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.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Look at the prices that 3rd party female imperial figures go for, and tell me there's not a market.

Couldn't you just as equally say the demand isn't great so they have to charge a lot of money to make it worth their while?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Look at the prices that 3rd party female imperial figures go for, and tell me there's not a market.

Couldn't you just as equally say the demand isn't great so they have to charge a lot of money to make it worth their while?

You could say that, but not equally.

If you undercoat your figures in Imperial Primer, then all of your models will be black on the "inside".
And that's what matters, racial awareness and sensitivity painted into your force subtly.
Basically, if you exclusively undercoat your plastic soldiers in white, then you're a racist sir/madam!

Does race matter in wargaming? I say no. I say that when race becomes such a big issue that people complain about minis... they themselves have racism problems. Anyone can paint minis as they see fit.

Most minis are white as the designers are white and wrote characters that they could see themselves relate to. This is not intentional biased racism, it is what the human race and all living things do. Well, and the war game population is mostly white and smart marketing would say appeal to the majority. After all would you want a majority of the cash or a small amount of cash?

Whatever

Generally I am more concerned about the lack of female models than what skin tones the GW paints when they promote their miniatures. Painting your models differently is far easier than not having available models unless you want to go 3rd party and kit bash together something. Even of the lack of non-caucasian skintones on humans and elves might be a bit weird.

Sure, there is fluff reasons for all Space Marines to look like body builders past their prime, but that fluff is a part of the problem. Then there is also no reason for there being no female guardsmen and whatnot.

In the end, I do not care overly much. I can live with my Necrons all looking like terminator skeletons, I model as many of my Space Marines with helmets as I can and likewise with my Tau.

However, I do sort of wish there was more diversity in both the fluff and the model ranges.

Drager wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Look at the prices that 3rd party female imperial figures go for, and tell me there's not a market.

Couldn't you just as equally say the demand isn't great so they have to charge a lot of money to make it worth their while?

You could say that, but not equally.

Given there's no solid numbers one way or the other, equally is the only way you could say it.

I play aliens and I rarely have any faces to show. Not even an issue. Haha. Still one would think there should at least be the odd female Tau Firewarrior. They don't seem to be the type to care about gender roles.

 Gamgee wrote:
I play aliens and I rarely have any faces to show. Not even an issue. Haha. Still one would think there should at least be the odd female Tau Firewarrior. They don't seem to be the type to care about gender roles.

A model covered in armour can be female. Often with male and female modern armour the external differences are small. It figures any firewarrior could be female. Compare the Shadowsun figure to shas'o kais from dawn of war. the armoour on the outside is the same.

Isn't the primarch of the Iron hands a black guy?

and he died...

Nevermind.

He looks pretty pink to me.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
For the sake of inclusion and the sense of belonging in a hobby? Abso-fething-lutely.

That's strange, most of the people I know have non-people armies yet no one feels excluded because their army doesn't have nerdy white guys in their ranks.

I don't have to have white men in my army of evil daemons to feel some sense of commonality. I feel included because we both like to stand against the self-righteous and annoying bully that is the Imperium. Heck, I even feel included because Tzeentch shares my curious and trolly personality. There's more to inclusion than, "My army looks like me!".

Besides, it's not GW's job to make everyone feel happy and included in their product.

So first off, spot on noticing that OP. I agree and I think that line of thinking extends to females in 40k model lines as well. This is going to go off on a slightly-related tangent:

I've been in the hobby almost exactly one year now. I love it and I love the people that play this game. But one of the things that has always really bothered me about playing 40k is that GW has never addressed the lack of females in any model line (besides SoB which has since disappeared).

I would really love to see GW make a push to get away with how ridiculously manly/macho every space marine chapter is and find a way to include badass women. In fact, keep how over the top it is - but why can't there be some named female chapter masters on par with Calgar? Co-ed chapters? I think it damages the 40k brand and more importantly, is a big reason why women don't participate in 40k. Rewriting lore to make the game more accessible while at the same time not watering down way it plays is a huge win to me.

I think there is something wrong with walking into a GW store and the only people in there are dudes every single time.

Every once in awhile (about once a week-ish), a parent will come in with her daughter and they will geek the f out - like seriously geek out! - over some of the miniatures. And then they see the 6 dudes hovering around a table making dick jokes and they moonwalk away from the store as fast as they can. Which is a somewhat unrelated, off-topic issue (sorry).

Girls are awesome, so why not create ways to get them into wargaming?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Given there's no solid numbers one way or the other, equally is the only way you could say it.

I was thinking more when folks put them up for bids on eBay. But yeah, that could swing both ways, I'm not pretending I know for facts.
However if you look at companies like Hasslefree, they're hardly struggling to trade on powerful female minis. They even fill some gaps themselves and do so affordably.
Stepping back from 3rd party - the original female commissar, even recast, fetches £15-30, the female Tanith trooper who wields an identical gun to all the others, fetches £18-30
People want these things, for whatever reason, and it's not necessarily rarity.

lustigjh wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
For the sake of inclusion and the sense of belonging in a hobby? Abso-fething-lutely.

That's strange, most of the people I know have non-people armies yet no one feels excluded because their army doesn't have nerdy white guys in their ranks.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, and it certainly wasn't what I meant. I apologise if I gave that impression.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Given there's no solid numbers one way or the other, equally is the only way you could say it.

I was thinking more when folks put them up for bids on eBay. But yeah, that could swing both ways, I'm not pretending I know for facts.
However if you look at companies like Hasslefree, they're hardly struggling to trade on powerful female minis. They even fill some gaps themselves and do so affordably.
Stepping back from 3rd party - the original female commissar, even recast, fetches £15-30, the female Tanith trooper who wields an identical gun to all the others, fetches £18-30
People want these things, for whatever reason, and it's not necessarily rarity

It's always hard to say. Aeronautica Imperialis stuff goes for a high price on eBay as well, but I don't think it's because there's a huge market, rather it's because the few people who want them are willing to pay through the nose.

Well from a female point of view I must that the model range is oddly separate from the fluff. In the books there are interesting females characters, strong female characters, some realy stupid cliche ones. But at least they exist. In w40k they don't. No female IG models, no new sob, no new banshees, no female culists, no female tau, no female necron. Also I don't know what is it with GW and female models, but they are butt ugly most of the time. They make some sort of man faced things with boobs. They can't even do pinup models, which I personaly don't like, which other firms have no problems producing.

The thing with diversity is: why not? It detracts nothing and helps under-represented people relate to/feel included in the setting. As a gay man, i can tell you that whenever I see a badass/interesting/compelling/likeable gay dude in the media, it genuinely means something to me. It makes me feel as if I'm part of world with just as much agency and dynamism as anyone else. Diversity is important, and it costs nothing, except for igniting the ire of bigots...

In the grim darkness of the far future, most races (black, white, asian, latino, etc) have all inter-married and you have a more homogeneous look to people. There will still be a spectrum of white to brown to black, but I would imagine they would all look Filipino.

There is no reason, other than the obvious difficulty of wearing a helmet, that one wouldn't see an Afro here or there.

Makumba wrote:
no female necron

Well skeletons don't have breasts. They're machines. They may very well be 50-50.

There is a female phaeron among the Necron SCs as well. FW I think?

Drager wrote:
They will also point to the Sisters and Eldar, without taking into account the concept that sexualisation through the use of innapropiate armour designs (Sisters/Banshees/etc) is also sexist, paritcularly combined with all women being very chesty.

Not sure I agree with this, GW are generally very good with not making sexualised minis (the exception being the scantily clad DE from WFB but that's kinda part of their culture if I recall correctly). I was actually reading something relating to this recently and the reason we don't have all the sexualisation is thanks to John Blanche as he complained when sexualised images started appearing on the cover of WD, good on him I say.
As for racial issues, the models are painted they way they are because of the fan base, however in the novel Blood of Asaheim(if you haven't read it, give it a go its a great read) Palatine Bajola is mentioned to have dark skin (of course she may just be very tanned but I guess that depends on how you interpret it). and lets not forget that humaniod races like elves and eldar cannot be black becuase of genetics. of course if you are really bothered by it there is nothing to stop you painting your minis to have varying skin tones.
And to adress the issue of why there ie no female marines; space marines cannot be female as the process of creating a space marine requires the subject to be male as the gene seed only works with male hormones, this is the accepted fluuf, sure it can be changed but when fluff gets retconned people get more upset than before and there is no point in solving a problem if the solution causes a bigger problem than before.

 Glasdir wrote:
GW are generally very good with not making sexualised minis

Repentia.

Hell, I think every female 40k model except O'shaserra have some serious boobplate.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Glasdir wrote:
GW are generally very good with not making sexualised minis

Repentia.

Hell, I think every female 40k model except O'shaserra have some serious boobplate.

yeah fair point, however at least it is far, far more tastefull than bikinis made out of almost nothing and over sized, anti-gravity boobs that don't look like they can be contained by what is covering them for too long that have become common in most fantasy/sci-fi imagery today.

Bad is still bad, even though worse also exists. Boobplate is still sexualised. This is not.

GW make cartoon models.

Cartoons almost always exaggerate features so that readers can quickly identify objects or characters.

Hence why guns are huge in 40k, so you can tell its a gun. Hence why Armour is crazy, so you can tell that its Armour.
And the list goes on.

There are many styles of cartoon, but they all make sure things are very obvious to the viewer. Because unlike real life, cartoons aren't easily seen and understood.

Google cartoon woman. All these images have blatant clues that they are female. A company that makes cartoon models will be doing the same.

@Swastakowey

Well you are right in your interpretation of GW models has a cartoon (or at least cartoonish) in some way. That's a bit part of the genre. But you also touch the core of the problem. Mainstream media directed at children, teenagers and young adults have issues with representation of women and other minorities (asian more than black people these days thow in my experience). In that regard, GW is far from being the worst offender and even has some dignity.

Sanguinary Guard is the only exception I know of, otherwise there's not really much in the way of sexualised male models.

Meanwhile, boobplate is everywhere.

Why is that?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Sanguinary Guard is the only exception I know of, otherwise there's not really much in the way of sexualised male models.

Meanwhile, boobplate is everywhere.

Why is that?

You assume the boob plate is sexual. The boob plate is so anybody can tell its a women. No boobs would have to mean they would need to give it a dress, or long hair in a womanly style. Otherwise it would look like a man and therefore assumed to be a man.

Hence my cartoon example.

Or why not look at it from this perspective:

It has no visible dickplate, therefore it would look like a woman and would be assumed to be a woman.

The dickplate is not sexual after all. It's just so you can tell it's a man. The other gender differences are not visible at that scale, right?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Bad is still bad, even though worse also exists. Boobplate is still sexualised. This is not.

Spoiler:

true bad is still bad (I don't encourage sexism of either sex in any way) however Swastakowey makes a great and interesting point, which is true, try googling cartoon woman and then google cartoon man, all defining features for both sexes are exaggerated/made obvious, ie. breasts and long hair for women/short hair, beards and good physique for men. To back this up the kabalite warriors are male and female but because of the lack of 'boobplates' as you call them they can be hard to identify as female. and while we're at it it could be pointed out that GW sexualise men, after all I don't see any overweight/underweight men featured in their games just those bristling with muscle.
also another example of macho chestplates would be en the new blood angels tactical squad captain. (those nip plates are pretty funny though)

I look forward to your reply, this is an interesting discussion.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Or why not look at it from this perspective:

It has no visible dickplate, therefore it would look like a woman and would be assumed to be a woman.

The dickplate is not sexual after all. It's just so you can tell it's a man. After all the other gender differences are not visible at that scale, right?

Thats would be true, except people dont look for penis armour when identifying men, they look for short hair, suits and pants etc along with a certain body shape.
When looking at women its usually a certain body shape, boobs, long or tied up hair (on woman style) and so on.

Both genders are generalized in cartoons for easy and accurate portrayal of a character. That way a female character isnt mistaken as a male, especially if the gender is part of the skit, story or comic etc.

Pretty obvious I think...

 Glasdir wrote:
GW sexualise men, after all I don't see any overweight/underweight men featured in their games just those bristling with muscle.

That is power fantasy. It's an entirely different type of sexualisation.

It's also possible that many people need obvious and exaggerated indications to indicate that something could be anything else than a man, but that is still bad! Why should male be the default gender to be assumed unless otherwise clearly stated?