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.

Exactly, it's reasonable, and even still has a sense of femininity and sensuality about it... that being said riku is really hot, but no one looks like that.

Monster Rain wrote:

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?

This is a complex question that is hard to answer in the scope of a single post. Simply put "Sexulization" does not equate to "Pretty", "Having a Sexuality Identity", "Sexually Attractive" or heck even in the extreme "Having Sex".

What it does mean (and this is a gross simplification), is incorporating elements, adding context, or framing something in such a way as to increase, create or focus on the sexual appeal that the subject may (or may not) have otherwise to a certain audience or audiences, for the purpose of doing so.

EDIT: An example of this can be shown with two depictions of a character from Magic: the Gathering.


http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_Elspeth_1024.jpg

http://www.giftsungiven.com/ElspethTirelfullartl.jpgg

You'll note that there isn't too big a difference in her overall design between the two different version. However the second version is much more sexualized (though it's still well above average for magic and really gaming as a whole).

Sexualized? You betcha.

The point is, fantasy works better than reality in a fantasy game. And, honestly, take the long-hair off of that anime lady knight and you've got a totally androgynous look.

SaintHazard 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.

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 that's only partly right, if your armor is hard enough to withstand the attack without bending it's still going to stop the attack but being slanted helps so being harder does actually help, but back in the middle ages, steel was good enough, now the opposite is true, you only get marginal returns from the angle of armor unless you are making it true sloped armor (which is a tale for another time) because projectiles tend to move fast enough to not be deflected a lot, unless you have a really hard armor, so you really do need a strong hard armor to deflect, sloping just helps, and also makes it rigid. Design/sloping is really only half the story, granted it is a big part but you do need strong materials to back that design up.

Maces were able to grip the armor and had the mass to do damage, The slant of medival armor was there to deflect thrusts, not sideways swings. A good battle axe would still fell you though, even if it didn't make it through the armor, youd still be on the ground.

as to keeping the SOBs legs I'd think you'd need a thicker armor there to hold the weight, anyway I've found another good power armor




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
The point is, fantasy works better than reality in a fantasy game. And, honestly, take the long-hair off of that anime lady knight and you've got a totally androgynous look.

I don't know i think she's kinda cute but then again I do like the strong independant types with brains. I.E. that don't go off to battle in bare midriffs

Manchu wrote:
The point is, fantasy works better than reality in a fantasy game. And, honestly, take the long-hair off of that anime lady knight and you've got a totally androgynous look.

Not at all. The overall look of the armor seems distinctly feminine to me, especially where the upper arm meets the lower portion of the shoulder. You could stick just about any helmet on her (provided it wasn't extremely boxy) and still be obviously female.

I see a slight swell at best. The rest would be perfectly suitable for an anime male.

40k power armor isn't steel armor, however. It's primarily "ceramite".

Manchu wrote:I see a slight swell at best. The rest would be perfectly suitable for an anime male.

"Anime Male" is a bit too wide a category to deal with. I have to wonder, is that picture from one of the Fire Emblem games maybe? It looks a lot like that style. It'd be easier to bring up examples if I had a smaller set draw comparisons from.

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.

I am fine with this. But if the face sculpts don't get better I wouldn't be able to tell that they're female.

as long as it's possible to tell that they're chicks it's fine with me.

I don't know, but it does look like an appropriate source for it.

I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.

Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.

SMs are the exact opposite of sexy.

Huge old bald muscle-builders with scars, wrinkles, and warts everywhere? Yuck.

@KillKrazy
If i was able to sig that. I would.

Screw this banner, I'm getting a proper sig.

It shal be sigged

Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.

I too loose many a nights sleep to those armoured dreamboats...

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.

SMs are the exact opposite of sexy.

Huge old bald muscle-builders with scars, wrinkles, and warts everywhere? Yuck.

Exactly, super hot for the gay community.

Seriously, they are hyper-masculinized, why else do you think they appeal to teenage boys so much. Talk about sub-text!

Back on topic and seriously, SoBs have always been depicted as Domina Queens. It's ridiculous and disgusting, and one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K in the early 90s.

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.

SMs are the exact opposite of sexy.

Huge old bald muscle-builders with scars, wrinkles, and warts everywhere? Yuck.

I'm almost certain he was being glib. And a troll. With an ounce or so of class.

Kilkrazy wrote:Exactly, super hot for the gay community.

Oh, well that explains why they reproduce by planting their [gene]seed in young boys.

I know.

In case you haven't noticed, I occasionally intentionally answer things like that with a completely serious face because it is more interesting than simply saying "lol".

Melissia wrote:I know.

In case you haven't noticed, I occasionally intentionally answer things like that with a completely serious face because it is more interesting than simply saying "lol".

Put that bag of troll food away.

You'll attract more. Then they'll become dependent upon us for their food, and you'll ruin the local ecosystem. Do you want that?

Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic and seriously, SoBs have always been depicted as Domina Queens. It's ridiculous and disgusting, and one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K in the early 90s.

...says the captain of Hive Fleet Kielbasa...

Medium of Death wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.

I too loose many a nights sleep to those armoured dreamboats...

I loose nights sleep thinking about the armor itself... is that normal? even though power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.

gendoikari87 wrote:power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.

Explain why you believe so?

gendoikari87 wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.

I too loose many a nights sleep to those armoured dreamboats...

I loose nights sleep thinking about the armor itself... is that normal? even though power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.

Not necessarily. From an "armor" standpoint, possibly, but from a "suit that basically triples your strength and allows you to perform feats of strength, agility, and endurance that would give a world-class athlete a hernia in five seconds flat," it's got lots of excellent applications.

Hell, even as armor, think about many of the enemies the U.S. Army faces - lots and lots and lots of massed small-arms fire is the norm, be it Iraq, Somalia, or Bosnia. Any suit of armor that can withstand mass small-arms fire is an asset, not a liability.

Now against anything with armor-piercing capabilities, you'd turning that suit of armor into a deathtrap.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.

Explain why you believe so?

On it's face, power armor seems to be the pinnacle of battlefield technology but under any real world timelines, by the time you can use power armor you are fully capable of mass producing both air and ground drones which are far more effective and efficient, and don't require that you loose a valuble soldier should they die. They can be controlled from laptops miles away from the battle and easily shielded from harm both physical and EMP. And their human counterparts can be kept safe in armored fighting vehicles. The army has already started to realize this and the simple fact that power armor is at best a logistics nightmare without some super advanced power generator and fuel, and even then you can mass produce drones in the thousands, make them small enough to clear buildings and if you really want to you could make them solar powered with an electricly powered weapon like a laser once the tech becomes good enough, it won't be as good as a combat rifle but it's a near zero logistics supply train, and you win wars by going after the supply trains, not the soldiers and tanks. Now a power armored trooper would be a god on the battlefield, and you might still need them to hold ground, but loosing one is a bad thing when you can have wave after wave of drones to follow up, essentially and endless supply of soldiers.

Not necessarily. From an "armor" standpoint, possibly, but from a "suit that basically triples your strength and allows you to perform feats of strength, agility, and endurance that would give a world-class athlete a hernia in five seconds flat," it's got lots of excellent applications.

oh theres no arguing that the current prototypes are going to be a god send for logistics and combat engineers, but as a weapon, probably not.... unless you start putting big heavy weapons on them and sending those into battle in the mean time untill we devolope true drones.

*by drones I don't mean self aware and autonomous, I mean ROV's with guns.

basically these

They aren't pretty or coo, but they are cheap hard to kill, powerful and infinitely renewable. Basically the ultimate soldier.. or in 40k terms guardsmen in power armor for 3 points... except the current versions can't climb stairs.... soooooo, we still need soldiers to go into harms way and clear houses and hold ground....

Power armor is basically for the guy who wants to go out in a blaze of glory and actually have that blaze matter. Your going to be taken down eventually by something but your going to get far before you do. There's a glory associated with knights in armor, an honor associated with valor and justice, thats why we keep trying to bring back plate armor. I can definately see top important generals in the stuff but ground troops? no, distance is a better armor than two inches of adamantium.

I've actually taken the proactive step of greenstuffing curlers and chastity belts on all of my harlot SoBs.

kronk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic and seriously, SoBs have always been depicted as Domina Queens. It's ridiculous and disgusting, and one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K in the early 90s.

...says the captain of Hive Fleet Kielbasa...

I see you understand some Polish.

Now that was funny, an american guy calling an eurofag "prude" .


No , seriously (and I didn´t mean to be derogatory with the "sexist fetish" comment, is just how it is), I just think its quite obvious what GW (and other fantasy/Sci Fi designers) are pursuing by focusing in that kind of aesthetic. Since they seem to spend some time lurking in forums like this they might be aware of what most of the youngest fanbase are looking for: a dark fictional world when men are über men and women are pleasing looking goths with big swords. Just the opposite of what they get on real life. Unfortunately that is what he have inherited from the awesome 80´s setting.

On the other hand I´m sorry to differ with those who don´t like John Blanche. His drawings are the essence of 40k universe wickedness; without it that very universe just wouldn´t exist or wouldn´t be the same we all know, IMO..

Wiglaf wrote:Now that was funny, an american guy calling an eurofag "prude" .

I didn't call you anything, I think you misunderstood my post.

I'm just wondering if I should complain about Catachan Guardsmen being overly sexualized. I mean, those are definitely worse than SoB on that standpoint, aren't they? Not wearing any armor for the sake of showing off huge ripped torsos and gigantic biceps! But you know what? I'm actually fond of my army looking like a bunch of "hurrr! I'm Ramboo!" bodybuilders. I like the reference to movies like Predator and, well Rambo and so on. It's a game, after all. From that standpoint, I'm not sure I can completely understand being actually really annoyed by SoB models.

And one thing about the SoB being based on Templar knights and therefore not living up to their role model...so, okay, they don't wear armor like Knights Templar did. But they also strap girls to huge hissing walking engine thingies. Is that annoying, too, because those aren't based on the Templars? What I'm saying is, the Sisters of Battle are, of course, diverging in one way or another from the role model of Knights Templar, why is it so bad when they do so when it comes to body armor?

Witzkatz wrote:And one thing about the SoB being based on Templar knights and therefore not living up to their role model...so, okay, they don't wear armor like Knights Templar did. But they also strap girls to huge hissing walking engine thingies. Is that annoying, too, because those aren't based on the Templars? What I'm saying is, the Sisters of Battle are, of course, diverging in one way or another from the role model of Knights Templar, why is it so bad when they do so when it comes to body armor?

Hold on...

The Knights Templar didn't have flamethrowers and giant Chainsaws?