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.

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.