I want tyranid sex determination charts together with conversion kits and I want them now.

Akiasura wrote:
I think he is referencing the fact that they lower the standards for physical traditionally male jobs so females get in. Like they did with the firefighters, for example. I do have a problem with any standard being lowered in the name of diversity.

If not, that's bad. I don't have a problem with female models but most of my armies are marine or xenos so it doesn't effect me. Can you not paint your space marines or guardsmen to be black?

Women are harder. I'm not sure if all my Eldar are male, I know some aren't, and I know marines are traditionally male (don't they have to be because reasons?).

I'm very glad that I can dispel the idea that we are lowering standards to accommodate women. Because that's not true at all.

Again moving back from topical issues to the pretend future ones, Marines I believe can't be women due to some biologic process involving their transformation.

Perhaps in the army, I did hear a news report about something like that happening with Rangers I believe, but with fire fighters it is happening.

It's kinda a bs reason as far as marines go....don't the marines have their sex organs pretty much stop working all together? I don't see why it wouldn't work with females.

 Ignatius wrote:

This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.

Thank you for your service, lieutenant. I think your mind might change on this subject the first time a 120 lb. woman attempts to drag your 200 lb. frame into cover when you're wounded. If women wish to be in frontline combat units, then they need to meet the same physical standards as men.

The ONLY reason the army is opening combat arms MOSs to women is that there's a culture in all of the armed services that promotion slots are more plentiful and more preferred by those with crossed rifles, or crossed sabers, or crossed arrows on their lapel than all of the other "lesser" branches that get those guys where they need to be or bring them their food and ammo so they can keep fighting. This is about getting more women into the higher echelons of the service and affording them the same EO chances as the male soldiers. I'm not at all against this, but their method for achieving this equality is flawed. Combat is not the place for feelsy, equality initiatives.

 Talys wrote:
I just couldn't bring myself to read the whole article -- it's just silly.

If you want to play a game with more female models.... play a game with more female models. I can't believe this guy spent as much time as he did writing that article, lol.

A letterwriting campaign to GW is not going to get them to make more female models O.O

As an aside: can you please edit the title? The word is "relevant". TY

I like how for you improving a game is considered a waste of time. I suppose you consider the Proposed Rules sections has a complete idiocy. You have just lost your right to criticise any model or rules produced by Games Workshop or any other company. If you do (and we both know you did it on this forum page), that would make you hypocrite (and maybe show a bit of internalised sexism at the same time). If you want better rules, play a different game. If you think those kinds of article never brought any changes, its time for you to open a history book or a newspaper. That's exactly how you fight racism, classism, sexism and homophobia. You criticise it and you gather people provoke some changes. Sometimes it fails, sometimes it don't. But, I would not criticise a man for trying. You want better models, buy product from another company.

 the_Armyman wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.

Thank you for your service, lieutenant. I think your mind might change on this subject the first time a 120 lb. woman attempts to drag your 200 lb. frame into cover when you're wounded. If women wish to be in frontline combat units, then they need to meet the same physical standards as men.

The ONLY reason the army is opening combat arms MOSs to women is that there's a culture in all of the armed services that promotion slots are more plentiful and more preferred by those with crossed rifles, or crossed sabers, or crossed arrows on their lapel than all of the other "lesser" branches that get those guys where they need to be or bring them their food and ammo so they can keep fighting. This is about getting more women into the higher echelons of the service and affording them the same EO chances as the male soldiers. I'm not at all against this, but their method for achieving this equality is flawed. Combat is not the place for feelsy, equality initiatives.

Sure. As someone who is dealing with this new adjustment almost daily we are taking steps to make sure it's not just "well women can be combat arms, just throw them in anywhere". The army is taking steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly. They also are doing things like Soldier 20/20 to make sure that fitness standards are not sacrificed. On the topic of the Ranger school graduates, I can assure you that the Rangers are NOT going to allow anyone who doesn't meet the standards to graduate. I'll be going to Ranger school in two months and have had many a talk with the current commander of the Ranger Training Brigade. I think it's indicative of the army as a whole, that standards are not going to be brought down to facilitate the move of women to combat. Just think, there are plenty of men in the armed forces who are either so out of shape that they cannot perform at an adequate level or they are very small in physique who are able to be in combat simply by the nature of them being men.

And while this discussion seems off topic about things that don't matter, I think it is relevant in that it just gives more reasons why the game is possibly making a mistake in not creating even a few heads or bitz with the intent to show women.

Since when did GW not making female soldier figures for their far future science fantasy wargame imply the US Infantry are in danger of collapse due to low standards of strength and fitness?

In other words, let's get back to the topic.

Firstly 40k setting was set up in the 80's, where it was rare if not simply unseen to have female soldiers on the field, except maybe for a few country, so the mind set is that, outside somekind of Cyberpunk fantasy setting where you would have cyborg vixens with chrome tits and whips, there was no female, period, other time other mind.

Now the view on this as greatly changed through the decades, but like we know, GW simply suck at updating his model line.

Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...

Also not enough females?, Sistas, Eldars?, Deamonettes if you like that.

So what have we next to this?, Orks?, doesn't reproduce by sexual means, no need for females.

Crons?, they're was females, but they din't see the need to make chrome tits on the Necron bodies.

Nids?, Nids are kinda asexual excepte for the Queen.

Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.

AdMech and Skitarii?, all their flesh is replaced by bionics anyway.

Leaves the rest of the Imperium factions, where there is a few Female characters here and there; Inquisitors, Assassins etc.

So yeah GW might throw in some female looking bits in a futur re-model for Guards model line, and what would that change in the game franckly?

In the novels and video games you have lot of strong or important female figures, on the table top i don't see what would change from it.

GW were quite happy to produce Eshers for Necromunda. They were also responsible for Orcs with boobs and Dark Eldar Slave models.

I was always surprised that the Valhallan range didn't have any female minis. Tank commanders and commissars would have been perfect for them. The Vostroyans could have had a nice range of mink coated Tsarinas to lead and pray for them.

The Praetorians should have had a General called Victoria.

Would Mag urruk Thrakka count? Bearing in mind what he/she/it is based upon?

Not that it would sway my purchasing too much but having some female representation on the battlefields of the 41st millennium would be okay

 Ignatius wrote:

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:

The US just changed its policy and pretty soon we are going to have females in the infantry but I have a feeling that the next time a republican comes to power they will repeal this. If not then the US just became a lot weaker in its combat arms.

This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.

Sorry I couldn't let that go.

On topic I'm of the opinion that I couldn't care less. There would be no change to my enjoyment of this hobby one way or the other. That said I am annoyed by the self righteousness people like the author of this article have.

Well General Kelly disagrees with you, and I'll take his opinion over yours. For one he was a marine with over 3 decades of active duty service and 3 combat tours, for another he knew that if he voiced his opinion he would get kicked out of the USMC so he waited until his retirement came around.

Standards will fall and anyone who has experience in the military knows that. As it stands the physical fitness test for females is significantly less for females then males. Which makes sense because whenever it was time to do something extremely strenuous like humping 18 miles for a Comm Ex the females wouldn't be overly burdened with the Radios, batteries, extra ammo or crew served weapons (IE 240-249) So I guess making the standards lower for them makes sense in that way.

Anyway back to plastic figurines. The entire article is bogus because its premise is that the game is sexist because the IG don't have female models. Even though that magical faction called "Sisters Of Battle" which is exclusively female. I understand the anger at sisters. They are one of maybe 2 codex's that haven't received as much love as my Orks. The fact that they are metal is a big deal as well. On the plus side though, they have really good rules still and some pretty over the top units like the Organ tank (Whatever the hell its called) which shoots D6 S8 ap2 missiles. Thats pretty nice.

So relevant is not an appropriate title for this thread, a better title would be "Guy wants Female IG and new rules for SoB". Both of those I am fine with so long as he comes out and says it like that instead of feigning outrage over the fact that the game isn't more gender/racially diverse.

 Ignatius wrote:

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:

The US just changed its policy and pretty soon we are going to have females in the infantry but I have a feeling that the next time a republican comes to power they will repeal this. If not then the US just became a lot weaker in its combat arms.

This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.

Sorry I couldn't let that go.

LOL. missed that post originally. You are right: the supposition that having female infantry makes the a fighting force weaker is ludicrous

Going back to a time period when physical attributes were much more important than they are today, nobody would accuse the Vikings of being suboptimally effective, right?

 Talys wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:

The US just changed its policy and pretty soon we are going to have females in the infantry but I have a feeling that the next time a republican comes to power they will repeal this. If not then the US just became a lot weaker in its combat arms.

This is ridiculous. As a combat arms officer I'm offended that you would think that our branches are weaker because we allow women the equal opportunity to fight for their country like their male counterparts.

Sorry I couldn't let that go.

LOL. missed that post originally. You are right: the supposition that having female infantry makes the a fighting force weaker is ludicrous

Going back to a time period when physical attributes were much more important than they are today, nobody would accuse the Vikings of being suboptimally effective, right?

The word Viking isn't the name of a people but is instead the name for a profession. When the danes or the Norse would go raiding they would call this going "Viking". As far as female vikings? They had the stories of Shield Maidens but historically only a few accounts are given of any. Unfortunately they are in the same category as saga's and poems. And to this day there is a scholarly debate about whether or not the Norse/Danes even used Shield Maidens or if it was just a poem. I would argue that a handful were definitely in battle but nowhere near enough to base your assumption on.


And it is not so much a guess that it will make the military weaker then it is a hard fact. The Israeli's only have 2 units of female infantry and they are mechanized and guard the safest borders. Also the units are about 70% female I believe (this is going on memory at this point). The Israeli's experimented with mixed gender units and found it was terrible in most situations which is why they got rid of most of them.

ONE WEEK SUSPENSION FOR NEXT OFF TOPIC POST.

I love the Mary Sue! They have such cool articles. This one was pretty cool to read... could have been written a little better... but a cool piece regardless.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I personal could not care less one war or another because if you want to run female guard there are tons of awesome third party minis that you can purchase, why do you need GW to do it for you?

Why do we need GW to do anything for us? Why do we need dozens of different marine kits instead of having a single power armor kit and letting people buy third-party miniatures and conversion parts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...

The point is that there are two separate questions here:

1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?

and

2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?

"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about why GW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.

So what have we next to this?, Orks?, doesn't reproduce by sexual means, no need for females.

And yet they're given masculine features, referred to with male pronouns, etc.

Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.

Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?

AdMech and Skitarii?, all their flesh is replaced by bionics anyway.

So why not have female bodies replaced with bionics instead of only male bodies? If it doesn't make any difference then there's no reason for them to be all-male.

So yeah GW might throw in some female looking bits in a futur re-model for Guards model line, and what would that change in the game franckly?

What does it change on the table to have any aesthetic variation? Why do we need non-Cadian guardsmen, dozens of different power armored marines with different chapter symbols, etc?

For the admech how would you make them feminine in any way. We can't see any of the units faces, they chop off the legs and arms in most cases. I'm guessing any other gender identifing traits such as larger hip, breasts would also get cut.

I don't think it's really an issue, I mean the IG could probably use some female heads in their model line, but the Imperium in terms of fluff is pretty backwards, to the point that it almost makes sense they'd have gender divides like they do in the higher ranks. The only reason it doesn't make sense in the IG itself because the IG is just a massive amount of conscripts that they throw at things when they can, so it's not like the Ad Mech or Space Marines who are a lot more picky and can discriminate. Though I guess you could also make a case that all the females get shipped off to Sororitas, but that would be a huge number considering how many conscripts the IG gets as a whole.

More so, we can at least assume that GW isn't currently sexist (they might have been a product of their time when they first released the game but things have obviously changed) because as the author mentioned the Tau don't have a discrimination of gender, with their primary general being female (Shadowsun) and their kits do come with female heads for things like the Ghostkeel. So we can see that an army that doesn't base its views off fanatical dogma and superstition, but rather merit, includes a lot of female representation.

Let's be real here, the Space Marines for the most part aren't the good guys, and the Imperium as a whole is pretty xenophobic as a whole, not just based on our assumptions but it's stated quite often that they're openly bigoted. So it's not a surprise they'd have sexism in their faction too, they just have those negative aspects of humanity. On the other hand, idealized factions like that Tau, who aren't affected by such things clearly show that there isn't necessarily a deeper issue at play, simply that the Imperium is just not a very good place to be :/.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
For the admech how would you make them feminine in any way. We can't see any of the units faces, they chop off the legs and arms in most cases. I'm guessing any other gender identifing traits such as larger hip, breasts would also get cut.

Don't they also like cover the bodies in a gel like substance beneath the armour to keep them ticking if they haven't been fully converted? Not to mention that they saw off the legs for tradition and then replace them before the lobotomies and other things... Yea, the Ad Mech are pretty gross with how they do things.

Oh and that gel is made from recycled bodily fluids of the person wearing the armour /wrech.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...

The point is that there are two separate questions here:

1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?

and

2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?

"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about why GW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.

One problem is that GW seems to be terrified of trying to change any of the lore that they have written for the Space Marines, treating their fluff books like a holy text. They created the current version of Space Marines when their audience consisted of a few men playing with metal models in England, making them epitomise the ideal version of manliness as it appears to a gamer. Since then, Games Workshop and the hobby have grown, but they refuse to let go of this aspect of the Space Marines.

Games Workshop could do better to represent more diverse genders (and now that plastics are detailed enough that people don't all look like potatoes, races).

Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.

Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?

This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.

At this point it appears that the only ones who are fighting for this change are doing so out of spite. Either everything gets made equal or I will huff and puff and blow your opinions away.

Honestly I couldn't care less. If GW decides to do it you wont see me up in arms boycotting or anything silly like that. And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal, or more likely they are just to cheap to make new kits that they are afraid won't sell well.

 the Signless wrote:

This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.

While I agree with your point as a whole, it's actually a lot easier to prove if a Tau is male or female. A male Tau has a straight line facial slit, while a female Tau has a Y shaped facial slit. The Ghostkeel for example comes with both styles of head.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 the Signless wrote:

This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.

While I agree with your point as a whole, it's actually a lot easier to prove if a Tau is male or female. A male Tau has a straight line facial slit, while a female Tau has a Y shaped facial slit. The Ghostkeel for example comes with both styles of head.

And thus I learn something new everyday.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
At this point it appears that the only ones who are fighting for this change are doing so out of spite. Either everything gets made equal or I will huff and puff and blow your opinions away.

You must be reading a different thread, because that's clearly not what is happening here. Could you give us a link to the alternate thread that you're trying to talk about, so that we can understand what you're trying to say?

And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal

Yeah, equality is such a horrible goal, isn't it...

 the Signless wrote:

Spoiler:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...

The point is that there are two separate questions here:

1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?

and

2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?

"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about why GW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.

One problem is that GW seems to be terrified of trying to change any of the lore that they have written for the Space Marines, treating their fluff books like a holy text. They created the current version of Space Marines when their audience consisted of a few men playing with metal models in England, making them epitomise the ideal version of manliness as it appears to a gamer. Since then, Games Workshop and the hobby have grown, but they refuse to let go of this aspect of the Space Marines.

Games Workshop could do better to represent more diverse genders (and now that plastics are detailed enough that people don't all look like potatoes, races).

Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.

Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?

This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.

1.GW isn't afraid to change space marine lore at all. Theyve been pulling that since rogue trader, back when I believe they were glorified beaky riot police. Want proof, look up centurions, half the space wolf crap, the various flyers, etc. That practically fell out of the sky during 6th but don't worry guys, the space marines have totally had this stuff the whole time.

2. Space marines have been around 25 years, and in game over 10,000. You think the centurions were a ridiculous thing pulled out of their arse, how on earth would they justify female space marines?!? It would invalidate literally almost every single book released since the game began, and at absolute best would come of as pandering. At worst? Well, you've seen the abominations GW has crapped out for background fluff recently. Would you want a guy like ward writing background for female marines?

3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.

Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.

Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?

This would be a much stronger point if GW portrayed the lack of women in the military as a horrible dystopian thing, rather than just yet another case of the default hero being a white man. And, honestly, it doesn't make much sense for the Imperium's evils to neatly line up with real-world prejudices. For example, we know that the Imperium is actually fairly tolerant of differences in religion, as long as you throw a superficial layer of Emperor worship on top of your beliefs. And real-world racism wouldn't make any sense at all because the origins of that racism would be 38,000 years in the past on a planet that most citizens of the Imperium have barely even heard the name of. So yeah, maybe the Imperium would be perfectly happy to use a guardsman's preferred pronouns for a few seconds before that guardsman is splattered by a bolter shot in a suicidal human wave attack, because nobody 38,000 years in the future considers it an important issue anymore.

Also, even if it's not strictly realistic, the goal here is out-of-universe inclusiveness. If you have to bend the fluff a bit to let people who aren't middle-class straight white guys have people they can identify with then I don't think that's a very high price to pay.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 the Signless wrote:

Spoiler:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Also claiming that there is no explanation for no female SM, then giving the (flash version) of the explanation, saying its scientific, but since 40k is a made up world, so the science isn't real, and thus we shouldn't take the explanation giving, is the stupidest joke i've heard fo a while...

The point is that there are two separate questions here:

1) Why, according to GW's current fluff, are there no female marines?

and

2) Why doesn't GW make female marines?

"Because the geneseed doesn't work that way" is a valid answer to the first question, but not the second. It's no more than "a space wizard did it" or "because GW said so", and doesn't explain anything about why GW made that decision and should or should not change it. So no, we shouldn't accept in-universe fluff explanations as a response to a suggestion that GW should change their fluff.

One problem is that GW seems to be terrified of trying to change any of the lore that they have written for the Space Marines, treating their fluff books like a holy text. They created the current version of Space Marines when their audience consisted of a few men playing with metal models in England, making them epitomise the ideal version of manliness as it appears to a gamer. Since then, Games Workshop and the hobby have grown, but they refuse to let go of this aspect of the Space Marines.

Games Workshop could do better to represent more diverse genders (and now that plastics are detailed enough that people don't all look like potatoes, races).

Taus can arguably include females, since whne you look at Shadowsun there is not much difference with another Tau, so you can go and say" yeh half my Tau cadre are females" and no one would bat an eye.

Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts?

This I will argue though as I view the gender neutral armour of the Tau to be one of their strong points. They included an army that represents a mixed combat unit without feeling the need to sexualise the hell (pardon my language) out of it. Tau don't need the horrible boob-plate that the Sisters of Battle have and their heads are all these angry glaring things with a ponytail. The only way to prove whether a Tau is male or female is to include stripping Tau miniatures, and even that might not solve the problem as they have been stated to have different sexual characteristics than humans.

1.GW isn't afraid to change space marine lore at all. Theyve been pulling that since rogue trader, back when I believe they were glorified beaky riot police. Want proof, look up centurions, half the space wolf crap, the various flyers, etc. That practically fell out of the sky during 6th but don't worry guys, the space marines have totally had this stuff the whole time.

2. Space marines have been around 25 years, and in game over 10,000. You think the centurions were a ridiculous thing pulled out of their arse, how on earth would they justify female space marines?!? It would invalidate literally almost every single book released since the game began, and at absolute best would come of as pandering. At worst? Well, you've seen the abominations GW has crapped out for background fluff recently. Would you want a guy like ward writing background for female marines?

3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.

Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?

great post but that part that is in bold really hits the nail on the head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.

Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?

This would be a much stronger point if GW portrayed the lack of women in the military as a horrible dystopian thing, rather than just yet another case of the default hero being a white man. And, honestly, it doesn't make much sense for the Imperium's evils to neatly line up with real-world prejudices. For example, we know that the Imperium is actually fairly tolerant of differences in religion, as long as you throw a superficial layer of Emperor worship on top of your beliefs. And real-world racism wouldn't make any sense at all because the origins of that racism would be 38,000 years in the past on a planet that most citizens of the Imperium have barely even heard the name of. So yeah, maybe the Imperium would be perfectly happy to use a guardsman's preferred pronouns for a few seconds before that guardsman is splattered by a bolter shot in a suicidal human wave attack, because nobody 38,000 years in the future considers it an important issue anymore.

Also, even if it's not strictly realistic, the goal here is out-of-universe inclusiveness. If you have to bend the fluff a bit to let people who aren't middle-class straight white guys have people they can identify with then I don't think that's a very high price to pay.

So its ok for Females to have an entire army (SoB) but god forbid IG and SM don't have females? Can we have Brothers of Battle to then? How about we just throw the game away and hold hands and sing Kumbayah? would that make it all better?

Here is a crazy idea. Instead of worrying about all the small things like plastic figurines in a table top game why not focus on the bigger issues? Like women in certain countries not getting to vote and being raped/molested because they are females?

 the Signless wrote:
]One problem is that GW seems to be terrified of trying to change any of the lore that they have written for the Space Marines, treating their fluff books like a holy text. They created the current version of Space Marines when their audience consisted of a few men playing with metal models in England, making them epitomise the ideal version of manliness as it appears to a gamer. Since then, Games Workshop and the hobby have grown, but they refuse to let go of this aspect of the Space Marines.

I've never really seen it that way; aren't Space Marines supposed to be at least somewhat satirical? They're logisitically and politically insane, another tradition and superstition-steeped branch of the decaying Imperium that succeeds in spite of instead of because of itself.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?

On the other hand, I've never seen the Imperium at large as having problems with gender equality, and their racism tends to be reserved for abhumans, mutants, and xenos in order of increasing intolerance. What was that Pratchett quote? Something about black and white getting together and ganging up on green...

Why should the Departmento Munitorum care if someone identifies as male or female? Like you said, they work equally well for mine clearance duty. They'd probably shrug and get on with it, assuming all the right paperwork's been filed and nobody's lost it.

 Spinner wrote:
I've never really seen it that way; aren't Space Marines supposed to be at least somewhat satirical? They're logisitically and politically insane, another tradition and superstition-steeped branch of the decaying Imperium that succeeds in spite of instead of because of itself.

They used to be. Now they're more often portrayed as straightforward AWESOME WARRIOR HERO wish fulfillment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
So its ok for Females to have an entire army (SoB) but god forbid IG and SM don't have females? Can we have Brothers of Battle to then?

Do you honestly think that a single mostly-forgotten army is the equivalent of GW's biggest product line (and by a huge margin) and one of the second-tier product lines combined?

How about we just throw the game away and hold hands and sing Kumbayah? would that make it all better?

It is possible for you to have a discussion without taking everything to ridiculous extremes? There are a wide range of possibilities between "do nothing" and "throw the game away entirely". For example, adding female models to the IG range would improve the situation significantly without hurting the game at all.

Here is a crazy idea. Instead of worrying about all the small things like plastic figurines in a table top game why not focus on the bigger issues? Like women in certain countries not getting to vote and being raped/molested because they are females?

Ah yes, the classic "someone else has a bigger problem so you can never try to fix anything smaller" argument. I could tell you all of the reasons why it's a terrible argument, but even you don't believe it's a good argument. A brief scan of your posting history shows that you're quite happy to spend time complaining about how weak your orks are in 7th. So, I'll just ask the same question of you: why are you worrying about small things like how powerful the formation rules are for your army when there are much bigger issues to worry about?

I will never understand why so many people focus so much on plastic people's privates.

Books written by men are largely men characters, books written by women are largely female characters.

Anyone see twilight? This girl who looks like a camel has a vampire willing to let his whole family get murdered for a chick he met hours ago. Then this other guy who is a werewolf puts his whole pack on the line because he wants to protect her and they walk around half naked around her 24/7. And one of them is a freaking human shiny aka diamond. Never heard one thing sexist in that. Hell even go to a book store and look at romance books, all them have half naked muscle bound men with perfect hair jobs and personallity. So the women are the prise and they have to do nothing but pick and choose if they let him get her. again not sexest?

But draw three men in a row and you get people up in your ass saying your sexest. But if you ever notice anything, notice this all the people who quote this bs and are male are more often then not the ones you look at and go "no one in a million years would sleep with that" so they jump on a cause to win pity points.

Long story short sexist behavior exist in both worlds they just pick the one they are involved in. Also I want to see more ugly fat hairless toothless men following a girl around and sending her flowers who gets the girl and is called a romantic rather then a stalker.

Guess which 3 images are on romance novels and which would be called stalkers or rapists. seems sexist to me








sexism is indeed here.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I will never understand why so many people focus so much on plastic people's privates.

Because there's way more to gender than what's in your pants.

Books written by men are largely men characters, books written by women are largely female characters.

Maybe books written by lazy authors. There are plenty of authors that have characters of the opposite sex.

Anyone see twilight?

What's your point? Twilight is a book/movie series with some major issues. It also has nothing to do with 40k.

But draw three men in a row and you get people up in your ass saying your sexest.

You really don't.

But if you ever notice anything, notice this all the people who quote this bs and are male are more often then not the ones you look at and go "no one in a million years would sleep with that" so they jump on a cause to win pity points.

...

I really have no idea how to respond to this without breaking forum rules. Let's just stick with saying it's wrong on the level of "OMG THE BLACK HELICOPTER MIND CONTROL IN THE CHEMTRAILS", and a rather nasty personal attack at the same time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium? You know, a universe that is so horrible to be an average Joe in that it makes 3rd world modern countries look like utopias? Inequality in a setting can help get across the idea that maybe, just maybe a setting that describes itself as "grimdark" is a gakky place to live? Many of these people are lucky to get a warm meal everyday and not fall into the machinery. They have way bigger things to worry about than what pronoun they're referred to by.

Would you honestly believe that the Imperium is half that bad, but for some reason gender equality is absolutely fine? That for some reason a guardsman's life is worth less than the lasgiun he carries, but don't worry if he's transgendered they'll be sure to call him by his preferred pronoun before they tell him to run across a field to clear mines with his face?

This would be a much stronger point if GW portrayed the lack of women in the military as a horrible dystopian thing, rather than just yet another case of the default hero being a white man. And, honestly, it doesn't make much sense for the Imperium's evils to neatly line up with real-world prejudices. For example, we know that the Imperium is actually fairly tolerant of differences in religion, as long as you throw a superficial layer of Emperor worship on top of your beliefs. And real-world racism wouldn't make any sense at all because the origins of that racism would be 38,000 years in the past on a planet that most citizens of the Imperium have barely even heard the name of. So yeah, maybe the Imperium would be perfectly happy to use a guardsman's preferred pronouns for a few seconds before that guardsman is splattered by a bolter shot in a suicidal human wave attack, because nobody 38,000 years in the future considers it an important issue anymore.

Also, even if it's not strictly realistic, the goal here is out-of-universe inclusiveness. If you have to bend the fluff a bit to let people who aren't middle-class straight white guys have people they can identify with then I don't think that's a very high price to pay.

\
I think it makes sense for the prejudices to match up, if only to make it relatable to the audience. And I don't know if I'd call the Imperium tolerant of religion when rejecting the emperor means your planet gets glassed, even if they give you some freedom in how you do worship him. I guess it's still more progressive than the Catholic church used to be though, so maybe you have a point.

As for the rest, I think it's more an issue of GW dropping the ball on how they handle the universe, and how poorly it's fleshed out when it doesn't have the words "Space Marine" in the book's title. Usually all you hear is "life sucks for average Joe working in the mines/ship's reload mechanism/factorums/scribe hive/etc." And the lack of female guard is a dropped opportunity as well when the background mentions them so much. When IG was redone, we really just needed redone infantry kits with a variety of head options and I think IG fans would have been way more happy than with what we actually got. I hope it's not coming across that I'm against women in the IG, I know that they're definitely a part of the background and make sense. Mainly just against the idea of Space Marines suddenly having women after 10,000 years of being boys only, and the idea that transgendered marines or whatever HAVE to exist. Honestly less for political correctness or resistance against it, and more because I think we all know GW would HORRIBLY screw up the implementation of that.

On the other hand, revive the Sisters of Battle line, clearly make a point of "hey, they're equipped as special forces of the church and can only be women because reasons" as a counterpart of "the space marines are equipped with the best stuff that the mechanicus isn't hording and can only be men because reasons" and then it's not a big deal. Then you have a special forces type deal comprising of women to counterpart the marines, MAKE THEM IN PLASTIC, and make a point to make them a relevant part of the background, not just the source of ready made purity paint for Grey Knight armor. If that could be done, and mixed IG units is a possibility, you fix the issues of "inclusiveness" for getting people into the game (for the Imperium at least), and don't have to completely handwave 10,000 years of "history" and hamfist female marines in awkwardly.

Really all I'm trying to say is that making women space marines at this point is a terrible idea. Maybe when the game first came out over 20 years ago, yes, you could make a point for a change, but the game is just way too far along now to make a change like that without it coming across as pandering, horrible pandering, or just screwing it up in general, and then NO ONE is happy.

The Imperium is vast, with cultures covering the whole spectrum of human experience. Most of these cultures will contribute soldiers and sailors to the IG and IN. You will get chem addicted ganger conscripts fighting alongside highly trained professional forces, Amazonian women besides Herculean men, male supremicists besides female supremicisists... and half of them will not even be able to talk with one another due to corruption of Low Gothic.

It would be nice if GW could reflect some of this background in their model line. The Last Chancers were a good mixed unit if I recall correctly, but that is about it...

In terms of female space marines, there was some interesting fluff for female CSM from... Doc Thunder? Basically Fab Bile made a genetically dominant strain of most of the SM implants that was passed on down the female line; these women were then infiltrated onto a target world and procrated, their daughters being more versions of themselves. When the time came for invasion their physiology changed as the implants became active and their programming and cult cells went to war... armour was either shipped in, made, or they used standard armours fron PDF, AA, IG, etc...

Im sorry but if we are going to go into this whole correctness thing why is the author going on about females? don't transgender have the same rights?

Then if we go that far what about gay and lesbian models being a stand out. shouldn't there be parts to depict these lifestyles?

shouldn't games workshop provide heads that depict Asian's Africans and Caucasian without being politically incorrect? Not a head that depicts a generic face? but specific faces for each race?

There has to be a line in the sand.

 XdeadpoolX wrote:
Im sorry but if we are going to go into this whole correctness thing why is the author going on about females? don't transgender have the same rights?

Quite so. One could address this issue by making female models to go alongside the male model lines as, generally, transgender people will either be male or female. There are of course those who identify as no gender and other things as well; I would welcome your suggestions on how this would be modelled at 28mm.

Then if we go that far what about gay and lesbian models being a stand out. shouldn't there be parts to depict these lifestyles?

Indeed there should! I think the inclusion of male and female model options would allow you to make as many homosexual (and indeed other alternative sexuality) models of either gender as you like!

shouldn't games workshop provide heads that depict Asian's Africans and Caucasian without being politically incorrect? Not a head that depicts a generic face? but specific faces for each race?

Wow, you are on fire in your drive for inclusivity! Perhaps rather than being included as standard, head sets should be available as a free out-of-box addon? That way you can specify what kind of heads you would like.

There has to be a line in the sand.

And your inspired suggestions have really demonstrated just how far short GW has fallen of that line in providing for even the most basic level of inclusivity reflective of the background of their own setting, not to mention their player base, both existing and potential!

 Ignatius wrote:

I'm very glad that I can dispel the idea that we are lowering standards to accommodate women. Because that's not true at all.

The US Army certainly is - the standards are lower in two of the three events of the APFT. The standard for push up is more than halved for females.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not much difference =/= no difference at all. Why settle for mediocre kits and having to pretend that half your Tau are female when you can hold GW to a higher standard and demand actual female parts.

There are several female Tau heads available.

What exactly would these female body parts look like? Are you saying that a fire warrior can't be female unless she's got boob plate?

 XdeadpoolX wrote:
Im sorry but if we are going to go into this whole correctness thing why is the author going on about females?

Because this isn't a contest of "pick the least-represented group possible and only ask for that".

don't transgender have the same rights?

Then if we go that far what about gay and lesbian models being a stand out. shouldn't there be parts to depict these lifestyles?

Given that neither of those things have any external signs that you'd be able to see on a 28mm model, no, those aren't very relevant issues. And I think you know this already.

shouldn't games workshop provide heads that depict Asian's Africans and Caucasian without being politically incorrect? Not a head that depicts a generic face? but specific faces for each race?

You're right, they should have more variety in head shapes. Of course, given the limits of GW's sculpting talent, it's unlikely that this will ever happen. We're lucky if GW's faces are even identifiable as human.

There has to be a line in the sand.

Why? What is this catastrophic harm that a line in the sand is protecting against?

 Peregrine wrote:
Why? What is this catastrophic harm that a line in the sand is protecting against?

It used to be commies. That was the start of all this. Damned pinkos!

 Scott-S6 wrote:
There are several female Tau heads available.

What exactly would these female body parts look like? Are you saying that a fire warrior can't be female unless she's got boob plate?

There aren't really "several" heads available, there's a head option in (IIRC) one battlesuit kit but that's all. Most Tau kits don't have any female options.

Also, there's a difference between "visibly female" and "boob plate". The issue with "boob plate" armor isn't that it's shaped differently due to differences between male and female bodies, it's that it has wildly exaggerated breast shapes that have nothing to do with any realistic body that would be wearing it and compromise its ability to function as armor. IOW, it's designed to say "this is a (sexy) woman" as loudly as possible, not to be armor that a female soldier would actually wear.

Space Marines are Arthurian knights in space. Why they are male is the same reason they wear armor and have heraldry all over them. Because they're space Arthurian knights.

Obsessing about gender issues is really silly and tedious.

Alcibiades wrote:
Space Marines are Arthurian knights in space. Why they are male is the same reason they wear armor and have heraldry all over them. Because they're space Arthurian knights.

I see. So, if you put Arthurian knights into space, give them grenade launcher rifles and chainsaws instead of swords, drop them from orbit and have them ride armored motorcycles instead of horses, etc, the Arthurian knights theme is still clearly recognizable. But if you make any of them women that's just one step too far and they're no longer Arthurian knights. Makes perfect sense to me...

 Peregrine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Space Marines are Arthurian knights in space. Why they are male is the same reason they wear armor and have heraldry all over them. Because they're space Arthurian knights.

I see. So, if you put Arthurian knights into space, give them grenade launcher rifles and chainsaws instead of swords, drop them from orbit and have them ride armored motorcycles instead of horses, etc, the Arthurian knights theme is still clearly recognizable. But if you make any of them women that's just one step too far and they're no longer Arthurian knights. Makes perfect sense to me...

One might even say that obsessing over them having to be male is really silly and tedious...

Women are not supposed to die in wars. They're more important than men cause they're needed to produce other people. Kill half the men and after one or two generations there's going to be the same number of people. Kill half the women and it's a much more severe blow to society. Besides, women are weaker physically.
Also, there allrady are adepta sorotitas and they're not a very popular army. Why bother make more of those?

 koooaei wrote:
Women are not supposed to die in wars. They're more important than men cause they're needed to produce other people. Kill half the men and after one or two generations there's going to be the same number of people. Kill half the women and it's a much more severe blow to society.

Fortunately the IG represents a tiny percentage of a planet's population, and even taking a planet's entire recruiting quota in women would make no difference in the planet's population. And in a total war situation where a planet is forced to commit more than its recruiting quota to a battle you have no choice. Everyone who is physically capable of fighting (or at least dying and making the enemy spend a bullet that could otherwise kill someone more important) gets a flashlight and a t-shirt and is thrown into battle, with no thoughts at all about the future. Being able to rebuild a planet's population is not very useful when everyone on the planet was literally eaten by Tyranids, or exposed to demonic influences and subject to mass execution anyway even if they win the war.

Besides, women are weaker physically.

And? Ignoring the difference in average physical strength is a pretty tiny violation of realism compared to everything else in 40k. In a universe where giant fungus monsters act like rioting soccer fans, interstellar travel is done by opening a literal portal to hell, WWI trench warfare is normal, etc, letting women be as strong as men is not an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Also, there allrady are adepta sorotitas and they're not a very popular army. Why bother make more of those?

The popularity issues with SoB have very little to do with the fact that they're female models and a lot to do with the fact that GW barely even acknowledges that they exist. They're all metal (IOW, expensive as hell even by 40k standards and a pain to deal with), their rules are OOP, and most of the kits are from 20+ years ago and desperately need an update to modern standards.

I don't say that women should NEVER be fighting. It's just not a normal situation.

However, in case of GW it's another issue. I think they're not sure if it would pay off fully to sculpt a whole bunch of new minis justto represent women of all the same faction.

 koooaei wrote:
I don't say that women should NEVER be fighting. It's just not a normal situation.

However, in case of GW it's another issue. I think they're not sure if it would pay off fully to sculpt a whole bunch of new minis just to represent women of all the same faction.

They don't think it would pay off to fully resculp the Cadian line to make them look like people, not potato men, I'm still baffled why people think GW need to make female IG when we don't have good IG to begin with.

Alcibiades wrote:
Space Marines are Arthurian knights in space. Why they are male is the same reason they wear armor and have heraldry all over them. Because they're space Arthurian knights.

Obsessing about gender issues is really silly and tedious.

This whole thread is based on the idea that the lack of women in 40K Is so trivial that it justifies a lot of argument to show that it is trivial.

This obviously is cognitive dissonance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Space Marines are Arthurian knights in space. Why they are male is the same reason they wear armor and have heraldry all over them. Because they're space Arthurian knights.

Obsessing about gender issues is really silly and tedious.

This whole thread is based on the idea that the lack of women in 40K Is so trivial that it justifies a lot of argument to show that it is trivial.

This obviously is cognitive dissonance.

To be fair, we are gamers, and this is the internet, so basically we're the group that loves to argue trivial things in the place that has the most trivial arguments. I mean just look at the raging debates about the aesthetics of a lightsaber or who would win between coke and Muhammad Ali, this thread/discussion isn't even a blip on the radar compared to those.

Go look at Victoria Miniatures, some amazingly good female imperial guard there, they even look like real women rather than 80s stereotypes :-)

For varieties sake if nothing else I would love to see more female models and fluff in 40k and fantasy but to be honest does everything need to be pc these days?

Why do you want 40K to be unfriendly to women and girls?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you want 40K to be unfriendly to women and girls?

Wargamers are directy descended from knights and should therefore only be men. Or something.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you want 40K to be unfriendly to women and girls?

Is it exactly unfriendly to them that a group of essentially backwards fanatics don't have female representation in one sector of their army, while having an all female section as well? All the while the more reasonable factions like the Tau have a strong amount of representation.

I personally agree that they can have female heads in the IG line and it would be good, but making armour that looks female is silly. After all, the rumour is that when Joan of Atc was accused of the crime of crossdressing her defense was that there's no such thing as a armoured dress, and the notion of one is silly. Breast plates are unisex after all.

I don't mind girl soldiers. Just trying to explain why it's likely the way it is right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you want 40K to be unfriendly to women and girls?

Is it exactly unfriendly to them that a group of essentially backwards fanatics don't have female representation in one sector of their army, while having an all female section as well? All the while the more reasonable factions like the Tau have a strong amount of representation.

I personally agree that they can have female heads in the IG line and it would be good, but making armour that looks female is silly. After all, the rumour is that when Joan of Atc was accused of the crime of crossdressing her defense was that there's no such thing as a armoured dress, and the notion of one is silly. Breast plates are unisex after all.

Dark eldar also have a lot of females. Mostly bikini-plate but still.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
There are several female Tau heads available.

What exactly would these female body parts look like? Are you saying that a fire warrior can't be female unless she's got boob plate?

There aren't really "several" heads available, there's a head option in (IIRC) one battlesuit kit but that's all. Most Tau kits don't have any female options.

Also, there's a difference between "visibly female" and "boob plate". The issue with "boob plate" armor isn't that it's shaped differently due to differences between male and female bodies, it's that it has wildly exaggerated breast shapes that have nothing to do with any realistic body that would be wearing it and compromise its ability to function as armor. IOW, it's designed to say "this is a (sexy) woman" as loudly as possible, not to be armor that a female soldier would actually wear.

One of the two battlesuits that has a pilot model has a female head and one of the two infantry kits has a female head. And there's shadowsun.

So what would these body shape differences be? Tau are already extremely skinny and they've got rigid plates over chest and thighs.

What is the point of this argument? I find it pretty funny how heated its getting.

"I reckon it'd be sweet to see some female heads on some of the factions that don't have them"

"YOU DARE COME INTO 'MY' HOBBY AND ADD FEMALE HEADS TO IT? You disgust me..."

Can I ask a question? Who cares? If they add a couple of head option that some people like, how the hell does that affect the people who don't want it? Don't need to put those heads on your figures, and you can continue to collect your army of men. Some people want some female heads in their army. "OH GOD! female heads?! SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS GETTING THEIR WAY!" Or maybe some people just want some female heads... Just like we all want updated chaos figures. What is the big deal? I'm baffled by how self righteous so many people are in this hobby when 40k is ALL ABOUT DIVERSITY AND CRAZY THINGS AND EVEYTHING UNREALISTIC! Has everyone forgotten what 40k was originally? A crazy hard rock 80's punk 'f*ck everything real' hobby of crazy sh*t.

And here we have a bunch of losers whinging about how it'd be "diversity for diversity's sake" to add a bunch of female heads to some factions that don't have them.....

I feel like some of you should grow up and get over yourselves and just let some things go for the sake of a few people who'd like them, which don't even impact you in any way.

Peace out peeps

The banality of evil: Who says I can't cosplay a SS-Totenkopfverbände officer because I'm a female? In my headcanon, the Schutzstaffeln were a very inclusive organization! Oh, and I love George Orwell's 1984, but I find Julia's reckless attitude towards sex degrading and frankly off-putting. And why there are no genderqueer Inner Party members?

Seriously, I think this has less to do with feminism and more with the fandom's obsession to transform every story ever written into playgrounds where fans can insert themselves.

I'm a male, and as I've written a dozen times before I have a hard time relating to any of the male characters in this game. Save for a handful rare specimens who are mostly written to provide a counterpoint (and who always end up dying horribly or having their worldviews and lives shattered by the horror that surrounds them) most characters in 40k are written as inhuman monsters. Deranged psychopaths in deformed, mutilated bodies. Precisely, some of the high moments in wh40k narrative come from the infrequent instances where the token "heroic" nazi-du-jour (be it Talos of the Night Lords, Lorgar, Gaunt or Eisenhorn) offers a rare glimpse of humanity.

This "article" is utter trash and not worth the name, let alone the discussion it's spawned.

Please not that I am, in fact, saying this as a woman, a feminist, and a Sisters player.

I'm also saying this as an academic who is utterly disgusted by the lack of research, data sourcing and actual, worthwhile content in the post.

About the only thing the author wrote that has any merit is that female Guard models would be cool, and the Sisters need updating... and that is pure opinion, no matter how much he tries to dress it up as fact!

Honestly, it's clickbait using the name Warhammer to try and expand its market share.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
This "article" is utter trash and not worth the name, let alone the discussion it's spawned.

Please not that I am, in fact, saying this as a woman, a feminist, and a Sisters player.

I'm also saying this as an academic who is utterly disgusted by the lack of research, data sourcing and actual, worthwhile content in the post.

About the only thing the author wrote that has any merit is that female Guard models would be cool, and the Sisters need updating... and that is pure opinion, no matter how much he tries to dress it up as fact!

Honestly, it's clickbait using the name Warhammer to try and expand its market share.

I haven't even read the thing, because from the url and responses like this from posters I respect, I know that better use of my clicky finger would be up my nose, or poking a cat.
Articles like this only serve to make people with sane issues with sexism look deluded by association.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium?

That's ridiculous. Do you know what shows the 40k setting is a terrible distopia? The terrible treatment of mutants, even those that are loyal and innocent. The huge, labyrinthine administration which means a whole planet population can be exterminated as retribution for not paying a tithe that is thrice as much as the whole planet production because a scribe somewhere made a typo. The general lack of care for human life that high-ranking imperial figures display regularly. And of course all the fighting against horrible xenos and chaos cults and all that.
Just try it for yourself. Go to your LGS, and ask random 40k fans what they think shows the 40k setting is a distopia. Then notice how nobody brings out the fact that only men can be Space Marines. Especially considering that women can become high lord, lording above any space marine.

Also notice how all the things above are relatively unique to 40k, and add a special flavor to it, while having the Space Marines be only male is just… well, bland and generic. It certainly does not set 40k apart, sadly.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
So its ok for Females to have an entire army (SoB) but god forbid IG and SM don't have females? Can we have Brothers of Battle to then?

Let me introduce you to Priests, Crusaders, Frateris Militia, Arco-flagellant, Penitent engine. Now, SoB are one of the smallest range in the game. Space Marines are the biggest one. Enlighten me with all those various female models in Space Marines army!

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Here is a crazy idea. Instead of worrying about all the small things like plastic figurines in a table top game why not focus on the bigger issues? Like women in certain countries not getting to vote and being raped/molested because they are females?

Sure, please focus on this. My first advice would be to stop posting in this thread so you get more time to actually learn stuff about those countries .

 the_Armyman wrote:
But I'm a white male in a first world country, and I'm pretty sure my opinion doesn't matter.

To whom? I'm pretty sure that the politician running your country care about who you will be voting for next election. I am sure the entertainers care about whether you are going to buy their movie/video game/book/… or not. I am pretty sure your complaint that nobody cares about your opinion is just baseless whining from someone that is just too used to being the center of all attention…
Yeah, on some pretty specific topic, some people will think your opinion is less relevant because you are a white male in a first world country. Some of the time they'll be totally right too. Deal with it. Or cry me a river, your choice.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal

STAND PROUD AGAINST EQUALITY! INEQUALITY FOR THE WIN!
Especially if that means I get more.

TheWanderer wrote:
For varieties sake if nothing else I would love to see more female models and fluff in 40k and fantasy but to be honest does everything need to be pc these days?

Not sure what you mean by PC. If what you mean is “Does everything need to have gender parity in it ?”, I'm going to say no, it should just be the default case that is only deviated from when there is a good, out-of-universe (see the Thermian Argument mentioned in OP article) reason for doing it, i.e. when it actually serves the storytelling.
In 40k, that's not the case.

 Peregrine wrote:

There has to be a line in the sand.

Why? What is this catastrophic harm that a line in the sand is protecting against?

Duh, Peregrine, that's obvious. People that he disagree with may be happy! That's really a dreadful perspective.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
This "article" is utter trash and not worth the name, let alone the discussion it's spawned.

Please not that I am, in fact, saying this as a woman, a feminist, and a Sisters player.

I'm also saying this as an academic who is utterly disgusted by the lack of research, data sourcing and actual, worthwhile content in the post.

About the only thing the author wrote that has any merit is that female Guard models would be cool, and the Sisters need updating... and that is pure opinion, no matter how much he tries to dress it up as fact!

Honestly, it's clickbait using the name Warhammer to try and expand its market share.

So… what's your beef with the article?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So… what's your beef with the article?

Just gonna copy paste it since I think I explained it pretty well elsewhere.

Which all brings us back to my real point;

The point of this article is not to argue for equal representation.

The point of the article is to complain about the lack of updates to the Sisters and Guard ranges. Despite being posted on a Social Justice blog, it's a 40k article first.

The article is not well researched.

The article ignores massive swathes of information, as well as outright denying the existence of several models. It dismisses assumptions that do not fit with its message without addressing them, and openly discards concepts that disprove it without backing up its decision to do so.

The article is not well written.

The article meanders between ideas with little direction or intent. It has no internal structure, and does not present a concise argument. The laguage wobbles between being overly simple and throwing in half-understood advanced concepts and theories in order to achieve the illusion of erudition. In short, it uses occasional long words to sound smarter.

Essentially, on a scale of zero to Peer Reviewed, the article sits somewhere around The Daily Prophet.

It's basically inherently damaging to the cause it's pretending to champion.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So… what's your beef with the article?

Just gonna copy paste it since I think I explained it pretty well elsewhere.

Which all brings us back to my real point;

The point of this article is not to argue for equal representation.

The point of the article is to complain about the lack of updates to the Sisters and Guard ranges. Despite being posted on a Social Justice blog, it's a 40k article first.

The article is not well researched.

The article ignores massive swathes of information, as well as outright denying the existence of several models. It dismisses assumptions that do not fit with its message without addressing them, and openly discards concepts that disprove it without backing up its decision to do so.

The article is not well written.

The article meanders between ideas with little direction or intent. It has no internal structure, and does not present a concise argument. The laguage wobbles between being overly simple and throwing in half-understood advanced concepts and theories in order to achieve the illusion of erudition. In short, it uses occasional long words to sound smarter.

Essentially, on a scale of zero to Peer Reviewed, the article sits somewhere around The Daily Prophet.

It's basically inherently damaging to the cause it's pretending to champion.

I agree with your critique of this article. It's indeed just a rant for female guard models and new Sisters of Battle and nothing more. It does a good job to explain why it's a shame it hasn't been done before and what would be the benefit of doing so. It also does touch on the issue of the difficulties on getting any sort of feedback on this issue by GW. Its the equivalent of a newspaper editorial posted on a large blog who publish articles based on the loosely defined term of «Social Justice». Where I don't agree with you, is that I don't think it arms in any way the cause of gender equality in the boardgame medium (or in any other area). Anyone searching good, competent feminist critique and analysis of a medium should not be looking around popular blog. That's not where those things are published. Very little high quality pertinent articles are published in popular blogs or news website. Sometime, you will get some excellent articles, but in open blog like these you will get a metric ton of crap or cheap edditorial (not to call them rant). Any person who would use these blog extensively in a serious discussion or debate about gender role and representation in any medium would only demonstrate crass ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Which all brings us back to my real point;

The point of this article is not to argue for equal representation.

The point of the article is to complain about the lack of updates to the Sisters and Guard ranges. Despite being posted on a Social Justice blog, it's a 40k article first.

The article is not well researched.

The article ignores massive swathes of information, as well as outright denying the existence of several models. It dismisses assumptions that do not fit with its message without addressing them, and openly discards concepts that disprove it without backing up its decision to do so.

The article is not well written.

The article meanders between ideas with little direction or intent. It has no internal structure, and does not present a concise argument. The laguage wobbles between being overly simple and throwing in half-understood advanced concepts and theories in order to achieve the illusion of erudition. In short, it uses occasional long words to sound smarter.

Essentially, on a scale of zero to Peer Reviewed, the article sits somewhere around The Daily Prophet.

It's basically inherently damaging to the cause it's pretending to champion.

I could not agree more. While there may be some point to this discussion (if just to argue for updated guard and sisters kits), this article read like someone threw up catch phrases and words at a piece of paper while ranting about how they want an update. The fact that there was only a link to the article also suggests the hypothesis that this was just click-bait designed to catch feminists, anti-feminists, and Warhammer 40,000 fans.

Finally, you insult the Daily Prophet. This is more in line with a BoLS sisters update (with plastic thunderhawk) rumour.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
3. Not every setting needs to be a champion of equality. I wonder, maybe part of having the space marines as genetic abominations that are male entirely is to point out exactly how INEQUAL people are in the imperium?

That's ridiculous. Do you know what shows the 40k setting is a terrible distopia? The terrible treatment of mutants, even those that are loyal and innocent. The huge, labyrinthine administration which means a whole planet population can be exterminated as retribution for not paying a tithe that is thrice as much as the whole planet production because a scribe somewhere made a typo. The general lack of care for human life that high-ranking imperial figures display regularly. And of course all the fighting against horrible xenos and chaos cults and all that.
Just try it for yourself. Go to your LGS, and ask random 40k fans what they think shows the 40k setting is a distopia. Then notice how nobody brings out the fact that only men can be Space Marines. Especially considering that women can become high lord, lording above any space marine.

Also notice how all the things above are relatively unique to 40k, and add a special flavor to it, while having the Space Marines be only male is just… well, bland and generic. It certainly does not set 40k apart, sadly.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
So its ok for Females to have an entire army (SoB) but god forbid IG and SM don't have females? Can we have Brothers of Battle to then?

Let me introduce you to Priests, Crusaders, Frateris Militia, Arco-flagellant, Penitent engine. Now, SoB are one of the smallest range in the game. Space Marines are the biggest one. Enlighten me with all those various female models in Space Marines army!

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Here is a crazy idea. Instead of worrying about all the small things like plastic figurines in a table top game why not focus on the bigger issues? Like women in certain countries not getting to vote and being raped/molested because they are females?

Sure, please focus on this. My first advice would be to stop posting in this thread so you get more time to actually learn stuff about those countries .

 the_Armyman wrote:
But I'm a white male in a first world country, and I'm pretty sure my opinion doesn't matter.

To whom? I'm pretty sure that the politician running your country care about who you will be voting for next election. I am sure the entertainers care about whether you are going to buy their movie/video game/book/… or not. I am pretty sure your complaint that nobody cares about your opinion is just baseless whining from someone that is just too used to being the center of all attention…
Yeah, on some pretty specific topic, some people will think your opinion is less relevant because you are a white male in a first world country. Some of the time they'll be totally right too. Deal with it. Or cry me a river, your choice.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
And if it stays the same then I can live happy knowing that GW is either willing to stand up to feminists who desire everything to be equal

STAND PROUD AGAINST EQUALITY! INEQUALITY FOR THE WIN!
Especially if that means I get more.

TheWanderer wrote:
For varieties sake if nothing else I would love to see more female models and fluff in 40k and fantasy but to be honest does everything need to be pc these days?

Not sure what you mean by PC. If what you mean is “Does everything need to have gender parity in it ?”, I'm going to say no, it should just be the default case that is only deviated from when there is a good, out-of-universe (see the Thermian Argument mentioned in OP article) reason for doing it, i.e. when it actually serves the storytelling.
In 40k, that's not the case.

 Peregrine wrote:

There has to be a line in the sand.

Why? What is this catastrophic harm that a line in the sand is protecting against?

Duh, Peregrine, that's obvious. People that he disagree with may be happy! That's really a dreadful perspective.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
This "article" is utter trash and not worth the name, let alone the discussion it's spawned.

Please not that I am, in fact, saying this as a woman, a feminist, and a Sisters player.

I'm also saying this as an academic who is utterly disgusted by the lack of research, data sourcing and actual, worthwhile content in the post.

About the only thing the author wrote that has any merit is that female Guard models would be cool, and the Sisters need updating... and that is pure opinion, no matter how much he tries to dress it up as fact!

Honestly, it's clickbait using the name Warhammer to try and expand its market share.

So… what's your beef with the article?

Well beyond the fact that you are taking comments from others and attributing them to me .

If you are so opposed to the ideal of unequal representation in all things then do you also boycott professional sports? I mean the NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL and MLS have a grand total of zero females on ALL of those teams. Should we then rage against them for unequal representation of females?

Changing everything in the world to be equal is both a waste of time and ridiculous.

MIXED GENDER:
Tau have female models, Eldar and DE have female models, Demons has females as well,

NO GENDER:
Orks, Tyrnids and necrons don't have gender in the way we think of it so who cares about them?

FEMALE ONLY:
Sisters of battle

MALE ONLY:
Space Marines (chaos and imperial), IG.....what else?

So its not mixed 100% equally but saying the game doesn't have female representation is ludicrous. Could IG use female models? sure go ahead and give them models for all we care, even if in the real world (Ohh god he said Real world again) only 2 countries have Females in Infantry and the US being one of them that has yet to implement it. And regardless of what some Army butter bar says, the standards are slipping and have always been biased for women.

Please only quote the part of my message you are answering too, else it is needlessly wasting space.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Well beyond the fact that you are taking comments from others and attributing them to me .

Oups, sorry, fixed.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
If you are so opposed to the ideal of unequal representation in all things then do you also boycott professional sports? I mean the NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL and MLS have a grand total of zero females on ALL of those teams.

How would I know, I don't really care for those sports ^^.

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
Changing everything in the world to be equal is both a waste of time and ridiculous.

Okay, then let's focus on 40k specifically then .

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
MIXED GENDER:
Tau have female models, Eldar and DE have female models, Demons has females as well,

Eldar could help more female model outside of guardians and banshees. No female farseer, for instance, is a bit of a shame, given how often they happen in the fluff.
Demon don't have “female”. They have one brand of daemon that show boobs because Slaanesh…

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
NO GENDER:
Orks, Tyrnids and necrons don't have gender in the way we think of it so who cares about them?

Do you mean that Ork Boyz don't have any gender? How about calling them Ork Girlz then? I'm personally all for it.
Necron have gender if you look at forgeworld, who made a female special character. They are also always refereed to with male pronouns…

MorkorpossiblyGork wrote:
FEMALE ONLY:
Sisters of battle

MALE ONLY:
Space Marines (chaos and imperial), IG.....what else?

So its not mixed 100% equally but saying the game doesn't have female representation is ludicrous.

Space marines are, what, a dozen armies? They have, what, a hundred time as many release as Sister ever got in total? Their last release was in 2004…
When was the last female model released?

Callidus assassin was release pretty recently

My thoughts.

It would be totally cool to have more models to choose from and for a great many of those models to be female. Especially among the Imperial Guard, Tau, Chaos etc, as well as a rerelease of the SOB.

The writer of this article is, along with others I read before, confusing willful exclusion and sexism with aiming a game at a specific demographic it's most likely to find a customer base in. I believe that model is now outdated, but GW moving like some dinosaur stuck in a tar pit doesn't make it sexist, just archaic and ponderous. Aiming ranges at other demographics to widen your audience/customer base, seems logical.

I have always considered Tyranids, much like Xenomorphs, to be female. They are led by Norn Queens, and have harridans, dominatrix, harpies etc. YMMV


In conclusion, more female models would be great, especially if sculpted well. Bringing in new players, regardless of gender, is a good thing. Bringing in new female players is a great thing, I have never been sat at better tabletop RPGs than mixed gender ones, women can bring new perspectives to the hobby, I really welcome that. Some posters here and elsewhere seem to think they're under attack and are feeling threatened, get a grip, take a vape, adjust your fedora, take a deep breath and deal with it, there are lots of things in life that are out to feth your happiness up, girls sitting at the gaming table isn't one of them. Also the article is garbage, poorly written clickbait garbage.

@Hybrid Son of Oxayotl

I think you can stop trying to argue with MorkorpossiblyGork since he clearly stated that he would not listen to any argument that don't match his prejudices and preconceptions. There is no need for an argument to be demonstrated that there is much fewer female models in GW than male ones, that the exclusively female army is by far the least supported and that the miniature line could be improved by adding sexual diversity. This is as evident as saying that the Earth is indeed round after looking at a picture of it.

epronovost wrote:
@Hybrid Son of Oxayotl

I think you can stop trying to argue with MorkorpossiblyGork since he clearly stated that he would not listen to any argument that don't match his prejudices and preconceptions. There is no need for an argument to be demonstrated that there is much fewer female models in GW than male ones, that the exclusively female army is by far the least supported and that the miniature line could be improved by adding sexual diversity. This is as evident as saying that the Earth is indeed round after looking at a picture of it.

the fact sob do not get support may have to do with the five year petetion with like 3000 signatures. Just because those who complain the loudest want them doesnt mean the community as a whole does.


Oh sorry 1000 sigs in atleat 2 years lol damn sexest not wanting to lose money on a dead line.

https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-reboot-the-sisters-of-battle-adepta-sororitas-army-models-in-plastic

This is just my opinion and I am in no way opposed to getting more females in the games. The most likely reason for that is the reward/profit will not justify the investment. GW is a business, who's primary goal is to be profitable.

Creating new molds for females would be expensive and I doubt that creating those would make people who never played 40k, or IG before, start buying models. It would just be another expenditure with not much gain.

The reason that sisters have not been re-released in such a long time is they were never that big sellers even when brand new, so GW needs to pay employees and stay profitable, so making models that will not sell well, and have not in the past, is just not a great business plan.

Again this is just my opinion from what I have seen.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Aiming ranges at other demographics to widen your audience/customer base, seems logical.

Except that GW have been aiming for narrower and narrower demographics in recent years.

Well I agree with the article. More diversity is never a bad thing IMHO, and it's always cool for people to be represented in their favourite settings

OgreChubbs wrote:

epronovost wrote:
@Hybrid Son of Oxayotl

I think you can stop trying to argue with MorkorpossiblyGork since he clearly stated that he would not listen to any argument that don't match his prejudices and preconceptions. There is no need for an argument to be demonstrated that there is much fewer female models in GW than male ones, that the exclusively female army is by far the least supported and that the miniature line could be improved by adding sexual diversity. This is as evident as saying that the Earth is indeed round after looking at a picture of it.

the fact sob do not get support may have to do with the five year petetion with like 3000 signatures. Just because those who complain the loudest want them doesnt mean the community as a whole does.


Oh sorry 1000 sigs in atleat 2 years lol damn sexest not wanting to lose money on a dead line.

https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-reboot-the-sisters-of-battle-adepta-sororitas-army-models-in-plastic

What point were you trying to argue with you reply? Your reply seems absolutly irrelevent to what I was saying in the passage you decided to quote. The fact that Sisters of Battle are very unpopular has absolutly no impact on the fact that they exist, have old models and that new models would improve GW product line overall or that a greater gender diversity (or diversity period) in its product would also improve the quality of its miniature line.

OgreChubbs wrote:
the fact sob do not get support may have to do with the five year petetion with like 3000 signatures. Just because those who complain the loudest want them doesnt mean the community as a whole does.


Oh sorry 1000 sigs in atleat 2 years lol damn sexest not wanting to lose money on a dead line.

https://www.change.org/p/games-workshop-reboot-the-sisters-of-battle-adepta-sororitas-army-models-in-plastic

You may be confusing the fact that people don't see the point of signing an online petition to try and convince a company that is famous for not listening to its customers to do something with an actual desire in the customer base for SoB (or just something different).

Hell, look at the DE - they used to be a reject faction left out in the rain; someone at GW came along who liked DE and had the clout to get them re-done and re-released and they are back with the hip kids (and for some reason SM's who no one really likes but for some reason is "popular" ).

My understanding is that Sisters of Battle have never sold well, even when initially released. Games workshop is a company trying to make money. If they feel a model won't sell they arn't going to re do the line.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My understanding is that Sisters of Battle have never sold well, even when initially released. Games workshop is a company trying to make money. If they feel a model won't sell they arn't going to re do the line.

Probably didn't sell well because they are $7 a model and made of pewter

They weren't always that expensive, that's price creep from over time. As for being made of metal, that was pretty standard until recently, the evolution to mostly plastic was a slow steady march.

This army has female models is oviously not a key selling point and it doesn't make sense for a business to invest money into stuff that isn;t gonna get themm anny more sales.

Dark eldar got a huge overhaul and they have alot of female models yet are also one of the less popular armies.

Sisters aren't popular either and sure price will play a big part in that but they oviously feel there is no proffit in changing that or they would.

Maybe they could add a female head or 2 on the spue whenn guardsmen need new sprues but they ceraily shouldn;t make new sprues yust to add in the diversity, it won;t get themm more sales.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My understanding is that Sisters of Battle have never sold well, even when initially released. Games workshop is a company trying to make money. If they feel a model won't sell they arn't going to re do the line.

That's actually true, but irrelevent now. The last time the Sisters of Battle had a release was when their very first model were created. Back then, GW was not half the size it is now and a large portion of the current player base were not even born at that point or barely able to walk. Saying something wasn't popular 20 years ago is not a reason to say that something won't be popular or simply profitable now. In the early/mid 90's the Tau line would have probably been a failure since the Mecha and Anime style wasn't very popular amongst European and North American young adults and teens. Most were still exposed to local child and teen entertainment style in cartoons and fiction. Five years later and the Anime scene was three time larger and more diverse. To this day, the Tau remain one of the best success of the 40K line. In fact the entire concept of 40K would have been a complete failure if it would have attempted to published itself 10 years before. Dystopian future got really popular in the larger poblic the wake of movies like Terminator, Alien or Blade Runner. Before that, Star Trek and Star Wars style were dominating the genre in the mainstream public with a more hopeful vision of the future where technologie is good and humans are living better lives with new challenges. Then again, GW hold a policy of secret on its future release and project so its almost impossible to know what they think of this issue. I suppose it must end on their table once in while. All that to say that a failure dating back from 20 years ago is in no way a good argument considering how much social changes have affected the science-fantasy genre and the community of those enjoying it.

Are Sisters models attractive to women?
Most girls I know that play, do not play SoB. I only know of one female SoB player, and she is older, someone with a strong sense if humour (and steady income to pair with that per model cost). They're certainly not accessible to a new player, male or female.

Can you think of many better ways to kill a sale dead than having someone walk into a store, see the various starters or quick start sets, and ask "how do I play something with women?" and then having to lead them to a computer and show them that they can neither buy a codex book, nor boxes in such affordable quantity as any other troop choice. Also the Repentia.

I just don't think SoB can be used to pretend GW cater to women these days, if ever they could.

Edit: Ok, let's honestly pose this question, is anyone here actually opposed to a new IG kit that includes female heads in it? If anyone is, please speak up, I'm not talking about full sculpts, just heads. If not, can we please stop pretending this is an actual thing that exists because that seems to be what one side of the discussion believes about the other.

Tiberius501 wrote:
What is the point of this argument? I find it pretty funny how heated its getting.

"I reckon it'd be sweet to see some female heads on some of the factions that don't have them"

"YOU DARE COME INTO 'MY' HOBBY AND ADD FEMALE HEADS TO IT? You disgust me..."

Can I ask a question? Who cares? If they add a couple of head option that some people like, how the hell does that affect the people who don't want it? Don't need to put those heads on your figures, and you can continue to collect your army of men. Some people want some female heads in their army. "OH GOD! female heads?! SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS GETTING THEIR WAY!" Or maybe some people just want some female heads... Just like we all want updated chaos figures. What is the big deal? I'm baffled by how self righteous so many people are in this hobby when 40k is ALL ABOUT DIVERSITY AND CRAZY THINGS AND EVEYTHING UNREALISTIC! Has everyone forgotten what 40k was originally? A crazy hard rock 80's punk 'f*ck everything real' hobby of crazy sh*t.

And here we have a bunch of losers whinging about how it'd be "diversity for diversity's sake" to add a bunch of female heads to some factions that don't have them.....

I feel like some of you should grow up and get over yourselves and just let some things go for the sake of a few people who'd like them, which don't even impact you in any way.

Peace out peeps

You do understand this is the very reason there's such a discussion about this, right? Because when an article states:

We’ve established that the state of gender representation in Warhammer 40k is a major problem at best, and a complete disaster at worst.

And people reply that that's not really the case as there are factions with equality, factions with disparity in both genders, and everything in between, there are those such as yourself who make a giant rant about how they're all sexist horrible people and raving lunatics.

That's really the problem, and why people don't really accept these kind of pushes, because I doubt anyone really cares if they make female IG heads (As in they wouldn't be bothered if GW announced they were making them in the next kit), but rather that they're being called sexists, bigots, and more as a result of them thinking that it's ok for Marines to be the fanatic bigots that they're made out to be in the fluff, while the Tau are the more progressive idealistic species.

I would be perfectly fine with some Guard kits being released with female heads, even if we get no new sculpts. The way I remember reading about Guard equipment It is that most Guard uniforms and armor are either too small or too big, so just including some female heads actually might work out ok (the Cadian sculpts already look off when it comes to proportions so it wouldn't be a big deal for me)

 War Kitten wrote:
I would be perfectly fine with some Guard kits being released with female heads, even if we get no new sculpts. The way I remember reading about Guard equipment It is that most Guard uniforms and armor are either too small or too big, so just including some female heads actually might work out ok (the Cadian sculpts already look off when it comes to proportions so it wouldn't be a big deal for me)

This isn't just the case for guard, as a whole armour has always been pretty genderless because you want it to be curved outwards in the center, as in a breastplate, which can fit a female or male equally well. The Tau are a great example of this because frankly they have male and female heads for their units, but the armour looks identical on both, and it's not because it's standard male design, it's because it's designed for efficiency, not decoration.

Even modern gear is amazingly gender neutral, even when it's not too small or too large. The reason for this is simply that you have a shirt, then a bullet proof vest of some sort, then a jacket, and then gear on top of that to carry various things, so it drowns out almost all form, and it just so happens that what we associate with the male form is basically generic form. It's the same thing as when you're painting and apply layer after layer of thick paint, and just lose all the detail in the model itself because of it, that's how combat gear and armour works:

Edit: And yes, Cadian sculpts are goofy as hell.

Just pointing out that when you see female soldiers next to male soldiers there is a huge difference in size and thickness 99% of the time. Without the male soldier in the pictures yes they looks a little less feminine but next to a male soldier they tend to be dwarfed (just like when you look at women on the street etc).

Simple head swaps will make already beefy models look even more ridiculous.

Any serious attempt (even using Male Cadians as a base... shudder) would need their own bodies.

On a side note very few pictures of female soldiers are full body near male so its surprisingly hard to see it, but when you see them in real life the difference is pretty easy to spot.

So ultimately new bodies will be needed if they for whatever reason did some female guardsmen.

See below:

The issue is that with the scale of models it's really hard to show that size difference. I mean after all, aren't Space Marines significantly taller than IG, but it doesn't really show unless you modify the Space Marine models.

The Tau are also supposed to be on average a bit shorter than a human, to the point that you can say they'd not be far off from a female to a male in stature in regard, but I'm pretty sure a Tau Fire Warrior is the same size as a guardsman.

Granted, I don't see any issue with making some of the models smaller in size than others, it's just that they usually make the torsos completely uniform in kits and then build around them, which would be the only real issue. Though honestly, there's nothing gendered about that either as you'd still be able to have regular women along with Brienne of Tarth sized women if you wanted, or just smaller men with larger men, or a mix of all of that, which is always good for options.

 Tinkrr wrote:
The issue is that with the scale of models it's really hard to show that size difference. I mean after all, aren't Space Marines significantly taller than IG, but it doesn't really show unless you modify the Space Marine models.

The Tau are also supposed to be on average a bit shorter than a human, to the point that you can say they'd not be far off from a female to a male in stature in regard, but I'm pretty sure a Tau Fire Warrior is the same size as a guardsman.

Granted, I don't see any issue with making some of the models smaller in size than others, it's just that they usually make the torsos completely uniform in kits and then build around them, which would be the only real issue. Though honestly, there's nothing gendered about that either as you'd still be able to have regular women along with Brienne of Tarth sized women if you wanted, or just smaller men with larger men, or a mix of all of that, which is always good for options.

Yes like the Cadians, GW has huge scale issues which is common when the model line has no actual scale. However at this scale the difference will be easily noticeable, it's at like 1/100 scale where it stops mattering for things like this.

Most companies will make smaller models for females since it's simply accurate in general.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Just pointing out that when you see female soldiers next to male soldiers there is a huge difference in size and thickness 99% of the time. Without the male soldier in the pictures yes they looks a little less feminine but next to a male soldier they tend to be dwarfed (just like when you look at women on the street etc).

Simple head swaps will make already beefy models look even more ridiculous.

Any serious attempt (even using Male Cadians as a base... shudder) would need their own bodies.

On a side note very few pictures of female soldiers are full body near male so its surprisingly hard to see it, but when you see them in real life the difference is pretty easy to spot.

So ultimately new bodies will be needed if they for whatever reason did some female guardsmen.

See below:

Spoiler:

I would agree with your assessment for Cadian models, but what about Scions. Since the breastplate is particularly large, I think that a female head would not be out of place on that sort of model. Plus the berret always suited women better than men in my opinion. Since women can also be Scions (though male would be much more numerous) What do you think about this scenario? On the downside, Scion just had new models and its unlikely they will be updated in the next three years.

I'm surprised this drivel has been left going do long.

Tl;dr yeh IG need females, no space marines have reasons for not having any females and 3 most of the people who would be offended by this basically get offended by the sun rising in the morning.

Cause at the end of the day it's not the lack of female models, and there's a bunch anyway, but the BO and the awkward staring that does the most. Not everyone is like that of course, but I can assure you it's far more offputting than space marines being male only.

Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

The problem is that the torso has always been a basis for GWs model design as in they design the torso and then build everything to fit that, making everything in a kit interchangeable. Providing different sized torsos in a kit would be a challenge for how their kits work.

Pretend your whole army is Female. Problem solved.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

The title really does say it all as this truly is an irrelevant, non-issue. This is simply a game where we suspend reality while we are playing. Really could care less if my opponent stated that their Space Marine army was all women...it is their army so they can claim whatever they want. We are already suspending reality, so that extra step is meaningless to all but those who live and die by the "lore" of the 40K universe.

As for all of the heads being men, I would disagree as I have met plenty of women with crew cuts, generally masculine features, and who try to make their appearance as masculine as possible. A head does not need long tresses to make it a female head.

Lastly, those who feel that their models just have to have a more feminine appearance can always kit bash with other games' models and/or modify the models themselves. If GW is not giving you what you want then do it yourself.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Not all monks are the same culturally.

Wasn't there a country that had battle monks? I remember seeing it on extra history but the country escapes me.

I want to say japan.
Because japan

So why aren't there female X-Wing pilots, and why isn't that an issue? (there actually originally was one; it was pulled).

Grey Knights, Space Wolves, White Scars, Blood Angels, et. al. are still all "brotherhoods" dedicated and created by the God-Emperor, which is why we tend to think of them as spacefaring battle monks -- the Knights Templar of the future.

Also, it's worthwhile noting that in English, "monk" refers to a male. So a female monk is... uh.. not a monk It would be like looking for the male nuns. And no, Eric Idle in Nuns on the Run doesn't count

People are actually very upset wth the Star Wars line and its...representation of females currently.

Akiasura wrote:
People are actually very upset wth the Star Wars line and its...representation of females currently.

Until every thing in the world is gender/racially equal, someone somewhere will find something to complain about. What about Disney's line of heros? Can males complain about the fact that disney hasn't done a movie with a Male main character.......since Tarzan?

People will find a way to be offended because they are bored. simple as that. sorry to all those I insulted but ohh well

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

There's also the general tone of a profoundly fascist and immoral empire in decline, that exists primarily as a distorted corruption of legions of idealized Nietzschean ubermensches... sexism is built into the whole thematic concept of 40k.

That's not to say you can't have nuanced and non-sexist characterization of women inside of a thematically sexist world -- that's basically Mad Men, right?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

I am just going to laugh at that a little bit

Rey is a Jedi... That's good enough for me.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

I am just going to laugh at that a little bit

Go on...

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

I am just going to laugh at that a little bit

Go on...

They have a merit system of sorts, but you are predetermined to serve in a certain field because you were bred for that field. You have no say about it, even if you happen to be better in another caste. Recent fluff also turned most Tau commanders into Donkey Caves, except Farsight. I believe he was a respectable leader.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

I am just going to laugh at that a little bit

Go on...

They have a merit system of sorts, but you are predetermined to serve in a certain field because you were bred for that field. You have no say about it, even if you happen to be better in another caste. Recent fluff also turned most Tau commanders into Donkey Caves, except Farsight. I believe he was a respectable leader.

They're not at all restricted to their caste, it just happens that because they're raised and bred for it that they generally stay in that class because that's what they specialize in. However, we have Tau like O'vesa who is an Earth Caste but goes onto the battlefield in a Riptide suit, along with any Riptide that has an Earth Caste Pilot Array. Heck, you can even be non-Tau and still advance in the ranks of Tau, living as a full Tau citizen, there are even Gue'vessa on the home planet of T'au just living it up. You also have a lot of say in where you fall in a caste or how you move around the society, characters like Dark Strider or Fireblades are literally characters who decided they wanted to be in a specific part of their caste, and they're fully allowed to be. Again, it's not that they are just given a class and stay in it, it's that the long term breeding has lead them to be extremely specialized, so in almost every case it's rare that they'd be able to transition caste, but we've seen then behave as other castes on occasion, as in the case of O'vesa.

Their generals are fine, Shadowsun is uh-mazing.

well, 1) he spent way to much time complaining about the lack of girl space marines, 2) yeah, its odd that GW doesn't make plastic cadians (barring that female models would ONLY have a different head for it to remain "non sexist" as they would all be in the same armor, and 3) really? of all things to complain about in the world, he chose "no girls in warhammer"?

Beyond that, if you REALLY wanted female models, fething make them or buy 3rd party. This is someone whining for the sake of having something to whine about.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

I am just going to laugh at that a little bit

Go on...

They have a merit system of sorts, but you are predetermined to serve in a certain field because you were bred for that field. You have no say about it, even if you happen to be better in another caste. Recent fluff also turned most Tau commanders into Donkey Caves, except Farsight. I believe he was a respectable leader.

They're not at all restricted to their caste, it just happens that because they're raised and bred for it that they generally stay in that class because that's what they specialize in. However, we have Tau like O'vesa who is an Earth Caste but goes onto the battlefield in a Riptide suit, along with any Riptide that has an Earth Caste Pilot Array. Heck, you can even be non-Tau and still advance in the ranks of Tau, living as a full Tau citizen, there are even Gue'vessa on the home planet of T'au just living it up. You also have a lot of say in where you fall in a caste or how you move around the society, characters like Dark Strider or Fireblades are literally characters who decided they wanted to be in a specific part of their caste, and they're fully allowed to be. Again, it's not that they are just given a class and stay in it, it's that the long term breeding has lead them to be extremely specialized, so in almost every case it's rare that they'd be able to transition caste, but we've seen then behave as other castes on occasion, as in the case of O'vesa.

Their generals are fine, Shadowsun is uh-mazing.

O'vesa is Farsight Enclaves I thought. Didn't Farsight say the Greater Good was a lie?

(also, I think that who ever added the female heads to the new Tau kit needs a promotion. My buddy used to have nothing but the same male head on all his Shas'ui. It was disturbing.)

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

I am just going to laugh at that a little bit

Go on...

They have a merit system of sorts, but you are predetermined to serve in a certain field because you were bred for that field. You have no say about it, even if you happen to be better in another caste. Recent fluff also turned most Tau commanders into Donkey Caves, except Farsight. I believe he was a respectable leader.

They're not at all restricted to their caste, it just happens that because they're raised and bred for it that they generally stay in that class because that's what they specialize in. However, we have Tau like O'vesa who is an Earth Caste but goes onto the battlefield in a Riptide suit, along with any Riptide that has an Earth Caste Pilot Array. Heck, you can even be non-Tau and still advance in the ranks of Tau, living as a full Tau citizen, there are even Gue'vessa on the home planet of T'au just living it up. You also have a lot of say in where you fall in a caste or how you move around the society, characters like Dark Strider or Fireblades are literally characters who decided they wanted to be in a specific part of their caste, and they're fully allowed to be. Again, it's not that they are just given a class and stay in it, it's that the long term breeding has lead them to be extremely specialized, so in almost every case it's rare that they'd be able to transition caste, but we've seen then behave as other castes on occasion, as in the case of O'vesa.

Their generals are fine, Shadowsun is uh-mazing.

O'vesa is Farsight Enclaves I thought. Didn't Farsight say the Greater Good was a lie?

(also, I think that who ever added the female heads to the new Tau kit needs a promotion. My buddy used to have nothing but the same male head on all his Shas'ui. It was disturbing.)

Kind of, sort of, I think it was more that the Ethereals were a lie, and they very much are because at the end of the day they're still very fallible people. Heck, Aun'va was more upset that the FSE was doing well, without his guidance, more than anything else. Just because the Tau are progressive and idealized doesn't mean they are without fault, it just means they show a lot of good qualities. There is no such thing as someone, or some group, that's all good or all bad, everyone and everything will have some amount of flaws.

(Yup, that was a very positive change and it would be nice to make those changes to future guard kits. Though I think it's fine leaving Space Marines all male, and just supporting Sororitos more.)

I honestly wonder what would happen if they made plastic sisters that were modular like Space marines were... The fan base would eat those up.

As someone who enjoyed Sisters when they came out in third edition with a codex, I'd be on board for buying them up.

It's really stupid they don't support Sisters, because frankly they're already just shy of being an amazing army, since all they're missing is just some variety in their units. They have a ton of special weapons, but they're all the same special weapons, they have one of the best special characters, but they're units need some love, they have a great tank, but then no interesting special units.

I mean heck, look at how much discussion there is on here every time a Sisters thread pops up. I think everyone wants more Sisters, they're a fun army. I'm pretty sure everyone here wants female IG heads too, there's no loss to any of this, that's what makes these articles so frustrating, they just undermine the wants of the player base with strange claims of sexism.

Edit: Were sisters around in the 30k? That would be an amazing place to put them for a test run. Plus it would give me that much more reason to pick them up.

 Tinkrr wrote:
As someone who enjoyed Sisters when they came out in third edition with a codex, I'd be on board for buying them up.

It's really stupid they don't support Sisters, because frankly they're already just shy of being an amazing army, since all they're missing is just some variety in their units. They have a ton of special weapons, but they're all the same special weapons, they have one of the best special characters, but they're units need some love, they have a great tank, but then no interesting special units.

I mean heck, look at how much discussion there is on here every time a Sisters thread pops up. I think everyone wants more Sisters, they're a fun army. I'm pretty sure everyone here wants female IG heads too, there's no loss to any of this, that's what makes these articles so frustrating, they just undermine the wants of the player base with strange claims of sexism.

Edit: Were sisters around in the 30k? That would be an amazing place to put them for a test run. Plus it would give me that much more reason to pick them up.

I believe sisters came after words, after Goge Vandire and the Brides of the Emperor. There were Sisters of Silence, an all female army of Culexes assassins.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
As someone who enjoyed Sisters when they came out in third edition with a codex, I'd be on board for buying them up.

It's really stupid they don't support Sisters, because frankly they're already just shy of being an amazing army, since all they're missing is just some variety in their units. They have a ton of special weapons, but they're all the same special weapons, they have one of the best special characters, but they're units need some love, they have a great tank, but then no interesting special units.

I mean heck, look at how much discussion there is on here every time a Sisters thread pops up. I think everyone wants more Sisters, they're a fun army. I'm pretty sure everyone here wants female IG heads too, there's no loss to any of this, that's what makes these articles so frustrating, they just undermine the wants of the player base with strange claims of sexism.

Edit: Were sisters around in the 30k? That would be an amazing place to put them for a test run. Plus it would give me that much more reason to pick them up.

I believe sisters came after words, after Goge Vandire and the Brides of the Emperor. There were Sisters of Silence, an all female army of Culexes assassins.

I wouldn't go that far. they were an all female army of blanks, but no training beyond SoB, and with basically the same equipment.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Or the fact that the Big-E is sexist because dystopian future. Should we have Brothers of Battle? Oh wait... Astartes

Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

The Tau are the idealistic and progressive folks who have a merit based system that has sling shotted them to the top.

The Dark Eldar aren't sexist, but they're sex crazed, they're all about sexuality and the concept of alluring but deadly.

Most other things are genderless and have that whole generic gorilla body thing going on.

I am just going to laugh at that a little bit

Go on...

They have a merit system of sorts, but you are predetermined to serve in a certain field because you were bred for that field. You have no say about it, even if you happen to be better in another caste. Recent fluff also turned most Tau commanders into Donkey Caves, except Farsight. I believe he was a respectable leader.

They're not at all restricted to their caste, it just happens that because they're raised and bred for it that they generally stay in that class because that's what they specialize in. However, we have Tau like O'vesa who is an Earth Caste but goes onto the battlefield in a Riptide suit, along with any Riptide that has an Earth Caste Pilot Array. Heck, you can even be non-Tau and still advance in the ranks of Tau, living as a full Tau citizen, there are even Gue'vessa on the home planet of T'au just living it up. You also have a lot of say in where you fall in a caste or how you move around the society, characters like Dark Strider or Fireblades are literally characters who decided they wanted to be in a specific part of their caste, and they're fully allowed to be. Again, it's not that they are just given a class and stay in it, it's that the long term breeding has lead them to be extremely specialized, so in almost every case it's rare that they'd be able to transition caste, but we've seen then behave as other castes on occasion, as in the case of O'vesa.

Their generals are fine, Shadowsun is uh-mazing.

In the Farsight Enclave which is sort of rebelling against the caste system of the Ethereals' rule, isn't it?

See, that would be pretty cool to see, and could give a lot more identity to the army than melta-flamers. Plus it would be cool to see what they gave an army of blanks back in the past, seeing as even the IG had some rather fancy equipment that outshines a lot of what is around in 40k.

Yeh I really want sisters to have more than just plasma pistols as well. Their close range would work well with something like the plasma caviler while helping them stay away from marines by not just tossing them a plasma gun.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
As someone who enjoyed Sisters when they came out in third edition with a codex, I'd be on board for buying them up.

It's really stupid they don't support Sisters, because frankly they're already just shy of being an amazing army, since all they're missing is just some variety in their units. They have a ton of special weapons, but they're all the same special weapons, they have one of the best special characters, but they're units need some love, they have a great tank, but then no interesting special units.

I mean heck, look at how much discussion there is on here every time a Sisters thread pops up. I think everyone wants more Sisters, they're a fun army. I'm pretty sure everyone here wants female IG heads too, there's no loss to any of this, that's what makes these articles so frustrating, they just undermine the wants of the player base with strange claims of sexism.

Edit: Were sisters around in the 30k? That would be an amazing place to put them for a test run. Plus it would give me that much more reason to pick them up.

I believe sisters came after words, after Goge Vandire and the Brides of the Emperor. There were Sisters of Silence, an all female army of Culexes assassins.

Sisters of Battle WERE the Brides of the Emperor and were the Daughter of the Emperor warrior monastic cult based on a remote low tech agri-world before that.

epronovost wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
As someone who enjoyed Sisters when they came out in third edition with a codex, I'd be on board for buying them up.

It's really stupid they don't support Sisters, because frankly they're already just shy of being an amazing army, since all they're missing is just some variety in their units. They have a ton of special weapons, but they're all the same special weapons, they have one of the best special characters, but they're units need some love, they have a great tank, but then no interesting special units.

I mean heck, look at how much discussion there is on here every time a Sisters thread pops up. I think everyone wants more Sisters, they're a fun army. I'm pretty sure everyone here wants female IG heads too, there's no loss to any of this, that's what makes these articles so frustrating, they just undermine the wants of the player base with strange claims of sexism.

Edit: Were sisters around in the 30k? That would be an amazing place to put them for a test run. Plus it would give me that much more reason to pick them up.

I believe sisters came after words, after Goge Vandire and the Brides of the Emperor. There were Sisters of Silence, an all female army of Culexes assassins.

Sisters of Battle WERE the Brides of the Emperor and were the Daughter of the Emperor warrior monastic cult based on a remote low tech agri-world before that.

Did I say that I absolutely knew that? I said I BELIEVE they were.

 n0t_u wrote:

In the Farsight Enclave which is sort of rebelling against the caste system of the Ethereals' rule, isn't it?

The caste mobility exists more in the FSE than in the Tau Empire, but the choice of position within a caste, and species that aren't Tau within the Tau still exist in the Tau Empire. The Ethereals are the best and worst part of the Tau Empire, they are both a driving force and a restriction for the Tau because they do a lot of good for uniting the Tau and bringing others into the fold, such as the Vespid (no they're not mind controlled), but at the same time they're jealous and want to have absolute control. It's a give and take system.

 n0t_u wrote:
Yeh I really want sisters to have more than just plasma pistols as well. Their close range would work well with something like the plasma caviler while helping them stay away from marines by not just tossing them a plasma gun.

Oh man, dual wielding, fast moving sisters, using special weapon pistols would be uh-mazing and unique. Heck, they could even be melta pistols, wearing angel wing jet packs to move around.

Don't Seraphim get upgrades for Infernus Pistols?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't Seraphim get upgrades for Infernus Pistols?

Infernus Pistol or hand flamers.

They are fast moving since they have Jet Pack, the abilitie to gain the Special Rule Shred on their weapons once per game. They also have hit and run and are generally awesome.

epronovost wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't Seraphim get upgrades for Infernus Pistols?

Infernus Pistol or hand flamers.

I wish marines got that.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't Seraphim get upgrades for Infernus Pistols?

Infernus Pistol or hand flamers.

I wish marines got that.

Unfortunately, they don't have the option to replace all their bolt pistols with those weapons unfortunately. Of course, Marines got better options rule wise, but I must admit that they are amongst the coolest stuff there is. Unfortunately, the models are old (but I look foward to the proxy produced buy Raging Heroes Sister of Mercy line. They have awesome Seraphim look alike.)

I personally don't mind monogendered organizations like the Space Marines or Sisters of Battle. What bothers me is the lack of female representation in factions where they, by all accounts, should be in. The lack of female models, characters and artwork for factions like the Imperial Guard is just sad.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

What makes you think a female space marine would look any different after her skeleton and muscles have been enhanced, she's been pumped full of growth hormones and then any minor differences that are left are hidden beneath power armor? Even without a helmet is a 300 year old, angry, bald, scarred woman going to look especially different?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

What makes you think a female space marine would look any different after her skeleton and muscles have been enhanced, she's been pumped full of growth hormones and then any minor differences that are left are hidden beneath power armor? Even without a helmet is a 300 year old, angry, bald, scarred woman going to look especially different?

Once again that is the argument that the need for realism in a ridiculously unrealistic science fantasy game trumps the need for aesthetically satisfying dramatic representations.

There would be no point having female space marines who looked exactly like male space marines. They need to look something like this:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

What makes you think a female space marine would look any different after her skeleton and muscles have been enhanced, she's been pumped full of growth hormones and then any minor differences that are left are hidden beneath power armor? Even without a helmet is a 300 year old, angry, bald, scarred woman going to look especially different?

Once again that is the argument that the need for realism in a ridiculously unrealistic science fantasy game trumps the need for aesthetically satisfying dramatic representations.

There would be no point having female space marines who looked exactly like male space marines. They need to look something like this:

Realism or not, that's honestly more sexist than just not having female marines :/.

How exactly is it sexist?

Because I'm not sure real women soldiers display their body over armour and safety...

 tau tse tung wrote:
Because I'm not sure real women soldiers display their body over armour and safety...

Nor do real men go into battle wearing half the crap you see space marines wearing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

What makes you think a female space marine would look any different after her skeleton and muscles have been enhanced, she's been pumped full of growth hormones and then any minor differences that are left are hidden beneath power armor? Even without a helmet is a 300 year old, angry, bald, scarred woman going to look especially different?

Once again that is the argument that the need for realism in a ridiculously unrealistic science fantasy game trumps the need for aesthetically satisfying dramatic representations.

There would be no point having female space marines who looked exactly like male space marines. They need to look something like this:

Spoiler:

If that's what female Space Marines are gonna look like, put me on the "I don't want female Space Marines" list

Once again that is the argument that the need for realism in a ridiculously unrealistic science fantasy game trumps the need for aesthetically satisfying dramatic representations.

There would be no point having female space marines who looked exactly like male space marines. They need to look something like this:

Realism or not, that's honestly more sexist than just not having female marines :/.

Why don't we agree on a middle way ladies and gents?

I have scrolled all over this thread and I just wanted to give my opinion on the final question that seems to emerge ; do we need female space marines.

Well, first off, I think lack of females in factions that they should actually be part of is annoying. I'm speaking here about IG, Inquisition perhaps Eldar and so on. Males and females are indiscriminately enrolled among the IG and that's normal since the Imperium needs all the soldiers it can. As it has been said many times across the thread, women die just as well as men when thrown in a meat grinder. This is why we should have women heads in IG kits, either as privates, tank crew or officers, it would just be fluffy, and people disagreeing with that would just have to choose other heads and make up their own fluff to justify their latent sexism. Personnaly, I'm writing my own IG codex, and I try to involve as many women as men, not because I am some kind of SJW, just because I think it strengthen the impression I want to give that every single human in my sector is concerned by the survival of its land. (in my fluff, soldiers of both sex come back after their first tour of duty, just to make new children, and then leave their homeworld as soon as they can to the frontline).

This was kind of a disclaimer to show you I'm not the sexist monster my next argument could let think some actual SJW in this thread. My position is classic :

Space Marines absolutely don't need to include women. They are inspired by Christian military orders of the Middle Age and they have a monk culture that do not include women. That how it is and I don't think mixing gender in that matter would do any good.
As far as I'm concerned, mixing gender is good and necessary when it is fluffy. That is what I tried to say with my IG example. Then, Space Marines have been said to be only men. While SoB have been said to be only women. It is not sexist to refuse women in the Adeptus Astartes, it is not even sexist to say only men can undergo the apprenticeship process. It is just fluff, and changing that would just break what has been done and wrote since thirty years. One can always argue - and with reason - that fluff is just the expression of writers beliefs but the truth is : whether or not it is the case, adding women this day to the Astartes would be clumsy and overwhelming for the universe as a whole. Since thirty years, women have been absent from SM chapters and a path dependency has appeared, meaning no one really want it to change, just because it would be impossible to redone the whole fluff according to this. Or a GW writer could make up the story of the first female-ever joining the Astartes in some.thing.M42 but would it be really credible in an Imperium when dogmas are gold rules and heresy declared on a daily basis?
When this BS article says the Imperium is sexist, like others in this thread, this assertion as strictly no base. As far as I know, no official sources has ever described how women should be let away from combat or command charges.

What is more sexist IMO is completely focusing GW's marketing on these full-of-testosterone guys. By a complex combination between customers' culture, habits, profiles and expectations and designers backgrounds, it happens that Space Marines sell more than SoB and GW knows that. But neglecting this army - even though I think its real popularity is distorted by a few loud people on the Internet - is not nice and they are definitely worth attention.

I would love that they get as much as attention as Astartes, but we know it is not going to happen ; is that because of latent sexism of designers or customers ? or because of sexist marketing policy? I have no idea but please, rather than SJW-ing Space Marines, try to replace sexism where it should be denounced in the Hobby.

TL.DR : Space Marines are male-only but it is not the true problem. I think we should add females where they should be according to the fluff. GW should also stop to always promote SM rather than SoB.

Akiasura wrote:
Wasn't there a country that had battle monks? I remember seeing it on extra history but the country escapes me.

I want to say japan.
Because japan

It's more likely a european one. Templars that is.
Religious to the extreme. Extensive training. Highest quality arms and armor. Never routed - only tactical retreats. Hmmm...sound familliar.

 RazgrizOne wrote:

TL.DR : Space Marines are male-only but it is not the true problem. I think we should add females where they should be according to the fluff. GW should also stop to always promote SM rather than SoB.

This makes far more sense than anything else I've read in this thread so far

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

What makes you think a female space marine would look any different after her skeleton and muscles have been enhanced, she's been pumped full of growth hormones and then any minor differences that are left are hidden beneath power armor? Even without a helmet is a 300 year old, angry, bald, scarred woman going to look especially different?

Once again that is the argument that the need for realism in a ridiculously unrealistic science fantasy game trumps the need for aesthetically satisfying dramatic representations.

There would be no point having female space marines who looked exactly like male space marines. They need to look something like this:

You are presenting a false dilemma where you suggest that they must either look male or ridiculously exaggeratedly feminine. This is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst.

You can damn well make female models that look good. No, they don't have to look realistic, but they should look logical - at least in context.

FFS, your model is more slim than -I- am and I don't wear tank plating.

 jonolikespie wrote:
How exactly is it sexist?

Everything from the sculpt to the pose is a stereotype.

This is coming from someone who thinks the Wyches are fine at that, because while they're revealing they are also very muscular as you'd expect a gladiator to be, it fits into the DE mentality, and their poses are much more dynamic.

I'm not even asking for full realism, just that we don't go with a complete cartoon character if we ever do get female space marines. She honestly reminds me of that game where you're a pop star in space, it was on the dream cast or playstation one.

 Ashiraya wrote:

You are presenting a false dilemma where you suggest that they must either look male or ridiculously exaggeratedly feminine. This is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst.

You can damn well make female models that look good. No, they don't have to look realistic, but they should look logical - at least in context.

FFS, your model is more slim than -I- am and I don't wear tank plating.

Name one thing GW have done recently that looks logical


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
How exactly is it sexist?

Everything from the sculpt to the pose is a stereotype.

So weight on one foot and hand on the hip is a stereotype and being a stereotype makes it sexist?

40k is completely logical in its own context. Consistent, if you will. Not with real life, but with itself.

That abomination isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

So weight on one foot and hand on the hip is a stereotype and being a stereotype makes it sexist?

The pose is horrible but it's a secondary concern to the inexplicably ultrathin armour plating on top of an already too-thin body.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Not all monks are the same culturally.

And so Space Wolves are monk. And that is the reason why they cannot include women. Are you kidding me?

 Talys wrote:
So why aren't there female X-Wing pilots, and why isn't that an issue? (there actually originally was one; it was pulled).

Have you seen the latest Star War movie? Like, for real?
I am pretty sure it involves a bunch of women fighting. Including driving stuff. Actually the main character, and one of the most powerful if not the most powerful, is a woman, and is driving stuff. Sooo…

Belowme wrote:
What about Disney's line of heros? Can males complain about the fact that disney hasn't done a movie with a Male main character.......since Tarzan?

Are you for real? I checked, the last Disney movie with a male main character was released November 25, 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films#2010s
DUH!

Yoyoyo wrote:
There's also the general tone of a profoundly fascist and immoral empire in decline, that exists primarily as a distorted corruption of legions of idealized Nietzschean ubermensches... sexism is built into the whole thematic concept of 40k.

 Tinkrr wrote:
Actually, Big-E is probably not sexist, the people who have taken over since he was basically put into stasis are. Honestly, the whole Imperium of Man is basically supposed to be a backwards, sexist, bigotted place full of corruption and terrible things.

I am going to ask you how sexism is built in 40k. Before you answer, take the time to familiarize yourself with 40k. This is a place where the most powerful individuals, be it Inquisitors or even High Lords, can be, and often are, women. And that has always been the case. It was already the case in 2nd edition.
Tell me one, just ONE bit of official fluff saying that the Imperium is sexist.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
Space Marines absolutely don't need to include women. They are inspired by Christian military orders of the Middle Age and they have a monk culture that do not include women.

That is bs. The marines have a grand total of zero personality by themselves. They are a bland canvas, on which certain themes are then applied for certain chapters. But saying that the Space Wolves or the White Scars are “inspired by Christian military orders of the Middle Age and they have a monk culture” is complete, total bs that nobody will ever take seriously.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
It is just fluff, and changing that would just break what has been done and wrote since thirty years.

What piece of fluff rely on this? Can you name one?

 RazgrizOne wrote:
Since thirty years, women have been absent from SM chapters and a path dependency has appeared, meaning no one really want it to change, just because it would be impossible to redone the whole fluff according to this.

Well, what about all the other stuff that has been added to marines, like thunderbird or firehawk or whatever they named the flyers, centurion armors, grav weapons and all that?

This makes far more sense than anything else I've read in this thread so far

Thank you Sir, but I hardly doubt both sides are even interested in reading the whole wall of text ahah. Still, I would have given my opinion.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
Because I'm not sure real women soldiers display their body over armour and safety...

Nor do real men go into battle wearing half the crap you see space marines wearing.

Swear down space marines at least look a tiny bit logical. Not every woman fighting in a unit with be like a 42DD. That's why I would have have an issue. If they make models like that it will get up the those of the type of people who like to be offended way more than a lack of women.

That is bs. The marines have a grand total of zero personality by themselves. They are a bland canvas, on which certain themes are then applied for certain chapters. But saying that the Space Wolves or the White Scars are “inspired by Christian military orders of the Middle Age and they have a monk culture” is complete, total bs that nobody will ever take seriously.

Just drop your gun and stop being rude please. Your text is disproportionally short and violent regarding the actual amount of arguments I put in my text. Actually, I expected such a thing from you since it has been a while I have noted how superior and despising you were in general. But that's another matter.

That being said, I have to tell you you are wrong :
- may SM novels and pieces of fluff describe the link appearing between Astartes brothers in arms and denying the fact they have strong personal ties is either utterly ignorant or made this the purpose or defending a vision you are the only one to have.

What piece of fluff rely on this? Can you name one?

Nope, I can't, because it is not the point. If you decide to include women, you would have to rework the whole fluff which has been written since 30 years to be consistent. And regarding the recruitment of female recruits, I invite you to read the statement I add in my post before you posted.

Well, what about all the other stuff that has been added to marines, like thunderbird or firehawk or whatever they named the flyers, centurion armors, grav weapons and all that?

That is true, but you are talking about superficial changes in military equipment that have zero equivalence with the rework of the very nature of the Adeptus Astartes.

PS : it is not because people don't agree with you that they are full of BS.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

So weight on one foot and hand on the hip is a stereotype and being a stereotype makes it sexist?

The pose is horrible but it's a secondary concern to the inexplicably ultrathin armour plating on top of an already too-thin body.

So... we beef up the armour a little... and then we are back to looking the same as a male marine?

I'm curious, those people who think that space marine is 'sexist', what is your opinion of this one from Scale 75s Fallen Frontiers line?

http://www.scale75.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=56&product_id=134

@hybrid son of oxy: You do know sexism can still be built into a system despite higher parts of a system not being sexist right? We can have a female president, female senators, and more, but it wouldn't mean that we didn't have sexist institutions within our society.

I know there's been a push to define bigotry as discrimination plus power, but honestly it's just discrimination. It's not an all or nothing system, but rather one that should be looked at in an individual bases.

Or do you believe that a female CEO wouldn't experience any sexism in a rummy dink billy bob joes gun and noose shop, simply because she normally has power?

 RazgrizOne wrote:
Just drop your gun and stop being rude please. Your text is disproportionally short and violent regarding the actual amount of arguments I put in my text.

Okay. I agree with you that making space marines more “just one faction among many” and less “The main focus of the game” would a) make the game much more gender-balanced, especially with female IG release and more female eldars and b) make the game way more enjoyable for me. I just disagree with your argument about how adding female space marines is impossible.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
That being said, I have to tell you you are wrong :
- may SM novels and pieces of fluff describe the link appearing between Astartes brothers in arms and denying the fact they have strong personal ties is either utterly ignorant or made this the purpose or defending a vision you are the only one to have.

I am not sure what you mean. Space Marines can be very, very different. The only Chapter that is undeniably inspired by monks is the dark angels. The black templars are also very religious, but less monk-like. Same for the Word Bearers, that are more crazy prophets than monks. Space wolves are obviously inspired by vikings, and, more and more, by cartoonish wolf stuff. Blood Angels themes are vampires, and Italian Renaissance artists. White Scars are mongols all the way. Ultramarines are inspired by roman legions. World Eaters are crazy berserks, certainly not monks. And then there are a bunch of less well-known, or fan-made chapters with specific themes too. Doom Eagles are depressed marines, …
Some of these themes fit perfectly to have female marines. For instance Space Wolves. Saying that female space marines do not fit because “marines are monks” does not make sense as it ignores the reality of the various chapters. It could work for Dark Angels, though. And since Dark Angels are just “one faction among others”, it would be okay to have them all males…

 RazgrizOne wrote:
That is true, but you are talking about superficial changes in military equipment that have zero equivalence with the rework of the very nature of the Adeptus Astartes.

How does female space marines existing and never having been mentioned in the fluff before invalidates marine fluff (or “change their very nature”) more than grav guns and centurion armor ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

How does female space marines existing and never having been mentioned in the fluff before invalidates marine fluff (or “change their very nature”) more than grav guns and centurion armor ?

I don't know about anyone else here but I personally hate the introduction of grav guns and centurions. That kinda crap is killing my interest in the setting long after I lost interest in the game itself.

 Tinkrr wrote:
Or do you believe that a female CEO wouldn't experience any sexism in a rummy dink billy bob joes gun and noose shop, simply because she normally has power?

Sure. In 40k, this translate as some planets being sexists. And given what the fluff tells us about the variety of cultures in 40k, you'll likely have very sexist patriarchal societies, societies with no sexism at all, and even matriarchal cultures. However, what matters here is why space marines are all males. GW has always said that this was a result of the magitech involved in creating the marines, and has never depicted those in charge of deciding who will be recruited as a marine as sexist. So I do not see what you base your point on…

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

So weight on one foot and hand on the hip is a stereotype and being a stereotype makes it sexist?

The pose is horrible but it's a secondary concern to the inexplicably ultrathin armour plating on top of an already too-thin body.

So... we beef up the armour a little... and then we are back to looking the same as a male marine?

Only if you have incompetent sculptors who can only make armour look two ways. Again, false dilemma.

I'm curious, those people who think that space marine is 'sexist', what is your opinion of this one from Scale 75s Fallen Frontiers line?

http://www.scale75.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=56&product_id=134

That it is an improvement. It still has boobplate (why on earth does it have boobplate?), the tits'n'ass pose is ugh and it is generally far from the mark but it's at least better...

 Tinkrr wrote:
@hybrid son of oxy: You do know sexism can still be built into a system despite higher parts of a system not being sexist right? We can have a female president, female senators, and more, but it wouldn't mean that we didn't have sexist institutions within our society.

Thanks, that's what I meant. The Astartes are not a progressive institution, they are ideological rather than practical. As are the Sisters, incidentally. The Imperium's policies are intentionally stagnant, they are not about to reorganize anything. The exception is the more intelligent and free-thinking heroes we see, who are a minority. I read a bit of Dan Abnett's work and he represents women well, and took that to writing Guardians of the Galaxy. I'm not so interested in the 40k pseudo-science but most conservative organizations don't change until they have no other choice. And a big part of the grimdark theme is how dysfunctional and regressive the Imperium is politically, it's bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. The IG is our point of human reference, they are less ideological and more practical, so of course you'd see mixed gender regiments.

To be more positive I liked the female minis from Hasslefree a lot. I want to do a mixed gender force for an XCOM-inspired Stormtrooper+Psyker skirmish army.

@Hybrid

Some of these themes fit perfectly to have female marines. For instance Space Wolves. Saying that female space marines do not fit because “marines are monks” does not make sense as it ignores the reality of the various chapters. It could work for Dark Angels, though. And since Dark Angels are just “one faction among others”, it would be okay to have them all males…

What I mean by monk culture is that, even if SM have very different cultures, they are all based on the same idea: a small group of chosen warriors, tied by strong religious beliefs and driven by the fact they have to fight to defend their faith. In their very nature, they are inspired by military orders of the old Christianity. Middle age and gothic references are deeply rooted in any SM chapter; we tend to focus on special aspect like Space Mongols or Viking perhaps because we have such a good knowledge of the fluff we forget their basic inspiration.

However, what matters here is why space marines are all males. GW has always said that this was a result of the magitech involved in creating the marines, and has never depicted those in charge of deciding who will be recruited as a marine as sexist.

That being said, I really don"t think the only-man thing with SM chapters is the true problem. I think it is you who have a problem with an all-man thing.
I mean, do people always try to force men in SoB orders in the name of sexism? Why nobody want to put men into the Sororitas (except the fact that they don't draw many attention conversely to SM) ?
The answer is exactly the same : GW has said that, because a civil war between humans in a weird Galactic empire, women shall always serve the Ecclesiarchy. Ok, that's the fluff, that's an extra-universe explication that is the expression of some writers beliefs (and backgrounds and so on, we know the song) and thus is rooted in something else than in-verse reasons.
SM are strictly no different. I feel your criticism is just explained by the fact SM are men and they are way way more prestigious than SoB in the current meta (lorewise and crunchwise), so you decided to turn your guns on them, and on anybody standing before.
One could have done exactly the same with Sisters. But they don't because they like 40k and its universe. SM are not intrinsically sexist even though they are over-manly.

It is how and for who they are directed that is - perhaps - sexist. GW policy and inner culture maybe sexist but that's all.

My two cents.

These are conversions, but just the kind of model I'd approve of. If SoB had looked like this I would probably have played them.



Smack on that SoB helmet (the only part of GW SoB models that I like) and you have yourself some reeeeeally cool models who really look like they deserve that 3+!

 RazgrizOne wrote:
TL.DR : Space Marines are male-only but it is not the true problem. I think we should add females where they should be according to the fluff. GW should also stop to always promote SM rather than SoB.

I agree with this.

Not having female SM isn't the main problem, it's a tangent that is distracting and often detrimental to the discussion as a whole.

Does it really even matter if there are female SM? By the time you make a female into an SM, you could hardly call it a female considering how much testosterone is in their system.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The Imperium's policies are intentionally stagnant, they are not about to reorganize anything.

I don't think anyone is asking for plot advancement here, just for a ret-con, so this is off-topic.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
What I mean by monk culture is that, even if SM have very different cultures, they are all based on the same idea: a small group of chosen warriors, tied by strong religious beliefs and driven by the fact they have to fight to defend their faith. In their very nature, they are inspired by military orders of the old Christianity. Middle age and gothic references are deeply rooted in any SM chapter; we tend to focus on special aspect like Space Mongols or Viking perhaps because we have such a good knowledge of the fluff we forget their basic inspiration.

I disagree with the religious and faith part. That is certainly not true for every chapter. I also disagree that “A small band of chosen warrior, tied by strong believes” is something specific to “the military orders of the old Christianity”. I even disagree with the fact that “small band of chosen warrior, tied by strong believes” implies no women…

 RazgrizOne wrote:
That being said, I really don"t think the only-man thing with SM chapters is the true problem. I think it is you who have a problem with an all-man thing.

That… well, that's what I said, yes.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
I mean, do people always try to force men in SoB orders in the name of sexism? Why nobody want to put men into the Sororitas (except the fact that they don't draw many attention conversely to SM) ?

Along with the answers you are already giving out yourself, there is the fact that with the current codex, you can make a “Sisters of battle” army with a male HQ, male Elite choices, and male Heavy support. There used to be male troops too.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
SM are strictly no different. I feel your criticism is just explained by the fact SM are men and they are way way more prestigious than SoB in the current meta (lorewise and crunchwise), so you decided to turn your guns on them, and on anybody standing before.

Just swap “prestigious” with something like “focused on” or “receiving attention” and that's spot on.

 Ashiraya wrote:
These are conversions, but just the kind of model I'd approve of. If SoB had looked like this I would probably have played them.

You playing SoB? Would that not make the universe collapse on itself? Also, would you not reroll every single successful to-wound roll to make sure the game is “fluff-accurate” and no marine dies ?

I would be a SoB fan if their models were not

Ancient
Metal
Overpriced
And looking bad in general.

The author) should be forced to work in uranium mines instead of writing theese kind of topics. One uranium mine worker makes better good than those gender/race/religion/whatever activists all together.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I would be a SoB fan if their models were not

Ancient
Metal
Overpriced
And looking bad in general.

What about their fluff? You did not seem to like it either…

@Hybrid

I disagree with the religious and faith part. That is certainly not true for every chapter. I also disagree that “A small band of chosen warrior, tied by strong believes” is something specific to “the military orders of the old Christianity”. I even disagree with the fact that “small band of chosen warrior, tied by strong believes” implies no women…

You can't understand how SM chapters basically work and why they have been created. It is then not very surprising you are trying to impose unnecessary tweaks on their fluff?

Along with the answers you are already giving out yourself, there is the fact that with the current codex, you can make a “Sisters of battle” army with a male HQ, male Elite choices, and male Heavy support. There used to be male troops too.

You know perfectly well what I meant : no men would never be inducted in regular Sororitas infantry units. If you like, we could add brainless female servitors or serfs to SM chapters so they would be the perfect mirror of SoB orders in terms of task repartition?

So... double standard? Or jealousy of SM getting the whole attention perhaps?

That… well, that's what I said, yes.

And I would say it is badly directed since I argue male SM are not the problem. Your concern would be more usefully used on actual topics, like female IG.

I don't think anyone is asking for plot advancement here, just for a ret-con,

We are touching what you really imply: a full retcon of the most iconic soldiers of 40k.... just in the name of a corrupted view of SJW and regardless of the many other ways female presence could be better taken in account in many other armies.

I am sad for you that you see the Astartes as the temple of the phallocracy. Retcon and then impose new justice... It does sounds familiar does it?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the bloated unrealistic proportions of the Cadian figures it would be very easy to make more feminine looking figures for Cadians.

It could also be done with Space Marines.

What makes you think a female space marine would look any different after her skeleton and muscles have been enhanced, she's been pumped full of growth hormones and then any minor differences that are left are hidden beneath power armor? Even without a helmet is a 300 year old, angry, bald, scarred woman going to look especially different?

Once again that is the argument that the need for realism in a ridiculously unrealistic science fantasy game trumps the need for aesthetically satisfying dramatic representations.

There would be no point having female space marines who looked exactly like male space marines. They need to look something like this:

There are plenty of people that would describe that model as overly sexualized and therefore sexist.

Does the game need not to have female space marines? That is the question for people to ask themselves.

It was the Japanese who had actual warrior monks, that is to say, they were members of actual temples, took vows, and so on. The Templars were one of the Crusader military orders, who had monk-like vows and devotions. There isn't necessarily a great deal of difference between these two examples.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
You can't understand how SM chapters basically work and why they have been created.

Uh? No argumentation?

 RazgrizOne wrote:
If you like, we could add brainless female servitors or serfs to SM chapters so they would be the perfect mirror of SoB orders in terms of task repartition?

Priests are equivalent to servitors and serfs? That guy looks like a serf to you? Yeh what mate?
My point was that there is no shortage of male models, even in the Sisters of Battle codex.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
So... double standard?

Oh, you noticed! You noticed that Sisters have not received a single new model for more than a decade while marines have too many to count. And books, and video games, and new rules, and all this have the same bias. You also noticed how outside of Marines, there was enormously more male models than female models. And now you are denouncing those double standards, and agreeing with me, right?
Or are you saying that two completely different situations should be treated the same way because else it's “double standard”?

 RazgrizOne wrote:
We are touching what you really imply: a full retcon of the most iconic soldiers of 40k....

This happens basically every new Marine codex, and those happens a lot, so…

 RazgrizOne wrote:
just in the name of a corrupted view of SJW

Corrupted! Whooohooo I'm scary I am chaos now I will corrupt you with my tentacles!

 RazgrizOne wrote:
and regardless of the many other ways female presence could be better taken in account in many other armies.

Hmm, what? Remember, I wrote that:
Okay. I agree with you that making space marines more “just one faction among many” and less “The main focus of the game” would a) make the game much more gender-balanced, especially with female IG release and more female eldars and b) make the game way more enjoyable for me. I just disagree with your argument about how adding female space marines is impossible.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
It does sounds familiar does it?

Well, no it does not, but please enlighten me.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I would be a SoB fan if their models were not

Ancient
Metal
Overpriced
And looking bad in general.

What about their fluff? You did not seem to like it either…

It's pretty braindead but it's at least salvageable.

So you would like Sisters of Battle if they changed the models, the fluff, and what else? The rules?
Basically if they changed literally everything, I guess .

@Hybrid

Oh, you noticed! You noticed that Sisters have not received a single new model for more than a decade while marines have too many to count. And books, and video games, and new rules, and all this have the same bias. You also noticed how outside of Marines, there was enormously more male models than female models. And now you are denouncing those double standards, and agreeing with me, right?

Yep I have noticed. I have also noticed that it is such a great source of frustration to you that you have to make up ad-hoc reasons to explain that. You chose sexism and thus assault the SM chapters, regardless of the actual relevance of doing so. Maybe it is not sexism, maybe just the fact that your army is not that much popular among players.

I don't know but you seems very upset about this.

PS : quoting very small parts of other people's arguments to mock them, out of any context, is not how we debate. Just sayin. I know it's just how you do, but it does not serve your point well.

I would definitely like to see an even split, genderwise, on the Cadian sprues at least since the models in no way represent the fluff.

I wouldn't have a problem with female space marines but it really would just be head swaps anyway.

Also, I didn't think the article was that bad and if the idea of wanting to see more inclusivity in a tabletop game makes you want to send the author of the article to a uranium mine or go on a long dissertation about how space marines who can spit acid and have 2 hearts can't be women because science reasons, maybe you have some unaddressed issues beyond the scope of this forum

I did not “assault the SM chapters”. I said your argument for saying they should never be retconned to include women were pretty weak. I also said that I would prefer it if they would actually make them just one faction in the game and keep them only male rather than make them the big star of the show as they are now and making them having both men and women. But your arguments for how they should never be mixed-gender are still pretty weak.
This time I did not quote you at all. Was that better?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I did not “assault the SM chapters”. I said your argument for saying they should never be retconned to include women were pretty weak. I also said that I would prefer it if they would actually make them just one faction in the game and keep them only male rather than make them the big star of the show as they are now and making them having both men and women. But your arguments for how they should never be mixed-gender are still pretty weak.
This time I did not quote you at all. Was that better?

The whole point is, does it even matter? You are arguing why women should be beefed up on steroids to fight the Grimdarkness of the 41st millenium. These are plastic models. Does everything need to be politically correct at the end of the day? All it does is create stupid arguments like this one that have the productivity of a monkey banging his head into a typewriter.

Yes that was better, thanks for putting the forms.

After this text battle, the matter is "do we just have the right to have non-mixed army?" I'd argue that if it is justified by any fluff of any kind and as long as every faction get the same treatment by GeeDubs, it's totally fine.

SoB are one gender due to [insert reason]. SM are one gender because of [insert reason]. Is that such a big deal?

Disparity in treatment is the problem, not the fact that SM are male-only. But I have already said that. Regarding my arguments they may be weak, but they are mostly inspired by fluff. GW told you women can't withstand marine-ing process. That's pretty weak, but it is still canon.

Now we're arguing in circle I guess.

The whole point is, does it even matter? You are arguing why women should be beefed up on steroids to fight the Grimdarkness of the 41st millenium. These are plastic models. Does everything need to be politically correct at the end of the day? All it does is create stupid arguments like this one that have the productivity of a monkey banging his head into a typewriter.

Pretty much my point!

Does everything have to be PC?

Maybe not, but ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you not to have female soldiers in 40K. What skin is it off your nose if my daughter can have a box of lovely lady soldier figures to play with?

As for female marines, the situation could be easily addressed by discovering the two missing Primarchs are women, sent by the Emporer on a long-distance secret mission to the Magellanic Clouds, and are now returning with the secret of how to fight Tyranids.

The thing about only men being possible to convert into SMs is merely a transcription error in the instructions, perpetuated by religious fervour and technical ignorance for thousands of years in the Imperial core.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Sexymarines. Maybe if not for a...crotch crack (?)...it'd be fine.

Anywayz, space marines are represented extremely manly. That's kinda sexism towards men too. But that's how stuff works. In fantasy setting men are supposed to be manly and women are supposed to be sexy. I mean look at DnD characters. Haven't seen many ugly characters out there. At least >90% females are hot. Aren't they supposed to be living good life of ordinary handsome people, produce healthy kids and do stuff like that? Nope, obviously all hotties throw themselves headfirst into dark dungeons.

@RazgrizOne

My only issue with female Space Marines is that if they did existed, why would we need to keep the SoB? We might just as well turn them in a special Space Marine chapter that just turned out to be made only of women. It would solve a lot issue.

That mentionned, I don't think female Space Marine are necessary for a more gender equal 40K line and fluff. That said, I also don't think the current existence of the Sisters of Battle female only group compensate properly for the fact that Space Marines are all men. It would be like saying that there is no sexism issue in the superhero movie genre because Black Widow is cool. Sure, she's cool and the other guys are cool too and we don't want them to be gone, but a single cool female second string character isn't gender equality not even close. This is what we call tokenism. Expose and publicise the very small minority allowed in your group to discredit any critique on the ground of sexism/racism. People use the same strategy to defend the fact that transcontinental slavery wasn't racist because some black men did owned slaves.

Female Space Marines would be an avenue for more gender equality in our medium, but this isn't the one I would favor. I would much rather see the Sisterhood grow in attention, the addition of female models and character in both the Scions and the regular guard, the addition of a few notable female character in the Necron cast and Adeptus Mechanicus (who are overwhelmingly protrayed as men even if their actual gender is gone). I am very happy with the Tau line who did an excellent job at gender equality. The eldars, being elves, were always the niche place to find women because eldar chick are hot and can serve both as eye candy and good female characters should the need arise so their gender representation (which still favor men rather strongly) was expected.

Considering the place this hobby has in my life and probably in the life of many of you, I wouldn't call this an irrelevant issue at all. I would like my main form of entertainment to be more respectful and inclusive when it comes to women (and races and culture, but that's more tricky and easier to find a work around). Popular entertainment also has a massive importance in the way we perceive the world and those that surround us. Yes, more women inclusion would help reduce in conjonction with many other things (mainly more education) sexual stereotypes and sexism in the nerd community and this is a thing that is very important thing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What skin is it off your nose if my daughter can have a box of lovely lady soldier figures to play with?

Its not really the skin off my nose, its more the arm and leg I would have paid for those lady soldiers.

Does everything have to be PC?

Maybe not, but ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you not to have female soldiers in 40K. What skin is it off your nose if my daughter can have a box of lovely lady soldier figures to play with?

The fact that little girls would play with ladies soldiers rather than man soldiers is kind of invalidating your discourse by putting prejudice in it, don't you think? I mean, maybe a 12 years old girl would walk into a GW and totally love current SM iconography and fluff, while being not that much appealed by a mixed chapter?

Individuals could have a million reaction and tastes. And this is why I think standardize every single little plastic soldier for the sake of a valid conception (gender equality) is just irrelevant.

@epronovost

My only issue with female Space Marines is that if they did existed, why would we need to keep the SoB? We might just as well turn them in a special Space Marine chapter that just turned out to be made only of women. It would solve a lot issue.

That mentionned, I don't think female Space Marine are necessary for a more gender equal 40K line and fluff. That said, I also don't think the current existence of the Sisters of Battle female only group compensate properly for the fact that Space Marines are all men. It would be like saying that there is no sexism issue in the superhero movie genre because Black Widow is cool. Sure, she's cool and the other guys are cool too and we don't want them to be gone, but a single cool female second string character isn't gender equality not even close. This is what we call tokenism. Expose and publicise the very small minority allowed in your group to discredit any critique on the ground of sexism/racism. People use the same strategy to defend the fact that transcontinental slavery wasn't racist because some black men did owned slaves.

Female Space Marines would be an avenue for more gender equality in our medium, but this isn't the one I would favor. I would much rather see the Sisterhood grow in attention, the addition of female models and character in both the Scions and the regular guard, the addition of a few notable female character in the Necron cast and Adeptus Mechanicus (who are overwhelmingly protrayed as men even if their actual gender is gone). I am very happy with the Tau line who did an excellent job at gender equality. The eldars, being elves, were always the niche place to find women because eldar chick are hot and can serve both as eye candy and good female characters should the need arise so their gender representation (which still favor men rather strongly) was expected.

Considering the place this hobby has in my life and probably in the life of many of you, I wouldn't call this an irrelevant issue at all. I would like my main form of entertainment to be more respectful and inclusive when it comes to women (and races and culture, but that's more tricky and easier to find a work around). Popular entertainment is also has a massive importance in the way we perceive the world and those that surround us. Yes, more women inclusion would help reduce in conjonction with many other things (mainly more education) sexual stereotypes and sexism in the nerd community.

You Sir has filled the holes in what I wanted to say.

I did my best to avoid token comparisons, I know how stupid they can be.