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.

 DeffDred wrote:

 KingDeath wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Just curious if any of you have ever seen a real piece of armour designed for a female fighter? Because they look just like what the current Sisters' models are wearing.

Since female warriors in armour were quite rare there aren't too many pictures about them.
The few i know about show them either in ringmail or rather "normal" ( that is, no boobarmour ) plate like this one

I hope that's not Joan of Arc. There is only one known image of her from her life time and she wasn't depicted in armour.

She was carrying a banner, had long hair and massive bustline. However it was a drawing by a commoner.

I believe the book in which I learned this was Women Warriors or Warrior Women sorry I can't remember the author. Also explains the whole Amazon confusion pretty well.

,

The picture is indeed suposed to be Jeanne d'Arc, although it is not a contemporary painting ( afaik there is not a single contemporary painting which still exists ) . The important part is the armour which, although quite detailed, doesn't show any "boob armour". The idea of such "feminised" armour appears to be a rather modern one and nothing that would make any kind of sense to a late medieval/ early modern age person.

 LunaHound wrote:
D....K.... chan? is that you?

Spoiler:

 KingDeath wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 KingDeath wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Just curious if any of you have ever seen a real piece of armour designed for a female fighter? Because they look just like what the current Sisters' models are wearing.

Since female warriors in armour were quite rare there aren't too many pictures about them.
The few i know about show them either in ringmail or rather "normal" ( that is, no boobarmour ) plate like this one

I hope that's not Joan of Arc. There is only one known image of her from her life time and she wasn't depicted in armour.

She was carrying a banner, had long hair and massive bustline. However it was a drawing by a commoner.

I believe the book in which I learned this was Women Warriors or Warrior Women sorry I can't remember the author. Also explains the whole Amazon confusion pretty well.

,

The picture is indeed suposed to be Jeanne d'Arc, although it is not a contemporary painting ( afaik there is not a single contemporary painting which still exists ) . The important part is the armour which, although quite detailed, doesn't show any "boob armour". The idea of such "feminised" armour appears to be a rather modern one and nothing that would make any kind of sense to a late medieval/ early modern age person.

Yeah, not buying it. That was drawn in the middle ages, where

1: People still didn't know how to draw.
and
2: Women were had a separate social status, so if a woman did something "manly" (like, idk, being a soldier) they'd probably be drawn without any womanly features.

Show me Joan of Arc's actual breastplate, then we'd have a solid piece of evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:
If you increase the plate size from the upper torso up to the neck region, you can solve the problems mentioned, all at the same time still keeping the chest :'D

This one I like. It's pretty much the same approach I've used for things like my UAMC fanart: a flat plate over the breasts, but with the underside shaped to fit the body without giving her armoured cleavage.

I like it too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not to mention that having armour that deflects melee wepons towards your neck is a fast and sure way to become a martyr. Maybe that's why they're using it in the first place?

If you didnt notice, they usually have a neckguard thingy covering the necks.

 Daemonhammer wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not to mention that having armour that deflects melee wepons towards your neck is a fast and sure way to become a martyr. Maybe that's why they're using it in the first place?

If you didnt notice, they usually have a neckguard thingy covering the necks.

That, and they have something covering most of their sternum anyway.



So how are their sternums going to be broken, or a sword redirected to their necks?
This thread is a waste of time, and an exercise in prudery.
And those breasts are not that big. I don't see what the fuss is about.

I'd also like to point out that the SoB model's have flat-soled boots, not high heels.

And when the Repentia first hit arrived they were poorly received by a number of existing SoB players

In answer to the OP I recently saw RH go with topless females for their Mantis and Blood Vestals range after requesting customer feedback - of the people who sent in comments the vast majority wanted bare breasts. I dont' think many people are playing SoB for the breasticles.

Edit: Another +1 for the armour shown by LunaHound.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 KingDeath wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 KingDeath wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Just curious if any of you have ever seen a real piece of armour designed for a female fighter? Because they look just like what the current Sisters' models are wearing.

Since female warriors in armour were quite rare there aren't too many pictures about them.
The few i know about show them either in ringmail or rather "normal" ( that is, no boobarmour ) plate like this one

I hope that's not Joan of Arc. There is only one known image of her from her life time and she wasn't depicted in armour.

She was carrying a banner, had long hair and massive bustline. However it was a drawing by a commoner.

I believe the book in which I learned this was Women Warriors or Warrior Women sorry I can't remember the author. Also explains the whole Amazon confusion pretty well.

,

The picture is indeed suposed to be Jeanne d'Arc, although it is not a contemporary painting ( afaik there is not a single contemporary painting which still exists ) . The important part is the armour which, although quite detailed, doesn't show any "boob armour". The idea of such "feminised" armour appears to be a rather modern one and nothing that would make any kind of sense to a late medieval/ early modern age person.

Yeah, not buying it. That was drawn in the middle ages, where

1: People still didn't know how to draw.
and
2: Women were had a separate social status, so if a woman did something "manly" (like, idk, being a soldier) they'd probably be drawn without any womanly features.

Show me Joan of Arc's actual breastplate, then we'd have a solid piece of evidence.

 variable wrote:

Kaldor:

This is ironic, since the SoB range is one of those examples of female figures that don't go for pole dance chic.

You're saying that seriously, without a trace of irony yourself?

Firstly, the Repentia don't look like no pole dancers I've ever seen.

Secondly, while scantily clad they still stay strictly away from overt sexualisation. They aren't posed suggestively, their 'naughty bits' aren't over emphasised, and the main emphasis of the model is the weapon.

And thirdly, IF we were to accept the Repentia as an example of 'pole dancer chic' (which I don't) it's still only one unit out of the entire range!

 KingDeath wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 KingDeath wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 KingDeath wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Just curious if any of you have ever seen a real piece of armour designed for a female fighter? Because they look just like what the current Sisters' models are wearing.

Since female warriors in armour were quite rare there aren't too many pictures about them.
The few i know about show them either in ringmail or rather "normal" ( that is, no boobarmour ) plate like this one

I hope that's not Joan of Arc. There is only one known image of her from her life time and she wasn't depicted in armour.

She was carrying a banner, had long hair and massive bustline. However it was a drawing by a commoner.

I believe the book in which I learned this was Women Warriors or Warrior Women sorry I can't remember the author. Also explains the whole Amazon confusion pretty well.

,

The picture is indeed suposed to be Jeanne d'Arc, although it is not a contemporary painting ( afaik there is not a single contemporary painting which still exists ) . The important part is the armour which, although quite detailed, doesn't show any "boob armour". The idea of such "feminised" armour appears to be a rather modern one and nothing that would make any kind of sense to a late medieval/ early modern age person.

Yeah, not buying it. That was drawn in the middle ages, where

1: People still didn't know how to draw.
and
2: Women were had a separate social status, so if a woman did something "manly" (like, idk, being a soldier) they'd probably be drawn without any womanly features.

Show me Joan of Arc's actual breastplate, then we'd have a solid piece of evidence.

1. The picture is actualy fairly detailed and yet fails to show any boobarmour.

2. Pure speculation. In fact the long hair and the rather wide hips are womanly features.

Instead of showing you a piece of plate which either no longer exists or never existed at all how about you
show me a medieval piece of armour that features something impractical and useless as boobplates?

So once again. My argument is that boob armour was, at least according to my knowledge, not a feature of medieval armour.
Both the avaiable suits of plate and avaiable medieval art show nothing that could lead us to believe that boob armour has ever been used.

Alright, fair enough.
But its still possible to argue that, as women were rarely seen on the battle field, there wasn't that much of demand for armor that was made for them.
And besides, apparently someone has seen armor designed for women on this thread. Of course, I will have to invoke the rule "pics, or it never happened" before reaching a conclusion.

Well I think that the Sororitas power armor is supposed to be more ornate than practical and in my opinnion it looks great and I like the fact that it is clearly different from the astartes power armor.

 Lynata wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention that having armour that deflects melee wepons towards your neck is a fast and sure way to become a martyr.

Good thing the armour actually has a neckguard, then.

Regardless, the entire point of medieval armour was to deflect enemy blows, not to absorb the energy. Deflecting the blow back into another piece of armour and having it absorb the hit would be inferior to just deflecting it off to somewhere else and having the enemy stagger from the miss. Even if the neck's safe it'd also deflect blows and stabs into the torso, resulting in a cloven (or pierced) cleavage, which is not very conductive to human life.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Regardless, the entire point of medieval armour was to deflect enemy blows, not to absorb the energy. Deflecting the blow back into another piece of armour and having it absorb the hit would be inferior to just deflecting it off to somewhere else and having the enemy stagger from the miss. Even if the neck's safe it'd also deflect blows and stabs into the torso, resulting in a cloven (or pierced) cleavage, which is not very conductive to human life.

GW can't design armor that isn't "cool", and they care nothing about what real-world armor and weapons would have to look like in order to be practical. Look at the Space Marines with those oversized shoulderplates... I'm sure those act like pretty effective bullet traps, sucking fire into the face of the marine or helping his arm get blown off when he starts taking hits from the front sector.

I pretty much have agreed with everything Kaldor has said in the thread so don't need to go over it again.

Hell, I have a whole thread of Fantasy/Sci-fi related ladies in DCM, Sisters are really low end scale when it comes to sexualised females in the hobby arena we find ourselves in. Some folks might need to chillax. with a T-Rex drinking a banana smoothie.

Being a blacksmith's apprentice, I can tell you the armour would only have breasts if the knight in question asked for them. Armour was not mass produced and was completely custom made.

Continuing on this, I believe that the Sisters Of Battle should have a mix of both kinds of armour. The humble one shown here goes along a more gender equal point of view. Also the standard armour used right now that depicts a more proud (albiet more sexual) woman who wants the galaxy to know that she is every bit as tough, maybe even more so, than the standard marine.

well actualy there was mass produced armor . city states were ordering them for their city troops and pre big wars , armor was mass made in byzantium and later in other balkan regions . justing armor was always tailored made , in places where there was a lot of free knights and no strong leadership . In spain durning the very start of reconquista armor and weapons for troops were mass produced. In slavic states blacksmiths were most offten state owned and most rulers werent interested in people getting hands on armor. At the same time kniaz who had their own states and own blacksmiths offten had their personal armies , those had mass created armors and weapons too.


As boob plate for sob goes . SoB would sell good or bad depanding on the codex rules , They could have god awful models , but if the models were fine people would play them . At the same time nice models wont make them popular , if the rules are bad.

I'm sure those act like pretty effective bullet traps, sucking fire into the face of the marine or helping his arm get blown off when he starts taking hits from the front sector.

actualy power armor the way GW makes it today makes sense , if one remembers who they fought in RT times and that the design for the armor comes from that time . Static phalanx of dudes , one more armored shoulder to the front , firing while standing static . then the armor desing makes sense.

For women though they wouldn't have the mass produced armour because there wouldn't be enough women to justify it.
As well knights per castle were fairly slim and most of the army was made up of militia who did were mass produced armour
however the knights did have custom made or at least adjusted and customized by the local blacksmith armour.

On the Repentia: I think the execution is the problem, not the concept. A former Sister wearing her usual under-armour bodyglove, with the torn remnants of her tabard for modesty, could achieve the same sort of look without just sticking her in fetishwear. Better, even, as it would help them look like Sisters that have fallen instead of some new unit with an awful uniform.

The same goes for the Mistress, by changing the reason she is in the squad. Pointless sensation is Slaanesh's domain, not the Emperor's, so having her flog the Repentia with her whips is just poorly conceived. If I'd created the Repentia the Mistress would be a sympathetic character, leading the squad to try to keep her fallen Sisters alive so that they could redeem themselves and return to the Adepta Sororitas proper.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Just curious if any of you have ever seen a real piece of armour designed for a female fighter? Because they look just like what the current Sisters' models are wearing.

That's a rather funny statement, considering there are almost no existing examples of armor made specifically for females. So what you consider to be "real" is somewhat dubious. Pardon me if I throw the BS flag on this one.

Honestly, there'd be no need for external definition of breasts. One, because they are typically not that big, and two, because they are moldable (sports bras and other compression style garments will do the trick). For a suit like power armor, they'd just have a slight accommodation for the female form inside the armor but no significant change in the shape. In fact, if anything, the bullet trap created by armored boobs makes the design of the Sister's armor ineffective. They look the way they do because that's how sci fi and fantasy armor is expected to look, and to give the Sisters a distinctly female look. I mean, the models as they are have less armor than most Imperial Guard characters wearing carapace, lol. Some kind of magical ceramite body suits with corsets, lol. As far as the sisters who actually are well endowed to the point of interfering with the wear of issued armor, I imagine that surgical reduction would occur. After all, they've sworn themselves to the service of the Emprah, so sex appeal is irrelevant. However, sex appeal is relevant to the sales of overtly sexualized armored nun-dominatrix figures.

Considering the chest plate is hardly even visible on most of the models, I doubt changing it would hurt sales. I mean, Sisters don't sell very well as it is. An entirely new look might be in order if Games Workshop ever decides to re-introduce the line.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Just curious if any of you have ever seen a real piece of armour designed for a female fighter? Because they look just like what the current Sisters' models are wearing.

That's a rather funny statement, considering there are almost no existing examples of armor made specifically for females. So what you consider to be "real" is somewhat dubious. Pardon me if I throw the BS flag on this one.

Honestly, there'd be no need for external definition of breasts. One, because they are typically not that big, and two, because they are moldable (sports bras and other compression style garments will do the trick). For a suit like power armor, they'd just have a slight accommodation for the female form inside the armor but no significant change in the shape. In fact, if anything, the bullet trap created by armored boobs makes the design of the Sister's armor ineffective. They look the way they do because that's how sci fi and fantasy armor is expected to look, and to give the Sisters a distinctly female look. I mean, the models as they are have less armor than most Imperial Guard characters wearing carapace, lol. Some kind of magical ceramite body suits with corsets, lol. As far as the sisters who actually are well endowed to the point of interfering with the wear of issued armor, I imagine that surgical reduction would occur. After all, they've sworn themselves to the service of the Emprah, so sex appeal is irrelevant. However, sex appeal is relevant to the sales of overtly sexualized armored nun-dominatrix figures.

Considering the chest plate is hardly even visible on most of the models, I doubt changing it would hurt sales. I mean, Sisters don't sell very well as it is. An entirely new look might be in order if Games Workshop ever decides to re-introduce the line.

While i agree with most of your post i do not think that sisters need an "entirely new look" to be sucessful. Their current appearance is actualy quite distinctive and reflects the insanity of the imperial creed quite well. The main problem ( imo ) is, beside the bad codex, the extreme age of many sisters miniatures with static poses, ugly faces ( that is, the sculptors were unable to recreate a female face ) and an utterly inadequate price GW charges for a low quality product.

I didn't say they did. I just said it couldn't hurt, lol.

The models may be dated, but they were of the same quality of the other models of the time, and they didn't sell very well back then either.

The models already are butt-ugly, boobs don't matter.

Considering the chest plate is hardly even visible on most of the models, I doubt changing it would hurt sales. I mean, Sisters don't sell very well as it is. An entirely new look might be in order if Games Workshop ever decides to re-introduce the line.

Excellent point! I have a squad of sisters I just traded for, but I ultimately decided that having the women in my life take me remotely seriously was more important than playing the one female army in the 40k universe. It would be nice if I could take the sisters a little more seriously--I mean the wife rolls her eyes at my Guard and thinks the orks are funny, but she just laughed out loud when I showed her the WD codex for the sisters.

My main problems with the SoB models is that they look so cluttered. I mean I don't play them, so my opinion matters little, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 variable wrote:

Considering the chest plate is hardly even visible on most of the models, I doubt changing it would hurt sales. I mean, Sisters don't sell very well as it is. An entirely new look might be in order if Games Workshop ever decides to re-introduce the line.

Excellent point! I have a squad of sisters I just traded for, but I ultimately decided that having the women in my life take me remotely seriously was more important than playing the one female army in the 40k universe. It would be nice if I could take the sisters a little more seriously--I mean the wife rolls her eyes at my Guard and thinks the orks are funny, but she just laughed out loud when I showed her the WD codex for the sisters.

Well you could run an all female DE army, and possibly an all or mostly female Eldar army (although I doubt the effectiveness of the latter). Still have the boobplate and they aren't human, but it is close.

I would love to see GW update the armor a bit, like the one Luna put up. Just a bit less old school sci if would be great :p
Sisters unlike other female models in there range don't need to show so much thay are female.
I think I got up to early to comment , but it's my sleepy thaghts

 Kaldor wrote:

 variable wrote:

Kaldor:

This is ironic, since the SoB range is one of those examples of female figures that don't go for pole dance chic.

You're saying that seriously, without a trace of irony yourself?

Firstly, the Repentia don't look like no pole dancers I've ever seen.

Secondly, while scantily clad they still stay strictly away from overt sexualisation. They aren't posed suggestively, their 'naughty bits' aren't over emphasised, and the main emphasis of the model is the weapon.

And thirdly, IF we were to accept the Repentia as an example of 'pole dancer chic' (which I don't) it's still only one unit out of the entire range!

Really? Reallly????????? wow I don't even .

1) Their breast are larger than power armor sisters by like 3 cup size.

2) Not over emphasized? MISTER their left nipple are cover by tiny piece of leather that might not even cover their areola if GW ever painted them .

3) They don't look any pole dancers you've seen? Let me guess because they wear weird looking things thus it doesnt count to you right?
You never take into account the "relation" through them wearing almost nothing but BDSM attire? So would you finally agree that they look like bondage gear than?

4) "The main emphasis of model is the weapon." Have you ever heard of something so common in fantasy and sci fi and video games? Y'know the innuendo of large swords and half naked girls?
You reaaaaally cannot see the connection? This whole model reeks of sexualization.

Holy *bleep successful troll is successful troll, my mind is utterly blown from reading that. If you are like young like age 11 or something, then I should apologize to you and forget everything you said,
but if you are over 18, then nope.
It is simple really, all I have to do is ask you... " would you or anyone feel appropriate if you let your 8 year old daughter dress like that? "

The problem IMO isn't the boob plate, it's the West Hollywood haircut. I wish it were easier to do head swaps.

The Sororitas are obviously fetish warrior nuns. And that is big part of their theme, and shouldn't chance. Yes the armour is absurd, and that's why it is awesome. Totally 40K.

Now just get rid of that horrid hairdo.

 LunaHound wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 variable wrote:

Kaldor:

This is ironic, since the SoB range is one of those examples of female figures that don't go for pole dance chic.

You're saying that seriously, without a trace of irony yourself?

Firstly, the Repentia don't look like no pole dancers I've ever seen.

Secondly, while scantily clad they still stay strictly away from overt sexualisation. They aren't posed suggestively, their 'naughty bits' aren't over emphasised, and the main emphasis of the model is the weapon.

And thirdly, IF we were to accept the Repentia as an example of 'pole dancer chic' (which I don't) it's still only one unit out of the entire range!

Really? Reallly????????? wow I don't even .

1) Their breast are larger than power armor sisters by like 3 cup size.

2) Not over emphasized? MISTER their left nipple are cover by tiny piece of leather that might not even cover their areola if GW ever painted them .

3) They don't look any pole dancers you've seen? Let me guess because they wear weird looking things thus it doesnt count to you right?
You never take into account the "relation" through them wearing almost nothing but BDSM attire? So would you finally agree that they look like bondage gear than?

4) "The main emphasis of model is the weapon." Have you ever heard of something so common in fantasy and sci fi and video games? Y'know the innuendo of large swords and half naked girls?
You reaaaaally cannot see the connection? This whole model reeks of sexualization.

Holy *bleep successful troll is successful troll, my mind is utterly blown from reading that. If you are like young like age 11 or something, then I should apologize to you and forget everything you said,
but if you are over 18, then nope.

Yeaah, as supportive I am of the breast plate on the powered armor figs, I'm going to admit that GW kinda dropped the ball with the Repentia model.
With the wyches it makes sense that they are wearing practically nothing, since it works with the whole "seductive-yet-deadly-gladiator" theme.
But Repentia? Doesn't work there. They have nothing in the background to support their attire.

The Sisters are not, as is, a sexualized army. They wear heavy armor, flat heeled shoes, tote big guns and make snarly faces. The armor does show they have breasts - this is because you wouldn't know they were women otherwise. It is a bit exaggerated, which is what you get when you work at that scale. If it was NOT exaggerated, it wouldn't be 40k anyways.

Repentia are sexualized (the only unit that is), and it fits an archetype that I think has a place in 40k. If anything, the general lack of sexuality in the SoB makes them stand out, and they would fit in with the rest of the line better if their rags were a little less... Fitted.

The mistress belongs there, along with arco's and penitent engines and the like - flagellation, penitence through pain, suffering as a route to purity; these are ideals that run through the church the SoB are obviously based on. It's just as appropriate as flames for burning heretics and the faith mechanic.

I don't like the armor in the OP. It looks like eldar armor - egalitarian, functional, unisex. The imperium is NONE of those things. The imperium is sexist, bombastic, fervently religious (especially in the case of the SoB) - and definitely does not want any men to be able to slip into the armor of the SoB.

I can play eldar if I want that. If I wanted sexy, I'd play a wytch cult. Instead, I am playing an army who happen to be women, who look like women by design of the Imperium. SoB are NOT just the army of women. It is not their job to represent women, or what women warriors should be like, or what armor is practical for women, or anything along those lines. They represent a imperial cult, filled with religious fanatics, raised to serve a male dominated church and look distinctly female on the battlefield so no inquisitors decide someone is cheating and building an army of men.

I play them not because they are women, but because they are terrifying religious fanatics - but if you take away the crazy penitent units and then design the army to be just a bunch of functional warriors in practical armor then you remove anything that makes them 40k. All you have left is eldar with bolters, or really boring Space Marines.

Got a warning from the mods last time I waded into a discussion of boobs on models, but here goes...

In terms of pure aesthetics I much prefer the armour with the boobplates. The flat chested example shown just looks ugly.

In terms of whether there should be boobs on models, I am a huge fan of boobs [on women] - big ones in particular; this is a natural response as large breasted women would be more likely to bring my offspring to adulthood, and remember, we are all just clever animals. This is the same reason why large hipped women are deemed attractive [the hourglass figure] as they are more likely yo have a successful birth, and the same reason why most men find younger women attractive rather than grannies [obviously not too young] because younger women again are more likely to have a successful birth.

Therefore, I like to look at boobs [especially on big hipped young women] - real ones, drawings of them, and also models of them, and this is completely natural for a hetrosexual male. I don't have a physical reaction to boobs on models [that could be considered slightly unnatural, but whatever floats your boat] but it is nice to look at. For some reason these kind of threads seem to bring out prudes who make red blooded males who like to look at boobs out to be perverts.

So +1 for boobs on SoB and boobs on models in general.