Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The in-universe explanation of the Sisters' armor is that it is the Ecclesiarchy demonstrating that they are sticking to the Decree Passive, and thus not keeping "men under arms". Thus, the overt female traits to the armor.

Out of universe? It's a sci-fantasy game. It's not meant to be realistic. If you came to 40K looking for military realism... sorry, but your setting is in another castle.

I do not expect them to give off an air of realism. I expect them to give off an air of competence and professionalism.

They don't, so they fail to leave an impression on me as good soldiers. Which is a shame.

Well they may be using armour designed for the creepy guy who originally made them, but just taking off the "boobs" and adding some detail would make it pretty cool. I like the smaller design. SM armour is overly huge and bulky because SMs themselves are overly huge and bulky. SoB armour is designed for humans.

Their armour is too thin IMO, especially ankles, thighs, upper arms...

Ceramitite it damn tough stuff though. And we have things like XV15s that aren't too much bigger for the same protection.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ceramitite it damn tough stuff though. And we have things like XV15s that aren't too much bigger for the same protection.

I think the issue is the distribution of the armor thickness, not the total thickness. IOW, those spots are too thinly armored relative to the rest of the armor.

(And let's just pretend that the idiotic ankle joints on Tau battlesuits don't exist.)

 Flinty wrote:
Some nice examples ehre of anti-boobplate as well
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/plastic-sisters-wait.html

Those are some of the best versions of plastic sisters I've ever seen! I wonder how that plastic helmet you can get from the immolator kit would look on them.

Sorry, but the thought that the Sisters' power armor is 'unrealistic' while space marine armor is not is freaking ridiculous.

The Sisters' design is obviously meant to retain a certain aesthetic given the grimdark setting of 40K. Space marine armor is ludicrously impractical and yet nobody seems to mind all of its bullet traps, the bell-bottom lower legs, the extreme limitations of flexibility, etc. Frankly anyone complaining about the 'sexism' of the Sisters' armor either doesn't have a clue of the game's back story or has an axe to grind.

By the way, the pictures of women in modern military body armor are somewhat misleading, because even as we speak the US military is trying to create a more practical, form-fitting armor set for females as the current armor is inadequate for their needs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ceramitite it damn tough stuff though. And we have things like XV15s that aren't too much bigger for the same protection.

I think the issue is the distribution of the armor thickness, not the total thickness. IOW, those spots are too thinly armored relative to the rest of the armor.

(And let's just pretend that the idiotic ankle joints on Tau battlesuits don't exist.)

Oh god, I hate those with a passion. They were probably only put in to allow you to position them, but but the crisis needs a re-design. It's and old model, and showing it;s age. I'd like to see them more like the current commanders.

The practical aspect comes from the edge placed in the middle of the chest. A smooth rounded surface. (mostly flat but curved out away from the body) doesn't just deflect sword blows but gives protection against blows from things like maces and hammers. If a mace or hammer hit boob plates chances are it would bend in right on that mid boob edge and shatter your sternum caving in your chest.

I think Lance hit the boob square on the nipple with his hammer. The boobplate doesn't distribute the force across or absorb the force, rather it localizes it to a finer edge which is very detrimental and counter intuitive to armour design.

Really a slight outward concave without an indent in the middle would be fine. Something like this:

Samus Aran, true that, I remember beating the first game fast enough on one run to show a friend how to beat it and got to see that she was a she. It was a pretty big moment back in those days.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Samus Aran, true that, I remember beating the first game fast enough on one run to show a friend how to beat it and got to see that she was a she. It was a pretty big moment back in those days.

Y
ep.

I think samus is a pretty good example. It accommodates her, without having two soupbowls strapped to her chest (which is what SoB has always reminded me of).

If you have non-flexible armour, your probably are going to have two different versions for comforts sake. Men's are going to have broader chests and women's are going to have a small amount of accommodation. You could build a one size fits all but that probably would and up being the worst for everybody conserned. Heck, I find female clothing uncomfortable, although that's probably because in that case it was for someone 6" shorter, and super thin .

If you're pointing out armour from today's standard, remember that Kevlar for female police officers and armour vests for soldiers are different in functions and design. The Kevlar can be a bit more shapely, while a fragmentation vest with ballistic playing is going to be very flat.

Kevlar is only designed to prevent stabbing and low calibre, while a ballistic armour plate (which weigh a f' ton) is meant to stop a larger calibre rifle round and the vest that carries it to stop/slow down fragmentation from explosives.

As for design for the female form, I personally haven't heard from anyone I work with complain about it. Id understand if a more well endowed colleague because even as a flat chested male the plates can be very uncomfortable.

As for warhammer, I like the sister designs. Keeps it very feminine, which i think is cool. Are they over proportioned? Yes. Some models more than other. But what isn't? Your average imperial guard soldier apparently has biceps larger than his torso and legs as thick as tree trunks, but irl I sure as heck don't. I'd figured I'm a straight average for fitness, but a lot of the super hard core fitness army guys I work with tend to be quite the opposite from massive muscle bound bros.

I think they could ditch the high heels on the armour though. Like the tiny ankles on tau, it does kind of kill the image of they're standing in 100lbs of armour while balanced on a screwdriver for a back foot support.

 OrkaMorka wrote:
I think they could ditch the high heels on the armour though. Like the tiny ankles on tau, it does kind of kill the image of they're standing in 100lbs of armour while balanced on a screwdriver for a back foot support.

This is somewhat funny, as not a single Sisters model has high heels. What's funnier though, is that I owned a sisters army for the better part of a year, had painted more then 1'000pts of them, and still had to check the first time someone said they didn't have heels.

I'm OK with sisters as they stand. I agree, it's overdone, impractical and pointless, but that is the point of the Echlesiarchy. They also look unique on the TT, which is something I like. I'd prefer if they were reworked, with the stupid soup bowls replaced with something a little better (although I supposed that's explained by Vandire), which could be done, along with better proportioning of the armour, without destroying their look, but at the end of the day, it's not a deal breaker. Those Valkyrie troops look excellent, and I'll probably look into getting some, especially if we ever get some new, CC units, but not just yet.

One thing to remember is, the Sisters line is old, and showing it's age, but they aren't the worst thing in GW.

In my opinion boobplates aren't that bad. There's worse things out there. People like to be offended by everything these days.

I don't really care much for the "boobplate" but I more view it as just something to distinguish the Sisters and have the loophole the Ecclesiarchy found in "thou shall not have men at arms" more "valid" by having the armor distinctly female/feminine.

I recall a silly most likely non-canon occurrence between 2 Sisters and a bashful Guardsman. I can't remember where I read it but anyways....

The Guardsmen questions them about the armor, if it really is "form fitted" or something along those lines, he asks this with the belief/rumor that if the armors features are that big then the sisters must be as endowed as their armor is. One of the sisters, the higher ranked of the two obvious has heard this question or rumor far to many times and in her frustration turns to her battlesister and removes the breastplate only to show flat armor underneath. Turns out in this instance at least the embellishments on Sisters armor is only aesthetic and a relatively thin layer of metal with the smoother thicker armor plating underneath it with the "boobplate" on top. The Guardsmen is surprised and shocked but his question is answered.


While Im sure the whole bit was intended as a joke, I've taken it as the explanation for the Sisters armor as it makes the most sense, at least from a practical view (as "practical" and "makes sense" as 40k gets at least).

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do not expect them to give off an air of realism. I expect them to give off an air of competence and professionalism.

They don't, so they fail to leave an impression on me as good soldiers. Which is a shame.

I feel the same way about those big, hulking morons known as Space Marines who purposefully eschew camouflage as "cowardly" and frequently forego shooting longarms to charge into battle with chainsaw swords.

Seaward wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do not expect them to give off an air of realism. I expect them to give off an air of competence and professionalism.

They don't, so they fail to leave an impression on me as good soldiers. Which is a shame.

I feel the same way about those big, hulking morons known as Space Marines who purposefully eschew camouflage as "cowardly" and frequently forgo shooting longarms to charge into battle with chainsaw swords.

They at least give off an impression of possessing enough sheer superhuman power to excel at it.

Nobody complains about Superman not using stealth, or using a brightly coloured suit. Space Marines are the same principle (though they are not as powerful as Superman.)

It's just an over the top gothic asthetic. Spiky flashy ornateness that brings what would be the most exaggerated ceremonial armour imaginable in a realistic setting and takes it on to the battlefield. Even more so because they're directly the warriors of the church rather than of the state. Honestly, in the context it exists in it would look significantly weirder if it wasn't sculpted to form like those roman officer's parade ground chestplates with the abs and pecs.

If even an ounce of function over form is important, only the Custodes guarding the Golden Throne should be dressed like that.

And sexism? The real sexism is the bizzare choice in 2nd edition to retcon out the few mentions of female marines and forever exclude them from existing. Would having Leanne Russ change anything at all?

40k is all about absurdity so the boobplate doesn't really bother me. Realistically I imagine you'd only want a boob plate if your boobs were really massive.

I imagine body armour would be a real problem for females. With men the idea is to spread the load out across the chest, wouldn't that still hurt like a motherfether if you had rather large boobs?

But either way, I see it as a stylistic choice so it doesn't really bother me any more than Space Marines wearing bell bottoms to protect their oh-so-valuable shins even though it would make walking or running a nightmare. Or mechanical walkers that have such a wide stance they couldn't actually pick up their feet to walk without falling over. Or aircraft that have absolutely no aerodynamic design at all. Or every man and his dog running around without helmets. Or one of the many unrealistic things done in 40k in the name of an aesthetic.

 Ashiraya wrote:
They at least give off an impression of possessing enough sheer superhuman power to excel at it.

Nobody complains about Superman not using stealth, or using a brightly coloured suit. Space Marines are the same principle (though they are not as powerful as Superman.)

Yup. Space Marines might be ludicrous but they're a ludicrous power fantasy. Female minis defined by pickelhaubes on their chest, not quite the same thing. Despite all the rationalisations.

 Ashiraya wrote:
They at least give off an impression of possessing enough sheer superhuman power to excel at it.

Nobody complains about Superman not using stealth, or using a brightly coloured suit. Space Marines are the same principle (though they are not as powerful as Superman.)

Nobody complains about Superman not using stealth because Superman isn't particularly realistic. I'm not a comic book nerd, but to the best of my recollection, he's an alien from another planet who looks identical to humans and wears only a pair of eyeglasses to make his alter ego completely indistinguishable from his superhero persona.

"Not particularly realistic" also applies wholeheartedly to 40K, thus "realism" arguments about Sisters of Battle armor tend not to sway me. The aesthetic is way more import to the design of any given model than realism, which is why there are so many World War II-era tanks and ancient MiGs on the battlefields of the far future. And why Sisters of Battle tend to have a cliched femme fatale dangerous nun look.

I heard boobplate gives you -5 to str.

Boobplate actually deflects rounds that hit near center mass into your breastbone area, which is a lot closer to the heart then we realize - in fact, to stab someone in the heart you have to break though the breastbone, that is not to mention lungs and all those other squishy bits that don't like holes. So just to show off the girls you compromise your armour's integrity and still have guys staring at you, for a guy it would be like wearing a form fitting cod piece.

 mad_eddy_13 wrote:
Boobplate actually deflects rounds that hit near center mass into your breastbone area, which is a lot closer to the heart then we realize - in fact, to stab someone in the heart you have to break though the breastbone, that is not to mention lungs and all those other squishy bits that don't like holes. So just to show off the girls you compromise your armour's integrity and still have guys staring at you, for a guy it would be like wearing a form fitting cod piece.

You must have missed this... King Henry's Armour

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 mad_eddy_13 wrote:
Boobplate actually deflects rounds that hit near center mass into your breastbone area, which is a lot closer to the heart then we realize - in fact, to stab someone in the heart you have to break though the breastbone, that is not to mention lungs and all those other squishy bits that don't like holes. So just to show off the girls you compromise your armour's integrity and still have guys staring at you, for a guy it would be like wearing a form fitting cod piece.

You must have missed this... King Henry's Armour

Spoiler:

As that armor doesn't deflects hits into vital organs, it is actually fine.

 Tyran wrote:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:

 mad_eddy_13 wrote:
Boobplate actually deflects rounds that hit near center mass into your breastbone area, which is a lot closer to the heart then we realize - in fact, to stab someone in the heart you have to break though the breastbone, that is not to mention lungs and all those other squishy bits that don't like holes. So just to show off the girls you compromise your armour's integrity and still have guys staring at you, for a guy it would be like wearing a form fitting cod piece.

You must have missed this... King Henry's Armour

Spoiler:

As that armor doesn't deflects hits into vital organs, it is actually fine.

The guy made the example of a form fitting codpiece being as stupid and unrealistic as boobplate. I just showed him it was a suitable design for the ruler of England.

Seaward wrote:
"Not particularly realistic" also applies wholeheartedly to 40K, thus "realism" arguments about Sisters of Battle armor tend not to sway me.

How about, 'it's an artifact of the male gaze of nerdy little games designers, and they're one of the two biggest representations of women in the game, the other being half-naked space elves'?

Where's my bingo card... shuffle shuffle rummage...



Handy thing, this. Oh look, we've already got 'don't expect fiction to be realistic'. We're dealing with all-over armour, so I guess 'male barbarians' can stand in for 'daft SM armour'. There's 'this armour is normal for her culture' and 'she would look too manly in normal armour' because the mean old fictional Ecclesiarchy is making them dress up in power-armoured bustiers. Ah, almost the full top row! Don't suppose we could use Henry VIII's armour for the top left...?