Sadly, my fellow gaming sisters, this industry is just not aimed at us. Although, there has been some stirrings of ‘female’ targeted designers... but the majority remains firmly fixated on a point about 6 inches below our faces.

There are some instances where the 'norms' of how female heroines are depicted are broken, but for the most part it has become acceptable for a male to march into battle with an entire armoury on his back... yet a woman to be clad in just enough chain and cloth to warrant a pg-13 rating. Or, if not showing blatant skin, to be shoved into a body glove that couldn't be more form-fitting if it had been painted on and with measurements that would send Barbie weeping.
The 'breast-cups' of the Adepta Sororitas don't bother me as much as many portrayals of woman warriors do. It is relatively tame compared to some of the utterly idiotic concepts of armour that some designers come up with for the female form. But, the industry will do what sells, and as of right now... the less armour a female character has and the more in-your-face feminine she is the bigger the $$. As a graphic artist and female, I have come to understand, accept, and even use this fact (/gasp! I know). As it stands, the female form itself is considered to be a potent weapon vs. men.

However, on the topic of an Adepta Sororitas game, where they may forgo the typical 'cut-outs in strategic locations' in the armour... I would put money on cut scenes with the Sisters training/talking/interacting out of their armour. Something that we haven't seen in the SM games, even though canon is pretty solid on the fact that Space Marines do a fair bit of training in little more than a loincloth/chiton.

That tends to be my personal gripe as far as things go... let the boys drool over their lithe vixen, but I want to see some male skin in return!

Shadowkat said:

Um, 300? That was total chick fan-service! Of course, we got some boobies, but that was just a teaser.

Shadowkat said:

Male skin? You should play God of War my friend. Were you can run around as a bare breasted Spartan clad in gladiator sandals and a red kilt who simply oozes testosterone and anger. Oh and did I mention all the aggressive and epic amounts of violence and the fact that Kratos is a pretty sadistic an completely unheroic bastard who has no problem with slicing up screaming civilians as long as his swords hit the intended enemy at the same time?

However some women might not agree with me finding female fan service in God of War, i totally understand that. Though I must point out that there exist fan service for women in video games. The problem is that the female character designers behind them are mostly japanese women who are into yaoi and other such phenomena. Thats why the most J-RPG´s always contain these half-emo/girlish looking archetypical cute boys. For reference: see like every Final Fantasy game created since the dawn of existence. They always manage to stick one of them in every game.

Personally, im kind of bored with cheap tricks like sexually oriented fan service. I mean, it was, like I said, a little cute in the beginning when it was still kind of original in video games. But now the repetition has taken it to the extreme. Its not even interesting anymore, so it would be nice if they could come up with something new. Heck I pull out interesting character concepts of my ass when Im just sitting down to create a PC for a role-playing game! How hard can it be?

TalkingMuffin said:

Too right. I remember seeing 300 for the first time with my previous girlfriend. We both liked the movie, and the evening ended up in... R-rated activities.

For Sparta indeed~

I can only speak for myself when I say the idea of entire chapters of the finest warriors known to humanity, clad in gleaming battle gear and sporting revered bolters clenched in powerful gauntleted fists, just... yummie.

Shadowkat said:

Hmm, I wonder if Black Library might capitalize on that idea with an Astartes calendar? (sort of like how real world fire fighters do)

The problem with the Adeptus Astartes are that they are probably pretty lousy at modelling in speedos or similar state of undress, they seem to be a bit uncomfortable if they arent fully armoured and planting bolter shells and sinking chainsword teeth into the flesh of aliens and others of mankinds enemies. Not to mention the fact that the only facial expressions they seem to master is either raging angry or stonewall stern.

But then again, who can blame them? They were created for war after all, not standing infront of cameras looking charming...

And HeWhoShallNotBeNamed writhes in agony as his beloved heroes are reduced to nothing more than Chip'n Dale Dancers...

Zarkhovian_Rhythm said:

I don think that Dez will even notice. He must be plastered to the screen while the SM game trailer plays over and over 'til the game is released. Just a hypothesis of course.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Sauce for the goose serves for the gander!

All is fair in war until chainmail bikinis become involved!

Indeed. Personally I believe that the appearance of chainmail bikinis are something that should occur much more in "love" than in war.

@ Shadowkat: We're not just pieces of meat, woman! We have feelings to!

@ Varnias Tybalt: I think that it's hard to create credible characters (of opposite sex than the writer) that have both indepth, developped character and are really kickass, plot changing and have credible power of personality - even in "Game of trones" series by G.R.R. Martin any of the female characters don't fulfill all those recuirements so far.By the way I'd like to state that the whole cycle is - by my standards - one of the best books I've ever read.

@ all female forumites(this time seriously) as a male GM I would like you all to give some guidelines as to what kind of behaviour I could expect from female NPCs in 40k universe that 21st century mind wouldn't thik off of top ones head.

I mean it's totally different world and I'd like to create psychologically credible only-girl-gangs, joygirls/courtesans, nobles, misterious psychers, AS from all tree branches of organisation etc that are not walking stereotipes and do move my plot at the same time.

bonehead said:

Not that I am a female forumite myself but I feel inclined to answer anyway. If you want to create credible gangmembers, joyrgirls/courtesans, mysterious psykers etc. I think you'll be more successful if you focus your considerations on their type of work and upbringing rather than focusing on their gender. We're not that different from oneanother you know, the things that put most colour on our personality and behaviour are usually the enviroment around us rather than biological differences...

Although I'm aware of the general conclusion of gender studies - that most of gender associated characteristics are only socially engraved - I have to dissagre with that concept.

Unless I'm mistaken, women and men are different on many levels: influence of diifferent hormone setup on behaviour, brain chemistry (influenced by different hormones opperating) and brain hemisferes activity differences (right hemisfere responsible for emotions and creativity, left for logic and space orientation) evolutionally induced sociall development (eg. women tends to be more socialable then men, are better in creating compromises and in social skills men are more inclined to monastery type of life and have a tendecy to be an alfa type male), men are more likely to have sex with many partners to sperad their DNA wherever and whenever they can, while women have to search for mate cappable of sustainig them and their offspring (selfish gene theory) to mention but a few.

I asked my question because it's difficult for me to create sensible behaviour patterns for women characters in setting so different then ours: there is no chivarely toward women, no gender studies/feminism - it's not important what's your gender is - IoM Adeptas despices such petty devisions in face of so many dangers, and yet still, women are different from men in so many ways (fortunately).

A female ganger is a ganger first and a woman second. First of all, she should act like a ganger. A trained Arbitrator is going to act like a trained Arbitrator, without respect for gender. Margeret Thatcher was a hard-nosed Prime Minister primarily, and a hot Tory sex machine in frilly lingerie only in the privacy of her boudoir (oh yeah). Unless you're planning on having a close personal relationship with the NPC, the gender nuances aren't going to matter.

This is assuming cultures in which gender roles are minimal. If the character comes from a matriarchal society, she will act differently than if she comes from Space Saudi Arabia.

(What career would Thatcher be? I'm guessing Assassin. Possibly Moritat.)

bogi_khaosa said:

I would have thought a female ganger would be born a woman first and then become a ganger later.

Can't say for Bogi, but I think only male forumites have responded to Bonehead's (love the name btw) question. In all honesty I'd probably take the question to it's own thread you're more likely to get more responses from the general forum goers as not everyone likes SM's on the forums... Although lot's of people especially in 40K like S&M... I'm not going to go any further on that...

Zarkhovian_Rhythm said:

While I'm fairly new to this forum, I've been a female gamer geek for many years at this point. As the first female to answer Bonehead's question, I am going to start with a question of my own: why does one have to come before the other? I know personally that you can be both. They're not mutually exclusive! I've seen this many times. It seems like society tells us that something must have priority. If you are a female CEO, you must either put your womanhood or your career before the other. This is patently untrue. In my own case, I am a woman AND a gamer. I am a woman AND a sculptor. Both are inherently part of who I am. Now, some people choose to prioritize. That is fine for them, but it is not required nor is it common among all females.

As for Bonehead's assessment, I feel he has asked a viable question. Regardless of where they come from, there are and always will be differences between men and women, both biological and environmental. This very discussion illustrates some of them.

Hey Bonehead, can you start another thread for this question? That way, like Zarkhov said, you will get more complete answers and we don't hijack this thread anymore than we already have.

bonehead said:

Just so you know, many studies concerning this subject arent always scientifically adequate, even though many of them are presented to the general public like they were. As you're probably aware of its hard to discern a viable scientific explaination for variations in behaviour, and there are a lot of theories, but not much more than that.

In fact no scientist has so far been able to prove the relationship between the biological brain and the individual psyche. To put it simply, no one knows exactly which parts of the brain that controls which parts of every aspect of the human behaviour. For instance, if you put a proved and convicted serial killer under different processes of measuring brain activity, and a perfectly sane family father, their readings could come out looking identical. In fact one such experiment was conducted a few years ago, and the results were just that.

While neurobiologists do have a pretty good picture of what areas of the brain govern different broad aspects of the human consciousness, the knowledge so far uncovered doesnt go much deeper than that. For instance you cant find any psychologist or neurobiologist who could pinpoint exactly which synapse that controls whether a person prefers the colour red instead of the colour blue. Or if there even is such a synapse.

To put it as simply as possible, we do know that both background/enviroment AND biology affects how a personality becomes, but as of yet, no one can be certain of which of the both factors (biological or enviromental) that has the "final say" so to speak in how a certain behaviour or personality manifests. Thats a fact. And sure, we have statistics and using those statistics you could probably pull off a beliavable roleplaying, but statistics are not the same as science. Something woth keeping in mind.

Its not that im trying to deny all aspects of what you are saying. We do know for a fact that there are biological differences of hormone levels in men and women and that it can affect the mood and behaviour in different ways. What im saying is that because we know so little of how the biological brain interacts with the individual psyche we cant be that sure and "clean-cut" about how men and women work (on an individual level).

But in trying to help you with your predicament you'd probably be more sucessful if you focus on what you can certainly know will affect a person. And past experiences, living enviroment and upbrining are pretty sure bets in that regard, don't you agree?

/chuckle ahh derails!

Since I aided in the derail I guess I can take a shot at your question as well Bonehead.

My best advice (as a female gamer and a gm) would be to think of a personality first, then assign gender later. Don't fall into the trap of 'I want this npc to be a girl.. oh drat.. how do girls act??' and think more along the lines of 'I want this Person to be a hard-bitten gang member who doesn't take lip from anyone, has to have the last word, hates anything that has to do with the Arbies, and has an itchie trigger finger.'

Describe the personality and forget the gender. In 40k the lines of gender are blurred even though it is a 'gothic-feel' setting.

As for credible girl-gangs, joygirls, nobles, mysterious psykers: how would you rp them as a male-only gang, joyboy, noble, or mysterious psyker? It is in the details of the personality really, such as the girl-only gang could have a tendancy to be openly agressive to any females in an alpha role... just as an all-male gang could have the same tendancy to be agressive in their attentions towards any male pcs in leader roles. Conversely, the opposite may be true. It is up to what you want/need the personality of the npc to be.

If all that fails you, then pick a close friend of that gender... and rp them in that role (don't tell them though if you value your hide to remain intact!)

I think Jack said it best in "As Good as it Gets", when asked how he "wrote women so well":

"I think of a man. Then I take away reason, and accountability..."

To come back to that other topic...

How does the TT not do them justice? That always confused me, how does the method they were designed from, the original incarnation, the prototype, the basis all other aspects come from not do them justice?

Personally, I think too much of the newer fluff over the past 20 years has just exagerratted their effectiveness and has idolized them. Truth be told, they are only WS 4 BS 4 S 4 T 4.

Maybe we should first hope that GW fixes those stats before we start saying thign like "do them justice."

To me, the TT is the gospel and everything else is illussion and lie.

Space Marines can sie from a lasgun, Ive seen it a hundred times.

The TT stats are derived from GW sacrificing believability for miniatures sales. There was even an explicit "Movie Marines" army list in the White Dwarf, with which you generally fielded between one and two tactical squads against an enemy army.
If your Marines are just of the WS/BS/S/T 4 variety, what's the point in having them? There are a thousand chapters with a thousand Marines each, perhaps twice as many if you assume that the vehicle and space ship crews aren't included in those numbers. That makes two million Marines, spread out over an Imperium of a million worlds where I assume at least a quarter of which to be roughly comparable to our own, having somewhere around 15 million men in active service - so for every Marine, there are seven and a half million regular troopers. Now there are two possibilities - either the Marines are completely useless, which isn't supported by either their fluff in the TT or the supporting material, because despite costing probably a few hundred or rather thousand times what the average trooper costs, they aren't sufficiently effective to make up for this difference. Or they are as powerful as the canon fluff (as opposed to the stats of the TT on the one hand and Dezmond on the other) makes them out to be, capable of killing dozens of regular enemies on their own and being routinely sent for commando operations where you can't just march in with two or three dozen guard regiments.
I prefer a universe where they're not just propaganda and glory hounds, but maybe that's just me.

Cifer said:

Yes, lets get back to topic.

I believe that Space Marines can be "the real thing" when it comes to heroism, despite their stats being somewhat "slightly above average" in game terms. I wouldnt base their elite status on TT rules alone like some people do, because you have to remember that these rules encompass a whole lot of abstractions. The Astartes could well be soaking up huge amounts of enemy fire without flinching even during a TT represented battle, its just that the dice rolling and rules only concer which of these hits that are actually pose a threat to the soldiers at the table.

I mean look at how many shots a so called "rapid fire" weapon shoot with the TT rules. It's like one maybe two shots per turn. Compare that to real world rapid fire weapons that are either fired on fully automatic fire or even three round bursts and you would see that a huge amount of shots seem to be "missing" from the TT game. But if you use a bit of imagination an plausible thinking you would probably see that these shots ar probably not left out or anything. Soldiers in the forty-first millenium probably spew out equally large amounts of ammunition like today's soldiers do (if not more), its just that the rules dont cover ALL abstractions, only the tactical and game-directed ones.

So lets say that you have a pitched battle between Space Marines and Imperial Guardsmen in a TT game. Now lets use our imagination to try to convert this battle and its rule-wise events to a fluff-story instead. In the fluff the soldiers fighting will certainly fire away a heck of a lot more shots than what the miniatures do ruleswise, but they will also be negating the damage by them in some way. So fluffwise the Imperial Guardsmen may do this by going to ground, taking cover behind battlefield debris, dig trenches and such, while the Astartes probably just shrug of most off the random non-rules covered potshots unleashed against them (they are clad in power armour after all). BUT no matter how well the Guardsmen dig in, and take cover, and no matter how well built a set of power armour is, somwhere down the line people will be killed. Perhaps a bolt shell detonates above a Guardsmans foxhole sending deadly shrapnel down over the hiding Guardsman, or perhaps a lucky las gun shot manages to strike the astartes in an area that have been struck before? (meaning that the armour has been weakened in that place) Or maybe the shot strikes in one of the joints or lenses of the power armour?

I believe that it is these shots and attacks that the rules focus on primarily, leaving fluffy embelishment to the imagination of the players instead of bogging the game down with unbalanced and unecessarily detailed rules to cover exactly every round fired and every swipe with a chainsword or bayonet.

Now im not really sure that im going against or with your argument here, im just giving my two cents thats all. And pointing out that if you want to measure the Astartes heroic qualities then it would probably be a mistake to take the TT rules TOO literate. You have to fill in the blanks with your imagination as well.

There's also an E3 interview with one of the Relic guys, with more info on the game:

http://www.thq-games.com/uk/thqtv/index?movieId=3218

Still, sounds like a pretty good game.

The old 40K:RT edition of the TT did them justice. While they were WS/BS/S/T 4, they also had an armor save of 4+ due to power armor, and lots of mobility due to jump packs. Plus a really good weapons list. A smart player could outfight twice as many normal orks. Plus, only about 1/4 of all "kills" are dead, and the outside the scope of the TT rules rapid healing described in the compendium; marines got bonuses to heal between battles.

@Varnias Tybalt

Unless you mean to say that guardsmen models actually represent more than one trooper, that still doesn't change my argument: The numbers involved between Marines and other armies would have to be much different for the vastly more expensive marines to make sense in any way.

Cifer, when someone says that a MOVIE version of something is realistic I begin to worry. Is the movie version of a police officer the real one? All cops are John Maclane?

The fact it was the 'movie marine' list alone tells you it's not 'realistic'. It had stunt doubles as upgrades and a COOL DUDE MARINE as a unit choice. Last time I checked space marines don't drag stunt doubles around with them or have a rank called 'cool dude' or whatever the hell it was called.

The space marine stats in that list were also bollocks. S6 T6? Space marines ARE NOT as strong or tough as a Hive Tyrant not matter how many times fans whack off in an attempt to make it so.

The movie marine army list was really a 'story protagonist' marine army list. If that army was called the 'movie imperial guard army list' very little would have changed because in movies and novels a character does things a normal representative of their species could not.

I found the more interesting part of this conversation in gender concepts in gaming. I love 40k because it is inherently more 'reastic' by being unfair. All kinds of isms permeate the setting. If you compare it to D&D where race, gender, and religion are just labels to stick to your lapels when adventuring you can see the difference.

However, what I find most hilarious is that in general Warhammer presents women in a far more equitable way than say D&D or WoW. Those kinds of settings think they are so mature for creating equality, yet they then turn around and dress all their female characters like tarts. Aparently culturally their settings are unbiased, but visually Oh Boy.....

Take for instance Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. Here we have an MMO that could have gone down the chainmail bikini road, but it didn't because GW's own imagery is not like that. So instead of midrif sporting witch huntrettes we have full body leather coats, vests, big boots. In fact many of the MALE players were complaining that the male elves weren't masculine enough and that people were confusing male and female characters because the females weren't wearing tiny outfits to distinguish them. The dark elf black guard are the hardest of the lot to tell apart.

So, ironically, I find warhammer's inherent unfairness and bigotry far more 'equal' than D&D's because to me D&D is paying lip service and fan service at the same time.

If all we can complain about is boobs on sororitas armour then there really isn't much of a problem at all.

Hellebore