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.

Totalwar1402 wrote:With all due respect, if you think the Na'vi were sexual beyond just being half naked humanoids then you have a much more ascetic (pure) notion of what counts as distasteful sexualization than I do. If anything the Na'vi were desexualised with how lean and lanky they were; aside from possibly having pretty face and lips. The film was a twelve after all.

So wait, James Cameron didn't tell the art department to keep redesigning them until they wanted to f*** them or wrote a sex scene into the film? I'll be damned.

Or James Cameron is a genius and created an alien race with every possible tweak to appeal to the human audience. I hated that movie, but if you think that sexualization wasn't exactly what James Cameron intended then, well, I think you missed it. Na'vi design analysis begins at 6:49 and 9:15 the important part

That's a strange coincidence... An angry OT rant. Weird.

Not angry at all. More like smug. It sorta happens when you're right as often as I am. But again, if you notice, the topic was taken off course by him, not me. Kinda like that other thread.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:With all due respect, if you think the Na'vi were sexual beyond just being half naked humanoids then you have a much more ascetic (pure) notion of what counts as distasteful sexualization than I do. If anything the Na'vi were desexualised with how lean and lanky they were; aside from possibly having pretty face and lips. The film was a twelve after all.

So wait, James Cameron didn't tell the art department to keep redesigning them until they wanted to f*** them or wrote a sex scene into the film? I'll be damned.

Or James Cameron is a genius and created an alien race with every possible tweak to appeal to the human audience. I hated that movie, but if you think that sexualization wasn't exactly what James Cameron intended then, well, I think you missed it. Na'vi design analysis begins at 6:49 and 9:15 the important part

Well he's quite bad at it then!

Also that sex scene was taken out and there was only kissing.

By your puritan morals you wouldn't be able to put a woman on TV unless she was wearing a full Hijab!

It kind of is on-topic because we were discussing how sexualised SOB were (and by implication would that put you off) and it drifted onto Avatar. Besides, the main thing is meant to be the voting. I think it was pretty much as I expected, cost, lack of plastics and under-development is a near universal reason whilst the majority of people don't take serious exception to the other issues.

I don't know why people say SoB are overly sexualized, if anything, they're not sexualized enough.

Here's an example of an overly sexualized model (from a recent ad I got)


And here's one that's properly sexualized:



SoB aren't even close.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Not angry at all. More like smug. It sorta happens when you're right as often as I am. But again, if you notice, the topic was taken off course by him, not me. Kinda like that other thread.

Why are you being vicious? I was trying to be affable about a topic no different than if you and I were mates. That has nothing to do with any personal opinion of you or your opinions if I happen to disagree with them or try to discuss them with you. Since I said nothing that might personally offend you that was not meant in good humour then I don't get why you're taking this conversation seriously. That is not the voice I'am trying to put into your head, I'am trying to have a friendly chat; I' am not trying to actually demean you.

Puritan morals? Who is discussing what is right or wrong? We're discussing sexualization, a topic you don't seem to fully grasp. Here's the definition. No need to resort to desperate logical fallacies to save yourself. I never argued against sexualization at all. I rather like sex and naked broads myself. My problem with the Sisters has nothing to do with sexualization at all. It was a couple other dudes who didn't like the high heels and corsets and such as being too sexual. I don't like the sisters for a myriad of reasons. I personally don't like certain aspects of the sexualization of the Sisters because I think it makes them look dumb, not because I'm afraid of legs and boobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Totalwar1402 wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Not angry at all. More like smug. It sorta happens when you're right as often as I am. But again, if you notice, the topic was taken off course by him, not me. Kinda like that other thread.

Why are you being vicious? I was trying to be affable about a topic no different than if you and I were mates. That has nothing to do with any personal opinion of you or your opinions if I happen to disagree with them or try to discuss them with you. Since I said nothing that might personally offend you that was not meant in good humour then I don't get why you're taking this conversation seriously. That is not the voice I'am trying to put into your head, I'am trying to have a friendly chat; I' am not trying to actually demean you.

Vicious? I haven't been mean spirited at all. There was the suggestion that I was angry. Anyway, time for me to bow out again. My capacity for argument is far higher than others, especially when I've got the advantage, and it appears I'm on the cusp of inadvertently hurting peoples' feelings again.

For me, the cost and the fact that they are an all-metal army. Their rules are also pretty bad, after that WD flop.

But those 14 people who dislike them just because they are women... just wow.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Puritan morals? Who is discussing what is right or wrong? We're discussing sexualization, a topic you don't seem to fully grasp. Here's the definition. No need to resort to desperate logical fallacies to save yourself. I never argued against sexualization at all. I rather like sex and naked broads myself. My problem with the Sisters has nothing to do with sexualization at all. It was a couple other dudes who didn't like the high heels and corsets and such as being too sexual. I don't like the sisters for a myriad of reasons. I personally don't like certain aspects of the sexualization of the Sisters because I think it makes them look dumb, not because I'm afraid of legs and boobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Totalwar1402 wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Not angry at all. More like smug. It sorta happens when you're right as often as I am. But again, if you notice, the topic was taken off course by him, not me. Kinda like that other thread.

Why are you being vicious? I was trying to be affable about a topic no different than if you and I were mates. That has nothing to do with any personal opinion of you or your opinions if I happen to disagree with them or try to discuss them with you. Since I said nothing that might personally offend you that was not meant in good humour then I don't get why you're taking this conversation seriously. That is not the voice I'am trying to put into your head, I'am trying to have a friendly chat; I' am not trying to actually demean you.

Vicious? I haven't been mean spirited at all. There was the suggestion that I was angry. Anyway, time for me to bow out again. My capacity for argument is far higher than others, especially when I've got the advantage, and it appears I'm on the cusp of inadvertently hurting peoples' feelings again.

Okay...go, I certainly have not enjoyed the pleasure of your comapny

Theres nothing in that definition at all; 'embody a person or object with sexual characteristics'. What do you mean I don't understand the issue? The issue exists because a considerable group of feminists and moralists consider it degrading to women because it makes them out to be sex objects that belong to men. They wrap that up with notions of power and about what aspects of 'feminity' should be idealised or desired by both sex's. They would state that such aspects need to be reduced so that women can aspire to devlop as individuals and that men can value an equal personal relationship with a woman over fetishized sexual need. So what don't I get exactly?

I already addressed the stupidity factor in 40k several posts ago, which you did not bother to respond to but went off talking about Avatar which I presumed just to be a frivilous topic and specifically about sexualization in that movie. Then you turn around claim I'am all muddled up, dumb and call some intellectual high ground over nothing.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:My capacity for argument is far higher than others, especially when I've got the advantage

You are a real crack-up!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Totalwar1402 wrote:I already addressed the stupidity factor in 40k several posts ago, which you did not bother to respond to but went off talking about Avatar which I presumed just to be a frivilous topic and specifically about sexualization in that movie. Then you turn around claim I'am all muddled up, dumb and call some intellectual high ground over nothing.

It isn't his first and probably not his last. He is hilarious when he gets all huffy though.

Aye, wasn't he the guy from another SOB post?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:.

But those 14 people who dislike them just because they are women... just wow.

I was actually expecting more people to say that, but, if I'am reading it right, then only one in six did. Pretty decent considering thats a reason cited quite a lot as to why the army won't sell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I don't know why people say SoB are overly sexualized, if anything, they're not sexualized enough.

Here's an example of an overly sexualized model (from a recent ad I got)

Spoiler:

And here's one that's properly sexualized:

Spoiler:

SoB aren't even close.

, yeah I once saw some ads for a daemon princess model that were much the same. Dark Eldar are another good example.

Although, if in the words of Traziyan the Infinite "I might offer one minor criticism" I wouldn't consider the one with her perishables showing as less sexualised than the one in a cat suit. I'am sure its just me mind you.

Wait, I might have misread you there.Overly and properly; different meanings. In Britain its a slang term to say something is 'proper', as in over the top or exaggerated; so if somebody was 'proper minted' you're saying he's very rich and not living properly within his means. Funny to me though.

Shandara wrote:Only the fact that it's near impossible to find spare backpacks and the demise of the bitz service...

As a poster above me said, Ebay has been invaluable in building my army these last months. Cost is less an issue for me, but why pay full price when there's Ebay?

If you're up for using Ebay, there's a seller who fairly regularly sells lots of spare backpacks for semi-reasonable prices. It's often enough that I kinda suspect they might be recasts, but I'm not really sure there's much of a way to prove it.

Zefig wrote:
If you're up for using Ebay, there's a seller who fairly regularly sells lots of spare backpacks for semi-reasonable prices. It's often enough that I kinda suspect they might be recasts, but I'm not really sure there's much of a way to prove it.

If they're from China, Russia, or Italy there's a very good chance they're recasts. I found some Crimson Fists shoulderpads for dirt cheap that happened to be Chinese recasts, and there's no shortage of suspiciously cheap, off-color Forgeworld stuff from the above mentioned countries posted on eBay.

Interesting results so far.

I'd like to see those who think they are too sexualised argue with those that think they aren't sexualised enough.

Personally I find them very asexual. They're women sure, and they have 'power corsets' I 'spose, but I've never seen them as anything other than warrior nuns.

Brother SRM wrote:

Zefig wrote:
If you're up for using Ebay, there's a seller who fairly regularly sells lots of spare backpacks for semi-reasonable prices. It's often enough that I kinda suspect they might be recasts, but I'm not really sure there's much of a way to prove it.

If they're from China, Russia, or Italy there's a very good chance they're recasts. I found some Crimson Fists shoulderpads for dirt cheap that happened to be Chinese recasts, and there's no shortage of suspiciously cheap, off-color Forgeworld stuff from the above mentioned countries posted on eBay.

These are from the US, which is what really makes me wonder. They're just up very consistently, generally alongside some Seraphim packs. There's a seller from Brazil I've noticed every 1-3 months, always selling the limited edition black library Ephrael Stern mini, loose. Either he stockpiled a TON when they first came out ( ) or he's making a killing off of recasting one of those every few months ( ). Hard to tell conclusively I guess.

Zefig wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

Zefig wrote:
If you're up for using Ebay, there's a seller who fairly regularly sells lots of spare backpacks for semi-reasonable prices. It's often enough that I kinda suspect they might be recasts, but I'm not really sure there's much of a way to prove it.

If they're from China, Russia, or Italy there's a very good chance they're recasts. I found some Crimson Fists shoulderpads for dirt cheap that happened to be Chinese recasts, and there's no shortage of suspiciously cheap, off-color Forgeworld stuff from the above mentioned countries posted on eBay.

These are from the US, which is what really makes me wonder. They're just up very consistently, generally alongside some Seraphim packs. There's a seller from Brazil I've noticed every 1-3 months, always selling the limited edition black library Ephrael Stern mini, loose. Either he stockpiled a TON when they first came out ( ) or he's making a killing off of recasting one of those every few months ( ). Hard to tell conclusively I guess.

I've seen those backpacks as well. They really smell like recasts, not helped by the fact that he always uses the same picture it seems.

Shandara wrote:I've seen those backpacks as well. They really smell like recasts, not helped by the fact that he always uses the same picture it seems.

I traded a girl on Btown for a bunch of backpacks a while back. She was using a recast of some other companies backpacks shrunk down to fit Sisters so had a ton of leftover official backpacks. I was just ecstatic that I had the right number of backpacks for my army for the first time since bits ordering went away.

Hah, nice find. I've been considering using one of my own designs for seraphim packs for a bit and doing basically the same thing, I've just never gotten around to actually casting them up from the printouts.

People are really saying SoB are overly sexualized? They're covered to head to toe in armor and have short lesbian hair. Fanart of the SoB make them far more sexual, seductive, feminine, and curvy then GW does.

I love metal, so that isn't a determining factor. Sure, I'd love plastics, but metal is just fine.

Also, they aren't sexualized enough. If I'm going to play an army of women, I want them to be as slutty as possible.

The lack of a real codex and the all metal figures. Though I prefer metal to finecast any day.

So ... mainly the lack of a real codex. And sisters cost what, 11 points each? So for 5 points more you can get a space marine who is better in almost every way?

Noisy_Marine wrote:So ... mainly the lack of a real codex. And sisters cost what, 11 points each? So for 5 points more you can get a space marine who is better in almost every way?

Roughly. 125 for 10 sisters and a sister superior. If you're just comparing statlines, you're missing the point. Don't discount sisters too much until you see them in action.

pretre wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:So ... mainly the lack of a real codex. And sisters cost what, 11 points each? So for 5 points more you can get a space marine who is better in almost every way?

Roughly. 125 for 10 sisters and a sister superior. If you're just comparing statlines, you're missing the point. Don't discount sisters too much until you see them in action.

I've seen how good they can be with their acts of faith. But the new rule limiting acts of faith and the new acts took some of the power away, I think. Plus now the Immolaters can't move 12 inches and shoot their mighty TL heavy flamers.

Noisy_Marine wrote:I've seen how good they can be with their acts of faith. But the new rule limiting acts of faith and the new acts took some of the power away, I think. Plus now the Immolaters can't move 12 inches and shoot their mighty TL heavy flamers.

Yeah, you're thinking of the old C:WH army. They work a bit differently now. Acts of Faith are really irrelevant and TL-HF Immolators went the way of the dodo.

pretre wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:So ... mainly the lack of a real codex. And sisters cost what, 11 points each? So for 5 points more you can get a space marine who is better in almost every way?

Roughly. 125 for 10 sisters and a sister superior. If you're just comparing statlines, you're missing the point. Don't discount sisters too much until you see them in action.

How much are squads of tactical marines and Grey hunters anyway?

Totalwar1402 wrote:How much are squads of tactical marines and Grey hunters anyway?

Minimum squad size? 90 for tacs and don't get a special at that price. GH are 75 and get one melta for 5 or flamer free
At 10, GH is 155 for 2 Meltas, 10 guys. Normals are 170 for 10 and get Melta at 5 and a heavy.

Sisters would be 145 for 2 Meltas, 10 Girls.

Not really fair when Marines get ATSKNF and GH get counter attack with their close combat weapons.; on top of better stats.

ps over 1000 views and nearly 90 replies. Win!

Totalwar1402 wrote:Not really fair when Marines get ATSKNF and GH get counter attack with their close combat weapons.; on top of better stats.

Sisters of Battle Troops squads are basically a tax you pay to take the good stuff.

Soooooo.... Whats the problem with recasts? A models a model.

pretre wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:So ... mainly the lack of a real codex. And sisters cost what, 11 points each? So for 5 points more you can get a space marine who is better in almost every way?

Roughly. 125 for 10 sisters and a sister superior. If you're just comparing statlines, you're missing the point. Don't discount sisters too much until you see them in action.

I literally thought you were talking dollar value instead of points cost. I didn't really balk at it or anything because it's what I expect from the price of metals nowadays.