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.

A published author? Very cool, congratulations!

Next time, though, maybe pick a more martial woman for the cover - someone like this one perhaps. Or was that the publisher's doing?

I was able to say "No bare midrifts, real armor." They did the rest. And yes, that other martial woman is awesome.

I see - rather ironic, but you did your best! The publisher always has the last words in such matters, from what I've been told.

Could you go in to it a bit more in depth (especially in regards to its applicability to this thread), so it doesnt' loook like an advertisement?

I'm rather interested in hearing about your interpretation.

Now, now. Your experience surely doesn't compare to VS's supposed decade of Marine experience, during which he dated a bunch of hawt models before entering a business career and finally becoming a writer. You should be thankful he still has the time to offer his sage advice on an internet message board for wargame nerds instead of considering running for PotUS or something.

Hes starting to grow on me for some reason though

It's a book that lists several women in history, many of them warriors. The point was to show that giving examples of women in combat isn't anecdotal but actually far more common that people realize. The book itself shows examples of women in combat that aren't well known to history, not because it was rare but because it was under-represented in the history books. The book lists Countess Matilda of Tuscany who led her armies (while wearing armor and sword) against the Holy Roman Empire. Women samurai and how it was far more common that people realize. Stiglata, the wife of a Norman warlord who fought on campaign with her husband, etc etc.

I can go on, so I figured, hey, I wrote a book about it and am planning a second volume because there were so many.

So, women in combat, Absolutely. Shooting a gun is a lot less physical than sword fighting. As one poster said, its far far more about mental toughness than physical. And I know that by personal experience.

Biased history certainly is a huge issue. How many people today have ever heard of the medieval Order of the Hatchet, female Gladiators, the African Dahomey "Amazons", or WW1 Russia's Women's Battalions of Death? It's just not common knowledge, so it's not taught in schools, which in turn further propagates a flawed image of history in the mind of the average person on the streets.

Just a few years ago historians dug up some old accounts of a German judicial court that discusses the case of a female mercenary captain who was accused of having attempted to impersonate Jeanne d'Arc. We wouldn't even know anything about her were it not for those records, simply because nobody else bothered to write about her.

Likewise, archaeologists were able to confirm the bones of two soldiers of a Roman Numerii unit serving in Britannia as being of female build. Earlier identification was not possible because the necessary technology supposedly did not exist until the 2000s, so everyone simply assumed they had to be male.

A lot of history is based on assumptions. A lot of assumptions eventually turn out to be wrong when subjected to greater scrutiny.

If I remember, the Scythians/Sarmatians also were rather eglitarian when it came to warmaking. To the point of some believing that they influenced the Greek's conception of the Amazons.

Do you want them to make more female minis? All they do is make them have impractically stupid armors. Mira from SM should be the template, yet they stray away from it. One size fits all sexes armor makes way more sense than boob plates and bared midriffs.

I dunno - do you really think they'd be unable to make "proper" female Cadians? One could argue that GW designs such as Necromundan Eschers are "impractical", but ... uh, well, they're street punks. It fits the theme, just like bare-chested male Catachans.

There are very, very few examples where GW sells "mixed" boxes of a unit consisting of both sexes, so a comparison might be tricky now .. but if we're going by the Dark Eldar, we do have an example where they manage to make everyone look equal. All that matters is that males and females both follow the same style ... how exactly that style looks and how practical it is depends on the individual army/regiment/culture.

Some things are just too dumb, though, like your example of bare-chested Catachans. Come on - you come from a death world where a freaking FROG is a biohazard nuke that can kill everything within a kilometer radius. Not that your example is dumb, but the fact that they exist in a universe given the context of their background is dumb.
I can see hive gangers dressing that way, because they don't have access to materiel that the IG has. But not the large majority of the military forces of the Imperium.
It's sort of in line with the Space Marine 'no helmet yipee' thing. I've noticed that in a lot of SM books - excepting SW ones - more and more Marines end up wearing helmets, including high-ranking officers within the Chapter. IIRC in Death of Integrity, CM Caedis wears a helmet (will check though).
Cadian females would literally just have their heads switched out. Under all that flak/carapace armor, there'd be no way to tell what gender they are.

TheSGC wrote:
Do you want them to make more female minis?

Yes.

If you think the only way to make female minis is bare midriffs and boob-cups, we will never agree. I think that GW is very capable of the job. Far more than most other wargame developers anyway-- especially the sci-fi ones, they're always the lowest common denominator when it comes to female minis.

Cadian females would literally just have their heads switched out. Under all that flak/carapace armor, there'd be no way to tell what gender they are

The tallest guy I know is 6'8 (offensive lineman make good friends). The tallest girl I know is 5'11. I'm 6'2.
I'm assuming that they have different sizes on the easy to produce armor.
I think you could tell......
EDIT: On the source of the book discussion, there is a very big difference between commanding from behind where it's possible to get shot at, and doing some Alexander the Great sh** where you're at the front lines and killing like 10 dudes per battle. For example Joan of Arc never killed anyone and probably would have had trouble if cornered. In a sword fight strength, speed, and toughness rule. Not the same in a gun fight.
'

One-size-fits-most is something that the US Army has learned, fairly recently, doesn't work when you need to equip two different genders of soldiers. Women are not simply shorter men, their bodies are proportioned differently, and a woman wearing a set of body armor designed for a man is tactically disadvantaged because of the issues trying to do that causes.

Fortunately, we're now designing body armor designed to fit our female soldiers.

TheSGC wrote:Some things are just too dumb, though, like your example of bare-chested Catachans. Come on - you come from a death world where a freaking FROG is a biohazard nuke that can kill everything within a kilometer radius. Not that your example is dumb, but the fact that they exist in a universe given the context of their background is dumb.

Ah, but you have to consider that what is perceived as "dumb" or "clever" always lies in the eye of the beholder! Sure, to us modern day western Earthlings, bare-chested Catachans may appear (obviously) impractical. But do the Catachans themselves think so? I would think not.

Ironically, it may well be that because their world is that ridiculously dangerous that protection is shunned. Take the frog you mentioned, for example - how exactly are you supposed to protect against that? Cadian-style flak vests? Nuh-uh. May as well forget about it and focus on avoiding such dangers entirely rather than focusing on (ultimately futile) attempts to survive them. Heavy armour tends to come with limitations for your personal mobility, and for 40k this is even stated in the rulebook description for carapace. So, be it due to heat, or mobility, or perhaps just because Catachans are so incredibly proud and macho, they just say "feth it" and go to war in t-shirts to show everyone how manly they are.

And look to our real world. Our own military history, right up to the modern day, is filled with practices and standards that were thought to be grand back when they were implemented, but are ridiculed later on simply due to a shift in established wisdom. Line combat was once a big thing a few centuries back, and nobody questioned its potential weaknesses or how such formations could be exploited, yet today every armchair general on the internet acts all clever because they would have obviously never used such "silly" tactics. Good job, Captain Hindsight.
Why should the Mordians change their ways if it was these tactics that had once saved their world? Since no Imperial Guard regiment ever returns to its homeworld, and the Departmento Munitorum does not bother with propagating the results of military studies (beyond some treatises such as the Tactica Imperialis) for the very reason that the IoM regards diversity as a strength (as well as simple carelessness - why should the generals today bother with the issues of some backwater world tomorrow, if all they want from them is a regiment of cavalry right now?), how could they ever make use of the experiences made by their units in the field? Whatever the regiments of the Mordian Iron Guard learn when operating next to or against units with less rigid tactics will never reach the academies and training fields of their homeworld!

tl;dr: what is regarded as "silly" on planet A could be seen as honourable tradition or a matter of course on planet B. I do not think it is wrong that the miniatures reflect the differences in the various Imperial worlds' cultures and tech-levels ... indeed, to me, this is a huge thing of what makes 40k be 40k! Same for the Space Marines. Pride and arrogance are kinda their thing, and how could you better demonstrate your defiance and faith in your abilities as a warrior than meeting your foe face to unshielded face?

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

The tallest guy I know is 6'8 (offensive lineman make good friends). The tallest girl I know is 5'11. I'm 6'2.
I'm assuming that they have different sizes on the easy to produce armor.
I think you could tell......

These are people living in the far future on a completely different planet. Their heights aren't necessarily exactly the same as ours.

And TheSGC was referring to the actual minis, which aren't always heighted accurately anyway.

Many soldiers in Vietnam discarded their flak jackets because it was far too hot and humid to tolerate wearing one on as opposed to the possible two minutes where it might make a difference. Helmets, sure. It also served as a bucket, a seat, a pot, and a dozen other uses. Flak jackets? Cumbersome, hot, heavy, and a bullet-wound was a ticket home.

I know numerous guys shorter than me, despite being merely a bit over five foot seven. Average height really depends on where you're from. I am taller than the average Brazillian male, for example, or Chinese, or Egyptian, or Indian, Iranian, etc.

Given that Cadians have spent well over ten thousand years (which I come to about 500-450 generations) on Cadia with a culture that enforced no societal difference between men and women (all are conscripted, of those conscripted, it's a lottery to determine who gets sent off-world as shock-troops and who stays at home), it's quite plausible, indeed, probable, that there'd be little difference between the genders in terms of height.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
One-size-fits-most is something that the US Army has learned, fairly recently, doesn't work when you need to equip two different genders of soldiers. Women are not simply shorter men, their bodies are proportioned differently, and a woman wearing a set of body armor designed for a man is tactically disadvantaged because of the issues trying to do that causes.

Fortunately, we're now designing body armor designed to fit our female soldiers.

Correct. However, that said, humanity had 28,000 years to develop effective male and female uniforms before the Great Crusade. The Imperium had had another 10,000 after the GC. There is no reason to believe that the Imperium does not have the infrastructure already in place from before it ever existed.

Honestly surprised no one's made mention of my avatar, It fits the discussion so well.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
Honestly surprised no one's made mention of my avatar, It fits the discussion so well.

...No...no it doesn't.

Now that you mention it ... yes, Balalaika is awesome.

Kain wrote:...No...no it doesn't.

I suppose you could say it's an insider for those who know the series.

 Lynata wrote:
Now that you mention it ... yes, Balalaika is awesome.

Kain wrote:...No...no it doesn't.

I suppose you could say it's an insider for those who know the series.

Balalaika could kick my ass anyday and do it while wearing men's clothing.
Roberta is probably the second coolest.
It's the only thing I could find with all the best characters and the logo together.
Some clips (short)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLx2_yIheOY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54Fd20UH-ng (incredibly violent, very well choreagraphed though)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ116EVYVP4 (Balalaika on a normal weekday)

 Lynata wrote:

TheSGC wrote:Some things are just too dumb, though, like your example of bare-chested Catachans. Come on - you come from a death world where a freaking FROG is a biohazard nuke that can kill everything within a kilometer radius. Not that your example is dumb, but the fact that they exist in a universe given the context of their background is dumb.

Ah, but you have to consider that what is perceived as "dumb" or "clever" always lies in the eye of the beholder! Sure, to us modern day western Earthlings, bare-chested Catachans may appear (obviously) impractical. But do the Catachans themselves think so? I would think not.

Ironically, it may well be that because their world is that ridiculously dangerous that protection is shunned. Take the frog you mentioned, for example - how exactly are you supposed to protect against that? Cadian-style flak vests? Nuh-uh. May as well forget about it and focus on avoiding such dangers entirely rather than focusing on (ultimately futile) attempts to survive them. Heavy armour tends to come with limitations for your personal mobility, and for 40k this is even stated in the rulebook description for carapace. So, be it due to heat, or mobility, or perhaps just because Catachans are so incredibly proud and macho, they just say "feth it" and go to war in t-shirts to show everyone how manly they are.

And look to our real world. Our own military history, right up to the modern day, is filled with practices and standards that were thought to be grand back when they were implemented, but are ridiculed later on simply due to a shift in established wisdom. Line combat was once a big thing a few centuries back, and nobody questioned its potential weaknesses or how such formations could be exploited, yet today every armchair general on the internet acts all clever because they would have obviously never used such "silly" tactics. Good job, Captain Hindsight.
Why should the Mordians change their ways if it was these tactics that had once saved their world? Since no Imperial Guard regiment ever returns to its homeworld, and the Departmento Munitorum does not bother with propagating the results of military studies (beyond some treatises such as the Tactica Imperialis) for the very reason that the IoM regards diversity as a strength (as well as simple carelessness - why should the generals today bother with the issues of some backwater world tomorrow, if all they want from them is a regiment of cavalry right now?), how could they ever make use of the experiences made by their units in the field? Whatever the regiments of the Mordian Iron Guard learn when operating next to or against units with less rigid tactics will never reach the academies and training fields of their homeworld!

tl;dr: what is regarded as "silly" on planet A could be seen as honourable tradition or a matter of course on planet B. I do not think it is wrong that the miniatures reflect the differences in the various Imperial worlds' cultures and tech-levels ... indeed, to me, this is a huge thing of what makes 40k be 40k! Same for the Space Marines. Pride and arrogance are kinda their thing, and how could you better demonstrate your defiance and faith in your abilities as a warrior than meeting your foe face to unshielded face?

Line combat was big because it suited the type of weapons involved with warfare. As soon as machine guns came about, people realized that line combat was futile, because one sufficiently armed soldier could take on several times his number by simply depressing the trigger. Is line combat silly now? Of course. Was it still back then? Not really. It was an effective form of warfare for the time and technology. That's not armchair quarterbacking, that's the truth.
About the Catachans, though, that's fair enough. I will say this though, which is relevant to both Catachans and Mordian examples: culture won't save you when an autogun shell has your name on it - only a flak vest can do that. SM seem to be realizing this in the fluff recently.

 Psienesis wrote:
One-size-fits-most is something that the US Army has learned, fairly recently, doesn't work when you need to equip two different genders of soldiers. Women are not simply shorter men, their bodies are proportioned differently, and a woman wearing a set of body armor designed for a man is tactically disadvantaged because of the issues trying to do that causes.

Fortunately, we're now designing body armor designed to fit our female soldiers.

Of course, they may have better designed one size fits all armor. Or simply not care.

IIRC the problem with the US army body armor was that it was not really designed as one size fits all. Its was really more of a "one size fits all men" and they assumed that it would also work for women.

But if you designed a One Size Fits All set with the intention that it will be worn by both sexes it could work. A gender neutral set, instead of a male design that was only slightly altered to fit women.

 Kain wrote:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
Honestly surprised no one's made mention of my avatar, It fits the discussion so well.

...No...no it doesn't.

It's tarantino inspired. The designs often have everything or nothing to do with the characters.

 Lynata wrote:
Now that you mention it ... yes, Balalaika is awesome.

Kain wrote:...No...no it doesn't.

I suppose you could say it's an insider for those who know the series.

I suppose I can continue to mystify you with my own avatar much as how Melissa probably mystified you when she had her old troll Avatar.

TheSGC wrote:Line combat was big because it suited the type of weapons involved with warfare. As soon as machine guns came about, people realized that line combat was futile, because one sufficiently armed soldier could take on several times his number by simply depressing the trigger. Is line combat silly now? Of course. Was it still back then? Not really. It was an effective form of warfare for the time and technology. That's not armchair quarterbacking, that's the truth.

I don't think I'd agree there - line combat was practicable only because every side tended to utilise it and stick to a "gentlemen's agreement" of sorts. As soon as a participant in a conflict stopped adhering to those rules, the system began to show clear signs of weaknesses that allowed for exploitation. Skirmishers had much success in disrupting and harassing line infantry, yet the armies' response was simply to use skirmishers themselves instead of stopping to use line infantry altogether.

Don't get me wrong - it's not like I think that such tactics had no advantage whatsoever. The way I understand it, it was chiefly a morale thing, and obviously a formation like a karee(sp?) was good against cavalry charges .. yet is it not true that soldiers spreading out and seeking cover are much harder to hit than hundreds or thousand of people in brightly coloured uniforms standing together in a single huge pile of bodies? And I'm not talking gatling guns, but simple volley fire and artillery. The development of machine guns and more accurate rifles merely contributed to an issue that existed for centuries, and tbh I think the primary reason that line infantry dominated military tactics for that long is because such formations proved to be extremely successful in the classical and medieval periods (legionaries, phalanx, üikemen .. line infantry did develop out of the testudo, iirc?) - and because militaries are traditionally, well, traditional, and loathe to adopt changes. Especially back then.

That being said, I am merely an armchair general as well, and it would be arrogant to consider that I've misjudged the situation. In any way, I just thought it would qualify as an example to better illustrate my point - I'm sure there are others, such as the reliance on huge battleships in WW1/WW2 and dismissing the potential of the aircraft, which (supported by carriers) would come to replace those behemoths as the strategically most important weapon on the seas. A lot of seasoned admirals didn't see that coming, even though one could argue (today) that the signs were there to be seen.
Same for the gatling gun you mentioned, by the way. Its makers supposedly had a lot of difficulty selling it at first, as its potential was not realised by those in charge of the army, and merely saw a heavy apparatus that required a lot of maintenance and was difficult to move with the infantry.

TheSGC wrote:I will say this though, which is relevant to both Catachans and Mordian examples: culture won't save you when an autogun shell has your name on it - only a flak vest can do that. SM seem to be realizing this in the fluff recently.

Absolutely!
All I'm saying is that it's not unrealistic for GW to have such armies in the setting. It simply reflects the respective people's traditions and level of advancement.
In WW2, a lot of countries still had cavalry formations. Obviously that didn't help much against German panzers - but it's a precedent for what we see in 40k.

Don't underestimate a regiment like the Attilan Rough Riders, though! Depending on who and where they fight, they can be quite effective.

Kain wrote:I suppose I can continue to mystify you with my own avatar much as how Melissa probably mystified you when she had her old troll Avatar.

Now I feel kind of lost. Is there a joke I'm not getting?

 Kain wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Now that you mention it ... yes, Balalaika is awesome.

Kain wrote:...No...no it doesn't.

I suppose you could say it's an insider for those who know the series.

I suppose I can continue to mystify you with my own avatar much as how Melissa probably mystified you when she had her old troll Avatar.

Out of curiosity, see the clips?
All together it's only 8 minutes.

 Lynata wrote:


Now I feel kind of lost. Is there a joke I'm not getting?

You have no idea how hard it is to resist the urge to post a "Let me tell you about homestuck" image right now.

 Kain wrote:

 Lynata wrote:


Now I feel kind of lost. Is there a joke I'm not getting?

You have no idea how hard it is to resist the urge to post a "Let me tell you about homestuck" image right now.

Looked it up............
Yeah about those clips, they're about a good $1mil in production costs, filled with awesome, and only 8 minutes.
You see em?
Edit: I like to keep away from strangely drawn webcomics with massive fanbases.