Melissia wrote:

hemingway wrote:Even if that number is accurate (and my lifetime of experience as a gamer tells me it isn't)

Just because you're isolated and secluded from female gamers doesn't mean that we don't exist.

You keep making remarks like this, and its a fallacy. He didnt say that they don't exist, he disagreed with your statement that 40% of gamers are female.

As do I. If the number was even close to that, the programming on G4 would be a lot less man-centric at the very least.

Also, you may just not be able to spot the female gamers when she is among male gamers. Protip: look for barettes in her beard.

Monster Rain wrote:You keep making remarks like this, and its a fallacy. He didnt say that they don't exist, he disagreed with your statement that 40% of gamers are female.

That's not a fallacy, and hell, it wasn't my statement.

It was the ESA's statement.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17699

Oh, and let's not leave it at just one link!
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/10/7922.ars

Just because the industry has not caught up with its demographics does not mean the demographics are therefor wrong... THAT is a logical fallacy.

Woah, deja vu... regardless, these articles are two and four years old, respectively. The number of female gamesr has grown since then.

edit: A more recent study.

Based on video game demographics, women make up a significant 39% of those who play video games in the population. Also, a surprising 40% of online gamers are women. 35% are below eighteen years old.

http://www.learnxpress.com/the-demographics-of-video-game-players.html

Oh boy. I'm not getting into a semantic debate as to what constitutes a gamers, but being a nintendogs enthusiast doesn't fit the bill.

Those articles mean nothing, the games they talk about range from WoW to Farmville with no Indictation as to how many women are playing what.

I can promise you that 40% of Fantasy and 40K gamers are not female, maybe 1 in 25 or so. Maybe.

Video games are one thing. Table top and board/stratigy type games are another.

Since we are talking about 40K here, all those girls playing WOW or Nintendogs or even Poker and Gin don't matter.

Melissia wrote:

hemingway wrote:Even if that number is accurate (and my lifetime of experience as a gamer tells me it isn't)

Just because you're isolated and secluded from female gamers doesn't mean that we don't exist.

Those numbers come from the ESA-- Entertainment Software Association, the trade association of the gaming industry.

You're responding to arguments I haven't made.

Do me a favor. Go into your EB on any given day. Tell me how many of those people are women. Go into your FLGS. How many people playing MtG and Warhammer are women? Go catch up with your local D&D Crew. Go look at the lineup for PAX. Starting to see where this is going? I'm sorry, Mel, but I'm going to accept what I can see with my own eyes, anywhere, any day, within the gaming culture, and have seen for the past 22 years as a gamer in various milieus over a 150 word article on the internet that sites no sources nor how that data was gathered. How many of those women gamers are playing Farmville? How many of those 'women' wow players (which I admit, are somewhat commonplace in Azeroth, to the tune of about 5% based on the guilds I've been in) were actually accounted for by virtue of, for example, the player's mother being the account owner? How many of those female gamers are playing flash apps on their phones in between texts at the mall?

What's more, how does that invalidate my claim that women gamers like to play sexed up characters?

When I first saw this thread I was like

After 11 Pages I'm all


Do girls game? yes.

Does anyone care? Other than other girl gamers, no.

Does this have anything to do with Sexy sisters? Nothing I can see.

more funny posts.

I agree with the point Gymnogyps and a few others where trying to make. If a man wants to wear a severed head as a cod piece, then a woman should be able to wear a corset with skulls on it.

I also agree with some one, a few pages back, who said the SOB are an extension of the beauty of having faith in the Emperor or something along those lines, thus, they dress beautifully as well as functionally.

Plus, the curvature of bewb armor would be better for deflecting bullets, where as a flat breastplate would take more damage.

The real debate about sexism here stems from the sculptors themselves. Did these "men" intentionally sculpt said bewb armor with sexist intentions in mind? Doubt it, compared to other fantasy or sci fi figurines, SOB models are mild. Although the uniform is form fitting, they are still at least covered up, nothing hanging out.

Sisters Repentia on the other hand...... nothing modest about them! Well, even they make sense to me in a way. Seeing as how they blindly charge forward to die in battle as a way to repent for their sins; why bother wearing armor or anything that might save you life, and thus, ruin your chance of salvation?

And yet, my point still stands because they are the only evidence thus far posted on the subject. You merely make assertions without providing facts to back them up. Thus lacking in substance with which to hold themselves up, the assertions fall down, like grot at an Eldar shooting range.

The numbers are similar no matter where I look-- females make up almost half of gamers. Yet another 2009 study indicated 50% of all pc gamers are female, with a smaller (shy of one third) on consoles. From the ESA's own site, "Forty percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (33 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (20 percent)." Yet another study agrees that women over 18 make up one third of all gamers, double the market share of males under eighteen. I could probably do this all night if I didn't have class tomorrow.

I don't think you know the gaming demographics as well as you think you know the gaming demographics. Same with the demographics of those who purchase GW products-- actually, I know more women who collect GW products than who play games, but then personal stories like that don't hold up very well. As I haven't seen any studies on that, I wouldn't say either way, however (and neither should you).

Melissia wrote:And yet, my point still stands because they are the only evidence thus far posted on the subject. You merely make assertions without providing facts to back them up. Thus lacking in substance with which to hold themselves up, the assertions fall down, like grot at an Eldar shooting range.

Lollerskates!

Where do you think we got the Farmville and Nintendogs notions? From your articles. Unless you're trying to make the point that somehow the Cafe City playing housewife has some bearing on whether or not SoBs in corsets are whores.

Tell you what, post a link to something that shows it's sources and doesn't make such vague statements as "online gaming" and you'll have provided something along the lines of evidence for your claim. Otherwise we're back in fallacy land.

I don't know about you guys, but if they made the armor REALLY gothic looking, as though it belonged in a cathedral (more than so already) and they had shaved heads I seriously would like them better. Sure, the bobs are okay, but I think it would just make them look tougher and less girly( don't stretch how I meant that) than with these bobs which remind me of what a model's hair would look like.

I have nothing to contribute with the girl gamers thing.

So, that's what I think.

And I got the exact opposite information from the articles.

As for the last statement, because it intentionally misinterprets what was said before I have no intention of giving it a serious response. So joogity boogity woo. I'm going to go pass out.

Melissia wrote:And I got the exact opposite information from the articles.

As for the last statement, because it intentionally misinterprets what was said before I have no intention of giving it a serious response. So joogity boogity woo. I'm going to go pass out.

That's fine. This is a total shoot: I think what I said is a perfect interpretation of what you've been saying.

Those articles were some flimsy evidence to base your 40% of gamers are female statements on, especially in this context. You act as though I don't know how many women play Farkle, Bejeweled Farmville, Zooville etc... If you had an article that cited sources and gave a breakdown of who was playing what, you'd have an argument. Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

Women are out there in significant numbers playing MMOs, action games, first-person shooters.

Wow what a vague, unsupported statement! That settles it for me!

The point is, the percentage of women who play video games isn't germane to the topic--regardless of whether the percentage is .05, 40, or 99.999.

It's red herring. You've taken my comment about gamers and misappropriated it to represent 'online female video gamer players' and then used Google-Scholarship to draw the conclusion that I'm some kind of hermetic neckbeard that can't tell candy apples from crack cocaine and don't know the lay of the land after a lifetime of experience around gaming (which I have to say is pretty DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BYPASS THE WORD FILTER funny)

If that's not bad enough, calling into question your claims about female gamers wasn't even the germane part of the argument, which was that the proportion of gamers' gender is immaterial to the profitability of making models with T & A.

It's common knowledge that sexy/cute women sell to both men and women.

It's not a red herring. The point was simple-- that most people don't understand the demographics of national or larger groups, as they only know a small portion of the whole in their daily lives, which can be woefully under-representative of the whole. Thus unless there's actual proof of this, you shouldn't make such assumptions. Your assertion about the demographics of GW players was without evidence, and so I compared it to the common misconceptions about women and gaming. Perhaps you can go find an actual scientific study backing your statement up.

I doubt it.

Monster Rain wrote:Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

And I would propose that it is male chauvinism that has clouded your comprehension of the innumerable articles. You make assumptions on what kinds of games women play without providing any proof of your assumptions. I made no such assertion of what KINDS of games are played, and would not do so (as you have done) without seeing proof

*mutters something incoherent about typos, insomnia, and spider monkies*

Make em sexy. Super sexy.

Oh and lol @ 40% of gamers being women pertaining to warhammer.

Psyker_9er wrote:Sisters Repentia on the other hand...... nothing modest about them! Well, even they make sense to me in a way. Seeing as how they blindly charge forward to die in battle as a way to repent for their sins; why bother wearing armor or anything that might save you life, and thus, ruin your chance of salvation?

The Repentia are the models I like the least from the current Sisters range. They're not Dwarf Trollslayers and death in battle is not their goal, salvation is. Being more vulnerable should be an acceptable sacrifice in their attempt to make up for their previous failures, not a desirable goal in itself.

If I was in charge of the visual direction of the Repentia, I would have given them something that doesn't look specially crafted for the Repentia with the goal of looking perverted. Maybe a bodyglove of the sort worn under powered armour, with a knee-length robe for modesty.

I'd also have them be given an invulnerable save instead of an armor save, because giving them a 4+ armor save when they're wearing just strips of paper and scraps of cloth just doesn't make sense, but then that's neither here nor there...

I don't like the bad press Repentia are getting Those are awesome models and Sisters of Battle would be diminished greatly without them in terms of a fluff concept and a part of their overall aesthetic. I do agree with Melissa that the unit needs A LOT of work. But there's nothing wrong with those models. Jes Goodwin can keep his grubby mitts off!

Witzkatz wrote:what about the Transporter movies? Jason Statham fighting in several stages of being undressed/oiled up? That's definitely homoerotic eye candy for the girls and some dudes, if I've ever seen any.

fixed that for you.

I have never met a girl that admits to seeing/liking this movie.

I know plenty of guys who claim to.


And 300? practically Softcore gay porn really...

Melissia wrote:A disclaimer: I'm still recovering from Papa Nurgle's visit. Bear with me as I rant.


There is more to women than TnA, though you couldn't tell from looking at sci-fi sometimes, or fantasy artwork, or miniatures/wargaming. And bringing it up often causes near-violent reactions from some men, because how dare someone desire a female character who isn't there just to titillate the reader/viewer with their sex appeal!

Obviously such a thing does not exist and is not at all interesting. It is quite clear that no man wants a woman whose primary assets are her intelligence and skill rather than her physical appearance, and anyone who says otherwise is completely and utterly wrong. And since female characters can never be interesting and deep characters with a multitude of motivations and complex ideals, there's no point of having them be anything but eye candy.

Apparently, it's a crime to some people for anyone to think that women, too, can be warriors, or soldiers, or philosophers, or leaders, or anything other than someone's ****toy waiting to happen. Hell, sometimes these people think it's a crime for women to be interested in wargaming at all. Suffice it to say that I cannot express my opinion on that belief without violating a few of the forum's rules.

You're going off the deep end here. The minis displayed on the male side are similar. Look at the marines and Crapachans. These are beyond Ahnald size exagerations. Frankly the Nuns with Guns are pretty light in that area. So chill out.

Would you prefer they wear burkhas? Of course in real society, your argument does not hold. Freer societies tend to be freer about images of the body. Its head to toe covering where they shoot you for wearing fingernail polish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, could someone point me to the underwear and high heels on the models? I'm just not seeing it.

Ditto. The cuirass is almost the same as my old Valhallan commander. Frankly its more realkistic than the SPAZZ MARIENS HURR! armor nonsense.
I see the calves/feet and, like the above, my first impression is 1) more realistically proportioned armored vs. the MARIENS above; and 2) reminds me of European plate, which is what I think they were trying for. If they had a proper "ballet" helmet as another poster suggested I'd think they'd be awesome (in plastic).

I love their current models. Shira Calpurnia would be damn cool, though.

fixed that for you.

I have never met a girl that admits to seeing/liking this movie.

I know plenty of guys who claim to.


And 300? practically Softcore gay porn really...

Well, I can at least quote one girl that I once met at a friend's house that was all "RAWR! Jason Statham is SO hawt!". And, just out of curiosity, I looked at a German Statham fan page, which actually had quite a lot of girls in the shoutbox exclaiming how sexy he is. Soo, not only homoerotic eye candy, I think.

I see the calves/feet and, like the above, my first impression is 1) more realistically proportioned armored vs. the MARIENS above; and 2) reminds me of European plate, which is what I think they were trying for. If they had a proper "ballet" helmet as another poster suggested I'd think they'd be awesome (in plastic).

The more traditional/medieval armor look is a thing I like about them, too. Much better than Marine armor from the aesthetics for me. I'd like to keep GW that general idea with the next SoB models, definitely.

Frazzled wrote:

Also, could someone point me to the underwear and high heels on the models? I'm just not seeing it.

Ditto.

Garter belts and a cup bra. As for high heels, look at the Sororitas "art" (if one can call pieces drawn by him suchq) drawn by John Blanche.... any female "drawn" by Blanche has high heels, even to the point of obsession

People keep claiming his art was the inspiration for Sisters' current look after all.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Also, could someone point me to the underwear and high heels on the models? I'm just not seeing it.

Ditto.

Garter belts and a cup bra. As for high heels, look at the Sororitas "art" (if one can call pieces drawn by him suchq) drawn by John Blanche.

I still don't see the garter belts.
High heels-thats an issue for you? Seriously?
Its the same thing for chaos knights in WFB, chaos in WFB, and Dark Eldar Cold Ones. The have heels. If you wear boots you have heels. It adds to the Renaissance Age plate armor look.

I did a google search on John Blance and keywords like Sisters and Sororitas. I could only find this one piece of art that apparently once was a codex cover, where some kind of canonness wears high-heels and ridiculously thin, shining-black leg armor. I agree that this looks a bit stupid on a battlefield.

However...the models. No model I've seen has high heels. And the "cup bra" seems not to be made of silk, but ceramite, so it's not underwear but (slightly oversized) armor. And, not owning any SoB models, I looked very closely at all models I could find, be it GW homepage or google...and I wasn't able to see any garter belts. Are those only present in artwork, too, maybe?

Frazzled wrote:I still don't see the garter belts.
High heels-thats an issue for you? Seriously?
Its the same thing for chaos knights in WFB, chaos in WFB, and Dark Eldar Cold Ones. The have heels. If you wear boots you have heels. It adds to the Renaissance Age plate armor look.

No, the reason mounted knights wear heels is because it facilitates horseriding. High heels in a combat zone is EXTREMELY unpractical.

The garter belts are present on some of the models, though not all.

As for the corsets and bra cups, it's just unnecessary and doesn't mix with the rest of the armor. Certain people like to quote sound-bites, as it were, and misrepresent what I said, but basically I merely said I believe the chest and abdomen parts of the armor look stupid and do not represent the crusader knights the Sisters are supposed to be (IE, Knights Templar, Knights Hospitalier, Knights of Santiago, Gothic Knights, and so on from the medieval period). A single piece breastplate with a single curved bulge at the chest region could still look feminine while also looking more like platemail, and a "scalemail" style abdomen could similarly look quite distinct from other forms of armor, and the armor would look is if it was one coherent set instead of a hodgepodge of pieces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:I did a google search on John Blance and keywords like Sisters and Sororitas. I could only find t

Yes, it was the second edition codex cover. And yes, I'm glad that it didn't transfer over into the models.

Manchu wrote:I don't like the bad press Repentia are getting Those are awesome models and Sisters of Battle would be diminished greatly without them in terms of a fluff concept and a part of their overall aesthetic. I do agree with Melissa that the unit needs A LOT of work. But there's nothing wrong with those models. Jes Goodwin can keep his grubby mitts off!

We'll have to agree to disagree. While I have no problems with the concept, I do not like how it was implemented.

Melissia wrote:The garter belts are present on some of the models, though not all.

Then please, show us one. There is a Repentia that has one, but I do not hold that against the rest of the line. Neither do I hold John Blanche's art against the line.

I wouldn't either, considering I doni't even like calling what he produces art in the first place. But people still claim that his... material masquerating as art is the inspiration for Sisters, so...

The canoness model has an example of a garter belt. Celestine's model gives that impression, though what with the fleurs it's hard to tell. On the image of Battle Sisters in the troops section of GW's website, there's a model with it on the top row, third from the left (The one pulling the pin out of the grenade with her teeth... a pity I don't actually have that model myself, as it's one of the more dynamic ones).

Aside from not having a scanner or digital camera to begin with, I can't provide examples of that because I tend to try and paint my Sisters models in such a way as to make sure their armor looks like actual armor

The canoness model has an example of a garter belt. Celestine's model gives that impression, though what with the fleurs it's hard to tell. On the image of Battle Sisters in the troops section of GW's website, there's a model with it on the top row, third from the left (The one pulling the pin out of the grenade with her teeth... a pity I don't actually have that model myself, as it's one of the more dynamic ones).

Are you referring to the strip of metal around her left thigh? That's the only thing I can see that I think you could refer to on that model. Come on, at least from the perspective of the GW picture, I really don't see how that could be interpreted as a garter belt. It...it has no belt. No one that I could see. And, no, I don't even see a hint of a garter belt on St. Celestine.

*shrug* Having worn them myself (on a completely off topic note, I wonder if they call it cosplay if you're at a renfair?), it very much reminds me of them and the models would look better without it.

So let me get this straight, there's one normal SoB that wears something that could be remotely seen close to be something like a garter belt and one codex cover by John Blance with a canonness in heels and you're still arguing that the models would look better without it (referring to the first)? It looks like you're trying a bit too hard to not like the Sisters models to me. Again, I agree that their boob armor could be toned down a bit, but the rest, I just don't see it.

Witzkatz wrote:So let me get this straight, there's one normal SoB that wears something that could be remotely seen close to be something like a garter belt and one codex cover by John Blance with a canonness in heels and you're still arguing that the models would look better without it (referring to the first)? It looks like you're trying a bit too hard to not like the Sisters models to me. Again, I agree that their boob armor could be toned down a bit, but the rest, I just don't see it.

I pointed out multiple models, and those aren't all the ones that are out there with the issue.

As for not liking the Sisters models... you're oversimplifying things, not I. I like most of hte models. I think the armor on the limbs is great (minus said garter belt appearances), the helmet I think is cool, the shoulders are epic without being overdone, the backpack is fine, I like the robes, the symbolism on the armor is usually pretty well done (it could be better, but GW's models improve as time goes on anyway so I expect the plastic models to be actually BETTER than these second edition models), etc.

Melissia wrote:I wouldn't either, considering I doni't even like calling what he produces art in the first place. But people still claim that his... material masquerating as art is the inspiration for Sisters, so...

The claim . . . well, the fact is that Blanche's artwork plays a foundational role in the development of the 40k visual world. I think he started with them before 40k existed and was their art director for some time. He still plays some important role, although I don't know what his current job title--"inspiration Art Director" means? I know he was in bad health for some time, so that may have something to do with it.

BL has this to say about him:

John Blanche's art work has been a driving force in the appeal of Games Workshop's games and miniatures for over twnety years. He continues to devote his time to further developing the dark and gothic imagery of the world's most popular tabletop games, both in his own paintings and sketches, and as the inspiration Art Director of GW's design studio.

I hope you will one day come to grips with this part of reality.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to repeat myself:

Could someone show me the underwear and high heels on the SoB models? I'm just not seeing them.

Ah, allright, maybe I got something wrong there, I apologize. Glad we can agree that the general idea of their outfit is good as it is.

I still don't see any models with the "issue" apart from the bewb breastplate.

@Melissa: Also, I think your "garter belt" may be meant to evoke a cilice. And before you say that it makes no sense to wear a cilice over armor, let me just reiterate that you're the one calling it a gater belt.

Manchu wrote:I hope you will one day come to grips with this part of reality.

I am to grips with reality. The reality is John Blanche sucks as an artist

Seaward wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to have to repeat myself:

Could someone show me the underwear and high heels on the SoB models? I'm just not seeing them.

The way the corsets and... boob-cups are set up make the boob-cups look like bras, especially with the addition of the "zipper" down the middle. There have been many threads where people say the models shouldn't have a 3+ save, including one in recent memory on Dakka... it doesn't look like they have armor on their chest/abdomen section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@Melissa: Also, I think your "garter belt" may be meant to evoke a cilice. And before you say that it makes no sense to wear a cilice over armor, let me just reiterate that you're the one calling it a gater belt.

If that was their intent (I doubt it), they failed. Miserably.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I hope you will one day come to grips with this part of reality.

I am to grips with reality. The reality is John Blanche sucks as an artist

Saying he sucks is one thing--that truly is a perfectly valid opinion. Downplaying his influence on the visual design of 40k, however, is delusional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Melissa: Also, I think your "garter belt" may be meant to evoke a cilice. And before you say that it makes no sense to wear a cilice over armor, let me just reiterate that you're the one calling it a gater belt.

If that was their intent (I doubt it), they failed. Miserably.

Why so?

Is this about to get Freudian . . .

Manchu wrote:Saying he sucks is one thing--that truly is a perfectly valid opinion. Downplaying his influence on the visual design of 40k, however, is delusional.

I stated I have a hard time believing his gakky artwork is the basis for most of 40k because his art is so alien to everything else in the setting. I never said it was or wasn't an influence.

Manchu wrote:Why so?

... because it doesn't look like any examples I've seen?

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Saying he sucks is one thing--that truly is a perfectly valid opinion. Downplaying his influence on the visual design of 40k, however, is delusional.

I stated I have a hard time believing his gakky artwork is the basis for most of 40k because his art is so alien to everything else in the setting. I never said it was or wasn't an influence.

Manchu wrote:Why so?

... because it doesn't look like any examples I've seen?

Ha ha oh wow. And you've seen garter belts like that???

We're just going to have to agree to disagree about Blanche, just as if you were claiming the world was flat. I'll admit that there are, um, many ways to look at the same pictures.

Melissia wrote:
The way the corsets and... boob-cups are set up make the boob-cups look like bras, especially with the addition of the "zipper" down the middle. There have been many threads where people say the models shouldn't have a 3+ save, including one in recent memory on Dakka... it doesn't look like they have armor on their chest/abdomen section.

No, someone claimed that they're actually wearing underwear over their armor, and high heels. I appreciate the help, but armor that could look to some people like it might just be stylized after underwear isn't what was said.

This has a garter? Methinks you're looking for something that isn't there.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440303a&prodId=prod1090129

Here. They may have a slight heel at best. Again...really?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440305a&rootCatGameStyle=

I can see the "Garters" pretty clearly on the following models:

"Battle Sisters" the model in the top row, second from the left. The one pulling the grenade pin with her teeth.
"Sister Superior with Chainsword and Plasma Pistol"
"Sister Superior with Power Sword & Bolter"
All of the Repentia Models
"Witch Hunters Death-Cult Assassins"
"Seraphim Superior"


Many of the pictures of the models obscure their thigh/upper leg area with their weapons, so I can't tell if they are present on any other models. Probably.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

And I would propose that it is male chauvinism that has clouded your comprehension of the innumerable articles. You make assumptions on what kinds of games women play without providing any proof of your assumptions. I made no such assertion of what KINDS of games are played, and would not do so (as you have done) without seeing proof

http://gigaom.com/2010/02/17/average-social-gamer-is-a-43-year-old-woman/

I can pull links out of my behind as well. This one actually talks about what games this female demographic plays. Guess what? My instinct was correct; social games aka Farmville, Bejeweled etc. So, I guess... face.

Anyways.

If Celestine is wearing "garter belts(lolwhut?)" then so are several Grey Knights models. Seriously, compare them. This entire idea is silly.

Chongara wrote:I can see the "Garters" pretty clearly on the following models:

I think the earlier poster is correct. These are probably Cilice's. As a comparison, here is a SM Chaplain wearing one vs a Canoness wearing one:






A Cilice, btw, is an object used for mortification of the flesh. Sometimes a garment, but often in modern times a metal 'belt' around a leg.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also notice lack of heels in that canoness and these sisters:

The oft quoted 'thigh high boots' are actually clearly greaves with flat feet and pointed toes. Meant to evoke plate armor, not hooker heels.

And with the exception of that canoness, the 'boob armor' is actually the least apparent part of the armor, overshadowed by the pauldrons and distinctive flared robes. It is also my opinion that the emphasized boob armor on the canoness and Repentia mistress is meant to emphasize a 'motherly' aspect. Stay with me here, but they are solid women with large busoms, much like the common stereotype of a poor, middle-aged mother, stout and ample of breast, with a no-nonsense approach to discipline and a warm heart. (Hard to get this image across, but you probably get what I mean.) Now imagine that stout, middle-aged woman in armor.


Even the much despised repentia are not wearing garters. They have tied off rags around their legs and one has a holy icon tied to her thigh since she doesn't have pockets. Also notice the model in the upper right which has 'garters' around her arm. These are clearly cilices, in intention. Unless 'hookers' wear arm garters now.




No amount of proof will satisfy the zealous. This thread is a living monument to the stubborn qualities some deify. In responding, we just provide them with more fuel for their fire.

pretre wrote:

Chongara wrote:I can see the "Garters" pretty clearly on the following models:

I think the earlier poster is correct. These are probably Cilice's. As a comparison, here is a SM Chaplain wearing one vs a Canoness wearing one:

Look at that hussy.

Wait, those are the "garters" people are complaining about?

We better stop objectifying the IG too, in that case. Several of them wear thigh holsters for autopistols, and as long as we're declaring anything wrapped around a leg to be a garter, they count.

Seaward wrote:Wait, those are the "garters" people are complaining about?

Yep. Let's define terms to put this one to bed.

Webster wrote:Definition of GARTER
1a : a band worn to hold up a stocking or sock
b : a band worn to hold up a shirt sleeve
c : a strap hanging from a girdle or corset to support a stocking

These are none of those things.

pretre wrote:I think the earlier poster is correct. These are probably Cilice's. As a comparison, here is a SM Chaplain wearing one vs a Canoness wearing one:

Awesome find, pretre! Here is your medal for winning this thread:

So I guess what we have here is a blatant example of "female gaze"? Classic.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:I think the earlier poster is correct. These are probably Cilice's. As a comparison, here is a SM Chaplain wearing one vs a Canoness wearing one:

Awesome find, pretre! Here is your medal for winning this thread:

So I guess what we have here is a blatant example of "female gaze"? Classic.

:blush:

I think this is more an example of 'SoB-thread-war-syndrome'. Only cure is thread lock, although in limited cases sunlight and the truth can be used to limited effect. It is generally best to avoid the infected so as to keep your health.

Armour that accentuates the form makes some sense to me in this case (maybe not the giant boobs, but I guess if it's meant to fit multiple girls down the millenia it has to be built to accommodate the biggest?). Strange that nobody thinks that the Blood Angels 'muscle armour' gives an 'unrealistic image' to young boys, or is in any way sexist. The muscles and pretty faceplates give no additional protection, they're purely decorative to make the warriors seem idealised.

In the 40k world, where Sisters are less 'battle nuns' and more 'holy battle saints', why would you NOT want to idealise them too? Doesn't the mere legal EXISTENCE of the Adepta Sororitas as a military force rely on the fact they are all women? Wouldn't you design the armour to make this obvious?

Melissia wrote:It is quite clear that no man wants a woman whose primary assets are her intelligence and skill rather than her physical appearance, and anyone who says otherwise is completely and utterly wrong. And since female characters can never be interesting and deep characters with a multitude of motivations and complex ideals, there's no point of having them be anything but eye candy.

Can you explain to me how 28mm male marine (or guardsman, or Tau, etc.) models convey intelligence, skill, or that they're interesting and deep characters with a multitude of motivations and complex ideals? I don't see anything but physical appearance in the other models on the table, so getting irate that female models have only physical appearance when that's all male models have makes no sense.

I'm probably some kind of evil sexist objectifying bastard for even asking the question, of course!

never have I found a thread that sums up all the reasons why I don't tell people about my hobby.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Can you explain to me how 28mm male marine (or guardsman, or Tau, etc.) models convey intelligence, skill, or that they're interesting and deep characters with a multitude of motivations and complex ideals?

They can't--not without making a lot of assumptions about a certain segment of the population that would find them offensive and unfounded.

Where Melissa has better points is how Sisters are portrayed in fluff, especially in BL novels.

Monster Rain wrote:Look at that hussy.

That's not all, look at that purity seal on his left nipple, he's clearly supposed to be some kind of stripper wearing pasties. Damn GW and their sexy chaplain models!

I have no intent of responding to most of this, as it appears people are (as usual) more interested in taking things out of context and focusing on very specific details. See BearersOfSalvation's post for an excellent example of why I'm ignoring most of you.

ArbitorIan wrote:Armour that accentuates the form makes some sense to me in this case (maybe not the giant boobs, but I guess if it's meant to fit multiple girls down the millenia it has to be built to accommodate the biggest?). Strange that nobody thinks that the Blood Angels 'muscle armour' gives an 'unrealistic image' to young boys, or is in any way sexist.

I have, rather frequently too. Metal nipples and all that.


I really need to stop looking at this thread, it's going nowhere fast.

Seaward wrote:Wait, those are the "garters" people are complaining about?

We better stop objectifying the IG too, in that case. Several of them wear thigh holsters for autopistols, and as long as we're declaring anything wrapped around a leg to be a garter, they count.

Context.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

A thigh holster, is a thigh holster and his a thigh holster (obviously different thing is obviously different). Though in certain specific contexts a thigh holster itself could be fetishized, but that isn't an issue here.

Manchu wrote:So I guess what we have here is a blatant example of "female gaze"? Classic.

I am neither a woman nor female.

ArbitorIan wrote:Armour that accentuates the form makes some sense to me in this case (maybe not the giant boobs, but I guess if it's meant to fit multiple girls down the millenia it has to be built to accommodate the biggest?). Strange that nobody thinks that the Blood Angels 'muscle armour' gives an 'unrealistic image' to young boys, or is in any way sexist. The muscles and pretty faceplates give no additional protection, they're purely decorative to make the warriors seem idealised.

I don't recall anyone bringing up body image issues in this context. It's related in other contexts I suppose but it's certainly not what I'm trying to make an issue of at least.

As for the BA, it has to do with a difference in what the style is evoking. The stylized nature of the BA armor doesn't really reflect a way of dress that plays up widely recognized sexual/fetish imagery preferred by section of the population that is in power over the subjects of sexual interest.

In the 40k world, where Sisters are less 'battle nuns' and more 'holy battle saints', why would you NOT want to idealise them too? Doesn't the mere legal EXISTENCE of the Adepta Sororitas as a military force rely on the fact they are all women? Wouldn't you design the armour to make this obvious?

Again. It says "No Men" not "Madonna Only", if "Looking Female" (the armor does more than just that) was important you could just shove a man in the boobie-armor and be done with it.

Melissia wrote:I have no intent of responding to most of this, as it appears people are (as usual) more interested in taking things out of context and focusing on very specific details. See BearersOfSalvation's post for an excellent example of why I'm ignoring most of you.

ArbitorIan wrote:Armour that accentuates the form makes some sense to me in this case (maybe not the giant boobs, but I guess if it's meant to fit multiple girls down the millenia it has to be built to accommodate the biggest?). Strange that nobody thinks that the Blood Angels 'muscle armour' gives an 'unrealistic image' to young boys, or is in any way sexist.

I have, rather frequently too. Metal nipple and all that.

You borught it up and off the reservation talking about society and such, and then saying the minis had underwear and such. Others are disagreeing with your statement.

If we went back and discussed the breastplate only or such then we'd be a bit back OT, unless you want them in high heels and garters and such, which I haven't seen others espousing.

If I recall the blangle armor has been called the bat nipple (from Batman and Robin infamy)

I also like the single plate look and feel meh about the cilice/garter circlet. Put rivets on it and call it a day.

Chongara wrote:
A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

I think within the context of the environment the Garter is not intended. It is as said before, symbolizing the celice and its zealous connotations. This happily fits in to the Sisters over-arching theme.

Frazzled: The original topic wasn't merely about breastplates, but about the sexualization of Sisters of Battle models in general and whether or not it should be this way.

The post that BearersOfSalvation attempted and failed to respond to was referring to fiction in general and I think made that quite clear, that it was not specifically talking about models but about women/females in fiction in general. I would not accuse him of being incapable of understanding this, so I assume he is simply unwilling to and instead decides to quote out of context and respond to a point which I never made.

A great number of posts in this thread have been like this. Thus my reaction.

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:So I guess what we have here is a blatant example of "female gaze"? Classic.

I am neither a woman nor female.

If I read the disjointed, fallacious heap of nonsense produced by your suggested google search on "male gaze" correctly, you don't need to be.

Melissia wrote:I have no intent of responding to most of this, as it appears people are (as usual) more interested in taking things out of context and focusing on very specific details.

Even more classic! Come on, M, even you have to see the humor here.

[delete: off topic]

Medium of Death wrote:

Chongara wrote:
A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

I think within the context of the environment the Garter is not intended. It is as said before, symbolizing the celice and its zealous connotations. This happily fits in to the Sisters over-arching theme.

That's certainly a valid viewpoint to take. That may very well be the intent but I haven't see any strong evidence of it. Even assuming that was the intent, in the context of the other fetish elements the "Celice" as it were comes off as too much like a garter to be in good taste. Well, at least in my opinion of what good taste is.

If I read the disjointed, fallacious heap of nonsense produced by your suggested google search on "male gaze" correctly, you don't need to be.

I'll just assume we don't much common ground to discuss things on then.

EDIT: And that's fine. It isn't necessarily important we see eye-to-eye.

Melissia wrote:I have no intent of responding to most of this, as it appears people are (as usual) more interested in taking things out of context and focusing on very specific details. See BearersOfSalvation's post for an excellent example of why I'm ignoring most of you.

Yeah, I'll take that as an admission that you can't actually explain how to show intellectual qualities in a 28mm miniature, same for male or female minis.

Melissia wrote:The post that BearersOfSalvation attempted and failed to respond to was referring to fiction in general and I think made that quite clear, that it was not specifically talking about models but about women/females in fiction in general. I would not accuse him of being incapable of understanding this, so I assume he is simply unwilling to and instead decides to quote out of context and respond to a point which I never made.

It could also be that I'm following the second part of the thread title and poking fun at someone who gets really riled up about SOBs all the time. It's not like I'd try to hold a serious discussion when this thread includes people seriously arguing the silly 'male gaze' theory, someone insisting that the exact same object on a SOBs leg is completely different than on a chaplain's leg, or are going off on a discussion of women in literature when talking about whether a set of models should change.

I admit did have kind of a sexist through there, I wished that you were a guy so I could say 'at an SOB who gets really riled up about SOBs'. Damn your gender for ruining my wordplay!

Melissia wrote:Frazzled: The original topic wasn't merely about breastplates, but about the sexualization of Sisters of Battle models in general and whether or not it should be this way.

The post that BearersOfSalvation attempted and failed to respond to was referring to fiction in general and I think made that quite clear, that it was not specifically talking about models but about women/females in fiction in general. .

Thats my point. You went off the reservation taking the thread seriously OT and dare I say...ranty, when we're talking about a specific miniature line and not the status of women in the world. Then you went off about garters and high heels which no one else is seeing.

Except for those that see it. It was pointed out to me by a few other posters a while back, which only added to my annoyance at the lack of thought put into the models.

Also, I don't believe I said the models had high heels, only the artwork...

To be fair, it wasn't Melissia that did it first, she just bit into the topic hardest with her self-admitted rant.

Chongara wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Chongara wrote:
A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

I think within the context of the environment the Garter is not intended. It is as said before, symbolizing the celice and its zealous connotations. This happily fits in to the Sisters over-arching theme.

That's certainly a valid viewpoint to take. That may very well be the intent but I haven't see any strong evidence of it. Even assuming that was the intent, in the context of the other fetish elements the "Celice" as it were comes off as too much like a garter to be in good taste. Well, at least in my opinion of what good taste is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_(stockings)

Wikipedia wrote:It is the groom's privilege to remove the garter and toss it to the male guests.

Perhaps the Brides of the Emperor are just waiting for smooth E to remove it for them...

Yes I did google Garter... several times... (rubs knees)

Chongara wrote:

Seaward wrote:Wait, those are the "garters" people are complaining about?

We better stop objectifying the IG too, in that case. Several of them wear thigh holsters for autopistols, and as long as we're declaring anything wrapped around a leg to be a garter, they count.

Context.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

A thigh holster, is a thigh holster and his a thigh holster (obviously different thing is obviously different). Though in certain specific contexts a thigh holster itself could be fetishized, but that isn't an issue here.

I'm actually glad you brought up context, because context works against your apparent point that they're intended to be a sly wink towards garters. We're talking about models of women wearing power armor from at least neck to toe, carrying big guns, and quite clearly dressed for fightin'. There's not a high heel in sight, despite claims to the contrary; there are no stockings, there are no actual corsets, there is no underwear. To claim that a metal band around a leg that appears on a few models - not all, mind you, but a few - is grounds for going, "I see what you did there, you sly, sexist dog!" is absurd, especially given the examples of males wearing the exact same thing.

But let's for a moment grant the false premise that they're intended to be garters, just for the sake of argument. My response would be to applaud GW for playing up to SoB fluff. Isn't the organization evolved from the Brides of the Emperor predecessor? In western culture, the bride having a garter removed by her new husband is still a pretty common occurrence at weddings - I know one I just went to a couple months ago had it occur. Perhaps it's symbolic?

Edit: Medium of Death beat me to that point.

Chongara wrote:That's certainly a valid viewpoint to take. That may very well be the intent but I haven't see any strong evidence of it. Even assuming that was the intent, in the context of the other fetish elements the "Celice" as it were comes off as too much like a garter to be in good taste. Well, at least in my opinion of what good taste is.

So if they copy-paste armor stuff from marines to SOBs, it becomes sexist external underwear? I don't see how that happens unless you're just trying to be offended.

And you still haven't answered for the purity seal pasty on that chaplain, do you believe that it's good taste to portray all men as just strippers parading around for the benefit of female gaze, or are you going to object to that one equally as strongly?

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:I think the earlier poster is correct. These are probably Cilice's. As a comparison, here is a SM Chaplain wearing one vs a Canoness wearing one:

Awesome find, pretre! Here is your medal for winning this thread:

So I guess what we have here is a blatant example of "female gaze"? Classic.

Wow, I've painted about four of those in the last few weeks. On Space Wolves no less. one of the leg parts has that tied around his left leg, it even has a dangly strap. Yeah, soooooooo not garters.

Melissia wrote:Except for those that see it. It was pointed out to me by a few other posters a while back, which only added to my annoyance at the lack of thought put into the models.

Also, I don't believe I said the models had high heels, only the artwork...

Alright, so the models themselves don't have high heels nor underwear worn outside their armor, but need to be redesigned anyway because some artwork has a chick in stiletto boots? I'm not sure I see the logic there.

Melissia wrote:Except for those that see it.

People also see Elvis and Bigfoot.

Seaward wrote:Alright, so the models themselves don't have [...] underwear worn outside their armor,

I never said that, therefor this post must not be responding to me.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:So if they copy-paste armor stuff from marines to SOBs, it becomes sexist external underwear? I don't see how that happens unless you're just trying to be offended.

And you still haven't answered for the purity seal pasty on that chaplain, do you believe that it's good taste to portray all men as just strippers parading around for the benefit of female gaze, or are you going to object to that one equally as strongly?

1: ... except that the models are already wearing bras and corsets outside their armor, leading to a different conclusion than if this stuff was absent.

2: I have already answered that. If you do not desire to read my posts, then simply do not respond to them.

Chongara wrote:

If I read the disjointed, fallacious heap of nonsense produced by your suggested google search on "male gaze" correctly, you don't need to be.

I'll just assume we don't much common ground to discuss things on then.

EDIT: And that's fine. It isn't necessarily important we see eye-to-eye.

I don't know if there isn't enough common ground to discuss but I doubt we would end up agreeing on the point at issue. I did take the time to read a couple of the more legitimate looking hits that came up for the search you suggested and the above is my honest appraisal of what I read.

Anyway, some aspects of this issue are starting to feel a bit too aggressive for me to want to continue arguing them. My opinion is what it is and if you don't agree that's fine.

So I'm just going to rewind a bit and go back to something from earlier:

I think it would be a good things to see some variety. Space Marine armor for example comes in a lot of different styles, with various different types of torso. Having a few more makes of Sister Armor would be nice, those of us with a dislike for boob-cups could choose to use them and people who like them could choose to use the new options or not use them.

I did take the time to read a couple of the more legitimate looking hits that came up for the search you suggested and the above is my honest appraisal of what I read.

That's fine. However when your appraisal of a concept I've accepted, and use as a key part of how judge depictions of women comes out as "Fallacious heap of nonsense" it probably means we're going to have a hard time discussing depictions of women in a productive manner.

Melissia wrote:

Seaward wrote:Alright, so the models themselves don't have [...] underwear worn outside their armor,

I never said that, therefor this post must not be responding to me.

If you disagree, you'll have to provide some examples of SoBs wearing underwear outside their armor.

I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

(To bring this to a lighter note)

Chongara: But that would require GW to put effort into it, and possibly create a Sisters variant army. Which would probably cause certain posters to have heart attacks. And I can't condone murder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

Does that necessarily matter? I mean they can always change fluff. They've already given Sisters two major fluff changes (from RT to 2nd, from 2nd to 3rd).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:If you disagree, you'll have to provide some examples of SoBs wearing underwear outside their armor.

I already did, numerous times in fact, and I have no desire to repeat myself for a dozenth time.

Melissia wrote:

Seaward wrote:If you disagree, you'll have to provide some examples of SoBs wearing underwear outside their armor.

I already did, numerous times in fact, and I have no desire to repeat myself for a dozenth time.

You've certainly provided pictures of SoB models, but not a one of them is wearing anything that could be construed as underwear on top of their power armor. They are, in fact, simply wearing power armor. I've yet to see a bra, as you claimed a couple posts ago, for example.

As I said, I am not repeating myself yet again. If you are unwilling to go and actually read my posts-- and I mean actually read them, not selectively read them-- then I have no desire to continue this line of conversation.

Manchu wrote:I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

Fluff is fairly mutable. That a forge world or two is using a slightly different patterns for certain orders is hardly going to shatter the continuity.

Seaward wrote:Alright, so the models themselves don't have [...] underwear worn outside their armor,

I never said that, therefor this post must not be responding to me.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:So if they copy-paste armor stuff from marines to SOBs, it becomes sexist external underwear? I don't see how that happens unless you're just trying to be offended.

And you still haven't answered for the purity seal pasty on that chaplain, do you believe that it's good taste to portray all men as just strippers parading around for the benefit of female gaze, or are you going to object to that one equally as strongly?

1: ... except that the models are already wearing bras and corsets outside their armor, leading to a different conclusion than if this stuff was absent.

2: I have already answered that. If you do not desire to read my posts, then simply do not respond to them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/20 17:12:01

Melissia, seriously? You object to the claim that you've said that SoB wear underwear outside their armour. And in the next sentence you say "except that the models are already wearing bras"? Since when are bras not considered underwear?!

Melissia wrote:As I said, I am not repeating myself yet again. If you are unwilling to go and actually read my posts-- and I mean actually read them, not selectively read them-- then I have no desire to continue this line of conversation.

That's fine. However, if I claim that I'm sick of Space Marines wearing daisy dukes, provide pictures of Space Marines not wearing daisy dukes, and then continue to insist that I've already proven they have and am quitting the discussion because no one believes me, you probably wouldn't take my claims very seriously.

Witzkatz wrote:Melissia, seriously? You object to the claim that you've said that SoB wear underwear outside their armour. And in the next sentence you say "except that the models are already wearing bras"? Since when are bras not considered underwear?!

No, I object to the claim that I agreed that Sisters don't wear underwear outside their armor. Just because Seaward does not read my posts doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself

Let's get back on topic... I'm going to go find some examples of breastplates I think would be more appropriate.

Darn, and I misread Seaward's post. But I agree, let's get back a bit more to the modeling and sculpting idea part of the thread.

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:Except for those that see it.

People also see Elvis and Bigfoot.

Only when I am not wearing a disguise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:Anyway, some aspects of this issue are starting to feel a bit too aggressive for me to want to continue arguing them. My opinion is what it is and if you don't agree that's fine.

So I'm just going to rewind a bit and go back to something from earlier:

I think it would be a good things to see some variety. Space Marine armor for example comes in a lot of different styles, with various different types of torso. Having a few more makes of Sister Armor would be nice, those of us with a dislike for boob-cups could choose to use them and people who like them could choose to use the new options or not use them.

I would be down with that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

Fluff is fairly mutable. That a forge world or two is using a slightly different patterns for certain orders is hardly going to shatter the continuity.

Indeed.

Because of the various sizes of the images and to prevent them from clogging up the thread, all of them are being put into thumbnail format. Click for the full image. Note that I am only looking at the chest/abdomen region of these images, as I do not claim that other areas don't have their own issues (They do).

Here are the most simple examples of how to solve this issue: putting a tabard/tunic in front of the armor. These tabards/tunics are over chain and scale mail, mind you, but adding them in would allow for more colorful armor and allow for iconography over the front of the model, while looking different from the usual power armor models. Dark Angels are the only ones that have anything similar, but I think Sisters armor and vestments look different enough to be distinct from DA's robes, especially as no Sisters wear hoods. The tabards/tunics present the bulge of the secondary sexual characteristics without emphasizing them too much, and cover up the design of the armor meaning that it doesn't mean the armor's design itself necessarily has to change.


A single curved bulge in the chest region could very well accentuate the secondary sexual characteristics (as compared to the flat curve on Astartes and Guard armor) while not looking as ridiculous as Sororitas armor currently does in that region. It also offers a lot of surface area for decoration in order to give it a more detailed gothic appearance. The addition of a "scalemail" looking abdomen could match the medieval look while maintaining the idea that it is indeed power armor by giving it the appearance of being more flexible while still being armored.

I see what you mean with the anime pics, but with those faces and the body/head proportions of the right one...they look like they're 12 or so. Therefore I'm having a hard time thinking about how the rest of the body might work for sisters. The tabard Idea might be nice, though.

The two last pictures are fairly nice. I'd be fine with sisters wearing armor more in that direction...however, with the abdominals on Titania only protected by soft cloth, she would get a 5+ armor save at best. That would need a change for SoB.

One example I always see in these kinds of threads (They come up quite often on Fantasy RPG boards) is Chris Lightfellow. Say what you want about how good or bad Suikoden III might be as a game, it's a nice design.



EDIT: Stupid Spellcheck

Indeed, that is a good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:I see what you mean with the anime pics, but with those faces and the body/head proportions of the right one...they look like they're 12 or so. Therefore I'm having a hard time thinking about how the rest of the body might work for sisters. The tabard Idea might be nice, though.

The two last pictures are fairly nice. I'd be fine with sisters wearing armor more in that direction...however, with the abdominals on Titania only protected by soft cloth, she would get a 5+ armor save at best. That would need a change for SoB.

Read what I wrote below in order to see what I am talking about when I reference those images.

Plastic.

Obivously different poses. Lets be novel and have them actually aiming the bolters in one. Kneeling in firing position would be excellent as well. I am sick of the "legs slightly bent and spaced wide" format for freaking all base troopers. Lets have some running, kneeling, etc.

Have the cloaks as additional bits. Some are not a fan and its a way to differentiate minis.

Lets push the 14th Century Plate armor look. Its a good start. Better helmets or options in that regard.

A selection of heads, but with enough to have all the minis wear helmets.

Read what I wrote below in order to see what I am talking about when I reference those images.

When I started typing, those last lines weren't there. If you change your posts so quickyl in succession it's hard to keep up with a fitting answer.

I know, that's why I posted that. Give me a moment and I'll load up Mount and Blade: Warband to see if I can get a picture of my character in a mail w/tabard/tunic.

edit: Bah, the game's graphics are a bit too low quality for that to realy show. Ah well.

Melissia wrote:1: ... except that the models are already wearing bras and corsets outside their armor, leading to a different conclusion than if this stuff was absent.

This runs back into the slight problem that you haven't shown us which models actually wear bras and corsets outside of their armor. Every SOB model has armor covered either with tabards, robes, or nothing, none are actually modeled with underwear outside of the armor.

Melissa wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Chongara wrote: [his stuff, then the stuff Melissa quoted and is replying to]

2: I have already answered that. If you do not desire to read my posts, then simply do not respond to them.

I would think that close to 4000 posts would be sufficient for you to get the grasp of these complicated forum things, but I'll help you out here. If a post has some stuff in dashed lines with a slightly lighter background that says 'Chongara wrote' then some stuff from his post,and that's followed by some normal text, then the post is a reply to what "Chongara wrote", and specifically to whatever material from Chongara is quoted. It would need to say "Melissa wrote" for it to actualy be a response to one of your posts, since you are not Chongara, at least as far as I know.

Ignoring the silliness of telling me not to respond to your posts when I wasn't responding to one of your posts, how can this blatant objectification of men as nothing other than garter-wearing strippers prancing around half-illegal, half-pastied for your amusement possibly be considered OK in the 21st century? I don't see where you answered for the extreme sexism of the Ultramarines Stripper-Chaplain and his lonely purity-pasty, none of your posts address this very important issue as far as I have been able to determine, so can you tell me which post number to examine so that all of the raw anger I feel on this issue can be calmed?

Ok Modquisition on. Lets move forward here and back to topic. Should NEW Sisters of Battle models/depictions be 'Sexy'? Be as serious/humorous as you wish...

Here are some other examples with armor that has nice elements to it, that I could remember quickly. I know I've run into plenty of others but my brain is gumming up at the moment.


http://honya-ch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fire-emblem-ds-minerva-679x1024.jpg
http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/daily/stf/stf102_knightEx.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/td/td30_knightSplash.jpg
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080320204702/valkyrieprofile/images/thumb/0/0f/Jayle.jpg/300px-Jayle.jpg

Some probably apply a bit more than others to sisters specifically, but they all work as armored females (expert perhaps the last example, though that comes from knowledge of the originating game).

Okay, I think the comment about underwear was made as a metaphor, no? Can we all agree to that and let this part of the convo drop?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Lets move forward here and back to topic. Should NEW Sisters of Battle models/depictions be 'Sexy'? Be as serious/humorous as you wish...

To answer this specifically: sexiness does not necessarily have to be a goal in a potential re-design . . . unless you count what they already have as sexy. To "tone down" SoB in the sense of the new Lelith would be a mistake, IMO, and it was a mistake to do it with her (although I get that Goodwin wanted her to fit in better with the new celtic thug Wyches).

What's more important than "toning down" is simply ensuring the models actually fit the fluff of them being crusader/protector knights of the church, ala the Knights Templar/Hospitalier/etc.

Topic of the thread wrote:Should NEW Sisters of Battle models/depictions be 'Sexy'? Be as serious/humorous as you wish...

should they be sexy? I don't think the SoB were ever sexy, perhaps some of the art throws in some racy elements. I think a re-scuplt would probably do them a world of good.

I don't particularly see any real problem with this image, it looks no different to the other armour suggestions. Excluding exaggerated breast region.

Melissia wrote:What's more important than "toning down" is simply ensuring the models actually fit the fluff of them being crusader/protector knights of the church, ala the Knights Templar/Hospitalier/etc.

How do they not fit that fluff now?

Mostly?

Because instead of the plate-mail worn by the holy orders of crusading Christian knights, Sisters wear corsets and brassieres. Hell the texture of said garments in artwork isn't even metallic so it looks like they aren't actually wearing armor on their midsection/chest.

Melissia wrote:Mostly?

Because instead of the plate-mail worn by the holy orders of crusading Christian knights, Sisters wear corsets and brassieres. Hell the texture of said garments in artwork isn't even metallic so it looks like they aren't actually wearing armor on their midsection/chest.

Not really, no.

It's pretty obvious that its stylized power armor. And they aren't wearing bras and corsets, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions.

Yes, they are. There's even a zipper up the middle of the corset.

Wait you mean this artwork?



Thats not a zipper.
At this point I have to say:

Frazzled wrote:Wait you mean this artwork?



Thats not a zipper.
At this point I have to say:

The Zipper is very clearly present on the model in the link provided under the word "Zipper" in the quoted post.

Do look at both links. And try to avoid stupid image macros >.>

But yes . I do mean that image, it very much looks like a leather corset and cup bra. The second link I gave showed the VERY prominent zipper.

Frazzled wrote:Ok Modquisition on. Lets move forward here and back to topic. Should NEW Sisters of Battle models/depictions be 'Sexy'? Be as serious/humorous as you wish...

I don't know if the current models are considered to be "sexy" or not, but I like them quite a bit (and seem to be in the minority?). I'd be perfectly happy if new, plastic models were similar, but offered more variety.

"Sexy"? Why not? 40k is not a simulation, it is a fantasy game; one with daemons, plasma weapons, aliens, etc.

I love the idea of outrageously hot nuns cleansing the galaxy of filth with fire.

I own and love this skateboard deck (my wife, however, does not):



Sexy? yes, I think so. Realistic? No, but then again, I don't care.

Wow. I can't believe how dumb that Jake Nunn picture looks.

Melissia wrote:Do look at both links. And try to avoid stupid image macros >.>

be polite and try to avoid being banned.

Melissia wrote:Mostly?

Because instead of the plate-mail worn by the holy orders of crusading Christian knights, Sisters wear corsets and brassieres. Hell the texture of said garments in artwork isn't even metallic so it looks like they aren't actually wearing armor on their midsection/chest.

So this but futuristic? We already have the BT.

Perhaps full power-armour on Sisters should not be the case then.

Armour does not need to be metallic, it could be ceramic etc. Even metal amour could be embellished with leather to disguise its true nature.

EDIT:
So if that's a zipper, is the giant fleur de lis the easy access zip tag?

Melissia wrote: But yes . I do mean that image, it very much looks like a leather corset and cup bra. The second link I gave showed the VERY prominent zipper.

The first-you're clearly, clearly mistaken, which is reinforced by the actual minis.

the second has the same design around the top of mini. If its a zipper, the whole suit opens up, in a different fashion than anything else GW has done.

Then this should look "stupid", too. I'm not really sure why tongue-in-cheek-scantily-clad-badassery pictures are suddendly all that bad because there are women in it.

Yes, kinda like this.

The Sisters had a codex with the Knights Templar/Crusading Knights feel two full editions before the Black Templars ever had a codex period

Frazzled wrote:The first-you're clearly, clearly mistaken

No, sir, I do believe you are mistaken, not I. Take a leather corset with a front zipper, add metal studs to it, and it could look EXTREMELY similar to what is on that image.

Melissia wrote:
Yes, kinda like this.

The Sisters had a codex with the Knights Templar/Crusading Knights feel two full editions before the Black Templars ever had a codex period

So long as they don't have the bucket-helmets. God I hate those.

Melissia wrote:Mostly?

Because instead of the plate-mail worn by the holy orders of crusading Christian knights, Sisters wear corsets and brassieres. Hell the texture of said garments in artwork isn't even metallic so it looks like they aren't actually wearing armor on their midsection/chest.

First and foremost, the SoB aren't supposed to be exactly the same as the holy orders of crusading Christian knights. Let's not forget that the Ecclesiarchy ain't Christian, for one. The Space Wolves have a Viking/Norse theme to them; are they required to prowl the stars in battle barges shaped like longboats because of it? Of course not.

Secondly, they wear neither corsets nor brassieres. They wear power armor. I'm not sure why we keep having to come back and address this point. You can point to artwork that you feel reinforces your point all you like - and even in the cited case, it's clearly metal of some sort - but we're discussing the models, and thus far, no one has provided a single image showing a SoB model wearing either a bra or a corset - just power armor.

The Ecclesiarchy is like a grimdark mockery of the Catholic Church. With its own Space pope, the Ecclesiarch, sets of bishops, and cardinals, and so on. Much wider variants due to the size of the institution, mind you.

As for Sisters? There's a section of Sisters literally called Sisters Hospitaller, named after the Knights Hospitaller. I think that says a lot about what they were designed to represent.

Melissia, when and where did you get the right to speak in absolutes like you do? Are you in the GW design team, or what? Yeah, things might look a bit similar, but to insist everything HAS to look what YOU think is the one and only influence for a thing doesn't mean that it really should.

So you're saying I can't hold and express my opinion?

Sisters probably shouldn't have a 3+ save and be able to wield bolters as effectively as Space Marines to begin with.

They should probably stick more to the 'Cleanse and Burn" theme...

But at this point, I've no idea where GW is going to take them!

Nothing would surprise me, including even binning them!

You can express your own opinion, but saying "I think..." or "In my opinion..." in front of your sentences would make you sound a bit less like Enunciator Of Truth (tm).

Hmm. Hospitallers are a non-militant order with no minis representing them. I think that says a lot about what they were designed to represent.

Melissia wrote:
Yes, kinda like this.

The Sisters had a codex with the Knights Templar/Crusading Knights feel two full editions before the Black Templars ever had a codex period

Maybe this is why Sisters have seen a design shift, BT fill the old aesthetic and sisters get a new one?

I don't think their armour is totally out of the question when you look at the armour of say Eldar Banshees. Skin tight but made from a hard material.

Has anyone posted this illustration yet?



This is the defining image of SoBs according to the official original codex painted by one of GW's most 'core' artists.

We see; SM domina high heel boots, skin-tight leggings, a strap on the left thigh highly suggestive of a suspender (not sure what Americans call them but they hold a woman's stocking up), perky boobs capped with individual skull breastplates, a torso armour very reminiscent of a whalebone corset, and a pose which confronts the viewer with the implication of a thrust forward crotch concealed behind a light drapery similar to a very heavily split skirt.

This is the kind of imagery of which I believe Melissia disapproves.

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone posted this illustration yet?

Yes. It has been done to death.

pretre wrote:Hmm. Hospitallers are a non-militant order with no minis representing them. I think that says a lot about what they were designed to represent.

They have a miniature (and rules) to represent them.

This picture, top right. It's not a very good model, mind you, but it's still there.

Geeze I'm making lots of typos today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:You can express your own opinion, but saying "I think..." or "In my opinion..." in front of your sentences would make you sound a bit less like Enunciator Of Truth (tm).

I am a poster on a forum on the internet.

That my posts are my opinions should go without saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:This is the kind of imagery of which I believe Melissia disapproves.

Indubitably, you are correct.

Alpharius wrote:Sisters probably shouldn't have a 3+ save and be able to wield bolters as effectively as Space Marines to begin with.

They should probably stick more to the 'Cleanse and Burn" theme...

This ones on to something.

Medium of Death wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Sisters probably shouldn't have a 3+ save and be able to wield bolters as effectively as Space Marines to begin with.

They should probably stick more to the 'Cleanse and Burn" theme...

This ones on to something.

Other non-marine models in Power Armor have a 3+ SV. Why shouldn't sisters (issues of what exactly that power armor is stylized to look like aside)?

Chongara wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Sisters probably shouldn't have a 3+ save and be able to wield bolters as effectively as Space Marines to begin with.

They should probably stick more to the 'Cleanse and Burn" theme...

This ones on to something.

Other non-marine models in Power Armor have a 3+ SV. Why shouldn't sisters (issues of what exactly that power armor is stylized to look like aside)?

Within the Imperium?

Medium of Death wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Sisters probably shouldn't have a 3+ save and be able to wield bolters as effectively as Space Marines to begin with.

They should probably stick more to the 'Cleanse and Burn" theme...

This ones on to something.

Other non-marine models in Power Armor have a 3+ SV. Why shouldn't sisters (issues of what exactly that power armor is stylized to look like aside)?

Within the Imperium?

Yes. I don't have the codex in front of me, but can't certain special IG models take power armor (was it the Tech Priests?). I think inquisitors can take Power Armor for a 3+.

Also other sources such as Dark Heresy show that most models of power armor (Civilian, Marine and otherwise) have similar raw protective power (Compare DW stats to those in DH & Ascension) the difference is in the bells & whistles which marines have much more of.


Even if Sisters power armor wasn't "Quite" a 3+, it's certainly closer to the 3+ of marine armor than the 4+ of carapace. There is only so much granularity on you can get on a d6 system after all.

Medium of Death wrote:Within the Imperium?

Are tech-priests and inquisitors within the Imperium?

I wonder if tech-priests have discussions about how disgustingly 'mechanicy' some other priests make the armor. "Who goes to battle wearing her wires on the outside?" "What genius thought to emphasize the gears in that armor?"

Chongara wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Sisters probably shouldn't have a 3+ save and be able to wield bolters as effectively as Space Marines to begin with.

They should probably stick more to the 'Cleanse and Burn" theme...

This ones on to something.

Other non-marine models in Power Armor have a 3+ SV. Why shouldn't sisters (issues of what exactly that power armor is stylized to look like aside)?

Within the Imperium?

Yes. I don't have the codex in front of me, but can't certain special IG models take power armor (was it the Tech Priests?). I think inquisitors can take Power Armor for a 3+.

Also other sources such as Dark Heresy show that most models of power armor (Civilian, Marine and otherwise) have similar raw protective power (Compare DW stats to those in DH & Ascension) the difference is in the bells & whistles which marines have much more of.


Even if Sisters power armor wasn't "Quite" a 3+, it's certainly closer to the 3+ of marine armor than the 4+ of carapace.

Tech Priests don't really count as they are decked out with techno-gubbinz. I'll grab my guard codex... (grabs codex... skims to the back...)
Just the Tech Priest, well and Straken... but that goes without saying.

This thread's about the aesthetics of the armor, not the stats.

Techpriests wear their own unique kind of power armor, as detailed within Dark Heresy: The Inquisitor's Handbook. It provides protection just shy of Astartes power armor, but is much lighter and more nimble. Said power armor is linked directly to a Techpriest's mind via the various implants put into an ordained Techpriest.

Anyway, back at least remotely on topic.

There's no biological need for the shape of the breastplate to be changed to match the shape of the breasts.

As shown here. That's not to say that it shouldn't be present, only that the argument of a biological need for such is unnecessary. It's actually healthier for the females and their breasts to tape them close to the body and prevent movement during strenuous activity (such as fighting) anyway, and even the largest breasts can be condensed to be far smaller than that (and such breasts are unlikely-- not impossible-- in athletic females).

The presence of such secondary sexual characteristics in the armor is thus purely aesthetic. My preference would go to a single curved bulge, or at least a tabard over the current design that gives homage to the Sisters' crusader knights inspiration. The former would retain the secondary sexual characteristics while giving a better armored "feel" on the model.


Here's another example of a breastplate that could be adopted into a Sororitas plate. Mind you, it's anime again, but then sadly I've not found that many examples outside of anime that show intelligently designed female breastplates, so meh.

Do we really need to say "Personally..." and "In my opinion..." in front of things we post? Aren't these Truths Self Evident?

Anyway...

I think it help further differentiate the SoB army if it would move away from things like 3+ saves and bolters as standard weapons.

Their armor doesn't, as currently designed, 'look' like 3+, as wishy-washy as that sounds.

And regular humans shouldn't be able to use bolters as effectively as a Marine.

The Deathwatch RPG does something along these lines in that Marines can use weapons as one class 'lighter' (forgive me here as I'm an RPG novice for FFG stuff!) then they actually are.

Humans can use bolters very well in the Dark Heresy setting. In fact, by the time a Sister gets to the xp level that a deathwatch Astartes starts at (the Deathwatch are supposed to represent veterans after all), they probably have a higher BS than the Astartes, a wider variety of skills and talents, and a wider base of knowledge (lores).

Alpharius wrote:Nothing would surprise me, including even binning them!

Every time someone posts this sort of thing, a warp entity kills a puppy. (Obviously, just quoting it doesn't count.)

I must say, I find it rather amusing that in a fictional universe where heavily armoured Vikings and their wolf friends can smash tanks with hammers, Rambo and his pals get to run around shirtless cutting aliens with machetes and flying pretty boys with six packs carved into their "I can survive ten rocket-launcher shots" armour kill entire armies, one can make such a big deal out of the SOB ugly female armour. Sure it doesn't make sense and looks ridicules but no one’s complaining about Chaos hanging a ton of skulls on their armour and Blood Angels having six-pack shaped super model armour (their armour always cracks me up xD)
If woman are offended by the skin-tight bosom armour because it’s sexist, can’t we say that the image of men covered in skulls with enormous muscles is just as stereotypical? We could but we don’t cause wh40k is either about uber-soldier stereotype heroes (I guess that includes muscular manly-men and “hot” chicks) going nuts, or if you’re not that into that just like me, poor soldiers in rather realistic armour getting their asses kicked by aliens. If you prefer the latter, just play IG and everyone’s happy
PS: I’m pretty sure there are games with a lot more “sexist”/female stereotyping ideas then wh40k… I guess everybody who has played a “Dead or Alive” game knows what I’m talking about xD

Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate that could be adopted into a Sororitas plate. Mind you, it's anime again, but then sadly I've not found that many examples outside of anime that show intelligently designed female breastplates, so meh.

It's very hard to find, other than the couple of magic cards I linked earlier in the thread i can't think of any off the top of my head. I know you can find some in this thread and it's predecessor linked in the first post, if you really dig around in it. Even then they're fairly few/far between.

Melissia wrote:Humans can use bolters very well in the Dark Heresy setting. In fact, by the time a Sister gets to the xp level that a deathwatch Astartes starts at (the Deathwatch are supposed to represent veterans after all), they probably have a higher BS than the Astartes, a wider variety of skills and talents, and a wider base of knowledge (lores).

Fantastic!

I'm just saying that they shouldn't be able to, and that there shouldn't be yet another army out there with a 3+ save and the bolter as their primary weapon.

Anyway, GW has a reason for developing, marketing and selling Sisters, but it is a rather reed thin one at that.

Alpharius wrote:
Fantastic!

I'm just saying that they shouldn't be able to, and that there shouldn't be yet another army out there with a 3+ save and the bolter as their primary weapon.

Anyway, GW has a reason for developing, marketing and selling Sisters, but it is a rather reed thin one at that.

I lol'd.

Continuing your point, there isn't a 4+ save Imperial army yet, is there? Hmm. I'm thinking 3+ is too sacred cow to change, but I think with a full rework, 4+ wouldn't be so bad. Points changes and refocus on what really works without making them Femmarines.

Of course less armor save might encourage less 'coverage'.

I just thought I'd have some fun and sketch up my own little concept. Not trying to make everyone happy, but I kinda like it, and I think it's considerably less..."sexy," I guess. Still too form-fitting for all you naysayers out there?



I threw in a few aspects I liked from the hospitaller model.

The original's shaded a bit better, but the scanner here didn't pick it up that well. Might scan it in better once I get home. Maybe not, who's to tell.

Aaaaaaaanyway.

pretre wrote:there isn't a 4+ save Imperial army yet, is there?

Imperial Guard.

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:there isn't a 4+ save Imperial army yet, is there?

Imperial Guard.

Guard's 5+ with some 4+ (Vets and ST).

Under your reasoning, SM is 4+ because they have scouts.

Aw, don't take their power armor away! Or rewrite them to have shoddy power armor. That's killing what they really are at heart. Space Marines have two hearts, three lungs, etc etc etc under their power armor but sisters are just regular women underneath it all. And they have the guts to stand toe-to-toe with Marines. The power armor is the fulcrum in this comparison.

Make 'em as sexy as possible! WTF?!? We have to make 40k politically correct? That's BS!

Zefig wrote:I just thought I'd have some fun and sketch up my own little concept. Not trying to make everyone happy, but I kinda like it, and I think it's considerably less..."sexy," I guess. Still too form-fitting for all you naysayers out there?
Aaaaaaaanyway.

Too sexy. I see a belt holding up the hip armor. On a feminine model, that could be considered a garter belt. Also, I'm sure that the pelvic plate will be called an 'armored bikini' and will be too sexy.

Zefig wrote:I just thought I'd have some fun and sketch up my own little concept. Not trying to make everyone happy, but I kinda like it, and I think it's considerably less..."sexy," I guess. Still too form-fitting for all you naysayers out there?



I threw in a few aspects I liked from the hospitaller model.

The original's shaded a bit better, but the scanner here didn't pick it up that well. Might scan it in better once I get home. Maybe not, who's to tell.

Aaaaaaaanyway.

The unarmored sections of the suit feel a bit on the baggy side to me, but other than that I like. I'd be willing to spend money on models with armor roughly designed like that.

EDIT: Unarmoed sections of the armor. That made no sense.

EDIT(Again): Post below me hit on it. The cloth sections need to have some indication there is power armor underneath it, that is what was throwing me off.

That drawing is fantastic. But I'd argue that it really looks more like 4+ carapace armor than 3+ power armor - which is not bad, I like this design.

I like that picture.

pretre wrote:Under your reasoning, SM is 4+ because they have scouts.

Of course not.

You can have an entire IG army with ONLY 4+ saves, including two HQ choices, an elites choice, and a troops choice. In contrast, you can only have a single type of SM unit which has 4+ saves. Both, of course, have plenty of vehicle support.

Shenra wrote: WTF?!? We have to make 40k politically correct? That's BS!

Haha well said man xP

...you can also have SM armies that are completely 2+ saves, still I wouldn't say that SM are a 2+ save army.

The basic IG troop unit is the Platoon Infantry Squad. Those guys have 5+ saves. The veterans have 5+ saves, too, and need upgrades to be 4+. Calling IG a 4+ army more than a 5+ army seems not correct to me.

Yep, gotta agree.

SoBs are in some way a sop to the players who would like female marine codex, which GW can't provide because it would put off the younger boys still in the "gurls are yuck" stage.

In another way they are a sop to the mid-teen boys who have realised that gurls aren't yuck but haven't yet progressed beyond stereotypical sexay domina imagery.

Witzkatz wrote:...you can also have SM armies that are completely 2+ saves, still I wouldn't say that SM are a 2+ save army.

Not with Codex: Space Marines. An all-terminator army is, however, a 2+ save army.

Melissia wrote:Mostly?

Because instead of the plate-mail worn by the holy orders of crusading Christian knights, Sisters wear corsets and brassieres. Hell the texture of said garments in artwork isn't even metallic so it looks like they aren't actually wearing armor on their midsection/chest.

that's an association that doesn't really fit their schema. the first problem with it is that knights templar etc. were men. the second problem is that gw has already made a much more fitting crusader style army in the black templars, who even have a play on their name as well as the iconography. the third problem is that the crusaders, for the most part, were a military caste of knights and nobles, not a sect of priests or nuns. one might wonder what relation sisters of battle have to crusading noblemen at all, but the zeal that is shared by all members of the fighting imperium.

so bending the concept of sisters--which to my mind is simply just 'militarized french catholic nuns'-- to fit the image of crusaders doesn't make any sense to me. the only person who should wear a greek fisherman's hat is a greek fisherman. if you want to cop ideas from that era, you might look at the dress of such figures as hildegard von bingen.

that said, the stylized leather, robes and power armor that SoB currently wear are a great take on the militarized nuns. they're not frumpy, but they have a feminine look. they clearly aren't sexed up, but if they were, that would be fine too, because 40k is completely over the top and toning down a fantasy game (that has hive mind aliens from another galaxy, zombie robots, and giant green men who reproduce a-sexually from spores) to make it more 'realistic' by covering a woman's breasts in plate because what she's wearing doesn't protect her is an absurd and arbitrary place to suspend disbelief.

Dark Angels are SM, too. I never mentioned that "SM" in my case was referring to C:SM and the codex-adhering chapters.

The unarmored sections of the suit feel a bit on the baggy side to me, but other than that I like. I'd be willing to spend money on models with armor roughly designed like that.

EDIT: Unarmoed sections of the armor. That made no sense.

EDIT(Again): Post below me hit on it. The cloth sections need to have some indication there is power armor underneath it, that is what was throwing me off.

The bagginess was partly to give a lot of room for more armor to be underneath. The other part being that I just suck at drawing cloth. In any case, I kinda see what you mean.

It was a bit baggy, but I'm fine with that myself. Could use a bit more detail, but frankly for a quick sketch it's a very nice quality. It certainly looks like there's armor underneath.

Witzkatz wrote:Dark Angels are SM, too. I never mentioned that "SM" in my case was referring to C:SM and the codex-adhering chapters.

Well, for future reference, please refer to the codex you're referring to in specific. There are, after all, seven Marine codices out there, each one with a different playstyle (even if only slightly in somie cases).

Kilkrazy wrote:This is the kind of imagery of which I believe Melissia disapproves.

..and I wholeheartedly approve of the posted imagery. We can debate about this until the end of time, but in the end, this will be a financial decision. Do the majority of 40k players want "Heavy Metal"esque sexy, yet deadly figures or do they want space templars with short-haired female heads tacked on top? Anybody who's ever walked into a GW store should be able to figure out the answer to this question.

What do you mean? There's already short hair on the models. I would actually approve of having different hairstyles, including longer ones, or ponytails, etc on the models which don't have helmets. It would make the models more interesting to look at (and paint).

@Chongara: Just out of curiousity, do you currently play or collect SoB/Witch Hunters? I'm not going to try and turn this into a "so you shouldn't have an opinion" thing, I just would like to know.

Actually same question for other contributors. Of those posting, I know M, pretre, and myself actually have the girls. Anyone else?

Manchu says: Keep it impersonal, even regarding implications.

Nope, don't own any of them. Thought about it once, but the suboptimal faces and the fact that they're all metal kinda repelled me. I'd maybe buy some if they would be plastic.

Manchu wrote:@Chongara: Just out of curiousity, do you currently play or collect SoB/Witch Hunters? I'm not going to try and turn this into a "so you shouldn't have an opinion" thing, I just would like to know.

No. I specifically don't collect them because of the visual design issues. I really like them from a conceptual standpoint as Militarized Nuns is a fun concept. I've also always liked faith-based characters in my games (Paladins & Clerics are my favorite fantasy archetypes) so the idea of a faction that not only has faith powers, but actual rules that represent them on the table is awesome. If the models had the option of a look that appealed to me in the least, I'd go for the army in an instant.

As it stands now, the models are literally the only thing keeping me from building them as a secondary force. Well that and the rules are kind of old... but I could live with that.


Who knows? If they ever come out with plastic models I might even go for them even if they still have the look I don't like, if only because I might actually be able to convert plastic with my abysmal modeling skills.

Melissia wrote:What do you mean?

See Zefig's sketch for an example of what I mean (no disrespect intended to Zefig). I think it is more "realistic" than the current sisters models, but it's not as interesting (for me) to look at. The person in the image could easily be mistaken for a male.

Melissia wrote:
There's already short hair on the models. I would actually approve of having different hairstyles, including longer ones, or ponytails, etc on the models which don't have helmets. It would make the models more interesting to look at (and paint).

I agree with this; variety is good. That said, I would prefer that there be no doubt that the models are supposed to be females, otherwise we're left with "space templars with a female? head tacked on top".

mgraham wrote:I agree with this; variety is good. That said, I would prefer that there be no doubt that the models are supposed to be females, otherwise we're left with "space templars with a female head tacked on top".

This is still is still just more of that "Male as Default" stuff I was mentioning earlier. Males don't have to prove they are male by being male beyond a shadow of doubt with huge cod pieces and crazy beards (unless they're space wolves, heh). Females shouldn't have to "Prove" they are female either.

Just thought I should point out, GW HAS made a model of nekkid women. They are "Dark Eldar Slaves", or something. They appeared in the "suggestions" column while I was looking at collector's ed. IG stuff for some reason.

I've had ultramarines show up in my suggestions column when I was browsing the Ork section. Don't ask me, I'm confused, too.

@Chongara: I also love faith-centric characters (although it's not really related to my actual Catholic beliefs, although I do deeply venerate St. Joan of Arc) and especially love the Sisters fluff. But I really think that the models/visual design are what pulls the conept together into something worth purchasing/collecting/assembling/painting/playing. To me, this is their "life" as much as what I posted earlier is their "heart." To cross-reference Melissa's codex ranking thread, the BT have a similar character or tone but I just can't get into black-armored, cross-blazoned Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I've had ultramarines show up in my suggestions column when I was browsing the Ork section. Don't ask me, I'm confused, too.

Haha, well that's not quite as confusing as the other example.

OMG. 16 pages in 2 days? Sex sells. That's why nuns have breastplates.

Zefig wrote:I just thought I'd have some fun and sketch up my own little concept. Not trying to make everyone happy, but I kinda like it, and I think it's considerably less..."sexy," I guess. Still too form-fitting for all you naysayers out there?



I threw in a few aspects I liked from the hospitaller model.

The original's shaded a bit better, but the scanner here didn't pick it up that well. Might scan it in better once I get home. Maybe not, who's to tell.

Aaaaaaaanyway.

Thats a nice variant. It reminds me of Southern Cross armor actually. (Robotech).

Zefig! Nice drawing! Now that is what SoB models should look like: Women in armor. Not boob armor, not sexy/fetish armor, just real armor. I don't know much about fluff, but if a 10 foot tall superhuman can fit inside those suits, then I think a woman should be able to fit inside something of similar make, even if she is endowed in the chest.

Chongara wrote:

mgraham wrote:I agree with this; variety is good. That said, I would prefer that there be no doubt that the models are supposed to be females, otherwise we're left with "space templars with a female head tacked on top".

This is still is still just more of that "Male as Default" stuff I was mentioning earlier. Males don't have to prove they are male by being male beyond a shadow of doubt with huge cod pieces and crazy beards (unless they're space wolves, heh). Females shouldn't have to "Prove" they are female either.

Keep in mind that these are models we're speaking of, not living people.

That said, I want to play an army of nuns that seek to cleanse the galaxy of filth using fire. I prefer that when I set my army down on the table, that there be no doubt about what it is. This is *my* preference; yours may vary.

I think the shoulders could stick out slightly more, just to emphasize them. Or perhaps taper off less.

Melissia wrote:The Ecclesiarchy is like a grimdark mockery of the Catholic Church. With its own Space pope, the Ecclesiarch, sets of bishops, and cardinals, and so on. Much wider variants due to the size of the institution, mind you.

As for Sisters? There's a section of Sisters literally called Sisters Hospitaller, named after the Knights Hospitaller. I think that says a lot about what they were designed to represent.

And the Black Templars are named after the Knights Templar. The BTs' armor doesn't represent what Knights Templar wore at all well. Even the colors are wrong. They're loosely inspired by, not exact copies.

The Sisters Hospitaller are even more unlike their inspiration than the BTs are, as I understand it, due to them not even being a militant order.

Why does what Knights Hospitaller wore have anything to do with what Sisters of Battle should wear?

Because it looks cool.

Seaward wrote:

Melissia wrote:The Ecclesiarchy is like a grimdark mockery of the Catholic Church. With its own Space pope, the Ecclesiarch, sets of bishops, and cardinals, and so on. Much wider variants due to the size of the institution, mind you.

As for Sisters? There's a section of Sisters literally called Sisters Hospitaller, named after the Knights Hospitaller. I think that says a lot about what they were designed to represent.

And the Black Templars are named after the Knights Templar. The BTs' armor doesn't represent what Knights Templar wore at all well. Even the colors are wrong. They're loosely inspired by, not exact copies.

The Sisters Hospitaller are even more unlike their inspiration than the BTs are, as I understand it, due to them not even being a militant order.

Why does what Knights Hospitaller wore have anything to do with what Sisters of Battle should wear?

Plus the Black Templars don't really act like the Knights Templar.. At all...

But nice drawing who ever drew it!

Melissia wrote:Because it looks cool.

So do current SoB models.

Seaward wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because it looks cool.

So do current SoB models.

This is subjective.

I think they look somewhere between silly and embarrassing. Certainly not cool.

Chongara wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because it looks cool.

So do current SoB models.

This is subjective.

And this sums up the entire thread. That would be a perfect place to lock.

Chongara wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because it looks cool.

So do current SoB models.

This is subjective.

As is the assertion that I quoted, which is why this thread isn't going anywhere.

Seaward wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because it looks cool.

So do current SoB models.

This is subjective.

As is the assertion that I quoted, which is why this thread isn't going anywhere.

I don't know, it produced a design sketch that is interesting even if it's far from perfect. That's hardly nowhere.

I like the puffy arms actually. It offsets the armor nicely.

Cool sketch dude, like the idea for the shin/feet always thought Archaon/chaos knights lower legs were cool ( i assume that is what was desired)... This thread seems to have ballooned into quite the essay.... I hope someone is now writing a dissertation on this subject...

Chongara wrote:
I don't know, it produced a design sketch that is interesting even if it's far from perfect. That's hardly nowhere.

It's a great sketch. Again, the issue is that we're dealing with 28mm miniatures that need to be distinguishable as female at tabletop level. Subtlety isn't going to get us there. There's a reason they're sculpted the way they are currently.

Seaward wrote:

Chongara wrote:
I don't know, it produced a design sketch that is interesting even if it's far from perfect. That's hardly nowhere.

It's a great sketch. Again, the issue is that we're dealing with 28mm miniatures that need to be distinguishable as female at tabletop level. Subtlety isn't going to get us there. There's a reason they're sculpted the way they are currently.

Somewhere in a universe very much like our own....

Bizzaro Chongara wrote:
It's a great sketch. Again, the issue is that we're dealing with 28mm minatures that need to be distinguishable as male at the tabletop level. Subtlety isn't going to get us there. There's a reason they're sculpted the way they are.

So here's a couple of questions...

GW has at least one army that's moderately well-integrated gender-wise, although it's in Fantasy as opposed to 40K. Ignoring for the moment the stripperific sorceresses and witch elves, many of the Dark Elf units have a mix of male and female models. One of the four plastic warrior torsos, at least one of the repeater bolt thrower crew members, one of the members of the chariot crew, and possibly one or two other non-character models are obviously female - i.e. they have a pair of bumps on their chests. The models in question are dressed exactly the same as their "non-bump" associates - the only differences between the male and female models are the bumps (once again, excepting the witch elves and sorceresses).


Does the look of the female dark elf models influence your thoughts on what should be done with the Sisters of Battle?

Should it influence your thoughts on the Sisters?



And for what it's worth...

Of the remaining Dark Elf unit types, the Executioners are probably all male for fluff reasons. We know that the Assassins are all male (it's in the fluff). The Cold One Knight models appear to be all male, as do the Corsairs (no fluffly reasons for this). The Black Guard might have enough bulk under their chest armor to hide a pair of breasts (iirc, Warhammer On-line actually has the female Black Guard armor look pretty much the same as the male armor - both appear to have a lot of room under that chest piece). And the Dark Riders are covered so heavily by their loose-fitting cloaks that you wouldn't be able to tell gender in any case until you either saw them in motion (a bit tricky with a static miniature...) or heard them talk.

No clue on the Shades.

Melissia wrote:I've had ultramarines show up in my suggestions column when I was browsing the Ork section. Don't ask me, I'm confused, too.

Damn Ultras sticking in their noses everywhere!

Melissia wrote:Do look at both links. And try to avoid stupid image macros >.>

But yes . I do mean that image, it very much looks like a leather corset and cup bra. The second link I gave showed the VERY prominent zipper.

The artwork is just artwork. Get over it as it is what individual artists think of what the SoB might or might not be. Whether it is as corset or not in design or even in function is made moot by the rules given for them that dictates it is power armor.

In your second link, you have fallen completely off the wagon. It is power tubing. Notice it goes into the central point at the sternum and branches off into two other tubes. Or are those zippers as well? Notice the Space Marine version of power tubing in the abdominal area here:

I don't believe I can make a post that can respond to the above post with the proper level of snark required for what it contains, nevermind do it without breaking rule number one (I'm just too tired at the moment, and I really don't want to disrespect anyone), so I'm just going to respond by saying:

We have, here, a seventeen page thread complaining about the various aspects of the artwork, be it models or more traditional drawn art, or the stuff that John Blanche producs and accuses of being art. If you don't like threads which are talking about the potential failings (not everyone agrees, art is subjective, yadayadayada), why are you in here complaining about this thread when you could be out there ignoring it?


Regardless, it is a friggin' corset with a zipper up the front. It's designed specifically to look that way, and it may indeed be a "power tube", but it is still positioned in such a way as to give the mental image of a corset. I don't know what else to say. I'm fairly certain that if I showed it to non-40k players they'd agree too (in fact, I have... and they do).

Melissia wrote:I'm fairly certain that if I showed it to non-40k players they'd agree too (in fact, I have... and they do).

So have I, and they don't.

Melissia wrote:...be it models or more traditional drawn art, or the stuff that John Blanche producs and accuses of being art..

But I like John Blanche's art...

Well, in any case, perhaps if GW were to do what they did with the Eldar Guardians (i.e. make them fairly androgynous, but with noticeable feminine traits on the models meant to be female) then this sort of thing wouldn't be such a problem. It can't be that hard to make decent female models.

I don't know why you guys are bothering with this. Melissia will never back down. And thus, in light of that, and to spare everyone the torment of bringing this pointless discussion to page 20, let me give y'all a piece of advice:

When you are fighting a wall, they are very difficult to defeat, because they're walls. They're stubborn and never give up. But you know what you can do with a wall? Walk away. Walls can't follow you.

But then I can't buff my post count. Also, she didn't start the thread. Also, I can't resist the lure of people stating personal opinion as absolute fact - for instance, I got a massive kick out of the whole, "Because it looks cool," response as to why Sisters should be based on Knights Hospitaller a few pages ago. When someone doesn't have a good argument, and you pursue it, it's often great comedy. That's why I'm here. The comedy.

Also, the thread isn't about just hating on the models, or talking about how to "tone them down" from their current non-existent level of sexiness. The option also exists to tone them up. I think we should explore that one some. Chainmail bikini anyone?

Less than 3 days for another SOB thread to reach 17 pages? Pretty good!

Seaward wrote:Also, the thread isn't about just hating on the models, or talking about how to "tone them down" from their current non-existent level of sexiness. The option also exists to tone them up. I think we should explore that one some. Chainmail bikini anyone?

A true sister of battle. Conan being the brother.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, in any case, perhaps if GW were to do what they did with the Eldar Guardians (i.e. make them fairly androgynous, but with noticeable feminine traits on the models meant to be female) then this sort of thing wouldn't be such a problem.

I wouldn't worry that it's really such a problem now. In fact, outside of this thread I don't think it's a problem at all. But the last thing GW needs to do is make Sisters any butcher. If they were to truly make them more androgynous, they'd have to make them more feminine.

Melissia wrote:We have, here, a seventeen page thread complaining about the various aspects of the artwork

I think you're falsely conflating the fact that this thread got to be 17 pages with your perspective: that there is something wrong with the SOB art.

In fact, there are only a few who have posted that they really dislike the art, and the rest is largely back and forth between the few people who feel the need to obsessively dominate any thread regarding Sisters of Battle. If you filter that out, the consensus appears that most people seem to like the "sexy" aspects of female warriors.

Ouze wrote:

Melissia wrote:We have, here, a seventeen page thread complaining about the various aspects of the artwork

I think you're falsely conflating the fact that this thread got to be 17 pages with your perspective: that there is something wrong with the SOB art.

In fact, there are only a few who have posted that they really dislike the art, and the rest is largely back and forth between the few people who feel the need to obsessively dominate any thread regarding Sisters of Battle. If you filter that out, the consensus appears that most people seem to like the "sexy" aspects of female warriors.

While I am perfectly fine with the look of the current models for Sisters some of the artwork is atrocius. Blanche's sister on the 2nd edition codex is terrible IMO. I'm not sure I like any of Blanche's 40K art that I have seen. I agree with Melissia on that much. I realize that helped define the look of the Sisters but the models look way better currently.

I like others in this thread feel that the look of Sisters was deliberate on the Ecclesiarchy's part since they must appear to be women. I never thought of anything they wear as underwear or garters. The cilice was an agle I never considered as to what the band migth be. I chalked it up as additional bling. I never noticed it before on the terminator chaplain (one fo the coolest metal models ever made by GW I think). When they get redone in plastic though I'd be Ok with changing the 'bewb-cups' to a partially raised breatsplate. I have faith that GW will do them well. I think I've like almost all the new plastic kits they have produced for infantry. If they are good enough I may even sell my 120 + model sister army for all new plastic. It might be just as well becasue I've become a much better painter since I started this hobby.

The models don't have to be 'sexy' In fact I'd rather they not look that way as I want my army to be taken seriously. That being said I don't want them to look to mannish which I realize is probably difficult at best for mass produced 28mm plastics.

Ouze: Not infrequently I would stop posting overnight and a couple more pages would appear. Don't act as if I'm the only one talking on the subject as that would be wrong and silly.

Manchu wrote:But the last thing GW needs to do is make Sisters any butcher. If they were to truly make them more androgynous, they'd have to make them more feminine.

Indeed, but more feminine doesn't necessarily mean bigger boobs. Wider hips, a thinner waist, etc could make all the difference even at a small scale. Really, GW needs more female sculptors, artists, and writers to begin with (for example, last time I checked there was only one female BL writer, who's the assistant writer to her husband).

Seaward wrote:I can't resist the lure of people stating personal opinion as absolute fact

Just because you are too stubborn to admit that nobody in this thread is stating their opinion is actual fact doesn't mean that you are right, it just means that everyone should ignore you because, by your own admission in this very post I quoted, you are doing nothing but trolling instead of posting actual content.

This is a forum on the internet. People post opinions here. That's just how it works.

I should not have to start off every post by saying "in my opinion".

Melissia wrote:Really, GW needs more female sculptors, artists, and writers to begin with (for example, last time I checked there was only one female BL writer, who's the assistant writer to her husband).

Agreed, as I said pages ago. I'd have to double check with Kanluwen, but I think it's a woman who's in charge of continuity for BL.

Given some of the problems that BL has with continuity, maybe they don't pay her enough Hehe.

I always thought it was Alan Merrett who was in charge of the GW IP but Kanluwen gave me a more complicated account. As I said, I will check with him.

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:And I got the exact opposite information from the articles.

As for the last statement, because it intentionally misinterprets what was said before I have no intention of giving it a serious response. So joogity boogity woo. I'm going to go pass out.

That's fine. This is a total shoot: I think what I said is a perfect interpretation of what you've been saying.

Those articles were some flimsy evidence to base your 40% of gamers are female statements on, especially in this context. You act as though I don't know how many women play Farkle, Bejeweled Farmville, Zooville etc... If you had an article that cited sources and gave a breakdown of who was playing what, you'd have an argument. Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

Women are out there in significant numbers playing MMOs, action games, first-person shooters.

Wow what a vague, unsupported statement! That settles it for me!

Look, you've provided exactly zero support for your position.

If your position is that women don't game, you're wrong. Science proves you wrong, and statistics proves you wrong. Maybe your local gaming community is an aberration. If your attitude is common, I can see why that aberration might have occurred.

Your only evidence so far has been "I'm right because I like hitting 'submit' a lot."

Manchu wrote:@Chongara: Just out of curiousity, do you currently play or collect SoB/Witch Hunters? I'm not going to try and turn this into a "so you shouldn't have an opinion" thing, I just would like to know.

Actually same question for other contributors. Of those posting, I know M, pretre, and myself actually have the girls. Anyone else?

2.5K of Witch Hunters/ General Inqusition here.
I have read the thread and have posted before.

I liked the sketch and if the actual SoBs turned out like that I would buy some.
As long as the minis are recognisably female it's all good.

But think about this:

We had such chapters as the Space Sharks, Rainbow Warriors and One got renamed to be grimdark and the other forgotton.
The orks have become less funny and more menacing.

So I would presume the SoBs would become less Hot ladyz mit flameys and more Burnination by females.

I personally don't think they should look "sexy" but that they do need to look more feminine. When I think of SoB I think pure chastity super-feminazis who would be offended if you said their hair looked nice.

But thats just me .

RisingPhoenix wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:And I got the exact opposite information from the articles.

As for the last statement, because it intentionally misinterprets what was said before I have no intention of giving it a serious response. So joogity boogity woo. I'm going to go pass out.

That's fine. This is a total shoot: I think what I said is a perfect interpretation of what you've been saying.

Those articles were some flimsy evidence to base your 40% of gamers are female statements on, especially in this context. You act as though I don't know how many women play Farkle, Bejeweled Farmville, Zooville etc... If you had an article that cited sources and gave a breakdown of who was playing what, you'd have an argument. Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

Women are out there in significant numbers playing MMOs, action games, first-person shooters.

Wow what a vague, unsupported statement! That settles it for me!

Look, you've provided exactly zero support for your position.

If your position is that women don't game, you're wrong. Science proves you wrong, and statistics proves you wrong. Maybe your local gaming community is an aberration. If your attitude is common, I can see why that aberration might have occurred.

Your only evidence so far has been "I'm right because I like hitting 'submit' a lot."

I do find this attitude of no female gamers to be a bit strange. While I've not exactly actually met a female that plays Warhammer 40k specifically, the group I play 40k with is quite small. 2/5 of the players in my Dark Heresy group are female however.

Females show a strong presence in all of the Pen & Papers games I've played outside of D&D. Even D&D had a few regulars. In fact, come to think of it 40k is the only game where I've yet to play with a significant number of female gamers, and again that's probably because it's a small psuedo-private club.

I see some of these suggestions, look at the new Wyches, then wonder how they'll be applied to my beloved Sisters . . .

I'lll never understand the hate SOB models get from their fans. They talk about how their armor doesn't make sense, but it really does.

It makes sense to keep your soldiers comfortable, so they leave room for their bust. It also makes sense for your troops to have room to move around and do all the ridiculous HtH fighting that goes on in 40k more easily; so they leave their armor light and form fitting for flexibility.

As for them being attractive, doesn't that make it so they embody the traits desireable in humans? Beauty, devotion, and strength. After all, being attractive is evolutionarily beneficial, and the sisters should be sorta angellic.

It sounds to me like some people just want SOB models to look like marine models with ugly girl heads.

Besides, if you took everything out of 40k that didn't make total sense for battle then you'd lose a lot of stuff. Like the sisters wouldn't have their capes, everyone would wear helmets, there wouldn't be chainswords, marines wouldn't wear the fancy colored armor, everyone would carry a las-cannon, every imperial army would have tons of leman russes, and the list goes on.

Also, after looking at the actual drawing, her breasts aren't actually that big, the models are just a little exxagerated so you can more easily spot them out on the table top.

And if people actually find them "raunchy" then your brain would probably explode if you went to the beach... especially if that beach was found in Europe or South America.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:It makes sense to keep your soldiers comfortable

Then the women should tape their chests/wear sports bras that constrict the movement of the breasts, not simply leave them free within a suit. Which is precisely what happens in martial arts classes... in fact, for those with larger breasts leaving the chest unbound is painful, as rigorous movement can cause torn ligaments and other injuries.

RisingPhoenix wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:And I got the exact opposite information from the articles.

As for the last statement, because it intentionally misinterprets what was said before I have no intention of giving it a serious response. So joogity boogity woo. I'm going to go pass out.

That's fine. This is a total shoot: I think what I said is a perfect interpretation of what you've been saying.

Those articles were some flimsy evidence to base your 40% of gamers are female statements on, especially in this context. You act as though I don't know how many women play Farkle, Bejeweled Farmville, Zooville etc... If you had an article that cited sources and gave a breakdown of who was playing what, you'd have an argument. Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

Women are out there in significant numbers playing MMOs, action games, first-person shooters.

Wow what a vague, unsupported statement! That settles it for me!

Look, you've provided exactly zero support for your position.

If your position is that women don't game, you're wrong. Science proves you wrong, and statistics proves you wrong. Maybe your local gaming community is an aberration. If your attitude is common, I can see why that aberration might have occurred.

Your only evidence so far has been "I'm right because I like hitting 'submit' a lot."

Irony.

If you're not going to follow the context of the conversation there's no wonder why you're so confused. My position isn't that there is no such thing as female gamers. My position is that 40% of the gamers that GW markets to are most likely not female. And try your Negative Proof Fallacy somewhere else.

Melissia wrote:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:It makes sense to keep your soldiers comfortable

Then the women should tape their chests/wear sports bras that constrict the movement of the breasts, not simply leave them free within a suit. Which is precisely what happens in martial arts classes...

Why do they leave their breasts free in martial arts classes?

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone posted this illustration yet?



This is the defining image of SoBs according to the official original codex painted by one of GW's most 'core' artists.

We see; SM domina high heel boots, skin-tight leggings, a strap on the left thigh highly suggestive of a suspender (not sure what Americans call them but they hold a woman's stocking up), perky boobs capped with individual skull breastplates, a torso armour very reminiscent of a whalebone corset, and a pose which confronts the viewer with the implication of a thrust forward crotch concealed behind a light drapery similar to a very heavily split skirt.

This is the kind of imagery of which I believe Melissia disapproves.

This pic was one of the reasons I got a SoB army years back (also one of the few pieces of Blanche art I really like) it is also a pic my wife is very fond of, and she's now nabbed the future SoB release as her own.
I might be able to add a few allies to my CSM or a future Guard army, but she wants the Sisters as her main army, she's also very happy for them to remain as they are style wise.

Don't ask me, but it's a common warning given by instructors to at least wear a sports bra.

Some women just don't like to wear bras, for various reasons. *shrug*

Monster Rain wrote:

Irony.

If you're not going to follow the context of the conversation there's no wonder why you're so confused. My position isn't that there is no such thing as female gamers. My position is that 40% of the gamers that GW markets to are most likely not female. And try your Negative Proof Fallacy somewhere else.

GW markets to female gamers not at all. This does not mean that the market does not exist, or that they are not morons for ignoring that market.

Irony, by the way, doesn't mean 'lol, I think he's wrong!' It's when words or actions are opposite to what would have been expected.

As an example, it would be ironic if someone lecturing another person on how to interpret what others are saying in the course of that lecture revealed that they themselves could not understand what others were saying.

P.S. Fallacies... really need to actually learn what they are sometime.

@Rising Phoenix & Monster Rain: Take it to PM, fellas.

Perkustin wrote:I was reading Melissia's Thread about the codexes and noticed a debate starting about whether or not the Sisters of Battle depictions/miniatures were sexist fantasies or perhaps neccessary for fluff/Artistic reasons. I think there is room for a hearty debate on this subject. Discuss...

Just to weigh in, no. No, they shouldn't.

Primary roles of the Sister of Battle:
1. Soldier.
2. Nun.

Does it look like there is call or opportunity for sexiness? I don't think so. The only reason SoB would be sexy is because they're kickass warriors. The same way that space marines are sexy if you're a straight woman. That is to say, not very.

Melissia wrote:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:It makes sense to keep your soldiers comfortable

Then the women should tape their chests/wear sports bras that constrict the movement of the breasts, not simply leave them free within a suit. Which is precisely what happens in martial arts classes... in fact, for those with larger breasts leaving the chest unbound is painful, as rigorous movement can cause torn ligaments and other injuries.

I like how you take one sentence out of everything and just act like the rest of it never happened. Moving on from that however, if a SOB had particularly large breasts, then they wouldn't be unbound as there's the breast plate that you're complaining about keeping them restricted. As for martial art classes, I'd assume they suggest that so their boobs don't flap out of their gi or get exposed some other way.

But, how about you tape your boobs down for a few weeks, after all their battles wouldn't be over in a few minutes or something like that, and you tell us how comfortable that is.

But really, this whole thing is a pointless, not moot because moot means debateable and I'm so fething sick of seeing people use it the wrong way, because for all we know they could be taped down under their breast plate.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:But, how about you tape your boobs down for a few weeks, after all their battles wouldn't be over in a few minutes or something like that, and you tell us how comfortable that

I don't even have breasts or combat experience and I can answer this one: Better than if they had been bouncing around in a metal suit for the same period of time.

Chongara wrote:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:But, how about you tape your boobs down for a few weeks, after all their battles wouldn't be over in a few minutes or something like that, and you tell us how comfortable that

I don't even have breasts or combat experience and I can answer this one: Better than if they had been bouncing around in a metal suit for the same period of time.

I'm sure they'd have some downtime to untape and wash underneath those things now and then. Otherwise the inside of that armor would start to smell like a monkey cage. Combat isn't non-stop, 24-hour a day fighting, there's a lot of downtime. I'm sure this would be the case for Sisters, since they are still human and wouldn't be expected to fight for the lengths of time that an Astartes might be asked.

Either way, I think now would be the time to ponder whether or not we're reading a little too far into this subject. Feminine Hygiene is something best left outside the scope of armored conversations, particularly on this forum. In the interest of tastefulness, I will leave it at that.

Chongara wrote:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:But, how about you tape your boobs down for a few weeks, after all their battles wouldn't be over in a few minutes or something like that, and you tell us how comfortable that

I don't even have breasts or combat experience and I can answer this one: Better than if they had been bouncing around in a metal suit for the same period of time.

And I wasn't talking to you so....

@MonsterRain: I'm sure they'd have to be prepared for battle at all times if they were being invaded or something along those lines haha.

While Sisters of Battle are the epitome of human martial prowess, they're still humans. They have to rest, take in fluids and nutrition, and so on. Far more than Marines typically do, by the sheer fact that Marines aren't human, they're Astartes, IE EXTREMELY heavily modified and biologically designed.

The human body is an extremely imperfect thing. There's a certain nerve in most mammalian biologies which goes down from the brain, loops around a certain artery coming out of the heart, and then goes back up into the brain. This incredibly inefficient nerve is one of the many examples of imperfect evolution, and with Marines it would not be so hard to think that, of the many surgeries they undergo, they remove such flaws as this in order to improve their body's efficiency.

Regardless, that's as off-topic as this topic is likely to get, to let's go back to talking about [MOD EDIT - Seriously?] on plastic miniatures.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone posted this illustration yet?

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4845/johnblanche.jpg

This is the defining image of SoBs according to the official original codex painted by one of GW's most 'core' artists.

We see; SM domina high heel boots, skin-tight leggings, a strap on the left thigh highly suggestive of a suspender (not sure what Americans call them but they hold a woman's stocking up), perky boobs capped with individual skull breastplates, a torso armour very reminiscent of a whalebone corset, and a pose which confronts the viewer with the implication of a thrust forward crotch concealed behind a light drapery similar to a very heavily split skirt.

This is the kind of imagery of which I believe Melissia disapproves.

This pic was one of the reasons I got a SoB army years back (also one of the few pieces of Blanche art I really like) it is also a pic my wife is very fond of, and she's now nabbed the future SoB release as her own.
I might be able to add a few allies to my CSM or a future Guard army, but she wants the Sisters as her main army, she's also very happy for them to remain as they are style wise.

Funnily enough, it is one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K for about 15 years.

Thus the balance of the universe is maintained.

kK, that's a bit of an overreaction don't you think?

Kilkrazy wrote:Funnily enough, it is one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K for about 15 years.

Thus the balance of the universe is maintained.

You stopped playing 40K because of that picture

Kilkrazy wrote:Funnily enough, it is one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K for about 15 years.

As a big fan of that image, this honestly floors me. Well, I guess in at least one sense that painting is very successful.

@others: he did say "one of the reasons."

Zefig wrote:I just thought I'd have some fun and sketch up my own little concept. Not trying to make everyone happy, but I kinda like it, and I think it's considerably less..."sexy," I guess. Still too form-fitting for all you naysayers out there?

I meant to say, this is a pretty nice idea as well.

Tbh I'm not really excpecting SoB to change, and I'd be quite happy if they don't, however I also would not be bothered if they looked anything like this. Hell they could be even more armoured, the Spartan armour for the females in Reach was pretty good for not being over the top sexy.

At the end of the day, as long as they maintain the position as the 'faithful' I'll be happy. Ofc as I noted above, they've been half inched off me by the other half, but still, all I really care about is that we get plastics asap as I will have some figs once they hit the shelves.

Melissia wrote:Just because you are too stubborn to admit that nobody in this thread is stating their opinion is actual fact doesn't mean that you are right, it just means that everyone should ignore you because, by your own admission in this very post I quoted, you are doing nothing but trolling instead of posting actual content.

This is a forum on the internet. People post opinions here. That's just how it works.

I should not have to start off every post by saying "in my opinion".

Actually, at least one person has stated, as fact, that Sisters wear underwear outside their armor, and even attempted to back it up with pictures of models. That the pictures didn't show said models wearing underwear outside their armor didn't seem to deter this person from continuing to constantly proclaim the assertion was true.

It was a bit like if Glenn Beck took an interest in 40K.

For the last time, let us consider it as settled that SoB do not literally wear underwear over their armor.

RisingPhoenix wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Irony.

If you're not going to follow the context of the conversation there's no wonder why you're so confused. My position isn't that there is no such thing as female gamers. My position is that 40% of the gamers that GW markets to are most likely not female. And try your Negative Proof Fallacy somewhere else.

GW markets to female gamers not at all. This does not mean that the market does not exist, or that they are not morons for ignoring that market.

Irony, by the way, doesn't mean 'lol, I think he's wrong!' It's when words or actions are opposite to what would have been expected.

As an example, it would be ironic if someone lecturing another person on how to interpret what others are saying in the course of that lecture revealed that they themselves could not understand what others were saying.

P.S. Fallacies... really need to actually learn what they are sometime.

Wow! I've never seen an american who knows what irony is!

TBD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Funnily enough, it is one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K for about 15 years.

Thus the balance of the universe is maintained.

You stopped playing 40K because of that picture

No, the Commissars also helped, and the general inanity of the background.

Seriously, let's drop that (to be charitable) line of inquiry.

Kilkrazy wrote:

TBD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Funnily enough, it is one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K for about 15 years.

Thus the balance of the universe is maintained.

You stopped playing 40K because of that picture

No, the Commissars also helped, and the general inanity of the background.

If you dislike it so much why are you moderateing a forum on it?

Because the Tau were introduced, and I thought I can play the game for the modelling, and make fun of the background too.

I don't try to do that in the serious discussion forum, of course.

I'm not making a big deal of it, just pointing out that creating strong images can work both ways.

If you've spent so much time on the hobby that all that's left is cynacism then its time to give it up.

Couple things. First off, thanks for all the feedback on my sketch, both in praise and in constructive criticism. I did it mostly because I just like drawing. Seeing something like that on the tabletop would make me pretty happy. That being said, I don't have too much of a problem with the current miniatures, and the things I don't like about them have been beaten to death in this thread already so I'm not going to bring that up again.

Where I do take issue is with the thought that non-exagerrated feminine form can't be expressed in miniature scale. My own sketch notwithstanding, a quick look through 2 company catalogs yielded some results- Reaper and Dark Sword. Most of these girls are at least moderately armored (somewhat form-fitting though some of it is) and have fairly ambiguous hairstyles (that is to say, I've seen the same style on plenty of male minis). And all of them are pretty unmistakably female, even in 25mm-35mm mini form. And they all do it without OTT, massive boob-cups.





And sources:
http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02475
http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02725
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/V_4107_femalecleric.htm
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/GRRMline_5020_Wildling_Spearwife_Bow.htm
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/GRRMline_5028_asha.htm

So. For a skilled sculptor? Definitely possible. For GW's sculptors? Who knows.

Wow! That archer and that green two axer are beautiful. (Out comes the wallet.)

Indeed, both of them seem suitable for a Hero/Lord in WFB. I had always been interested in an Empire army after all...

You might wanna check scale first. I have a few dark sword minis....they're absolutely beautiful minis, but they're a bit bigger than 40k/WHFB scales.

Wow, can't believe I missed this for several days, or how long it takes to get through 18 pages of a thread!

I really like the Sisters current look, with the exception of the pointy-boob Canoness and the hideous inquisitor, but then again, I am a guy. Personally, I quite like thigh-length boots and corsets (although I find them hard to get in my size), and I think it's clear that this is what the visual cues would indicate.

At risk of recapping some of what's already been said, the Garters that Melissia referenced are not the same as a garter-belt (or sussies for the Brits), although they serve a similar purpose and are quite different to a cilice.

However, there is a precedent for the garter as a sign of rank, as in "The Order of the Garter" which entitles you to be addressed as "Sir"...

Anyway, while I think they might take down the bust sizes a little, I would prefer that any new SoB range be similar enough to be mixed with the current ones.

Can I also say that, while I might disagree with her at times*, Melissa seems to take an undue amount of flak?

Simon

*She's right about John Blanche, though!

Gwar! wrote:GW need to make them...

Arrgh I dunno. They need to make them Female but not OMGTITTEHS Female.

Sadly, it will never happen. D:

And why shouldn't they make them omgtitehs? That would get so many people into them!

1.SoB Titehs
2. Plastic models (Ie, removable tits)
3. ????
4. PROFIT! $$$

Seriously, it would do nothing except good fro GW to put tits on them. Maybe Jes will make boobies for us!

Zefig wrote:You might wanna check scale first. I have a few dark sword minis....they're absolutely beautiful minis, but they're a bit bigger than 40k/WHFB scales.

Yeah, I can't find where the scale o fthe models are on the site. Wish they'd say it, because scale is also important for DnD minis, as well.

They're nice models. The axer is my favorite. The others kind of look bored.

Zefig wrote:Couple things. First off, thanks for all the feedback on my sketch, both in praise and in constructive criticism. I did it mostly because I just like drawing. Seeing something like that on the tabletop would make me pretty happy. That being said, I don't have too much of a problem with the current miniatures, and the things I don't like about them have been beaten to death in this thread already so I'm not going to bring that up again.

Where I do take issue is with the thought that non-exagerrated feminine form can't be expressed in miniature scale. My own sketch notwithstanding, a quick look through 2 company catalogs yielded some results- Reaper and Dark Sword. Most of these girls are at least moderately armored (somewhat form-fitting though some of it is) and have fairly ambiguous hairstyles (that is to say, I've seen the same style on plenty of male minis). And all of them are pretty unmistakably female, even in 25mm-35mm mini form. And they all do it without OTT, massive boob-cups.





And sources:
http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02475
http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02725
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/V_4107_femalecleric.htm
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/GRRMline_5020_Wildling_Spearwife_Bow.htm
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/GRRMline_5028_asha.htm

So. For a skilled sculptor? Definitely possible. For GW's sculptors? Who knows.

The top right one is cool but the rest are very boring.

Okay, I'll try not to take this off-topic too much longer. Anyone interested in the Dark Sword minis, but concerned about scale, PM me. I'll take some scale pictures with the one or two I own once I get home and try to post those tonight.

I tend to like the Dark Sword stuff, although they can get just as cheesecake as anyone else. Reaper too, I suppose. But I really just posted the pics to try to emphasize my point that OTT omgsexeh isn't the only way to make a female mini. The post was just a proof-of-concept.

Good call on the Reaper minis. I use them for the D&D games. The below one is about right for 40k scale. Notice the potential Fleur-de-Lys on the knees.

Zefig wrote:Okay, I'll try not to take this off-topic too much longer. Anyone interested in the Dark Sword minis, but concerned about scale, PM me. I'll take some scale pictures with the one or two I own once I get home and try to post those tonight.

Please just start a new thread (Dakka Discussions) and link it to this one. Would really appreciate it.

Or pretre, whoever can do this first, but the more pics the better obviously.

One thing, I might agree is a bit unfair about the representation of females in the 40k figurines:
Diversity of size.

I don't mean bewbs, I mean the size and shape of the bodies. With 40k male figurines they got tall ones, short ones, fat ones, and mutated ugly ones. Like pictured below:
(I'm just using pics from the Dakka Dakka gallery, free advertisements for whom ever I randomly grab an image from)

Tall:

by: lifeofshan

Short:

by: Llamahead

Fat, Ugly, and Mutated:

by: the scarecrow

For the female figurines we have to pick from, there is pretty much only the one standard size. Athletic build with hourglass figure no matter how many bits of armor you stack on or take off from her.

Hourglass Figure:

by: EmpressRosaline

Athletic Build:

by: Loricatus Aurora

Unless you do something like this:

by: illuknisaa (burns the eyes a bit!)

Where are the horribly mutated nurgle plague women? Where are the woman Ogryn or female Halflings? Where are the sculptures of a woman blown open with her guts hanging out from rocket fire?

This sort of one sided/double standard sculpting is borderline sexist. I say borderline because I still don't think the original sculpters had purposful sexist intentions in mind when sculpting. Instead, it falls into that subconcious relam where us as males might not even realize we are doing it. That still does not make it right, just not as wrong as it may seem. Humans come in all shapes and sizes. I know one has to stay physically healthy and fit in a lifetime of battle, but not every woman has that hourglass figure regardless of diet or exercise. Some people are just "big boned", born tall with thick muscle mass. Why not make a Cannoness with a little meat on her bones?

Why not have an all female Ogryn or all Female Halfling chapter for the Sisters of Battle as allies? Sure they might not be full fledged Sisters since they are "mutants" kind of, but once sworn to a life of Faith for the Emperor, why not? Let us put an Ogryn in the SOB armor and see if that looks "sexy".

Zefig wrote:
Where I do take issue is with the thought that non-exagerrated feminine form can't be expressed in miniature scale. My own sketch notwithstanding, a quick look through 2 company catalogs yielded some results- Reaper and Dark Sword. Most of these girls are at least moderately armored (somewhat form-fitting though some of it is) and have fairly ambiguous hairstyles (that is to say, I've seen the same style on plenty of male minis). And all of them are pretty unmistakably female, even in 25mm-35mm mini form. And they all do it without OTT, massive boob-cups.

Point made; I think all of the models you posted are unmistakably female and cool looking except for the last one (two strokes of a file away from looking like a teenage boy).

KamikazeCanuck wrote:If you've spent so much time on the hobby that all that's left is cynacism then its time to give it up.

I enjoy it far more now than I used to, probably because I did give it up for 15 years. 40K that is, I was still playing historicals.

mgraham wrote:(two strokes of a file away from looking like a teenage boy).

It's very rare to see a female model that this does not describe. But that's one of the main points of this thread and I don't think any of those pictures really contradict it, either. You might as well say "two lumps of greenstuff away from looking like a cougar" about Sigvald.

Psyker_9er wrote:One thing, I might agree is a bit unfair about the representation of females in the 40k figurines:
Diversity of size.

For the female figurines we have to pick from, there is pretty much only the one standard size. Athletic build with hourglass figure no matter how many bits of armor you stack on or take off from her.

Here is one that is differently shaped:



More like a barrel than an hourglass. (one of my favorite models, btw)

Shas'O Dorian wrote:When I think of SoB I think pure chastity super-feminazis who would be offended if you said their hair looked nice.

But thats just me .

A view I hate, by the way. There's no reason why there can't be women that hate the enemies of the Imperium without being a misogynistic stereotype.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:I'lll never understand the hate SOB models get from their fans.

From one of their fans. I like the entire 2nd edition range as-is, except for the fact they're metal.

shrike wrote:

RisingPhoenix wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Irony.

If you're not going to follow the context of the conversation there's no wonder why you're so confused. My position isn't that there is no such thing as female gamers. My position is that 40% of the gamers that GW markets to are most likely not female. And try your Negative Proof Fallacy somewhere else.

GW markets to female gamers not at all. This does not mean that the market does not exist, or that they are not morons for ignoring that market.

Irony, by the way, doesn't mean 'lol, I think he's wrong!' It's when words or actions are opposite to what would have been expected.

As an example, it would be ironic if someone lecturing another person on how to interpret what others are saying in the course of that lecture revealed that they themselves could not understand what others were saying.

P.S. Fallacies... really need to actually learn what they are sometime.

Wow! I've never seen an american who knows what irony is!

If you'd read the articles and actually followed the conversation a bit more deeply, you'd have seen two.

Regardless, I have no intention of continuing a line of conversation when you have proven yourself unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your position while demanding evidence from mine.

@Melissa: I'm not sure what evidence either "side" can offer here. One person looks at a model and sees one thing, another person looks at a model and see another thing.

Melissia wrote:Regardless, I have no intention of continuing a line of conversation when you have proven yourself unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your position while demanding evidence from mine.

That's fine. Go big with that.

I did post a link to support my point, which makes your post another ironic incident. Does the term "social gaming" ring a bell? Not that I expect you to admit you were wrong, so I'll sit here in a sense of smug satisfaction nonetheless.

Anyway, I think the pic MDS posted is pretty good. Not that the models need to change.

Manchu wrote:

mgraham wrote:(two strokes of a file away from looking like a teenage boy).

It's very rare to see a female model that this does not describe. But that's one of the main points of this thread and I don't think any of those pictures really contradict it, either. You might as well say "two lumps of greenstuff away from looking like a cougar" about Sigvald.

I wouldn't say that about any of the other models that he posted, just the one.

Gymnogyps wrote: More like a barrel than an hourglass. (one of my favorite models, btw)

Awesome! Nice paint job! That is what I was talking about, the one figurine that feels more like a natural woman.

The only problem with that one, is that it is just the one.

There are Daemonettes:

by: neuminic

But they are still hourglass, even if some of them only have one breast. And how many fat, tall, short, stubby, big boned, mutated, FUBAR male figurines are there?

Was there ever a female space dwarf/squat? If they did make those, why not female ratlings? (sorry, I called them "Halflings" in my prior post, but we all know in 40k that Halflings are Ratlings and elves are Eldar, etc. etc.)

So if they expanded upon the female gender for other races and armies, then that alone would cut down on the sexist feel of the SOB sculpting. Since the SOB are pretty much the only option for us to discuss, the flaws stand out more. If there was more variety of different types of women, then in a way it would dilute the "sticking out like a sore thumb" effect the SOB have. That is more of a "sweeping under the rug" solution, but a solution none-the-less.

I like the way the SOB models look too. A bit outdated since they have new members on the sculpting team and even the old ones have improved their craft, but I like the look. They could use some revamping, shaking the dust off, rethinking or what ever you want to call it, but not too much. Maybe cut down on the missile shaped/torpedo pointy bewb look a bit, but keeping in mind they can still be a woman's badge of honor just like a mutilated Ork head can be a man's cod piece of honor.

(Here is something I think no one will find, prove me wrong if you can: an Official GW figurine of a woman horribly injured or dead. Official events, display cases, pictures from any of the books, anywhere! Go find it!
If we are talking about equality here, this is War! Every one can have chunks of themselves shot off by heavy bolter fire, equally.
Art work aside, feel free to post the hand drawn pics from the books if you want, but we are discussing figurines for this topic.)

Psyker_9er wrote:There are Daemonettes:

by: neuminic

As a quick aside, i love that models hairdo.

I often wonder why GWS doesn't integrate their armies. Even with the obscure ruling leading to the SoB, it doesn't explain why there are not female IG. Common sense dictates approximately half of them should be.

Ouze wrote:I often wonder why GWS doesn't integrate their armies. Even with the obscure ruling leading to the SoB, it doesn't explain why there are not female IG. Common sense dictates approximately half of them should be.

There are female Imperial Guard, most notably in the Ciaphas Cain novels. GW just doesn't give us more than a handful of metal models. The recent Dark Eldar release is the first time GW has released a plastic box with more than 1-in-4 being female.

but what about daemonettes. they're female, sorta...

AlexHolker wrote:

Ouze wrote:I often wonder why GWS doesn't integrate their armies. Even with the obscure ruling leading to the SoB, it doesn't explain why there are not female IG. Common sense dictates approximately half of them should be.

There are female Imperial Guard, most notably in the Ciaphas Cain novels. GW just doesn't give us more than a handful of metal models.

Most notably, GW gave us one (1) female commissar w/far too much unnecessary cleavage, one (1) "warrior woman" and one (1) "rocket girl" in the Last Chancers kit, the former wearing a pleated skirt and bra and the latter one couldn't tell is female, and... uh... I don't know of any other female Guard models.

GW really dropped the ball on female Guard models, because that's one of the most requested things by Guard players...

There is a metal Catachan Grenade Launcher that is female.

What is unnecessary about the female commisar's cleavage?
The amount, or the mere fact she has some?
She is meant to inspire 90% male troops after all.

wrt the Last Chancers, those are horrible models as a unit, and all are stereotypes, even the male models.

skrulnik wrote:What is unnecessary about the female commisar's cleavage?
The amount, or the mere fact she has some?
She is meant to inspire 90% male troops after all.

SHe's meant to inspire them in battle, not to inspire them to want to shpadoink her.

The cleavage is low enough that you can almost see her nipples for Emperor's sake. She's one hard bounce from a wardrobe malfunction.

Post a pic of that model. Preferably painted.

I have that model and do not remember anything excessive about her chest.
Mostly I remember all the badly painted versions with horribly done lipstick.

Inspire in the respect that they would want to impress her,
which is a thing that happens when normal men are around a female they find attractive.
Whether they realistically have a shot at being with her or not.

Click on thumbnail for full image.

Best quality image I could find, but yeah, she's seriously a single hard bounce from them popping out of that dress

Female commissar (not drawn by me). Obviously her hat and epaulettes should be a lot bigger.

I think this shows a female character can be clearly female without being sexayfied.

Melissia wrote:

skrulnik wrote:What is unnecessary about the female commisar's cleavage?
The amount, or the mere fact she has some?
She is meant to inspire 90% male troops after all.

SHe's meant to inspire them in battle, not to inspire them to want to shpadoink her.

Well, fortunately, pretty women do more than that to male soldiers in warzones. The USO caught on to that a long, long time ago.

Either way, aren't we sort of forgetting that GW has said their target audience is young teenage boys with daddy's money to spend? I don't think they're trying to attract the ardent realist, the disdainful feminist, or anybody else. We're talking about a massively over the top setting with an uber-nerd audience. Practicality is trumped by rule of cool countless times in fluff, model design, etc. And, to a lot of guys, "rule of cool" regarding female commissars or female battle sisters is going to end up looking exactly as it looks. To a lot it won't. To GW's target market? I doubt there's much question.