And I am sure that I earlier quoted Marc Gascogne saying that the same goes for the novels, explicitly in spite of their PoV. Is it possible you may just have misunderstood the editor you spoke to (possibly missing the difference between the major standards GW enforces, and details where they clearly allow artistic liberty)? I can point to multiple verifiable posts all saying differently: "Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong." -- Gav Thorpe, GW game designer / BL novelist "Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it. Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths." -- Marc Gascogne, Black Library head editor "Games Workshop actively encourages that attitude - the idea of everyone coming to 40K and seeing something slightly different: the same thing from a different angle. An author can say Character X was on World Y in Year Z, and another author might contradict it in something else written several years later if he or she has a different idea. Choose which you prefer? Assume both are false sightings and Character X was nowhere near either world? It's your call. That's the point. There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP." -- Aaron Dembski-Bowden, Horus Heresy co-author "It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth." -- Andy Hoare, GW game designer / BL novelist Some of them may be more generalist (yet still important), but at the very least Marc Gascogne clearly dismisses the idea that point of view should somehow make novels more accurate. Technically speaking, you're even contradicting yourself, for when on one hand you say that codices can get away with being inaccurate due to historical revisionism, you cannot on the other hand say that novels must conform to codices and expect the outcome to be "truth". This is not about exploiting "gaps"; I have referenced very obvious contradictions where novels simply did not care what was said in a codex. You can't just ignore these points by pointing to Laurie J. Goulding when you're not even quoting him. Do you have any link to confirm your interpretation? I think you're moving the goal post here. The issue was one of organisational identity. The Culexus are not part of the Inquisition, and due to their nature as individual operatives (same as Inquisitors) they do not count as a force. And if you want to dodge a background question by pointing to mutable rules, fine. Let's just move on. It's not as if Citadel Journal #49 shows what an Ordo Hereticus Strike Force actually looks like... Yeah, that's my point. They could (should?) have -- or rather, Necrons (at least the automaton troops) and other machines could have a trait which says they are immune to "psychological damage". This actually was a thing in 2nd Edition for Servitors. Not at all important for balancing, of course, but it could have been a neat representation of how things work in the background. We are very much in agreement there, though I am willing to make some exceptions from the rule. The Sisters' "boob armour" is, by this point, just too iconic. I think if they had come up with it now, I would have opposed it on the grounds of catering to fanservice and cliché, but after 15 years of being exposed to this design, I just cannot picture them any other way. And at least there are multiple in-universe "excuses" to justify this appearance. In my personal opinion, I don't think Veridyan has any place in the Sisters' miniature line; given the monastic, ascetic and self-deprivating lifestyle, even characters of high rank would be very unlikely to have such a "flashy" appearance and commission a special set of high-heeled boots for their armour. If anything, to me this just screams Slaanesh infiltration. I think it is better to honour Blanche's art for what it is: an excellent mood piece, but not representative of how the armies look -- especially since Blanche's art here was an exception from the rule, for even though it was the cover of a codex, every single piece of artwork inside had them look far more "conservative". By the way, those are some very cool miniatures you posted/linked there! The ones from Victoria in particular look as if they could seamlessly be inserted into 40k as Cadians, Mordians and Praetorians, respectively. I'm kind of tempted now. Perhaps, though I'd still be worried about how they might end up looking. Some fans and even Black Library authors had cool ideas about what to add to the SoB as an army, from light Venator scout cars as 5-squad troop transports to a Sororitas Terminator-equivalent. I've even seen an SoB-converted Valkyrie once, imitating their appearance in Dawn of War. The Dominica-pattern drop pods from Andy Hoare's strike force article would also be cool. Oh well. After all these years, it's just much safer on an emotional level to not expect anything anymore. Interesting thought on the upgrade kit, by the way. They clearly and obviously share some aesthetics in design (though this once again reinforces my misgivings about these "SoB+1") that should allow easy conversion.