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.

 Manchu wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?

She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.

NO SHE MUST BE ALL BOOBS, NOTHING BUT BOOBS ALL THE WAY DOWN!



Kidding aside, I dunno what you mean. If we have Necron Lady, presumably because we want to visibly suggest that Necrons can be deminine too and that its okay for women and girls to like Necrons, then this character will need to be immediately recognizable as female. So sure, she doesn’t need to be a writhing mass of breasts or whatever but neither did I suggest such a model would be ...

No but the representation of women in 40k would suggest it was going that way. So far we haven’t got a single female human in the range who isn’t in Lycra or corseted armour.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I am unaware of any female Chaos miniatures.

Most of Slaanesh's daemon army is female.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The state of GW's fem minis is even more deplorable when you consider that one of their twelve releases is 'Dark Eldar prisoners', two hyper-sexualised figures with dubious proportions and pixie features in submissive poses and underwear, which would arguably make sense in a Slaanesh 'kink' aesthetic but makes none in Dark Eldar's 'sadist' aesthetic.

Somewhere, Andrea Dworkin just rolled over in her grave.

Those "prisoners" never made it into plastic and are from the original Dark Eldar line.

And how submissive is it for a woman to be hiding a knife behind her back again? Because the Sister of Battle on the right is hiding a shiv behind her back:


I won't argue that they're not bad models (they're horrible on several levels) but complaining that an army that degrades their captives is degrading their captives seems a little silly.

I am 100% ok with the introduction of female mini's to GW's ranges. EXCEPT where it requires a lore retcon. I would be totally ok with the next 4 factions being female only. I am not ok with retcon for many reasons.

That being said, Imperial Guard are a perfect vehicle for the introduction of more female miniatures. SoB need a upgrade. And female cultists would be hella cool.

Note : I am also sick to death of the people who want to import real world politics and morality to a fictional universe. 40K is a terrible place. Its rife with sexism, murder, genocide and famine. It is one of the most brutal settings imaginable. People, and females, are going to get used up and chewed out by the various factions in this universe. Rape, while probably not common place, would be a very real problem in this setting. As it always has been in theatres of conflict. 40k is the summation of the worst of humanity. Stop trying to give us a happy ending folks. We have Star Trek for that.

I also recognize I need to keep my own politics and morality out of the game more frequently ( even if my inclusion of them is only in response ). So I will be trying more and more to come at topics like this with a logical mindset rather than a emotional one.

Andykp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?

She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.

NO SHE MUST BE ALL BOOBS, NOTHING BUT BOOBS ALL THE WAY DOWN!



Kidding aside, I dunno what you mean. If we have Necron Lady, presumably because we want to visibly suggest that Necrons can be deminine too and that its okay for women and girls to like Necrons, then this character will need to be immediately recognizable as female. So sure, she doesn’t need to be a writhing mass of breasts or whatever but neither did I suggest such a model would be ...

No but the representation of women in 40k would suggest it was going that way. So far we haven’t got a single female human in the range who isn’t in Lycra or corseted armour.

Yeah there are. There's two in chains and their underwear.

Andykp wrote:
So far we haven’t got a single female human in the range who isn’t in Lycra or corseted armour.

Really?



Neither Lycra nor corset there, buddy.
____

DAMMIT! ninja'd


aside ... I like where this is going!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?

She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.

But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?

Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So far we haven’t got a single female human in the range who isn’t in Lycra or corseted armour.

Really?



Neither Lycra nor corset there, buddy.
____

DAMMIT! ninja'd


aside ... I like where this is going!

I always assumed they were eldar prisoners.

Andykp wrote:
So far we haven’t got a single female human in the range who isn’t in Lycra or corseted armour.

Except we have:

 Manchu wrote:
Female IG figs would be just plain good news. Even if one isn’t particulalry bothered by getting some cool Guardswomen sculpts, the only way we’ll get them at all is if the Astra Militarum line is significantly updated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory

This needs to stop being repeated. Female bodies are not male bodies. Head swaps don’t give us female figures. The guard uniform isn’t a shapeless potato sack. According to the fluff, there are billions of Guardswomen. Having them a[pear on the tabletop will just make Astra Militarum that much cooler and thematically “correct.”

Female bodies are virtually indistinguishable from male bodies in uniform and body armor, with the only defining trait being a different hip/waist ratio that is mostly covered up by thick coats, webbing, and armor. All they need is heads, although all guardsmen really need new models.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?

Okay, but what is "female" for a Necrontyr? Were they mammals? Birds? Reptiles? We don't even know if the Necrons look close to the same as what the Necrontyr looked like, so it makes it hard to know what a female Necron "should" look like. For all we know they all looked basically the same and sex was conveyed by clothing style or scent markers instead of obvious sexual characteristics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Making female Necron Ladies is as easy as giving them head pieces and modifications in their skull to show that.

I doubt the... "beard" of the new Cryptek model is there to have some function. Necrons have personalities now. When you are an individual you want to differentiate yourself from the rest
.That does not mean we need robot skeletons with boobs but is absolutely possible to make an Skeleton that looks feminine with a combination of "clothes", pose, etc...

Female Pharohs wore the beard too so it's more a call back to Egyptian culture than a gender marker design wise I think.

I mentioned the beard because it is clearly something that is not there for a pragmatic reason but for an aesthetic or traditional reason. Necrons decorate themselves. If males do, females would to it too.
Also I wouldn't over-cothinkg about how Necrontyr society worked. They are clearly Tomb Kings on Space. Clearly GW hasn't put more tought into that. They are metal humanoid skeletons.

We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.


I’ll say it again. 1 model.

meleti wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?

She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.

But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?

Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.

While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to more female Overlords, Xun'bakyr already exists as the Phaerakh of the Maynarkh Dynasty, and Forge World in their infinite wisdom just made the HQ choices for the dynasty a couple of dudes who work under her instead.

While I really hope cadians get new models, all female guard need for them is heads. Google real life female soldiers in modern gear. If you covered their faces it would be tough to tell gender apart other than guessing based on height and weight since men generally are a taller and heavier.

Andykp wrote:
We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.


I’ll say it again. 1 model.

They said "corseted armor", which clearly doesn't apply to the rogue trader herself.

I'd argue that corsets fit fine into the setting if we assume that they're part of Imperial fashion (it's not like they didn't start as a fashion choice before after all). Boob plate is the big one that most people want to see become more practical (or see gone depending on who you ask), though I can respect why GW might stick with it as it does make it easier for new players to go "oh, those are girls".

Andykp wrote:
We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.


I’ll say it again. 1 model.

Honest question. Because I really don't have a answer. How much of that is the aesthetics of the setting?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I am unaware of any female Chaos miniatures.

Most of Slaanesh's daemon army is female.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The state of GW's fem minis is even more deplorable when you consider that one of their twelve releases is 'Dark Eldar prisoners', two hyper-sexualised figures with dubious proportions and pixie features in submissive poses and underwear, which would arguably make sense in a Slaanesh 'kink' aesthetic but makes none in Dark Eldar's 'sadist' aesthetic.

Somewhere, Andrea Dworkin just rolled over in her grave.

Those "prisoners" never made it into plastic and are from the original Dark Eldar line.

And how submissive is it for a woman to be hiding a knife behind her back again? Because the Sister of Battle on the right is hiding a shiv behind her back:


I won't argue that they're not bad models (they're horrible on several levels) but complaining that an army that degrades their captives is degrading their captives seems a little silly.

Daemonettes are not, IMO, female. Slaanesh is genderfluid.

It doesn't matter how they were released, or in what medium. It matters that they were released and that in a product line that contains roughly twelve women, two of them are depicted as victims, trussed up in their underwear. The presence of a shiv hardly seems relevant, either, except to suggest that Drukhari, as I suppose I should get used to calling them, are [Expletive Deleted] idiots who can't search their captives properly.

Again, in a Slaanesh aesthetic where the main focus is broad kink, they make sense. In the Drukhari aesthetic, they are torture porn.

It is improving fluff wise, the knights codex has female characters and there is a picture of a female guardsmanwoman in the guard one.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

meleti wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?

She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.

But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?

Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.

While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to more female Overlords, Xun'bakyr already exists as the Phaerakh of the Maynarkh Dynasty, and Forge World in their infinite wisdom just made the HQ choices for the dynasty a couple of dudes who work under her instead.

FW is a funny place like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Daemonettes are not, IMO, female. Slaanesh is genderfluid.

Respect the female pronouns used for them if you're going to start talking about being genderfluid (actually according to Ian Watson they're hermaphrodites (since he described them as very feminine with "bulging loins" but that is a topic about their sex, not gender).

The rogue trader is in a corset. With mr whippy boobs.

Daemonettes aren’t human they are demons. They don’t have gender, as they are made of the warp and that stuff is unreal in its being.

Andykp wrote:
The rogue trader is in a corset. With mr whippy boobs.

She's dressed in moderate clothing and tall boots. Don't hate the fashion just because you don't like it. A corset is just a piece of clothing unless you're wearing it for kink reasons after all.

Daemonettes aren’t human they are demons. They don’t have gender, as they are made of the warp and that stuff is unreal in its being.

They have gendered pronouns used for them, therefore the Daemonettes can be called "female". It's like you're going out of your way to claim we have less female models in the game or something.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

meleti wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?

She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.

But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?

Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.

While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to more female Overlords, Xun'bakyr already exists as the Phaerakh of the Maynarkh Dynasty, and Forge World in their infinite wisdom just made the HQ choices for the dynasty a couple of dudes who work under her instead.

FW is a funny place like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Daemonettes are not, IMO, female. Slaanesh is genderfluid.

Respect the female pronouns used for them if you're going to start talking about being genderfluid (actually according to Ian Watson they're hermaphrodites (since he described them as very feminine with "bulging loins" but that is a topic about their sex, not gender).

Ayuh, I even refer to my version of Zarakynel as 'Herself', however it is entirely possible to prefer to be addressed using feminine forms and not be biologically female. We are, however, skirting to close to discussing identity politics, which the OP asked us not to do, so perhaps its best to drop this.

Don’t get too into in-setting perspective about Daemonettes. As the name makes explicit, and the models clearly illustrate, they are female-gendered and will be perceived by pretty much everyone who is not splitting hairs as females, just as all other daemons are perceived as male.

Now, that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be more female models. A female Necron character, Fire Warriors who look like females, and a bunch of characters as well as rank and file Guardswomen should all be added - not with any big fanfare, as noted above, just added in because they make sense and would make the setting’s table top depiction more accurate to the existing background.

Slaanesh daemons are female largely because GW isn't terribly interested in exploring gender roles in the physical manifestations of chaos and corruption, cool as that would have been. Regardless of the reasons she/her are the pronouns they use so she's and her's they are.

Slaanesh is known as the dark prince and she who thirsts which I think speaks volumes to the preferred pronouns of their daemons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Don’t get too into in-setting perspective about Daemonettes. As the name makes explicit, and the models clearly illustrate, they are female-gendered and will be perceived by pretty much everyone who is not splitting hairs as females, just as all other daemons are perceived as male.

Now, that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be more female models. A female Necron character, Fire Warriors who look like females, and a bunch of characters as well as rank and file Guardswomen should all be added - not with any big fanfare, as noted above, just added in because they make sense and would make the setting’s table top depiction more accurate to the existing background.

But that leaves the massive elephant in the room. Age of Sigmar is all in. Female poster boys right there front and centre.

Andykp wrote:
But that leaves the massive elephant in the room. Age of Sigmar is all in. Female poster boys right there front and centre.

Yeah, but the equiv to those are Space Marines and the processess for making them is different.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have female models mind you, I'm just saying they're not the best example of meshing them into the setting for that reason.

Andykp wrote:
We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.


I’ll say it again. 1 model.

Nope. It's at least 4. In addition to the Dark Eldar Prisoners (who are humans), we also have...


No corset there!

For the record, I own almost all of the metal female minis the GW has made available since 3E

There are more, but I'm waiting for you to keep putting your foot in your mouth, insisting that there's just one.

You’re not using your imagination, Mr. Hwang!

As to poster boys, GW need to use Guard for this position much more often. It works very, very well in Regimental Standard.

Given that GW seems to be going all-in on the Emperor being a bastard, it might be an interesting excuse if they just make him flagrantly misogynistic and play up the dissonance with how otherwise egalitarian the Imperium is. It is notable how, with the exception of the Sisters of Battle which were designed to get around a weird exception in a specific rule, all of the gender-specific factions in the Imperium were deliberately designed that way by Big E.

 Manchu wrote:
You’re not using your imagination, Mr. Hwang!

As to poster boys, GW need to use Guard for this position much more often. It works very, very well in Regimental Standard.

I agree, Guard do need to be more important. I get why Marines are used for marketting, but for representing humanity to the player/reader, Guard should be used more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Given that GW seems to be going all-in on the Emperor being a bastard, it might be an interesting excuse if they just make him flagrantly misogynistic and play up the dissonance with how otherwise egalitarian the Imperium is. It is notable how, with the exception of the Sisters of Battle which were designed to get around a weird exception in a specific rule, all of the gender-specific factions in the Imperium were deliberately designed that way by Big E.

If you assume he did it because he didn't want his tools replacing humanity it makes sense (by breeding out humanity), but that's just the take I've always had on it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Andykp wrote:
We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.


I’ll say it again. 1 model.

Nope. It's at least 4. In addition to the Dark Eldar Prisoners (who are humans), we also have...


No corset there!

For the record, I own almost all of the metal female minis the GW has made available since 3E

There are more, but I'm waiting for you to keep putting your foot in your mouth, insisting that there's just one.

I did initially ask about them in plastic. So that is just one. And if that’s what you are doing then you are missing the point massively. However many it is, it isn’t enough. By a LONG way. And the examples you have given aren’t exactly perfect examples of inclusion and diversity are they. So carry on by all means but at some point you will have to admit that women are under represented in 40k. Or represented in a negative way. (I’m looking at repentia sisters things).