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.

I still don't get this.

The boobs would get in the way...so most soldiers would really tight clothing, and the armor would cover the rest. So, that takes care of the torso.

Then, the hair, long hair would be banned because of enemies grabbing it. So, no long hair, wear helmets.

Hell, even in the movie Iron Man he couldn't tell the woman was a woman because of how military standards work with armor and helmets.

Bottom line, if you want to call them women call them women...unless you have mad painting skills and can get the very feminine detail into the face.

Don't try to hide your trolling behind the wrong assumption, that 40k is about a realistic representation of current warfare.

Kroothawk wrote:Don't try to hide your trolling behind the wrong assumption, that 40k is about a realistic representation of current warfare.

Don't be an jerk...I have a valid point here and you know it.

GW should just add a sprue to the Cadian Shock Troops box with 5 female heads(some with and without helmets) and 5 female torsos(with very subtle changes from the normal)

J0kerr wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Don't try to hide your trolling behind the wrong assumption, that 40k is about a realistic representation of current warfare.

Don't be an jerk...I have a valid point here and you know it.

Not when 40k is already an absurdly unrealistic setting. It's easy to show the differences between men and women at that scale, even in armor. Plenty of companies have done it. And that's without the super-exaggerated GW aesthetic. The problem IG kits seem to have is doing it well, cohesively, and tastefully, and profitably. And no one can agree on how to do that.

Grey Templar wrote:GW should just add a sprue to the Cadian Shock Troops box with 5 female heads(some with and without helmets) and 5 female torsos(with very subtle changes from the normal)

That would be pretty sweet! I mean from your opinion how much money would that cost GW to do? I think that would actually increase profits for them

Grey Templar wrote:GW should just add a sprue to the Cadian Shock Troops box with 5 female heads(some with and without helmets) and 5 female torsos(with very subtle changes from the normal)

That could work. Hell, even as an add-on pack like they've done with black templars and dark angels. Add in maybe some special weapons, exclusive iconography, etc, and I bet they'd sell like hotcakes.

It wouldn't take much effort for their sculpters and they most certaintly would make money.

the main issue is, GW can't sculpt female figures.

the ONLY decent female figures they have ever made are the Brett Damsels.

Something I've found on the webs a while ago. Looks pretty fitting for 40k, too.

If only, GW ... if only.

I've seen a Catachan female Veteran in the IG army made by Heroes of Armageddon. Right there, on the right, the one with the flamer.

"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"

Sorry, had to. It's an awesome miniature and fits in perfectly with her squad.

Woah, nice. Yeah, that catachan's a really nice conversion of the original. Very Vasquez.

Lynata, do you know where the tank commander's from? Like, what company? Looks vaguely familiar.

Belexar wrote:I've seen a Catachan female Veteran in the IG army made by Heroes of Armageddon. Right there, on the right, the one with the flamer.

That model was available for most of 3rd or 4th edition. Originally had a grenade launcher.

Zefig wrote:Lynata, do you know where the tank commander's from? Like, what company? Looks vaguely familiar.

It's a conversion of this Void 'Knight of the Spirit':

Zefig wrote:Lynata, do you know where the tank commander's from? Like, what company? Looks vaguely familiar.

Sadly, no. I think I pulled that pic from /tg/ years ago as I liked the uniform style and colours, but I do not recall any mention of a company name. :(

Maybe another Dakkanaut can shed light on this? I'd probably get one myself just in case I ever get around to starting up a small IG force as well.

[edit] Insaniak delivered. Well done. Now I wonder where the torso is from, though!

I'm a firm believer, as others have mentioned, that females wearing the same uniform/armor as males (which they should) are not gonna look too much different from males, except in the face and hands.



That is my wife on a previous deployment.

Having said that, Hasslefree make some pretty nice female troopers that I think could work well for IG:











All from their Adventurers range: http://www.hasslefreeminiatures.co.uk/range.php?range_id=33

Jake

Lynata wrote:[edit] Insaniak delivered. Well done. Now I wonder where the torso is from, though!

It's the original model with a coat greenstuffed over the top of the existing detail and some accessories from the IG Tank Commander added onto her belt.

CptJake wrote:I'm a firm believer, as others have mentioned, that females wearing the same uniform/armor as males (which they should) are not gonna look too much different from males, except in the face and hands.

In the real world that's true to a certain extent, although the women still tend to be slightly smaller, and their stance and movement tends to be different.

In the miniatures world, where proportions are exaggerated for specific effect, there is all sorts of difference. In the exaggerated 'sort of 28mm' world GW lives in, male bodies are stretched sideways to make them look more 'heroic'. Just adding a female head onto a male body with that sort of design aesthetic doesn't give you a female in the same gear as a male... it gives you a male with a female head.

Good point. Which is why I like the Hasslefree figures vice anything I could imagine GW putting out. More realistic, in my opinion.

CptJake wrote:I'm a firm believer, as others have mentioned, that females wearing the same uniform/armor as males (which they should)

Actually technically they shouldn't.

Sure, it should also not be boob-cups, but the female body and the male one are different enough that the armor itself needs to be subtly different. I mean how many men have chest/waist/hip ratios of ~43/34/43 or so (roughly average for a woman in the US)? The shoulders of a woman are a smaller distance apart and the hips are wider, even on non-childbearing women-- very few women have man-hips, as it were.

A woman wearing armor designed for men is about 20% more likely to suffer muscle/skeletal injuries due to poorly fitting armor. It's why the US military forces in general are trying to design body armor that fits women better (or even women specifically) without reducing ballistic protection.

Yes, female battle armor does look slightly different than male armor. Maybe they should do official female models, though they wouldn't doffer too much from males, save from the heads and hips, since armor would disimulate breasts. It also depends if we're talking Flak or Caparace.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:I'm a firm believer, as others have mentioned, that females wearing the same uniform/armor as males (which they should)

Actually technically they shouldn't.

Sure, it should also not be boob-cups, but the female body and the male one are different enough that the armor itself needs to be subtly different. I mean how many men have chest/waist/hip ratios of ~43/34/43 or so (roughly average for a woman in the US)? The shoulders of a woman are a smaller distance apart and the hips are wider, even on non-childbearing women-- very few women have man-hips, as it were.

A woman wearing armor designed for men is about 20% more likely to suffer muscle/skeletal injuries due to poorly fitting armor. It's why the US military forces in general are trying to design body armor that fits women better (or even women specifically) without reducing ballistic protection.

I wasn't clear. I meant the same level of protection. As they should. Just as uniforms come in a slew of different sizes right now, some specific for females, they armor needs to do better too.

It may be a bit hard getting Flak Armour onto female Guardsmen (or Guardswomen) because the shape of the armour on the Guardswoman would be different at the breast. But apart from that, yeah, the women of cadia wouldn't just sit around on the hives, especially tomboys or women who just want to get out there

insaniak- thanks for the info on that. It's not at all what I was thinking, and that makes it all the more impressive. I think I might have been thinking of Urban Mammoth's stuff, which it slightly resembles. I'm also right with you on the miniature scale exaggeration bit.

CptJake- Definitely a fan of the Hasslefree sculpts. Mantic has a boxed set of 4 of them at a discount-



Speaking of Urban Mammoth, they have a few others that could be suitable in an IG army.






Along with, y'know, corresponding male figures. I'm rather fond of that sniper, I think she'd fit right in with some cadian snipers.

Zefig wrote: I think I might have been thinking of Urban Mammoth's stuff, which it slightly resembles.

That would be because Urban Mammoth's stuff is just selected parts of the old Void range, re-badged...

Hahaha, well that would explain it.

CptJake wrote:I wasn't clear. I meant the same level of protection. As they should. Just as uniforms come in a slew of different sizes right now, some specific for females, they armor needs to do better too.

You're still wrong. Not only can you still tell that's a woman's body under that armour, you can tell she's wearing the wrong kind of armour for her body shape.

Am i alone in thinking the pigtails on this ruin the whole model?


Looks alot like the female Tanith sniper shown earlier


Could definitely work in a DKOK or a Steel legion army.


I want this one too.

AlexHolker wrote:

CptJake wrote:I wasn't clear. I meant the same level of protection. As they should. Just as uniforms come in a slew of different sizes right now, some specific for females, the armor needs to do better too.

You're still wrong. Not only can you still tell that's a woman's body under that armour, you can tell she's wearing the wrong kind of armour for her body shape.

How am I wrong by stating what I did in your quote?

By the way, "wrong type of armor for her body shape", what the heck is that supposed to mean. Is there a correct type currently issued? I think the answer to that would be "No, there is not". Hence I state:

CptJake wrote: Just as uniforms come in a slew of different sizes right now, some specific for females, the armor needs to do better too.

But somehow that is wrong?

If you are refering to what I had stated earlier, that when in the same uniform and armor (but fitted for the body) women are going to be hard to differentiate on the battle field, I stand by that. When you look at groups of soldiers in full gear, it is VERY hard to tell the difference between sexes unless you are right up on them. At anything over 25-50 meters they all look alike. Obviously it is an opinion, but I am pretty sure that trend will continue. You won't see male soldiers dressed like Cadians and female soldiers in stripper boots, push up bras and mini skirts. Large breasted women use sports bras which flatten them out quite a bit (my wife in the picture is a D cup for example). Armor, uniforms and gear hide the shape of hips.


Automatically Appended Next Post:














All those pictures are close ups. I submit that if you saw the female soldiers in them, sprinting across a street 100 meters away, or they peeking around a wall, or even jsut standing and hanging out at a distance, you would not be able to tell they were female.

CptJake wrote:How am I wrong by stating what I did in your quote?

By suggesting we can't tell the difference. A woman in armour designed to fit a woman looks different to a woman in armour designed to fit a man, and both look different to a man in armour designed to fit a man.

All those pictures are close ups. I submit that if you saw the female soldiers in them, sprinting across a street 100 meters away, or they peeking around a wall, or even jsut standing and hanging out at a distance, you would not be able to tell they were female.

So? We don't look at our miniatures from 100 metres away, or just look at 1/4 of their head with the rest obscured by intervening terrain.

I just don't get why you and people like you seem to have such hatred for us getting the models we want to buy. You claim you can't tell the difference, so why do you care?

http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=69&category_id=35
Lady heads for your guard. You are welcome

This is wahat im talking about models that are visably female but dont look rediculous. Ill use the UNSC Army in Halo: Reach, and some UNSC army and marines concept art as an example. As you can see the females are visably different from the males.