Warhammer 40k news and rumours. More Space Wolves revealed pg. 185

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.

**Matt.Kingsley**

PenitentJake wrote:
ZergSmasher wrote:
Disappointed to hear there's only 4 detachments in the Sisters book

Yeah- I've got some issues with this too. I'm trying to figure out which Orders get left out. I think all we'll get is OoOML, Bloody Rose, Argent Shroud and probably Ebon Chalice. I had plans for the Order of the Sacred Rose- I wanted them to assume control of Progenium facilities in a campaign.

I'm happy about the Jump Canoness, and that battleforce is perfect for me, but I doubt I'll be able to afford it. The book could still be good; for me there's a lot riding on the Crusade content. So far, GW has done a decent job with Crusade- improving what was weak while maintaining what was strong. They're preserving the Sainthood piece; provided they maintain the Penitent Oath/ redemption arc, it could still work. I'd like to see something new, but not at the expense of either of those.

From what I've seen online from people at the event, the detachments were talked about a bit more.
One is what we have now
One is "Angelic Host" themed, with Zephyrim and Seraphim as the centre of the force (with aura to buff other units?)
One is a Penance themed force
The final one is about the Holy Trinity of bolter, flamer and melta.

**Altima**

I loved this announcement. Models all look top notch. I especially love the new Mechanicum 'bots. If they make their way over to 40k, I might just be starting a mechanicum army. Ugh, my wallet.

Also really excited for when AM inevitably makes their debut in LI.

Only thing I'm not really excited about is Sisters combat patrol, since I have multiples of pretty much everything in there. Was hoping maybe for an immolator or even a castigator.

But I'm almost certainly going to go for a Sisters and GSC battleforce and a GSC CP since those would fill out my roster nicely.

Also, GW did something I would've thought impossible for them--had a rather hefty release announcement and not a space marine in sight (unless you count the LI vehicles).

**ccs**

whembly wrote:
Man, GW simply can't win.

I remember when the editions/codex lasted years, and the public was clamoring for GW to engage the tournament scene...

And now those fools are getting what they asked for.

**Dysartes**

Matrindur wrote:
Yeah I dislike both the red body head and the red hood head. But I do like the rebreather head so not a problem there. I'll probably take rebreather head and two handed axe if I go by looks

I agree with you on the heads - did this two-handed axe/halberd weapon get shown on the stream, as I don't seem to have seen it in the released pictures.

**Matrindur**

Dysartes wrote:
Matrindur wrote:
Yeah I dislike both the red body head and the red hood head. But I do like the rebreather head so not a problem there. I'll probably take rebreather head and two handed axe if I go by looks

I agree with you on the heads - did this two-handed axe/halberd weapon get shown on the stream, as I don't seem to have seen it in the released pictures.

Yeah only on stream, you can see it in the video at 2:40

**NAVARRO**

Someone needs to learn how to create female faces. They are all so bad.

**Inquisitor Gideon**

I like my conversion better.

**skeleton**

Im happy to have a cannones with jumppack but it doesnt look like a leader and it wont stand out in a unit of sisters with jumppacks, there is notting special that shows she is a cannones.

**Shadow Walker**

NAVARRO wrote:
Someone needs to learn how to create female faces. They are all so bad.

Isn't GW famous for its ugly women faces?

**StudentOfEtherium**

because battlefields are famous for their beautiful faces and well-kept beauty regimes

**NAVARRO**

StudentOfEtherium wrote:
because battlefields are famous for their beautiful faces and well-kept beauty regimes

Consistency please, If you cheer for more diversity and battlefields inclusive to women you should equally cheer for bad looking AND good looking females ... Just saying.

**Shadow Walker**

NAVARRO wrote:
StudentOfEtherium wrote:
because battlefields are famous for their beautiful faces and well-kept beauty regimes

Consistency please, If you cheer for more diversity and battlefields inclusive to women you should equally cheer for bad looking AND good looking females ... Just saying.

Yeah, this! If we have an unrealistic number, for a real world, of fighting women then they or at least some could be pretty.

**Crimson**

I think the faces of the new Canoness look fine.

**Inquisitor Kallus**

Her face reminds me of Brienne of Tarth from GOT. She looks suitably bad ass and I don't want everyone to look like a 'model'. There are other heads available if you're not a fan

**StudentOfEtherium**

NAVARRO wrote:
StudentOfEtherium wrote:
because battlefields are famous for their beautiful faces and well-kept beauty regimes

Consistency please, If you cheer for more diversity and battlefields inclusive to women you should equally cheer for bad looking AND good looking females ... Just saying.

i have no issue with female models looking unattractive. i just think it's a lazy criticism of models (especially when time and time again it's been proven to be dependent on how it's painted, like the guard model people were complaining about a while back)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
Her face reminds me of Brienne of Tarth from GOT. She looks suitably bad ass and I don't want everyone to look like a 'model'. There are other heads available if you're not a fan

also yeah this is what i'm thinking. it's a battle. who cares about looking hot

**NAVARRO**

StudentOfEtherium wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
StudentOfEtherium wrote:
because battlefields are famous for their beautiful faces and well-kept beauty regimes

Consistency please, If you cheer for more diversity and battlefields inclusive to women you should equally cheer for bad looking AND good looking females ... Just saying.

i have no issue with female models looking unattractive. i just think it's a lazy criticism of models (especially when time and time again it's been proven to be dependent on how it's painted, like the guard model people were complaining about a while back)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
Her face reminds me of Brienne of Tarth from GOT. She looks suitably bad ass and I don't want everyone to look like a 'model'. There are other heads available if you're not a fan

also yeah this is what i'm thinking. it's a battle. who cares about looking hot

Its the other way around you seem to have an issue with the faces having more feminine traces, as if thats not errr realistic XD... Not about being hot or whatever... they did it pretty well before though, just not here.

**Geifer**

Both bare faces look female. They're just not very fresh. I don't know if it's the sculpt alone or if the paintjob helps it along, but I suspect that GW wants senior officers to look old.

I can see the angle of Little Red Flying Hood in the full model picture throwing people off. That face looks far more recognizably feminine in profile that you can see in the detail collage.

The bare face is similar in that the halberd picture some posts up has a better angle, but by and large both it and the article picture should register as female.

**Shadow Walker**

Made to Order terrain https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/05/19/sunday-preview-the-dawnbringers-saga-ends-under-a-cloud-of-chaos/

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I could be persuaded to have a brace of Void Shield Generstors y’know.

**Overread**

AGAIN GW fails the hive by doing plushes and not doing a Ripper!

**Dysartes**

Good to see the GSC haven't encroached on everything, Overread.

**Shakalooloo**

skeleton wrote:
Im happy to have a cannones with jumppack but it doesnt look like a leader and it wont stand out in a unit of sisters with jumppacks, there is notting special that shows she is a cannones.

Her wings have a pair of extra-spike halos, and they have an extra 'feather' on each side, and her armour has a crotch flap. But considering I've given every one of my Sisters a helmet where possible, I'm disappointed that there's no extra-flashy Canoness helm in the kit.

**MajorWesJanson**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I could be persuaded to have a brace of Void Shield Generstors y’know.

Looks like I can finally add a third VSG without having to pay eBay prices for one. And this gets my hopes up for a Sector Imperialis MTO at some point later.

**BorderCountess**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I could be persuaded to have a brace of Void Shield Generstors y’know.

Ditto, even though I'm still waiting on the LAST Made To Order terrain...

**Tamereth**

The void shield generator is one I missed out on first time around, will pick one up from this MTO.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

All depends on the price. It is my birthday at the end of the month though, which means Dosh From Dad. Yes even at the age of 44 🤣🤣

But…with a nascent Necromunda campaign rattling around my brain, and loads of terrain to get painted for that? They can find a place in my narrative.

Consider a newly discovered Dome, and the associated land grab. The Gangs being the first representatives of their respective Houses. And, in the second or third Campaign Season, something like a Fallout Vault is discovered….which happens to have a pair of VSG’s situated outside.

Which may or not be variants to create an Orky style impenetrable energy barrier to keep stuff in….

**Danny76**

So the WarCom article says the GSC Battleforce has one Goliath, but the picture has two?
Presuming it’s two as normally the pictures are right.

How much is a Battleforce giong for, always same price like how a Combat Patrol is always £95?

**Shakalooloo**

Danny76 wrote:
So the WarCom article says the GSC Battleforce has one Goliath, but the picture has two?
Presuming it’s two as normally the pictures are right.

How much is a Battleforce giong for, always same price like how a Combat Patrol is always £95?

With the price increase upcoming, Battleforce prices are up in the air for the moment.

**Danny76**

What were they like at last release of one.

Presumably CP’s will be up to like £100
So maybe £10 more for a Battleforce too

**Shakalooloo**

Danny76 wrote:
What were they like at last release of one.

Presumably CP’s will be up to like £100
So maybe £10 more for a Battleforce too

Last week's Chaos Marine battleforces were £140.