Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Crimson wrote:As they have decided to give the eldar gendered armours,

That's probably a better way of phrasing it.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:I would greatly prefer if they went the Stormcast Eternals route: armor that is visually distinctly feminine, without having the skin-tight 'boob plate'.

The heavier armor doesn't fit the eldar aesthetic which is body suit plus some psycho reactive plastic plates which are form fitting.

Or, even better, just take a note from Star Wars and do what they did with Captain Phasma.

Phasma was such a wasted character. What about Bo Katan? She has feminine armor that isn't form fitting.

PenitentJake wrote:
I think a part of the reason I feel this way is that I'm not good at telling the difference between male and female faces. I've known so many square jawed women and elfish men with cheekbones that I'm not sure I believe there's such a thing as a male face and a female face. And even if there is, I'm certainly not a good enough painter that the difference is going to shine through once I've done the deed.

Respectfully: does it matter? Is there a reason you need to be able to instantly tell from six feet away that a model is meant to represent a woman?

Inclusivity is representing historically marginalized groups as equals, not as something 'exotic' that needs to be specially called out. The new Astra Militarum models show how to do it right; under all that armor it's hard to tell the gender or ethnicity of a trooper but that's fine because it doesn't matter. They don't need to call attention to the presence of women and minorities in the Guard. They're an established part of the lore and they're there if you look for them. They simply exist.

Boobplate is a perfect example of why I think this focus on representation is misplaced, or at least incomplete. Representation is only one small part of inclusivity, and it matters a lot how you choose to represent someone. When marginalized groups are depicted as token characters, 'positive stereotypes', or eye candy with exaggerated sexual characteristics, it can be more off-putting than not being represented at all. It's being called out as different, and in a manner that many people find uncomfortable.

I'm not saying sexualization is inherently bad or always inappropriate, just that sexualized character design is not necessary to representation and can be outright counterproductive. Anecdotally I see more women playing as the genderless alien bugs or equal-opportunity murder twinks than the latex fetish nuns, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

One thing to keep in mind is that 40k, at least in the Imperium, is that what we consider practical by today's standard is not something that they necessarily consider practical. We're talking about a culture that burns incense because it makes their machines work better; a culture that builds cathedral ships; a culture that still burns candles for light, not just on planets but even in their space craft.

If they found an STC that printed boob plated flak armor by the millions, they would absolutely chuck it onto the Cadians, Catachans, etc., and tell them they were lucky to have it.

 catbarf wrote:
Anecdotally I see more women playing as the genderless alien bugs or equal-opportunity murder twinks than the latex fetish nuns, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

Guilty as charged. I have both, and they were in fact my first and second army. Still, it's not everyone's cup of tea to play religious fanatics, torture elves, or space bugs who narratively lose every major engagement. Especially as GW seems to get stingier and stingier with updates and releases unless it's your turn to be the edition's xenos punching bag.

 catbarf wrote:

Respectfully: does it matter? Is there a reason you need to be able to instantly tell from six feet away that a model is meant to represent a woman?

Inclusivity is representing historically marginalized groups as equals, not as something 'exotic' that needs to be specially called out. The new Astra Militarum models show how to do it right; under all that armor it's hard to tell the gender or ethnicity of a trooper but that's fine because it doesn't matter. They don't need to call attention to the presence of women and minorities in the Guard. They're an established part of the lore and they're there if you look for them. They simply exist.

Boobplate is a perfect example of why I think this focus on representation is misplaced, or at least incomplete. Representation is only one small part of inclusivity, and it matters a lot how you choose to represent someone. When marginalized groups are depicted as token characters, 'positive stereotypes', or eye candy with exaggerated sexual characteristics, it can be more off-putting than not being represented at all. It's being called out as different, and in a manner that many people find uncomfortable.

I'm not saying sexualization is inherently bad or always inappropriate, just that sexualized character design is not necessary to representation and can be outright counterproductive. Anecdotally I see more women playing as the genderless alien bugs or equal-opportunity murder twinks than the latex fetish nuns, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

i think i'm going to disagree and will try to come up with a well thought out counter augment. currently, lots of media, like games and cartoon are trying to desexualize women like as if attractive women don't exist. for example, people are comparing steller blade to ummm... lets say star wars outlaws main protagonist. warhammer 40000 is one of the few IP where ugly women actually fits the lore because its is a grim future where life is hard, and cheap, and beauty is a luxury not many can can afford during constant war. but beauty has its place in warhammer too. while it makes sense for the guard, don't take that away from the eldar or the sisters. lets not pretend that attractive women only exist to shame people, or do we really live in an age where its shameful to be attractive?

besides, "rule of cool" and "sex sells" is not inherently bad, so lets not pretend it is. never mind, i can just 3D print my models

Does the model's gender affect the dice roll on the tabletop? If not, then what difference does it make what gender the model is?


I personally think Games Workshop should go all out, cut out the half measures, and just make every single model in the game female. Even the vehicles.

 Just Tony wrote:
Does the model's gender affect the dice roll on the tabletop? If not, then what difference does it make what gender the model is?


I personally think Games Workshop should go all out, cut out the half measures, and just make every single model in the game female. Even the vehicles.

oh hey why stop there, lets use coins instead of models because we don't care what our units look like

i dont know about you, but as an artist, i grow an emotional attachment to my art and how they look is important

still doesn't matter for the game
if one wants to use coins for gaming that is perfectly fine

models, games and background is not really connected in 40k anyway

On the sculpts.

If we look at the original Escher models today, it’s clear they’re sculpted for the male gaze. Bare midriffs aplenty, fairly busty.

But, and I accept this might seem tenuous to some? For their era they’re not massively sexualised. They’re not kicking about in leather bras and dental floss thongs. They’re done in action poses, not cheesecake “oooh, I’ve dropped me pencil” poses. And whilst not exactly muscly, the limbs suggest athleticism, not skinny and scrawny.

Their modern day sculpts haven’t changed the overall aesthetic that much. But it does seem the arms in particular have more detailed musculature. Not to a ridiculous degree, we’re not looking at Chyna-a-likes. But more reminiscent again of athletes than pin-ups in terms of what’s been exaggerated due to the scale.

With the hair in particular, they draw on punk aesthetics. And yes, room for improvement as always, but they’re perhaps quite restrained, compared to what contemporaries were putting out.

Same with Sisters of Battle, outside of the original Repentia, who most definitely had fetish overtones, and not subtle ones at that. But the new Repentia have, at the very least, not confused “unarmoured” with “all nude apart from strategic paper”. And the togs they’re wearing are gym clothes.

Now I’m not gonna argue “therefore it am fine”. Nor am I here to tell anyone what they should find acceptable. But in the grand scheme of things? I’d hope most would acknowledge whilst flawed, they’re at least a good deal more restrained than their contemporaries, and so a better place to be working from.

The Witch Elves though lag behind their 40K equivalent of Wyches, who are pretty well clothed these days. Light weight armour, but not bikini light weight. Yes the in-universe explanation is to “tempt the blade” and show their confidence. But…blimey.

PenitentJake wrote:
Thanks Tyran- I knew someone would come in and fill the gaps in my knowledge- I have experience with Bogu (Kendo armour), and more limited experience with chainmail, but my knowledge of historical plate is very limited. Kendo and Racquetball are the only sports I enjoy participating in, so I'm not even familiar with the equipment for football or even hockey.

Your point about the expense of form fitting is a good one too.

And I can certainly get behind Manfred on this too- the Stormcast femmes and Phasma are both better examples of practical armour for women than sisters. I think my issue is just that I want some differentiation between male and female members of a given unit beyond heads. Bulky and non-form fitting is fine, just distinct.

I think a part of the reason I feel this way is that I'm not good at telling the difference between male and female faces. I've known so many square jawed women and elfish men with cheekbones that I'm not sure I believe there's such a thing as a male face and a female face. And even if there is, I'm certainly not a good enough painter that the difference is going to shine through once I've done the deed.

Further to what Tyran said, humans need to breathe, which requires that the chest rise and fall (especially when working hard such as in combat). If the armour is a single rigid plate, it needs to be raised off the chest to allow this, or be smaller to avoid overlapping onto areas that do not move with the chest. Using smaller plates either creates more weakpoints, or weighs more for the same coverage due to the overlap of plates to ensure gaps are covered. People still did this with brigandines if they couldn't afford full plate though. Flexible armour like mail avoids this problem.

The space definitely adds defensive benefit though, it really is extra free padding and the impact gets spread over a much broader area than if the metal is against skin. If a strong impact is prevented from penetrating by mail, it still tends to leave a nasty bruise at the impact site. A raised breast plate leaves essentially no injury at all for non-penetrating impacts because the force is dissipated across the shoulders, sides, and waist.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Same with Sisters of Battle, outside of the original Repentia, who most definitely had fetish overtones, and not subtle ones at that.

Somewhere along the line, if Karl Kopinskis work is anything to go by, the repentia were closer to their male arco-flagellant counterparts.

The 52mm Damien 1427 in particular walked right out of that iconic 'great ecclesiarchy' picture while the repentia had to cover up. ModestyBondage rather than body horror, same with the old metal penitent pilots.

On the sculpts.

If we look at the original Escher models today, it’s clear they’re sculpted for the male gaze. Bare midriffs aplenty, fairly busty.

male and FEMALE gaze because humans like good looking humans as study after study has shown, hell go outside of the western world for a few seconds and you will see that people refuse to watch movies if the leads are ugly and there is nothing wrong with it either as cultures are different, its only the modern Californian mindset that has spread around the world that things beauty is bad which is also fine if those people believe that so long as they do not try to impose those beliefs on others..... which they do.... constantly.

Another draw of the Escher gang is the bright colours and different patterns, then there is their lore, massively misandrist and female supremacist to the point they beleive the Emperor is a woman because its impossible useless men could do anything of value, to use the parlance of "your side" this is deeply problematic and yet I have never seen a single call for Escher to have their lore changed to be more inclusive and tone down the bigotry.

Also male Escher when ?

Also add to that Escher males have near universal clinical retardation with the rare few that do not being highly prized by the matriarchs and used as trophies and paraded around as such, also a tad problematic no?

then we have the slavery, drug use, horrific abuse of people they capture and this is just one gang.

lets look at the Goliaths, clearly made with the female gaze in mind, bulging muscles, midrifs showing, highly masculine and aggressive.... hold on, its like Escher and Goliaths were made in concert to mirror each other aesthetically.... kind of like Sisters and Space marines

 Formosa wrote:

On the sculpts.

If we look at the original Escher models today, it’s clear they’re sculpted for the male gaze. Bare midriffs aplenty, fairly busty.

male and FEMALE gaze

"male gaze" is an established term with half a century of use and scholarship. it has a very specific meaning. "female gaze" does not exist because we do not live in a matriarchal society that would enforce this matriarchy onto the world, but we do live in a patriarchal one, as much as some people loath to hear it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze

Sorry but it ain't the 1950s anymore . And attraction allways went two ways, that is how any species works that has sexual dimorphism.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


I disagree that GW was gaslighting. They have always said the new fluff overwrites the old fluff, and telling people there have always been female Custodes is telling them the new fluff, not trying to make them think that was always the fluff.

GW : "There has always been Kratos/Rogal Dorn tanks in the lore" Community : "I sleep"
GW : "There has always been female custored in the lore" Community : "Real gak"

It's all so tiresome

 Formosa wrote:

lets look at the Goliaths, clearly made with the female gaze in mind, bulging muscles, midrifs showing, highly masculine and aggressive....

Err...
I'm pretty sure these fellas were not crafted with an aesthetic attractive to women:

There is a gang with a bit of conversion that highlights what I mean.

hold on, its like Escher and Goliaths were made in concert to mirror each other aesthetically.... kind of like Sisters and Space marines

The primary difference is that Goliaths and Eschers have equal prominence in the marketing of Necromunda. They literally shared the initial boxset of the revamp. This is not the case for marines and sisters.

Like I said before, some female characters being "sexy" or even "sexualised" is not inherently a problem. If you have a lot of different kind of female representation then those are just one colour on the palette. But if that is all or most of the representations, then it is a problem.

Also, I think for balance, there should be similar depictions of men. I want male death cult assassins in high heels, corsets and skull codpieces!

 Crimson wrote:
Like I said before, some female characters being "sexy" or even "sexualised" is not inherently a problem. If you have a lot of different kind of female representation then those are just one colour on the palette. But if that is all or most of the representations, then it is a problem.

Also, I think for balance, there should be similar depictions of men. I want male death cult assassins in high heels, corsets and skull codpieces!

You joke, but I actually want codpieces. That's something you don't see often in modern fantasy designs, even though it was a really common feature on what inspired said designs.

High heels used to be worn by men too, as it was used by horse riders to keep their boots in the stirrups. So really Rough Riders should have something like that, especially if they are Persian themed as it started with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

lets look at the Goliaths, clearly made with the female gaze in mind, bulging muscles, midrifs showing, highly masculine and aggressive....

Err...
I'm pretty sure these fellas were not crafted to be attractive to women:

Yeah, I don't think they were designed with Arnie's Conan the Barbarian or Calvin Klein in mind. They are more like a grotesque parody of the macho-male physique, like something from a Rob Liefield comic. Just give them more belts and smaller feet and you're good to go.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

You joke, but I actually want codpieces. That's something you don't see often in modern fantasy designs, even though it was a really common feature on what inspired said designs.

I didn't joke, I think the thing I described would fit well in 40K's over-the-top aesthetic.

 Crimson wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

You joke, but I actually want codpieces. That's something you don't see often in modern fantasy designs, even though it was a really common feature on what inspired said designs.

I didn't joke, I think the thing I described would fit well in 40K's over-the-top aesthetic.

Oh, well I guess we can agree on that then

 Crimson wrote:
Also, I think for balance, there should be similar depictions of men. I want male death cult assassins in high heels, corsets and skull codpieces!

Fond of Blanches' work then?

The male penitent figures in the sisters of battle army are/were nude save for loincloths and masks while the female penitents were clothed. The male assassins all wear the same skin tight catsuit though, you'll need to pick up something like Azrakh if you want a skull codpiece.

A.T. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Also, I think for balance, there should be similar depictions of men. I want male death cult assassins in high heels, corsets and skull codpieces!

Fond of Blanches' work then?

Obviously.

There has never been a model in 40k made for the purpose of "Attracting female sexual interest". Anyone who argues otherwise is being at best severely deluded, and at worst, purposefully misogynistic in nature.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There has never been a model in 40k made for the purpose of "Attracting female sexual interest". Anyone who argues otherwise is being at best severely deluded, and at worst, purposefully misogynistic in nature.

Probably the same people who try to argue that angry, murderous Kratos was fanservice for women, rather than a power fantasy for men.

Hey, I'm sure at least some lesbians and bi women can appreciate some of the 40k female models.

Not a lot for straight women though.

 Tyran wrote:
Hey, I'm sure at least some lesbians and bi women can appreciate some of the 40k female models.

Not a lot for straight women though.

granted, i'm asexual, and it's going to come down to taste, but nothing really stands out in my eye

if they ever make a female custodian character model, i expect that to be quite popular, tho. appeal to the butch market (40k is, unfortunately, not much of a settingfor femmes, tho)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
granted, i'm asexual, and it's going to come down to taste, but nothing really stands out in my eye

if they ever make a female custodian character model, i expect that to be quite popular, tho. appeal to the butch market (40k is, unfortunately, not much of a settingfor femmes, tho)

Eye of the beholder I suppose. The new escher are a few tattoos away from hitting every box on one of my friends lists.

Wouldn't female custodes models be the male custodes models with optional bare head swaps? Unlike the stormcast they have no sculpted pecs to set apart the male figures, nor any reason to be smaller or slighter of frame.

shadowsfm wrote:currently, lots of media, like games and cartoon are trying to desexualize women like as if attractive women don't exist. for example, people are comparing steller blade to ummm... lets say star wars outlaws main protagonist. warhammer 40000 is one of the few IP where ugly women actually fits the lore because its is a grim future where life is hard, and cheap, and beauty is a luxury not many can can afford during constant war. but beauty has its place in warhammer too. while it makes sense for the guard, don't take that away from the eldar or the sisters. lets not pretend that attractive women only exist to shame people, or do we really live in an age where its shameful to be attractive?

Formosa wrote:male and FEMALE gaze because humans like good looking humans as study after study has shown

(...)

lets look at the Goliaths, clearly made with the female gaze in mind, bulging muscles, midrifs showing, highly masculine and aggressive.... hold on, its like Escher and Goliaths were made in concert to mirror each other aesthetically.... kind of like Sisters and Space marines

The thing is, Space Marines aren't designed to look good to women. They're designed to look good to (cishet) men. If you ask your average straight woman to design an attractive male figure, they're going to draw something closer to Magic Mike than Marneus Calgar. The roid-rage walking refrigerator look is a masculine power fantasy with stylistic echoes of medieval knights. They're all about looking cool while beating everyone up.

Sisters with their skin-tight wasp-waist corsets, bob cuts, and combat high heels, in comparison, are much more heavily sexualized. Again, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but this idea that Sisters are a mirror to Marines is wrong. They're both designed to appeal to men, one being a masculine power fantasy and the other being a masculine sexual fantasy. This is what 'male gaze' describes, where in theory you have equal representation but in practice both forms of representation cater to men. See also: Batman and Catwoman. See also: The Hawkeye Initiative.

Also, if you think those original pig-faced Goliath sculpts are what women find attractive, I suggest you talk to some actual women. Frankly, you might be surprised at how unimportant being 'highly masculine and aggressive' is. Especially the latter.

Now, if anyone's actually demanding that attractive women be excised entirely, that's a gross overreaction. I've never seen anyone complain about, say, the cover of Cadian Honour, which depicts a conventionally attractive woman who isn't wearing a stripper outfit, dolled up with lipstick, or striking a Black Widow pose. You can just depict attractive characters as characters without also turning them into sex objects as the default.

 Crimson wrote:
Like I said before, some female characters being "sexy" or even "sexualised" is not inherently a problem. If you have a lot of different kind of female representation then those are just one colour on the palette. But if that is all or most of the representations, then it is a problem.

Also, I think for balance, there should be similar depictions of men. I want male death cult assassins in high heels, corsets and skull codpieces!

Crimson gets it. Sexy does not equal bad. Strong men + sexy women just means another game designed exclusively for straight men. If you want to be inclusive, mix things up.

A.T. wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
granted, i'm asexual, and it's going to come down to taste, but nothing really stands out in my eye

if they ever make a female custodian character model, i expect that to be quite popular, tho. appeal to the butch market (40k is, unfortunately, not much of a settingfor femmes, tho)

Eye of the beholder I suppose. The new escher are a few tattoos away from hitting every box on one of my friends lists.

Wouldn't female custodes models be the male custodes models with optional bare head swaps? Unlike the stormcast they have no sculpted pecs to set apart the male figures, nor any reason to be smaller or slighter of frame.

well, if there's anything in warhammer that comes close to my strike zone, it'd be escher, yeah (or drukhari wyches, assuming they ever get better sculpts)

also, re:female custodians, existing custodian models (bulky armor and all) but as a woman instead would definitely appeal to a lot of lesbians. that's sort of the butch ideal

The most popular male character among women in recent video games is a twink elf vampire.

A.T. wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
granted, i'm asexual, and it's going to come down to taste, but nothing really stands out in my eye

if they ever make a female custodian character model, i expect that to be quite popular, tho. appeal to the butch market (40k is, unfortunately, not much of a settingfor femmes, tho)

Eye of the beholder I suppose. The new escher are a few tattoos away from hitting every box on one of my friends lists.

Wouldn't female custodes models be the male custodes models with optional bare head swaps? Unlike the stormcast they have no sculpted pecs to set apart the male figures, nor any reason to be smaller or slighter of frame.

This is pretty much what I'm going to do, even though I loathe painting bare heads.