Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.