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.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Well yes, 10%, if by 10% you mean every picture in the 2nd Edition codex with the possible exception of one picture, where the angle, style, and position of the bolter makes it hard to tell.
And yes, 10%, if by 10% you mean well over half of the pictures in the Witch Hunters Codex (and some of which are probably candidates, just hard to tell because of the way they've been cropped).

Alright, showtime.

Every single picture of a Battle Sister in the 2E Codex (excepting the one hideous Blanche Sister of Heels, who shalt never be shown again):


Every single picture of a Battle Sister in the 3E Codex (excepting, once again, that one hideous Blanche Sister of Heels, who shalt never be shown again):


Hey, even if we delve into the outsourced material, away from the GW core studio, it doesn't seem to be as bad as you make it!


I'm just not seeing it. What I'm seeing is Medieval Space Knights with boobies. The worst thing one may argue is that on a portion of those images the waist is a bit too thin, and on an even smaller portion that the shoulder pauldrons appear a tad too big, but ... "lingerie armour", really?
But like I said, maybe we just have different conceptions of what constitutes lingerie.

To once again point at Codex fluff, Space Marine armour plating is 2.5cm thick - at its thickest section, probably referring to the chestplate. I maintain that a lot of people just underestimate how thin power armour actually is, at least in the minds of the GW people.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:The problem that we have seems to be you, though Lynata. I poke fun of everything in 40K when I respond to any thread because it's all silly. Your propensity to get defensive and overreact is what turns the Sisters threads into something that's not constructive. The guy made a comment about the artwork proportions being awful. I merely pointed out that it's no different than what GW publishes all the time.

The problem that "we" have seems to be that you don't even notice when a thread turns against you and the arguments you bring to the table. Scroll back and check the replies you got compared to those that I get. Now, I certainly won't deny that I'm quite defensive when it comes to SoB threads, but you seem to be in a state of denial about your own agenda. I'm not reading only SoB threads, but so far I have yet to see you "poking fun" at the other armies, at the very least in the same aggressive and insulting manner that you display here. Whether it's the visual designs, the Acts of Faith, or threads about the army's future in the tabletop, there's a ~33% chance that you show up with some "smart" remark about how we're weird, how the Sisters "make no sense", or how your awesome knowledge of business has gifted you with superior insight and how we should just bow to your wisdom.

This is where you may once again start complaining about how unfair "we" are reacting to you simply "stating the truth", by the way.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Whoever this artist is seems like he might have done a few. But that's a small minority.

Yeah, just a full 33% of all SoB images in the 3E Codex. Small minority, to be sure.

The artist is Andrea Uderzo, by the way. Here is her deviantArt page.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Of course, fans and reality haven't always been best of friends when it comes to Sisters.

Or haters.