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.

 gorgon wrote:
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.

It's a good thing most of us aren't even remotely in this argument to score points with the ladies, then. Certainly, my problems with depictions of women in miniature form are due entirely to how I feel about the miniatures in question. That said, my only real problem with the SOB besides the usual GW lack of helmets is the depiction of repentia squads, and even then they're at least halfheartedly on theme compared to the competition. This whole thread feels like a rant on rape culture in Firefly that totally ignores the wilding boys next door calling women fat pigs for refusing to flash them.

Davor wrote:

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?

I'll bite. I want boob armor. I want cheesecake in my fantasy toys because truth be told there isn't enough cheese cake in my everyday real life. I like the female form, I find it attractive and calming to look at after a hard days work in a primarily male dominated field (construciton). Since the few women that I do meet in my job are there for a professional purpose, I treat them with the same professionalism that they give me. That just leaves my free time to engage in activities that I find enjoyable, and having a few sexy minitures in my hobby helps me enjoy the hobby that much more.

Then there is also the practical matter of the issue. Every model in my Tau army is helmeted. I could easily say to each and every opponent that yep, your facing an entire army of girls that are going to kick your ass. And you know what will happen, my opponent will just roll their eyes and say what ever dude. Because lets be honest, nobody really gives a crap about the fluff of your army after the first 10 minutes of pleasentries. After the next 20 minutes its all about stats and die rolls until the game ends. And unless I make a real effort to point out during the course of the game over and over that each unit of theirs that died, died at the hand (or in this case guns) of girls, the idea that they are girls will be totally lost. Boob plate gives an easily visable representation of the gender of the model and as such removes much of the work that I need to engage in to remind my opponent of just what they are fighting against. Yeah the dice and stats don't represent male, female, or asexual space bug, the only thing that can act as a constant yet passive reminder is how the model is sculpted.

Now, lets take it do a differnet level. I could have my entire tau army unhelmeted. I could go out and purchase the after market tau female heads with the Y slit and easily head swap each and every trouper. Now I have the equivalent of the converted SOBs with bob cuts and no boob plate. But if someone walks by my army but is unfailure with Tau anatomical lore they will still see just a bunch of dudes with guns. There is nothing on those models that says females and once again, I'm having to explain my army. And don't say that it doesn't happen. With GW focusing on attracting new playes and ostersizing their veterans, there are entire generations of players that probably don't have the 20+ years of GW experance that I do. Heck there were even posts in this threads from somone who didn't know if the forhead Y was for all females or just Shadowsun.

Asterios wrote:

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.

You don't wear armour directly over the skin. There is a huge layer of padding between the skin and the metal so the breasts are never pressed against the armour. In my medieval martial arts group I know several girls who regularly wear plate armour. It is the authentic late medieval kind, without boobs (but hilariously, with huge penis-shaped codpieces) and I have never heard anyone complain about it being uncomfortable in that way. Unless a women has extremely enormous boobs she will be able to wear flat-chested armour without issue (and even with enormous boobs it would just be a matter of adding a few extra layers of padding).
The layers of padding and armour are so thick that they obscure even the largest breasts. So boobs on armour are totally unneccessary. They are only an aesthethic thing.

This is like argueing that the cod piece of male armour needs to be shaped like a huge penis in order for it to fit comfortably... The real reason for the existance of penis-shaped codpieces is to showcase the wearer's excessive masculinity. That is the same reason as for the existance of breast-shaped chest armour for women (except that it showcases the wearer's excessive femininity rather than masculinity of course).

Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
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.

It's a good thing most of us aren't even remotely in this argument to score points with the ladies, then. Certainly, my problems with depictions of women in miniature form are due entirely to how I feel about the miniatures in question. That said, my only real problem with the SOB besides the usual GW lack of helmets is the depiction of repentia squads, and even then they're at least halfheartedly on theme compared to the competition. This whole thread feels like a rant on rape culture in Firefly that totally ignores the wilding boys next door calling women fat pigs for refusing to flash them.

Yeah, someone wanting to score points with ladies should find a different place than Dakka. Only a few girls around here, and even fewer ladies.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.

No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.

No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.

look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.

furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.

Space Marine Power Armour has no structure beneath it - it is mounted directly to the Marine's skin and Black Carapace.

Sororitas armour may have a frame underneath to allow them to use the suit, but I don't think it would be bulky enough to make their chests look flat.

Davor wrote:
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.

Some of that space could actually be for the wearer's breasts, as is being discussed right now.

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.

It's just another way of defining the model as female; not all SoB have no helmets.

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?

Style?

Yes Davor made an asrse of himself again. Yes Davor is an idiot. Let's move on that and have a great discussion.

As much as I appreciate your willingness to make this a decent discussion, there is very little to discuss that hasn't been discussed already. I would disagree that there is no right or wrong answer; although it can be down to interpretation, this kind of armour can exist on models for a variety of reasons. Anyone trying to say it shouldn't exist or is not needed is certainly wrong.

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.

A combination of style, posture and potentially practicality is typically why it exists. However, it is not sexualisation. Sexualisation means attributing sex or a sex role to something - adding breast shapes to a model's armour is not enough to constitute sexualisation really

Look at Victoria Miniature's female models. You can clearly see an extra bulge where the wearer's breasts are. Does this count as Boob Armour too? That means they must be sexualised, right?

It's the same kind of concept. If you don't believe those models to be sexualised, then I believe that would be an inconsistent argument on your behalf.

The concept I believe is to make it extremely clear that there female.

Iit makes it very very clear who your facing.
The battle sisters very appearance in 40k are feared.

It makes sense they make themselves as easy to recognise as possible. This also makes it clear that they are not breaching the fratis templet decree.

Honestly I have no issue with SoB in comparison to the video game type stuff.

as it goes if I had to make a complaint about GW armor it would be about them usually depicting SM Sgt's with no helmet, why bother wearing the armor in the first place if your not gonna protect your head where a shot there is pretty much instant death or turning you into a vegetable in the least.

EDIT: Nevermind, lore mistake

They're long service studs...

Asterios wrote:
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).

I agree people are allowed to want whatever they want. The reason I end up replying to these topics is because...

1. We're talking about changing an existing aesthetic. I know some people don't like the Tyranid aesthetic either, but it's what we have and what I've built an army around so feth them if they want it changed, they can buy their models elsewhere.

2. The arguments made are often silly. Some of them are decent arguments, a lot of them are just silly hyperbole or invented. Things like having boob plate reduces models to a pair of boobs doesn't pass basic logic checks and arguments like it's scaring a large number of women gamers away I think are spurious at best.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're long service studs...

Uh oh... I didn't just... do the thing, did I?

Hell I was sure they were bullet wounds, they even look like them

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Asterios wrote:
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).

I agree people are allowed to want whatever they want. The reason I end up replying to these topics is because...

1. We're talking about changing an existing aesthetic. I know some people don't like the Tyranid aesthetic either, but it's what we have and what I've built an army around so feth them if they want it changed, they can buy their models elsewhere.

2. The arguments made are often silly. Some of them are decent arguments, a lot of them are just silly hyperbole or invented. Things like having boob plate reduces models to a pair of boobs doesn't pass basic logic checks and arguments like it's scaring a large number of women gamers away I think are spurious at best.

don't think its the boob plated minis scaring women away from gaming

Asterios wrote:


I thought those were attachment ports for the helmet?

Here's the Lexicanum article - I checked it after Azrael corrected me.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Service_Studs

I thought they were bullet scars since only Veterans and above have them, thus I assumed they were on the field long enough to get shot in the head and recover from the wound.

Davor wrote:
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?

Remember we are talking about 28mm scale models here.

The Sisters of Silence look like women when they stand 4 to 10" tall viewed on you 24+" monitor. Zoom out to the point they're only ~30mm tall and stand a couple of feet away and they're not all that identifiable anymore.

The goal is to make them look like females when you're standing a few feet away from them while they're on a table top.

To do that, you exaggerate things. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, GW's core aesthestic largely revolves around exaggerated details..... GW exaggerate everything, guns are huge, heads are huge, hands are huge, embossed or engraved details are huge, rivets are huge, panel lines are huge, often the random details hanging off the model are huge. The only thing that maybe squeezes by not being huge are skulls, simply so the model can be adorned with more of them

Asterios wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.

No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.

look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.

No. First of all there is a massive difference between Astartes power armour and regular power armour.
The Astartes wear a body glove (which is the thick rubbery thing you see through the joints of the armour) underneath their armour. (the "access points" you see are the interface ports of the Marine's implants that interface with the bodygove (which presumably interfaces with the armour itself in turn).

The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.

Also, what GW movie? GW has made no movies afaik. Unless you count those little Warhammer TV ads as movies that is.

Asterios wrote:
furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.

Sure.
If that is so, they are either not wearing a thick enough gambeson or their armour is too small. Just get them a larger size. No need for protrusions on the chest, that is only impractical at best, dangerous at worst in combat. Flat-chested armours deflect incoming blows better. There is no practical excuse for boob armours.

General Annoyance wrote:
Look at Victoria Miniature's female models. You can clearly see an extra bulge where the wearer's breasts are. Does this count as Boob Armour too? That means they must be sexualised, right?

I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.

When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that. I am saying GW can exactly like the link you have shown, not put any breasts on the minis. GW can clearly make a mini look feminine without breasts on the models just like the link you have provided. So in my opinion yes GW is sexualizing the minis by placing breasts on the minis because they don't have to, but choose to do so anyways. Again nothing wrong with that.

Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls? Oh my someone not reading all the posts and then making a comment. If he read the posts then he would have seen I don't care either way. Also with me liking Kingdom Death miniatures, that would show I like boobs on minis.

The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.

Citation needed.

My understanding is they wear it over a skin tight under suit just like Astartes, just without the neural interface.

 Azreal13 wrote:

The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.

Citation needed.

My understanding is they wear it over a skin tight under suit just like Astartes, just without the neural interface.

I can't cite it right now, but I do recall that the Black Carapace, the last implant an Astartes receives, is subdermal. I would venture to say that humans in power armour would wear a skin tight suit.

I didn't express myself very well, I meant they wear it next to the skin (or functionally next to it) like the Astartes, not that the Astartes wear an under suit (although they are often referred to as wearing body gloves in the books, whether that's just gym wear or they do wear something under their armour I don't precisely recall.

Davor wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:
Look at Victoria Miniature's female models. You can clearly see an extra bulge where the wearer's breasts are. Does this count as Boob Armour too? That means they must be sexualised, right?

I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.

When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that. I am saying GW can exactly like the link you have shown, not put any breasts on the minis. GW can clearly make a mini look feminine without breasts on the models just like the link you have provided. So in my opinion yes GW is sexualizing the minis by placing breasts on the minis because they don't have to, but choose to do so anyways. Again nothing wrong with that.

Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls? Oh my someone not reading all the posts and then making a comment. If he read the posts then he would have seen I don't care either way. Also with me liking Kingdom Death miniatures, that would show I like boobs on minis.

The body armour plate is slightly angled hinting at a female figure, but its still flat.
Its a small nod to females without being silly.

Davor wrote:


I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.

Here's a comparison between male and female Arcadians:



Hopefully that contextualises the bulge I am trying to get at.

When I am saying sexualizing I am not saying they look slutty or anything like that.

That is how sexualisation is defined. I would again say that the breasts on the Power Armour may serve a practical use; Flak armour can bend around the torso to fit, Plasteel and Ceramite plating cannot.

Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls?

Just drop the whole shaming thing mate - this isn't Davor vs DakkaDakka; this is all (mostly) within the bounds of reason.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I didn't express myself very well, I meant they wear it next to the skin (or functionally next to it) like the Astartes, not that the Astartes wear an under suit (although they are often referred to as wearing body gloves in the books, whether that's just gym wear or they do wear something under their armour I don't precisely recall.

I'm pretty sure it's just a skintight layer of clothing - certainly nothing that would create any bulges.

The Black Carapace is also sub dermal. Sisters have no Black Carapace, but that only means they cannot fully interface with the armour and obtain the strength benefit or use of certain systems (which are stripped out of SoB armour). It wouldn't change how they wear it or how it fits on.

Nurgle wrote:
I think you are completely missing what he is saying. The armor they wear is not sexual, if they were in a sexy position or showing cleavage, then we could talk.
As for your whole rant on making a new armor set just for the sisters, you went a bit far and jumped into gender politics territory with "They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct?"

Yes, it does make them distinct. Otherwise they would look like Eldar.
I like the Sisters of Battle's aesthetic, and cant wait to see it in plastic.

I'm not even talking about boob armour sexualising Sisters, that's something you want to read into it. It's just that the armour is itself already distinct enough that you don't really need the boob plate to make them more female looking. I'm asking why the female miniatures need to be identified by gender even more but the male versions can have rather neutral looking armour? A female bodybuilder could be inside a SM power armour if you use a helmeted head and nobody is asking for huge codpieces to make them distinctly male. There are enough other design cues that point at them being miniatures representing women. That's why I'm asking why boob plates are so very needed.

I like the SoB aesthetic too and don't think boob armour is the "worst ever" but it's just a bit unpractical. People also complain about GW tanks being unrealistic or goofy because they lack practicality. It's the same for boob armour. A longer explanation follows after the next quote.

xraytango wrote:
You contradict yourself here, I'm sorry to say. The SoBs armor is aesthetically different because it is a stylistic representation of the female torso, similar to the way that Space Marines have barrel chests and broad shoulders as a stylistic male torso. Do you have a clear solution to otherwise distinguish SoBs armor?

A female bodybuilder can easily have a barrel chest and broad shoulders and these proportions are more about GW exaggerations in general (women also wear plate armour with pauldrons and torso padding) and not about emphasising a Marines' gender. I just meant that the armour is already distinct enough that a boob plate is not really needed on top of that. Keep the armour as it is and just use a regular breastplate like this and the SoB model is still very much a distinct PA type. Put a SM next to a SoB and you can find all kinds of things that are different and the breast plate isn't even the most important distinction. Other parts of the armour have a different design language.

Strangely enough the SM groin plate seems to be rather large, so also not an argument.
There in fact seems to be strong indication that your second point is no longer an issue.

It's only large because of the exaggerated proportions. I'm talking about something like this codpiece (NSFW?), not regular GW heroic scale creep.

Well, yes; what solution do you propose otherwise? Do you have some other design that would be more efficient at identifying this army as being an army of warrior women?

Like I mentioned above, just give them a regular, practical breast plate and they are still distinct from other PA. The helmet-less head options are, like for SMs, an additional indicator. Give them more helmetless head variants so they don't look like clones of each other. Or have I missed something in their background? They already have a distinct design language that hints at them being female, don't look like any other army, and they have their own (empire inspired) iconography that changing the breastplate won't lead to people accidentally confusing them with manly Space Marines.

What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women

Then why bother having a uniquely female army at all?

Read the bolded parts again. It literary states that the miniatures are already distinct and the breastplate is not needed to make them look even more different. All the other design choices do that. They would look unique even with a regular breast plate and the army would look "uniquely female" even without the boob plate. Or is boob plate the only indicator available for female miniatures? It seems you have the impression that I think the whole armour needs to be changed (to look like SM PA?) when I'm just saying that the supposed need for boob plate as a unique identifier (which this thread is about) is wrong.

Why bother having a uniquely female (or male) army at all? For gameplay it doesn't matter (they are all playing pieces who work the same), it's a choice you make for the background or for aesthetic reasons. And when it comes to aesthetics then there are other ways of showing that something is supposed to be a female miniature. SoB, besides the boob plate, are already a nice example.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Davor wrote:


I think I am blind. I don't see no boob armour there at all. I don't see no two round mounds or protrusions that look like breasts there.

Here's a comparison between male and female Arcadians:



Hopefully that contextualises the bulge I am trying to get at.

I don't consider that boob armour. Now if GW did that, I think it would be perfectly fine. Thing is, at least for me, the sisters just seem so weird having mounds sticking out. What you showed is what I think GW should do. I am agreeing with you here.

Did someone try and shame me by saying I need brownie points with girls?

Just drop the whole shaming thing mate - this isn't Davor vs DakkaDakka; this is all (mostly) within the bounds of reason.

That wasn't for you. For what ever reason the quote I wanted didn't show up. I know you are not trying to shame me.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I would again say that the breasts on the Power Armour may serve a practical use; Flak armour can bend around the torso to fit, Plasteel and Ceramite plating cannot.

Except breasts in armor do not look like spheres. You're never going to be wearing rigid armor directly against the skin, there's going to be a layer of cloth below it. And that layer is tight, both to ensure a proper fit and to keep pressure on the wound if anything gets through the armor. If you look at female athletes, soldiers, etc, you'll see that there may be some curve to their chest but it's definitely a squished-down and rounded look. Power armor would be going on top of that, probably removing even more shape in the process. So if you're having clearly defined breasts on power armor it's because it's an aesthetic choice, not because it makes sense. In fact, from a realism point of view they'd probably be decorative bits glued on top of the armor, not really part of the armor itself.

 Peregrine wrote:


Except breasts in armor do not look like spheres. You're never going to be wearing rigid armor directly against the skin, there's going to be a layer of cloth below it. And that layer is tight, both to ensure a proper fit and to keep pressure on the wound if anything gets through the armor. If you look at female athletes, soldiers, etc, you'll see that there may be some curve to their chest but it's definitely a squished-down and rounded look. Power armor would be going on top of that, probably removing even more shape in the process. So if you're having clearly defined breasts on power armor it's because it's an aesthetic choice, not because it makes sense. In fact, from a realism point of view they'd probably be decorative bits glued on top of the armor, not really part of the armor itself.

Yes, I won't deny they are probably there for form rather than function, but they may have the potential to serve a degree of practicality, even if the whole piece is not necessary. By that I mean they could accommodate the Sister's breasts, but are either much larger than needed or not needed at all opposed to a more curved, singular shape. Practical or not, I would certainly say they contribute to the aesthetic of Sisters Power Armour in general like you said, with the slender greaves and the corset style chest plate.

Davor wrote:
That wasn't for you. For what ever reason the quote I wanted didn't show up. I know you are not trying to shame me.

I meant it as a general word of advice - I have no idea what gorgon was saying, or what his point was, but there isn't a need for a anti shaming crusade.

I would say for esthetic and narrative reasons the boob armor works. We are not displaying the metal bikini like Red Sonja here, I like that they are serious about their warfare and cover up appropriately.
They give the impression being women has a great deal of pride attached to it, so the form is perfectly fine.
I like that some "obvious" women are portrayed in the game like the Banshees or the included female guardians for Eldar.
It is a preference and "practical" reasons never quite make sense in 40k, the mechanicus would have just cut those puppies off if given a choice.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except, with Power Armour, you wear it directly over the skin.

No you don't. Even looking at the models and artwork could tell you that.

look again, cause the power armor is attached to the skin thru various access points, even the GW movie shows that.

No. First of all there is a massive difference between Astartes power armour and regular power armour.
The Astartes wear a body glove (which is the thick rubbery thing you see through the joints of the armour) underneath their armour. (the "access points" you see are the interface ports of the Marine's implants that interface with the bodygove (which presumably interfaces with the armour itself in turn).

The SoB and other non-Astartes do not have the required augmentations to be able interface with their power armour and just wear normal padding and clothing underneath it.

Also, what GW movie? GW has made no movies afaik. Unless you count those little Warhammer TV ads as movies that is.

Asterios wrote:
furthermore in my SCA groups the women who do wear flat chested armor are usually complaining it restricts their breathing and some have had customized "boob" plated armor made. now while flat chested armor might not restrict those with small cup sizes it does effect many who have given birth and or are naturally or "enhanced" sized large breasts.

Sure.
If that is so, they are either not wearing a thick enough gambeson or their armour is too small. Just get them a larger size. No need for protrusions on the chest, that is only impractical at best, dangerous at worst in combat. Flat-chested armours deflect incoming blows better. There is no practical excuse for boob armours.

what never heard of Ultramarines: a warhammer 40,000 movie screenplay done by Dan Abnett? also I repeat do you wear armor? if the armor is too big leaving a lot of space or even padding space it will not do its job properly and will be too cumbersome to wear. as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.

and where does it say the SoB's wear anything under their armor?

Davor wrote:
I don't consider that boob armour. Now if GW did that, I think it would be perfectly fine. Thing is, at least for me, the sisters just seem so weird having mounds sticking out. What you showed is what I think GW should do. I am agreeing with you here.

Vic's stuff is fantastic. But she isn't sculpting a new version of an army that is nearly two decades old. The idea that the Imperial Guard make little to no allowance for female guardsmen fits perfectly within the grim dark of 40k. With all the vast resources of the Ecclesiarchy I find it perfectly within the grim dark 40k "realism" that the wealth of entire systems of the Imperium would be spent creating armor that adheres to the dogmatic specifications set down some five millenia ago. While still affording the same protection of Astartes battle plate. However they do it, it works because SoB and SM have the same 3+ save.

Before anyone chimes in that it doesn't make sense. Remember that literally NONE of 40k makes any sense. Personally that is exactly what I love about it. The boob plate, which I think its detractors constantly over emphasize, doesn't offend me in any way. The aesthetic suits me just fine and it has nothing to do with titilation of any kind. Were it to suddenly changed because some think its somehow more ridiculous than anything else in 40k I believe that I and a lot of SoB players would be quite upset.

I for one would be forced to decide between mixing the two within my army and either cashing in all my old models and starting new or just rolling with my old metal models. With over 8k in painted SoB and 4k still waiting to be painted, my choice is pretty clear. Admittedly I have said in other threads that I am already reluctant to buy into a new plastic launch of Sisters. This is 100% because of my investment and my own personal need for continuity in my armies. But I dont think I am alone in saying it.

I appreciate the sculpts for the balance they achieve in their aesthetic and sincerely hope that going forward GW holds true to it.