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.

 Togusa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Geifer wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
You cannot just will an entire product line into existence. I understand the frustration, but seriously, they've done a massive amount of goodwill with this project, interrupting their preexisting development schedule for the fans who stuck with it through the years. If I have to wait to get my hands on the entire line until Febuary, March or even May, I'm happy to do so.

We don't actually know that Sisters interrupted their schedule. Given the copyright date on the first concept work we were shown, either they dropped everything and began working on Sisters immediately after the Community Survey (which, frankly, seems unlikely), or they had started at least concept work before the Survey which apparently gave them the idea.

It would be strange to assume that GW would return to Genestealer Cults of all things, but have no idea that there was potential demand for Sisters of Battle. And they were already pushing more female models in various ranges by that point...

I suppose that is true. It may have started with Rise of the Primarch and Rising Storm.

If Celestine had been planned to be anything but a standalone any such concept work would have been made as part of her creation, not afterwards. Certainly not over a year afterwards.

Similarly, Celestine being released only in a box with an Inquisitor and a humongous Techpriest wouldn't have allowed GW to draw any conclusion which part of this box was popular with the people that bought it and would not have tipped them in favor of redoing Sisters.

No offense, but trying to spin this any other way than how GW said it happened is real conspiracy theory material.

As for taking another release's spot, I don't know if this has changed in the meantime but the production facts GW used to talk about back in the day were that an army/codex release took 18 to 24 months from inception to release and GW's concrete release plans spanned 24 months into the future. If this is still the case, and there's no reason to believe otherwise, GW may have had ideas how to proceed in the beginning of 2020 but nothing would have been carved in stone by the time they resolved to do Sisters. Sisters would have just been put at the very end of the concrete release plan.

All I am saying is they had a designed direction. I do not believe they didn't have all the artwork ready well before they made the announcement of the survey results. There is no way that they hadn't had any idea that Sisters were a thing. I'll never, ever buy that line.

They had a design direction since the mid nineties. Vowing to stick to the established aesthetic has its perks.

alphaecho wrote:
Or is it 'Joans of Arc' like a Court Martial becomes many Courts Martial?

As a nerd, I am obligated to answer your question with a detailed answer.

Joan of Arc was born Jeanne d'Arc, daughter of Jacque d'Arc. So d'Arc is the family name (it's a little bit more complicated than that, as both Jeanne and d'Arc are modern spellings, so she was more likely born Jehanne Darc, and may not have even taken the Darc name at all, but I digress). She's called Joan of Arc because Joan was the closest English spelling to Jeanne and "of Arc" was a literal translation of her family name.

So, to answer your question, "Joan of Arc" is a proper name, so the correct pluralization would be "Joan of Arcs".

 Sqorgar wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
Or is it 'Joans of Arc' like a Court Martial becomes many Courts Martial?

As a nerd, I am obligated to answer your question with a detailed answer.

Joan of Arc was born Jeanne d'Arc, daughter of Jacque d'Arc. So d'Arc is the family name (it's a little bit more complicated than that, as both Jeanne and d'Arc are modern spellings, so she was more likely born Jehanne Darc, and may not have even taken the Darc name at all, but I digress). She's called Joan of Arc because Joan was the closest English spelling to Jeanne and "of Arc" was a literal translation of her family name.

So, to answer your question, "Joan of Arc" is a proper name, so the correct pluralization would be "Joan of Arcs".

Noah's missus, right?

craggy wrote:
Noah's missus, right?

Though unnamed in the Bible, according to the 5th century Genesis Rabba, Noah's wife is named Naamah, and fun fact, was a direct descendant of Cain.

I did mention that I was a nerd.

Is there any indication that we will get Frateris Militia models along with the full Sisters release? The recent Regimental Standard has me wondering.

Cripple X wrote:
Is there any indication that we will get Frateris Militia models along with the full Sisters release? The recent Regimental Standard has me wondering.

Are there rules for them? I haven’t seen any rules for them on the legends site or are they in the index? As far as models I would go with Cawdor gangers.

I support the return of open shirted fabios waving pistols over their heads.

tneva82 wrote:I went for mix heads. As I got 2 sets there's 4 of each poses for basic squads, 2 for smaller so loooooots of duplications. Ergo at least heads differ. Also both helmet heads look at opposite directions etc.

Too bad full kit looks to be fairly monopose as well :(

tneva82 wrote:I went for mix heads. As I got 2 sets there's 4 of each poses for basic squads, 2 for smaller so loooooots of duplications. Ergo at least heads differ. Also both helmet heads look at opposite directions etc.

Too bad full kit looks to be fairly monopose as well :(

I tried to do a mix as well. I also swapped some heads that I thought looked better on different tosos. looking forward to the full release (hopefully they'll have a cheap ETB box of 3 Sororitas like Marines) just to see what I can do with them. Not really care about monopose or not as long as the sculpts look as good as these do.

 Sqorgar wrote:

craggy wrote:
Noah's missus, right?

Though unnamed in the Bible, according to the 5th century Genesis Rabba, Noah's wife is named Naamah, and fun fact, was a direct descendant of Cain.

I did mention that I was a nerd.

That escalated. I must keep random musings on an internal monologue.

 Sqorgar wrote:

craggy wrote:
Noah's missus, right?

Though unnamed in the Bible, according to the 5th century Genesis Rabba, Noah's wife is named Naamah, and fun fact, was a direct descendant of Cain.

I did mention that I was a nerd.

We are on a miniature war-game forum discussing nuns with guns. We can safely say we are all nerds

 alextroy wrote:
We are on a miniature war-game forum discussing nuns with guns. We can safely say we are all nerds

Smaug wrote:

Cripple X wrote:
Is there any indication that we will get Frateris Militia models along with the full Sisters release? The recent Regimental Standard has me wondering.

Are there rules for them? I haven’t seen any rules for them on the legends site or are they in the index? As far as models I would go with Cawdor gangers.

No rules, although I'd absolutely LOVE it if they did a "War of Faith" book for PA that included supplement rules for each for each of the SoB Major orders, and regimental rules for a new frateritas milita "Regiment" for the guard

Anyone not get their Boxset yet?

 tirnaog wrote:
Anyone not get their Boxset yet?

The phone call I got about mine, which is one of the second print run, should be available to pickup at the store on the 19.

as of last night Game Kastle in Santa Clara had four left.

I'm getting more and more tempted to pick up another box.

Racerguy180 wrote:
as of last night Game Kastle in Santa Clara had four left.

I'm getting more and more tempted to pick up another box.

I'd give it a pass, the models are nice looking but the battle sister squad isn't exactly optimized, you don't need the second codex, and the pentient engine likely isn't going to be as commonly used as the new thing it's a double kit with. not saying the box isn't awesome, but multiple boxes proably isn't the best way to go for an army

Mine came in last Saturday. Guess I got lucky.

BrianDavion wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
as of last night Game Kastle in Santa Clara had four left.

I'm getting more and more tempted to pick up another box.

I'd give it a pass, the models are nice looking but the battle sister squad isn't exactly optimized, you don't need the second codex, and the pentient engine likely isn't going to be as commonly used as the new thing it's a double kit with. not saying the box isn't awesome, but multiple boxes proably isn't the best way to go for an army

You can sell codex, cards and second canoness easy peasy though. I ended up paying 100e for my second box(list price 160). And if you have any flamers in sob's might just as well have 2 so you get that one flamer squad anyway and more storm bolters are always handy. You'll be needing like dozen of them easily.

I'm going Valorous Heart. I like the lore behind the Order and the added bonus of negating the AP of quite a few common weapons is an added bonus.

Though I'm going to go with purple cloaks with an orange lining.

In Christianity purple is favored during Lent and Advent, both seasons of penance. The Order of VH are constantly seeking penance for any and all perceived sins. So black and purple seems to make sense.

Orange is symbolic of endurance and strength. The increased survivability to the units due to the VH Conviction rules represent increased endurance.

That and VH has more Repentia present than other orders. Nuns with chainswords longer than they are tall? Yes please!!

jivardi wrote:

That and VH has more Repentia present than other orders. Nuns with chainswords longer than they are tall? Yes please!!

Though vh bonus is pretty much useless. Need to be in +2 cover to have save where you can benefit from ignore ap and fnp they posses natively.

Not surprising. Traits are often against fluff and lead to armies they wouldn't often field.

Put them on bloody rose detachment instead.

New year open on saturday. Wonder if we hear more concrete info about sister launch day then?

Are we due for a FAQ? Anything obvious that should get changed?

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Are we due for a FAQ? Anything obvious that should get changed?

Bunch of stuff.

Boxset canoness has illegal loadout. At least 3 different valid interpretations of how AoF work are out there atm (ignore lemondish), mortifiers can't run and shoot with their assault heavy bolters (though technically assault weapons in general can't either and they still haven't fixed that.) Confirming that dominions can't scout their transports and it wasn't just a copy paste error, some other minor things.

Plus, it would be an easy moment to fix the points on the few units that are clearly too expensive. Triumph, Celestine (even though I love her), the geminae, and the immolator are all a fair bit pricier than they should be. 10-20% at least.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Are we due for a FAQ? Anything obvious that should get changed?

GW has noted it will wait for full release "to get more feedback" so virtually quaranteed to be in february. Doesn't look early january release for sisters so late and then 2 weeks. 25.1 for pre-orders and 1.2 for store date would be my guess fulfilling both GW mentioning january in regard to sister release and february for rumoured february release.

Big one is box set canoness. Either GW will move that configuration to legends due to "no model currently on sale for that configuration" or alter weapon options(most likely "may replace bolt pistol and chainsword for power sword and either boltgun or plasma pistol. In addition it has rod of office" to make the model legal but not allow say inferno pistol because reasons.

MD system with fast dice rolling also keep getting questions so even if rules are atm clear it's definitely FAQ material because it literally meets what FAQ means. And of course it's possible GW just made mistake originally and wrote rules very clearly to mean opposite what they didn't want and they change how it works.

Not much else. Surprisingly error free book. Biggest issues are more of design issues but that's not for FAQ to really do and frankly some isues aren't going to be solved except by new codex(MD dices for example being very unscalable is pretty hard to fix without doing such an extensive change that FAQ is not appropriate slot for it).

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Are we due for a FAQ? Anything obvious that should get changed?

GW confirmed on Facebook that they'll wait until the full release of the codex before there is a FAQ.

Not sure if French version exclusive but there is also some nice typo where some weapons that should be S: +2 or S: +3 became S:2 and S:3 (while other just above are correctly written as S: +X) which is nice! “Oh, my penitent engine hits you at S3, he isn't feeling very well today!”

That reminds me of when murderfang came out. You get furious charge but you also have fixed strength weapons so hooray.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Not sure if French version exclusive but there is also some nice typo where some weapons that should be S: +2 or S: +3 became S:2 and S:3 (while other just above are correctly written as S: +X) which is nice! “Oh, my penitent engine hits you at S3, he isn't feeling very well today!”

that's a typo in the french version it correctly displays +3 str in my english version

 Ghaz wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Are we due for a FAQ? Anything obvious that should get changed?

GW confirmed on Facebook that they'll wait until the full release of the codex before there is a FAQ.

Awesome

It makes sense when you consider that the bulk of the army is still unreleased - why do two passes and two FAQ/Errata close together when you can do one and cover more in one sweep.

 Overread wrote:
It makes sense when you consider that the bulk of the army is still unreleased - why do two passes and two FAQ/Errata close together when you can do one and cover more in one sweep.

Then again that assumes there's going to be found more things for same thing in second time. And annoyingly leaves bunch of players with model that can't be legally used in many tournaments. At least that much would have been nice to get quick fix. It's not even unclear like MD. It's flat out impossible to get legal configuration that matches very common wysiwyg rule. It's not like lack of grenade that's not big deal for many wysiwyg tournament requirement. It's flat out not going through.