After seeing how successful the AdMech releases were, I can only imagine that any Sisters of Battle casts would sell insanely well. What do you think GW's reasoning is behind them not printing a whole army update (Dark Eldar is another great example)
Because they don't think the money invested in them will equal their returns. They're another power armour army with bolters, basically the bretonians of 40k.
because GW doesn't do market research aka they are a poorly run company. It's their only majority female line, if they marketed that right they would bring in new player
I don't think they sell enough. And the people who do buy them seem to gladly pay for the metal? Most of the people I've seen with them are die hards with the hobby.
I honestly don't know, but if gw thought they could make a profit on them you know they would.
You know i am as tired of GW not renewing the sisters as much as the next guy but the reason they don't do it is because (from my POV) the other armies are making GW too much money.
They probably think that there are too few sisters players to make a renewal feasable. This would be caused by lack of attention from GW. Which is caused by lack of money being spent on sisters...caused by lack of attention from GW and so on and so forth.
Honestly I'm getting rid of my army so i can have some money to buy some Sisters of Silence when Forgeworld comes out with them. that way if SoB gets new models I can just use the Sisters of silence models.
Except in 5th a lot of people bought the new Dark Eldar, including people who just liked the models because they were cool models and the codex was competitive. If GW wrote good rules and released plastic kits, an all female army that can be tacked on via allies to any imperial army would sell.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Except in 5th a lot of people bought the new Dark Eldar, including people who just liked the models because they were cool models and the codex was competitive. If GW wrote good rules and released plastic kits, an all female army that can be tacked on via allies to any imperial army would sell.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Except in 5th a lot of people bought the new Dark Eldar, including people who just liked the models because they were cool models and the codex was competitive. If GW wrote good rules and released plastic kits, an all female army that can be tacked on via allies to any imperial army would sell.
And how do these numbers actually look?
Fun Fact about GW- It's really freaking hard to get good data on sales.
Wasn't there a kickstarter that got a lot of funding for non-sob and non female IG models? If that worked well, maybe GW will see it and make theirs. And they could probably ask more for their models, then a small firm, plus the design costs for them are lower then for a small firm.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Except in 5th a lot of people bought the new Dark Eldar, including people who just liked the models because they were cool models and the codex was competitive. If GW wrote good rules and released plastic kits, an all female army that can be tacked on via allies to any imperial army would sell.
And how do these numbers actually look?
Fun Fact about GW- It's really freaking hard to get good data on sales.
Then wouldn't saying how great Dark Eldar did after the reboot, as a defense for Sisters, be really odd?
Makumba wrote: Wasn't there a kickstarter that got a lot of funding for non-sob and non female IG models? If that worked well, maybe GW will see it and make theirs. And they could probably ask more for their models, then a small firm, plus the design costs for them are lower then for a small firm.
I think i know what you're talking about. IIRC the Sisters of Eternal Mercy and Void Elves kickstarter made like 300k in the first couple of days and 800k to date.
And thats just to fund the project. Never mind actually buying the stuff. So either GW doesn't know about this (unlikely because i thought they had a lawsuit with the company over this) or they don't care. Either way they have their head up their
HoundsofDemos wrote: Except in 5th a lot of people bought the new Dark Eldar, including people who just liked the models because they were cool models and the codex was competitive. If GW wrote good rules and released plastic kits, an all female army that can be tacked on via allies to any imperial army would sell.
And how do these numbers actually look?
Fun Fact about GW- It's really freaking hard to get good data on sales.
Then wouldn't saying how great Dark Eldar did after the reboot, as a defense for Sisters, be really odd?
I've always had the impression that the dark eldar 5th edition release did really well. Wyches especially always come up as a great kit for conversions, and there are several dark eldar players in my area. Just because we can't throw around sales numbers to support the idea that a faction did well doesn't mean that we should assume they did poorly.
I've found it quite odd, especially recently, that sisters don't get more love. After all, they've had GK in their own book for a while now, and the latest one is rather tiny. Sure they have lots of terminator armor, but it is still just another marine army with a few twists. They released the Millitarum Tempestus book, a book about unmodified humans equipped with above average gear, but still haven't seen fit to release sisters. They introduced the mechanicus books, which granted, the fans were calling for, and yet we still haven't seen them give the sister some love for a while now.
If we can have half a dozen books about marines in power armor, surely non-marines in power armor should have some appeal. If we can release a book about special ops unmodified humans with snazzy wargear, surely the entire sisters faction (and their technically-not-sisters buddies) should have a similar appeal with more variety. If we can introduce a faction of toughness 3 imperials with semi-elite stats and zany tech-based powers, surely we can release a book about semi-elite humans with zany faith-based powers.
I've always had the impression that there was a rather large "install base" for Sisters, and that the lack of plastic and (to a lesser extent) lack of rules support simply turned people away.
I think it comes down to GW just not caring. If they cared, I think they'd push it and make a ton models with their new technical ability. I just don't think anyone there actually like the SOB.
It would literally be possible to get away with making one kit. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but one kit on the level of the Wych and DE Warrior kits would give a cheap way to build Celestian command squads, Celestians, Battle Sisters, Dominions and Retributors. You cannot in good faith say that there's not enough interest in the army to support even a single kit, not when, again, GW wasted more tooling than that on limited edition skull-shaped rocks for a game nobody asked for.
If GW made a kit like that, they'd charge $100 for it and then justify never making Sisters plastics again because no one bought it and they just don't know why.
The reason sales for sisters are crap from GW's point of view is because the only realistic way to get a sisters army without a second morgage is ebay.
I know in my local meta dark eldar sold very well when first released, we had a lot of interest.
These days with allies I find them worry about sales even more baffling. Even if people don't start entire sisters, I know a lot of people who would splash some into their current imperial armies via allies. I know I would want a squad or two. Look at how well knights sold as a one off kit, most people arn't running full knight armies they buy one as an allie.
I swear I'd heard before that the idea of re-doing sisters has been floated many times but been shot down by the upper management. They're just not interested in doing the army. Now that Kirby has been replaced from the CEO position, there might be an opportunity for Sisters to return.
Because most boys who play with Sisters will have moved onto plastic dollies by now.....
mwahahahah
In all reality though, I just think the fanbase may be potentially be too small to justify the risk of doing it and taking a financial hit if not successful
HoundsofDemos wrote: Except in 5th a lot of people bought the new Dark Eldar, including people who just liked the models because they were cool models and the codex was competitive. If GW wrote good rules and released plastic kits, an all female army that can be tacked on via allies to any imperial army would sell.
And how do these numbers actually look?
Fun Fact about GW- It's really freaking hard to get good data on sales.
Then wouldn't saying how great Dark Eldar did after the reboot, as a defense for Sisters, be really odd?
Maybe, but no more odd than trying to suggest the army was a failure and that GW isn't doing Sisters now because of it, because likewise you have no data to back it up. If DE really didn't sell as well as they were expecting then I don't see why GW would have wasted their time putting out a hardback codex for them recently, as GW doesn't really tend to support lines that don't sell (hence why there are no Sisters plastics, and why it originally took GW over a decade to reboot DE in the first place and turn one of their worst-looking model ranges into one of their best).
DE aren't a popular army now because the newest codex is a piece of gak, and they hardly got any plastic to go with it, either; an $80 plane that doesn't perform any better than the existing $45 kit that everyone already bought, plastic wracks that aren't as useful anymore since they aren't usable as troops, and some plastic characters. But from what I understand the army sold well when it was released, and it was allegedly one of the reasons why GW went ahead and released several massive "waves" of them within just a few months of each other, instead of making it a typical codex release and just dumping some stuff initially with the codex and then leaving it at that until the next one in 5 years. I also remember, when GW was first rolling out Finecast and was only converting their most "popular" kits, the Dark Eldar metals were among the first to make the switch (and the first ones to get new Finecast sculpts to go with it).
DE aren't a popular army now because the newest codex is a piece of gak, and they hardly got any plastic to go with it, either; an $80 plane that doesn't perform any better than the existing $45 kit that everyone already bought, plastic wracks that aren't as useful anymore since they aren't usable as troops, and some plastic characters. But from what I understand the army sold well when it was released, and it was allegedly one of the reasons why GW went ahead and released several massive "waves" of them within just a few months of each other, instead of making it a typical codex release and just dumping some stuff initially with the codex and then leaving it at that until the next one in 5 years. I also remember, when GW was first rolling out Finecast and was only converting their most "popular" kits, the Dark Eldar metals were among the first to make the switch (and the first ones to get new Finecast sculpts to go with it).
This, so much this. You probably didn't see my rant about DE treatment in the GW rumours thread but this is precisely why I am preparing to sell off my Dark Eldar.
I think with the new CEO the odds of SoB being revisited improved. I think the previous CEO was afraid of revisiting them; GW seemed to believe a an army of warrior women in armor wouldn't appeal to a game dominated by men.
I think it was a short sighted view; I don't know how many times I've heard the anecdote of some ones wife or significant other being interested in the army until finding out how much of a pain they are to buy.
Back on point; I think the odds are better. The current strategy from GW is to focus on some of the niches that they previously failed to capitalize on. SoB are certainly that. For a while the assertion was that SoB weren't being done because of technical challenges, but given the sort of models we've gotten more recently that challenge shouldn't be a problem any more. So I think its likely we'll see SoB within the next two years dependent on when GW can fit them into their crowded release schedule.
IF there is any reason not to come back to SoB, its because of how 40k is so dominated by Imperial factions, that for all intense and purposes can act as a single faction.
After having built an absurd amount of Skitarii and Sicarian, I would politely disagree on the technical side of things having been 100% cleared up.
There's still some kinks to work out into the technical side. The robes don't always line up perfectly and to get things up to my own personal standards I've had to do some green-stuffing/filing to hide the joins.
I built a significant Skitarii force myself and I think I only had one out of the 30 or so I built, where the alignment was questionable.
SoB as they currently are have only few potentially difficult areas: the pointed shoulder pads, the robed arms, and then a front and back tabbard.The skitarii had the pointed shoulder pads, on robed arms and that rarely seemed problematic; the tabbard is something that marines have had going for them for a while. I think for SoB the shoulder pads could be improved easily by making the torso assembled as a front and back piece like marines with the shoulder pads and tabbards integral to those two pieces, with only the robed arms needing to be designed and sprued to minimize undercuts.
They are scared that the idea of warrior nuns in the mould of Opus Dei and the Flagellants will raise a tide of angry social justice warriors demanding boycotts against Games Workshop for the fetishisation and objectification of women in an otherwise male-dominated game.
"Look, they're sexist pigs! They finally put women into their game, but its only so they can be kinky sex fantasies! They're raping me with their thoughts!!"
That is why a large-scale Sisters reboot is most likely remaining off the cards. Especially with their history as basically starting out as the Space Pope's Harem.
Remember: It doesn't matter how badass you are as a female, if there's sex anywhere near your concept - especially kinky sex - you're a patriarchical icon.
Even though the Sisterhoods' self-flagellation and punishment is completely non-sexual in nature, and is in fact in part done as punishment for letting their spiritual ancestors be used as sex toys.
The fact is that the Adepta Sororitas is about as politically correct as Donald Trump.
ntdars wrote: After seeing how successful the AdMech releases were, I can only imagine that any Sisters of Battle casts would sell insanely well. What do you think GW's reasoning is behind them not printing a whole army update (Dark Eldar is another great example)
Don't try to think about it. GW is not an organization run according to principles you'd normally recognize as being rational, information driven decisions. They don't see themselves as a company that makes games for an active and involved playerbase, they see themselves as a company that produces a premium collectible for people that hoard miniatures.
They won't renew them, because they are apparently trying to reduce the size of the range they produce and carry. SoB are just another range they have to make, store and carry.
I think they could be done well, and would indeed sell well, and could no doubt at all be expanded. But to do so requires a whole range to be done and carried, the same investment in marines will sell more and expand the marine range a lot more.
Cold hard numbers, this is gaming by accountants not by gamers, if GW decide to release 'x' new kits they will be the forecast top 'x' sellers, if 'x' doesn't allow SoB you won't get them.
Combined with a lack of research into the customer base, they see SoB as not selling so they seem to assume this will always be the case
They have never, ever sold well. Ever since their release the sales were poor. There is every reason to leave the range as it is, and no sales history to justify investing in a new line. If they come up with something new that they believe will show a change from their sales history then they might take the risk, but I doubt it.
@leopard companies being run by accountants, and not enthusiasts, is what keeps companies trading. Respect the bean counters.
As someone who has been an accountant, accounting doesn't actually really have squat to do with deciding what companies like GW make really, it'll be product management. Accounting is just a support function that processes money going in and out, but doesn't really make the decisions. Product management typically makes those decisions, and usually has a financial incentive tied to short term performance, which will probably tell you more about why Sisters aren't getting redone
Vaktathi wrote: As someone who has been an accountant, accounting doesn't actually really have squat to do with deciding what companies like GW make really, it'll be product management. Accounting is just a support function that processes money going in and out, but doesn't really make the decisions. Product management typically makes those decisions, and usually has a financial incentive tied to short term performance, which will probably tell you more about why Sisters aren't getting redone
I think its just a case of Product Management likes to have someone to blame... this week its accountants, next week its production.
JamesY wrote: They have never, ever sold well. Ever since their release the sales were poor. There is every reason to leave the range as it is, and no sales history to justify investing in a new line. If they come up with something new that they believe will show a change from their sales history then they might take the risk, but I doubt it.
@leopard companies being run by accountants, and not enthusiasts, is what keeps companies trading. Respect the bean counters.
I think in part their poor sales (in the begining) has more to do with the ugly sculpts. Seriously, does GW even make a good looking female model? The lack of support for the sisters (especially in the models department) plays a huge part in their lack of popularity. It is easier and probably cheaper to make a 30k army than a SoB army. I myself think the sisters are cool, but my limited income and lack of support from GW makes me starting an army of them a no go.
If it were done correctly, the sisters of battle would be extremely popular and probably bring in a few more female players. Which is exactly why GW probably won't redo them aside from the whole would be smart and bring in more money thing.
I'd like to highlight the above. I've gotten my girlfriend into the game recently cause she liked the dark eldar and harlequin range and enjoys painting. Many of my female friends have displayed interest but are turned off that there are so few female options. While it is likely that men will always be the larger demographic, if GW tried they could probably gain a lot of customers who are female.
JamesY wrote: They have never, ever sold well. Ever since their release the sales were poor. There is every reason to leave the range as it is, and no sales history to justify investing in a new line. If they come up with something new that they believe will show a change from their sales history then they might take the risk, but I doubt it.
@leopard companies being run by accountants, and not enthusiasts, is what keeps companies trading. Respect the bean counters.
I think in part their poor sales (in the begining) has more to do with the ugly sculpts. Seriously, does GW even make a good looking female model? The lack of support for the sisters (especially in the models department) plays a huge part in their lack of popularity. It is easier and probably cheaper to make a 30k army than a SoB army. I myself think the sisters are cool, but my limited income and lack of support from GW makes me starting an army of them a no go.
If it were done correctly, the sisters of battle would be extremely popular and probably bring in a few more female players. Which is exactly why GW probably won't redo them aside from the whole would be smart and bring in more money thing.
You guys keep saying they would be popular, but nothing to really to back the statement. You have no numbers for Dark Eldar so far for an example, too.
I can only go by my local store but dark eldar were a sell out army back in 5th and sold well enough to get rushed a new codex in 7th. GW needs to start doing something to combat their over all low sales and restoring a classic army is good start.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I can only go by my local store but dark eldar were a sell out army back in 5th and sold well enough to get rushed a new codex in 7th. GW needs to start doing something to combat their over all low sales and restoring a classic army is good start.
Aaaaand that's just a local store and you miss the big picture, which quite frankly nobody knows it seems.
Furyou Miko wrote: They are scared that the idea of warrior nuns in the mould of Opus Dei and the Flagellants will raise a tide of angry social justice warriors demanding boycotts against Games Workshop for the fetishisation and objectification of women in an otherwise male-dominated game.
"Look, they're sexist pigs! They finally put women into their game, but its only so they can be kinky sex fantasies! They're raping me with their thoughts!!"
That is why a large-scale Sisters reboot is most likely remaining off the cards. Especially with their history as basically starting out as the Space Pope's Harem.
Remember: It doesn't matter how badass you are as a female, if there's sex anywhere near your concept - especially kinky sex - you're a patriarchical icon.
Even though the Sisterhoods' self-flagellation and punishment is completely non-sexual in nature, and is in fact in part done as punishment for letting their spiritual ancestors be used as sex toys.
The fact is that the Adepta Sororitas is about as politically correct as Donald Trump.
I agree. I think the the SoB could do with a huge modernising redesign to make them look less sexist. Currently they look like an army of BDSM mistresses, which isn't doing them much good. I would like to see less boobplate and more power armour. Make the SoB look like the fearsome warriors they are. Unfortenately, that would cost a huge lot of money, so GW is probably not going to redo the Sisters in a very long time. Maybe if the AdMech/Skitarii proves to be really successful.
I honestly don't get why the Sisters line isn't updated, especially if some of the rumours about the models being done is true. I remember I actually bought some models from the line they put out way back when the first time around, but that was what ten years ago?
Heck, really the only true problem with Sisters is they basically have two special weapons, which are flamers or meltas, so it's not like the army isn't good without a minor update, especially if they push up some of the worse units, and then offer them some nice new toys in weapons. It's just kind of a cool army.
Tinkrr wrote: I honestly don't get why the Sisters line isn't updated, especially if some of the rumours about the models being done is true. I remember I actually bought some models from the line they put out way back when the first time around, but that was what ten years ago?
Eighteen years. It's been twelve years since they got an upgrade sprue for the Immolator and a handful of other models, and since then they've received nothing except a pseudo-codex in White Dwarf.
Heck, really the only true problem with Sisters is they basically have two special weapons, which are flamers or meltas, so it's not like the army isn't good without a minor update, especially if they push up some of the worse units, and then offer them some nice new toys in weapons. It's just kind of a cool army.
The Sisters have three special weapons: flamers, meltaguns and storm bolters. They also have three heavy weapons: heavy flamers, multi-meltas and heavy bolters. And I'm okay with that.
I don't agree with Iron_Captain that the Battle Sisters need to be toned down, but I would like to see the Repentia reimagined as something I can take seriously. They're not worthy to wear the Sisters' power armour? Fine - have them go into battle wearing a bodyglove with a tabard for modesty, the equivalent of a disgraced knight going into battle in an arming doublet rather than in plate armour. And have them lead by a whip-wielding woman not to flog her charges, but to disrupt melee opponents who would otherwise be a deadly threat to her charges.
Tinkrr wrote: I honestly don't get why the Sisters line isn't updated, especially if some of the rumours about the models being done is true. I remember I actually bought some models from the line they put out way back when the first time around, but that was what ten years ago?
Eighteen years. It's been twelve years since they got an upgrade sprue for the Immolator and a handful of other models, and since then they've received nothing except a pseudo-codex in White Dwarf.
Heck, really the only true problem with Sisters is they basically have two special weapons, which are flamers or meltas, so it's not like the army isn't good without a minor update, especially if they push up some of the worse units, and then offer them some nice new toys in weapons. It's just kind of a cool army.
The Sisters have three special weapons: flamers, meltaguns and storm bolters. They also have three heavy weapons: heavy flamers, multi-meltas and heavy bolters. And I'm okay with that.
I don't agree with Iron_Captain that the Battle Sisters need to be toned down, but I would like to see the Repentia reimagined as something I can take seriously. They're not worthy to wear the Sisters' power armour? Fine - have them go into battle wearing a bodyglove with a tabard for modesty, the equivalent of a disgraced knight going into battle in an arming doublet rather than in plate armour. And have them lead by a whip-wielding woman not to flog her charges, but to disrupt melee opponents who would otherwise be a deadly threat to her charges.
It couldn't have been eighteen years, as the Eye of Terror came out around the same time which was 2003.
Why not just make the Repentia have normalish clothing, but then have something like bomb collars, which don't do anything unless they fail, in which case they go boom, and that way they can do more harm in close combat, along with motivation to not explode.
Maybe they didn't sell well back when they were first released. They came out around the same time Necrons did but Necrons actually got picked up.
Maybe there's something to do with what Furyou said too, that they don't want to release something that could be construed as sexist nor do they want to take the risk of toning them down to something more realistic.
It may or may not factor in as well, but GW's heroic scale is not conducive to female models. Most of GW's female models just look like dudes with boobs. Because GW's heroic scale = squat with thick features, a female with thick features tends to look like a dude.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Maybe they didn't sell well back when they were first released. They came out around the same time Necrons did but Necrons actually got picked up.
Maybe there's something to do with what Furyou said too, that they don't want to release something that could be construed as sexist nor do they want to take the risk of toning them down to something more realistic.
It may or may not factor in as well, but GW's heroic scale is not conducive to female models. Most of GW's female models just look like dudes with boobs. Because GW's heroic scale = squat with thick features, a female with thick features tends to look like a dude.
Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
I can really see that, the claim of sexism in any light is a really horrifying thing for a company, even if innocent, which is rather sad.
This had more to do with just the fact that most people, or even creatures, don't look distinctly male or female in combat gear. Even a knight's breast plate could just as easily fit a male or female without much difference if made for them, and Joan of Arc was convicted on terms of cross dressing, when they couldn't find any other reason, to which her defense was that an armoured dress was stupid and couldn't exist D:
Tinkrr wrote: Why not just make the Repentia have normalish clothing, but then have something like bomb collars, which don't do anything unless they fail, in which case they go boom, and that way they can do more harm in close combat, along with motivation to not explode.
"Normalish clothing" was what I intended - not civilian clothing, but something that is close enough to be wearable. I don't agree with giving them bomb collars - a repentia doesn't need it for motivation, and as a weapon taking cues out of ISIL's playbook is a bit on the nose these days.
Tinkrr wrote: Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
This is incorrect. The first Necron models were released with White Dwarf 217, and I believe by WD218 they had already had a battle report against the Sisters of Battle, who had a codex prior to that point.
Tinkrr wrote: Why not just make the Repentia have normalish clothing, but then have something like bomb collars, which don't do anything unless they fail, in which case they go boom, and that way they can do more harm in close combat, along with motivation to not explode.
"Normalish clothing" was what I intended - not civilian clothing, but something that is close enough to be wearable. I don't agree with giving them bomb collars - a repentia doesn't need it for motivation, and as a weapon taking cues out of ISIL's playbook is a bit on the nose these days.
I was going for more of that one pizza guy than ISIS, since one does it willingly while the other is under duress D:
Tinkrr wrote: Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
Nah, Sisters came out before Necrons, I think by about a year, or maybe just a few months. I have the the first 2 White Dwarf magazines when Necrons were released which contained the free Necron, in one of them was a battle report of Necrons vs Sisters, so the Sisters were already around.
Tinkrr wrote: Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
Nah, Sisters came out before Necrons, I think by about a year, or maybe just a few months. I have the the first 2 White Dwarf magazines when Necrons were released which contained the free Necron, in one of them was a battle report of Necrons vs Sisters, so the Sisters were already around.
I'm not talking about the release, I mean the last codex before I took my ten year break from the game D:
I remember I bought a box of Necrons, painted them like Christmas trees, then went to Chaos, and then eventually the Sisters codex came out and I bought them because they were cool D:
Tinkrr wrote: Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
Nah, Sisters came out before Necrons, I think by about a year, or maybe just a few months. I have the the first 2 White Dwarf magazines when Necrons were released which contained the free Necron, in one of them was a battle report of Necrons vs Sisters, so the Sisters were already around.
I'm not talking about the release, I mean the last codex before I took my ten year break from the game D:
I remember I bought a box of Necrons, painted them like Christmas trees, then went to Chaos, and then eventually the Sisters codex came out and I bought them because they were cool D:
Ah ok, I'm talking about when they first came out, which is the period the metal Sisters models date back to. The metal Sisters models we have date back to 1997 (2nd edition), which is when their first codex came out.
It's possible they didn't sell well enough back in 2nd to get swept up in the era of GW swapping to plastics like Necrons did, which was in 3rd edition.
Tinkrr wrote: Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
Nah, Sisters came out before Necrons, I think by about a year, or maybe just a few months. I have the the first 2 White Dwarf magazines when Necrons were released which contained the free Necron, in one of them was a battle report of Necrons vs Sisters, so the Sisters were already around.
I'm not talking about the release, I mean the last codex before I took my ten year break from the game D:
I remember I bought a box of Necrons, painted them like Christmas trees, then went to Chaos, and then eventually the Sisters codex came out and I bought them because they were cool D:
Ah ok, I'm talking about when they first came out, which is the period the metal Sisters models date back to. The metal Sisters models we have date back to 1997 (2nd edition), which is when their first codex came out.
It's possible they didn't sell well enough back in 2nd to get swept up in the era of GW swapping to plastics like Necrons did, which was in 3rd edition.
The weird thing is that Sisters released after Necrons with kits that were metal, while Necrons were plastic. I don't get why they took the time to make Sisters an army, with a bunch of kits I had never seen before, but didn't swap them over like they did with Necrons D:
Tinkrr wrote: Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
Nah, Sisters came out before Necrons, I think by about a year, or maybe just a few months. I have the the first 2 White Dwarf magazines when Necrons were released which contained the free Necron, in one of them was a battle report of Necrons vs Sisters, so the Sisters were already around.
I'm not talking about the release, I mean the last codex before I took my ten year break from the game D:
I remember I bought a box of Necrons, painted them like Christmas trees, then went to Chaos, and then eventually the Sisters codex came out and I bought them because they were cool D:
Ah ok, I'm talking about when they first came out, which is the period the metal Sisters models date back to. The metal Sisters models we have date back to 1997 (2nd edition), which is when their first codex came out.
It's possible they didn't sell well enough back in 2nd to get swept up in the era of GW swapping to plastics like Necrons did, which was in 3rd edition.
The weird thing is that Sisters released after Necrons with kits that were metal, while Necrons were plastic. I don't get why they took the time to make Sisters an army, with a bunch of kits I had never seen before, but didn't swap them over like they did with Necrons D:
Back then (3rd-4th edition) GW were still only using plastic for core units while everything else was metal. Sisters and Necrons already had a core of metal models.
GW decided that they would convert the Necron core to plastics while the Sisters were left metal, which to me would suggest that they didn't do brilliantly back in 2nd edition. They took the cheap option.
There is also the idea that they couldn't do nice sleeves in plastic so completely gave up.... I don't really believe that one though, lol.
Tinkrr wrote: Necrons came out at least a year or two before Sisters, my first kit in the game was Necron Warriors but Sisters came out as I was getting out of the game for Warmachine.
Nah, Sisters came out before Necrons, I think by about a year, or maybe just a few months. I have the the first 2 White Dwarf magazines when Necrons were released which contained the free Necron, in one of them was a battle report of Necrons vs Sisters, so the Sisters were already around.
I'm not talking about the release, I mean the last codex before I took my ten year break from the game D:
I remember I bought a box of Necrons, painted them like Christmas trees, then went to Chaos, and then eventually the Sisters codex came out and I bought them because they were cool D:
Ah ok, I'm talking about when they first came out, which is the period the metal Sisters models date back to. The metal Sisters models we have date back to 1997 (2nd edition), which is when their first codex came out.
It's possible they didn't sell well enough back in 2nd to get swept up in the era of GW swapping to plastics like Necrons did, which was in 3rd edition.
The weird thing is that Sisters released after Necrons with kits that were metal, while Necrons were plastic. I don't get why they took the time to make Sisters an army, with a bunch of kits I had never seen before, but didn't swap them over like they did with Necrons D:
Back then (3rd-4th edition) GW were still only using plastic for core units while everything else was metal. Sisters and Necrons already had a core of metal models.
GW decided that they would convert the Necron core to plastics while the Sisters were left metal, which to me would suggest that they didn't do brilliantly back in 2nd edition. They took the cheap option.
There is also the idea that they couldn't do nice sleeves in plastic so completely gave up.... I don't really believe that one though, lol.
The thing I don't get, is that GW isn't selling directly for the most part, they're mostly a distributor. So while Sisters might not do well at a local level, that shouldn't really stop GW from making plastic models for them, as plastic is cheaper given a certain quantity, and GW has enough small retailers to sell to in order to make the plastic option more profitable than the metal one. It's also not like GW doesn't want to punish small retailers, they do almost anything in their power to squash those guys, so it's not like they're worried about looking out for them by not sticking them with product they don't think would sell in exchange to saving themselves a couple bucks.
Whether you think of GW as a retailer or a distributor, they still need to project enough sales to make it worth creating a plastic kit over a metal one. Metal has very little initial cost, plastic has a very high initial cost.
JamesY wrote:They have never, ever sold well. Ever since their release the sales were poor. There is every reason to leave the range as it is, and no sales history to justify investing in a new line. If they come up with something new that they believe will show a change from their sales history then they might take the risk, but I doubt it. .
When the Sisters were first released, they were so successful that six months later, I, a starting player with a model shop, a newsagents that stocked 40k, and two Games Workshop stores in easy driving distance... could not find more than a single Seraphim Superior to buy.
The army has never sold well, because the army has never been easily accessible. Models that aren't on the shelves don't sell, it's as simple as that, and even at the end of the first quarter of 1998, six months after the Sisters' release, there were no Battle Sisters on the shelves.
@leopard companies being run by accountants, and not enthusiasts, is what keeps companies trading. Respect the bean counters.
If it were done correctly, the sisters of battle would be extremely popular and probably bring in a few more female players. Which is exactly why GW probably won't redo them aside from the whole would be smart and bring in more money thing.
A single line of miniatures that are women, regardless of the aesthetics of the models, will not increase the female player base beyond the most marginal of gains. It isn't the gender of the models that dictates them joining the hobby, and if it is, it'll need more than a token army for them to buy. Plus, and I hesitate to share this as I don't want to gender stereotype, but of the dozen or so female customers I used to have at my time with gw, they always went for evil armies (except one blood angels player, but still, vampires).
Furyou Miko wrote:
When the Sisters were first released, they were so successful that six months later, I, a starting player with a model shop, a newsagents that stocked 40k, and two Games Workshop stores in easy driving distance... could not find more than a single Seraphim Superior to buy.
The army has never sold well, because the army has never been easily accessible. Models that aren't on the shelves don't sell, it's as simple as that, and even at the end of the first quarter of 1998, six months after the Sisters' release, there were no Battle Sisters on the shelves.
Well that isn't a clear indicator of success. New armies will always sell by virtue of novelty. Also, six months of good sales might have just recovered the production and R&D cost of producing the army, without ever making profit. The likelihood is that, although you sold them well, they undersold elsewhere, meaning that their priority in the production line fell (if I remember correctly, they came out around the same time as the multi part plastic whfb kits started being sold). If they had been selling the way you sold them everywhere, they'd have been casting them none stop. And although I agree that it's hard to sell models that aren't on the shelf, it's not impossible. You only need to look at forgeworld to prove that.
The manager at my local GW says ''The models are too detailed to make out of plastic''. Just take a good look at Nagash. Then take a look at the sisters of battle. Yeah.
jer155 wrote: The manager at my local GW says ''The models are too detailed to make out of plastic''. Just take a good look at Nagash. Then take a look at the sisters of battle. Yeah.
At no point in time have GW managers ever been a reliable source of information.
jer155 wrote: The manager at my local GW says ''The models are too detailed to make out of plastic''. Just take a good look at Nagash. Then take a look at the sisters of battle. Yeah.
At no point in time have GW managers ever been a reliable source of information.
Torga_DW wrote: Because they don't think the money invested in them will equal their returns. They're another power armour army with bolters, basically the bretonians of 40k.
I am confused, which army are you describing? Is it the Blood Angels? Or is it the Dark Angels? Or maybe the Space Wolves? Or the Chaos marines?
Sure, power armor armies with bolters never sell…
Furyou Miko wrote: They are scared that the idea of warrior nuns in the mould of Opus Dei and the Flagellants will raise a tide of angry social justice warriors demanding boycotts against Games Workshop for the fetishisation and objectification of women in an otherwise male-dominated game.
"Look, they're sexist pigs! They finally put women into their game, but its only so they can be kinky sex fantasies! They're raping me with their thoughts!!"
That is why a large-scale Sisters reboot is most likely remaining off the cards. Especially with their history as basically starting out as the Space Pope's Harem.
Remember: It doesn't matter how badass you are as a female, if there's sex anywhere near your concept - especially kinky sex - you're a patriarchical icon.
Even though the Sisterhoods' self-flagellation and punishment is completely non-sexual in nature, and is in fact in part done as punishment for letting their spiritual ancestors be used as sex toys.
The fact is that the Adepta Sororitas is about as politically correct as Donald Trump.
JamesY wrote: Plus, and I hesitate to share this as I don't want to gender stereotype, but of the dozen or so female customers I used to have at my time with gw, they always went for evil armies (except one blood angels player, but still, vampires).
Well, it is 40k. If they did not choose Tau, or arguably Imperial Guard, it was an evil army…
I think it's a self defeating cycle. Sisters don't sell enough now to warrant a reboot, so GW doesn't reboot them. Since they don't do anything with them, they don't make more sales. I also think there isn't someone as adamant about Sisters internally as Jes Goodwin and Phil Kelly were about Dark Eldar. There was a lot of material around the DE relaunch that got released online and in White Dwarf that showed they were really passionate for the spiky cousins of the Eldar.
It's easy to come up with stuff for Dark Eldar, because you have thirty years of Drow books by R.A. Salvatore and Dark Elf fan-fic on the internet, in MMOs and in fantasy literature to steal it from.
Sisters? Sisters require either actual historic research or actually writing something original.
Sisters? Sisters require either actual historic research or actually writing something original.
That's hard, you guise!
Never mind that 28mm heroic is not a good format for the female form to begin with, or that since Juan Diaz departed, their attempts to sculpt women at all have been very hit or miss.
Torga_DW wrote: Because they don't think the money invested in them will equal their returns. They're another power armour army with bolters, basically the bretonians of 40k.
I am confused, which army are you describing? Is it the Blood Angels? Or is it the Dark Angels? Or maybe the Space Wolves? Or the Chaos marines?
Sure, power armor armies with bolters never sell…
Exactly. There's the 'vanilla' space marines, who's power is that they're superhuman warriors. Then the blood angels, who's power is they're vampires. The dark angels who have a dark secret. The space wolves who are vikings. The chaos marines who's power comes from the dark gods. Already tons of power armour armies. Then there's the sisters of battle, who's power is that they're women. One of the problems the brettonians had was their basic choices had too much overlap with the empire - grail powers aside, they were basically knights and peasants. Empire got all the cool toys (dwarf forged armour, knight core units, +everything that wasn't knight related) leaving the bretonnians with vows as their shtick. Which ends up putting them in the 'too hard' basket for making them unique without posing a risk to other army sales. GW don't seem to think that the investment needed to innovate the sisters will equal their return. Fairly straightforwards.
Furyou Miko wrote: Oxy... I'm not saying it will happen... I'm saying they think it will happen.
So, are you saying that they believe nobody knows about their Dark Eldar products, but that magically everyone will about their Sisters of Battle? Can I ask, what in the world makes you think they believe this?
Torga_DW wrote: There's the 'vanilla' space marines, who's power is that they're superhuman warriors. Then the blood angels, who's power is they're vampires. The dark angels who have a dark secret. The space wolves who are vikings. The chaos marines who's power comes from the dark gods. Already tons of power armour armies. Then there's the sisters of battle, who's power is that they're women.
Uh what? Have you missed the memo? The power of Sisters is MONEY! LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY! Also faith. And political influence (like, 2 or 3 seats among the High Lord for the Sisters + the Ecclesiarchy), but this is mostly useful to get even more money. They are the one that can show off with more bling than even Pimpeus Calgar himself. They can pay enough money to get basically even the most dumbass idea for a tank work. We have already an example of that (Exorcist church organ missile launcher tank…) but GW could do so many cool stuff with that aspect. And wolves are not viking. That was before. Now they are just wolves. Money is way more powerful (and political power more interesting) than being a vampire or having a “dark” secret or being a furry.
Seriously, if you think the Sisters power is that they are women rather than men, you missed basically everything about sisters, because this is just a detail. Marines are quite restricted in what can be added to them because… well, they are marines. People are already complaining about how exclusive stuff for one codex is stupid (and in term of fluff, it almost always is stupid when about vehicle or weapons or centurion armor)… Sisters are not in any way restricted by the Codex Astartes. They can have everything from frateris militia and redemptionist allies to anti-grav reliquary launching missiles…
I could definitely see the Sisters being viable with really minimal investment. A basic sprue with armless Sisters. Then a series of small sprues to make them Tac, Dev, Aslt or Cmnd (idk the Sisters terms). Throw in a similar series of kits for Rhinos & Chimeras. The only real kit that would be less versatile would be an HQ kit. Im imagining something along the lines of the SM captain. They could just continue with metal miniatures for the more SoB specific models like the Penitent Engine. To update the old metal kits an additional, small plastic sprue. Id like to see some mono pose Frateris Militia, like the Cultists. Top it off with $50 codex and a $75 Collectors Edition.
That's another good point. People keep saying it would be a big investment but in reality it wouldn't . Compared to the massive reboots that necrons and dark eldar got, more than half the sister codex is woman in PA who has a different weapon, all of which are already produced in various scales for other imperial armies. the vehicles would be a rhino plus one extra sprue. Even if their not certain they will sell, the risk is fairly minimal.
Sisters? Sisters require either actual historic research or actually writing something original.
That's hard, you guise!
Never mind that 28mm heroic is not a good format for the female form to begin with, or that since Juan Diaz departed, their attempts to sculpt women at all have been very hit or miss.
Lolwut?
While a lot of Raging Heroes' TGG line is largely cheesecakey, they have several miniatures that are head-to-toe carapace and/or power armor that look phenomenal.
Maybe GW doesn't have the talent within their stable of designers, I don't know, but it's not the scale of the model that makes it difficult. There are plenty of artists out there in the industry doing females in 28mm that look just fine.
While a lot of Raging Heroes' TGG line is largely cheesecakey, they have several miniatures that are head-to-toe carapace and/or power armor that look phenomenal.
I underlined and bolded the important part. GW, as I make pretty clear when i talk about Juan Diaz leaving, can't sculpt women in 28mm Heroic for gak.
However, 28mm IS hard to work with sculpting women in greenstuff. Raging Heroes have been getting around it be producing their originals in the computer instead of sculpting by hand the old fashioned way.
Torga_DW wrote: Because they don't think the money invested in them will equal their returns. They're another power armour army with bolters, basically the bretonians of 40k.
I am confused, which army are you describing? Is it the Blood Angels? Or is it the Dark Angels? Or maybe the Space Wolves? Or the Chaos marines?
Sure, power armor armies with bolters never sell…
Furyou Miko wrote: They are scared that the idea of warrior nuns in the mould of Opus Dei and the Flagellants will raise a tide of angry social justice warriors demanding boycotts against Games Workshop for the fetishisation and objectification of women in an otherwise male-dominated game.
"Look, they're sexist pigs! They finally put women into their game, but its only so they can be kinky sex fantasies! They're raping me with their thoughts!!"
That is why a large-scale Sisters reboot is most likely remaining off the cards. Especially with their history as basically starting out as the Space Pope's Harem.
Remember: It doesn't matter how badass you are as a female, if there's sex anywhere near your concept - especially kinky sex - you're a patriarchical icon.
Even though the Sisterhoods' self-flagellation and punishment is completely non-sexual in nature, and is in fact in part done as punishment for letting their spiritual ancestors be used as sex toys.
The fact is that the Adepta Sororitas is about as politically correct as Donald Trump.
JamesY wrote: Plus, and I hesitate to share this as I don't want to gender stereotype, but of the dozen or so female customers I used to have at my time with gw, they always went for evil armies (except one blood angels player, but still, vampires).
Well, it is 40k. If they did not choose Tau, or arguably Imperial Guard, it was an evil army…
It probably won't happen in tabletop, as SocJus tends to harbor FotM hipster types that won't take to the investment (both capital and temporal) required to enter wargaming. However, it's too big a threat for any industry to ignore. Look at the gaming industry. Look at the massive controversy that occurred because a couple of trust fund babies cried "misogyny" rather than answering claims of corruption and cronyism. No company wants to risk dealing with that sort of thing.
In answer to OP, it's a combination of apathy and lack of sales. WHFB was "only" making up 20% or so of GW's overall profits before it was killed off. SoB sales are bound to be proportionally smaller.
Where's this '28mm plastic female models are hard to make' thing coming from? GW themselves already do that - Dark Eldar, Officio Assassinorum, Dark Elves and Wood Elves all have plastic kits with female models that look fine.
@leopard companies being run by accountants, and not enthusiasts, is what keeps companies trading. Respect the bean counters.
If it were done correctly, the sisters of battle would be extremely popular and probably bring in a few more female players. Which is exactly why GW probably won't redo them aside from the whole would be smart and bring in more money thing.
A single line of miniatures that are women, regardless of the aesthetics of the models, will not increase the female player base beyond the most marginal of gains. It isn't the gender of the models that dictates them joining the hobby, and if it is, it'll need more than a token army for them to buy. Plus, and I hesitate to share this as I don't want to gender stereotype, but of the dozen or so female customers I used to have at my time with gw, they always went for evil armies (except one blood angels player, but still, vampires).
GoonBandito wrote: Where's this '28mm plastic female models are hard to make' thing coming from? GW themselves already do that - Dark Eldar, Officio Assassinorum, Dark Elves and Wood Elves all have plastic kits with female models that look fine.
There was a quote from one of the higher ups at GW stating that it was difficult to recreate the flowing robes and hair of the SOB's.
I personally extended that to say I think GW's scaling isn't well suited to females. It's not that there aren't *any* good females in GW's line up, but to me, a lot of them just look like dudes with boobs rather than actual females. GW bulks up the facial features and limb thickness on their models, when you do that to a female it tends to look like a dude.
Torga_DW wrote: There's the 'vanilla' space marines, who's power is that they're superhuman warriors. Then the blood angels, who's power is they're vampires. The dark angels who have a dark secret. The space wolves who are vikings. The chaos marines who's power comes from the dark gods. Already tons of power armour armies. Then there's the sisters of battle, who's power is that they're women.
Uh what? Have you missed the memo? The power of Sisters is MONEY! LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY! Also faith. And political influence (like, 2 or 3 seats among the High Lord for the Sisters + the Ecclesiarchy), but this is mostly useful to get even more money. They are the one that can show off with more bling than even Pimpeus Calgar himself. They can pay enough money to get basically even the most dumbass idea for a tank work. We have already an example of that (Exorcist church organ missile launcher tank…) but GW could do so many cool stuff with that aspect.
I'm aware of the fluff for them, but iirc (could be wrong here) the acts of faith didn't get introduced until 3rd edition. I agree, they could take the sisters in some cool directions. But that would require investment (time and money amongst others), and i don't think they see it as worth it. I'm not saying that it's not worth it, i'm just giving my opinion from the original post as to why gw won't do it. Their special power is being girls - the concept shouldn't exist, and yet here we are. Pretty much the only army (outside dark eldar) who even acknowledge (in miniatures format) that women exist. It is what it is.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And wolves are not viking. That was before. Now they are just wolves.
Money is way more powerful (and political power more interesting) than being a vampire or having a “dark” secret or being a furry.
These days the fluff is just there to shoe-horn in new models. How many tweenagers do you know that are into heavy politics? Vampires and wolves sell to tweenagers. Wizards and wizard schools sell to tweenagers. Shady old men in a room making deals that destroy the lives of untold people isn't something i've really seen in that market.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Seriously, if you think the Sisters power is that they are women rather than men, you missed basically everything about sisters, because this is just a detail. Marines are quite restricted in what can be added to them because… well, they are marines. People are already complaining about how exclusive stuff for one codex is stupid (and in term of fluff, it almost always is stupid when about vehicle or weapons or centurion armor)… Sisters are not in any way restricted by the Codex Astartes. They can have everything from frateris militia and redemptionist allies to anti-grav reliquary launching missiles…
The restrictions on marines are only arbitrary because gw chooses them to be that way. Same with the sisters, they can get whatever gw decides they can get. GW has decided they can get forgotten. Personally i agree with complaints about the large degree of marine-variant-exclusive stuff, but that's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion. Also, given unbound, marines can have that stuff too anyways. I'm not trying to justify GW here, i'm just explaining what i see them doing. It can be painful to observe, but it is what it is. I thought bretonnians could have gone in some really cool directions too, but the end result was sideline them and i suspect ultimately they'll disappear pretty much entirely when stock runs out.
Torga_DW wrote: I'm aware of the fluff for them, but iirc (could be wrong here) the acts of faith didn't get introduced until 3rd edition.
2nd edition had Sacred Rites. The Sacred Rites rules were about the morale and willpower of the Sisters, bolstered by their faith in the Emperor, while the Acts of Faith rules are much more about the Emperor Himself rewarding that faith by using the Sisters as an instrument of his will. Sacred Rites might make a Sister immune to all negative morale effects, but Acts of Faith could let her no-sell being shot in the face with a lascannon.
Sadly I think GW has blinded itself to the opportunity SoB bring. I think the only way we'll ever see SoB make a come back is if a third party company does a good enough version of the concept, that is successful borderline blatant enough to provoke GW into doing something with them.
In this era of small codices like Skitarii or Harlequin, SoB don't need to be big or a full sized codex; they don't need to be more than what's been written about them. They just need a few basic kits.
The whole "mold for robes is too hard" argument is very silly- Dark Angels come to mind first. Plenty of other current GW plastics have more complicated/detailed parts than SoB do.
The " Initial investment is too high" is also kind of silly, since there is very little variation needed for squads. They need to design what equates to a SM Tactical squad, but with female models. Add heavy and special weapons, different backpacks, and BAM- you have 90% of the army covered in one box.
Who knows if they make plastics or not at this point- I now have 99% of my sisters army completed- But I would buy some if they came out (even completely replace all of the metals eventually, I hate playing with metal anymore due to terrain issues)
I just want some rules updates and Data Cards!!!! haha
I would love if they did, but I'm not convinced other than the people who visit the forums there is a real desire for them. Of course, if a brand spanking new amazing kit came out for them, and they actually did some, you know, advertising, they would sell plenty.
Just repeating the existing units that are only available in metal into plastic isn't going to make a particularly good replacement for what we have now for existing SoB players.
Obviously it'll help those who want to start but unless you have a nice fat codex with new units that require spending by existing SoB players you are missing out on the captive market that'll be the majority of sales for what has been a niche army.
The more models they have to produce the less likely it'll be that it happens. With GW seemingly avoiding adding in other armies units into codexes to help push allies, its a little frustrating we'll not see a combined codex like 3rd again.
Having said that I am reasonably confident that we'll see something for SoB next year as we have had a new army each year for the last couple of years, so why not SoB next year? I just hope its better than the last codex.
BaronIveagh wrote: However, 28mm IS hard to work with sculpting women in greenstuff.
How to sculpt women in 28mm:
- Step 1: sculpt the armor. This is the same process as sculpting the armor for a man, except if you are putting your model on catsuits or skin-tight armor, in which case… well, that is hardly armor and why are they going to fight without armor?
- Step 2: if the head is uncovered, sculpt a woman's head.
asorel wrote: It probably won't happen in tabletop, as SocJus tends to harbor FotM hipster types that won't take to the investment (both capital and temporal) required to enter wargaming.
Ahah, no.
asorel wrote: However, it's too big a threat for any industry to ignore. Look at the gaming industry. Look at the massive controversy that occurred because a couple of trust fund babies cried "misogyny" rather than answering claims of corruption and cronyism. No company wants to risk dealing with that sort of thing.
Ahahahaha no. A massive twitter fuss was started because a bunch of immature anon decided that feminism was killing their game by making factually correct observation, and proceeded to harass Anita Sarkeesian even more than before and stuff . But fear not, those anons have glorious representative: some guy who used to call gamers the lowest of the low but changed his mind when he saw some pretending to represent all gamers ( ) while hating on feminism, along with someone who introduced “equity feminism” to the world (i.e. spending 100% of your time criticizing feminism) who never played video game either “because they are for boys”.
No wonder “the industry” wants to have no part in this.
No. You can keep repeating this, it will not make it true.
Torga_DW wrote: Pretty much the only army (outside dark eldar) who even acknowledge (in miniatures format) that women exist. It is what it is.
You seem to forget about Craftworld Eldar, and Tau, and the Assassins, and the Inquisition, and even the Imperial Guard used to have a few female models.
Actually it is Space Marines that never have women because it is part of their “superpowers”…
Torga_DW wrote: These days the fluff is just there to shoe-horn in new models. How many tweenagers do you know that are into heavy politics?
Can politics sell? Well, they sold Games of Throne pretty well.
Torga_DW wrote: The restrictions on marines are only arbitrary because gw chooses them to be that way. Same with the sisters, they can get whatever gw decides they can get.
The restriction with the marines are due to long established fluff that would cause an uproar if it was retconned.
asorel wrote: It probably won't happen in tabletop, as SocJus tends to harbor FotM hipster types that won't take to the investment (both capital and temporal) required to enter wargaming.
Ahah, no.
asorel wrote: However, it's too big a threat for any industry to ignore. Look at the gaming industry. Look at the massive controversy that occurred because a couple of trust fund babies cried "misogyny" rather than answering claims of corruption and cronyism. No company wants to risk dealing with that sort of thing.
Ahahahaha no. A massive twitter fuss was started because a bunch of immature anon decided that feminism was killing their game by making factually correct observation, and proceeded to harass Anita Sarkeesian even more than before and stuff . But fear not, those anons have glorious representative: some guy who used to call gamers the lowest of the low but changed his mind when he saw some pretending to represent all gamers ( ) while hating on feminism, along with someone who introduced “equity feminism” to the world (i.e. spending 100% of your time criticizing feminism) who never played video game either “because they are for boys”.
No wonder “the industry” wants to have no part in this.
A rejection with no follow-up, a few sweeping generalizations, and no sources for this rabble-rousing besides an image that only proves my points further. Truly your argumentative skills are unmatched.
Oh, and good job mentioning the one you support by name but none of the opposition. It really helps that "ebil anomymoose" impression you're trying to give.
Well, you do anyway. It's nice for you. You need this. Hint: the difference between refusing to fight and surrendering is that when one surrenders, one has to submit. I am certainly not submitting to you, I just have no time to waste with you. I know I will not convince you, so…
Eh, I wonder about how popular the SoB actually were. I know people will say, 'NO it IS POPULAR because I've heard/seen...' but I think maybe the minority itself is just very vocal.
GW should simply allow Forgeworld to do it in resin. Less risk this way, and you could really cash in on the die hards - which I think most SoB promoters are.
I would have thought because they would get flak for being able to "kill women" in game, and suffer the wrath of feminists for encouraging "violence against women". Those sort of people latch onto anything they can to try and make their point, and often it's not worth a company to risk tarnishing their reputation by getting into a pissing contest with them.
Never mind the fact that IIRC both Eldar and Dark Eldar have obvious female figures (i.e. boob-plate) and Tau while not obvious have females among the ranks, not to mention Shadowsun.
WayneTheGame wrote: I would have thought because they would get flak for being able to "kill women" in game[…]
Never mind the fact that IIRC both Eldar and Dark Eldar have obvious female figures (i.e. boob-plate)
In other words, “Fact show that my crazy conspiracy narrative is directly contradicted by the fact but I am going to cling to it regardless.
Maybe you could point to a game that got flak for allowing to kill women? And then I will point to a dozen or more games where you are able to kill them and that got the game no backlash and we can discuss about why that game actually got flak (if you find one)?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Well, you do anyway. It's nice for you. You need this.
Hint: the difference between refusing to fight and surrendering is that when one surrenders, one has to submit. I am certainly not submitting to you, I just have no time to waste with you. I know I will not convince you, so…
Ah, the passive-aggressive dismissal. You say you won't waste time with this, yet you spent the time replying in the first place, knowing that this was the only possible outcome. How do you know you won't convince me if you haven't even tried? If you have sourced, verifiable information to present, I'm willing to examine it.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote: I would have thought because they would get flak for being able to "kill women" in game[…]
Never mind the fact that IIRC both Eldar and Dark Eldar have obvious female figures (i.e. boob-plate)
In other words, “Fact show that my crazy conspiracy narrative is directly contradicted by the fact but I am going to cling to it regardless.
Maybe you could point to a game that got flak for allowing to kill women? And then I will point to a dozen or more games where you are able to kill them and that got the game no backlash and we can discuss about why that game actually got flak (if you find one)?
This is more than a little ironic given your refusal to source your own information. You're also very defensive about this "conspiracy" business, despite no one implying that one is in place.
For the record, there's no need for a conspiracy to exist. People can and will get their panties in a twist over non-issues without prompting from a shady master.
kveldulf wrote: Eh, I wonder about how popular the SoB actually were. I know people will say, 'NO it IS POPULAR because I've heard/seen...' but I think maybe the minority itself is just very vocal.
I can't ofc say anything beyond my group where I'm the only one to field SoB (80+ bodies and 9 vehicles) but the SW guy actually bought five Seraphim just to paint them. He says he'd buy more if they were cheaper and I believe him. It's not easy to keep a wife and two kids fed on his crappy salary. And our Chaos guy absolutely forbid me selling off my SoB without talking to him first (I've been thinking of quitting this crappy game for a long time). So that's one player with a lot of stuff and two (out of a group of maybe 8 regulars) who do think SoB is something to collect.
We had the same with those Dark Eldar mentioned. One guy played them because getting them was cheap (I think people bought the starter sets with DE just for the other models and books and ditched the DE) but once they got updated two others also bought in.
asorel wrote: This is more than a little ironic given your refusal to source your own information.
What information do you want source for?
That Milo Yannopoulos is a figurehead of Gamergate? Would putting a bunch of source about event about Gamergate where he was a speaker be enough? Like Airplay, GGinParis, … Or do you deny he used to treat gamers with utter contempt? Then would links to his articles (1,2,3) and tweets (one among many, I can find a whole lot more, along with more articles, if someone is interested) be source enough?
Or do you want similar information about CHS?
Really, all you would need to do to find all this is spend a few minutes on Wikipedia, and look at the Reference section…
Do you want source about how that image I posted is blatantly lying? Well then, just try it for yourself. Install Steam and DOTA2 (works on Windows, MacOSX and Linux, and it's free, you have no excuse) and look at Vengeful Spirit that I already mentioned. “The author claims they are wearing 'form-fitting cosutmes'(sic), while in reality the only sexualized female character in the game is Queen of Pain[…]”. That dirty little liar.
If you are just too lazy to download the game, here is a video from a third-party advertising some cosmetic DLC for Vengeful Spirit:
If you are too lazy even for that, on the very image, just below that paragraph, they show a picture of Cristal Maiden with huge cleavage anyway, lol. They know they are talking gak and they know their audience do not care because, well, they want to believe!
I do not expect that any of this is going to change your mind. I know you already knew all that. It's common knowledge about Gamergate. You just choose to ignore it, or dismiss it, or rationalize it however you could. But I am not posting this for you, I am posting it for other people that might read the thread.
asorel wrote: For the record, there's no need for a conspiracy to exist.
Yeah, the mindset is here, even without claiming for an actual conspiracy. That's why you ignore all the facts above.
I'm sure it comes down to basic economics. Too many people seem to think the answer is "GW doesn't care". Caring has nothing to do with it. Making money does.
I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line. I don't understand the cost. I've never seen an insider break down what it costs GW to, for example, develop, produce and distribute a squad of Infanty, or a single Tank.
I imagine the costs are enormous, much more than most people think. The cost to develop the models, then create molds out of them, design the sprues, quality control, and then design model instructions, the artwork, the box, then shipping to all the GW locations, getting pictures and sales information put on the website, etc... I don't think I'd be out of line by suggesting that the cost to do all that would probably be multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The bean counters at GW tally all that up, and look at projected sales. If the projected sales of the models aren't that high, then GW is probably "safer" spending that money on something else that the bean counters indicate will sell better, like updating the Tau codex and putting out a few new kits for it.
I think GW does take risks in the model department, and the Tau codex release is actually a great example. People have been clamoring for xenos terrain from Games Workshop forever. Well, now we finally got some! I don't think I'm totally out of line by suggesting that's a risky release on GW's part, and one of the main reasons it was done was probably to test the waters and see what kind of sales xenos terrain would really generate.
Updating the Sisters of Battle is just a really high risk. The entire line needs updating, so you're talking about a LOT of investment. There are probably less risky things for them to work on.
Murrdox wrote: I'm sure it comes down to basic economics. Too many people seem to think the answer is "GW doesn't care". Caring has nothing to do with it. Making money does.
I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line. I don't understand the cost. I've never seen an insider break down what it costs GW to, for example, develop, produce and distribute a squad of Infanty, or a single Tank.
I imagine the costs are enormous, much more than most people think. The cost to develop the models, then create molds out of them, design the sprues, quality control, and then design model instructions, the artwork, the box, then shipping to all the GW locations, getting pictures and sales information put on the website, etc... I don't think I'd be out of line by suggesting that the cost to do all that would probably be multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The bean counters at GW tally all that up, and look at projected sales. If the projected sales of the models aren't that high, then GW is probably "safer" spending that money on something else that the bean counters indicate will sell better, like updating the Tau codex and putting out a few new kits for it.
I think GW does take risks in the model department, and the Tau codex release is actually a great example. People have been clamoring for xenos terrain from Games Workshop forever. Well, now we finally got some! I don't think I'm totally out of line by suggesting that's a risky release on GW's part, and one of the main reasons it was done was probably to test the waters and see what kind of sales xenos terrain would really generate.
Updating the Sisters of Battle is just a really high risk. The entire line needs updating, so you're talking about a LOT of investment. There are probably less risky things for them to work on.
It's a shame too. If the model line actually got updated I might actually want to start a sisters army. I've liked them since first read about them in 5th edition, unfortunately 14 year old me didn't have the money to buy sisters at just shy of $80 for 10, and older me would prefer plastic models.
Up until Scions and Skitarii came out I thought SoB were some of the best 40k miniatures at capturing the aesthetic of the setting; marines are decked out to be above the the average imperial and Cadians are just such generic soldiers.
Murrdox wrote: I don't think the majority of people understand the COST to updating the Sisters of Battle line.
Unless I missed something, about the same as making a brand new mechanicus line.
They obviously don't think it'll sell as well as mechanicus or for whatever reason they think it'd be more work for themselves.
Either that or they really just don't want to do it.
Pretty much. I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I would guess that sales of Mechanicus 30k from Forgeworld demonstrated to GW that there was a large, healthy appetite for a 40k Mechanicus army. I don't remember exactly how much time passed between when Forgeworld started releasing Mechanicum models for Horus Heresy and when GW published the Skitarii.
I honestly think "don't want to do it" doesn't enter into the equation. If someone at Games Workshop thought they could make money by redoing the Sisters line, they'd PAY people to do it. If someone at Games Workshop could show that they would make a boatload of money by re-launching Squats, they'd do that too.
I think some people are forgetting that the only e-codex to be on the apple top-chartss list was a Sisters codex. Not even Space Marines did that. I mean it was only for a short while, but that proves their is at least some interest for it for those who are nay-saying. Its true that it was only available as an e-codex, but that to me counts for something.
andrewm9 wrote: I think some people are forgetting that the only e-codex to be on the apple top-chartss list was a Sisters codex. Not even Space Marines did that. I mean it was only for a short while, but that proves their is at least some interest for it for those who are nay-saying. Its true that it was only available as an e-codex, but that to me counts for something.
It doesn't count for anything if the e-codex is the only edition available. If that is indeed the case, then you have to compare the total units sold of all codices. Making the Sisters codex an ebook exclusive is going to cause a large number of people who wouldn't normally buy ebooks to buy it, because there isn't any other medium available. Because of that forced limitation, the demand for the Sisters codex would be artificially high, and would also equal total demand of the Sororitas book. Comparing total demand of one product to partial demand of another yields no useful information. Since comparing the total units sold of, say, the Necrons codex to the the Sisters codex would show that the Sisters are insignificant in comparison.
Im 95% sure they are just saving them for a rainy day.
its entirely possibly they already have the CAD files ready to go.
They just need something to happen financially and boom they send in the print run and we will see it a year later like all the recent sprues.
Oooorrr the company collapses and we never see those cads again. :/
Its honestly not out of the realms of possibly for GW to do it. and i highly doubt they give a skavens back side about SJW going after female blablablablabal since they already did dark elf stuff the way they did it.
Torga_DW wrote: Pretty much the only army (outside dark eldar) who even acknowledge (in miniatures format) that women exist. It is what it is.
You seem to forget about Craftworld Eldar, and Tau, and the Assassins, and the Inquisition, and even the Imperial Guard used to have a few female models.
Actually it is Space Marines that never have women because it is part of their “superpowers”…
Craftworld eldar used to have howling banshees only, if we're going down the path of used tos. Tau have, what, shadowsun? In the entire army? Likewise inquisition had a couple female inquisitor models (and an inflatable diagolus), i'll give you the callidus assassin, and the guard used to have ~3? female models if memory serves. Two of them being unique characters from the last chancers box. That's not what i would call representative of women.
edit: to clarify my position here, i'm talking line units with female models, of which dark eldar have the only real representation. Yes howling banshees are in majority female, and they wear female looking armour, but that's one specialized unit in the entire army. Meanwhile the other armies line units are largely male only, with special reasons why some of the armies don't even have females in existence. That is what makes the sisters the 'girl' army - they have (exclusive in this case) representation in line units with female miniatures. Next comes dark eldar, with an actual mix like you might expect to see in armies spanning the galaxy, and then comes eldar with their solitary unit of howling banshees. Not what i would call representative, and definitely pigeon-holes the sisters as the 'girl' army. /edit
Torga_DW wrote: The restrictions on marines are only arbitrary because gw chooses them to be that way. Same with the sisters, they can get whatever gw decides they can get.
The restriction with the marines are due to long established fluff that would cause an uproar if it was retconned.
GW does stuff that causes uproars without a second thought. They don't keep things as they are because the fans are holding them hostage, they keep things as they are because that's the way they want it.
I get that you're a fan of sisters, but i'm not sure where you're going in this thread. We seem to have different opinions, which is cool, but the topic is: why don't you think gw will redo the sisters line? It seems like you're trying to 'win' an argument here, as if that will change the situation with gw?
Sisters of Battle players are just like Praetorian Guard Players.
They both are a loud minority, they both spend a lot of money on models of their chosen lines and they both tend to be proud to own such unique/rare models.
HOWEVER more often than not, they all make the mistake of projecting their habits onto the general community. "Man, i'd buy hundreds of sisters models, I already have as have all the other 6 players with this same army, it's a no brainer it will sell well!"
It's something I noticed being a Sisters of battle and Praetorian Guard player. But lets be serious, it's not that popular. People find those armies interesting because they are unique, take away the uniqueness and they just become another army and it's very likely everyone will go back to Space Marines and so on and then some other more unique army will take spot light.
In short, GW will probably get more sales based off the fact that sisters of battle is unique and and interesting in the "haven't really seen these before" sort of way. people often pay more for that in my experience.
Torga_DW wrote: You can keep denying it, it will not make it false. It works both ways.
Except I am not just denying it, I am actually explaining to you what their actual schtick is about.
Torga_DW wrote: Craftworld eldar used to have howling banshees only
When?
Torga_DW wrote: to clarify my position here, i'm talking line units with female models, of which dark eldar have the only real representation. Yes howling banshees are in majority female, and they wear female looking armour, but that's one specialized unit in the entire army.
What about… Eldar Guardians? Are those line units?
Torga_DW wrote: and then comes eldar with their solitary unit of howling banshees.
. Have you looked at Guardians?
Torga_DW wrote: To tweenagers? They're watching game of thrones now? Really?
Torga_DW wrote: to clarify my position here, i'm talking line units with female models, of which dark eldar have the only real representation. Yes howling banshees are in majority female, and they wear female looking armour, but that's one specialized unit in the entire army.
What about… Eldar Guardians? Are those line units?
Okay guardians, i'll give you that. So, 1.5 units in the entire eldar army.
Torga_DW wrote: Well you did mention it in response to my point, so i'd kind of hope you'd have an idea.
Do you have statistics on tweenagers?
Now you're just getting petty? I didn't need statistics to see twilight and harry potter going ballistic in sales with the tween market. And you came back with: game of thrones. I think we're done here. I concede my argument, you win. Clearly.
Torga_DW wrote: No, i talked about the miniatures themselves. Scroll back a page.
Money translate on the miniatures into bling.
Torga_DW wrote: I didn't need statistics to see twilight and harry potter going ballistic in sales with the tween market.
Are you saying that Twilight and Blood Angels are aiming for the same market ? I honestly believe even though the market for Blood Angels is not exactly the same as the market for Games of Throne, it still have WAY more overlap than with the market for Twilight.
How to sculpt women in 28mm:
- Step 1: sculpt the armor. This is the same process as sculpting the armor for a man, except if you are putting your model on catsuits or skin-tight armor, in which case… well, that is hardly armor and why are they going to fight without armor?
- Step 2: if the head is uncovered, sculpt a woman's head.
So much.... wrong with this..... ggaaaah....
Because of shape, you can get away with gak sculpting and posing men that simply will not work if you want it to look like it was made to fit a woman. MWHistorian's earlier post trying to disprove my point actually underlined it. The sculptor used the robes to conceal a lot of problem areas, like shoulders while using a pose that emphasized the most obvious female features at 28mm. A better example of someone doing it right would have been Victoria Lambs female IG.
Further, saying they're difficult to sculpt is not saying they're impossible to sculpt. I'll say (IMHO) that most of GWs female offerings have been garbage due to lack of talent in their art department these days. They've been doing a lot of contracting out for the newer art that appears in codecies, etc.
Cause gw doesn't like them. no love for sob or inquisition. they don't seem to want to remake what will sell less then their space marines or else we would have had plastic sisters long ago and a box of acolytes.
BaronIveagh wrote: Because of shape, you can get away with gak sculpting and posing men that simply will not work if you want it to look like it was made to fit a woman.
In an armor as bulky as space marine armor, let alone terminator armor, noone can tell if there is a man or a woman. Because the small anatomical differences at obscured by the armor.
What may be difficult is to make it obvious that a figure is female at 28mm. But that is not because sculpting women is harder, that is because people assume by default that a model is male…
Again, many model companies sculpt female models in 28mm scale just fine (Malifaux, Infinity, RH, Ral Partha, HeroForge, and, yes, even Games Workshop... there are female character models in other armies, ffs!)
... so it's not an issue with the sculpt. If GW no longer has a modeler with the necessary talent to create the cast, then that's a problem in GW's art team. Not a problem with the sculpt itself. This is a non-argument with no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence in GW's own product line, both current and historical, to refute it.
Is it a cost of production issue? We have no way of knowing, and since GW doesn't do market research, they have no way of knowing, either. They, literally, by their own words, have No Fething Clue how well any product they produce is going to sell. Because they don't do market research. They have only the sales numbers from previous releases to go by, and that applies to every product line they have. When they release a new Space Marine product, whether its a model or a book, they have only the previous version of it by which to guess how it will do. Since they don't do market research, they don't know whether that item has more or fewer users than it did the last time, whether it's bought for use in a game or for sitting on shelves (the former means more sales, the latter means fewer) or... anything. They know next to nothing about their own products' performance in the market outside of sales volumes.
So why don't they do a Sisters update? Because, by and large, GW is grossly incompetent. Every indicator of the wargaming market indicates this is the case. In a market that has been exploding over the last several years, with a dozen companies coming in and posting big numbers and indicating growing sales and expanding user-bases, GW (and, basically, GW alone) is the only one falling, failing to respond to changes in the market, failing to respond to competition in the market, failing to respond to the demands of their customers.
Why?
Because they are incompetent.
Me? I'm done with GW. They could release a Sisters Codex and an all-plastic model line tomorrow, that makes the Sisters a top-tier army with so many awesome unit-choices that it makes the Tau and Eldar lines look like monopose monolisting in comparison, and it wouldn't matter to me. I am done with GW, done with their hush-hush secret release schedule, their schizophrenic attitude towards their own products and their HUA design philosophy.
GW is not a company deserving of the faith of its fans, because that faith will, in all likelihood, not be rewarded.
BaronIveagh wrote: Because of shape, you can get away with gak sculpting and posing men that simply will not work if you want it to look like it was made to fit a woman.
In an armor as bulky as space marine armor, let alone terminator armor, noone can tell if there is a man or a woman. Because the small anatomical differences at obscured by the armor.
Wrong. The points of articulation have to be placed differently, and no amount of bulk will change that. The armour's shoulder joints need to be aligned with the wearer's shoulder joints or else you won't be able to move them without dislocating your own arms, and a woman's shoulder joints are physically closer together than a man's are.
BaronIveagh wrote: Because of shape, you can get away with gak sculpting and posing men that simply will not work if you want it to look like it was made to fit a woman.
In an armor as bulky as space marine armor, let alone terminator armor, noone can tell if there is a man or a woman. Because the small anatomical differences at obscured by the armor.
Wrong. The points of articulation have to be placed differently, and no amount of bulk will change that. The armour's shoulder joints need to be aligned with the wearer's shoulder joints or else you won't be able to move them without dislocating your own arms, and a woman's shoulder joints are physically closer together than a man's are.
Never stopped them from sculpting Space Marines they way they do. As sculpted, the Marine can't lift his arms above his shoulders, or remove his helmet. Anatomical correctness is not in their art design.
AlexHolker wrote: The armour's shoulder joints need to be aligned with the wearer's shoulder joints or else you won't be able to move them without dislocating your own arms, and a woman's shoulder joints are physically closer together than a man's are.
So this is why in real life women can't wear armor designed for men, I guess . Could you make a female version where the should joint are at the right place so I can see the difference? I do not care for it being perfect, I just want to see roughly how you are going to change them. Just a quick work on Paint/Gimp/Photoshop.
[edit]I gave it a try. Male: Female: Is that what you had in mind? [edit2]. I had misread. It is about the shoulder being closer from each other, not lower. So, is the actual female version is more like this? [edit3]Also, I know I put a silly face and everything, but this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one. Given the way Space Marine armor and Terminator armor is constructed, how would you change it to accommodate a female wearer?
Wulfmar wrote: Oh Lord, the amount of aggression in this thread is rapidly increasing. No doubt this statement will be taken personally and commented on.
Because the in-universe explanation contained within the Decree Passive, which states that the Ecclesiarchy (following Vandire) is not permitted to maintain "men under arms". In-universe, the Decree is written in High Gothic, which is apparently very gender-specific in its grammar. So, the Ecclesiarchy violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter, by maintaining an elite army of female soldiers. Their armor is designed to accentuate the fact that they are not men.
Wulfmar wrote: Oh Lord, the amount of aggression in this thread is rapidly increasing. No doubt this statement will be taken personally and commented on.
Because the in-universe explanation contained within the Decree Passive, which states that the Ecclesiarchy (following Vandire) is not permitted to maintain "men under arms". In-universe, the Decree is written in High Gothic, which is apparently very gender-specific in its grammar. So, the Ecclesiarchy violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter, by maintaining an elite army of female soldiers. Their armor is designed to accentuate the fact that they are not men.
Are you adding stuff - could you direct quote as all I can find are quotes stating no men - but nothing to do with showing off pewter boobs.
Lexicanum: Goge Vandire wrote:One notable change was the Decree Passive of the High Lords, which declared that the Ecclesiarchy could have no men under arms. Thor complied with this, and all military functions of the Ecclesiarchy were disbanded, except for one - the Daughters of the Emperor remained, but were renamed the Orders Militant of the Adepta Sororitas (aka Sisters of Battle). As "women under arms", they did not violate the decree; while the spirit of the decree may not have been followed, Thor believed that the Ecclesiarchy should have some military force of their own, so that it would not be completely reliant upon other Imperial military forces for its own defence.
If you mean the look of the armor?
They're Gothic Space Nuns. Of course their armor is going to be a black corset with sharp ridges and eighty-five tons of solid gold bling. This is 40k. How things actually work IRL has absolutely no place when discussing the look and feel of the setting, which is why tanks that would be out-classed by something from WW2 are considered the masters of the battlefield and elite soldiers act like medieval knights in bright colors and heraldry.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Also, I know I put a silly face and everything, but this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one. Given the way Space Marine armor and Terminator armor is constructed, how would you change it to accommodate a female wearer?
Indomitus Pattern and Gorgon Pattern Terminators don't really lend themselves to it. Cataphractii and Tartaros could be made to fit women by altering the hip/chest ratio and slightly reducing the shoulder width and overall height.
Lexicanum: Goge Vandire wrote:One notable change was the Decree Passive of the High Lords, which declared that the Ecclesiarchy could have no men under arms. Thor complied with this, and all military functions of the Ecclesiarchy were disbanded, except for one - the Daughters of the Emperor remained, but were renamed the Orders Militant of the Adepta Sororitas (aka Sisters of Battle). As "women under arms", they did not violate the decree; while the spirit of the decree may not have been followed, Thor believed that the Ecclesiarchy should have some military force of their own, so that it would not be completely reliant upon other Imperial military forces for its own defence.
If you mean the look of the armor?
They're Gothic Space Nuns. Of course their armor is going to be a black corset with sharp ridges and eighty-five tons of solid gold bling. This is 40k. How things actually work IRL has absolutely no place when discussing the look and feel of the setting, which is why tanks that would be out-classed by something from WW2 are considered the masters of the battlefield and elite soldiers act like medieval knights in bright colors and heraldry.
My point is that it's your expectation that they have sexy armour. Actual Gothic Nuns look more like this:
Nuns aren't about sex, they're about a lack of it. Hence Big Armour that's non-gender specific in the future
Previous GW representation was in slinky armour but that doesn't mean they have to stick with it. Why is it a case of 'of course they will have black corsets and sharp ridges' if anything they will have loads of black robes over proper armour rather than an Anne Summers selection.
Wulfmar wrote: Anyway, on topic - I don't see why the sisters don't have non-gender specific power armour and female heads.
Yes indeed, that is what I was implying when I wrote about sculpting female miniatures in 28mm not being harder than male ones.
As long as they keep the very baroque aesthetic look of the current armor rather than just use the clean, hi-tech looking version from marines, I would be happy with the result!
Because as I said earlier, their schtick is money and faith (hence baroque*…), not being women. And if you still doubt that, compare their rhino with the marine version. It adds huge Sororitas emblem on the doors. Well, I guess Marines do not have those because every chapter has a different emblem. But it also adds some extra stuff on top of the rhino, which includes a stained glass cupola, a bunch of alcoves looking like lancet arch (okay, that is Gothic architecture, but it evokes the power of a very wealthy and powerful church just as well, and 40k is not art history lessons…), a big pole holding a banner, with some box containing a skull in it, cherubim blowing up into trumpets that are actually loud speakers, and tons of extra bling depicting saints that can be added anywhere on the vehicle.
(Missing the pole because it makes the rhino so much harder to transport, I think)
* Excerpt from the Wikipedia article about baroque: “The popularity and success of the Baroque style was encouraged by the Catholic Church, which had decided at the time of the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Reformation, that the arts should communicate religious themes in direct and emotional involvement.”
"Gothic" as in "baroque and ornate"... though plenty of Sisters of the Orders Non-Militant wear the habits depicted above (as do the Sisters of Orders Militant when they aren't actually engaged in combat operations). The Hospitaler helmet, iirc, looks like a wimple.
The armor they have worn has never been "slinky". It's less-bulky that Space Marine PA, certainly, but, then again, a Sister is a human-sized, extremely-athletic female compared to a seven-foot, three hundred-kilo transhumanist male. Sisters PA also lacks a lot of the secondary systems and strength boosts that Astartes PA has (though it provides the same basic protection).
"Slinky" was Inquisitor Obi-Wan Sherlock Clousseau, who wore a skintight suit of PA under his robes of office. One might even describe it as "bootylicious".
BaronIveagh wrote: Indomitus Pattern and Gorgon Pattern Terminators don't really lend themselves to it.
Do they lend themselves to being worn by actual human being?
BaronIveagh wrote: Cataphractii and Tartaros could be made to fit women by altering the hip/chest ratio and slightly reducing the shoulder width and overall height.
Are the difference in hip/chest ratio not going to be COMPLETELY obscured by padding anyway? And I would like to have a look at the statistics about shoulder width, to see if this is really significant. I mean, if the difference between the average width for male and the average width for female is less than the standard deviation for either gender…
"Slinky" was Inquisitor Obi-Wan Sherlock Clousseau, who wore a skintight suit of PA under his robes of office. One might even describe it as "bootylicious".
And a dozen art historians cried in anguish!
(Though I am not in a position to jab too much because I did the very same just above ^^. Despite being regularly opposed to each other, even though Baroque came after Gothic and is a bit defined by what it changed from Gothic, it still looks similar from a modern point of view because so much more has changed that now we mostly see the similarities ^^)
Gothic as in "they're destroying our cultural heritage with their ugly-arse buildings and decorations that look like something the Vandals would dream up" perhaps..? :p
They're Gothic Space Nuns. Of course their armor is going to be a black corset with sharp ridges and eighty-five tons of solid gold bling. This is 40k. How things actually work IRL has absolutely no place when discussing the look and feel of the setting, which is why tanks that would be out-classed by something from WW2 are considered the masters of the battlefield and elite soldiers act like medieval knights in bright colors and heraldry.
They don't have to be space nuns though. I think part of the problem, is the image problem. More so than being women, they're just not "cool" compared to other armies. Even other armies with a significant number of females have the edge in this regard. Eldar and dark eldar female fighters are crazy acrobat-assassins, Tau and IG (not depicted in any models) have female solders, just as competent and badass as the male solders. SoB have nuns. Nuns with power armor and guns, admittedly, but nuns nonetheless. When was the last time nuns were cool?
They need an image update, though I'm not sure to what. Short of just embracing the bling to a level that would make slaanesh jealous, I'm not sure what else the eclessiarchy has going for it. Thankfully it's never too late to retcon and take the line in a completely different direction (like necrons embracing their egyptian side). Mybe they can go full space Bretonians and get cavalry with power-armored horses.
Unfortunately the army can't succeed on concept alone. It needs strong rules, so competitive players will play it, and interesting models to move kits (though how much either of these help, we'll never know since GW doesn't really release sales data).
They're Gothic Space Nuns. Of course their armor is going to be a black corset with sharp ridges and eighty-five tons of solid gold bling. This is 40k. How things actually work IRL has absolutely no place when discussing the look and feel of the setting, which is why tanks that would be out-classed by something from WW2 are considered the masters of the battlefield and elite soldiers act like medieval knights in bright colors and heraldry.
They don't have to be space nuns though. I think part of the problem, is the image problem. More so than being women, they're just not "cool" compared to other armies. Even other armies with a significant number of females have the edge in this regard. Eldar and dark eldar female fighters are crazy acrobat-assassins, Tau and IG (not depicted in any models) have female solders, just as competent and badass as the male solders. SoB have nuns. Nuns with power armor and guns, admittedly, but nuns nonetheless. When was the last time nuns were cool?
They need an image update, though I'm not sure to what. Short of just embracing the bling to a level that would make slaanesh jealous, I'm not sure what else the eclessiarchy has going for it. Thankfully it's never too late to retcon and take the line in a completely different direction (like necrons embracing their egyptian side). Mybe they can go full space Bretonians and get cavalry with power-armored horses.
Unfortunately the army can't succeed on concept alone. It needs strong rules, so competitive players will play it, and interesting models to move kits (though how much either of these help, we'll never know since GW doesn't really release sales data).
I am actually going to quote Furyo to answer that question, because I think that her thoughts on the matter pretty much match my own, but she said it in a way that is way better than anything I could ever come up with:
I play Sisters because a slew of reasons. While other armies eventually bore me, I know I can always bring out the Sisters to have a good, fun, knock-down drag-out fight that, no matter who I'm facing, will be a close run battle of tactics and luck - as opposed to a rofltstomp or an inevitable demise. I also love the concept of nuns with guns... and flamethrowers.
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?"
Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
Rainyday wrote: Tau and IG (not depicted in any models) have female solders,
Through the wonders of alien anatomy, the difference between a male and female fire warrior is a headswap. Unless they're wearing a helmet. In which case you have a 50/50 chance either way.
Frankly, the guard models could be easily extended the same courtesy and it would make sense with the mass produced nature of their gear.
Rainyday wrote: Tau and IG (not depicted in any models) have female solders,
Through the wonders of alien anatomy, the difference between a male and female fire warrior is a headswap. Unless they're wearing a helmet. In which case you have a 50/50 chance either way.
Frankly, the guard models could be easily extended the same courtesy and it would make sense with the mass produced nature of their gear.
I believe it was one of the Ciaphas Cain novels that said the guard equipment is either too large or too small, so yes, a headswap would work just fine for a female in the Guard. Or you can look into 3rd party minis.
I haven't read all of the responses but I have my own thoughts on why.
I think it has a lot to do with how they fit into the current world. It took DE a long time to get an actual update and I believe that was because they couldn't find a place for them in the current universe. Eventually, though, they did find a way to work them in and now they have become a welcomed part of the whole universe.
Same with Tau, sort of. According to Andy Chambers, the Tau were created to represent a young race, unaffected by the grim darkness of the universe, and how they change as they become more exposed to it. Exact wording from Andy Chambers:
Spoiler:
Sorry about quality, was very small to begin with. To be honest that was always the intention with Tau - to show a young, upcoming race that was naive about the dark and nasty universe they inhabited and then show their gradual slide into an autocracy and self-imposed ignorance. No one gets out of the Grimdark alive.
So, as someone said, SoB do seem like just another army but that isn't quite SM or IG. I think if they gave them the same, small release, treatment that they gave Harlequins it would go over well. Not much story needs to be done for them in this way, but it adds an interesting aspect to any IoM army looking to diversify. GW just has to find a place for them where they fit and a story that works for them otherwise they will remain in development hell.
Psienesis wrote: Again, many model companies sculpt female models in 28mm scale just fine (Malifaux, Infinity, RH, Ral Partha, HeroForge, and, yes, even Games Workshop... there are female character models in other armies, ffs!)
... so it's not an issue with the sculpt. If GW no longer has a modeler with the necessary talent to create the cast, then that's a problem in GW's art team. Not a problem with the sculpt itself. This is a non-argument with no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence in GW's own product line, both current and historical, to refute it.
Is it a cost of production issue? We have no way of knowing, and since GW doesn't do market research, they have no way of knowing, either. They, literally, by their own words, have No Fething Clue how well any product they produce is going to sell. Because they don't do market research. They have only the sales numbers from previous releases to go by, and that applies to every product line they have. When they release a new Space Marine product, whether its a model or a book, they have only the previous version of it by which to guess how it will do. Since they don't do market research, they don't know whether that item has more or fewer users than it did the last time, whether it's bought for use in a game or for sitting on shelves (the former means more sales, the latter means fewer) or... anything. They know next to nothing about their own products' performance in the market outside of sales volumes.
So why don't they do a Sisters update? Because, by and large, GW is grossly incompetent. Every indicator of the wargaming market indicates this is the case. In a market that has been exploding over the last several years, with a dozen companies coming in and posting big numbers and indicating growing sales and expanding user-bases, GW (and, basically, GW alone) is the only one falling, failing to respond to changes in the market, failing to respond to competition in the market, failing to respond to the demands of their customers.
Why?
Because they are incompetent.
Me? I'm done with GW. They could release a Sisters Codex and an all-plastic model line tomorrow, that makes the Sisters a top-tier army with so many awesome unit-choices that it makes the Tau and Eldar lines look like monopose monolisting in comparison, and it wouldn't matter to me. I am done with GW, done with their hush-hush secret release schedule, their schizophrenic attitude towards their own products and their HUA design philosophy.
GW is not a company deserving of the faith of its fans, because that faith will, in all likelihood, not be rewarded.
It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.
Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.
I'm all for having my females look like females. Realistic? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!" That's boring to me. (Opinion, obviously)
You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.
It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.
Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.
You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.
MWHistorian wrote: Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.
No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.
But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?
MWHistorian wrote: I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!"
That is because actually, you assume for no reason whatsoever that gender-neutral armor is “dude-looking”. It's not. It's gender neutral. Inside can be a man or a woman. A male alien or a female alien. Are you also complaining that the Xenomorph queen doesn't have boobs?
MWHistorian wrote: I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!"
That is because actually, you assume for no reason whatsoever that gender-neutral armor is “dude-looking”. It's not. It's gender neutral. Inside can be a man or a woman. A male alien or a female alien.
MWHistorian wrote: Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.
No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.
But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?
The "evidence" (or best evidence you're going to get) is that Games Workshop hasn't done it already.
If Games Workshop thought that redoing Sisters of Battle would be worth the risk of investing the time and money to redo the line, they would have done it, or they'd be planning to do it. The fact that they haven't yet means that they don't think it's worth the investment. They'll make more money updating Tau, or Necrons, or Tyranids, or whatever.
Could they be wrong and underestimating the size of the market for a Sisters of Battle relaunch? Certainly they could. But are they willing to take that risk and put all that money into re-launching the line? So far the answer has been "no".
That's not evidence.
There are lots of things that would be very popular that GW hasn't done.
Chaos legions. Everyone wants them. GW refuses to do them.
MWHistorian wrote: Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.
No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.
But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?
We don't have the raw figures, but GW does. It's not impossible that SoB brought in quantifiably less revenue. WHFB was canceled, and we can reliably say that it was more profitable pre-end times than SoB are.
As for why this is, it may be because they don't have enough to set them apart from the other offerings. Salamanders cover power-armored-pyromaniacs, as well as the "bling" that posters insist is a defining theme of SoB. CSM cover power-armored fanatics. The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.
MWHistorian wrote: Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.
No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.
But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?
We don't have the raw figures, but GW does. It's not impossible that SoB brought in quantifiably less revenue. WHFB was canceled, and we can reliably say that it was more profitable pre-end times than SoB are.
As for why this is, it may be because they don't have enough to set them apart from the other offerings. Salamanders cover power-armored-pyromaniacs, as well as the "bling" that posters insist is a defining theme of SoB. CSM cover power-armored fanatics. The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.
The church. One of the biggest parts of the background. Squishy humans in power armor with faith based powers. No other army captures the "purge the heretic" better.
That is because actually, you assume for no reason whatsoever that gender-neutral armor is “dude-looking”.
People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.
Tangent aside. Games Workshop is a collector hobby (their words). When they only believe, however deluded it may be, that only 20% of their customers game.. then it makes sense that they see the Sisters of Battle line as not selling. They make bad rules or let an army sit untouched for a decade, but never seem to put the pieces together that the game itself is a part of the model's value.
MWHistorian wrote: Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.
No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.
But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?
We don't have the raw figures, but GW does. It's not impossible that SoB brought in quantifiably less revenue. WHFB was canceled, and we can reliably say that it was more profitable pre-end times than SoB are.
As for why this is, it may be because they don't have enough to set them apart from the other offerings. Salamanders cover power-armored-pyromaniacs, as well as the "bling" that posters insist is a defining theme of SoB. CSM cover power-armored fanatics. The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.
The church. One of the biggest parts of the background. Squishy humans in power armor with faith based powers. No other army captures the "purge the heretic" better.
The problem is that everyone in the Imperium does a bit of purging. Honestly, SoB (and Grey Knights for that matter) would be better off as part of Codex: Inquisition.
Nightwolf829 wrote: People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.
asorel wrote: The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.
And here we have easily the least true statement in this entire thread. Sororitas easily bring:
A unique aesthetic. I'm sorry, but Salamanders are just space marines, maybe with different shoulder pads. There is no direct competion here just because fluff-wise Sallies should be into bling. Almost every Imperial army, and especially every marine army, has a similar look - similar base vehicles, similar design flourishes. Sororitas look as different as any other faction - more so even than some of the lazy marine factions ("Marines with pelts! Now, marines with wings! And now, marines with robes! So different, so exciting!").
A unique mechanic. Acts of Faith in their current incarnation are boring and weak, but they are highly thematic and a revised version has the potential to offer interesting choices during a game. Martyrdom to create a miracle is a pretty cool game mechanic.
A unique gender. You can't outright dismiss this. Kickass chicks sell, at least to some people. Raging Heroes is doing market research on it right now, and the market seems pretty good.
Sisters also offer one last crucial thing that GW would be stupid to ignore - room to release entirely new kits in a dangerously saturated design space. The game is buckling under the weight of each new idiotic addition to factions that were finished 5 years ago. Sisters have room to grow as far as new kits, or revisiting old kits in desperate need of an update.
MWHistorian wrote: You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.
“Heavy”…
That reminds me of Detonator Orgun, where they realize the robot aliens were actually humans who gradually evolved into little more than nervous systems for the space suits that became their bodies.
Nightwolf829 wrote: People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.
You just sent me to a youtube channel labeled "Feminist Frequency". Surely the least biased place for me to educate myself. Political agendas aside, don't underestimate the ability of your genetics to lead to predispositions. No amount of social engineering will fix what will require Transhumanism to accomplish. We can call a duck an elephant all day, but unless we change the duck into another creature entirely it will still be a duck.
All of that said, my initial response was a bit off topic. If you would like to discuss it further we can via PMs.
Nightwolf829 wrote: People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm all for having my females look like females. Realistic? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!" That's boring to me. (Opinion, obviously)
You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.
If you can tell the gender of the person in the armor, the armor is doing a terrible job.
Nightwolf829 wrote: You just sent me to a youtube channel labeled "Feminist Frequency". Surely the least biased place for me to educate myself.
Nightwolf829 wrote: Political agendas aside, don't underestimate the ability of your genetics to lead to predispositions.
Rocks do not have genetics. Neither do pacman. Aliens are, well, alien to our biology. Do not mistake a cultural phenomenon (here “Characters with nothing implying a specific gender are going to be assumed males”) with genetics. I mean, I could see your point if only fighter characters were assumed male, but this is not the case.
Wulfmar wrote: That video you linked was very interesting and raised very good points
MWHistorian wrote: You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.
“Heavy”…
That reminds me of Detonator Orgun, where they realize the robot aliens were actually humans who gradually evolved into little more than nervous systems for the space suits that became their bodies.
I guess it does. Because those female models, there is no way that they have any kind of thick armor if they actually have a full human with internal organs and all to protect rather than just a nervous system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: If you can tell the gender of the person in the armor, the armor is doing a terrible job.
What about when the “armor” is more slender than the average naked person ?
Wyzilla wrote: If you can tell the gender of the person in the armor, the armor is doing a terrible job.
Agreed. There is no practical reason (that I can think of) that would not be the case. It really boils down to stylistic purposes. Accentuating feminine elements to hammer a point home and/or to drive sales.
I would prefer an androgynous practical armor with a few head swaps to what has now become the generic "boob plate".
It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.
Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.
You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion. Sisters weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. Dark Eldar weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. They were updated and, yes the models fit the aesthetics well and work well for conversion work, they still aren't an army people overall choose to play.
And I have to wonder how many other people claimed the same thing: I'd totally buy into Dark Eldar if they redid the miniature range!
It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.
Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.
You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion. Sisters weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. Dark Eldar weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. They were updated and, yes the models fit the aesthetics well and work well for conversion work, they still aren't an army people overall choose to play.
And I have to wonder how many other people claimed the same thing: I'd totally buy into Dark Eldar if they redid the miniature range!
Clearly not a lot.
The 5th edition redo of Dark Eldar was massively popular. The army played as intended, looked beautiful, and was one of the most balanced forces they have ever made to date. Then 6th crashed into place shortly thereafter. Dark Eldar started losing games. As the edition wore on it got worse and worse. A lot of their players stopped using them.
Then 7th happened. The new Dark Eldar book brought a horizontal power level shift rather than the vertical one they needed. They just remained Chaos Space Marines to the Eldar's Marines. At the same time the flavor of the force was watered down with massively restricted item selection and some of the unique mechanics being stripped away.
Nightwolf829 wrote: People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.
That video makes blanket statements without follow-up or explanation, and makes some very ill-advised assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of both the players and game developers. Not only that, the person delivering them isn't trained in psychology of any sort, and is not in a position to make that sort of claim with any sort of reputability. Take into account that Sarkeesian has demonstrated a willingness to misconstrue facts to further her stated agenda multiple times in the past, and this video does absolutely nothing to prove your point, which itself is greatly separated from the topic at hand.
AND you do not care about your males being noticeably males. We know. And we are not surprised. I do not care about how un-PC it is, I will still mention your double standard .
asorel wrote: That video makes blanket statements without follow-up or explanation, and makes some very ill-advised assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of both the players and game developers. Not only that, the person delivering them isn't trained in psychology of any sort, and is not in a position to make that sort of claim with any sort of reputability. Take into account that Sarkeesian has demonstrated a willingness to misconstrue facts to further her stated agenda multiple times in the past, and this video does absolutely nothing to prove your point, which itself is greatly separated from the topic at hand.
People add a bow to a giant rock boulder to show it is a female giant rock boulder but do not care to add anything to show another giant rock boulder is male. Your argument is invalid.
AND you do not care about your males being noticeably males. We know. And we are not surprised. I do not care about how un-PC it is, I will still mention your double standard .
asorel wrote: That video makes blanket statements without follow-up or explanation, and makes some very ill-advised assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of both the players and game developers. Not only that, the person delivering them isn't trained in psychology of any sort, and is not in a position to make that sort of claim with any sort of reputability. Take into account that Sarkeesian has demonstrated a willingness to misconstrue facts to further her stated agenda multiple times in the past, and this video does absolutely nothing to prove your point, which itself is greatly separated from the topic at hand.
People add a bow to a giant rock boulder to show it is a female giant rock boulder but do not care to add anything to show another giant rock boulder is male. Your argument is invalid.
You are using a single example of dubious quality to make a blanket statement about the entire human race. Your argument is invalid.
asorel wrote: You are using a single example of dubious quality to make a blanket statement about the entire human race.
How many do you want?
I don't think you understand how this "evidence" thing works. If you want to make a statement about something that is absolutely true of all members of a large group, you need a working theory that explains, objectively, precisely what this thing is, how widespread it is, what causes it, etc.. Pointing at one (or even 10) anecdotes and screaming "MUH SOGGYKNEES!" doesn't qualify.
It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.
Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.
You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion. Sisters weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. Dark Eldar weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. They were updated and, yes the models fit the aesthetics well and work well for conversion work, they still aren't an army people overall choose to play.
And I have to wonder how many other people claimed the same thing: I'd totally buy into Dark Eldar if they redid the miniature range!
Clearly not a lot.
The 5th edition redo of Dark Eldar was massively popular.
And you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your locals at one point?
I asked around and at MY locals, nobody bought into them overall in 5th edition. Who's to say either interpretation is correct?
With that said, if the demand for Sisters were actually that great, it would've been done at this point.
Wulfmar wrote: The way some people are arguing, they should be demanding their space marines have oversized crotch protectors, to make it obvious they are men
The way some people are arguing, it seems almost as if they have a need to shoehorn gender into every discussion whether it warrants it or not.
Ooo stop being a miserable wotsit.
My joke post still contributed more than your pointless moan.
Oh! Pardon me, I wasn't aware that your sense of humor is so far on the cutting edge of comedy that ever one of your jokes raises the quality of an entire thread. My apologies, I'll be sure to give your Gods-given wit the respect it deserves in the future.
And you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your locals at one point?
I asked around and at MY locals, nobody bought into them overall in 5th edition. Who's to say either interpretation is correct?
With that said, if the demand for Sisters were actually that great, it would've been done at this point.
This is why I'm saying your arguments are either ignorant or trolling. "There's no evidence, but popular opinion about Dark Eldar must be wrong and my opinion must be right. No one needs research. Also I know in my heart of hearts Dark Eldar weren't popular, and GW knew that because they did research, but redid them anyway, and they still aren't popular, which again I know because Kirby talks to me inside my head. Therefore Sisters won't get done because they aren't popular and won't be popular, even though I just provided an example of GW doing the exact opposite."
It's like you're in a race to contradict yourself as often as possible in the shortest amount of time repeatedly within this thread, if we take all your separate claims at face value.
MWHistorian wrote: I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.
SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.
Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.
Furyou Miko wrote: As for the last time nuns were cool.. Have you not seen Black Lagoon?
I have actually. I was going to bring it up, but I didn't think there would be anyone here familiar with it. There are actually quite a few "Battle nun" characters in anime and other eastern media (Prier from La Pucelle, Rosette from Chrono Crusade). Even then, it's the kind of thing that works best when it's not taken 100% seriously (although I'd argue all of 40k was better when it was a bit more tongue-in-cheek, that's a discussion for elsewhere).
MWHistorian wrote: I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.
SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.
Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.
That is a near-nonsensical statement that explains nothing. All you did was restate my original statement, without bothering to explain why feminine characteristics are "bad," or why Sensitive Joss Whedons are driven into a frothing rage over them.
MWHistorian wrote: I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.
SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.
Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.
That is a near-nonsensical statement that explains nothing. All you did was restate my original statement, without bothering to explain why feminine characteristics are "bad," or why Sensitive Joss Whedons are driven into a frothing rage over them.
Must we have this discussion here? Nobody's going to concede any points, come to an agreement, or change their mind any any way.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying I know the answer either. None of us know the sales numbers for Sisters of Battle, or the reason why GW has yet to update them.
What we do know is that there have been at least three times in the past where a small, outdated faction received a major retooling and expansion in plastic (Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Necrons) and none of those appear to have been outright failures. We also have two factions created rather suddenly from whole cloth (Tau and Ad Mech) and neither of those appear to have been outright failures either. So there's nothing in GW's history that indicates they aren't willing to lay out a lot of money to build or rebuild a faction, even a faction with little to no prior sales history. And there's no hard evidence to indicate any of those launches were successes or failures (but popular opinion does suggest every one of those was at least a moderate success).
The question is why they haven't done the same for Sisters, and the answer isn't obvious no matter how many times you want to claim your opinion is gospel. None of the actual facts we have indicate that releasing Sisters is a bad idea, or is out of line with GW's usual way of doing things. If you think GW has evidence that Sisters would flop, it's a hunch on your part and nothing more.
Since we're all throwing our opinions in here, I would say it has to do with the way GW's studio seems to work, based on rumors. Bar what seem to be the occasional broad directions from bean counters ("bigger is more profitable!"), it sounds like someone in the studio needs to champion new ideas or revisions of old races. Without that champion, the race doesn't get done (or they get done poorly). This explains the wild swings in power level and quality between codexes. It also explains why Squats got Squatted and Sisters get ignored - no one in the studio has any ideas for them or sufficient interest in working on them. When a slot for a big release is open, someone is keen to flesh out the Grey Knights, so that's what happens.
I personally don't see anything wrong with the sisters design and can't see anything sexist in the corset design and the boob plates as it is both an iconic part of there design and well explained in the fluff as a design feature to show that they aren't men under arms as that would be forbidden by the decree passive. the way I see it arguing that the sisters armour is sexist against females is like trying to argue that the blood angel chest plate is somehow sexist against men, both are just part of their design.
back on topic I agree with calgar that the reason why the sisters haven't been updated is because no one working at gamesworkshop is interested in sisters right now leading to a greater focus as making armies which they are interested in like the mechanicus and updating armies like space marines that they know will sell well rather then taking a risk on sisters
MWHistorian wrote: I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.
SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.
Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.
That is a near-nonsensical statement that explains nothing. All you did was restate my original statement, without bothering to explain why feminine characteristics are "bad," or why Sensitive Joss Whedons are driven into a frothing rage over them.
*sigh*Didn't think I would have to explain this Feminine characteristics are not bad, but overly exaggerated feminine characteristics are. If, for example, you have minis that have different bonuses based on gender and are adhering to a WYSIWYG rule set, fine. There just isn't a need for the female minis to be overly sexualized like they normally are. This kind of sexual exaggeration puts an unrealistic burden on women who are constantly blasted with images of what men want women to look like. Why add to that hostility? Most guys can brush off constant images of muscle bound guys and expectations for them to look this way, most women can't when they are in the same situation.
So, female characteristics are not bad, and it may be needed in something like miniature wargaming. These characteristics just don't need to be grossly oversexualized and insulting. Done with this topic because it really isn't on topic. PM me if you want to continue this conversation away from this thread, Asroel.
ProtoClone wrote: This kind of sexual exaggeration puts an unrealistic burden on women who are constantly blasted with images of what men want women to look like.
You're making an awfully large assumption about what does and does not burden women, among other things. "Oversexualization" doesn't need to occur, but there isn't a tangible reason why it shouldn't. Your sensibilities most certainly do not apply to, or are shared with, everyone.
Are the difference in hip/chest ratio not going to be COMPLETELY obscured by padding anyway?
No, assuming that the armor has anything to do with the shape of the person under it. As the current US military has recently discovered, armor designed for men is not well designed for women and needs to be shaped differently if you expect a woman to wear it for long periods. Otherwise things like sores develop due to the poor fit.
So, you will see a noticeable difference even with power armor,
asorel wrote: I don't think you understand how this "evidence" thing works. If you want to make a statement about something that is absolutely true of all members of a large group, you need a working theory that explains, objectively, precisely what this thing is, how widespread it is, what causes it, etc.. Pointing at one (or even 10) anecdotes and screaming "MUH SOGGYKNEES!" doesn't qualify.
Putting things in all caps pidgin English (or whatever that is) is not helping your case. Neither is denying the obvious, actually. Anyone with a modicum of exposition to medium who depicts characters whose gender cannot be determined by their appearance will be able to just observe those have an extremely strong tendency to be referred to as male.
But if you feel like you have time to waste, be my guest and conduct long, boring statistical analysis to assert the obvious.
ProtoClone wrote: This kind of sexual exaggeration puts an unrealistic burden on women who are constantly blasted with images of what men want women to look like.
You're making an awfully large assumption about what does and does not burden women, among other things. "Oversexualization" doesn't need to occur, but there isn't a tangible reason why it shouldn't. Your sensibilities most certainly do not apply to, or are shared with, everyone.
That's how SJW's work. Either you're as outraged as them, or you're the problem.
Space Marines are clearly male.
I'm not saying oversexualize them, that's the SJW argument, not mine. but I want a female model to look female. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
BaronIveagh wrote: No, assuming that the armor has anything to do with the shape of the person under it.
Why are you assuming that?
BaronIveagh wrote: As the current US military has recently discovered, armor designed for men is not well designed for women and needs to be shaped differently if you expect a woman to wear it for long periods. Otherwise things like sores develop due to the poor fit.
Yeah, the inside shape of the armor is going to be slightly different. Just like they make different armor size. However, how different is the outside going to be? Especially when at 28mm scale?
Just check how different the US armor for men and women are on the outside. Now consider that the thicker the armor, the less visible the difference will be. On power armor? No visible difference.
No. There is nothing on a space marine with his helmet on that marks him as male. The only exception is the Sanguinary Guard. I give you that those space marines are clearly male.
What you want is that the default is male and female are marked explicitly as female. You cannot accept the default being gender-neutral, some armor being clearly male (Sanguinary guard for instance) and some armor being clearly female (Sisters of Battle for instance). Because… not sure. I guess because you are a status quo warrior or something?
Many of the features are indeed erased, but not all.
For example. proportion. And yes, Son of, males and females are generally proportioned differently.
A female in body armor will still look different than a male. Sooo....back to topic, I like female characters and such, but to have a space marine figure and say "that's a female in that" is just pointless and boring for me.
Below, a female soldier. Narrow shoulders, female face. Optional long hair. And from personal experience serving with females in Iraq, noticeable difference in the hips. All perfectly representable without "oversexualizing" anything.
No, assuming that the armor has anything to do with the shape of the person under it. As the current US military has recently discovered, armor designed for men is not well designed for women and needs to be shaped differently if you expect a woman to wear it for long periods. Otherwise things like sores develop due to the poor fit.
And yet, a flak jacket worn by a woman (even one that shockingly comes in women's sizes) still looks like a flak jacket.
I agree there's a certain sense in the look of battle sister power armour given their political place in the setting, but personally I wouldn't mind an up-armored variant or even redesigning the line using Sister Sin as the base. I'm just not that attached to the hourglass figure, but I wish people that were would be honest about it instead of stretching so hard to insist it's realistic. It's not realistic, 40k isn't realistic, and that's ok.
asorel wrote: I don't think you understand how this "evidence" thing works. If you want to make a statement about something that is absolutely true of all members of a large group, you need a working theory that explains, objectively, precisely what this thing is, how widespread it is, what causes it, etc.. Pointing at one (or even 10) anecdotes and screaming "MUH SOGGYKNEES!" doesn't qualify.
Putting things in all caps pidgin English (or whatever that is) is not helping your case. Neither is denying the obvious, actually. Anyone with a modicum of exposition to medium who depicts characters whose gender cannot be determined by their appearance will be able to just observe those have an extremely strong tendency to be referred to as male.
But if you feel like you have time to waste, be my guest and conduct long, boring statistical analysis to assert the obvious.
Claiming that everyone agrees with you without providing anything resembling an argument isn't helping your case. You made the claim (male is the oppressive default, the poor subjugated women are assumed not to exist unless explicitly stated), the burden of proof is upon you. It's not my problem if you think providing evidence for blanket statements is "boring," it still has to happen.
You would have thought that, being in the 41st millennium and with all this geneseed nonsense to re-purpose the human body, the least they could do is stick in a pair of testicals / equivalent. There wouldn't be male/female warriors, just drones, bred for war with the hormones they need.
MWHistorian wrote: Sooo....back to topic, I like female characters and such, but to have a space marine figure and say "that's a female in that" is just pointless and boring for me.
To have a space marine figure and say “That's a male in that” does not seem any less boring to me. Do you find that exciting? Do you think there is a point to saying “This power armor includes a male character, not a female one”? If so, why is there no point to the contrary?
Let's forget about the marines for a second and look at the tau. I agree that looking at the firewarrior and saying “half of those are males and half of those are females” is pretty boring. But I think that looking at them and saying “They are all male, all of them without exception” is… well, even MORE boring. So maybe we should just stick to the things that are exciting about them, but without assuming they are all males? Is that something you could agree with?
Wulfmar wrote: You would have thought that, being in the 41st millennium and with all this geneseed nonsense to re-purpose the human body, the least they could do is stick in a pair of testicals / equivalent. The wouldn't be male/female warriors, just drones, bred for war with the hormones they need.
That's more or less what Astartes are. There are two reasons why males are selected exclusively, one poetic and one practical.
The poetic reasons is that all Space Marines are to a certain extent clones of the Emperor. The Emperor is male, ergo the Astartes must be male.
The practical one is that the greater muscle mass of males is better for war-making than females, meaning there's a comparative advantage to recruiting males. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are no diversity quotas.
asorel wrote: You made the claim (male is the oppressive default, the poor subjugated women are assumed not to exist unless explicitly stated), the burden of proof is upon you.
Nah. I am going to continue to make the claim, and if you are afraid I will convince people with my tons of “anecdotal evidence”, you better work your ass out to disprove it. If you think I am not going to convince anyone, though, you can just relax and ignore me .
MWHistorian wrote: Sooo....back to topic, I like female characters and such, but to have a space marine figure and say "that's a female in that" is just pointless and boring for me.
To have a space marine figure and say “That's a male in that” does not seem any less boring to me. Do you find that exciting? Do you think there is a point to saying “This power armor includes a male character, not a female one”? If so, why is there no point to the contrary?
Do you, or do you not, know the physical differences between males and females?
Also, fluff wise, all Space Marines are male. So if one isn't, that's an exception and there should be some kind of difference one would think.
You're trying to do some kind of social experiment to prove that there are no differences between male and female except some clouded backwards mind set. I think that's stupid.
asorel wrote: You made the claim (male is the oppressive default, the poor subjugated women are assumed not to exist unless explicitly stated), the burden of proof is upon you.
Nah. I am going to continue to make the claim, and if you are afraid I will convince people with my tons of “anecdotal evidence”, you better work your ass out to disprove it. If you think I am not going to convince anyone, though, you can just relax and ignore me .
You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you. Get off your little crusade of morality for a moment, and realize that this is an argument on the Internet, no more, no less. And in an argument, he who makes the claim must provide evidence for it. If you want to Listen and Believe™ on faith alone, without any evidence, go right ahead, no one's stopping you. But if you want to present these claims in an argument, you must provide evidence for them; otherwise they are dismissed.
The practical one is that the greater muscle mass of males is better for war-making than females, meaning there's a comparative advantage to recruiting males. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are no diversity quotas.
I'll add a dash of my background knowledge to this - the real benefit would be forcing endopolyploidy in specific tissues, or figuring out how to induce non-lethal polyploidy in Humans in order to ramp up growth rate and tissue generation.
A current example (in fish admittedly) being triploid salmon that grow much larger and faster compared to their diploid cousins.
MWHistorian wrote: Do you, or do you not, know the physical differences between males and females?
I am actually not sure I know the physical difference between males and females. It tends to be blurry when speaking about animals with reproductive methods different from our own, or even plants.
I am though quite aware of the differences between men and women. It's more interesting that you would think. Have you looked at the methods that are and were used to make sure athletes competing in female championships are actually female? Apparently the difference is not as obvious as you would make it .
MWHistorian wrote: You're trying to do some kind of social experiment to prove that there are no differences between male and female except some clouded backwards mind set.
Some social experiment? Please, enlighten me on what is supposed to be a social experiment here?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
asorel wrote: You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you.
Ah, you surely are not, and this is why you are from now on not going to bother trying to prove me wrong because you made your case already. Which amounted to “I do not believe you”.
Thanks for that very enriching “argument on the internet”. I am certainly not interested in pushing that argument forward unless you bring more arguments to the table. You see, I do not care about convincing you. I am not interested in talking with people that I consider are talking in bad faith, because I know I am not going to convince them. I will only address their arguments if I feel that might be instructive to other people reading the thread. “I do not believe you” is no such argument.
You need boob armour thats that. As a person who played hockey since birth I can tell you two things if you wear a cup and it is to small there will be pain, if you wear nothing there will be pain.
Now think of it this way you want to guard your bird so you wear a flat piece of steel over it, now when it gets hit the softer bits will be pushed in painfully til it hits the bone to help it stop going forward. Now imagine all the girls out there every time they get hit in the chest getting boobs smashed over and over. You need gear that fits and like it or not girls have boobs that need to be protected like a mans bird if they are in close combat fights.
The reason the average joe army man dresses the same is because most can wear it with out a problem but for the best fit everything has to fit that person perfec so there will be big dofferences between male and female suit if they cared about each person.
Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.
Yes, yes it does need to be done to figure that out, because otherwise your business has no fething idea what will or will not make money. None. Zero. Zilch.
Smart companies know this, which is why they hire teams of people, almost all of them some flavor of "Business Analyst" in title who sit there and crunch numbers, run tests, take polls, do surveys, attend industry conventions, browse forums like this, and take all those data points back and establish expected trends, study market shifts, watch what their competitors are doing (and whether or not they succeed or fail) and, if they're smart, they respond accordingly to remain competitive, because that is how capitalism works.
GW does none of this. The best they can do is take last year's sales numbers for a given product, use their internal sales data to see whether sales overall are up or down, and then release a new product with the guess-timated expectation that it will sell X units, which is the total of Y (units sold last year) + or - B% (changes in sales volume over the past year).
If GW sold 100,000 boxes of Tactical Marines last year, and their sales data indicates a 5% drop in total sales, when they release the new box of Tactical Marines, they estimate that they will sell 95,000 boxes this year.
They don't do the market research to realize that, because the new video game, Rise of Bolter-Porn, is really popular, they should actually expect to sell 125,000 boxes, because people who don't play the table-top game will get them as gifts for fans of the video game (possibly themselves), or that the reason they only sold 100k boxes last year was because, in seven different markets, they were sold out for six months, thus requiring customers to go to the website to order them... which is a loss of impulse buys, runs into "CBA" customers, and so on.
All of this data is part of market research. Figuring out why customers buy (or don't buy) your products, figuring out what they want, what they don't want, what can be done to address these issues, so forth and so on. GW does none of this. They have a very limited set of data points to work with, that being the sales figures coming back from their stores, their third-party vendors, and their website, and the intelligence they can glean from that limited set of data is, of course, very limited. Their sales numbers over the past several years is completely indicative of this.
females are biologically different then males and have different body layouts(shoulders closer together, tendency to be shorter and less muscle mass), this is proven fact. While their may be some exceptions on an individual bases, these exeptions should not be taken as the standard across an army like the sisters of battle, which is on a scale of tens of thousands at least.
also I generally like for sisters of battle to be identifiable as female, an army of females enclosed in the same power Armour as space marines is boring
asorel wrote: You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you.
Ah, you surely are not, and this is why you are from now on not going to bother trying to prove me wrong because you made your case already. Which amounted to “I do not believe you”.
Thanks for that very enriching “argument on the internet”. I am certainly not interested in pushing that argument forward unless you bring more arguments to the table. You see, I do not care about convincing you. I am not interested in talking with people that I consider are talking in bad faith, because I know I am not going to convince them. I will only address their arguments if I feel that might be instructive to other people reading the thread. “I do not believe you” is no such argument.
lack of evidence in the defendant is not evidence for the prosecution, the burden of proof lies in the one who makes the claim.
asorel wrote: You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you.
Ah, you surely are not, and this is why you are from now on not going to bother trying to prove me wrong because you made your case already. Which amounted to “I do not believe you”.
Thanks for that very enriching “argument on the internet”. I am certainly not interested in pushing that argument forward unless you bring more arguments to the table. You see, I do not care about convincing you. I am not interested in talking with people that I consider are talking in bad faith, because I know I am not going to convince them. I will only address their arguments if I feel that might be instructive to other people reading the thread. “I do not believe you” is no such argument.
Ah, so you are here only to preach, and do your best to pretend dissenters do not exist. Your actions make much more sense now. Carry on, I have no interest in your religion.
And "I don't believe you" is a perfectly valid argument when you give no cause for belief. If you tell me a morbidly obese man would provide tax-free gifts every solstice if I performed good deeds, I would deny your claim without follow-up if you are unable to prove it.
Melissia wrote: Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.
And that's why I collected them since 2nd ed until a year ago.
Women are awesome. They're different to men and there's not wrong with that. It's the differences that make them awesome.
They started out as an optional ally mini-army, and in 40k being optional equated to being usually illegal in normal and tournament games. So that is a huge disadvantage trying to sell them right from the start;
Both times they had major codex releases, it was on right when the next edition was about to drop, essentially making them pseudo-obsolete, and thus undesirable;
With the above ensuring that the sisters will only have a relatively small paying fanbase and the difficulty of making their models, they got passed over during the metal-to-plastic phase;
And then there is the whole White Dwarf codex business, and the digital codex getting hate because it is digital;
So basically GW kept screwing them over, but when they look at the numbers, they only see that the sisters sold badly on their own, not that they mismanaged them.
Vandire651 wrote: females are biologically different then males and have different body layouts(shoulders closer together, tendency to be shorter and less muscle mass), this is proven fact. While their may be some exceptions on an individual bases, these exeptions should not be taken as the standard across an army like the sisters of battle, which is on a scale of tens of thousands at least.
You are talking about difference so big they have a LOT of trouble to find methods to make sure athletes in female sports are really women and not men.
You are talking about 28mm miniatures clad in extremely thick armor.
Vandire651 wrote: also I generally like for sisters of battle to be identifiable as female, an army of females enclosed in the same power Armour as space marines is boring
I agree that Sisters being enclosed in the same power armor as marine is boring, but not for the same reason. For me it is because Sisters need to have heavily blinged out, “baroque” armor.
Vandire651 wrote: lack of evidence in the defendant is not evidence for the prosecution, the burden of proof lies in the one who makes the claim.
Is this a trial now? Because I am both judge, jury and executioner!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
asorel wrote: Ah, so you are here only to preach, and do your best to pretend dissenters do not exist.
No, I am usually vehemently addressing every argument they put forward. If you put none, though… you get the cold shoulder .
Melissia wrote: Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.
And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?
My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"
Melissia wrote: Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.
And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?
My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"
That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion. But nice strawman nonetheless.
Vandire651 wrote: females are biologically different then males and have different body layouts(shoulders closer together, tendency to be shorter and less muscle mass), this is proven fact. While their may be some exceptions on an individual bases, these exeptions should not be taken as the standard across an army like the sisters of battle, which is on a scale of tens of thousands at least.
You are talking about difference so big they have a LOT of trouble to find methods to make sure athletes in female sports are really women and not men.
You are talking about 28mm miniatures clad in extremely thick armor.
we are both talking about professional female sports right, since I am pretty sure they would have most of the exceptions in body structure that I was talking about, also any man who tries to compete in said sports would be both jerks and the most likely to also be exeptions as well as trying there best to look female.
Melissia wrote: Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.
And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?
My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"
That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion.
Oh gee wizz willy wonkers batman, you figured it out! IT WAS MY OPINION ALL ALONG! *slowclap* Another mystery solved, truly, your powers of deduction are impressive!
One last foray into this topic before I leave to go watch Netflix and eat salted caramel and chocolate Haagen Dazs.
If we ignore all my comments about polyploidy and endopolyploidy. If we ignore all genetic modification including insertions, deletions and regulations. If we ignore all actual science related to how gender-neutral, infertile drones would be physically superior to male astartes and female sisters.
And focus just on the armour - just that. Then this is what I have to say:
Boob plate will get them killed stupidly fast compared to mono-raised plate.
Simple.
No debate.
Explanation: Armour is designed to deflect. The inside curvature of the breasts on the armour will deflect bullets straight into their heart.
This means that your classic Sister of Battle with her generous bosom will be plinking bullets straight into her chest where the breasts act like a bullet trap in front of the heart. Give this a read
That's why armour that gives room for the bust, but doesn't distinguish it is the ONLY logical way to go. As I showed earlier with the Eisenkern Storm troopers. For ease, here they are:
So this really just boils down to the following:
You prefer Sisters of Battle because of artistic style and like curvy stylised/sexualised (compared to the Eisenkern I showed you) and are happy to admit that (which I don't have issue with though I personally prefer the Eisenkern ones for the reasons stated above)
OR
You don't want to admit that sex has an affect on your mind.
Personally, some of the models I see are pure pornographic and yes like any male I find them attractive (such as some of the raging hero stuff) BUT in a war game, I want soldiers, not porn stars.
Melissia wrote: Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.
And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?
My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"
That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion.
Oh gee wizz willy wonkers batman, you figured it out! IT WAS MY OPINION ALL ALONG!
*slowclap*
Another mystery solved, truly, your powers of deduction are impressive!
You're certainly not treating it as such. Read your post. What you say is we need better model design. "We" implying that this is an obvious, universal truth held by everybody, not just you, and "need" implying that the replacement of this design is important and required. Something other than your personal desire, in other words. What you're saying isn't "we need," it's "I want."
Yeah, the inside shape of the armor is going to be slightly different. Just like they make different armor size. However, how different is the outside going to be? Especially when at 28mm scale?
Hip and shoulder? Rather visible. You wouldn't have 'breastplate' but you'd see the difference.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Just check how different the US armor for men and women are on the outside. Now consider that the thicker the armor, the less visible the difference will be. On power armor? No visible difference.
I might point out that you may wish to rethink that. According to GW fluff, that power armor is thinner than the US grunts body armor and gear.
See, there's a reason that so much of the hardware is actually in the backpack.
That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion.
Oh gee wizz willy wonkers batman, you figured it out! IT WAS MY OPINION ALL ALONG! *slowclap* Another mystery solved, truly, your powers of deduction are impressive!
You're certainly not treating it as such
Your asinine assumptions about my posts are just that-- asinine assumptions.
Are you really that desperate to derail the conversation?
Vandire651 wrote: we are both talking about professional female sports right, since I am pretty sure they would have most of the exceptions in body structure that I was talking about
Did you heard about how Sisters are an extremely elite corp with an extremely selective recruitment process?
Vandire651 wrote: also any man who tries to compete in said sports would be both jerks and the most likely to also be exeptions as well as trying there best to look female.
Uh, okay. Does not contradict the fact if you cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman wearing sportive attire (which is usually quite form-fitting), how the hell do you expect to be able to tell the difference on 28mm scale models of people wearing centimeter-thick (at least) armor?
asorel wrote: You're certainly not treating it as such. Read your post. What you say is we need better model design. "We" implying that this is an obvious, universal truth held by everybody, not just you, and "need" implying that the replacement of this design is important and imperative. Something other than your personal desire, in other words. What you're saying isn't "we need," it's "I want."
Damn, you really do not like to do arguments. You seem to prefer confrontation so much. I feel sorry for you.
What's even going on in this thread? Are people actually arguing there are no physical differences between men and women?
There's a reason there's a big hooplah about the transgender woman (MtF) Fallon Fox fighting in the women's leagues. The only fight they've lost versus women has been against someone who was found to be taking banned substances. Keep in mind this is in the featherweight league and three of Fox's five wins were by knockout (very rare in featherweight) and you start to see an issue.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: You are talking about difference so big they have a LOT of trouble to find methods to make sure athletes in female sports are really women and not men.
Do... do you have any idea what you're talking about? At all?
You can check for a baby's gender using genetic testing in the god damn womb. Christ. You can check for race and genetic conditions from a single drop of blood. You really think you can't find out an entire chromosome's worth of difference?
Wulfmar wrote: One last foray into this topic before I leave to go watch Netflix and eat salted caramel and chocolate Haagen Dazs.
If we ignore all my comments about polyploidy and endopolyploidy. If we ignore all genetic modification including insertions, deletions and regulations. If we ignore all actual science related to how gender-neutral, infertile drones would be physically superior to male astartes and female sisters.
And focus just on the armour - just that. Then this is what I have to say:
Boob plate will get them killed stupidly fast compared to mono-raised plate.
Simple.
No debate.
Explanation: Armour is designed to deflect. The inside curvature of the breasts on the armour will deflect bullets straight into their heart.
This means that your classic Sister of Battle with her generous bosom will be plinking bullets straight into her chest where the breasts act like a bullet trap in front of the heart. Give this a read
That's why armour that gives room for the bust, but doesn't distinguish it is the ONLY logical way to go. As I showed earlier with the Eisenkern Storm troopers. For ease, here they are:
So this really just boils down to the following:
You prefer Sisters of Battle because of artistic style and like curvy stylised/sexualised (compared to the Eisenkern I showed you) and are happy to admit that (which I don't have issue with though I personally prefer the Eisenkern ones for the reasons stated above)
OR
You don't want to admit that sex has an affect on your mind.
Personally, some of the models I see are pure pornographic and yes like any male I find them attractive (such as some of the raging hero stuff) BUT in a war game, I want soldiers, not porn stars.
I have no problem admitting that the main reason I defend the sisters Armour is that I like the design. that said the boob plate is likely just a decorative sheet of metal added onto the curved power Armour after it was made, through the plate theoretically could add extra protection against bolters due to bolts being designed to penetrate Armour and then explode after a set delay. a pate of metal would cause the bolt to penetrate the plate then explode in the cavity, which while not perfect would lead to the bolt exploding outside the Armour proper causing mainly shrapnel damage.
also the armour was design under the reign of goge vandire, the insane dude who tried to micromange the galaxy and thought a remote cult of woman warriors would be a better bodyguard then the professional troops he already had, so theirs that to
BaronIveagh wrote: I might point out that you may wish to rethink that. According to GW fluff, that power armor is thinner than the US grunts body armor and gear.
See, there's a reason that so much of the hardware is actually in the backpack.
You are kidding, right? Or you have never seen artwork of marines without the helmet?
nullBolt wrote: Do... do you have any idea what you're talking about? At all?
You can check for a baby's gender using genetic testing in the god damn womb. Christ. You can check for race and genetic conditions from a single drop of blood. You really think you can't find out an entire chromosome's worth of difference?
Hey, do not take my word for it, look it up on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_verification_in_sports Enjoy this: “While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.” And the reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html
I would love if GW reworked the sisters, but I honestly don't know what they will do.
GW is such a weird company. They neglect things that could be huge, and yes I do think if the Sisters line were reworked with new models they would be popular.
As far as the model design goes it is a love it or hate it when it comes to the tight corset armor. (I don't mind them, wife hates them)
Is it realistic? Nope not at all. Google female soldiers in armor, and you get the exact image that I saw most of my 22 years of service. Armor is for protection not looks. A soldiers sex is hard to tell at a distance, and closer up only the height and or a slighter build singles them out as a female.
But is 40k realistic? Nope not at all, its the far future. Who knows how things would look.
My wife does joke about what space marines would look like if the majority of gamers were women and males were just a minority.
Melissia wrote: My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"
Nothing about SoB armor really strikes me as trying to overly sexualize the sisters. If anything it reminds me of Victorian/Gothic fashion with their corsets except done in the form of plate power armor providing full body protection. Catachans with their steroid induced bulging muscles and bare chests are far more impractical, sexualized, and over the top than standard SoB armor. I won't really bother defending repentia except that we see stuff like arco-flagellant with a similar look for males. Personally I really like the design of the Sisters (minus the repentia as it just seems silly over anything interesting) and it fits with the Imperium's gothic theme. 100% realistic and practical design would just be boring as everyone would look the same with full body mechanical power armor with zero noticeable difference between male, female, living, or robot.
Vankraken wrote: Catachans with their steroid induced bulging muscles and bare chests are far more impractical, sexualized, and over the top than standard SoB armor.
Agreed for impractical. Disagree with sexualized and over the top. If you are looking for sexualized males, the only one that could arguably fit the bill in 40k are the Sanguinary Guards and some of the male wyches.
Vankraken wrote: Nothing about SoB armor really strikes me as trying to overly sexualize the sisters. If anything it reminds me of Victorian/Gothic fashion with their corsets
Victorian corsets were made to help ensure a specific body shape, which made the waist slimmer and boobs more prominent, at the expense of comfort and ability to breathe. They also wear high heel boots-- such heels are designed to give the impression of longer, more slender legs, IE sexualize the person wearing them at the expense of the greater mobility other kinds of footwear offers.
Both of these things fit very clearly in the sexual fetishes of Blanche as portrayed in his artwork (the most prominent example of which... I can't actually post here, because it's NSFW, but this one works too-- fetishes not too dissimilar from the Canoness image inside of Codex: Witch Hunter), the most prominent visual designer of Sisters of Battle. It's hard for me to believe people say they aren't sexualized when the artist who dominated their visual design added his favorite sexual fetishes to them.
And is that supposed to be a portrait of the Emperor (enthroned) behind him?
You can tell this guy is a badass by the fact he keeps raptors, and he uses them. As tables. To write stuff. Using their blood as ink. If that is not badass, what is?
Vankraken wrote: Nothing about SoB armor really strikes me as trying to overly sexualize the sisters. If anything it reminds me of Victorian/Gothic fashion with their corsets
Victorian corsets were made to help ensure a specific body shape, which made the waist slimmer and boobs more prominent, at the expense of comfort and ability to breathe. They also wear high heel boots-- such heels are designed to give the impression of longer, more slender legs, IE sexualize the person wearing them at the expense of the greater mobility other kinds of footwear offers.
Both of these things fit very clearly in the sexual fetishes of Blanche as portrayed in his artwork (the most prominent example of which... I can't actually post here, because it's NSFW, but this one works too), the most prominent visual designer of Sisters of Battle. It's hard for me to believe people say they aren't sexualized when the artist who dominated their visual design added his favorite sexual fetishes to them.
Self-flagellation is a major part of Catholicism and it's part of the Sisters of Battle because of it. It's just that simple, really.
Hey, do not take my word for it, look it up on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_verification_in_sports Enjoy this:
“While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.”
And the reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html
So a ridiculously obscure genetic condition makes it so that you can't detect for gender and there are no gender differences?
It'd be like arguing that the woman with 46XX/46Y who was, for all intents and purposes, female but with a much greater bone density and muscle mass than the average woman disproves everything. It's a rare genetic condition. It might "not be that simple", but 99.9% of the time it is.
Thankfully this was limited to a sole artwork by Blanche that was basically never re-used. All the models and all the other illustrations have flat soles.
nullBolt wrote: So a ridiculously obscure genetic condition makes it so that you can't detect for gender and there are no gender differences?
Certainly you ought to go all sarcastic over all the professional sports organization that organize those tests .
Face it, history has way too many examples of women pretending to be men (and the other way around) for you to act like the differences are such a big deal…
Melissia wrote: No, the argument is about whether or not we need to emphasize to the point of parody the visual differences between women and men.
The SoB are intentionally parody, though, like almost all 40k is.
On the contrary. All parts of 40k take themselves quite seriously to ensure the grimdark. Even Orks.
orks are serious?? even Wazdakka who looted a battle cannon from a lemon russ and attached it to his warbike, which was kicked back half a meter every time he fired the cannon. I'm afraid you've lost me
Woah, that's an antiquity! Is he not that half-eldar guy ?
No, it's actually Calgar, same guy as in yours, just in mk 6 armor. Your pic is of him in the Armour of Antilochus, a unique suit of terminator armor that seems to make him even bigger than regular termies, based on the TT models.
BaronIveagh wrote: No, it's actually Calgar, same guy as in yours, just in mk 6 armor. Your pic is of him in the Armour of Antilochus, a unique suit of terminator armor that seems to make him even bigger than regular termies, based on the TT models.
You missed the joke.
I was implying your image was so goddamn old it was completely outdated and irrelevant.
Also my picture is definitely Calgar in his artificer armor.
See:
- Artificer armor:
- Antioch armor:
- My image:
The shape of the pauldrons is a direct giveaway.
What I wonder why is why not simply give sisters -actual- gothic armor? All you'd need to do is remove the silly corset and boobplate, slap a normal fluted breastplate on and BAM, gothic space knight nuns. Just give it a slight bump at the breast if you absolutely must be able to tell the gender of the wearer in such a simplistic way.
Spoiler:
The reason why I don't buy sisters is because their current design looks utterly ridiculous on top of having terribly expensive metal models. If both of those stopped being an issue, I would definitely consider buying some in the future as allies for DA. All of this could be accomplished by a simple swap of a chest piece.
Vankraken wrote: Nothing about SoB armor really strikes me as trying to overly sexualize the sisters. If anything it reminds me of Victorian/Gothic fashion with their corsets
Victorian corsets were made to help ensure a specific body shape, which made the waist slimmer and boobs more prominent, at the expense of comfort and ability to breathe. They also wear high heel boots-- such heels are designed to give the impression of longer, more slender legs, IE sexualize the person wearing them at the expense of the greater mobility other kinds of footwear offers.
Let me be more clear, when I mean overly sexualize I mean it is intended to elicit sexual attraction or eroticism (aka a "that's hot" reaction). What Sisters power armor does do is highlight some of their feminine features to illustrate that they are females. Considering their entire design is to be an all female fighting force then such elements seem to fit (again 40K is very exaggerated in its artistic design, nothing is practical in the slightest). That Victorian/Gothic design is very much at home in a Futuristic Gothic themed setting. Also they don't seem to wear high heels in any of the art from a quick google search and have fairly standard looking knight like plate greaves/boots.
Melissia wrote: No, the argument is about whether or not we need to emphasize to the point of parody the visual differences between women and men.
The SoB are intentionally parody, though, like almost all 40k is.
On the contrary. All parts of 40k take themselves quite seriously to ensure the grimdark. Even Orks.
Everything in 40k is over the top. Maybe some of the narrative writers think the setting is more serious but the original concept and the still overarching theme of this universe is how absurd and parody like this universe is, especially the Imperium of Man. Orks in particular are played up for comical effect with how their technology works, their society, their cockney accents, and crazy antics on the battlefield. The only way Orks could be more non serious would be if their Weirdboyz started breaking the 4th wall and talking to the reader/player/etc.
On the sexualisation thing, Marines all have massive codpieces, except Scouts, which don't have any armour plate there, they just have massive trouser bulges.
I mean, just look at that 2e Calgar picture with his massive shiny dong-guard.
1. The design choices of Sisters fall into the crazy 80's metal band ascetic that 40k used to follow. Most armies have been updated into poor looking super serious everything is hardcore designs that I think are boorish compared to older designs.
2. Sisters are not hyper sexual, the closest you can get are Repentia but they actually have a fluff reason for running into battle with nothing but pieces of cloth strapped to their bodies. Boob plate is not sexual in this situation, it can be don't get me wrong, but in the case of 40k it is more due to the 28mm heroic scale that they use. Heroic scale is all about emphasizing portions of the human body in order to show something from the tabletop to anyone observing. The argument as I see it is that some people feel that boob plate is inherently sexist, while others see it as a way to differentiate a female from a male from the eyes of someone looking down at a table from 3 to 4 feet away. If all you want is to run a bunch of gender neutral suits of armor you can do that with the existing Space Marines. No matter what changes you make to make a suit of armor look more feminine based on shoulder width, hip width, or what ever have you means NOTHING as a man with wide hips could be in that armor as much as any woman. The only way to SHOW that someone in a full suit of armor is a woman is boob plate. That is why it is used. If the designers WANTED ambiguity they could easily do that but the core of the Sisters of Battle is that it is an army of women and the arguably best way to show that they are women from 3 to 4 feet away is to show that they have breast because that is the one thing that men do not have and can not have naturally, something that any human being can see and immediately recognize as female.
Back on topic, I think that GW doesn't redo Sisters right now because they are looking for minimal investment with maximum return with the entire company right now. AoS is a prime example of this as are many of the newer codices. It would require a great deal of investment on their part in order to release a brand new wave of miniatures for the entire army. It is easier for them to just let Sisters sit on life support, letting the stock they have just dwindle down.
Furyou Miko wrote: On the sexualisation thing, Marines all have massive codpieces, except Scouts, which don't have any armour plate there, they just have massive trouser bulges.
I mean, just look at that 2e Calgar picture with his massive shiny dong-guard.
Wyzilla wrote: What I wonder why is why not simply give sisters -actual- gothic armor? All you'd need to do is remove the silly corset and boobplate, slap a normal fluted breastplate on and BAM, gothic space knight nuns. Just give it a slight bump at the breast if you absolutely must be able to tell the gender of the wearer in such a simplistic way.
Spoiler:
The reason why I don't buy sisters is because their current design looks utterly ridiculous on top of having terribly expensive metal models. If both of those stopped being an issue, I would definitely consider buying some in the future as allies for DA. All of this could be accomplished by a simple swap of a chest piece.
They could even have rank-and-file in normal breastplate and save the full-boobplate for characters. Just like SM characters get to go without helmets and handwave it with "oh, the power armor field protects the head."
Vankraken wrote: What Sisters power armor does do is highlight some of their feminine features to illustrate that they are females.
You can do that without having boobs big enough to hide a missile launcher inside, you know.
Hell, we can even go for a compromise:
Breastplate here has a distinct chest bulge (which is actually present in some IRL armors), but not boob-bulge. And yet because it's so different from marines, it'd be easy to distinguish and people would think, especially along with the heads and cloth sleeves and waistcloth, feminine compared to Marines.
GW doesn't remake Sisters because they read Dakka and see how every single Sisters thread devolves like this and think "Feth not, not touching that with a bargepole".
Good god people enough with the boob-plate discussion we have heard nine million times before. No one is being convinced and you aren't going to win this argument. Personally, I like the models shape right now. I never thought of them as over sexualized or even just sexualized. Knowing what I know about Sisters I doubt they even care. Move on.
The boob plate "problems" some people have... It's silly to be bothered by it. There are enough instances of armor stylized faux-anatomy that its silly to view that anything other than styling. For example we can all look at Blood Angels and believe that those golden abs are not modeled after the marines actual abs, that those golden nipples aren't modeled after the marines actual nipples.
If I had to use my imagination for half a second I would say SoB armor is effeminate because the Ecclesiarchy walks a fine line by maintaining a standing army that per the fluff they are only able to because all SoB are women and need to make it clear they are all women.
Back to the topic of why GW won't release plastic sisters. Currently a squad of 10 is $79 US. When a 10 man plastic squad of Space Marines reaches around $75 is when I would expect to see plastic sisters. GW stands firm that they will not lower their prices so obviously they need to increase prices of other stuff to match the cost of Sisters.
Vankraken wrote: Back to the topic of why GW won't release plastic sisters. Currently a squad of 10 is $79 US. When a 10 man plastic squad of Space Marines reaches around $75 is when I would expect to see plastic sisters. GW stands firm that they will not lower their prices so obviously they need to increase prices of other stuff to match the cost of Sisters.
If GW wants that kind of price for SoB they'd probably do a 5 model box for $35-40; not that they should price them that way.
Melissia wrote: Looks like three separate sets of armor, to me.
Looking again, it seems so. However, the drawing clearly featured the pauldron shape typical of power armor rather than terminator armor.
andrewm9 wrote: Personally, I like the models shape right now. I never thought of them as over sexualized or even just sexualized.
Me too. But I am still annoyed by people saying that male should be the default and that having women in gender-neutral armor is boring, implying that having only men in all those gender-neutral armor is any less boring…
Melissia wrote: Looks like three separate sets of armor, to me.
Looking again, it seems so. However, the drawing clearly featured the pauldron shape typical of power armor rather than terminator armor.
andrewm9 wrote: Personally, I like the models shape right now. I never thought of them as over sexualized or even just sexualized.
Me too. But I am still annoyed by people saying that male should be the default and that having women in gender-neutral armor is boring, implying that having only men in all those gender-neutral armor is any less boring…
Well just to nitpick, men are always the majority party involved in any actual fighting of a war, so we'll remain the "default" for a wargame model. Only thing that will replace us is drones lol.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Me too. But I am still annoyed by people saying that male should be the default and that having women in gender-neutral armor is boring, implying that having only men in all those gender-neutral armor is any less boring…
Human armour was designed to follow the curvature of the male body. It's not gender neutral.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Me too. But I am still annoyed by people saying that male should be the default and that having women in gender-neutral armor is boring, implying that having only men in all those gender-neutral armor is any less boring…
Human armour was designed to follow the curvature of the male body. It's not gender neutral.
aka_mythos wrote: The boob plate "problems" some people have... It's silly to be bothered by it.
Saying "I think it'd be better this way" isn't the same as being "bothered" by it.
Having the thought "I think it'd be better this way" and then posting a dozen or so times over the space of an evening pretty much fills the definition of being "bothered". Not being bothered would be not being interested or caring enough to bother with that
What does that have to do with what I said? They might be wearing it, but it's not designed for them. You can see on the female modern soldiers that the shirts start to hang past the chest area, which is very bad.
Also, how to put it politely... None of those ladies are particularly well endowed? Either that or they practice severe breast binding which must be agony.
I mean, Christ, you're complaining about how unrealistic female armour is without realising how unrealistic fiction armour is in general.
If we were going down to redesign armour for women, it wouldn't look anything like what we think of. It'd probably have a much greater curve in the chest area (to allow for breathing space) and would place the majority of the weight on the hips instead of the shoulders.
The armour would be much closer to what is shown in Dark Souls and the like than what we consider an appropriate armour. And then the question would be how many women could actually carry that armour? All day?
You do realize that Dark Souls armor is based upon armor from the Late Middle Ages, where all armor (which was made for men) was favoring bulky breasts to divert blows away from the breast?
And such armor is not bulky or heavy at all. It weighs less than the kit of a modern soldier, and its weight is distributed across the entire body.
Wyzilla wrote: You do realize that Dark Souls armor is based upon armor from the Late Middle Ages, where all armor (which was made for men) was favoring bulky breasts to divert blows away from the breast?
And such armor is not bulky or heavy at all. It weighs less than the kit of a modern soldier, and its weight is distributed across the entire body.
I do, but the Dark Souls armour is notably more emphasised on every point.
Look at the armour you've shown. The chest is much flatter than any of the Dark Souls stuff and it wouldn't fit the vast majority of women.
Wyzilla wrote: You do realize that Dark Souls armor is based upon armor from the Late Middle Ages, where all armor (which was made for men) was favoring bulky breasts to divert blows away from the breast?
And such armor is not bulky or heavy at all. It weighs less than the kit of a modern soldier, and its weight is distributed across the entire body.
I do, but the Dark Souls armour is notably more emphasised on every point.
Look at the armour you've shown. The chest is much flatter than any of the Dark Souls stuff and it wouldn't fit the vast majority of women.
nullBolt wrote: What does that have to do with what I said? They might be wearing it, but it's not designed for them. You can see on the female modern soldiers that the shirts start to hang past the chest area, which is very bad.
nullBolt wrote: Also, how to put it politely... None of those ladies are particularly well endowed?
And… how would you know that?
nullBolt wrote: Either that or they practice severe breast binding which must be agony.
Maybe we should ask someone who has breasts. I mean, is that not exactly what sports bra are designed for?
nullBolt wrote: I mean, Christ, you're complaining about how unrealistic female armour is without realising how unrealistic fiction armour is in general.[…]And then the question would be how many women could actually carry that armour? All day?
Self-contradiction mode: activated!
nullBolt wrote: If we were going down to redesign armour for women, it wouldn't look anything like what we think of. It'd probably have a much greater curve in the chest area (to allow for breathing space) and would place the majority of the weight on the hips instead of the shoulders.
a number of people like the boob plated style or SoB and would like to keep that desing aproach.
a other amount of people would like to have a more serious aproach with a more realistic designed armour.
The reasons why some prefers one aproach above another are very different.
Aestaetics
historical ( in a 40k sense)
Feministical (wathever you want to call it, there is a huge amount of different names AND different aoriaches ( detail and systemical))
realistic
But why is there so much talk about the armour of the SoS ?
Nobody can deny the fact that a SoS with breasted armour is much easier to identify as a femal model when you look at it while its on a game table compared to a style that is more realistic but will end up pretty much into something space marine like.
Anyway. Whats the point of this debate?
How does the debate about real life armour improve the hobby?
I guess this here is one of the reasons GW dont redo them. It is a hot topic. thats sure. In addition SoS were never be a well suported army. They were eighter optional choices depending on oponents agreement. highliy outdated modelwise. and that they curently only have a eDex doen't help.
No wonder they are not that prominent.
So that's a lovely post of completely off topic. For all your posts in this thread, unless I missed it (the last few pages of boob plate I mostly ignored), I'm yet to hear your opinion on "why don't you think GW will redo the Sisters line?" Or do you think they will redo it? Or why do you think they haven't done it yet?
Maybe we can get a separate thread on boob plates which in future we can just link to when it inevitably comes up and drags us off topic in every SoB thread.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: For all your posts in this thread, unless I missed it (the last few pages of boob plate I mostly ignored), I'm yet to hear your opinion on "why don't you think GW will redo the Sisters line?" Or do you think they will redo it? Or why do you think they haven't done it yet?
I think I did in another topic, or something? Maybe in the News section? I remember very well posting something about it. Basically, “because GW hates us, and wants us to suffer”. Cannot find any better explanation.
Anyway, look at it. It's still got a notable gap under it where her breasts raise it up.
You've kind of contradicted yourself here and proved me right. They were required to design an entirely new jacket for women because the one designed for men doesn't fit their physique. Thanks for the link proving I'm correct!
_ghost_ wrote: Nobody can deny the fact that a SoS with breasted armour is much easier to identify as a femal model when you look at it while its on a game table compared to a style that is more realistic but will end up pretty much into something space marine like.
I disagree with the part I put in italics. They have an armor that is distinct way beyond “boobies”. While marines look very high-tech sci-fy, Sisters are made to evoke the excess of the catholic church, wih tons of bling and a way less clean, technological look.
That's why they have cloths, leather gloves, little spikes on the backpack and on some parts of the armor, more irregular shape for the pauldrons, …
Oh for feths sake, why can I not enter any single area on the internet these days without seeing SJW's being offended by some minor detail?
I, personally, like the look of the current armour but I feel that the kits do need an update and a new plastic set. Something with boob armour and faces that do not look like men in drag.
nullBolt wrote: You've kind of contradicted yourself here and proved me right. They were required to design an entirely new jacket for women because the one designed for men doesn't fit their physique. Thanks for the link proving I'm correct!
Nah, because we can clearly see that the flak jacket looks just very, very similar to the male one. Something you would not noticed on a 28mm scale. Something completely irrelevant. Just like nobody complains that models are all the same size when actually there are height difference in the population…
Yeah, but do you get something to analyze what your eyes see?
nullBolt wrote: Sports bras hold them in place so they don't swing all over the place. They're not made to completely flatten them to fit.
Yeah, but they do flatten them. And the result is that there is no noticeable difference when wearing armor. Of course, when confronted with actual pictures and videos that demonstrate this perfectly, you are just going to say “They are not well endowed, I know it even though I never saw them out of armor because I master the art of circular reasoning!”.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
master of ordinance wrote: Oh for feths sake, why can I not enter any single area on the internet these days without seeing SJW's being offended by some minor detail?
Does it trigger you? You seem pretty sensitive…
_ghost_ wrote: thats my point. if you skip these parts we have a genderless Marine armour with a lot of bling bling
Yes. Would that be a bad thing? I never saw anyone suggesting we should remove the heads, though. I think we all agree those should stay.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: For all your posts in this thread, unless I missed it (the last few pages of boob plate I mostly ignored), I'm yet to hear your opinion on "why don't you think GW will redo the Sisters line?" Or do you think they will redo it? Or why do you think they haven't done it yet?
I think I did in another topic, or something? Maybe in the News section? I remember very well posting something about it. Basically, “because GW hates us, and wants us to suffer”. Cannot find any better explanation.
master of ordinance wrote: I, personally, like the look of the current armour but I feel that the kits do need an update and a new plastic set. Something with boob armour and faces that do not look like men in drag.
I agree
I know the arguments against boob armour but frankly I don't care. They're 28mm models, sure they could look like genderless blobs and I could just imagine what sex they are, but I prefer it to be cartoonishly exaggerated without it looking like some weird fetish thing.... the basic SoB armour does that already so I'm happy enough with that.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: For all your posts in this thread, unless I missed it (the last few pages of boob plate I mostly ignored), I'm yet to hear your opinion on "why don't you think GW will redo the Sisters line?" Or do you think they will redo it? Or why do you think they haven't done it yet?
I think I did in another topic, or something? Maybe in the News section? I remember very well posting something about it. Basically, “because GW hates us, and wants us to suffer”. Cannot find any better explanation.
I think that's brief enough that you didn't need to post a link
But what makes you think they hate us to the point they wouldn't give us something that would make them money? They sounds as illogical as anything else I've heard. I agree that GW don't respect the customer and probably would be happy if they could make money without dealing with us But at the same time I don't see why they'd ignore something that could make them money unless they either don't think it would make money or it would be too costly for them to do.
That's why I wonder if Sisters sold poorly waaaaay back in 2nd edition and GW are basing their projections off that. That's why I brought up Necrons way back when, back in 2nd edition Necrons and Sisters weren't too far apart, Sisters actually had a codex, Necrons just had some White Dwarf articles, both had very limited army lists with metal models making up the core. Necrons got converted to plastic, Sisters did not.
So… do you mean that this sound like something GW would do? Historically I think GW was pretty strong in the “illogical decisions”. For instance, updating all the translations for one or two codex, including names that had never been translated before to begin with (like genestealer), and suddenly changing to stop translating the name of ANY unit, leaving us with atrocious text when a common name like Commissar is left in English in the middle of a French text…
_ghost_ wrote: thats my point. if you skip these parts we have a genderless Marine armour with a lot of bling bling
So you're saying every armor ever that has ever been made that does not include these things is marine armor?
Wow.
Not sure if you've actually compared the two, but even without the corset and boob-plate, there's a huge difference, aesthetically, between Sororitas power armor and Astartes power armor.
_ghost_ wrote: thats my point. if you skip these parts we have a genderless Marine armour with a lot of bling bling
So you're saying every armor ever that has ever been made that does not include these things is marine armor?
Wow.
Did you somehow lost the kontext?
My Point was directed at 40k. Comparing the existing SoB armour with the space marine armour. and i said it would be a kind of marine armour with lots of bling bling.
It doesn't look anything like "space marine armor with bling bling" even without the corset and boob-cups. Have you ever actually looked at the two side by side? They're drastically diffrent.
So what are the great differences? Ripp of the cups , corset and the bling bling. ... suddenly the drastic differences become thinner. .. well if anything the SoB armour becomes more skinny compared to a SM.
Then i could create a new Chapter: The Thin-Marines
The shape of the shoulders is dramatically different, not even having the same technical name (pauldrons vs epaulets); the Sororitas gauntlets have a far softer look to them, with studs around the wrists compared to the hi-tech power armor look of the Astartes armor; the boots of the Sororitas armor look far more like platemail, whereas the Astartes armor looks like the sci-fi powered armor boots that they are. The sleeves hanging from the epaulets are distinct from anything else in the Imperium, and though some astartes chapters do use the skirt-loincloth, it's still very distinctive of the Sisters. Even the helmet is dramatically different, looking closer to helmets associated with platemail than like a helmet suited for powered armor.
Honesly, have you never actually looked at the two side by side?
I looked at both Melissia. But Sorry, thes "huge" differences you claim are as huge as the differences between the different marine armour types ( Mark IV,....)
Epauletes are NOT a part of the armour itself. they fall into the bling bling category. also sleeves are a kind of bling bling and no armour. DA have this also.
The praised plate boots... take a look at the Mark II armour. suprisingly they also have that style...
Im sorry but all of what you say comes down to a DA in Mark II armour that is slightly thiner i napearence and uses a ver personal style of sleeves...
Now that that model put it on the table and then ask someone that is not familiar with 40k at all what person wears this piece of armour.
_ghost_ wrote: I looked at both Melissia. But Sorry, thes "huge" differences you claim are as huge as the differences between the different marine armour types
So basically your argument is "unless it has boobs it's marine armor". Might as well say "eldar armor is too marine-like" then.
And you expect me to respect that argument as serious and well thought out?
I don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I seriously find it difficult to believe that you can't tell the difference between these two:
.. unless the first one has boobs on it. That's like saying "That Ork has a gun therefor it must be a shootaboy", ignoring the fact that the gun is a pistol and it's also carrying an axe.
So basically your argument is "unless it has boobs it's marine armor". Might as well say "eldar armor is too marine-like" then.
And you expect me to respect that argument as serious and well thought out?
I don't.
So you see the Space Marine Armour as a default male one. ... Based on proportions that are made on a unrealistic scale,.. matching modified humans with abnormal proportions.
Well done.
Eldar are not here to debate. we are talking about human armour.
Why do you try so hard to twist my argument?
I said that it becomes at best very hard to tell the difference between a male or female model. U can put as much bling bling and such on that model as you want. on a 28mm style you cant tell for sure if theres a male or female.
Further i said that boob-cups and such makes it very easy to identify a female one on the game table.
Are you seriously telling me that both points are just wrong? Funny. because i debunced your "bling bling" style argument. You are right this stuff sets SoB apart from other things of the IoM but the bling bling doesn't make them obviously female.
The issue if someone should model such armour with obviously shows sexual aspects is a completly different topic. you seem to mix this one up with the points i stated above.
Edit: fine you added pics..
rip of every piece of paper and textiles on both models. then continue and replace the boob-cups with something familiar to the one the SM has. this would be a reasonable step desing wise. then change the belly part of the Sororita that it beomes a less sexual apealing one....
And now we get a Armour that loops pretty much like the one the SM uses... the shoulderpats are kinda different ... the armour is thiner... but in fact it pretty muck looks like the same.
. But fear not, those anons have glorious representative: some guy who used to call gamers the lowest of the low but changed his mind when he saw some pretending to represent all gamers ( 
. Have you looked at Guardians?
Political agendas aside, don't underestimate the ability of your genetics to lead to predispositions. No amount of social engineering will fix what will require Transhumanism to accomplish. We can call a duck an elephant all day, but unless we change the duck into another creature entirely it will still be a duck.
