quite accurate in all they've said so far though, albeit on much shorter time frames than this.

No rumor monger is going to give you their source. That being said, Sad Panda does have a pretty good record. (6 true)

 pretre wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I, and several others I've seen, have asked Panda for a source, he/she is yet to respond that I've seen.

They've been quite accurate in all they've said so far though, albeit on much shorter time frames than this.

No rumor monger is going to give you their source. That being said, Sad Panda does have a pretty good record. (6 true)

Interesting. Well we'll see one way or another.

 pretre wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I, and several others I've seen, have asked Panda for a source, he/she is yet to respond that I've seen.

They've been quite accurate in all they've said so far though, albeit on much shorter time frames than this.

No rumor monger is going to give you their source. That being said, Sad Panda does have a pretty good record. (6 true)

No, I get that, I meant more an indication of the provenance. It doesn't need to be "Dave from accounts" but "a relative" or "someone who works for a GW supplier" or even "me" is vague enough.

Someone with a low post count posting information framed in the definitive, apparently from the other side of the planet from Lenton who dodges any request for clarification on where their info is coming from is, let's face it, statistically more likely a troll than legitimate.

So far, Panda's info has been good, which obviously helps, but I'm going to view anyone with the mentioned factors in place with healthy skepticism.

True, although right now I trust him more than Natfka and BOLS.

Yep, I'd agree, but predicting the next few weeks releases, even with some accuracy, is a whole other ball game from stuff months away.

Heck, given the new flexibility the weekly release schedule gives them, I wouldn't be surprised if stuff 6 months away is still only provisional, even at GWHQ.

 pretre wrote:
True, although right now I trust him more than Natfka and BOLS.

I still trust my source for what I've heard (which had little to do with the campaign but more the possibility of a release) but I'm willing to wait and see what comes out of this. I don't assume any rumor correct right out of the gate (not even from a person I trust on it) because of how GW has snuck things up on us in the past or shuffled things around a bit or info was blown out of proportion of the what was happening to assume anything to be 100% true this far out.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 pretre wrote:
True, although right now I trust him more than Natfka and BOLS.

I still trust my source for what I've heard (which had little to do with the campaign but more the possibility of a release) but I'm willing to wait and see what comes out of this. I don't assume any rumor correct right out of the gate (not even from a person I trust on it) because of how GW has snuck things up on us in the past or shuffled things around a bit or info was blown out of proportion of the what was happening to assume anything to be 100% true this far out.

I like you, but I don't trust your rumors even as much as I trust BOLS/NATFKA. 1 out of 7 isn't a great record.

They've been right recently regarding Harlequins and the plastic bloodthirster

The rumour seems believable enough.

New plastic Tzeentch demons isn't a stretch. New sister models would be a stretch, but as pointed out by several others here, the rumour did NOT say there would be new sisters models. In addition, sisters and space marines being in a campaign isn't a stretch either (the last campaign had sisters too, so them being in a campaign is definately not unusual or unheard of at all)

When it comes to models, sisters are definately neglected, but they've still always had a fluff (and, as established, campaign) presense.

About the only thing really giving me pause is that it involves Tzeentch instead of Khorne and Nurgle. But still not unbelievable.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
They've been right recently regarding Harlequins and the plastic bloodthirster

They've been right a lot over the years. They've also been wrong a lot more.

Larry Vela aka Big Red - Total rumors: (149 TRUE) / (326 FALSE) / (20 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

Natfka on Faeit 212 - Total rumors: (488 TRUE) / (721 FALSE) / (67 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

So has 40k Radio said anything recently regarding Sisters? They seem to be the ones with the spotless record

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
They've been right recently regarding Harlequins and the plastic bloodthirster

A stopped clock etc, etc.

Plus I wonder how often a plastic BT has been predicted and NOT been released over the last year or three?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So has 40k Radio said anything recently regarding Sisters? They seem to be the ones with the spotless record

]
40kradio has been offline for rumors for a while.

LoWG have been more recent, but no sisters that I saw.

 pretre wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 pretre wrote:
True, although right now I trust him more than Natfka and BOLS.

I still trust my source for what I've heard (which had little to do with the campaign but more the possibility of a release) but I'm willing to wait and see what comes out of this. I don't assume any rumor correct right out of the gate (not even from a person I trust on it) because of how GW has snuck things up on us in the past or shuffled things around a bit or info was blown out of proportion of the what was happening to assume anything to be 100% true this far out.

I like you, but I don't trust your rumors even as much as I trust BOLS/NATFKA. 1 out of 7 isn't a great record.

I did PM you regarding this source and why I actually trust them. But whatevs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So has 40k Radio said anything recently regarding Sisters? They seem to be the ones with the spotless record

]
40kradio has been offline for rumors for a while.

LoWG have been more recent, but no sisters that I saw.

No established rumor poster is answering questions about Sisters. I did get a response from Darnok on Warseer but he's heard nothing either way.

But, to be blunt, I trust my mum, that isn't to say I'd believe her if she told me plastic Sisters were due out soon.

Well the plastic Harlies turned out to be true.. I'm willing to have a little faith here...

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Well the plastic Harlies turned out to be true.. I'm willing to have a little faith here...

In Panda, Clockwork's source or my mum?

Because my mum had Harlies pencilled for next autumn.

Well whens the last time there's been this amount of talk about anything regarding Sisters?

Every other month? (which sadly then comes to nothing)

There's a thread that's still on pg1 of 40K discussion, AKAIK, from the last batch of Natfka rumours.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I did PM you regarding this source and why I actually trust them. But whatevs.

I got it, but I still don't think your history bodes well for it.

Sad Panda wrote:
I think it is worth remembering that the Bloodthirster is an End Times mini. No more End Times beyond Archaon in 2015. No more Greater Daemons in 2015.

No Sisters in 2015 either, sorry.

And no summer campaign.

As mentioned elsewhere, this summer on the 40K-side of things is mostly about the folks from Mars (but no campaign), as well as a few 1-week-releases (think Necrons). And of course, the new Fantasy kicking off Q3.

Don't agree. It has it's benefits that the demon line serves double duty in 40k and WHFB, but I certainly see no reason why the demon updates have to be tied to fantasy. Besides, I'm pretty sure, whatever survives the rumored Post-End-Times change, demons will be a part of it (probably the dominant part of the "evil" faction) - again, because they can be used for WHFB and 40k both.

There was some talk about some sort of god-dedicated split of chaos units for 40k, uniting cult troops and demons in one book. Whatever became of that? And if it comes, part of the models may come with campaign supplements, and part with those books. Who knows what GW thinks in their twisted little minds...

 Kosake wrote:
There was some talk about some sort of god-dedicated split of chaos units for 40k, uniting cult troops and demons in one book. Whatever became of that? And if it comes, part of the models may come with campaign supplements, and part with those books. Who knows what GW thinks in their twisted little minds...

There's been wishlisting for that since around 4th edition.

 pretre wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I did PM you regarding this source and why I actually trust them. But whatevs.

I got it, but I still don't think your history bodes well for it.

You're judging me for information based on other sources regardless of the quality of this source. This source has no "track record", therefore you're holding an illogical position.

Seriously, this is the kind of silly bs that makes people stop bringing information forward.

Would be a shift in GWs approach to the campaign boxes. But the two we've had may have only been testing the water using mostly existing minis.
A box that includes two factions with almost entirely new minis, could sell like crazy, and would get SoB fans to pick up Tzeentch minis and vice versa.

I've really liked the campaign books/boxes so Im hoping this is at least partly true.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I did PM you regarding this source and why I actually trust them. But whatevs.

I got it, but I still don't think your history bodes well for it.

You're judging me for information based on other sources regardless of the quality of this source. This source has no "track record", therefore you're holding an illogical position.

Seriously, this is the kind of silly bs that makes people stop bringing information forward.

Judging you for supplying information from other sources is exactly the same as is done to the likes of Natfka. He gets cross at Pretre for hitting him with so many Falses, but if he is going to make those sources "anonymous" then he shifts the onus on to him to act as gatekeeper for the information supplied to him under this restriction, and then it becomes about his ability to discern legitimate info from blatant trolling, something he's earned a solid reputation for being unable to do (or is willing to sacrifice the integrity of his reporting in exchange for clicks - potayto, potahto.)

You, by reporting what you hear from other sources, are placing yourself in the same position. It is now not about the veracity of the rumours, but your ability to filter what is good info from what is not. You've apparently attached your cart to the wrong horse on more than one occasion previously, so those of us with no idea who your source about Sisters is, have nothing to go on but your track record for picking a sound source.

Now, if the position was reversed, and I had told you stuff on multiple occasions that hadn't panned out, but was insisting "no, but this time it's different" what would you be inclined to think?

If this source really is different, and you sincerely believe in it, then stand behind it, time will, after all, prove you right. But if you don't want to be on the receiving end of skepticism, and your faith in your source isn't total, perhaps, yes, it's best to keep things under your hat, at least perhaps until there's something around that corroborates it.