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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No.

GW pricing is as much based on expected unit sales as anything. The argument is that a plastic Sisters kit would be expensive because there's probably not enough potential demand to justify the lower price that Marines can and still turn a profit.

Really, the only people that are convinced that Sisters would sell in huge numbers are Sisters players, who aren't generally viewing the situation objectively.

Fair enough.

If they were priced like the Tempestus Scions though, they'd still be at least 10% cheaper than they are now.

Two boxes of 5 Scions comes to 84 CAD plus taxes.

A squad of 10 Sisters of Battle costs 96.25 CAD plus taxes.

Making 10 Scions 13-14% cheaper than 10 Sisters of Battle.

Even more, as a plastic kit would likely be available from discounters, at least initially.

It would still make SoB amongst the most expensive armies to collect though. Almost certainly the most expensive power armour army.

But I still wouldn't rule out £25 or £30 for 5 Sisters (Scions are £21)

 Azreal13 wrote:
Even more, as a plastic kit would likely be available from discounters, at least initially.

It would still make SoB amongst the most expensive armies to collect though. Almost certainly the most expensive power armour army.

But I still wouldn't rule out £25 or £30 for 5 Sisters (Scions are £21)

Still, to make an effective army of Sisters of Battle, you'd need to buy way, WAY more of them than you would Grey Knights or Scions. Grey Knights because they cost more points per model and Scions because they're effectively an Elites choice intended to be fielded with other armies instead of as an entire army in their own right. So GW would reasonably expect that an average Sisters of Battle customer would buy more Sisters than a GK or Scions player would buy Grey Knights or Scions.

The question isn't how many Sisters does a Sisters player need, it's how many people are going to collect Sisters?

You've got a hardcore who would whatever, which aren't likely enough to cater to and there'll be those who buy some if they're appealing to paint, and those who simply buy the new releases and collect everything.

The only ones likely to buy in volume are the hardcore, gamers will only buy if the codex is good and there's going to be a number that will buy in if the whole package is attractive enough.

It's the latter group that would likely make take the whole concept over the line financially, but they're also the least certain to purchase.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The question isn't how many Sisters does a Sisters player need, it's how many people are going to collect Sisters?

You've got a hardcore who would whatever, which aren't likely enough to cater to and there'll be those who buy some if they're appealing to paint, and those who simply buy the new releases and collect everything.

The only ones likely to buy in volume are the hardcore, gamers will only buy if the codex is good and there's going to be a number that will buy in if the whole package is attractive enough.

It's the latter group that would likely make take the whole concept over the line financially, but they're also the least certain to purchase.

It wouldn't be the first time that a formerly unpopular 40k army got a sudden boost of popularity from a model update.

And I think it's both, since the ultimate figure GW would care about is how many are sold in total. If Sisters of Battle are half as popular as say, Grey Knights, but their armies require twice as many models, then selling Sisters of Battle at the same price as Grey Knights results in the army being just as profitable as GK are.

<cough>Genstealer Cult<cough>

No where near as popular as Sisters, has full plastic model range, and even at $150 a box for Deathwatch, still cheaper than sisters are currently.

No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.

These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
<cough>Genstealer Cult<cough>

No where near as popular as Sisters, has full plastic model range, and even at $150 a box for Deathwatch, still cheaper than sisters are currently.

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that could give Sisters players hope. Although boxing it with Marines probably takes the pressure off a bit.

At the end of the day though, it boils down to people are going to pay any price they are willing to so GW is going to abuse taht.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.

These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."

Does GW actually make bad updates on purpose? O.o

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
<cough>Genstealer Cult<cough>

No where near as popular as Sisters, has full plastic model range, and even at $150 a box for Deathwatch, still cheaper than sisters are currently.

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that could give Sisters players hope. Although boxing it with Marines probably takes the pressure off a bit.

I could go for something like that. : D

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.

These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."

Does GW actually make bad updates on purpose?

On purpose? No

But updates will have budgets, which impose limitations, and will vary depending on how high profile they intend to make it. They do make bad models, at least for some people, and bad rules, even if it isn't deliberate.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, it is quite possible that a revamp could catapult SoB up the popularity ladder, but then we're into the group who I've already mentioned, who will have to be drawn in from scratch.

These people won't be buying if they don't like the models, which shifts the goal posts from "an update" to "a good update."

Does GW actually make bad updates on purpose?

On purpose? No

But updates will have budgets, which impose limitations, and will vary depending on how high profile they intend to make it. They do make bad models, at least for some people, and bad rules, even if it isn't deliberate.

Considering that Jes Goodwin said in 2006 that they almost had plastic Sisters of Battle figured out, surely it can't require too much extra effort to actually finish those designs, if they're not already finished and just haven't been released yet.

Evidently it can.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Evidently it can.

Then the only reasonable explanation is that they're just plain not willing to properly support Sisters of Battle.

Not that they can't do it. But that they won't do it.

 Azreal13 wrote:
10 Sisters = £49.70 on GW site right now

I don't see 5 plastic Sisters for £30 being beyond the realm of possibility.

They'll almost certainly build two unit types, but I don't see it being ridiculously unlikely.

They'll build at least four unit types more likely than not. Battle Sisters, Celestians, Dominions, and Retributors all use the exact same miniatures. Only Seraphim, Repentia, and HQ units use different minis at the moment. And I doubt this will much change-- at most, they might release slightly more expensive Celestian models... but if they can't even produce plastic Battle Sisters, they won't do that.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The question isn't how many Sisters does a Sisters player need, it's how many people are going to collect Sisters?

There is a constant chorus of people-- new posters and old-- over the years who have said they want to collect Sisters but the price, age of the minis, the metal, the dated and lackluster rules, keep them from doing so.

I suggest you stop assuming competence without evidence.

There's a very simple explanation on why there's no new plastic Sisters, and it has nothing at all to do with demand. Simply put, no one in GW cares enough. There's enough demand for GW to keep them for sale and keep them updated with a half-assed codex full of copy-pasted crap every now and then, and even far more demand for them than there were for Dark Eldar back in their relaunch-- but as far as actually updating them with new rules and minis? No one in GW cares enough about Sisters to do that. They want to make marine minis, or guard minis, or chaos minis, or eldar minis, or ork minis, or tau minis, or necron minis-- not Sisters minis.

And ultimately, that's what determines what minis, fluff, and rules get made. Not demand. GW doesn't do market research.

So you're suggesting I stop assuming competence, yet are happy to make assumptions about the processes that are holding up the release?

When you own your own production facility, keeping something on sale for as long as the moulds are viable is perfectly sensible, it costs almost nothing, and it allows you to satisfy any demand there may be.

They'll know how many copies of the last codex sold, they'll know how many models sell all the way back to the initial release, while they don't have any obvious mechanisms to establish potential players, they will have a handle on roughly how many people are actively collecting now.

Rountree's approach could be the savior of Sisters players, as nuGW does seem to be more willing to explore the niches, if there really is sufficient demand.

I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
It would still make SoB amongst the most expensive armies to collect though.

Still, to make an effective army of Sisters of Battle, you'd need to buy way, WAY more of them than you would Grey Knights or Scions.

I am an Imperial Guard player, and I'm pretty sure that you'd need only HALF as many Sisters as you need Guardsmen. My IG army is predominantly metal Tallarn, and GW currently charges $40 per squad of Tallarn (still available!). If moving to plastic, GW should charge the same $80 per squad of 10 Sisters - that would be very fairly priced, very affordable!

But first, GW should finish selling their metal stocks...

 Azreal13 wrote:
So you're suggesting I stop assuming competence, yet are happy to make assumptions about the processes that are holding up the release?

When you own your own production facility, keeping something on sale for as long as the moulds are viable is perfectly sensible, it costs almost nothing, and it allows you to satisfy any demand there may be.

They'll know how many copies of the last codex sold, they'll know how many models sell all the way back to the initial release, while they don't have any obvious mechanisms to establish potential players, they will have a handle on roughly how many people are actively collecting now.

Rountree's approach could be the savior of Sisters players, as nuGW does seem to be more willing to explore the niches, if there really is sufficient demand.

I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.

No, we know it for a fact.

A GW designer commented a few years ago about why Squats were, well, squatted, and the reason wasn't that there was a lack of demand, or a lack of sufficient sales, or really anything except the simple fact that none of the GW designers really had an interest in updating Squats for 3rd edition, so since no one was willing to fight for them and a huge amount of the game was shifting, they just got rid of them entirely.

The reason that Sisters made it through that was because there was someone willing to fight for them. Jes Goodwin was a prominent advocate for Sisters of Battle and likely is the reason we even got the 2003 update. He was also the one designing the plastic models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.

I can't speak for them, but it could be the constant threads on 40k fan sites with comments about how people would love to collect a Sisters of Battle army except for the models being expensive, made of metal, the rules being what they are, etc.

I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.

To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Demand demand demand.

Plenty of lines of miniatures have been released in this and other games for which there was no real demand before the release. There was no demand for the original Sisters back in the 90s. There was no huge demand for Tau, or for Necrons, or for Dark Eldar when they were released originally OR when they finally got updated.

GW create demand through the universe, the game, and the fact that something is new or cool.

They don't need there to be a big existing fan base 'demanding' a line to make that line a success.

Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.


Now, they are one of the popular armies.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters,

the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.

The Squats were a joke army, and it's good they were canned when nobody spoke up for them.

The fact that Sisters are one of Jes' favorite's is what's keeping them from being Squatted, but the lack of sales is what's keeping them from getting a lot of new stuff.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm interested where you're getting your information on this supposed demand though, because if its just anecdotal and assumption, I'd be more inclined to go with GW, even if it's informed by unit sales and little else.

I can't speak for them, but it could be the constant threads on 40k fan sites with comments about how people would love to collect a Sisters of Battle army except for the models being expensive, made of metal, the rules being what they are, etc.

Well, looking at Dakka, there's you, Melissia, pretre and Hybrid Son of Whatyamacallit are pretty vocal.

I'm not seeing legions of people crying out for them, just a small number of people who are dedicated to the faction, and remarkably adept at making any 40K news and Rumours thread about how Sisters need an update, and maybe a handful who declare they'd make an army if it happened. A percentage of whom may actually start a Sisters army should there be an update.

To paraphrase the former manger of my football team "the fans all have opinion, GW are in the business of making decisions."

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Pretty much this. Nobody asked for "anime" stuff in 40k. In fact, a lot of neckbeards HATED the Tau at one time. And not just because they are an "optimistic" race in a setting full of GRIMDARK and MEHTAL.

Now, they are one of the popular armies.

Popular in the sense that Tau are invariably the number one pick to be banned / deleted / removed / Squatted in every single Dakka poll I've seen in the past few years...

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.

To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.

No, I'm not. I'm the one trying to explain why they may not.

My opening post..

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead?

Because making something for the people who don't buy your most popular line to buy from you is a good idea?

Extrapolate this logic out and you get every manufacturing company only ever making one thing.

I remain skeptical that there was sufficient real world demand for many years to justify the expense, but I don't find it impossible that the lines of decreasing design and production costs and consumer demand will intersect soon, or perhaps already have.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm not seeing legions of people crying out for them, just a small number of people who are dedicated to the faction, and remarkably adept at making any 40K news and Rumours thread about how Sisters need an update, and maybe a handful who declare they'd make an army if it happened. A percentage of whom may actually start a Sisters army should there be an update.

To paraphrase the former manger of my football team "the fans all have opinion, GW are in the business of making decisions."

Speaking for myself, I would not spend another penny on Sisters if GW updated them. I have a complete, 1,000-pt Sisters Force that can be played on its own, used as a base, or allied to other my other IoM forces. It's a good force.

Of course, the notion of not buying applies to my GW collection in general, which, itself is something I now consider excessive. If anything, I should be more-aggressively paring down my Eldar and SM / CSM collections down to what I am most likely to play...

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.

To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.

No, I'm not. I'm the one trying to explain why they may not.

My opening post..

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead?

Because making something for the people who don't buy your most popular line to buy from you is a good idea?

Extrapolate this logic out and you get every manufacturing company only ever making one thing.

I remain skeptical that there was sufficient real world demand for many years to justify the expense, but I don't find it impossible that the lines of decreasing design and production costs and consumer demand will intersect soon, or perhaps already have.

Uhh, from what I know about restaurants, the best ones might have a specialty food that they make really, REALLY well and are the main reason people go there, but they also offer good choices of lots of other things for the other people who want to dine with someone else but don't necessarily want the restaurant's specialty. If you like chicken, for example, Swiss Chalet's a good choice, but if they ONLY made chicken, fewer people would eat there since any party where a single member doesn't want chicken wouldn't bother going.

Just because GW makes really cool Space Marines doesn't mean they shouldn't invest in niche armies too. Someone playing and enjoying a niche army is only going to contribute to the enjoyment of Space Marine players, since it gives them a wider variety of opponents and more varied games.

 adamsouza wrote:
<cough>Genstealer Cult<cough>

No where near as popular as Sisters, has full plastic model range, and even at $150 a box for Deathwatch, still cheaper than sisters are currently.

I would definitely buy a Sanctuary 101 board game release ala Deathwatch Overkill if GW released plastic SoBs that way.
Heck, I don't even play 7th edition but broke down to buy the cheap Harlies in the Death Masque release.
I had planned on buying a death jester and a 6-man troupe for fan use in DWO but figured for another $60 I could get Death Masque.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm well aware of what happened to Squats, there's just very little evidence that the situation applies to Sisters, especially if the lead designer and the creator of many of GW's most iconic models is willing to go into bat for them, surely that's an argument in favour of them getting an update, it's the very opposite of apathy and lack of inspiration.

To be clear, you are the one saying that they shouldn't get an update.

No, I'm not. I'm the one trying to explain why they may not.

My opening post..

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why would GW ever make plastic Sisters when they can make more Space Marines instead?

Because making something for the people who don't buy your most popular line to buy from you is a good idea?

Extrapolate this logic out and you get every manufacturing company only ever making one thing.

I remain skeptical that there was sufficient real world demand for many years to justify the expense, but I don't find it impossible that the lines of decreasing design and production costs and consumer demand will intersect soon, or perhaps already have.

Uhh, from what I know about restaurants, the best ones might have a specialty food that they make really, REALLY well and are the main reason people go there, but they also offer good choices of lots of other things for the other people who want to dine with someone else but don't necessarily want the restaurant's specialty. If you like chicken, for example, Swiss Chalet's a good choice, but if they ONLY made chicken, fewer people would eat there since any party where a single member doesn't want chicken wouldn't bother going.

Just because GW makes really cool Space Marines doesn't mean they shouldn't invest in niche armies too. Someone playing and enjoying a niche army is only going to contribute to the enjoyment of Space Marine players, since it gives them a wider variety of opponents and more varied games.

Not doing so well following the quote tree there sport?

That was my point too.

In that case, you're contradicting yourself again.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Not doing so well following the quote tree there sport?

That was my point too.

Then wouldn't that argue for supporting Sisters of Battle at least halfway properly, even though their sales on their own might not be too profitable compared to the other stuff?

Especially since GW's been creating new armies like the Mechanicum that never existed in 40k tabletop before?