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 think the concept of making female counterparts for things is horrendously bad.

Things like Banshees and Wyches have female models because the fluff says they're mostly female. Hell, the Wyches fluff says that they're almost unanimously female which is funny considering the kit has about 50% male torsos.

SoB are all girls, etc etc.

Companies don't make things for little tiny fringe groups. They don't. We're not talking about "We have strawberry AND blueberry!", we're talking about "Let's dump millions of dollars into a Gears of War-style Dark Eldar game for the 5% of 40K players who'd actually play it"

And GW frankly sucks at making female models. Lelith looks like a sweet transvestite from transsexual Comoraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, the SOB's have HUGE EXAGGERATED ARMOR BOOBS HNNNNNG, the Daemonettes are single-boobed snake things that make little sense even for Slaanesh, and Wyches still have to cope with the fact that they have giant man arms on barely female torsos. With boobs.

The DE look fine save for the hair.

Newer female models in WHFB are also decent.

Ref Female Cadians

The details which distinguish men from women in cadian style combat dress are such that they do not translate well to 25mm GW scale. Slighter build, hips, and feminine faces would barely show up at this scale.

My wife and I are both military, and in all honesty is full battle rattle, from 50 feet away I can barely tell who she is, let alone her gender, if it werent for the ponytail sticking out under her helmet. Combat clothing (at least up here) is baggy and generally does not accentuate any of the particularly feminine attributes, when you combine this with a plate carrier and tac vest, as well as gas mask carrier, pistol holster, and other miscelaneous kit hanging about, then trow on a helment and balistic glasses...your now looking at a soldier, and from a distance (without watchig them move, as there is a marked difference in male/female movement) you are not making out gender without a good look at the face.

There are a lot of females that play this. But to sum it up:

1. Most women have other things to do then to admire fictional setting. ( like shopping for example )

2. Most women like to spend their money to wardrobe or shoes. ( in short: they would never give up money for miniatures )

3. Most women think that 40k miniatures are toys. ( "miniatures" are also toys to them even dough most people like to collect and paint them but not to play them )

I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I think the concept of making female counterparts for things is horrendously bad.

Things like Banshees and Wyches have female models because the fluff says they're mostly female. Hell, the Wyches fluff says that they're almost unanimously female which is funny considering the kit has about 50% male torsos.

SoB are all girls, etc etc.

Companies don't make things for little tiny fringe groups. They don't. We're not talking about "We have strawberry AND blueberry!", we're talking about "Let's dump millions of dollars into a Gears of War-style Dark Eldar game for the 5% of 40K players who'd actually play it"

And GW frankly sucks at making female models. Lelith looks like a sweet transvestite from transsexual Comoraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, the SOB's have HUGE EXAGGERATED ARMOR BOOBS HNNNNNG, the Daemonettes are single-boobed snake things that make little sense even for Slaanesh, and Wyches still have to cope with the fact that they have giant man arms on barely female torsos. With boobs.

Heh, remember the old metal daemonettes? ^_^

In any case, though I love playing female characters in games and Internet roleplays, it does sadden me when my miniatures start getting killed off when I play my Sisters or Eldar - particularly when the Howling Banshees start getting killed. Maybe it's a good thing for me that there aren't more female miniatures in WH40k.

Brother Coa wrote:There are a lot of females that play this. But to sum it up:

1. Most women have other things to do then to admire fictional setting. ( like shopping for example )

2. Most women like to spend their money to wardrobe or shoes. ( in short: they would never give up money for miniatures )

3. Most women think that 40k miniatures are toys. ( "miniatures" are also toys to them even dough most people like to collect and paint them but not to play them )

not sure is serious.jpg

Sanon wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:There are a lot of females that play this. But to sum it up:

1. Most women have other things to do then to admire fictional setting. ( like shopping for example )

2. Most women like to spend their money to wardrobe or shoes. ( in short: they would never give up money for miniatures )

3. Most women think that 40k miniatures are toys. ( "miniatures" are also toys to them even dough most people like to collect and paint them but not to play them )

not sure is serious.jpg

I suppose you could always collect other companies models. I have a 10 (wo)man squad of marines.
I'm not sure what company made them but they are unquestionably female space marines.
The are tons of female models out there. I know a guy who collects every single one. It's kinda creepy.

Speaking of creepy... the two models that would sell out first at either Gamesday or Bitz Bus were the Slave and Prisoner models.
Both were scantaly clad females. I still own a few pairs myself.

The only real option I can come up with (besides other companies conversion kits) is to cut heads off of the Sisters of Sigmar and attach them to Cadians.
I works great on Kasrkin models.

You know, now that we're speaking of female models, let me say I totally HATE the new Daemonette models. They're hideous. I know what your'e going to say, that they're daemons of Slannesh and stuff, but read this:

Lexicanum wrote:Daemonettes appear as both beautiful and repulsive to those who look upon them. Their bewitching opal eyes and enchanting aura veil their androgynous features and grotesque claws, revealing an alluring appearance the beholder will always consider the epitome of beauty.

The previous models were far better and actually went according to the fluff. Beautiful women with huge claw things. Thet's (kinda) how they were and how they should have stayed. the new ones are just... Ugly.

If even half of the rumours about 6th Edition rules are true I'll start playing much more.

I don't mean to sound rude, but how's that on-topic?

Belexar wrote:I don't mean to sound rude, but how's that on-topic?

I'm assuming the rumors he's talking about are the ones that Power Boobs are now a TH-equivalent weapon in 6th Edition.

Belexar wrote:I don't mean to sound rude, but how's that on-topic?

I find the current rules somewhat lacking? I started playing during 2nd Edition and while 2nd Ed was too complex, 3rd Ed seemed to go way too far in the other direction and become too simplistic. 6th Ed, if some of the stuff is true, seems to address a lot of the issues I've had with the games rules.

Codex-wise I think we're heading back in a good direction, but I find the severe lack of customization to be not only lacking, but disturbing for a game which used to pride itself on customization and player interaction.

Model-wise I really have no complaints, I've seen some amazing models recently. There are some older models I enjoy better than their current iteration, but really nothing that I dislike entirely.

EDIT: And not to sound rude myself, but if your post was about something other than people feeling that 40k is lacking for, whatever reason, and perhaps to express their reasoning then perhaps you should change the topic title.

EDIT 2: Also yes, 40k to me feels very male-centric and, dunno if anyone else gets this, but fairly sexist as well, mainly and especially in concerns to the Imperium.

Oh, sorry then. For some reason I thought this was a thread about the ack of female models.

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

Belexar wrote:Oh, sorry then. For some reason I thought this was a thread about the ack of female models.

Confusion is all. Title of the thread does not really represent the actual subject matter. My mistake.

In any case I find that they represent female models a bit better in the other races (primarily Eldar) and Orks have legit reasons for having no females (no real need for them giving how they procreate), but it is truly disturbing that the only females we see in Imperial armies anymore is either as Inquisitors or as Sisters of Battle. There were a few female Imperial Guard a few years back, but they have ceased producing them. Imperial Guard really has no reason why they can't make some of their models look more femanine other than potentially having to create different sizes of arms and other bits.

It's a bit easier to create female Space Marines, modelling wise, than it is to create female Guardsmen. With a Marine, one could just say that the armour really doesn't change any, so its just a matter of having a female head on a Marine body. With Imperial Guard you don't really have that luxury as the female shape tends to be a bit different from the male one, making it much harder to create a more gender diverse legion unless you have access to older or more limited/exclusive GW models.

Also, the little kids that play this want their SUPAH AWSOMEZ SPEEHS MAHRINS, not chicks in some armor.
And to the person who was talking about the SoB boobs....really? The only "wtf?" model that they make (IMO), is the Repentia. I honestly think that their boobs are not over-accentuated. But you know, take it for what it's worth.

forruner_mercy wrote:Also, the little kids that play this want their SUPAH AWSOMEZ SPEEHS MAHRINS, not chicks in some armor.

It's also worth remembering what age group 40k is targeted at. To the target audiences, girls are either 'icky and have cooties' or are those strange creatures that make you feel all fuzzy on the inside whenever they ask you a question.

forruner_mercy wrote:Also, the little kids that play this want their SUPAH AWSOMEZ SPEEHS MAHRINS, not chicks in some armor.
And to the person who was talking about the SoB boobs....really? The only "wtf?" model that they make (IMO), is the Repentia. I honestly think that their boobs are not over-accentuated. But you know, take it for what it's worth.

They really seemed to dumb the game down visually from 3rd Edition to late 4th Edition. Anyone remember the 3rd Edition Daemonettes? Other than Daemonettes though the only real even partial nudity they've had were models like the Sisters Repentia that only showed a bit of side-boob.

And there is barely anything protecting the front.
I think that the best SoB model is St. Celestine.

infinite_array wrote:To the target audiences, girls are those strange creatures that make you feel all fuzzy on the inside whenever they ask you a question.

Dammit. I really try to not be a nerdy cliche, I really do, but this is all too true.

forruner_mercy wrote:And there is barely anything protecting the front.
I think that the best SoB model is St. Celestine.

I have to agree with this. I think part of my reasoning for that though is that she doesn't have the goofy Lady GaGa haircut that all the rest of the SoB have.

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

We're not already?

The fluff certaintly isn't lacking in female soldiers. Most IG fluff has a fair number of female IG.

As for models, GW just hasn't sculpted female guardsmen. And with their track record of female models I don't think anyone would be happy with them. If you must have some female IG, buy some 3rd party conversion kits.

as for non-human races, Eldar have a good mix of male vs female models, Tau are difficult to sex(Even Space Marines can only guess), and Orks are an Asexxual species.

I always have my soldiers wear their frickin helmets. This is war, no one needs to tell the difference between genders when there is schrapnel flying around.



Frankly, i think GW would do a horrible job with the sculpting and we would end up with your typical sci-fi female looking soldiers. The visuals would both be degrading to women and to the whole Grimdark setting at the same time.

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

nomotog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's because the vast majority of wargamers are male nerds with an underdeveloped sense of the female identity, hence the lack of any reasonable female archetypes. Of course, this comes from an Ork player, and Orks are essentially genderless.

Can you actually call orks genderless? Well ya they reproduce by spores, but you would be hard pressed to find a more masculine army then the orks.

Their physical form is a result of genetic engineering, not evolution. Their tough attitude is probably also a result of their artificial genes. They have no conception of male or female archetypes. If they are aware of gender differences in other species I'm sure they consider it to be meaningless. That's why I like Orks so much, they have no angst.

They are a male archetype though. In world they might not think of themselves as male. (They do call themselves boyz though.) They also reproduce like males. You could call them genderless, but I would label them as a mono gendered race of males.

You could do a whole thread on gender and sex in 40k.

Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

It depends on just what that thing actually IS. Anyway, enough talking about each others' genitalia. I feel like converting a female Archon now.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Good GOD. I've been letting off spores all these years, that lie in the ground and occasionally become more people! What the hell's the thing between my legs for, then?

Alligator Bait?

Lol