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.

You know what the most profitable movies James Cameron ever made was before Titanic? T2. You know who was the main hero of that movie? The OG Girlboss herself, Sarah Effing Conner. Linda Hamilton in a suit made of brick shoot house, and veins. She exuded baddassness, and was the clear masculine superhero while you had Arnold "trying to learn feelings".

Then he made Aliens, with basically the same thing, only it was Riply, played by the other OG Girlboss - Sigouney Weaver. Tell me she wan't hardcore enough. Tell me you'd pick a fight with either of those characters in their prime.

Women and girls can be written in serious baddass ways. But they can also be written in thoughtful, intelligent, insightful, and cunning ways. I'd bet money that Sarah Conner loses a fight 9-10 against Rosie Betzelr (Scarlet Johansen) because while they're both Mothers, Rosie isn't a walking talking PTSD billboard on Xanax.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You know what the most profitable movies James Cameron ever made was before Titanic? T2. You know who was the main hero of that movie? The OG Girlboss herself, Sarah Effing Conner. Linda Hamilton in a suit made of brick shoot house, and veins. She exuded baddassness, and was the clear masculine superhero while you had Arnold "trying to learn feelings".

Then he made Aliens, with basically the same thing, only it was Riply, played by the other OG Girlboss - Sigouney Weaver. Tell me she wan't hardcore enough. Tell me you'd pick a fight with either of those characters in their prime.

Women and girls can be written in serious baddass ways. But they can also be written in thoughtful, intelligent, insightful, and cunning ways. I'd bet money that Sarah Conner loses a fight 9-10 against Rosie Betzelr (Scarlet Johansen) because while they're both Mothers, Rosie isn't a walking talking PTSD billboard on Xanax.

He made Aliens before Terminator 2, but other than that, yes.

robbienw wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

robbienw wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Since GW started diversifying their characters, they’ve tripled their income.

Can you quantify what you mean by that? As in diversifying their characters in what way, and when was this diversification starting point that you are (presumably) suggesting kicked off profits tripling.

Me wrote: What’s that? I’ve already explained why things are never that straight forward because the world is full of interacting moving parts? Why yes I have. Hence your claims about Star Wars are….irrelevant, ill informed and likely a conclusion formed you then went looking for evidence to support.

Do keep up.

So you can't quantify it. Understood

I'll take an educated guess and say 6-8 years ago when sisters got a refresh, Stormcast found out gender was a thing in their sculpts and a wave of female limited ed sculpts appeared and female specific components/upgrades for the guard came in etc.

So if we parse that as AoS 2nd ed (June 18) or the sisters release (Nov 19) to today. £221 million revenue in June 2018 to £471 million May 2023. If the goal post was a year earlier then they have indeed tripled and given we're a month off this years figures, it may have done anyway.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


You do realise it is possible for Disney to still make a nice profit off the toys while the company making them doesn't due to the profit split because Disney doesn't have any costs to producing the toys?

Also, a company doing layoffs is not actually any evidence of poor performance in all circumstances. Video games are making more money than ever and game companies still regularly lay off their staff because corporations always want more money regardless of how much they are already making.

I'd agree normally, but A, we are talking before christmas, which for a toy company is basically a huge red flag. And B in the case of SW Disney doesn't release merch numbers and rather ties them in with their Parks, which were down with increased prices hence the higher reported income..

Right. And that’s because women and ethnic minorities being cast because………..

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


You do realise it is possible for Disney to still make a nice profit off the toys while the company making them doesn't due to the profit split because Disney doesn't have any costs to producing the toys?

Also, a company doing layoffs is not actually any evidence of poor performance in all circumstances. Video games are making more money than ever and game companies still regularly lay off their staff because corporations always want more money regardless of how much they are already making.

I'd agree normally, but A, we are talking before christmas, which for a toy company is basically a huge red flag. And B in the case of SW Disney doesn't release merch numbers and rather ties them in with their Parks, which were down with increased prices hence the higher reported income..

Right. And that’s because women and ethnic minorities being cast because………..

Well quality via bad-activist writing is down which leads to brand damage which leads to strain in other areas. Certainly not just because either of the mentioned catergories showed up, if that were the case afterall 40k would've never even gotten off the ground and neither would've star wars nor Alien now would it. It's when you sacrifice the writing for the political message as seen also with a multitude of press releases that went to brow beat people or tell them outright that it wasn't made for you that it becomes a problem,
Hence the difference between ripley and Rey, or Leia (pre disney trilogy) and Rey. Hell even the much initially chagrined Ahsoka and Rey if you want to stick within the Universe.

It's when you sacrifice the writing for the political message

Specific, evidence based citation please. Not that it’s bad writing. That it’s bad writing because women and ethnic minority conclusion.

Temp lock as it appears people cannot play nice again and some need to be removed.

Okay.. that was a lot to go through, if I missed anything, report and it will be tackled by a mod when available.

Also, not sure if it is worth keeping it open any longer at this point, as we just seem to be going in circles now.

Right. So we've had 34 pages dedicated to l'affaire adeptus cooties. Can we switch to something much more important like eldar boob plate? Seriously.

I know there who are opposed to the boob plate for a variety of reasons, but in the model range we have, boob plate is how we are explicitly shown that the model represents a female. So with that as a given why don't we have a clearly female Farseer by now? It took 16 years to finally get a boob plate for the Autarch. The Autarch originally appeared in 4th edition in 2006. In 2022 we got the second plastic Autarch kit and there was a boob plate option. Similarly the 2022 release added boob plates to rangers and the new shroud runners. The updated guardian kit doubled the boob plates from 2 to 4 as well. But still no Farseer. The aspects are also lacking. New Dark Reapers and Scorpions are lacking boob plates too. The eldar are presented as an egalitarian faction though to my knowledge it's never specifically stated that way. In the digital space, like the DoW games the eldar leaders are all female (with boob plate) so why are they so hit and miss with this?

 Arschbombe wrote:
Right. So we've had 34 pages dedicated to l'affaire adeptus cooties. Can we switch to something much more important like eldar boob plate? Seriously.

I know there who are opposed to the boob plate for a variety of reasons, but in the model range we have, boob plate is how we are explicitly shown that the model represents a female. So with that as a given why don't we have a clearly female Farseer by now? It took 16 years to finally get a boob plate for the Autarch. The Autarch originally appeared in 4th edition in 2006. In 2022 we got the second plastic Autarch kit and there was a boob plate option. Similarly the 2022 release added boob plates to rangers and the new shroud runners. The updated guardian kit doubled the boob plates from 2 to 4 as well. But still no Farseer. The aspects are also lacking. New Dark Reapers and Scorpions are lacking boob plates too. The eldar are presented as an egalitarian faction though to my knowledge it's never specifically stated that way. In the digital space, like the DoW games the eldar leaders are all female (with boob plate) so why are they so hit and miss with this?

Aeldari gender is a bit more nuanced and complicated than adding boob plate.

Lore-wise, at least for aspect warriors, the armor is modeled after the Phoenix Warrior that inspired the aspect shrine. So all howling banshees have boob plate because Jain has boob plate. So it mostly implies that we'll only get a mix of boob plate/non boob plate for non aspect warriors (Guardians, Rangers, etc.) or somehow mixed aspects (autarchs).

You're right, though; it is weird that we don't have an expressly female farseer model, given the popularity of the DoW series. They only showed female farseers. Probably a combination of the model being too hard to allow for either gender or GW not wanting to put the resources into it, and since Eldrad is the special character farseer, all farseer models have to more or less be able to be built as him.

I'm gonna watch the trilogy again.

I remember liking it when I watched it- the dialogue is certainly delivered better than any SW product that Lucas directed- I wish he had let someone else direct the prequels, because they acting talent in the movies was certainly up to the task, but the dialogue was terribly delivered. When academy award nominees don't make the lines ring true, that's a director issue.

But I want to push back against the assumption that the inclusion of female characters is always connected to political agenda. Certainly, I'd argue that there are cases of that sort of thing, but I think it can be really hard to tell. You almost need documentation of processes to effectively assert that.

Because here's the thing, and I've said this before: male soldiers are such a cliche that in the three thousand years that we've been writing about them, they've become cliche. I'm not a big fan of Space Marines- I find them to be dull, boring, hollowed out, recycled stereotypes. A female space marine's story would be interesting because at least it would be something new and different.

And I honestly wouldn't be surprised of the writers of the trilogy just said- hmm, already six movies about Jedi dudes. Time for something new. No conspiracy, just IP in need of a fresh story. If you've got proof it was a decision made by a committee, I'm prepared to be proven wrong. I've you've got proof that it was done to try and be "woke," I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

If you don't, I'm going with Occam's Razor on this one and saying the writer made Rey female because they thought that would be something interesting that the audience hadn't already seen 6 times.

Hilary Swank was a Karate Kid once because guess what? Karate Kid dudes were starting to get dull. And yeah... Ralph Machio, if you're reading this, PLEASE, PLEASE get Hillary for the final season of Cobra Kai. She loved Mr. Miyagi at least as much as Daniel, and I'm sure that Hillary appreciated Pat Morita as much as the rest of the Karate Kid alumni- let her pay her respects.

(Of course you're not reading this- you're in the dojo right now, training as hard as ever)

Sometimes art needs to create new archetypes. Female warriors are fresh. 2SLGBTQIA soldiers are fresh. Their stories are only starting to be told.

Honestly I think its just because Eldar didn't get much support in general for years. They just kind of kept pulling the last straw in getting an update. Even now they are still waiting for a second wave update to bring their aspect warriors up to standard and into plastics.


I suspect once Eldar are "up to speed" we'll see them get more leader releases and that will mean more chance for a female farseer, which as noted is odd that we don't specifically have since the Dawn of War games made them very popular as a concept.

There is more to a female than Boob plate. For instance, one of the most physically fit women on the planet, say Christen Press, would show zero difference in mens plate or women's (Whatever) plate. Point is. The only way to clearly state something is physically female is to declare it, as with Custodes. I would welcome more such "declarations". Only problem is, I think Eldar are WAAAAAY beyond the simplicity of Gender. But that might be my ignorant Mon kay brain. (I feel like Lord Freiza saying that)

I really do not get all the crying about how Disney ruined Star Wars. Yeah, the sequel trilogy was terrible as there was no coherent story (if you buy a franchise with four billion, perhaps hash out a rudimentary plot for entire trilogy before you start filming,) but Star Wars was already ruined by Lucas with the prequel trilogy. It was painfully bad. The sequels make no sense, but at least watching most scenes is not torture. But debating which is worse is pretty pointless, they both are really bad in somewhat different ways. The original trilogy and Rogue One are the only good SW films.

With 40K lore I don't care about the details. What makes the lore good are the overall aesthetics or themes. Exact shape of marine armour plates, how many extra organs they have, their gender, whether they have grav tanks are just details. They can be changed, either via retcon or a story development and the overall themes of the marines remain.

The biggest thematic shift in 40K was the return of the loyalist primarchs, and it was not a retcon. But it changed the themes of the setting fundamentally, and in my opinion not for the better. And that you could logically extrapolate this development from existing fluff without actual retcon doesn't make it any easier to stomach.

Altima wrote:

Aeldari gender is a bit more nuanced and complicated than adding boob plate.

I know, but this is about models and GW has clearly shown that eldar female models are marked by boob plate. Even if we all agree that eldar females should not be presented as Russ Meyer bombshells, it's kinda what we're stuck with.

Lore-wise, at least for aspect warriors, the armor is modeled after the Phoenix Warrior that inspired the aspect shrine. So all howling banshees have boob plate because Jain has boob plate. So it mostly implies that we'll only get a mix of boob plate/non boob plate for non aspect warriors (Guardians, Rangers, etc.) or somehow mixed aspects (autarchs).

I can buy that as a fluff explanation, but as we know the models are made first. So that explanation could be a post hoc justification. And then there's the problem of the Banshees. To my eye they've made them to look female beyond just the boob plate so I have a hard time accepting that one or more of the 5 sculpts is supposed to be male.

You're right, though; it is weird that we don't have an expressly female farseer model, given the popularity of the DoW series. They only showed female farseers. Probably a combination of the model being too hard to allow for either gender or GW not wanting to put the resources into it, and since Eldrad is the special character farseer, all farseer models have to more or less be able to be built as him.

The current Farseer kit is multipart plastic and could easily allow for a boob plate option. We used to have a bunch of sculpts for Farseers and now we just have the one, apart from the Eldrad one. I don't understand how Eldrad limits the possibilities for other generic Farseers.

Can we stop with the oddly gross infatuation on "boob plate"? I'd much rather just be validated in my headcannon that my high and tight haircut female astartes is actually capable of being female, than whether or not she can fit in the stupid armor. Given the sheer Transformers level of space erasure that occurs trying to put a 7' 400-500lb man into a suit of "special" armor, it's oddly one sided that a female suddenly can't fit because they're all WANDA WHOPPERS!

Just let physicality go, and lets discuss what would actually happen if suddenly Astartes could suddenly harvest from TWICE the supplicants? Anyone else want to see the damage Tona Criid could do in Mark X Phobos Armor with a Las Fusil? Or Jessi Banda?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the oddly gross infatuation on "boob plate"? I'd much rather just be validated in my headcannon that my high and tight haircut female astartes is actually capable of being female, than whether or not she can fit in the stupid armor. Given the sheer Transformers level of space erasure that occurs trying to put a 7' 400-500lb man into a suit of "special" armor, it's oddly one sided that a female suddenly can't fit because they're all WANDA WHOPPERS!

Just let physicality go, and lets discuss what would actually happen if suddenly Astartes could suddenly harvest from TWICE the supplicants? Anyone else want to see the damage Tona Criid could do in Mark X Phobos Armor with a Las Fusil? Or Jessi Banda?

It's relevant because people knee-jerk associate boob plate with women = representation.

 Arschbombe wrote:
I know, but this is about models and GW has clearly shown that eldar female models are marked by boob plate.

Quite a few of those boob-plated banshees are male - going by the lore.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the oddly gross infatuation on "boob plate"? I'd much rather just be validated in my headcannon that my high and tight haircut female astartes is actually capable of being female, than whether or not she can fit in the stupid armor. Given the sheer Transformers level of space erasure that occurs trying to put a 7' 400-500lb man into a suit of "special" armor, it's oddly one sided that a female suddenly can't fit because they're all WANDA WHOPPERS!

Just let physicality go, and lets discuss what would actually happen if suddenly Astartes could suddenly harvest from TWICE the supplicants? Anyone else want to see the damage Tona Criid could do in Mark X Phobos Armor with a Las Fusil? Or Jessi Banda?

I really hope that eventual female custodes models and hypothetical female marine models will just wear the same armour than the males. On form fitting armour of the eldar there being a difference perhaps makes some sense, but on bulky power armours of the marines and the custodes it would be ludicrous.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the oddly gross infatuation on "boob plate"?

I'm using it because it easy to understand short hand for what we're talking about. It's not really an infatuation. My interest comes from my craftworld Iybraesil which is female-led and has a large female population. Currently it's hard to represent that with the models available. GW has made some progress in recent years, but I'd like there to be more.

I'd much rather just be validated in my headcannon that my high and tight haircut female astartes is actually capable of being female, than whether or not she can fit in the stupid armor.

Well, you'll have to wait and see when and if we ever get those models.

As they have decided to give the eldar gendered armours, they should then make sure that there are both genders for every role. Even though the specific look would not be actually associated with specific gender in the fiction, its still how it looks.

And it is a bit of a bother if you haven't done that from the ground up. Like imagine if they decided to finally make female marines, and then decided to make their armour look different. They would need to make a new version of every seven thousand marine units. But if it is just a headswap, it is way easier.

boob plate armor just serves to highlight which aspect of women the people making the models care about

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
boob plate armor just serves to highlight which aspect of women the people making the models care about

Jes Goodwin - the same guy who made many of the early marines, eldar and dark eldar, necrons, necromunda models, and so on.

I would greatly prefer if they went the Stormcast Eternals route: armor that is visually distinctly feminine, without having the skin-tight 'boob plate'.

Or, even better, just take a note from Star Wars and do what they did with Captain Phasma.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
boob plate armor just serves to highlight which aspect of women the people making the models care about

My partner is a drag king. This means that once or twice a month they put on a chest binder, dress as a dude and lipsynch like fire.

And I can tell you that after 4-5 hours in a chest binder, my partner is uncomfortable, and sometimes in pain. And here's the thing- the binder and what goes over it ar soft fabric, not stiff, rigid metal plates. Eldar for sure require chest room in their armour if they want to wear it for more than 5-6 hours at a time. That is not fetishized and male gazey- that's the straight dope.

Now yes, you can argue that other types of armour may not require visible accommodations for breasts, but essentially, you have to prove that there is empty space in those types of armour between the chest and the plate that could accommodate the anatomy in question. Typically, armour does tend to be form fitting; if it isn't, concussive impact against the armour merely forces it to collide with the body- while this will still be helpful by dispersing the force concentrated in the diameter of a bullet to the larger surface area of a plate, but the plate will still have the capacity to damage a wearer if it doesn't fit the form.

So we can say sisters are sexualized- certainly metal Repentia were; I'd argue DCA's are too. I'd say even current Repentia are, but given how less so than the previous version, I give them the pass because I can see GW making an effort.

Don't get me wrong- sexualization, like a lot of other qualities or characteristics, is in the eye of the beholder to a degree. On either extreme, we can agree of course- now one is ever going to argue that a playmate of the month isn't sexualized, and no one's going to argue that a woman in a full burka is. But in the middle it gets blurry, and I think the middle is where I put battle sisters.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
.

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

Did you forget the time GW completely changed the Necrons, invalidating every Necron player’s list, some of their units, and any background they cared about for their Necrons, all to make the Necrons less niche and more commercial to a wider market?

GE is *constantly* changing the lore for reasons exterior to the lore. The Tau aren’t a reaction to the exterior climate embracing anime? The Voltann and Genestealers aren’t embracing the exterior trans or nostalgia bait? Come on, man.


I repeat my refrain from earlier: it’s not that you have a problem with retcons, is that you have a uniquely outsized problem with *this* retcon that’s the red flag.

Your accusation is again misplaced. I hated the Necron retcon, and I loathe Primaris, returning Primarchs etc. And I was certainly vocal about it here, if you want to go digging for it. For Centurions and the various flyers I was vocal about those too, though orobably on Warseer before I migrated here.

I don't accept your accusation.

Was your reaction to this retcon “uniquely outsized” as Inout it compared to your reaction to the Necron retcon?

I admit I’m terrible at remembering in these threads who said what, so I apologize for confusing you with another poster. Seeing your name now, Insectum 7, and looking back, you have been one of the most measured posters in the thread, so again, apologies.

I was (in my lack of awareness) replying to those who have weathered all the previous retcons without losing it the way they have for this, and we have seen some of them in this thread and the other one. (Although a lot was deleted and some of them banned, so also maybe ‘we’ have not seen them.)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

And I’m not misrepresenting anything. No other retcon has come close to this reaction. This is clearly an issue some men have with expanding the lore of the game…when it includes women.

The volume is because it's part of a larger cultural context that is a click-generating rage machine. There's money to be made in the culture war.

Well yes, that was exactly my point. People are getting upset at this retcon not because of their love of the lore or the amount of damage done to the lore, but because they want to keep Warhammer 40,000 political in their favor.

There's much less money to be made on the introduction of Centurions, and very few politically oriented content creators will care that the C'tan have been retconned into enslaved shards. . . Even if it annoys the crap outta me.

Here we are agreed. Even without any of the other retcons, the Newcron change should be a mouth to warn any player that GW will retcon your favorite faction or lore with no warning if they think there’s a dime to be made tapping a new market.

Those changes also don't come with the baggage of one side calling the other bigots because they can't fathom the dislike might be something else.

For most of them, it isn’t something else, though. People who consistently dislike all retcons were not the same people blowing up FB groups for unrelated tabletop games over the short story with a female Custode even before GW made their community post. I never found out about dozens of retcons from the last three editions until they came up in the discussion about this retcon, because this culture war issue was spread all over the place by people who clearly had a problem with women Custodes that they didn’t have with any of those other retcons. You may not feel comfortable making the obvious assumptions about their motivation, but it doesn’t mean everyone else has to pretend the obvious isn’t obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I repeat my refrain from earlier: it’s not that you have a problem with retcons, is that you have a uniquely outsized problem with *this* retcon that’s the red flag.

Uh, Insectum has publicly and vocally hated the Necron retcon, among others. I did too.

Yes, and I replied to him. Also notice I am talking about the level vitriol in the reaction, so even someone who hated the Necron retcon would seem hypocritical if the first time they burnt their minis or made an angry youtube video or mailed a handwritten letter to GW was not for the Newcrons but for the lady Custodes.

'Here's some bull gak I assume you believe- gotcha, hypocrite!' isn't an incisive blow so much as it is just, well, tiring. Especially when the guy you're arguing with really isn't part of the reactionary 'anti-woke' crowd and has made his position pretty clear a couple of times in this thread.

Yeah, I got him confused with some of the other posters.

Armor is usually not form fitting outside of the higher end custom armor made for nobles and other rich people. Custom form fitting armor is expensive, and most soldiers could never afford that.

Moreover in the particular case of rigid plate armor (which is the closest thing to Power Armor), it does have empty space inside so a) you can fit padding and b) the armor can deform and disipate energy, otherwise that energy goes right into the user (it has to go somewhere, because conservation of energy). Most historic plate armor has a very curved design that clearly leaves some empty space over the chest and stomach. Yes it also needs to be well secured to the user, but that is done on the waist, not on the chest (which ironically means historical plate armor has a very femenine narrow waist).

Sure particulalry well endowed women may also need a "boob plate", but even then the optimal design would be a single "uniboob" because separate "boobs" would introduce a weakpoint.

There is also the further issue that a military lifestyle doesn't tend to favor big breasts, because the whole thing is fat after all.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I don't believe any of us has a gnat's chance in Hell of convincing anyone else in this thread, so we're all just spinning our wheels in the mud and the dirt and the blood, waiting to die.

You might not get anyone to admit they have been won over but over the years I’ve seen these threads get less toxic and more and more people giving reasoned and eloquent arguments in favour of making the hobby a less toxic place. Thats because people like you and mad doc and all the others don’t let people get away with saying gakky things on here.

A few years ago a thread I started about female marines died in hours in a flame of truly horrific comments. Now they last and are more civil but still highlight some individuals with pretty unpleasant views on the world, but dakka has now become a place where more posters are female, we have people able to discuss being trans and over all it’s more a more accepting and pleasant place.

So going round and round in circles either convinces some or at least persuades them to keep their thoughts to them selves. Please keep going.

 Formosa wrote:


changes/expansions/ retcons that matched or exceeded this backlash.

Newcrons
Primaris
Cawl
13th Black Crusade
Rogue Trader to 40k
Yarrick dying off screen

Primaris might have exceeded it looking back, but Newcrons and Rogue Trader happened before the fandom was anywhere near this size. I’m not sure what you mean by 13th Black Crusade. Was it like the Storm of Chaos campaign conclusion that was later retconned out?

I didn’t even know Yarrick was dead.

None of those except maybe the Primaris had the same impact. I don’t subscribe to any Warhammer or painting videos on YouTube and I am not a member of any 40k group on Facebook, and still I found my feeds flooded with outrage and quite a lot of culture war word salad when the leaked pictures of the short story with the female Custode dropped. People were going nuts who had never said boo about Warhammer before. And then the GW statement came out and things went even more nuts. And the kinds of images and words I saw in all this craziness were not just anti-woke, but often misogynistic and anti-trans. I didn’t see slurs showing up in unrelated Facebook groups when the Primaris marines came out of the Primarch s were brought back, but I see them now.

all saw multiple videos and people talking about it in the same manner, the biggest difference between this one and the others was the others did not have GW trying to gaslight people then block them for calling them out, all they needed to do was say "sure its a change we thought needed doing" nothing else and this would have died by now, when you lie and gaslight someone you make the matter worse, you add fuel to the fire, people then start looking for why they are being gaslit and lied to and that sends them down a rabbit hole, we saw this with primaris, people looking for ANY explanation in the background to justify them suddenly turning up, people fighting non stop about whether classic marines are going the way of the dodo (they are), whether this means we will get female marines due to Cawls introduction, Primaris spider webbed our really badly and is STILL an issue to this day.

So no it is not just because it involved woman, that is a misrepresentaton, it is just because people are passionate about their hobby, the lore and the game.


!

I disagree that GW was gaslighting. They have always said the new fluff overwrites the old fluff, and telling people there have always been female Custodes is telling them the new fluff, not trying to make them think that was always the fluff.

Thanks Tyran- I knew someone would come in and fill the gaps in my knowledge- I have experience with Bogu (Kendo armour), and more limited experience with chainmail, but my knowledge of historical plate is very limited. Kendo and Racquetball are the only sports I enjoy participating in, so I'm not even familiar with the equipment for football or even hockey.

Your point about the expense of form fitting is a good one too.

And I can certainly get behind Manfred on this too- the Stormcast femmes and Phasma are both better examples of practical armour for women than sisters. I think my issue is just that I want some differentiation between male and female members of a given unit beyond heads. Bulky and non-form fitting is fine, just distinct.

I think a part of the reason I feel this way is that I'm not good at telling the difference between male and female faces. I've known so many square jawed women and elfish men with cheekbones that I'm not sure I believe there's such a thing as a male face and a female face. And even if there is, I'm certainly not a good enough painter that the difference is going to shine through once I've done the deed.