I was thinking about it, and looking at the sprue for a Cadian box, and a thought occured to me. How well do you think a single clam pack upgrade of female faces and torsos would sell?
It wouldnt. Because buying a exlsive clam pack for cosmetics that dont even distiguish youe army as being a part of a different sub faction is unlikely to be worth its high cost.
They need to just add some female torsos and heads into a uodated box of the basic kit.
There are plenty of 3rd party companies making resin female IG heads, so it obviously makes some money. I'm not sure if it makes enough money for a plastic mold.
I'm hoping that they release one or more new* plastic regiments, and that there are plenty of female models in them. I would guess there would be a pretty big demand for them. I've just been buying LRBTs and not infantry for the past couple years because I don't want any more of the current infantry.
*New in the sense of models. New plastic versions of classic Regiments would definitely be welcome.
My intuition tells me that it wouldn't do at least as well as some of the Forgeworld Chapter Upgrade packs. However, considering that they've been cancelling a bunch of those recently, that also tells me that this is "not enough" sales for GW to want to do it. I'm with Lance - I think female Guardsmen should just be a part of the regular sprue. I'm eternally hopeful that the next time they release a Guardsman sprue, they just throw in the female guardsmen at that time. Female guardsmen have become an increasingly large part of the fluff, and I'd love to see the men and women of the Astra Militarum fighting the nightmares of the 41st millennium side by side.
Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
Nah, you can totally just ignore people who say ridiculous things like that.
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
Nah, you can totally just ignore people who say ridiculous things like that.
Yeah, I agree with meleti. The number of people who would call them sexist for most of the above things would likely be inconsequential.
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
The only winning move is not to play.
I've been using IG made from Victoria Miniature bits, and have had no real issues from anyone about any of these, particularly the last three you listed. Hell, even the club's resident feminist thought they were cool, and had no issues with shooting at them.
To be honest I'd much rather like to see full kits or upgrade sprues for valhallans, mordians, armageddons, vostroyans and tallarns. Mind you they can have any variation of men and women in them for all I care.
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
The only winning move is not to play.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny, but if not, I think you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding either of what sexism *is*, or the reasons why people take issue with it.
Arachnofiend wrote: BaconCatBug has a nasty habit of only posting things that are wrong, you'd be best off ignoring him.
There's obviously a market for female guardsmen models since third parties with much less capital than GW are making a profit off of them.
While there is a market we don't know if there's enough demand to justify the outlay of molds for plastic. The most likely outcome is that they'll just add additional torsos and heads to give people the option to make some female guard if they redo the existing kit. It is possible that if there's enough visible demand forge world might do some sort of upgrade kit though. But unless GW is sure it's going to make considerable profit they won't bother with making new molds unless they were already making a new kit. They'd be less concerned over the vocal minorities praising or condemning them about releasing female guard than they would be the projected profits.
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
The only winning move is not to play.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny, but if not, I think you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding either of what sexism *is*, or the reasons why people take issue with it.
Yeah not like the far left ever do stuff like this, I mean you'd never see a woman driven away from a movie for not being trans...
This is exactly the kind of response they'd get, fekke sake look at peta and their stupid complaints about plastic fur on sisters.
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
The only winning move is not to play.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny, but if not, I think you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding either of what sexism *is*, or the reasons why people take issue with it.
Yeah not like the far left ever do stuff like this, I mean you'd never see a woman driven away from a movie for not being trans...
This is exactly the kind of response they'd get, fekke sake look at peta and their stupid complaints about plastic fur on sisters.
The mad men, they actually did it. I thought it was just a joke around my store.
They could put female or female looking models in to starter sets. With snap fit models it is way easier to add stuff to a model range. A full box of female IG would have to to have some really powerful rules to beat out catachans.
Since woman look functionally the same in PPE it would be pointless as a singular sprue, no long hair, no defining feature other than height, the webbing breaks up the hips so you can’t even see that, so unless people want an exaggerated version of woman so it’s noticable on a 28mm mini, I don’t see the point.
Now a few heads thrown onto the existing sprue with no helm could work.
please do not attach non wargaming images to dakka.
Reds8n
Karol wrote: They could put female or female looking models in to starter sets. With snap fit models it is way easier to add stuff to a model range. A full box of female IG would have to to have some really powerful rules to beat out catachans.
Well see now you've just got me wanting a box of female Catachans.
Wouldn't the models be been kind of a sexist. The old catachans look like what like avarge people that rule on a beach look like as far as men go. For female catachans they would have to go all out roid monster, or something like that.
They'd sell very well initially and then plateau to ok. I suppose like most kits!
There's be some people making all female Guard armies but they would be the minority. Quite a lot of people would buy a kit to sprinkle through an existing army though.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't the models be been kind of a sexist. The old catachans look like what like avarge people that rule on a beach look like as far as men go. For female catachans they would have to go all out roid monster, or something like that.
depends how you interpret them. Catachans have long been said to be essentially visually based off "80s action heros" it might be a challanfge to do that with women though, but generally speaking female action heros teeeeeend not to be as ripped as male ones.
vaklor4 wrote:I was thinking about it, and looking at the sprue for a Cadian box, and a thought occured to me. How well do you think a single clam pack upgrade of female faces and torsos would sell?
As a single clampack with a head and a torso, probably not well, as a stopgap "upgrade sprue" compatible with all the human sized characters? I can see that. After all, if it fits say Tempestus Scions, it means just a little work makes it fit a Cadian, or a Genestealer Neophyte, etc. I know I have spent a decent amount of money on just getting nice looking female heads for my guard (I used some heads from the Dreamforge Panzerjager box, and bought a whole bunch of heads from Statuesque).
Lance845 wrote:It wouldnt. Because buying a exlsive clam pack for cosmetics that dont even distiguish youe army as being a part of a different sub faction is unlikely to be worth its high cost.
They need to just add some female torsos and heads into a uodated box of the basic kit.
For a person in combat gear, you really don't even need to go so far as torsos - maybe if they are adding a female Catachan, but otherwise just a number of heads would work. I wouldn't say no to it mind you, but I'd personally rather 20+ unique looking heads over 10 heads and 10 torsos.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:To be honest I'd much rather like to see full kits or upgrade sprues for valhallans, mordians, armageddons, vostroyans and tallarns. Mind you they can have any variation of men and women in them for all I care.
Of those, only Mordian would really even need much beyond a headswap to make it female - Valhallans, Steel Legion, Vostroyan, and Tallan all have fairly bulky clothing on that would hide the features all but the most women. Mordian though, they would need unique female torsos do to the specially tailored clothing aesthetic they have.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't the models be been kind of a sexist. The old catachans look like what like avarge people that rule on a beach look like as far as men go. For female catachans they would have to go all out roid monster, or something like that.
depends how you interpret them. Catachans have long been said to be essentially visually based off "80s action heros" it might be a challanfge to do that with women though, but generally speaking female action heros teeeeeend not to be as ripped as male ones.
I'm imagining an entire squad of Ellen Ripleys, basically.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't the models be been kind of a sexist. The old catachans look like what like avarge people that rule on a beach look like as far as men go. For female catachans they would have to go all out roid monster, or something like that.
depends how you interpret them. Catachans have long been said to be essentially visually based off "80s action heros" it might be a challanfge to do that with women though, but generally speaking female action heros teeeeeend not to be as ripped as male ones.
I'm imagining an entire squad of Ellen Ripleys, basically.
they could introduce them in an expansion to Space Hulk
Considering that some people do go out and buy female heads to supplement their guardsmen (myself included), I think there's definitely a market for GW to do it.
Wow, page two and only three or four posts dipping into political ideals that no one wants to read or hear on a message board for tiny plastic soldiers.
I doubt the inclusion of female soldiers in SOME regiments (penal legions) but I think its a sensible option to add to the base box. I dont think a seperate upgrade pack would warrant the cost in plastic.
Table wrote: Wow, page two and only three or four posts dipping into political ideals that no one wants to read or hear on a message board for tiny plastic soldiers.
I doubt the inclusion of female soldiers in SOME regiments (penal legions) but I think its a sensible option to add to the base box. I dont think a seperate upgrade pack would warrant the cost in plastic.
You're kind of politicising it by calling it political :p
But yeah, I agree with that suggestion. Guard could do with new infantry models anyway, and it really is just a few new heads that's needed. Catachan's probably torsos too, but it's really not necessary for the other regiments.
The Van Saar box has a couple of subtle female torsos. Of course, they wear body gloves defined to the shape of their bodies, which flak armour doesn't do. It's probably not much worth defining the differences if they wear helmets and for just faces it's going to depend how easily they can define them
I think the closest think to dedicated female Guards(wo)men would be clampack releases for generic characters. For example, a plastic Primaris Psyker who so happened to be a woman, etc.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't the models be been kind of a sexist. The old catachans look like what like avarge people that rule on a beach look like as far as men go. For female catachans they would have to go all out roid monster, or something like that.
There is a third party that makes a squad of female catachans including a couple that are wearing nothing under an open vest - just like the male models from GW...
I think the closest think to dedicated female Guards(wo)men would be clampack releases for generic characters. For example, a plastic Primaris Psyker who so happened to be a woman, etc.
That is a good idea. A female enginseer would be good as well (and good to have an alternate one in a different pose regardless).
That'd be a way for GW to test the water and they don't interfere with any regimental fluff so could be used with any regiment.
I don't think there's any reason to produce a box of solely female Guardsmen, as it's likely they'd sell far less than a normal boxed squad. It wouldn't be some huge-seller for GW, but just another SKU to store.
GW will be redoing IG at some point, and they'll probably just throw in a few female heads into the new sprues. That's the smartest and safest way to appease the people who desperately want female guardsmen.
I played Dark Eldar, once upon a time, and I liked that there were men and women models on the sprues.
I'd love to see a few men and women models on a Cadian sprue. It has been noted that modern PPE doesn't really accentuate the female form, but then you've got sisters in boob-plate... so you could have boob-flak too, I suppose.
I'd be happy with a subtle change, like a couple feminine faces inside the helmets, and maybe a helmetless sergeant model with a woman's head as an option to the man's head with the headset.
hobojebus wrote: Well it's established fluff they don't have mixed regiments for obvious reasons, months on a transport with limited entertainment...
Literally the opposite is true, Yes, most regiments are male only, but there are female only regiments and mixed regiments as well. Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, is attached to a mixed regiment formed by amalgamating two decimated regiments, one all male, one all female.
greatbigtree wrote: I played Dark Eldar, once upon a time, and I liked that there were men and women models on the sprues.
I'd love to see a few men and women models on a Cadian sprue. It has been noted that modern PPE doesn't really accentuate the female form, but then you've got sisters in boob-plate... so you could have boob-flak too, I suppose.
I'd be happy with a subtle change, like a couple feminine faces inside the helmets, and maybe a helmetless sergeant model with a woman's head as an option to the man's head with the headset.
I agree that for the regiments with armor, heavy clothes and/or web gear I'd rather see something pretty subtle like what you're describing. Heck, while I want there to be female gaurdsmen for regiments like the Armageddon Steel Legion or the DKoK I don't think they should attempt gendered models because they would all look the same at 28mm.
If they came out with a new Mordian/Praetorian box then I could see there being different torsos, but it would probably still be hard to tell unless one looked closely.
I really hope they don't do boob flakk. I don't get enraged by boob plate. It's stupid, but the whole game is pretty silly. On the female Stormcasts it fits with the muscle armor aesthetic. On Sisters of Battle it sort of makes sense for ceremonial purposes. On most Imperial Guard though I don't think they should do it. It would be nice if most of the female soldiers in 40k weren't running around in high heels with metal boobs.
This is another reason why I think GW can't win in this situation. If they over-emphasize the female form, they're sexist, blah blah blah. If they don't accentuate the female form they're not trying hard enough or the group who wants accentuated female features will be disappointed/whining, etc.
The aftermarket selection of excellent female heads also makes it less important for GW to produce defined female guard models. Wearing common flak gear, a female model is a simple head-swap away. I've done it for my Eldar without any fuss. Whatever route GW goes, the same small vocal minority will be upset (one side or the other).
I think Victoria Miniatures have perfect examples of how to sculpt guardswomen who are still recognisably female without over-emphasising the feminine attributes. So it can be done.
So i'm kind of hearing a mix of both. Some people say a clam pack of heads (and I agree in retrospect torsos arent needed) isnt enough, but from a cost perspective it would probably be FAR easier to just release a smaller batch of heads on a single sprue, like the upgrade kits but just heads. You could easily get 10 or even 20 heads in it. Only issue is, they'd have to find a way to make it cost productive, so it might be far too expensive to release on its own.
Lance845 wrote: It wouldnt. Because buying a exlsive clam pack for cosmetics that dont even distiguish youe army as being a part of a different sub faction is unlikely to be worth its high cost.
They need to just add some female torsos and heads into a uodated box of the basic kit.
This. IG badly need a re-release of the basic infantry kits, they are extremely dated, limited and compared to almost all infantry kits GW released in the last 10 years the models look extremely derpy (not to mention that the kit only has like 5 unique heads, so you'll end up with a ton of clones no matter how many heads from different kits you are desperately adding) with god awful body proportions even by 40k standards.
Throwing in 2-3 extra female heads is easy, just like with the Tau Fire Warrior kit (and also welcome, you can't have too much variety especially for the sargeants). Throw in two or three extra torsos as well for the Catachan kit, with the regular Catachan jacket and all ripped and wearing a military sport bra or the white shirt they have been using so far:
vaklor4 wrote: So i'm kind of hearing a mix of both. Some people say a clam pack of heads (and I agree in retrospect torsos arent needed) isnt enough, but from a cost perspective it would probably be FAR easier to just release a smaller batch of heads on a single sprue, like the upgrade kits but just heads. You could easily get 10 or even 20 heads in it. Only issue is, they'd have to find a way to make it cost productive, so it might be far too expensive to release on its own.
One way might be to just introduce a new regiment, whose armor would allow for better defined armor and make that the "Standard guard kit" as others have said we're about due a new guard kit and well.. Cadia's gone. It could be as simple as a rtegiment that wears kilts/skirts. thus allowing some defined leg, one way or another to be shown.
You need Guard Players.
Guard Players who are going to get more infantry.
Guard Players who need more infantry and are willing to pay more for female heads/torsos.
New regiment gets my vote - although I fear that means it won't happen any time soon.
From the title I genuinely thought this would be a question around equal pay for all Guardspeople who serve the Astra Militarum
To answer the question I don't think it would sell incredibly well because it's a niche within a niche. You've first got to be an Imperial Guard player then want female models. It also somewhat competes with SOB.
hobojebus wrote: Well it's established fluff they don't have mixed regiments for obvious reasons, months on a transport with limited entertainment...
Literally the opposite is true, Yes, most regiments are male only, but there are female only regiments and mixed regiments as well. Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, is attached to a mixed regiment formed by amalgamating two decimated regiments, one all male, one all female.
Look blackadder in space was amusing enough but I've never considered it canon manly because the books themselves specifically say he's an unreliable narrator
And that's not actually an argument it's a fallacy.
Elbows wrote: This is another reason why I think GW can't win in this situation. If they over-emphasize the female form, they're sexist, blah blah blah. If they don't accentuate the female form they're not trying hard enough or the group who wants accentuated female features will be disappointed/whining, etc.
The aftermarket selection of excellent female heads also makes it less important for GW to produce defined female guard models. Wearing common flak gear, a female model is a simple head-swap away. I've done it for my Eldar without any fuss. Whatever route GW goes, the same small vocal minority will be upset (one side or the other).
I wonder why that literally hasn't happened to any other miniature producer, even the ones like Prodos, That ultra Expensive Pin Up board game that Jonwhang loves or that russian guy that makes naked slave girls.
Or all the other producers doing normal female miniatures (Even GW, like Daugthers of Khaine and all the Dark Eldar female models, for example).
Lance845 wrote: It wouldnt. Because buying a exlsive clam pack for cosmetics that dont even distiguish youe army as being a part of a different sub faction is unlikely to be worth its high cost.
They need to just add some female torsos and heads into a uodated box of the basic kit.
This. IG badly need a re-release of the basic infantry kits, they are extremely dated, limited and compared to almost all infantry kits GW released in the last 10 years the models look extremely derpy (not to mention that the kit only has like 5 unique heads, so you'll end up with a ton of clones no matter how many heads from different kits you are desperately adding) with god awful body proportions even by 40k standards.
Throwing in 2-3 extra female heads is easy, just like with the Tau Fire Warrior kit (and also welcome, you can't have too much variety especially for the sargeants). Throw in two or three extra torsos as well for the Catachan kit, with the regular Catachan jacket and all ripped and wearing a military sport bra or the white shirt they have been using so far:
Man, did those people that do art ever have anything heavy in their hands? if the flamer was the size it is on the art, the guardsman would have to be as bulky as a space marine or ogryn to life it. The casing alone on that darn thing probablly weights around 20kg, and there iss till the carnister with gel or jet fuel.
Elbows wrote: This is another reason why I think GW can't win in this situation. If they over-emphasize the female form, they're sexist, blah blah blah. If they don't accentuate the female form they're not trying hard enough or the group who wants accentuated female features will be disappointed/whining, etc.
The aftermarket selection of excellent female heads also makes it less important for GW to produce defined female guard models. Wearing common flak gear, a female model is a simple head-swap away. I've done it for my Eldar without any fuss. Whatever route GW goes, the same small vocal minority will be upset (one side or the other).
I wonder why that literally hasn't happened to any other miniature producer, even the ones like Prodos, That ultra Expensive Pin Up board game that Jonwhang loves or that russian guy that makes naked slave girls.
Or all the other producers doing normal female miniatures (Even GW, like Daugthers of Khaine and all the Dark Eldar female models, for example).
I mean to be fair, we do laugh at that Russian mouthbreather and his obsessively detailed naked woman miniatures.
The existence and subsequent popularity of Daughters of Khaine is a strong point, though. Even I think that's a cool model line and I'm usually immediately dismissive of anything resembling an elf.
Galas wrote: Karol, the flamer is made of plastic, just look at one miniature to see it, it doesn't weight that much.
And It can't be made of plastic, it would melt while firing.
I mean to be fair, we do laugh at that Russian mouthbreather and his obsessively detailed naked woman miniatures.
This maybe a cultural thing. People here laugh a lot more about how GW makes every female look like a trans or a sports woman from DDR, specially as face goes. And no one laughs at the over sexualised models other companies make.
Elbows wrote: This is another reason why I think GW can't win in this situation. If they over-emphasize the female form, they're sexist, blah blah blah. If they don't accentuate the female form they're not trying hard enough or the group who wants accentuated female features will be disappointed/whining, etc.
The aftermarket selection of excellent female heads also makes it less important for GW to produce defined female guard models. Wearing common flak gear, a female model is a simple head-swap away. I've done it for my Eldar without any fuss. Whatever route GW goes, the same small vocal minority will be upset (one side or the other).
I wonder why that literally hasn't happened to any other miniature producer, even the ones like Prodos, That ultra Expensive Pin Up board game that Jonwhang loves or that russian guy that makes naked slave girls.
Or all the other producers doing normal female miniatures (Even GW, like Daugthers of Khaine and all the Dark Eldar female models, for example).
I mean to be fair, we do laugh at that Russian mouthbreather and his obsessively detailed naked woman miniatures.
The existence and subsequent popularity of Daughters of Khaine is a strong point, though. Even I think that's a cool model line and I'm usually immediately dismissive of anything resembling an elf.
Yeah, but one thing is to laught at him, and other to boycott him or make all this online outrage people is suggesting here that it happens with female models. The "No-win scenario" is just made up. As ton of examples show.
Galas wrote: Karol, the flamer is made of plastic, just look at one miniature to see it, it doesn't weight that much.
And It can't be made of plastic, it would melt while firing.
Actually, no. The fuel isn't burning until just after the nozzle - the flame only touches the working parts as it's turned off (which is why they're always covered in soot). The body is actually being cooled by the pressurized fuel expanding.
Look at real flamethrower lances - they were mostly metal with cast metal grips attached. If that was getting hot then the grips were getting hot as well.
Lance845 wrote: It wouldnt. Because buying a exlsive clam pack for cosmetics that dont even distiguish youe army as being a part of a different sub faction is unlikely to be worth its high cost.
They need to just add some female torsos and heads into a uodated box of the basic kit.
This. IG badly need a re-release of the basic infantry kits, they are extremely dated, limited and compared to almost all infantry kits GW released in the last 10 years the models look extremely derpy (not to mention that the kit only has like 5 unique heads, so you'll end up with a ton of clones no matter how many heads from different kits you are desperately adding) with god awful body proportions even by 40k standards.
Throwing in 2-3 extra female heads is easy, just like with the Tau Fire Warrior kit (and also welcome, you can't have too much variety especially for the sargeants). Throw in two or three extra torsos as well for the Catachan kit, with the regular Catachan jacket and all ripped and wearing a military sport bra or the white shirt they have been using so far:
Man, did those people that do art ever have anything heavy in their hands? if the flamer was the size it is on the art, the guardsman would have to be as bulky as a space marine or ogryn to life it. The casing alone on that darn thing probablly weights around 20kg, and there iss till the carnister with gel or jet fuel.
To be fair, if weight was an issue then we wouldn't be able to equip guardsmen with heavy flamers (which the flamer in the image is)... which even Marines only put on their Terminators and other heavy suits for good reason .
Also Catachans are basically miniaturized Ogryns to begin with, just look at Harker or Straken.
Lance845 wrote: It wouldnt. Because buying a exlsive clam pack for cosmetics that dont even distiguish youe army as being a part of a different sub faction is unlikely to be worth its high cost.
They need to just add some female torsos and heads into a uodated box of the basic kit.
This. IG badly need a re-release of the basic infantry kits, they are extremely dated, limited and compared to almost all infantry kits GW released in the last 10 years the models look extremely derpy (not to mention that the kit only has like 5 unique heads, so you'll end up with a ton of clones no matter how many heads from different kits you are desperately adding) with god awful body proportions even by 40k standards.
Throwing in 2-3 extra female heads is easy, just like with the Tau Fire Warrior kit (and also welcome, you can't have too much variety especially for the sargeants). Throw in two or three extra torsos as well for the Catachan kit, with the regular Catachan jacket and all ripped and wearing a military sport bra or the white shirt they have been using so far:
Man, did those people that do art ever have anything heavy in their hands? if the flamer was the size it is on the art, the guardsman would have to be as bulky as a space marine or ogryn to life it. The casing alone on that darn thing probablly weights around 20kg, and there iss till the carnister with gel or jet fuel.
To be fair, if weight was an issue then we wouldn't be able to equip guardsmen with heavy flamers (which the flamer in the image is)... which even Marines only put on their Terminators and other heavy suits for good reason .
Also Catachans are basically miniaturized Ogryns to begin with, just look at Harker or Straken.
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit. They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit. They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models. They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models. They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive". They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
The only winning move is not to play.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny, but if not, I think you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding either of what sexism *is*, or the reasons why people take issue with it.
I think you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how crazy the SJW brigade is. Hell PETA just launched a campaign against 40k because GW allows PLASTIC fur on its models. I just watched a show where a Woman advocating for Womens health was verbally attacked and harassed because apparently she was fat shaming by advocating for healthy living.
Now to the actual OP's question, I don't think they would sell that well, but they would have enough of a niche to stay on the Online store at the very least, if anything it would be good to help get more girls involved in the game which would in turn boost their bottom line.
We had the same nonsense baout female models not selling for Stormcast and pretty much every fantasy line - then they made some and guess what they keep making them cos they sell
lolman1c wrote: The Emperor's sees all humans as equal so he would pay them equally.
What the Emperor thinks is largely irrelevant to the current Imperium. They've drifted so far from his vision over 10,000 years. He was adamant that he should not be worshipped as a god, but look at where they are now?
If the current dogma discriminates then that is all that matters for the current Imperium, and the current dogma is incredibly irrational.
Stux wrote: If the current dogma discriminates then that is all that matters for the current Imperium, and the current dogma is incredibly irrational.
But the current dogma... doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender. There are female guard, female inquisitors, female knight pilots, basically the only factions that aren't mixed are Space Marines and Custodes, which are direct results of the Emperor's design.
If anything it's more likely that the Emperor was sexist and the Imperium isn't.
Humans:
Their bodies are almost identical. That´s pretty lazy design right there.
Chaos:
I would have preferred curled ram horns and no tail. Though the chaos chakrams are great. The left cheerleader even resembles slightly Lucy Lawless (Xena). Add a sword, remove the horns & tail and the Warrior Princess is ready for the table top.
DE:
Over the top violence with the heart and disembodied head. Even the chaos gals don´t need any grisly trophies. Less would have been more.
Orks:
Goofy as always and therefore they fit right in.
Conclusion:
I will probably buy a blister of the Humans, Chaos and DE cheerleaders. Sorry green gals but I don´t own an Orc team.
I quite like em but seen better (and bought better) on Kickstarters.
Humans - as said - they are pretty lazy / similar sculpts
Dark Elves - probably the best and would probably work in a Daughters of Khaine army with minimal adjustments
Chaos - should be more variety, more androgynous but cute.
Orks - pretty good
Stux wrote: If the current dogma discriminates then that is all that matters for the current Imperium, and the current dogma is incredibly irrational.
But the current dogma... doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender. There are female guard, female inquisitors, female knight pilots, basically the only factions that aren't mixed are Space Marines and Custodes, which are direct results of the Emperor's design.
If anything it's more likely that the Emperor was sexist and the Imperium isn't.
Agreed and he also created the Sisters of Silence so its unlikely he was either or maybe not as bad.
Strg Alt wrote: Humans: Their bodies are almost identical. That´s pretty lazy design right there.
If I was being generous I might say that they were going for a professional, synchronised look for the Humans, but it does look like they just re-used the same body. They could have at least moved some of the armour pads around.
BaconCatBug wrote: Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
The only winning move is not to play.
TBH, lack of females in the guard kit is at best a secondary issue to the long ass list of problems that the guard kit has. The kit itself is ancient old, the proportions are hilarious, the sculpting is terrible quality, and it contains what, about a quarter of the weapon options that you can get in total on guardsmen?
So far, every time games workshop has put out a kit that has some female sculpts, it is either A) barely noticed or not noticed at all (Tau Firewarriors, Necromunda Van Saar, Harlequins) or B) actively praised (new Sisters of Battle stuff, new female stormcasts).
You've set up this pessimistic hypothetical (oh the rampaging liberals will just whinge about it and call it sexist) for something that isn't at all hypothetical and is a thing that games workshop has actively been doing for years now.
A part of me hopes they won't do IG women so I am not tempted to buy more models. I am already knee deep collecting Dark Eldar and Daughters of Khaine, as well as saving for the Sisters of Battle release. Any more stuff like that and I'll have to buy a bigger house and sell a kidney.
Strg Alt wrote: Humans:
Their bodies are almost identical. That´s pretty lazy design right there.
If I was being generous I might say that they were going for a professional, synchronised look for the Humans, but it does look like they just re-used the same body. They could have at least moved some of the armour pads around.
I agree with the synchronised look but it translates badly into a mini. All of them were uniforms so you don´t have much leeway into changing their clothes. At least they took the effort to paint the skin of the various girls in different tones.
Now we only need coaches, assistant coaches, bloodweiser babes, camera teams, mascots, talent scouts, etc.
lolman1c wrote: The Emperor's sees all humans as equal so he would pay them equally.
What the Emperor thinks is largely irrelevant to the current Imperium. They've drifted so far from his vision over 10,000 years. He was adamant that he should not be worshipped as a god, but look at where they are now?
If the current dogma discriminates then that is all that matters for the current Imperium, and the current dogma is incredibly irrational.
Ey, but as we know... all are allowed to fight and die equally for the imperium. You want to give your life up then you can... feel free... the imperium doesn't care if you're male or femlae, as long as you have a bayonet fixed and you're running towards the enemy.
From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...
pinecone77 wrote: From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...
Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.
pinecone77 wrote: From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...
Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.
Because its a over the top fantasy game - same reason Blood Angels (and in fact some ancient warriors in reality) have nipples on their armour.
pinecone77 wrote: From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...
Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.
Because its a over the top fantasy game - same reason Blood Angels (and in fact some ancient warriors in reality) have nipples on their armour.
Works for the new female Stormcast.
It wouldn't fit the guard at all though. They are not about having their soldiers have ornate armor at all. Their female guardsmen (assuming they are wearing standard issue carapace or equivalents that the overwhelming majority of guard will use) would wear mass produced armor, made by the lowest bidder with just enough protection to somewhat protect the wearer. A female guardsmen would be almost identical to a male one (model wise) outside of the face. Once you put armor on their chest can be 100% identical.
pinecone77 wrote: From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...
Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.
Guards-persons? Nope, but you want the sprue to answer as many questions as possable, so the torsos might be useful for Cachacans as the don't wear all of the kit...etc....maybe a wild Wyrd psycher/ prophetess character...etc
the_scotsman wrote: Step 1: Throw some heads into a new kit with more feminine facial features and hair, and a slightly smaller face (small face is 90% of what you need to register with the human brain as a woman at first glance - just ask a drag queen)
Step 2: There is no step 2. They're wearing the same standard-issue body armor that the imperium issues to mutated hivers, hulking high-grav worlders, diminuative ratlings, and three-armed totally loyal citizens without batting an eyelash. They'd look the same from the neck down, like a modern day soldier does.
Just to point out, this might get GW flamed for making a "low-effort, sexist, and patronizing attempt at adding women to the Imperial Guard line. Female guardsmen are deserving of their own original sculpts."
pinecone77 wrote: From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...
Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.
Guards-persons? Nope, but you want the sprue to answer as many questions as possable, so the torsos might be useful for Cachacans as the don't wear all of the kit...etc....maybe a wild Wyrd psycher/ prophetess character...etc
I would expect radically different regiments like Catachan to have their own kit which would include their own female components. Also remember you are buying a kit of Imperial guard and not a kit for anything else. The kit should not contain utterly lore breaking components that have no place being in that kit. If you are making a kit of just female guardsmen or separate upgrade type kit than yeah totally go nuts with variety.
Introduce a new 'all-women' IG Regiment from an Amazonian-like world - give it an OP doctrine, special character and Stratagems; milk it for all its worth, till someone complains, then pull it.
But realistically, for at least the Cadians, a head swap would work well enough, Valhallans (if they ever get plastics) the same, a couple others may have issues, but put like 2-3 female bodies/heads in per box of 10 and players will swap them around as needed (or buy extra for the all female force).
Kcalehc wrote: Introduce a new 'all-women' IG Regiment from an Amazonian-like world - give it an OP doctrine, special character and Stratagems; milk it for all its worth, till someone complains, then pull it.
That would be the business equivalent of stepping on a landmine and hoping it's a dud.
heckler wrote: having not read any of the previous replies (so it might have been answered already), but it might be about 70-80% of what a male guardsman makes.
Only if they work 8 hours less a week than the men
the_scotsman wrote: Step 1: Throw some heads into a new kit with more feminine facial features and hair, and a slightly smaller face (small face is 90% of what you need to register with the human brain as a woman at first glance - just ask a drag queen)
Step 2: There is no step 2. They're wearing the same standard-issue body armor that the imperium issues to mutated hivers, hulking high-grav worlders, diminuative ratlings, and three-armed totally loyal citizens without batting an eyelash. They'd look the same from the neck down, like a modern day soldier does.
Just to point out, this might get GW flamed for making a "low-effort, sexist, and patronizing attempt at adding women to the Imperial Guard line. Female guardsmen are deserving of their own original sculpts."
Once again: this is literally a thing Games Workshop has done multiple times in the past and has somehow NOT had a horde of shrieking feminist harpies descend upon them for.
You are creating hypothetical boogeymen (boogeypeople?) where the hypothetical is reality and your imagined criticisms did not occur.
The only thing Games Workshop is actually getting criticisms for at this point is when they create a kit, especially one that's nearly or entirely monopose (like say, Kairic Acolytes, where they only vary by which mask you want to put them and their hands) and they just make everyone an identical dude even when you could include a female sculpt or two just for variety. When they do the opposite, pretty much the only mention of it that you see is "oh neat, theres some ladies in there too." Like with the new Van Saar gang kit.
the_scotsman wrote: Once again: this is literally a thing Games Workshop has done multiple times in the past and has somehow NOT had a horde of shrieking feminist harpies descend upon them for.
You are creating hypothetical boogeymen (boogeypeople?) where the hypothetical is reality and your imagined criticisms did not occur.
I'm not saying it's 100% going to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to point out that making a move like that isn't 100% foolproof against outrage.
the_scotsman wrote: Once again: this is literally a thing Games Workshop has done multiple times in the past and has somehow NOT had a horde of shrieking feminist harpies descend upon them for.
You are creating hypothetical boogeymen (boogeypeople?) where the hypothetical is reality and your imagined criticisms did not occur.
I'm not saying it's 100% going to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to point out that making a move like that isn't 100% foolproof against outrage.
Nothing is "foolproof against outrage". GW has gotten more flack for making the furries wait for their codex then they did for the Daughters of Khaine release.
I think most would agree they would be a welcome addition to any regiment. I think the bigger issue at this point is whether we will have models at all going forward. All the metal regiments have been discontinued. Cadia gone. Elysians discontinued. Traitor guard being discontinued. Lets hope they are being redone in plastic with female counterparts.
Plenty of things are. I don't see how anyone could complain about say... GW giving away free models or something. Even if someone were to find a convoluted reason to be upset they'd quickly be shouted down by more reasonable people.
This idea of "the right to be offended" has become so common these days that nobody tries to dispute the vocal minorities that spout crazy stuff and make outrageous demands.
Plenty of things are. I don't see how anyone could complain about say... GW giving away free models or something. Even if someone were to find a convoluted reason to be upset they'd quickly be shouted down by more reasonable people.
This idea of "the right to be offended" has become so common these days that nobody tries to dispute the vocal minorities that spout crazy stuff and make outrageous demands.
Literally the minuteGW announces something like that the immediate response would be "ugh, more Space Marines?"
There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
pinecone77 wrote: From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...
Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.
Because its a over the top fantasy game - same reason Blood Angels (and in fact some ancient warriors in reality) have nipples on their armour.
Works for the new female Stormcast.
It wouldn't fit the guard at all though. They are not about having their soldiers have ornate armor at all. Their female guardsmen (assuming they are wearing standard issue carapace or equivalents that the overwhelming majority of guard will use) would wear mass produced armor, made by the lowest bidder with just enough protection to somewhat protect the wearer. A female guardsmen would be almost identical to a male one (model wise) outside of the face. Once you put armor on their chest can be 100% identical.
Nope - it would not fit the Cadian regiments - there is a vast variety of Guard Regiments (far more than any other branch of the Imperial military) - some of which have highly ceremonial armour , battledress what have you - some of which wear furs, or laser reflective armour or polished breastplates etc etc
Many of them would be very obvious its a woman.
Go and take a look at the fluff - plenty of examples - Cadians are just one style of Regiment amongst MANY.
Kcalehc wrote: Introduce a new 'all-women' IG Regiment from an Amazonian-like world - give it an OP doctrine, special character and Stratagems; milk it for all its worth, till someone complains, then pull it.
But realistically, for at least the Cadians, a head swap would work well enough, Valhallans (if they ever get plastics) the same, a couple others may have issues, but put like 2-3 female bodies/heads in per box of 10 and players will swap them around as needed (or buy extra for the all female force).
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
There already are female guardsmen in the armageddon steel legion line. Well there could be at least....
I noticed when painting a squad that some of them are slightly smaller than the others (one box from gw), particulary the one model advancing and hip firing it's lasgun.
But who knows really?
Gitdakka wrote: There already are female guardsmen in the armageddon steel legion line. Well there could be at least....
I noticed when painting a squad that some of them are slightly smaller than the others (one box from gw), particulary the one model advancing and hip firing it's lasgun.
But who knows really?
I also choose to believe that the separation between the steel codpiece and steel "skirt" in the skitarii troop line is an indicator of biological sex, because the only reason the mechanicus would have to create those two different designs for their armor instead of standardizing on one is that they're trying to protect a different bit vital for the creation of new skitarii recruits.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
So, your argument here is that after releasing a Necromunda gang of women in belly shirts and high heels and an AOS army of bikini-clad elves and getting no blowback, Games Workshop should not release female guardsmen heads because the evil invisible army of SJW feminazis might just be LAYING IN WAIT for the next female model to be released?
the only complaints about any of the new female models released, whether that be Eschers, new Celestine or the female Stormcast, have not been from imagined SJWs, they've been from people complaining the models were too fat and had too small bewbs. Because evidently Games Workshop used some actual female athletes as a model for how women in an all-female street gang would look.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GWHQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?
If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.
Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.
All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.
Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GWHQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?
If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.
Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.
All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.
Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.
Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.
Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.
So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.
Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GWHQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?
If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.
Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.
All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.
Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.
Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.
Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.
So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.
Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.
Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.
However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.
You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.
The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.
Mr Morden wrote: Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope...
Yes it did happen. The fact that you were unaware of the outrage was thankfully because there weren't enough of them screaming loudly enough, but I read some threads and saw some message boards.
Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?
the_scotsman wrote: Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.
However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.
You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.
The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.
And you may be totally correct and there won't be any backlash, or the backlash would be so small as to be easily ignored.
All I'm saying though is that it wouldn't surprise me if "over-sexualized" female guardsmen become a hot-button issue. People love to get offended.
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GWHQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?
If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.
Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.
All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.
Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.
Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.
Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.
So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.
Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.
Wrong - if people think all regiments are represented by the Cadians - then they need to be told they are wrong? That's what I was pointing out - that the appearance of a guardsman/woman is highly variable across the Imperium.
No idea what you are on about by "best hat actress" and why that's relevant to anything
Mr Morden wrote: Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope...
Yes it did happen. The fact that you were unaware of the outrage was thankfully because there weren't enough of them screaming loudly enough, but I read some threads and saw some message boards.
Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?
the_scotsman wrote: Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.
However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.
You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.
The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.
And you may be totally correct and there won't be any backlash, or the backlash would be so small as to be easily ignored.
All I'm saying though is that it wouldn't surprise me if "over-sexualized" female guardsmen become a hot-button issue. People love to get offended.
You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GWHQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?
If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.
Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.
All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.
Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.
Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.
Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.
So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.
Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.
Wrong - if people think all regiments are represented by the Cadians - then they need to be told they are wrong? That's what I was pointing out - that the appearance of a guardsman/woman is highly variable across the Imperium.
No idea what you are on about by "best hat actress" and why that's relevant to anything
Nope I’m correct, those examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing that they exist, so you and yours need to stop harping on about it, we all already know, your trying to make an argument for something that no one is arguing, it’s pointless.
Heh, best hat actress, funny typo there, it’s supposed to say “some of the most beloved characters” that’s auto correct for you.
Mr Morden wrote: Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope...
Yes it did happen. The fact that you were unaware of the outrage was thankfully because there weren't enough of them screaming loudly enough, but I read some threads and saw some message boards.
Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?
the_scotsman wrote: Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.
However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.
You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.
The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.
And you may be totally correct and there won't be any backlash, or the backlash would be so small as to be easily ignored.
All I'm saying though is that it wouldn't surprise me if "over-sexualized" female guardsmen become a hot-button issue. People love to get offended.
You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?
Use the search bar, go on Facebook, google it, check you tube etc. Etc.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GWHQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?
If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.
Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.
All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.
Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.
Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.
Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.
So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.
Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.
Wrong - if people think all regiments are represented by the Cadians - then they need to be told they are wrong? That's what I was pointing out - that the appearance of a guardsman/woman is highly variable across the Imperium.
No idea what you are on about by "best hat actress" and why that's relevant to anything
Nope I’m correct, those examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing that they exist, so you and yours need to stop harping on about it, we all already know, your trying to make an argument for something that no one is arguing, it’s pointless.
Heh, best hat actress, funny typo there, it’s supposed to say “some of the most beloved characters” that’s auto correct for you.
Mr Morden wrote: Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope...
Yes it did happen. The fact that you were unaware of the outrage was thankfully because there weren't enough of them screaming loudly enough, but I read some threads and saw some message boards.
Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?
the_scotsman wrote: Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.
However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.
You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.
The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.
And you may be totally correct and there won't be any backlash, or the backlash would be so small as to be easily ignored.
All I'm saying though is that it wouldn't surprise me if "over-sexualized" female guardsmen become a hot-button issue. People love to get offended.
You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?
Use the search bar, go on Facebook, google it, check you tube etc. Etc.
Reemule wrote: About what 78% the male Guardsmen make due to the messed up society?
Wage gaps a myth.
Average man works 8 hours more a week when you factor that in women make 95%
Then by accounting for the fact they don't do the more dangerous jobs like working on oil rigs you have women making 97.5%
Then you factor in more men choose stem even though 60% of collage students are female you go up to 99.5%
Finally women are worse at wage negotiations in executive positions which accounts for the final 0.5%
If you want a more in depth explanation consult an economist I personally like Christina hoff-summers.
HA! You're a funny guy. Working in a payroll business, I can tell you for a fact it is not a myth, not remotely and the new Gender pay gap reporting laughs at you.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?
"Over-sexualized female guardsmen" would only become an issue if, like "female space marines" and "plastic sisters of battle" you had threads that stretched to multiple pages primarily occupied by people complaining about hypothetical complainers like, oh, I don't know
"Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.
They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".
The only winning move is not to play."
"This is exactly the kind of response they'd get, fekke sake look at peta and their stupid complaints about plastic fur on sisters. "
"According to whom, normal people probablly not, The outrage brigade on the other hand would find it sexist 10 out of 10 time."
Arachnofiend wrote: There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.
There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
None of this happened when this year when GW released:
Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.
or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....
This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.
It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.
So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GWHQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?
If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.
Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.
All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.
Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.
Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.
Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.
So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.
Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.
Wrong - if people think all regiments are represented by the Cadians - then they need to be told they are wrong? That's what I was pointing out - that the appearance of a guardsman/woman is highly variable across the Imperium.
No idea what you are on about by "best hat actress" and why that's relevant to anything
Nope I’m correct, those examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing that they exist, so you and yours need to stop harping on about it, we all already know, your trying to make an argument for something that no one is arguing, it’s pointless.
Heh, best hat actress, funny typo there, it’s supposed to say “some of the most beloved characters” that’s auto correct for you.
I specfically replied to this statement
Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height. So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad
My entire point is that not all imperial guard look alike - the guard has all these wierd and wonderful regiments so noticeble femlae guard would be fine.
Do you see what I am saying? Nothing to do with if women are in the guard but how they (and men) look
Yep I see what your saying mr Morden and I don’t disagree, I see so many options avavaiable in 3rd party manufacturers that it simply is not an issue to me, would I prefer GW did more, sure! I think current guard are bloody crap, I’d love more variation and if that means adding some female heads, cool, but pointing out that all these other variants exist that GW will NEVER make is pointless, we all know they exist, we all want more, it’s just never gonna happen.
So the central premise of noticable female guard is fine, hammering people who already know they exist in the fluff is not.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?
I'll try to find more later. As I said, they were only here and there in a few places. It takes time to dig through garbage.
.
Did...did you even look at your link? The reddit link itself links to a BOLS article, where Feminist 40k has a statement posted roughly along the lines of "give more representation to women and minorities, and in a less sexualized manner." The actual reddit thread itself is a dumpster fire of people yelling about how the SJW are ruining 40k, and comic books, and whatever else.
This kind of talk is exactly why I don't take it seriously when people complain and moan about how SJW and the feminists and so on are ruining everything. 9 out of 10 times it seems, the talk is just strawmanning to preemptively make the side that wants more inclusiveness look bad, often in terms of "these OUTSIDERS want to change OUR THING, we can't let them because it is OUR THING." It usually can be summed up as the group in power flinging anything they can at the wall so that they can maintain it.
Honestly with 40k this seems less of a thing than in other franchises, though it still exists. Just look at all the trash the new Star Wars movies got for daring to have a black man and an Asian woman on screen, and compare it to the general shrug of indifference or outright approval the new Battle Sister mockup got or the handful of soldiers they painted up with black skin.
On the actual topic at hand, Guard is a stupidly easy faction to mix genders with - their armor will hide most body features, so GW just needs to add more heads to the kit, which is something they love to do with newer kits anyways. I can easily see the next iteration of Guard having 20-25 heads - 10 helmeted, and then the remainder a 50/50 split of bare male and female heads. Bonus points if they are scaled right to work on Genestealer Cultists, Tempestus Scions, Battle Sisters, etc with minimal fuss.
Formosa wrote: Yep I see what your saying mr Morden and I don’t disagree, I see so many options avavaiable in 3rd party manufacturers that it simply is not an issue to me, would I prefer GW did more, sure! I think current guard are bloody crap, I’d love more variation and if that means adding some female heads, cool, but pointing out that all these other variants exist that GW will NEVER make is pointless, we all know they exist, we all want more, it’s just never gonna happen.
So the central premise of noticable female guard is fine, hammering people who already know they exist in the fluff is not.
Which is not what I did - the poster claimed that the Guard all look like, which they don't. There is a ongoing myth that they are look like Cadians,
I can actually see GW as more now more likely to do a variant Regiment than just more Cadians - they know that people have the already so they need sell new different ones.
IF they were a bit more savy they would have used the Escher models for a Xenonia Regiment - done a short artcile and a few data sheets in White Dwarf.
Formosa wrote: Yep I see what your saying mr Morden and I don’t disagree, I see so many options avavaiable in 3rd party manufacturers that it simply is not an issue to me, would I prefer GW did more, sure! I think current guard are bloody crap, I’d love more variation and if that means adding some female heads, cool, but pointing out that all these other variants exist that GW will NEVER make is pointless, we all know they exist, we all want more, it’s just never gonna happen.
So the central premise of noticable female guard is fine, hammering people who already know they exist in the fluff is not.
Which is not what I did - the poster claimed that the Guard all look like, which they don't. There is a ongoing myth that they are look like Cadians,
I can actually see GW as more now more likely to do a variant Regiment than just more Cadians - they know that people have the already so they need sell new different ones.
IF they were a bit more savy they would have used the Escher models for a Xenonia Regiment - done a short artcile and a few data sheets in White Dwarf.
Misunderstanding then, apologies for that.
See I don’t see Gw making a new plastic guard regiment, I would love to be wrong though.
Agreed they could easily do a “necromunda” guard auxiliary or regiment, like you say, drop it in white dwarf
Did...did you even look at your link? The reddit link itself links to a BOLS article, where Feminist 40k has a statement posted roughly along the lines of "give more representation to women and minorities, and in a less sexualized manner." The actual reddit thread itself is a dumpster fire of people yelling about how the SJW are ruining 40k, and comic books, and whatever else.
Uhh... yes, that is exactly my point. Someone asked for a link to a discussion outside of BOLS that involved people arguing over female representation in 40k... I gave it to them. The discussion on that thread may be ABOUT a BOLS article, but the discussion itself is a purely organic one between people on that subreddit.
FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN 40K IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL FETHING POINT. I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE STILL TRYING TO ARGUE THIS.
w1zard wrote: Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
Did...did you even look at your link? The reddit link itself links to a BOLS article, where Feminist 40k has a statement posted roughly along the lines of "give more representation to women and minorities, and in a less sexualized manner." The actual reddit thread itself is a dumpster fire of people yelling about how the SJW are ruining 40k, and comic books, and whatever else.
Uhh... yes, that is exactly my point. Someone asked for a link to a discussion outside of BOLS that involved people arguing over female representation in 40k... I gave it to them. The discussion on that thread may be ABOUT a BOLS article, but the discussion itself is a purely organic one between people on that subreddit.
FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN 40K IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL FETHING POINT. I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE STILL TRYING TO ARGUE THIS.
w1zard wrote: Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.
He, that is my bad, and what I get for skipping a page there...and your original point there I can basically fully agree with. Though generally I see more of the hardcore misogynist crowd harping about others joining in than militant feminists.
My bad - I thought you were throwing that link in as proof that people who want more representation in 40k were stirring lots of trouble, not that the existence of such a group can cause trouble. On the plus side, the other half of your post makes more sense now, I thought you were arguing both sides there.
kurhanik wrote: He, that is my bad, and what I get for skipping a page there...and your original point there I can basically fully agree with. Though generally I see more of the hardcore misogynist crowd harping about others joining in than militant feminists.
My bad - I thought you were throwing that link in as proof that people who want more representation in 40k were stirring lots of trouble, not that the existence of such a group can cause trouble. On the plus side, the other half of your post makes more sense now, I thought you were arguing both sides there.
Not a problem.
Yeah, that is all I was really trying to argue, that no matter what GW does on this issue that SOMEONE has the potential to be offended, and sometimes both opposing sides at the same time get mad for differing reasons.
w1zard wrote: FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN 40K IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL FETHING POINT. I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE STILL TRYING TO ARGUE THIS.
People are arguing about your choice of evidence because it's less evidence of legitimate controversy and more an example of a few irrelevant lunatics screaming about how SJWs are destroying everything if women (other than mostly-naked porn stars) exist in a thing. By the standard of evidence that admits that conversation anything is contentious, because there will always be irrelevant fringe nutcases ranting about stupid stuff while everyone else ignores them.
mugginns wrote: If r/kotatuinaction is offended then GW knows they're doing fine. Those people are offended by She Ra not being a runway model.
It was just an example. There are countless others out there if you care to look.
You do realize that if the women are too "manly" that people have the potential to get offended too right? Straight head swaps with "male" bodies might piss a group of people off just as much as the "oversexualized" females piss a certain group off. To avoid not offending anyone GW has to do a careful balancing act, where females are recognizably female without being too "overly sexual". Even then landing right in the middle has the potential to make EVERYONE unhappy because nobody is getting what they really want.
Peregrine wrote: By the standard of evidence that admits that conversation anything is contentious, because there will always be irrelevant fringe nutcases ranting about stupid stuff while everyone else ignores them.
The problem is that these 'irrelevant fringe nutcases' are extremely loud and enjoy semi-mainstream, tacit support. Both on the misogynist womenz hating side, and the militant feminist side. That makes them not so 'irrelevant'.
w1zard wrote: Even then landing right in the middle has the potential to make EVERYONE unhappy because nobody is getting what they really want.
Except that third-party manufacturers already do female IG models that most people like, so it's hardly as difficult as you're suggesting. There's plenty of middle ground to create recognizably feminine models that aren't sexualized and make everyone but the raving lunatics happy.
All it takes is for one viral facebook post about GW being sexist, and then everyone jumps on the public smear campaign bandwagon and GW is in hot water.
Until GW shows the models and everyone says "nope, that's not sexist" and the whole thing dies.
Alternatively, if they piss off enough of their original fanbase that don't like seeing women be anything but SOB/inquisitors/Eldar they could face boycotts and fan outrage.
Boycotts from a fringe minority who don't buy anything anyway because they're too busy masturbating to their old 2nd edition rulebooks and stash of unopened RTB01 kits. This is not a group GW needs to be concerned with.
You do realize that if the women are too "manly" that people have the potential to get offended too right? Straight head swaps with "male" bodies might piss a group of people off just as much as the "oversexualized" females piss a certain group off. To avoid not offending anyone GW has to do a careful balancing act, where females are recognizably female without being too "overly sexual". Even then landing right in the middle has the potential to make EVERYONE unhappy because nobody is getting what they really want.
Nope
Plenty of other companies are doing it just fine and the world hasn't ended because of women Stormcast, Necromunda gangs, Deepkin, etc. The lunatic fringe is still the lunatic fringe.
Peregrine wrote: Except that third-party manufacturers already do female IG models that most people like, so it's hardly as difficult as you're suggesting. There's plenty of middle ground to create recognizably feminine models that aren't sexualized and make everyone but the raving lunatics happy.
Plenty of other companies are doing it just fine and the world hasn't ended because of women Stormcast, Necromunda gangs, Deepkin, etc. The lunatic fringe is still the lunatic fringe.
Plenty of other companies who don't have the size nor the importance of GW, and just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. I can smoke in a room full of gasoline barrels and have nothing happen, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, nor safe in the slightest.
Peregrine wrote: Until GW shows the models and everyone says "nope, that's not sexist" and the whole thing dies.
Boycotts from a fringe minority who don't buy anything anyway because they're too busy masturbating to their old 2nd edition rulebooks and stash of unopened RTB01 kits. This is not a group GW needs to be concerned with.
Ahem:
w1zard wrote: The problem is that these 'irrelevant fringe nutcases' are extremely loud and enjoy semi-mainstream, tacit support. Both on the misogynist womenz hating side, and the militant feminist side. That makes them not so 'irrelevant'.
Back on-topic, I think if GW were to do female Astra Militarum troopers, I would think they would be (should be?) caricatured/distorted/etc to the same extent as the metals are. Catachans are overly-muscled to make it obvious that they're beefy from three feet away (the plastic basic troopers overdid it, but the command and heavy weapon sprues are OK, IMO). So, not Roginshirozz-style beachballs under the flak vest, but still with a noticeable bust and hips. Personally, I see no reason why the split shouldn't be 50-50. With the trend towards single-stance torso/leg pieces it wouldn't affect the variety of poses available, either.
IIRC, Eldar Guardians have been gender-neutral for ages - some of the torsos have breasts, some of the legs have a more prominent crotch. Some people don't notice, though, leading to the appearance that Eldar come in four visibly-distinct sexes.
AndrewGPaul wrote: She looks like a teenager to me. I mean, the shape of the face may look like a specific other cartoon character, but neither of them are particularly accurate anatomical specimens.
Personally I don't like the redesign, but only because it appears to make the characters into youngish teenagers rather than the young adults that the originals were (this is all based off seeing half a dozen stills - I have no idea of th context of this new series). If there are people complaining that they're now insufficiently sexualised, then I would suggest that the "corruption" accusation is pointing the wrong way.
As for spoiling the original, I don't see how. In the case of Star Wars or Thundercats, it's not like the original was cancelled to make way for the new one you don't like. Just ignore the new stuff and the old stuff is still there. The Last Jedi didn't do anything to your DVD of Star Wars, after all. Comics are a bit different, admittedly.
I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.
Or I guess it could be one of those "marketing decisions" where a studio executive decided it might make more sense to market the design of their reboot character to make them look more like the preteen/teen girls they were targeting as their desired audience instead of something that adult men would like to buy a plastic toy of to put on their dresser. And I suppose it's possible that this is due to the widespread financial success of many other shows portraying characters as kids closer to the age of their target audience rather than as adults, more directly bridging the gap of a heroic character that kids desire to be/act like by making them more relatable (ben 10, teen titans, avatar the last airbender, etc).
No, that makes too much sense, it's gotta be those SJWs.
You mean like how Alien 3 craps all over the character development of Hicks in Aliens? I just ignore Alien 3. Some people like it; fair play to them. I don't like the Star Wars prequels, for other people they're beloved childhood events. Fair play to them.
I'll let you into a secret - it's all made up. I can pick and choose the stories I like, and ignore the ones I don't. Like a lot of the Horus Heresy stuff, actually. Vulkan being an Eternal? Nah, I don't hold with that.
I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.
a "man"? an adolescent boy, perhaps (from the neck up, at least) - which is pretty reasonable. Both of those characters look like they're supposed to be female to me.
(edit - missed the sarcasm, sorry)
Karol wrote: No am saying that some dudes in the XIX century britain were against giving women the power to vote, by the way they were also against giving most men the power to vote too. The funny part about the whole thing is, that as much wrong as they were, the stuff they mentioned as some of the arguments against women rights, actually did happen. The same happened with marvel comics, which were already super inclusive from the get go. Some mad man claimed that stuff like Rictor and Shatterstar getting married will end up with everyone being gay in the end. Crazy people then, but when you look at marvel comics, not movies, today, you get something like Iceman, who not only makes no sense as a gay character, but is also horribly writen.
It would be funny, IMO, if stuff like warhammer legends ment that in 10-15 years, we would end up with weapon hating factions running around w40k.
What is a welp?
it's an expression of mild amazement and some resignation, kind of an abbreviation for "well, this is happening" I guess.
In this thread, you've commented on how weird it is that peta would protest games workshop and how it would be "funny" if they were secretly trying to gain some sort of cushy position at a company based in another country by protesting the business until they hire their people as 'diversity managers'. Then you said it wouldn't surprise you if this random feminist 40k facebook group were doing the same thing, as if by transitioning from one thing to another you'd proven that the first weird conspiracy theory with the crazy animal rights group targeting a british company who makes plastic army men was a real thing.
And now we're on this subject. Where once again, every statement is very carefully wrapped up in "oh ha ha this is only a joke or funny observation, merely a weird thing I have noticed that these old conservative slippery slope arguments seem to have occurred in our society today!"
It's either an attempted insulation from the argument that you want to make, but don't want to be held accountable for making, or a method of slipping things into a discussion without having to prove them first. Either way, this is now the second thread you've helped devolve into a lock by doing it.
I don't think those organisations do anything in a secretive manner. They have sites, public blogs done by members and write stuff in articles about their goals Nothing secretive in how they work, or how they aquire funds. It ain't illegal or shady either.
There is a ton of people who build their whole careers on attacking what ever they feel like attacking, It does happen to be the case that right now the feminist/eco people do it the best, but a few decades ago it was the anti music organisations on the right etc. Right now in Poland we have a tele evangelist who is making milions of dollars by attacking everything, to a point where goverment controled companies give him money or sponsor his school/radio/TV/drilling operations , and yes you read it right he does everything sells alcohols, does minining etc Is a monk too, so technicly can't own stuff.
What I point out is not that I am against a right or left wing people being against something, but the fact that there are always people who instead of making something their own, make money by attacking other people and claiming their are X or Y. In some part of the world it is the firemen coming around each year and saying how nice house you have and how bad it would be if burst in flames one day,with them being unable to reach you in time out of lack of gas money, And in other parts of the world it is someone attacking a company that produces toy soldiers for boys to play with for having furn on some of the models.
As the argument that am somehow part of a conservative agenda being valid. Well am too young to be a conservative, but I do find some things funny, and the most funny thing to me is when someone comes up with a true or right result from wrong data. You know stuff like storks being actually the things that bring babies, because there is a strong corelation between bigger number of storks in an area and larger number of kids being born in the same place at the same time. But humor is subjectives, and I don't claim that things that are funny to me have to be funny to others.
AndrewGPaul wrote: You mean like how Alien 3 craps all over the character development of Hicks in Aliens? I just ignore Alien 3. Some people like it; fair play to them. I don't like the Star Wars prequels, for other people they're beloved childhood events. Fair play to them.
I'll let you into a secret - it's all made up. I can pick and choose the stories I like, and ignore the ones I don't. Like a lot of the Horus Heresy stuff, actually. Vulkan being an Eternal? Nah, I don't hold with that.
^^^^^^^^^^This guy gets it.
We're in the age of "look, it's the THING YOU KNOOOOOOW". You have to accept it, understand it, and when it's horrible/something you disagree with...just don't watch it.
It means that some of the time, old things you loved and adored will get brought back for actually well thought out, interesting developments, you'll get to see a cool interpretation of an old character, and get to read/watch something that makes you feel the same way the original thing did - that's great. I loved the new Blade Runner, many of the new comic book movies (now that they're finally straying out of ultra-mega-safe territory, at least), a couple of the new Star Wars films, the latest Star Trek, etc.
but it also means you're going to get a lot of nostalgia-driven crap that's just terrible, and you're just going to have to ignore.
ON THE SUBJECT OF NEW GUARD SCULPTS (hey look! The topic!) that means if they did come out and include women, the sculpts would almost certainly be objectively better quality, and much more interesting to paint. Does it matter if it was done just to cynically include women if you get something good out of it, like a kit that doesn't make it look like your guardsmen report to Mel Brooks in a comically oversized vader helmet? We get stuff like Harlequins, Genestealer cult, Necromunda, Rogue frickin traders in plastic!
if that means I have to ignore the egregious new plot with guilliarmo del smurfo and his great Slightly Taller Marines(tm), I can do that all day long baby.
I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.
a "man"? an adolescent boy, perhaps (from the neck up, at least) - which is pretty reasonable. Both of those characters look like they're supposed to be female to me.
(edit - missed the sarcasm, sorry)
Damn without the pony tail thingy she would look like my cousin, he even has polo shirt my mom bought him that is the same colour .
the_scotsman wrote: ... some of the time, old things you loved and adored will get brought back for actually well thought out, interesting developments,
...
but it also means you're going to get a lot of nostalgia-driven crap that's just terrible, and you're just going to have to ignore.
And sometimes, not everyone agrees which category a given thing falls into. See: Adeptus Titanicus, Warhammer Quest Silver Tower, Kill Team, for some examples.
Does it matter if it was done just to cynically include women if you get something good out of it, like a kit that doesn't make it look like your guardsmen report to Mel Brooks in a comically oversized vader helmet? We get stuff like Harlequins, Genestealer cult, Necromunda, Rogue frickin traders in plastic!
Well I could imagine that if someone was anti women, and pro women camp liked to see more women models, they could be very happy about anything that makes the other side unhappy. so the longer there would be no new or as few as possible female models, the better for them.
Work both ways too, am sure if someone decided to make a Grey Knight that is female, because "magic", even if it would make no sense at all, the pro women camp would love it. Same way as some people claim the last jedi isn't a totally horrible movie.
the_scotsman wrote: ... some of the time, old things you loved and adored will get brought back for actually well thought out, interesting developments,
...
but it also means you're going to get a lot of nostalgia-driven crap that's just terrible, and you're just going to have to ignore.
And sometimes, not everyone agrees which category a given thing falls into. See: Adeptus Titanicus, Warhammer Quest Silver Tower, Kill Team, for some examples.
Weird how people can have these things where they like stuff that might not agree with you, and it DOESNT make either of you objectively right, wrong, or part of a vast conspiracy intent on destroying the thing you love.
Also, it's not like this is new. At all. Remember when Batman got rebooted to be a completely different guy in a sci-fi setting with a weird rastafarian-looking joker?
Does it matter if it was done just to cynically include women if you get something good out of it, like a kit that doesn't make it look like your guardsmen report to Mel Brooks in a comically oversized vader helmet? We get stuff like Harlequins, Genestealer cult, Necromunda, Rogue frickin traders in plastic!
Well I could imagine that if someone was anti women, and pro women camp liked to see more women models, they could be very happy about anything that makes the other side unhappy. so the longer there would be no new or as few as possible female models, the better for them.
Work both ways too, am sure if someone decided to make a Grey Knight that is female, because "magic", even if it would make no sense at all, the pro women camp would love it. Same way as some people claim the last jedi isn't a totally horrible movie.
here's an example right here: I watched the Last Jedi last night because I saw it was on netflix and I hadn't seen it yet.
And I
*GASP*
DIDN'T think it was the worst thing ever.
Were there characters that made me hit my head against a wall? Yes. But I got to cheer when they died, so all is forgiven, movie. I didn't get to see the planet of the gungans blown up at the end of the prequels, so that's a comparative point in the favor of TLJ. I pretty much liked everything involving the Rey/Luke/Ben Swolo plot.
And you know what's weird about it?
it doesn't make me part of a conspiracy to do it. Money did not slowly eject out of the CD slot of my computer when I smiled at the movie with a little note from kathleen kennedy that I was in on it now.
I own probably around 700 Spider-man comics, ranging from 1962 to last week’ Issue.
The golden age stuff for all heroes , while mind blowing in the 60’s and still fun to read, is about as lame as can be. It all boils down to “what kooky thing will the Villain of the Week try to do, only to be thwarted by the heroes. Same with Thundercats/He-Man/She-Ra.
The stuff everyone is super nostalgic for from other media, is the exact thing that people tear GW to shreds over whenever the fluff changes.
The design of She-Ra and the new Thundercats is based on the current popular art styles you see in Current popular cartoons. Just like the uncanny valley look that Sha-ra, He-Man and the Thundercats had in the 80’s, where it looks like an alien tried to draw humans based on a Wikipedia article description. You can not like the new art style but that doesn’t mean the evil SJW are coming to ruin your childhood.
I’m a little dated on my non-Spidey comics due to school, but Odinson was told a secret that was so jarring he was no longer Worthy to be Thor. Jane Foster was decided to be worthy by Mjolnir and now we have Lady Thor. Odinson is still doing stuff, but he’s in a different story arc.
Tony Stark fought a Second Civil War to avoid Trying people for crimes they might commit in the future. He was “killed” and his apprentice was taking over until Tony is “unkilled” IIRC, Dr Doom took up the mantle of IronMan.
Peter Parker was a Millionaire for all of 2 years with a company that rivaled Stark Industries. Hydra, Led by Captain America during the Secret Empire storyline destroyed it so now Pete’s Back to photography. There’s a young kid also running around as Spider-Man who is African-American and in high school. This is because the current Spidey is almost 30 and has been out of school for at least 400 issues if we are including college. The younger Spidey allows marvel to tell the coming of age superhero stories that they’ve been pushing onto Peter Parker since the 60’s that no longer apply to the character because he is almost as old as most characters were in Golden Age.
Onto female guardsmen: it really would not be difficult to have them throw a sprue of feminine heads in the cadian box, and I’d probably buy a box to give my cultists more options. I was already looking at picking up the Necromunda gangs to add some variety from the Cadian mixed with catachans mixed with Genestealer Cult bits that I currently have for my cultists. More options isn’t bad.
I don't think there was any conspiracy in remaking Starwars. Disney invested money in to it, and does the same GW does with their IP. Cut off the old stuff and replace it with the new stuff. Even the cut offs were done in a simiular way. I mean you can't tell me that after reading all the EU books, and watching the original trilogy, the characterisation of the last jedi "luke" was right. that doesn't mean that there couldn't be people who liked the way he was done though. For example the people that dislike the character, or didn't care about the EU.
Same way with WFB, GW makes fun and offends people who invested years in waiting for them to fix WFB and give it the support it deservs. Only to be made fun of, and told to play the new game that is nothing like the game they liked. We had, he no longer plays, a guy who waited years for bretonians to be updated, slowly buying more and more stuff. I don't know how many years he waited, but it was not fun, am sure of it.
And I
*GASP*
DIDN'T think it was the worst thing ever.
Some people think that eating glass while drunk isn't th worse thing ever. Hardly an argument. On the flip side of things, the last jedi floped hard, both as a stand alone movie, what the makers expected it to make and what a star wars movie makes moneywise in general. We can never agree what is artistilcy considered good or bad, but making less money they people wanted it to make is a sign that something went wrong. Unless of course one blames that one that basment dweling old starwars mafia and russian agents manipulating rotten tomato scores.
I’m a little dated on my non-Spidey comics due to school, but Odinson was told a secret that was so jarring he was no longer Worthy to be Thor. Jane Foster was decided to be worthy by Mjolnir and now we have Lady Thor. Odinson is still doing stuff, but he’s in a different story arc.
You think that "gor was right" was a good explanation to how Thor suddenly became unworthy, and that is after the stuff he did in the Gor mini series, which by the way was awesome. They even did stupid stuff like claiming Thor is not Thors name, but his job description, changed how the hammer works etc They even changed the character of Jane Foster. I mean her whole arc made no sense at all. Plus they made war thor job to her, which makes 0 sense powerwise. Hell Odin jobed to her, and not a power depleated one, but a full one power mode one.
I thought it was cool, just like I thought secret empire was cool, just like I thought fear itself was cool, just like I thought both civil wars were cool, just like I thought both secret wars were cool, just like I thought the 2004 secret war against Latveria was cool, just like I thought Spider-Island and Superior Spider-Man were cool. I like that they’re not trying to tell the exact same stories they been telling for 60 years.
I’m not a huge fan of Deadpool, because I find his character for the most part to be annoying. So when they released him up comics of Spiderman and Deadpool I tend to not buy them.
Ep 4: A new Hope: $786,598,007
Ep 5: Empire: $534,171,960
Ep 6: Return: $572,705,079
Ep 1: Phantom: $1,027,044,677
Ep 2: Clone: $656,695,615
Ep 3: Revenge: $848,998,877
Ep 7: Awakens: $2,058,662,225
Ep 8: Jedi: $1,318,092,040
I was curious about your statement, because I hdan't heard that it was a flop, and as it turns out that's one of those things. What do you call them? Exaggerations?
This is all-time money, by the way. Literally ALL the money they've made from the sale of the original trilogy over all the years it's been around getting put on DVDs and VHS and Blu-Rays. TLJ is currently the eleventh highest grossing movie of all time, second highest grossing star wars movie, and a solid 30% above the average that a star wars movie makes...just counting the main series films.
You can say you don't like something all you want, but if you say its a financial failure...you're going to have to meet a slightly higher burden of proof than that. Profits are down compared to the opening film in the trilogy...pretty much the exact same percentage that every other second film in the other two trilogies. Sequels make money more reliably than originals, but they make less money overall than the original.
We've gone from how much female guardsmen would make to what would star wars make.
Dont we have enough SW threads down in the geek media forum?..... ho hum.
Ratius wrote: We've gone from how much female guardsmen would make to what would star wars make.
Dont we have enough SW threads down in the geek media forum?..... ho hum.
Sorry, I realize that was off topic. I just had been pretty much ignoring the whole star wars controversy thing because I hadn't bothered to see the film, and I'd seen the claim that it had flopped a bunch of times and I assumed they were actually right.
I just thought it was hilarious just HOW much the claim was a lie...
I find it absolutely hilarious that Star Wars is used as an example of 'SJWs ruining things.' Not only are the new films highly successfull, Star Wars was already 'ruined.' As much I'd like to pretend otherwise, the prequel trilogy exists. Whilst I may have some gripes about the new Disney SW films, and agree that they're not as good as the original trilogy, they're obviously orders of magnitude better than the steaming pile of bantha poo was the prequel trilogy. So it is not about complaining about the quality of the product, it is about complaining that they dared to give a girl a lightsabre. Personally I can't wait to see more adventures of Rey and the gang, it is nice to see that there is finally some quality Star wars again.
Ep 4: A new Hope: $786,598,007
Ep 5: Empire: $534,171,960
Ep 6: Return: $572,705,079
Ep 1: Phantom: $1,027,044,677
Ep 2: Clone: $656,695,615
Ep 3: Revenge: $848,998,877
Ep 7: Awakens: $2,058,662,225
Ep 8: Jedi: $1,318,092,040
I was curious about your statement, because I hdan't heard that it was a flop, and as it turns out that's one of those things. What do you call them? Exaggerations?
This is all-time money, by the way. Literally ALL the money they've made from the sale of the original trilogy over all the years it's been around getting put on DVDs and VHS and Blu-Rays. TLJ is currently the eleventh highest grossing movie of all time, second highest grossing star wars movie, and a solid 30% above the average that a star wars movie makes...just counting the main series films.
You can say you don't like something all you want, but if you say its a financial failure...you're going to have to meet a slightly higher burden of proof than that. Profits are down compared to the opening film in the trilogy...pretty much the exact same percentage that every other second film in the other two trilogies. Sequels make money more reliably than originals, but they make less money overall than the original.
It was a flop in the sense that it earned less then people who made the movie expected it to make, plus it killed Solo, who as bizzar as it may sound was an actually ok movie, but got punished by the fans that didn't like the last jedi.
I thought it was cool, just like I thought secret empire was cool, just like I thought fear itself was cool, just like I thought both civil wars were cool, just like I thought both secret wars were cool, just like I thought the 2004 secret war against Latveria was cool, just like I thought Spider-Island and Superior Spider-Man were cool. I like that they’re not trying to tell the exact same stories they been telling for 60 years.
There is nothing strange in liking something. The first civil war was very interesting for me too. Spiderman as long there was Slott on him always felt strange, and not good strange the way Clarmont stuff felt.
I don't get the telling the same story argument though, those stories are copies of each other too, the only thing there is different about them and what was in the past, is that in the past story arcs were about heros, character changes, it didn't seem to be important if a character had this or that race, or that like to sleep with any kind of people, or event not people considering some Avengers and Xmen runs. The new stuff is stupid, because it is not about character development, but about someone trying to push stuff on people. I mean was Modok Trump really needed, or the whole feminist stuff? Do normal people that read comics really have to be bombarded with man bad, woman good, on every second page or so? And it drops the number of people buying the comics too, what is crazy considering we live right now in time where people like me are practicly rised on marvel movies. But in the movies tony is tony, cpt america is a hero and a patriot that loves his country and not an double agend of hydra etc
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I find it absolutely hilarious that Star Wars is used as an example of 'SJWs ruining things.' Not only are the new films highly successfull, Star Wars was already 'ruined.' As much I'd like to pretend otherwise, the prequel trilogy exists. Whilst I may have some gripes about the new Disney SW films, and agree that they're not as good as the original trilogy, they're obviously orders of magnitude better than the steaming pile of bantha poo was the prequel trilogy. So it is not about complaining about the quality of the product, it is about complaining that they dared to give a girl a lightsabre. Personally I can't wait to see more adventures of Rey and the gang, it is nice to see that there is finally some quality Star wars again.
Sorry, but I have to say this argument is bs. There were a ton of female jedi and sith that were loved by fans in the EU. Your telling me that people loved those for decades, but then when Ray came, all those people suddenly turned in to women haters?
The first new star wars movie was good. It walked the fine line of being a clone of new hope, but it was good, there was a ton of space to develop characters etc. And what did people get in the new movie? Akbar killed practicly off screen, and replaced by admiaral Purple, bombers in space, R parents being no ones, the casino sub arc, the destruction of Lukes character, forced out of no where romans that made no sense and had 0 development etc. I don't know whose foult the last jedi is, but the person droped the ball hard
Karol wrote: No am saying that some dudes in the XIX century britain were against giving women the power to vote, by the way they were also against giving most men the power to vote too. The funny part about the whole thing is, that as much wrong as they were, the stuff they mentioned as some of the arguments against women rights, actually did happen. The same happened with marvel comics, which were already super inclusive from the get go. Some mad man claimed that stuff like Rictor and Shatterstar getting married will end up with everyone being gay in the end. Crazy people then, but when you look at marvel comics, not movies, today, you get something like Iceman, who not only makes no sense as a gay character, but is also horribly writen.
It would be funny, IMO, if stuff like warhammer legends ment that in 10-15 years, we would end up with weapon hating factions running around w40k.
What is a welp?
it's an expression of mild amazement and some resignation, kind of an abbreviation for "well, this is happening" I guess.
In this thread, you've commented on how weird it is that peta would protest games workshop and how it would be "funny" if they were secretly trying to gain some sort of cushy position at a company based in another country by protesting the business until they hire their people as 'diversity managers'. Then you said it wouldn't surprise you if this random feminist 40k facebook group were doing the same thing, as if by transitioning from one thing to another you'd proven that the first weird conspiracy theory with the crazy animal rights group targeting a british company who makes plastic army men was a real thing.
And now we're on this subject. Where once again, every statement is very carefully wrapped up in "oh ha ha this is only a joke or funny observation, merely a weird thing I have noticed that these old conservative slippery slope arguments seem to have occurred in our society today!"
It's either an attempted insulation from the argument that you want to make, but don't want to be held accountable for making, or a method of slipping things into a discussion without having to prove them first. Either way, this is now the second thread you've helped devolve into a lock by doing it.
It's very much like some of the more right wing subs on reddit.
--
Making the game more inclusive is a positive, not a negative. And if adding pony-tails and bewbs means fewer players? Well good riddance, they're not people I want to associate with anyway.
What ever happened to being an adult and just not buying something you don't like?
AndrewGPaul wrote: She looks like a teenager to me. I mean, the shape of the face may look like a specific other cartoon character, but neither of them are particularly accurate anatomical specimens.
Personally I don't like the redesign, but only because it appears to make the characters into youngish teenagers rather than the young adults that the originals were (this is all based off seeing half a dozen stills - I have no idea of th context of this new series). If there are people complaining that they're now insufficiently sexualised, then I would suggest that the "corruption" accusation is pointing the wrong way.
As for spoiling the original, I don't see how. In the case of Star Wars or Thundercats, it's not like the original was cancelled to make way for the new one you don't like. Just ignore the new stuff and the old stuff is still there. The Last Jedi didn't do anything to your DVD of Star Wars, after all. Comics are a bit different, admittedly.
I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.
Or I guess it could be one of those "marketing decisions" where a studio executive decided it might make more sense to market the design of their reboot character to make them look more like the preteen/teen girls they were targeting as their desired audience instead of something that adult men would like to buy a plastic toy of to put on their dresser. And I suppose it's possible that this is due to the widespread financial success of many other shows portraying characters as kids closer to the age of their target audience rather than as adults, more directly bridging the gap of a heroic character that kids desire to be/act like by making them more relatable (ben 10, teen titans, avatar the last airbender, etc).
No, that makes too much sense, it's gotta be those SJWs.
Looks like a teenage girl to me. Source: I teach high school.
I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.
a "man"? an adolescent boy, perhaps (from the neck up, at least) - which is pretty reasonable. Both of those characters look like they're supposed to be female to me.
(edit - missed the sarcasm, sorry)
Damn without the pony tail thingy she would look like my cousin, he even has polo shirt my mom bought him that is the same colour .
Crimson wrote: I find it absolutely hilarious that Star Wars is used as an example of 'SJWs ruining things.' Not only are the new films highly successfull, Star Wars was already 'ruined.' As much I'd like to pretend otherwise, the prequel trilogy exists. Whilst I may have some gripes about the new Disney SW films, and agree that they're not as good as the original trilogy, they're obviously orders of magnitude better than the steaming pile of bantha poo was the prequel trilogy. So it is not about complaining about the quality of the product, it is about complaining that they dared to give a girl a lightsabre. Personally I can't wait to see more adventures of Rey and the gang, it is nice to see that there is finally some quality Star wars again.
The pure and total gakness of TLJ has nothing to do with female characters or black characters - its because its poorly wirtten, directed and with truely awful pacing. Pretending that people don;t like a film cos "girls" or "asians" is nonsense for the vast majority of those who did not enjoy this POS.
The sheer amount of action films with a female lead and strong (or actual) characters is high and laughs at thhe gak that is TLJ.
I would like to see some adventures of Rey - she was one of the very things that was intersting and Rian Johnson did not screw up too much - just not more tedious chases or Casino worlds and I certianly would not go to the cinema to watch any more SW films tillI know they can get the basics right - plot, Characters and pace - all of the latter were not present in the TLJ.
Ep 4: A new Hope: $786,598,007
Ep 5: Empire: $534,171,960
Ep 6: Return: $572,705,079
Ep 1: Phantom: $1,027,044,677
Ep 2: Clone: $656,695,615
Ep 3: Revenge: $848,998,877
Ep 7: Awakens: $2,058,662,225
Ep 8: Jedi: $1,318,092,040
I was curious about your statement, because I hdan't heard that it was a flop, and as it turns out that's one of those things. What do you call them? Exaggerations?
This is all-time money, by the way. Literally ALL the money they've made from the sale of the original trilogy over all the years it's been around getting put on DVDs and VHS and Blu-Rays. TLJ is currently the eleventh highest grossing movie of all time, second highest grossing star wars movie, and a solid 30% above the average that a star wars movie makes...just counting the main series films.
You can say you don't like something all you want, but if you say its a financial failure...you're going to have to meet a slightly higher burden of proof than that. Profits are down compared to the opening film in the trilogy...pretty much the exact same percentage that every other second film in the other two trilogies. Sequels make money more reliably than originals, but they make less money overall than the original.
it was also a critical success, with a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But we gotta #walkaway lmao
Unfortunately a lot of the opinions in this thread are being presented as fact, which is part of the gaslighting normal people have to endure in 2018
The pure and total gakness of TLJ has nothing to do with female characters or black characters - its because its poorly wirtten, directed and with truely awful pacing. Pretending that people don;t like a film cos "girls" or "asians" is nonsense for the vast majority of those who did not enjoy this POS.
The sheer amount of action films with a female lead and strong (or actual) characters is high and laughs at thhe gak that is TLJ.
I would like to see some adventures of Rey - she was one of the very things that was intersting and Rian Johnson did not screw up too much - just not more tedious chases or Casino worlds and I certianly would not go to the cinema to watch any more SW films tillI know they can get the basics right - plot, Characters and pace - all of the latter were not present in the TLJ.
Perfectly valid criticism of the movie, yet it was still miles better than any of the prequel trilogy films. My point was not that the film is flawless, merely that is absurd that people are suddenly now shocked that there is a bad Star Wars film. It is like people hating on the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls while conveniently forgetting how utterly gak the Temple of Doom was.
Crimson wrote: I find it absolutely hilarious that Star Wars is used as an example of 'SJWs ruining things.' Not only are the new films highly successfull, Star Wars was already 'ruined.' As much I'd like to pretend otherwise, the prequel trilogy exists. Whilst I may have some gripes about the new Disney SW films, and agree that they're not as good as the original trilogy, they're obviously orders of magnitude better than the steaming pile of bantha poo was the prequel trilogy. So it is not about complaining about the quality of the product, it is about complaining that they dared to give a girl a lightsabre. Personally I can't wait to see more adventures of Rey and the gang, it is nice to see that there is finally some quality Star wars again.
The pure and total gakness of TLJ has nothing to do with female characters or black characters - its because its poorly wirtten, directed and with truely awful pacing. Pretending that people don;t like a film cos "girls" or "asians" is nonsense for the vast majority of those who did not enjoy this POS.
The sheer amount of action films with a female lead and strong (or actual) characters is high and laughs at thhe gak that is TLJ.
I would like to see some adventures of Rey - she was one of the very things that was intersting and Rian Johnson did not screw up too much - just not more tedious chases or Casino worlds and I certianly would not go to the cinema to watch any more SW films tillI know they can get the basics right - plot, Characters and pace - all of the latter were not present in the TLJ.
Man, I for example was hyped out about cpt Phasma in RotJ. She was scary in the first movie. If 1/10th of the time they spend on casion world time was dedicted to her, I may even be saying stuff like, movie is bad, but dat Phasma. She got a Luke treatment in the movie, but that can be said about a ton of characters. Poe went from gung ho fighter ace to someone suffers from oxygen deficiency, at best.
Your cousin has large breasts?
define huge on a man. He does weight over 80kg, and we are almost the same age.
mugginns wrote: Dang, the lunatic fringe is definitely alive and well on DakkaDakka. Surprised the mods tolerate this kind of stuff.
Nah we want the far left out there the more they push their insanity the better, we need the normal people to understand what a threat they are to society.
#walkaway shows how effective this strategy is.
The concern is companies are slow on the uptake, the decline of marvel comics and star wars should be clear indicators of why not to listen to sjw's, doing so only ever leads to customers disapearing.
Pandering to the far left has never worked for any company so far.
The far left? I don't remember Raúl Castro having a 40k army or a Dakka account.
Notice how progressive is always a communist plot? /s
You know what the human brain really likes? Patterns. And by extension, stories. We like when things do things BECAUSE of some other thing, even when it would make much, MUCH more sense for them to be pretty much unrelated.
We especially like to think that when we do things, we cause other things, and not the massive ridiculous plurality of people in the general public who tend to not be nearly as involved in activist/superfan circles.
Female guard sculpts would probably do well or do badly for a reason completely unrelated to the fact that they include females. Maybe they look really cool. Maybe the huge secondhand market depresses their sales. But boy oh boy could you bet your bottom dollar that there would be SOMEONE attributing that success or failure to the 0.1 grams of gray plastic molded into a different shape that made a guardsman female to that success or failure.
Oh I agree with you on all counts. In addition, the human mind is set up to create categories. But whenever I see stuff, like what the post I responded to was replying to, it makes me sad because apparently some people can only make two categories: Me/Other.
I think the main problem with the IG female head sculpts done by GW would be that they would look bad. I don't know how is the responsible for doing the faces on GW models, because they look god damn aweful. And while on something like a plague marine or a blind sea elf, it doesn't hurt much, it may even add to the eerie feeling of the whole army. There is stuff like lelith hesperx, which in fluff is a breath taking beauty gladiatrix, but has the face of either a man who didn't do enough steroids or a female that did too much.
Oh I agree with you on all counts. In addition, the human mind is set up to create categories. But whenever I see stuff, like what the post I responded to was replying to, it makes me sad because apparently some people can only make two categories: Me/Other.
that is only partly true, the me/other thing is for man. Women brains work on a mother+child dyad vs other.
Some are really bad, but they've been getting better. The Brides of Khaine, at least from what I remember were perfectly fine. Clan echer (sp) seemed like they managed to get average, rather then weirdly mannish (for the whole range), or "ganger supermodel".
response to additional post:
The categorization applies to everyone. I however misspoke. Instead of me/other, I should have said "my group/other group", which is a bit different from the social dominance model you're referring to.
What’s killing Comics isn’t “pandering to the left” since comics have always brought up social issues. The X-men are an obvious analogy to the Civil Rights Movement. What’s killing comics Is that each issue has 20 pages of content, released weekly or bi weekly, each issue costs 4.25, and you need to buy into multiple series to follow one character. Compared to Manga which has 90+ pages of content, released monthly for 9.99 and if you like Goku or Luffy, you only need to buy Dragonball or One Piece.
Unless you love the character, comics are ungodly expensive for the level of content per issue
I just got a metal one off eBay and I was worried about it but the face is pretty much a blank slate. Also I love me the new Eschers, I'm partway through the second box of them and I love their sculpts.
But once again, how do you take the guardsman kit and NOT improve on the sculpts? Sgt dickard isn't a high bar: https://i.redd.it/uobhrkmbk3jz.jpg
It would be completely unrealistic to have female guardsmen in 40k.This kind of pandering has to stop. It would take me out of the immersive experience of battling against giant green Orks, space elves, superhumans and fish people in robot suits. Don't do it GW!!!!
It would be completely unrealistic to have female guardsmen in 40k.This kind of pandering has to stop. It would take me out of the immersive experience of battling against giant green Orks, space elves, superhumans and fish people in robot suits. Don't do it GW!!!!
It would be completely unrealistic to have female guardsmen in 40k.This kind of pandering has to stop. It would take me out of the immersive experience of battling against giant green Orks, space elves, superhumans and fish people in robot suits. Don't do it GW!!!!
Iur_tae_mont wrote: What’s killing Comics isn’t “pandering to the left” since comics have always brought up social issues. The X-men are an obvious analogy to the Civil Rights Movement. What’s killing comics Is that each issue has 20 pages of content, released weekly or bi weekly, each issue costs 4.25, and you need to buy into multiple series to follow one character. Compared to Manga which has 90+ pages of content, released monthly for 9.99 and if you like Goku or Luffy, you only need to buy Dragonball or One Piece.
Unless you love the character, comics are ungodly expensive for the level of content per issue
I actually like the new She-Rah... and I agree. She does not look like a boy, she does look like a teenager, without great... feminine virtues, that she didn't had in his previous incarnation when she was an adult.
If you look for other artworks you can see it, that she doesn't has a flat chest.
The rest of the "is so androginous!" problem, as Formosa said, it comes down to the simplified and plain coloured art style. Of course, maybe is that I find in general all the Masters of the Universe old designs horrible. But I'm not one of those that lives with the "OMG THEY CHANGED THIS THING I LOVE!" mentality. Not even with Warcraft, after 15 years following the universe. It had my angry rants about how they destroyed the lore/fluff, but at this point, meh. I had never a problem when they changed designs of characters, etc..., and they changed them ALL the time.
But I don't know what to expect. It is 2018. Everything you don't like is a conspirancy agaisnt the core values for wich you live your life.
Seriously, let’s all take this to the off topic forum and discuss it there, this thread is supposed to be about female guard, I’m guilty of knocking it off topic too but let’s get it back on eh
Mr Morden wrote: We had the same nonsense baout female models not selling for Stormcast and pretty much every fantasy line - then they made some and guess what they keep making them cos they sell
Isn't this more a function of you get that (female) model in the set(s) it comes in by default given the set is sculpted as 1 in 4 (or whatever ratio) is female. Anyone wanting that set to use in game gets female by default which is not necessarily indicative they went out of their way to buy it for that one female model. If GW use that logic as a basis to judge female models sell then they are running on a flawed argument - what sold was the set, either for the full aesthetics of that set, or more likely, the rules functions. Where someone set out with the sole intention of buying the Stormcast set with the chick in it, would in my view, be entirely an immaterial proportion of all sales of that set. The better view would have been to consider sales of Sisters of Silence where there is a ready proxy force available for them (Sisters of battle) which could have indicated to GW there was a desire for (all) female forces/models.
Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.
I'M BACK EVERYONE! WHAT IS GOING ON IN... HOLY GAK, WHAT THE FETH HAPPENED HERE!?
I think this discussion just proves my original point that the subject of inclusiveness is still a super touchy one for a lot of people.
I for one would love female guard heads on the guardsmen sprue, so long as they came extra and didn't replace male heads. That way you could make a regiment of all women or all men depending on your regiment's lore.
It's not going to happen anytime soon IMO, for the exact same reasons I outline in my original posts. Very vocal minorities in their fanbase will criticize GW no matter what direction they take, whether they have new female body sculpts or keep the male bodies and just include female heads. Someone is always going to be unhappy for some reason. However, in modern times with the existence of the internet, these unhappy people can find each other, form cliques and then proceed to make a lot of noise. Then they tie their extreme opinions to popular social movements (both on the misogynist side and the feminist side) and suddenly become immune to criticism.
There are already female models in the guard boxes. Just like modern real soldiers once their wearing armor and a helmet you can't tell the difference between them and the joe next to them. Also how does anyone know how any of those guardspeople identify maybe a bunch of them identify as female.
dkoz wrote: There are already female models in the guard boxes. Just like modern real soldiers once their wearing armor and a helmet you can't tell the difference between them and the joe next to them. Also how does anyone know how any of those guardspeople identify maybe a bunch of them identify as female.
Mostly true for Cadian style regiments - and even then the GW artwork makes it clear they are identifiable.
However as I have said several times before most regiments have their own unique style - some will be asily identifiable as women - or may be single gender, others won't.
Isn't this more a function of you get that (female) model in the set(s) it comes in by default given the set is sculpted as 1 in 4 (or whatever ratio) is female. Anyone wanting that set to use in game gets female by default which is not necessarily indicative they went out of their way to buy it for that one female model. If GW use that logic as a basis to judge female models sell then they are running on a flawed argument - what sold was the set, either for the full aesthetics of that set, or more likely, the rules functions. Where someone set out with the sole intention of buying the Stormcast set with the chick in it, would in my view, be entirely an immaterial proportion of all sales of that set. The better view would have been to consider sales of Sisters of Silence where there is a ready proxy force available for them (Sisters of battle) which could have indicated to GW there was a desire for (all) female forces/models.
Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.
And the reverse is currently true - you often don't get a choice if you want a Stormcast - its a bloke - now they are starting to match the fluff and have both - if you want to have a male only Stormcast, well that does not match the actual background of the Mortal Realms setting and you can self select for it but asking other people to do so seems very self centered.
GW have established that male and female Stormcast have different bodies - see new models. Again you are free to have your own alt universe where they don't but its not official.
FrothingMuppet wrote: Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.
Why are you required to have an all-male army? Why can't you use any female models that come in the box? And why should your desire be more important than the demand for female models from someone who considers all male parts on a sprue to be trash?
Actually if there would be Female models for guard i'd imagine there would be an interesting case to be made for an Slaaneshi traitor guard. Granted it depends on the models and their looks but anyways.
Of course only for science.
dkoz wrote: There are already female models in the guard boxes. Just like modern real soldiers once their wearing armor and a helmet you can't tell the difference between them and the joe next to them. Also how does anyone know how any of those guardspeople identify maybe a bunch of them identify as female.
Except lots of countries are providing different uniforms for female soldiers based on comfort to the female form, including more space for the breasts >_> That is a real thing, not just some style deal. Sorry to break it to people, but boobs actually need room to breath. I know seeing boobs much less feeling or having them on Dakka Dakka is rare, but squishing them inside of armor or restictive clothing gets super uncomfortable after awhile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually if there would be Female models for guard i'd imagine there would be an interesting case to be made for an Slaaneshi traitor guard. Granted it depends on the models and their looks but anyways.
Of course only for science.
I think Khorne is the only true Chaos God for the IG...What other army kills off their own troops so frequently?
mugginns wrote: Dang, the lunatic fringe is definitely alive and well on DakkaDakka. Surprised the mods tolerate this kind of stuff.
This. I just read the last few pages and there are some vile, vile posts. Maybe Dakka should just merge with 4chan? The post content seems to be the same anytime anyone mentions women. It’s shameful.
BaconCatBug wrote: Idea: If you want female soldier models so badly, stop whining and create and sell them yourselves.
Not how the far left progressives work old chum, they prefer to infiltrate something popular and then corrupt it.
See:
Ghostbusters 2016
Oceans 8th
Magic
She ra
Marvel comics
Star wars
New atheism
Games journalism
Etc.
And if you don't like how they corrupt your hobby you are an incel racist bigot because it's impossible that they just made a crap product.
Every time the results the same you push extreme 3rd wave feminism you drive people away, because surprisingly your customers don't like hearing that they are responsible for all evil because they were born with their plumbing on the outside.
>new athiesm
Get outta here with that ya nerd. Religious beliefs arent a freakin music genre, and have no place in a plastic minis forum.
@Mr Morden and Peregrine - Cheers for the responses.
I agree there wasn’t a choice prior to the latest round of Stormcast releases (from Shadespire I think) as they came as default male out of the gates. To me personally that was a non-issue (noting all of what follows is my personal view, no different to any personal view anyone else on a forum expresses in that its personal to me, and non binding on anyone else), but as I probably poorly conveyed in my earlier post, it had never bothered me to think they were male (or rather lacking female) as I’ve never put much thought in a need or want for female versions of the minis produced by GW – accepting by default the provision of predominantly male only minis (excluding Sisters, Dark Elf Witches etc). Maybe that’s a reflection of an internal bias brought on from how the hobby/society reflected on these matters prior to the broad availability of social media (noting a push on gender diversity – while always lurking in the background – appears much easier to organise as a social story in today’s multi-channel comms environment); and/or an innate thinking ‘war is a man’s event’; notwithstanding, the evidence to the contrary that war does not discriminate and there are ample examples of women joining the fight in a formal (Army) or informal (partisan) way.
I can understand why it is important to have the diversity options available to you when building a force to reflect fluff you are invested in; however, at the same time, there are those (I’d count myself amongst them) who would not have turned their mind to that at all. That is for me, the fluff aspect provides context to my games, but does in no way drive my spending habits beyond giving me something to attach my spending choice too. For example I buy Custodes and Sisters of Silence because after reading Watchers of the Throne I thought they were kickass so wanted to model some. When I read Gaunts Ghosts I also developed an interest in building a Guard army. The lack of female guard minis in no way made me pause and think I wouldn’t build the Guard Army that currently sits on my shelves of shame. The fluff called the idea of female guard out, but the lack of representation in mini form didn’t stop me buying the all male Guard line. At the end of the day the minis are mere tokens to make real the mechanics of an otherwise 2 dimensional dice game. Diversity at that level is really a non-starter to my mind, beyond those same tokens needing to be something that grabs my attention enough to have wanted to buy, build and paint them in the first place. Again, the lack of females in the range to date hasn’t stopped me from doing any of that.
As you say Mr Morden, that thinking may be self centred/selfish to an extent; but is probably no more than one of the sins that falls out of consumerism in general. We each of us, turn our minds and spending to that which we each individually find draws our attention. The hobby, nor much else in consumer society, is the domain of altruistic group endeavour where we willingly spend for the ‘common’ or ‘social’ good.
On a similar tone, my views in no way stop anyone else for that matter from wishing for and calling for greater diversity in a range. But in the same way it could be construed as selfish of me for not seeking change in the formula as it stands; is it not selfish on those others to seek change that suits their mind?
Without knowing the demographic spectrum of GW’s market, ie split between those who look for diversity in their minis and those who oppose it for a clearly identified bias; and those who are in the middle so are indifferent (noting that bracket would also include those who are indifferent but if presented with choice will split between those who would choose (if available) one end or the other, as well as those being genuinely neutral), it’s hard for me (or any of us for that matter) to sit back and judge GW on its decisions to include diverse models, or not, in its range. I for one think if GW even turns its mind to these kinds of discussions, puts itself in a place where, in todays open, communicative environment, it is never going to satisfy all, and is likely to wind up some with any choice it makes, or doesn’t make.
Ultimately, GW makes decisions that it thinks best will make it the most money for least cost. It clearly thinks its market accepts a move to greater diversity in its range, including within mixed gender squads that it is releasing. It either thinks the market will accept the change in diversity offer simply because at the end of the day people hold the view they are playing pieces, as I expressed above I have been happy to do for 20 years with all male units; or that those who won’t accept such change, and therefore switch off and don’t spend with them (or at least on that product line), are not a sufficiently large part of their market that any loss they suffer from non-spend by those participants can be absorbed, or recouped from new entrants attracted to the greater diversity offer.
As I expressed in my original post, I haven’t an interest in female guard, or Marines for example which is another one I see sprout up here from time to time (Sisters of Silence represent that niche well enough for me). That is mainly because I am ambivalent to the social cause/argument that seems attached to the idea, and the resultant ‘with us or against us’ mindset that I generally perceive accompanies such argument. Also, those same tokens that I have collected for so long all fit one mold/type which I have accepted as all male, and I personally don’t have an interest in changing that this late in the game. So if new Guard were to be released, I would hope the choice to have female/male; all female; all male squads, is left solely to me on the sprue as I expressed originally. I am not in favour of the approach to adopt the Stromcast model whereby the choice in diversity is made for me. That’s my selfish wish, but I am entitled to wish it, and express it, just as any other is entitled to wish the opposite or something entirely else. Ultimately it’s up to GW to make its own decisions and then we all are left with the simplest of choices, buy the product or not.
Peregrine, to take up your point, I’m not required to have anything at all – male or female. To date, GW has made male models; ergo, I have male models. I am attracted to the setting because I like sci-fi and this brand of sci-fi works for me. I am attracted to the minis in that setting as they are to me, intricate playing pieces that I enjoy collecting, building, sometimes painting, and pushing around the tabletop. Would I buy them if they were all female – I don’t know, but probably not. I own Sisters models, but am not as attached to them as I am my Marines. There’s probably something in that as far as personal bias in younger me being drawn to the ‘macho’ stereotype of the hero Space Marines over Sisters of Battle; setting me up for 20 years of collecting on the same basis, ingraining the collector in me to collect more of the same rather than something ‘other’. If there had been female parts back in the day, would I have used them, I don’t know. Would I use them now – sure I could, but I probably wouldn’t, unless it was my goal to specifically reflect the fluff per Mr Mordens comment about matching what GW says Stormcast hosts are like if I played Stormcast. My point is though, the choice to do so, should be mine. For that choice to be made, the minis need to exist, but as I hopefully explained above, my view is that if they were to exist, it wouldn’t be at the expense of choice as to not use them – ie the Stormcast route. But for that choice to exist, GW would need to in essence duplicate some part of each kit on diversity lines – ie 10 male heads and 10 female heads, if not 10 heads and torsos and arm and leg sets of each sex etc – that to me seems too much to ask given half a sprue (at the extreme) would go wasted (if not put up on the secondary market).
Apologies for the longwinded reply. I normally sit on the sidelines on these kinds of discussions, but for once felt I would like to ‘air’ my views rather than internalising them. Open discussion with others is what changes mindset, or assists in perceiving the others point of view. Doesn’t mean I agree/disagree with sentiment shared, or will about face on my own thinking, but I do welcome and thankyou for engaging with my first post.
hobojebus wrote: Getting people fired for tweets they made 10 years ago isn't extreme?
Whatever your opinions of the incident may be, this one was done by the right, not by the left.
Constantly insulting men for their gender sexual preferences and skin colour isn't extreme?
Nobody important is doing that, and none of the things on your list have anything to do with this. Unless I missed the character in Star Wars who insulted straight men for not sleeping with other men, and started organizing the mandatory gay camps to fix the problem?
Attacking people for wearing maga hats isn't extreme?
Antifa isn't extreme?
That would be an extremist minority, but one that has nothing to do with any of the items on the list. Unless I missed the Antifa character in MTG?
hobojebus wrote: Getting people fired for tweets they made 10 years ago isn't extreme?
Whatever your opinions of the incident may be, this one was done by the right, not by the left.
Constantly insulting men for their gender sexual preferences and skin colour isn't extreme?
Nobody important is doing that, and none of the things on your list have anything to do with this. Unless I missed the character in Star Wars who insulted straight men for not sleeping with other men, and started organizing the mandatory gay camps to fix the problem?
Attacking people for wearing maga hats isn't extreme?
Antifa isn't extreme?
That would be an extremist minority, but one that has nothing to do with any of the items on the list. Unless I missed the Antifa character in MTG?
FrothingMuppet wrote: Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.
Why are you required to have an all-male army? Why can't you use any female models that come in the box? And why should your desire be more important than the demand for female models from someone who considers all male parts on a sprue to be trash?
Also, "neutral" does not mean "male".
Because forcing people to have mixed sex regiments when most IG regiments are either all male or all female for pretty obvious reasons goes against the lore?
I don't think you will have a good time telling a feminist "why are you required to have an all-female army?"
Just include 10 female heads and 10 male heads in the infantry box, with 10 bodies. That way anyone who wants an all-male guard regiment, an all-female guard regiment, or a mixed regiment can all be happy.
Still won't happen though because of extremist idiots on both sides.
w1zard wrote: Because forcing people to have mixed sex regiments when most IG regiments are either all male or all female for pretty obvious reasons goes against the lore?
The lore includes mixed-gender regiments, and fluff-wise it makes sense. The Imperium does not care what is between your legs, all are equally capable of dying in the meat grinder of attrition warfare. In fact, all-male or all-female regiments would likely be the exception to the rule, only provided by planets where extreme cultural beliefs are allowed to take priority over maximizing the number of bodies provided.
Just include 10 female heads and 10 male heads in the infantry box, with 10 bodies. That way anyone who wants an all-male guard regiment, an all-female guard regiment, or a mixed regiment can all be happy.
That still doesn't provide female bodies. Heads are a good starting point, but the ideal solution would include complete female models as well. If your regiment's fluff is that it's one of the rare few that are all-male or all-female you'll have to buy multiple kits to get enough parts, but at least then it's fair instead of having the all-male regiments fully supported while anyone who wants an all-female regiment has to buy third-party kits.
Holy gak, and there are extremist idiots even here. Someone was saying women's suffrage was a bad idea... followed by other people claiming that anyone who doesn't share their opinion is a sexist bigot that deserves to be publicly ridiculed. This is why I hate politics.
-No, just because people aren't as progressive as you doesn't mean they are all closet nazis/sexists.
-No, just because people want to see more women and minorities in traditionally white-male dominated media doesn't mean they are evil communists who want to destroy America and everything you hold dear.
Can we please stop trying to demonize the other side and treat each other like people with differing opinions?
I agree there wasn’t a choice prior to the latest round of Stormcast releases (from Shadespire I think) as they came as default male out of the gates. To me personally that was a non-issue (noting all of what follows is my personal view, no different to any personal view anyone else on a forum expresses in that its personal to me, and non binding on anyone else), but as I probably poorly conveyed in my earlier post, it had never bothered me to think they were male (or rather lacking female) as I’ve never put much thought in a need or want for female versions of the minis produced by GW – accepting by default the provision of predominantly male only minis (excluding Sisters, Dark Elf Witches etc). Maybe that’s a reflection of an internal bias brought on from how the hobby/society reflected on these matters prior to the broad availability of social media (noting a push on gender diversity – while always lurking in the background – appears much easier to organise as a social story in today’s multi-channel comms environment); and/or an innate thinking ‘war is a man’s event’; notwithstanding, the evidence to the contrary that war does not discriminate and there are ample examples of women joining the fight in a formal (Army) or informal (partisan) way.
I can understand why it is important to have the diversity options available to you when building a force to reflect fluff you are invested in; however, at the same time, there are those (I’d count myself amongst them) who would not have turned their mind to that at all. That is for me, the fluff aspect provides context to my games, but does in no way drive my spending habits beyond giving me something to attach my spending choice too. For example I buy Custodes and Sisters of Silence because after reading Watchers of the Throne I thought they were kickass so wanted to model some. When I read Gaunts Ghosts I also developed an interest in building a Guard army. The lack of female guard minis in no way made me pause and think I wouldn’t build the Guard Army that currently sits on my shelves of shame. The fluff called the idea of female guard out, but the lack of representation in mini form didn’t stop me buying the all male Guard line. At the end of the day the minis are mere tokens to make real the mechanics of an otherwise 2 dimensional dice game. Diversity at that level is really a non-starter to my mind, beyond those same tokens needing to be something that grabs my attention enough to have wanted to buy, build and paint them in the first place. Again, the lack of females in the range to date hasn’t stopped me from doing any of that.
As you say Mr Morden, that thinking may be self centred/selfish to an extent; but is probably no more than one of the sins that falls out of consumerism in general. We each of us, turn our minds and spending to that which we each individually find draws our attention. The hobby, nor much else in consumer society, is the domain of altruistic group endeavour where we willingly spend for the ‘common’ or ‘social’ good.
On a similar tone, my views in no way stop anyone else for that matter from wishing for and calling for greater diversity in a range. But in the same way it could be construed as selfish of me for not seeking change in the formula as it stands; is it not selfish on those others to seek change that suits their mind?
Without knowing the demographic spectrum of GW’s market, ie split between those who look for diversity in their minis and those who oppose it for a clearly identified bias; and those who are in the middle so are indifferent (noting that bracket would also include those who are indifferent but if presented with choice will split between those who would choose (if available) one end or the other, as well as those being genuinely neutral), it’s hard for me (or any of us for that matter) to sit back and judge GW on its decisions to include diverse models, or not, in its range. I for one think if GW even turns its mind to these kinds of discussions, puts itself in a place where, in todays open, communicative environment, it is never going to satisfy all, and is likely to wind up some with any choice it makes, or doesn’t make.
Ultimately, GW makes decisions that it thinks best will make it the most money for least cost. It clearly thinks its market accepts a move to greater diversity in its range, including within mixed gender squads that it is releasing. It either thinks the market will accept the change in diversity offer simply because at the end of the day people hold the view they are playing pieces, as I expressed above I have been happy to do for 20 years with all male units; or that those who won’t accept such change, and therefore switch off and don’t spend with them (or at least on that product line), are not a sufficiently large part of their market that any loss they suffer from non-spend by those participants can be absorbed, or recouped from new entrants attracted to the greater diversity offer.
As I expressed in my original post, I haven’t an interest in female guard, or Marines for example which is another one I see sprout up here from time to time (Sisters of Silence represent that niche well enough for me). That is mainly because I am ambivalent to the social cause/argument that seems attached to the idea, and the resultant ‘with us or against us’ mindset that I generally perceive accompanies such argument. Also, those same tokens that I have collected for so long all fit one mold/type which I have accepted as all male, and I personally don’t have an interest in changing that this late in the game. So if new Guard were to be released, I would hope the choice to have female/male; all female; all male squads, is left solely to me on the sprue as I expressed originally. I am not in favour of the approach to adopt the Stromcast model whereby the choice in diversity is made for me. That’s my selfish wish, but I am entitled to wish it, and express it, just as any other is entitled to wish the opposite or something entirely else. Ultimately it’s up to GW to make its own decisions and then we all are left with the simplest of choices, buy the product or not.
Peregrine, to take up your point, I’m not required to have anything at all – male or female. To date, GW has made male models; ergo, I have male models. I am attracted to the setting because I like sci-fi and this brand of sci-fi works for me. I am attracted to the minis in that setting as they are to me, intricate playing pieces that I enjoy collecting, building, sometimes painting, and pushing around the tabletop. Would I buy them if they were all female – I don’t know, but probably not. I own Sisters models, but am not as attached to them as I am my Marines. There’s probably something in that as far as personal bias in younger me being drawn to the ‘macho’ stereotype of the hero Space Marines over Sisters of Battle; setting me up for 20 years of collecting on the same basis, ingraining the collector in me to collect more of the same rather than something ‘other’. If there had been female parts back in the day, would I have used them, I don’t know. Would I use them now – sure I could, but I probably wouldn’t, unless it was my goal to specifically reflect the fluff per Mr Mordens comment about matching what GW says Stormcast hosts are like if I played Stormcast. My point is though, the choice to do so, should be mine. For that choice to be made, the minis need to exist, but as I hopefully explained above, my view is that if they were to exist, it wouldn’t be at the expense of choice as to not use them – ie the Stormcast route. But for that choice to exist, GW would need to in essence duplicate some part of each kit on diversity lines – ie 10 male heads and 10 female heads, if not 10 heads and torsos and arm and leg sets of each sex etc – that to me seems too much to ask given half a sprue (at the extreme) would go wasted (if not put up on the secondary market).
Apologies for the longwinded reply. I normally sit on the sidelines on these kinds of discussions, but for once felt I would like to ‘air’ my views rather than internalising them. Open discussion with others is what changes mindset, or assists in perceiving the others point of view. Doesn’t mean I agree/disagree with sentiment shared, or will about face on my own thinking, but I do welcome and thankyou for engaging with my first post.
Thanks for the very full response.
Couple of things to pick up on. If I read it correctly you are saying that the fluff is not that important to you and neither is the gender expecially but its more that you have mostly made models and want to stay the same?
If you put a female model in you Stormcast unit - does that look somehow "wrong " to you or just not fit with the rest? Which is fair enough. If its just a playing piece - the gender won't matter unlesss its pure asthetics?
I just wondered.
The lore includes mixed-gender regiments, and fluff-wise it makes sense. The Imperium does not care what is between your legs, all are equally capable of dying in the meat grinder of attrition warfare. In fact, all-male or all-female regiments would likely be the exception to the rule, only provided by planets where extreme cultural beliefs are allowed to take priority over maximizing the number of bodies provided.
Yep they are in the lore and several are legendary - however the Lore does also say that they are rarer than single gender units - this is different to say Stormcast Eternals.
Peregrine wrote: The lore includes mixed-gender regiments, and fluff-wise it makes sense. The Imperium does not care what is between your legs, all are equally capable of dying in the meat grinder of attrition warfare. In fact, all-male or all-female regiments would likely be the exception to the rule, only provided by planets where extreme cultural beliefs are allowed to take priority over maximizing the number of bodies provided.
This is not true. In the Ciaphas Cain and Guant's Ghost novels, both authors go out of their way to state that mixed sex regiments are the exceptions to the norm, despite both novel series focusing on a mixed sex regiment.
It's the simple matter of having men and women in close proximity to each other. It's human nature that romantic relationships will form, and they will find ways to "entertain" themselves in their downtime. This is not ideal because these kind of entanglements damage battlefield efficiency. Pregnant women can't fight and are out of action for nine months. Two lovers may go to extreme lengths to save another despite breaking orders or something, not to mention if one of them gets promoted and gets into an authority position over the other. Plus all the drama associated with scorned advances, a man or woman bouncing between lovers, etc. It is a dumpster fire waiting to happen. I'm not saying it's impossible... it's just that mixed sex regiments are usually more trouble then they are worth.
It is far easier to just separate men and women into two autonomous groups and be done with it. It's the same reasoning why we have modern day bathrooms separated by sex, even though adults should be mature enough for it not to matter. Most adults are mature enough, but the exceptions are such a huge headache that it's far easier just to sidestep the issue altogether.
Peregrine wrote: That still doesn't provide female bodies. Heads are a good starting point, but the ideal solution would include complete female models as well. If your regiment's fluff is that it's one of the rare few that are all-male or all-female you'll have to buy multiple kits to get enough parts, but at least then it's fair instead of having the all-male regiments fully supported while anyone who wants an all-female regiment has to buy third-party kits.
Or just have neither obviously male or female bodies covered in armor/clothes and just have mixed heads and be a lot more flexible. Or are you dead set on female body sculpts?
w1zard wrote: Its the simple matter of having men and women in close proximity to each other. It's human nature that romantic relationships will form, and they will find ways to "entertain" themselves in their downtime. This is not ideal because these kind of entanglements damage battlefield efficiency. Pregnant women can't fight and are out of action for nine months.
You're assuming that a guardsman is expected to survive for nine months. They aren't. Expected time from deployment to death is a few minutes, maybe a day or two for the luckiest veterans. Pregnant women don't suffer any effects until long after a guardsman is expected to be dead. And TBH, would it even matter? The Imperial Guard is run on the principle of "we have more bodies than you have bullets, we win". A pregnant woman can force the enemy to spend a bullet just as well as a man, all that matters is sheer numbers.
Two lovers may go to extreme lengths to save another despite breaking orders or something, not to mention if one of them gets promoted and gets into an authority position over the other. Plus all the drama associated with scorned advances, a man or woman bouncing between lovers, etc. It is a dumpster fire waiting to happen. I'm not saying it's impossible... it's that mixed sex regiments are usually more trouble then they are worth.
Again, long-term consequences for short-term soldiers. And in the unlikely event that a unit lasts long enough to have that kind of conflict, well, the mine-clearing penal units always require more volunteers.
It is far easier to just separate men and women into two autonomous groups and be done with it.
Actually it's much more difficult, because it requires the inventory system to track men and women separately. Remember, to the Imperium's war machine guardsmen are not people, they are simply another inventory item, another form of ammunition to be supplied and consumed. It's much easier to note that the war plan requires 500,000,000 guardsmen to be spent and send that many, along with 250,000,000 lasguns, 500,000,000 t-shirts, etc. Cadian? Mordian? Male? Female? Who knows, who cares. Allocate 500,000,000 pieces of guardsmen to the meat grinder and throw them into battle.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the whole realism argument is pretty funny in a setting where genetically engineered super-soldiers in terminator armor that puts their heads in the middle of their chests travel through hell to fight a horde of rioting British soccer fans (which are actually a sentient fungus) led by Margaret Thatcher, with perhaps a bonus round against the space elves in BDSM gear who have to fill a torture quota to hide from the god of excess their drug-fueled orgy spawned. But sure, human nature and romantic relationships are definitely an obstacle here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
w1zard wrote: Or just have neither obviously male or female bodies covered in armor/clothes and just have mixed heads and be a lot more flexible. Or are you dead set on female body sculpts?
IOW, "keep the same male sculpts and treat male as the default, ignoring any physical differences outside of head swaps". Yes, I do want to see actual female guardsmen instead of the same old male Cadian bodies with female heads.
Peregrine wrote: A pregnant woman can force the enemy to spend a bullet just as well as a man, all that matters is sheer numbers.
LOL so grimdark, I love it. Unfortunately that portrayal is never going to make it into mainstream lore for obvious reasons.
Peregrine wrote: Again, long-term consequences for short-term soldiers. And in the unlikely event that a unit lasts long enough to have that kind of conflict, well, the mine-clearing penal units always require more volunteers.
You are aware that a large percentage of men/women retire from the guard after long years of service aren't you. Not everyone is slated to die a glorious death on the battlefield.
Peregrine wrote: Actually it's much more difficult, because it requires the inventory system to track men and women separately. Remember, to the Imperium's war machine guardsmen are not people, they are simply another inventory item, another form of ammunition to be supplied and consumed. It's much easier to note that the war plan requires 500,000,000 guardsmen to be spent and send that many, along with 250,000,000 lasguns, 500,000,000 t-shirts, etc. Cadian? Mordian? Male? Female? Who knows, who cares. Allocate 500,000,000 pieces of guardsmen to the meat grinder and throw them into battle.
You are aware that most equipment is capable of being used by both genders right? Allocating an all-female or all-male regiment lasguns and flak armor makes no difference. All I'm saying is that male and female regiments are probably separate to keep the commissars from blowing their own brains out in frustration. Battlefield morale plays a huge part in how a regiment performs on the field both IRL and I would imagine in 40k.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, "keep the same male sculpts and treat male as the default, ignoring any physical differences outside of head swaps". Yes, I do want to see actual female guardsmen instead of the same old male Cadian bodies with female heads.
Which just proves my original point that some people won't be happy unless there are female sculpts and not just head swaps, which is why GW will never do it. Forcing people to buy multiple boxes if they want a unisex regiment is not a good business practice.
Or just have neither obviously male or female bodies covered in armor/clothes and just have mixed heads and be a lot more flexible. Or are you dead set on female body sculpts?
So male body sculpts?
Why so set against female body sculpts - works for Necromunda, Stormcast, Eldar, Dark Eldar etc - and of course all the non GW imperial Guard models.
I think that assessment of Imperial Guard is not 100% accurate Peregrine. It depends on the source, the author, and just what level of grimdark they are going for.
There are stories of Guardsmen who see many combats over multiple engagements and survive.
Why so set against female body sculpts - works for Necromunda, Stormcast, Eldar, Dark Eldar etc - and of course all the non GW imperial Guard models.
In theory I'm not. I would love female body sculpts. Unfortunately if GW sticks with the "10 bodies per box" mentality for IG they will effectively force people who want a unisex regiment to buy double the boxes.
It is also a bad business move to include 20 bodies (10 male and 10 female) per box, because it means doubling the plastic required for production.
w1zard wrote: Two lovers may go to extreme lengths to save another despite breaking orders or something, not to mention if one of them gets promoted and gets into an authority position over the other. Plus all the drama associated with scorned advances, a man or woman bouncing between lovers, etc. It is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
And why you think this would not happen in a single-gender regiment?
w1zard wrote: Two lovers may go to extreme lengths to save another despite breaking orders or something, not to mention if one of them gets promoted and gets into an authority position over the other. Plus all the drama associated with scorned advances, a man or woman bouncing between lovers, etc. It is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
And why you think this would not happen in a single-gender regiment?
It does, just to a far lesser extent then a mixed sex regiment because even GENEROUS estimates put gay+bisexual people at ~15% of the population. It is easier to control at that point.
w1zard wrote: You are aware that a large percentage of men/women retire from the guard after long years of service aren't you. Not everyone is slated to die a glorious death on the battlefield.
Propaganda myths to inspire heroic sacrifice. The majority of guardsmen die in combat, most of them very quickly. This is, after all, the faction where "send in the next wave" is a key strategy.
You are aware that most equipment is capable of being used by both genders right? Allocating an all-female or all-male regiment lasguns and flak armor makes no difference. All I'm saying is that male and female regiments are probably separate to keep the commissars from blowing their own brains out in frustration. Battlefield morale plays a huge part in how a regiment performs on the field both IRL and I would imagine in 40k.
The point is that the guardsmen themselves are inventory items. The Imperium's bureaucracy does not keep track of their gender or names or homeworld or anything like that. They are simply an inventory item to be maintained, one among many that is provided to a war. Case of 500,000 guardsmen, case of 500 lasgun power cells, it's all just inventory totals. Maintaining separate male and female regiments means maintaining two separate inventory items: guardsman (male) and guardsman (female). Why put the scribe servitors through all that extra work for such a superficial detail? After all, the scribe servitors are barely flesh creatures anyway, far removed from any concept of gender. Would the bureaucracy even understand that humans come in two varieties, or would they regard such a concept as utterly bizarre, like claiming that a power cell for a lasgun is male?
And morale is not an issue. Remember, this is not the real world of 2018, where we have a secular society that cares about the individual. This is the Imperium, where every guardsman knows that the surest way to avoid hell is honorable death in service to the Emperor. And for most guardsmen being granted an opportunity to die in battle is immensely better than working as a factory slave deep in a hive city where entire generations are born and die in the same factory. To fail and run from combat is to reject the Emperor's gift and to throw away eternity by His side in favor of eternal damnation.
Which just proves my original point that some people won't be happy unless there are female sculpts and not just head swaps, which is why GW will never do it. Forcing people to buy multiple boxes if they want a unisex regiment is not a good business practice.
And yet this is exactly what GW is doing with other product lines, so your claim that they never would does not seem to be dealing with reality.
(Also, forcing people to buy multiple boxes is great business practice in GW's business model. Why do you think they keep selling you units where you have to buy multiple kits to buy enough plasma guns to equip the entire squad?)
Peregrine wrote: (Also, forcing people to buy multiple boxes is great business practice in GW's business model. Why do you think they keep selling you units where you have to buy multiple kits to buy enough plasma guns to equip the entire squad?)
Our disagreements about 40k lore aside... Forcing people who want an all-male regiment or all-female regiment to buy double the boxes will spark a huge fan backlash from both groups. It's never going to happen, I'd be willing to bet my right testicle on it. It's too risky a business move with too much of a potential for blowback. The most we will ever see is female headswaps for male bodies, or more realistically an all-female line. MAYBE there might be a mixed sex guerrilla irregular model line or something but it will be separate from the main IG line.
The imperium does keep track of gender on a regimental level. Most mixed units are combined units, made of battlefield survivors.
Most are male, but they get whatever role they're trained for, regardless of gender. (10/1 male to female regiment). Most regiments are single gender to reduce the unwanted results of fraternization, though some regiments just dose the food of female regiments with contraceptives.
There are some equipment differences, and while life is cheap for a guardsman, a regiment can be expected to stick around for awhile, which means the Guard has to deal with various long term issues, which does include the occasional pregnancy. How that's dealt with depends on the regiment.
As for models. I'm in favor of making it depend on the regiment. Make male and female cadians (separate sprues), mixed valhallans (as an example), a male only regiment, and a female only regiment. If you're going to make multiple regiments (hopefully!), and don't want to change the fluff, then this would satisfy most people (who aren't opposed to any females in their plastic game).
Mmmpi wrote: The imperium does keep track of gender on a regimental level. Most mixed units are combined units, made of battlefield survivors.
Most are male, but they get whatever role they're trained for, regardless of gender. (10/1 male to female regiment). Most regiments are single gender to reduce the unwanted results of fraternization, though some regiments just dose the food of female regiments with contraceptives.
There are some equipment differences, and while life is cheap for a guardsman, a regiment can be expected to stick around for awhile, which means the Guard has to deal with various long term issues, which does include the occasional pregnancy. How that's dealt with depends on the regiment.
As for models. I'm in favor of making it depend on the regiment. Make male and female cadians (separate sprues), mixed valhallans (as an example), a male only regiment, and a female only regiment. If you're going to make multiple regiments (hopefully!), and don't want to change the fluff, then this would satisfy most people (who aren't opposed to any females in their plastic game).
@w1zard
FOr GW's products, unless it's a unit that's specifically mono-gendered (space marines, brides of khaine) then they tend to set it up a 1/5, or 1/4 ratio women/men. See eldar guardians for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Peregrine is right in how little the Imperium cares. The only reason they bother to keep track of gender at all is because of the slight differences in equipment and the results of fraternization. Also, PDF's are more likely to be mixed, and while most are trash, there are enough exceptions that you could make an 'elite PDF regiment' and have it fit in the general fluff just fine.
w1zard wrote: Forcing people who want an all-male regiment or all-female regiment to buy double the boxes will spark a huge fan backlash from both groups.
As opposed to forcing the people who want an all-female regiment to buy nothing, because the product doesn't exist? This is really an improvement over having to buy two boxes?
And, again, GW is already doing this with other factions and none of this outrage has happened. Your theories do not match reality.
I think if they went with the Eldar model of having 1 in every 4 or 5 be female, it wouldn't take long for people to accept it as the norm and get over it. There'd be neckbeards whining about the canon for a while, but come on, this is a science fantasy setting! We can have mixed gender and it not be a big deal.
w1zard wrote: Its the simple matter of having men and women in close proximity to each other. It's human nature that romantic relationships will form, and they will find ways to "entertain" themselves in their downtime. This is not ideal because these kind of entanglements damage battlefield efficiency. Pregnant women can't fight and are out of action for nine months.
You're assuming that a guardsman is expected to survive for nine months. They aren't. Expected time from deployment to death is a few minutes, maybe a day or two for the luckiest veterans. Pregnant women don't suffer any effects until long after a guardsman is expected to be dead. And TBH, would it even matter? The Imperial Guard is run on the principle of "we have more bodies than you have bullets, we win". A pregnant woman can force the enemy to spend a bullet just as well as a man, all that matters is sheer numbers.
Even assuming that this mortality rate is accurate once the guardsmen reach the field of battle, this doesn't account for the long months in transit to the campaign zones. If we're looking at a 50/50 split for a mixed regiment, it is entirely possible that a significant portion of that group will be pregnant even before ever reaching a point where they are deployed.
I for one wholeheartedly support the despairing Commissars handing out 'The Emperor Protects' condoms and giving rousing speeches on safe-sex practices to avoid combat inefficiency. Failure to adhere to these regulations will result in the termination of the fetus, along with the guardswoman carrying it.
dkoz wrote: There are already female models in the guard boxes. Just like modern real soldiers once their wearing armor and a helmet you can't tell the difference between them and the joe next to them. Also how does anyone know how any of those guardspeople identify maybe a bunch of them identify as female.
Except lots of countries are providing different uniforms for female soldiers based on comfort to the female form, including more space for the breasts >_> That is a real thing, not just some style deal. Sorry to break it to people, but boobs actually need room to breath. I know seeing boobs much less feeling or having them on Dakka Dakka is rare, but squishing them inside of armor or restictive clothing gets super uncomfortable after awhile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually if there would be Female models for guard i'd imagine there would be an interesting case to be made for an Slaaneshi traitor guard. Granted it depends on the models and their looks but anyways.
Of course only for science.
I think Khorne is the only true Chaos God for the IG...What other army kills off their own troops so frequently?
Allready got that covered though, there however can never be enough heresy! So additional cannonfodder for the meatgrinder is appreciated, even if it is cannonfodder from the god of extremeist taste.
Remember Khorne does not care from where the blood flows, only that it does.
Additionally your "Kharn, the motherlands Proletariot" is now something i want to model, preferentially with a Commissarhat.
w1zard wrote: Forcing people who want an all-male regiment or all-female regiment to buy double the boxes will spark a huge fan backlash from both groups.
As opposed to forcing the people who want an all-female regiment to buy nothing, because the product doesn't exist? This is really an improvement over having to buy two boxes?
Or just making an all-female cadian box to make everyone happy.
People who want mixed regiments can mix and match to their heart's content in whatever ratio they desire.
Peregrine wrote: And, again, GW is already doing this with other factions and none of this outrage has happened. Your theories do not match reality.
Because other factions such as Eldar are explicitly stated to be mixed sex at all levels of society. So nobody cares as it fits the fluff. Most IG regiments (90+%) are single sex outfits with only some oddball regiments and the scratch regiments made up of survivors being mixed sex, and even then only in the most dire of circumstances.
w1zard wrote: Forcing people who want an all-male regiment or all-female regiment to buy double the boxes will spark a huge fan backlash from both groups.
As opposed to forcing the people who want an all-female regiment to buy nothing, because the product doesn't exist? This is really an improvement over having to buy two boxes?
Or just making an all-female cadian box to make everyone happy.
People who want mixed regiments can mix and match to their heart's content in whatever ratio they desire.
Probably the best suggestion.
Depending on Fluff and desperation in the sector etc. Would also allow for nice narrative scenarios, etc.
w1zard wrote: Or just making an all-female cadian box to make everyone happy.
People who want mixed regiments can mix and match to their heart's content in whatever ratio they desire.
That is unrealistic, given GW's limited support for any faction that isn't space marines. I would much rather have a Cadian box with a 50/50 split and another faction or two with a similar split instead of two different Cadian boxes. Plus, your proposal doesn't give everyone what they want. If I want to have a mixed squad of Cadians I have to buy one box of each, instead of buying a single mixed-gender box. In fact, your idea makes very little sense as anything but pandering to the people who hate the idea of women in their entertainment.
And, again, we have seen the examples with GW's other product lines: mixed-gender boxes, zero controversy.
Peregrine wrote: That is unrealistic, given GW's limited support for any faction that isn't space marines. I would much rather have a Cadian box with a 50/50 split and another faction or two with a similar split instead of two different Cadian boxes. Plus, your proposal doesn't give everyone what they want. If I want to have a mixed squad of Cadians I have to buy one box of each, instead of buying a single mixed-gender box. In fact, your idea makes very little sense as anything but pandering to the people who hate the idea of women in their entertainment.
What about someone who wants to make an all-female regiment? Assuming that there is a 50/50 sex split in an infantry box, you are forcing someone who wants an all-female or all-male regiment to buy 5 models they aren't going to use. As opposed to someone who wants to have a mixed infantry regiment with seperate sex boxes... sure they have to buy 2 boxes, but they can use all 20 models. Sorry, but having a seperate all-female box seems like a much better solution for all parties involved.
Peregrine wrote: And, again, we have seen the examples with GW's other product lines: mixed-gender boxes, zero controversy.
w1zard wrote: Because other factions such as Eldar are explicitly stated to be mixed sex at all levels of society. So nobody cares as it fits the fluff. Most IG regiments (90+%) are single sex outfits with only some oddball regiments and the scratch regiments made up of survivors being mixed sex, and even then only in the most dire of circumstances.
And, again, having separate boxes is not realistic. GW does not provide non-marine product lines with that much support, and they have already established that they introduce mixed-gender units with a single mixed-gender kit. And if GW did do two separate boxes it would probably come at the cost of not introducing a non-Cadian regiment box, which is not acceptable.
For reals, a mixed gender IG sprue is not a big deal. Anything from heads swaps to boob-flak would just be normal the next time a sprue is made.
I like Warmachine. To me, I'd like to see women in less pin-up gear, but that's me. I recently bought the old Khador box, and you can see Sorcha's butt through a heavy coat. That's a sculptor's prerogative, but seems silly to me.
I'm all for increased presence of women in 40k armies. I still remember being disappointed a little when I went from old-Dark Eldar to Cadians when they first came out, and noticing there were no women on the sprues. I had expected at least 1/5, and a 1:1 ratio would have been absolutely fine by me. Birth rate and recruitment rate are equal... that can only happen if both genders are being put into service.
And not to ruin the surprise for anyone, but you're only getting new recruits if you have some mixed gender elements. Probably lots of them if you want to keep recruitment rates high.
Hopefully the next regiment to be released will have options for women on the sprue.
Sure, when something doesn't convenience you or doesn't fit your narrative, just change it... That never backfires at all...
Peregrine wrote: And, again, having separate boxes is not realistic. GW does not provide non-marine product lines with that much support, and they have already established that they introduce mixed-gender units with a single mixed-gender kit. And if GW did do two separate boxes it would probably come at the cost of not introducing a non-Cadian regiment box, which is not acceptable.
Maybe to you.
I think a far better solution to the "multiple regiments" issue is having cadians be the "base" and having "upgrade" boxes for the other regiments like catachans, valhallans, etc...
greatbigtree wrote: For reals, a mixed gender IG sprue is not a big deal. Anything from heads swaps to boob-flak would just be normal the next time a sprue is made.
I like Warmachine. To me, I'd like to see women in less pin-up gear, but that's me. I recently bought the old Khador box, and you can see Sorcha's butt through a heavy coat. That's a sculptor's prerogative, but seems silly to me.
I'm all for increased presence of women in 40k armies. I still remember being disappointed a little when I went from old-Dark Eldar to Cadians when they first came out, and noticing there were no women on the sprues. I had expected at least 1/5, and a 1:1 ratio would have been absolutely fine by me. Birth rate and recruitment rate are equal... that can only happen if both genders are being put into service.
Hopefully the next regiment to be released will have options for women on the sprue.
Even in Cadian regiments, most are separated by gender.
So just a question for both Peregrine and anyone else. Why a 1:5 ratio for women:men. Doesn't that make an all-female regiment that much harder to collect? If we want to be fair shouldn't we have a 50/50 split between women and men?
w1zard wrote: Most IG regiments (90+%) are single sex outfits with only some oddball regiments and the scratch regiments made up of survivors being mixed sex, and even then only in the most dire of circumstances.
Source? My Asta Militarum codex makes no mention of such.
w1zard wrote: Most IG regiments (90+%) are single sex outfits with only some oddball regiments and the scratch regiments made up of survivors being mixed sex, and even then only in the most dire of circumstances.
Source? My Asta Militarum codex makes no mention of such.
Ciaphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghost novels mention it quite often.
greatbigtree wrote: I edited my post while you were quoting. If birth rate and recruitment rate are equal, how do you get new recruits without mixed gender groups?
Ciaphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghost novels mention it quite often.
Right. That is just Black Library nonsense. Black Library authors think that Librarians can jump on orbit and cut space ships in twain with force swords. BL novels are not even consistent with themselves. There is no mention of such gender limits in codices or rulebooks.
I've seen it a few times, most recently in the Cain novels. It's stated that only 10% of regiments are all women, mixed regiments are extremely rare, and the rest are all male.
That's not counting combined regiments, where two damaged units are merged into one (in fluff only the Valhallens and Voystrians are known for sending replacements, the rest just make new regiments.)
So just a question for both Peregrine and anyone else. Why a 1:5 ratio for women:men. Doesn't that make an all-female regiment that much harder to collect? If we want to be fair shouldn't we have a 50/50 split between women and men?
I think 1:5 is only getting mentioned because of the comparison to the Eldar sprues.
Ciaphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghost novels mention it quite often.
Right. That is just Black Library nonsense. Black Library authors think that Librarians can jump on orbit and cut space ships in twain with force swords. BL novels are not even consistent with themselves. There is no mention of such gender limits in codices or rulebooks.
Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain are the two most popular novel series that portray Guard in the 40k setting. Apart from the Last Chancer's series and a few popular one-off novels like Fifteen Hours, they make up the bulk of the IG lore for 40k. You cannot just ignore them.
If you want to ignore every BL novel and only consider the codex canon, you have very little lore to work with.
So just a question for both Peregrine and anyone else. Why a 1:5 ratio for women:men. Doesn't that make an all-female regiment that much harder to collect? If we want to be fair shouldn't we have a 50/50 split between women and men?
One to five is what other factions have. Not that it's ideal. Eldar guardians and I think Kabal warriors are 1/4.
So just a question for both Peregrine and anyone else. Why a 1:5 ratio for women:men. Doesn't that make an all-female regiment that much harder to collect? If we want to be fair shouldn't we have a 50/50 split between women and men?
One to five is what other factions have. Not that it's ideal. Eldar guardians and I think Kabal warriors are 1/4.
Sure, which is why I was suggesting a full female cadian box and a full male cadian box. That way, people who want single sex regiments are happy (male or female), and people who want mixed sex regiments at whatever ratio they desire are happy as well. Granted, it is more work for GW, but if female guardswomen are introduced into the product line, that is how I think it should be done IMO.
Ciaphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghost novels mention it quite often.
Right. That is just Black Library nonsense. Black Library authors think that Librarians can jump on orbit and cut space ships in twain with force swords. BL novels are not even consistent with themselves. There is no mention of such gender limits in codices or rulebooks.
Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain are the two most popular novel series that portray Guard in the 40k setting. Apart from the Last Chancer's series and a few popular one-off novels like Fifteen Hours, they make up the bulk of the IG lore for 40k. You cannot just ignore them.
If you want to ignore every BL novel and only consider the codex canon, you have very little lore to work with.
The canon arguments in general hold very little water. It varies from source to source, there are conflicting things, and GW has both suggested that sources like Codexes are intentionally exaggerated so as to come from the point of view of that faction and have shown a willingness to bend or break canon to fit in what they want to do in the setting going forward.
So I don't really care what various novels have said on the subject, it's irrelevant to the argument to be honest.
Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain are the two most popular novel series that portray Guard in the 40k setting. Apart from the Last Chancer's series and a few popular one-off novels like Fifteen Hours, they make up the bulk of the IG lore for 40k. You cannot just ignore them.
Yes I can. Most 40K players have not read them. Besides, we're not talking about ignoring entire books, but some throwaway detail. The studio cannot be beholden to every obscure reference in every BL book some author decodes to throw there on a whim. I mean, wehre are my multilaser wielding terminators?
If you want to ignore every BL novel and only consider the codex canon, you have very little lore to work with.
This is what most people do. Only small minority of 40K player read the BL books.
Peregrine wrote: (Also, forcing people to buy multiple boxes is great business practice in GW's business model. Why do you think they keep selling you units where you have to buy multiple kits to buy enough plasma guns to equip the entire squad?)
Our disagreements about 40k lore aside... Forcing people who want an all-male regiment or all-female regiment to buy double the boxes will spark a huge fan backlash from both groups. It's never going to happen, I'd be willing to bet my right testicle on it. It's too risky a business move with too much of a potential for blowback. The most we will ever see is female headswaps for male bodies, or more realistically an all-female line. MAYBE there might be a mixed sex guerrilla irregular model line or something but it will be separate from the main IG line.
They have done it with Dark Eldar (The Kabalites has 6 males and 4 females and the Witch box has 6 females and 4 males) and with the new Stormcast Eternals. Nobody has complained. Is like wanting to have a full unhelmeted army. In many cases you need to buy multiple boxes. With the new primaris, they give you enough heads to make a full helmeted or unhelmeted unit (Something I'm very glad, because I always put helmets in my models), but thats the exception, and nobody has really complainet.
Wanting to have an All-X army is the exception, not the norm, purely aesthetical, and people is expected to pay an extra if they want it.
At the end of the day Lore means 0 to GW (Primaris, The End Times, AoS). If they see a commercial opportunity in this, they will take it. If it sells well, then they will continue with the thrend of mixed gendered units, something we have seen in recent AoS releases (Namarti Thralls and Reavers, Sacrosant Stormcasts), but thats probably because the fanbase of AoS is much more "young" and open to new concepts and ideas, and the w40k hates change, for obvious reasons, one is a stablished setting and the other has just 3 years of life.
w1zard wrote: Sure, when something doesn't convenience you or doesn't fit your narrative, just change it... That never backfires at all...
Say hi to primaris marines. They seem to be selling.
I think a far better solution to the "multiple regiments" issue is having cadians be the "base" and having "upgrade" boxes for the other regiments like catachans, valhallans, etc...
That doesn't work at all. The base model between a Cadian and a Catachan and a Valhallan is going to be way too different and any "upgrade" box would consist of complete new models. Trying to a conversion sprue for the Cadians would mean ruining the alternate regiments by turning them into Cadians with fancy hats or whatever. That is not an acceptable price to pay for slightly more convenience for Cadian players.
Why a 1:5 ratio for women:men. Doesn't that make an all-female regiment that much harder to collect? If we want to be fair shouldn't we have a 50/50 split between women and men?
I never said 1:5. I'd be happy with 50/50, but I'd expect GW to continue their trend and do something closer to 1:5.
That doesn't work at all. The base model between a Cadian and a Catachan and a Valhallan is going to be way too different and any "upgrade" box would consist of complete new models. Trying to a conversion sprue for the Cadians would mean ruining the alternate regiments by turning them into Cadians with fancy hats or whatever. That is not an acceptable price to pay for slightly more convenience for Cadian players.
You're right, however what other army gets a full line of kits for every sub faction? Not many right? If you count Blood Angels/Dark Angels/Space puppies then sure, though they are standalone codex armies.
Point is, I can't ever see us getting full ranges for many regiments again. I think GW realised it didn't make much economic sense to do it that way.
Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain are the two most popular novel series that portray Guard in the 40k setting. Apart from the Last Chancer's series and a few popular one-off novels like Fifteen Hours, they make up the bulk of the IG lore for 40k. You cannot just ignore them.
Yes I can. Most 40K players have not read them. Besides, we're not talking about ignoring entire books, but some throwaway detail. The studio cannot be beholden to every obscure reference in every BL book some author decodes to throw there on a whim. I mean, wehre are my multilaser wielding terminators?
If you want to ignore every BL novel and only consider the codex canon, you have very little lore to work with.
This is what most people do. Only small minority of 40K player read the BL books.
I wonder if that’s true, several of the heresy novels made it to the New York Times best seller list, that’s quite a feat, I do know plenty of people that read the novels and have zero interest in the game however.
So just a question for both Peregrine and anyone else. Why a 1:5 ratio for women:men. Doesn't that make an all-female regiment that much harder to collect? If we want to be fair shouldn't we have a 50/50 split between women and men?
One to five is what other factions have. Not that it's ideal. Eldar guardians and I think Kabal warriors are 1/4.
Sure, which is why I was suggesting a full female cadian box and a full male cadian box. That way, people who want single sex regiments are happy (male or female), and people who want mixed sex regiments at whatever ratio they desire are happy as well. Granted, it is more work for GW, but if female guardswomen are introduced into the product line, that is how I think it should be done IMO.
Way, way too expensive. And additionally, official GW stores would need to find a place to put it. In general, I think just a changein the existing sprues or an upgrade pack would be far more cost effective for GW.
Stux wrote: So I don't really care what various novels have said on the subject, it's irrelevant to the argument to be honest.
Then what is relevant?
If you are going to exclude the BL novels and the codices from discussions about 40k lore then how do we even have a reasonable discussion about the 40k setting?
Crimson wrote: This is what most people do. Only small minority of 40K player read the BL books.
Oh you sweet summer child. You do realize that the 40k novels are more popular then the tabletop game right? Like an order of magnitude more popular.
Galas wrote: They have done it with Dark Eldar (The Kabalites has 6 males and 4 females and the Witch box has 6 females and 4 males) and with the new Stormcast Eternals. Nobody has complained. Is like wanting to have a full unhelmeted army. In many cases you need to buy multiple boxes. With the new primaris, they give you enough heads to make a full helmeted or unhelmeted unit (Something I'm very glad, because I always put helmets in my models), but thats the exception, and nobody has really complainet.
Wanting to have an All-X army is the exception, not the norm, purely aesthetical, and people is expected to pay an extra if they want it.
At the end of the day Lore means 0 to GW (Primaris, The End Times, AoS). If they see a commercial opportunity in this, they will take it. If it sells well, then they will continue with the thrend of mixed gendered units, something we have seen in recent AoS releases (Namarti Thralls and Reavers, Sacrosant Stormcasts), but thats probably because the fanbase of AoS is much more "young" and open to new concepts and ideas, and the w40k hates change, for obvious reasons, one is a stablished setting and the other has just 3 years of life.
For the last time, you cannot compare including female models in an Eldar box set (dark eldar or otherwise) when culturally the eldar are mixed sex at all levels of society. Humans (even in the 40k era) aren't. The lore states that most IG regiments are single sex formations, and until we start seeing lore that says otherwise, or GW changes things, that is what most people are going to expect. Not to mention that if they start selling mixed sex infantry boxes, it's going to piss off a lot of people who have headcanon for their own regiment, and also piss off people on both sides of the issue that want all-female or all-male regiments
I agree that we need guardswomen models: They are a massive part of the Imperial warmachine, more inclusiveness is always welcome, and it isn't fair that people who want female regiments have to go third party but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't force people to change their armies overnight. Even with GW's introduction of Primaris Marines, you can still play with your old scale marine models so your army doesn't have to change.
I think all-female guard boxes are the way to go, as they pretty much satisfy everyone's needs.
vaklor4 wrote: Way, way too expensive. And additionally, official GW stores would need to find a place to put it. In general, I think just a changein the existing sprues or an upgrade pack would be far more cost effective for GW.
I'm fine with an upgrade pack too, but people in this thread seem dead set on female body sculpts .
Stux wrote: So I don't really care what various novels have said on the subject, it's irrelevant to the argument to be honest.
Then what is relevant?
If you are going to exclude the BL novels and the codices from discussions about 40k lore then how do we even have a reasonable discussion about the 40k setting?
This isn't a discussion about 40k lore or setting, it's a discussion about whether female Guard would sell. That depends on how they are introduced of course, and that depends to an extent on the lore I will grant you.
What I am saying is is that the lore is and always has been mutable. We shouldn't be saying 'the lore says this, so we are bound forever by it'. We should be deciding what is best separate from the lore and then allow the lore to bend to fit it.
Oh you sweet summer child. You do realize that the 40k novels are more popular then the tabletop game right? Like an order of magnitude more popular.
No I don't. On what you're basing this assumption? Furthermore, that is not even what I said. I said that majority of the players do not read the novels. There can be bunch of non-gamers who read the books for this to still be true.
And most importantly, you just cant pluck some obscure details like this from a BL books and assume them to automatically apply to the studio fluff. BL books are way too inconsistent for that to work. Each author just writes what they like, especially for books that are not part of a shared ongoing story like HH (and even then the continuity of these sort of details is not monitored.) Abnett is so famous for contradicting the studio fluff, that his version of the setting is sometimes called 'Abnettverse' as it differs from the studio setting so much. And let's not get started about Goto.
w1zard wrote: Two lovers may go to extreme lengths to save another despite breaking orders or something, not to mention if one of them gets promoted and gets into an authority position over the other. Plus all the drama associated with scorned advances, a man or woman bouncing between lovers, etc. It is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
And why you think this would not happen in a single-gender regiment?
It does, just to a far lesser extent then a mixed sex regiment because even GENEROUS estimates put gay+bisexual people at ~15% of the population. It is easier to control at that point.
The connotations behind "controlling" same sex relationships isn't a good one, and has no backing for my long term, but general knowledge of the setting, the Impetium doesn't care who and how you love, as long as they're human.
You'd need more than heads. With just uniforms and armor, but not bandoleers and pouches, which most GW infantry doesn't carry in large amounts, female soldiers are noticeably smaller then male soldiers, with a thinner waist.
Spoiler:
I chose this picture because the male soldier, while huge in the real world, seems to be the right size for an heroic scale mini.
Blndmage wrote: The connotations behind "controlling" same sex relationships isn't a good one, and has no backing for my long term, but general knowledge of the setting, the Impetium doesn't care who and how you love, as long as they're human.
Oh please. Your vague implications are insulting.
Romantic relationships are not a welcome part of a military unit, IRL and in 40k, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. They degrade combat efficiency, introduce drama and divisiveness into interactions that should be cohesive, and serve as an overall distraction. They definitely need to be "controlled" in order to keep the unit from degrading. Ever work in an environment where co-workers or superiors/inferiors were sexually involved with each other?
Dandelion wrote: How to add female guard:
- 10 helmeted heads
- 5 male heads
- 5 female heads
The scion box has 17 heads for 5 models, so this really isn't a stretch. Or if you're feeling thrifty:
- 10 helmets
- 10 male heads
- 10 female heads
People have demonstrated in this thread that they think head swaps aren't enough and they want actual female body sculpts.
Crimson wrote: No I don't. On what you're basing this assumption? Furthermore, that is not even what I said. I said that majority of the players do not read the novels. There can be bunch of non-gamers who read the books for this to still be true.
The fact that the 40k tabletop game remains a pretty niche hobby even to this day, while multiple BL novels have made the top of the New York Times best seller list. You absolutely have a lot of non-tabletop gamers reading 40k books, but that is irrelevant to my original assertion. The 40k novels are more popular overall than the tabletop game, period.
Like it or not, the BL novels are part and parcel of the 40k setting. In fact they are a large majority of the 40k setting.
Mmmpi wrote: You'd need more than heads. With just uniforms and armor, but not bandoleers and pouches, which most GW infantry doesn't carry in large amounts, female soldiers are noticeably smaller then male soldiers, with a thinner waist.
Spoiler:
I chose this picture because the male soldier, while huge in the real world, seems to be the right size for an heroic scale mini.
A few points:
- Minis are tiny. There is more than enough room for approximations, and the fact that guardsmen are heroic scale would imply that female guard would also be heroic scaled. (Heroic scale = not actually to scale)
- Size varies between individuals. You can have a large woman and a small man easy peasy. Standardizing them into one size is just so much easier.
Spoiler:
- As you can see, the woman on the far left is larger than the man on the far right.
Spoiler:
- Compare the torso of the male wych to the female wych. They're pretty much the same aside from the boob plate. Also the height's the same.
So unless you want to go all stormcast on the guard (I don't), just keep it to a headswap.
The fact that the 40k tabletop game remains a pretty niche hobby even to this day, while multiple BL novels have made the top of the New York Times best seller list. You absolutely have a lot of non-tabletop gamers reading 40k books, but that is irrelevant to my original assertion. The 40k novels are more popular overall than the tabletop game, period.
I'm not convinced. It takes 9000 copies sold during the first week to get on NY times best seller list. I bet most codices sell way more than that, not to mention starter sets.
The fact that the 40k tabletop game remains a pretty niche hobby even to this day, while multiple BL novels have made the top of the New York Times best seller list. You absolutely have a lot of non-tabletop gamers reading 40k books, but that is irrelevant to my original assertion. The 40k novels are more popular overall than the tabletop game, period.
I'm not convinced. It takes 9000 copies sold during the first week to get on NY times best seller list. I bet most codices sell way more than that, not to mention starter sets.
Don't you remember when CoD4 came out and it's instruction manual and was at the top of the Best Seller list for like 6 months?
mugginns wrote: Dang, the lunatic fringe is definitely alive and well on DakkaDakka. Surprised the mods tolerate this kind of stuff.
This. I just read the last few pages and there are some vile, vile posts. Maybe Dakka should just merge with 4chan? The post content seems to be the same anytime anyone mentions women. It’s shameful.
And now we get takes like 'if we include female soldiers, they can be sexual torture victims for Slaanesh! hur hur'
Which just proves my original point that some people won't be happy unless there are female sculpts and not just head swaps, which is why GW will never do it. Forcing people to buy multiple boxes if they want a unisex regiment is not a good business practice.
Hey man they're already doing this with Stormcast, drukhari, Deepkin, etcetc
w1zard wrote: Holy gak, and there are extremist idiots even here. Someone was saying women's suffrage was a bad idea... followed by other people claiming that anyone who doesn't share their opinion is a sexist bigot that deserves to be publicly ridiculed. This is why I hate politics.
-No, just because people aren't as progressive as you doesn't mean they are all closet nazis/sexists.
-No, just because people want to see more women and minorities in traditionally white-male dominated media doesn't mean they are evil communists who want to destroy America and everything you hold dear.
Can we please stop trying to demonize the other side and treat each other like people with differing opinions?
I saw the post claiming womens' suffrage was a bad idea, but could you point out the post where someone said anyone who didnt share their opinion was a sexist bigot who deserved to be publicly ridiculed? Because you're trying to set up a dichotomy here where both sides are equally bad, but it kind of looks like you're basing the extreme behavior of one side on what they say, and the extreme behavior of the other on your own interpretation of what they imply.
mugginns wrote: Hey man they're already doing this with Stormcast, drukhari, Deepkin, etcetc
Sure, but like I said, it's different because almost all guard regiments are unisex in the lore. Most guard players also have an idea about how they want to represent their regiment as well, and female soldiers (or male soldiers) may not be part of that.
I play greatcoat+gasmask guardsmen and use third party pieces. But I do use the torsos from the GW infantry box and I would be pretty peeved if I had to start filling up my regiment with boobplate torsos... and it will be boobplate torsos, because if GW is going to go through the trouble of making female sculpts they are going to be obviously female. I would be fine with it if it was tastefully done though, but I don't trust GW to do that.
This is why I think female headswaps or an entirely female infantry box would be a better option for all parties involved. We definitely need female guardsmen though. It's not fair that people who want to have a female or mixed regiment have to go third party.
Peregrine wrote: That doesn't work at all. The base model between a Cadian and a Catachan and a Valhallan is going to be way too different and any "upgrade" box would consist of complete new models. Trying to a conversion sprue for the Cadians would mean ruining the alternate regiments by turning them into Cadians with fancy hats or whatever. That is not an acceptable price to pay for slightly more convenience for Cadian players.
Actually I could see Valhallans being made by just swapping out the legs and head from a cadian. A Catachan is a torso and arms swap. I don't think it is realistic to expect GW to run 5 different model lines just for guard players, upgrade sprues off of a "cadian base" might be the best we can hope for.
mugginns wrote: Hey man they're already doing this with Stormcast, drukhari, Deepkin, etcetc
Sure, but like I said, it's different because almost all guard regiments are unisex in the lore. Most guard players also have an idea about how they want to represent their regiment as well, and female soldiers (or male soldiers) may not be part of that.
I play greatcoat+gasmask guardsmen and use third party pieces. But I do use the torsos from the GW infantry box and I would be pretty peeved if I had to start filling up my regiment with boobplate torsos... and it will be boobplate torsos, because if GW is going to go through the trouble of making female sculpts they are going to be obviously female.
This is why I think female headswaps or an entirely female infantry box would be a better option for all parties involved. We definitely need female guardsmen though. It's not fair that people who want to have a female or mixed regiment have to go third party.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read the latest thread, you're still trying to set yourself up as a "reasonable middle ground" and to do that you need to cast people who do not want female guardsmen as crazy conservative fringe and people who want female guardsmen in the same kit as crazy liberal fringe.
THATS why you have to pretend that the response to "women should not have the right to vote" was "you are a sexist misogynist woman-hater if you disagree at all with my view" instead of the much more common "wtf are you talking about, there is not a horde of feminists losing their minds when GW puts out kits with women in them" response that you'll actually read if you go through those pages.
Sorry. carry on with your narrative. I thought it might have been a mistake you pretending to have people saying crazy left wing stuff.
the_scotsman wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read the latest thread, you're still trying to set yourself up as a "reasonable middle ground" and to do that you need to cast people who do not want female guardsmen as crazy conservative fringe and people who want female guardsmen in the same kit as crazy liberal fringe.
THATS why you have to pretend that the response to "women should not have the right to vote" was "you are a sexist misogynist woman-hater if you disagree at all with my view" instead of the much more common "wtf are you talking about, there is not a horde of feminists losing their minds when GW puts out kits with women in them" response that you'll actually read if you go through those pages.
Sorry. carry on with your narrative. I thought it might have been a mistake you pretending to have people saying crazy left wing stuff.
What?
I'm not trying to set myself up as anything.
I agree that it would be cool to see female guardswomen, but I don't think that forcing people to run mixed regiments by putting them in the same box is the way to do it.
I just think the people who respond with "lol women shouldn't be able to vote", or "we need female guard models in the basic infantry box and feth anyone who gets upset about it (while strongly implying the upset people are sexist)" are as equally bad as each other.
mugginns wrote: Hey man they're already doing this with Stormcast, drukhari, Deepkin, etcetc
Sure, but like I said, it's different because almost all guard regiments are unisex in the lore. Most guard players also have an idea about how they want to represent their regiment as well, and female soldiers (or male soldiers) may not be part of that.
I play greatcoat+gasmask guardsmen and use third party pieces. But I do use the torsos from the GW infantry box and I would be pretty peeved if I had to start filling up my regiment with boobplate torsos... and it will be boobplate torsos, because if GW is going to go through the trouble of making female sculpts they are going to be obviously female. I would be fine with it if it was tastefully done though, but I don't trust GW to do that.
This is why I think female headswaps or an entirely female infantry box would be a better option for all parties involved. We definitely need female guardsmen though. It's not fair that people who want to have a female or mixed regiment have to go third party.
So they just change the lore. It worked with Primaris marines. Stormcast were all male for a while.
If someone doesn't want women in their regiments then they don't use the models. There are other companies or models they can use.
mugginns wrote: So they just change the lore. It worked with Primaris marines. Stormcast were all male for a while.
For what it is worth I didn't agree with the Primaris stuff either. It was a hamfisted way of having lore justification of new models.
But, at least the Primaris stuff was ADDING things to the lore. Changing the IG from a unisex fighting force involved retconning pretty much all of the established IG lore.
mugginns wrote: If someone doesn't want women in their regiments then they don't use the models. There are other companies or models they can use.
Very clever
But I am in agreement with you that we need guardswomen, it's a longstanding issue that needs correction. My only disagreements are in how that goal is accomplished.
mugginns wrote: So they just change the lore. It worked with Primaris marines. Stormcast were all male for a while.
If someone doesn't want women in their regiments then they don't use the models. There are other companies or models they can use.
For what it is worth I didn't agree with the Primaris stuff either. It was a hamfisted way of having lore justification of new models.
But, at least the Primaris stuff was ADDING things to the lore. Changing the IG from a unisex fighting force involved retconning pretty much all of the established IG lore.
I wasn't aware Gender was addressed in IG lore, except saying that some regiments were unisex, some regiments were not.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I wasn't aware Gender was addressed in IG lore, except saying that some regiments were unisex, some regiments were not.
Both the Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain novel series repeat ad nauseum that the majority of guard regiments are unisex. They do it so often because the "protagonist regiments" in both novel series are mixed sex and it causes problems sometimes. They go out of their way to mention it multiple times over the course of both series.
I think it is also mentioned in other IG novels as well.
the_scotsman wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read the latest thread, you're still trying to set yourself up as a "reasonable middle ground" and to do that you need to cast people who do not want female guardsmen as crazy conservative fringe and people who want female guardsmen in the same kit as crazy liberal fringe.
THATS why you have to pretend that the response to "women should not have the right to vote" was "you are a sexist misogynist woman-hater if you disagree at all with my view" instead of the much more common "wtf are you talking about, there is not a horde of feminists losing their minds when GW puts out kits with women in them" response that you'll actually read if you go through those pages.
Sorry. carry on with your narrative. I thought it might have been a mistake you pretending to have people saying crazy left wing stuff.
What?
I'm not trying to set myself up as anything.
I agree that it would be cool to see female guardswomen, but I don't think that forcing people to run mixed regiments by putting them in the same box is the way to do it.
I just think the people who respond with "lol women shouldn't be able to vote", or "we need female guard models in the basic infantry box and feth anyone who gets upset about it (while strongly implying the upset people are sexist)" are as equally bad as each other.
....you do? You think that someone expressing a ridiculous opinion and someone else ridiculing that opinion are equivalent?
basic plastic kits for a given faction are almost always going to include the most generic options that appeal to the most people.
It is unrealistic that Games Workshop is going to take the opportunity to make two separate kits, purely for the aesthetic distinction of the models' sex.
This pleases people who would like their guard regiments to be only male, like yourself. It makes things the hardest for people who would like their guard regiments to be only female, and it requires anyone who would like any female models at all to go to third party model manufacturers.
If you include more options in a single kit, the people who want their guys to be all one thing can make that so by buying multiple kits.
It does not make you sexist, bigoted or otherwise to want to make your guys all one thing, but it does make you extremely naive if you think the approach GW is likely to take is not going to be to add more variety to the single sprue. Regardless of what option you want. If you wanted the guard kit to include 3 plasma guns and for GW to produce another kit with only flamers so that you can have an easier time building your guys as all plasma guns, I'd say you were being equally unrealistic. And I am not implying that you are sexist, nor have I from the start of the thread. If a new guard kit ever was made, it would probably include female torsos and heads.
If you're lucky, you might get the Harlequin, Eldar, Kabalite or Tau treatment, where there are enough male parts in the kit to make all males if you want.
mugginns wrote: So they just change the lore. It worked with Primaris marines. Stormcast were all male for a while.
For what it is worth I didn't agree with the Primaris stuff either. It was a hamfisted way of having lore justification of new models.
But, at least the Primaris stuff was ADDING things to the lore. Changing the IG from a unisex fighting force involved retconning pretty much all of the established IG lore.
It wouldn't exactly be like retconning Gulliman to be a World Eater or the Tau to be worshippers of Khorne. You're talking about a pretty small detail.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I wasn't aware Gender was addressed in IG lore, except saying that some regiments were unisex, some regiments were not.
Both the Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain novel series repeat ad nauseum that the majority of guard regiments are unisex. They do it so often because the "protagonist regiments" in both novel series are mixed sex and it causes problems sometimes. They go out of their way to mention it multiple times over the course of both series.
I think it is also mentioned in other IG novels as well.
Right, so how is saying "regiments are unisex usually but not always" somehow translate to "Mixed regiments are changing the fluff?"
Just because they're rare doesn't mean they're unfluffy. Hell, Draigo and Guilliman are rarer than mixed sex guard regiments, but I see more of them than I do female guardsmen, even in narrative games...
the_scotsman wrote: ....you do? You think that someone expressing a ridiculous opinion and someone else ridiculing that opinion are equivalent?
No, they are two equally ridiculous opinions.
the_scotsman wrote: basic plastic kits for a given faction are almost always going to include the most generic options that appeal to the most people.
It is unrealistic that Games Workshop is going to take the opportunity to make two separate kits, purely for the aesthetic distinction of the models' sex.
This pleases people who would like their guard regiments to be only male, like yourself. It makes things the hardest for people who would like their guard regiments to be only female, and it requires anyone who would like any female models at all to go to third party model manufacturers.
If you include more options in a single kit, the people who want their guys to be all one thing can make that so by buying multiple kits.
So you are automatically assuming GW is going to limit itself to one kit, even though they have run multiple guard lines in the past? Ok fine...
-Assuming GW limits itself to one infantry kit.
-Assuming that they don't want to include female heads with unisex torsos.
-Assuming they won't include 10 female body sculpts and 10 male ones and only give 10 sets of legs/arms.
But all those assumptions makes it seem like GW is going out of its way to force something on a lot of people who may not want it. Hell, I'm even fine with female torsos if they are tastefully done, but "tastefully" done to me pretty much looks like a male torso anyway so why even bother? I just really don't want to see guard boobplate in my regiment.
the_scotsman wrote: And I am not implying that you are sexist, nor have I from the start of the thread.
You haven't.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, so how is saying "regiments are unisex usually but not always" somehow translate to "Mixed regiments are changing the fluff?"
Just because they're rare doesn't mean they're unfluffy. Hell, Draigo and Guilliman are rarer than mixed sex guard regiments, but I see more of them than I do female guardsmen, even in narrative games...
By changing the basic infantry box to have non-optional mixed sex torsos, pretty much every guard regiment is going to be mixed sex on the tabletop unless you want to buy double the boxes. This would be directly contradictory to the lore in which only a small percentage of regiments are mixed sex.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, so how is saying "regiments are unisex usually but not always" somehow translate to "Mixed regiments are changing the fluff?"
Just because they're rare doesn't mean they're unfluffy. Hell, Draigo and Guilliman are rarer than mixed sex guard regiments, but I see more of them than I do female guardsmen, even in narrative games...
By changing the basic infantry box to have non-optional mixed sex torsos, pretty much every guard regiment is going to be mixed sex on the tabletop unless you want to buy double the boxes. This would be directly contradictory to the lore in which only a small percentage of regiments are mixed sex.
What the devil leap of argument is this?
The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.
Stux wrote: So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.
Sure, but again, I think there are better ways to get female guardsmen on the tabletop then retconning almost every Imperial Guard novel ever written, and forcing people to run mixed sex regiments unless they want to pay twice the money.
The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.
It's not a leap at all. By that logic we should have female space marine models because feth the lore right?
Stux wrote: So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.
Sure, but again, I think there are better ways to get female guardsmen on the tabletop then retconning almost every Imperial Guard novel ever written, and forcing people to run mixed sex regiments unless they want to pay twice the money.
The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.
It's not a leap at all. By that logic we should have female space marine models because feth the lore right?
I mean, the models obviously feth the lore. Like, really obviously. Marines aren't even bigger than Cadians, for example.
To say "the models are X, therefore the lore must change to match them" obviously you should be advocating a reduction in size of Marines to match that of regular guys in bulletproof jackets while wearing much thicker armour. Stick marines!
Stux wrote: So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.
Sure, but again, I think there are better ways to get female guardsmen on the tabletop then retconning almost every Imperial Guard novel ever written, and forcing people to run mixed sex regiments unless they want to pay twice the money.
The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.
It's not a leap at all. By that logic we should have female space marine models because feth the lore right?
You have to understand that at this point your entire argument boils down to "I want this thing not to change to convenience someone else and inconvenience me, because a point of lore so minor that it's not ever been even mentioned in the army's codex and only appears in two expanded-universe background novel series says that things should stay the way they are."
That is not a terribly convincing argument. Marines' sex is an actually ingrained part of their lore, being direct gene-seeded clones of a male emperor with plenty of units named things like "Sword brothers" "brother captains" and "battle brothers."
and again, like I just said: In most plastic kits that include models of both sexes, this is not an issue because it's done via torso halves, and most often, at least the kits I have experience with, you do in fact have enough male torso halves to make all models male. The only kits I am finding that ACTUALLY forces a person to build at least one model in the box as female are dark eldar wyches (two must be female) and the new stormcasts.
But in all seriousness I get why people would want female models. But a head swap is really all that can be done, a flakk jacket and trench coat isn't going to show much of the female form.
So yeah it'd be a plus other than that I'd call in a non issue.
But for what it's worth I'd say I love the new Stormcast with their mixed kits
Unit1126PLL wrote: I wasn't aware Gender was addressed in IG lore, except saying that some regiments were unisex, some regiments were not.
Both the Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain novel series repeat ad nauseum that the majority of guard regiments are unisex. They do it so often because the "protagonist regiments" in both novel series are mixed sex and it causes problems sometimes. They go out of their way to mention it multiple times over the course of both series.
I think it is also mentioned in other IG novels as well.
The Last Chancers were unisex ('Rocket Girl' Mikhaels & Warrior Woman), and there were female Guard in the Space Marine video game.
Y'all should probably give up the fluff argument. The fluff is so broad and unstructured that you could argue for anything really.
Now, pretty much everyone agrees that female guard is a good idea. I personally think headswaps are the best bet. Distinctly female torsos are not something I can get behind for a couple reasons:
- It gives players less freedom on how they want to build their regiment (all male, all female or anything in between)
- The one-size-fits-all actually adds to the uncaring logistics of the guard.
- And, we already know what female guard look like:
Spoiler:
She looks just like the dude. Except the face is different.
Then there's this:
Spoiler:
Despite the horrific cadian proportions they look like women.
w1zard wrote: Changing the IG from a unisex fighting force involved retconning pretty much all of the established IG lore.
No it bloody wouldn't! It is obscure piece of trivia from tie-in books that most of the people are not aware of. No one else in this thread except you even had heard of or remembered that bit. It has never appeared in the studio fluff. Ignoring the bit about gender from BL books is like ignoring multilaser wielding terminators and Slaanesh worshipping Farseers.
Dandelion wrote: Y'all should probably give up the fluff argument. The fluff is so broad and unstructured that you could argue for anything really.
Now, pretty much everyone agrees that female guard is a good idea. I personally think headswaps are the best bet. Distinctly female torsos are not something I can get behind for a couple reasons:
- It gives players less freedom on how they want to build their regiment (all male, all female or anything in between)
- The one-size-fits-all actually adds to the uncaring logistics of the guard.
- And, we already know what female guard look like:
Spoiler:
She looks just like the dude. Except the face is different.
Then there's this:
Spoiler:
Despite the horrific cadian proportions they look like women.
Or my personal fave:
Spoiler:
(That's a woman, take my word for it)
It depends on regiment, because there's also this:
w1zard wrote: Changing the IG from a unisex fighting force involved retconning pretty much all of the established IG lore.
No it bloody wouldn't! It is obscure piece of trivia from tie-in books that most of the people are not aware of. No one else in this thread except you even had heard of or remembered that bit. It has never appeared in the studio fluff. Ignoring the bit about gender from BL books is like ignoring multilaser wielding terminators and Slaanesh worshipping Farseers.
the_scotsman wrote: You have to understand that at this point your entire argument boils down to "I want this thing not to change to convenience someone else and inconvenience me, because a point of lore so minor that it's not ever been even mentioned in the army's codex and only appears in two expanded-universe background novel series says that things should stay the way they are."
That is not a terribly convincing argument.
Firstly, it's not just "two background novel series" it is THE two background novel series that are the most popular IG novels in the fluff. It isn't just those two novels series either, I think it is at least mentioned in passing or implied in almost every IG novel ever released.
It would inconvenience anyone who didn't want a mixed sex regiment, not just me. Including players who want an all-female regiment.
BTW, I think you all are misunderstanding me. I'm fine with female headswaps and unisex bodies. I'm fine with obviously female torsos and heads included in the infantry box so long as you have the option to build 10 male or 10 female soldiers. What I am not fine with is being forced to have my regiment be mixed sex unless I spend twice the money.
fraser1191 wrote: But in all seriousness I get why people would want female models. But a head swap is really all that can be done, a flakk jacket and trench coat isn't going to show much of the female form.
I suggested this and people said they wanted (obviously) female body sculpts too.
Dandelion wrote: Y'all should probably give up the fluff argument. The fluff is so broad and unstructured that you could argue for anything really.
Now, pretty much everyone agrees that female guard is a good idea. I personally think headswaps are the best bet. Distinctly female torsos are not something I can get behind for a couple reasons:
- It gives players less freedom on how they want to build their regiment (all male, all female or anything in between)
- The one-size-fits-all actually adds to the uncaring logistics of the guard.
I was only making the fluff argument because people were suggesting obviously female body sculpts with no options in the infantry box, so that half of your soldiers would have to be men, and half would have to be women unless you wanted to buy two boxes and throw away half of your models.
beast_gts wrote: The Last Chancers were unisex ('Rocket Girl' Mikhaels & Warrior Woman), and there were female Guard in the Space Marine video game.
The last chancers were a mixed sex kill team, not a line regiment. I think it is even mentioned in the Last Chancers novel series that the penal legions that the Chancers were recruited from were unisex. There was ONE female guardswoman in the Space Marine video game IIRC, and she was an officer.
I was only making the fluff argument because people were suggesting obviously female body sculpts with no options in the infantry box, so that half of your soldiers would have to be men, and half would have to be women unless you wanted to buy two boxes and throw away half of your models.
.
Yeah, this isn't an argument for a few reasons.
1. Most players don't care if their IG are mixed regiment. Most of the people outside this thread who want female IG are people who want inclusion, not replacement.
2. How many people build their armies using starter boxes? Like the recent Admech vs Necrons? How many of them threw away the other half of the box, as opposed to splitting it with a friend, or god forbid(!) Ebay.
3. It's not hard to make a box with ten legs, 20 heads, fifteen sets of arms, and fifteen torsos. Make five torsos, 10 heads, and five arm sets female and you're set. Just like Kabalites and wytches (Kabalites male/female, wytches female/male). The stock Cadian Sprue has tons of room, where you could easily add in extras like that, special weapons for the entire squad, and a HWT option.
But none of this is new. All three have been pointed out to you in the last ten pages. With #2 you still get your all male force, while 'all female' units would still have to sell models, so you can keep your men's rights friendships.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, this isn't an argument for a few reasons.
1. Most players don't care if their IG are mixed regiment. Most of the people outside this thread who want female IG are people who want inclusion, not replacement.
2. How many people build their armies using starter boxes? Like the recent Admech vs Necrons? How many of them threw away the other half of the box, as opposed to splitting it with a friend, or god forbid(!) Ebay.
3. It's not hard to make a box with ten legs, 20 heads, fifteen sets of arms, and fifteen torsos. Make five torsos, 10 heads, and five arm sets female and you're set. Just like Kabalites and wytches (Kabalites male/female, wytches female/male). The stock Cadian Sprue has tons of room, where you could easily add in extras like that, special weapons for the entire squad, and a HWT option.
But none of this is new. All three have been pointed out to you in the last ten pages. With #2 you still get your all male force, while 'all female' units would still have to sell models, so you can keep your men's rights friendships.
1. Your first sentence is laughably wrong. Your second sentence is correct. We need female guard models, but it needs to be done the right way where one group doesn't benefit at the expense of another.
2. We aren't talking about a starter box, we are talking about the 10 man infantry box.
3. I'm perfectly fine with unisex torsos and female headswaps. I'm perfectly fine with an infantry box coming with the option to build 10 male soldiers or 10 female soldiers or any combination thereof. That is not what people have been suggesting. See this quote...
Peregrine wrote: Why are you required to have an all-male army? Why can't you use any female models that come in the box? And why should your desire be more important than the demand for female models from someone who considers all male parts on a sprue to be trash?
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, this isn't an argument for a few reasons.
1. Most players don't care if their IG are mixed regiment. Most of the people outside this thread who want female IG are people who want inclusion, not replacement.
2. How many people build their armies using starter boxes? Like the recent Admech vs Necrons? How many of them threw away the other half of the box, as opposed to splitting it with a friend, or god forbid(!) Ebay.
3. It's not hard to make a box with ten legs, 20 heads, fifteen sets of arms, and fifteen torsos. Make five torsos, 10 heads, and five arm sets female and you're set. Just like Kabalites and wytches (Kabalites male/female, wytches female/male). The stock Cadian Sprue has tons of room, where you could easily add in extras like that, special weapons for the entire squad, and a HWT option.
But none of this is new. All three have been pointed out to you in the last ten pages. With #2 you still get your all male force, while 'all female' units would still have to sell models, so you can keep your men's rights friendships.
1. Your first sentence is laughably wrong. Your second sentence is correct. We need female guard models, but it needs to be done the right way where one group doesn't benefit at the expense of another.
2. We aren't talking about a starter box, we are talking about the 10 man infantry box.
3. I'm perfectly fine with unisex torsos and female headswaps. I'm perfectly fine with an infantry box coming with the option to build 10 male soldiers or 10 female soldiers or any combination thereof. That is not what people have been suggesting. See this quote...
Peregrine wrote: Why are you required to have an all-male army? Why can't you use any female models that come in the box? And why should your desire be more important than the demand for female models from someone who considers all male parts on a sprue to be trash?
Also, "neutral" does not mean "male".
Also, that men's rights quip was a low blow.
1.A few people want female only. Most of the people who want female want some female. Most IG players just want better models. Nope, my first sentence checks out.
2.I don't care if it's a starter box or not. IG in general are popular for soup armies, you'll find people to buy the ones you don't want. Hell, you can even make a profit on it, as long as you're charging less then the price of a full box.
3.Which is why I said most. He does raise a good point. Nothing is stopping you from using them, or selling them. And why should your desire be put ahead of someone else who feels the exact opposite. (You is a generic you, rather then specific for the third point.)
I paid good money for some Victoria Miniatures guardmen and guardswomen. But on top of having guardwomen they also have better proportions than GW guardsmen and more variety.
I still think there is money to be made by having guardwomen added into the guards box.
Firstly, it's not just "two background novel series" it is THE two background novel series that are the most popular IG novels in the fluff. It isn't just those two novels series either, I think it is at least mentioned in passing or implied in almost every IG novel ever released.
Yet no one except you even remembered this insignificant piece of background detail. I really hope that you're championing equally hard to get those multilasers in terminators kits!
Has it been established that the regiment-specific designs (Vostroyan/Valhallan/Steel Legion etc) are not big sellers? If there is still profit to be made introducing a new all-female regiment squad would be a simple solution the turns a profit.
If regiment-specific casts are not profitable, and I think there is some indication from what others have said that it is not, then the introduction of a new Cadian line with a 1/5 or 1/4 ratio of female figurines would be the only viable alternative. Would it sell as well as the previous line? Possibly, I don't know if gender would make a difference beyond alienating a few that resent the change enough to stop buying.
Firstly, it's not just "two background novel series" it is THE two background novel series that are the most popular IG novels in the fluff. It isn't just those two novels series either, I think it is at least mentioned in passing or implied in almost every IG novel ever released.
Yet no one except you even remembered this insignificant piece of background detail. I really hope that you're championing equally hard to get those multilasers in terminators kits!
If you play Imperial Guard and read books, which is likely a higher proportion of the population than average, then you will have probably at least heard of these two series. They are as far from obscure as can be in the 40k lore.
Are you arguing that the rulebook, codices and NOTHING ELSE constitutes acceptable lore resources? Because if not then Gaunt's Ghosts, Caiphas Cain and Last Chancers would be at the front of the queue for fleshing out IG lore.
If you play Imperial Guard and read books, which is likely a higher proportion of the population than average, then you will have probably at least heard of these two series. They are as far from obscure as can be in the 40k lore.
As BL novels go, these books are pretty well known, sure. I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.
Are you arguing that the rulebook, codices and NOTHING ELSE constitutes acceptable lore resources? Because if not then Gaunt's Ghosts, Caiphas Cain and Last Chancers would be at the front of the queue for fleshing out IG lore.
I think the studio fluff should take precedence, yes. Due the fact that BL authors have a lot of creative freedom, you really cannot cling to some specific details that are mentioned in passing. Abnett is so famous at contradicting stuff fluff, that his version of the setting is often called 'Abnettverse.' Which is fine if it helps him craft better stories, but then you cannot just assume that everything he writes directly applies to the GW studio lore. It is like trying to apply specific details from Nolan's Batman films to DC comic continuity.
Crimson wrote: I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.
Just to check, are we talking about that one footnote by Vail? I can't really find any counter-argument to saying a literal footnote in one of a series of many books is a rather obscure point of fluff.
Female Astra Militarum Models would be cool. That way Imperial Guard Model Armies would not be sausage festivals.
If complete Female Imperial Guard squads were available they would probably sell well for a while being something that hasn't been done for 40K Imperial Guard as far as I know.
If you play Imperial Guard and read books, which is likely a higher proportion of the population than average, then you will have probably at least heard of these two series. They are as far from obscure as can be in the 40k lore.
As BL novels go, these books are pretty well known, sure. I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.
Are you arguing that the rulebook, codices and NOTHING ELSE constitutes acceptable lore resources? Because if not then Gaunt's Ghosts, Caiphas Cain and Last Chancers would be at the front of the queue for fleshing out IG lore.
I think the studio fluff should take precedence, yes. Due the fact that BL authors have a lot of creative freedom, you really cannot cling to some specific details that are mentioned in passing. Abnett is so famous at contradicting stuff fluff, that his version of the setting is often called 'Abnettverse.' Which is fine if it helps him craft better stories, but then you cannot just assume that everything he writes directly applies to the GW studio lore. It is like trying to apply specific details from Nolan's Batman films to DC comic continuity.
If there was contradictory fluff on the matter of gender-mixed and all-female regiments being proportionately uncommon you'd be correct. BL contradicts itself all the time but, where it is consistent, shouldn't it be accepted as lore?
Crimson wrote: I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.
Just to check, are we talking about that one footnote by Vail? I can't really find any counter-argument to saying a literal footnote in one of a series of many books is a rather obscure point of fluff.
If you're talking about the rarity of mixed regiments then no, that's referred to in both Caiphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghosts. Both feature female IG soldiers regularly, but the mixed nature of the story-central unit is frequently brought up as an exception rather than the rule. During the First War of Perlia (against the Orks) even the PDF divisions are mono-gender, with the female Leman Russ crew coming from an all-female armoured division.
The Last Chancers were unisex ('Rocket Girl' Mikhaels & Warrior Woman), and there were female Guard in the Space Marine video game.
The Last Chancers are a penal unit, drawing from the miscreants of many regiments. Like a discount version of Deathwatch, which draws from many different chapters for a specific purpose. Like the Tanith 1st and the 597th Valhallan, it is an exception to the general rule.
Although this is only a personal example, my Hive World regiment is mixed (using the same headswap from @Dandelion's pictures and the occasional torso/leg swap from Victoria minatures). The fluff justification for that is the huge demand on manpower and meeting tithe quotas means so that gender is non-issue so long as they meet the Administratum's standard for a tithe. The justification for mixed regiments is there with minimum effort dependent on the founding world's culture, but the standard certainly does indicate single-gender regiments from a fluff standpoint.
