So. Boob Armour. What do you think?

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.

**General Annoyance**

Nurgle wrote:
I feel like this thread has potential to be a salt mine. Any topic dealing with sexuality or the female body is going to attract the wrong crowd.

Well the thread was created by someone who would rather set people to ignore and complain that Dakka has become "whineseer" or is full of "nerd wiener shaming" rather than refute the criticism they bring, so I don't expect it to achieve anything.

It has been a topic that has been discussed at length though, and seemingly creates a massive divide among the community. I would just say "define Boob Armour", because from where I stand, models like the SoB don't have any.

G.A

**AllSeeingSkink**

It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.

**General Annoyance**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.

I'd like that, but I think an individual's definition of what is "Boob Armour" and what isn't could result in an unreliable data reference. Would still be interesting to see regardless.

**spiralingcadaver**

Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.

Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.

This x 1000.

Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:

**Iron_Captain**

I don't like boob armour. Mostly because I do not like big boobs. It is as simple as that. I prefer women with smaller breasts so women simply look more attractive to me in practical, normal-sized armour.

Peregrine wrote:

2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.

I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
GW could do a lot to improve the representation of women in 40k and to also show them in normal, non-sexualised roles rather than only in special all-female units with boob armour and other such overly feminine characteristics.
It is not a big issue for me, but it'd be nice to see it. Maybe that would also help to make girls feel more welcome in 40k, altough I have no idea how girls actually think about this issue.

**Grot 6**

That power armor is ok, but I like this one better....

**xraytango**

xraytango wrote:

Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".

Mario wrote:
The Sisters' power armour is already aesthetically different from Space Marine power armour (and from most other types of power armour). Even if they had a SoB icon (instead of the distinct boob plate) on the breastplate (or other related iconography) like Marines have they would still be easily identifiable as SoB.

You contradict yourself here, I'm sorry to say. The SoBs armor is aesthetically different because it is a stylistic representation of the female torso, similar to the way that Space Marines have barrel chests and broad shoulders as a stylistic male torso. Do you have a clear solution to otherwise distinguish SoBs armor?

Or do all of your SM miniatures need extra huge codpiece so you can identify them as male when you use helmets and not bare heads? Why would you need boob armour to further differentiate them? SoB armour is already so unique that GW apparently can't manage to make a viable plastic moulds for the faction.

Strangely enough the SM groin plate seems to be rather large, so also not an argument.
There in fact seems to be strong indication that your second point is no longer an issue.

GW have multiple visually distinct SM power armour styles (from Thunder armour to Mk.8, artificer armour,…) and you can even visually identify some specific chapters (for example the Space Wolves) from others due to different greeble. They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct?

Well, yes; what solution do you propose otherwise? Do you have some other design that would be more efficient at identifying this army as being an army of warrior women?

What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women

Then why bother having a uniquely female army at all?

**AllSeeingSkink**

General Annoyance wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.

I'd like that, but I think an individual's definition of what is "Boob Armour" and what isn't could result in an unreliable data reference. Would still be interesting to see regardless.

Yeah definitely, I think any poll would have to be carefully worded and quite prone to bias of the writer. But still it would be interesting if approached properly.

**xraytango**

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.

Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.

This x 1000.

Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:

For worse, that figure doesn't really look like anything specific. It seems rather generic and doesn't even look like a Space Marine to be honest; it certainly isn't apparent that it is supposed to be female and looks "meh". It has no character or real life to it.

**AllSeeingSkink**

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.

Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.

This x 1000.

Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:

Spoiler:

I'd say that's reasonably indistinct as a female model. Depends whether you want your females to be distinctively so.

**Zingraff**

Boob armour on Sisters of Battle is no less sexualised than huge pauldrons on Space Marines.

**ExFideFortis**

Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't like boob armour. Mostly because I do not like big boobs. It is as simple as that. I prefer women with smaller breasts so women simply look more attractive to me in practical, normal-sized armour.

Putin from your avatar agrees. He also hates boob armor, preferring it to be completely absent:

Spoiler:

**Tactical_Spam**

It's unnecessary. Blah blah blah, redirects bullet towards heart, blah blah blah.

**Frozen Ocean**

Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problems with boobplate armor are when:

1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.

2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.

Very well said, Peregrine, though I'd disagree that Space Marine pauldrons are that unrealistic. At the very least, having enormous slabs of ceramite on either side of your body is a good thing. I'd compare it more to Space Marines who don't wear helmets.

Iron_Captain wrote:

I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.

This is the real issue that people need to address. But I'd like to address the "it's the only way to tell!" argument. First, why do we need to "tell"? Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest? If they released a Dreadnought-sized female Magos character, would she be less female for not having obvious indicators on her totally cybernetic body? Should Inar Satarael and Draykavac have big crotch bulges on their cybernetic bodies to make sure we know they're male? Of course not. This is part of why Shadowsun is good.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.

EDIT: Formatting explosion?

**xraytango**

Zingraff wrote:
Boob armour on Sisters of Battle is no less sexualised than huge pauldrons on Space Marines.

Or no more sexualized than those huge pauldrons.

Quite honestly all the kerfuffle about the design of SoBs is really a non-issue but much ado is made about it by those who think that woman everywhere need them to defend their honor.

There is no award or medal, or even a gold star for attacking things like this, if women find it offensive they will tell us. Not those crazy third-wave feminists though please; only first and second wavers, they are the ones that treasure the positive portrayal of strong, active women.

In fact I would submit that the fact that SoBs are so readily recognizable as women that to take that away would actually cheapen and show disrespect to the women who have brought awareness to the issues that for so long caused dissent and disfunction in western society. It is an illogical way of thinking, "oh I have an army of strong women"; "Oh really? They don't look like women."

This is kind of my point here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaaxEfv8-Gw

**Peregrine**

xraytango wrote:
There is no award or medal, or even a gold star for attacking things like this, if women find it offensive they will tell us. Not those crazy third-wave feminists though please; only first and second wavers, they are the ones that treasure the positive portrayal of strong, active women.

"If women find this offensive they will tell us."
*women tell you they find it offensive*
"But not those women, only the women who don't find this offensive."

**grumpy_newenglander**

Davor wrote:
I made a little joke about Sisters of Silence on Boob Armour and someone comes along and berates me saying if I don't like it, I shouldn't make any comments on it. As I said it was a little joke and said no more but this person had to call me out on it and demanded I can't talk about it. After all this is a discussion forum and if we can talk about it we can. So it seems this person wants boob armour and is passionate about it. Well I shouldn't say he is passionate about having boob armour, he seems passionate about his female miniatures but it also seems he wants to have boob armour or he wouldn't call me out when I made the joke.

My stance is I don't care either way. As a boy who loved these childish things in my younger days I agree it can stay, after all Rule of Cool and all that. Now that I have grown up I can see why people don't like having boob armour and can see their view as well.

I for one now would like to See Sisters of Battle without boob armour. I would like to see a bit more realistic approach as we have the fine women who serve the forces of today and we can't really tell if they are male or female. Seeing boob armour on Sisters of Battle will just make that army a bit more sexual now. I thought GW was trying to get away from sexualizing their minis, so I am surprised at this. If I want to have sexual in my minis I would by Kingdom Death. I would like a nice army, and I think it would be a good idea of not having boob armour on Sisters of Battles and make it a really serious grim dark army, not just an almost power armour army with boobs.

What do you think? What are your opinions of boob armour?

Boob armor is ridiculous, period. Covering and shaming models for having boobs has gone too far... plated breast armor is a TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY. GW and others need to get ahead of the curve and show their commitment to social justice and feminism by making the new SoB models fully naked. We will not rest until we have freed our nipples from the sexist rule of the Imperium. Adeptus Nippulus, unite.

**xraytango**

Frozen Ocean wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problems with boobplate armor are when:

1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.

2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.

Very well said, Peregrine, though I'd disagree that Space Marine pauldrons are that unrealistic. At the very least, having enormous slabs of ceramite on either side of your body is a good thing. I'd compare it more to Space Marines who don't wear helmets.

Iron_Captain wrote:

I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.

This is the real issue that people need to address. But I'd like to address the "it's the only way to tell!" argument. First, why do we need to "tell"? Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest? If they released a Dreadnought-sized female Magos character, would she be less female for not having obvious indicators on her totally cybernetic body? Should Inar Satarael and Draykavac have big crotch bulges on their cybernetic bodies to make sure we know they're male? Of course not. This is part of why Shadowsun is good.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.

EDIT: Formatting explosion?

But there is the point that no one has ever reduced SoBs to merely a pair of breasts, ever!

It is a defining feature for visual identity but the rules are not dependent on that nor is it ever presented in such a way that "hey look these figures have boobs!" They are the Sisters of Battle, they fight.

In fact as far as the sculpts go they are far more demure than many other female models, especially considering that they are wearing power armor!

**Red Corsair**

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.

Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.

This x 1000.

Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:

That looks like Pete Wentz in power armor to me.

**Asterios**

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.

Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.

This x 1000.

Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:

Spoiler:

thats a woman?

**Kojiro**

I think it's telling that people are more concerned with SoB having boob plate than they are with them largely lacking helmets, at least on the 'realism' front.

If the SoB were redone and all sexualisation was removed- if you couldn't actually tell they were female, how would the people complaining about sexism and sexualisation react?

**dracpanzer**

Really not an issue for me. If you look at the models and can only see "SEX" thats on you. They make perfect 40k sense, as in often none at all, and I wouldnt want them any other way.

There is a tradition to them, and if any organisation would be strictly adherent to tradition its the Sisters.

Side note, for those in this thread that don't know, Repentia are often not criminals or otherwise. Many Sisters will volunteer to join their ranks over the slightest transgression. Seeking to achieve a higher state of Grace through the Repentia vow and surrender to their fate in the big E's will it represents.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Frozen Ocean wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.

This is the real issue that people need to address. But I'd like to address the "it's the only way to tell!" argument. First, why do we need to "tell"? Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest? If they released a Dreadnought-sized female Magos character, would she be less female for not having obvious indicators on her totally cybernetic body? Should Inar Satarael and Draykavac have big crotch bulges on their cybernetic bodies to make sure we know they're male? Of course not. This is part of why Shadowsun is good.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.

EDIT: Formatting explosion?

The idea that female models are reduced to being a pair of boobs simply because they have boobs moulded is absolutely absurd.

It'd be like saying Space Marines are essentially reduced to shoulder pads because they have big shoulder pads. Or Orks are essentially reduced to green because they're green. Or Chaos are essentially reduced to spikes because they're spiky.

The dominant aesthetic features of a model aren't what the race it represents are being reduced to, it is simply what visually makes the race distinctive. For SoB's, the fact they're female is part of what makes them visually distinctive. Could you make it so them being female is not what makes them visually distinctive? Sure, if you wanted.... but you could just as equally leave them the way they are and keep the aesthetic they've had for the past 18+ years.

Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest?

Models are typically identified as men simply because warriors and soldiers usually are men. It's not incorrect to have the default assumption that a soldier is a man because that is the norm.

I don't see it as being part of the job of a miniature games company to try and alter social norms.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.

We're talking about 28mm scale minis here/ 28mm scale minis made by Games Workshop to be precise, it's basically the GW signature move to exaggerate a model's proportions.

When you translate the two latter pictures in your links to 28mm scale and GW hero scale, you'll get.... well.... what SoB's already look like

**Peregrine**

Kojiro wrote:
I think it's telling that people are more concerned with SoB having boob plate than they are with them largely lacking helmets, at least on the 'realism' front.

I suspect that has to do with the fact that bare-headed models in heavy armor are just a convention of the genre, regardless of gender. We all know it's not at all realistic, but we accept it as a way to represent "character" instead of the faceless meatshields making up the rest of the squad.

**KingmanHighborn**

I like the female power armor design. So what it's not realistic?
It's better detailed then a marine's and the Sisters are cooler minis.

And that's my two cents.

**Kojiro**

Peregrine wrote:
I suspect that has to do with the fact that bare-headed models in heavy armor are just a convention of the genre, regardless of gender. We all know it's not at all realistic, but we accept it as a way to represent "character" instead of the faceless meatshields making up the rest of the squad.

But isn't boobplate also just a convention of the genre? Like oversized weapons, or banners or impractical vehicle design? Why single it out?

**Lance845**

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/plastic-sisters-wait.html

Man... look at those clearly female models that do not need giant tits hanging off their armor to tell that they are female. And hey! You didn't have to paint them with lip stick or anything!

Those conversions make for an excellent plastic sisters. Get smaller shoulders and give their armor a less bulky but more gothic plate armor aesthetic. Throw on some sisters iconography. BAM! You have a updated but still grim dark look to the sisters that doesn't need to slap tits the size of heroic scale heads onto their chest so you can "tell it's a woman".

They don't need to look like a dominatix. They need to look like battle nuns. The gothic layered plate evokes that grim dark inquisitiony feel that they should have.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Lance845 wrote:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/plastic-sisters-wait.html

Man... look at those clearly female models that do not need giant tits hanging off their armor to tell that they are female.

Those conversions make for an excellent plastic sisters. Get smaller shoulders and give their armor a less bulky but more gothic plate armor aesthetic. Throw on some sisters iconography. BAM! You have a updated but still grim dark look to the sisters that doesn't need to slap tits the size of heroic scale heads onto their chest so you can "tell it's a woman".

They don't need to look like a dominatix. They need to look like battle nuns. The gothic layered plate evokes that grim dark inquisitiony feel that they should have.

Maybe I'm one of the few, but I don't really like those models and would rather GW didn't choose that aesthetic.

They made them look female by having an extremely narrow jaw and hairstyles that we associate with women (though to me they just look like weird dreadlocks because the strands of hair are absurdly thick). Instead of saying "it's female because it has boobs" it's saying "it's female because of a hair cut and glass jaw".

To me it looks no more like a female soldier than it would look a child soldier if you photoshopped a baby's head on a bodybuilder.

**Peregrine**

Kojiro wrote:
But isn't boobplate also just a convention of the genre? Like oversized weapons, or banners or impractical vehicle design? Why single it out?

Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.

**Kojiro**

Peregrine wrote:
Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.

Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?