Medium of Death wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True but presumption that your opinion means anything or is any way prepresentative of a larger opinion is...misplaced.

That's right children, dreams can and will be crushed in an instant.

Thats what I am here for.

"Now you know son, never try."
-Homer Simpson

Frazzled wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True but presumption that your opinion means anything or is any way prepresentative of a larger opinion is...misplaced.

That's right children, dreams can and will be crushed in an instant.

Thats what I am here for.

"Now you know son, never try."
-Homer Simpson

I prefer:

"Aim low, kids. Aim so low that no one will even notice if you fail."
Marge Simpson

Melissia wrote:Asking them to cater to more than just a single, relatively small demographic does not equate to "catering to everyone".

They cater to a single, relatively small demographic regardless of how they sculpt their models. Believe it or not, tabletop wargaming with plastic soldiers is not suddenly going to gain widespread popularity - there are chess clubs out there right now going, "At least we don't play Warhammer."

People pick 40K armies for a variety of reasons, and the appearance of the models is included in that. We have absolutely no data to support the position that the current top-heavy sculpts turn away more people than they bring in; what we have are a few people in this thread who don't like the look of the models, and they are in no way indicative of anything save their own opinion. And it's perfectly valid to hold an opinion, but as Frazzled said, there's nothing indicating it's widespread.

Or, to put it how GW would look at it, profitable to cater to.

Monster Rain wrote:I think the relatively small demographic is the people that have a problem with the Sisters of Battle models.

The "relatively small demographic" is "male teenagers with disposable income and an interest in collecting miniatures".

Given that both genders have a portion with a tendency for collecting things (actually, some of the most notable and famous collector's items were marketed primarily to women, showing that certainly such a potential demographic exists), and both genders have a portion interested in painting (at least, that's what seemed to be the case looking at the rosters for various art classes in college, and that most of my art teachers were female...), it would not be such a far stretch to say that gradually adding more and more substance for women would be good for the company. More female writers in BL, sculptors who actually are able to believably sculpt the female form, and so on would, I think, do this. A change of attitude from "Look, it's female! Oh, and it's badass, too." to "Look, it's badass! Oh, and it's female, too." would help all aspects of gaming, from tabletop to computer to console.

As for the rest...

Did I claim my opinions were part of any demographic other than "that poster on the internet named Melissia"? No. No, I did not. In any way. So you may stop insinuating I did, because you are wrong. That particular line of discussion is ended as far as I am concerned.

Surely this topic is moot as they can't really be sexy whilst wearing power armour due to its size and function?

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think the relatively small demographic is the people that have a problem with the Sisters of Battle models.

The "relatively small demographic" is "male teenagers with disposable income and an interest in collecting miniatures".

Given that both genders have a portion with a tendency for collecting things (actually, some of the most notable and famous collector's items were marketed primarily to women, showing that certainly such a potential demographic exists), and both genders have a portion interested in painting (at least, that's what seemed to be the case looking at the rosters for various art classes in college, and that most of my art teachers were female...), it would not be such a far stretch to say that gradually adding more and more substance for women would be good for the company. More female writers in BL, sculptors who actually are able to believably sculpt the female form, and so on would, I think, do this. A change of attitude from "Look, it's female! Oh, and it's badass, too." to "Look, it's badass! Oh, and it's female, too." would help all aspects of gaming, from tabletop to computer to console.

As for the rest...

Did I claim my opinions were part of any demographic other than "that poster on the internet named Melissia"? No. No, I did not. In any way. So you may stop insinuating I did, because you are wrong. That particular line of discussion is ended as far as I am concerned.

You started talking about segments, as in your opinion somehow conferred the status of a segment. It doesn't.
Frankly, other than the issue over Valkyrie cuirasses as it were, they already addressed your points. But as you say, we can move on at this point.

meep meep

Dark Sword Minis size comparison is live. It's wordy.

Reaper comparison already exists. I've got more of those too, and would gladly take terrible pictures of them as well if need be.

/off-topic

Neat, that's pretty useful. I think I might be able to justify using a few of the models, then.

One thing that hasn't been much talked about is that the femaleness of a model (or maybe its femininity) in the GW product lines is itself a novelty and can make the model more desirable. I'm thinking again of Commander Farsight. My point is that it's probably a mistake to claim that the only thing or the primary thing that male gamers are interested in when appraising Sisters is T&A--which, I think must be firmly established by now, is not exactly what the Sisters are best at anyhow. Men, especially teenage boys, are fascinated by women. It's not just because we want to have sex with them or because we want to otherwise use them as objects. Men recognize that women are significantly different from them in non-biological ways, that they bring different ideas and points of view to the table. I think men really are interested in that aspect of female characters, which only exists because they are female. Surely this is not a bad thing?

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think the relatively small demographic is the people that have a problem with the Sisters of Battle models.

The "relatively small demographic" is "male teenagers with disposable income and an interest in collecting miniatures".

Given that both genders have a portion with a tendency for collecting things (actually, some of the most notable and famous collector's items were marketed primarily to women, showing that certainly such a potential demographic exists), and both genders have a portion interested in painting (at least, that's what seemed to be the case looking at the rosters for various art classes in college, and that most of my art teachers were female...), it would not be such a far stretch to say that gradually adding more and more substance for women would be good for the company. More female writers in BL, sculptors who actually are able to believably sculpt the female form, and so on would, I think, do this. A change of attitude from "Look, it's female! Oh, and it's badass, too." to "Look, it's badass! Oh, and it's female, too." would help all aspects of gaming, from tabletop to computer to console.

So your position is that if the models were designed to appeal to women more, women as a general community would suddenly take up a heretofore dormant interest in tabletop wargaming?

Seaward wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think the relatively small demographic is the people that have a problem with the Sisters of Battle models.

The "relatively small demographic" is "male teenagers with disposable income and an interest in collecting miniatures".

Given that both genders have a portion with a tendency for collecting things (actually, some of the most notable and famous collector's items were marketed primarily to women, showing that certainly such a potential demographic exists), and both genders have a portion interested in painting (at least, that's what seemed to be the case looking at the rosters for various art classes in college, and that most of my art teachers were female...), it would not be such a far stretch to say that gradually adding more and more substance for women would be good for the company. More female writers in BL, sculptors who actually are able to believably sculpt the female form, and so on would, I think, do this. A change of attitude from "Look, it's female! Oh, and it's badass, too." to "Look, it's badass! Oh, and it's female, too." would help all aspects of gaming, from tabletop to computer to console.

So your position is that if the models were designed to appeal to women more, women as a general community would suddenly take up a heretofore dormant interest in tabletop wargaming?

Since 40% of gamers are already women, I don't see how that could be.

Maybe I misunderstood, but that figure was for online gaming right?

Manchu wrote:Maybe I misunderstood, but that figure was for online gaming right?

A minor detail.

I'm a big picture man. I was under the impression that it was originally stated that it was of all gamers, and then some "evidence" was presented that spoke of online games and who plays them, and then... I don't know. I'm not sifting through 20 pages.

I personally hope that they don't change the general design much. I think the figures are great, and they were what attracted me to 40k. If I'd seen them first, I'd probably have started them instead of a fantasy army. At the moment, I am attempting to do both, with little success on either front. I don't think that the current design is too overly sexual. We are talking about fantasy wargaming and not the practicality of actual battle, so license can be taken when designing armor.

loranafaeriequeen wrote:I personally hope that they don't change the general design much. I think the figures are great, and they were what attracted me to 40k. If I'd seen them first, I'd probably have started them instead of a fantasy army. At the moment, I am attempting to do both, with little success on either front. I don't think that the current design is too overly sexual. We are talking about fantasy wargaming and not the practicality of actual battle, so license can be taken when designing armor.

I agree, I think they look fine the way they are.

Melissia wrote:Asking them to cater to more than just a single, relatively small demographic does not equate to "catering to everyone".

Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Melissia wrote:Asking them to cater to more than just a single, relatively small demographic does not equate to "catering to everyone".

Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Ha. Lucky kids. I think if I had ever asked my mother to spend the kind of money needed to get into 40k they'd have arrested me for murder, as she would have died laughing.

Well, you were the exception.

There are many young players and few of them are playing on their own money.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Melissia wrote:Asking them to cater to more than just a single, relatively small demographic does not equate to "catering to everyone".

Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Truth. From GW's site:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1230058_realestatebooklet.pdf

P4 - Why should GW be in my shopping center?
Demographics: Games Workshop targets a highly desirable demographic; educated, affluent, and
well-behaved 14- to 24-year-old males and their families.

Page 13 - Demographic Criteria (for placing a GW store)
At least 500,000 total population within 10 miles with 33,000+ 14- to 24-year-old males.

pretre wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Melissia wrote:Asking them to cater to more than just a single, relatively small demographic does not equate to "catering to everyone".

Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Truth. From GW's site:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1230058_realestatebooklet.pdf

P4 - Why should GW be in my shopping center?
Demographics: Games Workshop targets a highly desirable demographic; educated, affluent, and
well-behaved 14- to 24-year-old males and their families.

Page 13 - Demographic Criteria (for placing a GW store)
At least 500,000 total population within 10 miles with 33,000+ 14- to 24-year-old males.

14-24 is a bit different from 12-15. I'd hope.

Chongara wrote:

pretre wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Melissia wrote:Asking them to cater to more than just a single, relatively small demographic does not equate to "catering to everyone".

Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Truth. From GW's site:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1230058_realestatebooklet.pdf

P4 - Why should GW be in my shopping center?
Demographics: Games Workshop targets a highly desirable demographic; educated, affluent, and
well-behaved 14- to 24-year-old males and their families.

Page 13 - Demographic Criteria (for placing a GW store)
At least 500,000 total population within 10 miles with 33,000+ 14- to 24-year-old males.

14-24 is a bit different than 12-15. I'd hope.

I believe you'll find Kilkrazy was using a bit of hyperbole to make a point. If it isn't clear, GW has one demographic. I was responding to his true point, that young males are the demo, not nitpicking the numbers.

pretre wrote:

Chongara wrote:

pretre wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Melissia wrote:Asking them to cater to more than just a single, relatively small demographic does not equate to "catering to everyone".

Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Truth. From GW's site:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1230058_realestatebooklet.pdf

P4 - Why should GW be in my shopping center?
Demographics: Games Workshop targets a highly desirable demographic; educated, affluent, and
well-behaved 14- to 24-year-old males and their families.

Page 13 - Demographic Criteria (for placing a GW store)
At least 500,000 total population within 10 miles with 33,000+ 14- to 24-year-old males.

14-24 is a bit different than 12-15. I'd hope.

I believe you'll find Kilkrazy was using a bit of hyperbole to make a point. If it isn't clear, GW has one demographic. I was responding to his true point, that young males are the demo, not nitpicking the numbers.

What I meant was 14-24 is a different set of "Young Males" than 12-15. I might not expecting too many in the 12-15 range to be particularly interested by cool (by my definition of cool) looking female minis. If the range is 14-24 I think there would be real room for it. I know by the time I'd hit 16 or so I'd at leated started to grow some sense.

Hence why I think, or would at least hope that the two ranges are meaningfully different.

Straight from GW itself.

The truth shall set you free.

I think the bodies should be "sexy" (i.e. no change), but the faces scary.

I like the sallet helms (without the fleur).

I dislike the fleur helms intensely.

I would like to see shaved heads, and/or nun-scarved heads.

Kilkrazy wrote:Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Maybe my experience is "tainted" by being an American rather than British, but I really don't see this happening. At all.

Perhaps it's merely "British teenaged boys aged 12-15", but then they don't really seem to do advertising in the US outside of licensed works.

Manchu wrote:One thing that hasn't been much talked about is that the femaleness of a model (or maybe its femininity) in the GW product lines is itself a novelty and can make the model more desirable.

*cough* Female Commissar *cough*

A lot of people don't even know the model exists, and GW didn't ever actually sell it on its website/in its stores.

But it's a very expensive model on ebay. I wonder how much of that money GW could get if they sold it themselves. It's not like it's a great model, but it's in high demand-- yet GW isn't answering said demand.

Melissia wrote:A lot of people don't even know the model exists, and GW didn't ever actually sell it on its website/in its stores.

Wrong.
I stated a couple times in this thread that I bought it from GW direct.
It was on the site for a couple years.
But it was under the Collector section, not the direct link in the IG section.

There are a few of these models that people seem to think are rare, and yet were easily available for quite a long time.
eBay sellers especially trump up these claims. There is an inquisitor model that the same thing happened with. Also a female model.

So what you're saying is, GW DID sell the model, but hid it away somewhere obscure that most people wouldn't look? Huh.

As usual, a certain someone posts without information...

Point of fact: The female Commissar was part of the regular, random IG Commissar assortment that sent to the stores. I know, because I picked mine off the shelf at a local shop.

At that time, pre Bitz collapse, the model would have been orderable from GW as a specific model, just like any other metal model (or bit) or sprue that GW produced.

The only reason people might not know it exists is because they're n00bs who got into the hobby after the model moved out of the regular production rotation. N00bs who don't know of things like RoC StD / LatD. This same situation would also hold for Tallarn (non-Attilan) Rough Riders, metal Catachans & Cadians, or Bedford-sculpted Stormtroopers.

It would be far more helpful if someone did her homework before posting.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Point of fact: The female Commissar was part of the regular, random IG Commissar assortment that sent to the stores. I know, because I picked mine off the shelf at a local shop.

Lucky you. I never saw it except after the fact. When I started my Guard army, I didn't even know this model existed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As usual, a certain someone posts without information...

Point of fact: The female Commissar was part of the regular, random IG Commissar assortment that sent to the stores. I know, because I picked mine off the shelf at a local shop.

At that time, pre Bitz collapse, the model would have been orderable from GW as a specific model, just like any other metal model (or bit) or sprue that GW produced.

The only reason people might not know it exists is because they're n00bs who got into the hobby after the model moved out of the regular production rotation. N00bs who don't know of things like RoC StD / LatD. This same situation would also hold for Tallarn (non-Attilan) Rough Riders, metal Catachans & Cadians, or Bedford-sculpted Stormtroopers.

It would be far more helpful if someone did her homework before posting.

What year was it on shelves?

It would have been on the shelves back in the late 1990s / early 2000s , roughly a decade ago.
____

Wow, they now eBay for $30+ each?

I'd have bought a dozen back when I could get them for $6 ...

Yeah, that's why I'm slamming my head on my desk now, because even if the model is kinda questionable with some proper greenstuff-ing it would work fine as a model for my lady commissar in the fluff. As it is right now... I don't think I'll be getting it any time soon.

I actually think it's a pretty dumb model. Just ugly.

It has its issues, but I think greenstuff could save it. Give it the appearance of carapace. Ah well, there's a few other, better models I can use (as soon as I get the money and figure out their scale).

It's kind of weird that I agree with Melissia, but yeah. There should be female models in reasonable armor, just as there are male models in reasonable armor.

You must be talking about Guard armor.

Manchu wrote:I actually think it's a pretty dumb model. Just ugly.

Now, now, it's not a bad model at all. It's properly-sized for a 40k-universe human female, proportions aren't unreasonable, boobs are more-or-less normal in size, and the face isn't grotesque. It has nice flat areas for painting details.

Considering that this model had the old DE Wyches as contemporaries, it's a solid model, if not knockout winner for its time.

Indeed, the only issue I have with it is the cleavage. Which can be painted or greenstuff-ed to not have that appearance, so it's not THAT big of a deal.

The problem with Sisters models is I don't feel like greenstuff-ing an entire army. I don't think my abilities are good enough to be consistent across that many models.

Melissia wrote:In any way. So you may stop insinuating I did, because you are wrong. That particular line of discussion is ended as far as I am concerned.

Dear Melissia,
You poor girl, I noticed you've had to end several lines of discussion, only to have them pop back up again. It must be hard being the only drop of estrogen in the storm blown seas of testosterone. I am being sincere, I'm not poking fun in anyway, I feel sympathy for your plight, and you have my respect and support.

I'm calling you out for this message because I am curious about your input on the topic I've been trying to steer this conversation towards. If they are going to be making new SOB models, and if we are talking equality vs if they should be sexy; then why not SOB torn open on a chaos alter for new terrain piece? Why not some SOB gravely wounded but still holding the flag like some of the IG models? Why not Nurgle SOB plague marines? If you want to tone down on the sexist sexiness of the SOB, then what better way to increase the equality than to be blown apart by rockets?

Also, rumor has it that you are SOB/IG/Inquisition expert, so I was curious if there was an reason, fluff or otherwise, why there are not Ogryn or Ratling females? Or also if there is any reason why they would not be allowed as an ally SOB chapter? If they sculpt some of those then it will help diversify and balance the female spectrum of their figurines.

I just had a funny thought: an Ogryn SOB with the pointy torpedo missile bewb armor, grabbing an enemy by the back of the head and smashing them against said pointy torpedo bewb, thus impaling it through their skull!! Now that, is combat effective and stylish!

They already have a naked Sister model as a Dark Eldar slave girl dude.

Melissia wrote:They already have a naked Sister model as a Dark Eldar slave girl dude.

I don't think that's true.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440237a&prodId=prod1110275

Though they aren't painted to be naked on the site (most fans paint them taht way), they're still dark eldar slaves. There's a Fleur on her shoulder. The Asrubael Vect box makes it quite clear that one of them is a Sororitas, as well.

edit: mutter, I hate it when I move to click the edit box but accidentally hit the friend box. And making typos.

I own multiple of the Vect slaves. They clearly are NOT naked.

The kneeling one definitely had the bikini sculpted on, which is why sculpting it off results in crazy big boobs. I know this, because I did the conversion.

I haven't taken the top off the Sister slave, but am tempted to do so, then GS some more "sexiness" via longer, flowing hair.

BTW, painting a fleur on a GW mini is incidental doesn't automatically make that mini a Sister model - that's not the sculpt.

@John: Boobs and face of female commissar are not the trouble. Her shoulders and hat are just ugly to my eyes. The problem is not with the sculpt but with the design that led to the sculpt.

JohnHwangDD wrote:BTW, painting a fleur on a GW mini is incidental doesn't automatically make that mini a Sister model - that's not the sculpt.

What does seem to make it a sister is the short cut hair, which is a part of the sculpt. Those pics are official GW, painted by official GW employees, posted on the official GW website, so I'd say officially that is a SOB mini for all intent a purposes. And as Melissia pointed out:

"The Asrubael Vect box makes it quite clear that one of them is a Sororitas, as well."

But those are not really what we are talking about here, those are slaves to an insane and twisted Dark Eldar lord, so those, for obvious reason, will be sculpted as sexy play things.

@Manchu: OK, I get your point, although I also think the hat and shoulders are kind of integral to the 40k Imperial Commissar that it's supposed to represent...

Psyker_9er wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:BTW, painting a fleur on a GW mini is incidental doesn't automatically make that mini a Sister model - that's not the sculpt.

What does seem to make it a sister is the short cut hair, which is a part of the sculpt. Those pics are official GW, painted by official GW employees, posted on the official GW website, so I'd say officially that is a SOB mini for all intent a purposes. And as Melissia pointed out:

"The Asrubael Vect box makes it quite clear that one of them is a Sororitas, as well."

But those are not really what we are talking about here, those are slaves to an insane and twisted Dark Eldar lord, so those, for obvious reason, will be sculpted as sexy play things.

That's a lot to pin on a model's hair-do.

Maybe Vect likes his slave girls to look like battle sisters? I hear he's huge into cosplay.

And now you're merely being deliberately obtuse in a way that makes even my own stubborn nature look relatively pleasant and flexible.

Melissia wrote:And now you're merely being deliberately obtuse in a way that makes even my own stubborn nature look relatively pleasant and flexible.

Let's not go crazy.

So the only people with bob haircuts in the 41st millenium are the Adeptus Sororitas?

I repeat my previous statement about you being deliberately obtuse.

Official GW artwork has her as a Sororitas. I need no more proof than that of it being one. Does she have to be? No. But by that technicality i can claim that every Space Marine who's wearing a helmet is female because you can't tell their gender inside their armor anyway. What, you can't tell, are you going to take all of their codpieces off and look?

No, the reason they aren't is because official GW material (most recently, the Deathwatch roleplaying game) says to the contrary. Similarly, the fact that GW had the woman painted as a Battle Sister, muscular with a Sororitas tattoo and sculpted with that godawful bob cut hairstyle, and all of this on the official site pic of the models AND the official box art of the Asrubael Vect set, makes my case for me with abundant proof.

Blathering on about some ridiculous explanation about why it isn't so is not going to work when GW themselves depicted the model in such a way and it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who reads your posts.

Melissia wrote:Official GW artwork has her as a Sororitas. I need no more proof than that of it being one. Does she have to be? No. But by that technicality i can claim that every Space Marine who's wearing a helmet is female because you can't tell their gender inside their armor anyway. What, you can't tell, are you going to take all of their codpieces off and look?

No, and here's why. Space Marines can't be female. It's absurdity to believe otherwise, based on black and white text in the fluff. Okay, black and grayish.

Melissia wrote:snip Blathering on about some ridiculous explanation about why it isn't so is not going to work when GW themselves depicted the model in such a way... snip

So? One 'Eavy Metal painter's artistic flourish suddenly becomes fluff canon?

That's certainly a Soroitas. She has the remains of a Sororitas habit on as a loin cloth.

Manchu wrote:That's certainly a Soroitas. She has the remains of a Sororitas habit on as a loin cloth.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

Monster Rain wrote:
That's a lot to pin on a model's hair-do.

Maybe Vect likes his slave girls to look like battle sisters? I hear he's huge into cosplay.

Sorry, I was unclear it seems. Not just the hair-do, which is the standard issue hair-do for SOB, but the fleur as well. See the fleur in the pic? It was said that painting one on a mini wont make it a SOB, which I agree. I can paint a fleur on an Ork but it wont be a SOB. What I was trying to state was that since an official GW employee painted the fleur, on an official model with short SOB hair, and posted the pic on the official GW website: THAT makes it SOB

Monster Rain wrote:So the only people with bob haircuts in the 41st millenium are the Adeptus Sororitas?

It's not a bowl cut?

Anyhow, I'd far rather they had buzz cuts or headscarves or something.

I totally can't stand those haircuts!

I'd rather they just have a variety of different hairstyles, or all helmets.

I'd be completely fine with all helmets. The helmets are kickass.

The original helmets without the fleur are kickass. The hack who added the fleur should be taken out back and shot, along with the moron who decided to paint the visor white.

I dunno, I don't mind the fleur, I just wish it wasn't made to stick out and look like a crest on an oriental helmet.

A simple raised area on the helmet would have more than sufficed.

It's just too darn big for me.

(that's what she said!)

If the fleur on the sallet helmet were a bit smaller, I'd be golden over it.

Psyker_9er wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
That's a lot to pin on a model's hair-do.

Maybe Vect likes his slave girls to look like battle sisters? I hear he's huge into cosplay.

Sorry, I was unclear it seems. Not just the hair-do, which is the standard issue hair-do for SOB, but the fleur as well. See the fleur in the pic? It was said that painting one on a mini wont make it a SOB, which I agree. I can paint a fleur on an Ork but it wont be a SOB. What I was trying to state was that since an official GW employee painted the fleur, on an official model with short SOB hair, and posted the pic on the official GW website: THAT makes it SOB

Does GW painting a Space Marine blue mean that the model is specifically an Ultramarine?

I don't care if it's a SoB sculpt or not - the part I objected to was the entirely wrong claim that they were naked. To be honest, the whole, "I'm going to employ massive hyperbole so that my point seems far stronger than it is," thing is getting old.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's just too darn big for me.

(that's what she said!)

He's off the chain!

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Maybe my experience is "tainted" by being an American rather than British, but I really don't see this happening. At all.

Perhaps it's merely "British teenaged boys aged 12-15", but then they don't really seem to do advertising in the US outside of licensed works.

There is no GW advertising in the UK, except in White Dwarf and the front windows of their shops, which doesn't really count.

Many schools have Warhammer clubs as part of their extra-curricular activities from about 10 onwards.

The main point I want to present is that the core target market segment addressed by GW is young, immature boys-to-men types. University students play a lot of games of all types, and they are not noted for their maturity. Clearly, most people in this age range are not generating their income through a "proper job", and don't worry about paying a mortgage and so on.

Melissia wrote:Indeed, the only issue I have with it is the cleavage. Which can be painted or greenstuff-ed to not have that appearance

I pray you and Doctor Thunder never meet in real life, as I fear the universe would abruptly end.

Less cleavage? Boobs sell.... well EVERYTHING.

Male DE wychs in thongs = no sales

New sexy female wyches = $$$

The universe needs sexy angry nuns of the grimdark

Melissia wrote:And now you're merely being deliberately obtuse in a way that makes even my own stubborn nature look relatively pleasant and flexible.

Such as by claiming that there is a nude SoB model available by showing them on GWS's site, as clearly non-nude models, and then rationalizing your perfidy with a rather wan "most gamers paint them that way"? Pot, Kettle.

I remembered it as naked because of said painted models, duh. I linked to the site, and did not claim they were naked afterwards because they are not by default.

So we've established that Sisters of Battle shouldn't be dressed akin to the Dark Eldar slaves? Gotcha.


I ask again, surely Sisters of Battle cannot appear sexy in power armour due to the need for said armour to protect and its size and function?

That depends on your definition of "sexy".



Would you say this is sexy, for example? Certainly, she's a very attractive woman in well-designed, highly protective armor. But is she "sexy"?

She'll get her head cut off without a helmet!

Given the background, I'd assume she's on parade, so I assume that in battle she would indeed wear a helmet.

Melissia wrote:That depends on your definition of "sexy".



Would you say this is sexy, for example? Certainly, she's a very attractive woman in well-designed, highly protective armor. But is she "sexy"?

No.

On a side note, that chest piece is another example of how female breastplates can be done tastefully while still being feminine. It's not perfect though, mind you, as it looks somewhat hard to move aroun dn in...

No I wouldn't personally find that sexy. To me that picture largely supports my point; that with the need to protect and it's 'natural' size, power armour cannot realistically be made sexy.
I don't care whether the SoB are designed to be sexy or not, it's just I expect that due to 'realistic' constraints in regards to the design and function of power armour, they cannot realistically be 'sexy'.

However, that kind of armour (your picture) I would think would suit the SoB, for what it's worth.

Love that one of the most prolific posters on this thread 'JohnnyHwangDD' has an incredibly tasteful and perhaps appropriate avatar... Any chance of some more proposed sister of battle sketches?

Anyone ever seen the codpiece on Henry VIII's armour?

I heard one explanation that it was "roomy" to spare him discomfort (he had syphilis), but I'm 99% sure it was a vanity thing.

I just want to know why the Ecclesiarchy would be concerned with cost-effective armour. This is the IoM here, they pray to bullets and have holy screws. The Ecclesiarchy are all about pomp, ceremony, and showing off. It's like the swiss guard in power armour! The Ecclesiarchy probably want to show of their all female fighting force, hence the "boobie" armour, which isn't even that sexy/racy anyway.

Nearly no one in 40k, except maybe the tau, wear completely economical, functional armour. Because it wouldn't be grim dark, and would make for very boring models.

I had never thought of it like that, but there is much in what you say.

Explains why O'Shaserra doesn't have lady lumps on her armor. Then again, we don't know if Tau females even have lady lumps. Saint Hazard said they are avian rather than mammalian.

I think in the codex ,or maybe it was xenology, they were described as bovine

asimo77 wrote:
Nearly no one in 40k, except maybe the tau, wear completely economical, functional armour. Because it wouldn't be grim dark, and would make for very boring models.

DE armor are almost completely functional, funny as it sounds. Spikes are there to block enemy attacks and disarm them.

IG infantry armor are completely normal, too.

Forgot IG, not sure about DE. Look at the archon on the cover of the codex, imagine having a gigantic trophy rack stuck on your back. I guess some of it is psychological warfare, but spikes usually mean stabbing yourself in the face.

Also what are those giant erm..."things" on the incubi's backs? Not to mention their codpiece which hangs down for no reason. Also wyches and hellions, barely have any armour to begin with.

In general shoulder spikes just mean that you can't raise your arms up without poking your own eye out. And big hemlets with spikes just makes your head too heavy.

Finally capes are never functional and neither are random hooks and chains on your waist, they're likey to get caught or pulled on like capes.

asimo77 wrote:I just want to know why the Ecclesiarchy would be concerned with cost-effective armour.

Even civilian class power armor is hideously expensive. Despite being a very rich organization, I sincerely doubt the Ecclesiarchy can afford to throw money away at something so ludicrously expensive when it doesn't really work that well.

By expensive, I mean "for what it costs to outfit one Sister for an extended campaign, you could outfit a Guard regiment for the same campaign" type expensive.

I don't care how rich the organization is, you don't spend that much money without some form of oversight, especially when you're constantly worried about corruption (Which the Ecclesiarchy is, because the Sisters and Inquisition are breathing down their backs if they don't police themselves).

I would like to see where you got the data for all these prices, cost-ratios and so on. Think how ostentatious/superfluous real world relgions have been, or just people in power generally speaking. Then realize that WH40k takes things and turns it up to 11, so the space church is going to be spending a lot.

Also why does a fictional universe that has plenty instances of absurd suspension of belief need a realistic econonmy? Other parts of the Imp bureacracy (I can't spell that for my life) are also shown to be over the top, from reports coming in centuries late, to losing entire planets in paperwork. The economics of the IoM should be no different.

For the prices, I obtained them from the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch roleplay systems.

It may be religion, but they're still human. They still want a return on their investment. Money and influence does not grow on trees.

I'd say that a badass space nun, ready to roast the enemies of man in holy flames of justice is a pretty good return on their investment

I guess my point is that in the real world you can find money being spent in the most absurd ways, so why not in WH. Of course I don't know the actual costs and stuff of power armour production, so it might be crazier than any real world examples.

That being said a litlle extra room around the chest, and some gold and dangly bits doesn't seem like a whole lot extra.

Manchu wrote:Explains why O'Shaserra doesn't have lady lumps on her armor. Then again, we don't know if Tau females even have lady lumps. Saint Hazard said they are avian rather than mammalian.

If I recall Xenology correctly they are mammalian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:For the prices, I obtained them from the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch roleplay systems.

It may be religion, but they're still human. They still want a return on their investment. Money and influence does not grow on trees.

Surely the whole concept of religious war and anti-science mitigates against a modernistic accounting/engineering approach.

The Empire doesn't analyse data and design things to do tasks efficiently. It uses equipment left over from thousands of years ago, which are regarded as holy relics.

Servo skulls are a good example. Their primary purpose is to honour fallen heroes of Imperial piety in order to inspire religious fervour. A skull sized polycarbonate sphere would be a much cheaper and tougher bodyshell for a light anti-grav drone.

To put it another way, the primary return on investment is not operational effectiveness, it is eternity in heaven with the Emperor. Much like the mediaeval crusades to the Holy Land.

Err, what? Sure it does. Mostly the Administratum, but the Imperium certainly does it.

There's a rather amusing quote in the Dark Heresy novels (well, one of the campaign books technically speaking) about an adept who thought it was a good idea to drop a large asteroid on a planet instead of bombard it with torpedos/missiles, and the adept's superior pointed out just how wrong he was and punished him for wasting the Emperor's resources.

Wait I'm confused, the adept wanted to save resources by using a big rock, but was punished for wasting resources? Wouldn't using the missiles be a waste?

It was more about the cost of getting to the rock without damaging hte cruiser, the time it took to move the rock (And expendables-- foodstuffs, wages, fuel) consumed during said time being far greater than the cost of simply firing a few torpedos. And because of the time spent moving said rock, said time was not spent fighting the enemies of the Emperor.

Remember, Imperial Navy ships are huge.


edit: Actually, hrm. I can't find that story. Blarghl! Regardless, the Munitorum is a notorious penny-pusher IIRC, punishing Guardsmen heavily for losing even the cheapest of equipment (this from the Imperial Infantryman's Primer).

The primer also makes the lasgun out to be a holy relic, they even pray to it. I got a more uber religious feel out of it rather than a penny-pushing one.

But the 'penny-pushers' of the Munitorum do not finance the ordo militaris of the ecclesiarchy.
They don't care if the 'imperial cult' spents more than neccessary on its adventures into wars of faith as long as those pay for transfer with imperial navy vessels.

So its still up to the ecclesiarchy to collect enough to 'waste' it afterwards.

The point to make should be the concept of the humble servant. But the priesthood is a pompous bunch, so maybe the sisters would prefer a effective armor with less bling on whilst the imperial cult in its form of the ecclesiarchy like to compete with other imperial organizations and put as much extras on 'their' forces as possible.

No, but the Imperial Cult does. Waste is waste. I just don't imagine people consistently spending so much money on something which doesn't work for ten thousand years. I'm not THAT misanthropic.

Why doesn't the Armor work, exactly?

Melissia wrote:No, but the Imperial Cult does. Waste is waste. I just don't imagine people consistently spending so much money on something which doesn't work for ten thousand years. I'm not THAT misanthropic.

I should have said that was the basic point of 40K.

asimo77 wrote:Wait I'm confused, the adept wanted to save resources by using a big rock, but was punished for wasting resources? Wouldn't using the missiles be a waste?

Rocks are NOT "free," citizen!

Classic fluff.

Ah yes, that's it. Great stuff.

Oh god not the BLUE chair!!!

That was pretty great, "His Sacred Money" and "therapeutic accounting training" are some real gems.

I think they should be modeled to look better. Im not saying sexy, but if they are done in the quality of say....the DE resculpts, then that would be fine

Monster Rain wrote:Why doesn't the Armor work, exactly?

It does work.

And I don't think anyone said it didn't...

Melissia wrote:No, but the Imperial Cult does. Waste is waste. I just don't imagine people consistently spending so much money on something which doesn't work for ten thousand years. I'm not THAT misanthropic.

I thought you were still talking about armor here.

At the end of the day, gratuitous boob armor fits right in with gratuitous gargoyles on battleships that fight at tens or even hundreds of kilometers away and thus those gargoyles will never been seen.

Maybe it's so the Ecclesiarchy can tell the Adeptus Munitorum, "LOOK! THey have BOOBIES, we have no "men" under arms.

Fetterkey wrote:Rocks are NOT "free," citizen!

Classic fluff.

That is all kinds of win.

Yes, I remember reading that at the back of the Chapter Approved Book.

Classic.

I'd say an excellent example of female armor is that worn by Mila Jovavich in the move, "the Messenger".

Yes they need redoing, yes DE are the best to date examples of functional yet feminine sculpts, yes they are probably practice for SoB

They should be more or less the same level as sexy as the new Wytches, hopefully less

The boob fitting armor should be a tad less, have it almost morphed into the armor instead of just jutting out.

Some sexy to the SC, BUT NOT TOO MUCH SEXY ( for my shirt )

Overall they should be my opinion on gays/weaboos/furries/emos/ect., you CAN be ( in this case ) sexy, just don't flaunt it around.

I'll never cease to be amazed at the things posted on this forum.

Armor with breasts is unrealistic, fighting in a bikini with no shoes on is "functional."

Monster Rain wrote:I'll never cease to be amazed at the things posted on this forum.

Armor with breasts is unrealistic, fighting in a bikini with no shoes on is "functional."

Nice strawman you got there.

I'm relatively certain not one person in this thread has said that. Except for you, as you pretend that we did.

Brother Heinrich wrote:I'd say an excellent example of female armor is that worn by Mila Jovavich in the move, "the Messenger".

Oohh... One of my favorite movies, aside from Hoffmann...

I used to think: "If only WFB had the same level of energy in each battle."

SaintHazard wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'll never cease to be amazed at the things posted on this forum.

Armor with breasts is unrealistic, fighting in a bikini with no shoes on is "functional."

Nice strawman you got there.

I'm relatively certain not one person in this thread has said that. Except for you, as you pretend that we did.

I could quote it, but it amuses me more to see people pretend like they didn't say things that are still in existence a few pages back.

Monster Rain wrote:I could quote it, but it amuses me more to see people pretend like they didn't say things that are still in existence a few pages back.

Dude, seriously. Do you just look at the pictures, or do you actually read the things people write underneath them?

If you're referring to my posting of Lelith Hesperax, you'll notice I was giving an example of a fairly realistic body type among female combatants. Nowhere in that post did I refer to what she was wearing. Not one word.

You go on ahead and quote it if you want to. You'll make yourself look like a fool if you do.

SaintHazard wrote:You go on ahead and quote it if you want to. You'll make yourself look like a fool if you do.

I disagree.

Either way, unless you edited it since, it's all there. You also aren't the only one I'm referring to, so don't feel so persecuted.

In my opinion, the breast should not make up more than 1/5th of the total width when viewing the model from the side. Otherwise it becomes too big.

The sisters should not be sexually appealing. The only things in 40k that were sexual were the old Daemonettes. Not they're gone, nothing is. Sisters don't really have a place doing it either. Besides, it fits the grim-dark idea much better.

Fetterkey wrote:

asimo77 wrote:Wait I'm confused, the adept wanted to save resources by using a big rock, but was punished for wasting resources? Wouldn't using the missiles be a waste?

Rocks are NOT "free," citizen!

Classic fluff.

Ya, that was awesome.

Melissia wrote:For the prices, I obtained them from the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch roleplay systems.

It may be religion, but they're still human. They still want a return on their investment. Money and influence does not grow on trees.

You do realize these systems tweak points cost and rules to be easy and balanced (GW and blanace... HA) right? I doubt a single suit of power armor costs what thousands of lasguns do, though I can imagine it being on the order of a platoon or company of foot guardsmen... without plasma or melta weapons, both of which are expensive, plasma so much more so seeing as almost no body has a mastery of it save for one planet in the cosmos. I think meltas are more known and generally easily manufactured on most worlds. Granted most forge worlds can make plasma guns none make them Well.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Melissia wrote:For the prices, I obtained them from the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch roleplay systems.

It may be religion, but they're still human. They still want a return on their investment. Money and influence does not grow on trees.

You do realize these systems tweak points cost and rules to be easy and balanced (GW and blanace... HA) right? I doubt a single suit of power armor costs what thousands of lasguns do, though I can imagine it being on the order of a platoon or company of foot guardsmen... without plasma or melta weapons, both of which are expensive, plasma so much more so seeing as almost no body has a mastery of it save for one planet in the cosmos. I think meltas are more known and generally easily manufactured on most worlds. Granted most forge worlds can make plasma guns none make them Well.

Not all game systems have "Balance" (or ease of play) as a design goal. Looking at DH, I don't think they cared too much about having nice even playing field. The prices of everything seem tweaked much more to reflect fluff value than gameplay value.

Chongara wrote:Not all game systems have "Balance" (or ease of play) as a design goal. Looking at DH, I don't think they cared too much about having nice even playing field. The prices of everything seem tweaked much more to reflect fluff value than gameplay value.

Amusingly enough, the TV Tropes page for Dark Heresy mentions that the decision on whether or not to fire your bolt pistol in that game can largely devolve down to whether or not you want your character to eat that month.

Eumerin wrote:

Chongara wrote:Not all game systems have "Balance" (or ease of play) as a design goal. Looking at DH, I don't think they cared too much about having nice even playing field. The prices of everything seem tweaked much more to reflect fluff value than gameplay value.

Amusingly enough, the TV Tropes page for Dark Heresy mentions that the decision on whether or not to fire your bolt pistol in that game can largely devolve down to whether or not you want your character to eat that month.

Yeah it depends on how your GM handles cashflow, your progression and career. IIRC the base income of a guardsman is something like 50 Thrones/Month or some such. Bolt Rounds, when you can find them are 16 Thrones each, assuming you're getting a fair price on them.

We at 25 pages and multiple OT directions, I think its prudent to put this thread to bed.