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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.

That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.

Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.

English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.

Don't you mean "writers in their language"?

Their is plural. There is only one writer.

No, I didn't. You failed to actually read what you quoted. Second line of my post: "commonly using 'their' as a non-gender specific singular".

 Mr Morden wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 knas ser wrote:


but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?

Who knows, maybe there aren't that many Eldar women? Some female heads would be nice though.
Evening up the ratio of name characters would be problematic, however; that would result in adding even more SC, and that may hurt the balance.

Still, it would be nice to see a Valkia like character in Wh40k.

There is not reason why she is not in both as GW seem to be putting their Daemons in both universes.....................

Technically, she is not a demon, but an "ascended" human. As such, suddenly inserting Valkia would be a bit awkward, as then one would have to write a back story for the Wh40k version of Valkia.
Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, just confusing from a fluff stand point as there would be two characters with the name Valkia who exists in two different systems with two different lives.

With demons it's easy, since there are few differences between the realms of chaos in each setting. Humans...not so easy. Of course, one could be lazy and just have the 40k version of Valkia be from a feral world. There wouldn't be much change in the background there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 knas ser wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.

That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.

Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.

English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.

Don't you mean "writers in their language"?

Their is plural. There is only one writer.

No, I didn't. You failed to actually read what you quoted. Second line of my post: "commonly using 'their' as a non-gender specific singular".

You then followed it up by asking if something is wrong in that phrase. I gave you an answer.

The generic "he" is still in current english usage.

Then again, I might just be using the old way. Apparently it has been updated to use they as a singular.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:There is a female demon princess of khorne, actually. Her name was Valkia, iirc.

Well, in Warhammer Fantasy, anyway.

Why should necrons be gendered? They are alien robots. The necrontyr might not even had a female gender to begin with.

The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.

Does it state anywhere that the Young King must not be female? King could be a ceremonial term. All it says on lexi is that an Exarch is chosen.

Because the Necrons ARE gendered. They are consistently referred to as "he" and "him", because they're not really robots. They're people in robot bodies (even though they were referred to as male before the 5E Codex made them people). I highly doubt that GW actually came up with a bizarre no-female reproductive system for the Necrontyr (especially since every other gendered race is the same, except for Orks), and if they did, why are they all male?

Illuminor Szeras, Codex: Necrons 5E page 52 wrote:Szeras labours to unravel the mysteries of life, for he fears that he would be a poor sort of god without the secrets of life at his fingertips.

Crimson wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Argh, again? Does it specifically say that they are all male, or does it just only show male pilots? If it does explicitly say so, then yeah, I'm ignoring that.

It says that it is the eldest sons of the nobles that become the knight pilots.

Argh!

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 knas ser wrote:


but it irks me in things like Eldar where they really are gender equal. Would it kill to have a few of those unhelmeted Eldar heads be female? Or to even up the gender ratios of the named characters?

Who knows, maybe there aren't that many Eldar women? Some female heads would be nice though.
Evening up the ratio of name characters would be problematic, however; that would result in adding even more SC, and that may hurt the balance.

Still, it would be nice to see a Valkia like character in Wh40k.

I vaguely knew about Valkia, but we're talking about 40k! Plus, it's hardly like she alone is enough to make it even within Tachyon Arrow range of equality. And yes, hurting the balance is really something GW is concerned about at this point.

EDIT: For gender-neutral, we have "they" and "their". There's also "it".

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:There is a female demon princess of khorne, actually. Her name was Valkia, iirc.

Well, in Warhammer Fantasy, anyway.

Why should necrons be gendered? They are alien robots. The necrontyr might not even had a female gender to begin with.

The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.

Does it state anywhere that the Young King must not be female? King could be a ceremonial term. All it says on lexi is that an Exarch is chosen.

Because the Necrons ARE gendered. They are consistently referred to as "he" and "him", because they're not really robots. They're people in robot bodies (even though they were referred to as male before the 5E Codex made them people). I highly doubt that GW actually came up with a bizarre no-female reproductive system for the Necrontyr (especially since every other gendered race is the same, except for Orks), and if they did, why are they all male?

Illuminor Szeras, Codex: Necrons 5E page 52 wrote:Szeras labours to unravel the mysteries of life, for he fears that he would be a poor sort of god without the secrets of life at his fingertips.

It's called a generic "he." It does not necessarily mean that he's a guy.
They could have called him an "it" which would technically be correct, but then there would be the implication that he's not sentient.

Hardly. Point me to where it says that the Necrontyr were genderless. The modern Necrons are merely the Necrontyr in different bodies. They're all men because of author bias. If they were flesh-and-blood Necrontyr, you can bet they'd all be white, as well.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


I vaguely knew about Valkia, but we're talking about 40k! Plus, it's hardly like she alone is enough to make it even within Tachyon Arrow range of equality. And yes, hurting the balance is really something GW is concerned about at this point.

EDIT: For gender-neutral, we have "they" and "their". There's also "it".

Haha! Yes, you have a point there
Bring on the hero hammers

Yes, they could have used "it", but iirc, that's used for things that aren't necessarily sentient or human.
Personally, I would have preferred "it", as then the implication would be that necrons aren't humans, but as the new codex is trying to "humanize" the necrons and give them personalities, I can see why they chose not to use that.

Their and they is a possibility, but some people (such as myself) may not have been trained for such usage in this particular context. Generic "he" is still preferred, though it is gradually dying out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Hardly. Point me to where it says that the Necrontyr were genderless. The modern Necrons are merely the Necrontyr in different bodies. They're all men because of author bias. If they were flesh-and-blood Necrontyr, you can bet they'd all be white, as well.

Show me where it says that all necrons are male or have genders to begin with.

Of course they would have been white. The necrontry were always on the verge of death, and tried to hide from their sun
Seriously though, unless FW makes a "War in Heaven" expansion after Horus Heresy, we probably would never know what the necrontyr were really like.

Who knows, perhaps the necrontry were really all females, who reproduced via parthenogenesis? They could have been hermaphrodites for all we know.

If all the Necrontyr were female, why would they suddenly start referring to themselves as male after biotransference? Why would an omnipresent narrator refer to them as such? Within the same Codex, they refer to Necron Warriors as "it", presumably because they lack personalities, but no Tyranid is ever described as "he", even the Swarmlord (which is supposed to be a singular entity and have a personality, if alien). It goes on to describe Lychguard, Deathmarks, and pretty much every other Necron as male. Tau, Eldar and mankind are all gendered races. There is absolutely nothing to support the Necrontyr being any different. Especially considering that GW consistently ignores the presence of a female gender in other races (see my above post - there are no female IG characters. Your logic would suggest that, based on the IG Codex, humans are mono-gendered. If not for Shadowsun, the same could be said for the Tau), there's nothing to suggest that the lack of female Necrons is to do with anything other than GW continuing this trend they've kept strong since Rogue Trader.

Also, assuming their physiology was anything like that of humans, being darker would make more sense for their backstory, to shield them from radiation. Not necessarily melanin, but any material in the skin that could give them that much more resistance. They evolved on that planet, and would have been adapted to it from the beginning (like how humans were originally all dark-skinned because the sun is nasty).

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
If all the Necrontyr were female, why would they suddenly start referring to themselves as male after biotransference? Why would an omnipresent narrator refer to them as such? Within the same Codex, they refer to Necron Warriors as "it", presumably because they lack personalities, but no Tyranid is ever described as "he", even the Swarmlord (which is supposed to be a singular entity and have a personality, if alien). It goes on to describe Lychguard, Deathmarks, and pretty much every other Necron as male. Tau, Eldar and mankind are all gendered races. There is absolutely nothing to support the Necrontyr being any different. Especially considering that GW consistently ignores the presence of a female gender in other races (see my above post - there are no female IG characters. Your logic would suggest that, based on the IG Codex, humans are mono-gendered. If not for Shadowsun, the same could be said for the Tau), there's nothing to suggest that the lack of female Necrons is to do with anything other than GW continuing this trend they've kept strong since Rogue Trader.

Also, assuming their physiology was anything like that of humans, being darker would make more sense for their backstory, to shield them from radiation. Not necessarily melanin, but any material in the skin that could give them that much more resistance. They evolved on that planet, and would have been adapted to it from the beginning (like how humans were originally all dark-skinned because the sun is nasty).

The thing about them being white was tongue in cheek, referring to their short life spans and the fact that dying things tend to be paler. It is indeed more likely that the necrons would have been darker skinned, due to the harsh radiation from the sun. Also, Egyptians in space and all of that.

The narrator referring to them as "he" could also be a grammatical construct.
It could have nothing to do with gender. The author does not describe them as males. The use of the masculin pronoun could be interpreted as generic, and there might have been women that where turned into deathmarks or immortals. We do not know; there is no information about the necrontyr culture, other than that they were obsessed with longevity and death.

Tyranids are monstrosities from another galaxy, more like beasts than people. The swarmlord has an intelligence; I do not recall him having a distinct personality. Can he communicate? Does it have an actual life and history? I was under the impression that after the invasion is over, it is consumed with the rest by the hive, and spawned again when his heightened intelligence and expertise is needed. Instead of riding around in the hive ship, as you would expect of a distinct individual.

Oh boy, this seems to have gone OT...
So about them knights...

it*

No, we don't know anything for sure about the Necrontyr. However, it's a much bigger logic jump to assume that they're genderless or whatever than it is to assume that it's GW being GW and, as they do often, simply excluding girls because they're icky or something. Much as it is far simpler to assume that they were humanoid before biotransference rather than saying they could have been betentacled snarglemonsters. Also, it's not just the narrator, as I have absolutely no doubt that any fluff written from a Necron's perspective will have other Necrons referred to as "he".

EDIT: Maybe Knights are female Necrons.

 CthulhuIsSpy wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.

That's not true. There's an old convention to use "him" or "his" when referring to a hypothetical person as in "the marine will check his gun", but that's not to say that anything non-specific is male and that convention is on its last legs anyway, replaced by either the writer mixing genders in their writing or more commonly using "their" as a non-gender specific singular.

Quick test - did it leap out at you as weird that in the above I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in their writing"? No, because the convention has changed. Would it have leapt out at you if I wrote: "the writer mixing genders in his writing"? Yes, for most people it would because the strange assumption and exclusion of women would catch your attention and make you wonder why I was assuming writers were male - I'd appear old fashioned, essentially.

English is actually a great deal less gendered than many other languages, especially European ones. In most of those, non-gendered items actually have a gender, note the "le / la" in French for example. I'm very happy we don't have that in English.

Don't you mean "writers in their language"? Their is plural. There is only one writer.

No, I didn't. You failed to actually read what you quoted. Second line of my post: "commonly using 'their' as a non-gender specific singular".

You then followed it up by asking if something is wrong in that phrase. I gave you an answer.

No, I didn't. Nowhere in my post did I ask if there was anything "wrong with my phrase". And if I had and your intent were to answer it, you would have not concealed that in some oblique attempt to critique my grammar. All I did ask was if it leapt out at anyone that I was using "their" as a way of highlighting how common it had become. Few people, and mostly old, would have suffered dissonance at the phrase.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The generic "he" is still in current english usage.

Again, you seem to merely be stating things as if they were argument but which don't actually counter anything I wrote. I said that such usage was dying off and increasingly we were seeing "their" as a gender-neutral singular.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Then again, I might just be using the old way. Apparently it has been updated to use they as a singular.

Well yes, it's been updated since at least 1848 since I just dug out instances of this usage from Thackery's 'Vanity Fair' for you:

Vanity Fair wrote:"A person can't help their birth," Rosalind replied with great liberality. — Thackeray, Vanity Fair (1848)

But yes, that is what I've been saying for the last two posts. 'They' and 'their' are increasingly used. Seeing as your approach to discussion is mainly argument by sarcasm, I'll emphasize the point with a couple of references:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Their wrote:(used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine form his or the definite feminine form her ): Someone left their book on the table.
...
Traditionally, the masculine singular pronouns he 1 , his, and him have been used generically to refer to indefinite pronouns like anyone, everyone, and someone [...] It was formerly considered correct to use he, him, or his after pronouns such as everyone, no-one, anyone, or someone as in everyone did his best, but it is now more common to use they, them, or their, and this use has become acceptable in all but the most formal contexts: everyone did their best

And here is Merriam-Webster on the subject:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their wrote:
2: his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <anyone in their senses — W. H. Auden

'They' and 'their' as an indeterminate singular is actually very old. In the 19th Century, it became very in vogue to use 'he' and 'his' instead and the British Parliament was actually petitioned to standardize on it. However, the singular 'they' goes back a long way and has never actually completely gone away and has now returned to common usage and 'he' and 'his' is fading. Oddly, one of the big resurgences in using 'he' or 'his' comes from North America where, as is the case everywhere at some point (but in this case the United States), some people get it into their head that they have a superior knowledge of a subject (in this case grammar) and then enjoy correcting others and insisted that 'their' as a singular was wrong and pushed it out in favour of 'his'. But actually this is not the case. It's much like the way I began the previous sentence with "but" which was for a time considered wrong. But is a conjunction you see. But now nobody cares.

So short answer: it is as I originally posted. You attempted to correct me, I pointed out that the entire point of what I wrote was that the way I used it was the current most popular way (slightly less so with Americans but even there taking over). You then made a slightly sarcastic response about you apparently not being up with modern usage, clearly intending to send a message that it was wrong. So I've now broken out actual references to show the popularity of the usage and that in fact it has a long history. If it helps you actually admit you were wrong on the Internet, I'll tell you that I studied English Language.

The main people who attack the usage of "their" and "they" as singulars are people who think they are preserving the correct usage of the English language and yet are ignorant that (a) there is centuries old history of this usage and (b) that language evolves in good ways sometimes, not just bad. Short of using corruptions such as "hir" which do not translate into spoken English at all well, the 'singular they' is an excellent way of eliminating one of the few remaining gender biases in the English language. Which I'm all for as it reduces semantic weakness in the language.

Now will you be gracious enough to admit your sarcasm was unwarranted and that your attempt to pass off an erroneous correction was an answer to a later rhetorical question in my post when I strongly suspect it wasn't? Or do I break out the examples from Shakespeare?
>

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
it*

No, we don't know anything for sure about the Necrontyr. However, it's a much bigger logic jump to assume that they're genderless or whatever than it is to assume that it's GW being GW and, as they do often, simply excluding girls because they're icky or something. Much as it is far simpler to assume that they were humanoid before biotransference rather than saying they could have been betentacled snarglemonsters. Also, it's not just the narrator, as I have absolutely no doubt that any fluff written from a Necron's perspective will have other Necrons referred to as "he".

EDIT: Maybe Knights are female Necrons.

Bah, mistyped! Thanks for catching that.

Well, yes, of course the necrons were humanoid. It makes no sense for a race that was not humanoid to suddenly adopt humanoid mechanical forms.
Humanoid does not mean male/female, however. It can also mean hermaphrodite. Perhaps the necrons had both male and female sexual organs, and mated like snails?
We do not know. Is there any point in the codex or fluff where a necron referred to another necron as a "he"?

No no no, the knight's machine spirit was clearly copied from the conscientious of the pilot's dead mother. Or am I thinking of NGE again?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:There is a female demon princess of khorne, actually. Her name was Valkia, iirc.

Well, in Warhammer Fantasy, anyway.

Why should necrons be gendered? They are alien robots. The necrontyr might not even had a female gender to begin with.

The reason why something non-specific is male is due to cultural bias in the English language; the default is always male unless specified otherwise.

Does it state anywhere that the Young King must not be female? King could be a ceremonial term. All it says on lexi is that an Exarch is chosen.

Because the Necrons ARE gendered. They are consistently referred to as "he" and "him", because they're not really robots. They're people in robot bodies (even though they were referred to as male before the 5E Codex made them people). I highly doubt that GW actually came up with a bizarre no-female reproductive system for the Necrontyr (especially since every other gendered race is the same, except for Orks), and if they did, why are they all male?

Illuminor Szeras, Codex: Necrons 5E page 52 wrote:Szeras labours to unravel the mysteries of life, for he fears that he would be a poor sort of god without the secrets of life at his fingertips.

It's called a generic "he." It does not necessarily mean that he's a guy.

Actually it does in this instance because it refers to a named individual. The convention of using "he" and "his" where gender is unknown, applies only to indeterminate subjects. E.g. "the marine will clean his gun". We do not know who the marine is and therefore the convention of "he" and "his" will be applied by those that use it. However, were we referring to a specific marine, for example, Jane the Female Marine, we would not say: "Jane will clean his gun". Every native speaker of the English language would parse that sentence to mean Jane was cleaning some unmentioned male's gun. And we don't really want to go there on a family-friendly forum. The quote given is clearly meaning that Szeras is being identified as male. This is not French where non-gendered things are given a default gender. If a bunch of cars suddenly attacked people, we would use "it attacked me", not "he attacked me" just because we didn't know the car's gender. We know it doesn't have a gender and would feel no compulsion to assign one. We would just use "it". That this is not done with Necrons clearly shows the author considers them gendered. That it is done with a specific individual shows that the author considered that individual a "him".

I'll be blunt here. You have a nasty habit of talking authoritatively while being wrong.

There's also the Crimson Vengeance or something like that, and the Black Knight, which doesn't have its gender specified, on the Freeblade page, unlike all the others.

Ah, but they could have been. Maybe they did it to make themselves resemble stylised Eldar skeletons, or maybe it was a complete coincidence. There's just as much evidence to suggest that this is true as there is to suggest that Necrons are truly genderless. See Knas Ser's post.

EDIT: Maybe Knights are Tyranids...

EDIT2: Going the Mulan route doesn't make it okay.

Actually Frozen Ocean, there is evidence that the necrons are both genders. If you happened to pick up imperial armor volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus, and read the background information of the Maynarkh Dynasty, you would notice that their phaerakh (which is apparently the feminine version of phaeron ), is actually a female by the name of "Xun'bakyr - the Mother of Oblivion". You can find this on page 92 bottom of the 5th paragraph.

Jaceevoke wrote:
Actually Frozen Ocean, there is evidence that the necrons are both genders. If you happened to pick up imperial armor volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus, and read the background information of the Maynarkh Dynasty, you would notice that their phaerakh (which is apparently the feminine version of phaeron ), is actually a female by the name of "Xun'bakyr - the Mother of Oblivion". You can find this on page 92 bottom of the 5th paragraph.

Ah, thank you for clarifying that. With this new information, I can conclude that the characters in Codex: Necron, are in fact males.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah its very anoying - every other minitures game seems to put out female models and characters left right and centre - GW - just now and again.

Quite a few ladies were left in charge of castles during sieges............

Fantasy is a bit better - but still not great.

I am thinking of having one of my Knights painted like this Just need to get the right pilot model.............

Spoiler:

yeah but be careful around riptides and wraithknights, jump infantry and all that

Natasha would have slaughtered them in her Warhammer and in her Daishi - well

 Mr Morden wrote:
Natasha would have slaughtered them in her Warhammer and in her Daishi - well

unless of course Robert Thurston was writing the battle :(

While tradition has male pilots for the Knight households, there is nothing preventing female pilots like the Degree Passive does for Male Sororitas or Geneseed for female Astartes. It would be trivial to make a household where the firstborn daughter or firstborn of any gender become Knight pilots. And knights inducted fully into the mechanicus are also fair game I would assume- While we mostly see male members of the mechanicus, there is nothing stopping female magos, or female princeps (even in an Emperor titan, see Stormherald)

Stormherald? What's that?

Jaceevoke wrote:Actually Frozen Ocean, there is evidence that the necrons are both genders. If you happened to pick up imperial armor volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus, and read the background information of the Maynarkh Dynasty, you would notice that their phaerakh (which is apparently the feminine version of phaeron ), is actually a female by the name of "Xun'bakyr - the Mother of Oblivion". You can find this on page 92 bottom of the 5th paragraph.

Thank you! Just in case you haven't read my previous posts, I've been arguing for Necron genders. So yeah, it's just GW being GW and pretending that girls don't exist.

MajorWesJanson wrote:While tradition has male pilots for the Knight households, there is nothing preventing female pilots like the Degree Passive does for Male Sororitas or Geneseed for female Astartes. It would be trivial to make a household where the firstborn daughter or firstborn of any gender become Knight pilots. And knights inducted fully into the mechanicus are also fair game I would assume- While we mostly see male members of the mechanicus, there is nothing stopping female magos, or female princeps (even in an Emperor titan, see Stormherald)

No, but that doesn't make it okay. Even if they did make a female-pilot House, it would still be "guys are the normal thing and girls are weird. Girls only get to pilot mechs in weird exceptional circumstances. Girls are weird. Cooties, or something", which is why I said that going the Mulan route still doesn't make it okay. And yeah, there is nothing stopping us from seeing female Princeps, Tech-Priests, Inquisitors, Imperial Guard Commissars or Generals or anything, Farseers, assassins who actually do something (without the absolute failderp of Nemesis, or the killing of a Primarch "because he let her" and then, against said Primarch's orders, getting hunted down and brutally slaughtered and maimed, or stabbing a target who then turned into the Deceiver and brutally slaughtered and maimed her), Crypteks/Necron leaders or indeed any Necrons at all, Striking Scorpions, Warp Spiders - the list goes on, really. The Sisters of Battle, the all-girl force, are treated like they don't exist or that they're incompetent.

Older fluff has most 'nids as female, although that stopped being mentioned a little while ago when they realised that the way the hive mind reproduces kinda negates traditional depictions of gender (I will note that the battle leaders, 'Hive Tyrants' were special because they were supposed to be a male Tyranid).

Gender neutral writing for the win.

As far as I know, they had the ones in charge of "management" be girls, like the gene-manipulating Norn Queens (which may or may not be a reference to the Xenomorph Queen) and the synapse-linking Dominatrix. Regardless, the Tyranids much better suit being genderless and lacking Norn Queens (because they have been shown/stated to be able to adapt and modify themselves contextually, even when cut off from a ship and presumably any contact with Norn Queens).

I think it was more along the lines of hive insects - worker ants and worker bees are all non-fertile females, so termagants (still a feminine name, albeit a pejorative one) were logically girls too.

I didn't know that they were ever gendered. How strange. Tyranids were a lot different when they first came about, I suppose.



So scary. Much fear.

Most of that stuff is buried in Citadel Journal articles, I think. It's a good resource, but time consuming to comb through and nearly impossible to get hold of.

Also, I love the old screamer killer. It looks like it's about to hug you and then hawk plasma all over your head!

Or possibly just Finding Nemo references.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I didn't know that they were ever gendered. How strange. Tyranids were a lot different when they first came about, I suppose.



So scary. Much fear.

I like that model. Looks alien.

My friend's dad has been into 40k since Rogue Trader, so he has a lot of ancient models lying about, including old Tyranids.



There is one of these, and we love it because its shield is held high and it looks like it's doing a big derpy wave.

The 2e Zoanthropes are much scarier than the modern ones.