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.

WellSpokenMan wrote:A number of things in AR670-1 (which is the US Army's regualtion regarding uniforms) restrict what women are allowed to do in regards to uniform and hygene. If you honestly think that there is no male bias written into that, you are ridiculously naive. The wasn't just a perception of feminine weakness in the US Army, it was policy. Female soldiers had reduced physical standards, I assume they still do. You cannot honestly tell me that the Army sees women as equal when they give them a physical fitness handicap.

Starting with interceptor body armor, which was introdeced in the 90s, US military body armor is surprisingly snug, compared to the old flak vest it was a marjor improvement. However, that armor is designed for a flat male chest. The F-35 isn't cost effective. No considering the needs of 1 out of every 20 of your soldiers because of a manageable cost sounds like bad policy. Combat and Combat Support are all well and good, but I would like to think that by now we would have learned that, in warzone, sometimes combat comes to you. Being in a support role does not mean you will not be in combat.

To paraphrase Raphael, "I think you've been studying The Abridged Book of Ninja Fighting."

You're overlooking the main factor behind the adoption of the Interceptor, as well as the basic tenets of military aqcquisition, lol. The Interceptor vest was adopted in 1998, with production starting in 1999, with an expected completition rate of about 10,500 that year (as you can guess, that's not anywhere near the total number of Marines, let alone the Army). They weren't even fielded by line units until early 2001, and obviously the combat units headed to Afghanistan too precedence. By 2002, the company contracted to provide the armored strike plates had only delivered about 45,000 of them (with two used per vest). Thus, when large scale deployment to Iraq happened, the military was only very early on in its distribution phase for the new armor, and it had prioritized that distribution to the troops most likely to see direct action. So, poorly chosen, misapplied and snarky comments about fluid battlespaces in an unconventional environment aside, the reality was suddenly the military needed about 20 times as many vests and plates as it currently possessed, so it just went with what it had, regardless of what phase of deployment and testing the vests were in. This was essentially the second generation plate carrying vest, and the first to be standard issue for all troops. It was nowhere near a finished product. In fact, it's already been replaced twice by the line units. But to suggest that a developmental project rushed to accomodate a severely accelerated procurement need was "bad policy" just shows you don't understand "policy", or the history of the project very well (at all).

Though I have to laugh at your assessment of "Not considering the needs of 1 out of ever 20 soldiers". This is the military we're talking about. We talk about cost overruns and inefficiencies and archaic leadership models and then suddenly you'd be surprised that they went a cheap and easy and universal route for body armor by utilizing a single model?

As far as the rest of it, the lowered female standards in the military is definitely a bad policy. Women, at least in the Marine Corps, are promoted faster than their male peers because of the lower standards, and 55% of females tested couldn't even pass the bare minimum of male recruit physical standards. Now, there's some valid arguments that those standards are outdated, but they're still standards, and they result in a fewer than 1% failure rate for males. If females were held to the male standard, there wouldn't be women in the US Marines, and probably not in the Army. If you're only running a 3rd Class PFT (bare minimum), and you're in an infantry battalion, your life is a living hell. The very existence of women was an acknowledgement that you probably don't need to be able to hump a heavy pack or a mortar baseplate to run paperwork or talk on a radio at the airfield, and the existence of lowered [hysical standards for females was a compromise that made it so females weren't stuck in an abyss of non-promotability. I would never tell you the military sees women as equal. That would be silly. They're not. But calling their reduced standards "a handicap" is hilarious in how wrong it is. It's such a ridiculous advantage for them professionally it's not funny. No, seriously, it's not funny. If you were ever confused why female soldiers and Marines are held in contempt by a fair number of their male peers, ask the next male Lance Corporal you meet what he thinks of his newest female Corporal who gets an 18% points bonus for her 3 mile run time and doesn't have to do pullups.

And I don't want to hear any hooey about the appearance standards women are held to. I had two choices for haircuts. Bad, and really bad. So I'm going to laugh (not for long. Just enough to signal disbelief and derision) at the idea that the military was "hiding femininity" rather than just "loosening its already restrictive appearance and hygiene standards to make the force less restrictive to women." If women were stuck with a 0-3 fade and zero jewelry like men are, you might have a point. But they aren't, and you don't.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Spoiler:

WellSpokenMan wrote:A number of things in AR670-1 (which is the US Army's regualtion regarding uniforms) restrict what women are allowed to do in regards to uniform and hygene. If you honestly think that there is no male bias written into that, you are ridiculously naive. The wasn't just a perception of feminine weakness in the US Army, it was policy. Female soldiers had reduced physical standards, I assume they still do. You cannot honestly tell me that the Army sees women as equal when they give them a physical fitness handicap.

Starting with interceptor body armor, which was introdeced in the 90s, US military body armor is surprisingly snug, compared to the old flak vest it was a marjor improvement. However, that armor is designed for a flat male chest. The F-35 isn't cost effective. No considering the needs of 1 out of every 20 of your soldiers because of a manageable cost sounds like bad policy. Combat and Combat Support are all well and good, but I would like to think that by now we would have learned that, in warzone, sometimes combat comes to you. Being in a support role does not mean you will not be in combat.

To paraphrase Raphael, "I think you've been studying The Abridged Book of Ninja Fighting."

No I've been studying the unabridged book of personal experience. I know that Ranger Body Armor was fielded in the 90's. I know that I had the second iteration of kevlar & ceramic ballistic plate body armor, called Interceptor Body Armor in 2002, in Kosovo. The armor stayed in Kosovo when we left. When I was in Iraq in 2003, I went back to the old flak vest. I do not know for certain that IBA would have saved the life of one of my soldiers, but I think it highly likely. He died from a shot to the chest, where the ballistic plate would have been. I do know that our candy ass command element had it. I also know that they never took any fire. I also know that 10 years after my experience, there is still no female version of the armor. I also aware that most people on the military and in the civilian leadership don't give a gak about losing one soldier in twenty. As long as that soldier isn't them. When they are one of yours you give a little bit more of a gak. Feel free to defend the status quo a little more. It takes a lot of courage to spout the same old gak. Insert random donkey-cave lol where ever you want in that last paragraph btw.

Spoiler:

You're overlooking the main factor behind the adoption of the Interceptor, as well as the basic tenets of military aqcquisition, lol. The Interceptor vest was adopted in 1998, with production starting in 1999, with an expected completition rate of about 10,500 that year (as you can guess, that's not anywhere near the total number of Marines, let alone the Army). They weren't even fielded by line units until early 2001, and obviously the combat units headed to Afghanistan too precedence. By 2002, the company contracted to provide the armored strike plates had only delivered about 45,000 of them (with two used per vest). Thus, when large scale deployment to Iraq happened, the military was only very early on in its distribution phase for the new armor, and it had prioritized that distribution to the troops most likely to see direct action. So, poorly chosen, misapplied and snarky comments about fluid battlespaces in an unconventional environment aside, the reality was suddenly the military needed about 20 times as many vests and plates as it currently possessed, so it just went with what it had, regardless of what phase of deployment and testing the vests were in. This was essentially the second generation plate carrying vest, and the first to be standard issue for all troops. It was nowhere near a finished product. In fact, it's already been replaced twice by the line units. But to suggest that a developmental project rushed to accomodate a severely accelerated procurement need was "bad policy" just shows you don't understand "policy", or the history of the project very well (at all).

Though I have to laugh at your assessment of "Not considering the needs of 1 out of ever 20 soldiers". This is the military we're talking about. We talk about cost overruns and inefficiencies and archaic leadership models and then suddenly you'd be surprised that they went a cheap and easy and universal route for body armor by utilizing a single model?

As far as the rest of it, the lowered female standards in the military is definitely a bad policy. Women, at least in the Marine Corps, are promoted faster than their male peers because of the lower standards, and 55% of females tested couldn't even pass the bare minimum of male recruit physical standards. Now, there's some valid arguments that those standards are outdated, but they're still standards, and they result in a fewer than 1% failure rate for males. If females were held to the male standard, there wouldn't be women in the US Marines, and probably not in the Army. If you're only running a 3rd Class PFT (bare minimum), and you're in an infantry battalion, your life is a living hell. The very existence of women was an acknowledgement that you probably don't need to be able to hump a heavy pack or a mortar baseplate to run paperwork or talk on a radio at the airfield, and the existence of lowered [hysical standards for females was a compromise that made it so females weren't stuck in an abyss of non-promotability. I would never tell you the military sees women as equal. That would be silly. They're not. But calling their reduced standards "a handicap" is hilarious in how wrong it is. It's such a ridiculous advantage for them professionally it's not funny. No, seriously, it's not funny. If you were ever confused why female soldiers and Marines are held in contempt by a fair number of their male peers, ask the next male Lance Corporal you meet what he thinks of his newest female Corporal who gets an 18% points bonus for her 3 mile run time and doesn't have to do pullups.

All of what you just said, refutes nothing of what I said.

You're upset one of your soldiers died, and I feel for you, but your problem was math. Your unit didn't get IBAs with ballistic inserts because there weren't enough of them in existence in 2003 for everyone to get one. Talk about being "butt hurt about how unfair life is" and needing to be a "real man" who doesn't "feel hard done".

You're not the only one with dead friends. The difference is, I still have my dignity. Nothing is less impressive to somebody like me than you trying to spout your "combat record". And I never said any of those things bothered me. I said those things were the reality. I said your argument was garbage. It was garbage before, and no matter how many insults you pile on, it's still garbage now. You may have personal experience, but what you lack is contextual understanding.

The rest of your pathetic ad hominem attacks on me aren't worth addressing. The forum won't miss you, and it sounds like you have a lawn that needs tending.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Exactly. This topic comes up from time to time, and the answer is always "Games Workshop is a company full of pasty white British guys."

Melissia wrote:They don't use it because they don't think about it; and not thinking about it means your unconscious biases take over.

Animus wrote:Because they are mostly white men making a game that is primarily consumed by other white men. I don't think much about black people in my day to day life and I assume they don't either unless they are being directly affected by black people or white people who are acting offended on behalf of black people.

fallinq wrote:As people have pointed out, other races (and women) show up much more frequently in the fluff than they do in the official artwork and models. I don't think this is due to deliberate racism. The GW boys are just a bunch of white, British nerds who, with a very few exceptions, draw and paint human characters to be gritty, idealized versions of themselves.

The thing is, having an unconscious default on the color of skin can be understandable if you're one or two pasty white nerds who don't encounter other races on a daily basis, but for a company (a multinational company based in diverse Blighty that's been at this for years and had to read up on a bunch of compliances and fings, at that) "oh gee I just didn't think" becomes a little less effective as an excuse.

Or is racial acknowledgement otiose in this niche?

Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
On the sculpting side of things, I don't see that there's any reason you'd need to sculpt for different ethnicities - frankly, at that scale, for the differences to be noticeable you'd end up making caricatures - better to rely on the paintjob, IMO.

fallinq wrote:I just wanted to point out a couple of things:
Generally speaking, most guardsmen and Space Marine models look just fine with a darker skin tone. The features are generic enough (especially with most of them being bald or wearing helmets) that they could be just about any race. Sculpting "black" heads isn't necessary. All it takes is a different paint job. I think anyone who's played Salamanders for a while could tell you this. Modelling women is much more difficult than modelling different races.

Largely correct IMO, but I was gearing up for Salamanders when the 'coal black, red eyes' thing appeared, and I found SM faces to be disagreeably misproportioned in places, for the task at hand. I remember I fixed the pilot from the Macragge box first, before I kicked 40K to the kerb. Didn't look too bad, IMO. I wonder if I still have him around here...

So when others say 'you can't do subtle' and 'it'll end up as a caricature', I think it could be a moot point as GW faces - or SM faces at least - could ungenerously be said to tend towards unsubtle caricatures anyway, with some quite thin, pointy noses in particular, for this topic. (if they're suitable for representation of black guys, it's black guys like this. And dose scouts, pfff) Obviously there has to be some degree of exaggeration and abstraction at these teeny scales, but other companies and sculptors provide more subtly-sculpted faces that actually are more racially neutral. And there are some specifically black minis too: I'm thinking Hasslefree for the former and latter (Ken and Kendra at least, but Kev's particular style gives relatively softer features to his characters in general, that could easily take a range of skintones), Warlord and Empress Zulus, off the top of my head. Any others?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Drink your milk, BA.

OT: I painted up some black Catachans when I collected them, it's up to you to forge the narrative.

As fuzzy as some of the artwork is, its difficult to sometimes distinguish ethnicity.

I was sure the guy with the power-sword and the pistol with the flamer were black in the image below.




Also the guy with the pistol kinda looks like:

 Warboss.'eadsmasha wrote:
Can't we leave real politics out of Warhammer?

When I ask the same question I'm called a racist. I try to stay away from such topics as people will just try to make you look as bad as possible for not agreeing with them. Drawing the racism/sexist cards for instance.

Let's not forget that there is a lot more than just the Imperium. Even though the Imperium has no discrimination as long as you follow the rules, and has planets with a 100% conscription rate yet a strange lack of any female personnel. Let's pretend that it's all intentional because they're trying to emulate a WWI vibe. Let's ignore that almost every human character is white and male, and ignore the ones that aren't even military (Inquisitors, etc).

What about the aliens? When the Necrons were changed into their current format, they were given a slew of new characters (seven with models and rules), all of which are male. The only female Necron character is Xun'bakyr, who is from Imperial Armour 12 and, while important, not given much attention. There are fifty Necron characters listed on Lexicanum. Forty nine of them are male.

It'd be nice to have a human character who is just black, female, or both. No special history regarding their race or gender, just that's what they are.

The setting would benefit from more Shadowsuns, not just in regard to gender but to race as well. The Imperial Guard almost had it before, having a number of racially-distinct characters, though sadly they were basically just stereotypes and nothing else.

I don't want 50/50. I just want something. I just want a little more representation in this setting I love so much. If Lady Malys and Inquisitor Valeria had been given models instead of getting cut, things wouldn't be quite so disappointing. How about a single non-white Ultramarine character?

 Lord Spartacus wrote:

 Warboss.'eadsmasha wrote:
Can't we leave real politics out of Warhammer?

When I ask the same question I'm called a racist. I try to stay away from such topics as people will just try to make you look as bad as possible for not agreeing with them. Drawing the racism/sexist cards for instance.

It is always politics; maintaining status quo is politics too. When people say 'can we leave politics out of thing X', it means 'I don't want include anyone who is not a straight white male.'

 Vermis wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Exactly. This topic comes up from time to time, and the answer is always "Games Workshop is a company full of pasty white British guys."

Melissia wrote:They don't use it because they don't think about it; and not thinking about it means your unconscious biases take over.

Animus wrote:Because they are mostly white men making a game that is primarily consumed by other white men. I don't think much about black people in my day to day life and I assume they don't either unless they are being directly affected by black people or white people who are acting offended on behalf of black people.

fallinq wrote:As people have pointed out, other races (and women) show up much more frequently in the fluff than they do in the official artwork and models. I don't think this is due to deliberate racism. The GW boys are just a bunch of white, British nerds who, with a very few exceptions, draw and paint human characters to be gritty, idealized versions of themselves.

The thing is, having an unconscious default on the color of skin can be understandable if you're one or two pasty white nerds who don't encounter other races on a daily basis, but for a company (a multinational company based in diverse Blighty that's been at this for years and had to read up on a bunch of compliances and fings, at that) "oh gee I just didn't think" becomes a little less effective as an excuse.

Or is racial acknowledgement otiose in this niche?

Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
On the sculpting side of things, I don't see that there's any reason you'd need to sculpt for different ethnicities - frankly, at that scale, for the differences to be noticeable you'd end up making caricatures - better to rely on the paintjob, IMO.

fallinq wrote:I just wanted to point out a couple of things:
Generally speaking, most guardsmen and Space Marine models look just fine with a darker skin tone. The features are generic enough (especially with most of them being bald or wearing helmets) that they could be just about any race. Sculpting "black" heads isn't necessary. All it takes is a different paint job. I think anyone who's played Salamanders for a while could tell you this. Modelling women is much more difficult than modelling different races.

Largely correct IMO, but I was gearing up for Salamanders when the 'coal black, red eyes' thing appeared, and I found SM faces to be disagreeably misproportioned in places, for the task at hand. I remember I fixed the pilot from the Macragge box first, before I kicked 40K to the kerb. Didn't look too bad, IMO. I wonder if I still have him around here...

So when others say 'you can't do subtle' and 'it'll end up as a caricature', I think it could be a moot point as GW faces - or SM faces at least - could ungenerously be said to tend towards unsubtle caricatures anyway, with some quite thin, pointy noses in particular, for this topic. (if they're suitable for representation of black guys, it's black guys like this. And dose scouts, pfff) Obviously there has to be some degree of exaggeration and abstraction at these teeny scales, but other companies and sculptors provide more subtly-sculpted faces that actually are more racially neutral. And there are some specifically black minis too: I'm thinking Hasslefree for the former and latter (Ken and Kendra at least, but Kev's particular style gives relatively softer features to his characters in general, that could easily take a range of skintones), Warlord and Empress Zulus, off the top of my head. Any others?

Also, Astartes shouldn't have small noses to begin with. Given their increased lung capacity and need for oxygen to support their super-charged massive bodies, they'd need an incredibly large, flat, and wide nose to suck up as much air as possible with each breath.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Let's not forget that there is a lot more than just the Imperium. Even though the Imperium has no discrimination as long as you follow the rules, and has planets with a 100% conscription rate yet a strange lack of any female personnel. Let's pretend that it's all intentional because they're trying to emulate a WWI vibe. Let's ignore that almost every human character is white and male, and ignore the ones that aren't even military (Inquisitors, etc).

What about the aliens? When the Necrons were changed into their current format, they were given a slew of new characters (seven with models and rules), all of which are male. The only female Necron character is Xun'bakyr, who is from Imperial Armour 12 and, while important, not given much attention. There are fifty Necron characters listed on Lexicanum. Forty nine of them are male.

It'd be nice to have a human character who is just black, female, or both. No special history regarding their race or gender, just that's what they are.

The setting would benefit from more Shadowsuns, not just in regard to gender but to race as well. The Imperial Guard almost had it before, having a number of racially-distinct characters, though sadly they were basically just stereotypes and nothing else.

I don't want 50/50. I just want something. I just want a little more representation in this setting I love so much. If Lady Malys and Inquisitor Valeria had been given models instead of getting cut, things wouldn't be quite so disappointing. How about a single non-white Ultramarine character?

Necrons may have simply lacked any sexual dimorphism in their species. Many of the females could have been Warriors.... who ended up having their individuality destroyed.

 Lord Spartacus wrote:

 Warboss.'eadsmasha wrote:
Can't we leave real politics out of Warhammer?

When I ask the same question I'm called a racist. I try to stay away from such topics as people will just try to make you look as bad as possible for not agreeing with them. Drawing the racism/sexist cards for instance.

There is no such thing as a race or sexist card. That metaphor is disingenuous. Racism and sexism exist in almost every part of our lives with bells on. "Can we just not tall about racism/sexism?" Is generally a bad question to ask.

 Crimson wrote:
When people say 'can we leave politics out of thing X', it means 'I don't want include anyone who is not a straight white male.'

You pretty much just confirmed what I said. Thanks for knowing my stance on race and gender better than I do.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Necrons may have simply lacked any sexual dimorphism in their species. Many of the females could have been Warriors.... who ended up having their individuality destroyed.

That's not what I said, though. They made characters who are specifically male, and a lot of them, all at once. Literally the only female one is an honourable mention (as the "Phaerakh" of the Maynarkh Dynasty*) in a Forge World book. It's the same as saying "there are a lot of women in the Guard, you just don't see them ever and none of them are named characters".

* Thiskh is howkh you Egyptkh, rightkh?

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Necrons may have simply lacked any sexual dimorphism in their species. Many of the females could have been Warriors.... who ended up having their individuality destroyed.

That's not what I said, though. They made characters who are specifically male, and a lot of them, all at once. Literally the only female one is an honourable mention (as the "Phaerakh" of the Maynarkh Dynasty*) in a Forge World book. It's the same as saying "there are a lot of women in the Guard, you just don't see them ever and none of them are named characters".

* Thiskh is howkh you Egyptkh, rightkh?

Maybe they should have just made the necrons genderless. I mean undead zombie robots don't really need gender.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Necrons may have simply lacked any sexual dimorphism in their species. Many of the females could have been Warriors.... who ended up having their individuality destroyed.

That's not what I said, though. They made characters who are specifically male, and a lot of them, all at once. Literally the only female one is an honourable mention (as the "Phaerakh" of the Maynarkh Dynasty*) in a Forge World book. It's the same as saying "there are a lot of women in the Guard, you just don't see them ever and none of them are named characters".

* Thiskh is howkh you Egyptkh, rightkh?

But there probably wouldn't be a lot of female Necron characters to begin with. Realistically if they were a Patriarchal society like ours in history (which they do as they operate on royalty), most of the leading figures in Necron society as of M41 that are actually sentient will be male. The female Pharaohs would be practically non-existent or in incredibly small numbers. Meanwhile the bulk troops probably have a male female even split, but barely any are even sentient, and they have the exact same body type because skeletons.

If all of European royalty as of 1500AD was turned into robots with only the leaders retaining their sentient, there would be very, very little female named leaders. People such as Queen Victoria or Nefertiti are the exception, not the rule.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Necrons may have simply lacked any sexual dimorphism in their species. Many of the females could have been Warriors.... who ended up having their individuality destroyed.

That's not what I said, though. They made characters who are specifically male, and a lot of them, all at once. Literally the only female one is an honourable mention (as the "Phaerakh" of the Maynarkh Dynasty*) in a Forge World book. It's the same as saying "there are a lot of women in the Guard, you just don't see them ever and none of them are named characters".

* Thiskh is howkh you Egyptkh, rightkh?

But there probably wouldn't be a lot of female Necron characters to begin with. Realistically if they were a Patriarchal society like ours in history (which they do as they operate on royalty), most of the leading figures in Necron society as of M41 that are actually sentient will be male. The female Pharaohs would be practically non-existent or in incredibly small numbers. Meanwhile the bulk troops probably have a male female even split, but barely any are even sentient, and they have the exact same body type because skeletons.

If all of European royalty as of 1500AD was turned into robots with only the leaders retaining their sentient, there would be very, very little female named leaders. People such as Queen Victoria or Nefertiti are the exception, not the rule.

Realistically there is no such thing as zombierobots, so you know... It isn't just the leaders who are sentient is it? Don't they also have their cryptechs and other advisers? Assuming they are a patriarchal society (and we don't have to) couldn't it be possible for necron wives to be around and sentient. Now I want to see like a Mr Miss necron team.

That's if their society even had a concept of marriage like we do. The Necrontyr were Xenos. They are nothing like anything in Earth's evolutionary history, so we haven't a clue how they functioned at all. We just have a semi-good idea on what they looked like and what their culture was like. That's preeeeetty much it.

Lord Spartacus wrote:

 Warboss.'eadsmasha wrote:
Can't we leave real politics out of Warhammer?

When I ask the same question I'm called a racist. I try to stay away from such topics as people will just try to make you look as bad as possible for not agreeing with them. Drawing the racism/sexist cards for instance.

I don't think I'd jump on you for that (my jaw dropped a bit when I saw people do so, just after), but if I may, one of the words in Warboss' post bring up a point that I think people are just slightly missing: it's not so much about politics in Warhammer as politics (or... just a little awareness) in Games Workshop. No-one's saying only >20% of your guardsmen can be painted caucasian according to fluff, or that you need to model a bunch of placard-waving protesters to stand at one side while your marines burn the xenos; but like I said earlier, it baffles me that a business big enough to be publicly traded, dealing in (even originating a couple of) pop culture tropes, manages to whitewash it's main image so thoroughly. (Like I also said, I don't count obscure tie-ins that about a dozen people know of)

But then I remember it's Games Workshop, whose attitude even to market research is along the lines of 'it burns us, my precious.'

Wyzilla wrote:Also, Astartes shouldn't have small noses to begin with. Given their increased lung capacity and need for oxygen to support their super-charged massive bodies, they'd need an incredibly large, flat, and wide nose to suck up as much air as possible with each breath.

Well that nudges my mind's eye out of Homo sapiens altogether and onto something else that might seem appropriate, on a few different levels.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because Games Workshop are incapable of imagining anything other than white males. Even the aliens are almost exclusively white and male.

Ignore it. 40k as a universe only works if you have your own interpretation of it, in which you can have as much diversity as you want.

They're all white males right?
Except for the SoB, orks, Salamanders, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Tyranids, Servitors, those guys from the FFG RPGs, Necrons, Slaaneshi, Daemons...

Wyzilla wrote:Realistically if they were a Patriarchal society like ours in history (which they do as they operate on royalty)
...
If all of European royalty as of 1500AD was turned into robots with only the leaders retaining their sentient, there would be very, very little female named leaders. People such as Queen Victoria or Nefertiti are the exception, not the rule.

Wyzilla wrote:That's if their society even had a concept of marriage like we do. The Necrontyr were Xenos. They are nothing like anything in Earth's evolutionary history, so we haven't a clue how they functioned at all. We just have a semi-good idea on what they looked like and what their culture was like. That's preeeeetty much it.

Operating on royalty does not equal a patriarchal society automatically. Their royalty could have been matriarchy-based, or gender wouldn't have had a role at all. Like you said, they're Xenos, and their specific cultural dynamics and gender roles therein are entirely, absolutely, completely up to GW. Especially when they were updated into 5th edition and all of this was made.

Talon of Anathrax wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because Games Workshop are incapable of imagining anything other than white males. Even the aliens are almost exclusively white and male.

Ignore it. 40k as a universe only works if you have your own interpretation of it, in which you can have as much diversity as you want.

They're all white males right?
Except for the SoB, orks, Salamanders, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Tyranids, Servitors, those guys from the FFG RPGs, Necrons, Slaaneshi, Daemons...

SoB are massively neglected, and are female for the sake of being female. The Salamanders are "coal black mutants with burning red eyes", whose "non-whiteness" is an aberration and a gimmick at best, in the face of massive, massive numbers of Space Marine Chapters who are entirely white. Tyranids are genderless, inhuman monsters. Orks are all male. Servitors are all white and male. Necrons are all (but for one) male, and they're not white but they're definitely not anything else either. Daemons are almost entirely male. The Eldar and Dark Eldar have two current female characters between them, and are all white, so I really don't know what your point is supposed to be. People keep saying "Eldar and Dark Eldar" as if that is some kind of a point about equal representation in the setting, when I'm really not sure how a race of white-skinned human-like aliens who have extremely few female characters does anything other than prove my point.

Blue/green/red/purple doesn't equate to non-white representation. Genderless monsters do not equate to non-male representation.

Read the rest of the thread.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Blue/green/red/purple doesn't equate to non-white representation. Genderless monsters do not equate to non-male representation.

Yup, people missing the point. Scratching their heads when nids in the fluff don't answer questions about lack of female and non-white humans in real-world media.

Or:

Dear black people,

you are now considered on the same level as slavering all-devouring outer-space repto-bugs.

Hope this helps.

Wuv,
Vermis.

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because Games Workshop are incapable of imagining anything other than white males. Even the aliens are almost exclusively white and male.

Ignore it. 40k as a universe only works if you have your own interpretation of it, in which you can have as much diversity as you want.

They're all white males right?
Except for the SoB, orks, Salamanders, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Tyranids, Servitors, those guys from the FFG RPGs, Necrons, Slaaneshi, Daemons...

I've yet to see a Dark Eldar/ Eldar who wasn't white. I'm sure they're out there but... yeah.

Yeah, all of the Eldar and Dark Eldar are pretty pale.
Which I guess makes sense, considering how they are space versions of the fantasy elf trope.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, all of the Eldar and Dark Eldar are pretty pale.
Which I guess makes sense, considering how they are space versions of the fantasy elf trope.

I agree but I think fantasy elves need a lot more variety in skin tones too.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, all of the Eldar and Dark Eldar are pretty pale.
Which I guess makes sense, considering how they are space versions of the fantasy elf trope.

I agree but I think fantasy elves need a lot more variety in skin tones too.

Fair enough. After all, you'd think a bunch of elves in a tropical climate would have darker skin.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Necrons may have simply lacked any sexual dimorphism in their species. Many of the females could have been Warriors.... who ended up having their individuality destroyed.

That's not what I said, though. They made characters who are specifically male, and a lot of them, all at once. Literally the only female one is an honourable mention (as the "Phaerakh" of the Maynarkh Dynasty*) in a Forge World book. It's the same as saying "there are a lot of women in the Guard, you just don't see them ever and none of them are named characters".

* Thiskh is howkh you Egyptkh, rightkh?

But there probably wouldn't be a lot of female Necron characters to begin with. Realistically if they were a Patriarchal society like ours in history (which they do as they operate on royalty), most of the leading figures in Necron society as of M41 that are actually sentient will be male. The female Pharaohs would be practically non-existent or in incredibly small numbers. Meanwhile the bulk troops probably have a male female even split, but barely any are even sentient, and they have the exact same body type because skeletons.

If all of European royalty as of 1500AD was turned into robots with only the leaders retaining their sentient, there would be very, very little female named leaders. People such as Queen Victoria or Nefertiti are the exception, not the rule.

Having royalty does not make a system patriarchal. You can have a hereditary monarchy, but have it be egalitarian, patriarchal, or matriarchal. The fact that it's ruled by royal courts and the like is no indicator of its gender politics. That it was that way on Earth has no bearing on a culture from a far-distant planet that went effectively extinct 60 million years ago.

I've had to do some surgery on this thread; more is probably warranted, but would require wholesale deletion of pages of material.

Only public warning; if I come back here & find more off-topic bickering or spam, Bad Things will happen to the posting privileges of the offender(s). This is a forum dedicated to the discussion of toy soldiers; rudeness towards other posters will not be tolerated.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Necrons may have simply lacked any sexual dimorphism in their species. Many of the females could have been Warriors.... who ended up having their individuality destroyed.

That's not what I said, though. They made characters who are specifically male, and a lot of them, all at once. Literally the only female one is an honourable mention (as the "Phaerakh" of the Maynarkh Dynasty*) in a Forge World book. It's the same as saying "there are a lot of women in the Guard, you just don't see them ever and none of them are named characters".

* Thiskh is howkh you Egyptkh, rightkh?

But there probably wouldn't be a lot of female Necron characters to begin with. Realistically if they were a Patriarchal society like ours in history (which they do as they operate on royalty), most of the leading figures in Necron society as of M41 that are actually sentient will be male. The female Pharaohs would be practically non-existent or in incredibly small numbers. Meanwhile the bulk troops probably have a male female even split, but barely any are even sentient, and they have the exact same body type because skeletons.

If all of European royalty as of 1500AD was turned into robots with only the leaders retaining their sentient, there would be very, very little female named leaders. People such as Queen Victoria or Nefertiti are the exception, not the rule.

However as the majority of named Necron sentient characters are male, the only conclusion that can be made is that they are/were a patriarchal society given our ratio of male named sentient necrons to female necrons is absurdly tiny.

Having royalty does not make a system patriarchal. You can have a hereditary monarchy, but have it be egalitarian, patriarchal, or matriarchal. The fact that it's ruled by royal courts and the like is no indicator of its gender politics. That it was that way on Earth has no bearing on a culture from a far-distant planet that went effectively extinct 60 million years ago.

Yes, but the point is that GW specifically set them up to be patriarchal in a setting where the ratio of female named sentient characters next to male characters is already absurdly tiny. Necrons are already the ultimate classists, since their very minds and bodies are dependent on class - and that's cool. Why do they have to be sexist, too?

What if Pask had been a girl? What if Sergeant Telion was Asian (I say "Asian", although that is incorrect, because in the far, far future, specifics such as "Korean" probably won't exist any more, since nobody even knows what Korea is any more)?

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Yes, but the point is that GW specifically set them up to be patriarchal in a setting where the ratio of female named sentient characters next to male characters is already absurdly tiny. Necrons are already the ultimate classists, since their very minds and bodies are dependent on class - and that's cool. Why do they have to be sexist, too?

What if Pask had been a girl? What if Sergeant Telion was Asian (I say "Asian", although that is incorrect, because in the far, far future, specifics such as "Korean" probably won't exist any more, since nobody even knows what Korea is any more)?

Except the obvious historical/ethnic expys (and sometimes not even then), you will be hard pressed to find a non-white artwork depiction (where excuses of modelling detail do not come into play).

The relative lack of female depiction in the Imperial Guard is also quite noticeable, despite Guard regiments being written as being the founders of a new ruling class of worlds they conquer if they survive long enough. Yet clearly either there are females in the regiment, there are already human females on the conquered planet, or they ship females in from elsewhere, else it would be a very short lived ruling class.

In short, GWs de facto policy seems to be portrayal of non-whites or females only in niche roles of expy or stereotype/archetype ("battle nuns", "scantily dressed black widow or Amazonian killers" like Wyches). If anything I think GW has gone backwards over the years, because the Deathwing used to have those feathers denoting Native American-like recruits and cultural influence. While it was admittedly a stereotypical expy, I think I preferred it to the robed knight version of the Dark Angels we have now since there are already so many other Chapters based on the knight theme.