I made a little joke about Sisters of Silence on Boob Armour and someone comes along and berates me saying if I don't like it, I shouldn't make any comments on it. As I said it was a little joke and said no more but this person had to call me out on it and demanded I can't talk about it. After all this is a discussion forum and if we can talk about it we can. So it seems this person wants boob armour and is passionate about it. Well I shouldn't say he is passionate about having boob armour, he seems passionate about his female miniatures but it also seems he wants to have boob armour or he wouldn't call me out when I made the joke.
My stance is I don't care either way. As a boy who loved these childish things in my younger days I agree it can stay, after all Rule of Cool and all that. Now that I have grown up I can see why people don't like having boob armour and can see their view as well.
I for one now would like to See Sisters of Battle without boob armour. I would like to see a bit more realistic approach as we have the fine women who serve the forces of today and we can't really tell if they are male or female. Seeing boob armour on Sisters of Battle will just make that army a bit more sexual now. I thought GW was trying to get away from sexualizing their minis, so I am surprised at this. If I want to have sexual in my minis I would by Kingdom Death. I would like a nice army, and I think it would be a good idea of not having boob armour on Sisters of Battles and make it a really serious grim dark army, not just an almost power armour army with boobs.
What do you think? What are your opinions of boob armour?
Lose it. I've always thought it looks like nonsense. I don't much a care about realism, and I like stylization, but Sisters of Battle don't need the whole armored corset thing.
I actually thought GW would get away from boob armour. Sadly they didn't.
Can we please, please, please have one god damned discussion about female miniatures without derailing it by talking about boob armor for the fifteenth billion time? I can't wait for the plastic SoB to be released so we can listen to the same complaining for the fifteenth billion and one time. Boob armor isn't going away, so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own.
Now, personally, that just reads to me like someone sick to death of such an inconsequential nonsense entreating someone else to not start pulling at the thread again.
Something I can wholeheartedly sympathise with.
In this particular context, we have models that are true to the pre-existing imagery. Complaining about the use of boob armour is akin to complaining that Ultramarines are blue.
Whilst not being particularly fond of boob armour (I just looked at Kingdom Death and my god... ), it's such a part of the image that without the armoured corset, the boob armour and the bob haircut, you haven't really got sisters of battle, you've got equal opportunities Space Marines. As for "realistic portrayal", it's 40k.....
And quite frankly, these days, the SoB barely count as sexualised when you see "worse" on the front cover of broadsheet newspapers...
I find it an easy way to identify that a 28mm high model is female.
As to realism, we play a fairly unrealistic game in 40k, I don't think the Sisters of Silence are a particularly degrading female representation. I don't think it's much of an issue.
It is not realistic and is rather silly, but the aesthetic looks good and fits the theme (SoB should be distinctly female). It would be next to impossible to tell if armoured people were female without it.
Edit: plus the whole "corset look" fits the grimdark, to my mind at least.
I would have fully agreed but the I believe the comment of " so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own." I found was totally not needed and made it a personal attack instead of saying how he was "sick to death" of it.
After all this is not Warseer and people are allowed to have opinions on Dakka. He could have said what he wanted without making it personal. But personal he decided to make it. I brought it up so someone will not say that it's coming from that thread. It is coming from that thread, I got upset, at the common, I vented, now on my part it's all water under the bridge now.
So without getting upset, it does make a good discussion. After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects but then on the other hand, it's nice to have mini that are like Kingdom Death has done.
I can see both sides of the camp as I said. But for some reason I guess I just would like to see some serious butt kicking sisters instead of seeing them as sexual objects like I did when I was younger.
I think this thread should be the official discussion on this matter. When someone complains about it, they can be linked here so as to not derail yet another thread about female miniatures. I mean, does nobody else think it is a little sexist that every time we start talking about female miniatures, we inevitably go off topic talking exclusively about their breasts?
I appreciate you're Canadian, Davor, with their legendary reputation for niceness, but if you see that as an "attack" then there's a bigger issue at play here.
"If you have a problem with boob plate, go deal with it by yourself rather than debating it here for the nth time" is about the mildest attack I've ever witnessed.
Davor wrote: I would have fully agreed but the I believe the comment of " so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own." I found was totally not needed and made it a personal attack instead of saying how he was "sick to death" of it.
That was real (if a bit curt) advice. There are things in this world that we can change and things in this world that we can not, and if you want to be a happy, healthy person, it is best not to dwell on the things you can not. Boob armor is something that will not go away - not without forcing everybody else in the world agree with you AND censoring the artist achievements of the past. Seems like an uphill battle to me.
For me, the pose or presentation is what makes or breaks the mini. A miniature woman in sensible clothes but posed provocatively like a Hawkeye Initiative picture is far worse to me than SoSs with boob plate corsets who are portrayed as competent, terrifying adversaries. In a post-lady Gaga world, that costume could be quite empowering for some people.
But seriously, put a damn helmet over your brain pan.
Sqorgar wrote: I think this thread should be the official discussion on this matter. When someone complains about it, they can be linked here so as to not derail yet another thread about female miniatures. I mean, does nobody else think it is a little sexist that every time we start talking about female miniatures, we inevitably go off topic talking exclusively about their breasts?
Now we can talk about it in a not New and Rumour section just like how a Mod said.
Off course it will always go off topic because of breast. A lot of men think totally different once we start talking about breast. At least now we can't go off topic about it now.
Is it sexist? Yes it is. I use to feel bad about it but now that I see grown up full grown women google and google over half naked firemen and what not, it's only fair. There is time and place for having sexist minis and there is a time and place for not having them. Kingdom Death does it seem to do it properly. That is a time and place to have it. I don't think it's the time or place in having this done in a 40K setting. It doesn't make the game more grim mark and would actually make it less grim mark for having boob armour on Sisters of Battle. It just detracts it from making it more sexual than it needs to be instead of adding grim mark to what a lot of people like in the 40K setting to be.
I am curious as to why people would like to have boob plate armour on their minis for Sisters of Battle?
Davor wrote: After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects...
Making it obvious that models are female is NOT objectifying them, any more (less if anything) than having women wear dresses while men wear suits. Teenage boys might think of "that" when they see "boobplate" but teenage boy think of "that" because of anything that vaguely resembles certain shapes.
For Slaanesh models I could see your point, but those should be sexualized (to some extent at least), because that's the theme.
If you don't think 40k should contain anything mature, that's another discussion.
I actually thought GW would get away from boob armour. Sadly they didn't.
Can we please, please, please have one god damned discussion about female miniatures without derailing it by talking about boob armor for the fifteenth billion time? I can't wait for the plastic SoB to be released so we can listen to the same complaining for the fifteenth billion and one time. Boob armor isn't going away, so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own.
Now, personally, that just reads to me like someone sick to death of such an inconsequential nonsense entreating someone else to not start pulling at the thread again.
If the issue has come up "fifteen billion" times, perhaps it's not inconsequential nonsense?
I think the answer lies in each individual player's hands. There are enough alternatives out there now that if boob armour ain't your bag, then you don't have to field it. If an opponent drops their boobtastic Repentia and it makes you uncomfortable, you can always ask for a different opponent.
Davor wrote: I am curious as to why people would like to have boob plate armour on their minis for Sisters of Battle?
For the same reason if I watch Star Trek I expect the crew of the Enterprise to be in tight jumpsuit-esque uniforms, colour coded to their job, with federation logos on them, rather than running around in (arguably equally practical) jeans and t-shirts.
Now would I give them boob plate if designing them from scratch? Probably not...
Davor wrote: There is time and place for having sexist minis and there is a time and place for not having them. Kingdom Death does it seem to do it properly. That is a time and place to have it. I don't think it's the time or place in having this done in a 40K setting. It doesn't make the game more grim mark and would actually make it less grim mark for having boob armour on Sisters of Battle. It just detracts it from making it more sexual than it needs to be instead of adding grim mark to what a lot of people like in the 40K setting to be.
Fair enough if you don't want armored breasts in your games, but why do you think it makes 40k less grim?
What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?
Meh, it's such a common thing that it hardly really registers. I only argue about the impracticality of having a breast plate that directs a weapon towards the center instead of away from.
That's why I really enjoyed a undead queen artwork where the breast plate had a hole in that exposed her ribs. Not hard to guess what killed her.
What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?
When I see Sisters of Battle, and I see boobs it has become sexualized. So instead of grim mark, I see sex. Funny thing is, for Slannesh models, and the old ones, I don't see sex at all. I don't see not titilation at all because it looks something "real" that would happen if real, but when it comes to boob armour the realism is taken away and looks less grim mark. When I see nipples on Blood Angels Space Marines, it looks less grim mark. Why? It looks like a joke for me. Yes I know, Romans had nipples and six packs on their armour, but still just looks silly. If it looks silly it doesn't look grim mark then. So when I see boobs on Sisters of Battle while it does't look silly, it just looks more sexualized and so there fore less grim mark.
What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?
When I see Sisters of Battle, and I see boobs it has become sexualized. So instead of grim mark, I see sex. Funny thing is, for Slannesh models, and the old ones, I don't see sex at all. I don't see not titilation at all because it looks something "real" that would happen if real, but when it comes to boob armour the realism is taken away and looks less grim mark. When I see nipples on Blood Angels Space Marines, it looks less grim mark. Why? It looks like a joke for me. Yes I know, Romans had nipples and six packs on their armour, but still just looks silly. If it looks silly it doesn't look grim mark then. So when I see boobs on Sisters of Battle while it does't look silly, it just looks more sexualized and so there fore less grim mark.
Hope this makes sense.
Yeah, I think I understand where you are coming from. Breast armor pulls you out of the immersion of the game because it shouldn't exist "in universe", where as Slaaneshi boob daemons should exist in the setting because of the nature of Slaanesh. Do I have that correct?
Either way, thanks for taking the time to clarify.
Aesthetically, I don't have a problem with it in a fantasy/sci-fi setting
Realistically, though, it's just not practical on non-ceremonial armour. Let's take a plate of armour, form it such that the edge of a log splitter is resting right against the sternum of the woman wearing it, and march her into combat. One good punch to the chest and she's out of combat, probably permanently. It's the same reason ancient soldiers started the 'fad' of cutting hair and shaving beards: why give the enemy something he can grab and remove you from combat?
The Sororitas torso armour is a dress of noble women worn in the medieval times (and later) and hardly over-sexualized. Such things are some of the things that define 40k, like MK II/III knight armour, Roman breastplates on Blood Angels, power swords and axes instead of just power rods and gothic architecture all over the place.
The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.
1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.
2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.
Dryaktylus wrote: The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.
I believe the Sisters Repentia wear such little clothing to emphasise their desire for self mutilation, flagellation and a glorious death in battle. Their weapons are also meant to cause maximum harm to their enemies, so whips and double handed chainswords seem appropriate.
To the OP and the question now:
I think Boob Armour as a term should be thrown away. It seems to be such a silly buzzword when criticising clothing in both TT games and even Video Games, dismissing any redeeming qualities of the rest of the piece artistic wise because it could be interpreted as something little boys can get a fuzzy feeling over.
Should revealing armour exist? Well that's down to you, but as long as there is a demand for it, it will continue to exist. I would say, however, that SoB and SoS armour hardly constitutes as "Boob Armour", at least from what I've seen of it. Having revealing Power Armour suits would be impractical even for a boisterous and impractical world. The accentuation of breasts on those armour pieces is large, but not revealing in any way from my standpoint. It's just another stylised look for a very stylish 40K faction in a stylised universe.
The truth is minus feminizing physical characteristics presented evidently, you can't tell a 28mm mini is female. Put a normal proportioned woman in combat fatigues, with all the equipment etc, and put their hair up and under a helmet or cap, and you can't tell.
If you don't emphasize hips, or breasts, or female hairstyles, then it is kind of pointless to have female minis. There is a line, the pin-up style bare butt figs are another thing. But boob armor alone is a part of the visual design language used across sci-fi and fantasy. Objectification or simple Identification will always be in the eye of the beholder though. But I am telling you, remove/obscure/cover hips, boobs and hair, and you will be hardpressed to identify a female figure. And in a community demanding more of a female presence, it is a bit of a catch 22.
Dryaktylus wrote: The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.
I believe the Sisters Repentia wear such little clothing to emphasise their desire for self mutilation, flagellation and a glorious death in battle. Their weapons are also meant to cause maximum harm to their enemies, so whips and double handed chainswords seem appropriate.
It's the combination that makes this unit awful (half-naked slim girls - giant swords - masked Dominatrix - whips). It also doesn't make sense fluff-wise: these sisiers actively seek death/absolution and are regarded as an example - why should they need the BDSM lady?
I think boob armour is a terrible idea. Steel is a much better material than fatty tissue to make armour out of.
As for the actual discussion, as long as the armour isn't overly sexualised, I guess it's not bad. Male chest armour varies from female chest armour for relatively obvious reasons. I agree with MajorTom in that you need some sort of visual clue/clues and that there is a line between cheesecake and not-cheescake. I do find ridiculous though the amount of 'completely naked but wearing a helmet and holding a weapon' figures out there.
Dryaktylus wrote: It's the combination that makes this unit awful (half-naked slim girls - giant swords - masked Dominatrix - whips). It also doesn't make sense fluff-wise: these sisiers actively seek death/absolution and are regarded as an example - why should they need the BDSM lady?
The Repentia Mistress is an Overseer of the squad - she is there to remind them of their duty, and to deal with anyone who forgets their failings of the code of the Sisters, similar to a Penal Legion Officer.
I don't see how this unit is "awful" - it only seems to be one's interpretation that makes them undesirable. Somehow the presence of the whip or a mask immediately yields something sexual or "BDSM" in nature. Even if that were the case, why does that make it the intention of something for a curious 12 year old to enjoy?
Dryaktylus wrote: The Sororitas torso armour is a dress of noble women worn in the medieval times (and later) and hardly over-sexualized. Such things are some of the things that define 40k, like MK II/III knight armour, Roman breastplates on Blood Angels, power swords and axes instead of just power rods and gothic architecture all over the place.
The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.
It's sexualized. Yes it's not overly sexualized but it's sexualized non the less. Look if Game of Thrones on TV can have proper women in armour then how is this not being sexualized at all by GW? Game of Thrones. GAME OF FREAKING THRONES. They sexualize their movies, but funny how it's not done when a woman wears armour.
So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.
Dryaktylus wrote: It's the combination that makes this unit awful (half-naked slim girls - giant swords - masked Dominatrix - whips). It also doesn't make sense fluff-wise: these sisiers actively seek death/absolution and are regarded as an example - why should they need the BDSM lady?
The Repentia Mistress is an Overseer of the squad - she is there to remind them of their duty, and to deal with anyone who forgets their failings of the code of the Sisters, similar to a Penal Legion Officer.
Penal legionaries are a different breed - if any sister committed something like a lot these guys did, she would be executed immediately. And if the Sisters Repentia need a Mistress, every other squad should have one, too.
General Annoyance wrote: I don't see how this unit is "awful" - it only seems to be one's interpretation that makes them undesirable. Somehow the presence of the whip or a mask immediately yields something sexual or "BDSM" in nature. Even if that were the case, why does that make it the intention of something for a curious 12 year old to enjoy?
There are not much examples in real life or even history that would serve as a paragon for the Repentia squad. It's far from being that bad like this gem but it still fulfills too many stereotypes in my opinion.
It's sexualized. Yes it's not overly sexualized but it's sexualized non the less. Look if Game of Thrones on TV can have proper women in armour then how is this not being sexualized at all by GW? Game of Thrones. GAME OF FREAKING THRONES. They sexualize their movies, but funny how it's not done when a woman wears armour.
So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.
Game of Thrones is quite different to 40k - but well, you should know. I mentioned the orign of the armour design and other examples of things not really appropriate for a hard-headed SF setting - there're (much) more. So the Sisters wear (feminine) ceremonial armour. Blood Angels show their sixpacks. Dark Eldar... Sorry, but what's your point?
Dryaktylus wrote: The Sororitas torso armour is a dress of noble women worn in the medieval times (and later) and hardly over-sexualized. Such things are some of the things that define 40k, like MK II/III knight armour, Roman breastplates on Blood Angels, power swords and axes instead of just power rods and gothic architecture all over the place.
The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.
It's sexualized. Yes it's not overly sexualized but it's sexualized non the less. Look if Game of Thrones on TV can have proper women in armour then how is this not being sexualized at all by GW? Game of Thrones. GAME OF FREAKING THRONES. They sexualize their movies, but funny how it's not done when a woman wears armour.
So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.
As has been mentioned several times, it isn't because at this scale you need to exaggerate the secondary sexual characteristics to make it worth doing. It isn't to titilate, it's to give a clue on a 2" model from 3ft away that it's not a man.
As for GoT, I assume you're referring to Brienne? If so, that's a poor example as that's a character that being highly defeminised is key to who she is and how she's portrayed.
Boob Armor is, of course, totally unrealistic. If you want realistic miniatures, it has no place on the field.
That being said, you don't always want realistic miniatures. I personally think certain aspects of realism have to be sacrificed to make models look better at arm's length tabletop range. (Heroic scale looks better than truescale, imo) To that end, if you want a miniature to be recognizably female at a distance, you have to be able to distinguish secondary sex characteristics, which means facial features or body shape.
So in most of the cases where it shows up in 40k, I don't mind so much.
I'm pretty indifferent towards it, if its done well and tastefully then by all means why not.
More importantly, if the presence of boob-armour bothers you so much in a setting where you have wolf marines riding bigger wolves and guys with vacuum cleaner guns that shoot green midgets as weapons then maybe you want to re-evaluate where your priorities are.
What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?
When I see Sisters of Battle, and I see boobs it has become sexualized. So instead of grim mark, I see sex. Funny thing is, for Slannesh models, and the old ones, I don't see sex at all. I don't see not titilation at all because it looks something "real" that would happen if real, but when it comes to boob armour the realism is taken away and looks less grim mark. When I see nipples on Blood Angels Space Marines, it looks less grim mark. Why? It looks like a joke for me. Yes I know, Romans had nipples and six packs on their armour, but still just looks silly. If it looks silly it doesn't look grim mark then. So when I see boobs on Sisters of Battle while it does't look silly, it just looks more sexualized and so there fore less grim mark.
Hope this makes sense.
You sexualize boob plate armor, just like you finding roman nipples and six ab armor silly looking. The models themselves aren't a problem
Dryaktylus wrote: Penal legionaries are a different breed - if any sister committed something like a lot these guys did, she would be executed immediately. And if the Sisters Repentia need a Mistress, every other squad should have one, too.
The comparison to Penal Legionnaires was down to the need for an Overseer type character to deal with any problematic members of the squad. And why on earth should every SoB squad have a Mistress now? The Sisters Repentia are essentially criminals to the Sisters, and function as a suicide squad - normal Sisters don't need a Mistress to lash them according to any desire for self mutilation or because they stepped out of line.
There are not much examples in real life or even history that would serve as a paragon for the Repentia squad. It's far from being that bad like this gem but it still fulfills too many stereotypes in my opinion.
A comparison to a model piece that has an actual intention of being sexy or conveying the theme of sex acts to models with a lack of armour seems like a bad comparison, as is comparing real life or historical examples to a fantasy universe. And what stereotypes are they exactly fulfilling? Again, it seems any issue with these models is down to a person's interpretation and schema.
Davor wrote: So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.
Giving a model a defining breastplate is sexualisation, as in it has been added to attribute the model to a sex theme? That's new to me.
As others have said already, the point is to define the models as female, while also being a highly stylised piece of armour in the case of the SoB. An example of a more subtle piece of armour can be found in the same universe with the Eldar Guardians, but from a distance you'll struggle to define those models as female since they are helmeted.
Dryaktylus wrote: Game of Thrones is quite different to 40k - but well, you should know. I mentioned the orign of the armour design and other examples of things not really appropriate for a hard-headed SF setting - there're (much) more. So the Sisters wear (feminine) ceremonial armour. Blood Angels show their sixpacks. Dark Eldar... Sorry, but what's your point?
The funny thing is that DE are revealing with the intention of being sexualised, since they are overindulgent to say the least, and are sole minded in finding ecstasy.
Davor wrote: I made a little joke about Sisters of Silence on Boob Armour and someone comes along and berates me saying if I don't like it, I shouldn't make any comments on it. As I said it was a little joke and said no more but this person had to call me out on it and demanded I can't talk about it. After all this is a discussion forum and if we can talk about it we can. So it seems this person wants boob armour and is passionate about it. Well I shouldn't say he is passionate about having boob armour, he seems passionate about his female miniatures but it also seems he wants to have boob armour or he wouldn't call me out when I made the joke.
My stance is I don't care either way. As a boy who loved these childish things in my younger days I agree it can stay, after all Rule of Cool and all that. Now that I have grown up I can see why people don't like having boob armour and can see their view as well.
I for one now would like to See Sisters of Battle without boob armour. I would like to see a bit more realistic approach as we have the fine women who serve the forces of today and we can't really tell if they are male or female. Seeing boob armour on Sisters of Battle will just make that army a bit more sexual now. I thought GW was trying to get away from sexualizing their minis, so I am surprised at this. If I want to have sexual in my minis I would by Kingdom Death. I would like a nice army, and I think it would be a good idea of not having boob armour on Sisters of Battles and make it a really serious grim dark army, not just an almost power armour army with boobs.
What do you think? What are your opinions of boob armour?
I think that you are overthinking it. This initial salvo, and your subsequent answers show that your entirely too invested in your own bias opinion. As puritanical as you think you are, Sci Fi and Fantasy are entertainment. Your blasting away at this subject like you are protecting your sisters cherry. I am looking at them, even right here on my desk, and I'm honestly not seeing how you see them as, in your term- "Oversexualized." (I don't even think you know what that word means.)
Are Sisters of Battle oversexualized?
That is your opinion. As a miniatures army and the attached fluff, when they started out, I thought that they were pretty cool. In their upcoming plastics, We hope that they are worth the 500.00 + that they are going to cost to actually buy a few and add to the ones I already have. You keep shooting boobs as a term, so that as well shows that your pretty entrenched in your thought process. I've seen armies such as Slannish, and some chaos stuff out there that you, honestly, won't handle. That you have the idea that, because there is something on a 1-2" model that shows they are female, shows you a bit immature, regardless of your age. If you are speaking of the same sisters of battle that I am, I see a bunch of pretty much static armored women, in armor that is along the same lines as the rest of the 40K style... If you can't handle that, there is always checkers.
Alternativly, GW does indeed have a puritanical Inquisitor model, and you can find plenty of models out there that you can add to the retnue that would fit the bill for your Inquisition. Seeing as there is no real Sisters of Battle army list...
Nope, Nope. The problem is that every time an Adepta Sororitas thread comes up there is the same half dozen posters that want to remove the boob armor. Then the argument eventually degenerates into the thinly veiled implications that anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot, for not agreeing that it's impractical, or a pervert, for not agreeing with them that's it's oversexualised.
Someone will eventually take it personally, insults will be exchanged, and the thread will be will locked.
no Booby armor? then why bother having SoB ? you can take any old model and say its a SoB so why bother then? but then again why bother painting your space marines in the first place? this way they can be whatever you want them to be, hell you can even say they are orcs, oh wait that is right we want uniqueness we want people to be able to take a quick look at the minis and know right off the back what they are, if you don't like women with boobs or boob armor then don't play, go read the Bible, oh wait that is more X-Rated then this game ever gets.
I don't have any problem with or without boob plate.
Specifically in the context of GW miniatures, I think they're fitting. GW exaggerate everything, guns are huge, heads are huge, hands are huge, embossed or engraved details are huge, rivets are huge, panel lines are huge, often the random details hanging off the model are huge. The only thing that maybe squeezes by not being huge are skulls, simply so the model can be adorned with more of them
If I were trying to sum up GW's aesthetic in a few words it'd probably be big chunky details, exaggerated proportions and excessive detail.
So given that, boob plate is very fitting for GW models.
I love boob armor. I think it is a great way to show representation of the female on a 1" tall minature. What I don't like and find even more disturbing is the footware. High Heals on the battlefield. Yeah right. The soldier would break their ankles long before they would need to worry about bullet catchers in the chest region.
Also the heals are just not necessary to show femininity on the figure, not when you have the boob plate to do that.
Jayden63 wrote: I love boob armor. I think it is a great way to show representation of the female on a 1" tall minature. What I don't like and find even more disturbing is the footware. High Heals on the battlefield. Yeah right. The soldier would break their ankles long before they would need to worry about bullet catchers in the chest region.
Also the heals are just not necessary to show femininity on the figure, not when you have the boob plate to do that.
Maybe you need to actually look at the miniatures instead of repeating internet myths.
Only in one or two codex illustrations are SoBs portrayed with heels, and those are only stylistic representations.
Think it's pretty stupid, impractical, at least a bit objectifying, would be happy to see it go, but also think there are much bigger fights than it, so don't really care. Also, sometimes rule of cool, and in the case of miniatures it's easier to ID sex as shorthand.
But there are representations... as such my observation is valid. There is also the possibility I wasn't talking just about SOB models. Lots and lots of sci-fi / fantasy minis with boob plate that are also rocking 6" stelletos.
Well it rather depends what you mean by "boob armour".
Are we talking about some ridiculous chainmail bikini/steel plate croptop-lookin' thing, or stylised armour plating? If it's the former, blergh, no ta. If it's the latter, which in this case it is, then for anyone who doesn't adhere to one of the fundamentalist sex-negative strains of feminism, there's nothing wrong with it except as Peregrine says contextually.
By which I mean, objectively, when considered on their own armour plate with sculpted female characteristics is no different than armour plate with sculpted male characteristics. It's only once you put the armour with female styling in the context of something like GW's model range, which is seriously lacking in other styles of female miniatures, that it can seem a bit off.
Now, for my money, the solution to that is to substantially increase the number of female models in other styles, not to demand existing styles be changed.
And one thing - I don't buy this whole "it puts off women to see 'sexy' models" line, I suspect what puts women off are the sadly not uncommon breed of slavering manchildren who seem to infest many nerd subcultures and take the mere presence of a woman as license to be a leering, innuendo-spouting, even gropey trog. Now obviously #notallgamers blah blah, but these guys exist and they rarely get pulled up on their gak. Maybe part of that is due to nerds often having sub-par social skills and not really being sure how to challenge it, but regardless it largely goes unchallenged.
Perhaps devoting all that annoyance some folk evidently feel when they see a gothic boob plate on a model into raising awareness of and maybe even proposing some solutions to that problem might be a more productive(and substantially less annoying) use of time.
Jayden63 wrote: But there are representations... as such my observation is valid. There is also the possibility I wasn't talking just about SOB models. Lots and lots of sci-fi / fantasy minis with boob plate that are also rocking 6" stelletos.
and as I said before if you do not like it, don't get it, nobody is forcing you with a gun to your head to buy such things too anybody who doesn't like boob armor with 6" stilleto boots that is fine, don't buy it, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they can or cannot buy either. you are not their mommy or daddy nor their god or whatever. sadly the more the world evolves the less liberties we have.
Asterios wrote: and as I said before if you do not like it, don't get it, nobody is forcing you with a gun to your head to buy such things too anybody who doesn't like boob armor with 6" stilleto boots that is fine, don't buy it, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they can or cannot buy either. you are not their mommy or daddy nor their god or whatever. sadly the more the world evolves the less liberties we have.
And nobody is holding a gun to your head preventing you from buying the models you want. Criticizing something you like is not the same thing as oppressing you.
Asterios wrote: and as I said before if you do not like it, don't get it, nobody is forcing you with a gun to your head to buy such things too anybody who doesn't like boob armor with 6" stilleto boots that is fine, don't buy it, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they can or cannot buy either. you are not their mommy or daddy nor their god or whatever. sadly the more the world evolves the less liberties we have.
And nobody is holding a gun to your head preventing you from buying the models you want. Criticizing something you like is not the same thing as oppressing you.
except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.
Jayden63 wrote: But there are representations... as such my observation is valid. There is also the possibility I wasn't talking just about SOB models. Lots and lots of sci-fi / fantasy minis with boob plate that are also rocking 6" stelletos.
That's fine, however this thread is about SoBs and their armor, not all the other representations by other companies.
I think stilettos on a fighting woman is a bit silly too, but I don't have to rail against it on the internet.
I would also argue that the miniatures are more important than a couple of John Blanche illustrations that are meant to be evocative but not representational of the Grimdark universe. The preponderance in this case belongs to the actual, physical objects.
No the armor does not sexualize or sexually objectify SoBs. They are in fighting poses and are sensibly covered up (except for Repentia, and there is a reason for that, also not due to sexuality; for them it is a punishment of near certain death (or their armor is their faith, perhaps imho))
Sisters are not "cheesecake" while there are manufacturers that produce CFW's (Cheesecake Fighting Women) SoBs are not them.
Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".
We do not need to be ashamed of these miniatures, we do not need to change these miniatures, we do not need to criticize or act as though they are an affront to decent women everywhere. They are not hurting anyone and they represent strong women doing great things.
Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".
The Sisters' power armour is already aesthetically different from Space Marine power armour (and from most other types of power armour). Even if they had a SoB icon (instead of the distinct boob plate) on the breastplate (or other related iconography) like Marines have they would still be easily identifiable as SoB. Or do all of your SM miniatures need extra huge codpiece so you can identify them as male when you use helmets and not bare heads? Why would you need boob armour to further differentiate them? SoB armour is already so unique that GW apparently can't manage to make a viable plastic moulds for the faction.
GW have multiple visually distinct SM power armour styles (from Thunder armour to Mk.8, artificer armour,…) and you can even visually identify some specific chapters (for example the Space Wolves) from others due to different greeble. They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct? What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women.
Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".
The Sisters' power armour is already aesthetically different from Space Marine power armour (and from most other types of power armour). Even if they had a SoB icon (instead of the distinct boob plate) on the breastplate (or other related iconography) like Marines have they would still be easily identifiable as SoB. Or do all of your SM miniatures need extra huge codpiece so you can identify them as male when you use helmets and not bare heads? Why would you need boob armour to further differentiate them? SoB armour is already so unique that GW apparently can't manage to make a viable plastic moulds for the faction.
GW have multiple visually distinct SM power armour styles (from Thunder armour to Mk.8, artificer armour,…) and you can even visually identify some specific chapters (for example the Space Wolves) from others due to different greeble. They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct? What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women.
I think you are completely missing what he is saying. The armor they wear is not sexual, if they were in a sexy position or showing cleavage, then we could talk.
As for your whole rant on making a new armor set just for the sisters, you went a bit far and jumped into gender politics territory with "They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct?"
Yes, it does make them distinct. Otherwise they would look like Eldar.
I like the Sisters of Battle's aesthetic, and cant wait to see it in plastic.
Nurgle wrote: I feel like this thread has potential to be a salt mine. Any topic dealing with sexuality or the female body is going to attract the wrong crowd.
Well the thread was created by someone who would rather set people to ignore and complain that Dakka has become "whineseer" or is full of "nerd wiener shaming" rather than refute the criticism they bring, so I don't expect it to achieve anything.
It has been a topic that has been discussed at length though, and seemingly creates a massive divide among the community. I would just say "define Boob Armour", because from where I stand, models like the SoB don't have any.
It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.
I'd like that, but I think an individual's definition of what is "Boob Armour" and what isn't could result in an unreliable data reference. Would still be interesting to see regardless.
Asterios wrote: except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.
Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.
This x 1000.
Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:
I don't like boob armour. Mostly because I do not like big boobs. It is as simple as that. I prefer women with smaller breasts so women simply look more attractive to me in practical, normal-sized armour.
2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.
I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
GW could do a lot to improve the representation of women in 40k and to also show them in normal, non-sexualised roles rather than only in special all-female units with boob armour and other such overly feminine characteristics.
It is not a big issue for me, but it'd be nice to see it. Maybe that would also help to make girls feel more welcome in 40k, altough I have no idea how girls actually think about this issue.
Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".
Mario wrote: The Sisters' power armour is already aesthetically different from Space Marine power armour (and from most other types of power armour). Even if they had a SoB icon (instead of the distinct boob plate) on the breastplate (or other related iconography) like Marines have they would still be easily identifiable as SoB.
You contradict yourself here, I'm sorry to say. The SoBs armor is aesthetically different because it is a stylistic representation of the female torso, similar to the way that Space Marines have barrel chests and broad shoulders as a stylistic male torso. Do you have a clear solution to otherwise distinguish SoBs armor?
Or do all of your SM miniatures need extra huge codpiece so you can identify them as male when you use helmets and not bare heads? Why would you need boob armour to further differentiate them? SoB armour is already so unique that GW apparently can't manage to make a viable plastic moulds for the faction.
Strangely enough the SM groin plate seems to be rather large, so also not an argument.
There in fact seems to be strong indication that your second point is no longer an issue.
GW have multiple visually distinct SM power armour styles (from Thunder armour to Mk.8, artificer armour,…) and you can even visually identify some specific chapters (for example the Space Wolves) from others due to different greeble. They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct?
Well, yes; what solution do you propose otherwise? Do you have some other design that would be more efficient at identifying this army as being an army of warrior women?
What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women
Then why bother having a uniquely female army at all?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It would actually be interesting to see a poll of what people think about boob armour. These threads are so often just the same people talking back and forth.
I'd like that, but I think an individual's definition of what is "Boob Armour" and what isn't could result in an unreliable data reference. Would still be interesting to see regardless.
Yeah definitely, I think any poll would have to be carefully worded and quite prone to bias of the writer. But still it would be interesting if approached properly.
Asterios wrote: except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.
Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.
This x 1000.
Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:
For worse, that figure doesn't really look like anything specific. It seems rather generic and doesn't even look like a Space Marine to be honest; it certainly isn't apparent that it is supposed to be female and looks "meh". It has no character or real life to it.
Asterios wrote: except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.
Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.
This x 1000.
Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:
Spoiler:
I'd say that's reasonably indistinct as a female model. Depends whether you want your females to be distinctively so.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't like boob armour. Mostly because I do not like big boobs. It is as simple as that. I prefer women with smaller breasts so women simply look more attractive to me in practical, normal-sized armour.
Putin from your avatar agrees. He also hates boob armor, preferring it to be completely absent:
Peregrine wrote: IMO the problems with boobplate armor are when:
1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.
2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.
Very well said, Peregrine, though I'd disagree that Space Marine pauldrons are that unrealistic. At the very least, having enormous slabs of ceramite on either side of your body is a good thing. I'd compare it more to Space Marines who don't wear helmets.
I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
This is the real issue that people need to address. But I'd like to address the "it's the only way to tell!" argument. First, why do we need to "tell"? Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest? If they released a Dreadnought-sized female Magos character, would she be less female for not having obvious indicators on her totally cybernetic body? Should Inar Satarael and Draykavac have big crotch bulges on their cybernetic bodies to make sure we know they're male? Of course not. This is part of why Shadowsun is good.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.
Zingraff wrote: Boob armour on Sisters of Battle is no less sexualised than huge pauldrons on Space Marines.
Or no more sexualized than those huge pauldrons.
Quite honestly all the kerfuffle about the design of SoBs is really a non-issue but much ado is made about it by those who think that woman everywhere need them to defend their honor.
There is no award or medal, or even a gold star for attacking things like this, if women find it offensive they will tell us. Not those crazy third-wave feminists though please; only first and second wavers, they are the ones that treasure the positive portrayal of strong, active women.
In fact I would submit that the fact that SoBs are so readily recognizable as women that to take that away would actually cheapen and show disrespect to the women who have brought awareness to the issues that for so long caused dissent and disfunction in western society. It is an illogical way of thinking, "oh I have an army of strong women"; "Oh really? They don't look like women."
xraytango wrote: There is no award or medal, or even a gold star for attacking things like this, if women find it offensive they will tell us. Not those crazy third-wave feminists though please; only first and second wavers, they are the ones that treasure the positive portrayal of strong, active women.
"If women find this offensive they will tell us."
*women tell you they find it offensive*
"But not those women, only the women who don't find this offensive."
Davor wrote: I made a little joke about Sisters of Silence on Boob Armour and someone comes along and berates me saying if I don't like it, I shouldn't make any comments on it. As I said it was a little joke and said no more but this person had to call me out on it and demanded I can't talk about it. After all this is a discussion forum and if we can talk about it we can. So it seems this person wants boob armour and is passionate about it. Well I shouldn't say he is passionate about having boob armour, he seems passionate about his female miniatures but it also seems he wants to have boob armour or he wouldn't call me out when I made the joke.
My stance is I don't care either way. As a boy who loved these childish things in my younger days I agree it can stay, after all Rule of Cool and all that. Now that I have grown up I can see why people don't like having boob armour and can see their view as well.
I for one now would like to See Sisters of Battle without boob armour. I would like to see a bit more realistic approach as we have the fine women who serve the forces of today and we can't really tell if they are male or female. Seeing boob armour on Sisters of Battle will just make that army a bit more sexual now. I thought GW was trying to get away from sexualizing their minis, so I am surprised at this. If I want to have sexual in my minis I would by Kingdom Death. I would like a nice army, and I think it would be a good idea of not having boob armour on Sisters of Battles and make it a really serious grim dark army, not just an almost power armour army with boobs.
What do you think? What are your opinions of boob armour?
Boob armor is ridiculous, period. Covering and shaming models for having boobs has gone too far... plated breast armor is a TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY. GW and others need to get ahead of the curve and show their commitment to social justice and feminism by making the new SoB models fully naked. We will not rest until we have freed our nipples from the sexist rule of the Imperium. Adeptus Nippulus, unite.
Peregrine wrote: IMO the problems with boobplate armor are when:
1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.
2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.
Very well said, Peregrine, though I'd disagree that Space Marine pauldrons are that unrealistic. At the very least, having enormous slabs of ceramite on either side of your body is a good thing. I'd compare it more to Space Marines who don't wear helmets.
I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
This is the real issue that people need to address. But I'd like to address the "it's the only way to tell!" argument. First, why do we need to "tell"? Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest? If they released a Dreadnought-sized female Magos character, would she be less female for not having obvious indicators on her totally cybernetic body? Should Inar Satarael and Draykavac have big crotch bulges on their cybernetic bodies to make sure we know they're male? Of course not. This is part of why Shadowsun is good.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.
EDIT: Formatting explosion?
But there is the point that no one has ever reduced SoBs to merely a pair of breasts, ever!
It is a defining feature for visual identity but the rules are not dependent on that nor is it ever presented in such a way that "hey look these figures have boobs!" They are the Sisters of Battle, they fight.
In fact as far as the sculpts go they are far more demure than many other female models, especially considering that they are wearing power armor!
Asterios wrote: except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.
Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.
This x 1000.
Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:
Asterios wrote: except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.
Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.
This x 1000.
Also, all this talk of differentiation and w/e reminded me, did this for someone a while back, just as a demonstration of what less-boobish armor might look like, for better or for worse:
I think it's telling that people are more concerned with SoB having boob plate than they are with them largely lacking helmets, at least on the 'realism' front.
If the SoB were redone and all sexualisation was removed- if you couldn't actually tell they were female, how would the people complaining about sexism and sexualisation react?
Really not an issue for me. If you look at the models and can only see "SEX" thats on you. They make perfect 40k sense, as in often none at all, and I wouldnt want them any other way.
There is a tradition to them, and if any organisation would be strictly adherent to tradition its the Sisters.
Side note, for those in this thread that don't know, Repentia are often not criminals or otherwise. Many Sisters will volunteer to join their ranks over the slightest transgression. Seeking to achieve a higher state of Grace through the Repentia vow and surrender to their fate in the big E's will it represents.
I also agree with Peregrine here. While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
This is the real issue that people need to address. But I'd like to address the "it's the only way to tell!" argument. First, why do we need to "tell"? Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest? If they released a Dreadnought-sized female Magos character, would she be less female for not having obvious indicators on her totally cybernetic body? Should Inar Satarael and Draykavac have big crotch bulges on their cybernetic bodies to make sure we know they're male? Of course not. This is part of why Shadowsun is good.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.
EDIT: Formatting explosion?
The idea that female models are reduced to being a pair of boobs simply because they have boobs moulded is absolutely absurd.
It'd be like saying Space Marines are essentially reduced to shoulder pads because they have big shoulder pads. Or Orks are essentially reduced to green because they're green. Or Chaos are essentially reduced to spikes because they're spiky.
The dominant aesthetic features of a model aren't what the race it represents are being reduced to, it is simply what visually makes the race distinctive. For SoB's, the fact they're female is part of what makes them visually distinctive. Could you make it so them being female is not what makes them visually distinctive? Sure, if you wanted.... but you could just as equally leave them the way they are and keep the aesthetic they've had for the past 18+ years.
Is a model male just because it doesn't have a pair of enormous hazard lights on its chest?
Models are typically identified as men simply because warriors and soldiers usually are men. It's not incorrect to have the default assumption that a soldier is a man because that is the norm.
I don't see it as being part of the job of a miniature games company to try and alter social norms.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any female shape, but there are better ways to do that than twin-linked traffic cones. So from here, there are two ways to proceed. Either they attempt a reasonably realistic female armoured chest, with intent to make them not obviously female (though anyone would know, due to them being Sisters of Battle). Or they can choose to show the chest in a number of less ridiculous ways than the usual.
We're talking about 28mm scale minis here/ 28mm scale minis made by Games Workshop to be precise, it's basically the GW signature move to exaggerate a model's proportions.
When you translate the two latter pictures in your links to 28mm scale and GW hero scale, you'll get.... well.... what SoB's already look like
Kojiro wrote: I think it's telling that people are more concerned with SoB having boob plate than they are with them largely lacking helmets, at least on the 'realism' front.
I suspect that has to do with the fact that bare-headed models in heavy armor are just a convention of the genre, regardless of gender. We all know it's not at all realistic, but we accept it as a way to represent "character" instead of the faceless meatshields making up the rest of the squad.
Peregrine wrote: I suspect that has to do with the fact that bare-headed models in heavy armor are just a convention of the genre, regardless of gender. We all know it's not at all realistic, but we accept it as a way to represent "character" instead of the faceless meatshields making up the rest of the squad.
But isn't boobplate also just a convention of the genre? Like oversized weapons, or banners or impractical vehicle design? Why single it out?
Man... look at those clearly female models that do not need giant tits hanging off their armor to tell that they are female. And hey! You didn't have to paint them with lip stick or anything!
Those conversions make for an excellent plastic sisters. Get smaller shoulders and give their armor a less bulky but more gothic plate armor aesthetic. Throw on some sisters iconography. BAM! You have a updated but still grim dark look to the sisters that doesn't need to slap tits the size of heroic scale heads onto their chest so you can "tell it's a woman".
They don't need to look like a dominatix. They need to look like battle nuns. The gothic layered plate evokes that grim dark inquisitiony feel that they should have.
Man... look at those clearly female models that do not need giant tits hanging off their armor to tell that they are female.
Those conversions make for an excellent plastic sisters. Get smaller shoulders and give their armor a less bulky but more gothic plate armor aesthetic. Throw on some sisters iconography. BAM! You have a updated but still grim dark look to the sisters that doesn't need to slap tits the size of heroic scale heads onto their chest so you can "tell it's a woman".
They don't need to look like a dominatix. They need to look like battle nuns. The gothic layered plate evokes that grim dark inquisitiony feel that they should have.
Maybe I'm one of the few, but I don't really like those models and would rather GW didn't choose that aesthetic.
They made them look female by having an extremely narrow jaw and hairstyles that we associate with women (though to me they just look like weird dreadlocks because the strands of hair are absurdly thick). Instead of saying "it's female because it has boobs" it's saying "it's female because of a hair cut and glass jaw".
To me it looks no more like a female soldier than it would look a child soldier if you photoshopped a baby's head on a bodybuilder.
Kojiro wrote: But isn't boobplate also just a convention of the genre? Like oversized weapons, or banners or impractical vehicle design? Why single it out?
Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.
Peregrine wrote: Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.
Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?
Peregrine wrote: Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.
Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?
It's probably because of Rule of Cool.
Walkers are incredibly impractical. But damnit, they are awesome. Everyone loves mechs.
Not wearing a helmet allows for a lot of character and incredibly dynamic poses.
Insane color schemes let people personalize their stuff and create really unique looks instead of everyone being the same 3 shades of grey, green, and brown.
Boob plate.... well... YMMV but it for sure does not have the same, near universal, appeal that those other things do. Hence the constant debate and discussion. Boob plate may or may not look neat to some but it absolutely is not in the same league as mechs when it comes to rule of cool. It might not be in rule of cool at all. It's probably just in the league of "sex sells".
Peregrine wrote: Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.
Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?
Actually... No. They are not. Tagging them as "Boob plate" is pretty much marginalizing the armor. All of you crying about it, your wrong, and it comes down to your personal opinion. What if I told you that here in the real world, they are working on it in real life.
Its form fitting, but not exaggerated to the point of a chain mail bikini, though I've seen those as well.
That sisters of battle armor is not on par with a leather nuns uniform, you know. It's practical in the form of a light armored suit on par with personal form fitting body armor, like... you know like we use in day to day operations in the real world. Then you add that pack with the ventilation system, such as the Marines have, and then the flame throwers..... Sisters of battle fit the roll of commandos, if you want to go down to the brass tacks.
I'm honestly interested in new and improved smaller jump packs for them, then add in a couple of hand weapons, such as hand flamers, or bolt pistols, as they jump in on a hand to hand combine that with the hand grenades, or krak grenades, and if they work anything like I've seen in the past, you'll be pushing a rhino wall while they jump in behind your infantry and ruck up through the rear of them with the grenade/ flamer combinations.
even seeing the cosplay girls in that armor is hit or miss. You can get off on that if you want to, but it will be an entirely different angle when you see some of the stuff I have... and sexy is the last thought I'd have on the sight.
Food for thought- most of your women want something that save the Ta Ta's. It aint about sexy, its about practical. Light armor on a girl is good if she can do her job, otherwise she's a liability and a target. Sexy has nothing to do with it.
Kojiro wrote: Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?
If you look at my post earlier in this thread I acknowledged that SoB armor makes some sense in the context of 40k and its blatantly unrealistic "because god said to do this" designs, and the main issue is that it's the only example of women in the Imperium. If SoB were just one set of female models, alongside female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau, etc, there would be much less of a problem. But when you look at the genre as a whole, where "DO THE STUPID THING BECAUSE GOD" is not the fundamental design principle, those same stylistic reasons do not necessarily exist. Contrast that with things like heroes not wearing helmets, which is pretty much universal regardless of any other design questions.
Man... look at those clearly female models that do not need giant tits hanging off their armor to tell that they are female. And hey! You didn't have to paint them with lip stick or anything!
Those conversions make for an excellent plastic sisters. Get smaller shoulders and give their armor a less bulky but more gothic plate armor aesthetic. Throw on some sisters iconography. BAM! You have a updated but still grim dark look to the sisters that doesn't need to slap tits the size of heroic scale heads onto their chest so you can "tell it's a woman".
While I do enjoy those conversions, the ONLY thing letting you know they are female are the heads. If they were wearing helmets they would be indistinguishable from Astartes.
And female Tau can actually be named in the fluff. Why is there only a single female named character? Granted, she's pretty important, but it would be easy to add more. Even if they aren't incredibly obvious on the model it you'd still be talking about them as "she" all the time and reinforcing the idea that women are a part of the 40k universe.
Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.
Male Tau have an oval shaped head hole. Females have a "Y" shaped one. Except Etherials. Theirs is diamond shaped with a crystal poking out (So sayeth Xenology).
The worse boob plate is battle bikini, the helmet and rest a few scraps of cloth or a revealing floaty dress that's barely hanging on.
But SOB is full plate armour, fully protective, it might be obviously female from 10 miles away but it is also functional armour.
Unlike other iterations of boob plate its not as blateltnely stupid.
And if you slimmed down the legs and arms slightly, maybe a small, fraction of MM push out on chest, not SOB just a slight nudge to female and female heads.
Instant tasteful female guard.
Peregrine wrote: And female Tau can actually be named in the fluff. Why is there only a single female named character? Granted, she's pretty important, but it would be easy to add more. Even if they aren't incredibly obvious on the model it you'd still be talking about them as "she" all the time and reinforcing the idea that women are a part of the 40k universe.
I agree
there are a couple of other named Tau females - one of Farsights bodyguards is female - and guess which one they decided to kill off....
Also that last campaign book did mention a cuple of females in the art section as tank commanders, suit operators etc.
Shame there were not some females in the Genestealer Cult - but then the depiction of them as primarily breeding vessels in the Deathwatch novel is fairly horrific.
Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.
Male Tau have an oval shaped head hole. Females have a "Y" shaped one. Except Etherials. Theirs is diamond shaped with a crystal poking out (So sayeth Xenology).
I didn't think it was canon whether all female Tau had a Y slit or simply that Shadowsun does. I don't know much about Tau but I remember having a discussion a while back about it. The Tau wiki says...
Only two female Tau have ever been illustrated. The first, Commander Shadowsun, appeared to have a more human face than male Tau; being smoother and sleeker with larger eyes, a nose-like facial feature and a "Y" shaped facial slit. It is not known, however, whether Shadowsun is representative of all female Tau. The second known Tau female, the subject of an Imperial dissection by the Magi of the Adeptus Mechanicus, had the facial characteristics of a male Tau.
I've always just assumed there are a bunch of female Tau that are just never identified as such.
Either way there could be more named female Tau, but the one they do have is supreme commander so I don't think you can cry too much about it
Its metal armour, not cloth and underwear.
No boob cut outs, vital organs covered, the armour minus helmet goes up to neck, not just mega cleavage armour
It escapes a list of the worst excesses of female armour.
And yes history had muscle plate, cod piece armour and such besides.
Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.
Male Tau have an oval shaped head hole. Females have a "Y" shaped one. Except Etherials. Theirs is diamond shaped with a crystal poking out (So sayeth Xenology).
I didn't think it was canon whether all female Tau had a Y slit or simply that Shadowsun does. I don't know much about Tau but I remember having a discussion a while back about it. The Tau wiki says...
Only two female Tau have ever been illustrated. The first, Commander Shadowsun, appeared to have a more human face than male Tau; being smoother and sleeker with larger eyes, a nose-like facial feature and a "Y" shaped facial slit. It is not known, however, whether Shadowsun is representative of all female Tau. The second known Tau female, the subject of an Imperial dissection by the Magi of the Adeptus Mechanicus, had the facial characteristics of a male Tau.
I've always just assumed there are a bunch of female Tau that are just never identified as such.
Either way there could be more named female Tau, but the one they do have is supreme commander so I don't think you can cry too much about it
The wiki is wrong - see my post.
Thats the thing - it just need a few female names inserted here and there - the BL novels are in, in direct contrast, very good at this.
Which part of your post? Did the last campaign book had descriptions or pictures of female Tau with Y slots?
Yes it did.
p113 Kauton - Shas'vre Dastir is depicted in combat fatigues and battlesuit harness, she is a Ghostkeel pilot. The y slot is shown. Several iother Tau females are named as piloting suits.
Kojiro wrote: Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?
If you look at my post earlier in this thread I acknowledged that SoB armor makes some sense in the context of 40k and its blatantly unrealistic "because god said to do this" designs, and the main issue is that it's the only example of women in the Imperium. If SoB were just one set of female models, alongside female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau, etc, there would be much less of a problem. But when you look at the genre as a whole, where "DO THE STUPID THING BECAUSE GOD" is not the fundamental design principle, those same stylistic reasons do not necessarily exist. Contrast that with things like heroes not wearing helmets, which is pretty much universal regardless of any other design questions.
Yup, I like the SoB aesthetic a lot, but GW really do need to get moving on other stuff. I mean it would be trivial for them to take a kit that really, really needs a redesign like Cadians, and release a new version with, say, 1/3 of the models as all-business-no-nonsense female soldiers. And you know what, maybe they don't end up looking hugely different to the male models in 30mm scale - I'd say that's unlikely given the quality of modern GW infantry kits, but regardless - is there anything wrong with that? Is that a reason not to do it? Hell they could just make that a general rule - unless it makes no sense in the background, make at least 1/3 of the box female(and no, modern (mis)conceptions of what makes an effective soldier have nothing to do with the 40K background, by that I mean stuff like "is a race of asexual green mushrooms" or "is a race of asexual extra-galactic horrors"). A female Commissar would be a welcome addition to the line, ideally one just wearing the normal frogged tunic and stormcoat rather than a cleavage corset like that unfortunate RPG illustration.
I genuinely can't understand why they don't just fix such an obvious flaw in their product line - I mean FFS they're up to how many almost-identical Sigmarine character clampacks now, but they couldn't stretch to two Commissars, the male one we got and a female one as well? It's baffling.
Thing is, SoB power armour doesn't need to be practical because it's power armour. As long as it covers your body, it can be which ever shape you fancy, it's not going to impact the functionality of the armour, because the material is immensely tough.
It seems likely to me that the "boob armour" merely reflects the bodice or corset they would normally be wearing as part of their nun habits, or whatever they wear when they're not wearing armour. The power armour of SoB has all the indications of armour imitating clothing, which historically was common in European armour until the 15th century.
SoB armour is likely specifically stylised like that because of the loop hole in the Decree Passive, so it would need to be really obvious that they are not "men under arms".
I see it as like a middle finger to the high lords to go along with the grin they must have when they reply "but these are women under arms, not men".
Davor wrote: Thank you very much. You have just proved my point I made when I made my joke in the other thread.
I don't understand what point you were making; care to elaborate?
I said something like "BOOBS. Yes they are women."
That was it. A joke. I thought putting Boobs in all Caps would emphasize what I was saying and then saying Yes they are women would be so obvious it was a joke. But I erred once again. I guess I should have put the at the end that I forgot to do. But again someone took it too far especially a post or two after is said I was JOKING.
Here is a question not ONE person said. Why do you want boobs on your minis? A lot of great points for and against were made. I just find it funny points made against gave reasons why they don't want it, but I find it funny not one person gave a reason why they want boob armour except to show that they are female and then when it was proven you can tell a Sister of Battle is female without boob armour there is not rebuttal for that.
So please answer unless this will shame you, why do you want boob armour on your minis?
So please answer unless this will shame you, why do you want boob armour on your minis?
Define "Boob Armour"; as I said before, I don't believe the Sisters have any.
Do I want Boob Armour? No, I'm impartial to its existence, provided it is done well and contributes to the model. I don't believe people should be crying out for its abolition, although I can accept some examples of it can be cheap or distasteful, as they seem to only serve purpose for the sake of gud tittays. However, even these models can be designed and sculpted with a theme of mockery about them or over exaggeration well known on Heroic Scale.
However, in the context of SoB models, I struggle to see the problem. Even on the more obvious models like the Canoness, I can't see how the armour has the intent of sexualising the model.
Spoiler:
It's all covered up - seems more stylish than sexy to me.
Most Sister models have more discreet chest plates:
Spoiler:
Either I'm missing something, or the main argument against "Boob Armour" is a pointless ruse.
This here. This is sexualisation:
Spoiler:
So to answer your question, no, I don't want whatever one defines as Boob Armour. Doesn't mean I'm against it, however; people who think these models were solely created for kid teens to get fuzzy over seem to be relying on those people too much to be ignorant to the existence of HD porn 2 clicks away on a laptop.
I also seem to be missing the punchline of your joke.
what it comes down to is if someone wants it, they can have it (boob armor) or if they find it offensive they don't need it, its a matter of personal choice, so don't tell someone they can have it or not, its their choice, not yours, if you want them or not that is your choice, not someone elses if someone wants a fluff candy dressed up SoB with whips I go whatever, their choice then shoot the mini with a bolter round (lets see a whip stop that).
I actually thought GW would get away from boob armour. Sadly they didn't.
I really struggle to see where there's anything to suggest you were joking?
As I said, I have erred. A few posts below I said it was a joke. So I made a mistake. I admitted to my mistake. I screwed up. What else can I say? Thing is people are still going on about it, even when I said it was a joke and nothing meant by it. But it's water under the bridge.
Define "Boob Armour"; as I said before, I don't believe the Sisters have any.
Boob armour would be instead of a flat chest on the armour there would be two protrusions sticking out to show as if they were breasts.
I also seem to be missing the punchline of your joke.
G.A
It was suppose to be like. "yup, they have boobs so they must be women". It seems for some people here, the only way to tell if a mini is female is to put boobs on the mini.
I am like you, I couldn't care less if they had them or not. Before I was like why not have them? Reading threads from the last few years I have changed my mind a bit, and I can see the other side of the story and why they shouldn't be on. I can see their point of view now. I am still indifferent either way. When I saw it when I made the comment at the time, I thought it was funny when I saw "BOOBS" and then went "YUP They are women."
Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving? Are you telling me you can't tell that the Sisters of Silence are not female? That boobs had to be added in to say "YES LOOK AT ME, I AM WOMAN!". No. you can clearly tell that the Sisters of Silence are women. No need to add breasts. So what is the point of adding breasts then?
Again, I don't care either way. I made a joke. It failed miserably. But the topic is now way past that. What turned into a bad joke I thought it can turn into a good topic. Why Boob Armour? There is no right or wrong answer here. Just because someone thinks that it should be in doesn't make the person who thinks it doesn't belong wrong. Or vice versa. We are in a discussion forum. Let's discus. Yes Davor made an asrse of himself again. Yes Davor is an idiot. Let's move on that and have a great discussion.
Boob Armour. Do the Sisters of Battles really need it? Do they really need breasts to show their femininity? If so, why? I use to believe they needed it, but after reading a lot of people's threads and opinions, I believe they are correct and SoB don't need breasts to show their femininity and to do so is just sexualizing them no matter how small or big (no pun intended) it is. Do I have an issue with it? Hell no. I love the Kingdom Death minis. That is overly sexualizing it in a big way, but still I believe in a tasteful way. Do I have an issue with it on Sisters of Battle? No I don't. Even though it's still done in a tasteful way, it's still sexualizing them.
The SoB armor doesnt put the models breasts on display for the purpose of objectifying them as sexual objects. They are actually rare in that the models are covered from toe to ear at least in power armor that is just as protective as Astartes armor. They are in fighting poses, wearing combat gear, in an army that favors up close and brutal, hateful combat.
By your line of thinking giving them a bob cut is only there to define them as women, and so only serves to sexualize them. Does armor that shows them with narrow sholders flared hips and a slighter average build than the average male turn them into a sex object because they are obviously not male?
Depicting them OF a certain sex does not necessarily equate to depicting them as being FOR sex. There is a significant difference and I think the SoB sculpts do a great job of making them unmistakeably female, while not making them look like pin up girls or strippers. Having been a SoB player from the start I can say that I dont want the look changed because fiddling with that balance is likely to ruin it.
Leaving you with either a bunch of bowl cut squires down one road or something far worse down the other. I prefer my SoB to be unabashedly female and at the same time modest. I feel the current aesthetic does this well. The only care they should have for your dirty thoughts is how long you have been a heretic, how far it might have spread, and will today be the day they make a pyre of your filthy carcass to light their way in the darkness.
Define "Boob Armour"; as I said before, I don't believe the Sisters have any.
Boob armour would be instead of a flat chest on the armour there would be two protrusions sticking out to show as if they were breasts.
I also seem to be missing the punchline of your joke.
G.A
It was suppose to be like. "yup, they have boobs so they must be women". It seems for some people here, the only way to tell if a mini is female is to put boobs on the mini.
I am like you, I couldn't care less if they had them or not. Before I was like why not have them? Reading threads from the last few years I have changed my mind a bit, and I can see the other side of the story and why they shouldn't be on. I can see their point of view now. I am still indifferent either way. When I saw it when I made the comment at the time, I thought it was funny when I saw "BOOBS" and then went "YUP They are women."
Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving? Are you telling me you can't tell that the Sisters of Silence are not female? That boobs had to be added in to say "YES LOOK AT ME, I AM WOMAN!". No. you can clearly tell that the Sisters of Silence are women. No need to add breasts. So what is the point of adding breasts then?
Again, I don't care either way. I made a joke. It failed miserably. But the topic is now way past that. What turned into a bad joke I thought it can turn into a good topic. Why Boob Armour? There is no right or wrong answer here. Just because someone thinks that it should be in doesn't make the person who thinks it doesn't belong wrong. Or vice versa. We are in a discussion forum. Let's discus. Yes Davor made an asrse of himself again. Yes Davor is an idiot. Let's move on that and have a great discussion.
Boob Armour. Do the Sisters of Battles really need it? Do they really need breasts to show their femininity? If so, why? I use to believe they needed it, but after reading a lot of people's threads and opinions, I believe they are correct and SoB don't need breasts to show their femininity and to do so is just sexualizing them no matter how small or big (no pun intended) it is. Do I have an issue with it? Hell no. I love the Kingdom Death minis. That is overly sexualizing it in a big way, but still I believe in a tasteful way. Do I have an issue with it on Sisters of Battle? No I don't. Even though it's still done in a tasteful way, it's still sexualizing them.
ok obviously you have never talked to women and what they think or feel have you? you take a shirt or jacket it is soft and not a rigid piece of metal so women don't need protrusions on them (unless Madonna) but you take a rigid piece of metal that is strapped on tight and for women it would be uncomfortable, how would you as a male in sports instead of having a cup to protect the family jewels you had a flat piece of metal pressed and tightened right up against them? wouldn't feel comfortable would it? so ever think females in rigid metal would rather not have their own boobs pressed into their body and then some? its the same feeling of having a flat piece of metal shoving the family jewels up into your body.
Anyone championing the cause against 'boobplate' should understand that you'll score exactly ZERO points from the ladies because of your crusade.
Is there a correlation here with 'hover handers'? I dunno. But there might be.
It's a good thing most of us aren't even remotely in this argument to score points with the ladies, then. Certainly, my problems with depictions of women in miniature form are due entirely to how I feel about the miniatures in question. That said, my only real problem with the SOB besides the usual GW lack of helmets is the depiction of repentia squads, and even then they're at least halfheartedly on theme compared to the competition. This whole thread feels like a rant on rape culture in Firefly that totally ignores the wilding boys next door calling women fat pigs for refusing to flash them.
Here is a question not ONE person said. Why do you want boobs on your minis? A lot of great points for and against were made. I just find it funny points made against gave reasons why they don't want it, but I find it funny not one person gave a reason why they want boob armour except to show that they are female and then when it was proven you can tell a Sister of Battle is female without boob armour there is not rebuttal for that.
So please answer unless this will shame you, why do you want boob armour on your minis?
I'll bite. I want boob armor. I want cheesecake in my fantasy toys because truth be told there isn't enough cheese cake in my everyday real life. I like the female form, I find it attractive and calming to look at after a hard days work in a primarily male dominated field (construciton). Since the few women that I do meet in my job are there for a professional purpose, I treat them with the same professionalism that they give me. That just leaves my free time to engage in activities that I find enjoyable, and having a few sexy minitures in my hobby helps me enjoy the hobby that much more.
Then there is also the practical matter of the issue. Every model in my Tau army is helmeted. I could easily say to each and every opponent that yep, your facing an entire army of girls that are going to kick your ass. And you know what will happen, my opponent will just roll their eyes and say what ever dude. Because lets be honest, nobody really gives a crap about the fluff of your army after the first 10 minutes of pleasentries. After the next 20 minutes its all about stats and die rolls until the game ends. And unless I make a real effort to point out during the course of the game over and over that each unit of theirs that died, died at the hand (or in this case guns) of girls, the idea that they are girls will be totally lost. Boob plate gives an easily visable representation of the gender of the model and as such removes much of the work that I need to engage in to remind my opponent of just what they are fighting against. Yeah the dice and stats don't represent male, female, or asexual space bug, the only thing that can act as a constant yet passive reminder is how the model is sculpted.
Now, lets take it do a differnet level. I could have my entire tau army unhelmeted. I could go out and purchase the after market tau female heads with the Y slit and easily head swap each and every trouper. Now I have the equivalent of the converted SOBs with bob cuts and no boob plate. But if someone walks by my army but is unfailure with Tau anatomical lore they will still see just a bunch of dudes with guns. There is nothing on those models that says females and once again, I'm having to explain my army. And don't say that it doesn't happen. With GW focusing on attracting new playes and ostersizing their veterans, there are entire generations of players that probably don't have the 20+ years of GW experance that I do. Heck there were even posts in this threads from somone who didn't know if the forhead Y was for all females or just Shadowsun.
Define "Boob Armour"; as I said before, I don't believe the Sisters have any.
Boob armour would be instead of a flat chest on the armour there would be two protrusions sticking out to show as if they were breasts.
I also seem to be missing the punchline of your joke.
G.A
It was suppose to be like. "yup, they have boobs so they must be women". It seems for some people here, the only way to tell if a mini is female is to put boobs on the mini.
I am like you, I couldn't care less if they had them or not. Before I was like why not have them? Reading threads from the last few years I have changed my mind a bit, and I can see the other side of the story and why they shouldn't be on. I can see their point of view now. I am still indifferent either way. When I saw it when I made the comment at the time, I thought it was funny when I saw "BOOBS" and then went "YUP They are women."
Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving? Are you telling me you can't tell that the Sisters of Silence are not female? That boobs had to be added in to say "YES LOOK AT ME, I AM WOMAN!". No. you can clearly tell that the Sisters of Silence are women. No need to add breasts. So what is the point of adding breasts then?
Again, I don't care either way. I made a joke. It failed miserably. But the topic is now way past that. What turned into a bad joke I thought it can turn into a good topic. Why Boob Armour? There is no right or wrong answer here. Just because someone thinks that it should be in doesn't make the person who thinks it doesn't belong wrong. Or vice versa. We are in a discussion forum. Let's discus. Yes Davor made an asrse of himself again. Yes Davor is an idiot. Let's move on that and have a great discussion.
Boob Armour. Do the Sisters of Battles really need it? Do they really need breasts to show their femininity? If so, why? I use to believe they needed it, but after reading a lot of people's threads and opinions, I believe they are correct and SoB don't need breasts to show their femininity and to do so is just sexualizing them no matter how small or big (no pun intended) it is. Do I have an issue with it? Hell no. I love the Kingdom Death minis. That is overly sexualizing it in a big way, but still I believe in a tasteful way. Do I have an issue with it on Sisters of Battle? No I don't. Even though it's still done in a tasteful way, it's still sexualizing them.
ok obviously you have never talked to women and what they think or feel have you? you take a shirt or jacket it is soft and not a rigid piece of metal so women don't need protrusions on them (unless Madonna) but you take a rigid piece of metal that is strapped on tight and for women it would be uncomfortable, how would you as a male in sports instead of having a cup to protect the family jewels you had a flat piece of metal pressed and tightened right up against them? wouldn't feel comfortable would it? so ever think females in rigid metal would rather not have their own boobs pressed into their body and then some? its the same feeling of having a flat piece of metal shoving the family jewels up into your body.
You don't wear armour directly over the skin. There is a huge layer of padding between the skin and the metal so the breasts are never pressed against the armour. In my medieval martial arts group I know several girls who regularly wear plate armour. It is the authentic late medieval kind, without boobs (but hilariously, with huge penis-shaped codpieces) and I have never heard anyone complain about it being uncomfortable in that way. Unless a women has extremely enormous boobs she will be able to wear flat-chested armour without issue (and even with enormous boobs it would just be a matter of adding a few extra layers of padding).
The layers of padding and armour are so thick that they obscure even the largest breasts. So boobs on armour are totally unneccessary. They are only an aesthethic thing.
This is like argueing that the cod piece of male armour needs to be shaped like a huge penis in order for it to fit comfortably... The real reason for the existance of penis-shaped codpieces is to showcase the wearer's excessive masculinity. That is the same reason as for the existance of breast-shaped chest armour for women (except that it showcases the wearer's excessive femininity rather than masculinity of course).
Anyone championing the cause against 'boobplate' should understand that you'll score exactly ZERO points from the ladies because of your crusade.
Is there a correlation here with 'hover handers'? I dunno. But there might be.
It's a good thing most of us aren't even remotely in this argument to score points with the ladies, then. Certainly, my problems with depictions of women in miniature form are due entirely to how I feel about the miniatures in question. That said, my only real problem with the SOB besides the usual GW lack of helmets is the depiction of repentia squads, and even then they're at least halfheartedly on theme compared to the competition. This whole thread feels like a rant on rape culture in Firefly that totally ignores the wilding boys next door calling women fat pigs for refusing to flash them.
Yeah, someone wanting to score points with ladies should find a different place than Dakka. Only a few girls around here, and even fewer ladies.
Azreal13 wrote: Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.
No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.
Azreal13 wrote: Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.
No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.
look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.
furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.
Space Marine Power Armour has no structure beneath it - it is mounted directly to the Marine's skin and Black Carapace.
Sororitas armour may have a frame underneath to allow them to use the suit, but I don't think it would be bulky enough to make their chests look flat.
Davor wrote: Boob armour would be instead of a flat chest on the armour there would be two protrusions sticking out to show as if they were breasts.
Some of that space could actually be for the wearer's breasts, as is being discussed right now.
It was suppose to be like. "yup, they have boobs so they must be women". It seems for some people here, the only way to tell if a mini is female is to put boobs on the mini.
It's just another way of defining the model as female; not all SoB have no helmets.
Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving?
Style?
Yes Davor made an asrse of himself again. Yes Davor is an idiot. Let's move on that and have a great discussion.
As much as I appreciate your willingness to make this a decent discussion, there is very little to discuss that hasn't been discussed already. I would disagree that there is no right or wrong answer; although it can be down to interpretation, this kind of armour can exist on models for a variety of reasons. Anyone trying to say it shouldn't exist or is not needed is certainly wrong.
Boob Armour. Do the Sisters of Battles really need it? Do they really need breasts to show their femininity? If so, why? I use to believe they needed it, but after reading a lot of people's threads and opinions, I believe they are correct and SoB don't need breasts to show their femininity and to do so is just sexualizing them no matter how small or big (no pun intended) it is. Do I have an issue with it? Hell no. I love the Kingdom Death minis. That is overly sexualizing it in a big way, but still I believe in a tasteful way. Do I have an issue with it on Sisters of Battle? No I don't. Even though it's still done in a tasteful way, it's still sexualizing them.
A combination of style, posture and potentially practicality is typically why it exists. However, it is not sexualisation. Sexualisation means attributing sex or a sex role to something - adding breast shapes to a model's armour is not enough to constitute sexualisation really
Look at Victoria Miniature's female models. You can clearly see an extra bulge where the wearer's breasts are. Does this count as Boob Armour too? That means they must be sexualised, right?
It's the same kind of concept. If you don't believe those models to be sexualised, then I believe that would be an inconsistent argument on your behalf.
as it goes if I had to make a complaint about GW armor it would be about them usually depicting SM Sgt's with no helmet, why bother wearing the armor in the first place if your not gonna protect your head where a shot there is pretty much instant death or turning you into a vegetable in the least.
Asterios wrote: what it comes down to is if someone wants it, they can have it (boob armor) or if they find it offensive they don't need it, its a matter of personal choice, so don't tell someone they can have it or not, its their choice, not yours, if you want them or not that is your choice, not someone elses if someone wants a fluff candy dressed up SoB with whips I go whatever, their choice then shoot the mini with a bolter round (lets see a whip stop that).
I agree people are allowed to want whatever they want. The reason I end up replying to these topics is because...
1. We're talking about changing an existing aesthetic. I know some people don't like the Tyranid aesthetic either, but it's what we have and what I've built an army around so feth them if they want it changed, they can buy their models elsewhere.
2. The arguments made are often silly. Some of them are decent arguments, a lot of them are just silly hyperbole or invented. Things like having boob plate reduces models to a pair of boobs doesn't pass basic logic checks and arguments like it's scaring a large number of women gamers away I think are spurious at best.
Asterios wrote: what it comes down to is if someone wants it, they can have it (boob armor) or if they find it offensive they don't need it, its a matter of personal choice, so don't tell someone they can have it or not, its their choice, not yours, if you want them or not that is your choice, not someone elses if someone wants a fluff candy dressed up SoB with whips I go whatever, their choice then shoot the mini with a bolter round (lets see a whip stop that).
I agree people are allowed to want whatever they want. The reason I end up replying to these topics is because...
1. We're talking about changing an existing aesthetic. I know some people don't like the Tyranid aesthetic either, but it's what we have and what I've built an army around so feth them if they want it changed, they can buy their models elsewhere.
2. The arguments made are often silly. Some of them are decent arguments, a lot of them are just silly hyperbole or invented. Things like having boob plate reduces models to a pair of boobs doesn't pass basic logic checks and arguments like it's scaring a large number of women gamers away I think are spurious at best.
don't think its the boob plated minis scaring women away from gaming
I thought they were bullet scars since only Veterans and above have them, thus I assumed they were on the field long enough to get shot in the head and recover from the wound.
Davor wrote: Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving? Are you telling me you can't tell that the Sisters of Silence are not female? That boobs had to be added in to say "YES LOOK AT ME, I AM WOMAN!". No. you can clearly tell that the Sisters of Silence are women. No need to add breasts. So what is the point of adding breasts then?
Remember we are talking about 28mm scale models here.
The Sisters of Silence look like women when they stand 4 to 10" tall viewed on you 24+" monitor. Zoom out to the point they're only ~30mm tall and stand a couple of feet away and they're not all that identifiable anymore.
The goal is to make them look like females when you're standing a few feet away from them while they're on a table top.
To do that, you exaggerate things. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, GW's core aesthestic largely revolves around exaggerated details..... GW exaggerate everything, guns are huge, heads are huge, hands are huge, embossed or engraved details are huge, rivets are huge, panel lines are huge, often the random details hanging off the model are huge. The only thing that maybe squeezes by not being huge are skulls, simply so the model can be adorned with more of them
Azreal13 wrote: Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.
No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.
look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.
No. First of all there is a massive difference between Astartes power armour and regular power armour. The Astartes wear a body glove (which is the thick rubbery thing you see through the joints of the armour) underneath their armour. (the "access points" you see are the interface ports of the Marine's implants that interface with the bodygove (which presumably interfaces with the armour itself in turn).
The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.
Also, what GW movie? GW has made no movies afaik. Unless you count those little Warhammer TV ads as movies that is.
Asterios wrote: furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.
Sure. If that is so, they are either not wearing a thick enough gambeson or their armour is too small. Just get them a larger size. No need for protrusions on the chest, that is only impractical at best, dangerous at worst in combat. Flat-chested armours deflect incoming blows better. There is no practical excuse for boob armours.
General Annoyance wrote:
Look at Victoria Miniature's female models. You can clearly see an extra bulge where the wearer's breasts are. Does this count as Boob Armour too? That means they must be sexualised, right?
I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.
When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that. I am saying GW can exactly like the link you have shown, not put any breasts on the minis. GW can clearly make a mini look feminine without breasts on the models just like the link you have provided. So in my opinion yes GW is sexualizing the minis by placing breasts on the minis because they don't have to, but choose to do so anyways. Again nothing wrong with that.
Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls? Oh my someone not reading all the posts and then making a comment. If he read the posts then he would have seen I don't care either way. Also with me liking Kingdom Death miniatures, that would show I like boobs on minis.
The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.
Citation needed.
My understanding is they wear it over a skin tight under suit just like Astartes, just without the neural interface.
The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.
Citation needed.
My understanding is they wear it over a skin tight under suit just like Astartes, just without the neural interface.
I can't cite it right now, but I do recall that the Black Carapace, the last implant an Astartes receives, is subdermal. I would venture to say that humans in power armour would wear a skin tight suit.
I didn't express myself very well, I meant they wear it next to the skin (or functionally next to it) like the Astartes, not that the Astartes wear an under suit (although they are often referred to as wearing body gloves in the books, whether that's just gym wear or they do wear something under their armour I don't precisely recall.
General Annoyance wrote:
Look at Victoria Miniature's female models. You can clearly see an extra bulge where the wearer's breasts are. Does this count as Boob Armour too? That means they must be sexualised, right?
I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.
When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that. I am saying GW can exactly like the link you have shown, not put any breasts on the minis. GW can clearly make a mini look feminine without breasts on the models just like the link you have provided. So in my opinion yes GW is sexualizing the minis by placing breasts on the minis because they don't have to, but choose to do so anyways. Again nothing wrong with that.
Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls? Oh my someone not reading all the posts and then making a comment. If he read the posts then he would have seen I don't care either way. Also with me liking Kingdom Death miniatures, that would show I like boobs on minis.
The body armour plate is slightly angled hinting at a female figure, but its still flat.
Its a small nod to females without being silly.
I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.
Here's a comparison between male and female Arcadians:
Hopefully that contextualises the bulge I am trying to get at.
When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that.
That is how sexualisation is defined. I would again say that the breasts on the Power Armour may serve a practical use; Flak armour can bend around the torso to fit, Plasteel and Ceramite plating cannot.
Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls?
Just drop the whole shaming thing mate - this isn't Davor vs DakkaDakka; this is all (mostly) within the bounds of reason.
Azreal13 wrote: I didn't express myself very well, I meant they wear it next to the skin (or functionally next to it) like the Astartes, not that the Astartes wear an under suit (although they are often referred to as wearing body gloves in the books, whether that's just gym wear or they do wear something under their armour I don't precisely recall.
I'm pretty sure it's just a skintight layer of clothing - certainly nothing that would create any bulges.
The Black Carapace is also sub dermal. Sisters have no Black Carapace, but that only means they cannot fully interface with the armour and obtain the strength benefit or use of certain systems (which are stripped out of SoB armour). It wouldn't change how they wear it or how it fits on.
Nurgle wrote:
I think you are completely missing what he is saying. The armor they wear is not sexual, if they were in a sexy position or showing cleavage, then we could talk.
As for your whole rant on making a new armor set just for the sisters, you went a bit far and jumped into gender politics territory with "They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct?"
Yes, it does make them distinct. Otherwise they would look like Eldar.
I like the Sisters of Battle's aesthetic, and cant wait to see it in plastic.
I'm not even talking about boob armour sexualising Sisters, that's something you want to read into it. It's just that the armour is itself already distinct enough that you don't really need the boob plate to make them more female looking. I'm asking why the female miniatures need to be identified by gender even more but the male versions can have rather neutral looking armour? A female bodybuilder could be inside a SM power armour if you use a helmeted head and nobody is asking for huge codpieces to make them distinctly male. There are enough other design cues that point at them being miniatures representing women. That's why I'm asking why boob plates are so very needed.
I like the SoB aesthetic too and don't think boob armour is the "worst ever" but it's just a bit unpractical. People also complain about GW tanks being unrealistic or goofy because they lack practicality. It's the same for boob armour. A longer explanation follows after the next quote.
xraytango wrote:
You contradict yourself here, I'm sorry to say. The SoBs armor is aesthetically different because it is a stylistic representation of the female torso, similar to the way that Space Marines have barrel chests and broad shoulders as a stylistic male torso. Do you have a clear solution to otherwise distinguish SoBs armor?
A female bodybuilder can easily have a barrel chest and broad shoulders and these proportions are more about GW exaggerations in general (women also wear plate armour with pauldrons and torso padding) and not about emphasising a Marines' gender. I just meant that the armour is already distinct enough that a boob plate is not really needed on top of that. Keep the armour as it is and just use a regular breastplate like this and the SoB model is still very much a distinct PA type. Put a SM next to a SoB and you can find all kinds of things that are different and the breast plate isn't even the most important distinction. Other parts of the armour have a different design language.
Strangely enough the SM groin plate seems to be rather large, so also not an argument.
There in fact seems to be strong indication that your second point is no longer an issue.
It's only large because of the exaggerated proportions. I'm talking about something like this codpiece (NSFW?), not regular GW heroic scale creep.
Well, yes; what solution do you propose otherwise? Do you have some other design that would be more efficient at identifying this army as being an army of warrior women?
Like I mentioned above, just give them a regular, practical breast plate and they are still distinct from other PA. The helmet-less head options are, like for SMs, an additional indicator. Give them more helmetless head variants so they don't look like clones of each other. Or have I missed something in their background? They already have a distinct design language that hints at them being female, don't look like any other army, and they have their own (empire inspired) iconography that changing the breastplate won't lead to people accidentally confusing them with manly Space Marines.
What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women
Then why bother having a uniquely female army at all?
Read the bolded parts again. It literary states that the miniatures are already distinct and the breastplate is not needed to make them look even more different. All the other design choices do that. They would look unique even with a regular breast plate and the army would look "uniquely female" even without the boob plate. Or is boob plate the only indicator available for female miniatures? It seems you have the impression that I think the whole armour needs to be changed (to look like SMPA?) when I'm just saying that the supposed need for boob plate as a unique identifier (which this thread is about) is wrong.
Why bother having a uniquely female (or male) army at all? For gameplay it doesn't matter (they are all playing pieces who work the same), it's a choice you make for the background or for aesthetic reasons. And when it comes to aesthetics then there are other ways of showing that something is supposed to be a female miniature. SoB, besides the boob plate, are already a nice example.
I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.
Here's a comparison between male and female Arcadians:
Hopefully that contextualises the bulge I am trying to get at.
I don't consider that boob armour. Now if GW did that, I think it would be perfectly fine. Thing is, at least for me, the sisters just seem so weird having mounds sticking out. What you showed is what I think GW should do. I am agreeing with you here.
Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls?
Just drop the whole shaming thing mate - this isn't Davor vs DakkaDakka; this is all (mostly) within the bounds of reason.
That wasn't for you. For what ever reason the quote I wanted didn't show up. I know you are not trying to shame me.
General Annoyance wrote: I would again say that the breasts on the Power Armour may serve a practical use; Flak armour can bend around the torso to fit, Plasteel and Ceramite plating cannot.
Except breasts in armor do not look like spheres. You're never going to be wearing rigid armor directly against the skin, there's going to be a layer of cloth below it. And that layer is tight, both to ensure a proper fit and to keep pressure on the wound if anything gets through the armor. If you look at female athletes, soldiers, etc, you'll see that there may be some curve to their chest but it's definitely a squished-down and rounded look. Power armor would be going on top of that, probably removing even more shape in the process. So if you're having clearly defined breasts on power armor it's because it's an aesthetic choice, not because it makes sense. In fact, from a realism point of view they'd probably be decorative bits glued on top of the armor, not really part of the armor itself.
Except breasts in armor do not look like spheres. You're never going to be wearing rigid armor directly against the skin, there's going to be a layer of cloth below it. And that layer is tight, both to ensure a proper fit and to keep pressure on the wound if anything gets through the armor. If you look at female athletes, soldiers, etc, you'll see that there may be some curve to their chest but it's definitely a squished-down and rounded look. Power armor would be going on top of that, probably removing even more shape in the process. So if you're having clearly defined breasts on power armor it's because it's an aesthetic choice, not because it makes sense. In fact, from a realism point of view they'd probably be decorative bits glued on top of the armor, not really part of the armor itself.
Yes, I won't deny they are probably there for form rather than function, but they may have the potential to serve a degree of practicality, even if the whole piece is not necessary. By that I mean they could accommodate the Sister's breasts, but are either much larger than needed or not needed at all opposed to a more curved, singular shape. Practical or not, I would certainly say they contribute to the aesthetic of Sisters Power Armour in general like you said, with the slender greaves and the corset style chest plate.
Davor wrote: That wasn't for you. For what ever reason the quote I wanted didn't show up. I know you are not trying to shame me.
I meant it as a general word of advice - I have no idea what gorgon was saying, or what his point was, but there isn't a need for a anti shaming crusade.
I would say for esthetic and narrative reasons the boob armor works. We are not displaying the metal bikini like Red Sonja here, I like that they are serious about their warfare and cover up appropriately.
They give the impression being women has a great deal of pride attached to it, so the form is perfectly fine.
I like that some "obvious" women are portrayed in the game like the Banshees or the included female guardians for Eldar.
It is a preference and "practical" reasons never quite make sense in 40k, the mechanicus would have just cut those puppies off if given a choice.
Azreal13 wrote: Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.
No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.
look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.
No. First of all there is a massive difference between Astartes power armour and regular power armour.
The Astartes wear a body glove (which is the thick rubbery thing you see through the joints of the armour) underneath their armour. (the "access points" you see are the interface ports of the Marine's implants that interface with the bodygove (which presumably interfaces with the armour itself in turn).
The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.
Also, what GW movie? GW has made no movies afaik. Unless you count those little Warhammer TV ads as movies that is.
Asterios wrote: furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.
Sure.
If that is so, they are either not wearing a thick enough gambeson or their armour is too small. Just get them a larger size. No need for protrusions on the chest, that is only impractical at best, dangerous at worst in combat. Flat-chested armours deflect incoming blows better. There is no practical excuse for boob armours.
what never heard of Ultramarines: a warhammer 40,000 movie screenplay done by Dan Abnett? also I repeat do you wear armor? if the armor is too big leaving a lot of space or even padding space it will not do its job properly and will be too cumbersome to wear. as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.
and where does it say the SoB's wear anything under their armor?
Davor wrote: I don't consider that boob armour. Now if GW did that, I think it would be perfectly fine. Thing is, at least for me, the sisters just seem so weird having mounds sticking out. What you showed is what I think GW should do. I am agreeing with you here.
Vic's stuff is fantastic. But she isn't sculpting a new version of an army that is nearly two decades old. The idea that the Imperial Guard make little to no allowance for female guardsmen fits perfectly within the grim dark of 40k. With all the vast resources of the Ecclesiarchy I find it perfectly within the grim dark 40k "realism" that the wealth of entire systems of the Imperium would be spent creating armor that adheres to the dogmatic specifications set down some five millenia ago. While still affording the same protection of Astartes battle plate. However they do it, it works because SoB and SM have the same 3+ save.
Before anyone chimes in that it doesn't make sense. Remember that literally NONE of 40k makes any sense. Personally that is exactly what I love about it. The boob plate, which I think its detractors constantly over emphasize, doesn't offend me in any way. The aesthetic suits me just fine and it has nothing to do with titilation of any kind. Were it to suddenly changed because some think its somehow more ridiculous than anything else in 40k I believe that I and a lot of SoB players would be quite upset.
I for one would be forced to decide between mixing the two within my army and either cashing in all my old models and starting new or just rolling with my old metal models. With over 8k in painted SoB and 4k still waiting to be painted, my choice is pretty clear. Admittedly I have said in other threads that I am already reluctant to buy into a new plastic launch of Sisters. This is 100% because of my investment and my own personal need for continuity in my armies. But I dont think I am alone in saying it.
I appreciate the sculpts for the balance they achieve in their aesthetic and sincerely hope that going forward GW holds true to it.
Asterios wrote: as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.
You do know that a lot of the ancient armor we have is ceremonial armor, right? A lot of that fancy decoration would not be present on armor intended for actual use in battle.
and where does it say the SoB's wear anything under their armor?
It doesn't have to. You either wear something under rigid armor or you're very quickly a bloody mess.
Asterios wrote: as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.
You do know that a lot of the ancient armor we have is ceremonial armor, right? A lot of that fancy decoration would not be present on armor intended for actual use in battle.
and where does it say the SoB's wear anything under their armor?
It doesn't have to. You either wear something under rigid armor or you're very quickly a bloody mess.
yeah but how many women were in combat? if we go by the Celts or picts armor was very lacking, so was clothing, and yes lets wear cloth or padding shall we since that will soak up blood and cause more blood loss, oh wait the SM armor has sealant in it which plugs up such bloody messes which helps when the armor is right on the skin.
as it goes look at medieval armor there was padding even padding for under the helmet which was separate and yet if a SM removes his helm does he have padding on his head? no, that is because the armor has to attach to his skin so no padding, any anti-coagulating items are in the armor itself not as a separate piece.
Asterios wrote: yeah but how many women were in combat? if we go by the Celts or picts armor was very lacking, so was clothing
What's your point here? If you're going to say "women weren't in combat" or talk about people who didn't wear armor at all then you can't cite real-world examples in defense of armor for women.
and yes lets wear cloth or padding shall we since that will soak up blood and cause more blood loss, oh wait the SM armor has sealant in it which plugs up such bloody messes which helps when the armor is right on the skin.
No, you missed the point here. The cloth isn't there to soak up blood, it's to prevent the rigid armor from tearing you up.
Asterios wrote: yeah but how many women were in combat? if we go by the Celts or picts armor was very lacking, so was clothing
What's your point here? If you're going to say "women weren't in combat" or talk about people who didn't wear armor at all then you can't cite real-world examples in defense of armor for women.
and yes lets wear cloth or padding shall we since that will soak up blood and cause more blood loss, oh wait the SM armor has sealant in it which plugs up such bloody messes which helps when the armor is right on the skin.
No, you missed the point here. The cloth isn't there to soak up blood, it's to prevent the rigid armor from tearing you up.
the point is would the OP rather have what the SoB's (ugh such lousy initials too)have now or wearing what the old picts or celts wore or didn't wear?
then where is the padding for their head under their helmet like medieval knights and such had, even the foot soldier had padding under their helmet and yet SM's do not, as it goes look at medieval armor there was padding even padding for under the helmet which was separate and yet if a SM removes his helm does he have padding on his head? no, that is because the armor has to attach to his skin so no padding, any anti-coagulating items are in the armor itself not as a separate piece. as to joint parts, they are still part of the armor, not padding, not cloth but armor joints too.
Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.
Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.
Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.
GW is not going to change the Adepta Sororitas aesthetic. There is no compelling reason to.
Other than that Blanche Codex cover from a decade ago, nothing about them is sexualized, beyond making them easily identifiable as women, which is their entire gimick. If everything in 40K is space version of Fantasy then they are space amazons.
If you find two lumps on chest armor titillating, perhaps your threshold for arousal is a bit prudish.
Asterios wrote: the point is would the OP rather have what the SoB's (ugh such lousy initials too)have now or wearing what the old picts or celts wore or didn't wear?
Where is that ridiculous choice coming from?
then where is the padding for their head under their helmet like medieval knights and such had, even the foot soldier had padding under their helmet and yet SM's do not, as it goes look at medieval armor there was padding even padding for under the helmet which was separate and yet if a SM removes his helm does he have padding on his head? no, that is because the armor has to attach to his skin so no padding, any anti-coagulating items are in the armor itself not as a separate piece. as to joint parts, they are still part of the armor, not padding, not cloth but armor joints too.
If marines don't have padding under their helmets (whether as a separate piece or just built into the helmet) that's a screwup by GW. Rigid armor has to have some kind of padding under it, period.
If marines don't have padding under their helmets (whether as a separate piece or just built into the helmet) that's a screwup by GW. Rigid armor has to have some kind of padding under it, period.
not if it is skin tight, as to whats under the SM armor or even SoB armor I will go by what GW says and does over what you say since it is their creation, they did it how they want too do it.
I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.
Here's a comparison between male and female Arcadians:
Hopefully that contextualises the bulge I am trying to get at.
When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that.
That is how sexualisation is defined. I would again say that the breasts on the Power Armour may serve a practical use; Flak armour can bend around the torso to fit, Plasteel and Ceramite plating cannot.
Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls?
Just drop the whole shaming thing mate - this isn't Davor vs DakkaDakka; this is all (mostly) within the bounds of reason.
Azreal13 wrote: I didn't express myself very well, I meant they wear it next to the skin (or functionally next to it) like the Astartes, not that the Astartes wear an under suit (although they are often referred to as wearing body gloves in the books, whether that's just gym wear or they do wear something under their armour I don't precisely recall.
I'm pretty sure it's just a skintight layer of clothing - certainly nothing that would create any bulges.
The Black Carapace is also sub dermal. Sisters have no Black Carapace, but that only means they cannot fully interface with the armour and obtain the strength benefit or use of certain systems (which are stripped out of SoB armour). It wouldn't change how they wear it or how it fits on.
Peregrine wrote: You do know that a lot of the ancient armor we have is ceremonial armor, right? A lot of that fancy decoration would not be present on armor intended for actual use in battle.
I'm gonna say that in 40k that may not be true all the time
Asterios wrote: not if it is skin tight, as to whats under the SM armor or even SoB armor I will go by what GW says and does over what you say since it is their creation, they did it how they want too do it.
Uh, no, it can't be skin-tight because your skin isn't a constant shape. Just for a quick example, hold your arm out palm-up. Then rotate your hand 90*. See how the shape of your arm changes between your wrist and your elbow, picking up a twist that didn't exist previously? This is fine if you have a layer of padding between the armor and your body, because the shape change isn't all that much and the flexible padding moves along with it. But if you have rigid skin-tight plates around your arm you can no longer rotate your wrist without breaking your arm bones.
Asterios wrote: not if it is skin tight, as to whats under the SM armor or even SoB armor I will go by what GW says and does over what you say since it is their creation, they did it how they want too do it.
Uh, no, it can't be skin-tight because your skin isn't a constant shape. Just for a quick example, hold your arm out palm-up. Then rotate your hand 90*. See how the shape of your arm changes between your wrist and your elbow, picking up a twist that didn't exist previously? This is fine if you have a layer of padding between the armor and your body, because the shape change isn't all that much and the flexible padding moves along with it. But if you have rigid skin-tight plates around your arm you can no longer rotate your wrist without breaking your arm bones.
and yet that has never been a problem with me but then I have a rubber skin which is on the armor itself and its barely 1/4" thick, go figure, anywhooo I repeat when it comes to SM's and SoB's i'm going by what GW says and not you, since its their game not yours.
Kojiro wrote: Found this. Thought people might find it interesting.
Spoiler:
Wow. I like that a lot. I'd like a little more detail on the chest (too much blank space), but it's very cool. I even like the bulky "Marine-like" legs; it helps to emphasise that it's power armour by recalling the iconic shape of Space Marines without looking too much like them. I assume that the fabric parts have armour underneath, also.
Azreal13 wrote: Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.
No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.
look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.
No. First of all there is a massive difference between Astartes power armour and regular power armour.
The Astartes wear a body glove (which is the thick rubbery thing you see through the joints of the armour) underneath their armour. (the "access points" you see are the interface ports of the Marine's implants that interface with the bodygove (which presumably interfaces with the armour itself in turn).
The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.
Also, what GW movie? GW has made no movies afaik. Unless you count those little Warhammer TV ads as movies that is.
Asterios wrote: furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.
Sure.
If that is so, they are either not wearing a thick enough gambeson or their armour is too small. Just get them a larger size. No need for protrusions on the chest, that is only impractical at best, dangerous at worst in combat. Flat-chested armours deflect incoming blows better. There is no practical excuse for boob armours.
what never heard of Ultramarines: a warhammer 40,000 movie screenplay done by Dan Abnett? also I repeat do you wear armor? if the armor is too big leaving a lot of space or even padding space it will not do its job properly and will be too cumbersome to wear. as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.
and where does it say the SoB's wear anything under their armor?
Lol, the abomination that is the Ultramarines movie is a fan movie, not a GW production. It is a lore violating piece of gak that needs to be purged.
As to the armour, thicker padding does not decrease the effectiveness. If you have a lot of empty space either you need a thicker gambeson underneath or a smaller size armour.
As to what Sisters wear beneath their armour, look closely at the miniatures.
Also, ancient women did not wear boob armour. Thats a ridiculous claim
adamsouza wrote: Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.
Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.
Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.
Attack trumps defence. Power armour isn't magical material that cannot be penetrated. And when you can get penetrated you want the penetration NOT happen in vital spot. Ergo you don't design armour so that it directs attack INTO that vital spot as that increases chance of penetration happening in vital area. If you design armour that directs attack somewhere it's AWAY from those vital spots.
Improved armour material that is less likely to get penetrated is good yes. You still don't want to direct attacks straight to vital spots as sooner or later that directs attack that will then penetrate and kill you.
adamsouza wrote: Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.
Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.
Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.
Attack trumps defence. Power armour isn't magical material that cannot be penetrated. And when you can get penetrated you want the penetration NOT happen in vital spot. Ergo you don't design armour so that it directs attack INTO that vital spot as that increases chance of penetration happening in vital area. If you design armour that directs attack somewhere it's AWAY from those vital spots.
Improved armour material that is less likely to get penetrated is good yes. You still don't want to direct attacks straight to vital spots as sooner or later that directs attack that will then penetrate and kill you.
When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.
Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.
But either way I don't care much either way for the "practicality" argument. I'll start caring about the practicality of boob armour when IG tanks have suspension, when 40k aircraft have aerofoils for wings, when Space Marines don't have absurd wide shin armour that would make them trip over, when a Leman Russ actually has space in the turret for the breach mechanism of its cannon, when Space Wolves start wearing helmets in to battle, when close combat weapons aren't equally as effective as missile weapons, when Orks can't make machinery work by simply willing it to work, etc and so on and etc.
adamsouza wrote: Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.
Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.
Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.
Attack trumps defence. Power armour isn't magical material that cannot be penetrated. And when you can get penetrated you want the penetration NOT happen in vital spot. Ergo you don't design armour so that it directs attack INTO that vital spot as that increases chance of penetration happening in vital area. If you design armour that directs attack somewhere it's AWAY from those vital spots.
Improved armour material that is less likely to get penetrated is good yes. You still don't want to direct attacks straight to vital spots as sooner or later that directs attack that will then penetrate and kill you.
Cool looking trumps practical in 40K design aesthetic. Your applying logic to a game with space elves and space orks.
I have a strong appreciation for applying as much "reality" considerations to high flying fantasy and science fiction as the next guy.
I agree with the logical argument that going skin-tight to hard armor gives little wiggle room if you gain or lose weight and some cushion would be wanted somewhere when nailed by concussive impacts or explosions or become pulped in the armor.
It all boils down to having an "obvious" female army on the table by intent and design. As well pointed out: females in today's modern armor are indistinguishable from their male counterparts.
If we must agree on something how about that boob armour is a nice lazy way to indicate females on the tabletop if that is a point you are specifically trying to make.
This...this is why we will never get new Sisters models.
Half the player base will turn into sobbing piles of mush if they appear "too feminine", and the other half will revolt if they appear too androgynous.
Because in a universe where actual demons wander around slaughtering people, children have their flesh melted off by virus bombs, and ten thousand people a day are thrown into a blender to power a throne, the most objectionable thing about the game universe is curved armor.
Kojiro wrote: Found this. Thought people might find it interesting.
Spoiler:
That's just a female Space Marine something which I hope SoB don't become.
My sibling is extremely pro keeping the oversexualization that Sisters have, high heels, corsets, and pointed bra points. So much in fact the person just gave up on GW following a discussion, that people saw them as a right wing pervert. For simply wanting to keep sisters the same.
My Sibling basically hates progressive politics, feeling they destroy choice in favour of some kind of censorship. And I can see this in some ways. But if the majority speak this person has to adapt or face the consequences.
I however don't know. There's a blog out there which lists why things have to change, but it goes into Superhero costumes as well, but for the life of me I can't remember it.
I think Sisters probably should drop the heels and corsets. Become more in the likes of a curved set of armour that lets you see its female. But...but have options for the older set of corset armour, with a front plate perhaps?, or save the corsets for characters only.
WhiteBobcat wrote: This...this is why we will never get new Sisters models.
Half the player base will turn into sobbing piles of mush if they appear "too feminine", and the other half will revolt if they appear too androgynous.
Because in a universe where actual demons wander around slaughtering people, children have their flesh melted off by virus bombs, and ten thousand people a day are thrown into a blender to power a throne, the most objectionable thing about the game universe is curved armor.
99% agree (we will get new sisters ) its just seems silly how much people make a big deal about the subject. Personally I love the Sisters design and think its some of GWs better work (unpopular opinion probably but its a better looking design than Space Marine armor). What I don't want see happen is GW change the Sister's armor only for the sake of political correctness as it feels like betraying the artistic integrity of the company. Nothing in 40k is practical between the giant walking robots, rampant disregard for using helmets, most melee weapon designs, 95% of the settings vehicles, etc. Catachans apparently have abs made of the same thing as flak armor because they get 5+ saves while sometimes not even having on a Tshirt but I don't see petitions or threads about them beefcake eye candy or whatever.
StupidYellow wrote: I think Sisters probably should drop the heels and corsets.
Sister armor doesn't have high heels. I think it was one GW artist that threw heels on them but nearly all the stuff GW shows has them wearing plate armor like sabatons that are flat. The plate armor corsets I think work well as its very gothic fashion design which fits with their armor looking like gothic plate.
That picture of a more "Space Marine" sister is rather cool looking. Esthetically there is not a thing wrong with it in my eyes.
But a piece of me would feel sad if that became the new standard. Yep power armour that just happens to be female, nothing to see here.
I feel that the SOB army needs to revel a bit in being an entirely female army. A few esthetic flourishes toward that end is OK. I feel it should not intrude on the armor being functional however. High heels and plunging necklines I would consider forbidden.
I have always enjoyed strong women in any setting, I feel it is not necessary for them to look like men in order to be so.
Vasquez in Aliens made this look way cooler than the guy did.
WhiteBobcat wrote: This...this is why we will never get new Sisters models.
Half the player base will turn into sobbing piles of mush if they appear "too feminine", and the other half will revolt if they appear too androgynous.
Because in a universe where actual demons wander around slaughtering people, children have their flesh melted off by virus bombs, and ten thousand people a day are thrown into a blender to power a throne, the most objectionable thing about the game universe is curved armor.
99% agree (we will get new sisters ) its just seems silly how much people make a big deal about the subject. Personally I love the Sisters design and think its some of GWs better work (unpopular opinion probably but its a better looking design than Space Marine armor). What I don't want see happen is GW change the Sister's armor only for the sake of political correctness as it feels like betraying the artistic integrity of the company. Nothing in 40k is practical between the giant walking robots, rampant disregard for using helmets, most melee weapon designs, 95% of the settings vehicles, etc. Catachans apparently have abs made of the same thing as flak armor because they get 5+ saves while sometimes not even having on a Tshirt but I don't see petitions or threads about them beefcake eye candy or whatever.
StupidYellow wrote: I think Sisters probably should drop the heels and corsets.
Sister armor doesn't have high heels. I think it was one GW artist that threw heels on them but nearly all the stuff GW shows has them wearing plate armor like sabatons that are flat. The plate armor corsets I think work well as its very gothic fashion design which fits with their armor looking like gothic plate.
Are you sure? I thought I saw at least one or two with heels but I'll defer that.
Unfortunately they are just the naughty Nun type of character. I mean look at the Mistress on the Repentia. It's nothing but reinforcing a silly Stereotype.
Part of me even thinks it reinforces women are basically toys. It feels bad to say it but part of me does feel that way.
Regardless I would buy them if they released them. Possibly simply to support them.
The SoS suffer from a similar women are all DDD tall models, and their boob plates are basically half of the chest piece. They should have militarized sports bras or something more practical.
Anyway we can't all like the same thing. But it did partially put me off them.
WhiteBobcat wrote: This...this is why we will never get new Sisters models.
Half the player base will turn into sobbing piles of mush if they appear "too feminine", and the other half will revolt if they appear too androgynous.
Because in a universe where actual demons wander around slaughtering people, children have their flesh melted off by virus bombs, and ten thousand people a day are thrown into a blender to power a throne, the most objectionable thing about the game universe is curved armor.
99% agree (we will get new sisters ) its just seems silly how much people make a big deal about the subject. Personally I love the Sisters design and think its some of GWs better work (unpopular opinion probably but its a better looking design than Space Marine armor). What I don't want see happen is GW change the Sister's armor only for the sake of political correctness as it feels like betraying the artistic integrity of the company. Nothing in 40k is practical between the giant walking robots, rampant disregard for using helmets, most melee weapon designs, 95% of the settings vehicles, etc. Catachans apparently have abs made of the same thing as flak armor because they get 5+ saves while sometimes not even having on a Tshirt but I don't see petitions or threads about them beefcake eye candy or whatever.
StupidYellow wrote: I think Sisters probably should drop the heels and corsets.
Sister armor doesn't have high heels. I think it was one GW artist that threw heels on them but nearly all the stuff GW shows has them wearing plate armor like sabatons that are flat. The plate armor corsets I think work well as its very gothic fashion design which fits with their armor looking like gothic plate.
Are you sure? I thought I saw at least one or two with heels but I'll defer that.
Unfortunately they are just the naughty Nun type of character. I mean look at the Mistress on the Repentia. It's nothing but reinforcing a silly Stereotype.
Part of me even thinks it reinforces women are basically toys. It feels bad to say it but part of me does feel that way.
Regardless I would buy them if they released them. Possibly simply to support them.
The SoS suffer from a similar women are all DDD tall models, and their boob plates are basically half of the chest piece. They should have militarized sports bras or something more practical.
Anyway we can't all like the same thing. But it did partially put me off them.
S.Y.
S.Y.
The Sisters have never had heels in any of their models. The ONLY artwork that has ever depicted heels was Blanche's second edition codex cover. Unfortunately that piece is so iconic to 40k, it's almost always the one people think of first. But nowhere else has that happened. They have never been a "naughty nun" type character. Their look has always been dark and gothic. If you want naughty nun, go look at Raging Hero's. The Repentia are probably the most horrifying unit in the codex if you read their fluff. I always equated them too Fantasy's version of Dwarf slayers. Nutjobs who through some slight, real or otherwise, want to gain redemption in battle and death. And just so happen to do so wearing rags. The superior is just there to make sure they do it. They are only human after all. If it makes you think of them as toys, then with all respect, you need to look at them differently. The boob plate is a stupid argument. It's almost the epitome of the internet. Getting worked up over pointless things.
Davor wrote: When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that. I am saying GW can exactly like the link you have shown, not put any breasts on the minis. GW can clearly make a mini look feminine without breasts on the models just like the link you have provided. So in my opinion yes GW is sexualizing the minis by placing breasts on the minis because they don't have to, but choose to do so anyways. Again nothing wrong with that.
I would agree, on normal figures, you can do a female form without the exaggerated breast plate. The issue with trying to portray the SOB specifically as female is that they ARE wearing power armor. The other ways to depict the figures as female would be the other shapes of the body: hips, shoulder shape, slimness, etc that is all covered by power armor. Would it be any less sexualized to mold the armor with flaring hips or something along those lines? I'll be honest that I never gave this issue a real thought until I started on these forums and saw all of the threads about this. Much ado about nothing I say.......
Vash108 wrote: Personally I don't think boob armor and tactical heels make any fething sense.
I don't think practicality is very abundant in many facets of the Imperium - technology has reached a point where it can be impractically stylish but still incredibly destructive, ideal for a proud and arrogant, galaxy spanning dictatorship.
Vash108 wrote: Personally I don't think boob armor and tactical heels make any fething sense.
I don't think practicality is very abundant in many facets of the Imperium - technology has reached a point where it can be impractically stylish but still incredibly destructive, ideal for a proud and arrogant, galaxy spanning dictatorship.
I guess? But still the physical/tactiacl/protective issue with boob armor is silly. It really just says hey look... boobs! Plus I feel having some practical, for the most part which is asking a lot for 40k, would possibly attack more female players, who can be put off by those kinds of things.
My wife for one, would get into it if their female models weren't as sexed up.
I guess? But still the physical/tactiacl/protective issue with boob armor is silly. It really just says hey look... boobs! Plus I feel having some practical, for the most part which is asking a lot for 40k, would possibly attack more female players, who can be put off by those kinds of things.
My wife for one, would get into it if their female models weren't as sexed up.
If GW released some female Guardsman, I'd expect them to have more practical armour, since the AM typically have more practical looking weapons, armour and vehicles. Space Marines and SoB are ostentatious and impractical since they are the forefront of the Imperium's might and pride - the pretty boys/girls essentially. I don't think their aesthetic will change due to that, nor will the practicality of their weapons and armour change.
WhiteBobcat wrote: This...this is why we will never get new Sisters models.
Half the player base will turn into sobbing piles of mush if they appear "too feminine", and the other half will revolt if they appear too androgynous.
Because in a universe where actual demons wander around slaughtering people, children have their flesh melted off by virus bombs, and ten thousand people a day are thrown into a blender to power a throne, the most objectionable thing about the game universe is curved armor.
99% agree (we will get new sisters ) its just seems silly how much people make a big deal about the subject. Personally I love the Sisters design and think its some of GWs better work (unpopular opinion probably but its a better looking design than Space Marine armor). What I don't want see happen is GW change the Sister's armor only for the sake of political correctness as it feels like betraying the artistic integrity of the company. Nothing in 40k is practical between the giant walking robots, rampant disregard for using helmets, most melee weapon designs, 95% of the settings vehicles, etc. Catachans apparently have abs made of the same thing as flak armor because they get 5+ saves while sometimes not even having on a Tshirt but I don't see petitions or threads about them beefcake eye candy or whatever.
StupidYellow wrote: I think Sisters probably should drop the heels and corsets.
Sister armor doesn't have high heels. I think it was one GW artist that threw heels on them but nearly all the stuff GW shows has them wearing plate armor like sabatons that are flat. The plate armor corsets I think work well as its very gothic fashion design which fits with their armor looking like gothic plate.
Are you sure? I thought I saw at least one or two with heels but I'll defer that.
Unfortunately they are just the naughty Nun type of character. I mean look at the Mistress on the Repentia. It's nothing but reinforcing a silly Stereotype.
Part of me even thinks it reinforces women are basically toys. It feels bad to say it but part of me does feel that way.
Regardless I would buy them if they released them. Possibly simply to support them.
The SoS suffer from a similar women are all DDD tall models, and their boob plates are basically half of the chest piece. They should have militarized sports bras or something more practical.
Anyway we can't all like the same thing. But it did partially put me off them.
S.Y.
S.Y.
The Sisters have never had heels in any of their models. The ONLY artwork that has ever depicted heels was Blanche's second edition codex cover. Unfortunately that piece is so iconic to 40k, it's almost always the one people think of first. But nowhere else has that happened. They have never been a "naughty nun" type character. Their look has always been dark and gothic. If you want naughty nun, go look at Raging Hero's. The Repentia are probably the most horrifying unit in the codex if you read their fluff. I always equated them too Fantasy's version of Dwarf slayers. Nutjobs who through some slight, real or otherwise, want to gain redemption in battle and death. And just so happen to do so wearing rags. The superior is just there to make sure they do it. They are only human after all. If it makes you think of them as toys, then with all respect, you need to look at them differently. The boob plate is a stupid argument. It's almost the epitome of the internet. Getting worked up over pointless things.
The Iconic artwork where they are portrayed as basically a bunch of fanatical chainsword female Redemption seeking individuals is fine. What they made however is vastly different.
Nuns have always been a male fantasy, the Mistress is basically the epitome of that. As are sisters in a lesser sense.
I'm not worked up as you put it, but rather concerned that GW will hold onto out dated concepts rather than accepting the way forward which will change them from a stereotype into female Religious Soldiers.
Azreal13 wrote: Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.
No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.
look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.
No. First of all there is a massive difference between Astartes power armour and regular power armour.
The Astartes wear a body glove (which is the thick rubbery thing you see through the joints of the armour) underneath their armour. (the "access points" you see are the interface ports of the Marine's implants that interface with the bodygove (which presumably interfaces with the armour itself in turn).
The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.
Also, what GW movie? GW has made no movies afaik. Unless you count those little Warhammer TV ads as movies that is.
Asterios wrote: furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.
Sure.
If that is so, they are either not wearing a thick enough gambeson or their armour is too small. Just get them a larger size. No need for protrusions on the chest, that is only impractical at best, dangerous at worst in combat. Flat-chested armours deflect incoming blows better. There is no practical excuse for boob armours.
what never heard of Ultramarines: a warhammer 40,000 movie screenplay done by Dan Abnett? also I repeat do you wear armor? if the armor is too big leaving a lot of space or even padding space it will not do its job properly and will be too cumbersome to wear. as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.
and where does it say the SoB's wear anything under their armor?
Lol, the abomination that is the Ultramarines movie is a fan movie, not a GW production. It is a lore violating piece of gak that needs to be purged.
As to the armour, thicker padding does not decrease the effectiveness. If you have a lot of empty space either you need a thicker gambeson underneath or a smaller size armour.
As to what Sisters wear beneath their armour, look closely at the miniatures.
Also, ancient women did not wear boob armour. Thats a ridiculous claim
Wow a movie done under license from GW and written by one of GW's own writers is a fan film in your eye, seriously that just made you look foolish, as to armor padding if it takes more then a 1/4"-1/2" of padding you have an armor issue going on, also ancient women did wear boob armor (why else make it?) was it worn in combat? no was it more ceremonial? yes was said armor worn in battlefields? yes, was the wearer in combat? no, were women in combat a lot? not hardly, what kind of armor did warrior women wear in ancient times? very little if any, so your point being if we go by historical statistics of ancient fighting women the SoB's would be running the field practically naked.
Davor wrote: I would have fully agreed but the I believe the comment of " so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own." I found was totally not needed and made it a personal attack instead of saying how he was "sick to death" of it.
After all this is not Warseer and people are allowed to have opinions on Dakka. He could have said what he wanted without making it personal. But personal he decided to make it. I brought it up so someone will not say that it's coming from that thread. It is coming from that thread, I got upset, at the common, I vented, now on my part it's all water under the bridge now.
So without getting upset, it does make a good discussion. After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects but then on the other hand, it's nice to have mini that are like Kingdom Death has done.
I can see both sides of the camp as I said. But for some reason I guess I just would like to see some serious butt kicking sisters instead of seeing them as sexual objects like I did when I was younger.
As if any of the stuff in the GW universe is practical. No Space Marine could move in the armour... heck, it is absolutely impossible to use the guns besides hip fire...
That's just a female Space Marine something which I hope SoB don't become.
My sibling is extremely pro keeping the oversexualization that Sisters have, high heels, corsets, and pointed bra points.
I agree on the first point. Sisters have never had high heels, the corset as it has always been is almost unrecognizable as such. Only two models I know of have anything but one raised band over the breast armor.
I feel that a lot of folks need to look actually look at the models before commenting on their, ya know, look.
Are you kidding? They haven't gone far ENOUGH! I'm not going to be content until there is Labia Armor.
That out of the way, who fething cares? Should all fantasy/AOS minis with breasts on them be resculpted to not be prominent? I'm pretty sure most tunic style shirts or draping blouses don't curve UNDER breasts, especially in a world which looks like it hasn't invented the bra yet. If the model has boob armor, it affects nothing. Does it make it easier for a super small model to be easily identifiable as female? Yep. Are they scissoring/stuffing digits/naked? Probably not. So yeah, I think they are fine.
I love boob armour. Just like I love nipples on Sanguiniary Guard/batman.
40K is a romanticized fictional universe that is over the top in every way, including aesthetics. I love that things don't make sense. I love that things are stylized. I don't want this blandness of modern military.
If it doesn't look like it stepped out of the vatican, it doesn't belong in 40K. This isn't sci-fi. It's fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way!
Kojiro wrote: If the SoB were redone and all sexualisation was removed- if you couldn't actually tell they were female, how would the people complaining about sexism and sexualisation react?
Depends. If they keep the baroque, over-done artistic look, and make it even more obvious, I will likely LOVE it. If they look just like Space Marines, I won't. But yeah, it could be great.
And to mutilate their bodies so they fit in their armour
I think the plates themselves are not representative of where the wearer's actual shoulders are - if you look at the Terminator models, there is a very large area beyond where their arm actually fits into the armour and where the shoulder plate ends. They're just massive for the sake of being massive
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Depends. If they keep the baroque, over-done artistic look, and make it even more obvious, I will likely LOVE it. If they look just like Space Marines, I won't. But yeah, it could be great.
That would relegate all 'femaleness' to the fluff only you realise? Anyone who wants to 'identify' with female models, or see themselves represented on the table, would have to be content with merely knowing that the fluff indicates these models are female? There are sure to be people who would complain about that. You can't represent something if no one can tell what that something is.
CT GAMER wrote: The whole Catachan "beefcake" bulging biceps things is rather offensive and objectifying too.
Let's lose our collective minds over it too...
It is a different kind of objectification. One is typically a sexual fantasy (sexy ass-kicking nuns who all have F cup breasts, tiny waists and a thigh gap you can drive a rhino through), the other a power fantasy (big manly rambonegger men kill all the bad guys in the jungle with our huge muscles rargh).
If the catachans all ran around with cod-pieces borrowed from Henry VIII then you may have a point. But they don't.
CT GAMER wrote: The whole Catachan "beefcake" bulging biceps things is rather offensive and objectifying too.
Let's lose our collective minds over it too...
It is a different kind of objectification. One is typically a sexual fantasy (sexy ass-kicking nuns who all have F cup breasts, tiny waists and a thigh gap you can drive a rhino through), the other a power fantasy (big manly rambonegger men kill all the bad guys in the jungle with our huge muscles rargh).
If the catachans all ran around with cod-pieces borrowed from Henry VIII then you may have a point. But they don't.
I dont really buy in to the idea of power fantasy vs sexual fantasy in the context of comparing catachans to sisters. They're caricatures more than anything, which just means they're exaggerated. When you exaggerate a woman, boobs get bigger. When you exaggerate a man, his junk doesn't get bigger because you normally don't see a dude's junk through clothing anyway.
You don't have to assign a power or sexual fantasy to it at all, just take them for the caricatures they are and be done with it.
If sisters were modeled in a remotely sexual way I might agree with the fantasy angle, but in this case I don't think so.
CT GAMER wrote: The whole Catachan "beefcake" bulging biceps things is rather offensive and objectifying too.
Let's lose our collective minds over it too...
It is a different kind of objectification. One is typically a sexual fantasy (sexy ass-kicking nuns who all have F cup breasts, tiny waists and a thigh gap you can drive a rhino through), the other a power fantasy (big manly rambonegger men kill all the bad guys in the jungle with our huge muscles rargh).
If the catachans all ran around with cod-pieces borrowed from Henry VIII then you may have a point. But they don't.
The flipside can be equally true as it can be a power fantasy playing as these mortal human women in power armor that are kicking ass and purging heretics as some of the best warriors the IoM has to offer. It can also be a sexual fantasy to be playing these muscle bound beef cakes as they run around with unbuttoned shirts showing their sweaty muscles and possibly oiled abs. Then again you could be turned on by a facehugger from aliens or be empowered by playing as Isaac from Binding of Isaac as you cry yourself to victory.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: When you exaggerate a man, his junk doesn't get bigger because you normally don't see a dude's junk through clothing anyway.
I can see that someone needs to go back and watch more eighties rock music videos
True
IacobusIgnavus wrote: Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.
I don't really think that would be the case because
1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.
2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.
Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....
When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.
Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.
Cool miniature, but I feel especially the “pants” looks way too Space-Mariny.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I love boob armour. […]
If it doesn't look like it stepped out of the vatican, it doesn't belong in 40K.
I am confused. I am pretty sure that boob armor doesn't look like it stepped out of the Vatican. I mean, the Pontifical Guards are all Swiss men, no women, and I don't expect any armor-wearing female statue would have a boob-plate…
reds8n wrote: If you cannot post without being grossly rude to others/minorities then it's really better that you don't post at all.
Thank you.
I… hope it is not an answer to my message but rather to some message that was removed and/or previous posters? Because I really don't see how my message would be grossly rude to anyone?
I… hope it is not an answer to my message but rather to some message that was removed and/or previous posters? Because I really don't see how my message would be grossly rude to anyone?
Pretty sure it was Hydra's post - don't worry about it
IacobusIgnavus wrote: Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.
I don't really think that would be the case because
1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.
2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.
Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....
When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.
Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.
I just want to add something to this beautifully orchestrated point here - I used to participate in historical fencing (think collegiate/olympic fencing with swords except our swords were much heavier and less bendy), and it was recommended (but not required) that ladies wear a "chest primary" to protect their breasts from being stabbed too hard (never participated in collegiate, but I think the chest primary was required there).
A protective rubber tip the size of a quarter still really hurts when there's a 6+ pound sword behind it and the bodyweight of a noob/rube that has not learned proper calibration yet, and ask pretty much any woman, it's incredibly painful to be struck in the boob. Being repeatedly struck in our hobby was supposed to create internal scar tissue that looked like cancer lumps and could screw up the non-fat tissues in there (thank you overly candid old lady that had been fencing since she was a teen). And other women often needed a breather after they were struck too hard in the chest (few, if any, of the ladies in my group wore these protectors).
Anyway, the "chest primary" is pretty much a boob plate.
And a pic for those of you who cannot be bothered:
My point? It's a perfectly valid armor type. This example may be plain and worn under the clothes, but in the far future of 40k, who hasn't gone and added shineys and baubles to their armor?
And the area in the center is supposed to help with the force distribution. Your sternum is stronger than your ribs and collarbone, so adding its strength would greatly reduce the chance of suffering injury when being struck in the chest.
Red_Ink_Cat wrote: I just want to add something to this beautifully orchestrated point here - I used to participate in historical fencing (think collegiate/olympic fencing with swords except our swords were much heavier and less bendy), and it was recommended (but not required) that ladies wear a "chest primary" to protect their breasts from being stabbed too hard (never participated in collegiate, but I think the chest primary was required there).
A protective rubber tip the size of a quarter still really hurts when there's a 6+ pound sword behind it and the bodyweight of a noob/rube that has not learned proper calibration yet, and ask pretty much any woman, it's incredibly painful to be struck in the boob. Being repeatedly struck in our hobby was supposed to create internal scar tissue that looked like cancer lumps and could screw up the non-fat tissues in there (thank you overly candid old lady that had been fencing since she was a teen). And other women often needed a breather after they were struck too hard in the chest (few, if any, of the ladies in my group wore these protectors).
Anyway, the "chest primary" is pretty much a boob plate.
And a pic for those of you who cannot be bothered:
My point? It's a perfectly valid armor type. This example may be plain and worn under the clothes, but in the far future of 40k, who hasn't gone and added shineys and baubles to their armor?
And the area in the center is supposed to help with the force distribution. Your sternum is stronger than your ribs and collarbone, so adding its strength would greatly reduce the chance of suffering injury when being struck in the chest.
Very great point. GW didn't go this way though. Now here is a question. Has that been made by a man or woman? If by a man how do women feel about it when they wear it?
That said a few posters of commented that the Sisters of Battle are wearing Power Armour. I thought only Space Marines can wear power armour because to become a space marine, 1) you had to be male, 2) you needed implants and what not and that is why Space Marines Scouts don't wear power armour because they are not ready for it yet. So how come females can wear power armour then fluff wise?
Davor wrote: That said a few posters of commented that the Sisters of Battle are wearing Power Armour. I thought only Space Marines can wear power armour because to become a space marine, 1) you had to be male, 2) you needed implants and what not and that is why Space Marines Scouts don't wear power armour because they are not ready for it yet. So how come females can wear power armour then fluff wise?
Anyone can wear Power Armour - it's just rare & expensive so very few people outside of Space Marine Chapters have access to it. It's also difficult to use without implants - Marines have the Black Carapace & AdMech have something similar but I think Sisters go without.
Davor wrote: That said a few posters of commented that the Sisters of Battle are wearing Power Armour. I thought only Space Marines can wear power armour because to become a space marine, 1) you had to be male, 2) you needed implants and what not and that is why Space Marines Scouts don't wear power armour because they are not ready for it yet. So how come females can wear power armour then fluff wise?
Anyone can wear Power Armour - it's just rare & expensive so very few people outside of Space Marine Chapters have access to it. It's also difficult to use without implants - Marines have the Black Carapace & AdMech have something similar but I think Sisters go without.
Thank you very much. I thought from reading numerous posts only Space Marines could wear power armour and is a reason why females can't be space marines. Guess they were wrong.
Davor wrote: Very great point. GW didn't go this way though. Now here is a question. Has that been made by a man or woman? If by a man how do women feel about it when they wear it?
Looking at the GW models for sisters (barring repentia...yikes), it is feasible to me that something resembling a "chest primary" could have been used as the base for their armor - the decorative bits being layered on top to create a decorated appearance. After all, wearing a corset into battle would be a bit constricting, and if we can make any assumption about power armor, we can assume it is neither super thin nor horribly form fitting.
Chest primaries are made by a number of different companies that are actually rather large. AF is one of the biggest fencing equipment suppliers I know of, so I can only assume you want me to rattle off the name/gender of exactly who invented such a thing. There is no documented inventor - it's a peice of molded plastic, good luck getting a pattent - but from what else is available, it was a logical change to the plastic protector some instructors wear in their jacket (they get struck more often and harder, and I sure as hell would not want to come home with fresh bruises after every practice). There is also a secondary type of chest primary affectionately nicknamed "salad bowls" (two round dishes of plastic) that fit within pockets in your jacket. Why are they not the first choice? I would imagine because getting struck while wearing that type of chest protector probably leads to the edges digging into your skin and because they do not actually avoid the "I got hit in the boob" feeling.
And if you are trying to ask if chest protectors were made by a man to make women fencers more sexy...? No. Fencing jackets are about the least form fitting garments I can think of because they are incredibly thick (collegiate fencing swords break, a lot) and you need extra space in there so it does not hinder your movement. Even my group wore glorified sacks for shirts.
Here's the US Olympic Fencing Team from London: Not exactly a flattering uniform. And besides the color, that's pretty much what all collegiate/olympic fencers wear.
And honestly, I know plenty of people who joke or laugh when a girl in tv or movie gets struck and shouts accusingly "you hit me in the boob!" So, why would you automatically think a guy invented some plastic protective cover that specifically stops a lady's bits from jiggling about when she's fencing?
If you're still not convinced, there were maybe 3 ladies in my previous group. One of them was looking at getting a custom fitted chest primary from a smaller site, and the contact was a lady. The big places make things the way everything else is made - conveyer line.
How did everybody feel about them? About the same way guys feel about primaries. Honestly, if you are going to imply someone's primary is made as eye-candy, it's definately the male one. Female primaries do not do anything to make your boobs look bigger (which would be actually really counter-productive since the chest is the primary target in fencing).
Thank you very much. I thought from reading numerous posts only Space Marines could wear power armour and is a reason why females can't be space marines. Guess they were wrong.
Females can't be space marines due to the numerous implants and genetic modifications that space marines undergo. They only work on males.
Un-modified humans (male and female) can wear power armor, but they are generally limited to Sisters of Battle or Inquisitors. Perhaps very wealthy Rogue Traders and/or their command staff and/or body guards. But that's about it from the fluff/stories.
I'm thinking of the armour in Skyrim, and how that's modelled for women;
Steel just has a bulge at the front to accomodate the breasts. Nothing there to betray their shape or anything; just the fact there's a large protrusion at that point on the chest.
Then there's the sculpting on Glass armour, which isn't outrageous, but definitely shows a pair of breasts. I wouldn't call the sculpting a detriment to the functionality of the armour.
As long as the boob armour isn't ridiculous and ineffectual/negatively effectual, I'm fine. It's just an aesthetic, carry on.
Keep to function over form.
-----
And I might add, seeing as "why there aren't any female spehs merheens" keeps popping up:
"It only works on Males" because the mature male forme is physically robust and strong enough to have a meaningful chance of surviving the procedure. (Some still fail).
The mature female forme is not as robust and strong as the male forme, and thus has a much lower chance of surviving the procedure, to the point where there's no point even bothering when there's male stock available.
(Not assuming you guys don't know; it's just that I think the reason needs to be there, answers any questions of "but why?")
Davor wrote: After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects...
Making it obvious that models are female is NOT objectifying them, any more (less if anything) than having women wear dresses while men wear suits. Teenage boys might think of "that" when they see "boobplate" but teenage boy think of "that" because of anything that vaguely resembles certain shapes.
For Slaanesh models I could see your point, but those should be sexualized (to some extent at least), because that's the theme.
If you don't think 40k should contain anything mature, that's another discussion.
I could see where it is an issue. In the context of nuns with guns I don't see it as an issue as the minis are well done, not sexualized in that manner, and kind of go a bit with a Valkyrie style.
Davor wrote: After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects...
Making it obvious that models are female is NOT objectifying them, any more (less if anything) than having women wear dresses while men wear suits. Teenage boys might think of "that" when they see "boobplate" but teenage boy think of "that" because of anything that vaguely resembles certain shapes.
For Slaanesh models I could see your point, but those should be sexualized (to some extent at least), because that's the theme.
If you don't think 40k should contain anything mature, that's another discussion.
I could see where it is an issue. In the context of nuns with guns I don't see it as an issue as the minis are well done, not sexualized in that manner, and kind of go a bit with a Valkyrie style.
They wear far more than some female models.
I want to collect plastic sisters but not because they have boobs...
More for fun, and there something of a new challenge.
IacobusIgnavus wrote: Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.
I don't really think that would be the case because
1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.
2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.
Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....
When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.
Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.
I just want to add something to this beautifully orchestrated point here - I used to participate in historical fencing (think collegiate/olympic fencing with swords except our swords were much heavier and less bendy), and it was recommended (but not required) that ladies wear a "chest primary" to protect their breasts from being stabbed too hard (never participated in collegiate, but I think the chest primary was required there).
A protective rubber tip the size of a quarter still really hurts when there's a 6+ pound sword behind it and the bodyweight of a noob/rube that has not learned proper calibration yet, and ask pretty much any woman, it's incredibly painful to be struck in the boob. Being repeatedly struck in our hobby was supposed to create internal scar tissue that looked like cancer lumps and could screw up the non-fat tissues in there (thank you overly candid old lady that had been fencing since she was a teen). And other women often needed a breather after they were struck too hard in the chest (few, if any, of the ladies in my group wore these protectors).
Anyway, the "chest primary" is pretty much a boob plate.
And a pic for those of you who cannot be bothered:
My point? It's a perfectly valid armor type. This example may be plain and worn under the clothes, but in the far future of 40k, who hasn't gone and added shineys and baubles to their armor?
And the area in the center is supposed to help with the force distribution. Your sternum is stronger than your ribs and collarbone, so adding its strength would greatly reduce the chance of suffering injury when being struck in the chest.
Interesting! Thanks for posting, I know nothing about fencing, my post was just based off thinking about load paths from a basic engineering stand point, it's good to know I wasn't wildly off in my guesses
DarkBlack wrote: It is not realistic and is rather silly, but the aesthetic looks good and fits the theme (SoB should be distinctly female). It would be next to impossible to tell if armoured people were female without it.
Agreed. Grimdark females wear boobplates. I don't understand why this is even a question.
Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.
Well, I like sisters more as a “Throw money at it until it work while looking stupidly ostentatious and unpractical - Catholic baroque church” joke than as a “space dominatrix joke”.
MadMarkMagee wrote: Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.
I personally think the design of the armor is more in line with a mix of ornate gothic plate armor and women's victorian/gothic style clothing which is why they have a plate armor corset. I don't think it directly is trying to play up a space dominatrix theme which is more a Slaaneshi theme.
MadMarkMagee wrote: Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.
I personally think the design of the armor is more in line with a mix of ornate gothic plate armor and women's victorian/gothic style clothing which is why they have a plate armor corset. I don't think it directly is trying to play up a space dominatrix theme which is more a Slaaneshi theme.
Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.
Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.
I believe that viewpoint to be entirely down to interpretation, as I have never seen Sisters fitting in with that theme; outside of the Sisters Repentia, the theme of dominance in the SoB is lacking.
However, I would say the theme of punishment is strong with SoB, since they're all about bringing a painful and terrifying death to the enemies of the Emperor. How you interpret that theme is down to you.
Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.
I believe that viewpoint to be entirely down to interpretation, as I have never seen Sisters fitting in with that theme; outside of the Sisters Repentia, the theme of dominance in the SoB is lacking.
However, I would say the theme of punishment is strong with SoB, since they're all about bringing a painful and terrifying death to the enemies of the Emperor. How you interpret that theme is down to you.
Thank you Sister Repentia. I agree it all comes down to viewpoint. Then again, some people view domination with sexualization while others don't and view it as a life style with no sex in it at all. So now we are back to square one. Boobs like how GW puts on their minis is sexualising the minis and others don't see it like that.
MadMarkMagee wrote: Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.
I personally think the design of the armor is more in line with a mix of ornate gothic plate armor and women's victorian/gothic style clothing which is why they have a plate armor corset. I don't think it directly is trying to play up a space dominatrix theme which is more a Slaaneshi theme.
Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.
Some of the themes with the Sisters and the Ecclesiarchy in general have to do with redemption, purity, penitence, and martyrdom. A lot of the things like the Repentia and the Arco-flagellant are about seeking redemption on the battlefield and penitence for past misdeeds. Pain and suffering is a trope (both real life and fiction) used in cleansing a person's soul, to pay atonement for past sins, and reach a state of purity or enlightenment. Dominatrix like domination has to do with sexual satisfaction, control/submission, and sometimes the pain/pleasure interaction which again is more of a Slaaneshi theme. Now I can fully see how people might joke that sisters are into that sort of thing (along with having pyromania and having the hots for Big E) but I still don't think that is the intended design for the sisters. That said if BDSM was the inspiration for some of their design then it wouldn't really be surprising but I don't think its what the theme of the Sisters is about.
Thank you Sister Repentia. I agree it all comes down to viewpoint. Then again, some people view domination with sexualization while others don't and view it as a life style with no sex in it at all.
Sexual dominance is, well, sexual. There's no way to avoid that. If domination and dominatrix is your thing, that's a sex lifestyle. However I think it's important to note that there are obviously other meanings to the term "domination" outside of sex acts.
So now we are back to square one. Boobs like how GW puts on their minis is sexualising the minis and others don't see it like that.
I still struggle to see how this is sexualisation based on the definition of sexualisation - to make something sexual in character or quality, or when "individuals are regarded as sex objects and evaluated in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness".
Perhaps girls in Power Armour with protruding (but fully covered) chest plates are your thing. For everyone else, Sisters would barely register as being sexualised.
Vash108 wrote: There is a huge difference between the protection some women wear then the over exaggerated breasts the sisters have.
See this is the problem. You're using realistic historical armour to compare to a fantasy space game where the playing pieces are only 1 inch tall. If you miniaturised that picture and gave her a helmet, you would have no way of telling there was a woman under there. the accentuations of the sisters models exist to help show you it is a woman. and has probably been done in the most tasteful way possible. If you want a GW example of realistic armour on a woman, go and look at the Eowyn models from the Lord of the Rings range. Note that hey have been sculpted helmetless. because if they gave her the helmet, it would be impossible to tell her from a regular Rohan warrior.
In the grim darkness of the future, breast enhancement surgery in the IoM is mandatory for any woman going into battle.
GW is capable of portraying female soldiers with some taste, DE Wyches for example. But I guess they're elves in space so they're not supposed to have large breasts? I don't really hear people complaining about not being able to recognize if they're male or female though.
I'm not fussed either way though I tend towards a non-cheesecake preference to my toys. As long as the end result isn't over the top like some of the smaller mini makers on the market, I won't have a problem with the result.
agnosto wrote: In the grim darkness of the future, breast enhancement surgery in the IoM is mandatory for any woman going into battle.
GW is capable of portraying female soldiers with some taste, DE Wyches for example. But I guess they're elves in space so they're not supposed to have large breasts? I don't really hear people complaining about not being able to recognize if they're male or female though.
I'm not fussed either way though I tend towards a non-cheesecake preference to my toys. As long as the end result isn't over the top like some of the smaller mini makers on the market, I won't have a problem with the result.
From the pictures their boobs are about equivalently sized to Sister's boobs.
Honestly I think a lot of the problem comes from looking at oversized images When you shrink models down to the size they are in real life, features get lost and exaggeration is the norm (at least within the realm of GW, but many other manufacturers as well).
People need to shrink down the images so they appear 25-30mm tall on their computer screens, then come back to me and let me know if they still look over the top or not
Honestly I think a lot of the problem comes from looking at oversized images When you shrink models down to the size they are in real life, features get lost and exaggeration is the norm (at least within the realm of GW, but many other manufacturers as well).
People need to shrink down the images so they appear 25-30mm tall on their computer screens, then come back to me and let me know if they still look over the top or not
That's a good point. When assembling them, I've put male heads on female wych bodies by accident. From 4 feet away, I can't even tell if they're male or female. Admittedly I don't own SoB minis so I can't compare.
To be completely fair, I looked up the current line of SoB models and I don't think that they're over sexualized. I think the problem is that they wear metal/composite armor which causes a mental disconnect that there's any allowance made for breasts at all whereas wyches wear something like leather which makes more sense that you can see an outline of breasts.
From a fluff perspective, is there a specific template for creating power armor with breast cups? Odd that they made something like that during the golden age of man.
Honestly I think a lot of the problem comes from looking at oversized images When you shrink models down to the size they are in real life, features get lost and exaggeration is the norm (at least within the realm of GW, but many other manufacturers as well).
People need to shrink down the images so they appear 25-30mm tall on their computer screens, then come back to me and let me know if they still look over the top or not
That's a good point. When assembling them, I've put male heads on female wych bodies by accident. From 4 feet away, I can't even tell if they're male or female. Admittedly I don't own SoB minis so I can't compare.
To be completely fair, I looked up the current line of SoB models and I don't think that they're over sexualized. I think the problem is that they wear metal/composite armor which causes a mental disconnect that there's any allowance made for breasts at all whereas wyches wear something like leather which makes more sense that you can see an outline of breasts.
From a fluff perspective, is there a specific template for creating power armor with breast cups? Odd that they made something like that during the golden age of man.
From a fluff perspective, I believe it was made by Vandire during the Age of Apostasy. Because lets be honest, it's Vandire I believe the Ecclesiarchy kept it due to the whole "no men under arms law". The armour made them look like women on the battlefield so no one could accuse them of hiding men under there and breaking the edict.
Vash108 wrote: There is a huge difference between the protection some women wear then the over exaggerated breasts the sisters have.
See this is the problem. You're using realistic historical armour to compare to a fantasy space game where the playing pieces are only 1 inch tall. If you miniaturised that picture and gave her a helmet, you would have no way of telling there was a woman under there. the accentuations of the sisters models exist to help show you it is a woman. and has probably been done in the most tasteful way possible. If you want a GW example of realistic armour on a woman, go and look at the Eowyn models from the Lord of the Rings range. Note that hey have been sculpted helmetless. because if they gave her the helmet, it would be impossible to tell her from a regular Rohan warrior.
There's also the fact that women weren't allowed on the battlefield in most cultures in that period of time, so the few women recorded as battling in that time period were wearing armor made for a man. Looking at the female pictured, there is really nothing to suggest that isn't simply a unisex chest plate.
Problem is people keep forgetting during the time of the medieval and renaisance period knights who could afford their own armor, wore some of the gawdiest pieces of armor there were(not to be confused with jousting armor), they did not wear what was comfortable, or what was useful in battle, they wore to show off, plain and simple and the very few female warriors did the same, they dress in armor to show off, so yes they would have worn armor that had big old breast plates, the knight lord is out inspecting his men and his lady comes along he is wearing some ugly piece of armor that has no rhyme or function and she is wearing a piece of boob plate armor, practicality did not exist back then.
what many people construe as armor is what was known back then as inherited armor, it was not flashy, it was not showy, and it was not for the rich, it is what the lower class knights and foot soldiers wore, it was cheap and basic.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: See this is the problem. You're using realistic historical armour to compare to a fantasy space game where the playing pieces are only 1 inch tall. If you miniaturised that picture and gave her a helmet, you would have no way of telling there was a woman under there.
If you want a GW example of realistic armour on a woman, go and look at the Eowyn models from the Lord of the Rings range.
No, go look at the Imperial Guard range. Underneath that baggy uniform and bulky armor, most of the Cadian models are female.
Aside from the Sergeant, of course.
ok I think the problem is people think there is padding under SM armor there is not, they claim there is to stop bleeding and such, that is not the case from a SM codex it goes like this:
the Mucranoid - the Weaver: this organ responds to chemical stimuli, causing the Space Marine to secrete a waxy substance that seals his skin
Larraman's Organ - The Healer: when a Space Marine is wounded, the Blood forms an instant layer of scar tissue, staunching blood flow and protecting the wound.
furthermore a space marines armor is worn like a second skin, the connector points from the armor to the skin makes the armor rigid on the body so it does not slide about anyway, furthermore if we look at SoB's who can essentially hold their own with SM's it brings one to deduce they would also have such connections and so forth which brings up the point of not having padding either since they would separate their skin from their secondary skin thereby reducing its abilities. which are located in the Black Carapace which is a shell like ribcage located within the space marine itself and connects with the armor itself, you put padding on you don't have a firm connection.
Why is boob armour such a issue?
Have anyone tought that Sororitas armour might be "unisize" so almost anyone would fit into it? Or have you ever heard about push-up bras? I know, it's basically false advertising, but it exist and it works.
And what would the more developed ladies do if there were little to no place for their precious? Whould they have it amputated so some people on the internet would be satisfied?
Boob plate might be useless (technically), but it's present to underline the feminine figure.
I could also say that Blood Angels (and Roman, Greek, Batman etc...) boob armour is useless because not all of them have muscles so large to fit. And guess what? It's there to underline the masculine figure.
And last thing, GW decided to make SoB/SoS with boob armour. If you don't like it, buy Space Marines and perform an headswap. Easy.
Hawky wrote: Why is boob armour such a issue?
Have anyone tought that Sororitas armour might be "unisize" so almost anyone would fit into it?
What would the more developed ladies do if there were little to no place for their precious? Whould they have it amputated so some people on the internet would be satisfied?
Boob plate might be useless (technically), but it's present to underline the feminine figure.
that is what the Amazons did too one of their boobs so it would not get in the way of their bow strings.
Hawky wrote: Because they fought (mostly) armorless. If you wear a piece of armour, it protects you from bruises caused by bow strings.
they could have also worn a strip of leather to do the same, essentially all they fought in was a loin cloth if that me thinks.
heck ancient Greek before the Spartans and Athenians and Corinthian helmets and armor and such came into being fought nude, not even a loin cloth, they were crazy peeps.
agnosto wrote: I don't really hear people complaining about not being able to recognize if they're male or female though.
Yeah, most people never notice the Wyches and Guardians and Kabalite warriors are all mixed gender units, and most people never notice it.
Which give us the following funny facts :
- Those that do notice don't complain about the fact the female characters are not “noticeably female” enough, and the male characters are. Having female models that don't look “noticably female” and male character that don't look “noticeably male” is okay. We don't need a huge exaggeration of sexual dimorphism to enjoy our miniatures.
- Contrary to popular belief, boobplate is definitely not the ultimate tool to discern between a male model and a female model, .
agnosto wrote: I don't really hear people complaining about not being able to recognize if they're male or female though.
Yeah, most people never notice the Wyches and Guardians and Kabalite warriors are all mixed gender units, and most people never notice it.
Which give us the following funny facts :
- Those that do notice don't complain about the fact the female characters are not “noticeably female” enough, and the male characters are. Having female models that don't look “noticably female” and male character that don't look “noticeably male” is okay. We don't need a huge exaggeration of sexual dimorphism to enjoy our miniatures.
- Contrary to popular belief, boobplate is definitely not the ultimate tool to discern between a male model and a female model, .
I always thought they were Hermaphrodites or Transexual, especially the way they dress, keep thinking Rocky Horror picture show when i see them
Asterios wrote:they wore to show off, plain and simple and the very few female warriors did the same, they dress in armor to show off, so yes they would have worn armor that had big old breast plates,
Wouldn't the Sisters of Battle be more of purity and not wanting to "show off" and flaunt it? I am not thinking of Nuns but more like they are for the Emperor and that they shouldn't be looked at that way from anyone else? So why would they want it when all they work for is the Emperor?
Not arguing and saying you are wrong, but trying to remember how Sisters of Battle think since it's been so long ago since I read their 3rd edition codex.
Asterios wrote:they wore to show off, plain and simple and the very few female warriors did the same, they dress in armor to show off, so yes they would have worn armor that had big old breast plates,
Wouldn't the Sisters of Battle be more of purity and not wanting to "show off" and flaunt it? I am not thinking of Nuns but more like they are for the Emperor and that they shouldn't be looked at that way from anyone else? So why would they want it when all they work for is the Emperor?
Not arguing and saying you are wrong, but trying to remember how Sisters of Battle think since it's been so long ago since I read their 3rd edition codex.
1: don't think purity and the SoB could be said in the same sentence, they are just as blood thirsty as their SM bretheren if not more so (god they love those flamers).
2: 40K does not even get into any form of sex or even sexism really, its all about blood and guts and death and glory.
3: as it goes you are trying to associate them with Nuns, which last I checked nuns didn't fight, but were mostly healers and such.
1: don't think purity and the SoB could be said in the same sentence, they are just as blood thirsty as their SM bretheren if not more so (god they love those flamers).
I think it depends on which definition of Purity we're using.
Purity as in "freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc." Without question. They are zealots that follow the imperial creed to the extreme. They fight against chaos and treason and all things Xenos.
Purity as in "freedom from guilt or evil; innocence." Not so much. Free from guilt, I'll grant. The self-righteous rarely are plagued with guilt! Freedom from evil? They'd burn a village to the ground to route (root?) out a witch. Innocence? Not so much, I think.
1: don't think purity and the SoB could be said in the same sentence, they are just as blood thirsty as their SM bretheren if not more so (god they love those flamers).
I think it depends on which definition of Purity we're using.
Purity as in "freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc." Without question. They are zealots that follow the imperial creed to the extreme. They fight against chaos and treason and all things Xenos.
Purity as in "freedom from guilt or evil; innocence." Not so much. Free from guilt, I'll grant. The self-righteous rarely are plagued with guilt! Freedom from evil? They'd burn a village to the ground to route out a witch. Innocence? Not so much, I think.
I'd agree with that notion of purity but not the OP's notion since that would be so anti-SoB but then again its not like they go out as the Harlots of the Empire either, I just don't think they think the same we we do, all they care about is burning the heretic and such.
Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.
I believe that viewpoint to be entirely down to interpretation, as I have never seen Sisters fitting in with that theme; outside of the Sisters Repentia, the theme of dominance in the SoB is lacking.
However, I would say the theme of punishment is strong with SoB, since they're all about bringing a painful and terrifying death to the enemies of the Emperor. How you interpret that theme is down to you.
Thank you Sister Repentia. I agree it all comes down to viewpoint. Then again, some people view domination with sexualization while others don't and view it as a life style with no sex in it at all. So now we are back to square one. Boobs like how GW puts on their minis is sexualising the minis and others don't see it like that.
Some peeps get off by seeing feet. Why aren't you concerned about their sexual preferences? I happen to have solid information that most of GW's models have feet after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vash108 wrote: There is a huge difference between the protection some women wear then the over exaggerated breasts the sisters have.
Why are you sharing pictures of Olando Blooms stunt double? But seriously, she could pass for a light framed man IRL, what makes you think anyone would be able to tell she was a woman at 1.5 inches tall?
You can't tell whether a Space Marine model is male or female if it has its helmet on. Same for Tau Fire caste, amongst others.
Why is it only "female" models which have to be immediately identifiable as such? Why not just have the models be more androgynous when they are wearing full armour and have the fluff be what tells you about their sex, just like with Space Marines.
A Town Called Malus wrote: You can't tell whether a Space Marine model is male or female if it has its helmet on. Same for Tau Fire caste, amongst others.
Why is it only "female" models which have to be immediately identifiable as such? Why not just have the models be more androgynous when they are wearing full armor and have the fluff be what tells you about their sex, just like with Space Marines.
"Aye, there's the rub."
The why isn't an easy question to answer. It is a mix from both sides of the fence. There are those that want to have female miniatures so they have something or someone they can easily identify with. They are tired of the only options they have tend to be over-sexualized in nature.
Then there are those that simply just want to have female representation or something else to be different on the table. There are some that would probably just be happy with female head swaps, calling their space marines a female chapter and go from there. The majority of people though tend to want something more noticeable. Then we get into the realism vs more sexualized. The typical ways to differentiate tend to be either long hair and/or breasts. But you can't just put a uniform and make the chest protrude because it isn't noticeable enough, so then enter boob armor.
Then we travel full circle and the other side is upset because it isn't realistic, it is sexualized and/or why can't there be proper representation. And rinse and repeat discussion around in circles.
I don't mean purity as in virginity or anything sexual but purity in that they follow the emperor and devout themselves to him and only him and wouldn't look at any other man or woman for partnership/marriage/relationship.
Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.
I believe that viewpoint to be entirely down to interpretation, as I have never seen Sisters fitting in with that theme; outside of the Sisters Repentia, the theme of dominance in the SoB is lacking.
However, I would say the theme of punishment is strong with SoB, since they're all about bringing a painful and terrifying death to the enemies of the Emperor. How you interpret that theme is down to you.
Thank you Sister Repentia. I agree it all comes down to viewpoint. Then again, some people view domination with sexualization while others don't and view it as a life style with no sex in it at all. So now we are back to square one. Boobs like how GW puts on their minis is sexualising the minis and others don't see it like that.
Some peeps get off by seeing feet. Why aren't you concerned about their sexual preferences? I happen to have solid information that most of GW's models have feet after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vash108 wrote: There is a huge difference between the protection some women wear then the over exaggerated breasts the sisters have.
Why are you sharing pictures of Olando Blooms stunt double? But seriously, she could pass for a light framed man IRL, what makes you think anyone would be able to tell she was a woman at 1.5 inches tall?
Now that you mention it, she DOES look rather nonfeminine...
That was my thought as well. Soldiers default as male because historically combatants were usually male.
I tried to find a picture of the figure and couldn't, but Privateer Press' original set of Cygnar Arcane Tempest Gun Mages had a rather unassuming female sergeant leading the squad. No giant breasts, no high heels, just a smaller, slimmer, figure with a feminine face and traces of a pony tail under her tri-corn hat. I remember at the time (2007 or so) many people at my LGS didn't realize that figure was female until it was pointed out to them, they just assumed it was male.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I tried to find a picture of the figure and couldn't, but Privateer Press' original set of Cygnar Arcane Tempest Gun Mages had a rather unassuming female sergeant leading the squad.
That was my thought as well. Soldiers default as male because historically combatants were usually male.
I tried to find a picture of the figure and couldn't, but Privateer Press' original set of Cygnar Arcane Tempest Gun Mages had a rather unassuming female sergeant leading the squad. No giant breasts, no high heels, just a smaller, slimmer, figure with a feminine face and traces of a pony tail under her tri-corn hat. I remember at the time (2007 or so) many people at my LGS didn't realize that figure was female until it was pointed out to them, they just assumed it was male.
that is like the old joke, a man and his son get in an accident, the son goes to one hospital the father goes to another hospital as the son goes into the operating room the surgeon says I cannot operate on that boy hes my son, who is the surgeon? (you would be surprised of the replies I always get on that still.)
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I tried to find a picture of the figure and couldn't, but Privateer Press' original set of Cygnar Arcane Tempest Gun Mages had a rather unassuming female sergeant leading the squad.
This one?
Spoiler:
Hey!
That is it. When I went on PP's site I could only find the current version of the unit.
Yeah, the sergeant is the third from the left holding her magelock pistol upward. Great mini.
That was my thought as well. Soldiers default as male because historically combatants were usually male.
I tried to find a picture of the figure and couldn't, but Privateer Press' original set of Cygnar Arcane Tempest Gun Mages had a rather unassuming female sergeant leading the squad. No giant breasts, no high heels, just a smaller, slimmer, figure with a feminine face and traces of a pony tail under her tri-corn hat. I remember at the time (2007 or so) many people at my LGS didn't realize that figure was female until it was pointed out to them, they just assumed it was male.
that is like the old joke, a man and his son get in an accident, the son goes to one hospital the father goes to another hospital as the son goes into the operating room the surgeon says I cannot operate on that boy hes my son, who is the surgeon? (you would be surprised of the replies I always get on that still.)
I remember that joke! Some people still assume the surgeon is a man? That is kinda sad.
Asterios wrote: that is like the old joke, a man and his son get in an accident, the son goes to one hospital the father goes to another hospital as the son goes into the operating room the surgeon says I cannot operate on that boy hes my son, who is the surgeon?
First a bit of background on 40k, Power armour is indeed a marvel of technology with many subsystems assisting the wearer in many ways both visual audio and in motion, barring money and influence there is no reason why somebody would not get powered armour, space marines are just build with the concept of wearing one so they are both made to interface with the armour giving them an edge in mobility and have the strength to carry their armour unpowered with ease, something normal humans may have some issues with, while the process of been a space marine is a male only club, because the fluff says so (well you can give a serious argument that stands only in the 40k fluff about how warp functions and interacts with reality, but the main reason is because the fluff says so), there is no reason why power armour should be gender restricted and it is not, sisters are a tiny (by 40k standards) force that has the money and influence to be able to arm their fighting members with power armour and they do so.
Now on the main question, boob plate and other female shaped armour modifications on the model are an artistic ways to differentiate the models that are way too small and usually too far away, male models are not immune to such gender display exaggeration, but many prefer to call it "power fantasy" because accepting that both genders are enhanced in shape or form to be more visually clear of their gender (even when in the range there are no models of the other gender) does not push their agenda.
Since the last time such a thread has emerged we have established there are three categories of models depiction.
Realistic were there is no real difference between models (speaking on wargames 28/32mm ranges) and the main question for the artist/ manufacturer is to why bother making different sculpts and not just make male sculpts since all will look like males.
Artistic were the form is enhanced and shown with many stylistic design ways boob armour and exposed flesh included, this is the usual depiction were armour function takes a second place and form is given first stage and is selected by artists and manufacturers to showcase the gender of the model they manufacture most companies manufacture models in this category.
And exaggerated/ sexualized were the body form and pose is placed above armour and function, there are quite a few manufacturers in this category and their product ranges widely in quality and taste (taste been subjective of course)
Of course these are the two edges and the middle, there are various states of in between design and most manufacturers of the middle tier give their sculpts a bit of move towards the one or the other edge even between the same line to better suit their artistic vision.
Were does it places the whole thread, as usual its a matter of preference and beliefs, from a designer/ manufacturer perspective the middle ground is the safest place to be, the supporters of both edges are not that numerous to impact your sales and catering to them may alienate the bigger middle ground market, also going in the middle but using some of the attributes desired by one edge is usually enouph to satisfy most of the supporters of this edge without alienating the middle.
There is a niche market on both edges but so far the market has shown that there are money on the exaggerated/ sexualized market were the realistic market especially for female models has yet to show companies profiting from it, maybe the realistic depiction supporters are too few to really be a sustainable approach, maybe the attempts for that so far were not good enouph to capture an audience (if somebody knows a company that did such sculpts in above average sculpting quality let me know please), were the companies producing exaggerated/ sexualized models have usually at least above average sculpting quality on their models (not denying there are companies that do bad sculpts on this edge, but these usually do not survive long).
On the Amazons subject please no, there is no reason for them to cut their breasts and there is little evidence they ever did so beyond some Greek badmouthing their enemies, even the old epics do not mention such thing ever happening and if it was a functional necessity the depictions of warrior goddesses would include such detail.
Their existence on the other hand is quite probable, female warriors is nothing new but a recurring aspect of warfare, when there is need or social changes they appear and they are as capable as male warriors are.
Thanks for the picture its a nice display of armour, subtly shaped for the female form unfortunately such details would be lost in the wargaming scale without been given a boost.
Asterios wrote: that is like the old joke, a man and his son get in an accident, the son goes to one hospital the father goes to another hospital as the son goes into the operating room the surgeon says I cannot operate on that boy hes my son, who is the surgeon?
OMG, just show the video...
huh, never watched the movie so didn't know they did the riddle in that movie, if I did might have shown that too. now me I grew up with women doing men's jobs, my Mother worked for the phone company climbing telephones poles and such back when you might see one woman out of a thousand in the phone company doing that job. so when asked that riddle as a kid I was able to answer it easily.
MajorTom11 wrote: The truth is minus feminizing physical characteristics presented evidently, you can't tell a 28mm mini is female. Put a normal proportioned woman in combat fatigues, with all the equipment etc, and put their hair up and under a helmet or cap, and you can't tell.
If you don't emphasize hips, or breasts, or female hairstyles, then it is kind of pointless to have female minis. There is a line, the pin-up style bare butt figs are another thing. But boob armor alone is a part of the visual design language used across sci-fi and fantasy. Objectification or simple Identification will always be in the eye of the beholder though. But I am telling you, remove/obscure/cover hips, boobs and hair, and you will be hardpressed to identify a female figure. And in a community demanding more of a female presence, it is a bit of a catch 22.
We are capable of making out incredible detail on our models. Look at the FW Primarchs for an excellent example. Most of the model's detail will be lost from a distance, but that does not make it meaningless.
It does not seem right that we become incredibly nearsighted specifically in the subject of femininity.
We want more female models !!
What's the matter with those there ?
They look too much like women.
What about female head swap onto Space Marines ?
They look too much like men.
A Town Called Malus wrote: You can't tell whether a Space Marine model is male or female if it has its helmet on. Same for Tau Fire caste, amongst others.
Why is it only "female" models which have to be immediately identifiable as such? Why not just have the models be more androgynous when they are wearing full armour and have the fluff be what tells you about their sex, just like with Space Marines.
Because people often like to have the gender of their models identifiable and when you have a model that is broad bodied and a warrior, we almost always associate it as being male.
There's no reason you couldn't call Cadians female other than the fact they're broad and bulky, broad and bulky are male features so we see them as male but in reality they're far bulkier than a normal man as well. The female conversions posted earlier in this thread use Cadian bodies and simply chuck an over exaggerated female head on it (remove the helmet so you can see long hair and an exaggerated narrow jaw line). In reality female and male facial structures are similar enough that at 28mm scale and wearing the same haircut you could barely tell the difference, if at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: We are capable of making out incredible detail on our models. Look at the FW Primarchs for an excellent example. Most of the model's detail will be lost from a distance, but that does not make it meaningless.
Not a good comparison to SoB's though.
1) Primarch models are physically much larger which is part of why they can have nuanced facial structures and you can actually pick it out even if you don't zoom in.
2) Primarch models are centre pieces, they are designed to draw the eye above and beyond the rest of your infantry.
3) Primarch models are made by FW and FW typically makes their models more realistic and less exaggerated than GW. I would fully expect female models from FW to be more subdued than GW's 40k figures. The same way LotR figures were more subdued than WHFB figures because they were sculpted to more realistic proportions.
Exactly, if you don't mind your females to be a bit bulky in face and body there's absolutely no reason you can't call the existing Cadian models female, they're already too bulky to be men
adamsouza wrote: We want more female models !!
What's the matter with those there ?
They look too much like women.
What about female head swap onto Space Marines ?
They look too much like men.
3) Primarch models are made by FW and FW typically makes their models more realistic and less exaggerated than GW. I would fully expect female models from FW to be more subdued than GW's 40k figures. The same way LotR figures were more subdued than WHFB figures because they were sculpted to more realistic proportions.
This is a big factor I think. I'd definitely want FW to do it.
I think the point he's trying to make is that whatever option- of any number of options- someone will always be annoyed. The old 'You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.' Hybrid Son said earlier he'd like to see SoB that were indistinguishable as female. If he gets his wish, you no longer have the females you've previously said (in other threads) you want to see and identify with. (incidentally this is not me arguing for or against either preference, just point out they appear to be in conflict).
Unless anyone is going to bang the drum that boob plate somehow causes real harm to real women- thereby making it's use a moral issue- it's best simply written off as one of many stylistic choices, unburdened by the need for realism, that one can either purchase or not as one desires.
agnosto wrote: In the grim darkness of the future, breast enhancement surgery in the IoM is mandatory for any woman going into battle.
GW is capable of portraying female soldiers with some taste, DE Wyches for example. But I guess they're elves in space so they're not supposed to have large breasts? I don't really hear people complaining about not being able to recognize if they're male or female though.
I'm not fussed either way though I tend towards a non-cheesecake preference to my toys. As long as the end result isn't over the top like some of the smaller mini makers on the market, I won't have a problem with the result.
I think it's pretty unfair to go after SoB for having large breasts on the models, considering the models are hilariously old at this stage - try comparing them to other models of similar age and you find proportions that are equally as ridiculous(I mean, seriously, some of those old GW metals are only 4 1/2 heads tall - your average human should be 7+), whether due to technical limitations or the sculptors GW had at the time that was simply the style. Look at the Sisters of Silence plastics - sure, they have "boob plates", but they're nowhere near as ridiculous as you're implying SoB would be, and I think they're a far better guide for what to expect from a modern plastic SoB kit than the old SoB metals that are poorly proportioned in all regards not just the chesticles.
@ agnosto, you say that SoBs are cheesecake, however there is nothing demonstrably cheesecake about their sculpts in any way, shape, or form!
They are in FIGHTING poses, they are not in demurely-coy-yet -come-hither or oops-you-surprised-me-while-I-was-indisposed poses or facial expression.
There are a lot of telling marks that define cheesecake and these figures have none of those.
The amount of "white-knight-must-defend-womanly-virtue" virtue signaling that I see from some posters is sickening, the ladies aren't going to come flocking to your neck-bearded fedora-wearing selves.
I know that in this day and age it's cool and trendy to try and have everyone androgenically formless and equal to the point of telling children to not talk about boys and girls, but instead call them "purple penguins" and wear fashions that feminize men and masculinize women; but come on
1" toy soldiers on a tabletop is not the place to make sweeping social changes.
It doesn't matter what gender anyone is. These scuplts like all, will have some that love them, some that hate them, and others who just go Meh and don't care one way or the other. Someone is going to be dissapointed.
Someone wants a different style and they wont get it, or someone wants more of the same, and the new models will look radically different.
Its been a crazy long time since any model line that was released was univerally praised as being great looking, or just what everyone wanted.
I think the last once that came close was when the DE were reimagined.
Jayden63 wrote: Its been a crazy long time since any model line that was released was univerally praised as being great looking, or just what everyone wanted.
I think the last once that came close was when the DE were reimagined.
No, I think it was the Imperial Knights line. Great models *and* exactly what everyone wanted!
Well talking about Boob Armor here is a couple of Sedition Warriors one male and one female, you notice the boob armor on the female? well i'm glad they did that since if we went by the rest of the uniform wouldn't know she was a she since look at her Ab Armor, hell i'm jealous of that 6-pack shes packing. (also noticed the male is packing something too)
also here is a pic of some of them Marines I still have to assemble and paint
Asterios wrote: I'm curious are there any females here on the DakkaDakka board? if so can we get their input regarding the expected SoB sculpts?
Yes, and their opinions are equally as meaningless as the opinions of anyone else on this board. They don't speak for the entirety of women no matter how hard they try and imply it. Nor are their opinions any more valuable than the male posters on Dakka, because at its very core this *issue* really has nothing to do with politics, medical equality, or any other issue which actually necessitates the input of a female perspective.
At its core this is a whiny cartoon slap-fight about whose opinion is more valid in an outrageously over the top, hyper-gothic sci-fantasy miniature game. No one has the moral authority here no matter what dongles, dangles, or doobles they have stuck to their body.
And if you want to know why I'm aggravated that you asked for a female poster, its because I know at least two people on Dakka who have mentioned being female that are chronic "waah boobplate offends me" posters. And that's relevant because in my local GW we have a female player who just submitted a gorgeously painted classic sisters of battle army for AoP. More over she also plays tyranids, is starting genestealer cults, and has jokingly referred to herself as "mommy 'nid". Because I'm fairly certain she doesn't post on Dakka, she won't get a voice.
Instead well hear the same laborious "boobplates are morally wrong", "sisters of battle are just cheesecake", "I can't feel like the hobby is for me unless I have female representation in an incredibly specific variety, and the aesthetic and fluff needs to be changed to fit me" again and again but this time with more feigned authority.
Edit:fixed some grammar due to typing this on a tablet
Asterios wrote: I'm curious are there any females here on the DakkaDakka board? if so can we get their input regarding the expected SoB sculpts?
Yes, and their opinions are equally as meaningless as the opinions of anyone else on this board. They don't speak for the entirety of women no matter how hard they try and imply it. Nor are their opinions any more valuable than the male posters on Dakka, because at its very core this *issue* really has nothing to do with politics, medical equality, or any other issue which actually necessitates the input of a female perspective.
At its core this is a whiny cartoon slap-fight about whose opinion is more valid in an outrageously over the top, hyper-gothic sci-fantasy miniature game. No one has the moral authority here no matter what dongles, dangles, or doobles they have stuck to their body.
And if you want to know why I'm aggravated that you asked for a female poster, its because I know at least two people on Dakka who have mentioned being female that are chronic "waah boobplate offends me" posters. And that's relevant because in my local GW we have a female player who just submitted a gorgeously painted classic sisters of battle army for AoP. More over she also plays tyranids, is starting genestealer cults, and has jokingly referred to herself as "mommy 'nid". Because I'm fairly certain she doesn't post on Dakka, she won't get a voice.
Instead well hear the same laborious "boobplates are morally wrong", "sisters of battle are just cheesecake", "I can't feel like the hobby is for me unless I have female representation in an incredibly specific variety, and the aesthetic and fluff needs to be changed to fit me" again and again but this time with more feigned authority.
Edit:fixed some grammar due to typing this on a tablet
and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.
), it's such a part of the image that without the armoured corset, the boob armour and the bob haircut, you haven't really got sisters of battle, you've got equal opportunities Space Marines. As for "realistic portrayal", it's 
There is time and place for having sexist minis and there is a time and place for not having them. Kingdom Death does it seem to do it properly. That is a time and place to have it. I don't think it's the time or place in having this done in a 
I believe the Ecclesiarchy kept it due to the whole "no men under arms law". The armour made them look like women on the battlefield so no one could accuse them of hiding men under there and breaking the edict.
