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.

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.