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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Wha?! Is that really a black man for you?

Ahah you know, before writing the message, I went back to look at a still of his face and wondered if he was black in the US sense (aka had *some* sub-Saharan African descent that made people view him and treat him differently, rather than exactly the shade of his skin) or from the Indian peninsula, or something else, and thought it was hard to tell because of the lightning, and then I got like “Wait why am I doing thing noone will ever care about such details lol just stop wondering and just call him black!” Seems I was dead wrong .

Anyway someone mentioned discussing how to paint different shade of skins as a joke, but if there's some tutorial on that I'd be interested! Because I mostly use the same shade of black for my Sisters (mostly close to some sub-Saharan African population I guess, can't give more details I never did research on this I just painted them in ways that looked good to me ) but now that I have tons of Victoria Miniatures imperial guardsmen and guardswomen from 4 different regiments I got a lot of room to experiment!

I was actually referring to all color tones, not just skin, but anyway.

There's quite a few tutorials on youtube.

There's one by GW about painting darker skin tones




Doctor Faustus does have one as well, but its with Vallejo




Girlpainting has one as well

Oh boy, I see we descended into "Men strongest there is" territory. Please take a moment and remember that giant robots are a very impractical idea compared to conventional military vehicles. If you want to bring in biology then you should probably bring in basic physics, look at what your arguing about, and realize you probably shouldn't have tried to bring science into a discussion around giant robots. The Tau did exactly this. They started out saying no to giant robots because they're dumb but now look at them with Riptides, Stormsurges, and the FW one.. Admittedly the Tau were heavily motivated by GW wanting to make more money because giant robots are cool.

The only time this should probably be a thing is if someone wants to write a story of a new knight pilot of gender A having to deal with the machine spirit that is heavily engrained towards excepting gender B due to the previous pilots and their world's culture. Beyond setting up a conflict in a story, is there really a need for it to be limited to either male or female?

As an aside, I once got to see one of my friends in a sparing match against a woman around our age. My friend was 6'2", around 280lbs, and studied martial arts for years. She was about 5'2" and around 100lbs. Each bout was nasty, brutal, and short. To quote my friend "she was very polite and didn't break both my arms". She was on the Olympic Judo team and ranked in single digits in the world at that time. My friend had all the physical advantages, yet he got his butt kicked by someone with superior skills.

Karol wrote:

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
I would also like to point out to everyone quoting 'Biology', it's 32 THOUSAND years in the future, for all we know women could have titanium muscle strands.

There aren't as many changes between us and the people leaving in paleolitc times, I think you over estimate how fast evoultion works for hominids. To get something like chimps or gorilas have it would take a lot more time then 38k years.

Completely wrong. You missed the fact that in these 38K years there was 20K long period where genetic code was casually rewritten, edited, and enhanced at a whim. That alone will produce vast increase of evolution speed undreamt of before, hell, even something as simple as deletion of DNA related diseases and replacement of damaged and 'buggy' genes with well working ones would be enough to produce biggest change humans ever known, in as little as generation or two.

To put things in perspective, it's like claiming from say 5000 BCE to 1500 CE, nearly 7K years, humans barely mastered stone, iron, and writing, showing little progress in all of these things, so logically speaking, going forward a mere 10% of the above period, 700 years, from from 1500 CE to 2200 CE, will mean humans will still do what they did through this period, ride horses, most of world's population will work in manual agriculture, and there will be maybe a dozen books published each year, if that, because anyone claiming otherwise would "over estimate how fast progress works for hominids"

Also, people arguing women are weak because "muh biology" fail to grasp you internalize modern cultural roles and their assumptions. Yes, women might be slightly weaker, but consider this - what are boys expected to do when young? Why, play outside, football, baseball, etc, etc, competitive sports. What are girls supposed to do? Why, yes, even thought it's changing, the expectation is they will stay inside, play with dolls, do chores, learn how to cook, etc, etc. Gee, it's no wonder than a group that is encouraged to develop physically will be, on average, far stronger than one that is heavily discouraged from being so (seeing term Tomboy is still considered an insult or at least something wrong and to be eliminated even today).

If you had hypothetical mirror culture with girls being encouraged to compete in aggressive sports and boys being the ones told to be proper and meek you'd now have women laughing at male weakness and presumptions of grandeur because it would be obvious women are stronger, eh? Not only because they would be the ones getting more fit in formative years, but also because in such a culture evolutionary pressure over sufficiently long period would reinforce social roles (there is a lot of examples of that actually but they are kinda beyond the scope of this thread).

Anyway, back to knights. Seeing nobles don't cook or sweep floors anyway, children of both genders would obviously have similar upbringing - because the fortune of a Household leans on a quality of its pilots, and only an utter idiot would deliberately leave half of potential pool off the table. Not only would be female knights much closer in fitness to their male counterparts, the difference would be small enough to be decided by mental faculties and skill (much like in Battletech) - something that doesn't in any way depend on gender.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I was actually referring to all color tones, not just skin, but anyway.

There's quite a few tutorials on youtube.

Spoiler:

There's one by GW about painting darker skin tones




Doctor Faustus does have one as well, but its with Vallejo




Girlpainting has one as well

Thanks <3.
The Girlpainting one is the most interesting because she acknowledge various possible shades, but I think it could be cool to have some big tutorial library for more skin tones than just Caucasian and Black, like painting the various shade of east-Asian, or the shades from the Indian subcontinent that looks different from sub-Saharan African ones and the shades of native Americans and Mediterranean people and …

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I was actually referring to all color tones, not just skin, but anyway.

There's quite a few tutorials on youtube.

Spoiler:

There's one by GW about painting darker skin tones




Doctor Faustus does have one as well, but its with Vallejo




Girlpainting has one as well

Thanks <3.
The Girlpainting one is the most interesting because she acknowledge various possible shades, but I think it could be cool to have some big tutorial library for more skin tones than just Caucasian and Black, like painting the various shade of east-Asian, or the shades from the Indian subcontinent that looks different from sub-Saharan African ones and the shades of native Americans and Mediterranean people and …

Yeah, most tutorials are to paint people with black skin or white, but other colours like native-american, arabic, etc... ufff... i ended up experimenting by myself, and people from my FLGS helped me, but on the internet theres not that much information.

Well, there are a few tutorials for painting olive skin, so I guess you can use that as a base and go from there. But yeah, if you are looking for a comprehensive guide on painting every shade of human skin, you aren't going to have much luck.

I'm confused I don't see people arguing against female pilots for knights but we have People posting as it there were.

 Irbis wrote:

Karol wrote:

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
I would also like to point out to everyone quoting 'Biology', it's 32 THOUSAND years in the future, for all we know women could have titanium muscle strands.

There aren't as many changes between us and the people leaving in paleolitc times, I think you over estimate how fast evoultion works for hominids. To get something like chimps or gorilas have it would take a lot more time then 38k years.

Completely wrong. You missed the fact that in these 38K years there was 20K long period where genetic code was casually rewritten, edited, and enhanced at a whim. That alone will produce vast increase of evolution speed undreamt of before, hell, even something as simple as deletion of DNA related diseases and replacement of damaged and 'buggy' genes with well working ones would be enough to produce biggest change humans ever known, in as little as generation or two.

To put things in perspective, it's like claiming from say 5000 BCE to 1500 CE, nearly 7K years, humans barely mastered stone, iron, and writing, showing little progress in all of these things, so logically speaking, going forward a mere 10% of the above period, 700 years, from from 1500 CE to 2200 CE, will mean humans will still do what they did through this period, ride horses, most of world's population will work in manual agriculture, and there will be maybe a dozen books published each year, if that, because anyone claiming otherwise would "over estimate how fast progress works for hominids"

Also, people arguing women are weak because "muh biology" fail to grasp you internalize modern cultural roles and their assumptions. Yes, women might be slightly weaker, but consider this - what are boys expected to do when young? Why, play outside, football, baseball, etc, etc, competitive sports. What are girls supposed to do? Why, yes, even thought it's changing, the expectation is they will stay inside, play with dolls, do chores, learn how to cook, etc, etc. Gee, it's no wonder than a group that is encouraged to develop physically will be, on average, far stronger than one that is heavily discouraged from being so (seeing term Tomboy is still considered an insult or at least something wrong and to be eliminated even today).

If you had hypothetical mirror culture with girls being encouraged to compete in aggressive sports and boys being the ones told to be proper and meek you'd now have women laughing at male weakness and presumptions of grandeur because it would be obvious women are stronger, eh? Not only because they would be the ones getting more fit in formative years, but also because in such a culture evolutionary pressure over sufficiently long period would reinforce social roles (there is a lot of examples of that actually but they are kinda beyond the scope of this thread).

Anyway, back to knights. Seeing nobles don't cook or sweep floors anyway, children of both genders would obviously have similar upbringing - because the fortune of a Household leans on a quality of its pilots, and only an utter idiot would deliberately leave half of potential pool off the table. Not only would be female knights much closer in fitness to their male counterparts, the difference would be small enough to be decided by mental faculties and skill (much like in Battletech) - something that doesn't in any way depend on gender.

I think your absolutly right that biology really shouldn't play a part in the selection of a knight pilot. If your gonna educate people though you shouldn't use a widely disproven theory on play preferences as you'll sound every bit as ideologically driven as those that say women can't be a mech pilot because of biology!

"Muh biology" as you term it is a very real factor in the developmental differences between men and women. as an example we know for a fact that testosterone has a huge impact on muscle development and it is this, not early age play preferance that is the primary force in building the physique of a person. From muscle mass to the higher bone density this necessitates.

Males with a testosterone deficiency will struggle fruitlessly to build muscle mass unless treatment is provided. females with high testosterone levels will develope much higher muscle mass than the average. This is why some female athletes with high testosterone levels have to take drugs to lower there testosterone to be allowed to compete so as to level the playing field and its why formally male athletes that have transitioned have to use drugs to lower there testosterone and have to wait for 2 years for there body adjust to its new testosterone level in order to take part in regulated sports. (this is to allow there muscle mass and bone density to drop)

Now your hypothetical is more grounded in reality though it leaves out that the real life cases of this are almost exclusively the result of a rigorously and violently enforced docility in the male members of the society. This by the women who act in concert to keep the males subservient.

The women don't become any more physically capable than average in these societies (though they do tend to mock the men as inferior) and the men while having lower testosterone scores than average are still within normal bounderies and will still physically out perform the women. The point on societal norms tends to hold true though and as you suggest the societal power is neccesarily held at a matriarchal level and the males treated as a subservient class.

There are many, many! reasons biology shouldn't be a factor in the chosing of a knight pilot. But to argue that its impacts are minimal in our development/behaviour is bloody silly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
I'm confused I don't see people arguing against female pilots for knights but we have People posting as it there were.

I think there was one or two. But there's the image of the fanbase as a bunch of dyed in the wool sexists to uphold so here we are.

Prospero burns has a part where an AI claims that the humans are not actually human, something like 600 odd differences between “real” humans and it’s own populace, funny if it’s true that the imperials are not actually human as they think they are, just the surviving human template they are forcing on others.

hobojebus wrote:
I'm confused I don't see people arguing against female pilots for knights but we have People posting as it there were.

It's the darndest thing. Almost as if there was a group of people trying to portray a false image of the community to push an agenda.

 Formosa wrote:
Prospero burns has a part where an AI claims that the humans are not actually human, something like 600 odd differences between “real” humans and it’s own populace, funny if it’s true that the imperials are not actually human as they think they are, just the surviving human template they are forcing on others.

That is not really that hard to imagine. For example in UK a catholic isn't a full human being, can't hold a lot of offices for example. In china non han people are second class citizents, and middle east is more or less in medival times as far as what is a human question.

Completely wrong. You missed the fact that in these 38K years there was 20K long period where genetic code was casually rewritten, edited, and enhanced at a whim. That alone will produce vast increase of evolution speed undreamt of before, hell, even something as simple as deletion of DNA related diseases and replacement of damaged and 'buggy' genes with well working ones would be enough to produce biggest change humans ever known, in as little as generation or two.

I have seen such lore where can I read about it?

To put things in perspective, it's like claiming from say 5000 BCE to 1500 CE, nearly 7K years, humans barely mastered stone, iron, and writing, showing little progress in all of these things, so logically speaking, going forward a mere 10% of the above period, 700 years, from from 1500 CE to 2200 CE, will mean humans will still do what they did through this period, ride horses, most of world's population will work in manual agriculture, and there will be maybe a dozen books published each year, if that, because anyone claiming otherwise would "over estimate how fast progress works for hominids"

that is not the same. Being able to learn a skill spreads really fast. often because most population that don't want to or can't lear it are wiped out. Biology on the other hand works different, even if you actually breed people, and I mean like we do animals, it still takes a hell lot of time to get even the smallest results. Because of how slow humans develope. 100 years is only 4 generations, that is really not a lot to get enough changes. In a normal evolutionary state it takes a lot of time, for example check long it takes for a new blood type to develope.

Also, people arguing women are weak because "muh biology" fail to grasp you internalize modern cultural roles and their assumptions. Yes, women might be slightly weaker, but consider this - what are boys expected to do when young? Why, play outside, football, baseball, etc, etc, competitive sports. What are girls supposed to do? Why, yes, even thought it's changing, the expectation is they will stay inside, play with dolls, do chores, learn how to cook, etc, etc. Gee, it's no wonder than a group that is encouraged to develop physically will be, on average, far stronger than one that is heavily discouraged from being so (seeing term Tomboy is still considered an insult or at least something wrong and to be eliminated even today)

First of all they are slightly weaker, and even then your comparing the general population. For thing like soldiers/warriors you would have to pick to top people from both sex, and at the top the difference between a male and female is huge. Have you seen the double male/female matchs in tenis a few years ago? Those were brutal, people like Serena Williams, who is the best female tenis players we ever had in the history of tenis, was not able to return or even recive balls from best tenis players. And this is just tenis. I mean I suck physicly wise comparing to the guys on my team, but put me in a female wrestling competiion and I would be king of my weight. And do you know how I know? I wrestled down the coach of the female team and she has 20 years of expriance more then me,she competed at the olimpic level and I weight 8kg less then her.

If you had hypothetical mirror culture with girls being encouraged to compete in aggressive sports and boys being the ones told to be proper and meek you'd now have women laughing at male weakness and presumptions of grandeur because it would be obvious women are stronger, eh? Not only because they would be the ones getting more fit in formative years, but also because in such a culture evolutionary pressure over sufficiently long period would reinforce social roles (there is a lot of examples of that actually but they are kinda beyond the scope of this thread).

But that is not how the strenght difference between male and female works. Sure it can get bigger because of it, as most girls don't want to do sports, at least at my school. But the main difference is that a dude has more testosteron, making him more agrresive and have more dense muscle mass, his bone structure is stronger from the get go, and he doesn't have to deal with ostheoporsis like all females do etc. And this is just avarge male and avarge female. the higher up the rankings of strenght, resiliance etc you go the larger the gap between the sex. I mean are you seriously saying that a female MMA fighter from the same weight group is going to have a 50/50 win rate against males? I mean there is a reason why we have split competition in sports.

Anyway, back to knights. Seeing nobles don't cook or sweep floors anyway, children of both genders would obviously have similar upbringing - because the fortune of a Household leans on a quality of its pilots, and only an utter idiot would deliberately leave half of potential pool off the table. Not only would be female knights much closer in fitness to their male counterparts, the difference would be small enough to be decided by mental faculties and skill (much like in Battletech) - something that doesn't in any way depend on gender.

I get the story, but unless the genetics of the female knights are drasticly different to a point of making them not realy female any longer, it is hard for me to imagine how given a pool of male and females to be pilots, a female would be picked. The gene therapis seem to explain it all, and it does fit the world with its marines, navigators etc

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So, the Imperial Knights codex is out. And in it, there are several examples of female Imperial Knights. Up until this point, they were rare to the point that the only female Knight we had in the fluff was masquerading as a man.

What are your thoughts on this?

In the Emperor of Mankind HH novel, not only is there a female knight pilot, she’s also the head of her Knight House

 Sim-Life wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'm confused I don't see people arguing against female pilots for knights but we have People posting as it there were.

It's the darndest thing. Almost as if there was a group of people trying to portray a false image of the community to push an agenda.

You guys probably missed the fact that mods deleted the worst bits... It was just one poster as far as I noticed, but it happened. But yes, overall I am happy to see how little pushback there was.

 kronk wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So, the Imperial Knights codex is out. And in it, there are several examples of female Imperial Knights. Up until this point, they were rare to the point that the only female Knight we had in the fluff was masquerading as a man.

What are your thoughts on this?

In the Emperor of Mankind HH novel, not only is there a female knight pilot, she’s also the head of her Knight House

And given it was released in 2016 you'd think there would of been outrage back then if it was going to happen at all.

 Sim-Life wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'm confused I don't see people arguing against female pilots for knights but we have People posting as it there were.

It's the darndest thing. Almost as if there was a group of people trying to portray a false image of the community to push an agenda.

Much like this 'outrage' over some childrens' books. It's almost as if elements of the community feel the need to fabricate an outrage to justify their own paranoia.

Either way, I kinda always thought 'female knights' were part of it, considering I never saw anything like the Astartes' 'men only'. Also not sure why it's a big deal when most all of these models are big walking robots.

Just for spite, I'm putting 3 Werther's Original in my knights. My pilot is now three pieces of butterscotch hard candy, fight me bigot.

hobojebus wrote:

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
I would also like to point out to everyone quoting 'Biology', it's 32 THOUSAND years in the future, for all we know women could have titanium muscle strands.

Human evolution has largely ended because we've stopped letting people die to disease and congenital problems.

Survival of the fittest no longer applies we became the apex predators when we learnt how to fashion tools.

So even 38 thousand years from now well mostly be the same because we use tools to supplement our forms.

I think between 2000 and 30.000 will be lot of gene-enhanced evolution.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'm confused I don't see people arguing against female pilots for knights but we have People posting as it there were.

It's the darndest thing. Almost as if there was a group of people trying to portray a false image of the community to push an agenda.

Much like this 'outrage' over some childrens' books. It's almost as if elements of the community feel the need to fabricate an outrage to justify their own paranoia.

Either way, I kinda always thought 'female knights' were part of it, considering I never saw anything like the Astartes' 'men only'. Also not sure why it's a big deal when most all of these models are big walking robots.

Just for spite, I'm putting 3 Werther's Original in my knights. My pilot is now three pieces of butterscotch hard candy, fight me bigot.

Werther's are the candy of the privileged old white male.

https://youtu.be/9sUaD2r11oE

Checkmate, fascist.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Werther's are the candy of the privileged old white male.

https://youtu.be/9sUaD2r11oE

Checkmate, fascist.

Not if you get them from Grandma. Checkmate, Microaggressor.

But on topic, I think some novelty female knight pilot models would be pretty cool.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Werther's are the candy of the privileged old white male.

https://youtu.be/9sUaD2r11oE

Checkmate, fascist.

Not if you get them from Grandma. Checkmate, Microaggressor.

But on topic, I think some novelty female knight pilot models would be pretty cool.

My grandparents always had the squares of caramel, I loved those

I have one of my pilots as female, at the moment it really doesn't matter since the majority of kits don't even have a knight for you to see int he cockpit. But It would be nice to have the variety. I like that AoS is putting in more female sculpts, it kind of breaks up the sameness of the units.

 Vash108 wrote:

My grandparents always had the squares of caramel, I loved those

I have one of my pilots as female, at the moment it really doesn't matter since the majority of kits don't even have a knight for you to see int he cockpit. But It would be nice to have the variety. I like that AoS is putting in more female sculpts, it kind of breaks up the sameness of the units.

The caramels were awesome, too- especially if it was cold and you couldn't just chew them up right off the bat.

I kinda like the AoS female Stormcast, TBH. It does add some flavor. I wish they'd stuff them in some of the other kits.

It boggles my mind when I read threads like these and I see people attempting to apply science and logic to a miniature range.

Firstly, I can't think of a single reason why in a vast sci-fi universe like 40K there wouldn't be human pilots of both sexes. This is the same universe that just a year ago served us a "newer better, bigger" space marines and now it's part of the lore. Any part of the story can change suddenly, so if the argument is that female pilots were never in the lore before, they may as well have been. Reading the lines about "women athletes not having the same endurance/strength" etc is a non sequitur, because again this is a miniature range. If you're looking for a real world counterpart ask yourself; are there women pilots in the air-force? Yes

Why are there now a lot more women depicted in the art and represented in figures on the tabletop? Because GW is a company that is succeeding and making bigger profits (looking at their financial reports) and has new management which appears more concerned with public relations and the image of the company. The truth of it is that there really needed to be a shift in the company away from "30+yo neck-beards playing with toy soldiers", and the shift is obvious in the releases and the art for the last 3 or so years.

I remember when all the press releases that came out used to depict a bearded 20 something dude, and recently all the banners at Warhammer Community and all the art has been featuring men and women playing with miniatures.

It makes sense to branch out and we are simply seeing the range and lore reflect this. Personally I can't wait to see my updated Cadians as I'm sure there will be members of both sexes represented bringing us ever closer to a true "Starship Troopers" scenario.

I have 0 issues with female knight pilots. Its a giant robot. Who gives a crap.

 Hive City Dweller wrote:
It boggles my mind when I read threads like these and I see people attempting to apply science and logic to a miniature range.

Firstly, I can't think of a single reason why in a vast sci-fi universe like 40K there wouldn't be human pilots of both sexes. This is the same universe that just a year ago served us a "newer better, bigger" space marines and now it's part of the lore. Any part of the story can change suddenly, so if the argument is that female pilots were never in the lore before, they may as well have been. Reading the lines about "women athletes not having the same endurance/strength" etc is a non sequitur, because again this is a miniature range. If you're looking for a real world counterpart ask yourself; are there women pilots in the air-force? Yes

Erm I think the only person that mentioned female athletes in this thread was myself and that was in a post bookmarked at both ends with the statement that biology shouldn't be a factor in pilot selection. You seem to be tilting at windmills here.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man, I read the thread title and got super confused for a second, and then realized you meant female knight pilots.

I too entered this thread trying to imagine imperial knights with boob plate

Thigh-high greaves. No pauldrons to hide the delicate arms. Suggestively sheer house banner.

Man this thread has some pretty outlandish responses.

No one was really sexist, and no one was really outraged, but that hasn't seemed to stop people who are ideologically inclined to pretend people were outraged from playing pretend anyway.

It's like you're participating in a different thread than everyone else.

Archebius wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man, I read the thread title and got super confused for a second, and then realized you meant female knight pilots.

I too entered this thread trying to imagine imperial knights with boob plate

Thigh-high greaves. No pauldrons to hide the delicate arms. Suggestively sheer house banner.

Can't Fall Back because she's not good at reversing.

 Ouze wrote:
Man this thread has some pretty outlandish responses.

No one was really sexist, and no one was really outraged, but that hasn't seemed to stop people who are ideologically inclined to pretend people were outraged from playing pretend anyway.

It's like you're participating in a different thread than everyone else.

A thread like this carries the weight of all the other similar threads. The lines are well drawn and most know which posters are on which sides. It just two groups circling each other waiting for the other to give them the chance to act outraged. Change Imperial Knight to Ghostbuster or Jedi and there would already be feces on the walls.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Man this thread has some pretty outlandish responses.

No one was really sexist, and no one was really outraged, but that hasn't seemed to stop people who are ideologically inclined to pretend people were outraged from playing pretend anyway.

It's like you're participating in a different thread than everyone else.

A thread like this carries the weight of all the other similar threads. The lines are well drawn and most know which posters are on which sides. It just two groups circling each other waiting for the other to give them the chance to act outraged. Change Imperial Knight to Ghostbuster or Jedi and there would already be feces on the walls.

What do you mean “imperial” “knight” “ghostbuster” and “Jedi”


OUTRAAAAAGGEEEEE!!!!!

Who cares knights have such free reign for fluff it does not really matter.

The Imperium is not sexist like ancient Europe (or as it was 10 years ago where GW didn't care about feminism). So female Knight pilots are nothing special. The newest short story about the Imperial Knights also features a female champion leading 12 other Knights against the Necrons.