Hey guys,
just a kind of random question. Anyone who runs strictly women only armies, i.e. converted SM to have female heads?
Let me know what you run!
I've seen female marines. Most people consider them Heresy, but hey whatever floats your boat ; ) You normally see people go for mixed armies, ie. the male and female Arcadians from Vic minis for guardsmen. Also there's lots of mixed gender (D)Eldar troops. The lack of female minis - or good minis in general - for guard is pretty bad from GW. At least the FW guard models look great, though sadly no ladies there.
There are a lot of IG/AM armies that are all female, with zounds of conversion companies out there it's easy..
Also there is an interesting kick-start coming out with three all female armies... Alas they haven't actually supplied any models despite taking money for like two years.. So don't hold our breath for everyday sales...
Also have you heard of Adeptus Sororita? Sisters of Battle?
Many play them as "counts as" SM
Ailaros wrote: I recall someone from the dawn of the bitz-order age who had an all-female eldar army. The enboobed bitz from the guardian sprue are what did it.
Of course, he also only had guardians, banshees, and a converted farseer, which certainly made that task a little easier.
My slowly-growing Eldar are going that way, although I'm really trying to source alternate chest pieces to the female Guardian one.
Ailaros wrote: I recall someone from the dawn of the bitz-order age who had an all-female eldar army. The enboobed bitz from the guardian sprue are what did it.
Of course, he also only had guardians, banshees, and a converted farseer, which certainly made that task a little easier.
I knew a guy in Olympia who traded me for all my female guardian pieces. So i know theres at least one of those. I play Sisters of Battle. I have seen femal heads added to Space Marine bodies (effectively turned a SM army into Sisters).
jreilly89 wrote: Anyone who runs strictly women only armies, i.e. converted SM to have female heads?
I play Sisters of Battle, so all-female. I use non-GW female model as count-as for my conclave, because they fit in more with the army aesthetics (and not just because they are female).
jreilly89 wrote: Anyone who runs strictly women only armies, i.e. converted SM to have female heads?
I play Sisters of Battle, so all-female. I use non-GW female model as count-as for my conclave, because they fit in more with the army aesthetics (and not just because they are female).
Same as above, I use SoB as my main army but I do have some male Crusaders in my Conclave squad which is not used much. I also have a Jacobus model but my other Priests are all female.
Also have a female IG army which grew from the inducted IG squads you could have in the Witch Hunters codex. Once you have one platoon, it ‘seemed’ sensible to keep the theme going.
I like to think that the space marine gene-seed removes any gender differences from the astartes, so they look male no matter whether they were originally male or female.
jreilly89 wrote: Interesting stuff, thanks for the voice in guys! I really like Sisters of Battle, so I may pick them up. What makes them different play wise from SM?
On the most simple level, Sisters are more shooty and less assaulty than Marines. They have the advantage of numbers, but less variety in their wargear.
Ashiraya wrote: My Chaos Marines all have armour and helmets. They can also be female if you want them to be!
Well, except established fluff, which explicitly state all marines are made out of male humans, but you can still decide they are female anyway. It would certainly lead to much nerd-rage. That could be interesting to watch.
A loyalist chapter made entirely out of abducted and indoctrinated eldar girls?
(Though we all know the truth, only the Male Marines are actually male. That is why no other chapter use the all-time favorite method of men to fight in fantasy/sci-fi settings : distract the opponent by alluring attire that shows all the curve of their gorgeous body and does not limit their movement like actual injury-preventing armor would! )
jreilly89 wrote: Interesting stuff, thanks for the voice in guys! I really like Sisters of Battle, so I may pick them up. What makes them different play wise from SM?
On the most simple level, Sisters are more shooty and less assaulty than Marines. They have the advantage of numbers, but less variety in their wargear.
Seriously? This kinda of makes me want to play them. I don't mind assaulty marines, but it's like, I have this big ass bolter, why the hell would I go for hand to hand?
jreilly89 wrote: Interesting stuff, thanks for the voice in guys! I really like Sisters of Battle, so I may pick them up. What makes them different play wise from SM?
On the most simple level, Sisters are more shooty and less assaulty than Marines. They have the advantage of numbers, but less variety in their wargear.
Seriously? This kinda of makes me want to play them. I don't mind assaulty marines, but it's like, I have this big ass bolter, why the hell would I go for hand to hand?
this a pretty good simplification, however the way i end up playing sisters ( before i sold them ) was close range fire fights - lots of melta. Dominions squads in immolaters are a great delivery system.
Backed up with 3 exortcists
so basically its up close and personal - pick your targets, and use the longer range of the Exoercists to enage targets you dont want in melta range
jreilly89 wrote: Seriously? This kinda of makes me want to play them. I don't mind assaulty marines, but it's like, I have this big ass bolter, why the hell would I go for hand to hand?
Do you like bolters, heavy bolters, melta, flamers and heavy flamers, on power-armor infantry, along with rhino and razorbacks-like with twin-linked melta? If you think this lacks variety, do not play sisters, because that is basically all they have. Well, they also have one decent close-combat unit (the conclave), one not too bad shooty jump pack unit (with hit and run, certainly the most fun, characterful and unique sister of battle unit…) and a tank that shoots 1d6 S8 AP1 shot with BS4 each turn. And penitent engine, but those are really bad. But really, the bulk of your army will be sisters with bolter, melta and possibly flamers. Usually in transports.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Well I play a Farsight Enclaves all-suit list.
They can be female if you want them to be
lol. So can my imperial guard armored company.
jreilly89 wrote:This kinda of makes me want to play them. I don't mind assaulty marines, but it's like, I have this big ass bolter, why the hell would I go for hand to hand?
Umm... but there's plenty of choppy in SoB as well. They are... I think... the only place in the game right now where you can take eviscerators, and practically anybody can have them. I mean, you can have whole squads of them...
Plus Celestine and the book of st. lucious, and all the flamers, etc. There's going to be some close combat sooner or later if you play SoB. Meanwhile, SoB doesn't get access to things like razorspam. I can imagine it would be kind of hard to run a gunline with them.
jreilly89 wrote: Interesting stuff, thanks for the voice in guys! I really like Sisters of Battle, so I may pick them up. What makes them different play wise from SM?
Second, I would be all over another SOB-style army. I know SM can be female, but I think an obviously female army would be cool.
Someone had mentioned earlier about a kickstarter that had 3 different female armies. The Iron Empire models look like they'd fit in perfectly with Imperials or even stand in models for Sister's of Battle. You should really check them out. I initially pledged 15 bucks because I wanted just a sniper model they had, but when the pledge manager came out I dropped an additional 150 due to how awesome the models actually looked. The kits are actually fairly affordable too. Standard troopers (IG stand ins) run about 15 bucks for a box of 5 and the heavier troopers (Sisters of battle stand ins) run 20 for a box of 5. The kickstarter was called Raging Heroes: Toughest Girls of the Galaxy. You should check it out if you are looking to field an all female army, it's mu understanding that Sister's is pretty pricey fund wise to field.
If you want an all-female army, all sorts of SM, Necrons, Tau, CSM, DoC, GK, Orks, Imperial Knights...basically anything but SoB and maybe Eldar are out.
Ailaros wrote: Umm... but there's plenty of choppy in SoB as well. They are... I think... the only place in the game right now where you can take eviscerators, and practically anybody can have them.
If by “everyone” you mean “HQ,, the leader of the jump pack squad, and one unit”, then yes. Otherwise, no.
Let us be honest, the only thing that is close combat and decent for Sisters is the conclave. Repentia are T3 W1 6++ models that cost 17points and strike last. Celestians… are equipped with a bolter rather than a close combat weapon. Seraphim will do way more damage by shooting than by assaulting. The Canoness is a sick, sad excuse for a joke. Celestine is meh, just not as bad as the other HQ. The Penitent Engine are open-topped 11-10-10.
Sigvatr wrote: If you want an all-female army, all sorts of SM, Necrons, Tau, CSM, DoC, GK, Orks, Imperial Knights...basically anything but SoB and maybe Eldar are out.
Tau can be all-female. Shadowsun, suits and Fire Warriors with the helmeted heads (or use some green stuff and a paint job to change the helmetless ones into females).
Just basing this on vague memories. Technically, I don't think that there would be any need for genders anyway...hm. Gonna look the interwebz up. Nothing beats alien sex!
Just a random thought, they do reproduce similarly to humans, don't they? And if they do, would their females have breasts as well? Given that reproduction seems more like a "service" to them?
Yes, but if you just wanted to win games, you wouldn't be playing sisters in the first place. There's lots of CC ability in the sister's "codex", just not if you're powergaming.
And certainly, the distinction between SM as the choppy ones and SoB as the shooty ones doesn't make all that much sense either.
Sigvatr wrote: If you want an all-female army, all sorts of SM, Necrons, Tau, CSM, DoC, GK, Orks, Imperial Knights...basically anything but SoB and maybe Eldar are out.
Sigvatr wrote: Just basing this on vague memories. Technically, I don't think that there would be any need for genders anyway...hm. Gonna look the interwebz up. Nothing beats alien sex!
Just a random thought, they do reproduce similarly to humans, don't they? And if they do, would their females have breasts as well? Given that reproduction seems more like a "service" to them?
Fan Art says yes, but we've never been given a canon description of a Tau female outside of her crisis suit, so there's nothing known for sure. They are a race that breeds sexually, however, though they do not form family units.
Sigvatr wrote: Just basing this on vague memories. Technically, I don't think that there would be any need for genders anyway...hm. Gonna look the interwebz up. Nothing beats alien sex!
Just a random thought, they do reproduce similarly to humans, don't they? And if they do, would their females have breasts as well? Given that reproduction seems more like a "service" to them?
Fan Art says yes, but we've never been given a canon description of a Tau female outside of her crisis suit, so there's nothing known for sure. They are a race that breeds sexually, however, though they do not form family units.
Fan Art says a lot of things, many of which are not suitable to post
Female Tau could well have breasts but that doesn't mean they will be big. Considering the Fire Caste has been bred for war and so would be required to be fast moving and athletic, I think it is highly likely that they would have quite flat chests, and hence be easily hidden underneath armour.
Small breasts do just as good a job feeding babies as big ones, after all.
Yes, but if you just wanted to win games, you wouldn't be playing sisters in the first place. There's lots of CC ability in the sister's "codex", just not if you're powergaming.
And certainly, the distinction between SM as the choppy ones and SoB as the shooty ones doesn't make all that much sense either.
I laughed.
Sisters are very good at winning games. Also, immo-spam is better than razorspam because of the added durability and reduced carrier costs for the squads required to field the tanks.
But, yes. Marines are tactically flexible, in theory, with a wide range of wargear and options.
Sisters are... significantly more aggressive, while preferring not to get pinned in close combat. They're more numerous and offensively superior due to Acts of Faith, while being defensively slightly more fragile due to only having T3, which isn't entirely made up for by a blanket 6++ (or 5++ if you take Jacobus) invulnerable save.
Small breasts do just as good a job feeding babies as big ones, after all.
Yes, that's why I also think that they might just as well have no "breasts" after all, but just nipples, assuming that they do breast-feed their young ones. Big breasts have the sole purpose to attract males and I don't think that a race like the Tau works that way. Precisely as you said, I think that athletic, strong females will be highly preferred.
I find it highly unlikely, personally, that the Tau breast feed any more. Their technology is advanced enough that they probably use synthetic replacements that actually are as good as breast milk, so they can free the mothers up to go back to the front lines while the leverets are creched.
Also have a female IG army which grew from the inducted IG squads you could have in the Witch Hunters codex. Once you have one platoon, it ‘seemed’ sensible to keep the theme going.
I bought a ton of Escher to use as Inducted Guard back in the day. Even a bunch of Juves to put into my sentinels. Now they're a (slowly building) guard force in their own right.
Just a random thought, they do reproduce similarly to humans, don't they? And if they do, would their females have breasts as well? Given that reproduction seems more like a "service" to them?
Breasts have absolutely nothing to do with how a species reproduces. They could fertilise with telepathy and the females could vomit up a gel that eventually coalesces into a baby Tau, and whether or not they have breasts would still be as relevant a question. Breasts exist as a particular form of nurture (which means that species that nurture their young do not need to have them), as well as providing a space for additional mass storage (useful for bearing children). They could reproduce identically to humans and not have mammaries, because the two aren't connected.
I don't think that a race like the Tau works that way.
Sigvatr wrote: Given that reproduction seems more like a "service" to them?
Their physiology has little to do with their culture. Regardless, sexual selection takes place in every species.
My take on it is that the Tau have breasts, simply because Games Workshop are all but incapable of coming up with aliens that aren't just differently-flavoured humans. Fire Warrior armour is bulky enough to make this a non-concern for modelling purposes, anyway. For reproduction, I like the idea that they reproduce entirely through science, which could take a number of forms. Perhaps each citizen is required to donate a sample of their DNA, and this is used (after extensive processing to filter out all but the best genes, and ensure genetic diversity) to birth new Tau. Another method is something I suggested in another thread, a good while ago:
Frozen Ocean wrote:It's entirely possible (even likely) that the Tau don't rely on the standard and barbaric methods of reproduction we filthy humans do. That is; a gamete from each parent fertilised in what some might erroneously call "a test tube" or "a petri dish". The embryo could then develop in a machine. This would require a female and male Fire Warrior maybe a day each (sitting in the waiting room, getting the a gamete - or if their technology is sufficient to create stem cells, then any cell from their body - extracted, leaving and going back to their duties). This would also allow a huge degree of ability to genetically screen and perhaps modify the DNA of the Tau-to-be, or even just create the ideal combinations of parents to benefit genetic diversity. It would be fitting for the Tau. Gene extraction could even be a duty in of itself.
CpatTom wrote:I was always partial to this idea of lab grown baby blues. It seemed so clean and orderly, everything in its place. Not the messy bloody affair that humans kick and scream into. Seemed fitting for the Tau.
Frozen Ocean wrote:It does seem fitting for the Tau, CpatTom! There is no reason why they wouldn't do this and many reasons why they should, and it blends thematically (in terms of fluff-feel) with their obsession with perfection and control. There's no reason why their continual pursuit of advancing science shouldn't encompass genetics.
This doesn't suggest they would have the ability (or the inclination) to entirely remove things like breasts, so it's a bit off-topic. Just my bit on Tau reproduction in the modern era. It would have no bearing on female battlefield presence, though. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, there is no mention of Shadowsun's gender being remarkable, no "a Commander, even though she's a girl and those are icky", just stuff about being the youngest to do some things. Discrimination is really unfitting of the Tau, anyway.
Ailaros wrote: There's lots of CC ability in the sister's "codex", just not if you're powergaming.
Well, there is nothing even remotely CC in troops and fast attack. There is only one unit of sisters proper that are really CC. And the CC stuff apart from conclave is going to be beaten senseless by even very soft lists. Really, repentia are that bad. Any troop choice from any codex would just beat an equal size count of repentia senseless, would it not.
The other two options are conclave and penitent engine, neither are actually sisters.
The HQ do not count as CC, or anything else than waste of point.
Are you telling me I am a terrible, terrible player?
Because I sure cannot expect to win any tournament at my FLGS, or even make it to the podium.
Furyou Miko wrote: I find it highly unlikely, personally, that the Tau breast feed any more. Their technology is advanced enough that they probably use synthetic replacements that actually are as good as breast milk, so they can free the mothers up to go back to the front lines while the leverets are creched.
I would really expect more them not being mammals at all rather than them actually removing the breasts. They are not that much into body modifications, are they? That would be akin to removing hairs because they are not useful…
Frozen Ocean wrote: My take on it is that the Tau have breasts, simply because Games Workshop are all but incapable of coming up with aliens that aren't just differently-flavoured humans.
Except for tyranids. And many minor races, like grox or enslavers or catachan devils or stuff.
Sigvatr wrote: If you want an all-female army, all sorts of SM, Necrons, Tau, CSM, DoC, GK, Orks, Imperial Knights...basically anything but SoB and maybe Eldar are out.
Just thought I should mention you can technically have an all female Necron army.
Frozen Ocean wrote: My take on it is that the Tau have breasts, simply because Games Workshop are all but incapable of coming up with aliens that aren't just differently-flavoured humans.
Except for tyranids. And many minor races, like grox or enslavers or catachan devils or stuff.
Frozen Ocean wrote: My take on it is that the Tau have breasts, simply because Games Workshop are all but incapable of coming up with aliens that aren't just differently-flavoured humans.
Those are also very minor, barring Tyranids. The vast majority of races that are even remotely significant in 40k are differently-flavoured humans, even Kroot. Also, I would hardly point to "generic bull-lizard" or "giant scorpion" as good examples of alien design. Enslavers aren't the most imaginative thing either, but they're cool enough (although RT-era Enslavers were gross bulbs with squid tentacles). It's okay, though. I understand why they do it. It's the same reason why almost every alien race in every sci-fi is a differently flavour of human, or why Transformers are humanoid.
EDIT: Even Tyranids aren't all that weird. Most of them only have two eyes, for example.
Yeah, I agree that aliens in 40k are not exactly very… alien. It comes from the whole “Fantasy in space” thing. But still, we can hope GW will understand that aliens are not necessarily mammals .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Technically, you cannot. You can however get an army of Necron that all used to be female before their souls were transferred.
Depends on how you would define a female I suppose. If you define it as someone who can make new a life. Then yes the necrons are not female, but the orks would most likely be considered female then along with some nids.
Orks are an asexual fungus that propagate through sporing. Gender doesn't apply.
The Tau are said to have evolved from a "plains-dwelling herbivore" (which makes no kind of sense, as the Fire Caste rose from their tribal hunting packs... unless the vegetables on Tau Prime are fething *dangerous*!). They also have hooves and, in some cases hair (Shadowsun has a feth-off huge topknot of hair). They're almost certainly mammals, possibly repto-mammalian.
Jaceevoke wrote: but the orks would most likely be considered female then along with some nids.
Female make no sense when there is only one gender. Orks are just… orks. Nids I do not know, maybe they have males and females, or maybe even three or more genders, and weird stuff and all.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Yeah, I agree that aliens in 40k are not exactly very… alien. It comes from the whole “Fantasy in space” thing. But still, we can hope GW will understand that aliens are not necessarily mammals .
Another important point: humans are unique (or almost unique, there might be other examples) among mammals in that females have permanent breasts. Most mammals have very little sexual dimorphism in relation to the mammaries except when a female is actively lactating. Breasts as we know them are almost certainly a case of sexual selection, akin to bright plumage in some bird species. While they have no particular utility for survival or reproduction, they advertise fitness (look how much fat I can store!) and thus attract mates. Thus, breasts are an accident of human evolution and should have no reason to be replicated in outwardly-similar bipedal aliens.
To get back to the original topic, my Guard army is almost exactly 50% female. Of course, I use the WGF Shock Troops as my infantry models, and it's impossible to tell after you layer flak armor on top of a greatcoat. I've been playing in a campaign and I flip a coin every time I have to name a character for a battle report, since that's pretty much the only case where it's possible to tell.
Convergent evolution. Some traits are useful and prominent breasts might evolve on other mammalian bipedal races for the same reasons it was selected for us. It's why other planets most likely have similar looking trees to Earth if the conditions are similar.
If I remember correctly, the "boob" is necessary do to the shape of the human face, and allowing a child to be nursed without danger of crushing the nose (that's why gorillas lack them) And with tau having a dissimilar face structure, there females would not have them. Or Im completely wrong and my brain just made this fact up, who knows?
Actually, female chestplates don't differ from male chestplates. Boob plates are not doing any good technically, are not needed and are making the plate's protection worse.
Bludbaff wrote: Another important point: humans are unique (or almost unique, there might be other examples) among mammals in that females have permanent breasts. Most mammals have very little sexual dimorphism in relation to the mammaries except when a female is actively lactating. Breasts as we know them are almost certainly a case of sexual selection, akin to bright plumage in some bird species. While they have no particular utility for survival or reproduction, they advertise fitness (look how much fat I can store!) and thus attract mates. Thus, breasts are an accident of human evolution and should have no reason to be replicated in outwardly-similar bipedal aliens.
Our physiology is also unique, though. We are entirely bipedal and non-climbing. Furthermore, they become engorged during pregnancy - it doesn't make sense that a trait purely designed to attract a mate would become more "attractive" when the female is already pregnant. Also, breasts aren't held in remotely as high a regard in cultures where female toplessness is normal - in short, the sex appeal of breasts is cultural, not genetic. Also, if it were genetic, we would see permanent breasts in more of our close relatives. The reasoning that they function as fat deposits (kind of important for that whole "growing a person" magic they do) suited to our physiology would explain why men can get "moobs". Efficient weight distribution, and that. Imagine how difficult it would be for a female human to run if the equivalent mass she would have in her breasts was instead entirely in her belly or thighs. Other apes don't have this problem, because they don't move like we do.
EDIT:
koooaei wrote: Actually, female chestplates don't differ from male chestplates. Boob plates are not doing any good technically, are not needed and are making the plate's protection worse.
This. Have an exalt. The only case I would argue for breasts is stuff like Eldar armour, which is all-but skintight. Tau armour is far too bulky for it to matter. Imperial Guard armour is hard to judge because of the "heroic" proportions of the models. Either way, if the breasts needed more space, they would just be given more space - not armour-cups for each breast. That's just silly, and actually quite dangerous - it would transfer all force impacting the breast areas (so most of the chest) directly into the sternum. A woman in plate armour with "boob plate" could kill herself by falling forwards!
EDIT2: If only GW could do what Relic do. They even had a female Autarch, along with a host of other female characters that don't look ridiculous or get horribly butchered for being women. Adrastia is brilliant, although she does have boob plate, but I suspect this is more to be in-line with the Sisters-esque aesthetic. Her armour does seem to be leather in the artwork, but I don't remember if this is ever mentioned.
Boob plates are an old discussion. And in the end fan-service always wins against common sence. Thus we have boob plates. Well, cause people like boobs, i guess
We have square flyers with small wings even though such flyers wouldn't even lift off irl. So, why not have women in boob plates without helmets jumping out from square flyers in the thick of a fight...
The only case I would argue for breasts is stuff like Eldar armour, which is all-but skintight.
Yep.
And if you look at dark eldar witches, they have suits.
Btw, i don't want to disappoint you, guyz, but female boobs are usually not that enormous and can easilly fit in any male armor without discomfort. Don't forget that before you put your armor on, you need to put under-armor first. And it flatens the body too.
Actually, female armor does differ from male armor, just not in the boob-plate kind of way. Something about male armor not fitting females as well due to different body shapes or something.
At least, that's what I heard when I read an article somewhere about how some people were glad because the US military had finally commissioned some body armor to be designed for its female troops or whatever
Pouncey wrote: Actually, female armor does differ from male armor, just not in the boob-plate kind of way. Something about male armor not fitting females as well due to different body shapes or something.
At least, that's what I heard when I read an article somewhere about how some people were glad because the US military had finally commissioned some body armor to be designed for its female troops or whatever
This is true, and what I meant by "more space", but in a fully-enclosed suit (like the Tau's), it's basically impossible to tell the difference.
Pouncey wrote: Actually, female armor does differ from male armor, just not in the boob-plate kind of way. Something about male armor not fitting females as well due to different body shapes or something.
At least, that's what I heard when I read an article somewhere about how some people were glad because the US military had finally commissioned some body armor to be designed for its female troops or whatever
This is true, and what I meant by "more space", but in a fully-enclosed suit (like the Tau's), it's basically impossible to tell the difference.
I think it had more to do with the torso going in more at the waist, shoulders not being as wide, stuff like that, not just needing more room for the breasts, but I could be wrong. I'm neither an armor-maker nor am I a woman who wears body armor.
But yeah, helmeted Tau could be either or.
Sisters of Battle all have boobplates. Might date back to Vandire and his filth (heard something once about there being a reason he renamed them from Daughters of the Emperor to Brides of the Emperor). Though more likely it's because WH40k was more Fantasy-In-Space when the models were made, so when they wanted to have an all-female army in power armor... I guess boob plate made more sense than bra armor. Oh, they also have corsets. : /
Let's not forget the heels. While I would be in favour of a partial redesign, I don't think the community at large would be happy with a change to the SoB look.
Also, what you're saying about proportions is right. I just wasn't being terribly specific!
None of the Sisters models have Power Heels... sigh.
Also, Oxy, yes. The alternative to you being really bad is that I am some kind of tactical genius, and I think we can all agree that a genius is the farthest thing from me. :p
Also, I never said anything about the Tau removing their breasts, I just said that since they're a technological, creching society, they didn't breast feed directly.
This is the reason that "The Last of Kiru's Line" is such a terrible short story. The main conflict it revolves around is Shadowsun deciding whether or not to retire to have babies. But Tau babies aren't raised by their mother, the only reason for her to need to retire to become a mother is if 'mother' in Tau means 'Sealed into a breeding rig to be constantly farmed for new children'... which sounds like a brilliant piece of anti-tau propaganda, but isn't something I really think fits their racial psychological profile.
Or, by contrast, my (more logically grounded) female Necron conversions. Just the two on the top right (well, Ereshkigal on the bottom is female too, but she's a bionic human);
Phaeron Simone (well, thats the closest humans can pronounce to her real name) of the Tiankong dynasty on the left, and her tactical advisor, Nemesor Em'ma Do Na Hu on the right.
koooaei wrote: And in the end fan-service always wins against common sence. Thus we have boob plates. Well, cause people like boobs, i guess
It is not about people (about half of the population is not all that interested in boobs, I guess), it is 40k players. And liking breasts in a given context is not the same as liking breast everywhere, all the time.
So yeah, I hope we will change that!
Furyou Miko wrote: Also, Oxy, yes. The alternative to you being really bad is that I am some kind of tactical genius, and I think we can all agree that a genius is the farthest thing from me. :p
Why could we agree on that?
Okay, now we need to settle that by playing a bunch of games against each other, and a bunch where we ally against other players, to sort it out!
Furyou Miko wrote: This is the reason that "The Last of Kiru's Line" is such a terrible short story. The main conflict it revolves around is Shadowsun deciding whether or not to retire to have babies.
Wait, really? That just seems… wrong. Like very wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furyou Miko wrote: Or, by contrast, my (more logically grounded) female Necron conversions. Just the two on the top right
How are we to know they were female by looking at the model?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Technically, you cannot. You can however get an army of Necron that all used to be female before their souls were transferred.
Depends on how you would define a female I suppose. If you define it as someone who can make new a life. Then yes the necrons are not female, but the orks would most likely be considered female then along with some nids.
Ehm, no. Necrons are soulless, dead robots. They don't have any gender at all. They aren't "he"s oder "she"s, they are "it"s.
Well, I would like it to be true, but those are flavor text from the GW webstore :
Illuminor 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.
Not so Anrakyr - he rose from dormancy with his mind intact and a great purpose foremost in his mind: to reunite the dynasties. Embracing this as his destiny, Anrakyr abdicated all responsibility to his own Tomb World of Pyrrhia and led an army into the stars.
Imotekh is a grand strategist, perhaps the most accomplished the galaxy has ever known, and his campaigns operate not only across worlds, but across entire star systems and sectors.
Orikan is a consummate astromancer, able to calculate the events of the future from the patterns of the stars. Thus did he know of the Fall of the Eldar, the Rise of Man, the Horus Heresy and the coming of the Tyranids many thousands of years before they came to pass.
Nemesor Zahndrekh was once counted amongst the greatest generals in the dynasties. By his campaigns of conquest did the world of Gidrim rise from ruling a small and insignificant planet on the fringes of the galaxy, to the iron-handed governance of a dozen star systems.
Trazyn the Infinite is a preserver of histories, artefacts and events. In his possession are technologies and relics that are so valuable as to be priceless.
While Vargard Obyron is the well-known bodyguard for Nemesor Zahndrekh, he is a ferocious military commander in his own right.
So yeah, the Necron special characters are ALL refereed to as explicitly male. I would have love for your option to have been chosen, because I do not think we need to always get each and every species (used quite loosely here) to be divided between male and female. But at least since they decided to gender the necrons (goddamn stupid idea), they should AT LEAST have made some female ones.
You think this is bad? Wait, there is more: here are the descriptions of the generic characters:
When a Necron Lord strides forth in his raiment of war, only the strongest and canniest of enemies have any hope of survival. His armoured form is proof against tank-busting weaponry and his metal hands can crush bones to powder in the blink of an eye.
Of all the Necron Lords, the Overlord is by far the most powerful and dangerous. At his command are uncountable legions of Necron Warriors, terrifying war machines and a vast array of devastating weaponry that could shatter entire worlds given half the chance.
feth YOU GW, feth YOUUUUUUU!
Yeah, the Necron were apparently the only race made entirely of male. Or maybe they did only transfer the souls of males. Or they were deeply patriarchal and no woman was ever a leader. Or some stupid gak like that.
That “male by default” mentality needs to GTFO.
All of those are military, fighter models. How many factions out there actually have female named models? How many famous female generals are out there?
It's just ressembling actual (war) history that has always been dominated by men.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Assuming it would be "better". I think it's folly to expect someone to write in such a way that is outside of what appeals to them personally.
Yeah, I would consider it to be better. And really, especially for Necrons that are alien with no biological bodies, all it requires is to change your pronouns, cannot be that hard…
Sigvatr wrote: How many factions out there actually have female named models?
Too few, but that is just part the problem. Sisters, somehow Inquisition, Tau, Dark Eldar and somehow Imperial Guard.
Sigvatr wrote: It's just ressembling actual (war) history that has always been dominated by men.
So, do I want my 40k resembling actual war? No. Actual war had no unintelligent hive-minded alien invaders, no space magic, no daemons, no giant robots/walkers of death,…
Generally speaking, actual war had way less fun stuff and was much more tragic than some silly game.
Because that's female guard for you, and I know that I will be making an army of them...
I play SoB as primary, and try to make all the models women. Just because the priests of that army are really really really hard to picture NOT as pervy old men....lol
So i have female priestesses, and even an Inquisitor in terminator armour =)
Pictures of the model upon request (not finished so not in the gallery yet)
So, do I want my 40k resembling actual war? No. Actual war had no unintelligent hive-minded alien invaders, no space magic, no daemons, no giant robots/walkers of death,…
Generally speaking, actual war had way less fun stuff and was much more tragic than some silly game.
It's the explanation why there aren't many female models. Whether you like it or not isn't up to debate.
Yep, I've got my Sisters of Battle army. Use a bunch of Sisters of Sigmar models as conclave, Inq retinue/henchmen (from Witchunters codex days), etc. Then there's the IG units made of old RT female IG, Schaeffer's Rocket Girl and Amazon and Necromunda Escher models.
BlackTalos wrote: Just because the priests of that army are really really really hard to picture NOT as pervy old men....lol
Well, Jacobus seems to have inspired the movie Hobbo with a shotgun .
Seriously, he looks like an old angry homeless unwashed guy!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: It's the explanation why there aren't many female models.
No, it is not. GW has absolutely no problem showing stuff that do not resemble actual war whatsoever. That is the excuse you are bringing forward for them not including female character.
The primary IG models are the Cadians. By fluff, Cadians have 100% enlistment, which means approximately 50% of them are female. There are no female Cadian models, not because women historically didn't fight in battles (which is pretty revisionist actually) but because GWHQ may as well be a tree house with a 'No Gurls Allowed' sign in front of it.
Ashiraya wrote: I see no dicks on the male Necron characters, why would a female one have breasts?
I see one reason: those robot are usually designed to be close to how we usually see ourselves (humans), and on a clothed human you will usually see that they have breasts, but you will not see their genitalia.
I am not saying it it a good reason, though, just a reason.
Ashiraya wrote: I see no dicks on the male Necron characters, why would a female one have breasts?
I see one reason: those robot are usually designed to be close to how we usually see ourselves (humans), and on a clothed human you will usually see that they have breasts, but you will not see their genitalia.
I am not saying it it a good reason, though, just a reason.
But if you are getting a robot body, why on earth would it need breasts?
Paimon wrote: The primary IG models are the Cadians. By fluff, Cadians have 100% enlistment, which means approximately 50% of them are female. There are no female Cadian models, not because women historically didn't fight in battles (which is pretty revisionist actually) but because GWHQ may as well be a tree house with a 'No Gurls Allowed' sign in front of it.
However mixed gender companies are kind of rare in the IG, aren't they? Going from what I remember from the Ciaphas Cain novels (though I haven't read them in ages so could be wrong).
Though that is of course still no excuse to have no women models. Just stick an extra couple of female heads on the sprue then those who want female guard can do so and those who don't can still just use the male heads. Everybody wins.
No, it is not. GW has absolutely no problem showing stuff that do not resemble actual war whatsoever. That is the excuse you are bringing forward for them not including female character.
I see no dicks on the male Necron characters, why would a female one have breasts?
How do we even know what the Necrontyr looked like? We only know that their bodies were mutiliated by radiation and their biology had to be quite different from humans as else, they would not have been able to sexually reproduce.
I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
Ashiraya wrote: But if you are getting a robot body, why on earth would it need breasts?
Why would it need a mouth? Why would it need a head at all, actually?
To look more human-like.
Sigvatr wrote: Yes, the obvious reason is your perceived sexism!
The obvious reason is some “male by default” mentality that is quite prevalent in fiction in general.
Pouncey wrote: I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
And in game theory, many article opt to use the feminine all the time IIRC.
Ashiraya wrote: I see no dicks on the male Necron characters, why would a female one have breasts?
I see one reason: those robot are usually designed to be close to how we usually see ourselves (humans), and on a clothed human you will usually see that they have breasts, but you will not see their genitalia.
I am not saying it it a good reason, though, just a reason.
But if you are getting a robot body, why on earth would it need breasts?
Couple of possible reasons, and only one of them is a crass joke. Here goes...
They would be firm and perky FOREVER! They would never sag! It's the ultimate boob job! What woman wouldn't want that? She could make all the other women jealous and make the guys drool for over sixty million years!
Okay, serious now... We know that the less human-shaped Necrons (Destroyers and Destroyer Lords) are looked down on for having altered their shapes away from their original form (check the fluff entry in the codex). The original Necron form was reasonably close to their organinc form in shape and size. Possibly to make the biotransference easier to accept psychologically, and possibly because the Necrons liked the way they looked as organics, they just didn't like having short life spans and lots of radiation induced cancer. The Necrons look like skeletons to us because that's how they were designed by GW. But what if they don't look like skeletons to each other? We don't know what they looked like when they had skin. What if the narrow limbs and long, drawn faces are exactly they way they looked when organic? And what if the females had breasts when they were organic? Why wouldn't a female Necron Lady want a necrodermis body that looked exactly like her current body (only silver!) ? Yeah, if you look at the 'Crons as robot skeletons, boobies don't make sense. But if the 'Crons aren't skeletons to 'Cron eyes, boobies don't become as silly.
Assuming lady Necrontyr had breasts at all, which we don't/can't know for certain.
Pouncey wrote: I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
In traditional English writing, the male pronoun is the default; not (entirely) because of sexism, but simply because English does not have an accepted gender-neutral pronoun other than "it", which is considered dehumanizing, because unlike the Romance languages, English does not gender verbs or nouns, and so anything we do not assign a gender to (in context or by direct reference) is automatically assumed to be a thing or an object, but not a person.
We can say "Bob goes to the store and buys himself a drink" or we can say "Sue goes to the store and buys herself a drink", but if we say "Pat goes to the store and buys itself a drink", we've implied that Pat is in some way less-than-human. Back in the 90s, White Wolf started bucking this trend by making all non-specific pronouns in their VTM and other WoD games female, but this was done in a conscious effort to stand out from previous games.
Pouncey wrote: I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
In traditional English writing, the male pronoun is the default; not (entirely) because of sexism, but simply because English does not have an accepted gender-neutral pronoun other than "it", which is considered dehumanizing, because unlike the Romance languages, English does not gender verbs or nouns, and so anything we do not assign a gender to (in context or by direct reference) is automatically assumed to be a thing or an object, but not a person.
We can say "Bob goes to the store and buys himself a drink" or we can say "Sue goes to the store and buys herself a drink", but if we say "Pat goes to the store and buys itself a drink", we've implied that Pat is in some way less-than-human. Back in the 90s, White Wolf started bucking this trend by making all non-specific pronouns in their VTM and other WoD games female, but this was done in a conscious effort to stand out from previous games.
Makes sense.
If my knowledge of social customs is correct (entirely possible I'm wrong) don't males react worse to being referred to in the feminine than females react to being referred to in the masculine? Or is that part of it being the default?
Sorry if I'm a bit slow to grasp things, I've been up all night.
Paimon wrote: The primary IG models are the Cadians. By fluff, Cadians have 100% enlistment, which means approximately 50% of them are female. There are no female Cadian models, not because women historically didn't fight in battles (which is pretty revisionist actually) but because GWHQ may as well be a tree house with a 'No Gurls Allowed' sign in front of it.
However mixed gender companies are kind of rare in the IG, aren't they? Going from what I remember from the Ciaphas Cain novels (though I haven't read them in ages so could be wrong).
Though that is of course still no excuse to have no women models. Just stick an extra couple of female heads on the sprue then those who want female guard can do so and those who don't can still just use the male heads. Everybody wins.
Or hell, make a conversion kit with 10 female Cadian heads plus a female Cadian Officer head. That'd do just fine.
Also, I got 3 packs of those Abbithan Banshees that Chapterhouse makes. I didn't particularly like them. Partially because the Cadian arms are huge on them, partially because they don't fit well with the rest of my Cadians, partially because they didn't assemble well (even their own parts, much less the Cadian arms, didn't always fit together well, but maybe I missed something like certain torsos having to go with certain legs), and partially because they just don't look that good to begin with. But they were pretty cheap, so I guess I got what I paid for.
Furyou Miko wrote:None of the Sisters models have Power Heels... sigh.
Wow, I didn't know that. They definitely do in the artwork, though.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
koooaei wrote: And in the end fan-service always wins against common sence. Thus we have boob plates. Well, cause people like boobs, i guess
It is not about people (about half of the population is not all that interested in boobs, I guess), it is 40k players. And liking breasts in a given context is not the same as liking breast everywhere, all the time.
So yeah, I hope we will change that!
I'm a 40k player. I like breasts. I'm a big fan of artistic nude and the artistic merit of clothing (I went through a fashion design phase a few years ago). I am a big fan of classical feminine beauty, grace, and all that stuff. That doesn't mean I want my girl soldiers to fight in heels and silk dresses. Being pretty is fine (look at the Eldar), but not things that are blatantly detrimental to their combat ability (power heels).
Sigvatr wrote:
Ye can't wish the truth away.
No, you can't. If you would actually address what I said instead of just saying "you're wrong", we can resume this discussion.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Well, I would like it to be true, but those are flavor text from the GW webstore :
Spoiler:
Illuminor 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.
Not so Anrakyr - he rose from dormancy with his mind intact and a great purpose foremost in his mind: to reunite the dynasties. Embracing this as his destiny, Anrakyr abdicated all responsibility to his own Tomb World of Pyrrhia and led an army into the stars.
Imotekh is a grand strategist, perhaps the most accomplished the galaxy has ever known, and his campaigns operate not only across worlds, but across entire star systems and sectors.
Orikan is a consummate astromancer, able to calculate the events of the future from the patterns of the stars. Thus did he know of the Fall of the Eldar, the Rise of Man, the Horus Heresy and the coming of the Tyranids many thousands of years before they came to pass.
Nemesor Zahndrekh was once counted amongst the greatest generals in the dynasties. By his campaigns of conquest did the world of Gidrim rise from ruling a small and insignificant planet on the fringes of the galaxy, to the iron-handed governance of a dozen star systems.
Trazyn the Infinite is a preserver of histories, artefacts and events. In his possession are technologies and relics that are so valuable as to be priceless.
While Vargard Obyron is the well-known bodyguard for Nemesor Zahndrekh, he is a ferocious military commander in his own right.
So yeah, the Necron special characters are ALL refereed to as explicitly male. I would have love for your option to have been chosen, because I do not think we need to always get each and every species (used quite loosely here) to be divided between male and female. But at least since they decided to gender the necrons (goddamn stupid idea), they should AT LEAST have made some female ones.
You think this is bad? Wait, there is more: here are the descriptions of the generic characters:
When a Necron Lord strides forth in his raiment of war, only the strongest and canniest of enemies have any hope of survival. His armoured form is proof against tank-busting weaponry and his metal hands can crush bones to powder in the blink of an eye.
Of all the Necron Lords, the Overlord is by far the most powerful and dangerous. At his command are uncountable legions of Necron Warriors, terrifying war machines and a vast array of devastating weaponry that could shatter entire worlds given half the chance.
feth YOU GW, feth YOUUUUUUU!
Yeah, the Necron were apparently the only race made entirely of male. Or maybe they did only transfer the souls of males. Or they were deeply patriarchal and no woman was ever a leader. Or some stupid gak like that.
That “male by default” mentality needs to GTFO.
Have an exalt.
Sigvatr wrote:All of those are military, fighter models. How many factions out there actually have female named models? How many famous female generals are out there?
It's just ressembling actual (war) history that has always been dominated by men.
War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist, and even now we have female soldiers. It's not that women can't fight, it's that more often than not they simply weren't allowed. We know the Tau are equal. The Necrons bio-transferred their entire species, so excluding girls is just stupid. We know the Imperium does not discriminate against non-mutated, non-psyker, non-heretic humans - it's obviously a complete coincidence that 99.99% of the entire human race is apparently white men, looking at Guardsmen, Space Marines, Inquisitors, Chaos Space Marines, even the Primarchs (apart from Khan, the token Mongol). I would suggest that they take after their father, but the Emperor seems to be Native American, which is cool. See Paimon's post on Cadia. Then we have the Sisters of Battle, a faction entirely composed of girls, which incidentally happens to be the most neglected faction by far, with ancient minis and a "Codex" in White Dwarf. Sure, they said there were "sculpting issues", but I really don't believe that.
Paimon wrote:The primary IG models are the Cadians. By fluff, Cadians have 100% enlistment, which means approximately 50% of them are female. There are no female Cadian models, not because women historically didn't fight in battles (which is pretty revisionist actually) but because GWHQ may as well be a tree house with a 'No Gurls Allowed' sign in front of it.
Pouncey wrote:I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
I have noticed this. They even do it on the psychic powers. It pleases me greatly that the Pathfinder book uses entirely feminine pronouns, and all of the character class artwork depicts women.
Psienesis wrote:
In traditional English writing, the male pronoun is the default; not (entirely) because of sexism, but simply because English does not have an accepted gender-neutral pronoun other than "it", which is considered dehumanizing, because unlike the Romance languages, English does not gender verbs or nouns, and so anything we do not assign a gender to (in context or by direct reference) is automatically assumed to be a thing or an object, but not a person.
Except this is nonsense, and a bad excuse. First of all, we have the singular "they", "their"; "The psyker concentrates their power to release a bolt of vicious warp-lightning". Second, it's every single time. Every time they can, they use male pronouns. Combined with the severe lack of female presence in the setting, this is just another morsel that proves our point. If they had adequate female representation - or any at all, really - then it might be okay to use male pronouns when referring to players.
When I was reading the psychic cards at the start of 6th, I noticed the all-male pronouns. Then I thought, "Are there any female psykers at all?".
I think the reaction aspect is simply social convention based on tradition. Because the male pronoun has been the default for a couple hundred years at this point, I think female readers are simply more accustomed to being referred to in the default "male" than male readers are in the other direction, though I certainly didn't have a problem with it reading Vampire: The Masquerade or Werewolf: The Apocalypse all those years ago YMMV.
That is just a guess, though.
Except this is nonsense, and a bad excuse. First of all, we have the singular "they", "their"; "The psyker concentrates their power to release a bolt of vicious warp-lightning". Second, it's every single time. Every time they can, they use male pronouns. Combined with the severe lack of female presence in the setting, this is just another morsel that proves our point. If they had adequate female representation - or any at all, really - then it might be okay to use male pronouns when referring to players.
When I was reading the psychic cards at the start of 6th, I noticed the all-male pronouns. Then I thought, "Are there any female psykers at all?".
"They" is not a formal English accepted pronoun for a singular person, from which GW's (and most every other publication) style of writing descends. Never has been. "They", formally, is always plural. Informal writing permits it to be both. Could it be? Sure. It's simply not used in that way, at least not traditionally. That is changing in the modern world, but a lot of people still learn to write in a traditional formal manner (those who write for a living, that is).
And, yes, as I said, it *is* every single time because that has been the accepted style of English print publications for over two hundred years. The male pronoun has been the default pronoun. If you want to see the historic development of writing styles, I would invite you to check out the Chicago Manual of Style, or any one of a number of similar publications in the English-speaking world. As CMOS shows below, "they" as singular is gaining favor, but is not traditionally correct.
Speaking of CMOS:
Q. I hope I’m not losing my mind. I’ve been told that “they” and “their” are used incorrectly in this sentence: “The telltale sign of a right-winger: they can’t write in English to save their lives.” I agree that it’s an awkward sentence, but is “they/their” used incorrectly? Thanks!
A. The use of they as a singular pronoun is a hot topic in online grammar forums. By traditional standards, the sentence is incorrect because it contains no plural noun for they to refer to. Traditionally, the correct versions are “The telltale sign of right-wingers: they can’t write in English to save their lives” and “The telltale sign of a right-winger: he can’t write in English to save his life.”
The growing acceptance of they as singular is in response to a need for a gender-neutral pronoun that avoids the use of he to mean he or she. Good writers would make right-winger plural to avoid the appearance of incorrectness or gender bias, but in other sentences the plural is not a good option: “Someone ate my Twinkie, and they’d better watch out!” In those contexts, many language experts now approve of the use of they. You can learn more by searching online for “singular they.”
Frozen Ocean wrote: Then we have the Sisters of Battle, a faction entirely composed of girls, which incidentally happens to be the most neglected faction by far, with ancient minis and a "Codex" in White Dwarf. Sure, they said there were "sculpting issues", but I really don't believe that.
Sisters have a more recent Codex than that, actually:
Psienesis wrote: I think the reaction aspect is simply social convention based on tradition. Because the male pronoun has been the default for a couple hundred years at this point, I think female readers are simply more accustomed to being referred to in the default "male" than male readers are in the other direction, though I certainly didn't have a problem with it reading Vampire: The Masquerade or Werewolf: The Apocalypse all those years ago YMMV.
That is just a guess, though.
Except this is nonsense, and a bad excuse. First of all, we have the singular "they", "their"; "The psyker concentrates their power to release a bolt of vicious warp-lightning". Second, it's every single time. Every time they can, they use male pronouns. Combined with the severe lack of female presence in the setting, this is just another morsel that proves our point. If they had adequate female representation - or any at all, really - then it might be okay to use male pronouns when referring to players.
When I was reading the psychic cards at the start of 6th, I noticed the all-male pronouns. Then I thought, "Are there any female psykers at all?".
"They" is not a formal English accepted pronoun for a singular person, from which GW's (and most every other publication) style of writing descends. Never has been. "They", formally, is always plural. Informal writing permits it to be both. Could it be? Sure. It's simply not used in that way, at least not traditionally. That is changing in the modern world, but a lot of people still learn to write in a traditional formal manner (those who write for a living, that is).
And, yes, as I said, it *is* every single time because that has been the accepted style of English print publications for over two hundred years. The male pronoun has been the default pronoun. If you want to see the historic development of writing styles, I would invite you to check out the Chicago Manual of Style, or any one of a number of similar publications in the English-speaking world. As CMOS shows below, "they" as singular is gaining favor, but is not traditionally correct.
Speaking of CMOS:
Q. I hope I’m not losing my mind. I’ve been told that “they” and “their” are used incorrectly in this sentence: “The telltale sign of a right-winger: they can’t write in English to save their lives.” I agree that it’s an awkward sentence, but is “they/their” used incorrectly? Thanks!
A. The use of they as a singular pronoun is a hot topic in online grammar forums. By traditional standards, the sentence is incorrect because it contains no plural noun for they to refer to. Traditionally, the correct versions are “The telltale sign of right-wingers: they can’t write in English to save their lives” and “The telltale sign of a right-winger: he can’t write in English to save his life.”
The growing acceptance of they as singular is in response to a need for a gender-neutral pronoun that avoids the use of he to mean he or she. Good writers would make right-winger plural to avoid the appearance of incorrectness or gender bias, but in other sentences the plural is not a good option: “Someone ate my Twinkie, and they’d better watch out!” In those contexts, many language experts now approve of the use of they. You can learn more by searching online for “singular they.”
Considering GW can't get basic grammar and punctuation right, do we really think they're concerned with whether academics will regard their use of "they/their/they're" incorrect?
Yes, but that's the point. It's gaining quite widespread acceptance - as your quote said, "many language experts now approve". Besides, Games Workshop can hardly be used as paragons of accurate writing.
Male is and has been used as default not because it actually is default, but because women essentially don't exist. This is why "they" is becoming correct.
Hopefully it just means that nothing in the Codex needed updating or an FAQ for 7th edition. If so, it's still pretty sad.
It's still shameful. A Digital Editions? Clan Raukaan got a book, as did most (if not all) supplements. Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
text removed. Reds8n
War has been dominated by men because war favors the average man more than it does the average female. Moreso in the past, where physical traits were more important than they are nowadays. A main reason for a lot of partriarchic forms of government that are, fortunately, a relic of the past in civilized countries, were wars / battles where men dominated. Gladly, that time is over, but it still is the main reason why war is usually related to men.
In regards to Necrons, however, I think that the entire "he" thing should go immediately in favor of "it". Necrons are soulless automatons and therefore must be referred to as "it" and not "he" or "she".
Frozen Ocean wrote: It's still shameful. A Digital Editions? Clan Raukaan got a book, as did most (if not all) supplements. Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
The new Stormtrooper models got a rename and Codex of their own despite everything in it being identical to the version in the AM Codex.
Oh, and I just looked up some rules, Exorcists are still technically limited to a 45 degree cone of fire straight up.
Could be fixed by adding the special rule to the Exorcist Missile Launcher: "Rocket Barrage: The Exorcist Missile Launcher is treated as having a vertical swivel of 360 degrees for line of sight purposes."
Took me about a minute to figure out how to phrase it and type it.
"Growing acceptance" is not "universally accepted". For all I know, the Oxford Manual of Style (which is, I think, what the UK bases their formal style on) does not share CMOS' acceptance of the term.
My ultimate point being that the male pronoun has long been the accepted standard in English writing, and is used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for rather a long time. I don't think there's an intentional sexism in the use (implied, perhaps, but by convention, not authorial intent). It's one of the limitations of the English language, which is changing, and that's fine, preferable even, but I think people are looking to assign sexism where there really isn't any (at least not on the part of the author).
Frozen Ocean wrote: Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
To be fair to GW, the Digital Edition was not the same as the White Dwarf Codex. A mix of some improvements and some nerfs. SoB units themselves got better as they can now be taken in units of five with two special weapons with a combi on the Superior.
On balance I 'think' the Digital Edition was an improvement as the must have unit is a better unit.
Precisely. "He" is most often used simply because of it being the easiest way to handle the issue. If you only used "she", it would be the very same "issue", some people portray and if you used "he" and "she" in an alternating fashion, it would be a lot of busy work for no worthwhile result.
So, pronouns not-withstanding, the Imperium doesn't discriminate based on sex (though individual planets might, as planetary governments, to my knowledge, can basically do whatever they want so long as they meet their tithes and blah blah blah). There's a million planets in the Imperium, certainly some of them must tithe female Imperial Guard regiments.
And personally, I'm not a huge fan of the Raging Heroes models. They're all designed like they're posing for a pin-up picture, rather than fighting a battle. They also tend to be more sexualized than I'd expect of either the Imperial Guard or especially the Sisters of Battle. Plus, I feel embarrassed just thinking of playing a game with them.
Also, I'm not sure that GW knows how to make female miniatures that both look female and don't have the breast outline clearly visible.
The TGG models are not the same one as their Order of Eternal Suffering or whatever it's called, their SOB-like line that is currently only in the concept stage. The TGG models are for an IG-like unit... and while some of them are rather scanty-clad, those are the ones that are supposed to be akin to a Penal Legion, so that makes some sense.
The Iron Empire troopers, though are dressed head-to-toe and look similar to DKOK troops... except better. Also, female.
Psienesis wrote: The TGG models are not the same one as their Order of Eternal Suffering or whatever it's called, their SOB-like line that is currently only in the concept stage. The TGG models are for an IG-like unit... and while some of them are rather scanty-clad, those are the ones that are supposed to be akin to a Penal Legion, so that makes some sense.
The Iron Empire troopers, though are dressed head-to-toe and look similar to DKOK troops... except better. Also, female.
Ahh, I'd heard that the Iron Empire were supposed to be the Sisters of Battle. Explains why I wasn't seeing the connection.
Ah, yeah, I had heard that, too, but it's a bit confusing.
"Iron Empire" is the catch-all umbrella term for their Not-Imperium faction, and includes several kinds of soldiers in its banner.
The Jailbirds are the cheesecake femme-soldiers, and they are basically a Penal Legion. Thus, they have the most overtly-sexualized outfits, because they're supposed to be rebellious.
Then there's the Iron Empire, which is the DKOK-looking troops, their cyber-zombies, and other effed-up-looking technosorcerous things, which are badass, but not particularly sexualized. This is the largest selection of troops/ICs available through the KS, including the bikers, the artillery pieces, and the various Troop boxes.
Then there are the Sisters of Eternal Mercy, which is still a concept-only army, which is akin to the SOB in theme, and is likewise (at least in concept art so far presented) not sexualized at all.
There's also some female Werewolves involved in this somewhere, a Baba Yaga-like Cyber-Witch, some sort of Mother/Crone Deific Avatar of some kind and some other oddball items that tie into the mythology, but Im not 100% sure on its structure.
Here's a Resin sculpt of one of the Iron Empire soldiers:
Neh, they look more like Cosplayers than actual soldiers but I can appreciate the quality of the sculpts nonetheless. I just prefer more professional looking troops.
Actual soldiers are usually filthy, unkempt, unshaven and rather haggard after a week or two in the field. I dunno about "looking professional". BDUs only get starched by garrison units and other REMFs.
Yeah, but not wearing boob plates, tight clothing and thigh boots. That just seems really uncomfortable for no real benefit to their wearers. After all, they're going to be fighting a war.
I am not a fan of the TGG kickstarter. I much prefer the new VLM Arcadian guards for female miniatures.
"Boob-plate" is not automatically a costume. It's just an aesthetic choice. Personally, I find the standard IG units boring (as I do with any historic army figure). For a sci-fi game, I want things to look sci-fi.
The VLM minis simply do boob-plate in a different way, it's a scalloped carapace shell that only covers their breasts. If they weren't wearing jackets under them, they'd be bare-bellied.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Wow, I didn't know that. They definitely do in the artwork, though.
No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:It is not about people (about half of the population is not all that interested in boobs, I guess), it is 40k players. And liking breasts in a given context is not the same as liking breast everywhere, all the time. So yeah, I hope we will change that!
I'm a 40k player. I like breasts. I'm a big fan of artistic nude and the artistic merit of clothing (I went through a fashion design phase a few years ago). I am a big fan of classical feminine beauty, grace, and all that stuff. That doesn't mean I want my girl soldiers to fight in heels and silk dresses. Being pretty is fine (look at the Eldar), but not things that are blatantly detrimental to their combat ability (power heels).
Yeah, that is what I meant with liking breast in a given context .
Sigvatr wrote: Judging from your post, you are clearly irrationaly-feminist, but just for what it's worth:
Woah, that is cool. I hope I will get some irrational-feminist token too one of those days, then I will be among of the cool people .
Obviously. If there was an errata, it would be automatically integrated in the book, like when they mega-nerfed the condemnor boltgun from a perfect answer to some of the worst power-list to a useless gimmick. No need for a PDF when there is no physical book anyway. But there was no errata or faq for 7th edition.
But yeah, GW really pushed me hard to start Warmachine. I just finished third at a tournament at my LGS, and got some coupon .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Oh, and I just looked up some rules, Exorcists are still technically limited to a 45 degree cone of fire straight up.
Could be fixed by adding the special rule to the Exorcist Missile Launcher: "Rocket Barrage: The Exorcist Missile Launcher is treated as having a vertical swivel of 360 degrees for line of sight purposes."
Took me about a minute to figure out how to phrase it and type it.
They did make a faq about it for the WDex edition. It said you could measure line of sight from any of the many barrels of the organ. But it said nothing to fix that stupid vertical axis issue.
Psienesis wrote: "Boob-plate" is not automatically a costume. It's just an aesthetic choice. Personally, I find the standard IG units boring (as I do with any historic army figure). For a sci-fi game, I want things to look sci-fi.
The VLM minis simply do boob-plate in a different way, it's a scalloped carapace shell that only covers their breasts. If they weren't wearing jackets under them, they'd be bare-bellied.
Oh, I know, and I think they're appropriate for some armies (Eldar, DEldar and Slaanesh come to mind) but not for Imperial Guard. You could justify it by saying their homeworld cares more about form over function and that's fine. They just don't do it for me.
TheCustomLime wrote:Imperial Guard, Tau and MTS are possible.
Xenonian Free Companies. The one all-female Guard regiment GW has ever officially admitted to exist.
A Town Called Malus wrote:However mixed gender companies are kind of rare in the IG, aren't they? Going from what I remember from the Ciaphas Cain novels (though I haven't read them in ages so could be wrong).
Mixed gender companies are as common or rare as you want. The Cain novels depict only one possible interpretation of the 40k setting (and one that is conflicting with Codex fluff on several other details), they are not authoritative and certainly not the only one.
In my opinion, it all depends on a regiment's homeworld and how gender roles work in its culture, and thus its PDF. And not just gender, but virtually anything else that could be (ab)used to categorise people.
Maybe there's one planet in the Imperium where only men and women with black hair are allowed to serve in the military?
koooaei wrote:Boob plates are not doing any good technically, are not needed and are making the plate's protection worse. [...] Boob plates are an old discussion. And in the end fan-service always wins against common sence. Thus we have boob plates. Well, cause people like boobs, i guess
At least in case of the SoB, there are a number of both in-universe as well as out-of-universe justifications you can pull to make it less obvious, though.
Also, the assumption of a negative effect on armour protection misses out on some crucial facts, such as the multiple effects of sloped armour on ballistic impacts (there's a reason this has become a standard for tanks), as well as the greater dispersion of incoming las energy upon a sloped surface as opposed to a flat chest.
In the end, an argument could be made that the unique shape of the "boob armour" actually increases its protection, since the relative thickness of the plating against attacks from the front is increased, and because projectiles penetrating the armour on a sloped surface are far more likely to be redirected and possibly get stuck within the material, rather than punching through.
It may sound silly, and I don't think for a moment that this was either the in-universe or the out-of-universe reason behind it, but it is not as terrible as many people make it out to be.
I think I have gotten so used to the Sisters' current look that I could never picture them without it, but then again I am a stickler for consistency and dislike changes to something I already like. Also, it helps a lot that it's still a fully enclosed suit of armour as opposed to a chainmail bikini. Sisters in PA can look very warlike if drawn "right" (meaning: bulky, and NO HEELS).
Spoiler:
Pouncey wrote:The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
This is something I noticed in the Shadowrun and Battletech rulebooks as well. Though those franchises have had a good track record for quite some time when it comes to gender and minorities.
Sigvatr wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote:War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
Judging from your post, you are clearly irrationaly-feminist, but just for what it's worth: War has been dominated by men because war favors the average man more than it does the average female.
If that were the only reason, there would not have been the laws and blatant suppression we have on record, nor entire nations throwing a wench into this revisionist claim.
You may also notice how society used to, and in some cases still does, exclude women from a lot of positions of power that have nothing to do whatsoever with martial prowess, so the real reason seems to be that same old-fashioned human tendency to segregate and dominate that also resulted in the widespread acceptance of slavery based on and justified not by crime but by skin colour. Because humans sure love to group individuals into different categories and judge/value them based on these labels.
Of course, things like these keep getting harder and harder to defend the more enlightened a culture becomes, but there is still a remarkable amount of resistance camouflaged by a variety of pretextual assumptions.
In short, you are half right in that war has been dominated by men due to the physical differences you mentioned, yet you fail to acknowledge that it would have been merely a "mostly dominated" if there also had not also been an ongoing effort to limit or outright eliminate the participation of those women who would have otherwise been able to make the cut. Nor do you seem to be aware of the fact that a lot more women have been participating in war than commonly understood, simply because stuff like the existence of female knights, warriors and samurai tends to get conveniently omitted.
I discovered quite a few unexpected things once I began reading up on the topic, the aforementioned Dahomey amongst them, as well as a muster roll for female peasant militia during the War of the Roses, or female mercenaries in medieval Europe. Unfortunately, these are things you simply don't get told in school or most entertainment, which in turn influences the perception and expectation of the next generation, and thus future teachers and creators of entertainment. It's a vicious cycle, and humanity as a whole suffers from the effects of the ensuing bias.
Psienesis wrote:"Growing acceptance" is not "universally accepted". For all I know, the Oxford Manual of Style (which is, I think, what the UK bases their formal style on) does not share CMOS' acceptance of the term.
My ultimate point being that the male pronoun has long been the accepted standard in English writing, and is used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for rather a long time. I don't think there's an intentional sexism in the use (implied, perhaps, but by convention, not authorial intent). It's one of the limitations of the English language, which is changing, and that's fine, preferable even, but I think people are looking to assign sexism where there really isn't any (at least not on the part of the author).
I agree. Although it does seem odd that Games Workshop continues down this road in spite of the rising criticism. One would think they'd be aware of the controversy, given how easy it is to stumble over it on the web.
Also, it is suspicious how they not only flat-out refuse to do stuff like female Cadians to make their miniatures fit to their own background, but even go so far as to decrease the amount of female IG they had in their catalogue.
RIP, Catachan Vasquez. Her balls of steelpewter were so massive, it was apparently impossible to convert her to plastics like the rest of her (now all-male) squad.
I don't believe GW as a whole could be called sexist as opposed to simply being stuck in that damned "white male default" industry standard, but given the high frequency of these coincidences I would not be surprised if there was at least one person inside who might follow this agenda. Alternatively, the company has come to the conclusion that having a sexist background and miniatures selection actually nets them more profit with the target audience of young boys. But I'm not sure if this would be more innocent or more insidious.
At least you can choose to paint your minis in a different skin colour, regardless of Codex artworks.
Psienesis wrote:Female, obviously, but not overtly sexualized.
Ehh ...
Does it sound funny that I consider GW's Escher minis (!) to be less sexualised simply because of the poses?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
Was about to point this out, but you're taking the words out of my mouth, Sister.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:But yeah, GW really pushed me hard to start Warmachine. I just finished third at a tournament at my LGS, and got some coupon .
I feel you. Not that I'm playing Warmachine or am about to start it, but the ongoing development of the franchise is something that has affected my enthusiasm. I'm dissatisfied with the status of the SoB both in rules as well as licensed material. I'm dissatisfied with the reduction of female minis (they don't even sell Eschers anymore). I'm dissatisfied with the price hikes. The book layout. The rules. The contents of White Dwarf. The evolution of the fluff. The list goes on.
I don't think I'll ever forget about 40k entirely, but let's just say that there are other franchises, hobbies and fandoms that feel a lot more inclusive, and less strongly focused on a single army out of a dozen playable factions.
War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
you are clearly irrationaly-feminist
You brought up this "fact" (that war has been dominated by men because women can't do war, or something, and that GW is trying to be historically accurate) as a reason for an enormous lack of female presence in both the setting itself and the models. As I said in my previous post, this is demonstrably irrelevant. Even if you were right, we have the Necrons, whose entire species, ostensibly, was bio-transferred, and yet apparently they left all the ladies for the Enslavers; Cadians, whose conscription rate is 100% (note that 100% means the women too); and Sisters of Battle, who are all-female but repeatedly get neglected, even abused. Anyway, the point is that you consider it "irrationally feminist" to want female models and characters?
Sigvatr wrote:In regards to Necrons, however, I think that the entire "he" thing should go immediately in favor of "it". Necrons are soulless automatons and therefore must be referred to as "it" and not "he" or "she".
Except they are people now. Mr Atronyr'tep was a male Necron'tyr before, and getting a robot body does not change that he is the same person as he was before. Are you arguing that a man is no longer male if you remove his genitalia? Are the Daemon Primarchs genderless, despite being male before?
Pouncey wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote: It's still shameful. A Digital Editions? Clan Raukaan got a book, as did most (if not all) supplements. Giving Sisters these White Dwarf and Digital releases is a joke. Also, I thought that the Digital Editions was simply an updated version of the White Dwarf "Codex"?
The new Stormtrooper models got a rename and Codex of their own despite everything in it being identical to the version in the AM Codex.
Exactly my point. This sort of nonsense gets a full release and yet Sisters get very little.
Sigvatr wrote:Precisely. "He" is most often used simply because of it being the easiest way to handle the issue. If you only used "she", it would be the very same "issue", some people portray and if you used "he" and "she" in an alternating fashion, it would be a lot of busy work for no worthwhile result.
As we have pointed out, they could use "they". Even if they didn't, it wouldn't be important if all the other problems we are bringing up didn't exist. In light of them, it's bad.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote: Wow, I didn't know that. They definitely do in the artwork, though.
No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:It is not about people (about half of the population is not all that interested in boobs, I guess), it is 40k players. And liking breasts in a given context is not the same as liking breast everywhere, all the time.
So yeah, I hope we will change that!
I'm a 40k player. I like breasts. I'm a big fan of artistic nude and the artistic merit of clothing (I went through a fashion design phase a few years ago). I am a big fan of classical feminine beauty, grace, and all that stuff. That doesn't mean I want my girl soldiers to fight in heels and silk dresses. Being pretty is fine (look at the Eldar), but not things that are blatantly detrimental to their combat ability (power heels).
Yeah, that is what I meant with liking breast in a given context .
I was agreeing with you!
Lynata wrote:
koooaei wrote:Boob plates are not doing any good technically, are not needed and are making the plate's protection worse. [...] Boob plates are an old discussion. And in the end fan-service always wins against common sence. Thus we have boob plates. Well, cause people like boobs, i guess
At least in case of the SoB, there are a number of both in-universe as well as out-of-universe justifications you can pull to make it less obvious, though.
Also, the assumption of a negative effect on armour protection misses out on some crucial facts, such as the multiple effects of sloped armour on ballistic impacts (there's a reason this has become a standard for tanks), as well as the greater dispersion of incoming las energy upon a sloped surface as opposed to a flat chest.
In the end, an argument could be made that the unique shape of the "boob armour" actually increases its protection, since the relative thickness of the plating against attacks from the front is increased, and because projectiles penetrating the armour on a sloped surface are far more likely to be redirected and possibly get stuck within the material, rather than punching through.
It may sound silly, and I don't think for a moment that this was either the in-universe or the out-of-universe reason behind it, but it is not as terrible as many people make it out to be.
Except it is. Boob plate creates what is known as a "shot trap", deflecting projectiles and shrapnel that impacts the chest (the place where most shots hit) either at itself (deflecting from one boob into the other boob, as it were), upwards (into the chin/neck) or directly into the sternum. The funny thing is that GW even recognise this attribute, as it is the given reason for the creation of MkVIII "Errant" armour. Boob plate severely weakens the effectiveness of the armour against everything, unfortunately.
Lexicanum wrote:The suit itself is a highly modified Mark 7, with additional fixed armour plates on the torso that now enclose all of the suit's cables, which were vulnerable to weapons fire, and a new armoured collar protects the helmet's respirator, and also addressed the vunerability issues of the neck joint, which had been known to act as a "shell-trap", (a round could hit the chest armour and be deflected up into the neck joint).
Lynata wrote:
I think I have gotten so used to the Sisters' current look that I could never picture them without it, but then again I am a stickler for consistency and dislike changes to something I already like. Also, it helps a lot that it's still a fully enclosed suit of armour as opposed to a chainmail bikini. Sisters in PA can look very warlike if drawn "right" (meaning: bulky, and NO HEELS).
Spoiler:
I like that, especially the boots. Really the only thing they need is a thickened sternum section, meaning that there are still "boob plates", but with a flat region between them. A little like this armour from Mass Effect, although this is definitely not perfect. It would be an excellent region to put yet more iconography on, as well, which works for Sisters.
Lynata wrote:
Spoiler:
Sigvatr wrote:
Frozen Ocean wrote:War has been dominated by men because we have never been in a society that is entirely non-sexist.
Judging from your post, you are clearly irrationaly-feminist, but just for what it's worth: War has been dominated by men because war favors the average man more than it does the average female.
If that were the only reason, there would not have been the laws and blatant suppression we have on record, nor entire nations throwing a wench into this revisionist claim.
You may also notice how society used to, and in some cases still does, exclude women from a lot of positions of power that have nothing to do whatsoever with martial prowess, so the real reason seems to be that same old-fashioned human tendency to segregate and dominate that also resulted in the widespread acceptance of slavery based on and justified not by crime but by skin colour. Because humans sure love to group individuals into different categories and judge/value them based on these labels.
Of course, things like these keep getting harder and harder to defend the more enlightened a culture becomes, but there is still a remarkable amount of resistance camouflaged by a variety of pretextual assumptions.
In short, you are half right in that war has been dominated by men due to the physical differences you mentioned, yet you fail to acknowledge that it would have been merely a "mostly dominated" if there also had not also been an ongoing effort to limit or outright eliminate the participation of those women who would have otherwise been able to make the cut. Nor do you seem to be aware of the fact that a lot more women have been participating in war than commonly understood, simply because stuff like the existence of female knights, warriors and samurai tends to get conveniently omitted.
I discovered quite a few unexpected things once I began reading up on the topic, the aforementioned Dahomey amongst them, as well as a muster roll for female peasant militia during the War of the Roses, or female mercenaries in medieval Europe. Unfortunately, these are things you simply don't get told in school or most entertainment, which in turn influences the perception and expectation of the next generation, and thus future teachers and creators of entertainment. It's a vicious cycle, and humanity as a whole suffers from the effects of the ensuing bias.
Psienesis wrote:"Growing acceptance" is not "universally accepted". For all I know, the Oxford Manual of Style (which is, I think, what the UK bases their formal style on) does not share CMOS' acceptance of the term.
My ultimate point being that the male pronoun has long been the accepted standard in English writing, and is used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for rather a long time. I don't think there's an intentional sexism in the use (implied, perhaps, but by convention, not authorial intent). It's one of the limitations of the English language, which is changing, and that's fine, preferable even, but I think people are looking to assign sexism where there really isn't any (at least not on the part of the author).
I agree. Although it does seem odd that Games Workshop continues down this road in spite of the rising criticism. One would think they'd be aware of the controversy, given how easy it is to stumble over it on the web.
Also, it is suspicious how they not only flat-out refuse to do stuff like female Cadians to make their miniatures fit to their own background, but even go so far as to decrease the amount of female IG they had in their catalogue.
RIP, Catachan Vasquez. Her balls of steelpewter were so massive, it was apparently impossible to convert her to plastics like the rest of her (now all-male) squad.
I don't believe GW as a whole could be called sexist as opposed to simply being stuck in that damned "white male default" industry standard, but given the high frequency of these coincidences I would not be surprised if there was at least one person inside who might follow this agenda. Alternatively, the company has come to the conclusion that having a sexist background and miniatures selection actually nets them more profit with the target audience of young boys. But I'm not sure if this would be more innocent or more insidious.
At least you can choose to paint your minis in a different skin colour, regardless of Codex artworks.
All well-said, and exalted.
Of what few female characters we have, two that I can think of have been removed or will be removed. Inquisitor Valeria was removed from the Inquisition book (she was in Grey Knights, from which the Inquisition book was essentially copied and pasted), and Lady Malys has never had a model, which means she'll probably be removed as well. We have no female IG characters. We don't even have any female Farseers. Imperial Knights were given an arbitrary restriction on female pilots. The deeds of Callidus Assassins are almost entirely "... and then they got horribly butchered" (accidentally stabbing The Deceiver, the assisted suicide of Curze). Half the factions in the setting (Orks and Space Marines of all flavours) are entirely male, whereas factions that should have women have none. At a rough guess, we have maybe fifty characters in these gender-neutral armies, and all of them are men except for Shadowsun and Lelith Hesperax the Bikini Gladiator.
EDIT: I just had a fun thought. If you were right about boob armour being more protective, Lynata, then that would make it prudent for men to have boob armour, too.
Pouncey wrote:I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
Other than agreeing to fight Oxy on Vassal at first convenience, this is really the only thing I want to reply to now..
Check out the 7th edition rulebook's Psychic Phase. Sarah is kicking some backside with the Witchfires.
Lynata wrote: I don't believe GW as a whole could be called sexist as opposed to simply being stuck in that damned "white male default" industry standard, but given the high frequency of these coincidences I would not be surprised if there was at least one person inside who might follow this agenda. Alternatively, the company has come to the conclusion that having a sexist background and miniatures selection actually nets them more profit with the target audience of young boys. But I'm not sure if this would be more innocent or more insidious.
Well, let us be honest here: there are few female models, but those that exists are usually pretty tactful. They do have boobplate a lot, but on eldar skintight armors are common and shared between gender. They also have Shadowsun, which is as far as boobplate (or any bikini armor trope) as can be. Though thinking about it, I cannot think of any new female character introduced by GW proper after Shadowsun, actually. Unlike, say, Relic (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, …)
Lynata wrote: Was about to point this out, but you're taking the words out of my mouth, Sister.
Brother . This usually happens on the phone, not on the internet.
Lynata wrote: I don't think I'll ever forget about 40k entirely
Me neither. Proof, I am still posting here, using a SoB avatar and rank progression and signature. But I am not buying new GW models or book, and I have yet to play a game of 7th edition (I left my Sisters in Grenoble, while I took my trollbloods with me in Paris, so I play Warmachine a LOT more).
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:No. One illustration, which was on the cover of Codex: Sisters of Battle in 2nd edition, shows some sister in an armor that has nothing to do with the actual miniature, or with any other illustration for that matter. It is the only one with high heels.
This pleases me.
This is another illustration from the same codex, which was never reused as far as I know, but which is much closer to the actual models .
Spoiler:
Frozen Ocean wrote: I like that, especially the boots. Really the only thing they need is a thickened sternum section, meaning that there are still "boob plates", but with a flat region between them. A little like this armour from Mass Effect, although this is definitely not perfect. It would be an excellent region to put yet more iconography on, as well, which works for Sisters.
Anything that screams “I have way too much money and not any hint of good taste, let us add more bling” is good, for Sisters . The “bad taste, too much bling” is very needed, though. Anything looking too practical is unfit.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Half the factions in the setting (Orks and Space Marines of all flavours) are entirely male, whereas factions that should have women have none.
Orks are not entirely male, they are entirely genderless.
Frozen Ocean wrote: At a rough guess, we have maybe fifty characters in these gender-neutral armies
I thought we had that much only with marines characters .
Frozen Ocean wrote: EDIT: I just had a fun thought. If you were right about boob armour being more protective, Lynata, then that would make it prudent for men to have boob armour, too.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Then we have the Sisters of Battle, a faction entirely composed of girls, which incidentally happens to be the most neglected faction by far, with ancient minis and a "Codex" in White Dwarf. Sure, they said there were "sculpting issues", but I really don't believe that.
Sisters have a more recent Codex than that, actually:
Pouncey wrote:I dunno if you guys are still talking about this, but ever notice how in the rulebooks, they always refer to the players as being male if they mention the player's sex at all?
It's always "his army" "that he controls" "his opponent" "if he prefers" "he may choose."
And the example player names are always male.
The D&D rulebooks - at least the most recent ones that I've read, which was back in 4th edition (D&D 4th, not WH40k 4th) - tended to use a mix of male and female pronouns and names.
Other than agreeing to fight Oxy on Vassal at first convenience, this is really the only thing I want to reply to now..
Check out the 7th edition rulebook's Psychic Phase. Sarah is kicking some backside with the Witchfires.
Dude, no way!
After the transformer out back exploded yesterday, I started reading the WH40k rulebook some more (still haven't read the whole thing) and since I'd skipped over the Psychic Phase section because it said to read the Shooting Phase section first, I went back to read it, and noticed that thing about Sarah!
Orks are not entirely male, they are entirely genderless.
Was gonna say that. However, their main Troops units are called "Boyz" but that's because they're themed after football hooligans.
Also, in regards to women fighting in real wars, wasn't there a woman who fought in World War 1 and ended up taking a bunch of enemy soldiers prisoner all on her own after she went to the woods to pee and accidentally returned to the wrong trench? I think she fought in World War 2, too.
hehe, I see... well, Between's a big place, you might be looking a while.
Pouncey;
Yeah, I know. I had to reread it like, three times before I realised that yes, that IS a woman's name, and then they manage to call her 'she' for the entire rest of the paragraph!
Furyou Miko wrote: hehe, I see... well, Between's a big place, you might be looking a while.
Not if we settle on a nice meeting point. Unless of course if you do not want a face-to-face battle and would rather play it with no models, no table, and no fun in general.
Furyou Miko wrote: Yeah, I know. I had to reread it like, three times before I realised that yes, that IS a woman's name, and then they manage to call her 'she' for the entire rest of the paragraph!
Who is that Sarah? I have not bought the 7th edition rulebook, I was busy with Warmachine and not eager to buy GW product.
Furyou Miko wrote: hehe, I see... well, Between's a big place, you might be looking a while.
Not if we settle on a nice meeting point. Unless of course if you do not want a face-to-face battle and would rather play it with no models, no table, and no fun in general.
Furyou Miko wrote: Yeah, I know. I had to reread it like, three times before I realised that yes, that IS a woman's name, and then they manage to call her 'she' for the entire rest of the paragraph!
Who is that Sarah? I have not bought the 7th edition rulebook, I was busy with Warmachine and not eager to buy GW product.
Just a random example player they used in one of their examples in the rulebooks. Basically instead of saying Player A and Player B, they give them random names.
Frozen Ocean wrote:Except it is. Boob plate creates what is known as a "shot trap", deflecting projectiles and shrapnel that impacts the chest (the place where most shots hit) either at itself (deflecting from one boob into the other boob, as it were), upwards (into the chin/neck) or directly into the sternum. The funny thing is that GW even recognise this attribute, as it is the given reason for the creation of MkVIII "Errant" armour. Boob plate severely weakens the effectiveness of the armour against everything, unfortunately.
The "shot trap" argument is what comes up again and again, but I think it's overrated: Assuming the projectile does not have sufficient kinetic energy and hardiness to pierce the armour in the first place (eliminating the issue of deflection altogether), it will lose a portion of its impact force and thus be weakened whenever (if) it hits the second plate, further lowering the chance for full penetration - especially as it would again impact at a sloped angle.
Also, if you look at the sternum section of the armour, you'll notice it is sort of "reinforced" by being enclosed by the heavy respirator from above, and the padded dust-cover from below, offering additional protection as a side effect. It's not much, but even if a shot gets deflected into there it is going to face more resistance than if it had impacted just on a flat chest. Some minis also feature an additional piece of iconography affixed there, kind of like you suggested.
Furthermore, the improvements of the Marines' Errant-pattern armour are already worked into the Sisters' Angel-pattern: Every suit of Sororitas armour features an armoured collar, and the studded "corset" dust cover is protecting the underlying "gill" plates.
If you need more to justify the appearance, simply consider the sternum section to also feature a few millimeters thicker armour, and the dust cover to be fashioned from flak material.
In the end, ballistic weapons (autoguns, bolters, shootas, splinter rifles, etc) on the battlefields of the 41st millennium will mostly feature some penetrating effect that sees the projectile burrow at least somewhat into the armour rather than being deflected entirely, which means they will spend much (perhaps even all) of their kinetic energy. It won't just jump off the plate leaving nothing but a scratch and retain its full force - that is an oversimplification, and probably the origin of the "SoB shot trap" theory. Shot traps are only a concern if you either do not design the armour taking this into account, and if your enemies really are using crap guns that don't feature penetration. Given how every single weapon in the game is capable of punching through power armour, I'd say this is not the case in 40k.
This is how the effect works, by the way:
The sloped angle confers a chain of benefits to the wearer of the armour: It increases the amount of plating a ballistic projectile has to burrow through (by essentially having it groove along in a curved path), thus reducing their speed (either stopping it completely, or making it less dangerous if it does ricochet), and it reduces the effectiveness of las weaponry.
Unlike with some early tanks' weakpoints, there is no section on the breastplate that is not intended to stop an incoming projectile, so even if a bullet bounces off the armour, how is it supposed to get more dangerous rather than less, considering the expense of kinetic energy?
It's ironic how I am otherwise not a fan of boob armour, but in the Sisters' case I am playing Devil's Advocate. As I said, it's probably just because this is how I got to know them.
Frozen Ocean wrote:I just had a fun thought. If you were right about boob armour being more protective, Lynata, then that would make it prudent for men to have boob armour, too.
I admit, the thought crossed my mind.
Though the most effective form would probably be a "single boob" located in the center. Or a large cone, but this is where it gets ridiculous and severely impractical.
Frozen Ocean wrote:Imperial Knights were given an arbitrary restriction on female pilots.
Huh, really?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Brother
Apologies, I tend to refer to people based on their avatar and affiliation...
Though in retrospect, your name does create an awkward paradox. >_<
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Orks are not entirely male, they are entirely genderless.
He has a point in that they are following a masculine design - both in visuals as well as naming. Saying that Orks aren't male is a bit like claiming Space Marines are genderless: it's both true and it isn't, depending on how you define it.
If you would know nothing about 40k, and just had the images to go by, what would you think Orks are? How do you believe they are perceived?
Also, just like with Necrons, GW keeps referring to individual Orks as "he" rather than "it" - the proper term for a fungus, if we want to get pedantic.
Pouncey wrote: Also, in regards to women fighting in real wars, wasn't there a woman who fought in World War 1 and ended up taking a bunch of enemy soldiers prisoner all on her own after she went to the woods to pee and accidentally returned to the wrong trench? I think she fought in World War 2, too.
I know that there is one woman during WW2 that joined the French Foreign Legion, and she is the only one in the history of the legion. Those guys are basically the expendable tough guys that get sent on the very dangerous or dirty missions in the French army.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8271773.stm But basically, if you want to see tons of examples of strong women, just go there:
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?archive=1
Frozen Ocean wrote:I just had a fun thought. If you were right about boob armour being more protective, Lynata, then that would make it prudent for men to have boob armour, too.
I admit, the thought crossed my mind.
Though the most effective form would probably be a "single boob" located in the center. Or a large cone, but this is where it gets ridiculous and severely impractical.
Though it seems like having the front armor stick out in a cone would make it hard to hold a boltgun in two hands at anything but waist level. Probably what you meant by impractical.
Furyou Miko wrote: hehe, I see... well, Between's a big place, you might be looking a while.
Not if we settle on a nice meeting point. Unless of course if you do not want a face-to-face battle and would rather play it with no models, no table, and no fun in general.
Well, GWHQ is fairly convenient for me, and about the maximum upper limit of my travel capabilities. ^^;
Wasn't the "SoB Shot Trap" argument mostly that the shot would deflect upwards into the bottom of the helmet?
Apologies, I tend to refer to people based on their avatar and affiliation...
My current affiliation is Preacher of the Emperor, which is fitting because I am preachy, but not especially female. I wonder what will come next, and at which post count, by the way . If the new A Song of Ice and Fire comes out and I win my bet against Pretre (and therefore a DCM status), I will definitely be a Sister of Bitter though .
Lynata wrote: Though in retrospect, your name does create an awkward paradox. >_<
Yeah, I usually pointed people that mistook me as female because of an avatar to that… but then I met BrotherHaraldus, a.k.a Ashiraya
Lynata wrote: Saying that Orks aren't male is a bit like claiming Space Marines are genderless: it's both true and it isn't, depending on how you define it.
Well, seems truer for fungi-based creatures than for modified human males.
Lynata wrote: If you would know nothing about 40k, and just had the images to go by, what would you think Orks are?
Male, I guess. Though they look animalistic enough for it not being that obvious. For reference, I just did a google image search on female gorilla. I would not have guessed they were female either. It is more a question of the whole “male by default” mentality added with anthropomorphism that1 leads to anything not having big boobs or exaggerated hourglass figure or any trait typically linked with human women being considered male.
Lynata wrote: Also, just like with Necrons, GW keeps referring to individual Orks as "he" rather than "it" - the proper term for a fungus, if we want to get pedantic.
Yeah, they do not like using “it”, for some reason. In the same manner, it always bug me when people refer to monotheistic gods as “He” rather than “It”. I have never ever heard of a monotheistic religion that refers to its god as “She”. At least polytheists have goddess!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furyou Miko wrote: Well, GWHQ is fairly convenient for me, and about the maximum upper limit of my travel capabilities. ^^;
Do you mean Warhammer Wolrd? Yeah, that would be nice, I remember the Bugman bar offering some nice veggie burger, and tons of available game tables! That will not be before about 6 month (I have a PhD to finish), I guess, but I would love to go there again after I finish it.
Oxy wrote:Do you mean Warhammer Wolrd? Yeah, that would be nice, I remember the Bugman bar offering some nice veggie burger, and tons of available game tables!
That will not be before about 6 month (I have a PhD to finish), I guess, but I would love to go there again after I finish it.
Its a date. Well, no, its a pencilling in, that may at some point resolve into a numerically defined appointment, but definitely something I'm not averse to.
Pouncey wrote:Though it seems like having the front armor stick out in a cone would make it hard to hold a boltgun in two hands at anything but waist level. Probably what you meant by impractical.
Yup - not to mention the decreased mobility, inability to operate vehicles, etc.
Even GW Space Marines would already have massive difficulties due to the bulk of their chest. Their Scouts are unable to properly look through the scopes of their sniper rifles, and the only way a standard Marine is able to aim a gun would be to use it single-handedly - simply because the bulk and the armour make it very difficult if not impossible to align their arms horizontally in front of their chests. It might just be a problem of "hero scale", but it's a good example of what happens when you bulk up too much.
Furyou Miko wrote:Wasn't the "SoB Shot Trap" argument mostly that the shot would deflect upwards into the bottom of the helmet?
That comes up from time to time, too, but from what I have seen, most people arguing it are suggesting that somehow the boobs would result in a significantly higher amount of shots being directed towards the solarplexus.
If it's just the helmet thingie, it should be even easier to dispel, given the collar. Assuming, of course, that the average Sister does wear a helmet in battle.
I still believe that ricochets would occur less often than partial penetration and "grooving", though that is just my interpretation of how contemporary armour-piercing ammunition works on contemporary sloped armour. Needless to say, it may be different in a fictional setting with fictional wargear, but I prefer not to see a problem here when it can be so easily avoided.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:If the new A Song of Ice and Fire comes out and I win my bet against Pretre (and therefore a DCM status), I will definitely be a Sister of Bitter though
Yesss!
Fingers crossed. I still love that pun.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:For reference, I just did a google image search on female gorilla. I would not have guessed they were female either. It is more a question of the whole “male by default” mentality added with anthropomorphism that1 leads to anything not having big boobs or exaggerated hourglass figure or any trait typically linked with human women being considered male.
There's probably some truth to that, though it could also be a subliminal expectation due to 40k Orks being the only kind of "standard fantasy cliché orc" that does not have two genders. Or one. ...you know what I mean!
Also, keep us up to date about the game between the two of you.
Lynata wrote: I don't believe GW as a whole could be called sexist as opposed to simply being stuck in that damned "white male default" industry standard, but given the high frequency of these coincidences I would not be surprised if there was at least one person inside who might follow this agenda. Alternatively, the company has come to the conclusion that having a sexist background and miniatures selection actually nets them more profit with the target audience of young boys. But I'm not sure if this would be more innocent or more insidious.
Well, let us be honest here: there are few female models, but those that exists are usually pretty tactful. They do have boobplate a lot, but on eldar skintight armors are common and shared between gender. They also have Shadowsun, which is as far as boobplate (or any bikini armor trope) as can be. Though thinking about it, I cannot think of any new female character introduced by GW proper after Shadowsun, actually. Unlike, say, Relic (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, …)
Just remembered that Sub-Commander Torchstar from the Farsight Enclaves is female. Youngest member of Farsight's Eight.
Doesn't really have a lot of fluff except that she likes to burn things and nicked a load of the new tech (such as Riptides) from the Tau Empire and took it to the Enclaves when she defected, though.
Is date not supposed to imply some kind of romantic context?
Lynata wrote: and the only way a standard Marine is able to aim a gun would be to use it single-handedly - simply because the bulk and the armour make it very difficult if not impossible to align their arms horizontally in front of their chests.
This reminds me of my female slugger models for Warmachine. Their breasts are so big that their arm have to literally go through them in order for her to hold the gun. I kid you not. But it is not as bad as you might be expecting:
Spoiler:
The ones with the bandana. Apart from the horrible lips (and said arm problem, but it is not all that noticeable from a distance), they really look good, I think. The huge breast make sense given the trollkin physiology, and they are not emphasized. Sad that they are so bad in the game. They usually end up having their greatest contribution to the game to be blocking the path of enemy model, or scoring/contesting zones or flags. Which is super useful in this game, of course, but I could have more models that could do that just as well for less points…
Lynata wrote: Yesss! Fingers crossed. I still love that pun.
Ahah, thanks! Martin will probably finish his book this side of the decade^w century!
Lynata wrote: There's probably some truth to that, though it could also be a subliminal expectation due to 40k Orks being the only kind of "standard fantasy cliché orc" that does not have two genders. Or one. ...you know what I mean!
I just checked, apparently even Tolkien Orcs had male and female variety even though we have absolutely no more information than that. For all we know, they might just look the same. I never thought about it before. Warcraft orcs women are… well, a good illustration of the very bad way sexual dimorphism is treated in MMO. And yeah, I totally do know what you mean . Female orcs basically had to wait for WoW to appear in Warcraft!
Lynata wrote: Also, keep us up to date about the game between the two of you.
Will do!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Just remembered that Sub-Commander Torchstar from the Farsight Enclaves is female. Youngest member of Farsight's Eight.
Doesn't really have a lot of fluff except that she likes to burn things and nicked a load of the new tech (such as Riptides) from the Tau Empire and took it to the Enclaves when she defected, though.
Lexicanicum has this interesting thing to say about Torchstar :
He is known as an impetuous Vior'lan whose affinity with fire has seen her immolate hundreds of the Tau's foes.
I just checked, apparently even Tolkien Orcs had male and female variety even though we have absolutely no more information than that. For all we know, they might just look the same. I never thought about it before.
Warcraft orcs women are… well, a good illustration of the very bad way sexual dimorphism is treated in MMO.
And yeah, I totally do know what you mean . Female orcs basically had to wait for WoW to appear in Warcraft!
You think WoW's orcs are bad at sexual dimorphism in MMOs, check out their Trolls and Draenei.
And I went and read through a Cracked article about badass soldiers in history, the woman who fought in WW1 and ended up taking prisoners after returning to the wrong trench was named Milunka Savic, and is number 2 on this list of theirs.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Is date not supposed to imply some kind of romantic context?
... snip ....
And yeah, I totally do know what you mean . Female orcs basically had to wait for WoW to appear in Warcraft!
The phrase "It's a date" is often used in non romantic contexts to the intention of comedy-by-implication.
Also, there was actually a mission in Warcraft: Orcs and Humans (AKA Warcraft 1) which involved assassinating Gul'dan's mother. I think it was Gul'dan's mother, anyway. It might have been Medivh's orcish girlfriend.
Regarding the Raging Heroes models that were mentioned a few pages back, the Heavy Iron Empire troops are even less cheesecakey than the lighter ones, and the Kurganova Shock Troops would integrate well into a Cadian Army.
Yeah, I've got a couple boxes of both on the way through my KS donation. Mostly went with various characters though, as I do RPGs far, far more frequently than I do wargames these days.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:For reference, I just did a google image search on female gorilla. I would not have guessed they were female either. It is more a question of the whole “male by default” mentality added with anthropomorphism that1 leads to anything not having big boobs or exaggerated hourglass figure or any trait typically linked with human women being considered male.
There's probably some truth to that, though it could also be a subliminal expectation due to 40k Orks being the only kind of "standard fantasy cliché orc" that does not have two genders. Or one. ...you know what I mean!
Also, keep us up to date about the game between the two of you.
There are far weirder gender traits in animals like some that can change genders and a creepy deep sea fish I can't remember the name of (basically the males attach to the females nether regions and disintegrate until they're just a couple sacs on the female and yes it sounds disgusting).
If you're gonna mention orks or orcs I figure I should mention skaven. Skaven are on a weird end I suppose. They have few large females and lots and lots of males. According to the dwarfs in the skaven book (they were barely intelligent, large and infrequent from what few reports where they were found) but dwarfs are probably the cranky, bitter racist and sexist old guy. They hate change and remember their glory days in warhammer fantasy so I think it's safe to say they are the grumpy old men of the fantasy world. I imagine skaven in a way that you see other species of creature where the females are often bigger and stronger. It really depends on the species I guess.
Pouncey wrote: You think WoW's orcs are bad at sexual dimorphism in MMOs, check out their Trolls and Draenei.
I know. I wanted to play a troll, and I quickly settled for a male one .
Pouncey wrote: People who aren't familiar with Cracked's style should be aware that there's a lot of swearing and rudeness in the article, though it is a humor site.
Cannot be worse than my own link .
Furyou Miko wrote: The phrase "It's a date" is often used in non romantic contexts to the intention of comedy-by-implication.
Oh. Consider me implied then .
Furyou Miko wrote: Also, there was actually a mission in Warcraft: Orcs and Humans (AKA Warcraft 1) which involved assassinating Gul'dan's mother. I think it was Gul'dan's mother, anyway. It might have been Medivh's orcish girlfriend.
I did not know that, I only played Warcraft II and Warcraft III. Did she had a specific sprite?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: According to the dwarfs in the skaven book (they were barely intelligent, large and infrequent from what few reports where they were found) but dwarfs are probably the cranky, bitter racist and sexist old guy.
Yeah, but Skavens, even when described by an omniscient external narrator, are pretty bad. I do not expect them to have a word to describe the concept of consent, or to even have this concept. So, I had not seen anything on how they reproduce, but that does not look like something I want to know .
flamingkillamajig wrote: According to the dwarfs in the skaven book (they were barely intelligent, large and infrequent from what few reports where they were found) but dwarfs are probably the cranky, bitter racist and sexist old guy.
Yeah, but Skavens, even when described by an omniscient external narrator, are pretty bad. I do not expect them to have a word to describe the concept of consent, or to even have this concept. So, I had not seen anything on how they reproduce, but that does not look like something I want to know .
It probably looks something like a small humanoid rat riding some screeching rat beast from hell the size of a car. Basically all their women are like the world's fattest human women except much uglier. I hear breeding rights are a popular gift warlords bestow on stormvermin. I'm not entirely sure who all gets to but something tells me slaves can't and clanrats also might not but I'm unsure. I think plague monks have breeding rights as do the other greater clans though. I really would like to know more on the lore of the skaven. I was entirely disappointed that the uniforms and heraldry book was just that. I would've preferred a more story based big book of skaven. They're infinitely more interesting than hearing about generic greenskins, dwarfs and even elves. Maybe I should read the books more. They had a couple on grey seer thanquol and one on queek with various other mentions in other books I think. I wish 'blood in the badlands' was not a limited time thing. It was one of the few expansions I wanted to try out since it had underground battles and fortification battles with castles and sieges.
Skaven are selfish, manipulative, throw blame around, betray, steal and all manner of bad stuff. That said even a normally bad trait can have benefits. For instance being impatient may force people to pick up the pace and work harder to get a task finished but patience is normally a virtue. It's a sad, funny and annoying thing that the skaven disposition is flawed and they often are their own worst enemies. Seriously I don't think any other faction has come close to ever really destroying a major skaven lair other than in lustria and the skaven almost took it back except for an OP lizardmen mage messing it up with a comet or some crap. Every time skaven lose it's generally because they manage to hurt themselves or backstab each other for a power grab and therefore ruin their overall goal of conquest with their own personal goal of conquest.
As far as skaven go I think it's pretty hilarious when I think they talked about using blackmail against humans for cheating on each other or something even though they didn't understand the reasons for such behavior or why it was such a big deal to humans.
Anyway I think most of that was off topic except the last bit.
More on topic female skaven are pretty freaking huge and I think they may even use them as mounts into battle as strange as that sounds. I mean imagine jumping on your girlfriend's or wife's shoulders and pointing a finger onward while brandishing a sword. I imagine she'd be more than a little confused.
Was going to say it's getting off topic but lizardmen are bred through spawnings.
In my skaven army book it said the plague monks tried reclaiming their lost realm in lustria and almost did if not for a fireball. Normally I'd feel bad that plague monks lost their realm to lustria but skaven got something out of the deal even if it cost them many lives, a previous lord of decay, the leader of the plague monks and was only ended on decent terms with many threats and blackmail. Haha skaven are awesome in the lore. If only I could get Lynata into checking them out or fantasy as a whole he/she would probably enjoy it immensely.
Crap I went off topic again. Sorry guys! Anyway lizardmen are sexless I think so that's also really weird.
In warhammer if you want a female army besides sisters of battle you should probably try an elf or eldar faction. They have the most female models overall to my knowledge and quite a few specialized female units 'sisters of averlorn' (high elves), 'sisters of thorn' (wood elves), witch elves (dark elves), wyches (dark eldar), howling banshees (eldar) and quite a few others. Though vampire counts are mostly undead and sex isn't easily able to distinguish on skeletons (at least on a generic model) it can be hard to say they have a female army but they do have a coven throne which is bedecked with hot vampire chicks ;P. That said they're made by british guys so generally it's super tastefully done and everything's in modest proportions unlike the super jiggle boobs of anime and anime figures and the super perfect bodies of some western shows or American shows.
On the topic of plague monks giving STD's I'm actually curious if they actually worship chaos gods such as nurgle. Plague monks are basically nurgle rats however their frenzy and hatred can be like khorne a bit though I don't think they worry about perfection much. It's tough to say but they're so close to being nurgle disciples I almost wonder if they are.
Furyou Miko wrote: Also, there was actually a mission in Warcraft: Orcs and Humans (AKA Warcraft 1) which involved assassinating Gul'dan's mother. I think it was Gul'dan's mother, anyway. It might have been Medivh's orcish girlfriend.
I did not know that, I only played Warcraft II and Warcraft III. Did she had a specific sprite?
Yes, I think she had red flashes on her shoulders (although it has been years). She did have a unique character portrait though.
Orcs and Humans was designed to be run at 320x240 on VGA graphics though, so there's only so many things you can do to make gender dymorphic sprites.
What's the source on that stuff about female skaven being huge? Skavenslayer implies that they're actually more numerous than males, with multiple breeders being mentioned as a potential reward.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Crap I went off topic again. Sorry guys! Anyway lizardmen are sexless I think so that's also really weird.
Well, I would not be so sure. The topic of reproduction for lizardmen is usually described as “Thanks to the wisdom of the ancient, the right kind of lizardmen comes out of the spawning pond at the right time”, but really, that does not mean they do not have male and female that just spread their gamete unknowingly through the water.
It is quite hard to tell a male reptile from a female reptile anyway.
Furyou Miko wrote: The mission was to track her down and kill her for eloping with an Ogre
It was wrong, yes, but remember, in Orcs and Humans, the Orcs were definitely Evil Monsters.
The actual charges laid against Griselda were treason, since she not only eloped with an ogre, she did so while she was supposed to be on a mission for the Warchief. But since she wasn't exposed to Fel like all the other Orcs, she was theoretically a 'good guy' anyway.
Furyou Miko wrote: Also, there was actually a mission in Warcraft: Orcs and Humans (AKA Warcraft 1) which involved assassinating Gul'dan's mother. I think it was Gul'dan's mother, anyway. It might have been Medivh's orcish girlfriend.
I did not know that, I only played Warcraft II and Warcraft III. Did she had a specific sprite?
Yes, I think she had red flashes on her shoulders (although it has been years). She did have a unique character portrait though.
Orcs and Humans was designed to be run at 320x240 on VGA graphics though, so there's only so many things you can do to make gender dymorphic sprites.
What's the source on that stuff about female skaven being huge? Skavenslayer implies that they're actually more numerous than males, with multiple breeders being mentioned as a potential reward.
The skaven army book is the source and it was based on dwarfs that saw it first hand. There is also a picture of a huge skaven female with baby skaven sucking her teets.
Ok I found the picture.
In other news a friend told me current skaven army books were being pulled from the shelves and that was a sign a new army book is coming. I sure hope so. The only rumors I've heard of so far include skaven having flyers but I don't know the validity of the source. Skaven need a lot of options in my opinion.
) was close range fire fights - lots of melta. Dominions squads in immolaters are a great delivery system.
.
If only 
.
