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.

Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.

Actually, this is a prime example of plate armor done right, and I'm glad Melissia posted it. Allow me to educate you folks on how armor works. If you think a sharp object (e.g. a sword) cannot pierce armor because armor is hard, you are incorrect. Armor is designed with a visible flow from the center to the sides. Its entire purpose is not to "be hard." It's entire purpose is to redirect the incoming blade away from the body of the wearer, redirecting its momentum and causing it to "miss" its target. This is why maces and flails were so dangerous - they overcame this by delivering a blunt blow (often with armor-piercing flanges) to the flat surface of the armor, buckling it inward - they turned the armor itself into a weapon to harm the wearer.

Now take a look at the average Sister's boob-armor. Note how it actually flows not towards the edges of the wearer's profile, but instead towards the center.

If your armor's entire purpose is to redirect incoming blades and blows, do you really want those blades being directed towards your vital organs? Sisters' current armor makes them easier to kill, not harder.

Well, I'd want to keep the shoulders, helmet, legs (minus garters), and arms/gauntlets of the Sisters as they are right now. The "robes" similarly fit in with their holy warrior / sisters militant theme. It's just the chest and abdomen that I have issues with. Every other part of the armor is superbly designed and interesting.

Wiglaf wrote:I support realism over nerdy sexist fetish anyday

Then play FoW.

You say "sexist fetish" for people that like the female aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy genres, but it could just as easily be said that those who don't are repressed prudes. That would be a hypothetical scenario, of course, but we shouldn't have to go there.

You know, I resent the idea that just because one thinks that a properly designed piece of armor looks better that they're somehow prudish. That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.

@Melissa: Monster Rain's point was that such a connection would be absurd. Just like how calling someone who liked SoB models as-are a nerdy sexist fetishist is also absurd.

SaintHazard wrote:If your armor's entire purpose is to redirect incoming blades and blows, do you really want those blades being directed towards your vital organs? Sisters' current armor makes them easier to kill, not harder.

Reality =/ fantasy. Arguments based around how things 'really work' don't really apply. For all you know, there is a 'cleave field' which not only supports and defines, but also deflects.

Sisters boob armor makes them no easier to kill than the prevalence of everyone in 40k to leave their helmet at home. Would any sane marine remove their helmet? No. Do they all take them off and leave them on the battle barge? Yep.

Guess what? Fantasy game.

Melissia wrote:You know, I resent the idea that just because one thinks that a properly designed piece of armor looks better that they're somehow prudish. That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.

Who said that?

I was just showing an example of how throwing around terms like "sexist" and "fetish" isn't constructive. Let's all calm down.

Manchu wrote:@Melissa: Monster Rain's point was that such a connection would be absurd. Just like how calling someone who liked SoB models as-are a nerdy sexist fetishist is also absurd.

Manchu got it.

They're Space Nuns. What part of this don't you people understand?

Lord Harrab wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.

Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.

HERETIC!

The Pauldrons are far too small!

@ Melissia i was not aware Prostitute required breastplates.

I am currently doodling some tastefully armoured females and i think that the tapering in the hip/waist area is where the attention should be focused as well as a more pronounced thinner neck. Mounting an armoured head in a heavy gorget is always gonna look masculine. the FF12 characters i'm afraid are incredibly androgynous to my eyes..

Melissia wrote:That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.

A new challenger has entered the ring...

I know full well what he was attempting to say. His "point", as it were, was poorly made, and once again brings up the issue of sexism which so far has evaded this thread. And furthermore is a subject that I refuse to talk about because I do not believe it is possible for certain posters on here to talk about sexism in any situation without blatantly flaming and trolling-- suffice it to say it is a subject which is best avoided in order to keep the thread from becoming uncivilized.

Perkustin wrote:@ Melissia i was not aware Prostitute required breastplates.

They do in my neighborhood.

Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu got it.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet the portion of the population that prefers seuxalized designs that is sexist, is larger than portion of the population that likes less sexualized is "prudish". That's really neither her nor there though.

Melissia wrote:I know full well what he was attempting to say. His "point", as it were, was poorly made, and once again brings up the issue of sexism which so far has evaded this thread.

Interesting.

Wiglaf wrote:I support realism over nerdy sexist fetish anyday, but honestly I would be angry if someday they redo the eldar bandhees or any other eldar chick apart from Lelith without the boob armor. That would be just tasteless.

First mention of sexism in the thread, and it wasn't yours truly who made it.

I'd say something about reading threads and the comprehension of said reading, but I feel like it would make matters worse.

Chongara wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu got it.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet the portion of the population that prefers seuxalized designs that is sexist, is larger than portion of the population that likes less sexualized is "prudish". That's really neither her nor there though.

Since you have no basis for that, my point stands that throwing around such charged terms isn't constructive.

Melissia wrote:Well, I'd want to keep the shoulders, helmet, legs (minus garters), and arms/gauntlets of the Sisters as they are right now. The "robes" similarly fit in with their holy warrior / sisters militant theme. It's just the chest and abdomen that I have issues with. Every other part of the armor is superbly designed and interesting.

Except the helmet. Its just fail. not seeing the garters people are talking about but my eyesight is not so hot.

Gwar! wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.

Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.

HERETIC!

The Pauldrons are far too small!

Thats what i meant by grimdarkify *blam*

Did I say I supported that? No? Then drop it. I don't want to get dragged into that discussion AGAIN....

Last time it happened, the thread was closed and half a dozen people were warned.

Lord Harrab wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.

Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.

HERETIC!

The Pauldrons are far too small!

Thats what i meant by grimdarkify *blam*

Nah, a real female elf warrior from magical-land would keep her hair short, so that Bad Guys(TM) couldn't grab it.

Medium of Death wrote:

Melissia wrote:That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.

(stylistic vomit)

A new challenger has entered the ring...

And it looks horrible. What's your point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:If your armor's entire purpose is to redirect incoming blades and blows, do you really want those blades being directed towards your vital organs? Sisters' current armor makes them easier to kill, not harder.

Reality =/ fantasy. Arguments based around how things 'really work' don't really apply. For all you know, there is a 'cleave field' which not only supports and defines, but also deflects.

Sisters boob armor makes them no easier to kill than the prevalence of everyone in 40k to leave their helmet at home. Would any sane marine remove their helmet? No. Do they all take them off and leave them on the battle barge? Yep.

Guess what? Fantasy game.

Do you see any of my Marines missing their helmets? Since you can't actually answer that, never having seen my Marines, I'll answer it for you: no.

SaintHazard wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Melissia wrote:That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.

(stylistic vomit)

A new challenger has entered the ring...

And it looks horrible. What's your point?

Is there a point? It's a depection that influenced the design.

Monster Rain wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Lord Harrab wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.

Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.

HERETIC!

The Pauldrons are far too small!

Thats what i meant by grimdarkify *blam*

Nah, a real female elf warrior from magical-land would keep her hair short, so that Bad Guys(TM) couldn't grab it.

I at least, don't think designs have be practical they just have look cool without being sexualized. Both male and female characters are often depicted as having hair than is longer ideal to have in the fight but in neither case is it generally there solely for sexualizaiton. Hair provides a way to provide interesting and distinct elements to a character, so it isn't really problematic.

John Blanche is one of the "framers" of 40k. If you don't like his artwork, it's no wonder you have trouble with many other aspects of the world's design.

@Frazzled:



I really like their helmets. The execution on the miniatures, however, could use some work.

Are there any unofficial sister models/conversions anyone can bring to the table? Good and Bad examples...

Chongara wrote:I at least, don't think designs have be practical they just have look cool without being sexualized. Both male and female characters are often depicted as having hair than is longer ideal to have in the fight but in neither case is it generally there solely for sexualizaiton. Hair provides a way to provide interesting and distinct elements to a character, so it isn't really problematic.

So the question now is what defines sexualized? An attractive female face with long hair could be considered sexually attractive by someone. Where do you draw the line?

Funny, I find John Blanche's artwork to be completely alien to 40k. They are so hideously incompatible that I find a hard time believing the accusations that he is somehow responsible for anything good, nevermind good with 40k.

Manchu wrote:John Blanche is one of the "framers" of 40k. If you don't like his artwork, it's no wonder you have trouble with many other aspects of the world's design.

This statement is what truth is made of

Medium of Death wrote:

Manchu wrote:John Blanche is one of the "framers" of 40k. If you don't like his artwork, it's no wonder you have trouble with many other aspects of the world's design.

This statement is what truth is made of

Maybe his work was back in 3rd edition, but i feel that 4ok has moved away from the style he "Framed", perhaps it's because i don't see much of his work around the setting anymore.

Manchu wrote:@gendoikar: ACTUALLY I think Reasonable Marine is a great argument in favor of current Sisters. Similarly, the Batmobile should not look like this:

I like the new batmobile... its ... More? realistic. kind of... relatively

The new batmobile looks... 90s. And definitely not in a good way.

Regardless, I think this conversation is about as far as it can go with me. I wouldn't say the models are sexy... just dumb looking, and not matching their concept. They do appear to be ATTEMPTING to be sexy, what with garter belts, bras, and corsets worn OVER the armor, but they fail at being sexy just like they fail at matching their concept.