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.

Nevermind, herp derp

I think your ballistics experience is a little lacking. Bullets very rarely deflect in hard angles like they do in the movies and comic books. Rounds typically deform as they hit, and will often follow walls and other surfaces. An incoming round striking the inward facing surfaces will deflect the round towards the center. At the center, in nearly all artwork, is a crease or other "joining point". That, by nature, will be the weakest point in a surface. If it strikes along the top or bottom, it is still going to deflect the majority of projectiles towards the body (top goes towards the head and neck, bottom goes towards the abdomen and pelvis). Only a small number of strikes to the outside surfaces are going to be deflected away from the body.

The bottom line is that any surface area wasted on the formation of recognizable ceramite boobs is going to be significantly less thick than a flat or even slightly rounded surface for the absorption of projectile or explosive based attacks. In fact, in the case of explosive munitions (like bolter shells that detonate but fail to penetrate), it's actually increasing the amount of blunt force trauma by increasing the amount of surface area available to receive blast pressure.

It's somewhat difficult to apply current science to las guns, since they have no real world equivalent.


Look, you were spot on talking about the other designs that don't make any sense. This is 40K. And it is designed and written by guys who don't know anything about actual weapons, or warfare, or heck, science in general. Best to leave it at that. Because there's no logical explanation to really anything about the Sisters. They're women, and thus inferior in most attributes necessary to real world soldiering at the start. Their armor is tissue paper thin compared to everyone else's and yet provides the same protection and benefits as the far bulkier iterations worn by males in the setting. They eschew most long ranged weaponry because they live in a universe where battles are inexplicably fought at absurdly close ranges.

The Sisters exist because they live in a universe where science and sense don't matter. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's not really a bad thing, because there are plenty of other things that only exist in 40K because of the Rule of Cool. In fact, you might not find much that would exist if RoC wasn't in effect.

Well, Lasguns are an energy pulse so they won't care about any sort of sculpting. In that case its mearly the thickness of the material thats going to be important.

 Kaldor wrote:


They're fully enclosing ceramite breastplates. Calling it a corset is about as valid as calling a Marine breastplate a corset, or calling the chest armour on a Cadian a bra.

They look like corsets. What their function in the fictional setting is doesn't matter. We are talking about the look of the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote: You know, I'm probably the only person who actually liked the heels in that piece of art.
It provides a sort of B-movie, Judge Dredd vibe, you know?

No, I love the heels.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Rounds typically deform as they hit, and will often follow walls and other surfaces.

Yes, but I do not think this applies if that "wall" is curved inwards. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned that you'd have to hit a very specific spot on that cup, otherwise the deflection will throw the projectile against the other cup - or some other point on the chestplate, if it doesn't throw it off entirely.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:In fact, in the case of explosive munitions (like bolter shells that detonate but fail to penetrate), it's actually increasing the amount of blunt force trauma by increasing the amount of surface area available to receive blast pressure.

Is it really more hurtful if the shell detonates on the outside rather than the inside of the body, though?
That said, it's probably a matter of interpretation again, all depending on what we take from the "mass-reactive detonator" (i.e. can it actually detonate when not penetrating).

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Because there's no logical explanation to really anything about the Sisters. They're women, and thus inferior in most attributes necessary to real world soldiering at the start. Their armor is tissue paper thin compared to everyone else's and yet provides the same protection and benefits as the far bulkier iterations worn by males in the setting.

Regardless of your own opinion regarding female soldiers in the military, and aside from the fact that you are glossing over the whole "averages" aspect (the Sisters, elite cadets from the Schola Progenium, are certainly not average women - unlike the masses of the Imperial Guard), any physical "inferiority" is sufficiently compensated by their Astartes-grade equipment. They prefer close-range firefights, and gender certainly does not hold much influence over a warrior's ability to aim and pull a trigger. Lastly, the simple fact that their armour is not stuffed with a gazillion gadgets - and thus quite logically less bulky - does not have to affect their armour protection at all. Ironically, the first case of "skin-tight power armour" in the setting was actually worn by a male Inquisitor, and that was even smaller than the comparatively bulky armour the Sororitas are sporting. Obiwan Sherlock Closseau certainly is a rather tongue-in-cheek example, yet he perfectly exemplifies what kind of equipment you can wield in this setting if you really want to go over the top.

Anyways, if we go by Codex fluff, power armour plates have a thickness of "up to 1 inch", which I think fits nicely to what the Sisters are sporting. If what you're looking at is bulkier, it's not bulkier because it should provide more protection, but because the man wearing it is a beast, or because there's a whole array of additional machinery hidden underneath. For Space Marines, both is the case, so their equipment looks accordingly.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:In fact, you might not find much that would exist if RoC wasn't in effect.

That is true.

Grey Templar wrote:Well, Lasguns are an energy pulse so they won't care about any sort of sculpting. In that case its mearly the thickness of the material thats going to be important.

A beam hitting a sloped surface (such as, say, a sphere or a cone) will produce less agitation on the impact surface, simply because its effect is spread over a wider area rather than if it would be focused on a flat spot. Or do I fail my physics here?

Crimson wrote:

Kaldor wrote:They're fully enclosing ceramite breastplates. Calling it a corset is about as valid as calling a Marine breastplate a corset, or calling the chest armour on a Cadian a bra.

They look like corsets. What their function in the fictional setting is doesn't matter. We are talking about the look of the models.

I think you were just talking past each other. Kaldor was referring to the actual chestplate, whereas the corset is just an additional piece of leather(?) covering the abdominal section (presumably for increased protection against dust, though given its studded nature it might also serve as a secondary layer of armour).

On the Canoness miniature, the "corset" is replaced by a richly ornamented full metal plackart.
( like this: http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=3127.9 )

Also, repost for relevance:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
it's actually increasing the amount of blunt force trauma by increasing the amount of surface area available to receive blast pressure.

Wouldn't the power armor negate the damage though? I mean, this isn't plate armor, this is a sophisticated piece of hardware with dampeners and crap.
Well, I would imagine anyway. It would be pretty poor powered armor if the occupant can be hurt by anything less than a direct hit from a wrecking ball.

 Lynata wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Well, Lasguns are an energy pulse so they won't care about any sort of sculpting. In that case its mearly the thickness of the material thats going to be important.

A beam hitting a sloped surface (such as, say, a sphere or a cone) will produce less agitation on the impact surface, simply because its effect is spread over a wider area rather than if it would be focused on a flat spot. Or do I fail my physics here?

That is true, although it won't make much of a difference unless the angle is quite large. And at the scale of personal armor I think the entire difference is going to be very small.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
it's actually increasing the amount of blunt force trauma by increasing the amount of surface area available to receive blast pressure.

Wouldn't the power armor negate the damage though? I mean, this isn't plate armor, this is a sophisticated piece of hardware with dampeners and crap.
Well, I would imagine anyway. It would be pretty poor powered armor if the occupant can be hurt by anything less than a direct hit from a wrecking ball.

Sure, it'll probably protect you. It'll still wear out faster though, and let's face it, who creates suboptimal armour on purpouse?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
it's actually increasing the amount of blunt force trauma by increasing the amount of surface area available to receive blast pressure.

Wouldn't the power armor negate the damage though? I mean, this isn't plate armor, this is a sophisticated piece of hardware with dampeners and crap.
Well, I would imagine anyway. It would be pretty poor powered armor if the occupant can be hurt by anything less than a direct hit from a wrecking ball.

Sure, it'll probably protect you. It'll still wear out faster though, and let's face it, who creates suboptimal armour on purpouse?

Then the armor did its job. The fact that it wears out is irrelevant; its purpose is solely to protect the occupant.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
it's actually increasing the amount of blunt force trauma by increasing the amount of surface area available to receive blast pressure.

Wouldn't the power armor negate the damage though? I mean, this isn't plate armor, this is a sophisticated piece of hardware with dampeners and crap.
Well, I would imagine anyway. It would be pretty poor powered armor if the occupant can be hurt by anything less than a direct hit from a wrecking ball.

Sure, it'll probably protect you. It'll still wear out faster though, and let's face it, who creates suboptimal armour on purpouse?

Then the armor did its job. The fact that it wears out is irrelevant; its purpose is solely to protect the occupant.

If you could build a piece of armour that is equivalent to another one but wears out slower than that other one the first one is clearly superior. It'll also increase the risk of something hitting that the armour can't protect from, which is, again, suboptimal.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
it's actually increasing the amount of blunt force trauma by increasing the amount of surface area available to receive blast pressure.

Wouldn't the power armor negate the damage though? I mean, this isn't plate armor, this is a sophisticated piece of hardware with dampeners and crap.
Well, I would imagine anyway. It would be pretty poor powered armor if the occupant can be hurt by anything less than a direct hit from a wrecking ball.

Sure, it'll probably protect you. It'll still wear out faster though, and let's face it, who creates suboptimal armour on purpouse?

Then the armor did its job. The fact that it wears out is irrelevant; its purpose is solely to protect the occupant.

If you could build a piece of armour that is equivalent to another one but wears out slower than that other one the first one is clearly superior. It'll also increase the risk of something hitting that the armour can't protect from, which is, again, suboptimal.

And if you could build a starship that did not have excess weight and materials put into it due to the massive cathedrals on it, then that starship would be optimal.
When it comes to the IoM, its kinda silly to talk about optimal performance.

If we are talking about armor getting worn down quickly, what about those massive paudrons on SM? Wouldn't they draw a lot of fire, requiring excessive repairs? And its a much larger area than the SoB's cleavage (or what is supposed to be cleavage. Looking closely, there's not that much of a gap) so more materials are required.

Why is my text hyper-linked and orange?

1) wieght matters not in space.

2) The pauldrons actually serve a purpose. They protect the head.

 Grey Templar wrote:
1) wieght matters not in space.

2) The pauldrons actually serve a purpose. They protect the head.

1) True, but that is still a lot of materials, and it does make the craft a bigger target.

2) That's what helmets are for. Of course, considering how SM commanders always seem to forget their helmets, they probably do need the pauldrons.

The pauldrons are additional protection.

When actually fighting. A soldier will have his body sideways to the enemy more often then not. This places the pauldron directly between the head and the enemy(with just enough room to peak over it)

FWIW, I haven't got a single marine model that's not wearing his helmet.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The pauldrons are additional protection.

When actually fighting. A soldier will have his body sideways to the enemy more often then not. This places the pauldron directly between the head and the enemy(with just enough room to peak over it)

FWIW, I haven't got a single marine model that's not wearing his helmet.

Its a bit low to protect the head, isn't it?

No, pauldrons can be moved by Servos to come up to protect the head. Essentially they can be down to allow for visibility, or up to allow for more protection.

The marine does this simply by thinking about it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, pauldrons can be moved by Servos to come up to protect the head. Essentially they can be down to allow for visibility, or up to allow for more protection.

The marine does this simply by thinking about it.

Where does that come from? I don't remember reading about that.

Grey Templar wrote:1) wieght matters not in space.

That's true. Some ships do operate in low orbit, however, or even land on the surface.
Excess material consumption is also still excess material consumption. Gothic look ftw. Or, as VSgt pointed out, "RoC".

Grey Templar wrote:2) The pauldrons actually serve a purpose. They protect the head.

True again. A better example of Marine armour silliness would be the oversized chestplate preventing proper arm mobility. They couldn't even aim their guns if they hadn't autosenses.

Wait, don't you need a helmet for that? Oshi-

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Where does that come from? I don't remember reading about that.

I believe that is an interpretation of the pauldrons being described as "auto-reactive".
I don't recall ever reading it in a GW book, too, though. Perhaps some novel or FFG's RPG?

 Lynata wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:1) wieght matters not in space.

That's true. Some ships do operate in low orbit, however, or even land on the surface.
Excess material consumption is also still excess material consumption. Gothic look ftw. Or, as VSgt pointed out, "RoC".

Grey Templar wrote:2) The pauldrons actually serve a purpose. They protect the head.

True again. A better example of Marine armour silliness would be the oversized chestplate preventing proper arm mobility. They couldn't even aim their guns if they hadn't autosenses.

Wait, don't you need a helmet for that? Oshi-

Oh damn! I knew I should have brought up that the chest plate on SM looked ridiculous!
Couldn't put my finger on why though

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Oh damn! I knew I should have brought up that the chest plate on SM looked ridiculous!
Couldn't put my finger on why though

I really wonder how much of this is the fault of "HeroScale", though. Judging from the minis, a Marine couldn't even bend his arms more than this: _|
Which makes this Sergeant's bolt pistol scope pretty ridiculous, when you think about it: http://www.funtoysandgames.co.uk/user/products/large/Space%20marine%20tactical%20squad.jpg
Unless of course he's fine aiming with a straight arm. Perhaps his genetically engineered eyes are just that good.

RoC hard at work again.

 Lynata wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Oh damn! I knew I should have brought up that the chest plate on SM looked ridiculous!
Couldn't put my finger on why though

I really wonder how much of this is the fault of "HeroScale", though. Judging from the minis, a Marine couldn't even bend his arms more than this: _|
Which makes this Sergeant's bolt pistol scope pretty ridiculous, when you think about it: http://www.funtoysandgames.co.uk/user/products/large/Space%20marine%20tactical%20squad.jpg
Unless of course he's fine aiming with a straight arm. Perhaps his genetically engineered eyes are just that good.

RoC hard at work again.

Can they even aim properly in the artwork? I don't think I've ever seen a SM taking aim.

 Grey Templar wrote:
1) wieght matters not in space.

Eh, weight doesn't matter, but mass certainly does.

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
1) wieght matters not in space.

Eh, weight doesn't matter, but mass certainly does.

Holy crap, that's right. The mass from the materials would impact how fast the ship would be able to maneuver, as acceleration = force/mass.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Can they even aim properly in the artwork? I don't think I've ever seen a SM taking aim.

In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, there is only hip firing.

Nah, I think I've actually seen a few artworks and even minis where they do aim with ironsights, but only on a gun held single-handedly by a straight arm.
To have them aim with a weapon held by two hands, an artist or sculptor would prolly either have to "cheat" (i.e. ignore the "clipping" that spectators wouldn't really see anyways), or the Marine would have to use a weapon that works with this limitation. Such as the missile launcher. Or those reaaally old bolters that were carried on the shoulder (those looked fugly, though).

It's not a problem where the Marine wears a helmet, as you could just say the gun is linked to it, but for those who don't ... well.

It's a little better with Marine Scouts as they are less bulky and have cloth arms, but even there it may occasionally look a bit awkward when the head and the gun may not align perfectly.
http://chaosorc.com/images/Warhammer%2040K%20Space%20Marine%20Scouts%20with%20Sniper%20Rifles%20Box.jpg
Look at the sniper on the bottom, it's obvious he does not have a clear view through his scope as he fires.

It's not the way it ought to be, but operating from a place where objectifying women in our wargames is okay because we objectify the men is okay is a false dichotomy.

I just can't see what you mean here. Leaving aside Reps for the moment, SoB as a whole just look like.. women. I've seen models that were designed to be looked at as sex objects, and sisters are not them. They are fully covered, some wear a corset piece, which many women choose to do to this day and was very common in times past (particularly the religious era SoB are rooted in). Their breasts are somewhat exaggerated in size, which happens to a number of body parts at this scale. Of course, they are objectified in the most basic sense - they are objects. I can't treat them as an individual with hopes and dreams, because they are pewter. But the only thing I can see that makes them distinctly different from a male model is that they are clearly women.

I'm a little perplexed by a worldview that magically makes something objectified simply by making it female.

This argument has been going on since day one, it isn't just now. You may not have noticed, but the cover of the 2cnd ed codex (posted above) drew immediate criticism for the stripper pose on the cover with all the creepy old men leering in the background.

The creepy old men are clearly that - creepy old men. I think that is a dynamic is one that should be acknowledged a bit - the Ecclesiarchy ARE a bunch of creepy old men training brainwashed adopted girls to fight their battles for them. It's significant that the ladies are the one's who actually have faith in the game, I think. Anyway, the artist clearly likes the female form (which may or may not be a bad thing), but nothing about that cover puts the men in a good light. Show me a Sister swooning into the arms of a Marine, and I'll see a bit more to worry about. As drawn, I see the image more about the contrast between the youth, faith and determination of the Sister and the corrupt, opulent sloth of the men sending her into battle. Looks like a not at all subtle dig at the Church to me.

With an admittedly generous helping of sexy on the lady. On the one hand, it is a bit overdone, and doesn't match what you see on the table. On the other hand, it's well within the bounds of what I feel women should be comfortable wearing. Unmilitarized it's what - tight pants, boots and a fitted top? Women can, do, and should be able to wear that. Again, I'm not sure I like the implications that if you shrink down what women wear and make a model out of it, suddenly it's objectification. And that picture is, literally, the most sexualized SoB I have ever seen.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Can they even aim properly in the artwork? I don't think I've ever seen a SM taking aim.

As a model, yes.

( SM veterans Mk 2 box )


Look at boltgun aiming ..... if this isn't good enough to spot it, I could take a pic of the unpainted model..
Here we go:



and I am sure the Las-canon Devastator model shows this too.

Edit: broken pic..

 1hadhq wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:



Can they even aim properly in the artwork? I don't think I've ever seen a SM taking aim.

As a model, yes.



Look at boltgun aiming ..... if this isn't good enough to spot it, I could take a pic of the unpainted model..

and I am sure the Las-canon Devastator model shows this too.

The picture doesn't work, sadly.

I like my bdsm spaace nazi nuns. Don't change it.

Hollowman

I just can't see what you mean here...<snip>

You are welcome to read over the numerous posts I've made attempting to explain my point, my reasoning, and my opinions. You are even welcome to consider why I see things that way, to the limited degree that I've explained that I do, but you are not welcome to dismiss everything I've said without demonstrating even any attempt to understand or respond to what I've said. You've made your point, it's not supported by the evidence, mine is. I'm not even going to bother to give you more consideration than that. I mean, I was working with you, but you said, "I'm a little perplexed by a worldview that magically makes something objectified simply by making it female." which is a stupid red herring since I think my first post on this topic listed 3 women who were awesome examples of sci-fi women fighters.

 Hollowman wrote:

It's not the way it ought to be, but operating from a place where objectifying women in our wargames is okay because we objectify the men is okay is a false dichotomy.

I just can't see what you mean here. Leaving aside Reps for the moment, SoB as a whole just look like.. women. I've seen models that were designed to be looked at as sex objects, and sisters are not them. They are fully covered, some wear a corset piece, which many women choose to do to this day and was very common in times past (particularly the religious era SoB are rooted in). Their breasts are somewhat exaggerated in size, which happens to a number of body parts at this scale. Of course, they are objectified in the most basic sense - they are objects. I can't treat them as an individual with hopes and dreams, because they are pewter. But the only thing I can see that makes them distinctly different from a male model is that they are clearly women.

I'm a little perplexed by a worldview that magically makes something objectified simply by making it female.

This argument has been going on since day one, it isn't just now. You may not have noticed, but the cover of the 2cnd ed codex (posted above) drew immediate criticism for the stripper pose on the cover with all the creepy old men leering in the background.

The creepy old men are clearly that - creepy old men. I think that is a dynamic is one that should be acknowledged a bit - the Ecclesiarchy ARE a bunch of creepy old men training brainwashed adopted girls to fight their battles for them. It's significant that the ladies are the one's who actually have faith in the game, I think. Anyway, the artist clearly likes the female form (which may or may not be a bad thing), but nothing about that cover puts the men in a good light. Show me a Sister swooning into the arms of a Marine, and I'll see a bit more to worry about. As drawn, I see the image more about the contrast between the youth, faith and determination of the Sister and the corrupt, opulent sloth of the men sending her into battle. Looks like a not at all subtle dig at the Church to me.

With an admittedly generous helping of sexy on the lady. On the one hand, it is a bit overdone, and doesn't match what you see on the table. On the other hand, it's well within the bounds of what I feel women should be comfortable wearing. Unmilitarized it's what - tight pants, boots and a fitted top? Women can, do, and should be able to wear that. Again, I'm not sure I like the implications that if you shrink down what women wear and make a model out of it, suddenly it's objectification. And that picture is, literally, the most sexualized SoB I have ever seen.

People just get excited since it's women looking attractive. It's also guys doing this, for the record, not women. In my experience, the only guys who have complained about this had no experience with women and were fully engaged in all out white knighting against any supposed criticism or teasing directed at women.