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.

I think it might be worth having a set table akin to the Warlord Traits as to why a Inquisitor might be wearing revealing clothes

Could even vary by Ordo

 Bull0 wrote:
Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please

Don't like boobs? Fair enough.

But claims of it's "unrealistic" seem a bit far-fetched. It is 40K after all, with rampaging, cockney-speaking mushroom-hordes going toe to to with Space-Elf wizards on floaty motorcycles without wheels, and your suspension of disbelief breaks at cleavage-revealing clothes on an intergalactic female investigator serving a secretive order hunting otherwordly demons and E.T. conspiracies in the name of an immortal undead consuming gazillions of magic guys a day to power a galactic lighthouse that enables extra-dimensional super-FTL in space-drive capable gothic cathedrals? Really? The boobs are what break the camels' back here?

 Zweischneid wrote:
The boobs are what break the camels' back here?

That's sig-worthy

You now, if you want to discuss boobs there are other websites out there dedicated to the topic. I'd suggest some but I might end up getting banned.

Now if you want to talk about the upcoming Digital Codex for the Inquisition, I can point you the way, just click here.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Don't like boobs? Fair enough.

Man, I LOVE boobs! Not relevant.

Jefffar wrote:
You now, if you want to discuss boobs there are other websites out there dedicated to the topic. I'd suggest some but I might end up getting banned.

Now if you want to talk about the upcoming Digital Codex for the Inquisition, I can point you the way, just click here.

Cool, so we're allowed to talk about the book but not appreciation of the artwork in the book because you don't like that. Okie dokie. What would you prefer to discuss? We can talk about those 6 warlord traits a bit again, or we can wishlist nonsensically about the plastic henchmen box they're definitely not going to release. That'd be fun.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Actually there has been fluff of those that have gone in pure civilians clothing into combat, or stylized uniforms much like expensive WW1 general outfits that protected nothing and seemed more for showing off.
So yeah, it doesn't matter here.

Sources on those? I'm interested to see the exact nature of this fluff.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You need to expand your viewpoint a bit on why someone could be on the battlefield.

So that entails being accepting of them being on one in quite inappropriate dress for the battlefield? I just don't think there's ever really a decent reason to have exposed skin if you're out on a battlefield. Especially when you're one of the most powerful people in the Imperium and likely have access to protection as good as power armor.

 Badablack wrote:
you ungrateful prude.

We've already established that one needn't be a prude to find fault with this.

 Zweischneid wrote:
But claims of it's "unrealistic" seem a bit far-fetched. It is 40K after all, with rampaging, cockney-speaking mushroom-hordes going toe to to with Space-Elf wizards on floaty motorcycles without wheels, and your suspension of disbelief breaks at cleavage-revealing clothes on an intergalactic female investigator serving a secretive order hunting otherwordly demons and E.T. conspiracies in the name of an immortal undead consuming gazillions of magic guys a day to power a galactic lighthouse that enables extra-dimensional super-FTL in space-drive capable gothic cathedrals? Really? The boobs are what break the camels' back here?

But those aren't quite the same thing. Those other things hardly have much choice over their circumstance. The Inquisitor, on the other hand, could easily dress more appropriately for hostile conditions.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Doesn't have to be. Maybe they were excavating something, and then those damn Elder appeared?

Though her possession of a chainsword suggests that she was ready for combat.

 Haight wrote:
It's not up to the typical standard i expect from GW.

Not from GW, actually. This is from Fantast Flight Games, the people who make Dark Heresy.

 Bull0 wrote:
Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please

I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.

 Troike wrote:

Though her possession of a chainsword suggests that she was ready for combat.

Though the choice of that particular weapon... actually even the existence of that particular weapon, especially in a relatively advanced technological society ... seems infinitely more nonsensical than her attire, assuming the availability of the kind of hyper-rational choices you claim she didn't make with her choice of clothing.

 Troike wrote:

So that entails being accepting of them being on one in quite inappropriate dress for the battlefield? I just don't think there's ever really a decent reason to have exposed skin if you're out on a battlefield. Especially when you're one of the most powerful people in the Imperium and likely have access to protection as good as power armor.

This argument is rediculous. 40k is about heroics, not pragmatism. Just look at this classic from 2nd edition 40k:



Those blood angels should have shot those orks *wayyyyyyy* before they got so close to them. And that dude's not even wearing a helmet! GW don't know what they're doing

xruslanx wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please

I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.

I don't know where to start with this. For starters, nobody's saying it's socially unacceptable. Did you really think that's what this is about? I don't think so. I'm going to bow out here - this is obviously going nowhere.

 Bull0 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please

I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.

I don't know where to start with this. For starters, nobody's saying it's socially unacceptable. Did you really think that's what this is about? I don't think so.

If I find pre-existing examples of cleavage in GW artwork will you admit you're wrong?

xruslanx wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please

I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.

I don't know where to start with this. For starters, nobody's saying it's socially unacceptable. Did you really think that's what this is about? I don't think so.

If I find pre-existing examples of cleavage in GW artwork will you admit you're wrong?

No because that has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you find me the quote where I said that since this is the first time GW have used breasts in artwork it's problematic I'll... I don't know because that won't happen because that wasn't the bloody point

xruslanx wrote:
Those blood angels should have shot those orks *wayyyyyyy* before they got so close to them. And that dude's not even wearing a helmet! GW don't know what they're doing

Of course, that picture wants to look exciting. It wants to show off a brutal, over-the-top battle to draw people in. The Inquisitor artwork, meanwhile, just seems to be designed to give us a look at an average Inquisitor. What I take issue with is that it implies a hostile situation (which she was apparently prepared for) yet she has an exposed torso and leg.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Though the choice of that particular weapon... actually even the existence of that particular weapon, especially in a relatively advanced technological society ... seems infinitely more nonsensical than her attire, assuming the availability of the kind of hyper-rational choices you claim she didn't make with her choice of clothing.

I'd call exposed skin in a warzone a far less rational choice than a chainsword, myself.

 Troike wrote:

I'd call exposed skin in a warzone a far less rational choice than a chainsword, myself.

Really? Lol.

Why not explain your reasonining instead of making insults?

 Troike wrote:
Why not explain your reasonining instead of making insults?

What reason can there possibly be for someone who things that a chainsword !!!! is more realistic (let alone rational) than a piece of exposed skin? Hell, what reason can there possibly be for someone who thinks that a chainsword is more realistic (let alone rational) than the moon being made from green cheese.

Seriously? It's a CHAINSWORD!!!! It's the ultimate and absolute expression of "let's throw any pretense of logic out and embrace ludicrous fictional madness for the sake of "It kinda sounds and looks cool".

Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.

Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.

Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....

But Ceremonial Officer Sabres exist because, at one point in history, sabres were actually useful weapons to have in a fight. A chainsaw never was, never will be, except in Army of Darkness or 40K-style over-the-top-we-don't-care camp-fiction.

And even office-sabres are mostly on the way out. When was the last time you saw a Servicemen in the field in Afghanistan or so with an Office Sabre? They are not.. ya know.. very practical or "rational" to have in a war these days.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.

Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....

But Ceremonial Officer Sabres exist because, at one point in history, sabres were actually useful weapons to have in a fight. A chainsaw never was, never will be, except in Army of Darkness or 40K-style over-the-top-we-don't-care camp-fiction.

And even office-sabres are mostly on the way out. When was the last time you saw a Servicemen in the field in Afghanistan or so with an Office Sabre? They are not.. ya know.. very practical or "rational" to have in a war these days.

Oh I know that in reality the Chainsword is basically useless, but the thought was that perhaps there is a completely logical reason for it....well logical for the setting at least..

Or it's a pretty picture meant to get us excited about the Inquisition.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Oh I know that in reality the Chainsword is basically useless, but the thought was that perhaps there is a completely logical reason for it....well logical for the setting at least..

Or it's a pretty picture meant to get us excited about the Inquisition.

Sure. There probably is a completely "in-setting" logical reason for her to have that chainsword, just as there is probably a completely logical "in-setting" reason for here to wear a dress with a bit of free skin, to the extend that a hyper-superstitious, new-dark-ages-in-space setting even makes use of "logical" in a modern sense.

That is the point. Troike applied "modern/present-day" logic/rationality to claim that a bit of exposed skin is irrational to have for somebody about to go into combat. But if you start applying "modern/present-day" logic/rationality to 40K, there are about a gazitrillion different things that should make your head explode long before you start even caring about things like exposed skin from a "rational" PoV.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.

Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....

But Ceremonial Officer Sabres exist because, at one point in history, sabres were actually useful weapons to have in a fight. A chainsaw never was, never will be, except in Army of Darkness or 40K-style over-the-top-we-don't-care camp-fiction.

And even office-sabres are mostly on the way out. When was the last time you saw a Servicemen in the field in Afghanistan or so with an Office Sabre? They are not.. ya know.. very practical or "rational" to have in a war these days.

Well if you really want to get into the "rational" bits?

Inquisitors are not all frontline fighters. Inquisitors are what amounts to intelligence operatives for the Imperium of Man. Inquisitors are at their very core individuals. Some Inquisitors might be like Hector Rex, huge hulking figures who relish combat, while others might be like Solomon Lok and be more of the investigative nature.

By and large the thing that makes Inquisitors so useful to the Imperium though is the knowledge they and their retainers bring to the field. If their knowledge is used well by a commander it can make the difference between a crushing victory and a defeat.

Hell that art might not even be an Inquisitor but might be a pair of an Inquisitor's companions.

The fact remains that the kind of clothing we saw in that picture is bordering on the ridiculous considering the context. Why would a serious person like an Inquisitor dress up like a tart? Yes, I understand male fanservice is generally much accepted in many subcultures, but I'd rather have none of it in WH40K.

How would people react if this was the basis for GWs future male inquisitors:



Yes, an Inquisitor could technically wear any type of clothing. Yes, that means they could wear unprotective clothing (even if this is probably more rare than having you know, actual protective armor for combat missions). But why would they wear skimpy clothing? That's a type of clothing which signals submission, or desperation out of having no alternatives to attract attention/gain favours from the opposite sex. Wearing that type of clothing is very denigrating for a person. This or this type of clothing signals authority. This (or this) type of clothing comes off as unserious and as mostly meant to trigger sexual behaviour. If you view of female Inquisitors is that they are supposed to be some kind of space strippers who trigger sexual behaviour in male troops, I believe you are direly mistaken, both from a lore POV and from common sense. Now it's not my personal "prudeness" - or course I wouldn't mind if Slaaneshi cultists wore skimpy clothing or even ran around naked, but Inquisitors (or Commissars, as mentioned) are people of a quite different ideology (and in a different society) whom I'd like be given a serious treatment and not be subjected to cheesy fanservice.

Rostere wrote:

How would people react if this was the basis for GWs future male inquisitors:

Fixed that pic for you. Sorry to tell you, but that kind of imagery does (!) work in a propaganda context.

 Zweischneid wrote:
What reason can there possibly be for someone who things that a chainsword !!!! is more realistic (let alone rational) than a piece of exposed skin? Hell, what reason can there possibly be for someone who thinks that a chainsword is more realistic (let alone rational) than the moon being made from green cheese.

Seriously? It's a CHAINSWORD!!!! It's the ultimate and absolute expression of "let's throw any pretense of logic out and embrace ludicrous fictional madness for the sake of "It kinda sounds and looks cool".

But getting something that'll protect you better in a battle better than your own bare skin is just such a basic thing for a warrior. At least the chainsword can serve its purpose of cutting people up, skimpy clothing just seems outright detrimental in battle.

 Zweischneid wrote:
That is the point. Troike applied "modern/present-day" logic/rationality

I don't think that there's anything particularly modern about protecting your body in battle.

Hell that art might not even be an Inquisitor but might be a pair of an Inquisitor's companions.

Sounds plausable - send in acolytes with all the trappings to stir up the court and watch what happens - see what occurs.

I get the argument about protecting yourself but conversely all the armies that weear powered armour have a good proportion of them with bare heads! The Eldar tend not to be as abad but even they have their culprits.

Really? Really?!!!

People have spent pages discussing the cleavage of a picture?

People are trying to apply terms like 'logic' and 'realistic' about a totally fictional archetype from a creation set almost 40,000 years in the future?

Well, from an internal logic standpoint, we have absolutely no idea how social conventions will have changed or evolved in that time, how on earth would all the likes of Maxim and FHM look to a Victorian? That sort of change in culture and acceptability has come about in just over a century. So nobody is in a position to apply modern sensibilities in an attempt to justify anything "in universe."

From a practical standpoint, it has been discussed, mostly in IG related threads, that a 'realistic' woman would be very difficult to portray at this scale while still giving a strong feminine look on the tabletop. Exaggerating the female elements is an easy shorthand to make the model look like a woman from several feet away.

As much as I detest the argument, in this case I can't think of any other thing to say other than "don't like it, don't buy it." But frankly this thread reeks of people posting not because they are actually offended, but because they feel they should be because being pro-feminist is the right thing to be.

 Troike wrote:

I don't think that there's anything particularly modern about protecting your body in battle.

There are plenty of historical warriors/fighters that went to battle/war with less than "optimal" body armour. In fact, forgoing it may well be an act to demonstrate faith, courage, status, etc.. . Why do you believe that "leading from the front" is generally seen as a good leadership quality, even if it puts your command-structure under unnecessary risk of disruption, etc.

And even that, again, doesn't yet acknowledge that 40K is a purposefully hockey setting of Army of Darkness levels. Ash fights zombies with a Chainsaw. Ash doesn't wear a shirt. These things don't make sense, but they make the whole thing more fun precisely because they don't make sense.

Hey guys, what's going on in here?

 Blacksails wrote:
Hey guys, what's going on in here?

People don't understand that artwork is supposed to be cool rather than an accurate depiction of events. Presumably these are the same people that rage about special characters never wearing helmets.

I think it might be time to take this particular debate to its own thread somewhere else, and then attempt to lurch this one back on topic.

Thanks!