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.
Psienesis wrote: I think the reaction aspect is simply social convention based on tradition. Because the male pronoun has been the default for a couple hundred years at this point, I think female readers are simply more accustomed to being referred to in the default "male" than male readers are in the other direction, though I certainly didn't have a problem with it reading Vampire: The Masquerade or Werewolf: The Apocalypse all those years ago YMMV.
That is just a guess, though.
Except this is nonsense, and a bad excuse. First of all, we have the singular "they", "their"; "The psyker concentrates their power to release a bolt of vicious warp-lightning". Second, it's every single time. Every time they can, they use male pronouns. Combined with the severe lack of female presence in the setting, this is just another morsel that proves our point. If they had adequate female representation - or any at all, really - then it might be okay to use male pronouns when referring to players.
When I was reading the psychic cards at the start of 6th, I noticed the all-male pronouns. Then I thought, "Are there any female psykers at all?".
"They" is not a formal English accepted pronoun for a singular person, from which GW's (and most every other publication) style of writing descends. Never has been. "They", formally, is always plural. Informal writing permits it to be both. Could it be? Sure. It's simply not used in that way, at least not traditionally. That is changing in the modern world, but a lot of people still learn to write in a traditional formal manner (those who write for a living, that is).
And, yes, as I said, it *is* every single time because that has been the accepted style of English print publications for over two hundred years. The male pronoun has been the default pronoun. If you want to see the historic development of writing styles, I would invite you to check out the Chicago Manual of Style, or any one of a number of similar publications in the English-speaking world. As CMOS shows below, "they" as singular is gaining favor, but is not traditionally correct.
Speaking of CMOS:
Q. I hope I’m not losing my mind. I’ve been told that “they” and “their” are used incorrectly in this sentence: “The telltale sign of a right-winger: they can’t write in English to save their lives.” I agree that it’s an awkward sentence, but is “they/their” used incorrectly? Thanks!
A. The use of they as a singular pronoun is a hot topic in online grammar forums. By traditional standards, the sentence is incorrect because it contains no plural noun for they to refer to. Traditionally, the correct versions are “The telltale sign of right-wingers: they can’t write in English to save their lives” and “The telltale sign of a right-winger: he can’t write in English to save his life.”
The growing acceptance of they as singular is in response to a need for a gender-neutral pronoun that avoids the use of he to mean he or she. Good writers would make right-winger plural to avoid the appearance of incorrectness or gender bias, but in other sentences the plural is not a good option: “Someone ate my Twinkie, and they’d better watch out!” In those contexts, many language experts now approve of the use of they. You can learn more by searching online for “singular they.”
Considering GW can't get basic grammar and punctuation right, do we really think they're concerned with whether academics will regard their use of "they/their/they're" incorrect?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 19:17:49
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Yes, but that's the point. It's gaining quite widespread acceptance - as your quote said, "many language experts now approve". Besides, Games Workshop can hardly be used as paragons of accurate writing.
Male is and has been used as default not because it actually is default, but because women essentially don't exist. This is why "they" is becoming correct.
Hopefully it just means that nothing in the Codex needed updating or an FAQ for 7th edition. If so, it's still pretty sad.
It's still shameful. A Digital Editions? Clan Raukaan got a book, as did most (if not all) supplements. Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 19:15:08
War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
text removed. Reds8n
War has been dominated by men because war favors the average man more than it does the average female. Moreso in the past, where physical traits were more important than they are nowadays. A main reason for a lot of partriarchic forms of government that are, fortunately, a relic of the past in civilized countries, were wars / battles where men dominated. Gladly, that time is over, but it still is the main reason why war is usually related to men.
In regards to Necrons, however, I think that the entire "he" thing should go immediately in favor of "it". Necrons are soulless automatons and therefore must be referred to as "it" and not "he" or "she".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 07:23:50
Frozen Ocean wrote: It's still shameful. A Digital Editions? Clan Raukaan got a book, as did most (if not all) supplements. Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
The new Stormtrooper models got a rename and Codex of their own despite everything in it being identical to the version in the AM Codex.
Oh, and I just looked up some rules, Exorcists are still technically limited to a 45 degree cone of fire straight up.
Could be fixed by adding the special rule to the Exorcist Missile Launcher: "Rocket Barrage: The Exorcist Missile Launcher is treated as having a vertical swivel of 360 degrees for line of sight purposes."
Took me about a minute to figure out how to phrase it and type it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 19:30:12
"Growing acceptance" is not "universally accepted". For all I know, the Oxford Manual of Style (which is, I think, what the UK bases their formal style on) does not share CMOS' acceptance of the term.
My ultimate point being that the male pronoun has long been the accepted standard in English writing, and is used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for rather a long time. I don't think there's an intentional sexism in the use (implied, perhaps, but by convention, not authorial intent). It's one of the limitations of the English language, which is changing, and that's fine, preferable even, but I think people are looking to assign sexism where there really isn't any (at least not on the part of the author).
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
To be fair to GW, the Digital Edition was not the same as the White Dwarf Codex. A mix of some improvements and some nerfs. SoB units themselves got better as they can now be taken in units of five with two special weapons with a combi on the Superior.
On balance I 'think' the Digital Edition was an improvement as the must have unit is a better unit.
Edit - Spelling
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 19:57:17
Precisely. "He" is most often used simply because of it being the easiest way to handle the issue. If you only used "she", it would be the very same "issue", some people portray and if you used "he" and "she" in an alternating fashion, it would be a lot of busy work for no worthwhile result.
So, pronouns not-withstanding, the Imperium doesn't discriminate based on sex (though individual planets might, as planetary governments, to my knowledge, can basically do whatever they want so long as they meet their tithes and blah blah blah). There's a million planets in the Imperium, certainly some of them must tithe female Imperial Guard regiments.
And personally, I'm not a huge fan of the Raging Heroes models. They're all designed like they're posing for a pin-up picture, rather than fighting a battle. They also tend to be more sexualized than I'd expect of either the Imperial Guard or especially the Sisters of Battle. Plus, I feel embarrassed just thinking of playing a game with them.
Also, I'm not sure that GW knows how to make female miniatures that both look female and don't have the breast outline clearly visible.
The TGG models are not the same one as their Order of Eternal Suffering or whatever it's called, their SOB-like line that is currently only in the concept stage. The TGG models are for an IG-like unit... and while some of them are rather scanty-clad, those are the ones that are supposed to be akin to a Penal Legion, so that makes some sense.
The Iron Empire troopers, though are dressed head-to-toe and look similar to DKOK troops... except better. Also, female.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Psienesis wrote: The TGG models are not the same one as their Order of Eternal Suffering or whatever it's called, their SOB-like line that is currently only in the concept stage. The TGG models are for an IG-like unit... and while some of them are rather scanty-clad, those are the ones that are supposed to be akin to a Penal Legion, so that makes some sense.
The Iron Empire troopers, though are dressed head-to-toe and look similar to DKOK troops... except better. Also, female.
Ahh, I'd heard that the Iron Empire were supposed to be the Sisters of Battle. Explains why I wasn't seeing the connection.
Ah, yeah, I had heard that, too, but it's a bit confusing.
"Iron Empire" is the catch-all umbrella term for their Not-Imperium faction, and includes several kinds of soldiers in its banner.
The Jailbirds are the cheesecake femme-soldiers, and they are basically a Penal Legion. Thus, they have the most overtly-sexualized outfits, because they're supposed to be rebellious.
Then there's the Iron Empire, which is the DKOK-looking troops, their cyber-zombies, and other effed-up-looking technosorcerous things, which are badass, but not particularly sexualized. This is the largest selection of troops/ICs available through the KS, including the bikers, the artillery pieces, and the various Troop boxes.
Then there are the Sisters of Eternal Mercy, which is still a concept-only army, which is akin to the SOB in theme, and is likewise (at least in concept art so far presented) not sexualized at all.
There's also some female Werewolves involved in this somewhere, a Baba Yaga-like Cyber-Witch, some sort of Mother/Crone Deific Avatar of some kind and some other oddball items that tie into the mythology, but Im not 100% sure on its structure.
Here's a Resin sculpt of one of the Iron Empire soldiers:
Spoiler:
And some Iron Empire Troops:
Spoiler:
Female, obviously, but not overtly sexualized.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 22:09:09
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Neh, they look more like Cosplayers than actual soldiers but I can appreciate the quality of the sculpts nonetheless. I just prefer more professional looking troops.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Actual soldiers are usually filthy, unkempt, unshaven and rather haggard after a week or two in the field. I dunno about "looking professional". BDUs only get starched by garrison units and other REMFs.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Yeah, but not wearing boob plates, tight clothing and thigh boots. That just seems really uncomfortable for no real benefit to their wearers. After all, they're going to be fighting a war.
I am not a fan of the TGG kickstarter. I much prefer the new VLM Arcadian guards for female miniatures.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 23:06:40
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
"Boob-plate" is not automatically a costume. It's just an aesthetic choice. Personally, I find the standard IG units boring (as I do with any historic army figure). For a sci-fi game, I want things to look sci-fi.
The VLM minis simply do boob-plate in a different way, it's a scalloped carapace shell that only covers their breasts. If they weren't wearing jackets under them, they'd be bare-bellied.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Wow, I didn't know that. They definitely do in the artwork, though.
No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:It is not about people (about half of the population is not all that interested in boobs, I guess), it is 40k players. And liking breasts in a given context is not the same as liking breast everywhere, all the time. So yeah, I hope we will change that!
I'm a 40k player. I like breasts. I'm a big fan of artistic nude and the artistic merit of clothing (I went through a fashion design phase a few years ago). I am a big fan of classical feminine beauty, grace, and all that stuff. That doesn't mean I want my girl soldiers to fight in heels and silk dresses. Being pretty is fine (look at the Eldar), but not things that are blatantly detrimental to their combat ability (power heels).
Yeah, that is what I meant with liking breast in a given context .
Sigvatr wrote: Judging from your post, you are clearly irrationaly-feminist, but just for what it's worth:
Woah, that is cool. I hope I will get some irrational-feminist token too one of those days, then I will be among of the cool people .
Obviously. If there was an errata, it would be automatically integrated in the book, like when they mega-nerfed the condemnor boltgun from a perfect answer to some of the worst power-list to a useless gimmick. No need for a PDF when there is no physical book anyway. But there was no errata or faq for 7th edition.
But yeah, GW really pushed me hard to start Warmachine. I just finished third at a tournament at my LGS, and got some coupon .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Oh, and I just looked up some rules, Exorcists are still technically limited to a 45 degree cone of fire straight up.
Could be fixed by adding the special rule to the Exorcist Missile Launcher: "Rocket Barrage: The Exorcist Missile Launcher is treated as having a vertical swivel of 360 degrees for line of sight purposes."
Took me about a minute to figure out how to phrase it and type it.
They did make a faq about it for the WDex edition. It said you could measure line of sight from any of the many barrels of the organ. But it said nothing to fix that stupid vertical axis issue.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 23:35:00
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Psienesis wrote: "Boob-plate" is not automatically a costume. It's just an aesthetic choice. Personally, I find the standard IG units boring (as I do with any historic army figure). For a sci-fi game, I want things to look sci-fi.
The VLM minis simply do boob-plate in a different way, it's a scalloped carapace shell that only covers their breasts. If they weren't wearing jackets under them, they'd be bare-bellied.
Oh, I know, and I think they're appropriate for some armies (Eldar, DEldar and Slaanesh come to mind) but not for Imperial Guard. You could justify it by saying their homeworld cares more about form over function and that's fine. They just don't do it for me.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
TheCustomLime wrote:Imperial Guard, Tau and MTS are possible.
Xenonian Free Companies. The one all-female Guard regiment GW has ever officially admitted to exist.
A Town Called Malus wrote:However mixed gender companies are kind of rare in the IG, aren't they? Going from what I remember from the Ciaphas Cain novels (though I haven't read them in ages so could be wrong).
Mixed gender companies are as common or rare as you want. The Cain novels depict only one possible interpretation of the 40k setting (and one that is conflicting with Codex fluff on several other details), they are not authoritative and certainly not the only one.
In my opinion, it all depends on a regiment's homeworld and how gender roles work in its culture, and thus its PDF. And not just gender, but virtually anything else that could be (ab)used to categorise people.
Maybe there's one planet in the Imperium where only men and women with black hair are allowed to serve in the military?
koooaei wrote:Boob plates are not doing any good technically, are not needed and are making the plate's protection worse. [...] Boob plates are an old discussion. And in the end fan-service always wins against common sence. Thus we have boob plates. Well, cause people like boobs, i guess
At least in case of the SoB, there are a number of both in-universe as well as out-of-universe justifications you can pull to make it less obvious, though.
Also, the assumption of a negative effect on armour protection misses out on some crucial facts, such as the multiple effects of sloped armour on ballistic impacts (there's a reason this has become a standard for tanks), as well as the greater dispersion of incoming las energy upon a sloped surface as opposed to a flat chest.
In the end, an argument could be made that the unique shape of the "boob armour" actually increases its protection, since the relative thickness of the plating against attacks from the front is increased, and because projectiles penetrating the armour on a sloped surface are far more likely to be redirected and possibly get stuck within the material, rather than punching through.
It may sound silly, and I don't think for a moment that this was either the in-universe or the out-of-universe reason behind it, but it is not as terrible as many people make it out to be.
I think I have gotten so used to the Sisters' current look that I could never picture them without it, but then again I am a stickler for consistency and dislike changes to something I already like. Also, it helps a lot that it's still a fully enclosed suit of armour as opposed to a chainmail bikini. Sisters in PA can look very warlike if drawn "right" (meaning: bulky, and NO HEELS).
Spoiler:
Pouncey wrote:The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
This is something I noticed in the Shadowrun and Battletech rulebooks as well. Though those franchises have had a good track record for quite some time when it comes to gender and minorities.
Sigvatr wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote:War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
Judging from your post, you are clearly irrationaly-feminist, but just for what it's worth: War has been dominated by men because war favors the average man more than it does the average female.
If that were the only reason, there would not have been the laws and blatant suppression we have on record, nor entire nations throwing a wench into this revisionist claim.
You may also notice how society used to, and in some cases still does, exclude women from a lot of positions of power that have nothing to do whatsoever with martial prowess, so the real reason seems to be that same old-fashioned human tendency to segregate and dominate that also resulted in the widespread acceptance of slavery based on and justified not by crime but by skin colour. Because humans sure love to group individuals into different categories and judge/value them based on these labels.
Of course, things like these keep getting harder and harder to defend the more enlightened a culture becomes, but there is still a remarkable amount of resistance camouflaged by a variety of pretextual assumptions.
In short, you are half right in that war has been dominated by men due to the physical differences you mentioned, yet you fail to acknowledge that it would have been merely a "mostly dominated" if there also had not also been an ongoing effort to limit or outright eliminate the participation of those women who would have otherwise been able to make the cut. Nor do you seem to be aware of the fact that a lot more women have been participating in war than commonly understood, simply because stuff like the existence of female knights, warriors and samurai tends to get conveniently omitted.
I discovered quite a few unexpected things once I began reading up on the topic, the aforementioned Dahomey amongst them, as well as a muster roll for female peasant militia during the War of the Roses, or female mercenaries in medieval Europe. Unfortunately, these are things you simply don't get told in school or most entertainment, which in turn influences the perception and expectation of the next generation, and thus future teachers and creators of entertainment. It's a vicious cycle, and humanity as a whole suffers from the effects of the ensuing bias.
Psienesis wrote:"Growing acceptance" is not "universally accepted". For all I know, the Oxford Manual of Style (which is, I think, what the UK bases their formal style on) does not share CMOS' acceptance of the term.
My ultimate point being that the male pronoun has long been the accepted standard in English writing, and is used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for rather a long time. I don't think there's an intentional sexism in the use (implied, perhaps, but by convention, not authorial intent). It's one of the limitations of the English language, which is changing, and that's fine, preferable even, but I think people are looking to assign sexism where there really isn't any (at least not on the part of the author).
I agree. Although it does seem odd that Games Workshop continues down this road in spite of the rising criticism. One would think they'd be aware of the controversy, given how easy it is to stumble over it on the web.
Also, it is suspicious how they not only flat-out refuse to do stuff like female Cadians to make their miniatures fit to their own background, but even go so far as to decrease the amount of female IG they had in their catalogue.
RIP, Catachan Vasquez. Her balls of steelpewter were so massive, it was apparently impossible to convert her to plastics like the rest of her (now all-male) squad.
I don't believe GW as a whole could be called sexist as opposed to simply being stuck in that damned "white male default" industry standard, but given the high frequency of these coincidences I would not be surprised if there was at least one person inside who might follow this agenda. Alternatively, the company has come to the conclusion that having a sexist background and miniatures selection actually nets them more profit with the target audience of young boys. But I'm not sure if this would be more innocent or more insidious.
At least you can choose to paint your minis in a different skin colour, regardless of Codex artworks.
Psienesis wrote:Female, obviously, but not overtly sexualized.
Ehh ...
Does it sound funny that I consider GW's Escher minis (!) to be less sexualised simply because of the poses?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
Was about to point this out, but you're taking the words out of my mouth, Sister.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:But yeah, GW really pushed me hard to start Warmachine. I just finished third at a tournament at my LGS, and got some coupon .
I feel you. Not that I'm playing Warmachine or am about to start it, but the ongoing development of the franchise is something that has affected my enthusiasm. I'm dissatisfied with the status of the SoB both in rules as well as licensed material. I'm dissatisfied with the reduction of female minis (they don't even sell Eschers anymore). I'm dissatisfied with the price hikes. The book layout. The rules. The contents of White Dwarf. The evolution of the fluff. The list goes on.
I don't think I'll ever forget about 40k entirely, but let's just say that there are other franchises, hobbies and fandoms that feel a lot more inclusive, and less strongly focused on a single army out of a dozen playable factions.
War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
you are clearly irrationaly-feminist
You brought up this "fact" (that war has been dominated by men because women can't do war, or something, and that GW is trying to be historically accurate) as a reason for an enormous lack of female presence in both the setting itself and the models. As I said in my previous post, this is demonstrably irrelevant. Even if you were right, we have the Necrons, whose entire species, ostensibly, was bio-transferred, and yet apparently they left all the ladies for the Enslavers; Cadians, whose conscription rate is 100% (note that 100% means the women too); and Sisters of Battle, who are all-female but repeatedly get neglected, even abused. Anyway, the point is that you consider it "irrationally feminist" to want female models and characters?
Sigvatr wrote:In regards to Necrons, however, I think that the entire "he" thing should go immediately in favor of "it". Necrons are soulless automatons and therefore must be referred to as "it" and not "he" or "she".
Except they are people now. Mr Atronyr'tep was a male Necron'tyr before, and getting a robot body does not change that he is the same person as he was before. Are you arguing that a man is no longer male if you remove his genitalia? Are the Daemon Primarchs genderless, despite being male before?
Pouncey wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote: It's still shameful. A Digital Editions? Clan Raukaan got a book, as did most (if not all) supplements. Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
The new Stormtrooper models got a rename and Codex of their own despite everything in it being identical to the version in the AM Codex.
Exactly my point. This sort of nonsense gets a full release and yet Sisters get very little.
Sigvatr wrote:Precisely. "He" is most often used simply because of it being the easiest way to handle the issue. If you only used "she", it would be the very same "issue", some people portray and if you used "he" and "she" in an alternating fashion, it would be a lot of busy work for no worthwhile result.
As we have pointed out, they could use "they". Even if they didn't, it wouldn't be important if all the other problems we are bringing up didn't exist. In light of them, it's bad.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote: Wow, I didn't know that. They definitely do in the artwork, though.
No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:It is not about people (about half of the population is not all that interested in boobs, I guess), it is 40k players. And liking breasts in a given context is not the same as liking breast everywhere, all the time.
So yeah, I hope we will change that!
I'm a 40k player. I like breasts. I'm a big fan of artistic nude and the artistic merit of clothing (I went through a fashion design phase a few years ago). I am a big fan of classical feminine beauty, grace, and all that stuff. That doesn't mean I want my girl soldiers to fight in heels and silk dresses. Being pretty is fine (look at the Eldar), but not things that are blatantly detrimental to their combat ability (power heels).
Yeah, that is what I meant with liking breast in a given context .
I was agreeing with you!
Lynata wrote:
koooaei wrote:Boob plates are not doing any good technically, are not needed and are making the plate's protection worse. [...] Boob plates are an old discussion. And in the end fan-service always wins against common sence. Thus we have boob plates. Well, cause people like boobs, i guess
At least in case of the SoB, there are a number of both in-universe as well as out-of-universe justifications you can pull to make it less obvious, though.
Also, the assumption of a negative effect on armour protection misses out on some crucial facts, such as the multiple effects of sloped armour on ballistic impacts (there's a reason this has become a standard for tanks), as well as the greater dispersion of incoming las energy upon a sloped surface as opposed to a flat chest.
In the end, an argument could be made that the unique shape of the "boob armour" actually increases its protection, since the relative thickness of the plating against attacks from the front is increased, and because projectiles penetrating the armour on a sloped surface are far more likely to be redirected and possibly get stuck within the material, rather than punching through.
It may sound silly, and I don't think for a moment that this was either the in-universe or the out-of-universe reason behind it, but it is not as terrible as many people make it out to be.
Except it is. Boob plate creates what is known as a "shot trap", deflecting projectiles and shrapnel that impacts the chest (the place where most shots hit) either at itself (deflecting from one boob into the other boob, as it were), upwards (into the chin/neck) or directly into the sternum. The funny thing is that GW even recognise this attribute, as it is the given reason for the creation of MkVIII "Errant" armour. Boob plate severely weakens the effectiveness of the armour against everything, unfortunately.
Lexicanum wrote:The suit itself is a highly modified Mark 7, with additional fixed armour plates on the torso that now enclose all of the suit's cables, which were vulnerable to weapons fire, and a new armoured collar protects the helmet's respirator, and also addressed the vunerability issues of the neck joint, which had been known to act as a "shell-trap", (a round could hit the chest armour and be deflected up into the neck joint).
Lynata wrote:
I think I have gotten so used to the Sisters' current look that I could never picture them without it, but then again I am a stickler for consistency and dislike changes to something I already like. Also, it helps a lot that it's still a fully enclosed suit of armour as opposed to a chainmail bikini. Sisters in PA can look very warlike if drawn "right" (meaning: bulky, and NO HEELS).
Spoiler:
I like that, especially the boots. Really the only thing they need is a thickened sternum section, meaning that there are still "boob plates", but with a flat region between them. A little like this armour from Mass Effect, although this is definitely not perfect. It would be an excellent region to put yet more iconography on, as well, which works for Sisters.
Lynata wrote:
Spoiler:
Sigvatr wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote:War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
Judging from your post, you are clearly irrationaly-feminist, but just for what it's worth: War has been dominated by men because war favors the average man more than it does the average female.
If that were the only reason, there would not have been the laws and blatant suppression we have on record, nor entire nations throwing a wench into this revisionist claim.
You may also notice how society used to, and in some cases still does, exclude women from a lot of positions of power that have nothing to do whatsoever with martial prowess, so the real reason seems to be that same old-fashioned human tendency to segregate and dominate that also resulted in the widespread acceptance of slavery based on and justified not by crime but by skin colour. Because humans sure love to group individuals into different categories and judge/value them based on these labels.
Of course, things like these keep getting harder and harder to defend the more enlightened a culture becomes, but there is still a remarkable amount of resistance camouflaged by a variety of pretextual assumptions.
In short, you are half right in that war has been dominated by men due to the physical differences you mentioned, yet you fail to acknowledge that it would have been merely a "mostly dominated" if there also had not also been an ongoing effort to limit or outright eliminate the participation of those women who would have otherwise been able to make the cut. Nor do you seem to be aware of the fact that a lot more women have been participating in war than commonly understood, simply because stuff like the existence of female knights, warriors and samurai tends to get conveniently omitted.
I discovered quite a few unexpected things once I began reading up on the topic, the aforementioned Dahomey amongst them, as well as a muster roll for female peasant militia during the War of the Roses, or female mercenaries in medieval Europe. Unfortunately, these are things you simply don't get told in school or most entertainment, which in turn influences the perception and expectation of the next generation, and thus future teachers and creators of entertainment. It's a vicious cycle, and humanity as a whole suffers from the effects of the ensuing bias.
Psienesis wrote:"Growing acceptance" is not "universally accepted". For all I know, the Oxford Manual of Style (which is, I think, what the UK bases their formal style on) does not share CMOS' acceptance of the term.
My ultimate point being that the male pronoun has long been the accepted standard in English writing, and is used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for rather a long time. I don't think there's an intentional sexism in the use (implied, perhaps, but by convention, not authorial intent). It's one of the limitations of the English language, which is changing, and that's fine, preferable even, but I think people are looking to assign sexism where there really isn't any (at least not on the part of the author).
I agree. Although it does seem odd that Games Workshop continues down this road in spite of the rising criticism. One would think they'd be aware of the controversy, given how easy it is to stumble over it on the web.
Also, it is suspicious how they not only flat-out refuse to do stuff like female Cadians to make their miniatures fit to their own background, but even go so far as to decrease the amount of female IG they had in their catalogue.
RIP, Catachan Vasquez. Her balls of steelpewter were so massive, it was apparently impossible to convert her to plastics like the rest of her (now all-male) squad.
I don't believe GW as a whole could be called sexist as opposed to simply being stuck in that damned "white male default" industry standard, but given the high frequency of these coincidences I would not be surprised if there was at least one person inside who might follow this agenda. Alternatively, the company has come to the conclusion that having a sexist background and miniatures selection actually nets them more profit with the target audience of young boys. But I'm not sure if this would be more innocent or more insidious.
At least you can choose to paint your minis in a different skin colour, regardless of Codex artworks.
All well-said, and exalted.
Of what few female characters we have, two that I can think of have been removed or will be removed. Inquisitor Valeria was removed from the Inquisition book (she was in Grey Knights, from which the Inquisition book was essentially copied and pasted), and Lady Malys has never had a model, which means she'll probably be removed as well. We have no female IG characters. We don't even have any female Farseers. Imperial Knights were given an arbitrary restriction on female pilots. The deeds of Callidus Assassins are almost entirely "... and then they got horribly butchered" (accidentally stabbing The Deceiver, the assisted suicide of Curze). Half the factions in the setting (Orks and Space Marines of all flavours) are entirely male, whereas factions that should have women have none. At a rough guess, we have maybe fifty characters in these gender-neutral armies, and all of them are men except for Shadowsun and Lelith Hesperax the Bikini Gladiator.
EDIT: I just had a fun thought. If you were right about boob armour being more protective, Lynata, then that would make it prudent for men to have boob armour, too.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 04:01:23
Pouncey wrote:I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
Other than agreeing to fight Oxy on Vassal at first convenience, this is really the only thing I want to reply to now..
Check out the 7th edition rulebook's Psychic Phase. Sarah is kicking some backside with the Witchfires.
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
Lynata wrote: I don't believe GW as a whole could be called sexist as opposed to simply being stuck in that damned "white male default" industry standard, but given the high frequency of these coincidences I would not be surprised if there was at least one person inside who might follow this agenda. Alternatively, the company has come to the conclusion that having a sexist background and miniatures selection actually nets them more profit with the target audience of young boys. But I'm not sure if this would be more innocent or more insidious.
Well, let us be honest here: there are few female models, but those that exists are usually pretty tactful. They do have boobplate a lot, but on eldar skintight armors are common and shared between gender. They also have Shadowsun, which is as far as boobplate (or any bikini armor trope) as can be. Though thinking about it, I cannot think of any new female character introduced by GW proper after Shadowsun, actually. Unlike, say, Relic (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, …)
Lynata wrote: Was about to point this out, but you're taking the words out of my mouth, Sister.
Brother . This usually happens on the phone, not on the internet.
Lynata wrote: I don't think I'll ever forget about 40k entirely
Me neither. Proof, I am still posting here, using a SoB avatar and rank progression and signature. But I am not buying new GW models or book, and I have yet to play a game of 7th edition (I left my Sisters in Grenoble, while I took my trollbloods with me in Paris, so I play Warmachine a LOT more).
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
This pleases me.
This is another illustration from the same codex, which was never reused as far as I know, but which is much closer to the actual models .
Spoiler:
Frozen Ocean wrote: I like that, especially the boots. Really the only thing they need is a thickened sternum section, meaning that there are still "boob plates", but with a flat region between them. A little like this armour from Mass Effect, although this is definitely not perfect. It would be an excellent region to put yet more iconography on, as well, which works for Sisters.
Anything that screams “I have way too much money and not any hint of good taste, let us add more bling” is good, for Sisters . The “bad taste, too much bling” is very needed, though. Anything looking too practical is unfit.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Half the factions in the setting (Orks and Space Marines of all flavours) are entirely male, whereas factions that should have women have none.
Orks are not entirely male, they are entirely genderless.
Frozen Ocean wrote: At a rough guess, we have maybe fifty characters in these gender-neutral armies
I thought we had that much only with marines characters .
Frozen Ocean wrote: EDIT: I just had a fun thought. If you were right about boob armour being more protective, Lynata, then that would make it prudent for men to have boob armour, too.
Furyou Miko wrote: Other than agreeing to fight Oxy on Vassal at first convenience
Vassal? As soon as I find Between on the map, I will come and kill your miniatures face to face!
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 09:37:19
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Frozen Ocean wrote: Then we have the Sisters of Battle, a faction entirely composed of girls, which incidentally happens to be the most neglected faction by far, with ancient minis and a "Codex" in White Dwarf. Sure, they said there were "sculpting issues", but I really don't believe that.
Sisters have a more recent Codex than that, actually:
Hopefully it just means that nothing in the Codex needed updating or an FAQ for 7th edition. If so, it's still pretty sad.
Yup, i play Adepta Sororitas by the New codex.
Rules are pretty clear and concise, no FAQ or errata needed.
A brand new codex with plastic minis would always be welcome though....
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
Pouncey wrote:I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
Other than agreeing to fight Oxy on Vassal at first convenience, this is really the only thing I want to reply to now..
Check out the 7th edition rulebook's Psychic Phase. Sarah is kicking some backside with the Witchfires.
Dude, no way!
After the transformer out back exploded yesterday, I started reading the WH40k rulebook some more (still haven't read the whole thing) and since I'd skipped over the Psychic Phase section because it said to read the Shooting Phase section first, I went back to read it, and noticed that thing about Sarah!
Orks are not entirely male, they are entirely genderless.
Was gonna say that. However, their main Troops units are called "Boyz" but that's because they're themed after football hooligans.
Also, in regards to women fighting in real wars, wasn't there a woman who fought in World War 1 and ended up taking a bunch of enemy soldiers prisoner all on her own after she went to the woods to pee and accidentally returned to the wrong trench? I think she fought in World War 2, too.
hehe, I see... well, Between's a big place, you might be looking a while.
Pouncey;
Yeah, I know. I had to reread it like, three times before I realised that yes, that IS a woman's name, and then they manage to call her 'she' for the entire rest of the paragraph!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 12:14:31
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
Furyou Miko wrote: hehe, I see... well, Between's a big place, you might be looking a while.
Not if we settle on a nice meeting point. Unless of course if you do not want a face-to-face battle and would rather play it with no models, no table, and no fun in general.
Furyou Miko wrote: Yeah, I know. I had to reread it like, three times before I realised that yes, that IS a woman's name, and then they manage to call her 'she' for the entire rest of the paragraph!
Who is that Sarah? I have not bought the 7th edition rulebook, I was busy with Warmachine and not eager to buy GW product.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Furyou Miko wrote: hehe, I see... well, Between's a big place, you might be looking a while.
Not if we settle on a nice meeting point. Unless of course if you do not want a face-to-face battle and would rather play it with no models, no table, and no fun in general.
Furyou Miko wrote: Yeah, I know. I had to reread it like, three times before I realised that yes, that IS a woman's name, and then they manage to call her 'she' for the entire rest of the paragraph!
Who is that Sarah? I have not bought the 7th edition rulebook, I was busy with Warmachine and not eager to buy GW product.
Just a random example player they used in one of their examples in the rulebooks. Basically instead of saying Player A and Player B, they give them random names.
Frozen Ocean wrote:Except it is. Boob plate creates what is known as a "shot trap", deflecting projectiles and shrapnel that impacts the chest (the place where most shots hit) either at itself (deflecting from one boob into the other boob, as it were), upwards (into the chin/neck) or directly into the sternum. The funny thing is that GW even recognise this attribute, as it is the given reason for the creation of MkVIII "Errant" armour. Boob plate severely weakens the effectiveness of the armour against everything, unfortunately.
The "shot trap" argument is what comes up again and again, but I think it's overrated: Assuming the projectile does not have sufficient kinetic energy and hardiness to pierce the armour in the first place (eliminating the issue of deflection altogether), it will lose a portion of its impact force and thus be weakened whenever (if) it hits the second plate, further lowering the chance for full penetration - especially as it would again impact at a sloped angle.
Also, if you look at the sternum section of the armour, you'll notice it is sort of "reinforced" by being enclosed by the heavy respirator from above, and the padded dust-cover from below, offering additional protection as a side effect. It's not much, but even if a shot gets deflected into there it is going to face more resistance than if it had impacted just on a flat chest. Some minis also feature an additional piece of iconography affixed there, kind of like you suggested.
Furthermore, the improvements of the Marines' Errant-pattern armour are already worked into the Sisters' Angel-pattern: Every suit of Sororitas armour features an armoured collar, and the studded "corset" dust cover is protecting the underlying "gill" plates.
If you need more to justify the appearance, simply consider the sternum section to also feature a few millimeters thicker armour, and the dust cover to be fashioned from flak material.
In the end, ballistic weapons (autoguns, bolters, shootas, splinter rifles, etc) on the battlefields of the 41st millennium will mostly feature some penetrating effect that sees the projectile burrow at least somewhat into the armour rather than being deflected entirely, which means they will spend much (perhaps even all) of their kinetic energy. It won't just jump off the plate leaving nothing but a scratch and retain its full force - that is an oversimplification, and probably the origin of the "SoB shot trap" theory. Shot traps are only a concern if you either do not design the armour taking this into account, and if your enemies really are using crap guns that don't feature penetration. Given how every single weapon in the game is capable of punching through power armour, I'd say this is not the case in 40k.
This is how the effect works, by the way:
The sloped angle confers a chain of benefits to the wearer of the armour: It increases the amount of plating a ballistic projectile has to burrow through (by essentially having it groove along in a curved path), thus reducing their speed (either stopping it completely, or making it less dangerous if it does ricochet), and it reduces the effectiveness of las weaponry.
Unlike with some early tanks' weakpoints, there is no section on the breastplate that is not intended to stop an incoming projectile, so even if a bullet bounces off the armour, how is it supposed to get more dangerous rather than less, considering the expense of kinetic energy?
It's ironic how I am otherwise not a fan of boob armour, but in the Sisters' case I am playing Devil's Advocate. As I said, it's probably just because this is how I got to know them.
Frozen Ocean wrote:I just had a fun thought. If you were right about boob armour being more protective, Lynata, then that would make it prudent for men to have boob armour, too.
I admit, the thought crossed my mind.
Though the most effective form would probably be a "single boob" located in the center. Or a large cone, but this is where it gets ridiculous and severely impractical.
Frozen Ocean wrote:Imperial Knights were given an arbitrary restriction on female pilots.
Huh, really?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Brother
Apologies, I tend to refer to people based on their avatar and affiliation...
Though in retrospect, your name does create an awkward paradox. >_<
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Orks are not entirely male, they are entirely genderless.
He has a point in that they are following a masculine design - both in visuals as well as naming. Saying that Orks aren't male is a bit like claiming Space Marines are genderless: it's both true and it isn't, depending on how you define it.
If you would know nothing about 40k, and just had the images to go by, what would you think Orks are? How do you believe they are perceived?
Also, just like with Necrons, GW keeps referring to individual Orks as "he" rather than "it" - the proper term for a fungus, if we want to get pedantic.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
.
.
.
