I'll be updating the OP with the contents so stay tuned.
Wow not much to be summerized. Lots of filler images, lots of big print. Total of 6 pages of rules including the super heavy walker rules.
The knight detachment is separate from allies 1-3 can be taken, Do not score
Cannot ally with Chaos, Daemons, Crons, Orks or Nids.
Allies of convenience with Eldar and Grey Knights
Desperate allies with Dark Eldar and Tau
Imperial Knight Armies These rules are for the primary detachment of knights:
Knights are scoring and one is the warlord.
Knightly ranks
"Players that want to include knights apparent or seneschals in their games must roll a dice for each of their knights errant or knights paladin (other then the warlord) at the same time as warlord traits and refer the knightly rank table below to see what the rank that knight has"
1: Knight apparent. Subtract 1 from the knights Ws and Bs. in addition a apparents ion shield confers a 5+ invulnerable save instead of the normal 4+
2-5: Knight. Standard rules
6: Seneschal. Add 1 to the knights Ws and Bs. In addition a knight seneschals ion shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save insteaf of the normal 4+
Warlord table:
The warlord is always a Seneschal
1. Master of the Hunt: All friendly knights in 12" add +1 to run or charge range
2. Fearsome Reputation: Enemy units within 12" of the warlord use the lowest leadership value
3. Master of the Joust: The Knight warlord rerolls failed to hit rolls in any assault phase in which he successfully charges into close combat
4. Master of the Field: The Warlord up to D3 friendly knights have outflank
5: Master of Siege: The warlord and all friendly knights add +1 to rolls they make on the building damage table
6: Indomitable: The warlord has "It will not die"
That's it. Not much to this book. Scary 3++ warlord
Seriously? You have to roll off to see what the knight's rank is?
That's terrible game design. They should have had each rank be purchasable, bound it to a FOC, and given each rank it's own stat line and load-out in the army list.
Then the book would at least have the illusion of looking like a codex.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Seriously? You have to roll off to see what the knight's rank is?
That's terrible game design. They should have had each rank be purchasable, bound it to a FOC, and given each rank it's own stat line and load-out in the army list.
Then the book would at least have the illusion of looking like a codex.
If they did that they might have to cut out one of the multiple full page spreads!
rabidguineapig wrote: So instead of keeping it in White Dwarf, they felt the need to troll everyone and release the same rules in a $41 book... Nice
They are not quite the same, actually.
The new rules clarify the Allies Matrix (before the book, Xenos and heretics could take knights), and gives rules to field a full knight army.
Of course, considering how minimal these rules are, they probably could have fit it in a White Dwarf anyway.
Yeah that probably didn't need a hardback and limited edition release, though at least it's not exactly the same. It just sort of bugs me that every other codex slated to be released (I play Guard, my friend plays Orks/BA) has been pushed back a month because of this new "army."
What I find amusing is more charts. Because that's what the game needs - random freaking charts.
I have much respect for Jervis Johnson and what he brought to the game and company, but if he's the one clamoring for a return to Rogue Trader-era randomness for as many things as possible, it's time to put him out to pasture.
If they want that republish a special 40k Skirmish Rogue Trader edition with everything random, and keep it out of the real game.
WayneTheGame wrote: What I find amusing is more charts. Because that's what the game needs - random freaking charts.
I have much respect for Jervis Johnson and what he brought to the game and company, but if he's the one clamoring for a return to Rogue Trader-era randomness, time to put him out to pasture.
Don't you know? 6th ed is TableHammer. Before it was TransportHammer.
If you have the WD, and were just planning on allying them, and already owned an apoc/escalation book for the SH rules, would there be any reason to own this book?
Nevelon wrote: If you have the WD, and were just planning on allying them, and already owned an apoc/escalation book for the SH rules, would there be any reason to own this book?
Without even seeing it I will assume that answer is NO
Edit: You'd probably run into a problem at a GW store or in tournaments not having the codex though...
Nevelon wrote: If you have the WD, and were just planning on allying them, and already owned an apoc/escalation book for the SH rules, would there be any reason to own this book?
Without even seeing it I will assume that answer is NO
Edit: You'd probably run into a problem at a GW store or in tournaments not having the codex though...
The WD had a pretty thorough rules page on it. Looked completely playable.
I don’t play at official GW stores, and last I checked my FLGS is not allowing them in out local tournaments. I’m much more likely to pick up the model from my store if all I need is the $4 WD for the rules. If I need to buy the full codex just to ally in one, I’ll pass on the whole thing.
Nevelon wrote: If you have the WD, and were just planning on allying them, and already owned an apoc/escalation book for the SH rules, would there be any reason to own this book?
Without even seeing it I will assume that answer is NO
Edit: You'd probably run into a problem at a GW store or in tournaments not having the codex though...
The WD had a pretty thorough rules page on it. Looked completely playable.
Except for the part allowing nids to take knights, since the author "forgot" to add in restrictions.
So do I understand this correctly: in the Knight army the warlord is automatically a Seneschal, no need to roll, and rolling for the ranks of the other knights is optional?
Crimson wrote: So do I understand this correctly: in the Knight army the warlord is automatically a Seneschal, no need to roll, and rolling for the ranks of the other knights is optional?
The WL is always a seneschal. You must roll for ranks, it seems.
Crimson wrote: So do I understand this correctly: in the Knight army the warlord is automatically a Seneschal, no need to roll, and rolling for the ranks of the other knights is optional?
That's kinda how it reads from what I can see as well.
according to the quote from the OP, it uses the word MUST, but also has it in the section about using them as a primary detachment.
My conclusion from that is that you always get basic knights as allies, but if you take them as primary detachment, everyone but the warlord MUST roll for rank.
niv-mizzet wrote: according to the quote from the OP, it uses the word MUST, ....
"Players that want to include knights apparent or seneschals in their games ...
If you want to include ranked knights, you must roll on the table. Otherwise, not.
So, yeah, I see that getting a lot of use.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Except for the part allowing nids to take knights, since the author "forgot" to add in restrictions.
The White Dwarf article didn't allow Nids to take allied knights. It didn't allow anyone to take allied Knights. Or explain how to take Knights at all, in anything.
Just to clarify; taking a Knight detachment does not use up your Allies slot? So you could take Imperial Guard with Space Marine Allies and 1-3 Knights as well?
They gave it a codex so no one could argue the validity of an army of Knights. The new expensive kit GW wants to sell lots of.
I am glad they did. I bought four.
However thin the codex is, they probably aren't getting another one for a long time yet, if ever (see Necrons and Sisters). That £25 should last you a while.
Nice of them to put the Super Heavy and D weapon rules in too. Saves me buying an Escalation book.
Yodhrin wrote: Just to clarify; taking a Knight detachment does not use up your Allies slot? So you could take Imperial Guard with Space Marine Allies and 1-3 Knights as well?
That's what I was thinking too. If that is possible it is just plain silly. Eldar/Dark Eldar Seer Council with Knights instead of Wave Serpents., HA!
XT-1984 wrote: They gave it a codex so no one could argue the validity of an army of Knights. The new expensive kit GW wants to sell lots of.
Which they could have sold just as many of if they had included 2 pages of rules in Codex: Imperial Guard.
Or put the rules in the box
And then people who dont play IG would be complaining that they will have to buy an $80+ codex just to play Knights which arent even part of the IG army......
Medium of Death wrote: It's obviously a horrible money grab but the kit is far too tempting.
What's the fluff like?
Goes into the method and rituals the pilot needs to use them, how they pre date the imperium and then repeat that a dozen times, goes into the houses, and blah blah blah pancakes.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Seriously? You have to roll off to see what the knight's rank is?
That's terrible game design. They should have had each rank be purchasable, bound it to a FOC, and given each rank it's own stat line and load-out in the army list. .
It's breathtaking, isn't it? On a lucky roll of a 6, one of your 400 point units will suddenly gain a huge boost in effectiveness. Or you'll be unlucky and suffer a severe decrease in effectiveness - the difference in effectiveness between an Apparent and a Seneschal is massive. These should have been upgrade options, like the venerable upgrade for Dreadnoughts. To leave them to random chance like this is crazy.
Actually, I'm just puzzled in general at the lack of customization options. Other superheavies get lots of wargear choices, what's up with these?
Madcat87 wrote: I actually thought they couldn't do worse than the Inquisitor codex which was mostly a copy & paste job at best, but GW continues to prove me wrong.
I liked the rules for the actual inquisitors, but that's about it. Another example of a cool idea, executed poorly, and drastically overcharged for.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: ...So if my friends force me to take one, I won't have to roll on the table.
Sorry... what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dono1979 wrote: And then people who dont play IG would be complaining that they will have to buy an $80+ codex just to play Knights which arent even part of the IG army......
They need to buy a codex either way. This way they would at least get one with actual content.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: ...So if my friends force me to take one, I won't have to roll on the table.
Sorry... what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dono1979 wrote: And then people who dont play IG would be complaining that they will have to buy an $80+ codex just to play Knights which arent even part of the IG army......
They need to buy a codex either way. This way they would at least get one with actual content.
I think he's being sarcastic, since it says if you "want" to field Knights, while he's being "forced" to field a Knight
WayneTheGame wrote: What I find amusing is more charts. Because that's what the game needs - random freaking charts.
I have much respect for Jervis Johnson and what he brought to the game and company, but if he's the one clamoring for a return to Rogue Trader-era randomness for as many things as possible, it's time to put him out to pasture.
If they want that republish a special 40k Skirmish Rogue Trader edition with everything random, and keep it out of the real game.
Johnnytorrance wrote: I don't think these necessarily count as allies unless you bring an army of them.
One of them just counts towards a lord of war.
Now I'm not sure if escalation has a rule for how many lords of war you're allowed to bring
Knights are not escalation they can be taken as your primary detachment, there is also a separate detachment just for knights. So you can take Knights as your primary, a knight detachment, an ally detachment, a fortification, a legion of the damned detachment, an inquisitorial detachment, and any formation that can ally with imperial forces.
Johnnytorrance wrote: I don't think these necessarily count as allies unless you bring an army of them.
One of them just counts towards a lord of war.
Now I'm not sure if escalation has a rule for how many lords of war you're allowed to bring
Knights are not escalation they can be taken as your primary detachment, there is also a separate detachment just for knights. So you can take Knights as your primary, a knight detachment, an ally detachment, a fortification, a legion of the damned detachment, an inquisitorial detachment, and any formation that can ally with imperial forces.
...
...
...
Hell, as long as GW doesn't completely feth up the upcoming Guard 'dex(which I would not put past them at this stage), it may finally be possible to actually build a proper Adeptus Mechanicus army using entirely core-40K rules. You can really take a main detachment, an allied detachment, a Knights detachment AND an Inquisition detachment all at once, assuming you meet the minimum FoC requirements for each?
At least now people will stop saying "Escalation and SHA are not standard 40K" now really have something to consider. Super heavy and D-Weapons are now bog standard 40K.
So I am thinking we should expect Baneblades in the IG codex and Stompers/Squigoths in the Ork codex?
Gloomfang wrote: At least now people will stop saying "Escalation and SHA are not standard 40K" now really have something to consider. Super heavy and D-Weapons are now bog standard 40K.
So I am thinking we should expect Baneblades in the IG codex and Stompers/Squigoths in the Ork codex?
If the Knight release gives me the opportunity to have a plastic Squiggoth, I will kiss Jervis Johnson. On the mouth.
If it gets me the opportunity to have a plastic gargantuan squiggoth...
Gloomfang wrote: At least now people will stop saying "Escalation and SHA are not standard 40K" now really have something to consider. Super heavy and D-Weapons are now bog standard 40K.
So I am thinking we should expect Baneblades in the IG codex and Stompers/Squigoths in the Ork codex?
If the Knight release gives me the opportunity to have a plastic Squiggoth, I will kiss Jervis Johnson. On the mouth.
If it gets me the opportunity to have a plastic gargantuan squiggoth...
Gloomfang wrote: At least now people will stop saying "Escalation and SHA are not standard 40K" now really have something to consider. Super heavy and D-Weapons are now bog standard 40K.
So I am thinking we should expect Baneblades in the IG codex and Stompers/Squigoths in the Ork codex?
Shouldn't be too bad if it's just those 3. Only D weapon between them is the Stompa's Chainsword.
Still think the SH and d-weapons are out of the bottle.:
What happened to the plastic GWS Shadowsword / Stormsword?
Edit: Ah they just rolled them all into the Baneblade kit.
Looking at my Apocalypse book out of the 8 GWS Variants and the 1 FW Variant, only one has a Str D weapon; the Shadowsword. So as long as they keep that one out, we should be fine.
Knightly ranks
"Players that want to include knights apparent or seneschals in their games must roll a dice for each of their knights errant or knights paladin (other then the warlord) at the same time as warlord traits and refer the knightly rank table below to see what the rank that knight has"
1: Knight apparent. Subtract 1 from the knights Ws and Bs. in addition a apparents ion shield confers a 5+ invulnerable save instead of the normal 4+
2-5: Knight. Standard rules
6: Seneschal. Add 1 to the knights Ws and Bs. In addition a knight seneschals ion shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save insteaf of the normal 4+
*rubs temples slowly*
So let me get this straight. The fans have been bitching and moaning about the randomness of the Warlords traits and Psychic Powers tables this edition, Chaos Players loathe the random elements in the units that have them, and so they thought adding a f***ing table that could potentially screw over your $140 f***ing model was a good idea?
Well, who wants to buy my Dark Angels now? I'm done. They're pretty well painted.
Oh Jesus, feth off. You can share an opinion without being a giant dick about it, you know.
I'm of the opinion all the random tables, whether you're "forced" to use it or not, are comically, abhorrently stupid. Telling me that I don't even have a "glimmer" of a point is exceptionally rude.
Because there are no options. You literally have the 5pt choice between rapid-fire battle cannon or thermal cannon. Unless there's something I don't know about, that is the only difference between a Knight Paladin and a Knight Errant. This random table (which is random) is your only means of customising your force beyond that.
How about the profile?
The AV ist known and also number of hull points which seems to be equal to that of the Trans. C'tan.
Other than that, are there differences to Dreads?
What about the profile? It is a superheavy, walker so has all the usual rules - smash, HoW, etc - that a SH walker would have.
SRSFACE - and so is quoting out of context.
You stated once that iwas comically stupid as fact, then correctly stated it is your opinion. In my opinion getting so clearly agitated over an optional rule in a codex you seemingly have no interest in using, meaning you will not even have to make the choice yourself, is not the most constructive use of energy.
Still think the SH and d-weapons are out of the bottle.:
What happened to the plastic GWS Shadowsword / Stormsword?
Edit: Ah they just rolled them all into the Baneblade kit.
Looking at my Apocalypse book out of the 8 GWS Variants and the 1 FW Variant, only one has a Str D weapon; the Shadowsword. So as long as they keep that one out, we should be fine.
Actually the shadowsword is just fine for the inclusion of D weapons, its 400ish points iirc for the ability to remove 5 models a turn if the opponent plays it smart and spreads out his troops. It will also give hordes a part in the game now since a shadowsword will get overwhelmed quickly by hordes. Oh and also finally a screamerstar and seercouncil killer. So if they slap the shadowsword into the IG dex then happy days its back the old super expensive and complicated rock paper scissors days of yore.
Well: Speaking as someone that doesn't have the escalation or apoc rules, I'm glad they are included in the codex. And even if I don't plan on getting more then a single Knight I'm glad to have a "real" codex for it...
What I don't think was needed, was the Companion book, that seems to be just more fluff and "how to paint them pretty like the studio models"
Actually, I'm just puzzled in general at the lack of customization options. Other superheavies get lots of wargear choices, what's up with these?
My Eldar superheavies disagree with this greatly.
I guess you're right. BUT STILL, why on earth don't superheavies get lots of wargear options? That seems like such a missed opportunity to personalize your Lord of War!
Now a army of super heavys more titans that can't be killed in less you get lucky and glance them to death with a butt load of hp won't be easy to do and i thought ripetide and wrightknight spam a pain now my marines will never win again
I love how people pan Land Raiders as super easy to kill despite bring AV14 and 4 HP, yet cry like angry babies over an AV13 vehicle with 6 HP. Knights cost more than 2 LRBTs, has less firepower, and only marginally better survivability. Yes, yes, its armed with a Str D CCW, which at most will remove 4 models in any give Assault, yet mostly likely will only kill 2 a round at Initiative. Stomp and the HoW together will account for more models removed than the Reaper Chainsword will.
There is mention of traitor Knights of house Drakon leading a daemon army.
Yet can't ally with Chaos
No worries. The Codex: Chaos Knights is next month. It's the same Codex, sprinkled with cool flames and evil black spikes. Notable changes in the Codex: Chaos Knights includes: allies table is upside down, one Knight is painted pea soup green, and the mandatory random table is for 'chaos god traits'. Oh, and throwing a 1 is 'replace your Chaos Knight model with a Chaos Spawn model'. Have fun!
jeffersonian000 wrote: I love how people pan Land Raiders as super easy to kill despite bring AV14 and 4 HP, yet cry like angry babies over an AV13 vehicle with 6 HP. Knights cost more than 2 LRBTs, has less firepower, and only marginally better survivability. Yes, yes, its armed with a Str D CCW, which at most will remove 4 models in any give Assault, yet mostly likely will only kill 2 a round at Initiative. Stomp and the HoW together will account for more models removed than the Reaper Chainsword will.
SJ
AV 13 with a 4+ invulnerable save (or 3+ on your warlord) that is a super heavy so you have to score multiple vehicle explodes results to remove it, plus you have a very hard time reducing its effectiveness though weapon destroyed or immobilized results. And it can move 12" then charge, so you're not getting stuff in melta range of it without it charging you unless you drop them in.
I'm not saying you can't kill it. Just saying some of the complaints about it being harder to kill than a land raider are pretty justified.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I love how people pan Land Raiders as super easy to kill despite bring AV14 and 4 HP, yet cry like angry babies over an AV13 vehicle with 6 HP. Knights cost more than 2 LRBTs, has less firepower, and only marginally better survivability. Yes, yes, its armed with a Str D CCW, which at most will remove 4 models in any give Assault, yet mostly likely will only kill 2 a round at Initiative. Stomp and the HoW together will account for more models removed than the Reaper Chainsword will.
SJ
AV 13 with a 4+ invulnerable save (or 3+ on your warlord) that is a super heavy so you have to score multiple vehicle explodes results to remove it, plus you have a very hard time reducing its effectiveness though weapon destroyed or immobilized results. And it can move 12" then charge, so you're not getting stuff in melta range of it without it charging you unless you drop them in.
I'm not saying you can't kill it. Just saying some of the complaints about it being harder to kill than a land raider are pretty justified.
Sometimes very justified depending on what you run. Nids have trouble without spamming lots of Crones, and I'd hate to be an Ork player fighting Knights. Taudar and Necrons will have little trouble, though.
So is the knight detachment like the inquisitor detachment in that it doesn't count as an allied detachment per se? I love the model but at $180nz each i can't see myself shilling for more than one, can you just rock 1 as an ally, inquisitor style?
The knight detachment is separate from allies 1-3 can be taken, Do not score
So one can field an army with an ally detachment, a single super heavy unit, and Knight detachment consisting of 1 to 3 non-scoring Knights?
Were this May be possible the point total would be HUGE!! By that time you could actually take 2 super heavies as you wold have reached the 2000pt thresh hold and doubled you FOC chart.
nosferatu1001 wrote:What about the profile? It is a superheavy, walker so has all the usual rules - smash, HoW, etc - that a SH walker would have.
SRSFACE - and so is quoting out of context.
You stated once that iwas comically stupid as fact, then correctly stated it is your opinion. In my opinion getting so clearly agitated over an optional rule in a codex you seemingly have no interest in using, meaning you will not even have to make the choice yourself, is not the most constructive use of energy.
[MOD EDIT - RULE 1. Alpharius] namely the bit where you essentially said "no you can't have an opinion, you're dumb". SRS' statement about it being "comically stupid" isn't getting "clearly agitated", it's laughing at how stupid a rule is. Hence the word "comically".
Yes, they're harder to kill than Land Raiders. They're also a lot more expensive, and an army of these is going to be a very small number of models. It's not like it's Codex: Riptides. If your army can deal with heavy armour, it can deal with Knights. It really isn't that hard to deal with AV13, people, even if it does get an invuln (which is only for one facing, by the way).
pax_imperialis wrote: So is the knight detachment like the inquisitor detachment in that it doesn't count as an allied detachment per se? I love the model but at $180nz each i can't see myself shilling for more than one, can you just rock 1 as an ally, inquisitor style?
Yes. It's a distinct Knight detachment. You could take a Primary, Allied, Inquisition, Knights, fortification, Lord of War and Legion of the Damned in the same force if you wanted to.
Personally I like the Codex. The fluff is interesting and I enjoyed reading about it and am now looking forward to a deeper insight into them when I pick up the Companion tomorrow. The rules might not be much but you do get the Superheavy rules as well so everything you need to run a Knight is in the book.
I also liked the mention of some of the other Knight variants (one paragraph) which I hope is an indication something might come of them in the future as GW do remember they exist.
pax_imperialis wrote: So is the knight detachment like the inquisitor detachment in that it doesn't count as an allied detachment per se? I love the model but at $180nz each i can't see myself shilling for more than one, can you just rock 1 as an ally, inquisitor style?
Yes. It's a distinct Knight detachment. You could take a Primary, Allied, Inquisition, Knights, fortification, Lord of War and Legion of the Damned in the same force if you wanted to.
.
pax_imperialis wrote: So is the knight detachment like the inquisitor detachment in that it doesn't count as an allied detachment per se? I love the model but at $180nz each i can't see myself shilling for more than one, can you just rock 1 as an ally, inquisitor style?
Yes. It's a distinct Knight detachment. You could take a Primary, Allied, Inquisition, Knights, fortification, Lord of War and Legion of the Damned in the same force if you wanted to.
.
I love allies but this is getting asinine
Yeah currently an army can look like this:
Mantleseer
2 units of 3 jetbikes
Baron
5 warriors
Imperial Knight
5 legion of the damned
Inquisitor
Fireblade formation
Stormblade formation
There is mention of traitor Knights of house Drakon leading a daemon army.
Yet can't ally with Chaos
No worries. The Codex: Chaos Knights is next month. It's the same Codex, sprinkled with cool flames and evil black spikes. Notable changes in the Codex: Chaos Knights includes: allies table is upside down, one Knight is painted pea soup green, and the mandatory random table is for 'chaos god traits'. Oh, and throwing a 1 is 'replace your Chaos Knight model with a Chaos Spawn model'. Have fun!
Exalts for lulz!
On a side note maybe we can grimoire our Knights! .
.
.
Except, Lord, no, just no. I would not wanna hear people's reaction to that.
Frozen Ocean wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:What about the profile? It is a superheavy, walker so has all the usual rules - smash, HoW, etc - that a SH walker would have.
SRSFACE - and so is quoting out of context.
You stated once that iwas comically stupid as fact, then correctly stated it is your opinion. In my opinion getting so clearly agitated over an optional rule in a codex you seemingly have no interest in using, meaning you will not even have to make the choice yourself, is not the most constructive use of energy.
Actually, you were being a giant dick about it. SRS quoted the part where you were being a giant dick, namely the bit where you essentially said "no you can't have an opinion, you're dumb". SRS' statement about it being "comically stupid" isn't getting "clearly agitated", it's laughing at how stupid a rule is. Hence the word "comically".
Yes, they're harder to kill than Land Raiders. They're also a lot more expensive, and an army of these is going to be a very small number of models. It's not like it's Codex: Riptides. If your army can deal with heavy armour, it can deal with Knights. It really isn't that hard to deal with AV13, people, even if it does get an invuln (which is only for one facing, by the way).
I think the fact that you choose which facing is deceptively good. Anyone worth their salt using one of these things is going to make it damn hard for you surround it.
That, and the fact that it's none too unlikely that I lose whatever I kill it with if I kill it in CC make it stupid to me.
I'm just really not on board with all this Knight business, and it's a farce that they called it a Codex. Seriously 2 units with no upgrades, and a couple random tables? feth off GW
Oh yes, I agree that the Codex thing is a complete farce (not only a Codex, we also have the Limited Edition and the Companion Guide thing! GW really is determined to milk this as much as they can). And yes, of course a good player is going to use their directional shield effectively, and avoid being surrounded. That's a good thing! Player skill and strategy should be part of the game, after all, and deciding on a facing for the shield adds a welcome layer of tactical thinking to Knights, whether playing them or fighting them. Even so, though, a 4++ is not invincibility, and choosing the facing is definitely a weakness (relative to having an all-around invuln all the time). It's also good to finally see a walker unit that is actually a kind of walker and not a "Monstrous Creature".
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, you just have to forge a narrative for that force.
Mantleseer -- Got tired of walking the Path so he meets up with the Baron for a week in Dark Eldar Vegas 2 units of 3 jetbikes --Brings his drinking buddies Baron -- But wait, the Baron's got something up his sleeve: He's gonna set up the Inquisition to nail the Farseer! 5 warriors -- Wingmates Imperial Knight -- the Inquisitor brought a toy. . . 5 legion of the damned -- Some Ghosts show up (you can't predict the supernatural, alright?) Inquisitor -- Blindly grasping at any chance to kill a Psyker Fireblade formation Stormblade formation
But here's the zinger: they all have to work together when Marneus Calgar, 2 squads of Scouts, Buffmander, 10 Kroots, an Inquisitor who doesn't approve of the other Inquisitor's methods plus afforementioned Inquisitor's very own Imperial Knight, a Tau Fire Suppor Formation, and the Aquila Stronghold that they brought from McCragge all showed up to Dark Eldar Vegas to ruin their respective days.
Ok yeah this is getting pretty ridiculous
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozen Ocean wrote: Oh yes, I agree that the Codex thing is a complete farce (not only a Codex, we also have the Limited Edition and the Companion Guide thing! GW really is determined to milk this as much as they can). And yes, of course a good player is going to use their directional shield effectively, and avoid being surrounded. That's a good thing! Player skill and strategy should be part of the game, after all, and deciding on a facing for the shield adds a welcome layer of tactical thinking to Knights, whether playing them or fighting them. Even so, though, a 4++ is not invincibility, and choosing the facing is definitely a weakness (relative to having an all-around invuln all the time). It's also good to finally see a walker unit that is actually a kind of walker and not a "Monstrous Creature".
Yeah I suppose. I still don't like that they exist, but my initial gut reaction of "not now, not evah" has subsided somewhat and I wouldn't be opposed to playing against one. (though I don't see my self ever wanting to own one)
But yeah I actually do wish I was a monstrous creature so I could deal with him like I deal with most MCs: Be'Lakor
Yeah ol' Bela can do it to this guy too, he's just probably gonna die in the process
One of the Knight Worlds turned out to be on a Tomb World.
Necrons woke up and tried to kick the kids out of their yard and got beat up by the Knights when their Ion Shields stopped all their fancy smancy weapons from affecting them. Knights are now tramping around inside the tombs squashing scarabs.
Spoiler:
There was also a timeline incident where a Freeblade took down a Transcendant C'tan and saved a planet.
Is the Transcendent C'tan the new Avatar of Khaine or something?
Astro, I don't know Be'lakor's rules, but can't he use an ability called something like Puppet Master to control any enemy unit? I've seen this done to a Revenant Titan, so I assume it can work on a Knight.
I mostly want one because I really like the model and greatly look forward to a Chaos variant, either converted or Forge World's if I like the look of it. It seems like a really fun unit to play with, combined with a points cost so high that I really think it's fairly balanced. The idea of a whole army of them is a bit silly, though. It seems entirely constructed to force people to buy multiples of the kit if they want to field even one. Well, I'm houseruling that I can have one. Mostly, though, I'll be happy with the model even if I don't get to play with it often. It'll be a great centerpiece for my Chaos army on display, and I quite like how I've worked it into my own fluff.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, you just have to forge a narrative for that force.
Mantleseer -- Got tired of walking the Path so he meets up with the Baron for a week in Dark Eldar Vegas
2 units of 3 jetbikes --Brings his drinking buddies
Baron -- But wait, the Baron's got something up his sleeve: He's gonna set up the Inquisition to nail the Farseer!
5 warriors -- Wingmates
Imperial Knight -- the Inquisitor brought a toy. . .
5 legion of the damned -- Some Ghosts show up (you can't predict the supernatural, alright?)
Inquisitor -- Blindly grasping at any chance to kill a Psyker
Fireblade formation
Stormblade formation
But here's the zinger: they all have to work together when Marneus Calgar, 2 squads of Scouts, Buffmander, 10 Kroots, an Inquisitor who doesn't approve of the other Inquisitor's methods plus afforementioned Inquisitor's very own Imperial Knight, a Tau Fire Suppor Formation, and the Aquila Stronghold that they brought from McCragge all showed up to Dark Eldar Vegas to ruin their respective days.
Does it matter? They're all the same model, just paint them how you like and throw them on the table. If you want, make up some fluff about a freeblade getting paid by a wealthy house to fight for them or owing them some debt of gratitude.
is this basically like a made up chapter of space marines?
Its noble house that existed before the emperor, the knights are passed down the blood line, there is no set number. They joined with the mechanicus and some titan legions.
Freeblade is simply Noble (Knight) who isnt part of living House. It can be last of the House, disgraced renegade, man who decided to fight as mercenary etc. Only rule is - still fights for IoM. So, suck it, Chaos
They could have killed 2 birds with one stone easily, Drop the random BS and give entries in the book to make it at least LOOK like they have a FoC with some choices.
0-1 HQ= current Seneschal rules
0-2 Elite= +1 BS and WS, but 4++ shield
Troops= Knight apparent rules(BS2 and 5++) at a reduced points cost. Pay points for the options to upgrade to a 4++ and/or BS 3
Also add a half freaking sprue to the 140 dollar kit so you can add a third weapon for a troop choice and some gear for a heavy support choice.
For the cost of tooling a 3rd sprue and 2 pages of England's(China's?) finest vellum, you get rid of the random roll crap for 400 point units AND you have a REAL codex with actual unit choices. It seems like a no brainer to me.
A slight amount of creative rules writing and you CAN make a codex from one kit, they just didn't even try.
I love the IK kit I love 40k But I hate the supreme lazy and greedy direction GW is steering it into.
Furyou Miko wrote: Frankly, the idea that they'd let anyone so poorly trained as to be BS2 anywhere near a Knight suit is the most ridiculous thing in this book.
According to the Guard codex, it takes three weeks of rifle drill to train someone up to BS3.
I was thinking of it more as learning to use the equipment effectively. IE A recruit to the knightly order that is new to driving the Mech.
Either way more options and less random would have reduced much complaining about the content and price point of the book. My point was that it can be done with one kit.
They can do that hunting predators on their home worlds. Nobody in their right minds sends untrained rookies into a warzone when they have another option.
No, Cadian Whiteshields do not have another option.
Furyou Miko wrote: Frankly, the idea that they'd let anyone so poorly trained as to be BS2 anywhere near a Knight suit is the most ridiculous thing in this book.
According to the Guard codex, it takes three weeks of rifle drill to train someone up to BS3.
Rules and fluff are 100% different things, and you managed to put them in the same sentence!
So I have the book, the rules we've all discussed a fair bit. but here's some intreasting fluff tidbits.
1st: The book says the errant and Paladin are the most common models, but specificly says the Lancer, Castellian and Crusader Knights all exist. I could see GW giving us rules for them in a future dataslate or on forge world.
2ndly: they talk about Knights falling to Chaos and mention they basicly become deamon posssed etc. but that "knights that fall to chaos are actually quite rare, because the Throne Mechanium tends to imprint certin traits onto the knights, duty, honor, a sense of heirarchy and a degree of conservitism, thus it seems makes knights somewhat resistant to the call of chaos. not that it doesn't happen, it does, just that I suspect Knights where one of the exceptions to the "half to Horus" rule of the heresy.
these are the two stand out bits of fluff for me.
the first is a definate hint that GW might introduce other knights in the future. (my guess is they went with just two to start with as a test to see the response. apparently knights are selling like hotcakes),
the second kinda explains why chaos doesn't have knights, fallen knights are apparently quite rare, and it sounds like they swiftly become fairly differnt
I really don't care about the cost of the model, the codex of just filler or miliking of the release, that's just business. Then I flicked through the store copy of the Codex.
I really wanted to use an Imperial Knight. But my armies are Orks, Tyranids and Necrons. Forget about the whole, "it's your game do what you want," because it's not. The game involves other people and I want to play the game as close to RAW as possible.
GW have surely lost many sales with that stupid aliies matrix.
Ugavine wrote: I really don't care about the cost of the model, the codex of just filler or miliking of the release, that's just business. Then I flicked through the store copy of the Codex.
:(
I really wanted to use an Imperial Knight. But my armies are Orks, Tyranids and Necrons. Forget about the whole, "it's your game do what you want," because it's not. The game involves other people and I want to play the game as close to RAW as possible.
GW have surely lost many sales with that stupid aliies matrix.
GW have surely lost many sales with that stupid aliies matrix.
OR made more sales, since a lot of people will be thinking, you can't take it, I will take 2 or 3 then. So I guess that would make up for the lost sales.
I know I didn't buy when even when I could have saved $30 because, why pay so much money, then time and effort to make it and paint it, and then not be able to use it for pick up games.
Furyou Miko wrote: Frankly, the idea that they'd let anyone so poorly trained as to be BS2 anywhere near a Knight suit is the most ridiculous thing in this book.
According to the Guard codex, it takes three weeks of rifle drill to train someone up to BS3.
Rules and fluff are 100% different things, and you managed to put them in the same sentence!
Fine, I'll put it another way then.
A guardsman has a 66% accuracy rating at the range after three weeks of training. Apparently, a Knight Apparent only hits the target at the range 33% of the time. Therefore, a Knight Apparent is somehow less accurate than a Guardsman who has just completed Basic and Preparatory.
If you have an IK as an ally can he be a scoring unit too? I keep seeing people post all knights are scoring but I'm guessing they mean in a primary list
Johnnytorrance wrote: If you have an IK as an ally can he be a scoring unit too? I keep seeing people post all knights are scoring but I'm guessing they mean in a primary list
Furyou Miko wrote: Frankly, the idea that they'd let anyone so poorly trained as to be BS2 anywhere near a Knight suit is the most ridiculous thing in this book.
They don't. Regular knights have BS4, apparent have BS3.
They managed to stay gender neutral for a whole two paragraphs before giving up and just saying "yeah, all knights are blokes".
That really bugged me too. There was really unnecessary, there was absolutely no reason to make this faction male only too. Personally, I'll ignore that bit of the fluff, but I'm still disappointed.
BrianDavion wrote: It's worth noting that reading the IK novella it's VERY obvious that among the knightly houses are essentially RUN by the women.
That may be, but it is still gender essentialist bullcrap. Women run the household while the men pilot giant war-robots. There was really no need to bring the gender division into the knight fluff.
BrianDavion wrote: It's worth noting that reading the IK novella it's VERY obvious that among the knightly houses are essentially RUN by the women.
That may be, but it is still gender essentialist bullcrap. Women run the household while the men pilot giant war-robots. There was really no need to bring the gender division into the knight fluff.
My guess is GW as trying for a particular feel with the fluff for the Knights. the Novella has a VERY "40k with a dash of game of thrones" feel to it. ((heck two knights mentioned are "Sir Gregor" and "Sir Martin" for crying out loud) that said I don't disagree with the idea that 40k needs more good female characters.
One spoiler from the IK novella that might intrest you though...
Spoiler:
midway through the story they introduce a Freeblade named Telluras, who it turns out is actually a woman named Tallia. she's basicly the last surviving memebr of a household who basicly told her dead fathers knight to fight off the 'nids and gain a measure of revenge. the end of the novella has the protagionist thinking that she proably won't come to a good end. but it'd be a intreasting character to see more of
BrianDavion wrote: It's worth noting that reading the IK novella it's VERY obvious that among the knightly houses are essentially RUN by the women.
That may be, but it is still gender essentialist bullcrap. Women run the household while the men pilot giant war-robots. There was really no need to bring the gender division into the knight fluff.
I don't see the problem. Historically, knights (as in, the guys on horse back) were typically men. They were probably trying to play on that.
I don't see the problem. Historically, knights (as in, the guys on horse back) were typically men. They were probably trying to play on that.
Historically Knights did't operate giant robotic suits of armour.
That changes nothing. They are called knights, and they come from noble houses. They were clearly based off of the old medieval knights of yore. That's their theme. You might as well ask for male Sororitas. Those are based off of nuns, and historically, nuns did not field rocket launchers and flamethrowers.
Only issue i have is upgrades.
So, they want you to spend out and run a full army of them right?
Thats not always possible.
At 370 / 370 PPM you cant always field to the points limit.
1,250 - 1,125 is the closest you can get.
1,500 - you can actually get this one, but need to run all paladins to do so.
1,850 - again, its possible, but only if you run all errants.
2,000 - Cant get near it.
Why not have the options for some cheap wargear to boost points when needed?
BrianDavion wrote: It's worth noting that reading the IK novella it's VERY obvious that among the knightly houses are essentially RUN by the women.
That may be, but it is still gender essentialist bullcrap. Women run the household while the men pilot giant war-robots. There was really no need to bring the gender division into the knight fluff.
I don't see the problem. Historically, knights (as in, the guys on horse back) were typically men. They were probably trying to play on that.
Typically but not exclusively - I had a hoped for some ladies al la BattleTech (and pretty much every other game with giant war robots) - in fact I might look to have one of the painted as Natasha Keresnky's Mech
BrianDavion wrote: It's worth noting that reading the IK novella it's VERY obvious that among the knightly houses are essentially RUN by the women.
That may be, but it is still gender essentialist bullcrap. Women run the household while the men pilot giant war-robots. There was really no need to bring the gender division into the knight fluff.
I don't see the problem. Historically, knights (as in, the guys on horse back) were typically men. They were probably trying to play on that.
Typically but not exclusively - I had a hoped for some ladies al la BattleTech (and pretty much every other game with giant war robots) - in fact I might look to have one of the painted as Natasha Keresnky's Mech
Well, true, there were exceptions. Still very rare to see though, especially in battle.
BrianDavion wrote: It's worth noting that reading the IK novella it's VERY obvious that among the knightly houses are essentially RUN by the women.
That may be, but it is still gender essentialist bullcrap. Women run the household while the men pilot giant war-robots. There was really no need to bring the gender division into the knight fluff.
I don't see the problem. Historically, knights (as in, the guys on horse back) were typically men. They were probably trying to play on that.
Typically but not exclusively - I had a hoped for some ladies al la BattleTech (and pretty much every other game with giant war robots) - in fact I might look to have one of the painted as Natasha Keresnky's Mech
Well, true, there were exceptions. Such exceptions were very rare, however, to the point where it might have been exclusive.
I just like having some girls in Mech as well as boys - but hey -
Spoiler:
looks like GW have straight away introdcuded an exception to the rule
BrianDavion wrote: It's worth noting that reading the IK novella it's VERY obvious that among the knightly houses are essentially RUN by the women.
That may be, but it is still gender essentialist bullcrap. Women run the household while the men pilot giant war-robots. There was really no need to bring the gender division into the knight fluff.
I don't see the problem. Historically, knights (as in, the guys on horse back) were typically men. They were probably trying to play on that.
Typically but not exclusively - I had a hoped for some ladies al la BattleTech (and pretty much every other game with giant war robots) - in fact I might look to have one of the painted as Natasha Keresnky's Mech
Well, true, there were exceptions. Such exceptions were very rare, however, to the point where it might have been exclusive.
I just like having some girls in Mech as well as boys - but hey -
Spoiler:
looks like GW have straight away introdcuded an exception to the rule
Argh, again? Does it specifically say that they are all male, or does it just only show male pilots? If it does explicitly say so, then yeah, I'm ignoring that.
In classic Victorian times, a noble house was run by a woman. Being the wife of a Lord was a job; you were essentially the highest grade of servant. You would run the house and organise absolutely everything. You would hire and fire servants to be your employees in the service of your husband's house. All of this work was done so that the husband could basically never think about any responsibilities and get about playing golf or going hunting or whatever else he wanted to do with all his money that particular day. The women ran the house not because they were in charge or superior to the men, but because the men didn't want to do the work and the women were automatically required to by virtue of being women. So saying "they run the House" is a huge fallacy on GW's part.
It's bad enough that we have so few female characters in general, but now yet another faction is explicitly all-male (and not even for any reason, this time!)? Space Marines are innately all-male, Orks are innately "male", and Tyranids are genderless, but what about the Eldar, Tau, Imperial Guard, Inquisitors (who actually lost the one female character they had) and 5th-ed Necrons, who have one named female character between them (Shadowsun) and one unit that is "the girls" (Banshees, even though Aspects are not explicitly gendered, but of course all of the Phoenix Lords were guys except one)? What about the supposedly-genderless Chaos Daemons? The Dark Eldar have Lady Malys (who will probably disappear next update and is notably inferior to a male character, which she has a bit of a complex about) and Lelith Hesperax, but Lelith is part of the Wyches, who basically exist to be "look the Dark Eldar are pervy and stuff, they have girls in bikinis!". Why couldn't we have a cool character like Drazhar, but female? Why are there no female Inquisitors, Tech-Priests, Farseers, Phaerons, Commissars, Warp Spider Exarchs, tank commanders, Lords of Change, etc?
Spoiler'd for people who don't care. I mostly gathered this information because I was curious.
Spoiler:
Boys Adeptus Sororitas: Uriah Jacobus
Chaos Daemons: Kairos Fateweaver, Epidemus, The Blue Scribes, Skulltaker, The Changeling, Karanak, Be'lakor
Chaos Space Marines: Abaddon, Typhus, Ahriman, Khârn the Betrayer, Fabulous Bill, Lucius the Eternal, Huron Blackheart
Dark Eldar: Asdrubael Vect, Baron Sathonyx, Kheradruakh, Duke Sliscus, Drazhar, Urien Rakarth
Eldar: Eldrad Ulthran, Prince Yriel, Illic Nightspear, Asurmen, Karandras, Fuegan, Baharroth, Maugan Ra, The Avatar of Khaine
Orks: Ghazghkull Thraka, Mad Dok Grotsnik, Boss Snikrot, Boss Zagstruk,
Inquisition: Karamazov, Coteaz
Imperial Guard: Lord Castellan Creed, Colour Sergeant Kell, Knight Commander Pask, Sergeant Bastonne, Colonel 'Iron Hand' Straken, Guardsman Marbo, Gunnery Sergeant Harker, Commissar Yarrick, Captain Al'Rahem, Commander Chenkov, Mogul Kamir, Nork Deddog
Necrons: Imotetk the Stormlord, Trazyn the Infinite, Nemesor Zahndrekh, Vargard Obyron, Illuminor Szeras, Orikan the Diviner, Anrakyr the Traveller, Shard of The Deceiver, Shard of The Nightbringer
Space Marines: Commander Dante, Mephiston, The Sanguinor, Astorath the Grim, Chapter Master Gabriel Seth, Captain Tycho, Brother Corbulo, Lemartes, Cypher the Fallen Angel, Supreme Grand Master Azrael, Grand Master of Librarians Ezekiel, Belial, Asmodai, Sammael, Castellan Crowe, Lord Kaldor Draigo, Justicar Thawn, Brother-Captain Stern, Grand Master Mordrak, Marneus Calgar, Captain Sicarius, Chief Librarian Tigurius, Chaplain Cassius, Kor'sarro Khan, Forgefather Vulkan He'stan, Captain Kayvaan Shrike, Darnath Lysander, Pedro Kantor, High Marshal Helbrecht, Chaplain Grimaldus, Scout Sergeant Telion, Logan Grimnar, Njal Stormcaller, Canis Wolfborn, Ragnar Blackmane, Ulrik the Slayer, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Arjac Rockfist, Lukas the Trickster
Tau Empire: Commander Farsight, Darkstrider, Aun'va, Aun Shi, Longstrike, Bravestorm, O'Vesa, Brightsword, Sha'vastos, Ob'lotai (AI imprint of a male character), Arra'kon, Torchstar
Girls Adeptus Sororitas: Saint Celestine
Chaos Daemons: The Masque
Dark Eldar: Lady Malys, Lelith Hesperax
Eldar: Jain Zar
Inquisition: Valeria (removed)
Tau: Commander Shadowsun
Breakdown: Note: I don't have every Codex, so I'm using GW's site. This means I'll probably miss some who don't have models. I'm also not including Forge World.
- The specifically female faction, the Sororitas, have one female character and one male character.
- The genderless faction, the Daemons, have nine "male" characters and one female character who is "female" "because Slaanesh". Why can't we get a female Bloodthirster or something? Heck, why no female Daemon Princes, ever?
- If a unit is nameless and non-gender-specific, it will be male almost always (e.g. Farseer). If there are any girls in a squad of nameless troopers, it's very rare (Guardians).
- If something is genderless and not a Tyranid, it is referred to as male unless it's to do with Slaanesh and also pretty/elegant/etc. Why is the Masque female but the Changeling is male? Especially the Changeling!
- Total is 111 boys vs 7 girls, including Valeria.
Let's take away gender-specific characters, mostly Space Marines (characters whose gender is because of what they are).
Boys Adeptus Sororitas: Uriah Jacobus
Chaos Daemons: Kairos Fateweaver, Epidemus, The Blue Scribes, Skulltaker, The Changeling, Karanak, Be'lakor
Dark Eldar: Asdrubael Vect, Baron Sathonyx, Kheradruakh, Duke Sliscus, Drazhar, Urien Rakarth
Eldar: Eldrad Ulthran, Prince Yriel, Illic Nightspear, Asurmen, Karandras, Fuegan, Baharroth, Maugan Ra
Inquisition: Karamazov, Coteaz
Imperial Guard: Lord Castellan Creed, Colour Sergeant Kell, Knight Commander Pask, Sergeant Bastonne, Colonel 'Iron Hand' Straken, Guardsman Marbo, Gunnery Sergeant Harker, Commissar Yarrick, Captain Al'Rahem, Commander Chenkov, Mogul Kamir, Nork Deddog
Necrons: Imotetk the Stormlord, Trazyn the Infinite, Nemesor Zahndrekh, Vargard Obyron, Illuminor Szeras, Orikan the Diviner, Anrakyr the Traveller, Shard of The Deceiver, Shard of The Nightbringer
Tau Empire: Commander Farsight, Darkstrider, Aun'va, Aun Shi, Longstrike, Bravestorm, O'Vesa, Brightsword, Sha'vastos, Ob'lotai (AI imprint of a male character), Arra'kon, Torchstar
Girls Dark Eldar: Lady Malys
Eldar: Jain Zar
Inquisition: Valeria (removed)
Tau: Commander Shadowsun
It's now 57 vs 4, including Valeria. I removed a few things that I feel need explained; the Avatar, because Khaine is a male god (whatever that means), even though there still isn't any reason why the Young King can't be female; The Masque and Lelith, because their gender is used as part of their job (Dark Eldar/Slaanesh perviness, boys aren't allowed to be pretty/graceful). I didn't remove the C'tan because there's no reason why they need to be gendered - unlike Khaine, because Eldar gods are generally treated like big Eldar.
And now Knights, too. You could say that they're patterning it off Victorian households - but that still doesn't make it okay or even make sense.
EDIT: Being patterned on historical knights is still dumb. Historical knights were pretty much all-male because of the massive amounts of sexism and inequality of the time period. Also, even that idea, which is "girls can't fight because men are stronger/etc", doesn't apply to giant mech suits. Also note that the reason for Space Marines being male is "woo science" and not "girls can't fight". There is no reason for a lack of female Knights, Guardsmen, Necrons, Eldar, etc. Playing with gender roles to fit a theme would be better if the setting wasn't already so massively biased.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Argh, again? Does it specifically say that they are all male, or does it just only show male pilots? If it does explicitly say so, then yeah, I'm ignoring that.
It says that it is the eldest sons of the nobles that become the knight pilots.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Argh, again? Does it specifically say that they are all male, or does it just only show male pilots? If it does explicitly say so, then yeah, I'm ignoring that.
In classic Victorian times, a noble house was run by a woman. Being the wife of a Lord was a job; you were essentially the highest grade of servant. You would run the house and organise absolutely everything. You would hire and fire servants to be your employees in the service of your husband's house. All of this work was done so that the husband could basically never think about any responsibilities and get about playing golf or going hunting or whatever else he wanted to do with all his money that particular day. The women ran the house not because they were in charge or superior to the men, but because the men didn't want to do the work and the women were automatically required to by virtue of being women. So saying "they run the House" is a huge fallacy on GW's part.
It's bad enough that we have so few female characters in general, but now yet another faction is explicitly all-male (and not even for any reason, this time!)? Space Marines are innately all-male, Orks are innately "male", and Tyranids are genderless, but what about the Eldar, Tau, Imperial Guard, Inquisitors (who actually lost the one female character they had) and 5th-ed Necrons, who have one named female character between them (Shadowsun) and one unit that is "the girls" (Banshees, even though Aspects are not explicitly gendered, but of course all of the Phoenix Lords were guys except one)? What about the supposedly-genderless Chaos Daemons? The Dark Eldar have Lady Malys (who will probably disappear next update and is notably inferior to a male character, which she has a bit of a complex about) and Lelith Hesperax, but Lelith is part of the Wyches, who basically exist to be "look the Dark Eldar are pervy and stuff, they have girls in bikinis!". Why couldn't we have a cool character like Drazhar, but female? Why are there no female Inquisitors, Tech-Priests, Farseers, Phaerons, Commissars, Warp Spider Exarchs, tank commanders, Lords of Change, etc?
Spoiler'd for people who don't care. I mostly gathered this information because I was curious.
Spoiler:
Boys Adeptus Sororitas: Uriah Jacobus
Chaos Daemons: Kairos Fateweaver, Epidemus, The Blue Scribes, Skulltaker, The Changeling, Karanak, Be'lakor
Chaos Space Marines: Abaddon, Typhus, Ahriman, Khârn the Betrayer, Fabulous Bill, Lucius the Eternal, Huron Blackheart
Dark Eldar: Asdrubael Vect, Baron Sathonyx, Kheradruakh, Duke Sliscus, Drazhar, Urien Rakarth
Eldar: Eldrad Ulthran, Prince Yriel, Illic Nightspear, Asurmen, Karandras, Fuegan, Baharroth, Maugan Ra, The Avatar of Khaine
Orks: Ghazghkull Thraka, Mad Dok Grotsnik, Boss Snikrot, Boss Zagstruk,
Inquisition: Karamazov, Coteaz
Imperial Guard: Lord Castellan Creed, Colour Sergeant Kell, Knight Commander Pask, Sergeant Bastonne, Colonel 'Iron Hand' Straken, Guardsman Marbo, Gunnery Sergeant Harker, Commissar Yarrick, Captain Al'Rahem, Commander Chenkov, Mogul Kamir, Nork Deddog
Necrons: Imotetk the Stormlord, Trazyn the Infinite, Nemesor Zahndrekh, Vargard Obyron, Illuminor Szeras, Orikan the Diviner, Anrakyr the Traveller, Shard of The Deceiver, Shard of The Nightbringer
Space Marines: Commander Dante, Mephiston, The Sanguinor, Astorath the Grim, Chapter Master Gabriel Seth, Captain Tycho, Brother Corbulo, Lemartes, Cypher the Fallen Angel, Supreme Grand Master Azrael, Grand Master of Librarians Ezekiel, Belial, Asmodai, Sammael, Castellan Crowe, Lord Kaldor Draigo, Justicar Thawn, Brother-Captain Stern, Grand Master Mordrak, Marneus Calgar, Captain Sicarius, Chief Librarian Tigurius, Chaplain Cassius, Kor'sarro Khan, Forgefather Vulkan He'stan, Captain Kayvaan Shrike, Darnath Lysander, Pedro Kantor, High Marshal Helbrecht, Chaplain Grimaldus, Scout Sergeant Telion, Logan Grimnar, Njal Stormcaller, Canis Wolfborn, Ragnar Blackmane, Ulrik the Slayer, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Arjac Rockfist, Lukas the Trickster
Tau Empire: Commander Farsight, Darkstrider, Aun'va, Aun Shi, Longstrike, Bravestorm, O'Vesa, Brightsword, Sha'vastos, Ob'lotai (AI imprint of a male character), Arra'kon, Torchstar
Girls Adeptus Sororitas: Saint Celestine
Chaos Daemons: The Masque
Dark Eldar: Lady Malys, Lelith Hesperax
Eldar: Jain Zar
Inquisition: Valeria (removed)
Tau: Commander Shadowsun
Breakdown: Note: I don't have every Codex, so I'm using GW's site. This means I'll probably miss some who don't have models. I'm also not including Forge World.
- The specifically female faction, the Sororitas, have one female character and one male character.
- The genderless faction, the Daemons, have nine "male" characters and one female character who is "female" "because Slaanesh". Why can't we get a female Bloodthirster or something? Heck, why no female Daemon Princes, ever?
- If a unit is nameless and non-gender-specific, it will be male almost always (e.g. Farseer). If there are any girls in a squad of nameless troopers, it's very rare (Guardians).
- If something is genderless and not a Tyranid, it is referred to as male unless it's to do with Slaanesh and also pretty/elegant/etc. Why is the Masque female but the Changeling is male? Especially the Changeling!
- Total is 111 boys vs 7 girls, including Valeria.
Let's take away gender-specific characters, mostly Space Marines (characters whose gender is because of what they are).
Boys Adeptus Sororitas: Uriah Jacobus
Chaos Daemons: Kairos Fateweaver, Epidemus, The Blue Scribes, Skulltaker, The Changeling, Karanak, Be'lakor
Dark Eldar: Asdrubael Vect, Baron Sathonyx, Kheradruakh, Duke Sliscus, Drazhar, Urien Rakarth
Eldar: Eldrad Ulthran, Prince Yriel, Illic Nightspear, Asurmen, Karandras, Fuegan, Baharroth, Maugan Ra
Inquisition: Karamazov, Coteaz
Imperial Guard: Lord Castellan Creed, Colour Sergeant Kell, Knight Commander Pask, Sergeant Bastonne, Colonel 'Iron Hand' Straken, Guardsman Marbo, Gunnery Sergeant Harker, Commissar Yarrick, Captain Al'Rahem, Commander Chenkov, Mogul Kamir, Nork Deddog
Necrons: Imotetk the Stormlord, Trazyn the Infinite, Nemesor Zahndrekh, Vargard Obyron, Illuminor Szeras, Orikan the Diviner, Anrakyr the Traveller, Shard of The Deceiver, Shard of The Nightbringer
Tau Empire: Commander Farsight, Darkstrider, Aun'va, Aun Shi, Longstrike, Bravestorm, O'Vesa, Brightsword, Sha'vastos, Ob'lotai (AI imprint of a male character), Arra'kon, Torchstar
Girls Dark Eldar: Lady Malys
Eldar: Jain Zar
Inquisition: Valeria (removed)
Tau: Commander Shadowsun
It's now 57 vs 4, including Valeria. I removed a few things that I feel need explained; the Avatar, because Khaine is a male god (whatever that means), even though there still isn't any reason why the Young King can't be female; The Masque and Lelith, because their gender is used as part of their job (Dark Eldar/Slaanesh perviness, boys aren't allowed to be pretty/graceful). I didn't remove the C'tan because there's no reason why they need to be gendered - unlike Khaine, because Eldar gods are generally treated like big Eldar.
And now Knights, too. You could say that they're patterning it off Victorian households - but that still doesn't make it okay or even make sense.
EDIT: Being patterned on historical knights is still dumb. Historical knights were pretty much all-male because of the massive amounts of sexism and inequality of the time period. Also, even that idea, which is "girls can't fight because men are stronger/etc", doesn't apply to giant mech suits. Also note that the reason for Space Marines being male is "woo science" and not "girls can't fight". There is no reason for a lack of female Knights, Guardsmen, Necrons, Eldar, etc. Playing with gender roles to fit a theme would be better if the setting wasn't already so massively biased.
On the subject of women piloting giant robots, there was an interesting study by the US airforce to see "if women could be as good a pilots as men". Don't blame me for the mindset that went into it, btw. Anyway, they got their answer. They found that women on average fired faster than the men, who typically hesitated before pulling the trigger.
I don't think it was a large difference. Just amusing in a daft way because the whole expectation of the people who set it up was to see if women could be as good as men, not to find out they were better.
Anyway, I don't have a massive issue with GW wanting to basically do Medieval Knights in Space, and thus inheriting some of the sexism of the time, but I do have some of an issue with it. You can see how it happened, but it's not as if anything of great value would have been lost to change it. Like you've shown, it's not that it is necessarily a problem as an isolated incident, but that it is a problem in the context of things always being like this. It's okay in things like Space Marines (where they're so grotesquely engineered that sex would be practically indistinguishable anyway), but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?
but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?
Who knows, maybe there aren't that many Eldar women? Some female heads would be nice though. Evening up the ratio of name characters would be problematic, however; that would result in adding even more SC, and that may hurt the balance.
Still, it would be nice to see a Valkia like character in Wh40k.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.
Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.
English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.
but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?
Who knows, maybe there aren't that many Eldar women? Some female heads would be nice though.
Evening up the ratio of name characters would be problematic, however; that would result in adding even more SC, and that may hurt the balance.
Still, it would be nice to see a Valkia like character in Wh40k.
There is not reason why she is not in both as GW seem to be putting their Daemons in both universes.....................
but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?
Who knows, maybe there aren't that many Eldar women? Some female heads would be nice though.
There's never been anything in the fluff to suggest a lack of Eldar women. Few children, yes. But sexual imbalance, no. We can put this one down just to bias on the part of GW authors.
Evening up the ratio of name characters would be problematic, however; that would result in adding even more SC, and that may hurt the balance.
I can live with new characters being added. The game's been around for twp decades. Maugan-Ra can have a female colleague introduced somewhere in there without "hurting the balance". Why find counter-arguments to that?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.
Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.
English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.
Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.
English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.
Don't you mean "writers in their language"?
Their is plural. There is only one writer.
No, I didn't. You failed to actually read what you quoted. Second line of my post: "commonly using 'their' as a non-gender specific singular".
but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?
Who knows, maybe there aren't that many Eldar women? Some female heads would be nice though. Evening up the ratio of name characters would be problematic, however; that would result in adding even more SC, and that may hurt the balance.
Still, it would be nice to see a Valkia like character in Wh40k.
There is not reason why she is not in both as GW seem to be putting their Daemons in both universes.....................
Technically, she is not a demon, but an "ascended" human. As such, suddenly inserting Valkia would be a bit awkward, as then one would have to write a back story for the Wh40k version of Valkia. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, just confusing from a fluff stand point as there would be two characters with the name Valkia who exists in two different systems with two different lives.
With demons it's easy, since there are few differences between the realms of chaos in each setting. Humans...not so easy. Of course, one could be lazy and just have the 40k version of Valkia be from a feral world. There wouldn't be much change in the background there.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.
Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.
English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.
Don't you mean "writers in their language"?
Their is plural. There is only one writer.
No, I didn't. You failed to actually read what you quoted. Second line of my post: "commonly using 'their' as a non-gender specific singular".
You then followed it up by asking if something is wrong in that phrase. I gave you an answer.
The generic "he" is still in current english usage.
Then again, I might just be using the old way. Apparently it has been updated to use they as a singular.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:There is a female demon princess of khorne, actually. Her name was Valkia, iirc.
Well, in Warhammer Fantasy, anyway.
Why should necrons be gendered? They are alien robots. The necrontyr might not even had a female gender to begin with.
The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
Does it state anywhere that the Young King must not be female? King could be a ceremonial term. All it says on lexi is that an Exarch is chosen.
Because the Necrons ARE gendered. They are consistently referred to as "he" and "him", because they're not really robots. They're people in robot bodies (even though they were referred to as male before the 5E Codex made them people). I highly doubt that GW actually came up with a bizarre no-female reproductive system for the Necrontyr (especially since every other gendered race is the same, except for Orks), and if they did, why are they all male?
Illuminor Szeras, Codex: Necrons 5E page 52 wrote:Szeras labours to unravel the mysteries of life, for he fears that he would be a poor sort of god without the secrets of life at his fingertips.
Crimson wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote: Argh, again? Does it specifically say that they are all male, or does it just only show male pilots? If it does explicitly say so, then yeah, I'm ignoring that.
It says that it is the eldest sons of the nobles that become the knight pilots.
but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?
Who knows, maybe there aren't that many Eldar women? Some female heads would be nice though.
Evening up the ratio of name characters would be problematic, however; that would result in adding even more SC, and that may hurt the balance.
Still, it would be nice to see a Valkia like character in Wh40k.
I vaguely knew about Valkia, but we're talking about 40k! Plus, it's hardly like she alone is enough to make it even within Tachyon Arrow range of equality. And yes, hurting the balance is really something GW is concerned about at this point.
EDIT: For gender-neutral, we have "they" and "their". There's also "it".
CthuluIsSpy wrote:There is a female demon princess of khorne, actually. Her name was Valkia, iirc.
Well, in Warhammer Fantasy, anyway.
Why should necrons be gendered? They are alien robots. The necrontyr might not even had a female gender to begin with.
The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
Does it state anywhere that the Young King must not be female? King could be a ceremonial term. All it says on lexi is that an Exarch is chosen.
Because the Necrons ARE gendered. They are consistently referred to as "he" and "him", because they're not really robots. They're people in robot bodies (even though they were referred to as male before the 5E Codex made them people). I highly doubt that GW actually came up with a bizarre no-female reproductive system for the Necrontyr (especially since every other gendered race is the same, except for Orks), and if they did, why are they all male?
Illuminor Szeras, Codex: Necrons 5E page 52 wrote:Szeras labours to unravel the mysteries of life, for he fears that he would be a poor sort of god without the secrets of life at his fingertips.
It's called a generic "he." It does not necessarily mean that he's a guy. They could have called him an "it" which would technically be correct, but then there would be the implication that he's not sentient.
Hardly. Point me to where it says that the Necrontyr were genderless. The modern Necrons are merely the Necrontyr in different bodies. They're all men because of author bias. If they were flesh-and-blood Necrontyr, you can bet they'd all be white, as well.
I vaguely knew about Valkia, but we're talking about 40k! Plus, it's hardly like she alone is enough to make it even within Tachyon Arrow range of equality. And yes, hurting the balance is really something GW is concerned about at this point.
EDIT: For gender-neutral, we have "they" and "their". There's also "it".
Haha! Yes, you have a point there Bring on the hero hammers
Yes, they could have used "it", but iirc, that's used for things that aren't necessarily sentient or human. Personally, I would have preferred "it", as then the implication would be that necrons aren't humans, but as the new codex is trying to "humanize" the necrons and give them personalities, I can see why they chose not to use that.
Their and they is a possibility, but some people (such as myself) may not have been trained for such usage in this particular context. Generic "he" is still preferred, though it is gradually dying out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozen Ocean wrote: Hardly. Point me to where it says that the Necrontyr were genderless. The modern Necrons are merely the Necrontyr in different bodies. They're all men because of author bias. If they were flesh-and-blood Necrontyr, you can bet they'd all be white, as well.
Show me where it says that all necrons are male or have genders to begin with.
Of course they would have been white. The necrontry were always on the verge of death, and tried to hide from their sun Seriously though, unless FW makes a "War in Heaven" expansion after Horus Heresy, we probably would never know what the necrontyr were really like.
Who knows, perhaps the necrontry were really all females, who reproduced via parthenogenesis? They could have been hermaphrodites for all we know.
If all the Necrontyr were female, why would they suddenly start referring to themselves as male after biotransference? Why would an omnipresent narrator refer to them as such? Within the same Codex, they refer to Necron Warriors as "it", presumably because they lack personalities, but no Tyranid is ever described as "he", even the Swarmlord (which is supposed to be a singular entity and have a personality, if alien). It goes on to describe Lychguard, Deathmarks, and pretty much every other Necron as male. Tau, Eldar and mankind are all gendered races. There is absolutely nothing to support the Necrontyr being any different. Especially considering that GW consistently ignores the presence of a female gender in other races (see my above post - there are no female IG characters. Your logic would suggest that, based on the IG Codex, humans are mono-gendered. If not for Shadowsun, the same could be said for the Tau), there's nothing to suggest that the lack of female Necrons is to do with anything other than GW continuing this trend they've kept strong since Rogue Trader.
Also, assuming their physiology was anything like that of humans, being darker would make more sense for their backstory, to shield them from radiation. Not necessarily melanin, but any material in the skin that could give them that much more resistance. They evolved on that planet, and would have been adapted to it from the beginning (like how humans were originally all dark-skinned because the sun is nasty).
Frozen Ocean wrote: If all the Necrontyr were female, why would they suddenly start referring to themselves as male after biotransference? Why would an omnipresent narrator refer to them as such? Within the same Codex, they refer to Necron Warriors as "it", presumably because they lack personalities, but no Tyranid is ever described as "he", even the Swarmlord (which is supposed to be a singular entity and have a personality, if alien). It goes on to describe Lychguard, Deathmarks, and pretty much every other Necron as male. Tau, Eldar and mankind are all gendered races. There is absolutely nothing to support the Necrontyr being any different. Especially considering that GW consistently ignores the presence of a female gender in other races (see my above post - there are no female IG characters. Your logic would suggest that, based on the IG Codex, humans are mono-gendered. If not for Shadowsun, the same could be said for the Tau), there's nothing to suggest that the lack of female Necrons is to do with anything other than GW continuing this trend they've kept strong since Rogue Trader.
Also, assuming their physiology was anything like that of humans, being darker would make more sense for their backstory, to shield them from radiation. Not necessarily melanin, but any material in the skin that could give them that much more resistance. They evolved on that planet, and would have been adapted to it from the beginning (like how humans were originally all dark-skinned because the sun is nasty).
The thing about them being white was tongue in cheek, referring to their short life spans and the fact that dying things tend to be paler. It is indeed more likely that the necrons would have been darker skinned, due to the harsh radiation from the sun. Also, Egyptians in space and all of that.
The narrator referring to them as "he" could also be a grammatical construct. It could have nothing to do with gender. The author does not describe them as males. The use of the masculin pronoun could be interpreted as generic, and there might have been women that where turned into deathmarks or immortals. We do not know; there is no information about the necrontyr culture, other than that they were obsessed with longevity and death.
Tyranids are monstrosities from another galaxy, more like beasts than people. The swarmlord has an intelligence; I do not recall him having a distinct personality. Can he communicate? Does it have an actual life and history? I was under the impression that after the invasion is over, it is consumed with the rest by the hive, and spawned again when his heightened intelligence and expertise is needed. Instead of riding around in the hive ship, as you would expect of a distinct individual.
Oh boy, this seems to have gone OT... So about them knights...
No, we don't know anything for sure about the Necrontyr. However, it's a much bigger logic jump to assume that they're genderless or whatever than it is to assume that it's GW being GW and, as they do often, simply excluding girls because they're icky or something. Much as it is far simpler to assume that they were humanoid before biotransference rather than saying they could have been betentacled snarglemonsters. Also, it's not just the narrator, as I have absolutely no doubt that any fluff written from a Necron's perspective will have other Necrons referred to as "he".
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.
Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.
English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.
Don't you mean "writers in their language"? Their is plural. There is only one writer.
No, I didn't. You failed to actually read what you quoted. Second line of my post: "commonly using 'their' as a non-gender specific singular".
You then followed it up by asking if something is wrong in that phrase. I gave you an answer.
No, I didn't. Nowhere in my post did I ask if there was anything "wrong with my phrase". And if I had and your intent were to answer it, you would have not concealed that in some oblique attempt to critique my grammar. All I did ask was if it leapt out at anyone that I was using "their" as a way of highlighting how common it had become. Few people, and mostly old, would have suffered dissonance at the phrase.
Again, you seem to merely be stating things as if they were argument but which don't actually counter anything I wrote. I said that such usage was dying off and increasingly we were seeing "their" as a gender-neutral singular.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Then again, I might just be using the old way. Apparently it has been updated to use they as a singular.
Well yes, it's been updated since at least 1848 since I just dug out instances of this usage from Thackery's 'Vanity Fair' for you:
Vanity Fair wrote:"A person can't help their birth," Rosalind replied with great liberality. — Thackeray, Vanity Fair (1848)
But yes, that is what I've been saying for the last two posts. 'They' and 'their' are increasingly used. Seeing as your approach to discussion is mainly argument by sarcasm, I'll emphasize the point with a couple of references:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Their wrote:(used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine form his or the definite feminine form her ): Someone left their book on the table.
...
Traditionally, the masculine singular pronouns he 1 , his, and him have been used generically to refer to indefinite pronouns like anyone, everyone, and someone [...] It was formerly considered correct to use he, him, or his after pronouns such as everyone, no-one, anyone, or someone as in everyone did his best, but it is now more common to use they, them, or their, and this use has become acceptable in all but the most formal contexts: everyone did their best
And here is Merriam-Webster on the subject:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their wrote:
2: his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <anyone in their senses — W. H. Auden
'They' and 'their' as an indeterminate singular is actually very old. In the 19th Century, it became very in vogue to use 'he' and 'his' instead and the British Parliament was actually petitioned to standardize on it. However, the singular 'they' goes back a long way and has never actually completely gone away and has now returned to common usage and 'he' and 'his' is fading. Oddly, one of the big resurgences in using 'he' or 'his' comes from North America where, as is the case everywhere at some point (but in this case the United States), some people get it into their head that they have a superior knowledge of a subject (in this case grammar) and then enjoy correcting others and insisted that 'their' as a singular was wrong and pushed it out in favour of 'his'. But actually this is not the case. It's much like the way I began the previous sentence with "but" which was for a time considered wrong. But is a conjunction you see. But now nobody cares.
So short answer: it is as I originally posted. You attempted to correct me, I pointed out that the entire point of what I wrote was that the way I used it was the current most popular way (slightly less so with Americans but even there taking over). You then made a slightly sarcastic response about you apparently not being up with modern usage, clearly intending to send a message that it was wrong. So I've now broken out actual references to show the popularity of the usage and that in fact it has a long history. If it helps you actually admit you were wrong on the Internet, I'll tell you that I studied English Language.
The main people who attack the usage of "their" and "they" as singulars are people who think they are preserving the correct usage of the English language and yet are ignorant that (a) there is centuries old history of this usage and (b) that language evolves in good ways sometimes, not just bad. Short of using corruptions such as "hir" which do not translate into spoken English at all well, the 'singular they' is an excellent way of eliminating one of the few remaining gender biases in the English language. Which I'm all for as it reduces semantic weakness in the language.
Now will you be gracious enough to admit your sarcasm was unwarranted and that your attempt to pass off an erroneous correction was an answer to a later rhetorical question in my post when I strongly suspect it wasn't? Or do I break out the examples from Shakespeare?
>
No, we don't know anything for sure about the Necrontyr. However, it's a much bigger logic jump to assume that they're genderless or whatever than it is to assume that it's GW being GW and, as they do often, simply excluding girls because they're icky or something. Much as it is far simpler to assume that they were humanoid before biotransference rather than saying they could have been betentacled snarglemonsters. Also, it's not just the narrator, as I have absolutely no doubt that any fluff written from a Necron's perspective will have other Necrons referred to as "he".
EDIT: Maybe Knights are female Necrons.
Bah, mistyped! Thanks for catching that.
Well, yes, of course the necrons were humanoid. It makes no sense for a race that was not humanoid to suddenly adopt humanoid mechanical forms.
Humanoid does not mean male/female, however. It can also mean hermaphrodite. Perhaps the necrons had both male and female sexual organs, and mated like snails?
We do not know. Is there any point in the codex or fluff where a necron referred to another necron as a "he"?
No no no, the knight's machine spirit was clearly copied from the conscientious of the pilot's dead mother. Or am I thinking of NGE again?
CthuluIsSpy wrote:There is a female demon princess of khorne, actually. Her name was Valkia, iirc.
Well, in Warhammer Fantasy, anyway.
Why should necrons be gendered? They are alien robots. The necrontyr might not even had a female gender to begin with.
The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.
Does it state anywhere that the Young King must not be female? King could be a ceremonial term. All it says on lexi is that an Exarch is chosen.
Because the Necrons ARE gendered. They are consistently referred to as "he" and "him", because they're not really robots. They're people in robot bodies (even though they were referred to as male before the 5E Codex made them people). I highly doubt that GW actually came up with a bizarre no-female reproductive system for the Necrontyr (especially since every other gendered race is the same, except for Orks), and if they did, why are they all male?
Illuminor Szeras, Codex: Necrons 5E page 52 wrote:Szeras labours to unravel the mysteries of life, for he fears that he would be a poor sort of god without the secrets of life at his fingertips.
It's called a generic "he." It does not necessarily mean that he's a guy.
Actually it does in this instance because it refers to a named individual. The convention of using "he" and "his" where gender is unknown, applies only to indeterminate subjects. E.g. "the marine will clean his gun". We do not know who the marine is and therefore the convention of "he" and "his" will be applied by those that use it. However, were we referring to a specific marine, for example, Jane the Female Marine, we would not say: "Jane will clean his gun". Every native speaker of the English language would parse that sentence to mean Jane was cleaning some unmentioned male's gun. And we don't really want to go there on a family-friendly forum. The quote given is clearly meaning that Szeras is being identified as male. This is not French where non-gendered things are given a default gender. If a bunch of cars suddenly attacked people, we would use "it attacked me", not "he attacked me" just because we didn't know the car's gender. We know it doesn't have a gender and would feel no compulsion to assign one. We would just use "it". That this is not done with Necrons clearly shows the author considers them gendered. That it is done with a specific individual shows that the author considered that individual a "him".
I'll be blunt here. You have a nasty habit of talking authoritatively while being wrong.
There's also the Crimson Vengeance or something like that, and the Black Knight, which doesn't have its gender specified, on the Freeblade page, unlike all the others.
Ah, but they could have been. Maybe they did it to make themselves resemble stylised Eldar skeletons, or maybe it was a complete coincidence. There's just as much evidence to suggest that this is true as there is to suggest that Necrons are truly genderless. See Knas Ser's post.
EDIT: Maybe Knights are Tyranids...
EDIT2: Going the Mulan route doesn't make it okay.
Actually Frozen Ocean, there is evidence that the necrons are both genders. If you happened to pick up imperial armor volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus, and read the background information of the Maynarkh Dynasty, you would notice that their phaerakh (which is apparently the feminine version of phaeron ), is actually a female by the name of "Xun'bakyr - the Mother of Oblivion". You can find this on page 92 bottom of the 5th paragraph.
Jaceevoke wrote: Actually Frozen Ocean, there is evidence that the necrons are both genders. If you happened to pick up imperial armor volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus, and read the background information of the Maynarkh Dynasty, you would notice that their phaerakh (which is apparently the feminine version of phaeron ), is actually a female by the name of "Xun'bakyr - the Mother of Oblivion". You can find this on page 92 bottom of the 5th paragraph.
Ah, thank you for clarifying that. With this new information, I can conclude that the characters in Codex: Necron, are in fact males.
Mr Morden wrote: Yeah its very anoying - every other minitures game seems to put out female models and characters left right and centre - GW - just now and again.
Quite a few ladies were left in charge of castles during sieges............
Fantasy is a bit better - but still not great.
I am thinking of having one of my Knights painted like this Just need to get the right pilot model.............
Spoiler:
yeah but be careful around riptides and wraithknights, jump infantry and all that
While tradition has male pilots for the Knight households, there is nothing preventing female pilots like the Degree Passive does for Male Sororitas or Geneseed for female Astartes. It would be trivial to make a household where the firstborn daughter or firstborn of any gender become Knight pilots. And knights inducted fully into the mechanicus are also fair game I would assume- While we mostly see male members of the mechanicus, there is nothing stopping female magos, or female princeps (even in an Emperor titan, see Stormherald)
Jaceevoke wrote:Actually Frozen Ocean, there is evidence that the necrons are both genders. If you happened to pick up imperial armor volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus, and read the background information of the Maynarkh Dynasty, you would notice that their phaerakh (which is apparently the feminine version of phaeron ), is actually a female by the name of "Xun'bakyr - the Mother of Oblivion". You can find this on page 92 bottom of the 5th paragraph.
Thank you! Just in case you haven't read my previous posts, I've been arguing for Necron genders. So yeah, it's just GW being GW and pretending that girls don't exist.
MajorWesJanson wrote:While tradition has male pilots for the Knight households, there is nothing preventing female pilots like the Degree Passive does for Male Sororitas or Geneseed for female Astartes. It would be trivial to make a household where the firstborn daughter or firstborn of any gender become Knight pilots. And knights inducted fully into the mechanicus are also fair game I would assume- While we mostly see male members of the mechanicus, there is nothing stopping female magos, or female princeps (even in an Emperor titan, see Stormherald)
No, but that doesn't make it okay. Even if they did make a female-pilot House, it would still be "guys are the normal thing and girls are weird. Girls only get to pilot mechs in weird exceptional circumstances. Girls are weird. Cooties, or something", which is why I said that going the Mulan route still doesn't make it okay. And yeah, there is nothing stopping us from seeing female Princeps, Tech-Priests, Inquisitors, Imperial Guard Commissars or Generals or anything, Farseers, assassins who actually do something (without the absolute failderp of Nemesis, or the killing of a Primarch "because he let her" and then, against said Primarch's orders, getting hunted down and brutally slaughtered and maimed, or stabbing a target who then turned into the Deceiver and brutally slaughtered and maimed her), Crypteks/Necron leaders or indeed any Necrons at all, Striking Scorpions, Warp Spiders - the list goes on, really. The Sisters of Battle, the all-girl force, are treated like they don't exist or that they're incompetent.
Older fluff has most 'nids as female, although that stopped being mentioned a little while ago when they realised that the way the hive mind reproduces kinda negates traditional depictions of gender (I will note that the battle leaders, 'Hive Tyrants' were special because they were supposed to be a male Tyranid).
As far as I know, they had the ones in charge of "management" be girls, like the gene-manipulating Norn Queens (which may or may not be a reference to the Xenomorph Queen) and the synapse-linking Dominatrix. Regardless, the Tyranids much better suit being genderless and lacking Norn Queens (because they have been shown/stated to be able to adapt and modify themselves contextually, even when cut off from a ship and presumably any contact with Norn Queens).
I think it was more along the lines of hive insects - worker ants and worker bees are all non-fertile females, so termagants (still a feminine name, albeit a pejorative one) were logically girls too.
Most of that stuff is buried in Citadel Journal articles, I think. It's a good resource, but time consuming to comb through and nearly impossible to get hold of.
Also, I love the old screamer killer. It looks like it's about to hug you and then hawk plasma all over your head!
MajorWesJanson wrote: While tradition has male pilots for the Knight households, there is nothing preventing female pilots like the Degree Passive does for Male Sororitas or Geneseed for female Astartes. It would be trivial to make a household where the firstborn daughter or firstborn of any gender become Knight pilots. And knights inducted fully into the mechanicus are also fair game I would assume- While we mostly see male members of the mechanicus, there is nothing stopping female magos, or female princeps (even in an Emperor titan, see Stormherald)
There are female Magos in Priests of Mars/Lords of Mars, and the Knights of the Imperium novella describes gender roles in Knightly Houses.
An Imperator class Ttitan that is commanded by Princeps Majoris Zarha - she leads one third of Legio Invigilata in the defence of the Hive Helsreach (in the novel of the same name)
The novels in general have a lot more female characters than the Tabletop. Maybe GW's sculptors are simply allergic to making female models. (and as pointed out, Forgeworld has a female Necron in the fluff and even made a word for what you'd call a female Phaeron)
....not that they needed to have any gender differences for Knights. I can only assume they specified knights to be male because they're overdoing the whole "same thing as mideival knights" thing. That's one aspect of middle-ages knights that really did not need to be ported over, IMHO. But as stated, it's not like there's any LAW against it (just tradition) or any genetics/science against it so female knights could theretically exist (and in fact, canonically do according to the novella). They're likely just very rare and/or ostracized.
beast_gts wrote:
There are female Magos in Priests of Mars/Lords of Mars, and the Knights of the Imperium novella describes gender roles in Knightly Houses.
Yeah, and those gender roles suck.
TiamatRoar wrote:The novels in general have a lot more female characters than the Tabletop. Maybe GW's sculptors are simply allergic to making female models. (and as pointed out, Forgeworld has a female Necron in the fluff and even made a word for what you'd call a female Phaeron)
....not that they needed to have any gender differences for Knights. I can only assume they specified knights to be male because they're overdoing the whole "same thing as mideival knights" thing. That's one aspect of middle-ages knights that really did not need to be ported over, IMHO. But as stated, it's not like there's any LAW against it (just tradition) or any genetics/science against it so female knights could theretically exist (and in fact, canonically do according to the novella). They're likely just very rare and/or ostracized.
Something that they ported over because they're GW and have a massive need to try to pretend girls don't exist. Being rare and ostracised isn't okay either, as I said earlier -
Me wrote:
No, but that doesn't make it okay. Even if they did make a female-pilot House, it would still be
My caricature of GW wrote: "guys are the normal thing and girls are weird. Girls only get to pilot mechs in weird exceptional circumstances. Girls are weird. Cooties, or something"
Which is why I said that going the Mulan route still doesn't make it okay.
The only way to represent female pilots without getting this kind of a response is to make them a non-issue. Don't be lazy. Write the codex in a gender neutral fashion. Whether you do that by mauling the English language until it does what you want, or you do that by giving equal numbers of examples of both male and female pilots doesn't really matter.
The argument that English is less gender biased than, say, French is actually false, by the way. Yes, French has gendered words - however, especially in the case of nouns, the gender of the word is often completely opposite to the gender of the thing it describes. For example, personne is a feminine noun - but it is used to refer to men and women equally.
Ugavine wrote: I really don't care about the cost of the model, the codex of just filler or miliking of the release, that's just business. Then I flicked through the store copy of the Codex.
:(
I really wanted to use an Imperial Knight. But my armies are Orks, Tyranids and Necrons. Forget about the whole, "it's your game do what you want," because it's not. The game involves other people and I want to play the game as close to RAW as possible.
GW have surely lost many sales with that stupid aliies matrix.
I just finished the knight novel that just came out. There was a mention of female knights.
Spoiler:
There was a freelance knight from a house destroyed that came to the aid of one of the characters. This knight save his life and turns out to be a woman. It was a big deal. Men are set up for merging with the knight. This woman did it without any implant while fighting the machine spirit of the knight each step of the way to avenge her house.
In short possible but very unlikely and difficult. Also very taboo.
That... just shows that the "boys only" club is even stupider, since apparently women are better at piloting knights and don't need all the fancy implants to do it...
Wait. So I've been trying to follow the thread for a while and not sure if I understand the problem.
So the Knight worlds are ruled by a feudal nobels over a poor and unarmed peasant class (It's against the law to have weapons, decreed by the feudal nobels).
This is all in a universe where genocide is synonymous with "diplomatic relations". Are people really upset that there is sexism as well?
Oh, so they came up with implants that only work on guys? Of course they did. It's enough that GW don't want to write female characters or whatever, but it's just not right that they're outright trying to exclude them from the setting itself. The way pretty much all of how 40k is structured as a setting is to benefit player creativity. If you want your own Space Marine Chapter/Hive Fleet/Craftworld/etc, you can have them. You can give them pointy helmets and your own colour scheme and your own characters and whatever you like. You can decide their personalities, their traditions and history - and it meshes with the setting just fine, because it's so vast that nobody can precisely account for everything. And yet, here they are, putting an arbitrary restriction on people who want female characters because they're GW and don't think girls are cool, or something.
What this basically means is that the women have to be much luckier and fight harder just to be equal to the men. Wow, there's a novel idea.
EDIT: It's not about in-universe treatment. If you wrote a story in Victorian England that featured racism, it'd be fine. It's different when you start structuring your setting to reflect your own personal racism as an author.
That doesn't make sense. So if the setting has sexism brought about by a male led noble class, that's fine. But if the author writes about characters in a setting that has sexism brought about by a male led noble class, then it's bad?
Here's an example. I'm writing a story centered around WW2 era Nazi Germany (cliche example, but I'll go with it anyways). So I want to have a story about a small town with a military base in it. Not just any military base, one led by a Transgendered Jewish Colonel. After all there is no reason why someone that's transgendered should be discriminated against. There is also no reason why a Jewish person can't hold a position of power they are capable of handling.
Do you think I'm doing a good job as a writer by forcing my own moral stand point into a situation where it simply does not belong?
TiamatRoar wrote: The novels in general have a lot more female characters than the Tabletop. Maybe GW's sculptors are simply allergic to making female models. (and as pointed out, Forgeworld has a female Necron in the fluff and even made a word for what you'd call a female Phaeron)
Maybe it's marketing. Perhaps GW have some messed up idea that female characters / models will not sell. The largest demographic WH40K services (I think) is males, often quite young. I don't know that it's right if they do think this, and I'm not approving of such pandering even if it is, but possibly that's a reason. The novels may have a different demographic or the writers might simply have more freedom.
That's conjecture though, and I'm not even sure I believe it myself. I think they core GW game developers are just... I don't think female characters really occur to them. And on the odd occasions they do they're as likely fetishistic (DE) as not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Savageconvoy wrote: Wait. So I've been trying to follow the thread for a while and not sure if I understand the problem.
So the Knight worlds are ruled by a feudal nobels over a poor and unarmed peasant class (It's against the law to have weapons, decreed by the feudal nobels).
This is all in a universe where genocide is synonymous with "diplomatic relations". Are people really upset that there is sexism as well?
Yes. The reason is pretty simple. The genocidal feudalism doesn't translate into the modern Western world very well for most people. Few readers will follow up by engaging in casual feudalism after finishing the latest codex. However, normalisation of sexism does influence people by, well, normalizing it. Along the same principle, lack of condemnation of genocidal feudalism isn't really a problem. It's expected that people know it is wrong. Sexism uncondemned is a little too close to real life, and thus feels like real sexism. And really, it is. The million worlds ruled by a corpse emperor is dark satire. The sexism and drought of female characters feels less like deliberate satire and more like the game developers actually don't have an awareness that there is any problem.
We tend to condemn satire a lot less than actual real problems.
And furthermore, we actually live in a world with more than one gender. It would be nice if approximately half the population didn't feel excluded from the hobby. We don't need to worry about orks not taking up the hobby because they're badly portrayed. But a woman picking up one of these books sees she has not been included. Of course any given woman can play just fine and relate to male characters just as well as a male player can. But it's undeniable that complete omission creates a boy's club atmosphere. Of course I'm sure DE wytches in bikini armour and poses a contortionist couldn't achieve balance that. Well, quite sure...
Yes, but that's the point - this is not an isolated case, and it's fictional (and this is new fiction). 40k is a whole universe, and GW time and time again exclude women from it. What does this new instance of sexism achieve? It's not the focus of a story, or really relevant at all beyond "we don't want girls to have big mechs in our setting, so you can't have them either". Women are pretty much incapable of achieving anything in 40k, if they even get the grace from the gods to exist in the first place. The Sisters are getting more and more pushed away (a White Dwarf "Codex", then a digital-only release and no new minis? Seriously?). So, what's the reason for it, this time? Because the Houses are sexist? No (as if that were even a good excuse). It's "oooh implants". Where do they go, the penis? Are Knights controlled through the penis, is that it? Because there really isn't much else in a man's anatomy that makes him different to a woman. Cybernetics aren't sexist.
Your example is flawed because writing a story set in Nazi Germany comes with pre-requisites that you must abide by. That's the very nature of writing in a pre-existing setting, but this is new material. A really great example of this is the Sword of Truth novels. There are plenty of female characters - ambassadors, powerful magic-users, and a group of scary ninja commandos that everyone fears. But here's the problem; women in the Sword of Truth series pretty much exist to get raped, either repeatedly or to death, and generally dominated in every way imaginable by men (including psychic control). It's sickening. It's not anything to do with the setting, it's to do with the author inserting his messed-up self into it and turning what could be a decent fantasy series into a perverted fetish fanfiction - there's even a rape-monster that is necessary for initiation into the evil group of female magic-users (which has a barbed and spiked penis, by the way). They get psychically enslaved by this guy who enters their dreams and causes them incredible pain, causing them to hire a ship to take them to him (and, on his orders, they travel naked). The men on the ship are forbidden to look at them, but this is immediately turned around when they reach their master and he removes their powers and gives them to the ship crew (who, surprise surprise, rape them). The group of scary ninja commandos served an evil overlord who raped them all on a regular basis. There's a magic that allows control over a woman by cutting off her nipple. Literally the only female character who is exempt from this insanity is the main character's love interest, although not for lack of trying. All in all, we can surmise that Terry Goodkind (the author) is an enormous creep, especially when you see just how graphic a lot of this can get.
Obviously the Sword of Truth series is an extreme example, but it demonstrates my point quite effectively. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 40k is that bad.
Furthermore, your example actually furthers my point - we're not talking about a fundamentally sexist setting, here, and it's not like there's anything established in 40k or in the real world that cybernetics don't work on women as well. So yeah, excluding women in this manner is actually quite similar to having an openly Transgender Jewish Colonel in the German Army in WW2.
Perhaps the most significant part is, as I said, how it goes against the intended methods of creating 40k lore and factions - keeping it open for fans to create their own material, without disturbing the existing material. You shouldn't have to actually ignore a piece of unnecessary fluff if you want to make a female Knight pilot. Ignoring fluff should be things like Eldar becoming Space Marines, not "girls get to do the same stuff too".
EDIT:
Knas Ser wrote:I don't think female characters really occur to them.
This would be okay. It'd be unfortunate, but whatever - I don't honestly expect anyone to be equal in any sense. However, imagine you were running a D&D campaign. All of your NPCs - with richly-detailed backstories and well-written, interesting personalities - are male. That doesn't mean you're sexist, and being all-white or all-elf or whatever doesn't make you racist, either. However, then, when detailing your setting to the players, you say "Oh, and all women in this world are all hideously deformed and used as slaves", it starts revealing things about you as an author. Writing a custom setting where one group is persecuted isn't bad, either - but when you, as an author, portray all of those characters as dirty, cheating, lying scumbags with bad teeth and body odour, well, it becomes telling.
EDIT2: If the cybernetics thing is true (that girls physically cannot pilot Knights because they can't get the required augmentations), then it's sending a pretty clear message from GW that girls are fundamentally wrong because of their bodies. All they need to do now is say that female Eldar are incapable of developing enough psychic potential to become Farseers and it'll be complete.
I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. The setting is controlled by simple minded, xenophobic, dogmatic, and just other wise unpleasant people. I'm not sure about fluff before hand, but I thought it was established that Knights were piloted by men because simple minded, xenophobic, dogmatic, and just otherwise unpleasant people were in charge of the feudal worlds.
Remember, these people are perfectly fine with slaying the mutant and not permitting the witch to live. Afflictions brought about by birth. Why not be upset at 40K for promoting such abhorrent behavior such as making the death penalty the ultimate answer for the crime of being born different?
Of course nobody will, because that's not the setting. These people don't make moral sense by our standards because the constant state of war and all the horrors the Imperium of Man has faced has driven them to be irrational as a necessity to be able to face the horrors that they will face the next day.
Is there a reason why women can't pilot mechs? Yes, the ones that rule things are looney. Is it a good reason? Not at all, but in the setting it fits. It's not that I wouldn't mind seeing female Knight houses, it's just that I don't understand why people would expect a bunch of dogmatic and xenophobic mass murderers to be progressive about gender equality. Isn't everything in the setting based on class systems? You really expect people that believe nobility is a birth right and puts them above the peasants are going to be all for tearing down the walls of discrimination?
All in all, we can surmise that Terry Goodkind (the author) is an enormous creep, especially when you see just how graphic a lot of this can get.
Worse. He's an Objectivist Libertarian.
Why not be upset at 40K for promoting such abhorrent behavior such as making the death penalty the ultimate answer for the crime of being born different?
Because, in the setting, the psyker and the mutant is not just "someone born different", they represent very real, very clear and very present dangers.
Women are not these things.
Is there a reason why women can't pilot mechs? Yes, the ones that rule things are looney. Is it a good reason? Not at all, but in the setting it fits. It's not that I wouldn't mind seeing female Knight houses, it's just that I don't understand why people would expect a bunch of dogmatic and xenophobic mass murderers to be progressive about gender equality. Isn't everything in the setting based on class systems? You really expect people that believe nobility is a birth right and puts them above the peasants are going to be all for tearing down the walls of discrimination?
No and no. While some Knight Worlds might be male-centric feudal worlds, in an Imperium of a million worlds, there is absolutely no reason for *all* of them to be this way. On many worlds, the Imperial Guard regiments they raise are gender integrated. The world doesn't care whether you're X or Y chromosomed, as long as you can pass the basic training course and use a lasrifle... they have a tithe to meet, by the Throne, and they are damned sure going to meet it! Some worlds have male-only IG regiments... some worlds have female-only regiments. The Imperium, as a body, does not practice gender politics. It doesn't care. Male, female, doesn't matter... you got the chops to be an Inquisitor? Great! Here's your rosette, go burn some heretics, mutants or aliens.
Savageconvoy wrote: Why not be upset at 40K for promoting such abhorrent behavior such as making the death penalty the ultimate answer for the crime of being born different?
I feel I just answered that. Because when the creators of 40K created a setting of Religious Fanatic Fascist Racial Purists we trust that they were being satirical. When the current developers casually role-cast women entirely and it seemingly never occurs to them to create female special characters, we consider that the result of them actually being sexist. Satire lampoons the thing it portrays. The sexism component does not feel like satire. I've pretty much said all this the first time you asked the question.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Oh, so they came up with implants that only work on guys? Of course they did. It's enough that GW don't want to write female characters or whatever, but it's just not right that they're outright trying to exclude them from the setting itself. The way pretty much all of how 40k is structured as a setting is to benefit player creativity. If you want your own Space Marine Chapter/Hive Fleet/Craftworld/etc, you can have them. You can give them pointy helmets and your own colour scheme and your own characters and whatever you like. You can decide their personalities, their traditions and history - and it meshes with the setting just fine, because it's so vast that nobody can precisely account for everything. And yet, here they are, putting an arbitrary restriction on people who want female characters because they're GW and don't think girls are cool, or something.
What this basically means is that the women have to be much luckier and fight harder just to be equal to the men. Wow, there's a novel idea.
EDIT: It's not about in-universe treatment. If you wrote a story in Victorian England that featured racism, it'd be fine. It's different when you start structuring your setting to reflect your own personal racism as an author.
they never said the implants don't work on guys, the girl simply didn't HAVE them, because it's not normal for women to be Knights. as such the girl basicly had to jam the interfaces into ehr without any connection ports (there's nothing that says this is something guys only need, it's simply going to be a lot cleaner and less painful then basicly shoving a probe into your spine) she then had to come to terms with the Knights.... "spirit". there's proably nothing in the Knights hard code that stops women from piloting them, however when someone bonds with a knight, even long after they die an aspect of their... personality and person remains in the Machine. as such if the culture views female knights as taboo, the Machine is apt to rebel against a female pilot, and thus you'd need to basicly "Tame" it
Frozen Ocean wrote: The Sisters are getting more and more pushed away (a White Dwarf "Codex", then a digital-only release and no new minis? Seriously?)
To be fair, that's just because they're having to wait for the sculptors to work through supposed modelling issues. If those were made, we'd likely see a proper update. I don't really think that sexism is the cause of that.
Think you're right-on with the rest of that post, though. It is somewhat troubling to see this restriction built into the Knight fluff.
Mr Morden wrote: Why is a discussion on the specific background of the Codex (merits and flaws) less important than the rules (broken / not broken) ?
Because some people aren't as concerned about the game than the fluff or hobby side of things.
Does that not that work both ways?
More to the point I think, is there a conflict between the two? I'm not seeing a barrage of rules questions. I mean the rules come to about two pages, I think and most of it was already printed in White Dwarf and / or the online preview. 98% of the book is fluff, isn't it? So whilst I appreciate both sides, I'm not sure that the discussion about the fluff is actually holding up rules discussion. And speaking personally I'm interested in both anyway.
BrianDavion wrote:
they never said the implants don't work on guys, the girl simply didn't HAVE them, because it's not normal for women to be Knights.
Ah, that's good. I just really wouldn't be surprised with GW.
wowsmash wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Just read the last page of this thread and am wondering what the hell it has to do with...
"I have the knight titan codex. Ask away"
this, do we have to have every thread run off topic on your pet topic whenever women are mentioned?
Just sayin.
This is hardly off-topic.
Troike wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote: The Sisters are getting more and more pushed away (a White Dwarf "Codex", then a digital-only release and no new minis? Seriously?)
To be fair, that's just because they're having to wait for the sculptors to work through supposed modelling issues. If those were made, we'd likely see a proper update. I don't really think that sexism is the cause of that.
Think you're right-on with the rest of that post, though. It is somewhat troubling to see this restriction built into the Knight fluff.
"Supposed" is the key word, there. How long does it take to work through these issues, seriously? I find it very hard to believe that GW - the self-titled "makers of the best model soldiers in the world" - are incapable of getting through any possible production issues, or that they somehow are incapable of sculpting feminine-looking female faces (which is the reason they gave last, I think). Looking at some of their most recent female miniatures, it doesn't seem to be something they actually care about. Besides, nobody said that Sisters were required to have faces. If they were having so much trouble as to hold off on updating them for this long, you'd think they'd just give them all helmets. Sisters really don't deserve to be made even more insignificant than the copy-paste-from-Grey-Knights "Codex: Inquisition" (less significant because the Inquisition thing is Force Org-breaking and so on).
Mr Morden wrote:Why is a discussion on the specific background of the Codex (merits and flaws) less important than the rules (broken / not broken) ?
Because there are barely any rules in the Codex. There's the Imperial Knight itself, the rapid-fire battle cannon, the thermal cannon, and one random table. All of those things have been thoroughly discussed in this thread.
Frozen Ocean wrote: "Supposed" is the key word, there. How long does it take to work through these issues, seriously? I find it very hard to believe that GW - the self-titled "makers of the best model soldiers in the world" - are incapable of getting through any possible production issues, or that they somehow are incapable of sculpting feminine-looking female faces (which is the reason they gave last, I think). Looking at some of their most recent female miniatures, it doesn't seem to be something they actually care about. Besides, nobody said that Sisters were required to have faces. If they were having so much trouble as to hold off on updating them for this long, you'd think they'd just give them all helmets.
The faces weren't what was cited as the problem, that would be the robes and hair (you can read an interview with Jes Goodwin where he discusses it here, if you're interested). We also know from some additional dev comments that GW have attempted to make SoB plastics before, so obviously they're willing to do the Sisters a full release and all that. The problem seems to be with the sculptors, whom could be variously unsatisfied with their previous efforts (as interviews have seemed to imply), busy on other projects or even just waiting for an appropriate time for a release. Could they have concentrated more effort into getting the Sisters ready? Maybe, but neither do they seem to have abandoned the Sisters altogether, as their recent release of a standalone SoB codex certainly seems to imply a desire to keep them around.
Anyway, I do agree with most of what you said earlier. While I think that GW has certainly gotten some stuff right in regards to female characters in 40K, they can also certainly be criticised on a few points. But I don't view the absence of new SoB models as caused by sexism on GW's part.
How many years have we've been hearing about "They worked on plastic sisters, but had a problem?" It's been several years. If they really wanted to do plastic sisters, they could have.
Furyou Miko wrote: That... just shows that the "boys only" club is even stupider, since apparently women are better at piloting knights and don't need all the fancy implants to do it...
Well seeing as she was also avenging her house it's safe to say she was pissed right off and it's well established that nothing (not even in 40k) is scarier than a woman who is that pissed off.
It's why Sisters are so effective (in the fluff).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: How many years have we've been hearing about "They worked on plastic sisters, but had a problem?" It's been several years. If they really wanted to do plastic sisters, they could have.
Debatable. We only know through rumors that there were issues, we don't know what kind or to what extent.
Now of course they could have redesigned them completely to make molding easier but there is a strong chance that people on the Dev team were against such a drastic shift in their visual style.
MWHistorian wrote: How many years have we've been hearing about "They worked on plastic sisters, but had a problem?" It's been several years. If they really wanted to do plastic sisters, they could have.
That's basically my thought as well. GW have been producing some pretty good plastics for several years now, I find it hard that they haven't yet figured out a way to do SoB's yet.
MWHistorian wrote: How many years have we've been hearing about "They worked on plastic sisters, but had a problem?" It's been several years. If they really wanted to do plastic sisters, they could have.
That's basically my thought as well. GW have been producing some pretty good plastics for several years now, I find it hard that they haven't yet figured out a way to do SoB's yet.
I wonder if the current delay is more from them trying to expand the army. That's just an alternate possibility for what is delaying a full release for them this edition.
Either way, I have a feeling that when they drop we'll see a two month release for them.
It amazes me how people still confuse own-sex and own-race bias for sexism or racism.
Nerdy white men write most of the fluff and create most of these universes. If black females were writing a story, the protagonists would probably be black females. NOBODY would call that racist. Nobody says Lorraine Hansberry that A Raisin in the Sun is a racist play because it contains all black characters, and nobody says that Oscar Wilde is heterophobic because his plays overresppresent gay characters or consistently present heterosexual male characters as secretly gay or loathsome oafs.
Yet, people get up in arms when its straight white guys writing about straight white guys.
Its called own-sex and own-race bias people. It has nothibg to do with racism or sexism. At least not anymore than the works of black, female, Mexican, or any other authors.
some parting thoughts:
Chinua achebe
Oscar Wilde
Every Russian author ever
Lorraine Hansberry
Jane Austen
Weird how they all write about what they know within their slice of the world! But ive never heard ANYBODY call these revered authors anything but brilliant.
Vord, that's bs. We are not talking about a single author here, we are talking about a entire company, it's quite different. Furthermore, we are not even talking about omission here, we are talking about quite specific and intentional exclusion.
Crimson wrote: Vord, that's bs. We are not talking about a single author here, we are talking about a entire company, it's quite different. Furthermore, we are not even talking about omission here, we are talking about quite specific and intentional exclusion.
Honestly to claim that you'd need to prove that it's intentional and no one has ever stepped forward and claimed that. And honestly as much as we want to throw an entire company under the bus like that around here, there are only a handful of people who are writing the codexes/rulebooks that most of the fluff comes from. What the BL authors do aside (and considering the amount of freedom they had in the past it's probably safe to say that the amount of that you can call true canon is suspect), there isn't a lot that limits women in the fluff (at least for the Imperium. The big things I recall is that they can't be Space Marines, the Orks are all Asexual, and Nids seem to be Asexual or female only, everything else is free game). As for models, the Imperial factions are lacking in female models, yes but frankly they're the only faction that would need to actually change things to include some (Necrons all share a fairly standardized body template so until we get some female Overlords or Crypteks we don't really need female Cron models...and even then it'd primarily be a change to the hip/shoulder ratio at most to set them apart as female...assuming they follow human secondary sexual characteristics that is).
So really the arguement shouldn't be aimed at the entire company for the entirety of the game, it should be aimed at sculptors for the lack of more female models in the Imperium.
And before people start throwing race into it all, from someone I've talked to who used to work on the 'eavy Metal team the reason they're all white is because they don't want to be accused of misrepresenting races, or failing to include one or another. Basically they're trying to avoid accusations of racism against specific groups by just not including them. I'm not claiming that it's a great solution, but I kind of understand where they're coming from. No one can claim you painted a caricature of a specific ethnicity and call you racist if you just don't paint them after all (apparently this is what prompted the change to the Salamanders as well).
ClockworkZion wrote: Debatable. We only know through rumors that there were issues, we don't know what kind or to what extent.
Though said rumours are come from talks with two prominent GW employees at public events. More credible than most rumours.
ClockworkZion wrote: but there is a strong chance that people on the Dev team were against such a drastic shift in their visual style.
That's the impression I get from the Jes Goodwin interview. Sounds like they're focused on going for certain look with the models.
ClockworkZion wrote: I wonder if the current delay is more from them trying to expand the army. That's just an alternate possibility for what is delaying a full release for them this edition.
I remember you also having an interesting theory that they're waiting until a the best time to make such a release, factoring in money and other releases. Whatever the case, yeah, they could be other factors in play.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly to claim that you'd need to prove that it's intentional and no one has ever stepped forward and claimed that.
I certainly agree tht it may've been somehow unitentional, but I still say it's a valid criticism. A strength of 40K is that, to varying extents, one can make up their own fluff and characters, and this jut seems like a needless limitation upon that.
Honestly to claim that you'd need to prove that it's intentional and no one has ever stepped forward and claimed that. And honestly as much as we want to throw an entire company under the bus like that around here, there are only a handful of people who are writing the codexes/rulebooks that most of the fluff comes from. What the BL authors do aside (and considering the amount of freedom they had in the past it's probably safe to say that the amount of that you can call true canon is suspect), there isn't a lot that limits women in the fluff (at least for the Imperium. The big things I recall is that they can't be Space Marines, the Orks are all Asexual, and Nids seem to be Asexual or female only, everything else is free game). As for models, the Imperial factions are lacking in female models, yes but frankly they're the only faction that would need to actually change things to include some (Necrons all share a fairly standardized body template so until we get some female Overlords or Crypteks we don't really need female Cron models...and even then it'd primarily be a change to the hip/shoulder ratio at most to set them apart as female...assuming they follow human secondary sexual characteristics that is).
I was talking about the Knights. It is specifically stated that they're men. So no free game. And unless the writer fell on his keyboard (several times) and accidentally typed that, it is intentional.
So really the arguement shouldn't be aimed at the entire company for the entirety of the game, it should be aimed at sculptors for the lack of more female models in the Imperium.
I'm pretty sure that the sculptors sculpt what the're told to. And of couse, with the Knights the sculpt obviously is not an issue.
And before people start throwing race into it all, from someone I've talked to who used to work on the 'eavy Metal team the reason they're all white is because they don't want to be accused of misrepresenting races, or failing to include one or another. Basically they're trying to avoid accusations of racism against specific groups by just not including them. I'm not claiming that it's a great solution, but I kind of understand where they're coming from. No one can claim you painted a caricature of a specific ethnicity and call you racist if you just don't paint them after all (apparently this is what prompted the change to the Salamanders as well).
ClockworkZion wrote: Debatable. We only know through rumors that there were issues, we don't know what kind or to what extent.
Though said rumours are come from talks with two prominent GW employees at public events. More credible than most rumours.
Very true. I wasn't trying to discount the information, just point out that it was a thing that happened in the past that kept them from doing it, and it may not be holding them back now. For all we know they're now working on expanding the core line further so it isn't like the Grey Knights release where 3 boxes covers 80% of the army choices.
ClockworkZion wrote: but there is a strong chance that people on the Dev team were against such a drastic shift in their visual style.
That's the impression I get from the Jes Goodwin interview. Sounds like they're focused on going for certain look with the models.
It's a distinct silhouette (something that's important in character design) and I can understand why they'd want to keep it. The only other faction who really dresses even close to the way the Sisters do is the Mechanicus, but even they have a different look and feel to them.
ClockworkZion wrote: I wonder if the current delay is more from them trying to expand the army. That's just an alternate possibility for what is delaying a full release for them this edition.
I remember you also having an interesting theory that they're waiting until a the best time to make such a release, factoring in money and other releases. Whatever the case, yeah, they could be other factors in play.
Yup. I still support it. After the new fiscal year starts, and likely paired with a sure seller codex, like a Marine codex, is the most likely setup for when Sisters will get a release. So late this year, or late next year is most likely (assuming this rate of releases continues). And after seeing what GW did recently with a massive shift from metal to plastic it'll likely be a two month release as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly to claim that you'd need to prove that it's intentional and no one has ever stepped forward and claimed that.
I certainly agree tht it may've been somehow unitentional, but I still say it's a valid criticism. A strength of 40K is that, to varying extents, one can make up their own fluff and characters, and this jut seems like a needless limitation upon that.
I won't argue that it might be unintentional, but that is a different beast from intentionally being sexist or racist which is what was being claimed.
Honestly to claim that you'd need to prove that it's intentional and no one has ever stepped forward and claimed that. And honestly as much as we want to throw an entire company under the bus like that around here, there are only a handful of people who are writing the codexes/rulebooks that most of the fluff comes from. What the BL authors do aside (and considering the amount of freedom they had in the past it's probably safe to say that the amount of that you can call true canon is suspect), there isn't a lot that limits women in the fluff (at least for the Imperium. The big things I recall is that they can't be Space Marines, the Orks are all Asexual, and Nids seem to be Asexual or female only, everything else is free game). As for models, the Imperial factions are lacking in female models, yes but frankly they're the only faction that would need to actually change things to include some (Necrons all share a fairly standardized body template so until we get some female Overlords or Crypteks we don't really need female Cron models...and even then it'd primarily be a change to the hip/shoulder ratio at most to set them apart as female...assuming they follow human secondary sexual characteristics that is).
I was talking about the Knights. It is specifically stated that they're men. So no free game.
Is that from the Knights codex, or from the BL book that was talked about earlier? Because the BL has always been all over the place.
So really the arguement shouldn't be aimed at the entire company for the entirety of the game, it should be aimed at sculptors for the lack of more female models in the Imperium.
I'm pretty sure that the sculptors sculpt what the're told to. And of couse, with the Knights the sculpt obviously is not an issue.
To some extent, yes they are, but at the same they have a fair amount of creative freedom too. If the sculptors aren't sculpting female models (or are being told not to sculpt them) then we don't get female models which is an issue. The entire company isn't responsible for a choice like that, just one department as stated.
And before people start throwing race into it all, from someone I've talked to who used to work on the 'eavy Metal team the reason they're all white is because they don't want to be accused of misrepresenting races, or failing to include one or another. Basically they're trying to avoid accusations of racism against specific groups by just not including them. I'm not claiming that it's a great solution, but I kind of understand where they're coming from. No one can claim you painted a caricature of a specific ethnicity and call you racist if you just don't paint them after all (apparently this is what prompted the change to the Salamanders as well).
That's just insane.
Insane, but considering how quick people are to jump up and yell "that's racist" these days I can't really blame them from trying to avoid anything that could trigger such cries (of course this leads to unintentional racism since they never show anyone who isn't white, but it does avoid the caricature accusations where their own work can be used against them more concretely).
Is that from the Knights codex, or from the BL book that was talked about earlier? Because the BL has always been all over the place.
It's in the codex. They intentionally made another specifically male faction.
To some extent, yes they are, but at the same they have a fair amount of creative freedom too. If the sculptors aren't sculpting female models (or are being told not to sculpt them) then we don't get female models which is an issue. The entire company isn't responsible for a choice like that, just one department as stated.
I'm not privy to inner workings of the GW, so it is perfectly fair for me to blame GW for stupid decisions of important departments of the company.
Insane, but considering how quick people are to jump up and yell "that's racist" these days I can't really blame them from trying to avoid anything that could trigger such cries (of course this leads to unintentional racism since they never show anyone who isn't white, but it does avoid the caricature accusations where their own work can be used against them more concretely).
How fething hard it it is to to paint dark skin? This explanation doesn't make a slightest bit of sense.
Is that from the Knights codex, or from the BL book that was talked about earlier? Because the BL has always been all over the place.
It's in the codex. They intentionally made another specifically male faction.
Then that specifically is stupid, and brings us up to 3 total male only factions (Marines, CSM (though I'm sure Slaanesh would like to say otherwise) and Knights). Dumb, but not the worst thing in the game.
To some extent, yes they are, but at the same they have a fair amount of creative freedom too. If the sculptors aren't sculpting female models (or are being told not to sculpt them) then we don't get female models which is an issue. The entire company isn't responsible for a choice like that, just one department as stated.
I'm not privy to inner workings of the GW, so it is perfectly fair for me to blame GW for stupid decisions of important departments of the company.
So you agree then that it's better to blame the departments that actually are related to the issues instead of the company as a whole? Or is that a typo?
Either way I am loath to blame store managers, people who work in casting or customer service for the faults of the design team.
Insane, but considering how quick people are to jump up and yell "that's racist" these days I can't really blame them from trying to avoid anything that could trigger such cries (of course this leads to unintentional racism since they never show anyone who isn't white, but it does avoid the caricature accusations where their own work can be used against them more concretely).
How fething hard it it is to to paint dark skin? This explanation doesn't make a slightest bit of sense.
I'm not saying it's hard, I am just saying that the idea apparently stems from the fear of being painted as racist even if they do a good job. Basically an extreme "can't please everyone, so let's not try" sort of mentality.
ClockworkZion wrote: Insane, but considering how quick people are to jump up and yell "that's racist" these days I can't really blame them from trying to avoid anything that could trigger such cries (of course this leads to unintentional racism since they never show anyone who isn't white, but it does avoid the caricature accusations where their own work can be used against them more concretely).
How fething hard it it is to to paint dark skin? This explanation doesn't make a slightest bit of sense.
They actually have, check both the 5th and 6th editions of C:SM
ClockworkZion wrote: Insane, but considering how quick people are to jump up and yell "that's racist" these days I can't really blame them from trying to avoid anything that could trigger such cries (of course this leads to unintentional racism since they never show anyone who isn't white, but it does avoid the caricature accusations where their own work can be used against them more concretely).
How fething hard it it is to to paint dark skin? This explanation doesn't make a slightest bit of sense.
They actually have, check both the 5th and 6th editions of C:SM
Then that specifically is stupid, and brings us up to 3 total male only factions (Marines, CSM (though I'm sure Slaanesh would like to say otherwise) and Knights). Dumb, but not the worst thing in the game.
Marines being all male is a decision that was done ages ago, and it might be awkward to change it now. However, completely unnecessarily introducing a new all male faction now is a really poor decision. It is direct FU to all those people who have hoped more equal representation of the genders from GW.
So you agree then that it's better to blame the departments that actually are related to the issues instead of the company as a whole? Or is that a typo?
Either way I am loath to blame store managers, people who work in casting or customer service for the faults of the design team.
When I blame 'the company' I'm obviously blaming the people who are in position to make decisions about these things.
I'm not saying it's hard, I am just saying that the idea apparently stems from the fear of being painted as racist even if they do a good job. Basically an extreme "can't please everyone, so let's not try" sort of mentality.
No sane person would blame them as racist if they included more varied ethnicities. This is complete nonsense.
ClockworkZion wrote: Insane, but considering how quick people are to jump up and yell "that's racist" these days I can't really blame them from trying to avoid anything that could trigger such cries (of course this leads to unintentional racism since they never show anyone who isn't white, but it does avoid the caricature accusations where their own work can be used against them more concretely).
How fething hard it it is to to paint dark skin? This explanation doesn't make a slightest bit of sense.
They actually have, check both the 5th and 6th editions of C:SM
I know, they obviously can do it. They just could do it a bit more often.
Crimson, I would like to point out in response to "no sane person" the fact that the world is full of people that would be willing to do just that anyways.
ClockworkZion wrote: Crimson, I would like to point out in response to "no sane person" the fact that the world is full of people that would be willing to do just that anyways.
Certainly. And there is still way more people who see omitting minorities as problematic.
ClockworkZion wrote: Crimson, I would like to point out in response to "no sane person" the fact that the world is full of people that would be willing to do just that anyways.
Certainly. And there is still way more people who see omitting minorities as problematic.
I agree it is an issue (just like the lack of female Cadians, or the whole background with Kreig and what they do with women to pump out more soldiers to go die en masse (you know there is something wrong in their heads considering they're an army who employs Commisars to -restrain- the level of zealous "let me throw my body at them gloriously" going on in a Krieg regiment)), but I can at least aknowledge that they're trying to avoid the loud (and crazy) complaints from the kind of people who would make a big deal out of it and try to drag them through the mud.
I mean let's be honest here, no one has tried making a big stink about it the way some nutters would and that's likely why they're still painting so many pasty white models.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I thought Krieg uses authorized cloning tech to make recruits?
Then they may have changed things. There were some unfortunate implications of them basically using women as baby factories in the past.
According to Lexicanum, they use some sort of In Vitro / artificial womb thing
By order of the High Lords of Terra Krieg's sole purpose is to produce new regiments, and its tithes are the maximum possible for the planet's population, supplying over fifty million men per year.[4] This includes the use of unusual methods such as "Vitae Womb" birthing techniques, a practice seen as dangerous and abhorrent by the Adeptus Mechanicus' Magos Biologis but tolerated by the Departmento Munitorium, while others such as a eugenics program to weed out mutants is simply a continuation of policy from the civil war years
The Vitae-Womb is a method of genetic reproduction utilized by the scientists of Krieg to keep the planet's population up on their dying world in order to meet their Tithes for the Imperial Guard. A mysterious and little-understood technique outside of Krieg itself, this technology of mass-producing human organisms is seen as abhorrent to the Adeptus Mechanicus. Nonetheless the practice is tolerated as the Death Korps of Krieg are so vital to the Imperial war effort
Anyway, I suspect the reason why GW's range of skin tones tends to be homogeneous might be due to logistics - it's easier to paint 1000 models one color scheme, especially if there's a dead line involved.
Anyway, I suspect the reason why GW's range of skin tones tends to be homogeneous might be due to logistics - it's easier to paint 1000 models one color scheme, especially if there's a dead line involved.
That's a reason I can actually believe. I's not a good reason, but it is way more believable than Zion's theory.
It would explain why the more varied models tend to be conversions and showcases - the artist has more time to work on it, so he mixes it up a bit.
That's my observation anyway. May be bullocks.
Anyway, I suspect the reason why GW's range of skin tones tends to be homogeneous might be due to logistics - it's easier to paint 1000 models one color scheme, especially if there's a dead line involved.
That's a reason I can actually believe. I's not a good reason, but it is way more believable than Zion's theory.
I never claimed it was my theory, I said it was something I was told by a friend who is former 'eavy Metal. To be fair they were 'eavy Metal back during 3rd so things have changed since then.
