[Adepta Sororitas] Made to Order Battle Sister pg 201

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.

**John Prins**

A.T. wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
“Messing up the launch” is an entirely subjective thing though, isn’t it?
Not really in this case. If the first wave of plastic sisters don't sell well then it's likely the faction won't see a second wave. Perhaps ever.

If the first wave includes Repentia (arguably the least popular unit), the range will be complete in the first wave.

**Crimson**

The plugs clearly visible on the middle Repentia. So yea, on this iconic piece the detractors of the new models hold up as the Holy Grail of the Penitent Perfection the hated plugs are already present.

**A.T.**

John Prins wrote:
If the first wave includes Repentia (arguably the least popular unit), the range will be complete in the first wave.

What we've seen pretty much covers the existing decades-old unit list at this point. Beyond that is still a big question mark.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
The plugs clearly visible on the middle Repentia. So yea, on this iconic piece the detractors of the new models hold up as the Holy Grail of the Penitent Perfection the hated plugs are already present.

And yet conspicuously missing from the other five repentia in the same image...

**Voss**

A.T. wrote:
John Prins wrote:
If the first wave includes Repentia (arguably the least popular unit), the range will be complete in the first wave.
What we've seen pretty much covers the existing decades-old unit list at this point. Beyond that is still a big question mark.

**EnTyme**

If by "conspicuously missing" you mean "possibly covered by purity scrolls, armor, hoods, or just on their backs and thus obscured from view." Are you denying that those are not cybernetic ports clearly displayed on the sister in the middle of the shot?

Also, nice catch, Crimson.

**Slinky**

They all appear to have various cables attaching into ports in their bodies to me...

**BaronIveagh**

EnTyme wrote:
If by "conspicuously missing" you mean "possibly covered by purity scrolls, armor, hoods, or just on their backs and thus obscured from view." Are you denying that those are not cybernetic ports clearly displayed on the sister in the middle of the shot?

Also, nice catch, Crimson.

I am. Next time I'm a writer on a Codex, I'll make sure to make it clearer. Since it's clear that people dismiss what we put in 'other' official product.

Crimson wrote:

Right. FFG stuff I'd disregard as that is a licenced product and is even more full of nonsense than BL books.

I wouldn't say that in HBMC's reading. And, since we bent over to include FFGs stuff in 'official product, yes it is.

**Crimson**

Slinky wrote:
They all appear to have various cables attaching into ports in their bodies to me...

Indeed. The Repentia on the cover of the Witch Hunter codex has cables coming out of her side as well. All they have done is to standardise these connections and moved them to the limbs so that they are visible on these new slightly more clothed models.

**BaronIveagh**

Crimson wrote:
Slinky wrote:
They all appear to have various cables attaching into ports in their bodies to me...

Indeed. The Repentia on the cover of the Witch Hunter codex has cables coming out of her side as well. All they have done is to standardise these connections and moved them to the limbs so that they are visible on these new slightly more clothed models.

A more recent 'official' image.

**Crimson**

BaronIveagh wrote:

I am. Next time I'm a writer on a Codex, I'll make sure to make it clearer. Since it's clear that people dismiss what we put in 'other' official product.

So you work for GW? Regardless, it seems that now the existence of these connecting plugs is firmly established.

I wouldn't say that in HBMC's reading.

I am sure processional writers are accustomed to criticism. Besides, as I have no way of knowing which writers are responsible of the nonsense, this was not directed to any one individual.

**A.T.**

EnTyme wrote:
If by "conspicuously missing" you mean "possibly covered by purity scrolls, armor, hoods, or just on their backs and thus obscured from view." Are you denying that those are not cybernetic ports clearly displayed on the sister in the middle of the shot?

Conspicuously missing as in not visibly there.

And the middle repentia does appear to have numerous cybernetic ports - however as the image was posted up as proof that the 'hated plugs' (as in the new repentia interface plugs) were always present, rather than the highly individualised plugs on this one particular repentia.

She's not the only one either - the repentia on the right has her spine plugged into her collar, and to the left the hooded repentia seems to have her armpit plugged into something... Honestly if the new repentia were this mad nobody would mind the plugs.

**Manchu**

The cybernetic augment on her skull is supposed to be a PA interface huh?

Gimme a break.

**Crimson**

BaronIveagh wrote:

A more recent 'official' image.

Oh. look at those goalposts go! The picture that was held up as definitive gets jettisoned for this pin up now that it no longer supports you position! And of course if this Repentia had plugs on her back like the one in the Kopinski piece, we wouldn't see them.

The fact is that before this it was not firmly established how this works. Different writers and artists had their own ideas, most didn't even think about it. Now it has been solidified.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

BaronIveagh wrote:
A more recent 'official' image.

Spoiler:

Oh I don't like this artwork at all, it's very very bad imo.

**Crimson**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Oh I don't like this artwork at all, it's very very bad imo.

It kinda is. Very clean and pin uppy. I don't know where it is from, I don't remember seeing it in GW books.

**NivlacSupreme**

Voss wrote:
NivlacSupreme wrote:
Most factions have probably had retcons like this. They’ll just seem less outrageous because it will have happened gradually. This is new models all at once after many a year. Whatever they change will seem like a way bigger deal.

Often they didn't happen gradually. The dark eldar redesign, aspect warriors existing at all, orks not having plasma guns, lascannons, etc, orks getting a complete profile overhaul, marines going from t3 to t4 and 4+ to 3+ and gaining exclusive access to that magical ability called Overwatch.
Tyranids players tended to shake with rage every time shadow in the warp (or similar abilities) got altered.
This little thing called Primaris...

It's a volatile game. People just forget, or only care about their pet projects. And even then, only if the mindcaulk in their heads gets irreconcilably contradicted by the changes. The vast majority have no reason to be personally offended by change.

I phrased that weirdly and wrongly. No idea what was going on with my word-brain. I meant that it had been less time. A retcon three years after the old lore will seem less shocking than after 20 years of the old lore.

**BaronIveagh**

Crimson wrote:

Oh. look at those goalposts go! The picture that was held up as definitive gets jettisoned for this pin up now that it no longer supports you position! And of course if this Repentia had plugs on her back like the one in the Kopinski piece, we wouldn't see them.

The fact is that before this it was not firmly established how this works. Different writers and artists had their own ideas, most didn't even think about it. Now it has been solidified.

I didn't hold up anything for anything until this moment. And, believe me, SoB power armor has been the subject of a great deal of debate for a VERY fething long time. Unlike Kopinski, it was the most recent one we had.

I'll just make a point to remove them next edition, if we live that long. I'll make an expy of you who's horrible death was why they were done away with.

**EnTyme**

Manchu wrote:
The cybernetic augment on her skull is supposed to be a PA interface huh?

Gimme a break.

Right. I'm sure it's so she can recharge her iPhone. At the very least, it directly contradicts your notion that cybernetics are somehow in violation of the "theme" of the Sisters.

**Crimson**

BaronIveagh wrote:

I didn't hold up anything for anything until this moment. And, believe me, SoB power armor has been the subject of a great deal of debate for a VERY fething long time. Unlike Kopinsky, it was hte most recent one we had.

I'll just make a point to remove them next edition, if we live that long. I'll make an expy of you who's horrible death was why they were done away with.

What editions are you talking about? If you pretend to have some authorial authority then perhaps it would be prudent to make it clear in which capacity. Similarly it would be nice if you would cite the source of the pictures you post.

**BaronIveagh**

Crimson wrote:

It kinda is. Very clean and pin uppy. I don't know where it is from, I don't remember seeing it in GW books.

Which time? It's first appearance was in an FFG book, but like much other 40k art from there has migrated from there to Codecies, etc.

**Crimson**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Which time? It's first appearance was in an FFG book, but like much other 40k art from there has migrated from there to Codecies, etc.

I suspected as much. It has that style. So it was done by some freelancer and not under GWs art direction.

**BaronIveagh**

Crimson wrote:
If you pretend to have some authorial authority then perhaps it would be prudent to make it clear in which capacity

Eh, last time that it was GW, it was on BFG, the 2010 FAQ. "How DARE you rebalance it thus! It violates my whole headcanon that Space Marines be viable in this game!" (Seriously, that was actually something that was said, that SM should not be a viable faction because headcanon based on one throw away line in Armada in the section on a single frigate. Don't even get me started on the Jovian Class.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:

I suspected as much. It has that style. So it was done by some freelancer and not under GWs art direction.

Actually all FFGs stuff was done under GW's art direction. Sorry, but if you want to hear just HOW controlling GW was on FFG, HBMC can give you a better view, but just a hint: they submitted the in house SM chapter's battle cry something like 17 times before one got approved.

**EnTyme**

BaronIveagh wrote:
EnTyme wrote:
If by "conspicuously missing" you mean "possibly covered by purity scrolls, armor, hoods, or just on their backs and thus obscured from view." Are you denying that those are not cybernetic ports clearly displayed on the sister in the middle of the shot?

Also, nice catch, Crimson.

I am. Next time I'm a writer on a Codex, I'll make sure to make it clearer. Since it's clear that people dismiss what we put in 'other' official product.

And next time you write a Codex, it can be considered official lore. Until then, the most upcoming source of official lore states that Sisters have cybernetic ports to interface with their army. I'm also genuinely curious which codices you've written since I've never seen a GW writer who was allowed to admit to being a GW writer on social media (RIP, Sad Panda). I thought you had to sign an NDA that prevented you from doing so.

**BaronIveagh**

EnTyme wrote:

And next time you write a Codex, it can be considered official lore. Until then, the most upcoming source of official lore states that Sisters have cybernetic ports to interface with their army. I'm also genuinely curious which codices you've written since I've never seen a GW writer who was allowed to admit to being a GW writer on social media (RIP, Sad Panda). I thought you had to sign an NDA that prevented you from doing so.

Points to above post. Back in my day there was actually a 'Credits section to GW's products. What you're talking about has been fairly new.

**Crimson**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Crimson wrote:
If you pretend to have some authorial authority then perhaps it would be prudent to make it clear in which capacity

Eh, last time that it was GW, it was on BFG, the 2010 FAQ. "How DARE you rebalance it thus! It violates my whole headcanon that Space Marines be viable in this game!" (Seriously, that was actually something that was said, that SM should not be a viable faction because headcanon based on one throw away line in Armada in the section on a single frigate. Don't even get me started on the Jovian Class.)

Did anything you wrote has anything to do with what I said? You wrote BGF FAQ in 2010? What that has to do with Sisters?

I try to make this clear. You act like you work/worked for GW, and would do so in the future. If you want make such claims, then please clear what you mean. I find it really hard to believe that any actual GW writer would roam on message boards badmouthing new GW products.

Actually all FFGs stuff was done under GW's art direction.

Really? That is super hard to believe. Art directing is more than just nominally rubberstamping the end product.

**BaronIveagh**

Crimson wrote:
You act like you worked for GW, and would do so in the future. If you want make such claims, then please clear what you mean. I find it really hard to believe that any actual GW writer would roam on message boards badmouthing new GW products.

You must have never met Andy Chambers if you think that.

Yes, I did, to be honest, I'd consider the idea, but really disagree with a lot of the decisions they've made since that time. Like the time they sent me a C&D for promoting their products. (Yes, it was fething weird and quickly straightened out)

**EnTyme**

Okay, so you were a technical writer on an FAQ. Any other credits I should know about? I don't mean this as an insult. It's cool that you've helped write FAQs for GW, but you're trying to come off like you're a Jervis Johnson-level writer, so I'm just trying to establish your credibility on GW's lore.

**Crimson**

Yep. Let's just say that at this point I am not finding it terribly likely that Baronlveagh will be writing a next edition of Sisters codex and retconning the neural connections out of existence...

**EnTyme**

Even if he did, I doubt GW would be excited at the prospect of a codex writer trying to invalidate a minor detail on one of their models just to satisfy his ego and win an internet argument.

**BaronIveagh**

EnTyme wrote:
Okay, so you were a technical writer on an FAQ. Any other credits I should know about? I don't mean this as an insult. It's cool that you've helped write FAQs for GW, but you're trying to come off like a you're Jervis Johnson-level writer, so I'm just trying to establish your credibility on GW's lore.

Eh, at least in my experience Jervis does not do much of the work at all so that would not take much. I'm given to understand he's risen in position since back when he was Specialist Games honcho, but, assuming nothing's changed, he just gives board mandates and then leaves everyone else to do the heavy lifting. This is, at least in my opinion, why GW gets sparse with book credits anymore. You didn't have to be a major 'writer' to slip gak in there the way it used to operate. Mind you, that was the Ward era, so...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EnTyme wrote:
Even if he did, I doubt GW would be excited at the prospect of a codex writer trying to invalidate a minor detail on one of their models just to satisfy his ego and win an internet argument.

It would not be the first time for that, actually. Seditio Opprimere almost instantly springs to mind.