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.

It’s not a hairsplitting argument to point out that someone is asserting a bare assumption.

If you don’t care about a subject then don’t post about it.

This thread is a great illustration of how we can see Sisters on Sisters violence in the setting. One side holds that cybernetic armour ports are in Accordance With the Emperor's Will ("canon", if you prefer) and the other side is certain that they are a Perverse Abomination and Must be Purged.

As each faction is burning with righteous zeal and devotion, it is inevitable that clashes will follow.

LOL that would make for a great story!

But GW has already made clear that this retcon indicates Sisters now use implanted plugs to interface with their PA.

 Manchu wrote:
LOL that would make for a great story!

But GW has already made clear that this retcon indicates Sisters now use implanted plugs to interface with their PA.

Guess the Mechanicus were right all along. as the Omnissiah Decrees...

 Mmmpi wrote:

There was no indication before that they didn't either.

That entirely depends on what you consider canon.

Codex Witchhunters on Page 19 implies that SoB cannot interface with their armor, despite it being based off SM armor, due to the lack of a black carapace. For those familiar with SM you may know that this is what those plugs would attach TO.

On page 85 of Blood of Martyrs, mostly written by Andy Hoare, it's stated that Sororitas Armor is similar to the light power armor used by Inquisitors. Which we know from the several sources does NOT use a plug system.

Interesting side note, though OT, on power armor, the fact that inquisitors can ware terminator armor, with the exception of Tartaros, seems to imply that the Tartaros pattern may actually interface with the lack carapace, unlike other forms of terminator armor. This would seem to be born out by its supposed inclusion of elements of Maximus pattern Space Marine armor.

I for one, do not like the nu-Repentia models. I can (and would if I were to buy them, which I won't) certainly file the plugs off. I don't care about that, what I do not like is the lack of tattered robes, chains, and rosary beads. No need to try to explain why they took them away. I really don't care, I just don't like them without them! We are all entitled to our opinions, right?

I for one hope that the upcoming codex doesn't mention the plugs at all. That way this little bulletin will remain the one reference to Sisters having them and will remain a thorn in the side of everyone who either tries to disprove them or wants to use a Warhammer community article as pure canon. Sisters are a penitent Order correct? We do deserve to suffer...

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Codex Witchhunters on Page 19 implies that SoB cannot interface with their armor, despite it being based off SM armor, due to the lack of a black carapace.

It doesn't say that. It says that without black carapace they cannot 'inface fully' implying lesser quality of an interface.

On page 85 of Blood of Martyrs, mostly written by Andy Hoare, it's stated that Sororitas Armor is similar to the light power armor used by Inquisitors. Which we know from the several sources does NOT use a plug system.

We don't know that. We know that Inquisitor Vail didn't have such system. Inquisitors and their power armours are unique, I am sure there is wide variety of methods used. And considering how commonly Inquisitors are depicted with gak ton of cables and plugs attached to their heads, it is a pretty safe guess that some of those are used to neurally connect to the power armour.

I don't really get the complaints of "This means they're now required to be modified to use power armour!". I was under the impression Power armour interfaces have been suggested before with things like special bodysuits and unless i've got something wrong, the wording of the non-Space Marine power armour was along the lines of them not being able to "fully interface" which implied there was a way of interfacing, just not as complete as the Black Carapace allowed. That means needing to interface with power armour in isn't a new idea in itself and that part hasn't really changed.

So is this a retcon in the sense that there weren't many instances of Battle Sisters being fitted with interface ports specifically? I guess so. But is this a retcon for power armour in general? It doesn't seem so. The option for there to be other interface methods is still just as much there as it was before, they aren't required to get ports specifically, but they need an interface method and that's just one way to do it. Cybernetic implants aren't something that weren't seen on Battle Sisters before, either. The old artwork of the Repentia has almost every one there fitted with some sort of bionics/cybernetics/something.

They're a highly trained elite army, fitting ports to them is likely a more convenient and long-term way to have the interface considering they're all expected to be using power armour almost exclusively.

 dracpanzer wrote:
I for one, do not like the nu-Repentia models. I can (and would if I were to buy them, which I won't) certainly file the plugs off. I don't care about that, what I do not like is the lack of tattered robes, chains, and rosary beads. No need to try to explain why they took them away. I really don't care, I just don't like them without them! We are all entitled to our opinions, right?

I agree that they would be better with more tattered robes and religious paraphernalia. I will definitely be adding some to mine.

Bottom line is GW changes stuff all the time, sometimes with little regard to previous fluff (Sororitas convent location change, I'm looking at you) and with the Dark Imperium timeline backup, its easy to say Cawl or someone like him dropped in some new 'improved' armor requiring plug interfaces a hundred years ago.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

They're a highly trained elite army, fitting ports to them is likely a more convenient and long-term way to have the interface considering they're all expected to be using power armour almost exclusively.

Eh... there's some problems with that. Sisters don't exclusively remains with a single order, nor even within the orders at all (Sisters have, in the past, become Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, Schola Progenium Drill Abbesses, and a wide variety of offices within the church). It does not actually make sense to have 'long term' implantation as a solution, due to the fact that they're not eternally bound to orders militant, since this represents a steady drain on the number of highly valuable cybernetics drifting out of the order.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr Mathias wrote:
Bottom line is GW changes stuff all the time, sometimes with little regard to previous fluff (Sororitas convent location change, I'm looking at you) and with the Dark Imperium timeline backup, its easy to say Cawl or someone like him dropped in some new 'improved' armor requiring plug interfaces a hundred years ago.

'Cawl Pattern ' armor interfaces for SoB. Begin the ritual.

To be pointed though, since as of the last Greyfax audio drama and the Imperator novel, Cawl is seen as a borderline heretek by both Mars and the Ministorum, so that might not be a good idea.

Then again....

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Which part?

The mask. So many example of repentia without masks.

Each is guilty of her own sins. A mask for humility to one guilty of pride? The bulletin mentions sewing closed the mouth that jas spoken blasphemy.

 Aesthete wrote:
This thread is a great illustration of how we can see Sisters on Sisters violence in the setting. One side holds that cybernetic armour ports are in Accordance With the Emperor's Will ("canon", if you prefer) and the other side is certain that they are a Perverse Abomination and Must be Purged.

As each faction is burning with righteous zeal and devotion, it is inevitable that clashes will follow.

I'm disappointed that you present a Sisters versus Sisters scenario but you didn't use the words Canoness and Retcanoness.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So is this a retcon in the sense that there weren't many instances of Battle Sisters being fitted with interface ports specifically?

It's a retcon in the sense that previous sisters across all media didn't have the large, black-carapace looking limb interface ports that make them look like a third party attempt at female space marines.
How their armour was interfaced previously was left unwritten.

Retcanoness!



Genius!

A.T. wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So is this a retcon in the sense that there weren't many instances of Battle Sisters being fitted with interface ports specifically?

It's a retcon in the sense that previous sisters across all media didn't have the large, black-carapace looking limb interface ports that make them look like a third party attempt at female space marines.
How their armour was interfaced previously was left unwritten.

The limb-based ports on an unarmoured Space Marine are not the Black Carapace, though. The Black Carapace gets implanted in the torso under their skin, then has ports added to it after it's fully ready to be used. Ports and the Black Carapace are not the same thing, they're two seperate yet related things - - the armour interfaces to the implant via those ports, but ports themselves are not equivalent to having the Black Carapace.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
The limb-based ports on an unarmoured Space Marine are not the Black Carapace, though.

The ports attach to the black carapace which in turn attaches to the nervous system.

However from a visual perspective if you were make an unarmoured space marine / female space marine you would get something pretty similar to the new repentias plugs.

IMHO:
Manchu and Baron are trolling and/or trying to win a (pointless) argument they lost to Crimson and many others ten pages ago.

There are simply no prior texts saying that SOB never utilizes ports to control their armour.

Illustrations and minis show them both with and without (which can be due to ports not being visible/hidden, subdermal, removed or only needed on some MK of armour).

Thus *not* a retcon - but simply a clarification (or a change in undocumented fluff (and change was definitely expected)).

Could we please drop the issue and discuss other things?

Kendoka, while I personally don't think it's important (but then again I'm not a sisters player suffering from years of neglect ) you also can't fairly make the points you did, Then ask to drop it in the same post!

If folks are satisfied, the best thing is to just stop bringing it up altogether and agree to disagree.

 kendoka wrote:
IMHO:
Manchu and Baron are trolling and/or trying to win a (pointless) argument they lost to Crimson and many others ten pages ago.

There are simply no prior texts saying that SOB never utilizes ports to control their armour.

Illustrations and minis show them both with and without (which can be due to ports not being visible/hidden, subdermal, removed or only needed on some MK of armour).

Thus *not* a retcon - but simply a clarification (or a change in undocumented fluff (and change was definitely expected)).

Could we please drop the issue and discuss other things?

LOL, so you want to claim the moral highground while trying to get the last word in by claiming that the burden of proof necessary for one side is that they should prove a negative? I could claim that you are personally responsible for the 2008 worldwide recession; there is no prior proof saying that you are not. See how ridiculous that self serving standard is?

 kendoka wrote:
IMHO:
Manchu and Baron are trolling and/or trying to win a (pointless) argument they lost to Crimson and many others ten pages ago.

stop confusing "disagreeing with consensus" with trolling please.

 Manchu wrote:
Retcanoness!

Is that a pun?

 Manchu wrote:
Retcanoness!



Genius!

As the coiner of the term Adeptus Restartes when primaris were introduced, I approve.

 kendoka wrote:
IMHO:
Manchu and Baron are trolling and/or trying to win a (pointless) argument they lost to Crimson and many others ten pages ago.

Only because Crimson and others play the same old 'those sources don't count' game. Which is, sadly, typical of any fluff discussion in 40k. I'll remind all of you that it took 70 PAGES to sort if Space Marines strike cruisers were occasionally fitted with lances.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
No ports before.

But that literally is not true. We have seen them.

No we haven’t. You have merely assumed a depiction of fictional tech in a setting rife with cybernetic augmentation is an instance of very specific thing.

People have posted art showing examples of them.

Incorrect, as explained in the post you quoted.

 Mmmpi wrote:
There was no indication before that they didn't either.

Other than them not being there. Take a look the original Repentia models. And now the new ones. What you are observing is called change.

Yes, change in both modeling technique/skill, and ubiquitousness. Not a new addition.

And I read your paragraph explaining your point of view. If I agreed with it I wouldn't have posted what I did. Hell, if you were right, I wouldn't have posted what I did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

There was no indication before that they didn't either.

That entirely depends on what you consider canon.

Codex Witchhunters on Page 19 implies that SoB cannot interface with their armor, despite it being based off SM armor, due to the lack of a black carapace. For those familiar with SM you may know that this is what those plugs would attach TO.

On page 85 of Blood of Martyrs, mostly written by Andy Hoare, it's stated that Sororitas Armor is similar to the light power armor used by Inquisitors. Which we know from the several sources does NOT use a plug system.

Interesting side note, though OT, on power armor, the fact that inquisitors can ware terminator armor, with the exception of Tartaros, seems to imply that the Tartaros pattern may actually interface with the lack carapace, unlike other forms of terminator armor. This would seem to be born out by its supposed inclusion of elements of Maximus pattern Space Marine armor.

Some sources widely considered cannon don't show them, some (such as codex art) do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
I for one, do not like the nu-Repentia models. I can (and would if I were to buy them, which I won't) certainly file the plugs off. I don't care about that, what I do not like is the lack of tattered robes, chains, and rosary beads. No need to try to explain why they took them away. I really don't care, I just don't like them without them! We are all entitled to our opinions, right?

I agree that they would be better with more tattered robes and religious paraphernalia. I will definitely be adding some to mine.

I had honestly been assuming it was supposed to be a less frilly version of these:



These are pictures of underwear from the Edwardian, Victorian, and Regency eras.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So is this a retcon in the sense that there weren't many instances of Battle Sisters being fitted with interface ports specifically?

It's a retcon in the sense that previous sisters across all media didn't have the large, black-carapace looking limb interface ports that make them look like a third party attempt at female space marines.
How their armour was interfaced previously was left unwritten.

They still don't have huge black carapace looking interfaces.

They have huge nothing to do with the black carapace interfaces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Retcanoness!

Is that a pun?

Assuming this is a straight question: yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 kendoka wrote:
IMHO:
Manchu and Baron are trolling and/or trying to win a (pointless) argument they lost to Crimson and many others ten pages ago.

Only because Crimson and others play the same old 'those sources don't count' game. Which is, sadly, typical of any fluff discussion in 40k. I'll remind all of you that it took 70 PAGES to sort if Space Marines strike cruisers were occasionally fitted with lances.

YEAH! More bad faith arguments from the guy who either isn't reading people's posts, or is choosing to ignore what they actually say!

 Manchu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
No ports before.

But that literally is not true. We have seen them.

No we haven’t. You have merely assumed a depiction of fictional tech in a setting rife with cybernetic augmentation is an instance of very specific thing.

Agreed. They are arguing that cybernetic ports are very common, and that ONE example on ONE character in ONE image has to be an interface port for power armor, and that it couldn't possibly be anything else, despite the fact that as they brought up cybernetic ports are very common and used for many things, and that this one port is in a different spot to those on the new repentia, hooking into the nervous system on the image as opposed to muscles on the new models. On top of that, every armor-less depiction of sisters lack power armor interface ports in muscles all over their body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:


There are several examples of cables being attached to the Sisters. Look at the Cover of Witch Hunters codex for example. Other sisters in the Kopinski piece have such cables too.

Not sure what cables have to do with large plugs that interface with power armor.

Lately we've been getting bulletins every other week. What are the odds GW will give us a new update this coming week instead of waiting so we can have something else to talk about? I'd say "I'll take anything else," but I have a sinking suspicion that we'll get something even more controversial as a result.

Benionin wrote:
Lately we've been getting bulletins every other week. What are the odds GW will give us a new update this coming week instead of waiting so we can have something else to talk about? I'd say "I'll take anything else," but I have a sinking suspicion that we'll get something even more controversial as a result.

It's been every two weeks since it started, it will be two weeks this time too. Also, 'Controversial' is a stretch. Dakkadakka would find a way to complain about free robots.

Edit- Please keep your comments pg13 - ingtaer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dracpanzer wrote:
I for one, do not like the nu-Repentia models. I can (and would if I were to buy them, which I won't) certainly file the plugs off. I don't care about that, what I do not like is the lack of tattered robes, chains, and rosary beads. No need to try to explain why they took them away. I really don't care, I just don't like them without them! We are all entitled to our opinions, right?

I for one hope that the upcoming codex doesn't mention the plugs at all. That way this little bulletin will remain the one reference to Sisters having them and will remain a thorn in the side of everyone who either tries to disprove them or wants to use a Warhammer community article as pure canon. Sisters are a penitent Order correct? We do deserve to suffer...

I can't even begin to understand why the plugs are somehow a problem. It's 40k, that kind of ridiculous crap is on basically everything. Tanks have exhaust vents made to look like braziers.

The whole universe is (deliberately) dumb as gak. Arguing 'doesn't make sense' in 40k is kinda ridiculous.

Benionin wrote:
Lately we've been getting bulletins every other week. What are the odds GW will give us a new update this coming week instead of waiting so we can have something else to talk about? I'd say "I'll take anything else," but I have a sinking suspicion that we'll get something even more controversial as a result.

I'd expect they stick with their schedule. I don't know how controversial new Repentias are across the wider Internet, but the only part of it GW cares about, their Facebook page, is by all accounts strictly moderated so they can pretend there is no controversy. And if they don't see it, there's no reason for them to act on it.