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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Glasdir wrote:
GW sexualise men, after all I don't see any overweight/underweight men featured in their games just those bristling with muscle.

That is power fantasy. It's an entirely different type of sexualisation.

It's also possible that many people need obvious and exaggerated indications to indicate that something could be anything else than a man, but that is still bad!

How is that bad?

People like to know things at a glance. Unless you simply want gender neutral models, which will ultimately look like men anyway.

So when women buy calendars of sexy firemen (who... have lots of muscle) they are dreaming of a power fantasy? Which is different to when men by calendars of sexy life guards with large breasts? Not really, its all based upon the sexual stuff. Only difference is men with large boobs arent desired. If they are desired, then you will see this reflected in how men are drawn.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Glasdir wrote:
GW sexualise men, after all I don't see any overweight/underweight men featured in their games just those bristling with muscle.

That is power fantasy. It's an entirely different type of sexualisation.

It's also possible that many people need obvious and exaggerated indications to indicate that something could be anything else than a man, but that is still bad! Why should male be the default gender to be assumed unless otherwise clearly stated?

because men don't usually have obvious defining features unless they have a beard or are nude, women however do have defining features ie breasts, body shape etc so
no features = man
breasts, hourglass figure = woman
it's no-ones fault people are the way they are, we just evolved to be that way. maybe men should evolve to have more obvious defining features in order to solve this problem (pointed ears/ enlarged foreheads would be neat).

 Ashiraya wrote:
Sanguinary Guard is the only exception I know of, otherwise there's not really much in the way of sexualised male models.

Catachans. Eldar aspect armor also emphasizes the gender of the wearer as well.

http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/fantasy/pages/warhammer-40000-eldar.shtml

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Or why not look at it from this perspective:

It has no visible dickplate, therefore it would look like a woman and would be assumed to be a woman.

The dickplate is not sexual after all. It's just so you can tell it's a man. After all the other gender differences are not visible at that scale, right?

Thats would be true, except people dont look for penis armour when identifying men, they look for short hair, suits and pants etc along with a certain body shape.
When looking at women its usually a certain body shape, boobs, long or tied up hair (on woman style) and so on.

Both genders are generalized in cartoons for easy and accurate portrayal of a character. That way a female character isnt mistaken as a male, especially if the gender is part of the skit, story or comic etc.

Pretty obvious I think...

But why? Gender has a lot more to do that body shapes and genitalia. Why should it require exaggerated female anatomy? I'm pretty sure if you give the character female pronouns and more feminine proportions, people will be able to tell that they're female. A lot of my skitarii are female; hell, one of my magi is a woman and she resembles a hovering pile of inhumanoid machinery!

(Also, there are more than two genders, by the by)

The reason say, Kabalites look like they do, is because they've taken male arms and legs and just slapped boobs onto it. Same with guardians. It's because it is easier for GW.

It's entirely possible to do it properly instead. The body has countless gender differences aside from the breasts, and contrary to popular belief, it is NOT impossible to represent this on a 28mm scale.

Allow me to bring in an excellent example.



See how she looks female even though her breastplate features zero hints of visible breasts?

You don't need the HD detail of a video game to show it either. There's waist-hip ratio, leg length vs body height, leg thickness vs arm thickness...

Boobplate is an ugly and lazy excuse that is also bad from a design standpoint.

She looks female because of her sexually enhanced lips...

Her hair is the most obvious give away.

Those are the first things I look at when seeing a female character (if they for some reason have no boobs).

The hair looks quite androgynous, I'd say. I have seen plenty of men with it.

The lips? Really?

 Swastakowey wrote:


Those are the first things I look at when seeing a female character (if they for some reason have no boobs).

And, of course, you are not representative of anything at all. If you only see the breasts does not mean it's the same for anyone else.

If she had a helmet on she would be very hard to differentiate from a man. Samus is a good example of that, no one knew it was a woman under all that power armor until years after her creation.

There are ways to differentiate a man and a woman in full-body armor, like flared out waists, but what's the difference between boob-plate and an hour-glass shaped body armor? They're both exaggerations of the female form.

Why does heavy armour need to be sexualised at all? The point of heavy armour is to protect you with a lot of plating, and a lot of plating tends to hide the breasts very well.

Shadowsun is a great example of this.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why does heavy armour need to be sexualised at all? The point of heavy armour is to protect you with a lot of plating, and a lot of plating tends to hide the breasts very well.

Shadowsun is a great example of this.

...

So that you can tell what the gender is underneath. That's.... that's what the discussion over the last page and a half has been about, yes?

nudibranch wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Or why not look at it from this perspective:

It has no visible dickplate, therefore it would look like a woman and would be assumed to be a woman.

The dickplate is not sexual after all. It's just so you can tell it's a man. After all the other gender differences are not visible at that scale, right?

Thats would be true, except people dont look for penis armour when identifying men, they look for short hair, suits and pants etc along with a certain body shape.
When looking at women its usually a certain body shape, boobs, long or tied up hair (on woman style) and so on.

Both genders are generalized in cartoons for easy and accurate portrayal of a character. That way a female character isnt mistaken as a male, especially if the gender is part of the skit, story or comic etc.

Pretty obvious I think...

But why? Gender has a lot more to do that body shapes and genitalia. Why should it require exaggerated female anatomy? I'm pretty sure if you give the character female pronouns and more feminine proportions, people will be able to tell that they're female. A lot of my skitarii are female; hell, one of my magi is a woman and she resembles a hovering pile of inhumanoid machinery!

(Also, there are more than two genders, by the by)

Think about what you said mate...

In a model (you know, the stationary, unmoving object with no context) there is no character beyond what you put on that model. What does that mean? It means boobs = female, no boobs = male (or other easy identifiers, such as hair or clothing). Cartoons show their story through pictures and so on, no via text. You thinking a model is a female is not their character or a part of the model/picture. Cartoons and models shouldn't rely on extra context. You would fail and model making or cartooning because of this. No point drawing a picture then writing "this is a female, she likes ice cream and cake". In a cartoon these things need to be shown on the character or shown as part of the character.

I am talking about male and female genders, I care not for the rest. They are irrelevant for descussion and will end up looking like a male or female when portrayed in a cartoon.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The reason say, Kabalites look like they do, is because they've taken male arms and legs and just slapped boobs onto it. Same with guardians. It's because it is easier for GW.

It's entirely possible to do it properly instead. The body has countless gender differences aside from the breasts, and contrary to popular belief, it is NOT impossible to represent this on a 28mm scale.

Allow me to bring in an excellent example.

Spoiler:

See how she looks female even though her breastplate features zero hints of visible breasts?

You don't need the HD detail of a video game to show it either. There's waist-hip ratio, leg length vs body height, leg thickness vs arm thickness...

Boobplate is an ugly and lazy excuse that is also bad from a design standpoint.

yeah if you take time to look it is obvious (when you are playing a game you should be able to tell from a glance or at distance what the gender is as a glance is usually all you will get, hence the 'boobplate'). In pic one there is some very obvious 'boobplate' and in the 2nd to last image she could easily be mistaken for a he, the only way you can tell the difference is that your character's armor is clearly more feminine than the nearby male characters. many people mistake the character samus for male as her armor has no obvious female features, going back to my explanation
no features=male
breasts,female figure=female.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why does heavy armour need to be sexualised at all? The point of heavy armour is to protect you with a lot of plating, and a lot of plating tends to hide the breasts very well.

Shadowsun is a great example of this.

...

So that you can tell what the gender is underneath. That's.... that's what the discussion over the last page and a half has been about, yes?

Why do you have to?

Men don't have to make some kind of statement either.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Shadowsun is a great example of this.

female tau are not shown to have breasts, plus stealth suits are hugely bulky which would conceal gender very well.

 Glasdir wrote:
you should be able to tell from a glance or at distance what the gender is as a glance is usually all you will get

Why? Heavy armour doesn't do that.

 Glasdir wrote:
In pic one there is some very obvious 'boobplate'

No. That is an additional armour plate. It is not boob-shaped. It is a functional, ablative slab of armour.

many people mistake the character samus for male as her armor has no obvious female features

I expected many to assign the very thin waist with women, but then, women in that role is so rare so nobody even entertained the possibility.

no features=male
breasts,female figure=female.

Male features/male shape: Male
No features (such as when in heavy armour): Unknown
Female features/female shape: female

Is there something problematic with the above? It's the realistic and plausible case, as has been argued.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glasdir wrote:

female tau are not shown to have breasts, plus stealth suits are hugely bulky which would conceal gender very well.

She is a perfect example showing that you do not need to exaggerate sexual characteristics on women's armour. There is no need other than eyecandy, and it comes at the cost of plausible functionality.

Google cartoon man. Every picture is an example of a statement that they are male.

As said earlier, all cartoons exaggerate everything so they are obvious to the viewer at a glance.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Google cartoon man. Every picture is an example of a statement that they are male.

As said earlier, all cartoons exaggerate everything so they are obvious to the viewer at a glance.

I denounce this as unnecessary. I also argue that any value of such instant identification is lesser than the value of proper and plausible design.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why do you have to?

I don't, but if I want to have an army of badass super-women, I want that to be easily (visually) identifiable.

To turn that question around, why should't I be able to have that? Do you have a reason for condemning gender-identifiable models beyond pure preference? An appeal to reality doesn't work here- 40K is a fantasy universe. It's not science-fiction, so much of the universe is implausible that it's explicitly fantasy.

Men don't have to make some kind of statement either.

Don't follow you. What do you mean here?

 Glasdir wrote:
many people mistake the character samus for male as her armor has no obvious female features

And I'd argue that's a problem with the viewer, not the armour design...

 Ashiraya wrote:
That isn't He'stan, that's just Vulkan.

He'stan is a Space Marine.

I am also not sure if Vulkan counts, given that I do not know a lot of people who are pitch black IRL.

Well, it depends. Some people definitely do have a near coal-black complexion. But FW in particular seems to push a bit more to them looking like freaking Drow, with ash black/grey skin. Which I'm pretty sure is not physically possible for any normal human to have.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Glasdir wrote:
you should be able to tell from a glance or at distance what the gender is as a glance is usually all you will get

Why? Heavy armour doesn't do that.

 Glasdir wrote:
In pic one there is some very obvious 'boobplate'

No. That is an additional armour plate. It is not boob-shaped. It is a functional, ablative slab of armour.

1. my point was that the 'boobplate' helps you identify gender of a mini from a quick glance or from a distance because you don't tend to pick up minis in the middle of a game.
2. yeah, it is 'boobplate', while it is not in the shape of breasts it accentuates them plus I noticed that male characters in the same images seem to lack the same plate where their chest is.

If you want an army of badass super-men, don't you want that to be easily identifiable?

I have 5500ish points of Chaos Space Marines. They all have helmets. They wear so much armour so any or all of them could be women. I have never seen this be mentioned as a problem, by anyone.

In fact, the best way to make them look more feminine would be to make the hips wider. Boobplate is grating and over the top, and comes at the cost of plausibility. We should not need to cater to people who won't bother to look properly if they want to identify the gender of a heavily armoured character.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
An appeal to reality doesn't work considering 40K is an inherently unrealistic universe.

Plausible, not realistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glasdir wrote:

1. my point was that the 'boobplate' helps you identify gender of a mini from a quick glance or from a distance because you don't tend to pick up minis in the middle of a game.

Why is this necessary?

2. yeah, it is 'boobplate', while it is not in the shape of breasts it accentuates them plus I noticed that male characters in the same images seem to lack the same plate where their chest is.

They wear different armour sets, that is why. The exact same armour is available to a male player character, in which case that large ablative plate is also present.

Also, it definitely has to do with location of the founding members of GW. From what I've heard about the UK- it for the most part is filled with Saxons and Normans, and a small population of various African and Indian ethnicities. However as a Californian, it is INCREDIBLY weird for there not to be widespread diversity in something, as in my State whites are no longer a majority. I'd dare say we're probably the future of American demographics (and in a good way), because just walking down the street here you can see practically every ethnicity on the bloody planet.

Plus given our Yankee history... we're a bit more sensitive to issues of diversity, same with South Africa. It's a fresh wound that still smarts decades after the fact. We notice such oddities to a greater degree than most Brits or other Northern Europeans probably would.

 Ashiraya wrote:
If you want an army of badass super-men, don't you want that to be easily identifiable?

Yes, and they are. I can always distinguish my male soldier minis from my female ones.

In fact, the best way to make them look more feminine would be to make the hips wider. Boobplate is grating and over the top, and comes at the cost of plausibility.

Why is flared out hips more appropriate than boobplate? It has many real-life impracticalities as well, which is why body-armor in real life does not incorporate exaggerated hip-ratios.

Plausible, not realistic.

Most of 40K is neither realistic nor plausible.

 Ashiraya wrote:
If you want an army of badass super-men, don't you want that to be easily identifiable?

I have 5500ish points of Chaos Space Marines. They all have helmets. They wear so much armour so any or all of them could be women. I have never seen this be mentioned as a problem, by anyone.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
An appeal to reality doesn't work considering 40K is an inherently unrealistic universe.

Plausible, not realistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glasdir wrote:

1. my point was that the 'boobplate' helps you identify gender of a mini from a quick glance or from a distance because you don't tend to pick up minis in the middle of a game.

Why is this necessary?

2. yeah, it is 'boobplate', while it is not in the shape of breasts it accentuates them plus I noticed that male characters in the same images seem to lack the same plate where their chest is.

They wear different armour sets, that is why. The exact same armour is available to a male player character, in which case that large ablative plate is also present.

1. I would make them identifiable as me by not putting 'boobplates' on them.
2. space marines cannot be female due to the gene seed only reacting to male hormones
4.it's not, but if you want your mini to be easily identified as female (by others not just yourself) they need to have a defining feature
5. it's more masculine than the female version though. the male version is clearly male as it is broader, the female version is clearly female as it accentuates the breasts

I can't be the only one who would love GW to retcon the 'no female space marines' fluff...

this discussion has plateaued and is starting to circle, I'm going to bed, night all.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, and they are. I can always distinguish my male soldier minis from my female ones.

Because GW has not put breasts on the male ones, yep. Always that 'unless very expressly stated as female, assume male with no questions asked' mindset. Why?

Why is flared out hips more appropriate than boobplate? It has many real-life impracticalities as well, which is why body-armor in real life does not incorporate exaggerated hip-ratios.

Modern soldiers don't use plate armour, either. Point taken though. The best way to show femininity is to not do it at all, because it's heavy armour! It's not supposed to look gendered!

Most of 40K is neither realistic nor plausible. It's part of the fluff that the universe is filled with idiots who do things backasswards.

And people still argue that SoB are professional soldiers despite willingly going to war in incredibly idiotic armour designs, perhaps garbed to be eyecandy for the male priests who accompany their squads. I find that implausible.

 Glasdir wrote:

2. space marines cannot be female due to the gene seed only reacting to male hormones

And yet there's plenty of female space marine armies around. Headcanon is a wonderful thing.

4.it's not, but if you want your mini to be easily identified as female (by others not just yourself) they need to have a defining feature

If you want that, they should not be in heavy armour.

5. it's more masculine than the female version though. the male version is clearly male as it is broader, the female version is clearly female as it accentuates the breasts

Bad angle. From the same angle, the female version simply is more narrow.

I'd also like to point out that in any decent armor that actually protects you and doesn't have shot traps, it should take you more than a second to tell if it's actually a woman. As 40K borrows heavily from Medieval history, for ease of movement and more comfort in armor, when women did don maille or plate, they'd want to bind their breasts to prevent chaffing. If you were a French Infantryman during the end of the Hundred Years War, you wouldn't even know the commander was a girl until she took off her helmet.

I would consider getting a Sisters army, but only if they removed the stupid boobplate. It doesn't look cool or sexy. All I see are two shot traps directing munitions into the face and sternum of the wearer.

 Ashiraya wrote:
If you want an army of badass super-men, don't you want that to be easily identifiable?

I have 5500ish points of Chaos Space Marines. They all have helmets. They wear so much armour so any or all of them could be women. I have never seen this be mentioned as a problem, by anyone.

In fact, the best way to make them look more feminine would be to make the hips wider. Boobplate is grating and over the top, and comes at the cost of plausibility. We should not need to cater to people who won't bother to look properly if they want to identify the gender of a heavily armoured character.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
An appeal to reality doesn't work considering 40K is an inherently unrealistic universe.

Plausible, not realistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glasdir wrote:

1. my point was that the 'boobplate' helps you identify gender of a mini from a quick glance or from a distance because you don't tend to pick up minis in the middle of a game.

Why is this necessary?

2. yeah, it is 'boobplate', while it is not in the shape of breasts it accentuates them plus I noticed that male characters in the same images seem to lack the same plate where their chest is.

They wear different armour sets, that is why. The exact same armour is available to a male player character, in which case that large ablative plate is also present.

You seem to arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

Boob plate exist in many settings so that you can instantly identify a character as a woman, no other reason, no demeaning quality, no hidden messages.

In a video game you can make a character model that accurately represents a human being. In a 28mm miniatures game you need to accentuate things in order to portray things about them. If you want to run a space marine army in full armor as sisters of battle no one is stopping you and if you explain your reason why most people aren't going to care. You can not just make a heroic scale model with slightly wider hips and other small changes to make them look female because the male models in this game STILL don't look like human beings, so changing slight things about their physique wouldn't make them look any more feminine. All it is going to do is make them look like slightly different guys in power armor. Boob plate is used on SoB because in your perfect view of things they would just look exactly like Space Marines with different icons, which I would be fine with but it wouldn't change anything.

A video game is not a table top game and there is a reason that female units in table top games look the way they do, so that someone standing around the table can easily identify them. Does it need to be this way? No, but that is the design decision many companies have made to make their female characters stand out from the male characters. It is why named characters often have over the top weapons or icons on them, so you can tell who they are from a distance.