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.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.

Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?

It's probably because of Rule of Cool.

Walkers are incredibly impractical. But damnit, they are awesome. Everyone loves mechs.

Not wearing a helmet allows for a lot of character and incredibly dynamic poses.

Insane color schemes let people personalize their stuff and create really unique looks instead of everyone being the same 3 shades of grey, green, and brown.

Boob plate.... well... YMMV but it for sure does not have the same, near universal, appeal that those other things do. Hence the constant debate and discussion. Boob plate may or may not look neat to some but it absolutely is not in the same league as mechs when it comes to rule of cool. It might not be in rule of cool at all. It's probably just in the league of "sex sells".

Boob armour is real. Thus, realistic.

I posted this several years ago in a former post about this same dead horse. Please stop kicking it.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because it isn't, really. It's a convention of the genre that you need to exaggerate proportions a bit, but "armor with more obvious curves in the chest" and "boobplate" are not the same.

Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?

Actually... No. They are not. Tagging them as "Boob plate" is pretty much marginalizing the armor. All of you crying about it, your wrong, and it comes down to your personal opinion. What if I told you that here in the real world, they are working on it in real life.

Its form fitting, but not exaggerated to the point of a chain mail bikini, though I've seen those as well.

That sisters of battle armor is not on par with a leather nuns uniform, you know. It's practical in the form of a light armored suit on par with personal form fitting body armor, like... you know like we use in day to day operations in the real world. Then you add that pack with the ventilation system, such as the Marines have, and then the flame throwers..... Sisters of battle fit the roll of commandos, if you want to go down to the brass tacks.

I'm honestly interested in new and improved smaller jump packs for them, then add in a couple of hand weapons, such as hand flamers, or bolt pistols, as they jump in on a hand to hand combine that with the hand grenades, or krak grenades, and if they work anything like I've seen in the past, you'll be pushing a rhino wall while they jump in behind your infantry and ruck up through the rear of them with the grenade/ flamer combinations.

even seeing the cosplay girls in that armor is hit or miss. You can get off on that if you want to, but it will be an entirely different angle when you see some of the stuff I have... and sexy is the last thought I'd have on the sight.

Reference for real life body armor.

http://www.bodyarmornews.com/army-testing-new-uniforms-female-gis-working-to-develop-a-body-armor-that-better-fits-women/

http://www.legitreviews.com/new-technique-turns-t-shirts-into-body-armor_7820

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/03/04/form-fitted-body-armor-rolling-out-combat-roles-expand-women.html

http://www.usarmor.com/products/concealable/female


etc. etc. etc....

Food for thought- most of your women want something that save the Ta Ta's. It aint about sexy, its about practical. Light armor on a girl is good if she can do her job, otherwise she's a liability and a target. Sexy has nothing to do with it.

 Kojiro wrote:
Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?

If you look at my post earlier in this thread I acknowledged that SoB armor makes some sense in the context of 40k and its blatantly unrealistic "because god said to do this" designs, and the main issue is that it's the only example of women in the Imperium. If SoB were just one set of female models, alongside female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau, etc, there would be much less of a problem. But when you look at the genre as a whole, where "DO THE STUPID THING BECAUSE GOD" is not the fundamental design principle, those same stylistic reasons do not necessarily exist. Contrast that with things like heroes not wearing helmets, which is pretty much universal regardless of any other design questions.

 Lance845 wrote:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/plastic-sisters-wait.html

Man... look at those clearly female models that do not need giant tits hanging off their armor to tell that they are female. And hey! You didn't have to paint them with lip stick or anything!

Those conversions make for an excellent plastic sisters. Get smaller shoulders and give their armor a less bulky but more gothic plate armor aesthetic. Throw on some sisters iconography. BAM! You have a updated but still grim dark look to the sisters that doesn't need to slap tits the size of heroic scale heads onto their chest so you can "tell it's a woman".

While I do enjoy those conversions, the ONLY thing letting you know they are female are the heads. If they were wearing helmets they would be indistinguishable from Astartes.

 Peregrine wrote:
...more female Tau...

Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.

Female Tau have different facial features.

And female Tau can actually be named in the fluff. Why is there only a single female named character? Granted, she's pretty important, but it would be easy to add more. Even if they aren't incredibly obvious on the model it you'd still be talking about them as "she" all the time and reinforcing the idea that women are a part of the 40k universe.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
...more female Tau...

Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.

Male Tau have an oval shaped head hole. Females have a "Y" shaped one. Except Etherials. Theirs is diamond shaped with a crystal poking out (So sayeth Xenology).

The worse boob plate is battle bikini, the helmet and rest a few scraps of cloth or a revealing floaty dress that's barely hanging on.

But SOB is full plate armour, fully protective, it might be obviously female from 10 miles away but it is also functional armour.

Unlike other iterations of boob plate its not as blateltnely stupid.


And if you slimmed down the legs and arms slightly, maybe a small, fraction of MM push out on chest, not SOB just a slight nudge to female and female heads.
Instant tasteful female guard.

 Peregrine wrote:
And female Tau can actually be named in the fluff. Why is there only a single female named character? Granted, she's pretty important, but it would be easy to add more. Even if they aren't incredibly obvious on the model it you'd still be talking about them as "she" all the time and reinforcing the idea that women are a part of the 40k universe.

I agree

there are a couple of other named Tau females - one of Farsights bodyguards is female - and guess which one they decided to kill off....

Also that last campaign book did mention a cuple of females in the art section as tank commanders, suit operators etc.

Shame there were not some females in the Genestealer Cult - but then the depiction of them as primarily breeding vessels in the Deathwatch novel is fairly horrific.

Cleary GW is endorsing rape culture by having armor shaped like breasts, sexist i say to you!
And it has no bases in history!


If you don't like it, you can always play a different army, or convert your SOB that they are different.

Oh and if you find SOB armor appropriate google female armor and you get a slew of metal bikini's that are used in video games

 DeffDred wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
...more female Tau...

Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.

Male Tau have an oval shaped head hole. Females have a "Y" shaped one. Except Etherials. Theirs is diamond shaped with a crystal poking out (So sayeth Xenology).

I didn't think it was canon whether all female Tau had a Y slit or simply that Shadowsun does. I don't know much about Tau but I remember having a discussion a while back about it. The Tau wiki says...

Only two female Tau have ever been illustrated. The first, Commander Shadowsun, appeared to have a more human face than male Tau; being smoother and sleeker with larger eyes, a nose-like facial feature and a "Y" shaped facial slit. It is not known, however, whether Shadowsun is representative of all female Tau. The second known Tau female, the subject of an Imperial dissection by the Magi of the Adeptus Mechanicus, had the facial characteristics of a male Tau.

I've always just assumed there are a bunch of female Tau that are just never identified as such.

Either way there could be more named female Tau, but the one they do have is supreme commander so I don't think you can cry too much about it

At least SoB is fully covered

Its metal armour, not cloth and underwear.
No boob cut outs, vital organs covered, the armour minus helmet goes up to neck, not just mega cleavage armour

It escapes a list of the worst excesses of female armour.
And yes history had muscle plate, cod piece armour and such besides.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
...more female Tau...

Don't female Tau look the same as male Tau? I always just assumed a bunch of them were already female but they're not visually distinctive.

Male Tau have an oval shaped head hole. Females have a "Y" shaped one. Except Etherials. Theirs is diamond shaped with a crystal poking out (So sayeth Xenology).

I didn't think it was canon whether all female Tau had a Y slit or simply that Shadowsun does. I don't know much about Tau but I remember having a discussion a while back about it. The Tau wiki says...

Only two female Tau have ever been illustrated. The first, Commander Shadowsun, appeared to have a more human face than male Tau; being smoother and sleeker with larger eyes, a nose-like facial feature and a "Y" shaped facial slit. It is not known, however, whether Shadowsun is representative of all female Tau. The second known Tau female, the subject of an Imperial dissection by the Magi of the Adeptus Mechanicus, had the facial characteristics of a male Tau.

I've always just assumed there are a bunch of female Tau that are just never identified as such.

Either way there could be more named female Tau, but the one they do have is supreme commander so I don't think you can cry too much about it

The wiki is wrong - see my post.

Thats the thing - it just need a few female names inserted here and there - the BL novels are in, in direct contrast, very good at this.

 Mr Morden wrote:
The wiki is wrong - see my post.

Which part of your post? Did the last campaign book had descriptions or pictures of female Tau with Y slots?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
The wiki is wrong - see my post.

Which part of your post? Did the last campaign book had descriptions or pictures of female Tau with Y slots?

Yes it did.

p113 Kauton - Shas'vre Dastir is depicted in combat fatigues and battlesuit harness, she is a Ghostkeel pilot. The y slot is shown. Several iother Tau females are named as piloting suits.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Well no they're not the same, but that's neither here nor there. Boobplate is an impractical by definitely stylistic design. One of many impractical, stylistic designs in 40k. And those stylistic things extend beyond just exaggerated proportions- things like no helmets, insane colour shemes or hell, walkers. Why can't boobplate be excused on stylistic grounds like those other things?

If you look at my post earlier in this thread I acknowledged that SoB armor makes some sense in the context of 40k and its blatantly unrealistic "because god said to do this" designs, and the main issue is that it's the only example of women in the Imperium. If SoB were just one set of female models, alongside female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau, etc, there would be much less of a problem. But when you look at the genre as a whole, where "DO THE STUPID THING BECAUSE GOD" is not the fundamental design principle, those same stylistic reasons do not necessarily exist. Contrast that with things like heroes not wearing helmets, which is pretty much universal regardless of any other design questions.

Yup, I like the SoB aesthetic a lot, but GW really do need to get moving on other stuff. I mean it would be trivial for them to take a kit that really, really needs a redesign like Cadians, and release a new version with, say, 1/3 of the models as all-business-no-nonsense female soldiers. And you know what, maybe they don't end up looking hugely different to the male models in 30mm scale - I'd say that's unlikely given the quality of modern GW infantry kits, but regardless - is there anything wrong with that? Is that a reason not to do it? Hell they could just make that a general rule - unless it makes no sense in the background, make at least 1/3 of the box female(and no, modern (mis)conceptions of what makes an effective soldier have nothing to do with the 40K background, by that I mean stuff like "is a race of asexual green mushrooms" or "is a race of asexual extra-galactic horrors"). A female Commissar would be a welcome addition to the line, ideally one just wearing the normal frogged tunic and stormcoat rather than a cleavage corset like that unfortunate RPG illustration.

I genuinely can't understand why they don't just fix such an obvious flaw in their product line - I mean FFS they're up to how many almost-identical Sigmarine character clampacks now, but they couldn't stretch to two Commissars, the male one we got and a female one as well? It's baffling.

Thing is, SoB power armour doesn't need to be practical because it's power armour. As long as it covers your body, it can be which ever shape you fancy, it's not going to impact the functionality of the armour, because the material is immensely tough.

It seems likely to me that the "boob armour" merely reflects the bodice or corset they would normally be wearing as part of their nun habits, or whatever they wear when they're not wearing armour. The power armour of SoB has all the indications of armour imitating clothing, which historically was common in European armour until the 15th century.

SoB armour is likely specifically stylised like that because of the loop hole in the Decree Passive, so it would need to be really obvious that they are not "men under arms".

I see it as like a middle finger to the high lords to go along with the grin they must have when they reply "but these are women under arms, not men".

General Annoyance wrote:

Davor wrote:
Thank you very much. You have just proved my point I made when I made my joke in the other thread.

I don't understand what point you were making; care to elaborate?

I said something like "BOOBS. Yes they are women."

That was it. A joke. I thought putting Boobs in all Caps would emphasize what I was saying and then saying Yes they are women would be so obvious it was a joke. But I erred once again. I guess I should have put the at the end that I forgot to do. But again someone took it too far especially a post or two after is said I was JOKING.

Here is a question not ONE person said. Why do you want boobs on your minis? A lot of great points for and against were made. I just find it funny points made against gave reasons why they don't want it, but I find it funny not one person gave a reason why they want boob armour except to show that they are female and then when it was proven you can tell a Sister of Battle is female without boob armour there is not rebuttal for that.

So please answer unless this will shame you, why do you want boob armour on your minis?

What you wrote was..

Davor wrote:

Oh look, BOOB ARMOUR. Yes they are females.

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

I really struggle to see where there's anything to suggest you were joking?

Davor wrote:


So please answer unless this will shame you, why do you want boob armour on your minis?

Define "Boob Armour"; as I said before, I don't believe the Sisters have any.

Do I want Boob Armour? No, I'm impartial to its existence, provided it is done well and contributes to the model. I don't believe people should be crying out for its abolition, although I can accept some examples of it can be cheap or distasteful, as they seem to only serve purpose for the sake of gud tittays. However, even these models can be designed and sculpted with a theme of mockery about them or over exaggeration well known on Heroic Scale.

However, in the context of SoB models, I struggle to see the problem. Even on the more obvious models like the Canoness, I can't see how the armour has the intent of sexualising the model.



It's all covered up - seems more stylish than sexy to me.


Most Sister models have more discreet chest plates:



Either I'm missing something, or the main argument against "Boob Armour" is a pointless ruse.

This here. This is sexualisation:



So to answer your question, no, I don't want whatever one defines as Boob Armour. Doesn't mean I'm against it, however; people who think these models were solely created for kid teens to get fuzzy over seem to be relying on those people too much to be ignorant to the existence of HD porn 2 clicks away on a laptop.

I also seem to be missing the punchline of your joke.

G.A

what it comes down to is if someone wants it, they can have it (boob armor) or if they find it offensive they don't need it, its a matter of personal choice, so don't tell someone they can have it or not, its their choice, not yours, if you want them or not that is your choice, not someone elses if someone wants a fluff candy dressed up SoB with whips I go whatever, their choice then shoot the mini with a bolter round (lets see a whip stop that).

 Azreal13 wrote:
What you wrote was..

Davor wrote:

Oh look, BOOB ARMOUR. Yes they are females.

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

I really struggle to see where there's anything to suggest you were joking?

As I said, I have erred. A few posts below I said it was a joke. So I made a mistake. I admitted to my mistake. I screwed up. What else can I say? Thing is people are still going on about it, even when I said it was a joke and nothing meant by it. But it's water under the bridge.

Back on topic now please?

Lol.

Ok, so the very post that propagated the creation of this thread is somehow off topic?

Whatever chap.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Define "Boob Armour"; as I said before, I don't believe the Sisters have any.

Boob armour would be instead of a flat chest on the armour there would be two protrusions sticking out to show as if they were breasts.

I also seem to be missing the punchline of your joke.

G.A

It was suppose to be like. "yup, they have boobs so they must be women". It seems for some people here, the only way to tell if a mini is female is to put boobs on the mini.

I am like you, I couldn't care less if they had them or not. Before I was like why not have them? Reading threads from the last few years I have changed my mind a bit, and I can see the other side of the story and why they shouldn't be on. I can see their point of view now. I am still indifferent either way. When I saw it when I made the comment at the time, I thought it was funny when I saw "BOOBS" and then went "YUP They are women."

Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving? Are you telling me you can't tell that the Sisters of Silence are not female? That boobs had to be added in to say "YES LOOK AT ME, I AM WOMAN!". No. you can clearly tell that the Sisters of Silence are women. No need to add breasts. So what is the point of adding breasts then?

Again, I don't care either way. I made a joke. It failed miserably. But the topic is now way past that. What turned into a bad joke I thought it can turn into a good topic. Why Boob Armour? There is no right or wrong answer here. Just because someone thinks that it should be in doesn't make the person who thinks it doesn't belong wrong. Or vice versa. We are in a discussion forum. Let's discus. Yes Davor made an asrse of himself again. Yes Davor is an idiot. Let's move on that and have a great discussion.

Boob Armour. Do the Sisters of Battles really need it? Do they really need breasts to show their femininity? If so, why? I use to believe they needed it, but after reading a lot of people's threads and opinions, I believe they are correct and SoB don't need breasts to show their femininity and to do so is just sexualizing them no matter how small or big (no pun intended) it is. Do I have an issue with it? Hell no. I love the Kingdom Death minis. That is overly sexualizing it in a big way, but still I believe in a tasteful way. Do I have an issue with it on Sisters of Battle? No I don't. Even though it's still done in a tasteful way, it's still sexualizing them.

Davor wrote:
it's still sexualizing them.

The SoB armor doesnt put the models breasts on display for the purpose of objectifying them as sexual objects. They are actually rare in that the models are covered from toe to ear at least in power armor that is just as protective as Astartes armor. They are in fighting poses, wearing combat gear, in an army that favors up close and brutal, hateful combat.

By your line of thinking giving them a bob cut is only there to define them as women, and so only serves to sexualize them. Does armor that shows them with narrow sholders flared hips and a slighter average build than the average male turn them into a sex object because they are obviously not male?

Depicting them OF a certain sex does not necessarily equate to depicting them as being FOR sex. There is a significant difference and I think the SoB sculpts do a great job of making them unmistakeably female, while not making them look like pin up girls or strippers. Having been a SoB player from the start I can say that I dont want the look changed because fiddling with that balance is likely to ruin it.

Leaving you with either a bunch of bowl cut squires down one road or something far worse down the other. I prefer my SoB to be unabashedly female and at the same time modest. I feel the current aesthetic does this well. The only care they should have for your dirty thoughts is how long you have been a heretic, how far it might have spread, and will today be the day they make a pyre of your filthy carcass to light their way in the darkness.

I'll make one post and then I'm out.

Anyone championing the cause against 'boobplate' should understand that you'll score exactly ZERO points from the ladies because of your crusade.

Is there a correlation here with 'hover handers'? I dunno. But there might be.

Davor wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Define "Boob Armour"; as I said before, I don't believe the Sisters have any.

Boob armour would be instead of a flat chest on the armour there would be two protrusions sticking out to show as if they were breasts.

I also seem to be missing the punchline of your joke.

G.A

It was suppose to be like. "yup, they have boobs so they must be women". It seems for some people here, the only way to tell if a mini is female is to put boobs on the mini.

I am like you, I couldn't care less if they had them or not. Before I was like why not have them? Reading threads from the last few years I have changed my mind a bit, and I can see the other side of the story and why they shouldn't be on. I can see their point of view now. I am still indifferent either way. When I saw it when I made the comment at the time, I thought it was funny when I saw "BOOBS" and then went "YUP They are women."

Funny thing is, take the boobs away and they still would have looked like women. So did they really need it? No. So why put it in? Only reason I can think of to put it in, is titilalation. So question is why add boobs on minis? What purpose is it serving? Are you telling me you can't tell that the Sisters of Silence are not female? That boobs had to be added in to say "YES LOOK AT ME, I AM WOMAN!". No. you can clearly tell that the Sisters of Silence are women. No need to add breasts. So what is the point of adding breasts then?

Again, I don't care either way. I made a joke. It failed miserably. But the topic is now way past that. What turned into a bad joke I thought it can turn into a good topic. Why Boob Armour? There is no right or wrong answer here. Just because someone thinks that it should be in doesn't make the person who thinks it doesn't belong wrong. Or vice versa. We are in a discussion forum. Let's discus. Yes Davor made an asrse of himself again. Yes Davor is an idiot. Let's move on that and have a great discussion.

Boob Armour. Do the Sisters of Battles really need it? Do they really need breasts to show their femininity? If so, why? I use to believe they needed it, but after reading a lot of people's threads and opinions, I believe they are correct and SoB don't need breasts to show their femininity and to do so is just sexualizing them no matter how small or big (no pun intended) it is. Do I have an issue with it? Hell no. I love the Kingdom Death minis. That is overly sexualizing it in a big way, but still I believe in a tasteful way. Do I have an issue with it on Sisters of Battle? No I don't. Even though it's still done in a tasteful way, it's still sexualizing them.

ok obviously you have never talked to women and what they think or feel have you? you take a shirt or jacket it is soft and not a rigid piece of metal so women don't need protrusions on them (unless Madonna) but you take a rigid piece of metal that is strapped on tight and for women it would be uncomfortable, how would you as a male in sports instead of having a cup to protect the family jewels you had a flat piece of metal pressed and tightened right up against them? wouldn't feel comfortable would it? so ever think females in rigid metal would rather not have their own boobs pressed into their body and then some? its the same feeling of having a flat piece of metal shoving the family jewels up into your body.