i’ve gotten a couple of questions about bulk, and i think the issue is that my redesign was drawn over a classically-proportioned body (like you find in how-to-draw tutorials). warhammer 40k proportions for humans are different (even in the art), being that they have thicker legs, a shorter torso, and a slightly larger head. for my next picture i’m putting my redesign on a person proportioned like that, plus with the requisite skulls, wings, and purity seals, and seeing if it looks more “warhammer-y.” (preliminary sketches say yes).
as for the aesthetics of the spring feet, they do look a bit sleek, i’ll admit. however, my issue is that when people say they look too sleek for the aesthetics of the imperium, they seem to mean that they look too sleek for the aesthetics of the imperial guard. if you look at the imperium’s more elite and less mass-produced forces, the amount of swoopy curves goes up. you can even see a microcosm of this effect when comparing regular guardsmen to tempestus scions:
and space marines are made entirely of swoopy curves:
since the sisters of battle are supposed to be elite enough to go toe-to-toe with a space marine even without gene enhancement, it is important that their design is sleek and swoopy to fit with the imperium’s established aesthetic lexicon of more swoopy = more elite.
as for covering the entire boot mechanism with armor, you’d probably end up with something like this:
whoa, that looks familiar, doesn’t it?
now, going by the universe’s justifications the sisters could certainly have legs like that.
out-of-universe, however, i’m wary of doing that in my redesign because it’s so iconic as a space marine thing, and the sisters of battle were never depicted with anything like that. that said, if you want to draw them that way, i’m not going to say you’re wrong for it. after all, there’s plenty of justification. or heck, you can get rid of the boot mechanism entirely, if you feel that’s better justified.
just remember to let me know when you’ve posted stuff so that i can reblog! :D
The adventures of Lady Who Is Also a Knight and Willowy Poet Boyfriend! I like to think that they just play dumb medieval pranks on each other all the time. Willowy Poet Boyfriend usually does not grasp that she is pranking him until it is too late. He tries to get back at her by composing a catchy lay about how obsessed she is with pegging, and then realizes what he has done only when people start to look at him funny on the street. Willowy Poet Boyfriend is not the master of pranks.
Will Lady Who Is Also a Knight win her jousting match? Will I ever escape from relying on anachronisms for humor value? Will these adventures actually continue? Does reversing an established binary qualify as true transgression? The questions are endless! TUNE IN NEXT TIME (IF THERE IS A NEXT TIME) FOR MORE QUESTIONS AND NO ANSWERS
Firefly | This is the entire show in one perfect sentence.
Reblogging this again because I’m re-watching the show and think this quote captures the essence of it. Gosh I forgot how much I love this show.
A video made for the Museum of Cluny, and its “The Sword: Uses, Myths and Symbols” exhibit. It tries to dispel some of the beliefs that are still prevalent today about the weight and mobility of fighters in plate armor and show some of the techniques used in combat against armored opponents
I’m always pleased to see videos like this. It’s as if people won’t believe unless they’re shown (and there are always some who go “ah, yes, well, in aluminium stage armour it’s easy.”)
Well, the Museum Cluny video, like the Royal Armoury demo team, uses real steel armour: those two pictures at the start show the originals; the video uses reproductions because no curator will let someone take two exhibits from his museum and roll them around on flagstones. Mike Loades in the UK has been doing similar armour demonstrations for years, as has Tobias Capwell of the Wallace Collection. Eventually the old “clunky, immobile, in with a wrench, out with a can-opener” image of plate armour will go away – but I won’t hold my breath. (That shade of purple isn’t a good complexion anyway…)
Even the faster demonstrations of these combat techniques are still dialled back to about half speed. Try to visualise how much quicker and more brutal this would be if the two fighters meant business, when the first rule was Do It To Him As Quickly As Possible Before He Does It To You.
Writer and swordsman Guy Windsor writes about doing motion-capture work for a computer game; his completely authentic techniques couldn’t be used because they were so small, fast and economical. The game needed big swashing movements because the real thing looked unrealistic, too insignificant to be effective…
You won’t see a “killing fight” (full speed, full power, full intent) recreated very often, either on documentaries or in museum exhibitions, because it’s very, very dangerous for (when you think about it) obvious reasons. These techniques from 600-year-old fight manuals were how men in armour maimed and killed other men in armour - and since they’re the original material, not a re-interpretation after 600 years of being diluted down to sport-safe levels, the techniques will still maim and kill men in armour. Even a blunt “safe” sword is pointed enough (first demo on the video, 1:54-59) to go into a helmet’s eye-slot and through the skull inside…
But if you’re lucky enough to see a full-speed demo between fighters in real armour using wasters (wooden practice swords), be prepared to pick your jaw up from the floor. It is awesome. And also as scary as hell.
Comments on comments:
"Pretty much proof positive that the people who claim that skimpy female fantasy armor is for increased maneuverability don’t know what they’re talking about."
They know exactly what they’re talking about. They want to see T&A on fantasy game and book covers, and since they don’t have the balls to be honest about it, this is their excuse.
“It amazes me that the old saws about Western armour and techniques are still going about, because surely two minutes’ thought would let you know that of course knights had to be able to get up off the ground… Europeans were wearing armour for centuries, why wouldn’t they develop techniques of fighting in it?”
It’s easier to laugh (do the same people laugh about samurai?) and repeat what “everyone knows about armour" than it is to waste that two minutes thought. Thinking might reveal something to mess with set opinions, and that would be annoying…
“Biggest pet peeve: People commenting on the weight and shape of armour restricting mobility…”
As before - “everybody knows" that European armour is massive and clunky because that’s what "everybody knows.” God forbid they should ever apply the “if it was so useless then why was it used" logic to anything. Because then they might realise that what "everybody knows" is wrong.
I’m going off to (not) hold my breath for a while… :-P
I saw this video in the fascinating special exhibit at Cluny last time we were in Paris. So pleased to be able to have it on tap, because it was most excellent.
"To serve the Emperor. To protect His domains. To judge and stand guard over His subjects. To carry the Emperor’s law to all worlds under His blessed protection. To pursue and punish those who trespassed against His word." - Oath sworn by cadets of the Adeptus Arbites
I remember these guys.
Our first Rogue Trader session I was getting tossed out of a bar by a servitor, while Sarah and co tried to sneak by, and when that failed, intimidate these guys, which made them pull the stun batons…
Moral of the story is, as badass and epic as these guys are, a power sword is always going to win.
I have never seen somone so apologetic after cutting a man in two!
- Darth Sebious
The Adeptus Arbites were based on Dredd, back in the day Games Workshop published the early Judge Dredd Roleplaying Game and the Arbites borrow heavily from the imagery of the 2000AD world.
Dredd was first seen in print in 1977 and the Arbites were first mentioned in Rogue Trader 1987.
I do love the view from Calton Hill
when you are under the word count for an essay
Gandhi has been historically the most aggressive character in Civilization due to an original bug in the first game that caused him to go all-out once he reaches democracy. They just kept the thing going ever since.
To further explain this bug, because I was chatting with mothmonarch about Civilization and other strategy games last night and I never got around to explaining this fully, but I love this story:
Gandhi’s AI in the original game had its aggression set to the absolute minimum (0 on a scale of 0 to 10, I believe, I may have this wrong but the basic idea I’m about to explain is accurate, as far as I can tell). Adopting democracy lowers an AI civ’s aggression by 2 points, so when someone who is fully peaceful loses two points of aggression, they should still be nice and polite, right?
Except this is an old DOS game, and so computer math is in place. What actually happened was that Gandhi’s aggression level ticked backwards two steps, from 0 to 255. On a scale of 0 to 10, Gandhi is now 255 points of pure nuclear rage.
And that’s the story as I recall it, but again I may have gotten some details wrong, so feel free to correct me! After that, as the original poster said, the devs loved the bug so much that they just kept it in as a running joke!
“On a scale of 0 to 10, Gandhi is now 255 points of pure nuclear rage.”
I about pissed myself laughing at this.
Thought of the Day: You are the Emperor’s Chosen. Hear His great anger in the roar of the bolt pistol. See His almighty fury in the blades of the chainsword. Feel His undying strength in the protection of your armour.