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.

There is nothing different in that art then the rest of the game.

Its part of the setting, stop being a victim for victims sake.


More on the book, Are we going to see Sisters in this one again, are we going to see Xenos attachments, or Demons, or other stuff from the RPG?

I'm slightly interested by what I've seen here so far. I didn't even pay attention to the brazier until it was mentioned, and seriously its not even discussion worthy.
Some of the reactions are just background noise on the subject of the new book.

Sorry, objectifying women for the sake of it has never been an integral "part of" the 40k setting. If it were, I wouldn't be interested. Besides, even if it were, there would still be significant merit in challenging it, since 40k was dreamt up in the 80s - by and large, a less egalitarian time than 2013.

Since you've alleged we're being victims for the sake of it (don't really feel like a victim, since I'm a man), then I can equally say that you're excusing it because discussing it makes you uncomfortable/because it's inconvenient to do so/because you like objectifying women.

What a terribly embarassing thread this is.

xruslanx wrote:

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.

Cliched and sexualised artwork is never 'cool'. It's perfectly possible to make good female miniatures or appropriate artwork without resorting to 'skin armour'. This is something that geek culture is unfortunately riddled with.

I don't really see the need for an inquisition codex, I would much rather that the time and effrot involved went into something with a much larger footprint like Ad Mech.

You know, screw the artwork debate. Although cool, it's not doing any justice for the book. I for one am excited for the book and am hoping for a super secret model release to follow up with it.... But one can only be optimistic when it comes to GW

 Palindrome wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

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.

Cliched and sexualised artwork is never 'cool'. It's perfectly possible to make good female miniatures or appropriate artwork without resorting to 'skin armour'. This is something that geek culture is unfortunately riddled with.

And yet that being said, the other side of the fence is just as bad. The people that get offended or upset the minute they see such a thing based solely on principle and then tear other people a new one for giving into 'sexualised geek cliches' are just as bad as those who loll over pencil sketched boobs. Different tastes for different people, and it really isn't worth such a personalized debate on the internet; we can all be keyboard warriors but it doesn't say anything about us or the situation.

I suppose it comes down to "rule of cool", and how much or to what extreme you're willing to accept, which varies. It seems we're at an impasse in that regard anyway, so it's probably not going anywhere.

Though, just to address this so that my argument is not mistaken:

 azreal13 wrote:
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.

That's rather presumptous. Personally, my main complaint is that it is odd for a powerful individual in an apparently hostile situation to dress like that. Nothing much to do with feminism. And I'm not particularly offeneded either, I just thought it was an interesting debate. I still quite want to buy this codex at some point, despite focusing on my SoB army. I just see an issue with a piece of artwork within it.

 Grot 6 wrote:
More on the book, Are we going to see Sisters in this one again

Nah. They have their own codex, and this Inquisition codex is meant to ally to others.

 Grot 6 wrote:
are we going to see Xenos attachments, or Demons, or other stuff from the RPG?

Well the Ordo Xenos Inquisitor can have xenos tech in one of their warlord traits, and I'm assuming that Daemonhosts will still be a thing.

 Palindrome wrote:
I don't really see the need for an inquisition codex

Honestly, despite it being called one, I wouldn't call it a proper codex. They said it themselves. it's meant to be allied to other Imperial armies. I think of it more as a supplement for every Imperial army, myself.

 Troike wrote:

That's rather presumptous. Personally, my main complaint is that it is odd for a powerful individual in an apparently hostile situation to dress like that. Nothing much to do with feminism.

Probably fair to say that you don't really "get" art. It's not supposed to be an accurate representation of what could or should be happening, it's supposed to be appealing or meaningful. Clearly this piece of art fulfills the first of these criteria.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
... The people that get offended or upset....

I am neither, I am simply tired of seeing the same thing over and over and over again.

 Palindrome wrote:


Cliched and sexualised artwork is never 'cool'. It's perfectly possible to make good female miniatures or appropriate artwork without resorting to 'skin armour'. This is something that geek culture is unfortunately riddled with.

A perfectly normal cleavage as you'd see it on the streets every day isn't "skin armour", nor is it sexualised artwork.

There are very, very good reasons to oppose the kind of sexualized poses and depictions all to common in comics, etc..,

But this isn't one of them. And going to the extreme opposite with a sort of radical-islam/puritan opposition to even the slightest hint of exposed skin or sensual curves on women (art or otherwise) doesn't have a strong track record of helping women rights either.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
... The people that get offended or upset....

I am neither, I am simply tired of seeing the same thing over and over and over again.

Then stop posting? The hue and cry comes from the femo-brigade.

xruslanx wrote:

Then stop posting? The hue and cry comes from the femo-brigade.

One day you will make a post worth reading, one day.

Damn folks some of you really need to chill out a bit, its hardly a full frontal and there may well be a good reason for it in context anyway, some people.....

xruslanx wrote:
Probably fair to say that you don't really "get" art.

Nobody can get art. Yet everybody can. Art is rather subjective.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
People seem to be forgetting the main rule of female armor in fantasy and science/fiction:
'The more skin you see, the better it protects!'

It's true, it's really true. Otherwise how to the IG with T-Shirts get a better armour save then Termagaunts?

One day you will make a post worth reading, one day.

One day, you will be wise enough to understand me. One day.

xruslanx wrote:
As far as I'm aware, critisising artwork for not being realistic is not a valid critisism - people don't slag off the sistene chapel because Adam has a belly button.

I've already acknowledged we're at an impasse due to the apparent inherent subjectivity of the matter. There's not a lot to be gained in continuing this, it seems that neither of us will convince the other.

xruslanx wrote:

 Troike wrote:

One day you will make a post worth reading, one day.

One day, you will be wise enough to understand me. One day.

You may want to redo that quote, I never said that.

You may want to redo that quote, I never said that.

my bad.

So....

What do you think the troops choice(s) will be in the new codex? More warbands?

Anyone want to take bets on whether we'll get red text first, or just a straight up thread lock?

I'm guessing retinue members (like what Corteaz does) and maybe Inquisitorial Stormtroopers for troops. Possibly Chimeras as their dedicated transport. It is an allies codex, so I'm not expecting anything too radical.

Let's save the discussion of skin and art for another thread; okay folks?

 Troike wrote:
I'm guessing retinue members (like what Corteaz does) and maybe Inquisitorial Stormtroopers for troops. Possibly Chimeras as their dedicated transport. It is an allies codex, so I'm not expecting anything too radical.

Inquisition Codex, nothing too radical. I see what you did there!

 TheKbob wrote:
So....

What do you think the troops choice(s) will be in the new codex? More warbands?

Warbands, maybe Stormtroopers.

Chimeras, Rhinos and Land Raiders are kind of a "gimme" for the book. Maybe a flyer (Storm Raven or Valkyrie) if GW is feeling generous.

YES!!! So glad that this is real! I just hope we get models with it or at least have ordo xenos be able to use xenos weapons.

They said on the facebook site no models and no marines - Grey or otherwise..............

A good selection of fun weapons and equipment would be good IMO

 azreal13 wrote:
Inquisition Codex, nothing too radical. I see what you did there!

Ha! That was actually entirely unintended.

Though seeing as how one could have a retinue including Daemonhosts, I'd say that you can quite easily play a radical Inquisitor with this. Though mine would be puritan as feth, with SoB in his or her retinue. Edit: these SoB would be proxying warrior acolytes with power armour, btw.

 psychadelicmime wrote:
YES!!! So glad that this is real! I just hope we get models with it

Hmmm. Don't like trying to bring you down, but we might not. They didn't bring Kyrinov back for the SoB release, so they might not bring the missing Inquisitors back for this. :-/

Though, of course, this is just speculation on my part. They could well come out with new plastic versions of the Inquisitors with this codex, seeing as it doesn't have the modelling issues of the SoB and is unlikely to get become a proper standalone army for the foreseeable future.

Edited: I said, please get back on topic.-Mannahnin

Edited by Mannahnin

What I'm hoping for is actually supplementing into Force Orgs versus allies. I would love to give Repentia a preacher or two, an Inquisitor, and an assault vehicle. They'd actually be worth it!

 TheKbob wrote:
What I'm hoping for is actually supplementing into Force Orgs versus allies. I would love to give Repentia a preacher or two, an Inquisitor, and an assault vehicle. They'd actually be worth it!

Repentia in a Redeemer or a Crusader? I'd play that!

Off-topic excised. -Mannahnin

What I'm hoping for is actually supplementing into Force Orgs versus allies. I would love to give Repentia a preacher or two, an Inquisitor, and an assault vehicle. They'd actually be worth it!

It would be nice indeed if they could just slip into our current forces instead of using them as allies, I would much prefer it that way.
I am just happy that they are giving us something, the Inquisition always interested me a lot, almost as much as the mechanicum.