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.

So obviously there's distaste about the Sisters' "boobplate" aesthetic, but I always assumed this was because they were overstated and/or pushed the models a bit too far into "male-fantasy" territory. However, I was reading a discussion about Star Wars Storm Troopers the other day, regarding female Storm Troopers. One thing led to another, and soon they were mentioning that the Storm Trooper armour already has the male equivalent of "boobplate" and that it would bring with it the same drawbacks. Have I been missing something...? Is there a practical drawback of "boobplate" in addition to aesthetics? The only thing I can think of is some movement restriction and potentially deflecting a bullet into your face, but that can't be the answer, can it?

Armour doesn't necessarily need to have external curves to accommodate the female form. Quite a lot of current tactical armour looks androgenous externally. I think it's just a style thing to make it clear they're nuns with guns and not cross-dressing monks

It only makes sense to have "boobplate", male or female, if you are going for one of the following:
1) Aesthetic
2) Skin hugging armor

Since skin hugging armor makes no sense and ensures energy is just transferred directly into the person's flesh instead of being distributed over armor, it's aesthetic. It does not make any practical sense to have whatsoever. It is much WORSE protection(especially female) as it adds extra joints/sharp curves, which are failure points. It also would deflect things into the area around the raised armor if there was a glancing hit, and could deflect a shot into the center of the chest, where vitals tend to be located. It would also lead to increased stress on the areas where impacts were deflected into, allowing for quicker failure there.

Male "boobplate" would not deflect nearly as much, but it still would not make any sense to actually make, and extra curves again add extra failure points.

If it did make sense to make truly contoured body armor, our world militaries would be using it, and they don't.

Hence, aesthetic only.

That is one answer, and another is that armor, no matter what armor it is from plastic airsoft armor (read as scifi material armor) to Kevlar to ballistic plate to medieval knight, the armor should be tight to the body. Air pockets mean damage to the body underneath because not only are you getting the bullet impact across your body from where the armor is tight, but you're getting a) room for it to deform and crush you and b) a secondary slap if it does. Having mass behind it, even breasts, means that the armor is supported. And not every woman has DD breasts like Sisters of Battle seem to.

It is a current problem or was a recent problem in the real world with large breasted women in the military. Finding that 'perfect middle' between breasts not being squished in male plate and still being effective for a wider variety of bust sizes. I think the solution was a slight curve but I didn't follow the story too closely. It certainly wasn't boobplate.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
and soon they were mentioning that the Storm Trooper armour already has the male equivalent of "boobplate" and that it would bring with it the same drawbacks.

Not really. It's much more subtle with flatter angles, and Star Wars "laser" weapons don't necessarily deflect like bullets. If you're in a setting where bullets are virtually nonexistent and melee combat on the battlefield only happens with a tiny number of specialists armed with weapons that don't care what armor you're wearing then you might not be making any meaningful sacrifices in protection for the aesthetic effect. But 40k isn't that setting. Bullets are everywhere, melee combat is common, and the shape of the armor should matter a lot more.

I'm not sure this has any purpose either. Unless it lets you pee.

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/2400000/Armour-Wore-by-King-Henry-VIII-king-henry-viii-2430710-1000-1500.jpg

It's basically just for aesthetic purposes, but eh whatever. 40k is not just an unrealistic universe, but an inherentoy stupid one in just about every way. So one more stupid in the pile is nothing.

I like being able to visually identify the gender of my minis at a glance, though I'd prefer just female heads rather than the boob-plate\window\bare midriff.

I always imagined that the women would wrap/bind their chests and just wear flat plate.

The only practicality that I can come up with is that the model designers get to play with miniature breasts.

The only way I could see it making sense is that the sisters wanted their own armor that reflected their association to the ecclesiarchy as well as the fact that they are in fact female and not hopelessly gender neutral. Including the fact that they are all female; I mean the sisterhood has no male equivalent that isn't a space marine and all space marines are superhuman giants made to be generic.

What I imagine also is that the sisters are probably physically sculpted into being identical, I mean the militarium tempestus are trained right next to them and they 1) don't wear power armor and 2) are moulded in this fashion and all of those wear identical armor.

So what I propose is that sisters and tempestus are basically the same people. They think and operate the same, the tempestus pulling influence from the guardsmen, and the sisters pulling influence from the astartes/Solar auxilia with that being their only defining features

And this explains boobplate, it's not a sensible answer but it's a logical one, it explains why the tempestus got a codex they need it in the future to justify the way the sisters look when they come back to the shelf.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'm not sure this has any purpose either. Unless it lets you pee.

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/2400000/Armour-Wore-by-King-Henry-VIII-king-henry-viii-2430710-1000-1500.jpg

He really wants heirs.

Breasts do not occupy as much space as people seem to think. Not only that, females in fiction are often rather well endowed by real life standards, and heroic scale isn't helping. The average size IRL is rising, but that is because people are getting fatter. A fit warrior woman would have no reason to wear boobplate. The more muscle you have the less noticeable your breasts become.

In fact, you can even wear armour designed for men. It's not perfectly comfortable (there are differences in proportions) but it is hardly a real problem. I've tried.

Not only that, as the armour gets thicker, it can be made even flatter without sacrificing any function. PA and boobplate have no business on the same model.

This is my biggest beef with the SoB design. It makes them look unprofessional eyecandy for the male priests accompanying them, when they're supposed to show the priests how you do real fighting the name of the Emperor. Many IoM designs are poor, but boobplates make them look flat out incompetent. Space Marines and Scions at least have functional armour.

The reason Sisters have boob plate is because 40k is ultimately a traditional fantasy setting IN SPAACE and covered in skulls. Female armor in fantasy settings tend to have sculpted breasts or at least seem to be designed primarily to draw attention to them. So, since Sisters are just female warriors in space the same trope applies. Practically speaking there is zero reason to have them on. In lore, it is probably because the Imperium is flashy above all else. Space Marines are absolutely bedecked in bling and wear armor that is designed to show off their masculinity. The Eccelsiarchy could also be called the Church of Bling and Skulls. Everything is painted in bright and gaudy colors. Sister armor is probably designed to impress as much as it is to protect.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Space Marines are absolutely bedecked in bling and wear armor that is designed to show off their masculinity.

The Blood Angel sixpack armour (which is just as bad)? Yes. Maybe you could make a case for the pauldrons representing big male shoulders too, but they serve to protect the Marine while he stands in firing stance. Otherwise Marine designs are pretty ungendered.

It's in no way comparable to SoB.

Boobplates are abomination and unnecessarily sexist. I like girls as much as the next person, but I like them much more in practical armour than in repulsive fantasy boobplate.
Boobplates can be used for aesthetic purposes (and in history sometimes was), but than it should only rather slight and used on units where it would make sense, rather than just every single female.
Example of historical (man)boobplate:

This kind of armour was worn by officers and mostly ceremonial in nature. And imo, armour that is intended to be decorative rather than used in battle is the only time boobplate can be justified.
Just don't even dare to think about chainmail bikinis!

Space Marine power armor emphasizes the chest and particularly the shoulders. But, you are right, there are practical reasons for this design too. A curved chest plate deflects blows away from the vitals and the pauldrons help protect the neck... I think.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Breasts do not occupy as much space as people seem to think.

Exactly. Let's look at a quick google search for real-world body armor to make this clear. Here's some police armor (IOW, lighter than military armor and meant to be worn under clothes, so the body shape should be more visible) and there's a visible shape difference, but not giant spheres.



Now once you start looking at military armor the difference in body shape between men and women is virtually nonexistent. Any extra space for breasts is hardly visible compared to the bulk of the armor itself, ammo pouches, etc.

PA and boobplate have no business on the same model.

Well, slight correction: they have no business being on the same model that is intended to represent sensibly designed armor. But the Imperium, as a general rule, doesn't use practical designs. So "boobplate" armor should be considered the equivalent of all the ridiculous skulls and purity seals and giant shoulder pads: a product of an insane theocracy where pragmatic and functional designs are heresy.

Hmm... I wonder if there is some kind of abomination that could be created between the new Stormtrooper models and Sisters to keep the gothic level up with minimal booplateyness.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
and the pauldrons help protect the neck... I think.

Which is then entirely negated by the unfortunate habit of not bothering to wear the helmet. And adding neck armor is a much better way of protecting the neck than having giant shoulder pads.

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

Mind you, when the Marine is aiming/firing and having his side turned against the enemy, the thickness of the pauldrons provide a lot of protection. Upper body protection is important when you make proper use of cover. Their size varies between depictions.

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, slight correction: they have no business being on the same model that is intended to represent sensibly designed armor. But the Imperium, as a general rule, doesn't use practical designs. So "boobplate" armor should be considered the equivalent of all the ridiculous skulls and purity seals and giant shoulder pads: a product of an insane theocracy where pragmatic and functional designs are heresy.

While true, it gives them an aesthetic of being incompetent soldiers. While the Imperium is, by our standards, not a byword for reason and logic, it still drives me away from the faction.

It's also a reason why I love Raven Guard. Sneaky Marines, hell yes. It's like Crysis on steroids.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
and the pauldrons help protect the neck... I think.

Which is then entirely negated by the unfortunate habit of not bothering to wear the helmet. And adding neck armor is a much better way of protecting the neck than having giant shoulder pads.

Only if you're standing front on. When in a side on firing position marine shoulderpads provide a lot of extra protection to the upper body, and its nicely shaped and protectively curvy and everything

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

Wow.

I am seriously tempted to go buy these and start a SoB army now. I have so many CSM to paint first, though. But wow. I'm keeping an eye on those.

Thanks a lot for the link.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Mind you, when the Marine is aiming/firing and having his side turned against the enemy, the thickness of the pauldrons provide a lot of protection. Upper body protection is important when you make proper use of cover. Their size varies between depictions.

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, slight correction: they have no business being on the same model that is intended to represent sensibly designed armor. But the Imperium, as a general rule, doesn't use practical designs. So "boobplate" armor should be considered the equivalent of all the ridiculous skulls and purity seals and giant shoulder pads: a product of an insane theocracy where pragmatic and functional designs are heresy.

While true, it gives them an aesthetic of being incompetent soldiers. While the Imperium is, by our standards, not a byword for reason and logic, it still drives me away from the faction.

It's also a reason why I love Raven Guard. Sneaky Marines, hell yes. It's like Crysis on steroids.

Oh, yes, they would provide nice protection against incoming fire. Especially against small arms like Lasguns or Bolters.

As for your second point, I think the same thing of the Blood Angels Tac box. When I see the sheer amount of bling those guys wear it does not give the impression of competency or professionalism.

They look like a bunch of marine fashionistas.

The only way I can justify boobplates on the SoB is to make it clear that they are all females. After all the the whole point of the SoB is that the Ecclesiarchy is forbidden from using male soldiers.

 Tyran wrote:
The only way I can justify boobplates on the SoB is to make it clear that they are all females. After all the the whole point of the SoB is that the Ecclesiarchy is forbidden from using male soldiers.

That seems quite meaningless. Who's going to argue that with girls who wear PA and carry bolters, even though they have Ecclesiarchical symbols all over them?

If questioned, remove your helmet. Done.

Speaking of helmets, the helmets is the one thing I love about the GW SoB models. A shame they are sitting on super-expensive and bad metal models, are on only a few of them, and probably hard to remove intact.

 Tyran wrote:
The only way I can justify boobplates on the SoB is to make it clear that they are all females. After all the the whole point of the SoB is that the Ecclesiarchy is forbidden from using male soldiers.

Unless they are recruiting the most butch women in the Imperium then it would be obvious that the Ecclesiarchy is using women. Especially since wearing helmets is verboten for some reason.

 Tyran wrote:
The only way I can justify boobplates on the SoB is to make it clear that they are all females. After all the the whole point of the SoB is that the Ecclesiarchy is forbidden from using male soldiers.

And you think men can't wear "boobplate" armor?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
and soon they were mentioning that the Storm Trooper armour already has the male equivalent of "boobplate" and that it would bring with it the same drawbacks.

Not really. It's much more subtle with flatter angles, and Star Wars "laser" weapons don't necessarily deflect like bullets. If you're in a setting where bullets are virtually nonexistent and melee combat on the battlefield only happens with a tiny number of specialists armed with weapons that don't care what armor you're wearing then you might not be making any meaningful sacrifices in protection for the aesthetic effect. But 40k isn't that setting. Bullets are everywhere, melee combat is common, and the shape of the armor should matter a lot more.

To be fair I can't think of anything in Star Wars that hasn't been killed by blasters that didn't have a force field.

The utter pinnacle of protection technology seems to be those rolly Polly droids from episode I. I can't think of anything else that takes a hit from a blaster and lives.

Probably because the movie scenes are not all that representative. Plot armour > physical armour.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The only way I can justify boobplates on the SoB is to make it clear that they are all females. After all the the whole point of the SoB is that the Ecclesiarchy is forbidden from using male soldiers.

And you think men can't wear "boobplate" armor?

A few more pounds and I'll HAVE to wear boobplate armor.