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.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want my females to be noticeably female.

AND you do not care about your males being noticeably males. We know. And we are not surprised. I do not care about how un-PC it is, I will still mention your double standard .

 asorel wrote:
That video makes blanket statements without follow-up or explanation, and makes some very ill-advised assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of both the players and game developers. Not only that, the person delivering them isn't trained in psychology of any sort, and is not in a position to make that sort of claim with any sort of reputability. Take into account that Sarkeesian has demonstrated a willingness to misconstrue facts to further her stated agenda multiple times in the past, and this video does absolutely nothing to prove your point, which itself is greatly separated from the topic at hand.

People add a bow to a giant rock boulder to show it is a female giant rock boulder but do not care to add anything to show another giant rock boulder is male. Your argument is invalid.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want my females to be noticeably female.

AND you do not care about your males being noticeably males. We know. And we are not surprised. I do not care about how un-PC it is, I will still mention your double standard .

 asorel wrote:
That video makes blanket statements without follow-up or explanation, and makes some very ill-advised assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of both the players and game developers. Not only that, the person delivering them isn't trained in psychology of any sort, and is not in a position to make that sort of claim with any sort of reputability. Take into account that Sarkeesian has demonstrated a willingness to misconstrue facts to further her stated agenda multiple times in the past, and this video does absolutely nothing to prove your point, which itself is greatly separated from the topic at hand.

People add a bow to a giant rock boulder to show it is a female giant rock boulder but do not care to add anything to show another giant rock boulder is male. Your argument is invalid.

You are using a single example of dubious quality to make a blanket statement about the entire human race. Your argument is invalid.

 asorel wrote:
You are using a single example of dubious quality to make a blanket statement about the entire human race.

How many do you want?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 asorel wrote:
You are using a single example of dubious quality to make a blanket statement about the entire human race.

How many do you want?

I don't think you understand how this "evidence" thing works. If you want to make a statement about something that is absolutely true of all members of a large group, you need a working theory that explains, objectively, precisely what this thing is, how widespread it is, what causes it, etc.. Pointing at one (or even 10) anecdotes and screaming "MUH SOGGYKNEES!" doesn't qualify.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.

Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.

You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion. Sisters weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. Dark Eldar weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. They were updated and, yes the models fit the aesthetics well and work well for conversion work, they still aren't an army people overall choose to play.

And I have to wonder how many other people claimed the same thing: I'd totally buy into Dark Eldar if they redid the miniature range!

Clearly not a lot.

The 5th edition redo of Dark Eldar was massively popular.

And you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your locals at one point?

I asked around and at MY locals, nobody bought into them overall in 5th edition. Who's to say either interpretation is correct?
With that said, if the demand for Sisters were actually that great, it would've been done at this point.

The way some people are arguing, they should be demanding their space marines have oversized crotch protectors, to make it obvious they are men

This is what you should also be demanding on your space marines - Prepare to receive the Emperors gene seed


y'know, just in case there's any doubt

 Wulfmar wrote:
The way some people are arguing, they should be demanding their space marines have oversized crotch protectors, to make it obvious they are men

This is what you should also be demanding on your space marines - Prepare to receive the Emperors gene seed


y'know, just in case there's any doubt

The way some people are arguing, it seems almost as if they have a need to shoehorn gender into every discussion whether it warrants it or not.

 asorel wrote:

The way some people are arguing, it seems almost as if they have a need to shoehorn gender into every discussion whether it warrants it or not.

Ooo stop being a miserable wotsit.

My joke post still contributed more than your pointless moan.

 Wulfmar wrote:

 asorel wrote:

The way some people are arguing, it seems almost as if they have a need to shoehorn gender into every discussion whether it warrants it or not.

Ooo stop being a miserable wotsit.

My joke post still contributed more than your pointless moan.

Oh! Pardon me, I wasn't aware that your sense of humor is so far on the cutting edge of comedy that ever one of your jokes raises the quality of an entire thread. My apologies, I'll be sure to give your Gods-given wit the respect it deserves in the future.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your locals at one point?

I asked around and at MY locals, nobody bought into them overall in 5th edition. Who's to say either interpretation is correct?
With that said, if the demand for Sisters were actually that great, it would've been done at this point.

This is why I'm saying your arguments are either ignorant or trolling. "There's no evidence, but popular opinion about Dark Eldar must be wrong and my opinion must be right. No one needs research. Also I know in my heart of hearts Dark Eldar weren't popular, and GW knew that because they did research, but redid them anyway, and they still aren't popular, which again I know because Kirby talks to me inside my head. Therefore Sisters won't get done because they aren't popular and won't be popular, even though I just provided an example of GW doing the exact opposite."

It's like you're in a race to contradict yourself as often as possible in the shortest amount of time repeatedly within this thread, if we take all your separate claims at face value.

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.

SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.

Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
As for the last time nuns were cool.. Have you not seen Black Lagoon?

I have actually. I was going to bring it up, but I didn't think there would be anyone here familiar with it. There are actually quite a few "Battle nun" characters in anime and other eastern media (Prier from La Pucelle, Rosette from Chrono Crusade). Even then, it's the kind of thing that works best when it's not taken 100% seriously (although I'd argue all of 40k was better when it was a bit more tongue-in-cheek, that's a discussion for elsewhere).

 ProtoClone wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.

SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.

Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.

That is a near-nonsensical statement that explains nothing. All you did was restate my original statement, without bothering to explain why feminine characteristics are "bad," or why Sensitive Joss Whedons are driven into a frothing rage over them.

 asorel wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.

SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.

Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.

That is a near-nonsensical statement that explains nothing. All you did was restate my original statement, without bothering to explain why feminine characteristics are "bad," or why Sensitive Joss Whedons are driven into a frothing rage over them.

Must we have this discussion here? Nobody's going to concede any points, come to an agreement, or change their mind any any way.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying I know the answer either. None of us know the sales numbers for Sisters of Battle, or the reason why GW has yet to update them.

What we do know is that there have been at least three times in the past where a small, outdated faction received a major retooling and expansion in plastic (Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Necrons) and none of those appear to have been outright failures. We also have two factions created rather suddenly from whole cloth (Tau and Ad Mech) and neither of those appear to have been outright failures either. So there's nothing in GW's history that indicates they aren't willing to lay out a lot of money to build or rebuild a faction, even a faction with little to no prior sales history. And there's no hard evidence to indicate any of those launches were successes or failures (but popular opinion does suggest every one of those was at least a moderate success).

The question is why they haven't done the same for Sisters, and the answer isn't obvious no matter how many times you want to claim your opinion is gospel. None of the actual facts we have indicate that releasing Sisters is a bad idea, or is out of line with GW's usual way of doing things. If you think GW has evidence that Sisters would flop, it's a hunch on your part and nothing more.

Since we're all throwing our opinions in here, I would say it has to do with the way GW's studio seems to work, based on rumors. Bar what seem to be the occasional broad directions from bean counters ("bigger is more profitable!"), it sounds like someone in the studio needs to champion new ideas or revisions of old races. Without that champion, the race doesn't get done (or they get done poorly). This explains the wild swings in power level and quality between codexes. It also explains why Squats got Squatted and Sisters get ignored - no one in the studio has any ideas for them or sufficient interest in working on them. When a slot for a big release is open, someone is keen to flesh out the Grey Knights, so that's what happens.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the sisters design and can't see anything sexist in the corset design and the boob plates as it is both an iconic part of there design and well explained in the fluff as a design feature to show that they aren't men under arms as that would be forbidden by the decree passive. the way I see it arguing that the sisters armour is sexist against females is like trying to argue that the blood angel chest plate is somehow sexist against men, both are just part of their design.

back on topic I agree with calgar that the reason why the sisters haven't been updated is because no one working at gamesworkshop is interested in sisters right now leading to a greater focus as making armies which they are interested in like the mechanicus and updating armies like space marines that they know will sell well rather then taking a risk on sisters

 asorel wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.

SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.

Well, that is usually because when female characteristics are represented in things, like, miniatures, they are grossly exaggerated like Rob Liefeld designed them.

That is a near-nonsensical statement that explains nothing. All you did was restate my original statement, without bothering to explain why feminine characteristics are "bad," or why Sensitive Joss Whedons are driven into a frothing rage over them.

*sigh*Didn't think I would have to explain this
Feminine characteristics are not bad, but overly exaggerated feminine characteristics are. If, for example, you have minis that have different bonuses based on gender and are adhering to a WYSIWYG rule set, fine. There just isn't a need for the female minis to be overly sexualized like they normally are. This kind of sexual exaggeration puts an unrealistic burden on women who are constantly blasted with images of what men want women to look like. Why add to that hostility? Most guys can brush off constant images of muscle bound guys and expectations for them to look this way, most women can't when they are in the same situation.

So, female characteristics are not bad, and it may be needed in something like miniature wargaming. These characteristics just don't need to be grossly oversexualized and insulting.

Done with this topic because it really isn't on topic.
PM me if you want to continue this conversation away from this thread, Asroel.

 ProtoClone wrote:
This kind of sexual exaggeration puts an unrealistic burden on women who are constantly blasted with images of what men want women to look like.

You're making an awfully large assumption about what does and does not burden women, among other things. "Oversexualization" doesn't need to occur, but there isn't a tangible reason why it shouldn't. Your sensibilities most certainly do not apply to, or are shared with, everyone.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Are the difference in hip/chest ratio not going to be COMPLETELY obscured by padding anyway?

No, assuming that the armor has anything to do with the shape of the person under it. As the current US military has recently discovered, armor designed for men is not well designed for women and needs to be shaped differently if you expect a woman to wear it for long periods. Otherwise things like sores develop due to the poor fit.

So, you will see a noticeable difference even with power armor,

 asorel wrote:
I don't think you understand how this "evidence" thing works. If you want to make a statement about something that is absolutely true of all members of a large group, you need a working theory that explains, objectively, precisely what this thing is, how widespread it is, what causes it, etc.. Pointing at one (or even 10) anecdotes and screaming "MUH SOGGYKNEES!" doesn't qualify.

Putting things in all caps pidgin English (or whatever that is) is not helping your case. Neither is denying the obvious, actually. Anyone with a modicum of exposition to medium who depicts characters whose gender cannot be determined by their appearance will be able to just observe those have an extremely strong tendency to be referred to as male.
But if you feel like you have time to waste, be my guest and conduct long, boring statistical analysis to assert the obvious.

 asorel wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
This kind of sexual exaggeration puts an unrealistic burden on women who are constantly blasted with images of what men want women to look like.

You're making an awfully large assumption about what does and does not burden women, among other things. "Oversexualization" doesn't need to occur, but there isn't a tangible reason why it shouldn't. Your sensibilities most certainly do not apply to, or are shared with, everyone.

That's how SJW's work. Either you're as outraged as them, or you're the problem.

Space Marines are clearly male.
I'm not saying oversexualize them, that's the SJW argument, not mine. but I want a female model to look female. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
No, assuming that the armor has anything to do with the shape of the person under it.

Why are you assuming that?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
As the current US military has recently discovered, armor designed for men is not well designed for women and needs to be shaped differently if you expect a woman to wear it for long periods. Otherwise things like sores develop due to the poor fit.

Yeah, the inside shape of the armor is going to be slightly different. Just like they make different armor size. However, how different is the outside going to be? Especially when at 28mm scale?

Just check how different the US armor for men and women are on the outside. Now consider that the thicker the armor, the less visible the difference will be. On power armor? No visible difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Space Marines are clearly male.

No. There is nothing on a space marine with his helmet on that marks him as male. The only exception is the Sanguinary Guard. I give you that those space marines are clearly male.
What you want is that the default is male and female are marked explicitly as female. You cannot accept the default being gender-neutral, some armor being clearly male (Sanguinary guard for instance) and some armor being clearly female (Sisters of Battle for instance). Because… not sure. I guess because you are a status quo warrior or something?

Many of the features are indeed erased, but not all.
For example. proportion. And yes, Son of, males and females are generally proportioned differently.
A female in body armor will still look different than a male. Sooo....back to topic, I like female characters and such, but to have a space marine figure and say "that's a female in that" is just pointless and boring for me.
Below, a female soldier. Narrow shoulders, female face. Optional long hair. And from personal experience serving with females in Iraq, noticeable difference in the hips. All perfectly representable without "oversexualizing" anything.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

No, assuming that the armor has anything to do with the shape of the person under it. As the current US military has recently discovered, armor designed for men is not well designed for women and needs to be shaped differently if you expect a woman to wear it for long periods. Otherwise things like sores develop due to the poor fit.

And yet, a flak jacket worn by a woman (even one that shockingly comes in women's sizes) still looks like a flak jacket.

I agree there's a certain sense in the look of battle sister power armour given their political place in the setting, but personally I wouldn't mind an up-armored variant or even redesigning the line using Sister Sin as the base. I'm just not that attached to the hourglass figure, but I wish people that were would be honest about it instead of stretching so hard to insist it's realistic. It's not realistic, 40k isn't realistic, and that's ok.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 asorel wrote:
I don't think you understand how this "evidence" thing works. If you want to make a statement about something that is absolutely true of all members of a large group, you need a working theory that explains, objectively, precisely what this thing is, how widespread it is, what causes it, etc.. Pointing at one (or even 10) anecdotes and screaming "MUH SOGGYKNEES!" doesn't qualify.

Putting things in all caps pidgin English (or whatever that is) is not helping your case. Neither is denying the obvious, actually. Anyone with a modicum of exposition to medium who depicts characters whose gender cannot be determined by their appearance will be able to just observe those have an extremely strong tendency to be referred to as male.
But if you feel like you have time to waste, be my guest and conduct long, boring statistical analysis to assert the obvious.

Claiming that everyone agrees with you without providing anything resembling an argument isn't helping your case. You made the claim (male is the oppressive default, the poor subjugated women are assumed not to exist unless explicitly stated), the burden of proof is upon you. It's not my problem if you think providing evidence for blanket statements is "boring," it still has to happen.

You would have thought that, being in the 41st millennium and with all this geneseed nonsense to re-purpose the human body, the least they could do is stick in a pair of testicals / equivalent. There wouldn't be male/female warriors, just drones, bred for war with the hormones they need.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Sooo....back to topic, I like female characters and such, but to have a space marine figure and say "that's a female in that" is just pointless and boring for me.

To have a space marine figure and say “That's a male in that” does not seem any less boring to me. Do you find that exciting? Do you think there is a point to saying “This power armor includes a male character, not a female one”? If so, why is there no point to the contrary?


Let's forget about the marines for a second and look at the tau. I agree that looking at the firewarrior and saying “half of those are males and half of those are females” is pretty boring. But I think that looking at them and saying “They are all male, all of them without exception” is… well, even MORE boring. So maybe we should just stick to the things that are exciting about them, but without assuming they are all males? Is that something you could agree with?

 Wulfmar wrote:
You would have thought that, being in the 41st millennium and with all this geneseed nonsense to re-purpose the human body, the least they could do is stick in a pair of testicals / equivalent. The wouldn't be male/female warriors, just drones, bred for war with the hormones they need.

That's more or less what Astartes are. There are two reasons why males are selected exclusively, one poetic and one practical.

The poetic reasons is that all Space Marines are to a certain extent clones of the Emperor. The Emperor is male, ergo the Astartes must be male.

The practical one is that the greater muscle mass of males is better for war-making than females, meaning there's a comparative advantage to recruiting males. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are no diversity quotas.

 asorel wrote:
You made the claim (male is the oppressive default, the poor subjugated women are assumed not to exist unless explicitly stated), the burden of proof is upon you.

Nah. I am going to continue to make the claim, and if you are afraid I will convince people with my tons of “anecdotal evidence”, you better work your ass out to disprove it. If you think I am not going to convince anyone, though, you can just relax and ignore me .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Sooo....back to topic, I like female characters and such, but to have a space marine figure and say "that's a female in that" is just pointless and boring for me.

To have a space marine figure and say “That's a male in that” does not seem any less boring to me. Do you find that exciting? Do you think there is a point to saying “This power armor includes a male character, not a female one”? If so, why is there no point to the contrary?

Do you, or do you not, know the physical differences between males and females?
Also, fluff wise, all Space Marines are male. So if one isn't, that's an exception and there should be some kind of difference one would think.

You're trying to do some kind of social experiment to prove that there are no differences between male and female except some clouded backwards mind set. I think that's stupid.