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.

The whole "mold for robes is too hard" argument is very silly- Dark Angels come to mind first. Plenty of other current GW plastics have more complicated/detailed parts than SoB do.

The " Initial investment is too high" is also kind of silly, since there is very little variation needed for squads. They need to design what equates to a SM Tactical squad, but with female models. Add heavy and special weapons, different backpacks, and BAM- you have 90% of the army covered in one box.


Who knows if they make plastics or not at this point- I now have 99% of my sisters army completed- But I would buy some if they came out (even completely replace all of the metals eventually, I hate playing with metal anymore due to terrain issues)

I just want some rules updates and Data Cards!!!! haha

I would love if they did, but I'm not convinced other than the people who visit the forums there is a real desire for them. Of course, if a brand spanking new amazing kit came out for them, and they actually did some, you know, advertising, they would sell plenty.

SM got how many...5 books last year?

Just repeating the existing units that are only available in metal into plastic isn't going to make a particularly good replacement for what we have now for existing SoB players.

Obviously it'll help those who want to start but unless you have a nice fat codex with new units that require spending by existing SoB players you are missing out on the captive market that'll be the majority of sales for what has been a niche army.

The more models they have to produce the less likely it'll be that it happens. With GW seemingly avoiding adding in other armies units into codexes to help push allies, its a little frustrating we'll not see a combined codex like 3rd again.

Having said that I am reasonably confident that we'll see something for SoB next year as we have had a new army each year for the last couple of years, so why not SoB next year? I just hope its better than the last codex.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
However, 28mm IS hard to work with sculpting women in greenstuff.

How to sculpt women in 28mm:
- Step 1: sculpt the armor. This is the same process as sculpting the armor for a man, except if you are putting your model on catsuits or skin-tight armor, in which case… well, that is hardly armor and why are they going to fight without armor?
- Step 2: if the head is uncovered, sculpt a woman's head.

 asorel wrote:
It probably won't happen in tabletop, as SocJus tends to harbor FotM hipster types that won't take to the investment (both capital and temporal) required to enter wargaming.

Ahah, no.

 asorel wrote:
However, it's too big a threat for any industry to ignore. Look at the gaming industry. Look at the massive controversy that occurred because a couple of trust fund babies cried "misogyny" rather than answering claims of corruption and cronyism. No company wants to risk dealing with that sort of thing.

Ahahahaha no. A massive twitter fuss was started because a bunch of immature anon decided that feminism was killing their game by making factually correct observation, and proceeded to harass Anita Sarkeesian even more than before and stuff . But fear not, those anons have glorious representative: some guy who used to call gamers the lowest of the low but changed his mind when he saw some pretending to represent all gamers ( ) while hating on feminism, along with someone who introduced “equity feminism” to the world (i.e. spending 100% of your time criticizing feminism) who never played video game either “because they are for boys”.
No wonder “the industry” wants to have no part in this.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Their special power is being girls

No. You can keep repeating this, it will not make it true.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Pretty much the only army (outside dark eldar) who even acknowledge (in miniatures format) that women exist. It is what it is.

You seem to forget about Craftworld Eldar, and Tau, and the Assassins, and the Inquisition, and even the Imperial Guard used to have a few female models.
Actually it is Space Marines that never have women because it is part of their “superpowers”…

 Torga_DW wrote:
These days the fluff is just there to shoe-horn in new models. How many tweenagers do you know that are into heavy politics?

Can politics sell? Well, they sold Games of Throne pretty well.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The restrictions on marines are only arbitrary because gw chooses them to be that way. Same with the sisters, they can get whatever gw decides they can get.

The restriction with the marines are due to long established fluff that would cause an uproar if it was retconned.

They will get round to sisters eventually.

A) there is clearly a demand.
B) it offers GW a chance to make some truly kick ass models.

People just need to be patient, just like all the chaos marine players are...

 General Kroll wrote:
They will get round to sisters eventually.

A) there is clearly a demand.
B) it offers GW a chance to make some truly kick ass models.

People just need to be patient, just like all the chaos marine players are...

The Faithful are a lot more patient than Chaos players have ever been or ever will be, lol.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 asorel wrote:
It probably won't happen in tabletop, as SocJus tends to harbor FotM hipster types that won't take to the investment (both capital and temporal) required to enter wargaming.

Ahah, no.

 asorel wrote:
However, it's too big a threat for any industry to ignore. Look at the gaming industry. Look at the massive controversy that occurred because a couple of trust fund babies cried "misogyny" rather than answering claims of corruption and cronyism. No company wants to risk dealing with that sort of thing.

Ahahahaha no. A massive twitter fuss was started because a bunch of immature anon decided that feminism was killing their game by making factually correct observation, and proceeded to harass Anita Sarkeesian even more than before and stuff . But fear not, those anons have glorious representative: some guy who used to call gamers the lowest of the low but changed his mind when he saw some pretending to represent all gamers ( ) while hating on feminism, along with someone who introduced “equity feminism” to the world (i.e. spending 100% of your time criticizing feminism) who never played video game either “because they are for boys”.
No wonder “the industry” wants to have no part in this.

A rejection with no follow-up, a few sweeping generalizations, and no sources for this rabble-rousing besides an image that only proves my points further. Truly your argumentative skills are unmatched.

Oh, and good job mentioning the one you support by name but none of the opposition. It really helps that "ebil anomymoose" impression you're trying to give.

Damn. You win that argument, then. Congrats on achieving whatever your goal was!


(BTW, Vengeful Spirit says hi!)

This is the part where we all laugh at the French surrendering. :^)

Well, you do anyway. It's nice for you. You need this.
Hint: the difference between refusing to fight and surrendering is that when one surrenders, one has to submit. I am certainly not submitting to you, I just have no time to waste with you. I know I will not convince you, so…

Eh, I wonder about how popular the SoB actually were. I know people will say, 'NO it IS POPULAR because I've heard/seen...' but I think maybe the minority itself is just very vocal.

GW should simply allow Forgeworld to do it in resin. Less risk this way, and you could really cash in on the die hards - which I think most SoB promoters are.

I would have thought because they would get flak for being able to "kill women" in game, and suffer the wrath of feminists for encouraging "violence against women". Those sort of people latch onto anything they can to try and make their point, and often it's not worth a company to risk tarnishing their reputation by getting into a pissing contest with them.

Never mind the fact that IIRC both Eldar and Dark Eldar have obvious female figures (i.e. boob-plate) and Tau while not obvious have females among the ranks, not to mention Shadowsun.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I would have thought because they would get flak for being able to "kill women" in game[…]
Never mind the fact that IIRC both Eldar and Dark Eldar have obvious female figures (i.e. boob-plate)

In other words, “Fact show that my crazy conspiracy narrative is directly contradicted by the fact but I am going to cling to it regardless.
Maybe you could point to a game that got flak for allowing to kill women? And then I will point to a dozen or more games where you are able to kill them and that got the game no backlash and we can discuss about why that game actually got flak (if you find one)?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Well, you do anyway. It's nice for you. You need this.
Hint: the difference between refusing to fight and surrendering is that when one surrenders, one has to submit. I am certainly not submitting to you, I just have no time to waste with you. I know I will not convince you, so…

Ah, the passive-aggressive dismissal. You say you won't waste time with this, yet you spent the time replying in the first place, knowing that this was the only possible outcome. How do you know you won't convince me if you haven't even tried? If you have sourced, verifiable information to present, I'm willing to examine it.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I would have thought because they would get flak for being able to "kill women" in game[…]
Never mind the fact that IIRC both Eldar and Dark Eldar have obvious female figures (i.e. boob-plate)

In other words, “Fact show that my crazy conspiracy narrative is directly contradicted by the fact but I am going to cling to it regardless.
Maybe you could point to a game that got flak for allowing to kill women? And then I will point to a dozen or more games where you are able to kill them and that got the game no backlash and we can discuss about why that game actually got flak (if you find one)?

This is more than a little ironic given your refusal to source your own information. You're also very defensive about this "conspiracy" business, despite no one implying that one is in place.

For the record, there's no need for a conspiracy to exist. People can and will get their panties in a twist over non-issues without prompting from a shady master.

 kveldulf wrote:
Eh, I wonder about how popular the SoB actually were. I know people will say, 'NO it IS POPULAR because I've heard/seen...' but I think maybe the minority itself is just very vocal.

I can't ofc say anything beyond my group where I'm the only one to field SoB (80+ bodies and 9 vehicles) but the SW guy actually bought five Seraphim just to paint them. He says he'd buy more if they were cheaper and I believe him. It's not easy to keep a wife and two kids fed on his crappy salary. And our Chaos guy absolutely forbid me selling off my SoB without talking to him first (I've been thinking of quitting this crappy game for a long time). So that's one player with a lot of stuff and two (out of a group of maybe 8 regulars) who do think SoB is something to collect.

We had the same with those Dark Eldar mentioned. One guy played them because getting them was cheap (I think people bought the starter sets with DE just for the other models and books and ditched the DE) but once they got updated two others also bought in.

 asorel wrote:
This is more than a little ironic given your refusal to source your own information.

What information do you want source for?
That Milo Yannopoulos is a figurehead of Gamergate? Would putting a bunch of source about event about Gamergate where he was a speaker be enough? Like Airplay, GGinParis, … Or do you deny he used to treat gamers with utter contempt? Then would links to his articles (1,2,3) and tweets (one among many, I can find a whole lot more, along with more articles, if someone is interested) be source enough?
Or do you want similar information about CHS?
Really, all you would need to do to find all this is spend a few minutes on Wikipedia, and look at the Reference section…
Do you want source about how that image I posted is blatantly lying? Well then, just try it for yourself. Install Steam and DOTA2 (works on Windows, MacOSX and Linux, and it's free, you have no excuse) and look at Vengeful Spirit that I already mentioned. “The author claims they are wearing 'form-fitting cosutmes'(sic), while in reality the only sexualized female character in the game is Queen of Pain[…]”. That dirty little liar.
If you are just too lazy to download the game, here is a video from a third-party advertising some cosmetic DLC for Vengeful Spirit:


If you are too lazy even for that, on the very image, just below that paragraph, they show a picture of Cristal Maiden with huge cleavage anyway, lol. They know they are talking gak and they know their audience do not care because, well, they want to believe!

I do not expect that any of this is going to change your mind. I know you already knew all that. It's common knowledge about Gamergate. You just choose to ignore it, or dismiss it, or rationalize it however you could. But I am not posting this for you, I am posting it for other people that might read the thread.

 asorel wrote:
For the record, there's no need for a conspiracy to exist.

Yeah, the mindset is here, even without claiming for an actual conspiracy. That's why you ignore all the facts above.

I'm sure it comes down to basic economics. Too many people seem to think the answer is "GW doesn't care". Caring has nothing to do with it. Making money does.

I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line. I don't understand the cost. I've never seen an insider break down what it costs GW to, for example, develop, produce and distribute a squad of Infanty, or a single Tank.

I imagine the costs are enormous, much more than most people think. The cost to develop the models, then create molds out of them, design the sprues, quality control, and then design model instructions, the artwork, the box, then shipping to all the GW locations, getting pictures and sales information put on the website, etc... I don't think I'd be out of line by suggesting that the cost to do all that would probably be multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The bean counters at GW tally all that up, and look at projected sales. If the projected sales of the models aren't that high, then GW is probably "safer" spending that money on something else that the bean counters indicate will sell better, like updating the Tau codex and putting out a few new kits for it.

I think GW does take risks in the model department, and the Tau codex release is actually a great example. People have been clamoring for xenos terrain from Games Workshop forever. Well, now we finally got some! I don't think I'm totally out of line by suggesting that's a risky release on GW's part, and one of the main reasons it was done was probably to test the waters and see what kind of sales xenos terrain would really generate.

Updating the Sisters of Battle is just a really high risk. The entire line needs updating, so you're talking about a LOT of investment. There are probably less risky things for them to work on.

Murrdox wrote:
I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line.

Unless I missed something, about the same as making a brand new mechanicus line.

Murrdox wrote:
The bean counters at GW tally all that up, and look at projected sales.

Remember that they say themselves that they do not do market research, so…

Murrdox wrote:
I'm sure it comes down to basic economics. Too many people seem to think the answer is "GW doesn't care". Caring has nothing to do with it. Making money does.

I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line. I don't understand the cost. I've never seen an insider break down what it costs GW to, for example, develop, produce and distribute a squad of Infanty, or a single Tank.

I imagine the costs are enormous, much more than most people think. The cost to develop the models, then create molds out of them, design the sprues, quality control, and then design model instructions, the artwork, the box, then shipping to all the GW locations, getting pictures and sales information put on the website, etc... I don't think I'd be out of line by suggesting that the cost to do all that would probably be multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The bean counters at GW tally all that up, and look at projected sales. If the projected sales of the models aren't that high, then GW is probably "safer" spending that money on something else that the bean counters indicate will sell better, like updating the Tau codex and putting out a few new kits for it.

I think GW does take risks in the model department, and the Tau codex release is actually a great example. People have been clamoring for xenos terrain from Games Workshop forever. Well, now we finally got some! I don't think I'm totally out of line by suggesting that's a risky release on GW's part, and one of the main reasons it was done was probably to test the waters and see what kind of sales xenos terrain would really generate.

Updating the Sisters of Battle is just a really high risk. The entire line needs updating, so you're talking about a LOT of investment. There are probably less risky things for them to work on.

It's a shame too. If the model line actually got updated I might actually want to start a sisters army. I've liked them since first read about them in 5th edition, unfortunately 14 year old me didn't have the money to buy sisters at just shy of $80 for 10, and older me would prefer plastic models.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line.

Unless I missed something, about the same as making a brand new mechanicus line.

They obviously don't think it'll sell as well as mechanicus or for whatever reason they think it'd be more work for themselves.

Either that or they really just don't want to do it.

Up until Scions and Skitarii came out I thought SoB were some of the best 40k miniatures at capturing the aesthetic of the setting; marines are decked out to be above the the average imperial and Cadians are just such generic soldiers.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line.

Unless I missed something, about the same as making a brand new mechanicus line.

They obviously don't think it'll sell as well as mechanicus or for whatever reason they think it'd be more work for themselves.

Either that or they really just don't want to do it.

Pretty much. I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I would guess that sales of Mechanicus 30k from Forgeworld demonstrated to GW that there was a large, healthy appetite for a 40k Mechanicus army. I don't remember exactly how much time passed between when Forgeworld started releasing Mechanicum models for Horus Heresy and when GW published the Skitarii.

I honestly think "don't want to do it" doesn't enter into the equation. If someone at Games Workshop thought they could make money by redoing the Sisters line, they'd PAY people to do it. If someone at Games Workshop could show that they would make a boatload of money by re-launching Squats, they'd do that too.

I think some people are forgetting that the only e-codex to be on the apple top-chartss list was a Sisters codex. Not even Space Marines did that. I mean it was only for a short while, but that proves their is at least some interest for it for those who are nay-saying. Its true that it was only available as an e-codex, but that to me counts for something.

 andrewm9 wrote:
I think some people are forgetting that the only e-codex to be on the apple top-chartss list was a Sisters codex. Not even Space Marines did that. I mean it was only for a short while, but that proves their is at least some interest for it for those who are nay-saying. Its true that it was only available as an e-codex, but that to me counts for something.

It doesn't count for anything if the e-codex is the only edition available. If that is indeed the case, then you have to compare the total units sold of all codices. Making the Sisters codex an ebook exclusive is going to cause a large number of people who wouldn't normally buy ebooks to buy it, because there isn't any other medium available. Because of that forced limitation, the demand for the Sisters codex would be artificially high, and would also equal total demand of the Sororitas book. Comparing total demand of one product to partial demand of another yields no useful information. Since comparing the total units sold of, say, the Necrons codex to the the Sisters codex would show that the Sisters are insignificant in comparison.

Im 95% sure they are just saving them for a rainy day.

its entirely possibly they already have the CAD files ready to go.

They just need something to happen financially and boom they send in the print run and we will see it a year later like all the recent sprues.

Oooorrr the company collapses and we never see those cads again. :/

Its honestly not out of the realms of possibly for GW to do it. and i highly doubt they give a skavens back side about SJW going after female blablablablabal since they already did dark elf stuff the way they did it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Their special power is being girls

No. You can keep repeating this, it will not make it true.

You can keep denying it, it will not make it false. It works both ways.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Pretty much the only army (outside dark eldar) who even acknowledge (in miniatures format) that women exist. It is what it is.

You seem to forget about Craftworld Eldar, and Tau, and the Assassins, and the Inquisition, and even the Imperial Guard used to have a few female models.
Actually it is Space Marines that never have women because it is part of their “superpowers”…

Craftworld eldar used to have howling banshees only, if we're going down the path of used tos. Tau have, what, shadowsun? In the entire army? Likewise inquisition had a couple female inquisitor models (and an inflatable diagolus), i'll give you the callidus assassin, and the guard used to have ~3? female models if memory serves. Two of them being unique characters from the last chancers box. That's not what i would call representative of women.
edit: to clarify my position here, i'm talking line units with female models, of which dark eldar have the only real representation. Yes howling banshees are in majority female, and they wear female looking armour, but that's one specialized unit in the entire army. Meanwhile the other armies line units are largely male only, with special reasons why some of the armies don't even have females in existence. That is what makes the sisters the 'girl' army - they have (exclusive in this case) representation in line units with female miniatures. Next comes dark eldar, with an actual mix like you might expect to see in armies spanning the galaxy, and then comes eldar with their solitary unit of howling banshees. Not what i would call representative, and definitely pigeon-holes the sisters as the 'girl' army. /edit

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
These days the fluff is just there to shoe-horn in new models. How many tweenagers do you know that are into heavy politics?

Can politics sell? Well, they sold Games of Throne pretty well.

To tweenagers? They're watching game of thrones now? Really?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
The restrictions on marines are only arbitrary because gw chooses them to be that way. Same with the sisters, they can get whatever gw decides they can get.

The restriction with the marines are due to long established fluff that would cause an uproar if it was retconned.

GW does stuff that causes uproars without a second thought. They don't keep things as they are because the fans are holding them hostage, they keep things as they are because that's the way they want it.


I get that you're a fan of sisters, but i'm not sure where you're going in this thread. We seem to have different opinions, which is cool, but the topic is: why don't you think gw will redo the sisters line? It seems like you're trying to 'win' an argument here, as if that will change the situation with gw?

Sisters of Battle players are just like Praetorian Guard Players.

They both are a loud minority, they both spend a lot of money on models of their chosen lines and they both tend to be proud to own such unique/rare models.

HOWEVER more often than not, they all make the mistake of projecting their habits onto the general community. "Man, i'd buy hundreds of sisters models, I already have as have all the other 6 players with this same army, it's a no brainer it will sell well!"

It's something I noticed being a Sisters of battle and Praetorian Guard player. But lets be serious, it's not that popular. People find those armies interesting because they are unique, take away the uniqueness and they just become another army and it's very likely everyone will go back to Space Marines and so on and then some other more unique army will take spot light.

In short, GW will probably get more sales based off the fact that sisters of battle is unique and and interesting in the "haven't really seen these before" sort of way. people often pay more for that in my experience.

 Torga_DW wrote:
You can keep denying it, it will not make it false. It works both ways.

Except I am not just denying it, I am actually explaining to you what their actual schtick is about.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Craftworld eldar used to have howling banshees only

When?

 Torga_DW wrote:
to clarify my position here, i'm talking line units with female models, of which dark eldar have the only real representation. Yes howling banshees are in majority female, and they wear female looking armour, but that's one specialized unit in the entire army.

What about… Eldar Guardians? Are those line units?

 Torga_DW wrote:
and then comes eldar with their solitary unit of howling banshees.

. Have you looked at Guardians?

 Torga_DW wrote:
To tweenagers? They're watching game of thrones now? Really?

Tweenagers? No idea.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
You can keep denying it, it will not make it false. It works both ways.

Except I am not just denying it, I am actually explaining to you what their actual schtick is about.

As did i, but you seem to have left that bit out....

 Torga_DW wrote:
Craftworld eldar used to have howling banshees only

When?