One thing that's kept me away from 40K as a hobby, aside from the larger initial "fee" to get invested into it compared to other Wargames, is there isn't really an army that I feel is "right" for me from a setting standpoint.

Honestly, it's the lack of females. If I want to field female units, my options are either get really good with green stuff, field an army of really expensive, really pissed off, walking fetishes, or be space drow with wild and crazy hair. Neither one of those appeal to me from a fluff standpoint, or a gameplay standpoint. I tend to play the protagonist factions, or at least neutral.

Is it so bad to merely want to run a female IG regiment? To have a female Tau cadre? To really, have -any- female characters aside from the one the Eldar have, the two the Dark Eldar have, the one the Tau have, and the -I'm not going to talk about it- the Space Nuns have?

I feel it's a barrier, one that has no reason to be there, and it's not the only one. Why do we still get things styled after things that stopped being "in" in the 80's? The Daemonetts are an excellent example of both these points. Mohawks and skeletal faces. They both look nothing like fluff portrays them, and have a style hearkening back to a time when Ghost Busters was culturally relevant. GW just seems wholly out of touch with current trends, clinging to what used to work and refusing to add anything new to the setting.

I'd honestly dump all my money into a full out Imperial Guard regiment or Tau Cadre if I had some female options (and know others who would do the same), but I don't, so am putting that money to PP because not only does GW fail at offering variety, they succeed at killing off and utterlly destroying the only female option they had with -anything- they do with the SoB.

It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

This. One reason why I'm thinking of going DE. Sure, they're dominatrices, but at least it isn't only the women.

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

That makes little sense though.

I'm not even asking for empowered females to be used. Just -having- them in the first place, even if in traditional fantasy "skimpy" form would be preferable to not at all. Not to mention that gives little credit to the people who play in the first place, and ignores the fact that the hobby is more and more being picked up by females as being "geeky" is becoming culturally acceptable for females.

It's a bad business move, and is just plain... stupid.

It also comes down to work on behalf of GW. If you have a Cadian guard kit that has 10 men in it, and has for a long time. Why change? The demographic who want female guardsman is probably quite small.
I do agree with you, that in the Guard and Tau it would be nice to see some female models thrown about...but I dont find it necessary exactly.
The other thing is that (in the case of guard) women in flak armour would look alot like men, except for the face, at 28mm scale. Look at the DE women, except lelith, they mostly look like burly men with breasts.

Might I suggest "normal" Eldar?

Howling Banshees are exclusively female - though I've heard there are male ones, but their traditional armor design demands a chest for some reason - and they're quite effective in melee against MEQ. They also have a fairly decent balance of females in their Guardian Squads - though that particular unit is not doing well these days from what I hear. When I first started my Eldar in 2001, Dire Avengers also had some female torsos, but I don't know if that's still the case. Harlequins, which I've also heard are good, have some female models too IIRC.



As for Imperial Guard, if you play Cadians, it's not too hard to say "half my troops are female." and when your opponent looks to see and can't tell which are which, just say, "Well of course you can't tell, with all that body armor and baggy clothing." Real life soldiers and Marines in combat gear look pretty much identical apart from height differences, so it wouldn't be too unrealistic to say such a thing.

Same thing with the Tau. Have you seen Shadowsun? If she didn't have a helmetless version, you'd never know unless you read the fluff.

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

You say its a bad business move, but do you really know that? I dont claim to be a business expert, but there is a real possibility that making a mostly female force like an IG regiment or Tau cadre would be a horrible idea financially. They spend x amount of money designing the models, more money producing them, and a bit more on advertising and such. True, more females are picking up the game, but there is a real chance that they would lose money on this, and you know they can't do that.

The best thing they have to go on is SoB sales, which are some of their lowest. Now, you say you and many others dont like the SoB due to their models, themes, whatever. However, for GW it would be a huge risk to put time and effort into something that very realistically might not sell.

That being said, I agree it would be nice if they had that kind of stuff available, and GW makes tons of stupid decisions as a company. Theyre not losing much if anything by not offering these models, though.

Pouncey wrote:Might I suggest "normal" Eldar?

Howling Banshees are exclusively female - though I've heard there are male ones, but their traditional armor design demands a chest for some reason - and they're quite effective in melee against MEQ. They also have a fairly decent balance of females in their Guardian Squads - though that particular unit is not doing well these days from what I hear. When I first started my Eldar in 2001, Dire Avengers also had some female torsos, but I don't know if that's still the case. Harlequins, which I've also heard are good, have some female models too IIRC.



As for Imperial Guard, if you play Cadians, it's not too hard to say "half my troops are female." and when your opponent looks to see and can't tell which are which, just say, "Well of course you can't tell, with all that body armor and baggy clothing." Real life soldiers and Marines in combat gear look pretty much identical apart from height differences, so it wouldn't be too unrealistic to say such a thing.

Same thing with the Tau. Have you seen Shadowsun? If she didn't have a helmetless version, you'd never know unless you read the fluff.

This right here.

The only armies that are 100% male are Space Marines. No one would complain if you just said "all my guardsmen are Guardswomen" or "all my Fire Warriors are Female" Maybe paint the lips a different shade to represent which are male and female if you really felt like you have too.

I usually imagine about 1/2 of my Tau are Female when I picture how the game is going in my head. No one under the age of 16 is going to say "nuh-uh her tits aren't big enough!" and quite frankly, anyone who does prolly isn't worth playing.

I'm not going to get into a drawn-out essay on the nature of humankind in relation to the "male" and "female" gender differences, suffice that to say, I am glad feminism has yet to encroach on GW (:
Any man who thinks there should be more female models is just a pseudo-feminist who think that girls love respectful men

Meh, I kinda agree with you... but then you look at what people produce themselves and call 'female soldier', and you're left thinking "thankfully GW doesn't try to sell me crap like that"... oversized breasts, hips, no thought for armour, clothing or even common sense in the vast majority of cases... as it stands I'm rather happy they don't do it more often, because they're likely to do it the standard way which is to just muck it up horribly. Yeah, I'm grateful they're not trying to market that at me, really.

So yeah, sure, they're lacking a bit... but in all honesty I'm just planning to get a couple of female minis from other ranges for use in my guard, as well as some House Escher Gangers from Necromunda (I, however, totally love the hair from what I've seen you may not ). In particular I am looking forward to getting this rather nice Commissar. Sure, she's got high heels, but it's far, far better than most

P.S. I totally dig the female Dark Eldar... that hair is just epic XD

Edit: Joey, what a wonderfully narrow-minded view you just represented I'm a pseudo-feminist, you say? I thought I just wanted a bit more variety in my Guard that'll show me the error of my ways!

Joey wrote:I'm not going to get into a drawn-out essay on the nature of humankind in relation to the "male" and "female" gender differences, suffice that to say, I am glad feminism has yet to encroach on GW (:
Any man who thinks there should be more female models is just a pseudo-feminist who think that girls love respectful men

Not true at all. I just like plastic boobies.

KilroyKiljoy wrote:
Not true at all. I just like plastic boobies.

Boobies are awesome, plastic boobies non the less awesome. But my problem is...
BOOBIES=female attributes.
WAR/DESTRUCTION/AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH=male attributes.
To mix the two is... sacrilege.

Joey wrote:

KilroyKiljoy wrote:
Not true at all. I just like plastic boobies.

Boobies are awesome, plastic boobies non the less awesome. But my problem is...
BOOBIES=female attributes.
WAR/DESTRUCTION/AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH=male attributes.
To mix the two is... sacrilege.

You mean like how SMs mix female birth giving with male war making. It gets kind of crazy when you think abut it.

Cost reasons? It'd cost more to stick in one or two female Cadians in a shocktrooper boxset than just have them all male as they are now. The Imperial Guard and other 40k armies are based on real world principles, and thus why the lines are made up almost solely of male miniatures (sure there are plenty of female soldiers serving across the world, but they aren't as promiment as their male counterparts). The fluff isn't quite as male centric however, there's female guard regiments, commissars, Inquisitors, etc as well as mixed regiments of males and females (though these are uncommon), so its just down to what's cost effective when it comes down to the actual models (either have a box of men and a few women and have people gripe about having to field female soldiers and screw their army's fluff, or just save cash sculpting and add in another head variant for the existing male body).

There's plenty of female miniatures out there, bother complete and as part of conversion kits. If you really want them they're not hard to pick up if you look. =/

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Might I suggest "normal" Eldar?

Howling Banshees are exclusively female - though I've heard there are male ones, but their traditional armor design demands a chest for some reason - and they're quite effective in melee against MEQ. They also have a fairly decent balance of females in their Guardian Squads - though that particular unit is not doing well these days from what I hear. When I first started my Eldar in 2001, Dire Avengers also had some female torsos, but I don't know if that's still the case. Harlequins, which I've also heard are good, have some female models too IIRC.



As for Imperial Guard, if you play Cadians, it's not too hard to say "half my troops are female." and when your opponent looks to see and can't tell which are which, just say, "Well of course you can't tell, with all that body armor and baggy clothing." Real life soldiers and Marines in combat gear look pretty much identical apart from height differences, so it wouldn't be too unrealistic to say such a thing.

Same thing with the Tau. Have you seen Shadowsun? If she didn't have a helmetless version, you'd never know unless you read the fluff.

This right here.

The only armies that are 100% male are Space Marines. No one would complain if you just said "all my guardsmen are Guardswomen" or "all my Fire Warriors are Female" Maybe paint the lips a different shade to represent which are male and female if you really felt like you have too.

I usually imagine about 1/2 of my Tau are Female when I picture how the game is going in my head. No one under the age of 16 is going to say "nuh-uh her tits aren't big enough!" and quite frankly, anyone who does prolly isn't worth playing.

Oh please. The SoB don't sell well because it's based on fetishes, is stupidly expensive, has always had bad rules, and has generally ugly models that make people who went through catholic schools cringe in horror.

This isn't a feminism thing.

It's the same as saying "I prefer an Elf army" or "I prefer a Ork army" it's a preference.

As far as going with the models and saying "it's really X" no, not really. The female body, even as soldiers, is noticeably different from a males, and I don't just mean due to chest.

I know people who have quit, or flat out stopped playing GW products due to lack of variety in this department. They've went to other games.

http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=125&category_id=35

Here something. But i agree with Iur_tae_mont

Sanon wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Might I suggest "normal" Eldar?

Howling Banshees are exclusively female - though I've heard there are male ones, but their traditional armor design demands a chest for some reason - and they're quite effective in melee against MEQ. They also have a fairly decent balance of females in their Guardian Squads - though that particular unit is not doing well these days from what I hear. When I first started my Eldar in 2001, Dire Avengers also had some female torsos, but I don't know if that's still the case. Harlequins, which I've also heard are good, have some female models too IIRC.



As for Imperial Guard, if you play Cadians, it's not too hard to say "half my troops are female." and when your opponent looks to see and can't tell which are which, just say, "Well of course you can't tell, with all that body armor and baggy clothing." Real life soldiers and Marines in combat gear look pretty much identical apart from height differences, so it wouldn't be too unrealistic to say such a thing.

Same thing with the Tau. Have you seen Shadowsun? If she didn't have a helmetless version, you'd never know unless you read the fluff.

This right here.

The only armies that are 100% male are Space Marines. No one would complain if you just said "all my guardsmen are Guardswomen" or "all my Fire Warriors are Female" Maybe paint the lips a different shade to represent which are male and female if you really felt like you have too.

I usually imagine about 1/2 of my Tau are Female when I picture how the game is going in my head. No one under the age of 16 is going to say "nuh-uh her tits aren't big enough!" and quite frankly, anyone who does prolly isn't worth playing.

Oh please. The SoB don't sell well because it's based on fetishes, is stupidly expensive, has always had bad rules, and has generally ugly models that make people who went through catholic schools cringe in horror.

This isn't a feminism thing.

It's the same as saying "I prefer an Elf army" or "I prefer a Ork army" it's a preference.

As far as going with the models and saying "it's really X" no, not really. The female body, even as soldiers, is noticeably different from a males, and I don't just mean due to chest.

I know people who have quit, or flat out stopped playing GW products due to lack of variety in this department. They've went to other games.

I thought the Sisters of Battle didn't sell well because of the limited variety of poses and obscene costs of the army - a standard troops choice costs more than a Land Raider, and as much as a Battleforce if you include a Rhino transport, for less than 200 points of stuff. Edit: Okay, I previously read through your post twice before writing my own, looking for mention of the price of SoBs, and didn't see it. I didn't even see it on my next three times reading it after posting, but I did on the fourth time... Disregard this part.

In any case, there's always Eldar. ^_^

Sanon wrote:
Oh please. The SoB don't sell well because it's based on fetishes, is stupidly expensive, has always had bad rules, and has generally ugly models that make people who went through catholic schools cringe in horror.

This isn't a feminism thing.

It's the same as saying "I prefer an Elf army" or "I prefer a Ork army" it's a preference.

As far as going with the models and saying "it's really X" no, not really. The female body, even as soldiers, is noticeably different from a males, and I don't just mean due to chest.

I know people who have quit, or flat out stopped playing GW products due to lack of variety in this department. They've went[sic] to other games.

Presumably the potential revenue lost due to people stopping playing due to lack of female models is less than the cost of developing said models.
Or, lost revenue < cost of development.
Being a vegetarian I understand how it feels to not have your needs catered to due to lack of commercial interest. But that's just the way of the world.

My point from earlier is made by this your link.
At the end of the day, these women at 28mm scale look like thin men at best. At the level of scaling down we are dealing with women in fatigues and body armour are going to be a little thinner and marginally shorter, but otherwise obscured by the details of their kit.

Okay, here's the deal:

You can't tell the gender difference in Tau because of the armor. Same goes for Vostroyan, Valhalan, Tallarn, Death Korps and Steel Legion regiments. Cadians may be under the same category, since their clothes are baggy and their armor could hide the female shape quite well. The only IG regiments that we could say are full male are the Catachans (by the way, I've seen some very good conversions on these) and Mordians. Orks, Necrons and Tyranids are genderless and SM are male-only. About Eldar (both factions) and Sororitas you really can't complain.

Lightcavalier wrote:My point from earlier is made by this your link.
At the end of the day, these women at 28mm scale look like thin men at best. At the level of scaling down we are dealing with women in fatigues and body armour are going to be a little thinner and marginally shorter, but otherwise obscured by the details of their kit.

That's because body armour is naturally "masculine". I'd challenge you to tell at a glace the difference between men and female dressed in full modern combat gear. You can only tell by looking at the face/hair which is detail wayyy too complex for warhammer.

Lightcavalier wrote:My point from earlier is made by this your link.
At the end of the day, these women at 28mm scale look like thin men at best. At the level of scaling down we are dealing with women in fatigues and body armour are going to be a little thinner and marginally shorter, but otherwise obscured by the details of their kit.

Agreed. And the difference for tau wil be even more miniscule since they wear full body aremor, and/or battle suits.

Speaking on the cost, and not wanting to include female miniatures with their varied male.

They have many numerous repeat models in HQ choices, with the only difference being a weapon or two. Not to mention the varied chances to add a female HQ unit.

It wouldn't harm the company to make at least one female choice. A named HQ techpriest so adeptus mechanicus armies could be made, a female commissar lord, a female general etc... but they aren't made, and if they were, they'd sell well on their uniqueness alone.

Pouncey wrote:

In any case, there's always Eldar. ^_^

Kinda, they have one female HQ choice (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440239a&prodId=prod1060034, which has clown feet, and looks like it belongs in a 80's music video), though I could go to WHFB for a farseer conversion. And their only viable none HQ female choice is Howling Banshee.

Sanon wrote:Speaking on the cost, and not wanting to include female miniatures with their varied male.

They have many numerous repeat models in HQ choices, with the only difference being a weapon or two. Not to mention the varied chances to add a female HQ unit.

It wouldn't harm the company to make at least one female choice. A named HQ techpriest so adeptus mechanicus armies could be made, a female commissar lord, a female general etc... but they aren't made, and if they were, they'd sell well on their uniqueness alone.

O'Shasserra, The highest ranking Fire Caste member, Says Hi.

Sanon wrote:Speaking on the cost, and not wanting to include female miniatures with their varied male.

They have many numerous repeat models in HQ choices, with the only difference being a weapon or two. Not to mention the varied chances to add a female HQ unit.

It wouldn't harm the company to make at least one female choice. A named HQ techpriest so adeptus mechanicus armies could be made, a female commissar lord, a female general etc... but they aren't made, and if they were, they'd sell well on their uniqueness alone.

Pouncey wrote:

In any case, there's always Eldar. ^_^

Kinda, they have one female HQ choice (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440239a&prodId=prod1060034, which has clown feet, and looks like it belongs in a 80's music video), though I could go to WHFB for a farseer conversion. And their only viable none HQ female choice is Howling Banshee.

That link brings me to GW's home page, but I assume you mean Jain Zar.

Would it be possible to kitbash Guardian and Dire Avenger torsos to make female Dire Avengers, like they had when I started playing?

Joey wrote:

Lightcavalier wrote:My point from earlier is made by this your link.
At the end of the day, these women at 28mm scale look like thin men at best. At the level of scaling down we are dealing with women in fatigues and body armour are going to be a little thinner and marginally shorter, but otherwise obscured by the details of their kit.

That's because body armour is naturally "masculine". I'd challenge you to tell at a glace the difference between men and female dressed in full modern combat gear. You can only tell by looking at the face/hair which is detail wayyy too complex for warhammer.

I know. That was what I was getting at. On the note of men vs women in full cbt gear, the only way I have found to tell them apart from further than 10 feet is watching them walk or run...which again does not apply to models.

Lightcavalier wrote:

Joey wrote:

Lightcavalier wrote:My point from earlier is made by this your link.
At the end of the day, these women at 28mm scale look like thin men at best. At the level of scaling down we are dealing with women in fatigues and body armour are going to be a little thinner and marginally shorter, but otherwise obscured by the details of their kit.

That's because body armour is naturally "masculine". I'd challenge you to tell at a glace the difference between men and female dressed in full modern combat gear. You can only tell by looking at the face/hair which is detail wayyy too complex for warhammer.

I know. That was what I was getting at. On the note of men vs women in full cbt gear, the only way I have found to tell them apart from further than 10 feet is watching them walk or run...which again does not apply to models.

I'll give you that, still remains that if you're buying Cadian, or any of the none-stormtrooper IG, they're all male faces.

Eldar wear skin tight suits

And Eldar are an alien species which we only have one example of a female to go on, with the other being in a mecha.

I agree it would be cool to have a set of female faces for cadians...and that would actually be a pretty easy sprue upgrade...but again they would need to be helmetless so that you could really distinguish.

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Being masculine doesn't make you male. Orks sound either parthenogenic or asexual.


The suggestion that female cadians would look just like men, umm no, not ideally. Women, even in body armour, are distinguishable from men in that their body shapes are different and it's not all about bewbs. They would have more slight build, have hips and not the massive arms. Which is the with these conversion packs that just swap the bodies and expect you to use male arms and legs to turn them into women.

GW don't make female cadians and others because they don't think the kidz buying their figures will like them. That's why many action figure toy ranges are devoid of female characters. Star Wars is one of the few to make a decent effort and the many of those are being bought by adults.

I think the concept of making female counterparts for things is horrendously bad.

Things like Banshees and Wyches have female models because the fluff says they're mostly female. Hell, the Wyches fluff says that they're almost unanimously female which is funny considering the kit has about 50% male torsos.

SoB are all girls, etc etc.

Companies don't make things for little tiny fringe groups. They don't. We're not talking about "We have strawberry AND blueberry!", we're talking about "Let's dump millions of dollars into a Gears of War-style Dark Eldar game for the 5% of 40K players who'd actually play it"

And GW frankly sucks at making female models. Lelith looks like a sweet transvestite from transsexual Comoraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, the SOB's have HUGE EXAGGERATED ARMOR BOOBS HNNNNNG, the Daemonettes are single-boobed snake things that make little sense even for Slaanesh, and Wyches still have to cope with the fact that they have giant man arms on barely female torsos. With boobs.

The DE look fine save for the hair.

Newer female models in WHFB are also decent.

Ref Female Cadians

The details which distinguish men from women in cadian style combat dress are such that they do not translate well to 25mm GW scale. Slighter build, hips, and feminine faces would barely show up at this scale.

My wife and I are both military, and in all honesty is full battle rattle, from 50 feet away I can barely tell who she is, let alone her gender, if it werent for the ponytail sticking out under her helmet. Combat clothing (at least up here) is baggy and generally does not accentuate any of the particularly feminine attributes, when you combine this with a plate carrier and tac vest, as well as gas mask carrier, pistol holster, and other miscelaneous kit hanging about, then trow on a helment and balistic glasses...your now looking at a soldier, and from a distance (without watchig them move, as there is a marked difference in male/female movement) you are not making out gender without a good look at the face.

There are a lot of females that play this. But to sum it up:

1. Most women have other things to do then to admire fictional setting. ( like shopping for example )

2. Most women like to spend their money to wardrobe or shoes. ( in short: they would never give up money for miniatures )

3. Most women think that 40k miniatures are toys. ( "miniatures" are also toys to them even dough most people like to collect and paint them but not to play them )

I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I think the concept of making female counterparts for things is horrendously bad.

Things like Banshees and Wyches have female models because the fluff says they're mostly female. Hell, the Wyches fluff says that they're almost unanimously female which is funny considering the kit has about 50% male torsos.

SoB are all girls, etc etc.

Companies don't make things for little tiny fringe groups. They don't. We're not talking about "We have strawberry AND blueberry!", we're talking about "Let's dump millions of dollars into a Gears of War-style Dark Eldar game for the 5% of 40K players who'd actually play it"

And GW frankly sucks at making female models. Lelith looks like a sweet transvestite from transsexual Comoraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, the SOB's have HUGE EXAGGERATED ARMOR BOOBS HNNNNNG, the Daemonettes are single-boobed snake things that make little sense even for Slaanesh, and Wyches still have to cope with the fact that they have giant man arms on barely female torsos. With boobs.

Heh, remember the old metal daemonettes? ^_^

In any case, though I love playing female characters in games and Internet roleplays, it does sadden me when my miniatures start getting killed off when I play my Sisters or Eldar - particularly when the Howling Banshees start getting killed. Maybe it's a good thing for me that there aren't more female miniatures in WH40k.

Brother Coa wrote:There are a lot of females that play this. But to sum it up:

1. Most women have other things to do then to admire fictional setting. ( like shopping for example )

2. Most women like to spend their money to wardrobe or shoes. ( in short: they would never give up money for miniatures )

3. Most women think that 40k miniatures are toys. ( "miniatures" are also toys to them even dough most people like to collect and paint them but not to play them )

not sure is serious.jpg

Sanon wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:There are a lot of females that play this. But to sum it up:

1. Most women have other things to do then to admire fictional setting. ( like shopping for example )

2. Most women like to spend their money to wardrobe or shoes. ( in short: they would never give up money for miniatures )

3. Most women think that 40k miniatures are toys. ( "miniatures" are also toys to them even dough most people like to collect and paint them but not to play them )

not sure is serious.jpg

I suppose you could always collect other companies models. I have a 10 (wo)man squad of marines.
I'm not sure what company made them but they are unquestionably female space marines.
The are tons of female models out there. I know a guy who collects every single one. It's kinda creepy.

Speaking of creepy... the two models that would sell out first at either Gamesday or Bitz Bus were the Slave and Prisoner models.
Both were scantaly clad females. I still own a few pairs myself.

The only real option I can come up with (besides other companies conversion kits) is to cut heads off of the Sisters of Sigmar and attach them to Cadians.
I works great on Kasrkin models.

You know, now that we're speaking of female models, let me say I totally HATE the new Daemonette models. They're hideous. I know what your'e going to say, that they're daemons of Slannesh and stuff, but read this:

Lexicanum wrote:Daemonettes appear as both beautiful and repulsive to those who look upon them. Their bewitching opal eyes and enchanting aura veil their androgynous features and grotesque claws, revealing an alluring appearance the beholder will always consider the epitome of beauty.

The previous models were far better and actually went according to the fluff. Beautiful women with huge claw things. Thet's (kinda) how they were and how they should have stayed. the new ones are just... Ugly.

If even half of the rumours about 6th Edition rules are true I'll start playing much more.

I don't mean to sound rude, but how's that on-topic?

Belexar wrote:I don't mean to sound rude, but how's that on-topic?

I'm assuming the rumors he's talking about are the ones that Power Boobs are now a TH-equivalent weapon in 6th Edition.

Belexar wrote:I don't mean to sound rude, but how's that on-topic?

I find the current rules somewhat lacking? I started playing during 2nd Edition and while 2nd Ed was too complex, 3rd Ed seemed to go way too far in the other direction and become too simplistic. 6th Ed, if some of the stuff is true, seems to address a lot of the issues I've had with the games rules.

Codex-wise I think we're heading back in a good direction, but I find the severe lack of customization to be not only lacking, but disturbing for a game which used to pride itself on customization and player interaction.

Model-wise I really have no complaints, I've seen some amazing models recently. There are some older models I enjoy better than their current iteration, but really nothing that I dislike entirely.

EDIT: And not to sound rude myself, but if your post was about something other than people feeling that 40k is lacking for, whatever reason, and perhaps to express their reasoning then perhaps you should change the topic title.

EDIT 2: Also yes, 40k to me feels very male-centric and, dunno if anyone else gets this, but fairly sexist as well, mainly and especially in concerns to the Imperium.

Oh, sorry then. For some reason I thought this was a thread about the ack of female models.

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

Belexar wrote:Oh, sorry then. For some reason I thought this was a thread about the ack of female models.

Confusion is all. Title of the thread does not really represent the actual subject matter. My mistake.

In any case I find that they represent female models a bit better in the other races (primarily Eldar) and Orks have legit reasons for having no females (no real need for them giving how they procreate), but it is truly disturbing that the only females we see in Imperial armies anymore is either as Inquisitors or as Sisters of Battle. There were a few female Imperial Guard a few years back, but they have ceased producing them. Imperial Guard really has no reason why they can't make some of their models look more femanine other than potentially having to create different sizes of arms and other bits.

It's a bit easier to create female Space Marines, modelling wise, than it is to create female Guardsmen. With a Marine, one could just say that the armour really doesn't change any, so its just a matter of having a female head on a Marine body. With Imperial Guard you don't really have that luxury as the female shape tends to be a bit different from the male one, making it much harder to create a more gender diverse legion unless you have access to older or more limited/exclusive GW models.

Also, the little kids that play this want their SUPAH AWSOMEZ SPEEHS MAHRINS, not chicks in some armor.
And to the person who was talking about the SoB boobs....really? The only "wtf?" model that they make (IMO), is the Repentia. I honestly think that their boobs are not over-accentuated. But you know, take it for what it's worth.

forruner_mercy wrote:Also, the little kids that play this want their SUPAH AWSOMEZ SPEEHS MAHRINS, not chicks in some armor.

It's also worth remembering what age group 40k is targeted at. To the target audiences, girls are either 'icky and have cooties' or are those strange creatures that make you feel all fuzzy on the inside whenever they ask you a question.

forruner_mercy wrote:Also, the little kids that play this want their SUPAH AWSOMEZ SPEEHS MAHRINS, not chicks in some armor.
And to the person who was talking about the SoB boobs....really? The only "wtf?" model that they make (IMO), is the Repentia. I honestly think that their boobs are not over-accentuated. But you know, take it for what it's worth.

They really seemed to dumb the game down visually from 3rd Edition to late 4th Edition. Anyone remember the 3rd Edition Daemonettes? Other than Daemonettes though the only real even partial nudity they've had were models like the Sisters Repentia that only showed a bit of side-boob.

And there is barely anything protecting the front.
I think that the best SoB model is St. Celestine.

infinite_array wrote:To the target audiences, girls are those strange creatures that make you feel all fuzzy on the inside whenever they ask you a question.

Dammit. I really try to not be a nerdy cliche, I really do, but this is all too true.

forruner_mercy wrote:And there is barely anything protecting the front.
I think that the best SoB model is St. Celestine.

I have to agree with this. I think part of my reasoning for that though is that she doesn't have the goofy Lady GaGa haircut that all the rest of the SoB have.

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

We're not already?

The fluff certaintly isn't lacking in female soldiers. Most IG fluff has a fair number of female IG.

As for models, GW just hasn't sculpted female guardsmen. And with their track record of female models I don't think anyone would be happy with them. If you must have some female IG, buy some 3rd party conversion kits.

as for non-human races, Eldar have a good mix of male vs female models, Tau are difficult to sex(Even Space Marines can only guess), and Orks are an Asexxual species.

I always have my soldiers wear their frickin helmets. This is war, no one needs to tell the difference between genders when there is schrapnel flying around.



Frankly, i think GW would do a horrible job with the sculpting and we would end up with your typical sci-fi female looking soldiers. The visuals would both be degrading to women and to the whole Grimdark setting at the same time.

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

It depends on just what that thing actually IS. Anyway, enough talking about each others' genitalia. I feel like converting a female Archon now.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

Lol

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

Hm... I don't think there are any alligators around here. No crocodiles either.

Sounds kinda painful, though. Like that time when- well, nevermind about that.

Pouncey wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Historically that is how a male reproduced. Just direct spores on fertile earth. Leave. Repeat. Orks are under evolved middle school males.

Pouncey wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

Hm... I don't think there are any alligators around here. No crocodiles either.

Sounds kinda painful, though. Like that time when- well, nevermind about that.

Story time?

CpatTom wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Historically that is how a male reproduced. Just direct spores on fertile earth. Leave. Repeat. Orks are under evolved middle school males.

I learned something today, then. ^_^ Unfortunately, the day just rolled over a half hour ago in my timezone... But that could be good, because it means I've got the rest of the day to relax.

Before I go to bed, though, I have to ask... What's the female's role in this reproductive process? ^_^

Historically? Or from the point of view of the enlightened man of today? (Or is there even a difference)

CpatTom wrote:Historically? Or from the point of view of the enlightened man of today? (Or is there even a difference)

In the days where we reproduced with spores.

You mean we don't now?

I just stand near fertile earth and scratch myself a bit. 2 days later bam, little kays
...cos of my spores

Pouncey wrote:

CpatTom wrote:Historically? Or from the point of view of the enlightened man of today? (Or is there even a difference)

In the days where we reproduced with spores.

It is an analogy

CpatTom wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

CpatTom wrote:Historically? Or from the point of view of the enlightened man of today? (Or is there even a difference)

In the days where we reproduced with spores.

It is an analogy

The freaky part is that I clicked on this thread before you posted this, re-read your previous post, and wondered if it was a metaphor for exactly that.

The REALLY freaky part is that I used to have similar things happen on forums with great frequency, only with more specificity and less reasonable ways of knowing what had just been posted. This is the first time in a few years.

Sanon wrote:Speaking on the cost, and not wanting to include female miniatures with their varied male.

They have many numerous repeat models in HQ choices, with the only difference being a weapon or two. Not to mention the varied chances to add a female HQ unit.

It wouldn't harm the company to make at least one female choice. A named HQ techpriest so adeptus mechanicus armies could be made, a female commissar lord, a female general etc... but they aren't made, and if they were, they'd sell well on their uniqueness alone.

Pouncey wrote:

In any case, there's always Eldar. ^_^

Kinda, they have one female HQ choice (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440239a&prodId=prod1060034, which has clown feet, and looks like it belongs in a 80's music video), though I could go to WHFB for a farseer conversion. And their only viable none HQ female choice is Howling Banshee.

Yeah, the Howling Banshee Phoenix Lord does have some crazy hair going on. Of course you have to remember that GW's not really guilty of being 'out of touch' with the model, as I wanna say it came out in 1993-94, and big hair wasn't totally dead yet by then.

Plenty of Farseers in the fluff are female. Many of the models could easily BE female, as they generally wear helmets and robes.

Now, if your demand is especially for 'obviously female models which are obviously female', the torsos on either every 3rd or every 4th Guardian on the sprue is female. I've got well over 100 guardians, and I'm fully confident that at least 20 of them are females, if not 30, which is more than enough to field most army's complements of Guardians as 100 percent female. Every single Howling Banshee model is 'obviously' female. Guardian Torsos could be used to make Dire Avengers, Shining Spears, and Guardian Jetbikes 'obviously' female. Also, I want to say that 3 of the 6 Harlequins you get in the unit box are female.

Pretty easy to say that your tank crews are all female.

So there it is, it'd take a bit of doing and bit-swapping, but without more modeling required than torso-swapping, plus maybe converting a Reaper or WHFB model to a Farseer, you can field a 100 percent female army with mostly all GW parts.

The thing with Eldar and being or not being female, is that we both have representations of what the females look like, and assurance that their armor is damn near skin tight. The "you wouldn't be able to tell the difference" argument doesn't fly with Eldar.

As far as target demographic, it's a demographic that would actually be more likely to buy female units than the various other male demographics out there. It's kind of like saying MMO's are targeted towards a male demographic, so they wouldn't want females. Yes, it's targetted to a demographic much the same as 40k, and most of the female characters, are male.

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

It's your spore pouch. Your thinking a little to literal here. Orks leave behind there seed to impregnates the earth. Sowing there wild oats so to speak. It's a very male way of reproduction.

On the other hand. SMs get injected with seed that they then carry well it matures in there body to give birth to a new marine. That's a very female way to reproduce, so we actually already have female SMs.

I'm taking a mythology class, so that explains the craziness.

nomotog wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

It's your spore pouch. Your thinking a little to literal here. Orks leave behind there seed to impregnates the earth. Sowing there wild oats so to speak. It's a very male way of reproduction.

On the other hand. SMs get injected with seed that they then carry well it matures in there body to give birth to a new marine. That's a very female way to reproduce, so we actually already have female SMs.

I'm taking a mythology class, so that explains the craziness.

A very female way of reproducing is making life.

The gene-seed doesn't make a life, it alters the bodies make up to be more condusive to war and fighting.

Honestly, with all the warp-ery that went on with the primarchs, having one that's a female would fit quite well. Here is what GW does.

That head of the SoB that disappeared into the warp years ago? She comes back with a missing Primarch, who was a female. She was kept in secret for being the only none male-primarch of the emperor. From here, GW can un-do all the horrible things they did to SoB (like how they're down to a handful now) and have this new primarch start up a new chapter, with the SoB as it's base.

This way Matt Ward won't be tempted to destroy them.

I'm down with on the sole principle it upsets matt ward. lol

Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

There's a few potential all-female armies in 40k. Aside from Sisters of Battle, there's Daemonettes of Slaanesh and Dark Eldar Wyches. Eldar have a few "booby" torsos. It's quite possible to build an all female-Eldar army. I've seen some Tau players use Eldar female torsos for a female Fire Warrior conversion. As many already posted, body armor and pants generally hides female curves. A while back, I did a slight female IG conversion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/286211.page

There are also 3rd party companies that sell female heads.

Sanon wrote:One thing that's kept me away from 40K as a hobby, aside from the larger initial "fee" to get invested into it compared to other Wargames, is there isn't really an army that I feel is "right" for me from a setting standpoint.

Honestly, it's the lack of females. If I want to field female units, my options are either get really good with green stuff, field an army of really expensive, really pissed off, walking fetishes, or be space drow with wild and crazy hair. Neither one of those appeal to me from a fluff standpoint, or a gameplay standpoint. I tend to play the protagonist factions, or at least neutral.

Is it so bad to merely want to run a female IG regiment? To have a female Tau cadre? To really, have -any- female characters aside from the one the Eldar have, the two the Dark Eldar have, the one the Tau have, and the -I'm not going to talk about it- the Space Nuns have?

I feel it's a barrier, one that has no reason to be there, and it's not the only one. Why do we still get things styled after things that stopped being "in" in the 80's? The Daemonetts are an excellent example of both these points. Mohawks and skeletal faces. They both look nothing like fluff portrays them, and have a style hearkening back to a time when Ghost Busters was culturally relevant. GW just seems wholly out of touch with current trends, clinging to what used to work and refusing to add anything new to the setting.

I'd honestly dump all my money into a full out Imperial Guard regiment or Tau Cadre if I had some female options (and know others who would do the same), but I don't, so am putting that money to PP because not only does GW fail at offering variety, they succeed at killing off and utterlly destroying the only female option they had with -anything- they do with the SoB.

Well Firewarriors are gender neutral: Chances are inside the armour half those Tau are female.

If you make the -only- unmasked tau on the field Shadowsun, you could in theory have a 100% female tau force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

I dare you to tell that to Lysander, who obviously has balls bigger than your face.

Pouncey wrote:

CpatTom wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

CpatTom wrote:Historically? Or from the point of view of the enlightened man of today? (Or is there even a difference)

In the days where we reproduced with spores.

It is an analogy

The freaky part is that I clicked on this thread before you posted this, re-read your previous post, and wondered if it was a metaphor for exactly that.

The REALLY freaky part is that I used to have similar things happen on forums with great frequency, only with more specificity and less reasonable ways of knowing what had just been posted. This is the first time in a few years.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

I like this. I will now go about calling all the Space Marines little girly men.

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

Also, men carry seed, women carry eggs :$

I just noticed that.

Unless all astartes are preggo

Belexar wrote:You know, now that we're speaking of female models, let me say I totally HATE the new Daemonette models. They're hideous. I know what your'e going to say, that they're daemons of Slannesh and stuff, but read this:

Lexicanum wrote:Daemonettes appear as both beautiful and repulsive to those who look upon them. Their bewitching opal eyes and enchanting aura veil their androgynous features and grotesque claws, revealing an alluring appearance the beholder will always consider the epitome of beauty.

The previous models were far better and actually went according to the fluff. Beautiful women with huge claw things. Thet's (kinda) how they were and how they should have stayed. the new ones are just... Ugly.

That quote specifically states that the daemonettes have androgynous features. It's the eyes and the aura of the daemonette that makes them appear beautiful (both of which are shorthand for chaos magic tomfoolery). Given that warp magic won't be affecting us, it makes sense to have hideous daemonettes.

im2randomghgh wrote:

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

Also, men carry seed, women carry eggs :$

I just noticed that.

Unless all astartes are preggo

What else did you think the bulky armor was for, if not to hide their swollen figure? It's not like form-fitting armor with the same protectiveness doesn't exist, as evidenced by the Sisters of Battle - albeit, I'll admit they came into existence many millennia after the Space Marines.

Pouncey wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

Also, men carry seed, women carry eggs :$

I just noticed that.

Unless all astartes are preggo

What else did you think the bulky armor was for, if not to hide their swollen figure? It's not like form-fitting armor with the same protectiveness doesn't exist, as evidenced by the Sisters of Battle - albeit, I'll admit they came into existence many millennia after the Space Marines.

Custodes have form fitting armour too, that actually offers MORE protection.

Now that I think about it, the astartes seem to have drawn the short straw

im2randomghgh wrote:

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

Also, men carry seed, women carry eggs :$

I just noticed that.

Unless all astartes are preggo

Pregnancy is a big part of SMs. You put your seed in them then they get bigger and swell. It gets crazy fast like I said.

Another thing to peek at is how feminine are the sisters of battle. Yes they are all women, but they seem to embody male aspects more then female ones. A living saint dies and gets reborn in a manor resembling a dieing and reborn god. Where a male god will die (often torn apart) and then with the help of the goddess be born again. A living saint can die, then with the help of the emperor be reborn. This has the living saint playing the male role well the emperor plays the role of the goddess. Did I mention how crazy things get?

How do you know that the Tau even reproduce the same way as humans (and thus have similar ideas of men and women biology, obvious enough to recognize one on a 28mm model).

But really, if there were to be clearly female models for armies where the gear isn't body-hugging armor, their chest would be so intensely over-sized that they would be labelled as fetishes or over-sexualized.

This is a strange reason to not be into 40k. If it matters that much to you, green stuff it. But really, of the 5 armies where a female model makes sense given the current fluff, 4 of them have those models regularly (Eldar, Dark Eldar (entire units are women for both sides, and mildly Daemons, but are they really women, technically?). For IG....well, either the flak jacket would cover any obvious...features, or you'd be Catachan, and it's a bunch of women in tank tops.

Have you seen modern wargear? You can't clearly tell a woman at a glance if they're in full kit, that's not the point of the uniform.

Thats the thing with Tau.

They do have Male and Female genders, but the actual method of reproduction hasn't been fully explored by Xenologists. All they have is that they know that the slit on the forehead is involved somehow.

Tau reproduce like crabs on modern day earth.

I base this on speculation and dietary patterns.


lol

Dietary patterns?

Explain please

Grey Templar wrote:Thats the thing with Tau.

They do have Male and Female genders, but the actual method of reproduction hasn't been fully explored by Xenologists. All they have is that they know that the slit on the forehead is involved somehow.

It is? Are we sure it's not just a suggestive image thing?

That is what Xenology says.

Its also the only stuff said on the subject thusfar and as such is correct until something to the contrary is written.

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

That's....the silliest thing I have heard today.

That would make more sense if he has/is an egg, and he creates new life with that, and never...y'know spreads the egg.

But he has seed. And his seed is used to make more marines. By spreading it around.

If you can't think of anything more feminine than to carry around your seed and spreading it to the unformed people (the aspirants), then.... does any guy you know make you think of any form of masculinity?

(also, the whole patriarchal hierarchy, the idea of the great-father figure as the Primarchs and the Emperor, the, y'know brotherhood...

Like the Scouts are the youngest son, learning his path in the world, the battle brothers are the man, understanding the world and comfortable with his place in it, and the dreadnoughts/leadership are the father-figures, guiding the sons to manhood)

That is a very silly debate, but I cannot agree with your argument.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I doubt the symbolism nomotog is seeing in the Orks, Space Marines, and Living Saints was even considered by GW.

Void__Dragon wrote:Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I doubt the symbolism nomotog is seeing in the Orks, Space Marines, and Living Saints was even considered by GW.

The cigar is never a a cigar. It's a symbol for the oppression of the Cuban people. Ya it's all kind of crazy that's why I called it crazy like five times.

I honestly have no idea why the lack of female options is continually an issue here. What is it that the OP needs?

I'm still a bit confused.

It seems easy enough to me to find female heads (or, through the use of a bit of putty) should you desire it. Truthfully, as has been said in a myriad of threads on this forum, with the exception of certain special characters (out of necessity) there shouldn't be much to distinguish a male from a female when clad in a proper uniform and body armor. This is the case in the modern world for the most part. I have served with females in combat zones and it's really hard to tell male from female at a distance. Unless they talk or you see them move it's near impossible. I don't think the fluff indicates much has changed by 40k.

Even in the historical past where females have engaged in combat this was the case.

Combat clothing is a practical matter, male and female physiology isn't that much different (I think this applies to all the humanoid races) and the differences that do exist would not be visible at 28mm.

Certainly GW thinks it would be logistically difficult to cast 'feminine' specific armor bits to mix among the castings they already have. Other than perhaps a separate sprue you could purchase to suit your needs, but it would have to be backed up by sales.

While I appreciate your point of view I do not understand it. This is not because I am a repressed male nerd by the way. I happen to be ex-military with several tours of combat experience covering just shy of a decade. From my world view, specifically identifiable females in combat gear simply doesn't ring true. In fantastically heroic 40k this may be acceptable (chainmail bikinis notwithstanding ), but I find it a little strange and certainly the lack of these options isn't because of sexually repressed or inexperienced males as has been mentioned.

Then again, I see Marines without a helmet a little ridiculous as well... so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I'm sorry if I didn't entirely get your point.

^Very well said, I heartily agree.

There have been many threads that complain about a "lack of diversity" in the models. Complaints that make no sense. Really, if having a female army is that important to the OP, look into the Eldar, or get converting some IG, but it shouldn't be an issue.

The Xenos need more stuff.
Seriously, the Imperials get tons of vehicles, multiple builds, and a good selection of Troops and transports, that don't blow up when you kick em.
I mean, aren't the xenos meant to be this massive, technologically advanced threat? Why are they so underwhelming.

Depends on the xenos type (Eldar would be more technologically advanced than Tyranids or Orks)

I recently fought Dark Eldar and Orks.

They are no small threat I tell you.

Elector wrote:Depends on the xenos type (Eldar would be more technologically advanced than Tyranids or Orks)

I recently fought Dark Eldar and Orks.

They are no small threat I tell you.

Yeah, but for a high tech army, they have pretty crappy anti-armor.

And don't get me started on necrons...

If Raiders were AV11 I garuntee you that DE would be the most overpowered/broken army out there. they are already pushing the limit as it is.

Orks are also a solid army, the fragility of their vehicles is a fluffy balancing mechanic.


Tau and Eldar have some great vehicles. Wave Serpeants actually qualify as one of the best transports out there in the durability department, the only downside being that they are paying 4th edition point costs. Devilfish are very solid for a transport vehicle, being slightly over costed, but it makes up by having some impressive firepower.

Grey Templar wrote:If Raiders were AV11 I garuntee you that DE would be the most overpowered/broken army out there. they are already pushing the limit as it is.

Orks are also a solid army, the fragility of their vehicles is a fluffy balancing mechanic.


Tau and Eldar have some great vehicles. Wave Serpeants actually qualify as one of the best transports out there in the durability department, the only downside being that they are paying 4th edition point costs. Devilfish are very solid for a transport vehicle, being slightly over costed, but it makes up by having some impressive firepower.

I didn't say crappy vehicles, the vehicles are fine.
I mean their ability to kill vehicles from more from a arms reach.

Well...ok with orks that makes sense, and Tau have their rail guns, but what about Eldar? Their lances are fairly short range for a dedicated AT weapon. I mean Lascannons are what S9 at 48"?

You must have some fairly incompatent Eldar players if they are being hampered by the range of their Lances.

All eldar vehicles are skimmers, and DE are fast skimmers. they have ultimate mobility to be able to close the distance.

With Eldar being very long lived and all you would think they would make better use of stand off weapons and tactics rather than having short range fusion gun as anti-tank and so many melee units.
Maneuverability and speed being something they value in their design and battle philosophy you'd also hope they'd back it up with more lethality at range.
One reason I'm intrigued by some of the FW designed tanks.

Eldar and DE are not a stand off shooting army like Tau or IG.
Also, they do have something other than standard Lances for long range AT, see EML, Fire Prisms and Void Ravens.

nomotog wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

nomotog wrote:Your thinking too literal.

I still can't see anything more feminine then carrying a seed. That's another thing they call it a seed, not a splice, not a mutation. A seed implies new life the creation of new life because when you become a SM it's a completely new life. The see matures inside you and you give birth to your self.

It gets quite crazy quick, but you can look at SMs as a triadic goddess. Scouts are the virgin form, battle brothers are the mother form, then the dreadnoughts are the crone form.

Out of all the armies, I would actually call the SM the most feminine.

Also, men carry seed, women carry eggs :$

I just noticed that.

Unless all astartes are preggo

Pregnancy is a big part of SMs. You put your seed in them then they get bigger and swell. It gets crazy fast like I said.

Another thing to peek at is how feminine are the sisters of battle. Yes they are all women, but they seem to embody male aspects more then female ones. A living saint dies and gets reborn in a manor resembling a dieing and reborn god. Where a male god will die (often torn apart) and then with the help of the goddess be born again. A living saint can die, then with the help of the emperor be reborn. This has the living saint playing the male role well the emperor plays the role of the goddess. Did I mention how crazy things get?

So being reborn automatically makes you a man and healing people automatically makes you a woman? WHAT are talking about? U CRAZZZZZZZZYYYY.

What you fail to realize is that "Gene-seed" is a nickname. It is actually a progenoid gland. Mutation is much, much, much closer to the mark then pregnancy ever could be.