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.

 Melissia wrote:

 ionusx wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Power lances?

I would love to see Sisters with power lances on bikes, a sort of "jousting knights" kind of feel. But like I said, I have always seen Sisters as very heavily influenced by Knights Hospitaller or Knights Templar.

that role is already taken by the black knights, its been that way for a while now

Sisters of Battle existed before Black Templars, so your objection is irrelevat.

Black Knights are Dark Angels, not Templars.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 ionusx wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Power lances?

I would love to see Sisters with power lances on bikes, a sort of "jousting knights" kind of feel. But like I said, I have always seen Sisters as very heavily influenced by Knights Hospitaller or Knights Templar.

that role is already taken by the black knights, its been that way for a while now

Sisters of Battle existed before Black Templars, so your objection is irrelevat.

Black Knights are Dark Angels, not Templars.

indeed and we are 2nd edition, we were in the angels of death codex and the idea of knights on horseback jousting was their to claim first. while they had no units or rules for them back then to my knowledge they were first concieved within our books. a more interesting idea would be maybe a twist on the sisters repentica with the conflagerant guilty basically its a squad of suicidal maniacs tossed out at the enemy. they rush headlong at them and then explode, perhaps have them in some kind of ultra low rent land speeder with a cheap Mass produced weapon mounted in the nose. their sole purpose is to crash into the enemy and explode and survivors of the hit are then set on fire and take an effect similar to warp flame gargoyles in a DOT.

another interesting idea is to steal a few pages out of the death guard in the form of maybe a guilty harvester squad. sisters with man reapers that charge forth from say their brand new land raider redeemer and slice peoples heads off. each on posessing a unique ability granting them rage once per turn as well as hammer of wrath we can be activated during yours or your opponents turn. (and yes that rage like effect would stack with actual rage meaning d3+d3+1 shenanigans are on the table).

another interesting concept is the idea of the seraphim, why not have cherubim teams which would be the CC ying to the seraphims dakka dakka yang. you could even have it as a dual plastic kit with eviscerators as the stock weapon, bp and chainsword being a free upgrade, and maybe some kind of upgrade in the form of combat cherubs allowing rerolls in the shooting or the assault phase for "to hit"

imo armorium cherubs should be granted to celestians they feel at home with their models as well

 Elric of Grans wrote:
What unit types are Fast Attack? Bikes, Skimmers, Cavalry, Beasts, Infantry with special rules (Jump, Scout, Infiltrate). Did I miss anything?

Now, Scout is probably quite easy to argue for with Sisters, and Dominions already fill this role. Jump Infantry is the role Seraphim have filled since second edition and are so iconic they could not be argued against. Infiltrate? To me, this does not feel like a Sisters of Battle unit, but it could be an Ecclesiarchy unit quite easily! Beasts, IMO, would be right out (unless, say, Arco-Flagellents were reclassified as Beast) as would Cavalry: neither makes sense for Sisters, in my mind. This leaves Bikes and Skimmers are the options available under core 40K rules. Sisters already have two Infantry-based Fast Attack units, so a vehicle-based one seems the most obvious oversight. As such, I believe a new Sisters/Ecclesiarchy codex should include either something with the Bike or Skimmer rule (not both, that would be over-kill). Personally, I would like both, but some kind of Skimmer unit that, say, has a Stormbolter and a couple of Sisters hanging off with Flamers (optional Meltagun upgrade?) sounds like a pretty badarse and fluffy option. Could be over-powered too, but I am just throwing out fluff ideas: I do not propose to be an expert at balance!

Indeed, thanks.

Sisters Seraphim are indeed the iconic Jump Infantry, which basically mean we don't need more Sisters with augmented mechanical transport. Especially not Sisters in a Rhino/Immolator Razorback, which is already a Troops choice. SM already have issues distinguishing Bikes from AMs, as the roles are so close, and Sisters would be no different. Better to avoid the mingling and overlap, and just keep the Sisters with JPs.

That said, both Cavalry and Beasts would be excellent choices to add from the Ecclesiarchy. Arco-Flagellants as Beasts is a good choice, emphasizing how they are feral and dangerous. Cheap Frateris Militia units on horses (from agrarian worlds) would make a nice contrast. And as we have FM en masse supporting Sisters, AV 11/10/9 Trucks (from higher-tech worlds) would be round things out.

Jetbikes are a non-starter: If SMs don't have Jetbikes neither will Sisters, and definitely not FM.

That leaves hypertech Skimmers / Flyers. I don't see Sisters with such as Transport, but I could see them paying a premium for super-rare Skimmer attack craft of some sort.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ionusx wrote:
a more interesting idea would be maybe a twist on the sisters repentica with the conflagerant guilty basically its a squad of suicidal maniacs tossed out at the enemy. they rush headlong at them and then explode, perhaps have them in some kind of ultra low rent land speeder with a cheap Mass produced weapon mounted in the nose. their sole purpose is to crash into the enemy and explode and survivors of the hit are then set on fire and take an effect similar to warp flame gargoyles in a DOT.

Human Bombs are an Imperial Guard Penal Legion concept that goes back to Rogue Trader. The IG have enough issues without Sisters stealing their stuff.

That said, self-martyring Human Bombs from the Frateris Militia side of the Ecclesiarchy isn't out of the question. Sisters are too valuable for that. Even fallen.

why update them didn't they all die off from Matt Ward's Grey Knights killing them off to use their blood to bless their armor or something?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Last stated number was in the 6e book, which has not been retconned since, which I quoted above.

You didn't quote a number. It's hard for me to believe that I need to explain this but X amount from 2 major orders plus approx. Y amount from unknown number ("many") lesser orders does not constitute a number. Purposefully vague fluff is purposefully vague.

 Manchu wrote:
Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of SM.

Haruspex wrote:
No, no it isn't at all. There are many types of warrior monks within the Imperium alone who are not space marines. Sisters of Battle are warrior nuns, which is the female version of warrior monks. I'm absolutely confounded as to how you can be so utterly oblivious and ignorant regarding 40K's fluff. Have you ever read a codex at all?

You must confound pretty easy, friendo. Let me help you overcome your lousy reading comprehension. I wasn't commenting on the 40k setting, much less disputing that Adepta Sororitas is a religious order. I was commenting about 40k factions. You know, the groups of units collected into a codex based on a theme. Being warrior monks is a major theme of Space Marines. And specifically, I was referring to Melissia's vision of the SoB as the 40k-equivalent of the historical martial orders, e.g., the Knights Templar. The SM have that covered: for example, the Black Templars. The name isn't a coincidence. (TBF neither is Orders Hospitaller.) Now obviously everyone is welcome to have their own idiosyncratic view of what a hypothetical SoB codex should be like. My point was, the trope of the crusader knight is already a strong component of the SM brand. I would like SoB to remain (importantly, not become) distinct.

Seeing that you only signed up less than 20 days ago, you would not know -- but Melissia and I have been mulling over this conversation for at least four years. But thanks for assuming I have never read a codex.

 Ashiraya wrote:
He was talking about Black Knights, just saying.

Slightly off-topic but does anyone else find the Black Knights to be absurd? They are what, the elites of the elites of the elites of the elites? It's like Russian nesting dolls of elitism in that chapter. I guess it has to do with the extreme paranoia of the Dark Angels, where every inner circle has an even more, er, innerer circle. It's not just the DA though. I would definitely not like to see this SM habit of spinning off ever greater hyperbole about how elite a unit is compared to some already-elite unit seep (further) into Sisters fluff.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I could see them paying a premium for super-rare Skimmer attack craft of some sort.

Okay I don't get that one at all. Sisters in skimmers? Where'd they get them? The freakin AdMech doesn't even have skimmers.

Indeed. Sisters of Battle shouldn't overlap with the Black Templars, who are more knightly than any other SM Chapter out there (esp after they got the BT Chapter Upgrade sprues). Similarly, SoB shouldn't compete with the Dark Angels and their monastic look.

Sisters aren't only Orders Militant. The Orders Militant are only a fraction of the Sisters. I wonder what the fighting portion of the Sisters is. Based on modern military tooth:tail ratios, I'd guessing that less than half of the Sisters strap on armor and Bolter.
____

As for the Sisters skimmer, I was thinking it'd be tied to their orbital / spacefaring assets, similar to Imperial Navy fighters supporting Imperial Guard. Deliberately overpriced, because they're non-core, and, as you note, extremely rare.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Orders Militant are only a fraction of the Sisters.

True but incorporating the non-militant order into a wargame has been and remains a bit tricky. To me, they have always felt tacked on in army lists (as Inquistoiral retinue no less in C:WH) although they make perfect sense in the background.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
their orbital / spacefaring assets

IIRC they have none (including Valkyries and similar) just like IG. I would bet Imperial law doubles down on the ban on combined arms when it comes to the Ecclesiarchy. (Thanks Vandire!)

 Manchu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Orders Militant are only a fraction of the Sisters.

True but incorporating the non-militant order into a wargame has been and remains a bit tricky. To me, they have always felt tacked on in army lists (as Inquistoiral retinue no less in C:WH) although they make perfect sense in the background.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
their orbital / spacefaring assets

IIRC they have none (including Valkyries and similar) just like IG. I would bet Imperial law doubles down on the ban on combined arms when it comes to the Ecclesiarchy. (Thanks Vandire!)

for the most part on non-millant orders being part of the wargame as things like the order diaglous never really work as while a land hailer is useful it is ussualy better to stick it on a more durable rhino instead. with that said hospittaliers could take a more active role as an elite choice and generally fit well with the rest of the army

the important thing to remember about adding new vehicles to the adepta sororitas is the sheer measure of loathing the adeptus mechanicus and the adeptus ministorum have for each other. hell the only reason the Ecclesiarchy managed to secure production of tanks like the exorcist and the immolator is by blackmailing the mechanicus with STC data and as shown by the book hammer & anvil the two organisations couldn't work on the same mission for longer then a week before both organisations started to think of ways to kill the other (incidentally the sisters ended up executing the last remaining techpriest by the end for the crime of being a treasonous heretic)

Vandire651 wrote:
the sheer measure of loathing the adeptus mechanicus and the adeptus ministorum have for each other

Excellent point; see e.g., Moirae Schism. HOWEVER - the usual practice is to shoehorn retcon vehicles in. "Oh we've always had those fliers. For millennia, yep." Not that I mind that; it's just an artefact of GW not being able to dream everything up at once circa 1990, mention it in some obscure corner of fluff in Realms of Chaos, then eventually get around to making a model 20+ years later. As long as whatever new vehicle Sisters might get is not something startlingly high tech (like a skimmer), I don't think it would stretch credulity at all.

 Manchu wrote:

Seeing that you only signed up less than 20 days ago, you would not know -- but Melissia and I have been mulling over this conversation for at least four years. But thanks for assuming I have never read a codex.

Then you have been failing and losing the same argument for four years. I am very impressed. I haven't been hanging around on this site for very long because the site is poorly maintained and rarely worth the effort of a post. It seems they'll make anybody a mod regardless of their lack of reading comprehension ability and basic etiquette skills. But despite what people on this forum seem to believe, the age of one's user account has nothing to do with their gaming/modeling experience or knowledge of the setting. Maybe you should consider reading up on the fluff someday and understand that monasticism pervades the Imperium's military organizations because the Imperium is a highly religious and feudalistic society.

Haruspex wrote:
Maybe you should consider reading up on the fluff someday

Do you have any recommendations? I mean, besides the dozens of codicies, FW books, BL anthologies and novels, and FFG roleplaying source books I have already read.

Haruspex wrote:
I haven't been hanging around on this site for very long because the site is poorly maintained and rarely worth the effort of a post.

Sorry we don't come up to your standards. I hope you don't feel anyone is keeping you.

I'm still not sure why you are telling me the Imperium is a religious and feudal society. Nothing I have posted contradicts that. Again -- I was talking about factions product lines rather than from an in-setting perspective. Somehow you managed to conclude I don't know SoB are space nuns and that I have never read a codex. It's quite a leap ...

 Manchu wrote:

Haruspex wrote:
Maybe you should consider reading up on the fluff someday

Do you have any recommendations? I mean, besides the dozens of codicies, FW books, BL anthologies and novels, and FFG roleplaying source books I have already read.

Start with the Sisters of Battle codices. Read them again, and pay attention this time. There are no analogues to the Knights Templar or Hospitaller among the Imperium's forces because those knightly orders were really just medieval banking organizations. But warrior monks are exactly what the Sisters of Battle are (apart from the gender specificity of the term.) You have provided no counter-argument, so I assume you agree.

In fact the "warrior monk" description suits them better than the marines, because they are formally affiliated with the Imperial priesthood like the jesuits and franciscans of the Catholic church whereas the marines have no formal religious ties.

Haruspex wrote:
You have provided no counter-argument, so I assume you agree.

Technically correct, I guess ... I mean, given I have never been arguing what you think I am arguing and you have misunderstood my point from the beginning of this exchange as clarified here:

 Manchu wrote:
I wasn't commenting on the 40k setting, much less disputing that Adepta Sororitas is a religious order. I was commenting about 40k factions. You know, the groups of units collected into a codex based on a theme. Being warrior monks is a major theme of Space Marines. And specifically, I was referring to Melissia's vision of the SoB as the 40k-equivalent of the historical martial orders, e.g., the Knights Templar. The SM have that covered: for example, the Black Templars. The name isn't a coincidence. (TBF neither is Orders Hospitaller.) Now obviously everyone is welcome to have their own idiosyncratic view of what a hypothetical SoB codex should be like. My point was, the trope of the crusader knight is already a strong component of the SM brand. I would like SoB to remain (importantly, not become) distinct.

and here:

 Manchu wrote:
I'm still not sure why you are telling me the Imperium is a religious and feudal society. Nothing I have posted contradicts that. Again -- I was talking about factions as product lines rather than from an in-setting perspective. Somehow you managed to conclude I don't know SoB are space nuns and that I have never read a codex. It's quite a leap ...

have always seen Sisters as very heavily influenced by Knights Hospitaller or Knights Templar.

Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of SM.

This is what you said. Read it again. This is your quote. These are your words. It doesn't matter if you're talking about fluff or models. Lots of citadel models are influenced by the "warrior monk" concept and aesthetic. You are just plain wrong. Please just come out and admit it already.

Haruspex wrote:
In fact the "warrior monk" description suits them better than the marines, because they are formally affiliated with the Imperial priesthood like the jesuits and franciscans of the Catholic church whereas the marines have no formal religious ties.

This is unnecessarily literal. SM are organized into chapters, reside in monasteries, call each other brother, observe formal rituals that evoke a popular contemporary image of medieval Christianity, preserve ancient knowledge, and live by a proscribed rule of conduct. One of their most obvious themes is being warrior monks. No one is saying SoB are not warrior nuns. Maybe the issue is, the historical martial orders took up the military customs and technology of the secular warrior, i.e., knights. The image of a mounted armored warrior is simply not associated with nuns. Fighting nuns may have existed in history but for off-topic reasons no iconic image of the warrior nun has come down to us as with the knight. SM are space knights, unequivocally. REMINDER: I AM TALKING ABOUT SM AS A BRAND. But SoB are something more novel. What if nuns wore power armor and wielded flame throwers? That is a more complex idea that does not have direct historical-fictional analogs, like SM have with the medieval martial religious orders.

Haruspex wrote:
It doesn't matter if you're talking about fluff or models.

Sure it does -- when the topic to hand is brand distinctiveness. As in, "How can this army be distinct from that army?"

You're bobbing, weaving and sidestepping the point. You said "Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of SM."

There is no possible way to interpret that statement that makes it correct in any way. It is an incorrect statement. There is no context in which it is correct.

You are saying "my statement is correct with such qualifier and such qualifier and such qualifier." But this is not so. You cannot build a valid argument upon a premise that is incorrect.

You can be talking about models, background, aesthetics or branding. Yet you are wrong on all counts.

If you are saying "Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of the Space Marine brand" then you are incorrect.
If you are saying "Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of Space Marine models" then you are incorrect.
If you are saying "Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of the Space Marine aesthetic" then you are incorrect.
If you are saying "Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of the Space Marine fluff" then you are incorrect.

Nobody has ever been more wrong about anything in the history of this forum. Your wrongness is monolithic.

The SM brand covers the warrior monk/space knight angle. SoB are not that and need to continue not being that in whatever codex they may eventually get. You can write out you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong (11 times in your last post LOL) as much as you want, it makes no difference. And it certainly isn't a counter argument.

 Manchu wrote:
The SM brand covers the warrior monk/space knight angle.

Oho, so all of a sudden warrior monks and space knights are the same thing! The fact that you tacked on another qualifier is further evidence of your failure.
The space knight angle doesn't belong to SM either. Consider the Imperial Knights for example.

SoB are not that and need to continue not being that in whatever codex they may eventually get.

But they are. They always have been. When GW came up with them, they were thinking "what if we made an army that resembles the space marines but consists of females and is more fanatical?" This is why they look almost identical to the marines. They always have and always will. But we've already established that there is nothing unique about the marines in terms of fluff, aesthetics or branding.

Haruspex wrote:
so all of a sudden warrior monks and space knights are the same thing

Nothing sudden about it. Keep in mind how the actual conversation progressed:

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I have always seen Sisters as very heavily influenced by Knights Hospitaller or Knights Templar.

Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of SM.

Melissia and I were always been talking about knights.

Haruspex wrote:
When GW came up with them, they were thinking "what if we made an army that resembles the space marines but consists of females and is more fanatical?"

I think you're technically correct on that point, if you are referring to when Sisters are first mentioned in Rogue Trader. It's not related to this conversation, however, which is nothing to do with scrapped RT concpets.

Haruspex wrote:
This is why they look almost identical to the marines.

Wait so in your eyes, this:looks "almost identical" to thisOr maybe thisis the only picture of a Sister you've ever seen? Kind of fits with the argument you are making here:

Haruspex wrote:
But they are. They always have been.

as if SoB were not totally re-imagined ... as happened with most of RT (including re: SM). But no according to your own admission, you think SoB and SM currently look almost identical:

Haruspex wrote:
This is why they look almost identical to the marines. They always have and always will.

Weird.

Very well then. You've admitted that "Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of SM" is an incorrect statement. Because Space Marines are not the only warrior-monk themed faction in 40K. And yes, power armor looks the same no matter who's wearing it. It's power armor. Same backpacks, same pauldrons, same overall style. Don't try to throw drawings at me. You already fell back on the argument that we're talking about product lines and not fluff. Drawings are a type of fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now that I've got this shameless troll on ignore, I propose we start talking about ways GW could start to distinguish the Sisters from the Marines. Because right now the sisters are just weaker marines, and GW's aesthetic approach to the faction is little more than "marine equipment with extra churchy gubbins attached". And let's not forget boobs and thigh-high boots.

I wish the power armor really did look different from marine armor. I think the sisters could use a more baroque, heresy-era sort of design.

You said X and Y look almost identical. How can you object to me posting pictures to counter that statement? How bizarre.

You keep misreading my posts, too. Like where did I say my statement was incorrect. Let me clarify again: The warrior monk thing is squarely the province of SM -- and not SoB. SoB are nuns for sure and SoB are warriors for sure. Yep, they're warrior nuns. It has nothing to do with my response to Melissia.

IRL some Christian monks decided to fight -- and in their time and place that made them a kind of knight. The image of these men comes down to us today and has inspired GW when they were creating the SM IP. But there is no corresponding image that has come down to us of warrior nuns (regardless of any fighting they may have actually done) to inspire SoB IP. SoB IP, as it has been since RT, is slightly more original. And I think they have done a nice job (overall) of not letting SoB slip into MEQ territory, thematically.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Human Bombs are an Imperial Guard Penal Legion concept that goes back to Rogue Trader. The IG have enough issues without Sisters stealing their stuff.

That said, self-martyring Human Bombs from the Frateris Militia side of the Ecclesiarchy isn't out of the question. Sisters are too valuable for that. Even fallen.

So it's okay for Frateris to 'steal' them? What?

And well, Repentia are fairly not-valuable... They frequently charge enemy lines on foot without any armour at all!

 Ashiraya wrote:


And well, Repentia are fairly not-valuable... They frequently charge enemy lines on foot without any armour at all!

Do people really have an issue with one imperial faction having access to things that other imperial factions have? The Imperium ain't a swiss army knife, it's a giant bloody hammer. I kind of miss the RT days when anybody could have boltguns or power armor.

Haruspex wrote:
Very well then. You've admitted that "Warrior monks? That is squarely the province of SM" is an incorrect statement. Because Space Marines are not the only warrior-monk themed faction in 40K. And yes, power armor looks the same no matter who's wearing it. It's power armor. Same backpacks, same pauldrons, same overall style. Don't try to throw drawings at me. You already fell back on the argument that we're talking about product lines and not fluff. Drawings are a type of fluff.

just because manchu misworded two words when explaining that he was been having the same argument with Melissa does not mean that you've won a point in the argument that sisters main theme is that of crusading knightly orders like the Templar or Teutonic knights. it just means that there has been a misunderstanding which is now cleaned up

and regarding power Armour the design of the adepta sororitas compared to the space marine shows a differing philosophy, with the sisters of battle being sleek and light weight(dark heresy has it as only 35 kg) with just enough strength enhancement to reliably use bolters and a focus on low cost, mass production with little encumbrance due to it's relatively low size. space marine Armour focus more on the 8 foot walking tank theme with the 200+ kg weight and 2 inch thick ceramic plate.

Just to clarify, I am not saying Melissia's preferred interpretation is wrong or totally unfounded in the setting (I even already conceded that it is no coincidence one of the non-militant orders is called the Orders Hospitaller). So while there is certainly a component of that, which seems to be one of the most important themes if not the main theme of the SM, SoB are (a) very distinct from that and (b) are in a way more novel since they could not simply be based on an easy reference to the image of the medieval martial orders.

Vandire651 wrote:

just because manchu misworded two words when explaining that he was been having the same argument with Melissa does not mean that you've won a point in the argument that sisters main theme is that of crusading knightly orders like the Templar or Teutonic knights.

Just for the record, nobody in 40K resembles the Knights Templar or Teutonic knights. Both the marines and sisters are drawn from a fantastical pseudo-historical perspective on monastic knightly orders. Marines obviously don't have a monopoly on the crusader theme. Everyone who fights for the Imperium is a holy crusader.

 Ashiraya wrote:
And well, Repentia are fairly not-valuable...

This is thorny. Repentia deem their own lives forfeit. Seems like their sisters understand they are not really fit for normal duties under the circumstances. Their actions in battle are an extreme form of penitence. I don't think we should interpret their religious devotion as the Order just throwing them away because they are no longer valuable, like Penal Legion convicts. In a sense, Repentia embody the highest ideals of the Adepta Sororitas even though they consider themselves to be grave sinner. So they are really quite valuable.

Well, Dark Heresy is a really bad source for Sisters fluff, since it ignores huge parts of the Sisterhood information that already exists.

I mean, come on, it gives them masterwork light power armour. Sororitas power armour is explicitly equal in protection to full Space Marine power armour. Dark Heresy claims they need to earn their helmets in battle, and "can fight cultists and sometimes even orks". It's utterly stupid. It doesn't take the Sisters seriously as a faction at all.

Nobody claims that fighting orks is some kind of major achievement for the guard, but apparently its the height of the Sisterhood's achievements.

________________________________________

Beware what you fish for with new units. I'm still fairly convinced that our 'new super-unit' is going to be Sisters riding giant psyber-eagles that count as Flying Monstrous Creatures.

Vandire651 wrote:
regarding power Armour the design of the adepta sororitas compared to the space marine shows a differing philosophy

This is another excellent point. Perhaps SoB power armour is designed to emphasize the humanity of the wearer. Everything about SM, by contrast, seems designed to inspire fear and awe.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It doesn't take the Sisters seriously as a faction at all.

TBF this is a problem to a greater or lesser extent for Sisters fluff wherever it appears.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I'm still fairly convinced that our 'new super-unit' is going to be Sisters riding giant psyber-eagles that count as Flying Monstrous Creatures.

You post these things just to hurt us, don't you?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Sororitas power armour is explicitly equal in protection to full Space Marine power armour.

According to one source. Not even codices are entirely reliable in 40k. Would anyone take me seriously if I asserted that Terminators are invincible? (Which I do have a source for, the SM codex specifically.)

I have eyes, so I do not intend to buy that their armour provides equal protection anytime soon.

The whole 'We have boob armour so we can show off our curves and how feminine we are to everyone but we have equal protection to the walking tanks anyway because reasons!' line is bad anime level bullgak.

You sacrifice your armour integrity and wear thin armour (and yes, it's thin, the majority of depictions show it as significantly thinner than Astartes plate even if I am sure one or two pictures contradict that) so that you can show off how you are not men under arms, sure, but you don't get to magically keep all its resilience for that. There is nothing to suggest that every SoB walks around in artificer armour (which is what would be necessary for equal protection).