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.

Asterios wrote:
as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.

You do know that a lot of the ancient armor we have is ceremonial armor, right? A lot of that fancy decoration would not be present on armor intended for actual use in battle.

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

It doesn't have to. You either wear something under rigid armor or you're very quickly a bloody mess.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
as to Boob armor having no practical excuse evidently the ancient women who used it in combat thought it did, since it does exist.

You do know that a lot of the ancient armor we have is ceremonial armor, right? A lot of that fancy decoration would not be present on armor intended for actual use in battle.

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

It doesn't have to. You either wear something under rigid armor or you're very quickly a bloody mess.

yeah but how many women were in combat? if we go by the Celts or picts armor was very lacking, so was clothing, and yes lets wear cloth or padding shall we since that will soak up blood and cause more blood loss, oh wait the SM armor has sealant in it which plugs up such bloody messes which helps when the armor is right on the skin.

as it goes look at medieval armor there was padding even padding for under the helmet which was separate and yet if a SM removes his helm does he have padding on his head? no, that is because the armor has to attach to his skin so no padding, any anti-coagulating items are in the armor itself not as a separate piece.

Asterios wrote:
yeah but how many women were in combat? if we go by the Celts or picts armor was very lacking, so was clothing

What's your point here? If you're going to say "women weren't in combat" or talk about people who didn't wear armor at all then you can't cite real-world examples in defense of armor for women.

and yes lets wear cloth or padding shall we since that will soak up blood and cause more blood loss, oh wait the SM armor has sealant in it which plugs up such bloody messes which helps when the armor is right on the skin.

No, you missed the point here. The cloth isn't there to soak up blood, it's to prevent the rigid armor from tearing you up.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
yeah but how many women were in combat? if we go by the Celts or picts armor was very lacking, so was clothing

What's your point here? If you're going to say "women weren't in combat" or talk about people who didn't wear armor at all then you can't cite real-world examples in defense of armor for women.

and yes lets wear cloth or padding shall we since that will soak up blood and cause more blood loss, oh wait the SM armor has sealant in it which plugs up such bloody messes which helps when the armor is right on the skin.

No, you missed the point here. The cloth isn't there to soak up blood, it's to prevent the rigid armor from tearing you up.

the point is would the OP rather have what the SoB's (ugh such lousy initials too)have now or wearing what the old picts or celts wore or didn't wear?

then where is the padding for their head under their helmet like medieval knights and such had, even the foot soldier had padding under their helmet and yet SM's do not, as it goes look at medieval armor there was padding even padding for under the helmet which was separate and yet if a SM removes his helm does he have padding on his head? no, that is because the armor has to attach to his skin so no padding, any anti-coagulating items are in the armor itself not as a separate piece. as to joint parts, they are still part of the armor, not padding, not cloth but armor joints too.

Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.

Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.

Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.

GW is not going to change the Adepta Sororitas aesthetic. There is no compelling reason to.

Other than that Blanche Codex cover from a decade ago, nothing about them is sexualized, beyond making them easily identifiable as women, which is their entire gimick. If everything in 40K is space version of Fantasy then they are space amazons.

If you find two lumps on chest armor titillating, perhaps your threshold for arousal is a bit prudish.

Asterios wrote:
the point is would the OP rather have what the SoB's (ugh such lousy initials too)have now or wearing what the old picts or celts wore or didn't wear?

Where is that ridiculous choice coming from?

then where is the padding for their head under their helmet like medieval knights and such had, even the foot soldier had padding under their helmet and yet SM's do not, as it goes look at medieval armor there was padding even padding for under the helmet which was separate and yet if a SM removes his helm does he have padding on his head? no, that is because the armor has to attach to his skin so no padding, any anti-coagulating items are in the armor itself not as a separate piece. as to joint parts, they are still part of the armor, not padding, not cloth but armor joints too.

If marines don't have padding under their helmets (whether as a separate piece or just built into the helmet) that's a screwup by GW. Rigid armor has to have some kind of padding under it, period.

 Peregrine wrote:


If marines don't have padding under their helmets (whether as a separate piece or just built into the helmet) that's a screwup by GW. Rigid armor has to have some kind of padding under it, period.

not if it is skin tight, as to whats under the SM armor or even SoB armor I will go by what GW says and does over what you say since it is their creation, they did it how they want too do it.

 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.

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.

Awe cute!

Take your son to work day on Cadia!

 Peregrine wrote:
You do know that a lot of the ancient armor we have is ceremonial armor, right? A lot of that fancy decoration would not be present on armor intended for actual use in battle.

I'm gonna say that in 40k that may not be true all the time

Asterios wrote:
not if it is skin tight, as to whats under the SM armor or even SoB armor I will go by what GW says and does over what you say since it is their creation, they did it how they want too do it.

Uh, no, it can't be skin-tight because your skin isn't a constant shape. Just for a quick example, hold your arm out palm-up. Then rotate your hand 90*. See how the shape of your arm changes between your wrist and your elbow, picking up a twist that didn't exist previously? This is fine if you have a layer of padding between the armor and your body, because the shape change isn't all that much and the flexible padding moves along with it. But if you have rigid skin-tight plates around your arm you can no longer rotate your wrist without breaking your arm bones.

Found this. Thought people might find it interesting.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
not if it is skin tight, as to whats under the SM armor or even SoB armor I will go by what GW says and does over what you say since it is their creation, they did it how they want too do it.

Uh, no, it can't be skin-tight because your skin isn't a constant shape. Just for a quick example, hold your arm out palm-up. Then rotate your hand 90*. See how the shape of your arm changes between your wrist and your elbow, picking up a twist that didn't exist previously? This is fine if you have a layer of padding between the armor and your body, because the shape change isn't all that much and the flexible padding moves along with it. But if you have rigid skin-tight plates around your arm you can no longer rotate your wrist without breaking your arm bones.

and yet that has never been a problem with me but then I have a rubber skin which is on the armor itself and its barely 1/4" thick, go figure, anywhooo I repeat when it comes to SM's and SoB's i'm going by what GW says and not you, since its their game not yours.

nuff said.

OP wrote:So. Boob Armour. What do you think?

I think we've spent altogether more energy on this one subject than it truly deserves.

 Kojiro wrote:
Found this. Thought people might find it interesting.

Spoiler:

That looks sweet. legs from the knees down are a little chunky though, and too much like regular Marine power armour.

 Kojiro wrote:
Found this. Thought people might find it interesting.

Spoiler:

I like her breastplate, though I don't understand why her entire arm isn't covered (from a logical perspective, that is).

She needs to wear armor more like this, with enough protection for her arms as well:

nice armor, but too many weak points to make it viable, hell a shrapnel grenade would amputate her arms and legs.

 Kojiro wrote:
Found this. Thought people might find it interesting.

Spoiler:

Wow. I like that a lot. I'd like a little more detail on the chest (too much blank space), but it's very cool. I even like the bulky "Marine-like" legs; it helps to emphasise that it's power armour by recalling the iconic shape of Space Marines without looking too much like them. I assume that the fabric parts have armour underneath, also.

Asterios wrote:

 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?

Lol, the abomination that is the Ultramarines movie is a fan movie, not a GW production. It is a lore violating piece of gak that needs to be purged.

As to the armour, thicker padding does not decrease the effectiveness. If you have a lot of empty space either you need a thicker gambeson underneath or a smaller size armour.

As to what Sisters wear beneath their armour, look closely at the miniatures.

Also, ancient women did not wear boob armour. Thats a ridiculous claim

 adamsouza wrote:
Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.

Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.

Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.

Attack trumps defence. Power armour isn't magical material that cannot be penetrated. And when you can get penetrated you want the penetration NOT happen in vital spot. Ergo you don't design armour so that it directs attack INTO that vital spot as that increases chance of penetration happening in vital area. If you design armour that directs attack somewhere it's AWAY from those vital spots.

Improved armour material that is less likely to get penetrated is good yes. You still don't want to direct attacks straight to vital spots as sooner or later that directs attack that will then penetrate and kill you.

tneva82 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.

Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.

Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.

Attack trumps defence. Power armour isn't magical material that cannot be penetrated. And when you can get penetrated you want the penetration NOT happen in vital spot. Ergo you don't design armour so that it directs attack INTO that vital spot as that increases chance of penetration happening in vital area. If you design armour that directs attack somewhere it's AWAY from those vital spots.

Improved armour material that is less likely to get penetrated is good yes. You still don't want to direct attacks straight to vital spots as sooner or later that directs attack that will then penetrate and kill you.

When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.

Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.

But either way I don't care much either way for the "practicality" argument. I'll start caring about the practicality of boob armour when IG tanks have suspension, when 40k aircraft have aerofoils for wings, when Space Marines don't have absurd wide shin armour that would make them trip over, when a Leman Russ actually has space in the turret for the breach mechanism of its cannon, when Space Wolves start wearing helmets in to battle, when close combat weapons aren't equally as effective as missile weapons, when Orks can't make machinery work by simply willing it to work, etc and so on and etc.

I like boobs and don't want to see them hurt so I am in favor of boob armour.

tneva82 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Power Armor is not Medievil Armor. I wish people would stop trying to make direct comparisons.

Medievil armor, hopefully, stops penetration and relies on padding to absorb the trauma of impact.

Powered Armor is more sophisticated than that, with ceramite plate to stop penetration and servo motors to offset blunt trauma.

Attack trumps defence. Power armour isn't magical material that cannot be penetrated. And when you can get penetrated you want the penetration NOT happen in vital spot. Ergo you don't design armour so that it directs attack INTO that vital spot as that increases chance of penetration happening in vital area. If you design armour that directs attack somewhere it's AWAY from those vital spots.

Improved armour material that is less likely to get penetrated is good yes. You still don't want to direct attacks straight to vital spots as sooner or later that directs attack that will then penetrate and kill you.

Cool looking trumps practical in 40K design aesthetic. Your applying logic to a game with space elves and space orks.

I have a strong appreciation for applying as much "reality" considerations to high flying fantasy and science fiction as the next guy.

I agree with the logical argument that going skin-tight to hard armor gives little wiggle room if you gain or lose weight and some cushion would be wanted somewhere when nailed by concussive impacts or explosions or become pulped in the armor.

It all boils down to having an "obvious" female army on the table by intent and design. As well pointed out: females in today's modern armor are indistinguishable from their male counterparts.

If we must agree on something how about that boob armour is a nice lazy way to indicate females on the tabletop if that is a point you are specifically trying to make.

This...this is why we will never get new Sisters models.

Half the player base will turn into sobbing piles of mush if they appear "too feminine", and the other half will revolt if they appear too androgynous.

Because in a universe where actual demons wander around slaughtering people, children have their flesh melted off by virus bombs, and ten thousand people a day are thrown into a blender to power a throne, the most objectionable thing about the game universe is curved armor.

 adamsouza wrote:

Cool looking trumps practical in 40K design aesthetic. Your applying logic to a game with space elves and space orks.

I think realistic armour for future-space-knights looks cooler than non-realistic armour.

My wife has a small Sisters of Battle force. If she felt they were over-sexualized, she wouldn't have bought them.

In comparison, she thinks a lot of these mini's are over-sexualized. So we don't buy them.

Legs so far akimbo they don't even fit onto the bases they are supplied with..

Akimbo Bimbos?

 Kojiro wrote:
Found this. Thought people might find it interesting.

Spoiler:

That's just a female Space Marine something which I hope SoB don't become.

My sibling is extremely pro keeping the oversexualization that Sisters have, high heels, corsets, and pointed bra points. So much in fact the person just gave up on GW following a discussion, that people saw them as a right wing pervert. For simply wanting to keep sisters the same.

My Sibling basically hates progressive politics, feeling they destroy choice in favour of some kind of censorship. And I can see this in some ways. But if the majority speak this person has to adapt or face the consequences.

I however don't know. There's a blog out there which lists why things have to change, but it goes into Superhero costumes as well, but for the life of me I can't remember it.

I think Sisters probably should drop the heels and corsets. Become more in the likes of a curved set of armour that lets you see its female. But...but have options for the older set of corset armour, with a front plate perhaps?, or save the corsets for characters only.


That's my two coins anyway.

S.Y.

 WhiteBobcat wrote:
This...this is why we will never get new Sisters models.

Half the player base will turn into sobbing piles of mush if they appear "too feminine", and the other half will revolt if they appear too androgynous.

Because in a universe where actual demons wander around slaughtering people, children have their flesh melted off by virus bombs, and ten thousand people a day are thrown into a blender to power a throne, the most objectionable thing about the game universe is curved armor.

99% agree (we will get new sisters ) its just seems silly how much people make a big deal about the subject. Personally I love the Sisters design and think its some of GWs better work (unpopular opinion probably but its a better looking design than Space Marine armor). What I don't want see happen is GW change the Sister's armor only for the sake of political correctness as it feels like betraying the artistic integrity of the company. Nothing in 40k is practical between the giant walking robots, rampant disregard for using helmets, most melee weapon designs, 95% of the settings vehicles, etc. Catachans apparently have abs made of the same thing as flak armor because they get 5+ saves while sometimes not even having on a Tshirt but I don't see petitions or threads about them beefcake eye candy or whatever.

 StupidYellow wrote:
I think Sisters probably should drop the heels and corsets.

Sister armor doesn't have high heels. I think it was one GW artist that threw heels on them but nearly all the stuff GW shows has them wearing plate armor like sabatons that are flat. The plate armor corsets I think work well as its very gothic fashion design which fits with their armor looking like gothic plate.

That picture of a more "Space Marine" sister is rather cool looking. Esthetically there is not a thing wrong with it in my eyes.

But a piece of me would feel sad if that became the new standard. Yep power armour that just happens to be female, nothing to see here.

I feel that the SOB army needs to revel a bit in being an entirely female army. A few esthetic flourishes toward that end is OK. I feel it should not intrude on the armor being functional however. High heels and plunging necklines I would consider forbidden.

I have always enjoyed strong women in any setting, I feel it is not necessary for them to look like men in order to be so.

Vasquez in Aliens made this look way cooler than the guy did.