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.

It's just too darn big for me.

(that's what she said!)

If the fleur on the sallet helmet were a bit smaller, I'd be golden over it.

Psyker_9er wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
That's a lot to pin on a model's hair-do.

Maybe Vect likes his slave girls to look like battle sisters? I hear he's huge into cosplay.

Sorry, I was unclear it seems. Not just the hair-do, which is the standard issue hair-do for SOB, but the fleur as well. See the fleur in the pic? It was said that painting one on a mini wont make it a SOB, which I agree. I can paint a fleur on an Ork but it wont be a SOB. What I was trying to state was that since an official GW employee painted the fleur, on an official model with short SOB hair, and posted the pic on the official GW website: THAT makes it SOB

Does GW painting a Space Marine blue mean that the model is specifically an Ultramarine?

I don't care if it's a SoB sculpt or not - the part I objected to was the entirely wrong claim that they were naked. To be honest, the whole, "I'm going to employ massive hyperbole so that my point seems far stronger than it is," thing is getting old.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's just too darn big for me.

(that's what she said!)

He's off the chain!

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Boys aged 12-15 spending their parents' money is not a relatively small demographic, it's a relatively large demographic.

Everything that GW do is basically driven by the fact that every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 12 and start to play 40K, and buy books and Space Mariens, while every year, hundreds of thousands of boys turn 15 and stop playing 40K.

Maybe my experience is "tainted" by being an American rather than British, but I really don't see this happening. At all.

Perhaps it's merely "British teenaged boys aged 12-15", but then they don't really seem to do advertising in the US outside of licensed works.

There is no GW advertising in the UK, except in White Dwarf and the front windows of their shops, which doesn't really count.

Many schools have Warhammer clubs as part of their extra-curricular activities from about 10 onwards.

The main point I want to present is that the core target market segment addressed by GW is young, immature boys-to-men types. University students play a lot of games of all types, and they are not noted for their maturity. Clearly, most people in this age range are not generating their income through a "proper job", and don't worry about paying a mortgage and so on.

Melissia wrote:Indeed, the only issue I have with it is the cleavage. Which can be painted or greenstuff-ed to not have that appearance

I pray you and Doctor Thunder never meet in real life, as I fear the universe would abruptly end.

Less cleavage? Boobs sell.... well EVERYTHING.

Male DE wychs in thongs = no sales

New sexy female wyches = $$$

The universe needs sexy angry nuns of the grimdark

Melissia wrote:And now you're merely being deliberately obtuse in a way that makes even my own stubborn nature look relatively pleasant and flexible.

Such as by claiming that there is a nude SoB model available by showing them on GWS's site, as clearly non-nude models, and then rationalizing your perfidy with a rather wan "most gamers paint them that way"? Pot, Kettle.

I remembered it as naked because of said painted models, duh. I linked to the site, and did not claim they were naked afterwards because they are not by default.

So we've established that Sisters of Battle shouldn't be dressed akin to the Dark Eldar slaves? Gotcha.


I ask again, surely Sisters of Battle cannot appear sexy in power armour due to the need for said armour to protect and its size and function?

That depends on your definition of "sexy".



Would you say this is sexy, for example? Certainly, she's a very attractive woman in well-designed, highly protective armor. But is she "sexy"?

She'll get her head cut off without a helmet!

Given the background, I'd assume she's on parade, so I assume that in battle she would indeed wear a helmet.

Melissia wrote:That depends on your definition of "sexy".



Would you say this is sexy, for example? Certainly, she's a very attractive woman in well-designed, highly protective armor. But is she "sexy"?

No.

On a side note, that chest piece is another example of how female breastplates can be done tastefully while still being feminine. It's not perfect though, mind you, as it looks somewhat hard to move aroun dn in...

No I wouldn't personally find that sexy. To me that picture largely supports my point; that with the need to protect and it's 'natural' size, power armour cannot realistically be made sexy.
I don't care whether the SoB are designed to be sexy or not, it's just I expect that due to 'realistic' constraints in regards to the design and function of power armour, they cannot realistically be 'sexy'.

However, that kind of armour (your picture) I would think would suit the SoB, for what it's worth.

Love that one of the most prolific posters on this thread 'JohnnyHwangDD' has an incredibly tasteful and perhaps appropriate avatar... Any chance of some more proposed sister of battle sketches?

Anyone ever seen the codpiece on Henry VIII's armour?

I heard one explanation that it was "roomy" to spare him discomfort (he had syphilis), but I'm 99% sure it was a vanity thing.

I just want to know why the Ecclesiarchy would be concerned with cost-effective armour. This is the IoM here, they pray to bullets and have holy screws. The Ecclesiarchy are all about pomp, ceremony, and showing off. It's like the swiss guard in power armour! The Ecclesiarchy probably want to show of their all female fighting force, hence the "boobie" armour, which isn't even that sexy/racy anyway.

Nearly no one in 40k, except maybe the tau, wear completely economical, functional armour. Because it wouldn't be grim dark, and would make for very boring models.

I had never thought of it like that, but there is much in what you say.

Explains why O'Shaserra doesn't have lady lumps on her armor. Then again, we don't know if Tau females even have lady lumps. Saint Hazard said they are avian rather than mammalian.

I think in the codex ,or maybe it was xenology, they were described as bovine

asimo77 wrote:
Nearly no one in 40k, except maybe the tau, wear completely economical, functional armour. Because it wouldn't be grim dark, and would make for very boring models.

DE armor are almost completely functional, funny as it sounds. Spikes are there to block enemy attacks and disarm them.

IG infantry armor are completely normal, too.

Forgot IG, not sure about DE. Look at the archon on the cover of the codex, imagine having a gigantic trophy rack stuck on your back. I guess some of it is psychological warfare, but spikes usually mean stabbing yourself in the face.

Also what are those giant erm..."things" on the incubi's backs? Not to mention their codpiece which hangs down for no reason. Also wyches and hellions, barely have any armour to begin with.

In general shoulder spikes just mean that you can't raise your arms up without poking your own eye out. And big hemlets with spikes just makes your head too heavy.

Finally capes are never functional and neither are random hooks and chains on your waist, they're likey to get caught or pulled on like capes.

asimo77 wrote:I just want to know why the Ecclesiarchy would be concerned with cost-effective armour.

Even civilian class power armor is hideously expensive. Despite being a very rich organization, I sincerely doubt the Ecclesiarchy can afford to throw money away at something so ludicrously expensive when it doesn't really work that well.

By expensive, I mean "for what it costs to outfit one Sister for an extended campaign, you could outfit a Guard regiment for the same campaign" type expensive.

I don't care how rich the organization is, you don't spend that much money without some form of oversight, especially when you're constantly worried about corruption (Which the Ecclesiarchy is, because the Sisters and Inquisition are breathing down their backs if they don't police themselves).

I would like to see where you got the data for all these prices, cost-ratios and so on. Think how ostentatious/superfluous real world relgions have been, or just people in power generally speaking. Then realize that WH40k takes things and turns it up to 11, so the space church is going to be spending a lot.

Also why does a fictional universe that has plenty instances of absurd suspension of belief need a realistic econonmy? Other parts of the Imp bureacracy (I can't spell that for my life) are also shown to be over the top, from reports coming in centuries late, to losing entire planets in paperwork. The economics of the IoM should be no different.

For the prices, I obtained them from the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch roleplay systems.

It may be religion, but they're still human. They still want a return on their investment. Money and influence does not grow on trees.

I'd say that a badass space nun, ready to roast the enemies of man in holy flames of justice is a pretty good return on their investment

I guess my point is that in the real world you can find money being spent in the most absurd ways, so why not in WH. Of course I don't know the actual costs and stuff of power armour production, so it might be crazier than any real world examples.

That being said a litlle extra room around the chest, and some gold and dangly bits doesn't seem like a whole lot extra.

Manchu wrote:Explains why O'Shaserra doesn't have lady lumps on her armor. Then again, we don't know if Tau females even have lady lumps. Saint Hazard said they are avian rather than mammalian.

If I recall Xenology correctly they are mammalian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:For the prices, I obtained them from the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch roleplay systems.

It may be religion, but they're still human. They still want a return on their investment. Money and influence does not grow on trees.

Surely the whole concept of religious war and anti-science mitigates against a modernistic accounting/engineering approach.

The Empire doesn't analyse data and design things to do tasks efficiently. It uses equipment left over from thousands of years ago, which are regarded as holy relics.

Servo skulls are a good example. Their primary purpose is to honour fallen heroes of Imperial piety in order to inspire religious fervour. A skull sized polycarbonate sphere would be a much cheaper and tougher bodyshell for a light anti-grav drone.

To put it another way, the primary return on investment is not operational effectiveness, it is eternity in heaven with the Emperor. Much like the mediaeval crusades to the Holy Land.

Err, what? Sure it does. Mostly the Administratum, but the Imperium certainly does it.

There's a rather amusing quote in the Dark Heresy novels (well, one of the campaign books technically speaking) about an adept who thought it was a good idea to drop a large asteroid on a planet instead of bombard it with torpedos/missiles, and the adept's superior pointed out just how wrong he was and punished him for wasting the Emperor's resources.

Wait I'm confused, the adept wanted to save resources by using a big rock, but was punished for wasting resources? Wouldn't using the missiles be a waste?