Female Stormcast

[ZephyrExia]

Just now, Turragor said:

I think the glade guard sprue was mixed. Pretty subtly too.

The Shadow Warrior/Sisters of Avelorn is sort-of mixed too. Sadly the Sisters are about the only 'armoured' female AoS units.

[J-P]

1 minute ago, Criti said:

Speaking as someone with a degree in writing who also spent a number of years teaching writing, I will add this: writing female characters into any setting is as easy as writing male character.

Frankly, if a character is well written, that character's gender should be interchangeable.

If a character is written in such a manner that he or she absolutely cannot be swapped - a character with whom gender is so deeply engrained that changes to the gender destroy the character, then the character was poorly written to begin with.

Nice! Thank you for this insight; Even though I don't write myself (well, except that I write code for a living) I'm actually very interested in the written language and storytelling.

6 minutes ago, Criti said:

Obviously, some plots may require certain genders - it'd be hard to writte a story about a male going through the biological changes of pregnancy, for example.  But for the most part, this is true.

Like the biological transformation of Astartes (Space Marines)... Which is why I can't personally set them and Stormcasts at an equal footing story-wise. Because Stormcasts are made by/of lightning/magic/etc.

[Aezeal]

5 hours ago, Durant said:

The problem with mixing genders in army is not only the urges but, and i think it will be more powerful in case os SC, a male need to protect female even when it is wrong in the point of strategy and survival. A SC hero that once protected damsels in distress may not send his female team "mate" for a suicide mission.  Even if she is best fitted for the job.

That being said it shows that we male have a problem not that there is a problem in females in the army.

+1 on the Diablo, also if you look at male Barbarian he is equally undress and sexualised, as opposed to Templars who are both fully armored.

Still would love to see a female non sexual objected army, perhaps amazons in body armor.

 

The protective stuff can all have been burned away and only the objective tactical needs of the army (for SIgmar) might remain.

[Cookiez]

1 hour ago, J-P said:

Regarding physical strength and combat prowess - sure, one could make a reasonable argument about physical strength, except for a few vital points: combat prowess and effectiveness is not particularly tied to physical strength (although some aspects of it still applies in edge cases).

In the classical warfare, like the one presented in the Age of Sigmar, combat prowess and effectiveness IS tied to physical strength. Strictly. I reenact viking period for 8 years (in the Eastern Europe, which means full close combat fights) and what i can tell from experience - the one who wins, is the one, who's physical endurance was higher. And endurance comes from strength. At some point (and I mean after 5-10 minutes in full close combat without breaks and 2-3 hours in line fight) your muscles cease to react properly. You are weaker, you cannot rise your arm to defend yourself - which means your opponent wins, or, historically, you are dead. And yes, biologically, men are stronger. It's just a fact, nothing offensive. They can endure a fight. That is why women didn't participate in classical warfare period.

And have you ever had a bow in your hand? Or a crossbow? Pew-pewing is also physically engaging. To pierce an armoured warrior, you had to have a proper bow with a proper tensile strength. Same goes with loading the corssbows.

Of course, it's fantasy and the setup can have whatever it likes. But don't throw historical arguments here, they are not valid.

[CJPT]

This was discussed in another thread ages ago, but you can use Statuesque female heads on Stormcast bodies and it looks fine. This is because ALL Stormcast heads are absolutely tiny relative to their armour. Seriously, look at them and think about the scale for a moment. One of these things is true:

• Stormcast, male or female, actually fill out their armour. In this case they are pin-headed mutants.
• The armour itself is much bulkier than the person wearing it.

I prefer the latter interpretation. All Stormcast gear has magical properties, from their regenerating hammers to their armour. There's no reason not to believe that these celestial beings can somehow wear massive armour that would crush a normal person. And if that's the case, then there's no way to tell what body shape they have underneath. Particularly because the main areas that differentiate gender - shoulders and hips - are disguised by shoulder pads and wide stances respectively.

Furthermore, its better for the fiction if male and female SC look the same when they're wearing their helmets. They're supposed to be these uniform, imposing beings, after all.

[Turragor]

19 minutes ago, Cookiez said:

In the classical warfare, like the one presented in the Age of Sigmar, combat prowess and effectiveness IS tied to physical strength. Strictly. I reenact viking period for 8 years (in the Eastern Europe, which means full close combat fights) and what i can tell from experience - the one who wins, is the one, who's physical endurance was higher. And endurance comes from strength. At some point (and I mean after 5-10 minutes in full close combat without breaks and 2-3 hours in line fight) your muscles cease to react properly. You are weaker, you cannot rise your arm to defend yourself - which means your opponent wins, or, historically, you are dead. And yes, biologically, men are stronger. It's just a fact, nothing offensive. They can endure a fight. That is why women didn't participate in classical warfare period.

And have you ever had a bow in your hand? Or a crossbow? Pew-pewing is also physically engaging. To pierce an armoured warrior, you had to have a proper bow with a proper tensile strength. Same goes with loading the corssbows.

Of course, it's fantasy and the setup can have whatever it likes. But don't throw historical arguments here, they are not valid.

I don't feel that anyone needs to make any strong 'reality' based arguments here because that's what gets people's knickers in a twist on all sides.

But, didn't the dude you are quoting talk about some real military training - first hand experience - of a female officer putting a lot of men on their back?

I mean someone could argue 'anecdote' but you counter with anecdotal reenactment experience.

Or maybe you're not arguing against that at all.

I am partly confused as you give a historical interpretation but later say not to use historical arguments.

Again, I'm not interested in historical or real-life interpretations, people tend to link sex and gender and forget role and environment.

Sigmars lads and ladies could, fluff wise, be 100% equal. You could write women stronger for any reason you like too. It's as you say, no real life basis.

 

 

[Criti]

27 minutes ago, J-P said:

Nice! Thank you for this insight; Even though I don't write myself (well, except that I write code for a living) I'm actually very interested in the written language and storytelling

Think about some of the classic characters of literature and film and I think you'll appreciate it further.

What would happen to the following characters' stories if their genders were swapped?

- Sherlock Holmes

- Luke Skywalker

Not a damn thing.  The stories would be the same.  The characters would be the same.

What about James Bond?

He's so full of "male jelly" (if I may quote Futurama) that he falls apart as a female.  Poorly written character.

Sigmars lads and ladies could, fluff wise, be 100% equal. You could write women stronger for any reason you like too. It's as you say, no real life basis.

+ 1.

To try and present any roadblock to females being equal to males is a chauvinistic approach.

Even and especially when we genuinely think we're not being chauvinistic, but just presenting "fair and balanced" arguments or "historical perspective."

These are the mentalities we all need to become aware of so we can eliminate them. 

What to jnow the only real difference between men and women?  She givs birth better than I do, and I (hopefully) do a better job peeing while standing.

[J-P]

@CJPT Actually, your female Stormcast look more than fine - it's really, really cool. This also ties in to what @Turragor said about head-swapping upgrade packs from GW - it would be the easiest way for Stormcast armies.

[Cookiez]

@Turragor Like I said, it's fantasy setup, so I don't mind female SE. My post was directed to some folks here, who claimed that history backs up that women took part in classical period warfare, that's all. And a modern military officer doesn't prove anything in case of female SE.  

[CoffeeGrunt]

Women may not have been the spartan ideal in battle, but that doesn't mean they never, ever partook in battle, and never won.

As a viking reenactor I'd assume you'd know better than most how easy it is for battles, villages and stories to go unrecorded and only noted in archaeological ruins, if they're lucky. The Vikings after all suffer historically due to their lack of written records from their own hands showing us their culture, all we know is from the outsider viewpoints of their attackers.

Plus Viking warfare is not the be-all, end-all. Boudicca had great success using chariot tactics, the Massegatae managed to defeat a superior Persian force and slew Cyrus the Great, (no not the really famous one, a more minor one, but still.)

Plus, as-noted, any kind of historical analogue falls apart in AoS. AoS doesn't use Viking-esque tactics, unless the Vikings could fall from the sky and unleash lightning from their hands. It doesn't even have ranked combat, and ranked combat was God in the Roman era onwards. 

[Mikester1487]

Very interesting topic to read from you guys.  I've always wondered where the women were in the first stories as the books stated Sigmar took the bravest men and women to become stormcast.  

I eventually thought they would be wizards or priests, but since a person's physical being is changed when they become an eternal their appearance could be shaped to look more uniform.  

As for strength and male vs female blah blah it's a fantasy story where a person is shot by lightning and becomes a mini thor. So none of that discussion ever crossed my mind.  I'd buy a female head pack just for the variety.

[Criti]

6 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

 I'd buy a female head pack just for the variety.

I wouldn't, but that's only because I don't want any of my Stormcast to be modelled without helmets.

I will be one of the few who doesn't utilize the new unarmoured heads in the Vanguard kits, either.

[J-P]

16 minutes ago, Turragor said:

Sigmars lads and ladies could, fluff wise, be 100% equal. You could write women stronger for any reason you like too. It's as you say, no real life basis.

 

To @Cookiez I should better have explained what I meant by pew-pew; and the above quote by @Turragor hits home. I meant magical pew-pew, like lightning-magic pew-pew. Seeing that SE are made by/of lightning-magic, they can be as strong as you like, and it doesn't even have to be in relation to how the model looks. Their weapons are magical too, so who knows how they operate. It's your/our hobby.  It can be all we want it to be. Your experiences and reenactments are as valid as anyone elses, and I think it's cool (it makes me wonder about if you used kind of formations, and if you perhaps can lend some tactical advice that we could use in AoS). But what about the shield maidens?  

PS.

The dude (me ), was indeed saying that he had a female CO. I also, presently, train martial arts involving sword, knife, and staff (not modern warfare), under a head trainer which is also a woman; In AoS terms - she be choppy, like the Mighty Lord of Khorne probably, but remove model on 3+ if hit instead. 

Thing is, in both these situations, they were never "women" in our eyes. They were "Lt", and "Head Trainer". Gender didn't have anything to do with it. It's the purest form of equality I can think of.

[J-P]

51 minutes ago, Criti said:

What about James Bond?

He's so full of "male jelly" (if I may quote Futurama) that he falls apart as a female.  Poorly written character.

Haha, never thought of it like that.

On second thought - Oh, no... Now I probably can't stop thinking about characters that way... But if this spoils Shakespeare for me, I'd have to AoS-grudge you sometime.

Also, can't you snake your way around the poorly-written-character issue by pulling the cultural card? Just thinking about Pride and Prejudice - would that become more of a parody?

[J-P]

14 hours ago, OlDirtyCosta said:

On page 13 of the SCE Battletome, it mentions the Daughters Draconia.  Could these be female Stormcast? I haven't noticed them before in any of the lore I have read.

Sorry, after two pages of topic discussion I realized that all of the Dracoth mounts I can remember from the novels are mentioned as females (i.e. "she"). This would be a reasonable interpretation? 

[Criti]

21 minutes ago, J-P said:

 

Also, can't you snake your way around the poorly-written-character issue by pulling the cultural card? Just thinking about Pride and Prejudice - would that become more of a parody?

That's more of a theme thing that a character thing.  Sometimes a theme will necessitate a specific type of character.

Examples that come to mind include:

Things Fall Apart - Okonkwo could not have been anything other than male and still have that story work the same, but it was still a good character.

The same applies to The Color Purple and the Regeneration trilogy (Regeneration, The Eye in the Door, and The Ghost Road).

Also, bring on that grudge, son!

[Mikester1487]

2 hours ago, Criti said:

I wouldn't, but that's only because I don't want any of my Stormcast to be modelled without helmets.

I will be one of the few who doesn't utilize the new unarmoured heads in the Vanguard kits, either.

Fair enough.  I plan to use some of the regular heads because I'm modeling my vanguard as vindicators.  You can't be a vindicator without throwing off your helmet and charging your enemy every once in awhile

[Aezeal]

3 hours ago, Cookiez said:

In the classical warfare, like the one presented in the Age of Sigmar, combat prowess and effectiveness IS tied to physical strength. Strictly. I reenact viking period for 8 years (in the Eastern Europe, which means full close combat fights) and what i can tell from experience - the one who wins, is the one, who's physical endurance was higher. And endurance comes from strength. At some point (and I mean after 5-10 minutes in full close combat without breaks and 2-3 hours in line fight) your muscles cease to react properly. You are weaker, you cannot rise your arm to defend yourself - which means your opponent wins, or, historically, you are dead. And yes, biologically, men are stronger. It's just a fact, nothing offensive. They can endure a fight. That is why women didn't participate in classical warfare period.

And have you ever had a bow in your hand? Or a crossbow? Pew-pewing is also physically engaging. To pierce an armoured warrior, you had to have a proper bow with a proper tensile strength. Same goes with loading the corssbows.

Of course, it's fantasy and the setup can have whatever it likes. But don't throw historical arguments here, they are not valid.

But as I said.. after reforging the difference between them might be negligable in comparison to the difference between stormcast and normal men/women.

[Azure Guardian]

Female Stormcasts were made canon in Godbeasts page 35. There was a royal house called the Victarians, who after holding off Chaos warriors for a week "Sigmar elevated every man and woman to immortality". 

I really don't get how anyone could have a problem with female SC. For one they are remade with magic lightning, they are superhuman, physical characterises mean ****** all if you have super powered lightning running through your veins.

There are also tons of examples of women warriors throughout history such as Nakano Takeko, Rani of Jhansi and Amage. Hell the AoS setting itself has a whole female faction in the Daughter's of Khaine (save the warlocks) and I have never heard a peep about them.  

Also if a Lord Celestant refuses to put his own warriors in danger because they are women, then Sigmar needs to fire his ******.

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Azure Guardian said:

Female Stormcasts were made canon in Godbeasts page 35. There was a royal house called the Victarians, who after holding off Chaos warriors for a week "Sigmar elevated every man and woman to immortality". 

I really don't get how anyone could have a problem with female SC. For one they are remade with magic lightning, they are superhuman, physical characterises mean ****** all if you have super powered lightning running through your veins.

There are also tons of examples of women warriors throughout history such as Nakano Takeko, Rani of Jhansi and Amage. Hell the AoS setting itself has a whole female faction in the Daughter's of Khaine (save the warlocks) and I have never heard a peep about them.  

Also if a Lord Celestant refuses to put his own warriors in danger because they are women, then Sigmar needs to fire his ******.

I don't think anyone said they where against female SC. I am against ALL female groups in teh stormcasts. And while there might have been all sorts of female warriors.. fact is that in the past of our world (up to 50 years ago) war was a male thing. That might be due to our human limitations of all sorts (already mentioned) but fact is that while you mention several groups.... I doubt even 1 in every 1000 fighters in wars have been women. Not saying women haven't fought or suffered in different ways btw.

[MrCharisma]

@J-P I'm no Lore Master, however; I believe the SCE has told to have many female warriors under the suit. 

This video sums up nicely the problem with female armour. 

[Aezeal]

6 hours ago, Criti said:

Think about some of the classic characters of literature and film and I think you'll appreciate it further.

What would happen to the following characters' stories if their genders were swapped?

- Sherlock Holmes

- Luke Skywalker

Not a damn thing.  The stories would be the same.  The characters would be the same.

What about James Bond?

He's so full of "male jelly" (if I may quote Futurama) that he falls apart as a female.  Poorly written character.

 

 

+ 1.

To try and present any roadblock to females being equal to males is a chauvinistic approach.

Even and especially when we genuinely think we're not being chauvinistic, but just presenting "fair and balanced" arguments or "historical perspective."

These are the mentalities we all need to become aware of so we can eliminate them. 

What to jnow the only real difference between men and women?  She givs birth better than I do, and I (hopefully) do a better job peeing while standing.

Well I think a lot would have happened if the gender of Sherlock or Luke was changed in the original story. Due to boys being boys and men being men (with all limitations wel all know) the stories would NEVER have been popular, the settings and genres are things the male of our species preferred and the male of our species prefers MALE heroes so they can identify with them.

[rokapoke]

3 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

Well I think a lot would have happened if the gender of Sherlock or Luke was changed in the original story. Due to boys being boys and men being men (with all limitations wel all know) the stories would NEVER have been popular, the settings and genres are things the male of our species preferred and the male of our species prefers MALE heroes so they can identify with them.

Hm. Well, I guess Agatha Christie's Miss Marple stories are an unmitigated failure then, eh? Amateur female detective... it'll never sell!

[Azure Guardian]

James Bond would have made a fantastic female character because what character he does have is purposely limited. Ian Fleming designed him as a response to Britain's lack of involvement with world affairs following WW2 and the decline of the British Empire. He was the personification of the stiff upper lip Eton graduate, Englishman who would fix everything. He was designed to be bland and uninteresting outside of his profession (he also used to wear glasses in the novels and be a bit more awkward). 

Here's the thing, outside of the Daniel Craig movies, Bond does not really have a character to speak off. Some of the actors who played him gave him quirks and preferences but Bond is way more about how exciting his world is and less about how amazing he is. He's basically the Bella Swan of spies, bland enough for the audience to project their own fantasy's on. 

Oh and the Star Wars thing is rubbish as Ray had the exact same heroes journey as Luke did in a New Hope and that movie did gangbusters.

 

[Criti]

Oh and the Star Wars thing is rubbish as Ray had the exact same heroes journey as Luke did in a New Hope and that movie did gangbusters.

Not to mention that the originally Luke Skywalker was a female named Starkiller...

Plus, the Hero's Journey is pretty universal anyway.  So gender did not matter - nor should it.