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.

Hence my idea of beer producing squig breasts. If squigs can mimic hair they can mimic other things as well.

 exliontamer wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

I hear no one complaining about only female SoB (or DoK to keep with fantasy). What if I want a Battle Brother?

This stupid argument again? Every word in that last sentence is a link to a different male model from the SoB army list.

How is this stupid? The thread is literally about wanting to add females to a race of genderless asexual mutated fungi when there is no fluff justification at all.

Nah, they were right. Your point was pretty silly and they were highlighting why. In fact your own argument here is exposing why your Sisters comment was ill-advised...

SISTERS of Battle, a force of highly trained human female fighters is supported by male units in the fluff, and there are plenty of ways to include or model those units in the game. There would be no real fluffy (or logical) reason to have a male human battle "sister." Trans woman, sure, knock yourself out on that one.

This of course has nothing to do with:

ORKS, a genderless race of barbaric warriors who have all sorts of bizarre physiology and fluff (including why their race adopted "hair") and could have any number of convincing reasons for having Orks who appear "female" to other races. It would have no bearing on their tactics, history, fluff, etc. It could literally be done with a hand-wave precisely because of the nature of their fluff. Gretchin, Boyz, why not Galz? It's all made up.

I agree with you that Orks don't NEED "female" minis. Just arguing from a "fluff" perspective, or using the "why not male Sisters?" argument are both foolish.

Yeah but why would you assume their gender just because they "looked like" females even though they don't even have sexes. Wouldn't that be offensive for multiple reasons?

Gender and sex are two slightly different things.

But I really do not understand the sisters argument. That would be like saying just because we have all male armies we do not need more male models.

And while we do have all male armies, we do not have all female armies. Sisters include things like the priests etc.

And what do sisters have to do with variation in the ork fantasy line? It is not even the same army, let alone the same game universe.

Fluff is story. Story can change. There may not be gendered Orcs in AOS currently, but there weren’t a lot of things in the source material. By which I mean the various editions of WHFB and the spin-off games.

I haven’t played WHFB since early 6th edition, and have never played a game of AOS. From my limited following, I believe the following changes have occurred...

The planet no longer exists.
Dwarves now fly, instead of living in mountains.
Elves now swim, instead of living on land.
Lizard men are now essentially Daemons of Order, or memories given form?
Black Orks are now ‘Ard boys.
Morathi is no longer an Elf, but some kind of Daemon Naga thing.
There are now more ghosts than you can shake a stick at.
Sigmar essentially created Daemons of Order in the Stormcast.
Skaven now have a god to interact with, and gain power from, rather than snorting all the warp dust?

Flat-out rewriting Orc fluff to make women Orcs seems like small potatoes by comparison. Frankly, this isn’t the era it used to be. It’s a time of inclusion and fiction keeps pace with society’s changes.

Maybe the AOS universe is advancing socially. North American social norms have changed dramatically (for the better) in the 37 years I’ve been alive. I don’t see a reason the AOS fluff can’t change to welcome those changes.

Weirdly they almost all seem both wrong and right at the same time...

@Greatbigtree I do not agree with you. While the Orks clearly lack a sex, they are all quite clearky of the male gender. If they are presented as male gendered while they have a neutral sex, then clearly they can be represented as female as well.

Isn't the Orc word for 'Orc' 'Boy'?
"Lets get 'm LADS!" and all that?
Since they already self identify as male shouldn't we be respectful of their gender choice?

In all seriousness, I don't care. I don't play orcs. Or even Orruks.
I wouldn't care if I saw them during a game because they're probably just going to be in a mass of other orc models I won't take a very close look at.
More than likely the only way I would notice is because some one would shove it in my face and be all "look at my one badly painted model! Its got bewbs!"
To which I'll gesture at my DoK army and say "I gots more bewbs than you!"

I kind of feel we don't need female Ork(c)s any more than we need female Tyranids in 40k, or female Lizardmen in Fantasy/AoS.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I kind of feel we don't need female Ork(c)s any more than we need female Tyranids in 40k, or female Lizardmen in Fantasy/AoS.

The only reason we don't have Norn Queens is because they are too big for the table- whilst everyone (Tyranid at least) is still waiting for GW to give the Lord of War - Dominatrix model (also I'm pretty sure the harpy and tervigone are fairly female in focus and name).

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I kind of feel we don't need female Ork(c)s any more than we need female Tyranids in 40k, or female Lizardmen in Fantasy/AoS.

There are female tyranids though. They are basically birthing machines.

Hi Niiai,

I’m pro Orc women models. You may have confused me with someone else.

 Niiai wrote:
@Greatbigtree I do not agree with you. While the Orks clearly lack a sex, they are all quite clearky of the male gender. If they are presented as male gendered while they have a neutral sex, then clearly they can be represented as female as well.

What clearly defines them as the male gender?

Please note that pointing out any biological distinctions will not be referring to the sociological definition of gender.

You are applying human norms to a completely alien specie which is not even of our kingdom of life.

If theyb are not represented as masculine and male now, why do you care if they change? You can not have it both ways with your argument.

 Niiai wrote:
If theyb are not represented as masculine and male now, why do you care if they change? You can not have it both ways with your argument.

But I'm NOT caring, someone else cares. Someone else is trying to humanize a completely alien specie and I am explaining the situation. If someone wants to represent unnecessary organs on a soldier-type organism to fit their human aesthetic, that's their business. I just don't see the point to try an force human concepts and norms on an alien specie that has survived longer than humanity. But apparently someone does care about that because they want to have it represented.

However, you skipped a question, what makes an orc masculine and male?

I did not skip a question. You are trying to trap me by having them be gender neutral and masculine at the same time. In the first senwrio they are now neutral even though they are depicted in a certain way and by that logic they would stil be neutral when depicted another way. We all know this to be wrong, but you are trying to bring the logic there.

In the other senario the orks are clearly male and maskuline. This is very odd since every third post in this thread has posted then to have no sex. This points out the hypocrasy in that senario and argument.

The original poster asks wheather we can have female orks in AoS even though they are fungus, using WoW as an example of female orks that work. The two aproaches above show that either they are not male now, and thus it would not matter if they got a different form. Or they are in fact male now, and if you are gendering the non sex race there is no reason why you can not gender them female as well.

You can not have your cake and eat it to.

Do not come here and say they are humenising an entierly alien species. The tyranids are an slightly alien species. The sci-fi books by Stanislaw Lem feature entier alien species. Painting green paint, growing some big fangs and being a rip off from Tolkien is not an entier alien species. If they are so entier alien, why do the female orks work so well inn WoW and other media?

 Niiai wrote:
I did not skip a question. You are trying to trap me by having them be gender neutral and masculine at the same time. In the first senwrio they are now neutral even though they are depicted in a certain way and by that logic they would stil be neutral when depicted another way. We all know this to be wrong, but you are trying to bring the logic there.

In the other senario the orks are clearly male and maskuline. This is very odd since every third post in this thread has posted then to have no sex. This points out the hypocrasy in that senario and argument.

The original poster asks wheather we can have female orks in AoS even though they are fungus, using WoW as an example of female orks that work. The two aproaches above show that either they are not male now, and thus it would not matter if they got a different form. Or they are in fact male now, and if you are gendering the non sex race there is no reason why you can not gender them female as well.

You can not have your cake and eat it to.

Actually I am pointing out the hypocrisy about the concern of gendering a specie which has been noted to not have gender in this age where people are politicizing gender while ignoring the biological. I'm not the one calling them masculine, after all, YOU are. So the question is rather poignant and says more about you than about me.

So, TL;DR, I'm simply pointing out to you that the cake is a lie. I know there is no cake there, so I'm not even trying to eat it. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to push a mud pie as a cake, and that is not chocolate, it is dirt mixed with water.

 Niiai wrote:
Do not come here and say they are humenising an entierly alien species. The tyranids are an slightly alien species. The sci-fi books by Stanislaw Lem feature entier alien species. Painting green paint, growing some big fangs and being a rip off from Tolkien is not an entier alien species. If they are so entier alien, why do the female orks work so well inn WoW and other media?

I can say you are humanizing a specie when:
1) They are not human.
2) They are not mammal.
3) They are not animal.

WoW orcs are animal. Since they have hair and they have noted bisexual differentiation common to mammals, I will even go so far as say they are of the mammalia class. Since they have had children with at least three other species, one hybrid actually have a successful attempt at reproduction with a human, they are easily within the same Family and could even be within the same Genus as us. I'll leave the those more familiar with animal taxonomy to determine if they are within the same Specie.

Warhammer Orcs/Orks are Fungi. That is a completely different KINGDOM than humans. That's two levels of taxonomic rank above mammal classification. They have more biology in common with the mushrooms on your pizza than with you. They are not mammals, no matter how sentient and bipedal they are. Beyond that, their culture is completely foreign based on the needs of their physiology.

So trying to put such human morphisms or genderisms in to play on such an alien specie would be humanizing them.

Alright, a thread where people are arguing for and against the existence of sexual dimorphism via an asexually reproducing fantasy race of sentient fungi is pretty bizarre even for me

 Luciferian wrote:
Alright, a thread where people are arguing for and against the existence of sexual dimorphism via an asexually reproducing fantasy race of sentient fungi is pretty bizarre even for me

NPC's are just scripted, they can't make any logical arguments.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
I did not skip a question. You are trying to trap me by having them be gender neutral and masculine at the same time. In the first senwrio they are now neutral even though they are depicted in a certain way and by that logic they would stil be neutral when depicted another way. We all know this to be wrong, but you are trying to bring the logic there.

In the other senario the orks are clearly male and maskuline. This is very odd since every third post in this thread has posted then to have no sex. This points out the hypocrasy in that senario and argument.

The original poster asks wheather we can have female orks in AoS even though they are fungus, using WoW as an example of female orks that work. The two aproaches above show that either they are not male now, and thus it would not matter if they got a different form. Or they are in fact male now, and if you are gendering the non sex race there is no reason why you can not gender them female as well.

You can not have your cake and eat it to.

Actually I am pointing out the hypocrisy about the concern of gendering a specie which has been noted to not have gender in this age where people are politicizing gender while ignoring the biological. I'm not the one calling them masculine, after all, YOU are. So the question is rather poignant and says more about you than about me.

So, TL;DR, I'm simply pointing out to you that the cake is a lie. I know there is no cake there, so I'm not even trying to eat it. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to push a mud pie as a cake, and that is not chocolate, it is dirt mixed with water.

 Niiai wrote:
Do not come here and say they are humenising an entierly alien species. The tyranids are an slightly alien species. The sci-fi books by Stanislaw Lem feature entier alien species. Painting green paint, growing some big fangs and being a rip off from Tolkien is not an entier alien species. If they are so entier alien, why do the female orks work so well inn WoW and other media?

I can say you are humanizing a specie when:
1) They are not human.
2) They are not mammal.
3) They are not animal.

WoW orcs are animal. Since they have hair and they have noted bisexual differentiation common to mammals, I will even go so far as say they are of the mammalia class. Since they have had children with at least three other species, one hybrid actually have a successful attempt at reproduction with a human, they are easily within the same Family and could even be within the same Genus as us. I'll leave the those more familiar with animal taxonomy to determine if they are within the same Specie.

Warhammer Orcs/Orks are Fungi. That is a completely different KINGDOM than humans. That's two levels of taxonomic rank above mammal classification. They have more biology in common with the mushrooms on your pizza than with you. They are not mammals, no matter how sentient and bipedal they are. Beyond that, their culture is completely foreign based on the needs of their physiology.

So trying to put such human morphisms or genderisms in to play on such an alien specie would be humanizing them.

Yet they are clearly represented as masculine.

 Niiai wrote:
Yet they are clearly represented as masculine.

And I repeat. How? What makes them masculine in gender?

I own two Ork army books from WHFB (German version):

- Orks & Goblins (Priestly & Thornton, 2001)
- Orks & Goblins (Ward, 2006)

The fluff does not mention any Ork females and also no way in which the Orks or Goblins reproduce asexually (e.g.: fungi spores). I am not familiar, if GW changed this fluff up to this day but for the sake of the discussion let´s PRETEND that there are Ork females in the background.


OP edited.

Feminine Orks doesn't make sense though. For starters, Orks reproduce asexually which means there's no primary or secondary sex organs, so giving them boobs or wide hips is out of the question. Secondly, Orks constantly gain muscle mass, which means a slender ork would either grow out of it or get killed. Which is central to why orks are so bloody dangerous.

Biologically speaking, the main reason men and women look different (besides sex organs) is because men build muscle (and bone mass) more than women... you know... to help us fight things. So it makes sense that Orks look "masculine" because their only purpose is to fight. Any ork that isn't big and strong just dies. A large "feminine" ork wouldn't really be possible, since it'd more than likely end up looking masculine due to its size and build.

Even if we ignore all that, female orks would just look dumb imo. Doubly so if they looked anything like she-hulk.

Dandelion wrote:
Feminine Orks doesn't make sense though. For starters, Orks reproduce asexually which means there's no primary or secondary sex organs, so giving them boobs or wide hips is out of the question. Secondly, Orks constantly gain muscle mass, which means a slender ork would either grow out of it or get killed. Which is central to why orks are so bloody dangerous.

Biologically speaking, the main reason men and women look different (besides sex organs) is because men build muscle (and bone mass) more than women... you know... to help us fight things. So it makes sense that Orks look "masculine" because their only purpose is to fight. Any ork that isn't big and strong just dies. A large "feminine" ork wouldn't really be possible, since it'd more than likely end up looking masculine due to its size and build.

Even if we ignore all that, female orks would just look dumb imo. Doubly so if they looked anything like she-hulk.

Christ, have you read my prior post? Your contribution is a poorly concealed troll post. Ignored.

Um... to clarify my position, I like the idea of masculine and feminine models being on the table. When it comes to humanoids, which Orcs are, I think the increased variety is nice.

To that end, I would have no objection to reworking the fluff to accommodate the existence of women Orc warriors. I have no particular attachment to any of the fluff. To me, it is just *fluff*. Literally inconsequential to my enjoyment of the game or models.

I understand that other people take it more seriously. For me, the models and game are of primary importance. The fluff is just there to stimulate the imagination, not restrict it. So if GW releases women Orcs, or other, more dangerously seditious, women versions of models, I’m down with it.

In my case, the Orks look male as I associate their heavily muscled bodies with looking masculine, regardless of their fluffy lack of gender. So if GW released more feminine looking Orks and changed the fluff to accommodate that, I’d be happy as that increases model diversity and in my opinion helps with inclusivity, which I value.

No.

 Strg Alt wrote:
I own two Ork army books from WHFB (German version):

- Orks & Goblins (Priestly & Thornton, 2001)
- Orks & Goblins (Ward, 2006)

The fluff does not mention any Ork females and also no way in which the Orks or Goblins reproduce asexually (e.g.: fungi spores). I am not familiar, if GW changed this fluff up to this day but for the sake of the discussion let´s PRETEND that there are Ork females in the background.


OP edited.

I mean, if there are then fine I guess? But there aren't, and it wouldn't make sense that there would be, so what's the point?
You might as well say "I want more octopi men in my army of undead"
Well, ok, but since when were there octopi men, and what does that have to do with the undead?

While Fajita has made a difficult to refute point, I would also be cool with Cthulu’s Octopi Undead.

I would think that of all people, adding Cthulhu inspired undead would float your boat! At least then the aqua elves would have a reason to gtfo of the sea, and wage war on the air breathers.

I’d like Orc women for the same reason octundead would do it for me. It would be cool! Just because they haven’t existed before, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t. I disliked the stagnant background of both WHFB and 40K. I like that they’re moving forward and that new things are happening. I like change. I guess I should have played Tzeentch or something.

New faction, or an addition to an old one. New models are neat. More variety is neat. I have no personal interest in Undead armies, but I’d totally be down with playing against drowned pirates or something like that. The fluff is inspiring to me, not restrictive.

Well, yeah, it would be cool, but just because something is cool doesn't mean its a good idea.
How would you fit an octopus man in an undead army, that's primarily themed off of European horror and ghosts? Wouldn't that be thematically jarring?

"Because its cool!" isn't a a good reason for me. By that logic, we can just add all sorts of stupid gak, like 10,000 foot tall cyborgs or a Scottish Lumber jack who izuna drops giant bears for fun and shoots lightning out of his arse. Who cares if it doesn't make sense? Its kewl!
Coherency ranks higher than coolness for me.

That said, perhaps the octopus was not a good example, as I did just remember there was something called the Vampire Coast in the WHFB world, which was basically inhabited by Undead pirates. You could use that as a base for something, throw a bunch of voodoo or just rip off Pirates of the Caribbean.
So there is something of a precedent for that at least, more than female orcs anyway. It would also me more interesting; entire army of undead pirates and friends, based off of an barely developed bit of lore from WHFB, or orcs that have suddenly grown tits for reasons, that they don't even need because orcs aren't mammals.
One of these is "cooler" than the other.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Christ, have you read my prior post? Your contribution is a poorly concealed troll post. Ignored.

Someone's cranky, geez.

I am tapping out here.

The I like it how it is, or I do not like the suggestion are welcome. But there are a lot of bad arguments that have been rebutled and just gets repeated.

Good hustle. Female orks for 2020.