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.

 Wyzilla wrote:
I'd also like to point out that in any decent armor that actually protects you and doesn't have shot traps, it should take you more than a second to tell if it's actually a woman. As 40K borrows heavily from Medieval history, for ease of movement and more comfort in armor, when women did don maille or plate, they'd want to bind their breasts to prevent chaffing. If you were a French Infantryman during the end of the Hundred Years War, you wouldn't even know the commander was a girl until she took off her helmet.

I would consider getting a Sisters army, but only if they removed the stupid boobplate. It doesn't look cool or sexy. All I see are two shot traps directing munitions into the face and sternum of the wearer.

All of this. The exact same thing keeps me away from a Sisters army.

The ones at the bottom here are a huge step in the right direction, they just need more 40k bling.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/plastic-sisters-wait.html

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I'd also like to point out that in any decent armor that actually protects you and doesn't have shot traps, it should take you more than a second to tell if it's actually a woman. As 40K borrows heavily from Medieval history, for ease of movement and more comfort in armor, when women did don maille or plate, they'd want to bind their breasts to prevent chaffing. If you were a French Infantryman during the end of the Hundred Years War, you wouldn't even know the commander was a girl until she took off her helmet.

I would consider getting a Sisters army, but only if they removed the stupid boobplate. It doesn't look cool or sexy. All I see are two shot traps directing munitions into the face and sternum of the wearer.

All of this. The exact same thing keeps me away from a Sisters army.

The ones at the bottom here are a huge step in the right direction, they just need more 40k bling.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/plastic-sisters-wait.html

Those last ones look really nice... Though yeah, more shiny bits!

So you are saying = "heavy Armour isnt gendered so why have boobs on them"

We are saying = "So they look female at a glance"

You say = "its not supposed to tell the gender"

In that case whats the solution? Make the Armour gendered or not bother making gendered models. Neither result is gonna make you happy. Because you need context to show a model is female.

But we have told you repeatedly, most people dont give a damn about context and just want whatever it is they are looking at to be obvious. I would be fired if I expected people to read my adverts. I need to make things obvious at a glance (as with all media). Commander Shepard has a voice. Thats the obvious giveaway its female or male (armour depending). Sisters of battle dont have voices, or character, they are merely an object. So to make them female they have the obvious female things.

Models have no context unless you want to look deeper. Your video game characters have context from the second you make your character. Hence the huge differences.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In a 28mm miniatures game you need to accentuate things in order to portray things about them.

Except, as has been pointed out, nobody seems to see any need to have exaggerated pants bulges to portray male characters. If you discard the sexist "always assume a character is male unless explicitly told otherwise" rule and just look at the models there's no hint at all that a space marine/DKoK guardsman/etc is male. So why is it that female characters need to work differently?

I am questioning the necessity of revealing the gender at a glance on a heavily armoured model.

Why is it necessary?

You could say 'my taste.'

In which case I say, take green stuff and model on a pair of blobs if it's so important to distinguish it. Why is your taste more important than both the taste of others and plausible design?

There's far more ways to distuinguish SOB PA than a pair of breasts. It is baroque and stylised in design, compared to the flat plating of the Space Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In a 28mm miniatures game you need to accentuate things in order to portray things about them.

Except, as has been pointed out, nobody seems to see any need to have exaggerated pants bulges to portray male characters. If you discard the sexist "always assume a character is male unless explicitly told otherwise" rule and just look at the models there's no hint at all that a space marine/DKoK guardsman/etc is male. So why is it that female characters need to work differently?

Exactly.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Always that 'unless very expressly stated as female, assume male with no questions asked' mindset. Why?

Because human beings are visual creatures. Lack of defining female cues means it's a male until proven otherwise. Alternatively if I saw an individual with noticeable lumps on their chest beneath their clothing and flared hips, I would assume female with no questions asked.

The best way to show femininity is to not do it at all, because it's heavy armour! It's not supposed to look gendered!

In a fictional universe it's supposed to look cool. Nothing else matters.

And people still argue that SoB are professional soldiers despite willingly going to war in incredibly idiotic armour designs, perhaps garbed to be eyecandy for the male priests who accompany their squads. I find that implausible.

Sure, just like how people argue that Catachans are proffesional soldiers despite willingly going to war in tank-tops and t-shirts, and people argue that Space Marines are professional soldiers despite going to war with no helmets, depriving them not just of physical protection but also the important information granted by a HUD.

I don't care though. Catachans don't bother me and neither do Space Marines without helmets, because at the end of the day 40K is an inherently silly universe where nothing makes sense.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because human beings are visual creatures.

You consider male the default gender, okay. I don't.

Sure, just like how people argue that Catachans are proffesional soldiers despite willingly going to war in tank-tops and t-shirts, and people argue that Space Marines are professional soldiers despite going to war with no helmets, depriving them not just of physical protection but also the important information granted by a HUD.

Catachans are just as bad as SoB BTW, and EVERYONE goes to war without helmets in 40k. v.v At least you can leave the helmeted heads on. Can't leave the breasts off, eh?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Lack of defining female cues means it's a male until proven otherwise.

And that's the problem! Assuming that every character is male until proven otherwise is incredibly sexist. Yes, it's also incredibly common, but that doesn't mean that we should approve of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Lack of defining female cues means it's a male until proven otherwise.

And that's the problem! Assuming that every character is male until proven otherwise is incredibly sexist. Yes, it's also incredibly common, but that doesn't mean that we should approve of it.

Exactly!

 Ashiraya wrote:
You consider male the default gender, okay. I don't.

See my edit.

Catachans are just as bad as SoB BTW,

What's actually wrong with Catachans, beyond your personal fetish for "plausible" combat?

EVERYONE goes to war without helmets in 40k.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Silly universe that's dysfunctional by design.

At least you can leave the helmeted heads on. Can't leave the breasts off, eh?

Personally I wouldn't have an issue at all with Sisters models that were designed to be androgynous when fully armored.

So long as I can have my Sisters that are easily definable (visually) as being female, too.

@Blaxican, Ashiraya and Swastakowey

While this discution on how could one produce clearly feminine and masculine models without resorting to boobplates or other very sexualising trait is quite intersting, I think you have reached a point were you will have trouble reaching a middle ground. While I do think the SoB could do without boobplate and still be recognised has women and that most cartoonish representation of both female and male anathomie are overdone a bit especially in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy media, I think you will quickly be forced to enter the murky waters of gender stereotypes, representations and inequality. While this debates needs to be adressed frequently by has much people has possible, I wouldn't adivise it on this thread. Despite this, I would sincerly thank you for the small debate for it was at east intertaning and interesting from an intellectual point of view.

Hey man, thanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In a 28mm miniatures game you need to accentuate things in order to portray things about them.

Except, as has been pointed out, nobody seems to see any need to have exaggerated pants bulges to portray male characters. If you discard the sexist "always assume a character is male unless explicitly told otherwise" rule and just look at the models there's no hint at all that a space marine/DKoK guardsman/etc is male. So why is it that female characters need to work differently?

I don't care. I really don't. Every suit of armor could be a space slug for all I care, gender does not matter to me.

I am telling the people who care so much about having their gender/race portrayed in a game that if that is what you want, you have to accept that they are going to accentuate the things that identify them as that gender/race.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What's actually wrong with Catachans, beyond your personal fetish for "plausible" combat?

Obscene proportions, leather jackets that apparently work as full armour, absence of armour.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Silly universe that's dysfunctional by design.

At least that one is consistent.

Personally I wouldn't have an issue at all with Sisters models that were designed to be androgynous when fully armored.

So long as I can have my Sisters that are easily definable (visually) as being female, too.

And since we're probably never going to be given that as an option, I am still going to argue that given the choice between boobplate and armour that looks like it mighty justify a 3+ save, the latter is preferable.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What's actually wrong with Catachans, beyond your personal fetish for "plausible" combat?

Stupid concept, horrible sculpts, and getting a 5+ armor save for wearing a few tiny scraps of cloth. TBH I'm surprised that GW didn't kill them off when they got rid of all of their other IG lines.

epronovost wrote:
@Blaxican, Ashiraya and Swastakowey

While this discution on how could one produce clearly feminine and masculine models without resorting to boobplates or other very sexualising trait is quite intersting, I think you have reached a point were you will have trouble reaching a middle ground. While I do think the SoB could do without boobplate and still be recognised has women and that most cartoonish representation of both female and male anathomie are overdone a bit especially in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy media, I think you will quickly be forced to enter the murky waters of gender stereotypes, representations and inequality. While this debates needs to be adressed frequently by has much people has possible, I wouldn't adivise it on this thread. Despite this, I would sincerly thank you for the small debate for it was at east intertaning and interesting from an intellectual point of view.

Fair enough. I have said mine.

I am still of the belief that 'male unless proven otherwise' is an absurd stance. But that has been stated. So, done here.

Ashiraya out. o7

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What's actually wrong with Catachans, beyond your personal fetish for "plausible" combat?

Stupid concept, horrible sculpts, and getting a 5+ armor save for wearing a few tiny scraps of cloth. TBH I'm surprised that GW didn't kill them off when they got rid of all of their other IG lines.

Horrible sculpts is inarguable, I think the concept of an armry of Rambo's is awesome though, and they aren't the only ones who get saves despite wearing almost nothing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Obscene proportions, leather jackets that apparently work as full armour, absence of armour.

A good 80% of 40K has nonsensical aspects like these.

And since we're probably never going to be given that as an option, I am still going to argue that given the choice between boobplate and armour that looks like it mighty justify a 3+ save, the latter is preferable.

Your entitled to like what you like. I think it's very strange to hate on what other people like though.

That's the difference between our mindsets. My argument is that I like my female minis to be easily identifiable as women, but at the end of the day I wouldn't mind seeing androgynous character designs as well if that's what some people want. Your argument (as I understand it) is that there's something inherently wrong with wanting identifiable minis beyond you simply preferring otherwise. I don't understand that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In a 28mm miniatures game you need to accentuate things in order to portray things about them.

Except, as has been pointed out, nobody seems to see any need to have exaggerated pants bulges to portray male characters. If you discard the sexist "always assume a character is male unless explicitly told otherwise" rule and just look at the models there's no hint at all that a space marine/DKoK guardsman/etc is male. So why is it that female characters need to work differently?

When it comes to regular GW models, the exaggerated scale almost always exaggerates features we associate with men. Thicker arms/torsos/legs, broader faces and hands. There could be a female under all that stuff, but you can't really claim it's a sexist thing to assume they're men when they tend to exaggerate male proportions.

Take the Cadian models.... it's a stretch to call them men given how squat and broad they are.... it's a much larger stretch to call them female. Because DKOK are more realistically scaled, when you place a DKOK next to a Cadian it's more believable that the DKOK might be female

I tend to think that's part of the reason you have to exaggerate female features in models like GW's, if you took the typical heroic scale and transferred it to be female, they'd still look like dudes because a thickened up female tends to look like a male (assuming your goal is to have them identifiable as female).

Its the 41st Millennium here guys... Let's not forget the setting now.

40k. A setting where 90% of the conflicts are caused directly by Humans killing anything that is not human, simply for not being human. A place where an entire race speaks like football hooligans and exists solely to fight others, for fun. A place ruled by a religion that demands total obediency and punishes all transgressors with death. A place where, if you are lucky, you will be taken from your home forcibly, surgically enhanced to remove all your human flaws, indoctrinated, and sent to kill others who don't fit your image of human.

We are talking about grimdark here guys (and gals, and Blacks and Asians) where everything is turned up to 10, sometimes 11! You reeeeally wanna start using 40k as a vehicle for discussion about equality? That just seems absurd. What purpose does it serve to demand equal representation from a game company? The game company isn't here to alleviate white liberal guilt, just provide a game. If you feel racist because you've painted all your toys a certain color then the problem is probably not the game company. If you feel sexist because you bought IG, well then... Is it the toys fault you feel funny inside? And by the way what's up with the whole "they're racist by accident because they are english and old and white and men" thing? Isn't that attitude a little oh I dunno... Racist?

I always thought that these days the Salamanders skin is pitch black ( as in the black-grey-white spectrum ) rather than an actual dark human skintone. As in, more in the alien/mutation side of things than just normal dark skin you can actually have. That's what I see from many pictures atleast ( or is it just a poor paint job? )

Good if that's not the case though, I always facepalmed at it in a way. "Really, you couldn't just make dark skinned people, you had to make them concretically inhumanly jet black to avoid some sort of outrage?"

Why is it that every time a thread about "why are there no black people in 40k?" Usually ends up with talking about female armor at some point.

@ OP - there are they are just not depicted in writing or models all that often.

 Runic wrote:
I always thought that these days the Salamanders skin is pitch black ( as in the black-grey-white spectrum ) rather than an actual dark human skintone. As in, more in the alien/mutation side of things than just normal dark skin you can actually have. That's what I see from many pictures atleast ( or is it just a poor paint job? )

Good if that's not the case though, I always facepalmed at it in a way. "Really, you couldn't just make dark skinned people, you had to make them concretically inhumanly jet black to avoid some sort of outrage?"

Well, that's the funny thing, they apparently used to be black, as in having a realistic dark skin tone. Then with the release of the 5th edition codex GW retconned it so that they were pitch black with white hair, like drow elves from D&D. And then threw in red, glowing eyes while they were at it for reasons.

So yeah, they did change them to be more like mutants instead. Don't really see what the problem was before, and it just makes the models look stupider.

 fox-light713 wrote:
Why is it that every time a thread about "why are there no black people in 40k?" Usually ends up with talking about female armor at some point.

@ OP - there are they are just not depicted in writing or models all that often.

Because on a scale of things there is a larger population of females then black people. Also female>everyone else.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Runic wrote:
I always thought that these days the Salamanders skin is pitch black ( as in the black-grey-white spectrum ) rather than an actual dark human skintone. As in, more in the alien/mutation side of things than just normal dark skin you can actually have. That's what I see from many pictures atleast ( or is it just a poor paint job? )

Good if that's not the case though, I always facepalmed at it in a way. "Really, you couldn't just make dark skinned people, you had to make them concretically inhumanly jet black to avoid some sort of outrage?"

Well, that's the funny thing, they apparently used to be black, as in having a realistic dark skin tone. Then with the release of the 5th edition codex GW retconned it so that they were pitch black with white hair, like drow elves from D&D. And then threw in red, glowing eyes while they were at it for reasons.

So yeah, they did change them to be more like mutants instead. Don't really see what the problem was before, and it just makes the models look stupider.

No. Salamanders were originally inhuman black, then changed to human black, and now have been changed back to inhuman black. They flip-flop around a lot.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In a 28mm miniatures game you need to accentuate things in order to portray things about them.

Except, as has been pointed out, nobody seems to see any need to have exaggerated pants bulges to portray male characters. If you discard the sexist "always assume a character is male unless explicitly told otherwise" rule and just look at the models there's no hint at all that a space marine/DKoK guardsman/etc is male. So why is it that female characters need to work differently?

I don't care. I really don't. Every suit of armor could be a space slug for all I care, gender does not matter to me.

I am telling the people who care so much about having their gender/race portrayed in a game that if that is what you want, you have to accept that they are going to accentuate the things that identify them as that gender/race.

darkcloak wrote:Its the 41st Millennium here guys... Let's not forget the setting now.

40k. A setting where 90% of the conflicts are caused directly by Humans killing anything that is not human, simply for not being human. A place where an entire race speaks like football hooligans and exists solely to fight others, for fun. A place ruled by a religion that demands total obediency and punishes all transgressors with death. A place where, if you are lucky, you will be taken from your home forcibly, surgically enhanced to remove all your human flaws, indoctrinated, and sent to kill others who don't fit your image of human.

We are talking about grimdark here guys (and gals, and Blacks and Asians) where everything is turned up to 10, sometimes 11! You reeeeally wanna start using 40k as a vehicle for discussion about equality? That just seems absurd. What purpose does it serve to demand equal representation from a game company? The game company isn't here to alleviate white liberal guilt, just provide a game. If you feel racist because you've painted all your toys a certain color then the problem is probably not the game company. If you feel sexist because you bought IG, well then... Is it the toys fault you feel funny inside? And by the way what's up with the whole "they're racist by accident because they are english and old and white and men" thing? Isn't that attitude a little oh I dunno... Racist?

These two posts got it right.

For those people that complain that the models are defaultly thought to be male, it is a reasonable assumption, considering that a huge majority of frontline troops has been male for the last 10 000 years, so it would be safe to assume that they will be so in the next 38 000. Also, the models in which are said to be in the fluff male or female often look very masculine, as in for example guardians have very broad shoulders, and therefore if you wish to make them appear feminine, you need them to have an obvious feminine feature like long hair.

 Wyzilla wrote:

No. Salamanders were originally inhuman black, then changed to human black, and now have been changed back to inhuman black. They flip-flop around a lot.

People keep saying that, but I've never seen any credible citation for it. They were African black in RT.

Can the mods just closes down these type on threads.You can't appease racial & gender ideologues.

Find a game that craters to your racial & gender views & play that instead.

No, just because it is a subject you don't like doesn't mean those talking about it need to shut up and get out.

 Nakor The BlueRider wrote:
Can the mods just closes down these type on threads.You can't appease racial & gender ideologues.

Find a game that craters to your racial & gender views & play that instead.

Great attitude.

Curtail free speech, and if you don't like it go away?

I have to say, I never started this thread as some kind of campaign, I was simply curious about why there wasn't a huge amount of diversity. I wondered perhaps if there was something in the fluff I was missing, or if it was super hard to paint dark skin tones.

It does seem to have gotten a lot of people's backs up though, and there are quite a few posts that seem to be more annoyed with the idea that someone has even mentioned diversity than actually address the OP. I think that's pretty telling.

Yes it is a grim dark universe, and yes it's produced by a load of middle class white guys. But just because none of them are black or Asian or women, it doesn't mean they can't make models that are diverse. None of them after all are green skinned orks from space are they? Or immortal elf men from a dying race? You may say that none of this matters, it's just toy soldiers. I guess on many levels it doesn't, but I can't accept that it's completely irrelevant.

Anyway, like the thread title says. It's a sensitive issue which is probably why GW avoid it.

Two of the Space Marine scouts painted on the back of the box have a dark complexion. One is a White Scars scout, and one is a Dark Angels scout.

With today's awesome shades and washes it should be pretty easy to get different skim tones.