# Possible Sisters of Battle Models



## Zion

Doing my usual rumor checking I ran across this little number on Faeit 212:



> *via templarsandorks*
> 
> _I have no idea if this is reliable so take it with a fair bit of salt _
> 
> _I was talking to the guy in my lgs and he said that sob were meant to get their models released in plastic at around febuary . He mentioned a couple of infantry sets (think grey knights) as well as a couple of new tanks/veichles. He also said 6th ed of 40k was meant to come out sooner than expected around april. _
> 
> _I have no idea if it was reliable just thought id let it get some circulation and thought. _












Apply to taste.


----------



## Azezel

It may be that a less sound and less informative rumour exists, but I cannot imagine what it'd be like...


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


> It may be that a less sound and less informative rumour exists, but I cannot imagine what it'd be like...


True but after my experiance being blindsided with the rumors about the Sister's White Dwarf update (which seemed equally unfounded and false with every other rumor we'd seen at the time) I've found it to be a better approach to take note of the rumors, maybe even keep track of them and how often you see them reappear, but not to outright dismiss them, because sometimes they're right.

That said, do I think it's true? Probably not. Do I hope it is? Yes. :biggrin:


----------



## TheReverend

what was the time frame between Blood Angels getting a WD release and then getting their proper release? We're probably looking at a similar time frame surely?


----------



## Lubacca

The new 6th in April? Kinda fast isn't it? I mean they would also have to release the starter set. I thought they usually did all of that during the summer months....


----------



## Zion

TheReverend said:


> what was the time frame between Blood Angels getting a WD release and then getting their proper release? We're probably looking at a similar time frame surely?


If we assume previous timelines to be related to this one in terms of release speed anything from 18-36 months before we get a real update.

_However_, so far GW has not put the rules out in .pdf format for download and the issues of White Dwarf the rules were published in are now out of circulation, so there is the thought that the longer they go without posting those rules the sooner an update will occur.


----------



## AlexHolker

Azezel said:


> It may be that a less sound and less informative rumour exists, but I cannot imagine what it'd be like...


I imagine it would involve the casting of runes, or the consultation of a sheep's liver.

It does have one point in its favour, if you can call it that: this is not the first time we've heard rumours about the Sisters being lumped with half-assed 5-for-20-pounds kits.


----------



## GrizBe

Well I can say as fact that the new ed being in April is flat out wrong. GW in its history has NEVER released a new edition so early in the year, its always been late June, or some point in July so that its out during the summer holidays here in the UK.

Also, theres been rumours of plastic sister models around for well over a year now, so just when we get to see them is unsure... Take DE, there stuff was ready for well over a year before it was released....


----------



## Zion

GrizBe said:


> Also, theres been rumours of plastic sister models around for well over a year now, so just when we get to see them is unsure... Take DE, there stuff was ready for well over a year before it was released....


And the plastic Daemon Prince was done for a lot longer, so I can definitely agree that it's hard to tell exactly when we're going to get stuff.

I was sitting and thinking about this rumor and in the end I've got to say I've got mixed feelings about it. On one hand I'd love to have some cool new models, but as it stands I'm nearing having all the models I need for my 2.5K army list (plus some as I work on some other models to field on the side, like the Penitent Engine) so I'm not likely to buy more models without a shiny new codex to give me options that don't exist right now or some REALLY nice models that make me want to pick up some new ones.


----------



## Shandathe

The only possible response at this point is to sing along with Bobby Sherman. 






No I don't believe in magic anymore...


----------



## Kettu

Whilst you may no longer believe in magic, this one is closer to my own thoughts.


----------



## bitsandkits

sisters in Febuary? No
40K sixth in April ? No

Sisters in November 2012? maybe/yes
40k sixth in summer 2012? yes 100%


----------



## Zion

bitsandkits said:


> sisters in Febuary? No
> 40K sixth in April ? No
> 
> Sisters in November 2012? maybe/yes
> 40k sixth in summer 2012? yes 100%


While I'm with you on the Sixth due to the evidence we've seen for that, is your response based for the Sisters based on some kind of confirmation or other information or speculation?


----------



## bitsandkits

Zion said:


> While I'm with you on the Sixth due to the evidence we've seen for that, is your response based for the Sisters based on some kind of confirmation or other information or speculation?


Mainly logic,the range requires a full reboot akin to the DE, the SOB have zero plastic out side of the immolator which as we know is just a rhino. So everything needs to be redone from the troop choices upwards, that isnt the type of release you just chuck into the mix in febuary, thats the stuff you release pre christmas, to maximise sales to justify the investment of time and money, followed by several waves in the new year. It would be logical to expect either some additional waves in the new year for necrons, and some quick fix codex like tau/eldar with a couple of new units or some metal to plastics.

Sisters have got a make do and mend codex and no fine cast, which for me means only one thing, huge release in winter next year.

I know it may not be what the fans want to hear, but GW dont rush out stuff because its what people want or need, if they did sisters,necrons and DE would have been redone years ago. 
But i cant see them following necrons with such a huge release so soon, they will milk as many sales out of necrons before they release another full army redo.


----------



## Zion

bitsandkits said:


> Mainly logic,the range requires a full reboot akin to the DE, the SOB have zero plastic out side of the immolator which as we know is just a rhino. So everything needs to be redone from the troop choices upwards, that isnt the type of release you just chuck into the mix in febuary, thats the stuff you release pre christmas, to maximise sales to justify the investment of time and money, followed by several waves in the new year. It would be logical to expect either some additional waves in the new year for necrons, and some quick fix codex like tau/eldar with a couple of new units or some metal to plastics.
> 
> Sisters have got a make do and mend codex and no fine cast, which for me means only one thing, huge release in winter next year.
> 
> I know it may not be what the fans want to hear, but GW dont rush out stuff because its what people want or need, if they did sisters,necrons and DE would have been redone years ago.
> But i cant see them following necrons with such a huge release so soon, they will milk as many sales out of necrons before they release another full army redo.


That's fair, I was just curious where you were coming from with your response.


----------



## Codex Todd

GrizBe said:


> Well I can say as fact that the new ed being in April is flat out wrong. GW in its history has NEVER released a new edition so early in the year, its always been late June, or some point in July so that its out during the summer holidays here in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest in 20yrs I've learnt to never say never with GW. I'm not saying the rumour is true but with them guys anything could happen
Click to expand...


----------



## GrizBe

Codex Todd said:


> To be honest in 20yrs I've learnt to never say never with GW. I'm not saying the rumour is true but with them guys anything could happen


Oh I agree with that, you never quite know for certain with GW. But, when they've always released new ed's in summer, its highly unlikely they'd change that. 

And i'm with Bit's logic about Sisters... a GW update and no finecast or plastic versions defiantely means they'll probably be getting a full update and redo within the next year.


----------



## TheSpore

Considering how secretive GW has been lately and seeing how they have been making some changes, their is a possiblilty... With the stupidity that is GW anything is possible.


----------



## Azezel

GrizBe said:


> And i'm with Bit's logic about Sisters... a GW update and no finecast or plastic versions defiantely means they'll probably be getting a full update and redo within the next year.


Bitsy is a scholar and a gentleman, but I distinctly recall him predicting 'Sisters in November' in 2010 and 2011. The fact that he's now predicting 'Sisters in November' 2012 has a certain comforting sense of familiarity to it, but I'm not holding my breath.

As I recal, his November 2010 prediction had to do with Sisters vanishing from his business order sheets that spring and back then none of us were cynical enough to imagine that they'd be missing from sale for _nearly two years_ (and counting).

His prediction for November 2011 turned out to be merely a White Dwarf 'update'. Again, not his fault - a lot of us got burned on that one.


Bitsy, I'm not having a go at you, I'd be s thrilled as anyone to think that my army is going to get updated within the year, but I do not remotely think it'll happen.


----------



## bitsandkits

well one of these years i will get it right.....


----------



## mcmuffin

unless they arrive in may 2012, mwahahaha :twirls moustache evily:


----------



## Anonamoose

So, curious, for those of us who are wanting to collect sisters but want to wait for "the update". Think we're a sad bunch who'll never see the day? 

Trying to decide if i should go invest in some metal minis... or wait for good ol' plastic beauties.


----------



## Zion

Anonamoose said:


> So, curious, for those of us who are wanting to collect sisters but want to wait for "the update". Think we're a sad bunch who'll never see the day?
> 
> Trying to decide if i should go invest in some metal minis... or wait for good ol' plastic beauties.


I can say from personal experience that the metal minis aren't cheap, but with no idea when the new ones will be released (since rumors are sparse about the topic and don't really line up well) it really comes down to how badly you want to play Sisters with a book that comes in two magazines.


----------



## Anonamoose

Zion said:


> I can say from personal experience that the metal minis aren't cheap, but with no idea when the new ones will be released (since rumors are sparse about the topic and don't really line up well) it really comes down to how badly you want to play Sisters with a book that comes in two magazines.


Haha! Good point. However, i'm used to abuse. Afterall, I currently play Tau


----------



## SilverTabby

Lubacca said:


> The new 6th in April? Kinda fast isn't it? I mean they would also have to release the starter set. I thought they usually did all of that during the summer months....


I am curious what you mean by "fast"? 6th Ed has been finished for months now, took a good couple of years to get written and the starter kit models were sculpted and finished and sent for casting months back. Odds are they are already painted too, though that may still be in progress.


----------



## Zion

SilverTabby said:


> I am curious what you mean by "fast"? 6th Ed has been finished for months now, took a good couple of years to get written and the starter kit models were sculpted and finished and sent for casting months back. Odds are they are already painted too, though that may still be in progress.


I'm assuming they mean that it seems fast since the rumors about it have only now started to really circulate recently.


----------



## andrewm9

I think any ideas about Sisters' models arriving next year are wishful thinking. If the plan was to roll them out early next year, I can't imagine them wasting time on the sorry WD codex since a full codex would likely accompany them.


----------



## Zion

andrewm9 said:


> I think any ideas about Sisters' models arriving next year are wishful thinking. If the plan was to roll them out early next year, I can't imagine them wasting time on the sorry WD codex since a full codex would likely accompany them.


I don't know, Sisters seem to make me think of Chaos Warriors. Updated to further seperate options they had from their codex. And that update lasted less than a year to boot, so I can't call the rumor out as completely unfounded.


----------



## Shandathe

Wait... you think they spent TIME on the WDex?


----------



## Zion

Shandathe said:


> Wait... you think they spent TIME on the WDex?


Maybe part of a week for the rules, another for the fluff and a couple hours putting it all in the White Dwarf...so maybe two weeks total?


----------



## Suijin

I would guess November 2013 personally.

I would also think that it shouldn't be forever. They have to want to either stop making metal minis and/or have SoB in stock for people to buy.


----------



## Inq_Eljer

I think the November 2013 date is more realistic as well. I don't see any "Sister's Love" from GW in 2012 which will need to update the poster-boys, the chaos poster-boys, and the pointy-eared poster-boys first for the new edition.


----------



## andrewm9

Inq_Eljer said:


> I think the November 2013 date is more realistic as well. I don't see any "Sister's Love" from GW in 2012 which will need to update the poster-boys, the chaos poster-boys, and the pointy-eared poster-boys first for the new edition.


If its about need, then Sisters need it worse than any of the above. I really don't think their current codex really updates them to 5th edition even. Its woefully under par for that. It doesn't change my mnd for a second though in thinking that they will be much later than some people are saying. Its time for Sisters players to dig in for another long haul.


----------



## Azezel

'Need' in the sense that Marines will be one of the first codices of 6E - that's just a given. So it ever was, so it ever shall be. (Although some people reckon it won't be vanilla. Personally, my money's on both Vanilla and either Black Templars or Dark Angels getting a new 'dex within 18 months) 

Whover is in the starter box with them will also be getting a new 'dex pretty sharpish (unless it's the 'Crons).

Rumour has it that Tau are taxiing to the runway and we've apparently got a new 'Chaos Legions' codex to come as well. That's 3-5 codices to be done sometime between now and summer '13.

After that, well, that's so far off that nopony can rule anything in or out, but I'm guessing new Eldar, Daemons and Guard codices could well beat Sisters to release as well as whichever of DA and BT didn't get released earlier.


----------



## Inq_Eljer

I'd have to concur with all points made by Azezel.


----------



## andrewm9

Azezel said:


> 'Need' in the sense that Marines will be one of the first codices of 6E - that's just a given. So it ever was, so it ever shall be. (Although some people reckon it won't be vanilla. Personally, my money's on both Vanilla and either Black Templars or Dark Angels getting a new 'dex within 18 months)
> 
> Whover is in the starter box with them will also be getting a new 'dex pretty sharpish (unless it's the 'Crons).
> 
> Rumour has it that Tau are taxiing to the runway and we've apparently got a new 'Chaos Legions' codex to come as well. That's 3-5 codices to be done sometime between now and summer '13.
> 
> After that, well, that's so far off that nopony can rule anything in or out, but I'm guessing new Eldar, Daemons and Guard codices could well beat Sisters to release as well as whichever of DA and BT didn't get released earlier.


I don't disagree at all. Sisters have gotten the pooch-screw again from GW. I think we will keep the same models we have had since 2nd edition for even longer thus giving us the oldest models in the game. If DE was any indicator a fully new release with decent models will sell very well. I imagine Necrons will sell well as well.


----------



## Azezel

Here's what we know:

GW are a _model company_ that has a sideline wargaming rules as a way to shift models. That states things a little strongly, but it's about the size of things. GW has never denied this.

GW does not necessarily release new kits as soon as they are ready to go. The plastic Daemon Prince was sitting around for yonks before it saw the light of day. The new Eldar Jetbikes have still yet to be released.

GW _never_ publish a codex/army book without model support (see point 1).

GW are a publicly traded company with a legal responcability to pursue the best returns for their investors, to the best of the director's abilities. (We sometimes forget that).


As for Sisters of Battle, what do we know?

Bolter and Chainsword posters spoke to Jes Goodwin and Phil Kelly at the Dark Eldar launch event a year ago.

They had this to say (all bolding & blue notations mine.)



StraightSilver said:


> Not sure if this is the best place to post but the Dark Eldar rumours thread was closed and this seemed the next best place.
> 
> I had a chance to have a chat with Jes Goodwin today and got some more info regarding DE release schedule.
> 
> He said that they will have 90% of the Dark Eldar models in the Codex released by June next year, so no more than 7 months.
> 
> And it was so.
> 
> Basically people have waited so long for this release and as it looks set to be so popular he wanted to get everything out quickly.
> 
> There are 4 new plastic kits coming next year, he wouldn't say exactly what they were but that the Venom is definitely coming soon and they have models for both flyers listed in the Dex on ready to go (but he wouldn't confirm if these were part of the 90%).
> 
> He said that the models which would take longer were the special characters, so these may form the missing 10% which means we have a lot of new models coming soon.
> 
> And it also was so.
> 
> He is still working on a few bits, something he wants to do is have Haemonculi passengers/hangers on the Raider but isn't sure how best to do that.
> 
> The Wych passengers/hangers on for the Raider will be included in the plastic Venom kit, but there isn't another suitabe release to make up Haemonculi equivalents.
> 
> He also said that now that rapid prototyping and CAD technology has progressed the design team can use 2 ups instead of 3 ups which means that making larger apocolypse style kits (Stompa and Baneblade) in plastic is now more possible.
> 
> This means that they are currently working on one of these types of kits as the sales for the Stompa etc were very good, but wouldn't say whether they had decided on what this would be, although I got the impression he wanted it to be Eldar.
> 
> Talking of Eldar he said that producing the Dark Eldar had fired up his enthusiasm for a new Craftworld Eldar Codex and models, and he has lots of ideas for this. However this hasn't even started yet so a new Eldar Codex is a long way off.
> 
> *He is still trying to work out how best to tackle plastic Sisters of Battle but they are still being problematic.*
> 
> Take note: November 2010 - Jes Goodwin implies that work has not started on plastic sisters - but that he is working on starting them...
> 
> He also mentioned that he would love to produce an Ad Mech Codex but said it would be very unlikely for GW to produce it as there isn't room in the range for them at the moment. However he said it was possible that Forge World would do them at some point, and his take on the concept was "Vampire Counts in space". In other words Necromancers and zombies, which sounds cool.
> 
> Anyway, that's pretty much it, also wanted to say that Jes was a lovely guy, very approachable and it was nice to see how passionate he was about everything he does.
> 
> Cheers.





ArmouredWing said:


> Because the weekend was the grand release of the DE they'd got a bit of an event on at Warhammer World store both Sat & Sun. Saturday saw a meet and greet appearance from Jes Goodwin himself and Phoenix Knight and myself had a wander down to the store to get PK's new CE signed as well as me getting my C:WH signed as well.
> 
> It was a good chat, mainly focussed on the DE stuff but I thought I'd take the opportunity to do some digging on if there was any sisters stuff in the pipeline and perhaps some plastic sisters. *Jes' response that the biggest problem that they faced with transfering sisters to plastic was maintaining the level of detail that the metals currently have (something we knew generally to be the case) but with the new technology it may finally be possible*. That said* there's 12-18 months work that needs to be done to make this happen and currently they aren't even in the process of this happening.* So the long and short there? at least 2012 by the looks of things.
> 
> Again - November 2010 - Preject: Plastic Sisters not started, but the design team is thinking about them to some extent.
> 
> He also made a comment in relation to the amount of DE stuff being released over the next 6 months. the plan is that by halfway through next year 90% of the DE codex will be available to buy. With that in mind I'm more convinced now that if GK are next (which I'll come onto in a moment) then it's going to be late spring at the earliest.
> 
> So, that was the Saturday. Sunday also saw a special guest in WW. *Mr Phil 'the Power' Kelly* was present in store to do a bit less of a formal meet and greet and so in PK's absence I went in to get our codecies signed and also take advantage of having a bit of a chat (he was sat painting in store and I don't think many people picked up on who he was). So, having chatted a bit about DE I passed him my C:WH to sign and we had a brief chat again about sisters and *his comments pretty much matched what Jes had said the day before although he was a lot more ceratin that we would eventually see plastic sisters...just not yet.* He did say though that *some work had started on sisters and there is something in the pipeline but it's going to be a while before we see anything come to the surface*.
> 
> That's both the model team and the codex team confirming that work had not started on Plastic sisters by November 2010
> 
> I then asked him how the GK was going. Again he said that there was some work underway but that's about as much as he could say (although this was also accompanied by a crafty grin which indicated that there was more he'd like to say but couldn't).
> 
> So there you go, not much to go on but at least it appears that *we haven't been forsaken altogether.*





StraightSilver said:


> Yes [Jes said that] the problem with the Sisters of Battle has been the cloth robe sleeves on the under side of their arms, their hair and also the script work on their shoulders.
> 
> The rumour was that he wanted some kind of scriptwork or scrollwork on Sisters' spaulders.
> 
> The problem with the robes on their arms is that it can only be sculpted flowing in one direction, which means posing can be a problem.
> 
> This isn't such an issue with Sisters armed with Bolt Guns as the pose will be pretty much set, but when you get things like Seraphim or models armed with close combat weapons you would get a very limited number of poses. This is because if you had the arm held up high the robes may stick out in a gravity defying way, which would look very unnatural.
> 
> The hair is essentially the same thing. They want the new models to be much more dynamic, which would mean their hair would not be as static as the previous Sisters of Battle miniatures. This poses problems with posing as the hair and robes need to flow in the same direction, which again limits the amount of poses possible (sorry for the over use of the word pose there - couldn't think of another on! ).
> 
> The bit I didn't quite get the gist of was the shoulder plates. *He said they wanted embossed and rolling scriptwork on the shoulder plates, and the way it was curving around the plates was presenting problems.* I'm not sure in all honesty what that meant but it may be similar to the problems mentioned above or it might be the way the model is cast. It might be the fact that you are very limited in undercuts on a tool when producing plastic miniatures ( by tool I mean mold, but plastic molds are known as tools).
> *
> He did stress that they really wanted to crack on with Sisters, but that they had been causing them technical difficulties for quite some time.*
> 
> It appears that the model tem has been thinking about Sisters since before work started on Dark Eldar, around 6-7 years ago now.
> 
> However he said that the process of creating the Dark Eldar has really pushed the limits of what they can do in plastic, and has taught them a huge amount.
> 
> Many of the problems mentioned above (hair, robes etc) were the same for the Dark Eldar, but they learnt how to manage it and would now like to take those lessons back to the Sisters.
> 
> Something else that was interesting was that he said the way he has always worked up until now was to alternate between Space Marines and something else.
> 
> For example Space Marines, Tyranids, Space Marines, Eldar, Space Marines, Dark Eldar etc.
> 
> However he said quite explicitly that *he wouldn't be working on Space Marines after Dark Eldar*. This was because he feels he has handed them on to other sculptors now and wanted to do something else, but of course it depended on what GW wanted him to do next.
> 
> He also categorically stated that *he wouldn't be working on any Warhammer models from now on*, although admittedly he hasn't done so for a long time.
> 
> So this is pure speculation on my part (so please don't take it as read as I am just thinking aloud - nothing was confirmed), but if he isn't working on Fantasy next then he will be working on something 40K.
> 
> It won't be Marines and Tyranids have been updated recently.
> 
> *Speculatively that only really leaves CraftWorld Eldar or Sisters next.*
> 
> Or perhaps Tau, or the rumoured Chaos Legions codex, depending on whether Mr. Goodwin defines Chaos Marines as 'Marines'. Almost certainly it was not the new Necrons, since work almost certainly started on them before November last year.
> 
> He did say that working on Dark Eldar had reignited his enthusiasm for Craft World Eldar, and that he wanted to revisit the range so he could implement a lot of the lessons they learned with Dark Eldar and we know that he sculpted the Craft World Eldar Jetbikes and the Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes simultaneously so Eldar is a possibility.
> 
> But if his normal working process is Power Armour, Xenos, Power Armour, something else etc and he has just released Dark Eldar then it follows that Sisters ought to be next.
> 
> Now for the bad news. He told me that after working on Dark Eldar solidly for more than 4 years (as well as other projects) he was already exhausted. However there was still more work to do on the Dark Eldar Range and he would be working on them until June 2011 so that 90% of the range could be released by then.
> 
> *He then said that he would be taking a long rest before starting any other projects.* I am not sure how long a rest that would be but I would suspect at least a couple of months.
> 
> Jes isn't just a sculptor, he is also the head of the GW plastics department, and is involved in the training of staff and development of new tecnology.
> 
> It may be that when he takes a break from sculpting he concentrates on this area of his job.
> 
> *Either way this means that he wouldn't be starting a new project until at the earliest July/August 2011*.
> 
> Of course, Jes isn't the only sculptor in GW's shop. It is possible that someone else s or was working on Sisters, though on the face of the other comments, that seems unlikely. We know that Juan Diaz also worked on Dark Eldar, and let's be honest here - we're all hoping for new Sisters to be made by Goodwin and Diaz. Anyone else just wouldn't be the same...
> 
> It sounds like R and D has already begun on the Sisters, and if they have learnt a great deal during the Dark Eldar development and can put this into practice then they shouldn't take too long, but I would guess that we wouldn't see them at the very earliest until Quarter 1 2012, but more realistically later that year.
> 
> Again this is just my speculation based on the conversation I had with Jes.
> *
> They are most definitely working on Sisters, but it may be a while before we see them.*





StraightSilver said:


> Well he told me that he would be working solidly on Dark Eldar until June 2011.
> 
> They have 4 plastic kits to release for Dark Eldar next year, as well as metal figures and then possibly some of the character models.
> 
> Obviously he won't be doing all the work on his own as Juan Diaz is also doing some of the models.
> 
> He did say that they are on the final push but still have a lot of things to do.
> 
> One of which was the Haemonculi passengers for the raider. The Wyches will be included with the Venom and can be used on the raider, but they didn't know yet how to do the Haemonculi. It wasn't so much a problem of creating them, just what to release them with. My guess would be with the Talos.
> 
> *However he was confident he could take a break from June 2011 onwards as this is when they plan to stop work on the Dark Eldar.*
> 
> *The Sisters of battle have been in "design hell" since before the dark Eldar, so at least 4-5 years.*
> 
> As of Novemmber last year.
> 
> They have started the initial planning but it was the aspects mentioned earlier that had caused them to be put on hold.
> 
> The implication was that these problems may have now been resolved with the dark Eldar Wyches, as a lot of these problems were exactly the same for them.
> 
> However with next year's 40K schedule already full up and with Jes wanting a break from a new range I would say thay are at least a year off.
> 
> If rumours are correct we have Grey Knights Quarter 1, Flyers expansion Quarter 2 and Tau/Necrons (my money is on Tau as I know they have already completed many of the new plastics and that Necrons are getting the Dark Eldar treatment. In other words a rewrite which will take a while) in Quarter 4.
> 
> This doesn't rule out another 40K release next year, I just got the impression that it wouldn't be Sisters.



We also have one highly anomalous sighting by your friend and mine, Stickmonky - reported in January this year.

Again, all bolding & blue notations mine.



Stickmonky said:


> I'm posting this in the rumor section on purpose, but it's more of a review.
> 
> *I got to get a good look at a new protoype basic sister*, and I'm hoping one of our other sources can sneak a picture out once they see it. The reason is, this sister has a "veil". Words cannot describe...the detailing is phenomenal. The veil is a separate piece, but it looks gorgeous. If they can get this right in molding the sisters wave will be beautiful models. If you've seen this one, you know what I mean... I begged to take a photo for here, but no luck.
> 
> *The model maintains the existing armor styling, but with more filigree*. Little details like lace boot tops, small details in the armor. Look at the evolution of daemonettes to wyches, and think what the next step would be.
> 
> Filigree? The legendary scrollwork, perhaps?
> 
> The bolters however are now streamlined, they are not the marine bolter we've known and loved, but still recognizable. Feminine.
> I know I'm getting folks worked up, but sisters are still a long way off, it will be a long wait. So temper any enthusiasm.
> 
> EDITED:
> I've had a chance to gather notes and thoughts a bit more now that I've completed my work today and had time to get a pint and a bite...
> So to clarify a few bits.
> The lace, is not laces, its lace around the top of the boot. at the knee. the model has like a pirate style boot and the lace is around the top edge..or thats my take away of what it was.
> The bolter is still most certainly a bolter, but look at the existing line, the bolters are disproportioned...especially the bolt pistols...to the models. the new ones are much more like the AoBR SM bolters. With straps, etc. and are separate pieces from arms. they "look" slighty thinner than a SM bolter and have a different shape to the over all gun, but they are not "Girly" i did not have a SM handy to compare directly, so it could just be impression. Also, they have abandoned the banana clip completely it seems.
> the veil covered the whole head, its an alternate to the helmet, the face piece is just separate. think cobra commander vs vera wang wedding.
> the torso has small details in the corset, i think skulls.
> the tabard between the legs had flur de lis details.
> there are "sleeves" similar to the image on 19 of the current WH book. similar, but not identical.
> *I'll reiterate this is a prototype though, not what has necessarily been approved. But as a beta stage model*, i really like it, and I think a teaser of it would really build up excitement...hint hint GW overlords... Maybe wait til closer to release...
> 
> Overall when i see the current sisters their are very "bulky" these new ones are very graceful, but in a brutal way. the poses are much more dynamic and agressive. not everyone has their feet planted shoulder width apart torso straight on to their opponents....
> I was told there will be numerous head options for the sisters, in the way theyve been doing all releases, but the "bob cut" is the preferred hairstyle.
> I'm also told sisters repentia, priests, celestians, and seraphim will get new models with seraphim likely to adopt jump packs similar to the sanguinary guard...though I saw no evidence of this. No word on arco flaggelants.
> Penitent engine is getting reworked as well.
> And of course you saw my Jan rumor post. To provide a clue, Dominion squads.
> Inq forces should all be updated by the GK release, so no news there for SoB, but they are expected to be present in the codex.
> I also know of a few more "new" units that are being developed.
> Cheers.


Yeah... It very muuch looks like the model Stickmonky saw was from those years of 'design hell' Jes spoke of. A concept-sculpt or tech-demo produced to test an idea or demonstrate a possibility. It goes without saying that, as of ten months later, that was the first and last we heard of that model - that too lends credence to the idea that it was in no way related to a production run of plastic sisters.


What we know is that, as of one year ago, there was at least 12-18 months work to do, and that it had not begun, 'nor was it likely to until summer this year at the earliest.

The most optimistic projections therefor put Sisters at summer 2012 - which is right around when we're expecting 6E - which means that sisters wouldn't launch then even if the models were ready. That shifts the optimistic projection to autumn 2012. A more realistic projection would be some time in 2013/14. Blood Angels had to wait that long between their white Dwarf 'dex and a full Codex - and they're _space marines_. Sisters are, to put it charitably, not quite as well loved.


This concludes the most up-to-date informaton we have. Current Alert Status:*LOW*


----------



## shaantitus

Good info and thanks for the update. I have no plans to play sisters as intended but as additional convertable models for my traitor guard and admech i am allways interested. There is hope for the sisters yet it seems.


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


>


I'm keeping that image. It amuses me.

Nice collection of info too. Are you keeping a collection of this somewhere?


----------



## Azezel

Zion said:


> Nice collection of info too. Are you keeping a collection of this somewhere?


Yes, along with every scrap of Sisters-related info I come accross.

A chap needs a hobby.

The thing to take away here is that, discounting 'guy in my lgs' style rumours like the one at the start of thid thread, we've heard nothing since January. And the last production news we had is that there is no production (yet).

The very lack of rumours, to me, indicates that GW consider the White Dwarf update to be a long term thing. If Sisters were due next year, we'd have some hint of it by now.


Oh, and you're welcome to use my graphic.


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


> Yes, along with every scrap of Sisters-related info I come accross.
> 
> A chap needs a hobby.
> 
> The thing to take away here is that, discounting 'guy in my lgs' style rumours like the one at the start of thid thread, we've heard nothing since January. And the last production news we had is that there is no production (yet).
> 
> The very lack of rumours, to me, indicates that GW consider the White Dwarf update to be a long term thing. If Sisters were due next year, we'd have some hint of it by now.
> 
> 
> Oh, and you're welcome to use my graphic.


Oh I'm not going to use it, I'm just going to keep it with the rest of the Sisters images I've got on my hard drive. Like you said, everyone needs a hobby.

Considering the occasions we've been surprised by GW I'm personally leaving Sister in the running to get a release in the semi-near future (before 2015) but thanks to my nature as a pessimist I'm going to continue rocking what I've got.

Anyone else notice the lack of the rules being put online by GW or FAQ so far though? I know we haven't heard rumors but that to me is saying that the White Dwarf rules haven't been cemented as long term rules as of yet.


----------



## Sexxy Camera

Oh hai!
Just an update from before on the sisters –

There will be two boxes of infantry sisters at release; each box makes a couple of unit options, which is why they have so many different little bits and weapons. There were several weapons that I did not recognize, so I think they are perhaps new options for the sisters, but they might just have been sisterized versions of current special weapons so I don’t know. But I am pretty sure that these boxes will pretty much cover all the infantry type options for the sisters. 

When talking to my rumor source I was all like “It’s awesome that they are all coming out in plastic and not failcast” and he was all like “Well you are still going to get some gals in finecast” so I guess that means maybe one of the elite choices or something will be finecast. 

There is a skimmer that looks more like a flyer, to me at least, that can make a few options as well. 

Also our transport kit will also have options to make an attack vehicle.

Sorry I have like any rules or anything. Just wanted to toss that stuff out there. I know it’s not as descriptive as my first post but I don’t want to be super specific and have stuff I say misinterpreted. I know it’s not much but eh. Anywho if anyone has any questions I will try and answer them, though those answers might well be “I don’t know.”

Sexxy Camera.


----------



## Zion

Sexxy Camera said:


> Oh hai!
> Just an update from before on the sisters –
> 
> There will be two boxes of infantry sisters at release; each box makes a couple of unit options, which is why they have so many different little bits and weapons. There were several weapons that I did not recognize, so I think they are perhaps new options for the sisters, but they might just have been sisterized versions of current special weapons so I don’t know. But I am pretty sure that these boxes will pretty much cover all the infantry type options for the sisters.
> 
> When talking to my rumor source I was all like “It’s awesome that they are all coming out in plastic and not failcast” and he was all like “Well you are still going to get some gals in finecast” so I guess that means maybe one of the elite choices or something will be finecast.
> 
> There is a skimmer that looks more like a flyer, to me at least, that can make a few options as well.
> 
> Also our transport kit will also have options to make an attack vehicle.
> 
> Sorry I have like any rules or anything. Just wanted to toss that stuff out there. I know it’s not as descriptive as my first post but I don’t want to be super specific and have stuff I say misinterpreted. I know it’s not much but eh. Anywho if anyone has any questions I will try and answer them, though those answers might well be “I don’t know.”
> 
> Sexxy Camera.


Any news is good news these days. The only big question I've got is if you know how long the wait is looking for us to see them getting a release. I know the current guessing is anything from late 2012 to late 2013 but having a date to look forward to/save for would be awesome.


----------



## sybarite

well going to add my own one but before l do please take with a ton of slat.

talking to one of my friends who got all the GK and necron rumors right and does work with GW so l do trust him, however this one to me seems....

"he was saying there will be more then one starter kit in 6th ed, with BT vs CSM and Tau vs SoB and even a 3rd later in the year with eldar vs ***.

also that the problem with AoBR is none of the kids (and lets face it GW feed's on their souls) want to play orks, they all want to be the SM in power armor so the best way to do this is *** vs CSM."

Now BT have been done for ages now and were left as a "back up release" in case one of the other release could not go ahead for what ever reason so l can see them in a starter kit.

now on to SoB while l would love to see them in a starter kit l really can't see them getting one with tau due to the fact kids don't like SoB, or are they trying to get in girl players with one of the few army's that have females?

l can understand however Tau vs Xeno to save them from a ton of rage for people who hate the SM.


----------



## SilverTabby

Sexxy Camera said:


> Oh hai!
> Just an update from before on the sisters –
> 
> There will be two boxes of infantry sisters at release; each box makes a couple of unit options, which is why they have so many different little bits and weapons. There were several weapons that I did not recognize, so I think they are perhaps new options for the sisters, but they might just have been sisterized versions of current special weapons so I don’t know. But I am pretty sure that these boxes will pretty much cover all the infantry type options for the sisters.
> 
> When talking to my rumor source I was all like “It’s awesome that they are all coming out in plastic and not failcast” and he was all like “Well you are still going to get some gals in finecast” so I guess that means maybe one of the elite choices or something will be finecast.
> 
> There is a skimmer that looks more like a flyer, to me at least, that can make a few options as well.
> 
> Also our transport kit will also have options to make an attack vehicle.
> 
> Sorry I have like any rules or anything. Just wanted to toss that stuff out there. I know it’s not as descriptive as my first post but I don’t want to be super specific and have stuff I say misinterpreted. I know it’s not much but eh. Anywho if anyone has any questions I will try and answer them, though those answers might well be “I don’t know.”
> 
> Sexxy Camera.


There's nothing in there that isn't generic information that can be applied to _any_ 40K release. 

No-one outside of the Studio now gets to see models in progress until the book goes for production, and then it's 3-6 months til release. Unless you are Studio Staff, you will not have seen any of these models. If you are Studio staff, you would not be posting details of what you've seen. If you aren't Studio Staff, the chances of you getting into the Studio to see these in progress are virtually zero if you are UK based, and zero if you are not. 

Seriously, this thread is going to be full of people passing on every vague whisper they heard from any random person in a GW or FLGS, and trying to pass it off as Gospel from Games Dev itself, until the Codex comes out. Also name-dropping doesn't make you look big or clever, especially if it's blatantly clear you _don't_ actually know the person you're 'quoting', and can potentially get the actual person in a lot of trouble as these claims _do_ often get looked into. 

Sorry if this comes across as somewhat ranting, but this kind of behaviour annoys the hell out of me.
This is also not all aimed at this one poster, but others too.


----------



## Azezel

Sexxy Camera said:


> Oh hai!
> Just an update from before on the sisters –
> 
> There will be two boxes of infantry sisters at release; each box makes a couple of unit options, which is why they have so many different little bits and weapons. There were several weapons that I did not recognize, so I think they are perhaps new options for the sisters, but they might just have been sisterized versions of current special weapons so I don’t know. But I am pretty sure that these boxes will pretty much cover all the infantry type options for the sisters.
> 
> When talking to my rumor source I was all like “It’s awesome that they are all coming out in plastic and not failcast” and he was all like “Well you are still going to get some gals in finecast” so I guess that means maybe one of the elite choices or something will be finecast.
> 
> There is a skimmer that looks more like a flyer, to me at least, that can make a few options as well.
> 
> Also our transport kit will also have options to make an attack vehicle.
> 
> Sorry I have like any rules or anything. Just wanted to toss that stuff out there. I know it’s not as descriptive as my first post but I don’t want to be super specific and have stuff I say misinterpreted. I know it’s not much but eh. Anywho if anyone has any questions I will try and answer them, though those answers might well be “I don’t know.”
> 
> Sexxy Camera.


You gain...

I flat out don't believe you. Which is to say, any or all of the things that you say might be true - but anyone could come up with equally plausable stuff and pass it on as 'rumour'. I do not believe you know anything more than the rest of us.

(Not that your statements seem very plausible to me. I simply do not see how prototype plastic kits can exist _now_ - let alone the last time you claimed to have seen sprues.)

As I said back in april



Azezel said:


> Sexxy Camera is firmly filed under 'liar until proven otherwise'*
> 
> *If Sexxy Camera's current crop of rumours are proven true, I will hang on his or her every word from there on.





sybarite said:


> well going to add my own one but before l do please take with a ton of slat.
> 
> talking to one of my friends who got all the GK and necron rumors right and does work with GW so l do trust him, however this one to me seems....
> 
> "he was saying there will be more then one starter kit in 6th ed, with BT vs CSM and Tau vs SoB and even a 3rd later in the year with eldar vs ***.
> 
> also that the problem with AoBR is none of the kids (and lets face it GW feed's on their souls) want to play orks, they all want to be the SM in power armor so the best way to do this is *** vs CSM."
> 
> Now BT have been done for ages now and were left as a "back up release" in case one of the other release could not go ahead for what ever reason so l can see them in a starter kit.
> 
> now on to SoB while l would love to see them in a starter kit l really can't see them getting one with tau due to the fact kids don't like SoB, or are they trying to get in girl players with one of the few army's that have females?
> 
> l can understand however Tau vs Xeno to save them from a ton of rage for people who hate the SM.


If you're right I'll eat my house.

A new plastic injection mold tool costs anywhere from £50k-£100k - closer to the upper figure for big, complex sprues like one finds in Assault on black Reach or Island of Blood. _One_ starter set requires 3-5 such tools.

Unlike other plastic kits, which can last a very long time, a starter kit has a four-year expiry date after which the tools are useless. Do you think there's a chance in hell that GW would sink the best part of a million quid into a four (well 3.5) year starter-kit extravaganza?

Producing two or three such sets would be astronomically stupid.


----------



## elmir

Azezel said:


> If you're right I'll eat my house.
> 
> A new plastic injection mold tool costs anywhere from £50k-£100k - closer to the upper figure for big, complex sprues like one finds in Assault on black Reach or Island of Blood. _One_ starter set requires 3-5 such tools.
> 
> Unlike other plastic kits, which can last a very long time, a starter kit has a four-year expiry date after which the tools are useless. Do you think there's a chance in hell that GW would sink the best part of a million quid into a four (well 3.5) year starter-kit extravaganza?
> 
> Producing two or three such sets would be astronomically stupid.


Would it? I'm not too sure of your arguements, given the recent release of dreadfleet. Why on earth would they not make a second starter set to appeal to more players? It's plastic crack... the money is in the comeback right? 

I take these rumours with the needed dose of salt obviously, but it don't think it's completely nonsense. Our local store manager was also saying that too many new players just pick orks or SM because that's what comes in the started box. If they decided to mix that up a little, it would only be healthy for the hobby in the long run.

I don't think manufacturing cost will be the deciding factor here. AoBR turned out to be a pretty succesfull box in the end, so if GW would expand on this with more boxed sets like this, it wouldn't really surprise me.


----------



## Azezel

There are a couple of faulty assumptions there, Old Man.

First - I've been told by a couple of ostensibly reliable sources that GW actually take a _loss_ on their starter sets. I'm no longer certain if I believe that, but it's clear that if they do make a profit, it's a very slim one.

Island of Blood contained five huge sprues - each requiring a different tool (no duplications) - that's £300k to £500k right there in tools that will only be good for four years (five at a push). The cost of materials is negligable - but the studio time is not. Almost every single mini in the IoB is unique, and all are hugely detailed. We're probably talking a year of studio time at least. Again, for minis that will be (to GW) worthless in four years.

We're probably talking closer to a million pounds of investment in Island of Blood - for a company that just about scraped 15 million pre-tax this year, that's a hell of an investment.

A little back-of-a-beermat style maths tells me that to turn a profit on a starter kit at £60 a pop, GW need to sell between ten and fifteen thousand of them over four years. I can just about believe they do that.

That said, most starter kits will be sold by third-party retailers who pay GW less than £60 per-unit, so the number that must be sold climbs. again, I think it's possible that GW makes a profit on their starter sets, but it's not a big one.

Then, factor in the sales GW _looses_ by selling the starter kit. How many £20 Ork Deffkoptas d'you think GW have sold when people can get three AoBR Deffkoptas for £10 on ebay? How many High Elf players (like me) are buying 5 Swordmasters for £15 when we can buy ten IoB Swordmasters for £10? I know I'm not.

Hands up every Space Marine player who doesn't own an AoBR Dread? What about Skaven players who have 200 'slaves' that are actually IoB Clanrats...

And even that pales compared to the rulebook. Be honest, who here has never even seen a full-sized 5e rulebook because you and everyone you know bought the AoBR one of ebay?

Regardless of whether GW make a profit on the starter kit, it's painfully obvious that they loose a colossal amount of money in models which don't sell because they are in the starter kit.

There are of course, exceptions. Most Marine players would be unhappy with an army composed entirely of AoBR models - fairly static and with limited options - but thanks to AoBR most marine players can easily buy half as many multi-pose Marines as they otherwise might and still have a fine looking army.

The more starter kits there are, the more models they _don't_ sell.


Which brings me on to space Marines...

Economies of scale are funny animals. Given the choice between selling f kit A and 50 of kit B, or selling 90 of kit A and 10 of kit B - GW would much rather the 90/10 one. It's much more efficient in terms of production and distribution (100/0% would be even better!). That's why we have 40k starter kits designed to make sure little Timmy plays Marines. From GW's point of view, it'd be better if _everyone_ played Marines - and nothing else.

I understand that the Rhino is GW's single most profitable kit by a long chalk, even though it's had to have more than one replacement tool due to wear and tear.

Multiple starter kits - some of which don't even have Marines in them risk the chance that new players don't start collecting Marines, which isn't as good for GW's bottom line (and remember, £15 million in the last financial year, they are only just keeping in the black, relatively speaking).


----------



## elmir

Actually, the number 1 selling item from GW has been chaos black paint for years now. 

It could be that my assumptions are completely wrong... I'm just reasoning here about the use of several starter boxes.

From an outsider point of view (just imagine you are mommy or daddy who has to hand over the credit card after the little brat has chosen what he wants for his birthday) a starter box is a reasonable buy, right? Lots of miniatures for a decent price and the rulebook. Doesn't look like it will be too expensive a hobby, right? 

Every player who starts a new army will be dropping several 100 pounds to get propperly started. This is both from actual models and hobby supplies such as paint, brushes,.. GW's marketing is completely geared towards "suckering in new players" so they'll fork over the cash to start a new army. That's where the big money is. 

On our latest trip to GW: Antwerp we asked the store manager (nice bloke, but he doesn't speak dutch yet) how many people actually started collecting necrons or grey knights with the new releases. It turned out it was only 2 new GK players and like 3 new necron players. In the end, he said that 90% of the people buying a new 40k army from scratch did so with either Orks or SMs... all because of the starterset. He said the same is true for WHFB, it's predominantly skaven or HE players now. 

And even though those first mini's are supercheap, those SM players will be back to pick up their rhino's/razorbacks because somebody on the internet told them they should get that next. Those players will be buying brand new brushes and more paints as they go along. It doesn't matter what GW product they buy, as long as they are spending their money on the hobby... it'll find their way back to GW. More players is the goal here. 

I'm going to quote what I said earlier: *"it's plastic crack, the money is in the comeback"*. 

Sure, a drugdealer might make a loss when handing out his first "freebies", but that doesn't mean it's a bad "business model" to work with. Excuse the drug analogy here, but that's what the startersets are about from a marketing point of view. A way to lure people in.

I'm also sure GW doesn't want everybody to play space marines. The fact that they are trying VERY hard right now to breathe new life into WHFB is a small amount of evidence there. They know full well that diversity is important for the health of the game. 

Multiple starter sets (even one without marines), could shift the balance a bit away from the imperium. It would make sense if they did. I sure as hell hope that they do.


----------



## Zion

GW's sales with the starter sets reminds me of how Nintendo sold the old NES systems. The system was sold at a loss, but the games where marked up to recoup the losses and drive a profit. And the same thing seems to be the way GW does things. Starter kits at a loss and using everything else to recoup the initial loss.

If that's the case then I could see extra starters since the box sets have a variety of models but nowhere close to a full army, or the things needed to build and paint them, meaning the overall profit margin would be secured. 

But that's just a possibility, not a definite sort of thing with the way GW works their product line and pricing. If anyone knew for sure it'd be neat to see the insight on that.


----------



## sybarite

@Azezel like l said at the start "before l do please take with a ton of slat."
l am also in the same boat l don't believe they ever will do this however my friend said some crazy things like crons having Open Top tanks with shielding and l said no way -_-.

on the starter kits like l said before the only reason l can see them doing it is to get more players.

on the whole money thing like Zion said and even today the PS3 and XBOX360 don't make money off the system but the fact you need to get games, headsets, and so on is where they do.


----------



## Sexxy Camera

Azezel said:


> You gain...
> 
> I flat out don't believe you. Which is to say, any or all of the things that you say might be true - but anyone could come up with equally plausable stuff and pass it on as 'rumour'. I do not believe you know anything more than the rest of us.
> 
> (Not that your statements seem very plausible to me. I simply do not see how prototype plastic kits can exist _now_ - let alone the last time you claimed to have seen sprues.)
> 
> As I said back in april
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're right I'll eat my house.
> 
> A new plastic injection mold tool costs anywhere from £50k-£100k - closer to the upper figure for big, complex sprues like one finds in Assault on black Reach or Island of Blood. _One_ starter set requires 3-5 such tools.
> 
> Unlike other plastic kits, which can last a very long time, a starter kit has a four-year expiry date after which the tools are useless. Do you think there's a chance in hell that GW would sink the best part of a million quid into a four (well 3.5) year starter-kit extravaganza?
> 
> Producing two or three such sets would be astronomically stupid.


Out of curiosity where do you get your figures for the cost of the mold? 

GW does everything in house, so they don't send off for molds.

Molds are made out of steel (though you can make them out of aluminum) and cost next to nothing. The cost for the mold is probably the cheapest, check that, is the cheapest part of making a new model. The artists and folks who make the 3D models cost most of the money. Molds are really cheap to make, especially if the company owns the machine that makes them, which GW does. 

Anyway, I am sure that I will be proven right when the sisters release :victory:


----------



## Azezel

Sexxy Camera said:


> Molds are made out of steel (though you can make them out of aluminum) and cost next to nothing. The cost for the mold is probably the cheapest, check that, is the cheapest part of making a new model.


That's just... That's...

Anyone who knows the first thing about plastic injection-molding knoes that those tools _cost_.

Why do you think model companies make metal models (or resin in GW's case?).

A metal or resin mold is dead cheap, but the medium is expensive. A plastic injection-mold is astronomically expensive, but the medium is cheap.

Word on the street is that the modern Land Raider was delayed because the original tool was damaged, and GW couldn't afford to buy a new one just at that point. And that was a fairly primetive tool by even the standards of the day. Mind I've heard the same story about the Wave Serpent. For all I know both are true, or maybe neither. Just a story.

What is true is that the tools are so expensive that one being damaged is a significant setback to the company. Tim Adcock, who used to be in charge of GW molding said the Land Raider tools (I think there are two LR sprues?) were worth 125'000 (unclear whether that's what they cost or that's what they were insured for) and that the Tau Drone tools would _never_ recoup their cost.

A few years back there was a discussion on Warseer about metal models. One of the posters worked in a plant that makes plastic crates using tools that cost a half-million dollars each. Frelling _crates_. now, GW's tools are more complicated, but much smaller, so they don't quite cost that much but y'see the point.



Now, we're drifting dangerously off topic, so I'll leave you with these thoughts for when one encounters a rumour.

The most parsimonious explanation must always be preferred.

A rumour attributed to a name is always better than one which comes from 'my friend', 'a redshirt' or 'some guy'.

If a rumour radically disagrees with what has gone before it should be met with a greater degree of distrust than one which seems more an evolution of that which has gone before.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem


----------



## Revarien

I can tell you from experience (speaking with a master molder at Reaper Miniatures about 2 hrs away from me and watching their spin-casting process for metal), rubber molds for pewter costs roughly 100-200$ per mold (sometimes higher though...like 500), but they have low-medium lifetime... I then asked about plastic injection and he told me that they looked into it and promptly stopped after it came to 5000$-15000$** per mold... (they last nearly forever, so long as the metal was not compromised by impurities), and could vary even higher due to complexity... and the variation of complexity to cost ratio made it too costly to continue along that thought process.

Hope this helps.


**this is based on single to a couple model sprue


----------



## Zion

While not related to new models, this bit of news is related to the Sisters:

The Witch Hunters FAQ is gone on the US site now. No sign of a Sisters FAQ as of yet though.


----------



## SilverTabby

Sexxy Camera said:


> Out of curiosity where do you get your figures for the cost of the mold?
> 
> GW does everything in house, so they don't send off for molds.
> 
> Molds are made out of steel (though you can make them out of aluminum) and cost next to nothing. The cost for the mold is probably the cheapest, check that, is the cheapest part of making a new model. The artists and folks who make the 3D models cost most of the money. Molds are really cheap to make, especially if the company owns the machine that makes them, which GW does.
> 
> Anyway, I am sure that I will be proven right when the sisters release :victory:


That one post is why I do not believe a single word of your previous rumours. Yes, GW does everything in-house. However, everything else in your post is wrong, as is pointed out by Azezel. Having had guided tours around the inside of GWs in-house production facilities, I can quite happily say you are entirely wrong in your costings too. 

Also, unless you are just bad at spelling, your use of 'mold' instead of 'mould' points towards you being American. Which means your chances of having seen what - if they even exist yet - would be Studio-eyes-only designs, are microscopically small to non-existant.

I have just read back through your initial "Sisters tidbit" posts too. Nothing in there that can't be read as making guesses that are very likely to be accurate for _any_ release.


----------



## Azezel

Zion said:


> The Witch Hunters FAQ is gone on the US site now. No sign of a Sisters FAQ as of yet though.


Looks like it's gone on the UK site too.

Had a quick look around to see what else may've changed. The only thing I could find was that under Sisters of Battle novels only one book was listed, Farrer's _Enforcer_. Don't get me wrong, that _is_ the best novel featuring sisters by a huge margin, but one'd imagine that _Faith & Fire_ (Being republished), _Red & Black_ (Bad, but availalbe) and _Hammer & Anvil_ (I've preordered mine, have you?) would be there, at least as pre-orders for the first and last.


Oh, and it goes without saying that there's still no downloadable version of the WD 'codex' that I could find.


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


> Looks like it's gone on the UK site too.
> 
> Had a quick look around to see what else may've changed. The only thing I could find was that under Sisters of Battle novels only one book was listed, Farrer's _Enforcer_. Don't get me wrong, that _is_ the best novel featuring sisters by a huge margin, but one'd imagine that _Faith & Fire_ (Being republished), _Red & Black_ (Bad, but availalbe) and _Hammer & Anvil_ (I've preordered mine, have you?) would be there, at least as pre-orders for the first and last.
> 
> 
> Oh, and it goes without saying that there's still no downloadable version of the WD 'codex' that I could find.


Enforcer has been listed there since the change over to calling the range 'Sisters of Battle' again. So it looks like the FAQ removal is about it from what I can tell. I've been gathering up questions I've seen online and in real life and sent them in to their FAQ section so who knows, maybe a couple of those things will get resolved (like Celestine's status as an independent character or not). 

If anyone has any questions they want me to submit just let me know. I've already sent in a few like:

-Celestine being an independent character or not.
-Can units without Acts of Faith benefit from independent characters who are supposed to share their acts with the unit they're with? (I know what I'm assuming the answer to be, but I just want it clarified)
-If I still have faith points can I keep attempting an act of faith I've failed? (I'd assume no, but if the answer is yes that delegates the Simalcrum Imperialis to a 20 pt item that'd give you twice as many chances to get those faith points off, especially if you REALLY want rending on your Retributors or rerolling wounds on your Seraphim (Angelic Visage))
-Can the Vindicare Assasian's Shield Breaker remove the Shield of Faith invul save? (again, I assume no, because it's not wargear, but it's always good to ask to make sure it's clear)
-I also included a suggestion for an errata: bring back the Immolators "move and shoot" heavy flamer rule. That'd make it worth it's points again.


----------



## mahavira

I would wager Immolators will not get the move and shoot rule back - you'd have to give all other heavy flamer razorbacks (heck, all heavy flamer armed vehicles) the same rule because the argument for it for immolators is equally applicable. I could conceive of the vehicle being made fast in general on the basis of a modified engine (maybe the Blood Angels , but the half-way rule from 3E? Hard to see it happening when they've been trying to streamline and use universal special rules more.


----------



## DeathKlokk

mahavira said:


> I would wager Immolators will not get the move and shoot rule back - you'd have to give all other heavy flamer razorbacks (heck, all heavy flamer armed vehicles) the same rule because the argument for it for immolators is equally applicable.


Yes, because no vehicles currently have different rules in different codices. Wait...they do!


----------



## Zion

mahavira said:


> I would wager Immolators will not get the move and shoot rule back - you'd have to give all other heavy flamer razorbacks (heck, all heavy flamer armed vehicles) the same rule because the argument for it for immolators is equally applicable. I could conceive of the vehicle being made fast in general on the basis of a modified engine (maybe the Blood Angels , but the half-way rule from 3E? Hard to see it happening when they've been trying to streamline and use universal special rules more.


Maybe, maybe not, but I think if it doesn't it should go down to 45 points base, then 55 for the heavy bolter, 65 for the multi-melta. Then it'd at least be more reasonable to use.


----------



## rasolyo

I'm thinking that the removal of the semi-fast rule was deliberate.

Blood Angels have inherited Immolator Spam, and have been doing it better than Codex: Witchhunters.


----------



## Kettu

On the subject of Immo move and shoot.

Do remember that the Immolator is NOT a razorback, it's a different tank design altogether.
Sadly however, GW forgot that completely.


----------



## bobahoff

Is this a special rule that allows you to move at cruising speed and still fire because the tau have a piece of wargear that allows you to do the same. Not sure about the new models though. There's been rumblings about it for yonks but nothing happens.


----------



## Zion

bobahoff said:


> Is this a special rule that allows you to move at cruising speed and still fire because the tau have a piece of wargear that allows you to do the same. Not sure about the new models though. There's been rumblings about it for yonks but nothing happens.


The rule said that because you don't really need to aim a heavy flamer (since it's an area affect weapon) that the Immolator could move 12" and still use the heavy flamer. The heavy bolter and multi-meltas weren't allowed to do it though, but it made the initial cost of the Immolator more palatable.


----------



## rasolyo

bobahoff said:


> Is this a special rule that allows you to move at cruising speed and still fire because the tau have a piece of wargear that allows you to do the same. Not sure about the new models though. There's been rumblings about it for yonks but nothing happens.


It was a rule in Codex: Witchhunters that allowed Immolators armed with twin-linked heavy flamers to still fire them after moving 12".

EDIT: NINJA'D


----------



## Azezel

Now - it's been suggested that Immolators were nerfed for the same reason that Carnifexes were in the 5e 'nid book.

'Well, everybody owns these things, so let's make 'em less useful to sell other models'.

I don't buy that because GW doesn't have any models to sell.

It's all one to me since I scarcely use(d) Immolators anyway (and I'm still using codex: Witchhunters) - but I suspect it was not a deliberate decision to make Immolators worse (than they used to be, or worse than Razorbacks).

Everything we know about the White Dwarf 'dex tells us that it was hashed out very quickly, with minimal care and almost no playtesting. That is more than enough to explain the nerf to the Immolator. As I've said before, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

I am just about cynical enough to believe that the WD update was never intended to be a real codex that people actually play every week, but only to remove Allies rules from the game. That explains the rapidity with which it appeared, the half-arsed rules and fluff, the poor internal balance and the continuing unavailability of models.

If the above is true, then an errata document will be a very, very low priority for GW.

Here's a good way to tell if I'm right... As we all know, Red Space Marines got a WD update in 2007 in the tail-end of 4th edition. A .pdf version was put out by GW soon after. Now, what most people forget is that just after 5e hit, that .pdf was updated in-line with 5e rules. That's because it was a real codex that people were supposed to play.

I'd almost bet my house that the Sisters WD codex .pdf will _not_ be updated for 6e... If GW manage to publish the damned .pdf _before_ 6e, that is.

Failing that, I'll meet you all back here in 2014 to discuss the latest rumours of a real codex, deal? Deal.


----------



## Kettu

Azezel said:


> Now - it's been suggested that Immolators were nerfed for the same reason that Carnifexes were in the 5e 'nid book.
> 
> 'Well, everybody owns these things, so let's make 'em less useful to sell other models'.
> 
> I don't buy that because GW doesn't have any models to sell.


Honestly, I wouldn't put it past GW still doing just that despite there being no alternatives, rules or minis to the contrary. :wacko:


----------



## bobahoff

probably not had that many complaints though ive only ever seen one sisters army. eas tempted to do one but metal models make my ears bleed when assembling them. i nearly punched my local store manager when they came out three days after i bought draigo


----------



## bobahoff

bobahoff said:


> probably not had that many complaints though ive only ever seen one sisters army. eas tempted to do one but metal models make my ears bleed when assembling them. i nearly punched my local store manager when they came out three days after i bought draigo


 when citadel finecast came out that is


----------



## stenographer

Zion said:


> Enforcer has been listed there since the change over to calling the range 'Sisters of Battle' again. So it looks like the FAQ removal is about it from what I can tell. I've been gathering up questions I've seen online and in real life and sent them in to their FAQ section so who knows, maybe a couple of those things will get resolved (like Celestine's status as an independent character or not).
> 
> If anyone has any questions they want me to submit just let me know.


Thanks for sending in those questions Zion! A few of them have been bothering me as well. I have a few more that you might consider.

I realize these are more in the vein of errata as opposed to FAQ but I have been curious about a few things in regards to wargear. First is the absence of a jump pack option for the canoness. Design-wise she is analogous to the SM captain (which has a jump pack option) and her faith power compliments seraphim so well that it doesn't seem far-fetched to imply this was intentional and the absence of the option was an oversight. Second is the absence of laud hailer options for the vehicles. This seems distinctly like an oversight as well, being that their function was completely reworked to complement the faith system (albeit not very well) but only two, extremely specialized models have them. Third is absence of blessed weapon options across the board. While this is more of a shot in the dark, I thought it was worth noting (as MCC pointed out a while ago) that the rules for blessed weapons seem to have been reworked but are only instanced in Celestine's ardent blade.

It's unfortunate because I can't think of single time when GW has added wargear options in an errata, even though the at least first two I listed are likely oversights resulting from hasty work. However, if there is any possibility that GW may update the WDdex like they did for BA then suggestions like these may be worth making.


----------



## mahavira

The "White Dwarf Update was just to get rid of the allies rule" theory has always seemed far fetched to me when they could have gone to even less effort by putting one new sentence in the FAQ/Errata: "Witch hunter armies may not be used as allies with any other force, nor may they include inducted space marines or inducted imperial guard."


----------



## Zion

mahavira said:


> The "White Dwarf Update was just to get rid of the allies rule" theory has always seemed far fetched to me when they could have gone to even less effort by putting one new sentence in the FAQ/Errata: "Witch hunter armies may not be used as allies with any other force, nor may they include inducted space marines or inducted imperial guard."


Except when Chaos Daemons became their own book in Fantasy this is exactly the thing they did for Chaos Warriors. It's not -exactly- the same, but it's pretty similiar.


----------



## mahavira

Then we have been talking at cross purposes, as I interpret "get rid of the allies rule" to mean to remove the ability for other armies to take SoB units as allies, and to remove inducted IG and SM. If you meant "to remove the inquisition elements, as was done with chaos in WFB", then I have no particular beef with the theory.

Take with a great deal of salt (pickle it in the Dead Sea), but a guy at my FLGS claims to have been to Games Day US and spoken with Jess Goodwin, who supposedly said a full SoB release would be in early 2012 (though whether that's January or April who can say). For myself, given the fairly massive WD coverage of SoB lately (now apocalypse formations), it is hard to believe they are actually being sent to the back of the bus again.


----------



## Zion

mahavira said:


> Then we have been talking at cross purposes, as I interpret "get rid of the allies rule" to mean to remove the ability for other armies to take SoB units as allies, and to remove inducted IG and SM. If you meant "to remove the inquisition elements, as was done with chaos in WFB", then I have no particular beef with the theory.
> 
> Take with a great deal of salt (pickle it in the Dead Sea), but a guy at my FLGS claims to have been to Games Day US and spoken with Jess Goodwin, who supposedly said a full SoB release would be in early 2012 (though whether that's January or April who can say). For myself, given the fairly massive WD coverage of SoB lately (now apocalypse formations), it is hard to believe they are actually being sent to the back of the bus again.


I meant removal of Inquisitorial elements personally.

And I've heard the 2012 rumor before. I'd like to believe it but unless we get blindsided with a surprise release again it's not likely to happen.


----------



## Azezel

mahavira said:


> ... Jess Goodwin, who supposedly said a full SoB release would be in early 2012 (though whether that's January or April who can say). ...


Funny. I hadn't heard that Jess had been fired and taken to court (or assassinated and strung up as a warning to others) which I believe is that standard response for people who break their Non Disclosure Agreements.



EDIT:- @Zion 'Allies' rules specifically means the rules permitting Witchhunters (and Daemonhunters) armies to include elements from Marine and Guard codices, and vice versa.

Back in the day there were manny codices with Allies rules. Hell, the 2e Sisters 'dex was explicitly an Allies Codex, never intended to be an army complete unto itself, but only as a source of Allies for other, real armies*.

Since 4e GW have been excising Allies rules slowly but surely. Can't fully blame them - they are not good from a ballance perspective (the infamous Leafblower Guard list abuses Daemonhunter Allies).

It seems all too plausable that GW would kick out a stillborn White Dwarf codex solely to put the final nail in the coffin of Allies before 6e hits.



* Codex: sisters of Battle, page 48, second paragraph - 'the Adaptus Ministorum _can_ be used as a complete army in its own right, but you will find it lacks certain elements'. Bastards even italicised the word 'can'...

"Oh, you _can_ play the army whose name is on the cover of this codex, if you really want to, but wouldn't you rather go play some Space Marines?"


----------



## mahavira

Azezel said:


> Funny. I hadn't heard that Jess had been fired and taken to court (or assassinated and strung up as a warning to others) which I believe is that standard response for people who break their Non Disclosure Agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:- @Zion 'Allies' rules specifically means the rules permitting Witchhunters (and Daemonhunters) armies to include elements from Marine and Guard codices, and vice versa.
> 
> Back in the day there were manny codices with Allies rules. Hell, the 2e Sisters 'dex was explicitly an Allies Codex, never intended to be an army complete unto itself, but only as a source of Allies for other, real armies*.
> 
> Since 4e GW have been excising Allies rules slowly but surely. Can't fully blame them - they are not good from a ballance perspective (the infamous Leafblower Guard list abuses Daemonhunter Allies).
> 
> It seems all too plausable that GW would kick out a stillborn White Dwarf codex solely to put the final nail in the coffin of Allies before 6e hits.
> 
> 
> 
> * Codex: sisters of Battle, page 48, second paragraph - 'the Adaptus Ministorum _can_ be used as a complete army in its own right, but you will find it lacks certain elements'. Bastards even italicised the word 'can'...
> 
> "Oh, you _can_ play the army whose name is on the cover of this codex, if you really want to, but wouldn't you rather go play some Space Marines?"


Wierdly Sisters could join space marines, but space marines couldn't be inducted into an army with battle sisters (not really sure why you'd want to do either, mind - a SoB addition to imperial guard (and vice versa) had much beter synergy). Oh, and Daemonhunters/Grey Knights had the same disclaimer, worded if anything more strongly.

As to what Jess Goodwin did or didn't say, I did say "dead sea levels of salt". The rumor is remotely plausible only because it's a similar timeframe to what was done with Warriors of Chaos back in the day.


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


> Funny. I hadn't heard that Jess had been fired and taken to court (or assassinated and strung up as a warning to others) which I believe is that standard response for people who break their Non Disclosure Agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:- @Zion 'Allies' rules specifically means the rules permitting Witchhunters (and Daemonhunters) armies to include elements from Marine and Guard codices, and vice versa.
> 
> Back in the day there were manny codices with Allies rules. Hell, the 2e Sisters 'dex was explicitly an Allies Codex, never intended to be an army complete unto itself, but only as a source of Allies for other, real armies*.
> 
> Since 4e GW have been excising Allies rules slowly but surely. Can't fully blame them - they are not good from a ballance perspective (the infamous Leafblower Guard list abuses Daemonhunter Allies).
> 
> It seems all too plausable that GW would kick out a stillborn White Dwarf codex solely to put the final nail in the coffin of Allies before 6e hits.
> 
> 
> 
> * Codex: sisters of Battle, page 48, second paragraph - 'the Adaptus Ministorum _can_ be used as a complete army in its own right, but you will find it lacks certain elements'. Bastards even italicised the word 'can'...
> 
> "Oh, you _can_ play the army whose name is on the cover of this codex, if you really want to, but wouldn't you rather go play some Space Marines?"


Oh I know about the allies rules, I started my army when it was Codex: Witchhunters. But when making the comparison to the old Chaos Army book the part that is the most similiar is the removal of units in the book (for Chaos it was Daemons, for the Sisters it was the Inquisition). Allies where an outdated rule that I was glad to see go since it means that I won't have to hear people tell me to take a Salamanders army with attached Sisters anymore.


----------



## deathwatch27

Reguardless of GW wrecking my friends SOB army by removing the inquistoral/guard aspect, we still use the allies rule but only to the extent of 2v2 games were both players from the same team (good vs evil/alien/heretic) have 1500 each of complete armys but fight together on the tabletop. I can see how people can take advantage of that rule, i'll take a BA dread, a SW wolf calvalry types and so on. Usually "Extreme beards" who try to cheat just to win because they cant play properly.


----------



## Orochi

They need to let this 'army' go.

Just saying.


----------



## Zion

Orochi said:


> They need to let this 'army' go.
> 
> Just saying.


How about...no. GW needs to reign in their Space Marines if anything to improve the turn-around for the non-Marine books.


----------



## Uveron

There is a point in time, when GW will have to make up and mind about what its doing. And that will be the point when we know what the future holds, and that point is. 

when they have make finecast version of the models..

They are stoping the production of metal models, the sisters range is all metal. So something will have to be done. this could be 

A) Stop the Army all together. 
B) Complete new codex, and revamp
C) Convert to finecast quicky and ignore the line. 

If they go for option C, we will see a few finecast models appearing in the range (not as of yet) 
B, we will start to see the odd updated finecast/all plastic tank, (I suspect the Immolator) 
and A) we will see nothing, may be the odd unit moving to "unavailable" on the website, and then one day it will be just gone..


----------



## Zion

Uveron said:


> There is a point in time, when GW will have to make up and mind about what its doing. And that will be the point when we know what the future holds, and that point is.
> 
> when they have make finecast version of the models..
> 
> They are stoping the production of metal models, the sisters range is all metal. So something will have to be done. this could be
> 
> A) Stop the Army all together.
> B) Complete new codex, and revamp
> C) Convert to finecast quicky and ignore the line.
> 
> If they go for option C, we will see a few finecast models appearing in the range (not as of yet)
> B, we will start to see the odd updated finecast/all plastic tank, (I suspect the Immolator)
> and A) we will see nothing, may be the odd unit moving to "unavailable" on the website, and then one day it will be just gone..


Immolator is already an all plastic tank...now if they do the Exorcist in all Plastic I'll be a happy nerd indeed.

As for C, seeing as not even the special characters have gotten a Finecast release I don't forsee a change for the Sisters to Finecast, paticularly with people having claimed to seen said plastic models (or at least the molds or maybe greens of them) and multiple collaberating sources on that, many of which have a strong track record for the information they put out. It could be a stockpiling method where the release has been delayed for a combination of rules and GW wanting to build up a strong model supply to meet expected demand (with the long standing buzzing of the community for waiting for plastic models this does seem fairly likely).

As for A, well after the Squat fiasco (something GW hasn't been able to live down yet) GW has stated on many occasions that they aren't dropping anymore armies. Combined with the rumors for the models that are floating around and the fact that a rule set was published (versus the way GW usually treats things they don't plan on continuing active support for like BFG (continue to release models but fail to update/FAQ the rules) I'd have to say that even though the rules are weak, support will continue and we'll get something eventually, and likely in plastic when it gets here.

Well that and the metal models they have left will be moved to the collectors area whenever the update occurs.


----------



## Azezel

Orochi said:


> They need to let this 'army' go.
> 
> Just saying.


Oh, hey Orochi! D'you remember last year when you burst into MadCowCrazy's rumours thread and told everyone our army sucked and should be squatted?

And then you said it was 'just an opinion' like it was an excuse? And you seemed suprised that a lot of people who collect Sisters of Battle weren't very impressed by your drive-by trolling? And you told us all to 'get over ourselves'?

And Coke123 and I asked you why a person who so dislikes the army would even bother posting a rumours thread about it? And that was the last we heard of you?

Good times... We should do this again next year.


----------



## Sworn Radical

Orochi said:


> They need to let this 'army' go.
> 
> Just saying.


Sure, why not. They've only been part of the fluff (and playable in 40k) since ... dunno, I guess it was 1996 or something like that. Makes a lot of sense to let them go, yeah.

Why don't we just drop all the armies that came after 'em as well ? Like Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tau ... ? Or maybe we should reduce the entire game to merely Marines and their chaos counterparts - this would drastically cut down on the need for codecii as well, we'd only need one book covering vanilla marines plus an add-on section on marks of chaos and the like ... now that's an awesome idea.

Oh wait ... what I was going to say ... stop trolling please.


----------



## Kettu

Ok, so Sexxy Camera is back with some rumours.
And just today, I got to thinking; _'Hey, if SC is spilling the beans then surely one of the more regular rumour goers has said something somewhere over on the rest of the net, you know, seeing as now everyone is trying to guess the release order for the next several dexes.'_
So I meandered on over to Warseer, Belloflostsouls, Dakkadakka, Bolter'n'chainsword _(Ok, so I wasn't expecting anything from the last two)_ And a few blogs and...

and...

Heresy is the only one to have this rumour.

Sorry Camera, but frankly Heresy would not be the only one with this rumour if it had any weight to it at all. This isn't even just salt territory here, your rumour just does not add up at all, there is no reason to even think what you said had truth to it.


----------



## TheSpore

Have to agree with the rest on here that SexyCamera has no validity to the rumours he speaks of, now if anyone hasn't figured this out yet and this is was really devalues the credability of the rumours is that right now the Tau and the Chaos rumours are more viral, which typically means that those are the next on the list along with 6th sometime really soon...


----------



## Suijin

Azezel said:


> Now - it's been suggested that Immolators were nerfed for the same reason that Carnifexes were in the 5e 'nid book.
> 
> 'Well, everybody owns these things, so let's make 'em less useful to sell other models'.
> 
> I don't buy that because GW doesn't have any models to sell.
> 
> It's all one to me since I scarcely use(d) Immolators anyway (and I'm still using codex: Witchhunters) - but I suspect it was not a deliberate decision to make Immolators worse (than they used to be, or worse than Razorbacks).
> 
> Everything we know about the White Dwarf 'dex tells us that it was hashed out very quickly, with minimal care and almost no playtesting. That is more than enough to explain the nerf to the Immolator. As I've said before, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
> 
> I am just about cynical enough to believe that the WD update was never intended to be a real codex that people actually play every week, but only to remove Allies rules from the game. That explains the rapidity with which it appeared, the half-arsed rules and fluff, the poor internal balance and the continuing unavailability of models.
> 
> If the above is true, then an errata document will be a very, very low priority for GW.
> 
> Here's a good way to tell if I'm right... As we all know, Red Space Marines got a WD update in 2007 in the tail-end of 4th edition. A .pdf version was put out by GW soon after. Now, what most people forget is that just after 5e hit, that .pdf was updated in-line with 5e rules. That's because it was a real codex that people were supposed to play.
> 
> I'd almost bet my house that the Sisters WD codex .pdf will _not_ be updated for 6e... If GW manage to publish the damned .pdf _before_ 6e, that is.
> 
> Failing that, I'll meet you all back here in 2014 to discuss the latest rumours of a real codex, deal? Deal.


The WD codex could already be updated for 6th ed. They have been supposedly writing all current codex for 6th also, so no need for an update.


Other FAQ questions:
The strength of Arcos, 4 or 5? We assume it's 5 since GK get S5 arcos.

It would be nice if Seraphim got to reroll penetration dice with their inferno pistols like they do wounds with flamers. They do tend to use wounds and penetration rolls somewhat interchangably, example of DE flicker fields and SoB shield of faith (invulnerable save rules RAW only works vs wounds).


----------



## Suijin

Zion said:


> Enforcer has been listed there since the change over to calling the range 'Sisters of Battle' again. So it looks like the FAQ removal is about it from what I can tell. I've been gathering up questions I've seen online and in real life and sent them in to their FAQ section so who knows, maybe a couple of those things will get resolved (like Celestine's status as an independent character or not).
> 
> If anyone has any questions they want me to submit just let me know. I've already sent in a few like:
> 
> -Celestine being an independent character or not.
> -Can units without Acts of Faith benefit from independent characters who are supposed to share their acts with the unit they're with? (I know what I'm assuming the answer to be, but I just want it clarified)
> -If I still have faith points can I keep attempting an act of faith I've failed? (I'd assume no, but if the answer is yes that delegates the Simalcrum Imperialis to a 20 pt item that'd give you twice as many chances to get those faith points off, especially if you REALLY want rending on your Retributors or rerolling wounds on your Seraphim (Angelic Visage))
> -Can the Vindicare Assasian's Shield Breaker remove the Shield of Faith invul save? (again, I assume no, because it's not wargear, but it's always good to ask to make sure it's clear)
> -I also included a suggestion for an errata: bring back the Immolators "move and shoot" heavy flamer rule. That'd make it worth it's points again.


On the faith reroll I would expect them to limit it to 1 roll, no reroll. This would actually give more purpose to Simalcrum Imperialis (if you can just spend another faith to reroll then there is less purpose to the SI since that performs the same function). I still don't think it is worth it for 20 points though, maybe at 10 for some units. I think they priced it that way due to some units being much more effective when they succeed in this roll. In reality you don't always get this benefit (like when not in range shooting, dead, failed faith roll twice, etc.) but you have always spent the points.


----------



## Suijin

GW have also stated that they want to release virtually all models close to the codex release. This would mean they would need to have a bulk part of the models done a good bit before releasing them (stated about necrons and after releases). This was in reference to the Tervigons (sp?), Thunderwolves, etc and lawsuits blah blah.

So they could have the base models done already, or close to it. It doesn't mean they have a release before end 2013. They still need much of the rest of the army done.

The rumor also stated some very obvious things about the sprues which they are almost certain to do based on the few previous releases/common sense. It doesn't make the rumor true or false.


----------



## Zion

Suijin said:


> On the faith reroll I would expect them to limit it to 1 roll, no reroll. This would actually give more purpose to Simalcrum Imperialis (if you can just spend another faith to reroll then there is less purpose to the SI since that performs the same function). I still don't think it is worth it for 20 points though, maybe at 10 for some units. I think they priced it that way due to some units being much more effective when they succeed in this roll. In reality you don't always get this benefit (like when not in range shooting, dead, failed faith roll twice, etc.) but you have always spent the points.


Oh I'm sure, but on the other hand if you can keep spending points that means you'd get two chances per point, still not worth 20 points but it'd be interesting at least. Either way getting it clarified is a good idea since it'll kill the confusion I see online from time to time.


----------



## Azezel

Suijin said:


> The WD codex could already be updated for 6th ed. They have been supposedly writing all current codex for 6th also, so no need for an update.


I might've believed that if the White Dwarf 'codex' had included any of the usual 'this will make sense in 6e' warning signs.

Off the top of my head:

The Dark Eldar codex felt it had to specifically state that a particular Monstrous Creature had Move Through Cover even though all Monstrous Creatures have that in 5th.

Codex: Grey Knights has the weird Psychic Mastery Levels that don't fit with 5th, but I bet will be standard rules in 6th.

I don't know enough about codex: Necrons to list anything, but I bet there are things like that in there too.

The White Dawrf Sisters codex had no such fifth edition oddities. There was nothing in there that gave any indication that it was designed to be future-proof.


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


> I might've believed that if the White Dwarf 'codex' had included any of the usual 'this will make sense in 6e' warning signs.
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> 
> The Dark Eldar codex felt it had to specifically state that a particular Monstrous Creature had Move Through Cover even though all Monstrous Creatures have that in 5th.
> 
> Codex: Grey Knights has the weird Psychic Mastery Levels that don't fit with 5th, but I bet will be standard rules in 6th.
> 
> I don't know enough about codex: Necrons to list anything, but I bet there are things like that in there too.
> 
> The White Dawrf Sisters codex had no such fifth edition oddities. There was nothing in there that gave any indication that it was designed to be future-proof.


I agree, from what I can tell it seems the only bonuses the Sisters will be getting will coming out of the core rulebook.


----------



## SilverTabby

Azezel said:


> I might've believed that if the White Dwarf 'codex' had included any of the usual 'this will make sense in 6e' warning signs.
> 
> Off the top of my head:
> 
> The Dark Eldar codex felt it had to specifically state that a particular Monstrous Creature had Move Through Cover even though all Monstrous Creatures have that in 5th.
> 
> Codex: Grey Knights has the weird Psychic Mastery Levels that don't fit with 5th, but I bet will be standard rules in 6th.
> 
> I don't know enough about codex: Necrons to list anything, but I bet there are things like that in there too.
> 
> The White Dawrf Sisters codex had no such fifth edition oddities. There was nothing in there that gave any indication that it was designed to be future-proof.


The only way that theory stands up is if the Sisters Codex contains anything that will require such clarification in 6th. Don't forget, the rulebook was all but finished when this was being written. If none of the squads have rules that aren't covered by 6th, they won't stand out. 

I don't have mine to hand, but do the characters have "Character (infantry)" in their entries? If so, then they're 6th'd. That was one of the things in Codex GK that stood out.


----------



## andrewm9

SilverTabby said:


> The only way that theory stands up is if the Sisters Codex contains anything that will require such clarification in 6th. Don't forget, the rulebook was all but finished when this was being written. If none of the squads have rules that aren't covered by 6th, they won't stand out.
> 
> I don't have mine to hand, but do the characters have "Character (infantry)" in their entries? If so, then they're 6th'd. That was one of the things in Codex GK that stood out.


Yes, they say infantry (character) just like Grey Knights


----------



## Azezel

You're right, Tabbs. I hadn't noticed that. I stand corrected.

(Does Newcron's codex have the same thing?)


----------



## mahavira

Azezel said:


> You're right, Tabbs. I hadn't noticed that. I stand corrected.
> 
> (Does Newcron's codex have the same thing?)


Yes - Overlords are infantry (character) and Destroyer Lords are jump infantry (character).


----------



## brentrob

Very interesting discussion is here to discuss. I like this.


----------



## Troublehalf

So, I just read through this entire topic..... And my fears were confirmed. 

Shame.... Sisters of Battle are really the only army I like at the moment. There is so much hate towards GK being "OP" and the rumour mill is churning out rumours that BT are turning into a horde army... or a semi-horde army.

I guess I'll just have to wait and hope that GW decide to do Sisters of Battle. I like them because they are different, because they are not "Spess Mahreens" which can solo Greater Daemons with their bare hands. 

However, with Matt Ward doing a lot of the recent codexies, I wouldn't be surprised if SoB were not updated till 2013/2014. Why? Well, at every occasion Matt Ward seems to like killing off SoB in horrible and broken lore wise ways. So, since he would most likey be asked to do the codex if it was to be done now.... I would not like to read what gets written!

It's a shame. I was so looking forward to a good update for them, no more metal models and for some nice additions. 

Guess it just means I shall save my money up until they finally get updated. Unless another great pre-painted, ready to go, Sisters of Battle army gets put on Ebay, I won't be buying the metal figures.

Perhaps by the time they are updated, somebody will of made good looking or high quality nude female body (minus head and arms I guess) so I can make my nude Sister Repentia squad.... but alas.... none exist!

Furthermore, there is some fluff/lore about the Sisters of Battle I don't get... nor am I able to find info about such parts. Ah well.

I'm starting to think Codex: Alien Hunters will come out before Codex: Sisters of Battle + Models.


----------



## SilverTabby

Troublehalf said:


> However, with Matt Ward doing a lot of the recent codexies, I wouldn't be surprised if SoB were not updated till 2013/2014.


This intrigued me, so I did some digging.

Of the 15 current codeces, 4 were written by authors who no longer work in Games Dev.
Robin Cruddace wrote 2.5, Phil Kelly wrote 4 and Matt Ward wrote 4.5. 
It only appears that Ward has written more because his are the more recent. 
Don't forget, Phil has been busy doing Dread Fleet, and someone has to have been lead writer on 40k 6th Ed, and if Matt has been churning out codeces then he hasn't been lead writer on it. 

So don't take it as read that "Matt Ward is writing everything". For all we know, the next 3 codeces may all be Mr Kelly's work...


----------



## Troublehalf

SilverTabby said:


> This intrigued me, so I did some digging.
> 
> Of the 15 current codeces, 4 were written by authors who no longer work in Games Dev.
> Robin Cruddace wrote 2.5, Phil Kelly wrote 4 and Matt Ward wrote 4.5.
> It only appears that Ward has written more because his are the more recent.
> Don't forget, Phil has been busy doing Dread Fleet, and someone has to have been lead writer on 40k 6th Ed, and if Matt has been churning out codeces then he hasn't been lead writer on it.
> 
> So don't take it as read that "Matt Ward is writing everything". For all we know, the next 3 codeces may all be Mr Kelly's work...


We can hope. After the "Khorne Knights" fiasco in the GK codex..... just made me weep. The whole feeling of the book was "I really love Ultramarines... and I make them so uber in fluff and stuff.... but these guys are even better than Ultramarines... so how can I make them MORE badass?" then decided to make Draigo kill an Exhalted Bloodthirster of Khorne... in the Warp....Solo....With his bare hands.


----------



## Zion

Troublehalf said:


> We can hope. After the "Khorne Knights" fiasco in the GK codex..... just made me weep. The whole feeling of the book was "I really love Ultramarines... and I make them so uber in fluff and stuff.... but these guys are even better than Ultramarines... so how can I make them MORE badass?" then decided to make Draigo kill an Exhalted Bloodthirster of Khorne... in the Warp....Solo....With his bare hands.


Broken force sword, and in the mouth of a rift, and he'd killed him before, only this time it reads more like a desperate thrust into the Daemon Prince's chest (something that isn't uncommon to see in stories with the hero managing to overcome impossible odds and manage to win).

Look, I'm no Grey Knights fan boy, but this ridiculous exaggeration of what they can/have done gets ridiculous after a while....and that point for me was about June.


----------



## Azezel

Troublehalf said:


> Furthermore, there is some fluff/lore about the Sisters of Battle I don't get... nor am I able to find info about such parts. Ah well.


Heresy actually has some of the most learned Sororitas Loremasters around (your humble obedient included). By all means ask and if an answer exists, we shall certainly know it.


----------



## mahavira

In Hammer and Anvil, Swallow occasionally refers to "combat cloaks". Other than the Cloak of St. Aspira and Mantle of Ophelia, are you aware of anything of the sort? It certainly doesn't appear in the picture showing the various parts of a battle sister's wargear. I'm assuming he just made it up because he liked the mental image of power armor clad battle sisters wearing cloaks in a dust storm, or perhaps because there aren't many environments where glossy black and bright red are useful camo. For all that the book was quite detailed on the new Necron stuff (probably why the publication date was pushed back) it was kind of sparse on the SoB side - I don't think there was a single seraph in the entire book.


----------



## Azezel

You have _Hammer & Anvil_ already? How? My preorder won't be dispatched until the ninth.

In any event, I'm not familiar with these combat cloaks you speak of, but Swallow is not famous for his mastery of Sororitas wargear (or other aspects...). Sisters Hospitaller have been described as wearing cloaks from time to time - very likely inspired by modern nurses' cloaks.


----------



## Shandathe

I also have a copy of Hammer & Anvil. My FLGS had it for sale (and it's also already available as e-book). If you look at a Sister model, it seems fairly obvious that he's using 'combat cloak' for the cloth covering the armour around the shoulders/upper arms and the back. If you look at my avatar (which is also in Martyred Lady colors) you can see the red bits on the upper arms and around the neck


----------



## Azezel

Shandathe said:


> I also have a copy of Hammer & Anvil. My FLGS had it for sale (and it's also already available as e-book).


"Well that was clearly worth my six quid plus postage to preorder," he mutters bitterly.


Anyway - obviously the cloth vestments were the first thing I thought of when reading Mahavira's post - but I really struggle to see how an author might refer to that as a cloak.

The cloth accoutrements are almost exclusively referred to as robes, less often as vestments. Neither term is strictly speaking accurate, but I don't think there is any one good term.

I think wherever possible it's best to use the more accurate terms 'sleeves' and 'breechcloth'.


I'm curious to know how exactly these 'combat cloaks ' are described in the book. We already know that Swallow thinks someone can approach a Battle Sister from behind and start strangling her - ear-high cermite gorget and backpack notwithstanding - so he might well think cloaks can just hang off the back of their armour.


----------



## DK1

IMO the GK fluff is made to show the sheer power of faith, they are rumored to have the gene seed from the Emperor...anyway i always refer to this pic when i hear fluff is wrong about the GK:


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


> "Well that was clearly worth my six quid plus postage to preorder," he mutters bitterly.


Wait....preorder? I got my copy off Amazon yesterday (ordered it on Thursday and had it overnighted). I also got Red and Black which wasn't too bad. A bit rushed towards the end but it wasn't bad for something that only runs around an hour long.


----------



## mahavira

Shandathe said:


> I also have a copy of Hammer & Anvil. My FLGS had it for sale (and it's also already available as e-book). If you look at a Sister model, it seems fairly obvious that he's using 'combat cloak' for the cloth covering the armour around the shoulders/upper arms and the back. If you look at my avatar (which is also in Martyred Lady colors) you can see the red bits on the upper arms and around the neck


On closer examination of the first time he refers to it, I think you might be right (talks about the rich crimson of their combat cloaks and war tabards), though "combat cloak" is possibly the worst descriptor for that portion of their wargear, as it neither resembles a cloak nor has any function in combat other than making the Sisters easier to see and maybe catching in machinery. Vestments would probably be the better word.

The reference to an aspirate cloak on the canoness later on is pretty clearly a rename of the Cloak of St. Aspira to justify why every canoness in creation seemed to have one (unless St. Aspira was the Emelda Markos of armoured cloaks).


----------



## Azezel

mahavira said:


> it neither resembles a cloak nor has any function in combat other than making the Sisters easier to see and maybe catching in machinery.


It's a little thing I like to call '_style_'.


----------



## Troublehalf

Zion said:


> Broken force sword, and in the mouth of a rift, and he'd killed him before, only this time it reads more like a desperate thrust into the Daemon Prince's chest (something that isn't uncommon to see in stories with the hero managing to overcome impossible odds and manage to win).
> 
> Look, I'm no Grey Knights fan boy, but this ridiculous exaggeration of what they can/have done gets ridiculous after a while....and that point for me was about June.


Actually... I was refering to the Greater Daemon after he awakens inside the Warp, not the fight before hand. The Bloodthirster he kills, melts the axe down, reforges his sword to the TitanSword then goes on a rampage.


----------



## Zion

Troublehalf said:


> Actually... I was refering to the Greater Daemon after he awakens inside the Warp, not the fight before hand. The Bloodthirster he kills, melts the axe down, reforges his sword to the TitanSword then goes on a rampage.


It still reads like some ancient epic to me. Not a well written one, but considering the insane stuff some old myths and legends have I'm okay with the silliness. The fluff doesn't break the game so I'm okay with it in the end.


----------



## Troublehalf

Azezel said:


> Heresy actually has some of the most learned Sororitas Loremasters around (your humble obedient included). By all means ask and if an answer exists, we shall certainly know it.


It's just that I keep seeing constant referance to some giant paedophillic tendencies the entire order is up to. What's up with that? Is it just some random thing made up by fans or is it actually canon somewhere?


----------



## Zion

Troublehalf said:


> It's just that I keep seeing constant referance to some giant paedophillic tendencies the entire order is up to. What's up with that? Is it just some random thing made up by fans or is it actually canon somewhere?


/tg/ seems to think that Sisters either need to be in the kitchen, or are pedophiles. I think it's mostly a running gag (I hope).


----------



## Azezel

The Ecclesiarchy has a certain catholic vibe to it and the internet thinks all priests are child molesters. You do the maths.


I don't know about you, but I feel like I need a chemical shower after visiting /tg/. I wish I didn't have to, but having committed myself to following rumours wherever they may lurk, I feel bound to trawl that hell hole once in a while.

As a rule of thumb, take nothing they say at face value, especially when it comes to what they call 'fluff'.


----------



## Troublehalf

Thought that was the case. I personally don't go on /tg/ but I've seen people mention this every so often. Plus the whole taking 12 year old girls from a planet in the early days didn't help to the rumour.

Matt Ward has some strange fetish with killing off Sisters whereever possible, so I wouldn't be surprised if he has some fluff ideas for them.....


----------



## mahavira

Azezel said:


> It's a little thing I like to call '_style_'.


No argument - I like the look just fine, just saying the purpose is decorative/ceremonial, like the robes on DA/BT so combat cloak is a poor name that made me think of everything but what is apparently meant.


----------



## Troublehalf

Basically.... It comes down to this:

Chances of Sisters of Battle being total revamped in the next year (2012) is roughly what percentage? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%?

I ask this, because I love SoB, I think, along with the Grey Knights, are pretty unique in terms of the "Space Marine" armies. With the Grey Knights having great looking units, great unique weapons, great unique units and my perfect army type. Elite, small numbers, Fighty with a bit of shooty.

However, Sisters of Battle are unique in the fact they are all female (bar the odd priest etc). They have unique units, they have a unique combat system (Acts of Faith) and are another nice type of army for me.... they are not a common army, they are not super uber like other armies, they have lots of fun units that have no real use in competative lists, they have lots of convertable possibities and nice fluff (ignoring the horrible ways Matt Ward decides to kill them). They are also very shooty with a bit of fighty, which I also love. Superior firepower is a great combat tactic I like, kill them before they get close. Imperial Guard also fill this... but are very expensive to collect.

So, I really don't want to collect metal Sisters of Battle, I don't want to collect Grey Knights until people stop QQing about how powerful they are and I don't have the health, stamina or determination to paint an entire IG army.

I check Ebay everyday, hoping for a great painted army... and I found one several months ago, a fantastic SoB army in a unique colour scheme... but it sold for more than it's original Buy Out price. Sure there are huge Imperial Guard armies there... but are too big and prob contain a lot of OOP models.

So... question is... do I wait for GW to get some balls and actually updated a old and very wished for army.... or should I just get some painted Ebay army or collect another one? I am in no rush, and I really want Sisters of Battle, but I've been waiting for... well.... 14 years.


----------



## hungryugolino

Take anything /tg/ says with a grain of salt. They do love their own injokes and memes, and a constant influx of newbies, trolls, and noobs doesn't help either.


----------



## Azezel

Troublehalf said:


> Basically.... It comes down to this:
> Chances of Sisters of Battle being total revamped in the next year (2012) is roughly what percentage? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%?


1%, to be generous. Even if next year _wasn't_ new edition time, the window for getting the Sisters model range done in time would be razor-thin.

As it is, next year is 6e. That means GW have to kick out Codices for armies _they like_ immediately following the new edition. The period before 6e would appear to be Tau and/or Chaos Space Marines. Immediately following 6e we'll have at least two colours of Marines and your pick of Guard, Eldar or another colour of Marine. That takes us all the way to summer 2013, which would be the earliest plausable date for Sisters.



Troublehalf said:


> I ask this, because I love SoB, I think, along with the Grey Knights, are pretty unique in terms of the "Space Marine" armies. With the Grey Knights having great looking units, great unique weapons, great unique units and my perfect army type. Elite, small numbers, Fighty with a bit of shooty.


Not to beat this dead horse more than strictly necessary, but a 3+ armour save does not make Sisters marines. If you try to play Sisters as though they are marines, you'll lose badly. If you try to fight Sisters as though they were marines, you'll lose worse.



Troublehalf said:


> However, Sisters of Battle are unique in the fact they are all female (bar the odd priest etc). They have unique units, they have a unique combat system (Acts of Faith) and are another nice type of army for me.... they are not a common army, they are not super uber like other armies, they have lots of fun units that have no real use in competative lists, they have lots of convertable possibities and nice fluff (ignoring the horrible ways Matt Ward decides to kill them). They are also very shooty with a bit of fighty, which I also love. Superior firepower is a great combat tactic I like, kill them before they get close. Imperial Guard also fill this... but are very expensive to collect.


If firepower attracts you to Sisters, look elsewhere. We're a shooty army only in the sense that we're not a CC army, and those are the only types you list.



Troublehalf said:


> So, I really don't want to collect metal Sisters of Battle, I don't want to collect Grey Knights until people stop QQing about how powerful they are and I don't have the health, stamina or determination to paint an entire IG army.
> 
> I check Ebay everyday, hoping for a great painted army... and I found one several months ago, a fantastic SoB army in a unique colour scheme... but it sold for more than it's original Buy Out price. Sure there are huge Imperial Guard armies there... but are too big and prob contain a lot of OOP models.
> 
> So... question is... do I wait for GW to get some balls and actually updated a old and very wished for army.... or should I just get some painted Ebay army or collect another one? I am in no rush, and I really want Sisters of Battle, but I've been waiting for... well.... 14 years.



Purely from what you've said above, I'd not recommend buying a Sisters army now or later. The army is not what you appear to think it is, and I strongly suspect you'd end up very disappointed when it fails to match your expectations.


----------



## Troublehalf

Azezel said:


> 1%, to be generous. Even if next year _wasn't_ new edition time, the window for getting the Sisters model range done in time would be razor-thin.
> 
> As it is, next year is 6e. That means GW have to kick out Codices for armies _they like_ immediately following the new edition. The period before 6e would appear to be Tau and/or Chaos Space Marines. Immediately following 6e we'll have at least two colours of Marines and your pick of Guard, Eldar or another colour of Marine. That takes us all the way to summer 2013, which would be the earliest plausable date for Sisters.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to beat this dead horse more than strictly necessary, but a 3+ armour save does not make Sisters marines. If you try to play Sisters as though they are marines, you'll lose badly. If you try to fight Sisters as though they were marines, you'll lose worse.
> 
> 
> 
> If firepower attracts you to Sisters, look elsewhere. We're a shooty army only in the sense that we're not a CC army, and those are the only types you list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Purely from what you've said above, I'd not recommend buying a Sisters army now or later. The army is not what you appear to think it is, and I strongly suspect you'd end up very disappointed when it fails to match your expectations.



Not really.... I don't care about winning anything, I KNOW they are not Marines, but they are part of the Imperiums military force 'list'. They are above Imperial Guard but below SM due to the lack of Black Carapace.

I mark them as a "Shooty" army because the main-stay of the army is the Battle Sisters armed with Bolters. Then there is the Elites and such adding other fire-power. There is only a few dedicated melee... Sister Repentia Squads... which incidently are pretty good now.. albeit as suicide squads, +6 Invunrable Save, Fleet of Foot, Hatred(?) which means if they can rush a squad, and get into combat, they'll wipe the floor with them, but will be dead the next round as the weapons bear down on them. Then there is the Battle Conclave units and Peninant Engines. But they also have Repressors, Immolators, Rhinos and the glorious Exorcist.

Compared to an army, such as Blood Angels, which are very fighty with a bit of shooty...... SoB are pretty shooty...

I like the fact they are not 'Marines'.... I like the fact there is probably hundreds of millions of Battle Sisters around the Imperium but only a few thousand Space Marines.

Ah well, guess I'll just wait till a good army comes on Ebay... along with maybe a nice Grey Knights army. Then perhaps I shall buy an Orc & Goblin Army for WHFB and make my Warhammer Online Collectors Edition Orc HQ up and make some crazy rules for him (more like them) and have him lead an army against my Lizardmen.

I dunno!


----------



## Zion

To depart from this light debate on the best way to describe the army I got my copy of White Dwarf in today, and while there still isn't anything in there in terms of new models there were two new formations (for Apoc, or Planetstrike of course) and there is one of them I found interesting because it makes the Canoness suddenly VERY useful. How?

Well the formation is a Canoness, and at least 3 squads of Repentia and 3 Penitent Engines. All units in the formation that are in the 6" of the Canoness don't suffer from Rage. Additionally if she suceeds her Act of Faith attempt all units in the formation that are within 12" of her benefit from the rule. And finally it improves the Feel no Pain and Shield of Faith saves by +1.

That looks pretty good on paper at least. Take a couple transports (steal them from somewhere else or just get yourself some Landraiders) and you'd have a whirling mass of Initiaitive 1 death. 

The other one uses Immolators and Retributors. When they mass fire on a single target the effect changes depending on what your using.

So nothing game breaking for the normal game but some neat stuff for some of the supplement games it seems.


----------



## Azezel

For the sake of simplicity, permit me to simply copy and paste my thoughts on these formations from the last time they came up.


You'll excuse me if I'm not exactly thrilled.

The Repentant Host is cheap and sort of useful in that it removes Rage from Penitent Engines and Repentia, making them almost worth using (Providing you can cram three plus PEs and three plus squads of Repentia into a 12 inch bubble). Oh, wait, it requires a useless Canonness, nevermind.

I support this formation only because it means one can use it with that Stratagem that gives Rage to everything else in the army. Suddenly my crazy units are sane and my sane units are crazy and Opposite Day is an officially sanctioned Eccleisiarchy holiday. It's too funny not to love. ((I've since been reminded that, because Sisters no longer have the Adepta Sororitas rule, Holy War is no longer legal. so the sole redeeming feature - comedy - of this formation is lost.))


As for Purge Squadron... what _the actual hell_? So you take a semi-crap Blood Angels formation, make it crappier and throw it to the Sisters. What are we supposed to do with it? Might've been sort of useful if it worked for Infantry without vehicles, bt it doesn't, so it isn't. Some back-of-a-beermat style maths indicates that the minimum buy-in for this formation is around _six hundred points_!


Not that any formations or assets matter for Battle Sisters operating on d6 Faith Points for a 3'000 point plus army! Where's the Asset that increases that or gives us _Acts of Faith worth a damn_?


----------



## Zion

Azezel said:


> For the sake of simplicity, permit me to simply copy and paste my thoughts on these formations from the last time they came up.
> 
> 
> You'll excuse me if I'm not exactly thrilled.
> 
> The Repentant Host is cheap and sort of useful in that it removes Rage from Penitent Engines and Repentia, making them almost worth using (Providing you can cram three plus PEs and three plus squads of Repentia into a 12 inch bubble). Oh, wait, it requires a useless Canonness, nevermind.


Transports expand the bubble to 12" from the hull and only one model per unit has to be in that bubble. Additionally the Canoness' Passion Act of Faith gives everything +1I (I5 Mistresses of Repentance, and I4 Penitent Engines) and it gives everything in the bubble Prefered Enemy (re-roll hits) which means the squads don't need Priests or Confessors to crack tanks or wreck MCs. Additionally nothing in the formation says they need to assault the same unit so you can hit several units at the same time. 

Like I said, it actually makes the Canoness useful.





Azezel said:


> I support this formation only because it means one can use it with that Stratagem that gives Rage to everything else in the army. Suddenly my crazy units are sane and my sane units are crazy and Opposite Day is an officially sanctioned Eccleisiarchy holiday. It's too funny not to love. ((I've since been reminded that, because Sisters no longer have the Adepta Sororitas rule, Holy War is no longer legal. so the sole redeeming feature - comedy - of this formation is lost.))
> 
> 
> As for Purge Squadron... what _the actual hell_? So you take a semi-crap Blood Angels formation, make it crappier and throw it to the Sisters. What are we supposed to do with it? Might've been sort of useful if it worked for Infantry without vehicles, bt it doesn't, so it isn't. Some back-of-a-beermat style maths indicates that the minimum buy-in for this formation is around _six hundred points_!
> 
> 
> Not that any formations or assets matter for Battle Sisters operating on d6 Faith Points for a 3'000 point plus army! Where's the Asset that increases that or gives us _Acts of Faith worth a damn_?


I agree the Purge Squadron isn't so good. On the other hand I'm playing regularly around 2K and not even using all my faith abilities all the time since there is just too often they don't help any.

At least the triple Exorcist formation is still a viable threat to just about anything it has range on. First turn dead super-heavies are completely possible with that thing.


----------

