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 dissagree with this.
Following this we end up with a possibly cool miniature. but not a Sororita.

That sums it up nicely, ghost. Following that line of thought, one can imagine how annoying such suggestions are to people who actually like Sisters of Battle (as opposed to fan fiction).

Martel732 wrote:
The boob cups are dumb, as are the heels. They need to go. And the corsets.

The only heels are in a Blanche painting. The models also don't have corsets, it's called something else (it's a decorative garment over armor) which at the moment escapes me.

 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.

Well, the Sister you posted earlier in the side-by-side with the Marine is still in the traditional boob-cup armor with the leather corset buckled over her midsection. Yes, the pauldrons are different (hers more useful, too, she can raise her arms above shoulder level), but not so much, I think, that it really stands out or "defines" the set as Sororitas PA. After all, the pauldrons I could see showing up on, say, a Night Lord or one of the Emperor's Children (who also like flange-y, wingy, spikey armor) and seeming a perfect fit. The pauldrons, alone, don't say "Sororitas" to me.

Now, I could go with a design that de-emphasises the boob-cup, and sticks with the corset look or maybe mixes in a tabard to give it that robe/habit vibe. A breastplate designed something along these lines (though obviously ceramite power armor and not cuir bolli):


Or something like this layered on top of more ceramite (I hate the open cleavage look):

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Actually, I stole the latter part of that quote ("It's like..." from someone else's signature. Manchu maybe? Can't remember.

It's from here:

 Manchu wrote:
I'd say it's their defining feature. It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" So instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in that power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch.

Pure. Badass.

Man, hard to believe that has been 3+ years ago now.

Where and whoever the original quote came from, it sounded better than anything I could come up with on my own.

Good writers borrow, great writers steal.

 Psienesis wrote:
Where

The thread I linked.

 Psienesis wrote:
whoever

Me.

Such is my passionate fandom!

Heh, I know you wrote it, I read that, I was referencing Furyo and I's previous exchange on the topic.

I tried to find an image of a chibi sororita looking all determined to show I was joking but no joy. Interwebz really needs more SoB stuff.

Maybe one of these?

 Manchu wrote:
In the best case, the boost you get from polarizing media attention is short term. But you get saddled with long term negative associations that tend to reach people who have no other reason to know about your company other than to dislike it because of such associations.

You'll get to be the hero of Gamergate! They'll buy dozens of armies each to SUPPORT ARTISTIC FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
(Well, actually they would mostly follow GW on Twitter, except GW has no account on Twitter, so…)

 aka_mythos wrote:
if SoB armor has boob plates it's because the SoB want everyone to know a bunch of women are kicking butt. If that isn't an empowered perspective there just isn't such a thing.

Is “empower” a buzzword that only ever applies to women? I want to know, because I think I never saw it applied to men. And what is it supposed to mean? Would Sisters of Battle be less “empowering” if they had no boobplates? And how?

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want feminine features to be clear. End of opinion.

But do you want them to be clear on Sisters of Battle, or on literally every female model ever? And if the second, why do you hate unisex armor so much?

 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.

As awesome as Brienne is.... I don't think it'd translate well to 28mm, especially GW's 28mm uber heroic scale.

So, it went from "Why are the SoB neglected ?" to "Meh, boob armour."

A good approach would be to have both ornamented and unornamented (without boob armour) versions of the SoB. Of course, I don't think it would be profitable for GW.

In al honesty (and an attempt to get back on topic) I just want to see the SoB line turned into multi part plastic. The same armour and look that we have now but with better castings and better head sculpts that look less masculine. I would also like to see them get a new codex with better options and a more competitive feel.
I am not going to lie to you here people, I have wanted to play Sisters now for a long time, even as an allied detachment for my IG. I really want too. But the lack of decent models in multipart plastic combined with the fact that the moulds are now ancient and prices that are crazy by even GW's standards (over £50 for ten sisters. Ten!) has kept me away from them for some time now.
I just want my sisters back. I want the crazy bolter gals in their cool semi medieval looking power armour - boob cups, corset bit and all - and I want them to be badass. And in plastic. And at sane prices.

That and those pauldrons would make building these T45 power armoured fallout themed marines a bit easier.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
if SoB armor has boob plates it's because the SoB want everyone to know a bunch of women are kicking butt. If that isn't an empowered perspective there just isn't such a thing.

Is “empower” a buzzword that only ever applies to women? I want to know, because I think I never saw it applied to men. And what is it supposed to mean? Would Sisters of Battle be less “empowering” if they had no boobplates? And how?

It was a pun. Seemingly only people with power armor are empowered in 40k.

Empowerment does not just apply to women; it ultimately has to do with state of personhood and their self agency. The general lack of attribution to men is because modern perception is that society has already empowered us and thus we can't really claim a greater degree of agency.

In the grim dark future few people have agency. In 40k consider the state of the average guardsmen, some are female, the vast majority are drafted or given as tithes to support the Imperium's war machine. SoB however are powered by faith, will power, and belief in what they're doing and that power of their's doesn't really work without agency. Thus relative to the average Imperial citizen they are empowered.

I think "boob plate" is an important aspect of who the SoB are. Contextually within the setting it's important the Ecchlisiarchy lets everyone know SoB are women since it's not suppose to maintain a standing army of men; it could be said its propaganda. Ultimately it plays into the same classic motifs and styles prevelant to the game and setting. GW invented the SoB but aspects of their appearance definitely play into classical depictions of females in armor.

 master of ordinance wrote:
In al honesty (and an attempt to get back on topic) I just want to see the SoB line turned into multi part plastic. The same armour and look that we have now but with better castings and better head sculpts that look less masculine. I would also like to see them get a new codex with better options and a more competitive feel.
I am not going to lie to you here people, I have wanted to play Sisters now for a long time, even as an allied detachment for my IG. I really want too. But the lack of decent models in multipart plastic combined with the fact that the moulds are now ancient and prices that are crazy by even GW's standards (over £50 for ten sisters. Ten!) has kept me away from them for some time now.
I just want my sisters back. I want the crazy bolter gals in their cool semi medieval looking power armour - boob cups, corset bit and all - and I want them to be badass. And in plastic. And at sane prices.

That and those pauldrons would make building these T45 power armoured fallout themed marines a bit easier.

Pretty much this, similar sentiment for me.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
because GW doesn't do market research aka they are a poorly run company. It's their only majority female line, if they marketed that right they would bring in new player

I highly doubt having a whole female army would bring in loads of new gamers to their stores..... there is power armor not bikinis ...

 aka_mythos wrote:
Contextually within the setting it's important the Ecchlisiarchy lets everyone know SoB are women since it's not suppose to maintain a standing army of men

You act like people would know about the decree passive…
Have you read the fluff about Sebastian Thor's trial?

Why would people not know about the Decree Passive? (I mean other than simple ignorance.) It wasn't a secret.

So I've read this whole thread (phew) and I'm almost scared to post anything at this point but hey I'll give it a shot.

So staying OT I have a hard time imagining that it'd be too difficult for GW to reboot the line in plastic. Our rhino and immo is already a plastic kit (and it's fantastic IMO), exorcist only needs a plastic top to go on the already mass-produced rhino chassis. As for the sisters themselves we have the advantage of having mostly one body and loadout determines battlefield role. I imagine a box set much like the tempestus scions would work wonderfully: 5 bodies, one of each special and heavy weapon, 5 un-helmeted heads, 5 helmeted heads, flag for simulacrum imperialis and lastly some bits to convert them into the command squad/celestians. One box covers retribultors, dominions, celestians, BSS, command squad.

At that point you'd need a separate kit for the seraphim, repentia and penitent engines. It's not as small a release as the tempestus scions were but it's roughly on par with the skitarii release. I have no evidence to back it up but I feel that a plastic SoB force would do fine for GW, I'm not saying it'll blow sales outta the water and make them massive profits but I feel it'd be a well received and welcomed addition to their line-up. They won't lose money over it what I'm saying.

On to the design choices. I'm going to tread this minefield and I want to say first that this is my opinion, I'm not trying to change minds or anything I just want to say a couple things based on my observations.

Firstly I see both sides of the armor design argument. I think female soldiers who look like soldiers first are awesome (Brienne of Tarth is one of my favourite characters in any book/show I look forward to seeing her in the new Star wars too) and I think they can be very badass. Those Eisenkern models someone linked to are great models and very tastefully shows off how female soldiers can be modelled. The flip side is that I also love the aesthetic of the current gothis SoB design. They seem equal parts soldier and church adornment and I think that fits their roles quite well. I believe the word "sexualisation" has been thrown around unnecessarily here as it gives too strong a sense of the issue. Pardon the pun but it's making mountains out of molehills. The BSS models aren't suggestively posed or missing convenient armor plates to show off "assets", that is sexualisation. The pointy boob plates are not there to make us lust after our models, I feel this is a poor example of "sexualisation". The current models have one feature (two if you want to get technical) that is exaggerated and could be toned down in a plastic kit. I feel the "boob plates" could stay but be tastefully modelled to maintain the SoB design aesthetic but also not be so prominent and noticeable.

One poster has stated that he doesn't want to have "sexy SoB" but that he wants them to still be recognizable as females on the table top without much difficulty. Ultimately I agree with this and would be happy with a plastic kit that accomplishes this goal while maintaining the core style of their armor.

SoB helmets are my favourite helmet design of the entire 40K line. I'd love to have the option to have more of them on my units.

TLDR: Sisters could be a welcome reboot army and a kit similar to the Scions kit should work for a good deal of their needs.

 aka_mythos wrote:

I think "boob plate" is an important aspect of who the SoB are. Contextually within the setting it's important the Ecchlisiarchy lets everyone know SoB are women since it's not suppose to maintain a standing army of men; it could be said its propaganda. Ultimately it plays into the same classic motifs and styles prevelant to the game and setting. GW invented the SoB but aspects of their appearance definitely play into classical depictions of females in armor.

I think that, beyond simply growling about sexism / SJW's running over my cat, the question of "boobplate" does touch on a few interesting aspects.

First, the 40K universe is exaggerated and impractical by nature. The Repentia never struck me as especially ridiculous, because they came out around the same time as the immortal disciples of the forbidden god of excess, who fight by wailing on their guitars so hard that your head explodes. Exaggeration and stylisation has been applied fairly evenly across the range (lately, to a degree I find offputting), but when that is applied to armour being worn by a woman, the assumption is likely (making no judgement on if the assumption is right) to be inappropriate sexualisation. Which ties into....

Another thing is, the lines between an image or aesthetic being "impressive", "attractive" and "sexualised". It's one of those areas where everyone has slightly different standards, but will tend to insist that their own lines are obvious, common sense, etc. One thing that I think is worth considering is that people will be much quicker to label an image of a woman as "sexualised" if she's seen as being impractically dressed, striking a certain pose, etc, whereas an image of a man needs to go to real extremes to get the same label.

 Manchu wrote:
Why would people not know about the Decree Passive? (I mean other than simple ignorance.) It wasn't a secret.

Consider the situation during the trial of Sebastian Thor, and you'll get a good idea why they did not advertise it to the average citizen. The people that know about the decree are people that could have to enforce it. Inquisitors, high-ranked members of the Administratum, …
But those people do not need boobplate to know Sisters are women. They knew Sisters before the Decree was even thought of. So…


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
One thing that I think is worth considering is that people will be much quicker to label an image of a woman as "sexualised" if she's seen as being impractically dressed, striking a certain pose, etc, whereas an image of a man needs to go to real extremes to get the same label.

I do not agree. I think women are much more often sexualized, because they are much more often impractically dressed in ways that put a deliberate emphasis on body part is conventionally considered sexually attractive, striking poses that do the same, than men. Especially true if we look at ratio of images doing so rather than sheer number…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
One thing that I think is worth considering is that people will be much quicker to label an image of a woman as "sexualised" if she's seen as being impractically dressed, striking a certain pose, etc, whereas an image of a man needs to go to real extremes to get the same label.

I do not agree. I think women are much more often sexualized, because they are much more often impractically dressed in ways that put a deliberate emphasis on body part is conventionally considered sexually attractive, striking poses that do the same, than men. Especially true if we look at ratio of images doing so rather than sheer number…

Your Point and the one Elemental made are different. His is more about quality while yours is linked to quantity. i think bth points are right

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The people that know about the decree are people that could have to enforce it.

I disagree entirely. The Ecclesiarchy went from enlisting millions of men to enlisting none. Plus, the decree was part of Thor's reform package. It would not have been poorly received and there is no reason for it to be a secret. That said,

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
But those people do not need boobplate to know Sisters are women.

This is quite true. So far as we know, SoB have always looked the way the way they currently look. It's not like Thor was like, here wear this so people aren't confused.

It strikes me as entirely pointless to talk about "sexualization," which is just another buzzword loaded with all kinds of inapplicable baggage and unaccounted for assumptions.

The conversation is really simple: if you don't like the Sisters models, that's fine. It means you don't like Sisters. You like something else, a personal vision of them. This is where for any other army people would just be content to go out and find proxies. But for Sisters, solely because they are women, people get totally confused, acting like the topic has some kind of moral or political significance.

Wyzilla wrote:
That's a feature, not a bug.

Yes, that was my point. The Marines are sexualised.

The problem is that sexualising a guy is pretty difficult, because guys are trained from a young age to stand with their pelvises thrust forwards to show off their manly attributes. It's hard to see sexualisation when sexualisation of the male form is normal, while sexualisation of the female form has always been admonished.

It's part of an ancient double standard that women must never allow themselves to be sexualised, but must always accept being treated as sex objects. Trying to get round this is how you end up with feminists who declare that women should wear long skirts to avoid provoking the male gaze.

Personally, my take on why the Sororitas armour involves corsets and wetlook is that the Fabricator General took one look at Thor's request for a new set of armour for the Sororitas, to replace the inappropriate armour used by the Brides, and told him to make do with the last lot the Mechanicus designed for the Ecclesiarchy in disgust.

There's been legions of books written on this topic of the sexualization of women, but I could name the number of people on Dakka that I suspect might have honestly and deliberately (without it being required as reading material by a college class) read even one or two of them on a single hand

For my part, I propose that it's not noticed as often when men are sexualized, because male is considered to be default, and men are in western society usually supposed to be defined by what they do (or don't do). Thus, men are sexualized to be sure, but because things are assumed to be default to begin with, it's usually quite tame-- and furthermore, it's not usually done for the purpose of titillation, but to emphasize the traits involved in what the man does (especially in a wargame).

Females, meanwhile, are deemed an exception to the male norm. This shouldn't be a controversial point, either-- people in this very thread have expressed the fear that if they don't emphasize and sexualize female miniatures, no one will be able to tell they're female, important to them because otherwise they'll assume the person is male. And what do they suggest to emphasize the feminine characteristics? Giant boobs, fetishwear, and sultry poses-- traits and fashions which titillate and draw attention to how sexually desirable the person or miniature is.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
One thing that I think is worth considering is that people will be much quicker to label an image of a woman as "sexualised" if she's seen as being impractically dressed, striking a certain pose, etc, whereas an image of a man needs to go to real extremes to get the same label.

I do not agree. I think women are much more often sexualized, because they are much more often impractically dressed in ways that put a deliberate emphasis on body part is conventionally considered sexually attractive, striking poses that do the same, than men. Especially true if we look at ratio of images doing so rather than sheer number…

I feel the issue of sexualisation is far too broad and grey to truly cover in a thread on the internet. It runs far too deep into our cultures and societal norms. I agree with elemental that what one person views as sexualisation may not be perceived as such by another. Neither person is wrong as it's a matter of opinion. Consider what some people find attractive amongst cultures that have more conservative clothing for the women amongst them. You could even look at it chronologically, what was considered sexy in the 1950's is now far too tame for todays standards, bathing suits come to mind for this, every year they get smaller and smaller in order to maintain their sexiness. I also don't think looking at the ratio of male to female sexualized content is fair either as it seems to me (my opinion based on personal observations mind you) that the demand to see sexualised women is greater than the demand to see sexualised men. Simple supply and demand would tell us that we should expect these ratios to exist. It's hard to draw a direct comparison amongst the sexualisation of men and women too since what would be seen as blatant sexualisation varies wildly across the genders. If a man strikes the poses sexualized women make then it's a parody, it's just not sexy.

It's hard to draw lines to say what is and isn't sexualisation because that varies wildly depending on who/when/where you are. All we can do as consumers is make our own decisions on what we like and invest our money into based on our own tastes. Will GW design a plastic SoB kit that appeals to everyone? Absolutely not, to some it'll always be either too sexy, not sexy enough, needs thicker armor, don't like the concept of a pipe organ pretending it's a missile launcher, penitent engines don't make sense why wouldn't you just shoot the unprotected guy in it's centre, ughh SoB haircuts are awful, oooh SoB haircuts are so practical, their faces are too manly, their faces are great they look like mean warrior women. It's all taste and opinions, a war you will never win but can only hope that as a company you fight well enough in to turn a profit. Looking at the wishlisting for the SoB re-design in plastic (or simple conversion to plastic with little to no re-design) it's clear that GW won't please us all, too many varying tastes, but what they can do is still try to make something awesome that appeals to enough people (or is easy enough to convert to what you want) that the army becomes a welcome addition to their stock shelves in stores.

Females are deemed an exception to the male norm depending on the context.

Military context females are an exception to the norm. So it makes sense.

For nurses, we have to break the female norm by stating "male nurse" and so on.

Ultimately it all comes down to context and until women start pulling a big share in military matters it will be seen as a male thing for a long time, especially when talking about combat. So it makes sense to point out and say "hey, this army is different to the norm" and go from there. After all many TV shows, movies and books are based on the premise of "someone out of place doing things you would not normally see" and often these characters need emphasis to differentiate them from the group they are in.

Like in those baby sitter movies where the baby sitter is a super buffed dude, normally a soldier (Arnold Swartznager etc) having to do something like look after children or teach at kindergarten. Males in young child care is not the norm, so their maleness is exaggerated and their jobs are a sharp contrast to the world of child care so often their military past is exaggerated.

It would be the same in any gender reversal, specie reversal, time reversal idea etc.

Of course, the amount of exaggeration is up to you, but in a setting a person is not normally found in their differences are often exaggerated so it's clear that these are not what you assume they are. You may not like the level of exaggeration but it does need to be there.

So lets not cry unfairness, if I was a male nurse I Would understandably be annoyed at how male nurses are portrayed (because they aren't the norm) in media too. But it's all in context.

Ultimately it's just a matter of taste how much exaggeration is needed in these cases.

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
So I've read this whole thread (phew) and I'm almost scared to post anything at this point but hey I'll give it a shot.

So staying OT I have a hard time imagining that it'd be too difficult for GW to reboot the line in plastic. Our rhino and immo is already a plastic kit (and it's fantastic IMO), exorcist only needs a plastic top to go on the already mass-produced rhino chassis. As for the sisters themselves we have the advantage of having mostly one body and loadout determines battlefield role. I imagine a box set much like the tempestus scions would work wonderfully: 5 bodies, one of each special and heavy weapon, 5 un-helmeted heads, 5 helmeted heads, flag for simulacrum imperialis and lastly some bits to convert them into the command squad/celestians. One box covers retribultors, dominions, celestians, BSS, command squad.

At that point you'd need a separate kit for the seraphim, repentia and penitent engines. It's not as small a release as the tempestus scions were but it's roughly on par with the skitarii release. I have no evidence to back it up but I feel that a plastic SoB force would do fine for GW, I'm not saying it'll blow sales outta the water and make them massive profits but I feel it'd be a well received and welcomed addition to their line-up. They won't lose money over it what I'm saying.

On to the design choices. I'm going to tread this minefield and I want to say first that this is my opinion, I'm not trying to change minds or anything I just want to say a couple things based on my observations.

Firstly I see both sides of the armor design argument. I think female soldiers who look like soldiers first are awesome (Brienne of Tarth is one of my favourite characters in any book/show I look forward to seeing her in the new Star wars too) and I think they can be very badass. Those Eisenkern models someone linked to are great models and very tastefully shows off how female soldiers can be modelled. The flip side is that I also love the aesthetic of the current gothis SoB design. They seem equal parts soldier and church adornment and I think that fits their roles quite well. I believe the word "sexualisation" has been thrown around unnecessarily here as it gives too strong a sense of the issue. Pardon the pun but it's making mountains out of molehills. The BSS models aren't suggestively posed or missing convenient armor plates to show off "assets", that is sexualisation. The pointy boob plates are not there to make us lust after our models, I feel this is a poor example of "sexualisation". The current models have one feature (two if you want to get technical) that is exaggerated and could be toned down in a plastic kit. I feel the "boob plates" could stay but be tastefully modelled to maintain the SoB design aesthetic but also not be so prominent and noticeable.

One poster has stated that he doesn't want to have "sexy SoB" but that he wants them to still be recognizable as females on the table top without much difficulty. Ultimately I agree with this and would be happy with a plastic kit that accomplishes this goal while maintaining the core style of their armor.

SoB helmets are my favourite helmet design of the entire 40K line. I'd love to have the option to have more of them on my units.

TLDR: Sisters could be a welcome reboot army and a kit similar to the Scions kit should work for a good deal of their needs.

I like this.

I also want to add that they are likely going to need to write them a better set of rules than what they currently have. Right now the army plays similar to the older IG veteran leafblower lists, and historically, they've just been guard in a space marine kit with identical weapons. Although I love the models, it really lacks imagination which is why I would imagine they have never sold well.

If they got primary and special weapons unique to the church, similar to how the AdMech, although being in the imperial fold, use and maintain a weapon list with mechanics completely unique to themselves, it would go a long way in making them feel like their own thing, and not just a lazy meshing of two armies.

I, too, adore the Sororitas helmet. It's probably the best looking helmet design in 40k, really..