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.

 Peregrine wrote:
If necrons are "genderless robots" then why are they referred to with male pronouns?

Because of the Pa’Triarchy.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
If necrons are "genderless robots" then why are they referred to with male pronouns?

Because of the Pa’Triarchy.

I can just see it:

A Necron Lord teleports onto the battlefield and his voice booms out for all to hear:

MY NAME IS "SHA'KETHRAMON," AND MY PRONOUNS ARE "HE" AND "HIS"!

That'd be a be cultural shakeup, for sure!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
GSC "should" also include children. Creepy, misshapen children.

40k is very sparing when it comes to use of children in their setting, they really don't like portraying them as victims. Rarely are they ever mentioned in the lore beyond the word "family of inhabitants" and even that is uncommon.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
GSC "should" also include children. Creepy, misshapen children.

40k is very sparing when it comes to use of children in their setting, they really don't like portraying them as victims. Rarely are they ever mentioned in the lore beyond the word "family of inhabitants" and even that is uncommon.

Cough cough


But I agree. Pregnant women and children are as banned from 40k as they are from GTA games. They are a big no no.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
GSC "should" also include children. Creepy, misshapen children.

40k is very sparing when it comes to use of children in their setting, they really don't like portraying them as victims. Rarely are they ever mentioned in the lore beyond the word "family of inhabitants" and even that is uncommon.

Yeah, and that's why I used quotation marks.

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t think you should be lumping female figures in with “cultural themed” figures.

As to female models:

First things first, Sisters of Battle need to be completely updated. GW says that’s coming in 2019. So that box will be checked.

Next up, Imperial Guard need to be updated. Ideally, a Guard squad would come with two sprues: one with options for five male figures and one for options for five female figures. Obviously, stuff like special weapons and backpacks would work for either male or female figures.

For everything else, a few female models should be included in kits where appropriate. A couple of good examples are Eldar Guardians and Dark Eldar Wyches. There might be a couple of males in those kits.

So in summary, what’s really missing and should be addressed are Guardswomen. Otherwise, the line is already pretty great.

I tend to aghree, putting female minis out is one thing and I support it, putting "cultural themed" units out though would be a mistake. Space Wolves work because vikings are pretty whiter and we get the joke. putting out a "Zulu Marines" chapter is likely to be seen as racist before it's seen as inclusive.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t think you should be lumping female figures in with “cultural themed” figures.

As to female models:

First things first, Sisters of Battle need to be completely updated. GW says that’s coming in 2019. So that box will be checked.

Next up, Imperial Guard need to be updated. Ideally, a Guard squad would come with two sprues: one with options for five male figures and one for options for five female figures. Obviously, stuff like special weapons and backpacks would work for either male or female figures.

For everything else, a few female models should be included in kits where appropriate. A couple of good examples are Eldar Guardians and Dark Eldar Wyches. There might be a couple of males in those kits.

So in summary, what’s really missing and should be addressed are Guardswomen. Otherwise, the line is already pretty great.

I tend to aghree, putting female minis out is one thing and I support it, putting "cultural themed" units out though would be a mistake. Space Wolves work because vikings are pretty whiter and we get the joke. putting out a "Zulu Marines" chapter is likely to be seen as racist before it's seen as inclusive.

TIL the Celestial Lions don't exist.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t think you should be lumping female figures in with “cultural themed” figures.

As to female models:

First things first, Sisters of Battle need to be completely updated. GW says that’s coming in 2019. So that box will be checked.

Next up, Imperial Guard need to be updated. Ideally, a Guard squad would come with two sprues: one with options for five male figures and one for options for five female figures. Obviously, stuff like special weapons and backpacks would work for either male or female figures.

For everything else, a few female models should be included in kits where appropriate. A couple of good examples are Eldar Guardians and Dark Eldar Wyches. There might be a couple of males in those kits.

So in summary, what’s really missing and should be addressed are Guardswomen. Otherwise, the line is already pretty great.

I tend to aghree, putting female minis out is one thing and I support it, putting "cultural themed" units out though would be a mistake. Space Wolves work because vikings are pretty whiter and we get the joke. putting out a "Zulu Marines" chapter is likely to be seen as racist before it's seen as inclusive.

TIL the Celestial Lions don't exist.

you know what I mean BCB could you imagine if they took an African tribal cultural and "Space wolfed" it? yeaaaah no

that said a Japanese inspired chapter could work quite well. make the power swords Katana's, combat knives wakazari's, refer to the chapter master as the shogun, with each company cap[tain being a Dayimo..

BrianDavion wrote:
you know what I mean BCB could you imagine if they took an African tribal cultural and "Space wolfed" it? yeaaaah no

that said a Japanese inspired chapter could work quite well. make the power swords Katana's, combat knives wakazari's, refer to the chapter master as the shogun, with each company cap[tain being a Dayimo..

You mean, like they already did with the Pygmies? An actual African tribal culture that they brought into the Warhammer universe!

You mean, like the Tau, with their anime robots and shoulder armor and so on?

Armies are based off historical culture, i dont think T'au is at all representative of Japanese culture just because they look anime like

African tribalism would make for an awesome faction. Black Panther fused tech and culture really well.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Armies are based off historical culture, i dont think T'au is at all representative of Japanese culture just because they look anime like

African tribalism would make for an awesome faction. Black Panther fused tech and culture really well.

Don't be that reasonable! You'll ruin the low effort bait of JohnHwang using extremely old and clearly racist caricature miniatures that haven't been in sale for 20 years, as if they where exactly the same as quality concepts mixing the setting with proper cultural influences.

Please, let's skip "miniatures can't be racist" and stay more on topic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Do we even have a good pic of what the Necrons looked like prior to getting all terminator? I don't recall GW describing them in any detail other than vaguely human shaped and full of cancer.

Nyet. Not as far as I am aware. Although the shape of the Necrons should give us a idea of what they looked like.

According to the Oldcron (and best) lore, they're form was chosen by the Nightbringer, as it's the form that would most terrify their foes, since the Eldar, Krork, and other Old One creations were humanoid in shape.

There's never any indication that they're original Necrontyr bodies looked anything like the Necrons.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Please, let's skip "miniatures can't be racist" and stay more on topic.

Let's skip the "these miniatures are going to be racist" comments, that prompted the replies in the first place, which stated that they might not be, if done well. And then in future take the time out to read a conversation properly before chiming in about who is offtopic and who isn't

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Please, let's skip "miniatures can't be racist" and stay more on topic.

Let's skip the "these miniatures are going to be racist" comments, that prompted the replies in the first place, which stated that they might not be, if done well. And then in future take the time out to read a conversation properly before chiming in about who is offtopic and who isn't

You're missing some context. I'm referring to a thread spiral that has resulted in several similar threads getting locked in the past. I saw he opening for that spiral and was hoping we could skip it.

I was not arguing either way on whether future miniatures would likely be racist or seen as racist or neither.

 Galas wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Armies are based off historical culture, i dont think T'au is at all representative of Japanese culture just because they look anime like

African tribalism would make for an awesome faction. Black Panther fused tech and culture really well.

Don't be that reasonable! You'll ruin the low effort bait of JohnHwang using extremely old and clearly racist caricature miniatures that haven't been in sale for 20 years, as if they where exactly the same as quality concepts mixing the setting with proper cultural influences.

Except for the fact that we all know GW can't and won't produce "quality concepts" "with proper cultural influences". GW has promoted obviously racist material, and has NEVER apologized for it. The undercurrent of casual racism in GW's version of "British humour" goes hand in hand with GW's core identity. It's who they are.

The Tau very clearly include overtly Japanese design elements in their armor, above and beyond the robot suits. The shoulder pads, for example, are a dead giveaway.

Marvel's Black Panther was specifically created in the wake of many efforts to develop and promote diversity, stretching back decades. Again it's who they are.

So, no, it's not even close to trolling. It's noting things that GW has actually done. If you can't see or comprehend the obvious, maybe you should stop commenting.

John, it dosen't matter if you have a legitimate point to make or not. Your past behavior colors the perception of anything you post.

This thread is not a referendum on any user. Please stick to the topic. Thanks!

 Crimson Devil wrote:
John, it dosen't matter if you have a legitimate point to make or not. Your past behavior colors the perception of anything you post.

And your's doesn't? BCB's doesn't? SHUPPET's doesn't? Peregrine's doesn't?

Fact is, I would prefer GW not touch "cultural themed minis", ever. They do a gak job of it, and it's offensive as feth. So, no. In fact, put me in the camp that says "feth NO!"

That's not trolling. "NEVER" is a valid answer.

Yes in these both
-Release female/cultural themed miniatures in dedicated units and factions so players can choose to have them or not (
-Release female/cultural themed miniatures freely mixed in with other units, adding variety to players' modeling options

We need Adepta Sororitas and maybe cultural themed AM. Then we need more options for humans at least. Space Marines are themed already, Xenos have their own uniques.

What comes to Necrons, it is faulty english where you must call he/she or it. I do not know how genders were before they become robots. Maybe they were patriarch culture and women become low tier robots or even discarded. Or maybe they had no gender roles. He/she are imperium words.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
They do a gak job of it, and it's offensive as feth.

Your own reference to the Tau proves you wrong. Clear real-world cultural influence, not caricatures or offensive. The fact that decades ago GW made some offensive miniatures doesn't mean that everything else they do will follow the same pattern.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Please, let's skip "miniatures can't be racist" and stay more on topic.

Let's skip the "these miniatures are going to be racist" comments, that prompted the replies in the first place, which stated that they might not be, if done well. And then in future take the time out to read a conversation properly before chiming in about who is offtopic and who isn't

You're missing some context. I'm referring to a thread spiral that has resulted in several similar threads getting locked in the past. I saw he opening for that spiral and was hoping we could skip it.

I was not arguing either way on whether future miniatures would likely be racist or seen as racist or neither.

My bad, I see exactly what you meant now, and I agree. I thought you were trying to shut down comments suggesting that it could be done well.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Marvel's Black Panther was specifically created in the wake of many efforts to develop and promote diversity, stretching back decades. Again it's who they are.

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean in relation at all to my mentioning of the fact that they portrayed a fusion of tribal culture and tech in an excellent manner and something similar could work really cool for a faction to diversifying GW's range. In fact, if anything it seems to support what I said?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
John, it dosen't matter if you have a legitimate point to make or not. Your past behavior colors the perception of anything you post.

And your's doesn't? BCB's doesn't? SHUPPET's doesn't?

It probably does color his perception of my statements, except unlike yourself and Peregrine, not in a negative way as I do try to conduct myself with some manner of rationality.

I would say yes to having female miniatures, and no to cultural, as I can only see caricaturing an existing and already racially defended culture (something Viking culture isn't - no one ever took offence to being called a Viking, even if it does imply slaughter, rape and washing your hair with caustic soda!) being deemed offensive and racist.

I would, however, prefer to have the kits separated or optional - in the same way as people went mad for beakie helmets to have a theme in their army, I would prefer not to have half and half in each box, but the option for all of them to be either - so that people can run all-male or all-female armies without having half of each box made redundant.

I would also love to see how they portray female ogryns without it somehow being offensive.

On the tau thing, the introduction of the tau was an actual attempt to appeal to the far east market and fans of that style, hence the shoulder armour and anime style robot suits.

Bretoonians weren’t racist and neither were the empire despite their blatant cultural tropes. The old world was a mirror of earth but with dragons and stuff.

40k has always used real world culture as inspiration. Romans, Greeks, all of it. If done carefully it can be done. There obviously some tropes that are mine fields but to say you don’t want cultural tropes in the game then bye bye half the marines and half the guard. The shoulder pads on tau are the least of you worries.

And there’s nothing racist about using medieval style armour form Japanese culture on anime robots. Predictable but it’s not offensive. People are calling for pith helmeted guard unquestioned when to many that is a sign of colonial oppression.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
John, it dosen't matter if you have a legitimate point to make or not. Your past behavior colors the perception of anything you post.

And your's doesn't? BCB's doesn't? SHUPPET's doesn't? Peregrine's doesn't?

Fact is, I would prefer GW not touch "cultural themed minis", ever. They do a gak job of it, and it's offensive as feth. So, no. In fact, put me in the camp that says "feth NO!"

That's not trolling. "NEVER" is a valid answer.

Could you give some examples? As non American I have troubles to see which minis are offensive as feth. I know they steal for different cultures and twist those things (The Council of Nicaea, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Vostroyans).

Peregrine wrote:If necrons are "genderless robots" then why are they referred to with male pronouns?

Because English is a rubbish language in many respects and it is ill-equipped to deal with non-binary gender or gender ambiguity.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Peregrine wrote:If necrons are "genderless robots" then why are they referred to with male pronouns?

Because English is a rubbish language in many respects and it is ill-equipped to deal with non-binary gender or gender ambiguity.

So are most other languages, most languages know only female or male genders, at best you'll find a neutral ( sachlich) gender.

 Draco wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
John, it dosen't matter if you have a legitimate point to make or not. Your past behavior colors the perception of anything you post.

And your's doesn't? BCB's doesn't? SHUPPET's doesn't? Peregrine's doesn't?

Fact is, I would prefer GW not touch "cultural themed minis", ever. They do a gak job of it, and it's offensive as feth. So, no. In fact, put me in the camp that says "feth NO!"

That's not trolling. "NEVER" is a valid answer.

Could you give some examples? As non American I have troubles to see which minis are offensive as feth. I know they steal for different cultures and twist those things (The Council of Nicaea, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Vostroyans).

What's the real life cultural reference for Dark Angels, out of curiosity? I thought they were just kinda based off generic medievil culture pre-Imperium, and afterwards, god knows. Cult culture? lol

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Peregrine wrote:If necrons are "genderless robots" then why are they referred to with male pronouns?

Because English is a rubbish language in many respects and it is ill-equipped to deal with non-binary gender or gender ambiguity.

So are most other languages, most languages know only female or male genders, at best you'll find a neutral ( sachlich) gender.

If you say most, you mean western europe right, so mostly latin and germanic language groups? Because if we go per capita chinese dialects are mostly used genderless most of the time. Or you get some fun stuff like japanesse where children, man and women have more or less a separate way of talking, and that is on top of 3 ways of writing used along side each other.

English has the problems it has, because some time around Edward the Conquerer some people decided that they are going to squeez french way of talking in to a germanic flection.

What's the real life cultural reference for Dark Angels, out of curiosity?

Well am not a native american, but if I would have to guess, it is the interaction between "white" dudes puting not their stuff on models after destroying the culture in the first place. Plus there could be some religious stuff too, again am not a native american, but I guess the feather mean something. Or to make it simpler it is like when your a catholic and see people using crosses as jewelry, specially if those people aren't very religious or even anti church.