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.

Blobpie wrote:i think we can assume that the necrons didn't have different genders.

And with them being alien and all, i don't see a problem with that.

Not sure why that would be assumed - is there anything in the Codex that implies this?

Now if it had been written with this in mind - that would ini tself IMO have been quite interesting...........although as its a Codex ratehr than a source book, apart from them having Royal dynasties there is virtually nothing about their pre necron state - seems they liked their bling?

re the Models - are the Overlord scultps look fairly male to me but that might just be me?

They look male to us anyway. Of course that would mean nothing to an alien species with a completely different body structure, assuming the Necrons actually resemble their original forms in any way.

so thats how they got into the metal bodies, AHhh I don't read much of the fluff

I think this has to be a new record in the race between Codex release date and the 'Why No Females' thread...

More to the point, why do we even need boobcrons? why can't we be happy with our army of evil robots with giant floating doomsday cannons?

I refer you to my answer given some posts before............

Grey Templar wrote:They look male to us anyway.

I think this says more about "us" than the models in question. They are gender neutral unless vaguely Egyptian themed digital/metal armour fashion is male.

zeshin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:They look male to us anyway.

I think this says more about "us" than the models in question. They are gender neutral unless vaguely Egyptian themed digital/metal armour fashion is male.

except Egyption queens often dressed exactly like men, down to the fake beards.

Grey Templar wrote:

zeshin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:They look male to us anyway.

I think this says more about "us" than the models in question. They are gender neutral unless vaguely Egyptian themed digital/metal armour fashion is male.

except Egyption queens often dressed exactly like men, down to the fake beards.

Either you're making my argument for me or I took "they" to mean the Necrons when you really meant Egyptians.

zeshin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

zeshin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:They look male to us anyway.

I think this says more about "us" than the models in question. They are gender neutral unless vaguely Egyptian themed digital/metal armour fashion is male.

except Egyption queens often dressed exactly like men, down to the fake beards.

Either you're making my argument for me or I took "they" to mean the Necrons when you really meant Egyptians.

I meant Necrons, the egyption remark was to explain how a Necron lord COULD have been female, but because of the egyption theme would be identical to the males.

There is no reason for there not to be female lords. Gender isn't just about body shape or body parts. Attitudes, ideas, preferences can all have gender connotations. And truthfully are pretty much universal (just looking at planet earth here and all of its animal inhabitants).

In the old fluff, yeah, I'd agree that there was no gender. But now, different lords have different ambitions, different agendas. A lord who is particularly nurturing or protective to those under it could easily be seen as being traditionally female. Yeah there are exceptions but just looking over the grand picture here.

However, I do not think a female cron would have a body shape in that of a traditional human female. Mostly because they aren't mammals. Female insects, fish, birds, reptiles, etc do not have boobies. Infact boobies are rather the minority. So in that regard, I think coloration would be a perfectly good representation of female. Or like others have stated earlier, more ornate coverings of their metal frames. But I think stripped off all their trappings you couldn't tell one female necron body from a male one.

yup all that, assuming they wern't hermaphroditic which is very possable.

its open ended with no real answer currently.

Well, it's pretty easy to see why the necrons appear male.

Besides the obvious, they have:
-broad shoulders (their scapula exaggerate this by giving them square "shoulders"/shoulder profiles
- angular skulls (esp. the square jaw) and notable brows (male features, which is also why, at a glance, most skeletons look more male w/o flesh to round out the structure)
-slight hunches (associated with (brute) strength and masculinity, you're not going to find many idealized females that fit that profile)
-square details (joins, feet, etc- similar to shoulders/heads)


Frankly, I bet that a good sculptor could pull off a more feminine necron look through various thinner and less angular features, without resorting to less subtle methods.

We have no idea what living Necrontyr looked like, so we can't say that their women (if they had them) were smaller than their males. Perhaps the females of the species were the physically powerful gender, and may have been eradicated by the C'Tan as they posed a threat, or were uncontrollable or, who knows?

Grey Templar wrote:except Egyption queens often dressed exactly like men, down to the fake beards.

But mostly they wear cloths that I can't reproduce here because of family friendlyness.

BTW people should read why Necrontyr chose to get rid of their natural body. Hint: It is not their love for physical pleasures.

Yeah, their worlds were fethed and they were dying of radiation poisoning and disease and all sorts of other nastiness. That doesn't really explain why they would choose to look like skeletons and not, you know, hyper-idealized, immortal versions of the best their race ever offered, other than the handwavium of "they were grim and dark, as a people".

How what we know/knew of the mortal Necrontyr is now valid as a backstory with their rebellion and all is questionable, as it seems that there are now lots more Necrons than we originally thought.

I didn't brought the Daleks to attention before gratuitously. In fact, I think the new 'crons have a strong 'Doctor Who villiain' feel to them.

My point is, that, while we have no idea if the Necrontyr had something akin to 'our' sexes (we're rather assuming them to be male, while in science-fictional depictions of aliens that's not always a given. Hint: Ghazghkull Thraka, for all his bulk and bravado, is not a 'male'), after biotransference the question becomes irrelevant.

Maybe the Stormlord was a male in his life of flesh - he's not one anymore, rather some sort of walking tank with a tactical computer for a brain. Maybe there are Necron 'ladies' around, provided Necrontyr society allowed females into positions of power AND they had a biological divide between 'males' and 'females' just like animals on Earth (and on the Eldar and Tau homeworlds, in the fictional 40k universe) do AND these 'males' and 'females' performed similar gender roles as those we know, but if they exist they are probably not too different from their male counterparts - walking tanks with a computer for a brain.

It's ok if you want to make a Necron Lady character for your army, nothing in the fluff forbids it.

Leigen_Zero wrote:More to the point, why do we even need boobcrons?

I know hyperbole and other forms of stupid exaggeration are a dakka tradition, but noone's asking for "boobcrons".

If the canon stated necrons were without gender (like Orks), or were androgynous in that humans cannot tell the difference (like Eldar), or were hermaphroditic, it'd be fine really. But it doesn't... it just indicates they're male and ignores the issue entirely. Therefor the issue comes up to discussion.

Saying "but they could be [x]" is irrelevant. The canon doesn't say that, it's merely speculation.

The codex doesn't really even say they're male, they are just decidedly not female...In anyway familiar to us.

Which is, in effect, male. The fact that they don't cover the situation, combined with GW's inability to depict female characters in races that DO have a female gender, just makes people assume GW is being lazy and, as usual, doesn't even bother with even a token female character in its lines.

So no baby toasters?

How do you know that the Necrons don't ALL have boobs already, but they're really flat?

The way I see it with the new fluff, is that very likely the Necrontyr were of mixed gender, and it's careful (ish) in my opinion not to tell you much about the "time before" IF you assume they are using the somewhat typical male assumption for writing (he, his etc).

For me, it is just as likely that any of the named characters were male or female, we have no idea what the connotation is behind the names, it's not like they are called Melissia ( ), Sarah or Bob.

The key point for me, is that they are soul less, and I would imagine that a great amount of your "maleness" or "femaleness" would have suffered or been extinguished by the process of fueling the C'Tan.

Also, in my opinion, the reason why the skeletons are made that way are that the Necrontyr probably had little choice over the aesthetics, the C'Tan probably chose the image and don't really understand humanity (or Necrontyrity lol) so didn't care about gender.

So for me, I may choose to be more or less painting them differently (the Lords only of course) depending on what I think at the time. Maybe more embellishment on certain cloaks etc.

Jayden63 wrote:There is no reason for there not to be female lords. Gender isn't just about body shape or body parts. Attitudes, ideas, preferences can all have gender connotations. And truthfully are pretty much universal (just looking at planet earth here and all of its animal inhabitants).

Peacock. Male has colourful plumage, attempts to attract the attention of the brown, boringly coloured female.
Lion. Females hunt, males spend most of their time at home, except when they have to fight another male.
Bees. Female is the master of the hive, males are workers.

The whole male/female behaviour expectation in humans is pretty unique even on our planet, and there's no reason to assume that the Necron lords are male at all, apart from the names Ward pillaged from Egypt.

And the fact that it says "he" instead of "she".

nomsheep wrote:They are genderless robots.

what would be the point in them defining gender when they can't enjoy the benefits of an opposite gender anyway?

They are not genderless unless the Necrontyr were genderless.

Personally, I think it's a great idea. Not a woman-shaped Necron, but a Necron that contains the consciousness of a female Necrontyr, just like other Necrons contain the consciousness of a (presumed) male Necrontyr.

Psienesis wrote:Eh, I think I would need more than a single example of Sisters being killed in an extremely bloody, grimdark setting where everyone is likely to die horribly to call someone a misogynist.

There's also Inquisitor Valeria, the woman scorned.

Durza wrote:Peacock. Male has colourful plumage, attempts to attract the attention of the brown, boringly coloured female.
Lion. Females hunt, males spend most of their time at home, except when they have to fight another male.
Bees. Female is the master of the hive, males are workers.

The whole male/female behaviour expectation in humans is pretty unique even on our planet, and there's no reason to assume that the Necron lords are male at all, apart from the names Ward pillaged from Egypt.

Well we don't have any (non ficitonal) other planets to compare the behaviour of male/females on them with so its a bit difficult Equally there is no reason to say that it won't be the same on other planets......

Thats one of the issues - the male Egyptian names nicked from history again help to give the male impression - calling one of them with Nefertiti or perhaps Nefer'teki and having a remnant female perosnality would IMO have enhanced the codex a little.............

On Bees: all the workers are actually female and can on occassion attempt to lay eggs etc - the male Drones are there to propogate the species.

AlexHolker wrote: Personally, I think it's a great idea. Not a woman-shaped Necron, but a Necron that contains the consciousness of a female Necrontyr, just like other Necrons contain the consciousness of a (presumed) male Necrontyr..

That was how I saw it

Agent_Tremolo wrote:I don't recall having seen female Daleks either

Tremolo wins the thread, folks. We can all go home now.

Manchu wrote:

Agent_Tremolo wrote:I don't recall having seen female Daleks either

Tremolo wins the thread, folks. We can all go home now.

It's one of the many flaws of the Doctor Who series, yes.

[/hides to escape the pitchforks and torches]

Melissia wrote:

Leigen_Zero wrote:More to the point, why do we even need boobcrons?

I know hyperbole and other forms of stupid exaggeration are a dakka tradition, but noone's asking for "boobcrons".

Yes but where all know where this is going to end up...

On a more serious note, as much as there is a possibility that the necrontyr had an equivalent to females, what is to say that the females of the species were actually transformed into necrons? which would explain the distinct masculinity.

It could be the case that only males (for some reasoning of male superiority over females, much like in some ancient civilisations where females were seen more as property than as equals) were transformed into 'crons and females were not deemed worthy of bio-transference? so whereas all the 'kings' went off to war in shiny metal bodies and were entombed in stasis, the 'queens', being considered of lesser important, were just left to die..


Note: I am in no way trying to spark a male/female superiority flamewar with the above statement, those so inclined please do not use this post as an opportunity to do so...

Melissia wrote:
If the canon stated necrons were without gender (like Orks), or were androgynous in that humans cannot tell the difference (like Eldar), or were hermaphroditic, it'd be fine really. But it doesn't... it just indicates they're male and ignores the issue entirely. Therefor the issue comes up to discussion.

Humans cannot tell the difference for Eldar? When what the hell are 25% of Guardians, the Banshees, most Wyches and the Lhameans?O_o

Personally I like the idea that some Necrons are female (it nowhere states that they were hermaphrodites or anything else and so far all humanoids in the setting but the Orkz have females) AND I don't see a problem with a Necron wearing armour that was originally shaped for a female. I doubt Khalida could fill out hers (there shouldn't be much water and fat left in her body). The conversion would just take a lot of effort, Lord bodies remind me of Termnator armour. And we don't have women in Terminator armour either.