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 don't think giant boobs are necessary. Subtlety can work. Like I said earlier, simple body proportions will work wonderfully. Some of the more realistic armor that doesn't have boob plates can still be feminine. (Feminine =/= sexualized)
People are dealing in absolutes. "If you like feminine features you're a 12 year old porn addict.)
And it's not "If don't want boob armor your a feminazi!"
I want feminine features to be clear. End of opinion. Don't try to tack on "You just want big boobs!" to anything I say.

I don't want them to look like "skinny Marines" or "Marines with ponytails". I think that sacrifices a lot of the aesthetic of the army and somewhat "genericizes" them. Without the space-gothic look to the armor, it sort of visually relegates them to "girl Marines", rather than "warrior-nuns".

Could the same image be achieved in a different style? Certainly, but the ideas for such that I've seen bandied about don't sit well with me.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't see the fear of feminist make sense, all people want is GW to take the metal models, make them them plastic, cut them up onto a sprue and sell them. I don't see that leading to protests.

Sure, I would hope not. And I certainly would be exceedingly glad and grateful to see plastic versions of the current design.

Is this warrior male or female? What gave it away? Big breasts?

Essentially, there are signifiers of gender that don't have to be OTT

You know what would make them actually look feminine? Having hips and a rear end - as opposed to having hips like a boy, giving an over appearance of a blow-up doll.

 Psienesis wrote:
I don't want them to look like "skinny Marines" or "Marines with ponytails". I think that sacrifices a lot of the aesthetic of the army and somewhat "genericizes" them. Without the space-gothic look to the armor, it sort of visually relegates them to "girl Marines", rather than "warrior-nuns".

Could the same image be achieved in a different style? Certainly, but the ideas for such that I've seen bandied about don't sit well with me.

How about instead of boob-cups, it's a single breastplate of the same general proportions, just no inward-sloping cleavage? That'd look like something similar to what I posted earlier, and would match with the rest of their armor's medieval / gothic plate style.

I don't 'think boob-cups are necessary to give the idea of femininity.

 Melissia wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I don't want them to look like "skinny Marines" or "Marines with ponytails". I think that sacrifices a lot of the aesthetic of the army and somewhat "genericizes" them. Without the space-gothic look to the armor, it sort of visually relegates them to "girl Marines", rather than "warrior-nuns".

Could the same image be achieved in a different style? Certainly, but the ideas for such that I've seen bandied about don't sit well with me.

How about instead of boob-cups, it's a single breastplate of the same general proportions, just no inward-sloping cleavage? That'd look like something similar to what I posted earlier, and would match with the rest of their armor's medieval / gothic plate style.

I don't 'think boob-cups are necessary to give the idea of femininity.

This, so much this.

 Manchu wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't see the fear of feminist make sense, all people want is GW to take the metal models, make them them plastic, cut them up onto a sprue and sell them. I don't see that leading to protests.

Sure, I would hope not. And I certainly would be exceedingly glad and grateful to see plastic versions of the current design.

Indeed, I would vastly prefer plastic sisters in the current design (though preferably of hte same utility as modern plastics-- posable and swappable parts and so on), myself. That'd be infinitely better than our current situation. That I think it can be done better certainly doesn't mean I wouldn't accept a lesser, but still fantastic result.

ERJAK wrote:
So can we just call this derailed and move on?

Threads like this exist to prove that Sisters players are the most pissy and bitter, not CSM players!

Why not just keep the models as they are except make them in plastic?

 Manchu wrote:
Why not just keep the models as they are except make them in plastic?

We could have something better. Even if we keep the same style, we could at least have poseable limbs, multiple bitz in the sprue, more conversion option fodder, better quality sculpts, more variety in hairstyle for the helmetless models, etc.

Yes, I am up for all of those improvements, what I meant is, why not just keep the existing design. This:

Because I think we can go better. I'd settle with the current design (a better sculpt of it, especially), but I still think we can do better.

The problem then Melissia is how you define better. Poseable limbs, bits etc are all well and good but what about the existing design 'can go better'?

I put no stock in that kind of argument because what is better for one is worse for another. I don't like Sisters of Battle because of what they could be, if GW would just design miniatures especially for my personal tastes or (even more bizarre) my political ideology, but rather because of what they already are in terms of their background and what they already look like and do in terms of their current design.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hybrid, I was not 'triggered' (I believe that is yet another SJW term), I am just getting fed up of every single thing that I like being infiltrated by SJW's and feminazis.

It is a 28mm figure. Let. It. Be.
Leave the boob armour and the corseting, it is a familiar look and a style that should not change.

You used the term "feminazis". You lose the argument.

To be fair though, feminazis are a thing.

The problem comes when people think all feminists are feminazis when they're very different...

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I'm not actually calling anyone in this thread a feminazi, I'm just saying they exist in this world and they're a problem as they give feminists a bad image.

I think they are so rare as to be a non-sequitur. Also, it's a term coined by Rush, so it's automatic fail.

The boob cups are dumb, as are the heels. They need to go. And the corsets.

The "x is dumb" argument does not work in 40k.

 Manchu wrote:
The "x is dumb" argument does not work in 40k.

It should.

Martel732 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The "x is dumb" argument does not work in 40k.

It should.

That just gets us back to the "my ideal 40k would be like ..." style of argument. Not every IP is going to work for everyone. I disagree with the attitude of approaching an IP and declaring, "well if you want me to like this then X, Y, and Z have to go!" The proper response is, it's okay if you don't like it. Not everyone has to like it. You personally don't have to like it. It's okay to like some aspects of an IP and not others. It really sucks that Sisters especially get this treatment, where people feel like they are licensed to step in and "fix" the faction as if it is a problem. It's really not a problem.

 jasper76 wrote:
I think the concept of Battle Nuns is cool, but maybe the appeal is too limited to justify a revamp.

Hell, they never even printed their new codex in hardback.

Toughest Girls of the Galaxy proved that wrong with their latest kickstarter... just saying.

 Carnikang wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I think the concept of Battle Nuns is cool, but maybe the appeal is too limited to justify a revamp.

Hell, they never even printed their new codex in hardback.

Toughest Girls of the Galaxy proved that wrong with their latest kickstarter... just saying.

They got like 1 and a half million only... I wonder how much of that was even profit?

I think you are over estimating that kick starters popularity and money making potential compared to GW and what they likely sell.

Agreed, Swatsakowey. That KS offered a boutique line. Sisters probably need to sell much better than that. And maybe they would. But if GW is trying to raise profitability right now there are more pressing/promising projects (Horus Heresy stuff) than revamping SoB.

 Manchu wrote:
but rather because of what they already are in terms of their background

What makes you think I believe that this is any different than how I want them to look? How I envision them in their ideal form matches VERY well with this. Though as you very well know, we disagree upon what "they already are in terms of their background"

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hybrid, I was not 'triggered' (I believe that is yet another SJW term), I am just getting fed up of every single thing that I like being infiltrated by SJW's and feminazis.

It is a 28mm figure. Let. It. Be.
Leave the boob armour and the corseting, it is a familiar look and a style that should not change.

You used the term "feminazis". You lose the argument.

To be fair though, feminazis are a thing.

The problem comes when people think all feminists are feminazis when they're very different...

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I'm not actually calling anyone in this thread a feminazi, I'm just saying they exist in this world and they're a problem as they give feminists a bad image.

I think they are so rare as to be a non-sequitur. Also, it's a term coined by Rush, so it's automatic fail.

The boob cups are dumb, as are the heels. They need to go. And the corsets.

In number they may be rare, but they are also more vocal/physical (in terms of how loud they yell to get noticed) than feminists.

Generally, a feminist would talk to you to try to get you to understand their points of view. A feminazi would yell at you to try to shut you up without actually changing your opinion. That or punch you and brag about it on social media.
They're rare, but vocal enough that they give true feminists a bad name.

As to the background, I am going by what I have read out of GW, BL, and FFG publications. Not to say there is no room for individual interpretation. Their visual design, by contrast, simply is what it is.

Some of the language being used here is irking me.
link to an interesting article on some of the terms being used on this thread

I strongly recommend people read the whole article. It is long, but it will hopefully help people rethink things.
Don't take this personally and feel indignant after the first few lines of text - consider the implications of what is said in the article as it's actually rather sad.

Okay, please consider the whole "feminazi" tangent officially off-bounds from now on. The term has zero use or relevance to this thread topic. Further posts on the matter will be deleted and warnings/suspensions assigned as necessary.

I think Game of Throne's "Brienne of Tarth" is a good start for how to go about doing a Sisters of Battle line.



Unfortunately, my opinion is that GW won't do it because they are stuck in the mindset that "Girls are icky" to their customers.

 Stormonu wrote:
I think Game of Throne's "Brienne of Tarth" is a good start for how to go about doing a Sisters of Battle line.



Unfortunately, my opinion is that GW won't do it because they are stuck in the mindset that "Girls are icky" to their customers.

Except that armor is impossible to tell apart from smearing yourself in dogshit and self hate. It's SOOOO ugly and SOOOOO boring. So the boobplates are unnecessary and mysoginistic. At least they're interesting.

Incidentally, am I the only one who ever looked at SoB armour and thought it had to be superior to SM armour? It provides the same level of protection but appears to be significantly thinner/lighter.

Yes that conversation, like pretty much everything ITT, has been had a thousand times on Dakka. It goes like this: one camp says that can't possibly be true and it only "appears" true vis-a-vis stats because the rules of 40k are not granular enough to account for the difference. The other camp appeals to fluff sources that say, yes SoB armour is just as good. Welcome to the Hotel California. For the bathroom, turn right at the pic of Brienne of Tarth.