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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 asorel wrote:
You made the claim (male is the oppressive default, the poor subjugated women are assumed not to exist unless explicitly stated), the burden of proof is upon you.

Nah. I am going to continue to make the claim, and if you are afraid I will convince people with my tons of “anecdotal evidence”, you better work your ass out to disprove it. If you think I am not going to convince anyone, though, you can just relax and ignore me .

You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you. Get off your little crusade of morality for a moment, and realize that this is an argument on the Internet, no more, no less. And in an argument, he who makes the claim must provide evidence for it. If you want to Listen and Believe™ on faith alone, without any evidence, go right ahead, no one's stopping you. But if you want to present these claims in an argument, you must provide evidence for them; otherwise they are dismissed.

 asorel wrote:

The practical one is that the greater muscle mass of males is better for war-making than females, meaning there's a comparative advantage to recruiting males. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are no diversity quotas.

I'll add a dash of my background knowledge to this - the real benefit would be forcing endopolyploidy in specific tissues, or figuring out how to induce non-lethal polyploidy in Humans in order to ramp up growth rate and tissue generation.

A current example (in fish admittedly) being triploid salmon that grow much larger and faster compared to their diploid cousins.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Do you, or do you not, know the physical differences between males and females?

I am actually not sure I know the physical difference between males and females. It tends to be blurry when speaking about animals with reproductive methods different from our own, or even plants.
I am though quite aware of the differences between men and women. It's more interesting that you would think. Have you looked at the methods that are and were used to make sure athletes competing in female championships are actually female? Apparently the difference is not as obvious as you would make it .

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're trying to do some kind of social experiment to prove that there are no differences between male and female except some clouded backwards mind set.

Some social experiment? Please, enlighten me on what is supposed to be a social experiment here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 asorel wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you.

Ah, you surely are not, and this is why you are from now on not going to bother trying to prove me wrong because you made your case already. Which amounted to “I do not believe you”.
Thanks for that very enriching “argument on the internet”. I am certainly not interested in pushing that argument forward unless you bring more arguments to the table. You see, I do not care about convincing you. I am not interested in talking with people that I consider are talking in bad faith, because I know I am not going to convince them. I will only address their arguments if I feel that might be instructive to other people reading the thread. “I do not believe you” is no such argument.

You need boob armour thats that. As a person who played hockey since birth I can tell you two things if you wear a cup and it is to small there will be pain, if you wear nothing there will be pain.

Now think of it this way you want to guard your bird so you wear a flat piece of steel over it, now when it gets hit the softer bits will be pushed in painfully til it hits the bone to help it stop going forward. Now imagine all the girls out there every time they get hit in the chest getting boobs smashed over and over. You need gear that fits and like it or not girls have boobs that need to be protected like a mans bird if they are in close combat fights.

The reason the average joe army man dresses the same is because most can wear it with out a problem but for the best fit everything has to fit that person perfec so there will be big dofferences between male and female suit if they cared about each person.

Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.

Yes, yes it does need to be done to figure that out, because otherwise your business has no fething idea what will or will not make money. None. Zero. Zilch.

Smart companies know this, which is why they hire teams of people, almost all of them some flavor of "Business Analyst" in title who sit there and crunch numbers, run tests, take polls, do surveys, attend industry conventions, browse forums like this, and take all those data points back and establish expected trends, study market shifts, watch what their competitors are doing (and whether or not they succeed or fail) and, if they're smart, they respond accordingly to remain competitive, because that is how capitalism works.

GW does none of this. The best they can do is take last year's sales numbers for a given product, use their internal sales data to see whether sales overall are up or down, and then release a new product with the guess-timated expectation that it will sell X units, which is the total of Y (units sold last year) + or - B% (changes in sales volume over the past year).

If GW sold 100,000 boxes of Tactical Marines last year, and their sales data indicates a 5% drop in total sales, when they release the new box of Tactical Marines, they estimate that they will sell 95,000 boxes this year.

They don't do the market research to realize that, because the new video game, Rise of Bolter-Porn, is really popular, they should actually expect to sell 125,000 boxes, because people who don't play the table-top game will get them as gifts for fans of the video game (possibly themselves), or that the reason they only sold 100k boxes last year was because, in seven different markets, they were sold out for six months, thus requiring customers to go to the website to order them... which is a loss of impulse buys, runs into "CBA" customers, and so on.

All of this data is part of market research. Figuring out why customers buy (or don't buy) your products, figuring out what they want, what they don't want, what can be done to address these issues, so forth and so on. GW does none of this. They have a very limited set of data points to work with, that being the sales figures coming back from their stores, their third-party vendors, and their website, and the intelligence they can glean from that limited set of data is, of course, very limited. Their sales numbers over the past several years is completely indicative of this.

 ntdars wrote:
What do you think GW's reasoning is behind them not printing a whole army update

"Our target market thinks girls have cooties."

females are biologically different then males and have different body layouts(shoulders closer together, tendency to be shorter and less muscle mass), this is proven fact. While their may be some exceptions on an individual bases, these exeptions should not be taken as the standard across an army like the sisters of battle, which is on a scale of tens of thousands at least.
also I generally like for sisters of battle to be identifiable as female, an army of females enclosed in the same power Armour as space marines is boring

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 asorel wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you.

Ah, you surely are not, and this is why you are from now on not going to bother trying to prove me wrong because you made your case already. Which amounted to “I do not believe you”.
Thanks for that very enriching “argument on the internet”. I am certainly not interested in pushing that argument forward unless you bring more arguments to the table. You see, I do not care about convincing you. I am not interested in talking with people that I consider are talking in bad faith, because I know I am not going to convince them. I will only address their arguments if I feel that might be instructive to other people reading the thread. “I do not believe you” is no such argument.

lack of evidence in the defendant is not evidence for the prosecution, the burden of proof lies in the one who makes the claim.

Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 asorel wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that you are some sort of enemy of mine, and I will try to do anything to stop you.

Ah, you surely are not, and this is why you are from now on not going to bother trying to prove me wrong because you made your case already. Which amounted to “I do not believe you”.
Thanks for that very enriching “argument on the internet”. I am certainly not interested in pushing that argument forward unless you bring more arguments to the table. You see, I do not care about convincing you. I am not interested in talking with people that I consider are talking in bad faith, because I know I am not going to convince them. I will only address their arguments if I feel that might be instructive to other people reading the thread. “I do not believe you” is no such argument.

Ah, so you are here only to preach, and do your best to pretend dissenters do not exist. Your actions make much more sense now. Carry on, I have no interest in your religion.

And "I don't believe you" is a perfectly valid argument when you give no cause for belief. If you tell me a morbidly obese man would provide tax-free gifts every solstice if I performed good deeds, I would deny your claim without follow-up if you are unable to prove it.

 Melissia wrote:
Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.

And that's why I collected them since 2nd ed until a year ago.
Women are awesome. They're different to men and there's not wrong with that. It's the differences that make them awesome.

 Melissia wrote:
Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.

And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?

My two cents:

They started out as an optional ally mini-army, and in 40k being optional equated to being usually illegal in normal and tournament games. So that is a huge disadvantage trying to sell them right from the start;

Both times they had major codex releases, it was on right when the next edition was about to drop, essentially making them pseudo-obsolete, and thus undesirable;

With the above ensuring that the sisters will only have a relatively small paying fanbase and the difficulty of making their models, they got passed over during the metal-to-plastic phase;

And then there is the whole White Dwarf codex business, and the digital codex getting hate because it is digital;

So basically GW kept screwing them over, but when they look at the numbers, they only see that the sisters sold badly on their own, not that they mismanaged them.

 Vandire651 wrote:
females are biologically different then males and have different body layouts(shoulders closer together, tendency to be shorter and less muscle mass), this is proven fact. While their may be some exceptions on an individual bases, these exeptions should not be taken as the standard across an army like the sisters of battle, which is on a scale of tens of thousands at least.

You are talking about difference so big they have a LOT of trouble to find methods to make sure athletes in female sports are really women and not men.
You are talking about 28mm miniatures clad in extremely thick armor.

 Vandire651 wrote:
also I generally like for sisters of battle to be identifiable as female, an army of females enclosed in the same power Armour as space marines is boring

I agree that Sisters being enclosed in the same power armor as marine is boring, but not for the same reason. For me it is because Sisters need to have heavily blinged out, “baroque” armor.

 Vandire651 wrote:
lack of evidence in the defendant is not evidence for the prosecution, the burden of proof lies in the one who makes the claim.

Is this a trial now? Because I am both judge, jury and executioner!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 asorel wrote:
Ah, so you are here only to preach, and do your best to pretend dissenters do not exist.

No, I am usually vehemently addressing every argument they put forward. If you put none, though… you get the cold shoulder .

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.

And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?

My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"

 Melissia wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.

And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?

My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"

That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion. But nice strawman nonetheless.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vandire651 wrote:
females are biologically different then males and have different body layouts(shoulders closer together, tendency to be shorter and less muscle mass), this is proven fact. While their may be some exceptions on an individual bases, these exeptions should not be taken as the standard across an army like the sisters of battle, which is on a scale of tens of thousands at least.

You are talking about difference so big they have a LOT of trouble to find methods to make sure athletes in female sports are really women and not men.
You are talking about 28mm miniatures clad in extremely thick armor.

we are both talking about professional female sports right, since I am pretty sure they would have most of the exceptions in body structure that I was talking about, also any man who tries to compete in said sports would be both jerks and the most likely to also be exeptions as well as trying there best to look female.

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.

And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?

My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"

That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion.

Oh gee wizz willy wonkers batman, you figured it out! IT WAS MY OPINION ALL ALONG!
*slowclap*
Another mystery solved, truly, your powers of deduction are impressive!

One last foray into this topic before I leave to go watch Netflix and eat salted caramel and chocolate Haagen Dazs.


If we ignore all my comments about polyploidy and endopolyploidy. If we ignore all genetic modification including insertions, deletions and regulations. If we ignore all actual science related to how gender-neutral, infertile drones would be physically superior to male astartes and female sisters.


And focus just on the armour - just that. Then this is what I have to say:

Boob plate will get them killed stupidly fast compared to mono-raised plate.
Simple.

No debate.

Explanation: Armour is designed to deflect. The inside curvature of the breasts on the armour will deflect bullets straight into their heart.

This means that your classic Sister of Battle with her generous bosom will be plinking bullets straight into her chest where the breasts act like a bullet trap in front of the heart. Give this a read

That's why armour that gives room for the bust, but doesn't distinguish it is the ONLY logical way to go. As I showed earlier with the Eisenkern Storm troopers. For ease, here they are:

Male Vs Female, with differences in thigh size, hip ratio, heads and chest size.
And
Female power armour that is sensible, has actual room for female anatomy AND remains respectful

So this really just boils down to the following:
You prefer Sisters of Battle because of artistic style and like curvy stylised/sexualised (compared to the Eisenkern I showed you) and are happy to admit that (which I don't have issue with though I personally prefer the Eisenkern ones for the reasons stated above)
OR
You don't want to admit that sex has an affect on your mind.

Personally, some of the models I see are pure pornographic and yes like any male I find them attractive (such as some of the raging hero stuff) BUT in a war game, I want soldiers, not porn stars.

 Melissia wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Sisters of Battle can be identifiable as female without giving them prominent boobs, you know.

And Humanity can be identifiable as venerating the Emperor without making space-faring, battle-ready mobile cathedrals in His name. What's your point?

My point is we need better model design than "OH HEY LOOK AT THESE BOOBS SEE THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE OF THEIR BOOBS DO YOU NOT SEE THEIR BOOBS SEE THEIR BOOBS SAY THEY ARE FEMALE BECAUSE FEMALES HAVE BOOBS HAHA LOOK BOOBS DON'T YOU LIKE THEM THEY'RE BOOBS WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE AND BY THE WAY DON'T FORGET THEY'RE FEMALE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOOBS WHICH MAKES THEM FEMALE!"

That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion.

Oh gee wizz willy wonkers batman, you figured it out! IT WAS MY OPINION ALL ALONG!
*slowclap*
Another mystery solved, truly, your powers of deduction are impressive!

You're certainly not treating it as such. Read your post. What you say is we need better model design. "We" implying that this is an obvious, universal truth held by everybody, not just you, and "need" implying that the replacement of this design is important and required. Something other than your personal desire, in other words. What you're saying isn't "we need," it's "I want."

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Yeah, the inside shape of the armor is going to be slightly different. Just like they make different armor size. However, how different is the outside going to be? Especially when at 28mm scale?

Hip and shoulder? Rather visible. You wouldn't have 'breastplate' but you'd see the difference.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Just check how different the US armor for men and women are on the outside. Now consider that the thicker the armor, the less visible the difference will be. On power armor? No visible difference.

I might point out that you may wish to rethink that. According to GW fluff, that power armor is thinner than the US grunts body armor and gear.




See, there's a reason that so much of the hardware is actually in the backpack.

 asorel wrote:

That this constitutes "bad model design" is entirely subjective and your opinion.

Oh gee wizz willy wonkers batman, you figured it out! IT WAS MY OPINION ALL ALONG!
*slowclap*
Another mystery solved, truly, your powers of deduction are impressive!

You're certainly not treating it as such

Your asinine assumptions about my posts are just that-- asinine assumptions.

Are you really that desperate to derail the conversation?

 Vandire651 wrote:
we are both talking about professional female sports right, since I am pretty sure they would have most of the exceptions in body structure that I was talking about

Did you heard about how Sisters are an extremely elite corp with an extremely selective recruitment process?

 Vandire651 wrote:
also any man who tries to compete in said sports would be both jerks and the most likely to also be exeptions as well as trying there best to look female.

Uh, okay. Does not contradict the fact if you cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman wearing sportive attire (which is usually quite form-fitting), how the hell do you expect to be able to tell the difference on 28mm scale models of people wearing centimeter-thick (at least) armor?

 asorel wrote:
You're certainly not treating it as such. Read your post. What you say is we need better model design. "We" implying that this is an obvious, universal truth held by everybody, not just you, and "need" implying that the replacement of this design is important and imperative. Something other than your personal desire, in other words. What you're saying isn't "we need," it's "I want."

Damn, you really do not like to do arguments. You seem to prefer confrontation so much. I feel sorry for you.

I know what this thread needs right now. A bunch of pictures of actual women using actual armor:
http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/96765743738/safetytank-submitted-footage-of-women-in-proper
http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/113693276506/sarah-hays-recent-jousting-victory-showcases-not
and now for something more modern:
http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/91353682893/girlslovegamestoo-the-real-women-of-steel

What's even going on in this thread? Are people actually arguing there are no physical differences between men and women?

There's a reason there's a big hooplah about the transgender woman (MtF) Fallon Fox fighting in the women's leagues. The only fight they've lost versus women has been against someone who was found to be taking banned substances. Keep in mind this is in the featherweight league and three of Fox's five wins were by knockout (very rare in featherweight) and you start to see an issue.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You are talking about difference so big they have a LOT of trouble to find methods to make sure athletes in female sports are really women and not men.

Do... do you have any idea what you're talking about? At all?

You can check for a baby's gender using genetic testing in the god damn womb. Christ. You can check for race and genetic conditions from a single drop of blood. You really think you can't find out an entire chromosome's worth of difference?

 Wulfmar wrote:
One last foray into this topic before I leave to go watch Netflix and eat salted caramel and chocolate Haagen Dazs.


If we ignore all my comments about polyploidy and endopolyploidy. If we ignore all genetic modification including insertions, deletions and regulations. If we ignore all actual science related to how gender-neutral, infertile drones would be physically superior to male astartes and female sisters.


And focus just on the armour - just that. Then this is what I have to say:

Boob plate will get them killed stupidly fast compared to mono-raised plate.
Simple.

No debate.

Explanation: Armour is designed to deflect. The inside curvature of the breasts on the armour will deflect bullets straight into their heart.

This means that your classic Sister of Battle with her generous bosom will be plinking bullets straight into her chest where the breasts act like a bullet trap in front of the heart. Give this a read

That's why armour that gives room for the bust, but doesn't distinguish it is the ONLY logical way to go. As I showed earlier with the Eisenkern Storm troopers. For ease, here they are:

Male Vs Female, with differences in thigh size, hip ratio, heads and chest size.
And
Female power armour that is sensible, has actual room for female anatomy AND remains respectful

So this really just boils down to the following:
You prefer Sisters of Battle because of artistic style and like curvy stylised/sexualised (compared to the Eisenkern I showed you) and are happy to admit that (which I don't have issue with though I personally prefer the Eisenkern ones for the reasons stated above)
OR
You don't want to admit that sex has an affect on your mind.

Personally, some of the models I see are pure pornographic and yes like any male I find them attractive (such as some of the raging hero stuff) BUT in a war game, I want soldiers, not porn stars.

I have no problem admitting that the main reason I defend the sisters Armour is that I like the design. that said the boob plate is likely just a decorative sheet of metal added onto the curved power Armour after it was made, through the plate theoretically could add extra protection against bolters due to bolts being designed to penetrate Armour and then explode after a set delay. a pate of metal would cause the bolt to penetrate the plate then explode in the cavity, which while not perfect would lead to the bolt exploding outside the Armour proper causing mainly shrapnel damage.

also the armour was design under the reign of goge vandire, the insane dude who tried to micromange the galaxy and thought a remote cult of woman warriors would be a better bodyguard then the professional troops he already had, so theirs that to

 nullBolt wrote:
What's even going on in this thread? Are people actually arguing there are no physical differences between men and women?

No, the argument is about whether or not we need to emphasize to the point of parody the visual differences between women and men.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that you may wish to rethink that. According to GW fluff, that power armor is thinner than the US grunts body armor and gear.




See, there's a reason that so much of the hardware is actually in the backpack.

You are kidding, right? Or you have never seen artwork of marines without the helmet?

Thank God for you Vandire,

I was afraid no one was going to read what I wrote with all the cat-fighting going on

<3

 nullBolt wrote:
Do... do you have any idea what you're talking about? At all?

You can check for a baby's gender using genetic testing in the god damn womb. Christ. You can check for race and genetic conditions from a single drop of blood. You really think you can't find out an entire chromosome's worth of difference?

Hey, do not take my word for it, look it up on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_verification_in_sports
Enjoy this:
“While it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.”
And the reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html

I read it, just didn't find much to say in contrary to it. That last part-- "in a war game, I want soldiers, not porn stars"-- is my sentiment.

I would love if GW reworked the sisters, but I honestly don't know what they will do.

GW is such a weird company. They neglect things that could be huge, and yes I do think if the Sisters line were reworked with new models they would be popular.

As far as the model design goes it is a love it or hate it when it comes to the tight corset armor. (I don't mind them, wife hates them)

Is it realistic? Nope not at all. Google female soldiers in armor, and you get the exact image that I saw most of my 22 years of service. Armor is for protection not looks. A soldiers sex is hard to tell at a distance, and closer up only the height and or a slighter build singles them out as a female.

But is 40k realistic? Nope not at all, its the far future. Who knows how things would look.

My wife does joke about what space marines would look like if the majority of gamers were women and males were just a minority.