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 made a little joke about Sisters of Silence on Boob Armour and someone comes along and berates me saying if I don't like it, I shouldn't make any comments on it. As I said it was a little joke and said no more but this person had to call me out on it and demanded I can't talk about it. After all this is a discussion forum and if we can talk about it we can. So it seems this person wants boob armour and is passionate about it. Well I shouldn't say he is passionate about having boob armour, he seems passionate about his female miniatures but it also seems he wants to have boob armour or he wouldn't call me out when I made the joke.

My stance is I don't care either way. As a boy who loved these childish things in my younger days I agree it can stay, after all Rule of Cool and all that. Now that I have grown up I can see why people don't like having boob armour and can see their view as well.

I for one now would like to See Sisters of Battle without boob armour. I would like to see a bit more realistic approach as we have the fine women who serve the forces of today and we can't really tell if they are male or female. Seeing boob armour on Sisters of Battle will just make that army a bit more sexual now. I thought GW was trying to get away from sexualizing their minis, so I am surprised at this. If I want to have sexual in my minis I would by Kingdom Death. I would like a nice army, and I think it would be a good idea of not having boob armour on Sisters of Battles and make it a really serious grim dark army, not just an almost power armour army with boobs.

What do you think? What are your opinions of boob armour?

Lose it. I've always thought it looks like nonsense. I don't much a care about realism, and I like stylization, but Sisters of Battle don't need the whole armored corset thing.

feth me, you actually bothered to do it.

Let's provide a little context.

This, I assume, is the quote "berating" Davor in the original thread..

 Sqorgar wrote:

Davor wrote:

Oh look, BOOB ARMOUR. Yes they are females.

I actually thought GW would get away from boob armour. Sadly they didn't.

Can we please, please, please have one god damned discussion about female miniatures without derailing it by talking about boob armor for the fifteenth billion time? I can't wait for the plastic SoB to be released so we can listen to the same complaining for the fifteenth billion and one time. Boob armor isn't going away, so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own.

Now, personally, that just reads to me like someone sick to death of such an inconsequential nonsense entreating someone else to not start pulling at the thread again.

Something I can wholeheartedly sympathise with.

In this particular context, we have models that are true to the pre-existing imagery. Complaining about the use of boob armour is akin to complaining that Ultramarines are blue.

Whilst not being particularly fond of boob armour (I just looked at Kingdom Death and my god... ), it's such a part of the image that without the armoured corset, the boob armour and the bob haircut, you haven't really got sisters of battle, you've got equal opportunities Space Marines. As for "realistic portrayal", it's 40k.....

And quite frankly, these days, the SoB barely count as sexualised when you see "worse" on the front cover of broadsheet newspapers...

I find it an easy way to identify that a 28mm high model is female.

As to realism, we play a fairly unrealistic game in 40k, I don't think the Sisters of Silence are a particularly degrading female representation. I don't think it's much of an issue.


I also think they look like great models!

What Azreal13 said.

It is not realistic and is rather silly, but the aesthetic looks good and fits the theme (SoB should be distinctly female). It would be next to impossible to tell if armoured people were female without it.

Edit: plus the whole "corset look" fits the grimdark, to my mind at least.

I would have fully agreed but the I believe the comment of " so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own." I found was totally not needed and made it a personal attack instead of saying how he was "sick to death" of it.

After all this is not Warseer and people are allowed to have opinions on Dakka. He could have said what he wanted without making it personal. But personal he decided to make it. I brought it up so someone will not say that it's coming from that thread. It is coming from that thread, I got upset, at the common, I vented, now on my part it's all water under the bridge now.

So without getting upset, it does make a good discussion. After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects but then on the other hand, it's nice to have mini that are like Kingdom Death has done.

I can see both sides of the camp as I said. But for some reason I guess I just would like to see some serious butt kicking sisters instead of seeing them as sexual objects like I did when I was younger.

I think this thread should be the official discussion on this matter. When someone complains about it, they can be linked here so as to not derail yet another thread about female miniatures. I mean, does nobody else think it is a little sexist that every time we start talking about female miniatures, we inevitably go off topic talking exclusively about their breasts?

I appreciate you're Canadian, Davor, with their legendary reputation for niceness, but if you see that as an "attack" then there's a bigger issue at play here.

"If you have a problem with boob plate, go deal with it by yourself rather than debating it here for the nth time" is about the mildest attack I've ever witnessed.

Davor wrote:
I would have fully agreed but the I believe the comment of " so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own." I found was totally not needed and made it a personal attack instead of saying how he was "sick to death" of it.

That was real (if a bit curt) advice. There are things in this world that we can change and things in this world that we can not, and if you want to be a happy, healthy person, it is best not to dwell on the things you can not. Boob armor is something that will not go away - not without forcing everybody else in the world agree with you AND censoring the artist achievements of the past. Seems like an uphill battle to me.

For me, the pose or presentation is what makes or breaks the mini. A miniature woman in sensible clothes but posed provocatively like a Hawkeye Initiative picture is far worse to me than SoSs with boob plate corsets who are portrayed as competent, terrifying adversaries. In a post-lady Gaga world, that costume could be quite empowering for some people.


But seriously, put a damn helmet over your brain pan.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think this thread should be the official discussion on this matter. When someone complains about it, they can be linked here so as to not derail yet another thread about female miniatures. I mean, does nobody else think it is a little sexist that every time we start talking about female miniatures, we inevitably go off topic talking exclusively about their breasts?

Now we can talk about it in a not New and Rumour section just like how a Mod said.

Off course it will always go off topic because of breast. A lot of men think totally different once we start talking about breast. At least now we can't go off topic about it now.

Is it sexist? Yes it is. I use to feel bad about it but now that I see grown up full grown women google and google over half naked firemen and what not, it's only fair. There is time and place for having sexist minis and there is a time and place for not having them. Kingdom Death does it seem to do it properly. That is a time and place to have it. I don't think it's the time or place in having this done in a 40K setting. It doesn't make the game more grim mark and would actually make it less grim mark for having boob armour on Sisters of Battle. It just detracts it from making it more sexual than it needs to be instead of adding grim mark to what a lot of people like in the 40K setting to be.

I am curious as to why people would like to have boob plate armour on their minis for Sisters of Battle?

Davor wrote:
After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects...

Making it obvious that models are female is NOT objectifying them, any more (less if anything) than having women wear dresses while men wear suits. Teenage boys might think of "that" when they see "boobplate" but teenage boy think of "that" because of anything that vaguely resembles certain shapes.

For Slaanesh models I could see your point, but those should be sexualized (to some extent at least), because that's the theme.
If you don't think 40k should contain anything mature, that's another discussion.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Davor wrote:

Oh look, BOOB ARMOUR. Yes they are females.

I actually thought GW would get away from boob armour. Sadly they didn't.

Can we please, please, please have one god damned discussion about female miniatures without derailing it by talking about boob armor for the fifteenth billion time? I can't wait for the plastic SoB to be released so we can listen to the same complaining for the fifteenth billion and one time. Boob armor isn't going away, so maybe it is best that find some way for you to deal with this obviously troubling matter on your own.

Now, personally, that just reads to me like someone sick to death of such an inconsequential nonsense entreating someone else to not start pulling at the thread again.

If the issue has come up "fifteen billion" times, perhaps it's not inconsequential nonsense?

I think the answer lies in each individual player's hands. There are enough alternatives out there now that if boob armour ain't your bag, then you don't have to field it. If an opponent drops their boobtastic Repentia and it makes you uncomfortable, you can always ask for a different opponent.

Davor wrote:
I am curious as to why people would like to have boob plate armour on their minis for Sisters of Battle?

For the same reason if I watch Star Trek I expect the crew of the Enterprise to be in tight jumpsuit-esque uniforms, colour coded to their job, with federation logos on them, rather than running around in (arguably equally practical) jeans and t-shirts.

Now would I give them boob plate if designing them from scratch? Probably not...

Davor wrote:
There is time and place for having sexist minis and there is a time and place for not having them. Kingdom Death does it seem to do it properly. That is a time and place to have it. I don't think it's the time or place in having this done in a 40K setting. It doesn't make the game more grim mark and would actually make it less grim mark for having boob armour on Sisters of Battle. It just detracts it from making it more sexual than it needs to be instead of adding grim mark to what a lot of people like in the 40K setting to be.

Fair enough if you don't want armored breasts in your games, but why do you think it makes 40k less grim?

What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?

Meh, it's such a common thing that it hardly really registers. I only argue about the impracticality of having a breast plate that directs a weapon towards the center instead of away from.

That's why I really enjoyed a undead queen artwork where the breast plate had a hole in that exposed her ribs. Not hard to guess what killed her.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
but why do you think it makes 40k less grim?

What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?

When I see Sisters of Battle, and I see boobs it has become sexualized. So instead of grim mark, I see sex. Funny thing is, for Slannesh models, and the old ones, I don't see sex at all. I don't see not titilation at all because it looks something "real" that would happen if real, but when it comes to boob armour the realism is taken away and looks less grim mark. When I see nipples on Blood Angels Space Marines, it looks less grim mark. Why? It looks like a joke for me. Yes I know, Romans had nipples and six packs on their armour, but still just looks silly. If it looks silly it doesn't look grim mark then. So when I see boobs on Sisters of Battle while it does't look silly, it just looks more sexualized and so there fore less grim mark.

Hope this makes sense.

If the issue has come up "fifteen billion" times, perhaps it's not inconsequential nonsense?

This a forum about toy soldiers, outside of maybe the odd thread down in OT, everything discussed is inconsequential nonsense.

Davor wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
but why do you think it makes 40k less grim?

What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?

When I see Sisters of Battle, and I see boobs it has become sexualized. So instead of grim mark, I see sex. Funny thing is, for Slannesh models, and the old ones, I don't see sex at all. I don't see not titilation at all because it looks something "real" that would happen if real, but when it comes to boob armour the realism is taken away and looks less grim mark. When I see nipples on Blood Angels Space Marines, it looks less grim mark. Why? It looks like a joke for me. Yes I know, Romans had nipples and six packs on their armour, but still just looks silly. If it looks silly it doesn't look grim mark then. So when I see boobs on Sisters of Battle while it does't look silly, it just looks more sexualized and so there fore less grim mark.

Hope this makes sense.

Yeah, I think I understand where you are coming from. Breast armor pulls you out of the immersion of the game because it shouldn't exist "in universe", where as Slaaneshi boob daemons should exist in the setting because of the nature of Slaanesh. Do I have that correct?

Either way, thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Only if my words were as good as yours DarkTraveller.

Aesthetically, I don't have a problem with it in a fantasy/sci-fi setting

Realistically, though, it's just not practical on non-ceremonial armour. Let's take a plate of armour, form it such that the edge of a log splitter is resting right against the sternum of the woman wearing it, and march her into combat. One good punch to the chest and she's out of combat, probably permanently. It's the same reason ancient soldiers started the 'fad' of cutting hair and shaving beards: why give the enemy something he can grab and remove you from combat?

The Sororitas torso armour is a dress of noble women worn in the medieval times (and later) and hardly over-sexualized. Such things are some of the things that define 40k, like MK II/III knight armour, Roman breastplates on Blood Angels, power swords and axes instead of just power rods and gothic architecture all over the place.

The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.

IMO the problems with boobplate armor are when:

1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.

2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.

 Dryaktylus wrote:
The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.

I believe the Sisters Repentia wear such little clothing to emphasise their desire for self mutilation, flagellation and a glorious death in battle. Their weapons are also meant to cause maximum harm to their enemies, so whips and double handed chainswords seem appropriate.

To the OP and the question now:

I think Boob Armour as a term should be thrown away. It seems to be such a silly buzzword when criticising clothing in both TT games and even Video Games, dismissing any redeeming qualities of the rest of the piece artistic wise because it could be interpreted as something little boys can get a fuzzy feeling over.

Should revealing armour exist? Well that's down to you, but as long as there is a demand for it, it will continue to exist. I would say, however, that SoB and SoS armour hardly constitutes as "Boob Armour", at least from what I've seen of it. Having revealing Power Armour suits would be impractical even for a boisterous and impractical world. The accentuation of breasts on those armour pieces is large, but not revealing in any way from my standpoint. It's just another stylised look for a very stylish 40K faction in a stylised universe.

G.A

The truth is minus feminizing physical characteristics presented evidently, you can't tell a 28mm mini is female. Put a normal proportioned woman in combat fatigues, with all the equipment etc, and put their hair up and under a helmet or cap, and you can't tell.

If you don't emphasize hips, or breasts, or female hairstyles, then it is kind of pointless to have female minis. There is a line, the pin-up style bare butt figs are another thing. But boob armor alone is a part of the visual design language used across sci-fi and fantasy. Objectification or simple Identification will always be in the eye of the beholder though. But I am telling you, remove/obscure/cover hips, boobs and hair, and you will be hardpressed to identify a female figure. And in a community demanding more of a female presence, it is a bit of a catch 22.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:
The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.

I believe the Sisters Repentia wear such little clothing to emphasise their desire for self mutilation, flagellation and a glorious death in battle. Their weapons are also meant to cause maximum harm to their enemies, so whips and double handed chainswords seem appropriate.

It's the combination that makes this unit awful (half-naked slim girls - giant swords - masked Dominatrix - whips). It also doesn't make sense fluff-wise: these sisiers actively seek death/absolution and are regarded as an example - why should they need the BDSM lady?

wheres my Moob armor ?

I think boob armour is a terrible idea. Steel is a much better material than fatty tissue to make armour out of.

As for the actual discussion, as long as the armour isn't overly sexualised, I guess it's not bad. Male chest armour varies from female chest armour for relatively obvious reasons. I agree with MajorTom in that you need some sort of visual clue/clues and that there is a line between cheesecake and not-cheescake. I do find ridiculous though the amount of 'completely naked but wearing a helmet and holding a weapon' figures out there.

 Dryaktylus wrote:
It's the combination that makes this unit awful (half-naked slim girls - giant swords - masked Dominatrix - whips). It also doesn't make sense fluff-wise: these sisiers actively seek death/absolution and are regarded as an example - why should they need the BDSM lady?

The Repentia Mistress is an Overseer of the squad - she is there to remind them of their duty, and to deal with anyone who forgets their failings of the code of the Sisters, similar to a Penal Legion Officer.

I don't see how this unit is "awful" - it only seems to be one's interpretation that makes them undesirable. Somehow the presence of the whip or a mask immediately yields something sexual or "BDSM" in nature. Even if that were the case, why does that make it the intention of something for a curious 12 year old to enjoy?