Notice from Manchu: Posts arguing about female Space Marines will be deleted.
Added from page 10:
NOTE - do not attempt to debate these points t in the thread, I will delete such posts - however, feel free to PM with questions, complaints, etc
Couple of points going forward:
If you think the thread is going off the rails, please PM me or use the Mod Alert button. But don’t thread crap by posting a bunch of commentary about how it’s off the rails.
About female Space Marines (incl. Grey Knights, Custodes, Primarchs, etc) ... Every time we talk about female figures the topic gets twisted into a giant debate about Femarines and inevitably collapses. So this time around, we’re not doing that. Yes Space Marines are THE major faction of 40k but there are plenty of other ways GW could and should add female figures to their product lines. This thread is about all the ways GW could do so other than Femarines.
Next, there’s a lot of political flavored commentary in this thread. That’s inevitable. Please note that while Dakka Dakka has a ban on off-topic political discussion, the ban does not include the political dimensions of on-topic content, i.e., miniatures gaming. All the same, please remember that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Calling each other SJWs, NPCs, misogynists, racists, etc is not acceptable (not that these words themselves are banned).
Finally, post in this thread at your own risk. If you ignore these points going forward, you stand a good chance of having your account suspended.
Thanks!
Note: this is not a politics, nor a flamebait thread, and I understand how easily it might devolve into one. I am really and honestly curious about the opinions of the board as a whole on this subject and to help with mod enforcement I'll put a handy dandy spoilered list of things that are explicitly not on the topic of the thread down below.
Regardless of your political opinions or beliefs on the pros and cons of this practice, in recent years Games Workshop appears to have been making a conscious effort to release more female miniatures, and more miniatures strongly based on particular cultural groups. It seems to me like, both now and previously, these units seemed to be released either as their own, dedicated groups, with in-game explanations as to why they appear, or they are added into existing units (often during a new kit release for a squad) and there are differing opinions on the pros and cons of both practices.
Method 1: Dedicated units
Example: Space Wolves. A nordic-themed faction, with its own dedicated kits swapping out the normal space marine heads for heads and particularly hair/beards that appear more nordic/viking. In game explanations abound for why they are like Vikings.
Example: Sisters of Battle. An all-female faction, with an in-game explanation as to why they are all female (to get around the requirement that the Ecclesiarchy field no "men at arms")
Example: Necromunda Eschers. All-female gang, with the explanation that all their males are adversely affected by the poison their gang manufactures.
Example: Tzeentch Kairic Acolytes. An egyptian-themed chaos cultist unit, pulling the egyptian theme Tzeentch has in 40k into the fantasy setting.
Method 2: Added into kits
Example: Deathwatch Space Marines. Includes a much greater variety of heads than the standard marine kit, with varied hairstyles and facial features.
Example: Van Saar Necromunda gang. 2 out of every 10 Van Saar gangers must be made female.
Example: 2nd wave Stormcast Eternals. All stormcast Eternals in the first model wave were male, many stormcast eternals released in the second wave were female.
Example: Eldar Harlequins. Different torso options allow a player to build male or female Harlequins. An all-male troupe can be made from a Harlequin kit.
Subjects not included in the topic of the thread
Spoiler:
-Concept of Political Correctness and Identity Politics. Any current political reference.
-Concept of "feminism"
-Concept of Female Space Marines
-Concept of whether women should be allowed into real-world military service
This is the definition of a political flamebait thread.
As I say every time this comes up, the only winning move for GW is to not play. No matter what they do it will be decried as either sexist (why do you get off on women being killed) or not progressive enough (why are there still male models at all).
Use the imperial guard and inquisition. Humanity has a myriad of planets, customs and looks. As well as real world analogs have sci fantasy ones. But really there should simply be a greater variety of heights and other proportions and male/female heads for things like guard. Females in body armour are not much different to men, so it isn't big changes that are needed. Hell a lot of this is based on Soviet Russia which had no shortage of women in the armed forces.
I don’t think you should be lumping female figures in with “cultural themed” figures.
As to female models:
First things first, Sisters of Battle need to be completely updated. GW says that’s coming in 2019. So that box will be checked.
Next up, Imperial Guard need to be updated. Ideally, a Guard squad would come with two sprues: one with options for five male figures and one for options for five female figures. Obviously, stuff like special weapons and backpacks would work for either male or female figures.
For everything else, a few female models should be included in kits where appropriate. A couple of good examples are Eldar Guardians and Dark Eldar Wyches. There might be a couple of males in those kits.
So in summary, what’s really missing and should be addressed are Guardswomen. Otherwise, the line is already pretty great.
Eldar/Elves have had female models for years. Its not obvious this has resulted in GW being accused of anything so I never really understand why people think this is a minefield.
If/when GW re-do the Imperial Guard I'd be surprised if they don't include some female heads.
They are only going to get in trouble if say they resurrect Repentia and go "you want women in 40k? Right, they are going to be naked/have MMO armour, look at the nakedness. Oh yeah." Even then Infinity has somehow not been closed down...
Manchu wrote: I don’t think you should be lumping female figures in with “cultural themed” figures.
As to female models:
First things first, Sisters of Battle need to be completely updated. GW says that’s coming in 2019. So that box will be checked.
Next up, Imperial Guard need to be updated. Ideally, a Guard squad would come with two sprues: one with options for five male figures and one for options for five female figures. Obviously, stuff like special weapons and backpacks would work for either male or female figures.
For everything else, a few female models should be included in kits where appropriate. A couple of good examples are Eldar Guardians and Dark Eldar Wyches.
So in summary, what’s really missing and should be addressed are Guardswomen. Otherwise, the line is already pretty great.
For better are worse, they tend to be lumped together inevitably when the overall miniature range is discussed, and there's a pretty common theme of releasing miniatures via Method A: Making the culture the miniatures or based on or the fact that they are female a defining attribute of the unit.
Tau have a strongly late imperial japanese-inspired theme. Howling Banshees, Eschers and Succubi have a strongly female-inspired theme.
Female heads simply aren’t sufficient for Guardswomen. The Astra Militarum line will remain incomplete, at least in terms of representing the faction we read about in the fluff, until there are specifically female figures of the rank and file, NCOs, and officers.
In my opinion, shaped by my experience with kits that are mixed in some way (for example Last Chancers, stylistically; Dark Eldar, male/female) A single kit with mixed models inevitably leads to some people getting the feeling they wasted money because they don't like some of the models included, for whatever reason. I think it's much more palatable to have distinct boxes. If you like it, you get your money's worth. If you don't, you don't have to buy it and can pick something else instead. No hassle with getting use out of only four or six or seven out of your ten models that came in the box.
I think the downsides of this option are purely on GW's side. A male and a female Eldar squad box take up twice the shelf space, cost twice as much in tooling, and will likely not sell significantly different than a single kit representing the same type of model. The other thing is the rigidity with which GW translates kit content into rules, with somewhat limited squad sizes built around multiples of the kit content, and options that must exist in that single kit instead of opening options at least from other kits inside the same faction, disincentivizing assembling a squad from several kits instead of (multiples of) one.
As a customer I don't care. That's GW's problem to solve, not mine.
All-female is a perfectly legitimate aesthetic theme (so is all-male). The reason I don’t think female as a category lines up with “cultural themed” is because the latter doesn’t really even apply in 40k. I mean, SW are Viking-themed to some degree but there’s a lot f werewolf-theme there, too. What “culture” is that? I mean, it’s not a culture; nor are Thousand Sons actually Egyptian in any meaningful sense. The references are to fantastical tropes rather than to actual cultures.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’ve never heard anyone complain that they’ve wasted dollars because some of the figs in the DE Wyches kit are male.
Tyel wrote: They are only going to get in trouble if say they resurrect Repentia and go "you want women in 40k? Right, they are going to be naked/have MMO armour, look at the nakedness. Oh yeah."
For what it's worth, repentia were the female counterparts to the arco-flagellants (and alongside the male/female penitent engine pilots in the same style).
The male models were as naked as in the supporting imagery, the female modest were clothed up to be more modest / less horrific - so while they are often used as an example of 'bondage nuns' the opposite is actually true. Aside from the mistress, who is stupid.
I feel that cultural themes are more suited to kitbashing. Keep the core miniature lines either plain or true to their established styling.
People... all models are culturally themed. You can't avoid it.
My view - just make units with female models. Like they did with Stormcast. A mixture, some dedicated. Don't make a big fuss about it - it should be normal that there are female and male (and other) figures. Make it that way.
Yeah, it is bizarre to lump gender and culture this way. Units/faction are often from certain specific place from the setting, so thus it it makes sense for them to represent culture of that place (whether that culture was inspired by the real world or not.) Genders are not like that.
But yeah, I think I'd like to see more mixed-gender factions and units, instead of them being segregated into girl and boy factions/units. Those sort of gender specific grouping are not inherently a bad thing, but it shouldn't be the norm. So, more mixed-gender units, the Guard would be the most obvious place to start.
Manchu wrote: I’ve never heard anyone complain that they’ve wasted dollars because some of the figs in the DE Wyches kit are male.
I really like Haemonculi and especially Wracks (not to mention the marvelous Talos model), so when the 5th ed codex rolled around and I participated in the inevitable army building challenge that would happen at my local store, I figured I'd start out with a female Archon and a female bodyguard squad while I wait for the release of Wracks (my first squad was converted from Flagellants and Crypt Ghouls to get my second Troops choice - not a bad stand in, but not exactly what i wanted either). Not that there's anything wrong with male Eldar, but since GW wouldn't release plastic models of the females I actually wanted (care to take a guess which one'sI'm talking about? ) I was totally on board with some panzees tiding me over. Only to get the ten models I needed, I had to buy two boxes instead of one.
Sure, my choice and not that much extra money in the grand scheme of things, but except for a few bits of one male Dark Eldar that managed to find their way onto a Tau base the rest of the males from those boxes still sit in my bits box and do nothing. Literally a waste of money. Whether I can live with it or not, a dedicated squad of all female models would have been the better choice for me.
We already have female guard, what you want is clearly and obviously female guard, which is fine, throw a couple of heads in there or whatever and call it done.
It would be better to totally re do the guard plastic infantry though.
Manchu wrote: All-female is a perfectly legitimate aesthetic theme (so is all-male). The reason I don’t think female as a category lines up with “cultural themed” is because the latter doesn’t really even apply in 40k. I mean, SW are Viking-themed to some degree but there’s a lot f werewolf-theme there, too. What “culture” is that? I mean, it’s not a culture; nor are Thousand Sons actually Egyptian in any meaningful sense. The references are to fantastical tropes rather than to actual cultures.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’ve never heard anyone complain that they’ve wasted dollars because some of the figs in the DE Wyches kit are male.
The way I think about it is if you can't accurately describe a miniature line without mentioning their gender or human cultural inspiration, they tend to have that as a "theme". It's hard to describe Ratskins in necromunda without mentioning their native american theme. If you described Space Wolves as just "werewolf themed" you'd miss out on a lot of their design aspects. How do you distinguish Tomb Kings from standard Undead without saying Tomb Kings are egyptian themed?
I guess the whole question of this thread came from me picking up some kits of Deathwatch Veterans for Kill Team and then doing a commission job on 15 scouts. I'd never looked at marine scouts in detail and hadn't previously realized that they were all basically identical Tom Brady hunchback dudes, and it struck me how much the variety of different heads and faces in the Deathwatch kit affected how I enjoyed building and painting it, and if all Space Marine kits had that kind of variety in the figures I might actually want to collect them. When I started the game, Space Marine bare heads pretty much came in two flavors, bald dude and identical dude with Mark Trail hair.
Manchu wrote: Female heads simply aren’t sufficient for Guardswomen. The Astra Militarum line will remain incomplete, at least in terms of representing the faction we read about in the fluff, until there are specifically female figures of the rank and file, NCOs, and officers.
I'm not sure how much of a hurdle that is, given how outdated the Guard infantry are anyway.
Might as well incorporate this stuff when they get around to replacing it.
They just need to ask 'is it resonable to have a female head/model in this kit?' and add them were it is. It's not actually that hard. (And keep it away from cheesecake modeling, but they've actually not been terrible at that so far.)
The minefield they need to be careful with is storytelling, but we're trying to avoid that warren with this topic...
Crimson wrote: Yeah, it is bizarre to lump gender and culture this way. Units/faction are often from certain specific place from the setting, so thus it it makes sense for them to represent culture of that place (whether that culture was inspired by the real world or not.) Genders are not like that.
But yeah, I think I'd like to see more mixed-gender factions and units, instead of them being segregated into girl and boy factions/units. Those sort of gender specific grouping are not inherently a bad thing, but it shouldn't be the norm. So, more mixed-gender units, the Guard would be the most obvious place to start.
People... all models are culturally themed. You can't avoid it.
Yeah, that was weird too. Apparently the OP doesn't consider Anglo culture as culture...
I mean, I do, and default imperial units are themed around a mix of anglo and roman imagery. I've heard pretty common complaints about that, especially with respect to the Space Marines when people want to go with a theme that's not Roman, or with respect to Guardsmen when they don't want to have the WW2 style flak armor.
Lammia wrote: They just need to ask 'is it resonable to have a female head/model in this kit?' and add them were it is. It's not actually that hard. (And keep it away from cheesecake modeling, but they've actually not been terrible at that so far.)
The minefield they need to be careful with is storytelling, but we're trying to avoid that warren with this topic...
I really don't think any design process for 40K starts with 'is this reasonable...'
Tyel wrote: Eldar/Elves have had female models for years. Its not obvious this has resulted in GW being accused of anything so I never really understand why people think this is a minefield.
If/when GW re-do the Imperial Guard I'd be surprised if they don't include some female heads.
They are only going to get in trouble if say they resurrect Repentia and go "you want women in 40k? Right, they are going to be naked/have MMO armour, look at the nakedness. Oh yeah." Even then Infinity has somehow not been closed down...
I think that the Female Guardian models do a really good job. You can tell they are women because they have a slightly different torso, but because of the way all Guardians hold their gun once they are put together you absolutely cannot tell what gender the model is from any reasonable distance... man, woman, an Eldar Guardian is just cannon fodder at the end of the day.
Anyway, in my opinion, one of the most tasteful additions of a female model in any miniature game was the Malifaux Guild Guard found in the original Lucius box. She is wearing the same uniform as her male squad mates are, she's got the same sword, and the same pistol, and the same rules. She's not sticking her hips out, bending and twisting or making unusual poses. She's got a job to do, and she is going to do it. Too bad her entire squad is cannon fodder though!
The best way is to not let cultural/business policies impact the studios design processes, while potentially once a concept is being developed, and its specifically obvious that such a concept is missing an obvious thing that might be popular (like the option for female guard), make the suggestion to include it. and provide the artists with as much freedom as possible to make great things, without mandating from on high that they must have a quota of female models for each male one the produce.
Imposing policy on artists is an exercise in stagnation and disappointment.
Would I want the option to build an all female mordian regiment? Sure. But not if its at the cost of the soul of the creative process and just meeting some corporate equality checkbox.
Personally, I'd choose "all of the above". There are already mono-gendered groups in 40k, a-gendered groups, and mixed gendered groups. There has been since 2nd edition. Releasing more models, and just opening these options up, just makes sense.
Actually, if anything, I've noticed GW really reducing the number of multi-pose models. This, I'm sure, is done to reduce production and design costs. Fewer options means fewer costs and fewer chances for players to put the model together "wrong". I miss the more multi-posable kits of the past, and having lots of options on how you want to build those units.
Actually, if anything, I've noticed GW really reducing the number of multi-pose models. This, I'm sure, is done to reduce production and design costs. Fewer options means fewer costs and fewer chances for players to put the model together "wrong". I miss the more multi-posable kits of the past, and having lots of options on how you want to build those units.
I know this is completely off topic, but yes this! and the removal of upgrade options, and the moving some units / upgrades to stratagems, are my least favorite parts of 'new GW'
Lammia wrote: They just need to ask 'is it resonable to have a female head/model in this kit?' and add them were it is. It's not actually that hard. (And keep it away from cheesecake modeling, but they've actually not been terrible at that so far.)
The minefield they need to be careful with is storytelling, but we're trying to avoid that warren with this topic...
I really don't think any design process for 40K starts with 'is this reasonable...'
Ahahaha!
There's reasonable and there's 40k reasonable. Is it resonable to have women with lasguns and flak armour running around the galaxy? Yes, so they should be included in the kits. It should be a matter of course, but it's too often overlooked... that's why we need to make a special effort at times.
My view - just make units with female models. Like they did with Stormcast. A mixture, some dedicated. Don't make a big fuss about it - it should be normal that there are female and male (and other) figures. Make it that way.
I think GW could do a lot by just giving us new head sprues that could be used interchangably with existing kits. Sadly upgrade sprues tend to be going out for GW so this might be more something up FW's alley.
In regards to theme they could introduce a new IG kit for a planet force not used before and just have it split 50/50 like DE tends to do. For story purposes they could even say it is a homeworld that utilizes everyone combat capable. Hell, could be a Cadian resculpt for all I care(although I'd love to see Steel Legion).
I do believe they could do a fantastic job if they were to expand the Inquisition and have it a good mix of genders. It would also give the artists a wide berth for their creative process to create unique and interesting characters.
They could also go wild and expand Sisters of Silence further.
My view - just make units with female models. Like they did with Stormcast. A mixture, some dedicated. Don't make a big fuss about it - it should be normal that there are female and male (and other) figures. Make it that way.
Just to add - I think gender is different to what we are calling culture.
I don't feel male/female heads on Kabalites/Wyches/Guardians etc materially effects the coherency of the unit. They are all the same - just male and female.
By contrast if you have one with Egyptian iconography, one with say Viking runes, one with a roman style etc etc then it can end up looking like a mess. This applies to units and indeed whole armies.
Its kind of like how most people for a long time have said the way to paint an army is to pick 3 colours that unite most of the army together (obviously detail like gemstones etc can be exceptions). You don't want to do a 2nd edition Eldar force where every units is in its own colour because while each individual may look great, on the table it looks like a mess.
Yarium wrote: Personally, I'd choose "all of the above". There are already mono-gendered groups in 40k, a-gendered groups, and mixed gendered groups. There has been since 2nd edition. Releasing more models, and just opening these options up, just makes sense.
Actually, if anything, I've noticed GW really reducing the number of multi-pose models. This, I'm sure, is done to reduce production and design costs. Fewer options means fewer costs and fewer chances for players to put the model together "wrong". I miss the more multi-posable kits of the past, and having lots of options on how you want to build those units.
That is true. A friend showed me the sprue for one of his AoS units. And it had males and females on it. Great, but it more or less ment that units can only be assembled one way. Makes the whole unit only multi part in name and price.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rismonite wrote: They should release a scantily clad army of women wearing fur and fighting with sharpened bones made from cute animals while consuming meat jerky.
Those offended will not be missed
Don't they have a race of elfs in AoS, that consists of nothing else but 99% naked women of all shapes and sizes already?
Eldarsif wrote: I think GW could do a lot by just giving us new head sprues that could be used interchangably with existing kits. Sadly upgrade sprues tend to be going out for GW so this might be more something up FW's alley.
In regards to theme they could introduce a new IG kit for a planet force not used before and just have it split 50/50 like DE tends to do. For story purposes they could even say it is a homeworld that utilizes everyone combat capable. Hell, could be a Cadian resculpt for all I care(although I'd love to see Steel Legion).
I do believe they could do a fantastic job if they were to expand the Inquisition and have it a good mix of genders. It would also give the artists a wide berth for their creative process to create unique and interesting characters.
They could also go wild and expand Sisters of Silence further.
My view - just make units with female models. Like they did with Stormcast. A mixture, some dedicated. Don't make a big fuss about it - it should be normal that there are female and male (and other) figures. Make it that way.
An excellent point.
They could start by just making some of the new SoB heads available to other models. Idk if it works scale wise, but I don't see why it can't be easy to do.
Tyel wrote: Just to add - I think gender is different to what we are calling culture.
I don't feel male/female heads on Kabalites/Wyches/Guardians etc materially effects the coherency of the unit. They are all the same - just male and female.
By contrast if you have one with Egyptian iconography, one with say Viking runes, one with a roman style etc etc then it can end up looking like a mess. This applies to units and indeed whole armies.
Its kind of like how most people for a long time have said the way to paint an army is to pick 3 colours that unite most of the army together (obviously detail like gemstones etc can be exceptions). You don't want to do a 2nd edition Eldar force where every units is in its own colour because while each individual may look great, on the table it looks like a mess.
Not a bad point, which is why I'm a bit surprised that so much discussion revolves around female models when the bigger challenge for GW is to integrate different visual themes into an army (if that's what they or their customers want).
I'd add that it's also a question of personal taste. I liked the look of 2nd ed Guard armies drawn from various regiments, or Marine crusade armies. As long as they brought along enough of their buddies to give a portion of the board a somewhat unified appearance I was always happy to go with that. By contrast, I have a much bigger problem with Deathwatch where a single shoulder pad is enough to make it clear that one Marine has no cultural link to the next Marine. That looks a lot messier to me.
Rismonite wrote: They should release a scantily clad army of women wearing fur and fighting with sharpened bones made from cute animals while consuming meat jerky.
Those offended will not be missed
Don't they have a race of elfs in AoS, that consists of nothing else but 99% naked women of all shapes and sizes already?
There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.
In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.
jeffersonian000 wrote: There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.
In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.
By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.
Crimson wrote: By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.
The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony tails would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you shouldn't be able to tell
I feel GW does a good enough job a representing an accurate depiction of a grim-dark sci-fantasy future world and all the likely cultures and diversity it would have.
Female IG figs would be just plain good news. Even if one isn’t particulalry bothered by getting some cool Guardswomen sculpts, the only way we’ll get them at all is if the Astra Militarum line is significantly updated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory
This needs to stop being repeated. Female bodies are not male bodies. Head swaps don’t give us female figures. The guard uniform isn’t a shapeless potato sack. According to the fluff, there are billions of Guardswomen. Having them a[pear on the tabletop will just make Astra Militarum that much cooler and thematically “correct.”
I think that the Female Guardian models do a really good job. You can tell they are women because they have a slightly different torso, but because of the way all Guardians hold their gun once they are put together you absolutely cannot tell what gender the model is from any reasonable distance... man, woman, an Eldar Guardian is just cannon fodder at the end of the day.
With Eldar my own interpretation/headcanon is that the 'female' armour (i.e. the ones with boobplate) are decorative more than anything else and that female eldar will typically fit just fine into the flat-chested armour. The styling of the armour is representative of an exaggerated eldar form, rather than actually containing and protecting the *ahem* features that it represents. In that way, any of the seers/aspect warriors/guardians etc could be male or female and you never know which unless they're helmetless. Similarly a Howling Banshee might be male, but because he joined that shrine he wears the traditional armour, which represents a female aspect of Khaine. A female eldar joining the Fire Dragons similarly wears the male-styled armour of that aspect.
There's a couple of reasons that I like that approach. One is that the concept of women's armour actually needing obvious breast-shaped protrusions is just silly - and before anybody mentions that 40k is fundamentally silly, I feel that the idea that all the women in 40k have such large knockers that they need boobplate is a silly step in the wrong direction. The other reason I like it is just the idea that I can decide which of my models are male or female, or even if I just find the concept to be irrelevant and just decide that I don't need to know any more than the fact that they're eldar in armour. The problem with that, from the perspective of having visible women in 40k is clear though; if a model doesn't have some obvious visual cue that the model is female I expect most people would assume it was male.
So my preferred approach would be:
- The exaggerated female characteristic models need to be around in some form for those who want their female models to be 'obvious'. However I do think things like boobplate should be used sparingly and only for models, units or factions where there is a good explanation of why their armour is so hyper-stylised. Examples are Howling Banshees representing a female aspect of Khaine and Sisters of Battle clearly "showing" that they're women to confirm the ecclesiarchy isn't breaking it's no men under arms rule. Perhaps also powerful individuals like Inquisitors who can style their gear however they damn well please. There's room for some new things that use this styling, but I wouldn't want to see too many.
- For factions where the troops might be either gender (or in the case of humans, different racial origins), show it by including a wide diverse range of heads in new kits. The Imperial Guard are the prime candidate, but they need diversity in more ways than one in the form of new kits to represent a wider range of regiments. An ideal situation would be multiple different regiment kits (or differently styled kits, e.g. greatcoats, dress uniform, cadian style etc), and in each kit include plenty of diverse head options. The whole regiment should be wearing the same standard issue gear, and the only real way to tell the sex of the wearer would be to look at the face. They could perhaps also make the bodies a subtle mix of body shapes so you could pair a female head with a slightly smaller body if you so chose, but you could equally just use that body to represent a shorter man. Similarly a taller body could be an average man or a tall woman.
- Allow more variety in characters. In the guard while troops should be identical aside from the face, there's perhaps a bit more scope to sculpt an entire character to be a woman. Do some of these, it would be cool - but in a sensible way rather than exaggerated.
Generally I think the guard and inquisition are the best place to try to show some more gender diversity. So many factions are genderless (or if they have gender you couldn't tell anyway due to being weird aliens or so mechanically augmented that most of their original body features are gone), canonically mono-gender for some reason or other, or clad in full body armour where you sensibly wouldn't be able to tell much at all whether it was a man or a woman wearing it. It's the unaugmented regular humans who go to war with their faces visible where the diversity really needs to start coming in.
Cultural? For years GW has already used many earth cultures and tropes to reflect armies fielded, especially in the old Imperial Guard. They certainly could add more female figures in current ranges where appropriate, however.
Should they? I believe so.
If they don't? It's not a big deal, and they can produce whatever they wish; they have done so far and always will.
Half the fun of this hobby is putting your own stamp on an army, even if it strictly follows a published faction. I am currently building an all female Guard desert mechanized force, with infantry mostly from Victoria miniatures since GW doesn't produce the requisite models. If GW wants its customers to spend their money elsewhere that is on them, but they are under no obligation to make anything for anybody.
Galef wrote: The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony taisl would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you wouldn't be able to tell
-
Nah, those are obviously all blokes. And no boob armour needed, there are way subtler ways to do this. Victoria Miniatures are a perfect example how to make the models look female while still wearing the same gear as the guys.
My answer to this, which I didn't answer in the poll because I'm not really sure the poll reflects the answer, is based on customer demand.
-If GW thinks there's enough of a female market that will actually be enticed to the hobby by the production of female minis, by all means have at it.
-What *I* don't like to see is anyone (individual or company) getting bullied by an SJW type crowd/audience, that really has no interest in the game or hobby, and just want to take shots at targets they feel are not "inclusive" enough.
My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.
My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.
Having diversity represented in the models shouldn't need to have anything to do with commercial concerns.
I don't think the argument of 'women don't like these games so we don't need women in the games' is a good one at all.
Crimson wrote: By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.
The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony taisl would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you wouldn't be able to tell
-
I broadly agree, but I actually think it's important to show the range by having 'a few heads with pony-tails' too.
Rocmistro wrote: My answer to this, which I didn't answer in the poll because I'm not really sure the poll reflects the answer, is based on customer demand.
-If GW thinks there's enough of a female market that will actually be enticed to the hobby by the production of female minis, by all means have at it.
-What *I* don't like to see is anyone (individual or company) getting bullied by an SJW type crowd/audience, that really has no interest in the game or hobby, and just want to take shots at targets they feel are not "inclusive" enough.
My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.
There's a couple things I think I disagree with you on here.
First off - yeah, it's absolutely obnoxious when any politically motivated outside group works to stir up a shitstorm for a company, regardless of political affiliation of that group, and no decisions should be made based on pressure from outside groups.
I disagree that introducing miniatures that depict women or other groups is primarily a tool used to get those groups more interested in the hobby. I think primarily it just..gives people a reason to purchase a newer kit when you can make models that are aesthetically different with the kit. If you look at the wave 1 stormcasts vs wave 2, I'd probably be more likely to buy into wave 2 because the models don't look like just the same identical guy holding different weapons. I'd view a kit of imperial guard including both female and male guardsmen the same way I'd view a new Space Marine kit with a different armor mark: I have much more of a reason to want it if I already have an existing army.
Galef wrote: The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony taisl would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you wouldn't be able to tell
-
Nah, those are obviously all blokes. And no boob armour needed, there are way subtler ways to do this. Victoria Miniatures are a perfect example how to make the models look female while still wearing the same gear as the guys.
I disagree that introducing miniatures that depict women or other groups is primarily a tool used to get those groups more interested in the hobby. I think primarily it just..gives people a reason to purchase a newer kit when you can make models that are aesthetically different with the kit. If you look at the wave 1 stormcasts vs wave 2, I'd probably be more likely to buy into wave 2 because the models don't look like just the same identical guy holding different weapons. I'd view a kit of imperial guard including both female and male guardsmen the same way I'd view a new Space Marine kit with a different armor mark: I have much more of a reason to want it if I already have an existing army.
Quite. It's an assumption that people often make for some reason that boys only want to play with boy models and girls only want to play with girl models. I can see that being true for people getting into the hobby when they're 10 or something like that, but I think most of us here are well past that point in our lives. A more diverse range gives everybody more different models to build/paint/play, and that can only be a good thing.
Galef wrote: the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory
This needs to stop being repeated. Female bodies are not male bodies. Head swaps don’t give us female figures. The guard uniform isn’t a shapeless potato sack. According to the fluff, there are billions of Guardswomen. Having them a[pear on the tabletop will just make Astra Militarum that much cooler and thematically “correct.”
With how baggy and bulky the Guard uniform is, the only realistic difference would be shorter Guardsmen. All other "body differences" would be obscured by the uniform. So while, yes, a few thinner, shorter Guardsman with longer hair would be cool, it's hardly necessary to represent female Guardsman. And let's also not forget that in 38,000 years of evolution on different planets, some population may even have larger women that have similar musculature as M2k men.
If the current Guardman box was super old and in desperate need of an update, I'd be all for putting in 3-4 "female" bodies and heads. But it's hardly a priority, so we should be content for now. Plastic Sisters are far more a need right now.
Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40kare already invested in.
I think representation really matters for getting people interested. Not in the sense that that boys only want to play with boy models and girls only want to play with girl models but seeing the people like you being part of the setting in some form matters. And if that form is only some weird fetish assassin* then that kinda sends a message too. Not that this would be the main motivation for adding female models in the first place, but still.
(*Nothing against weird fetish assassins as such, they're an integral part of the setting.)
jeffersonian000 wrote: There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.
In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.
SJ
On some level I have historically agreed with this.
But I am not so convinced these days.
Part of the hobby is "your dudes (...) being you". See that Space Marine Captain, Farseer, Warboss whatever? That's me on the table that is. Leading the army. Being awesome (hopefully).
It might be a somewhat childish take - and I don't really think things through that way any more - but when I started out in the hobby from around 11 to 14 or whatever I did, and frankly most of the other players did to some degree. It was part of the fantasy.
So I can understand that women (or really girls if we are talking comparable ages) would appreciate - and therefore buy - female characters they could imagine in the same way.
Manchu wrote: Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40kare already invested in.
This.
Oh, all my Khorne Berserkers are girls.
I know Space Marines aren't supposed to be able to be females but it's amazing what you can do with Butcher's Nails.
Crimson wrote: By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.
The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony tails would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you shouldn't be able to tell
I feel GW does a good enough job a representing an accurate depiction of a grim-dark sci-fantasy future world and all the likely cultures and diversity it would have.
-
Yes and no. The current guard line does an incredibly poor job off representing woman. While Male and Female soldiers neck down look fairly similar, the faces would still look different, we could really used some female heads with out helmets and catachans don't wear more than a t shirt so they would look a bit different.
Manchu wrote: Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40kare already invested in.
Agreed.
A side note, I think you bring up a good point. Adding female models just to add female models would not, in fact, draw in a larger female community, but be to appease the existing fanbase. And often, it may just draw in more men. Speaking for myself, I like female models because I like the female form, not necessarily from a "culturally diversified" perspective.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While Male and Female soldiers neck down look fairly similar, the faces would still look different, we could really used some female heads with out helmets and catachans don't wear more than a t shirt so they would look a bit different.
Well, to be fair most MALE human heads do a piss-poor job of representing the average man and are often pretty hideous. So if anything, the heads in general need an update.
I don't think it's necessary business-wise for GW to chase the female demographic by catering to them, so that idea is off the table. This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"? At this point, whatever GW does will be wrong according to someone. Too little boob? Not female enough! Too much boob? Sexist and awful!
If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units. The aftermarket already caters to this with excellent female heads and full rein guardsmen though.
As an Eldar player I have plenty of female miniatures in my army already (Jain Zar, Howling Banshees, I have female guardian models and a head-swapped female Farseer)...so that army is catered to already. Many of othe other armies don't need female models because they simply don't:
Admech: Questionable - how could you tell anyway?
Knights: Pointless, though you could release a female pilot model?
Tyranids: Nope
Orks: Nope
Tau: Maybe?
Harlequins: Already exist
Dark Eldar: Already exist
Space Marines: Fluff-wise don't exist and GW would only create a shitstorm by retconning them in, so don't bother
Chaos: One of the few armies which has a lot of female sculpts on the Slaanesh side, but has room for new wytch-like unit? Maybe?
Daemons: Pointless, though Slaanesh has predominantly female-equipped figures
Necrons: Pointless, though there are 3rd party companies with boobed robots..so there's that
etc.
So excluding the few races with have females already, the others don't need them - leaving mankind/Imperium. You have Sisters of Battle about to get an entire army. You have Sisters of Silence, a couple of new female characters for the Imperium, etc. Outside of some guard players wanting a couple of female bodies (which they can source already) or easier, female heads (Statuesque for days), I don't see the lack of female miniatures. I don't see logical non-hamfisted ways to cram more in, and I don't believe a load of new female miniatures would do very well business-wise for GW. After all that's the main goal, regardless of how a company or players butter it up.
When Sisters of Battle were out - a few years after release, my best friend (a GW manager) and his buddies (fellow GW managers and area managers) were very open about how poorly they were selling. They really were not a high sales volume army, even when all of their kits were available. GW is probably very wary of this.
Galef wrote: With how baggy and bulky the Guard uniform is, the only realistic difference would be shorter Guardsmen.
This is not the setting for realism. In humans and other races in 40k, if a female individual of that species is there you will see it. At least for humans and eldar (with a variable level of androgynous individuals in the latter case - they are elves as depicted in recent fiction, after all). Let's be honest about that. People posted Victoria's models, that are the best way to illustrate that you can show subtle femininity without transforming the female soldier in some sexy thing - that is, show that is a woman AND a fighter. I think that pic should settle it.
jeffersonian000 wrote: There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.
In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.
SJ
On some level I have historically agreed with this.
But I am not so convinced these days.
Part of the hobby is "your dudes (...) being you". See that Space Marine Captain, Farseer, Warboss whatever? That's me on the table that is. Leading the army. Being awesome (hopefully).
It might be a somewhat childish take - and I don't really think things through that way any more - but when I started out in the hobby from around 11 to 14 or whatever I did, and frankly most of the other players did to some degree. It was part of the fantasy.
So I can understand that women (or really girls if we are talking comparable ages) would appreciate - and therefore buy - female characters they could imagine in the same way.
But this doesn't really hold too much weight as there are already female-focused factions that a woman can play. Sister=female power armored bad so the game's version of SM for girls. And then bother eldar factions have girls so you already have a FM loyalist / xeno faction to play so there is plenty of reason to get into the hobby right their. The only real argument could be there isn't "normal human" female faction to which im fine with some female guardsmen or any store owner worth his salt would show how easy head swaps or conversions are. There is already plenty of female representation and i guarantee forcing females into every race would drive away far more players then it would draw in
Good point, Galef. I am up to buy female figures, too. I’ve poured all this time and money into table top gaming thanks to the Sisters of Battle. That’s where it all started.
People who feel that representing themselves on the tabletop is important are probably most drawn to more human faction to begin with, and the Guard is most human of the human factions. There really should be representation there. They're the normal people of the setting, and normal people are diverse. Whilst tough as nails fetish nuns may appeal to some people (and why wouldn't they, they're awesome!) it is very different thing than more down to earth normal Janes and Joes in their (somewhat) practical battlegear.
Elbows wrote: I don't think it's necessary business-wise for GW to chase the female demographic by catering to them, so that idea is off the table. This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"? At this point, whatever GW does will be wrong according to someone. Too little boob? Not female enough! Too much boob? Sexist and awful!
If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units. The aftermarket already caters to this with excellent female heads and full rein guardsmen though.
As an Eldar player I have plenty of female miniatures in my army already (Jain Zar, Howling Banshees, I have female guardian models and a head-swapped female Farseer)...so that army is catered to already. Many of othe other armies don't need female models because they simply don't:
Admech: Questionable - how could you tell anyway?
Knights: Pointless, though you could release a female pilot model?
Tyranids: Nope
Orks: Nope
Tau: Maybe?
Harlequins: Already exist
Dark Eldar: Already exist
Space Marines: Fluff-wise don't exist and GW would only create a shitstorm by retconning them in, so don't bother
Chaos: One of the few armies which has a lot of female sculpts on the Slaanesh side, but has room for new wytch-like unit? Maybe?
Daemons: Pointless, though Slaanesh has predominantly female-equipped figures
Necrons: Pointless, though there are 3rd party companies with boobed robots..so there's that
etc.
So excluding the few races with have females already, the others don't need them - leaving mankind/Imperium. You have Sisters of Battle about to get an entire army. You have Sisters of Silence, a couple of new female characters for the Imperium, etc. Outside of some guard players wanting a couple of female bodies (which they can source already) or easier, female heads (Statuesque for days), I don't see the lack of female miniatures. I don't see logical non-hamfisted ways to cram more in, and I don't believe a load of new female miniatures would do very well business-wise for GW. After all that's the main goal, regardless of how a company or players butter it up.
When Sisters of Battle were out - a few years after release, my best friend (a GW manager) and his buddies (fellow GW managers and area managers) were very open about how poorly they were selling. They really were not a high sales volume army, even when all of their kits were available. GW is probably very wary of this.
The "just 3rd party 'em" argument is a bit strange to me because A, games workshop is clamping down harder than ever on 'non-official' models being not usable and other event organizers are generally even more strict, to the point where the ork rumor thread has a huge amount of whinging about rebasing their orks IN RESPONSE to games workshop saying they didnt have to.... and B, the existence and success of 3rd party female miniatures for guard would seem to indicate a market to me of people interested in buying new guard and other figures for that reason.
As I said before - it's just an aesthetic distinction between a new and old kit for me. I'm less interested in making an army of all identical dudes personally.
Elbows wrote: This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?
Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.
Elbows wrote: If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.
There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.
Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.
Rocmistro wrote: My answer to this, which I didn't answer in the poll because I'm not really sure the poll reflects the answer, is based on customer demand.
-If GW thinks there's enough of a female market that will actually be enticed to the hobby by the production of female minis, by all means have at it.
-What *I* don't like to see is anyone (individual or company) getting bullied by an SJW type crowd/audience, that really has no interest in the game or hobby, and just want to take shots at targets they feel are not "inclusive" enough.
My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.
There's a couple things I think I disagree with you on here.
First off - yeah, it's absolutely obnoxious when any politically motivated outside group works to stir up a shitstorm for a company, regardless of political affiliation of that group, and no decisions should be made based on pressure from outside groups.
I disagree that introducing miniatures that depict women or other groups is primarily a tool used to get those groups more interested in the hobby. I think primarily it just..gives people a reason to purchase a newer kit when you can make models that are aesthetically different with the kit. If you look at the wave 1 stormcasts vs wave 2, I'd probably be more likely to buy into wave 2 because the models don't look like just the same identical guy holding different weapons. I'd view a kit of imperial guard including both female and male guardsmen the same way I'd view a new Space Marine kit with a different armor mark: I have much more of a reason to want it if I already have an existing army.
That's fine Scotsman. My point is mainly that it should be the company (GW) and it's actual buyers/players that get to decide the direction on models....some combination of demand, interest, attracting new players, keeping old players, etc. I'd absolutely buy female Guardsmen. I just don't want to be FORCED to buy female guardsmen or be labeled a bigot by parties/entities that have no interest in the game, hobby, etc.
Crimson wrote: People who feel that representing themselves on the tabletop is important are probably most drawn to more human faction to begin with, and the Guard is most human of the human factions.
Generally, sure, but there are a lot of players, including myself, who want to represent themselves on the tabletop as something MORE than what they are. I'm already a regular human, so it's boring for me to just plant myself as-is into the setting. I wanna be a super human or some kind of near-human alien. That's one reason I play Eldar, plus there are plenty of female Eldar and Elf models to paint. Heck, I even painted myself as a Primaris Marine, beard and all:
Spoiler:
But yes, many players also want to see themselves as-is in the setting, which I can agreed the bog standard Guard range doesn't quite cover.
Also, I think it's important for GW not to release sets SPECIFICALLY because they are female, unless the fluff dictates this. All Female Sister box? Perfect. All Female Guard box? No thanks Mixed Male and Female Guard box? Yes, just like many Eldar sets
The fantastical genres exist precisely because people can and do identify with and find compelling something other than what they are IRL.
We need Guardswomen sculpts not to lure more women into buying product from GW but rather so that people who already like Astra Militarum can have better products.
That's fine Scotsman. My point is mainly that it should be the company (GW) and it's actual buyers/players that get to decide the direction on models....some combination of demand, interest, attracting new players, keeping old players, etc. I'd absolutely buy female Guardsmen. I just don't want to be FORCED to buy female guardsmen or be labeled a bigot by parties/entities that have no interest in the game, hobby, etc.
You're not forced to buy anything. You're not force to buy current Guard kits, you're not force to buy the mixed-gender Van Saar kits, nor would you be forced to buy the future hypothetical mixed-gender Guard kits.
(I think there is decent chance that the next generation of Guard models, should such a thing ever happen, will be mixed-gender, considering how many guardswomen there has been in the art recently.)
Elbows wrote: This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?
Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.
Elbows wrote: If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.
There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.
Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.
it does.
Games workshop has established that the sexual dimorphism of tau is primarily visible in their facial structure, and included several male and female heads in the fire warrior kit.
This makes sense because the Tau are much more "caste-morphic" in the fluff, with Fire Caste being a warrior subset of the overall species.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: @OP - they already have for years. OK, they might be hyper-sexualised in some instances (Slaanesh approves) but they are out there in droves.
Perhaps a better question would have been 'how could GW make 40K more accessible for females to take up as a hobby?'.
Unfortunately, the answer to that, in terms of GW in-store games, is get rid of a vast swathe of GW's male customers.
The answer to how to draw in female customers is actually really simple and there's a good example of it here in Texas with the Warhammer cafe.
1. Location: They need more stores like the warhammer cafe or the of grapevine mills store (mall store). You are not going to get women through the door at some random box store with nothing around to draw a woman in. Its worth taking a loss on these stores to draw in customers. I found out about miniature gaming because of the mall store when i was younger and i must know about 100 people that play Games Workshop games because of that store even though the majority usually buy stuff from cheaper stores once they get hooked. You need these high profile stores in prime locations not to sell your product but to introduce it to people.
2. Have more female employees: This weekend some random women wandered into the store out of curiosity and the female employee working there walked over and was answering what the hobby was. It's always more comforting to have someone of the same sex helping you with a product.
3. Focus on the hobby portion: most women I know or have met in the hobby start originally because painting a model seems like fun. Obviously, some women like playing but im put money on most women originally being much more into the painting aspect (just like the women this weekend that seemed truly interested in the building/painting but was generally surprised people "played with these".
I'm hoping that GW one day do a line of skinny pale balding pacifists in their mid 30s who have given up on life and are slowly spiraling into the depths of self destruction.
Crimson wrote: People who feel that representing themselves on the tabletop is important are probably most drawn to more human faction to begin with, and the Guard is most human of the human factions.
Generally, sure, but there are a lot of players, including myself, who want to represent themselves on the tabletop as something MORE than what they are.
I'm already a regular human, so it's boring for me to just plant myself as-is into the setting. I wanna be a super human or some kind of near-human alien.
That's one reason I play Eldar, plus there are plenty of female Eldar and Elf models to paint.
Heck, I even painted myself as a Primaris Marine, beard and all:
Spoiler:
But yes, many players also want to see themselves as-is in the setting, which I can agreed the bog standard Guard range doesn't quite cover.
Also, I think it's important for GW not to release sets SPECIFICALLY because they are female, unless the fluff dictates this. All Female Sister box? Perfect. All Female Guard box? No thanks
Mixed Male and Female Guard box? Yes, just like many Eldar sets
-
as a bobblehead Spaceballs regect with a permanent jowly scowl on my potato-carved face and 1.5 foot long arms, I reject your notion that the current imperial guard sculpts poorly represent me!
Elbows wrote: This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?
Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.
Elbows wrote: If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.
There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.
Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.
Actually the Fire Warrior kit comes with both males and femlales. It comes with 5 bare heads, 3 male and 2 female, I think. But unlike Imperial Guard and humans, Tau are actually indistinguible with uniform. But even then, they have those bare heads to make clear that in fact the unit is intended to be gender-mixed.
Manchu wrote: Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40kare already invested in.
Agreed.
A side note, I think you bring up a good point. Adding female models just to add female models would not, in fact, draw in a larger female community, but be to appease the existing fanbase.
And often, it may just draw in more men. Speaking for myself, I like female models because I like the female form, not necessarily from a "culturally diversified" perspective.
-
Do I think female models will suddenly make, say, my wife interested in 40k? Absolutely not. Do I think they would make my daughter interested in the game someday? Quite probably. There's a big difference between developed and developing tastes. Kids are looking for things to emulate; they look for things like themselves to find their place in the world and quickly determine whether or not something is "for" them by how they see themselves represented. The wargame market has spent decades pretty aggressively showcasing itself as something "for boys" and even directly presenting the idea its "not for girls". Expecting female models to change that overnight is kind of missing the point. You don't take down the "no girls allowed" sign to try and bring back people who you already turned away at the door; you take it down to stop discouraging people finding it for the first time.
the_scotsman wrote: Games workshop has established that the sexual dimorphism of tau is primarily visible in their facial structure, and included several male and female heads in the fire warrior kit.
I’m not convinced we should reason from kits to fluff. GW has spent almost no time or energy working out anything about Tau fluff. In this context, the female heads on the sprue seem like a bonus rather than a declaration about Tau phenotypic expression. This doesn’t touch on anything in-setting, but just as a matter of designing a product, Shadowsun was not stuffed into yet another faceless, “masculine” XV8 suit. Instead, GW invented a whole new, more “feminine” looking Crisis Suit for her. I think if GW gave any real thought to female Tau, theynwouldn’t just be Y-slits rather than I-slits on the forehead.
2 of the answers are basically the same because regardless of if GW does or doesn't release these models as part of a unit or as independent units players can choose to put them in their armies or not. I would like to see some models that would be considered wildly offensive by today's SJWs & some that were understated & more realistic.
I don't understand why people think that having female models is suddenly mean a huge influx of female players. The gate keepers to w40k or comperable hobbies are not the models, or even the male players, but the females that are around the girls that may want to play.
Now I get that it becomes more of a free choice for people that are adults. But w40k is not targeted at people that are adults, but for people in their teens like me.
the_scotsman wrote: Games workshop has established that the sexual dimorphism of tau is primarily visible in their facial structure, and included several male and female heads in the fire warrior kit.
I’m not convinced we should reason from kits to fluff. GW has spent almost no time or energy working out anything about Tau fluff. In this context, the female heads on the sprue seem like a bonus rather than a declaration about Tau phenotypic expression. This doesn’t touch on anything in-setting, but just as a matter of designing a product, Shadowsun was not stuffed into yet another faceless, “masculine” XV8 suit. Instead, GW invented a whole new, more “feminine” looking Crisis Suit for her. I think if GW gave any real thought to female Tau, theynwouldn’t just be Y-slits rather than I-slits on the forehead.
Karol wrote: I don't understand why people think that having female models is suddenly mean a huge influx of female players.
It wouldn't. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have any impact at all.
Ok, but would the impact be worth it. They would have to remake the sprues and new molds cost money. And enough people would have to want to buy those. They could of course force people by hard codex changes to buy boxs of the new stuff, but I don't think they would like to risk that. I think we should wait to see how SoB sales are, and if GW gives them proper rules.
Also I still think they have a lot more people to draw in from the male market, then trying getting female players. It may not be worth the investment, at least in monetary terms.
Well yes it clearly is special, as you can see by its design and designation.
Right. So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit. Because then you have a regular armor character, a Crisis suit character, a Tank character, an ethereal character and a stealth suit character.
Unless you think Games Workshop had to design a whole new masculine crisis suit for Longstrike to fit his 65-foot long shlamalamadingdong.
"they don't call me Longstrike in Railgun Hammerhead for nothing"
I agree that most of the armies like AM, GSC, Tau, etc should have female models ones with established fluff like AA don't need them. There is no need to bow to the SJW pressure just to please a bunch of jerks especially because no matter what GW does it won't be enough.
Ok, but would the impact be worth it. They would have to remake the sprues and new molds cost money. And enough people would have to want to buy those. They could of course force people by hard codex changes to buy boxs of the new stuff, but I don't think they would like to risk that. I think we should wait to see how SoB sales are, and if GW gives them proper rules.
Also I still think they have a lot more people to draw in from the male market, then trying getting female players. It may not be worth the investment, at least in monetary terms.
Guard plastics are pretty ancient and bad. They need to be redone sooner or later anyway, so once they do, they might as well throw in some guardswomen for variety.
dkoz wrote: I agree that most of the armies like AM, GSC, Tau, etc should have female models ones with established fluff like AA don't need them. There is no need to bow to the SJW pressure just to please a bunch of jerks especially because no matter what GW does it won't be enough.
If you want young girls to feel like 40k is for them, you need to include them in the poster boys for the game. Regulating them to only monsters and peons sends that exact message.
the_scotsman wrote: [So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.
Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.
the_scotsman wrote: [So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.
Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.
I wasn't talking about in-setting reality either. In armies of that era, Games Workshop almost always released named characters who were "special" versions of an existing normal character or unit.
See orks:
Ghazzy - special warboss on foot
Wazdakka - special biker
Badrukk - special flash git
Zogwart - special weirdboy
Snikrot - special Kommando
Grotsnik - special Painboy
So, you're saying that when GW redesigned the Stealth Team from a form that looked like a fire warrior with a bigger shoulderpad and a burst cannon into a smaller mark of battlesuit, they did so specifically in an attempt to make it look "feminine?"
I guess I'm going to need a bit more evidence behind that claim, because stealth suits don't look particularly feminine to me, they just look like GW wanted Tau to have a "terminator sized" unit.
The XV22 is not just another stealthsuit. The only XV22 in the game is worn by a female character. Farsight rides around in a XV8 like anybody else in an XV8. GW could have but did not put Shadowsun in a XV25.
dkoz wrote: I agree that most of the armies like AM, GSC, Tau, etc should have female models ones with established fluff like AA don't need them. There is no need to bow to the SJW pressure just to please a bunch of jerks especially because no matter what GW does it won't be enough.
If you want young girls to feel like 40k is for them, you need to include them in the poster boys for the game. Regulating them to only monsters and peons sends that exact message.
See this is fairly stupid if you want girls to feel like 40K is for them you don't need to just knuckle under to SJW pressure to rewrite your whole history to include women in to AA. To make girls feel included parents just need to pass on their love of the game to their kids. The fake that people think AA not being women means women are regulated to peons is stupid and clearly untrue because some of the best fluff characters are women.
Well, the issue kinda is that the Marines are crazy over represented in the fluff, so it may feel like that if you're not a Marine, you're a nobody. That is kinda problem even if we ignore the gender aspect.
As to the representation argument, I think people are importing a concept that is important when we’re talking about real life professions and it doesn’t really fit the context of pursuing a hobby. Plenty of women like watching NFL football despite there being no female players, whether as “poster boys” or otherwise, for example.
Release female/cultural themed miniatures freely mixed in with other units, adding variety to players' modeling options
With my Dark Eldar army i've had the choice to make models female or male. Except for some cases where it's specific, like Incubi vs Succubi, or Wyches. For Tyranids, I tell people it's Jurassic Park, they might be female but LIFE FINDS A WAY DUN DUNNNNN DUN DUNNNNNN DA DUN DUNNNN DUN DUN DUN DUNNNNNN
And in reality it's very easy to make any model female. There are numerous vendors that sell female heads. You can put them on nearly anything. Especially if the model is armored, as that would cover up all the "lady bits."
But at the end of the day i'm competitive, what's on the table first, and "MEH ARMIEZ GOT THE FLERF, HARE IS ME BACKSTRARY" isn't even second. Second is left blank.
Crimson wrote: Well, the issue kinda is that the Marines are crazy over represented in the fluff, so it may feel like that if you're not a Marine, you're a nobody. That is kinda problem even if we ignore the gender aspect.
Yeah, once we get past the whole
"so, there's a faction with only men?"
"yep, most popular faction. It's got 8 codexes and multiple unique recent plastic ranges."
"and there's a faction with only women?"
"yep, 20something 20 year old metal sculpts. They're still in the index and they cost twice as much per model as any other range."
the_scotsman hit the nail on the head - with GW to promising to give SOB some real thought and attention, a big part of this problem will be solved - the problem really isn’t that only male characters are interesting, it’s that GW is still working out that it spends way too many resources obsessing over Space Marines.
Right now, GW is working through a lot of dumb ideas that it has held up as sacred cows for a long time. Hopefully, the self-fulfilling prophecy that customers can only really care about Space Marines will be one of them!
Manchu wrote: the_scotsman hit the nail on the head - with GW to promising to give SOB some real thought and attention, a big part of this problem will be solved - the problem really isn’t that only male characters are interesting, it’s that GW is still working out that it spends way too many resources obsessing over Space Marines.
Right now, GW is working through a lot of dumb ideas that it has held up as sacred cows for a long time. Hopefully, the self-fulfilling prophecy that customers can only really care about Space Marines will be one of them!
I find it pretty unlikely. Space Marines are the big initial appeal of the universe, even if they're not all that interesting once they've lead you through the door. They're a lot like Jedi. Sure, once you're sold on Star Wars, the smugglers, crime lords, and bounty hunters are easily the more narratively rich and generally interesting part of the setting, but you only really learn to appreciate that after you grow tired of the kid holding up the laser sword fantasy that initially caught your attention.
I find it pretty unlikely. Space Marines are the big initial appeal of the universe, even if they're not all that interesting once they've lead you through the door. They're a lot like Jedi. Sure, once you're sold on Star Wars, the smugglers, crime lords, and bounty hunters are easily the more narratively rich and generally interesting part of the setting, but you only really learn to appreciate that after you grow tired of the kid holding up the laser sword fantasy that initially caught your attention.
And that amount of tears and gnashing of teeth when they dared to give a girl a laser sword! Yeah, it is kinda similar indeed!
the_scotsman wrote: [So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.
Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.
No. The Scotsman is right. If you go and look the concept art for both you can see clearly how Shadowsun armor is a slightly bigger Stealth Suits. Compare the torso parts without the Stealth suits "collar". They are basically the same.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
If Shadowsun's armour was made to be "femenine" then normal Stealth suits are too stilised to look "femenine". You could say Shadowsun's armor has a thinner waist and is more stilized than the blocky Crisis suits. But that is just the same for the normal stealth suit.
the_scotsman wrote: [So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.
Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.
I wasn't talking about in-setting reality either. In armies of that era, Games Workshop almost always released named characters who were "special" versions of an existing normal character or unit.
See orks:
Ghazzy - special warboss on foot
Wazdakka - special biker
Badrukk - special flash git
Zogwart - special weirdboy
Snikrot - special Kommando
Grotsnik - special Painboy
So, you're saying that when GW redesigned the Stealth Team from a form that looked like a fire warrior with a bigger shoulderpad and a burst cannon into a smaller mark of battlesuit, they did so specifically in an attempt to make it look "feminine?"
I guess I'm going to need a bit more evidence behind that claim, because stealth suits don't look particularly feminine to me, they just look like GW wanted Tau to have a "terminator sized" unit.
While there is no doubt that Shadowsun is a special version of a basic unit, you may question why exactly she ended up in a stealth suit. She was introduced alongside Tau Pope to complement Farsight, Aun'Shi and Anghkor Prok. Notice how the female character is not the half-naked savage, the half-naked Eathereal, the one with the pope hat or the one with the blocky armor and instead the one with the sleekest lines Tau suits had at the time.
the_scotsman wrote: [So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.
Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.
I wasn't talking about in-setting reality either. In armies of that era, Games Workshop almost always released named characters who were "special" versions of an existing normal character or unit.
See orks:
Ghazzy - special warboss on foot
Wazdakka - special biker
Badrukk - special flash git
Zogwart - special weirdboy
Snikrot - special Kommando
Grotsnik - special Painboy
So, you're saying that when GW redesigned the Stealth Team from a form that looked like a fire warrior with a bigger shoulderpad and a burst cannon into a smaller mark of battlesuit, they did so specifically in an attempt to make it look "feminine?"
I guess I'm going to need a bit more evidence behind that claim, because stealth suits don't look particularly feminine to me, they just look like GW wanted Tau to have a "terminator sized" unit.
While there is no doubt that Shadowsun is a special version of a basic unit, you may question why exactly she ended up in a stealth suit. She was introduced alongside Tau Pope to complement Farsight, Aun'Shi and Anghkor Prok. Notice how the female character is not the half-naked savage, the half-naked Eathereal, the one with the pope hat or the one with the blocky armor and instead the one with the sleekest lines Tau suits had at the time.
Might be coincidence. Might be design.
And maybe it's maybelline.
I guess when I think of "suit of armor designed to be feminine" i tend not to think about big shoulder pauldrons, a bubble helmet and a big ol' crotchpiece that juts past the flat chestplate.
Sure, it's got sleeker lines than any of the marks of Tau battlesuit that had come out so far....because it was the second Tau battlesuit design...one of them has to have sleeker lines.
If you asked me to squint and say it was in reference to anything feminine, I would definitely say that the combination of the helmet shape and armguns could be a bit of a Metroid reference, which could explain why Shadowsun is female and has the ponytail? But Samus' armor is, if anything, famously un-feminine, since "WHAAAAAT, SHES A GUUUUURL???" is kind of the final twist of the original game.
first step would be to do some estimates of the sales increase or decrease over the amount of time and resources required to produce them
this can be a bit tricky as the most noise is often made by those with no intention to buy or will bemoan its the slightly wrong flavour of what they wanted and not buy it anyway
Don’t overthink the stealth suit thing. The issue is, Shadowsun was not put into a XV8 like Farsight. GW put her in a smaller, sleeker suit that even has a helmet option so you can see her glorious five foot long hear-me-roar pony tail. Unlike the dark, sinister looking XV25s, the studio paintjob for her XV22 was bright and clean.
Manchu wrote: That’s an accurate portrayal of the past but I don’t think it is a law of nature that must define what is possible about how the future can unfold.
Maybe, but at its core, 40k is really about self expression. Marines themselves are pretty blank slate for you to paste and express your identity on. Most of the established chapters are variations of that; someone who wanted viking marines or goth marines or cyborg marines or whatever. A huge appeal is the ability to make Captain You the HQ. That's why people expecting GW to reveal the Lost Legions are completely missing the point of the remaining blank slates. There's a ton of appeal in making squads that represent your friends. That's half the appeal of XCom as a recent popular example; putting people you care about in the game and trying your best to keep them alive. It's pretty dumb in this day and age for THE game that sells itself on "the hobby" and customization to be the one saying their generic superhuman templates can't be girls
GW should continue doing what they're doing: * Sisters & Escher are all female * Eldars, Tau and Stormcast are mixed gender * Space Marines are ALL male * Nids & Orks are ALL female
It's fine.
That said, I look forward with uber-boobplate Femarines.
Manchu wrote: Plenty of women like watching NFL football despite there being no female players,
Plenty of men enjoyed watching Lingerie League "football", despite there being no male players.
Hell, I've gone to watch dance shows despite there being no male dancers. On top of the door fee and drink minimimum, it was only $1 tip for to watch each dance.
the_scotsman wrote: [So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.
Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.
I wasn't talking about in-setting reality either. In armies of that era, Games Workshop almost always released named characters who were "special" versions of an existing normal character or unit.
See orks:
Ghazzy - special warboss on foot
Wazdakka - special biker
Badrukk - special flash git
Zogwart - special weirdboy
Snikrot - special Kommando
Grotsnik - special Painboy
So, you're saying that when GW redesigned the Stealth Team from a form that looked like a fire warrior with a bigger shoulderpad and a burst cannon into a smaller mark of battlesuit, they did so specifically in an attempt to make it look "feminine?"
I guess I'm going to need a bit more evidence behind that claim, because stealth suits don't look particularly feminine to me, they just look like GW wanted Tau to have a "terminator sized" unit.
While there is no doubt that Shadowsun is a special version of a basic unit, you may question why exactly she ended up in a stealth suit. She was introduced alongside Tau Pope to complement Farsight, Aun'Shi and Anghkor Prok. Notice how the female character is not the half-naked savage, the half-naked Eathereal, the one with the pope hat or the one with the blocky armor and instead the one with the sleekest lines Tau suits had at the time.
Might be coincidence. Might be design.
And maybe it's maybelline.
I guess when I think of "suit of armor designed to be feminine" i tend not to think about big shoulder pauldrons, a bubble helmet and a big ol' crotchpiece that juts past the flat chestplate.
Sure, it's got sleeker lines than any of the marks of Tau battlesuit that had come out so far....because it was the second Tau battlesuit design...one of them has to have sleeker lines.
If you asked me to squint and say it was in reference to anything feminine, I would definitely say that the combination of the helmet shape and armguns could be a bit of a Metroid reference, which could explain why Shadowsun is female and has the ponytail? But Samus' armor is, if anything, famously un-feminine, since "WHAAAAAT, SHES A GUUUUURL???" is kind of the final twist of the original game.
The point was more that of the list of special characters we had at the time, traditional thinking takes me to the conclusion that the sleek armor is the most likely to get the female character treatment.
Remember that Tau are Japanese popular sci-fi filtered through traditional Western lenses. You wouldn't necessarily get a reference to something originally Japanese, just as you wouldn't get an overt pope dress or Swiss Guard uniforms for Tau Pope. But you know Tau are the anime faction and Tau Pope is Tau Pope regardless. For all the flak GW gets for "borrowing" ideas, their stated design philosophy at the time was to use what they called "strong archetypes". Which means thoughtless stereotypes specifically chosen for instant recognition.
In that context, it makes sense that she doesn't get the pope position (which is traditionally a male role) nor gets to run around half naked (half naked sci-fi babes is I assume something GW didn't want Tau females to be associated with), leaving the various combat roles. She could have been a tank commander, or the first Cadre Fireblade, or a Broadside commander (hardly unheard of for Tau characters to actually have fire power of their own, unlike the rest of the maniacs in 40k who like to wave their swords. Instead they chose a combat role thatt's sneaky with a model design that emphasizes sleek lines. Very similar to how often enough females in fantasy settings get the role of Rogue where cunning is valued much higher than brute strength, a traditionally male domain.
It's not the choice between two suits, one of which is bound to look sleeker than the other. It was the choice of any possible role a Tau character (specifically Fire or Ethereal Caste, as the others don't get proper representation) might fill, and it was specifically that one.
Forcing this into business has never worked out well.
Yeah, and I'm sure you'd get really big numbers if you asked "do you think racism is a problem in this country?"
Words and phrases are built to elicit particular responses. "Political Correctness" is one of them. it gets used because it elicits a negative response from a majority of people. I think there's also a lot of varied opinion on what constitutes "political correctness" on the subject of 40k miniatures.
IMO, the prevalence of actual, scary "SJW activists" in 40k is incredibly low. The presence of people who react to new female models in any form added to the game as if it was the invasion of the SJW body-snatchers seems like a pretty regular constant.
And yet according to GW what was the most strongly expressed opinion from enough of their playerbase to immediately shift gears and put an army into fast-track production? Demand for model support for Sisters of Battle.
There is an exhausted majority, tired of the constant arguments of the two extremes. In a hobby where the dominant demographic resides in one extreme, the exhausted majority is probably going to get even more sick of constant allergic over-sensitivity to anything that might be pointed at as Horrible SJW Infiltration than the opposite.
I voted for option 3 because Genestealer Cults, Inquisiton, Guard, and Mechanicus could all use some interesting female character options and more modelling options is always better in my book. Necrons could too, but the model would likely look a lot like the ones we have since Necron warriors are made of the civilian Necrotyr and that means men and women alike but their bodies are identical. Eldar and Tau already have a mix which works (sorry, but busty blueberries aren't canon so deal with the fact that the only difference we get to see is the shape of the face slit), and Tyranids are a faction who range from asexual to being largely female (Norn Queens namely) which works for their bug like nature. And Orks are friggin mushrooms and we don't need the 40k equiv of the Orc Cheerleaders from Blood Bowl in 40k.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW should continue doing what they're doing:
* Sisters & Escher are all female
* Eldars, Tau and Stormcast are mixed gender
* Space Marines are ALL male
* Nids & Orks are ALL female
It's fine.
That said, I look forward with uber-boobplate Femarines.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW should continue doing what they're doing:
* Sisters & Escher are all female
* Eldars, Tau and Stormcast are mixed gender
* Space Marines are ALL male
* Nids & Orks are ALL female
It's fine.
That said, I look forward with uber-boobplate Femarines.
Orks are ALL female??? Nope.
<Insert that one picture of the Female Orc Bloodbowl Cheerleader with huge... tracts of land.>
I find it pretty unlikely. Space Marines are the big initial appeal of the universe, even if they're not all that interesting once they've lead you through the door. They're a lot like Jedi. Sure, once you're sold on Star Wars, the smugglers, crime lords, and bounty hunters are easily the more narratively rich and generally interesting part of the setting, but you only really learn to appreciate that after you grow tired of the kid holding up the laser sword fantasy that initially caught your attention.
And that amount of tears and gnashing of teeth when they dared to give a girl a laser sword! Yeah, it is kinda similar indeed!
This is a typical uninformed opinion. No one is shedding tears or gnashing teeth because a women got a laser sword it's the lazy way they made the girl wielding a laser sword so OP with no story or anything to explain it.
As for the way to implement female guard etc: I always disliked the idea of boxes being inherently mixed. I mean you don't, for example, buy Cadian troops and Catachan troops from the same box, right? They're separate. So it should be the same for other types of models that are somewhat incompatible, such as male/female models. I'd do that for (Dark) Eldar and others too (in fact, I'd prefer if Scourges came in two box variants: all feather wings, or all bat wings, because I'd only want feather-wing Scourges).
So here's what I'd do: keep the current all-male boxes as they are, and make additional boxes full of female equivalent models for Guard, and split similary for other factions. This way, everyone wins: people who only want guys buy only male models' boxes, people who only want girls buy female models' boxes, people who want to mix and match can just buy whatever ratio suits their fancy.
Manchu wrote: That’s an accurate portrayal of the past but I don’t think it is a law of nature that must define what is possible about how the future can unfold.
well the things humanoids pick to play with are actually writen within those laws. Males and female chimps pick different things to play with, and you can't say that the female chimps are forced by some sort of social structure to pick toys, while male chimps pick trucks.
Orks are ALL female??? Nope.
Well if they are 1/3 fungi. Then orcs have like 2000-3000 types of genders depending on the fungi type, and if the fungi works like the earth ones.
* Nids & Orks are ALL female
tyrants, and some of the ammo tyranid organisms are male.
And that amount of tears and gnashing of teeth when they dared to give a girl a laser sword! Yeah, it is kinda similar indeed!
And as crazy as it maybe, and wrong based on what could have been they ended up being right. Ray could have been an awesome character, all the new star war stuff could have been great, on par with the old trylogy. But what we did get was the Last Jedi. And this gave the "no girls" allowed people a strong argument, again.
My dad was smart enough to show me the old ghostbusters, before we went to see last one. And it is hard to compare the first two, with last remake.
The last thing w40k needs is GW pulling off a last jedi, and giving all the people in the no new stuff camp an even stronger argument to never update any stuff. That is why I hope the SoB codex is going to be great. And stuff like a rogue trader that is a weapon hating vegan feels me with dread.
This is a typical uninformed opinion. No one is shedding tears or gnashing teeth because a women got a laser sword it's the lazy way they made the girl wielding a laser sword so OP with no story or anything to explain it.
Suure!
Damn, if someone in the film would just have said that Rey's midichlorian count was off the charts it all would have been absolutely fine!
This is a typical uninformed opinion. No one is shedding tears or gnashing teeth because a women got a laser sword it's the lazy way they made the girl wielding a laser sword so OP with no story or anything to explain it.
Suure!
But he is right after the force awakens came out, people had great expectation for Star Wars. What we got was someone who doesn't need training to learn anything, and where there is no struggle and no growth, you do not get a hero. An Ray in Last Jedi is exactly that.
I think for the most part as far as guard go, with female models the safest bet would be characters. Special commissar who is noticeably female, or a tank commander, a medic etc.
I'd think it's fair to say that when a new infantry squad kit comes out, whenever that may be, it'll have both genders. If I had to guess 7-3 ratio seems about right. And as said above somewhere an all female box would do terrible. Not cause people hate women or anything but most likely you'd only want 1 or 2 to flesh out your army. No, there needs to only be a couple ladies in the box so you need to buy more boxes.
Aos stormcast has a decent amount of ladies mixed in and in my opinion it was done right.
fraser1191 wrote: I think for the most part as far as guard go, with female models the safest bet would be characters. Special commissar who is noticeably female, or a tank commander, a medic etc.
I'd think it's fair to say that when a new infantry squad kit comes out, whenever that may be, it'll have both genders. If I had to guess 7-3 ratio seems about right. And as said above somewhere an all female box would do terrible. Not cause people hate women or anything but most likely you'd only want 1 or 2 to flesh out your army. No, there needs to only be a couple ladies in the box so you need to buy more boxes.
Aos stormcast has a decent amount of ladies mixed in and in my opinion it was done right.
Female Cadians would be harder to notice honestly. Unless they specifically make some of the hips wider on some models, the flak vest would hide the other obvious secondary sexual markers we'd use to identify them (aka boobs). Basically it'd come down to face sculpt for most models which would make it easier for people to make a choice on if they want guys or girls in their unts.
On the otherhand, female Catachan would be more obvious and would let us get Ripley from Aliens into our army (which would be awesome):
Honestly I kind of want an all ladies version of the Vostroyan First Born where it's the planets daughters who are sent off because they have a mutation that causes most of the planet's population to be women or something. Mostly because I love variety on the table and that would allow for a way to add in a new subfaction for Guard (maybe give them a kind of victorian era flair or base their uniforms off of the 1800s US Calvary or something) and would let the people who want the all female guard army to have one with less fuss with 3rd party companies.
ClockworkZion wrote: On the otherhand, female Catachan would be more obvious and would let us get Ripley from Aliens into our army (which would be awesome):
Manchu wrote: As to the representation argument, I think people are importing a concept that is important when we’re talking about real life professions and it doesn’t really fit the context of pursuing a hobby. Plenty of women like watching NFL football despite there being no female players, whether as “poster boys” or otherwise, for example.
And people who aren't represented well in 40k (or similar media/hobbies) have said "this matters to me", so your theory is wrong.
ClockworkZion wrote: On the otherhand, female Catachan would be more obvious and would let us get Ripley from Aliens into our army (which would be awesome):
GW already did this:
Yeah, but we could always get it redone in plastic and done better.
fraser1191 wrote: I think for the most part as far as guard go, with female models the safest bet would be characters. Special commissar who is noticeably female, or a tank commander, a medic etc.
I'd think it's fair to say that when a new infantry squad kit comes out, whenever that may be, it'll have both genders. If I had to guess 7-3 ratio seems about right. And as said above somewhere an all female box would do terrible. Not cause people hate women or anything but most likely you'd only want 1 or 2 to flesh out your army. No, there needs to only be a couple ladies in the box so you need to buy more boxes.
Aos stormcast has a decent amount of ladies mixed in and in my opinion it was done right.
Female Cadians would be harder to notice honestly. Unless they specifically make some of the hips wider on some models, the flak vest would hide the other obvious secondary sexual markers we'd use to identify them (aka boobs). Basically it'd come down to face sculpt for most models which would make it easier for people to make a choice on if they want guys or girls in their unts.
On the otherhand, female Catachan would be more obvious and would let us get Ripley from Aliens into our army (which would be awesome):
Honestly I kind of want an all ladies version of the Vostroyan First Born where it's the planets daughters who are sent off because they have a mutation that causes most of the planet's population to be women or something. Mostly because I love variety on the table and that would allow for a way to add in a new subfaction for Guard (maybe give them a kind of victorian era flair or base their uniforms off of the 1800s US Calvary or something) and would let the people who want the all female guard army to have one with less fuss with 3rd party companies.
Exactly cadians you'd never be able to tell. Same could probably be said for Kreig, steel legion, Valhallans, tallarn.
Catchans would be pretty obvious
And mordians would be quite a sight too
That vostroyan firstborn idea is pretty cool though. Just say it's a disease where male survival rate is low or something.
If you've ever played Mass Effect there's a alien race where only 1/1000 survives birth and females of the species are very rare. So something like that lol
Manchu wrote: As to the representation argument, I think people are importing a concept that is important when we’re talking about real life professions and it doesn’t really fit the context of pursuing a hobby. Plenty of women like watching NFL football despite there being no female players, whether as “poster boys” or otherwise, for example.
And people who aren't represented well in 40k (or similar media/hobbies) have said "this matters to me", so your theory is wrong.
You conclusory comment in no way responds to what I wrote. Moreover, ”X matters to me” and similar sentiments are true no matter who feels them, regardless of how well or poorly they can claim to be represented in a miniatures game about a gothic genocide fantasy. But such sentiments are only meaningful - like all feelings - to the individual experiencing them. Idiosyncratic sentiment is not the appropriate basis for a policy to be applied to other individuals who can just as validly claim that “X matters to me,” considering X will with certainty mean conflicting and even contradictory things as between individuals.
This is why the example of Guardswomen figures is so important. Someone might passionately feel that there should be no female Guard figures - but so what? At best, we can say then don’t have any in your own collection. But the setting produced for the enjoyment of all already has female Guard; billions of them in fact. GW should make Guardswomen figures to portray the setting as it already is, the thing we all allegedly alteady are on board for, the reason we’re even discussing the topic on this site.
This is a typical uninformed opinion. No one is shedding tears or gnashing teeth because a women got a laser sword it's the lazy way they made the girl wielding a laser sword so OP with no story or anything to explain it.
Suure!
<Phantom Menace Picture>
Damn, if someone in the film would just have said that Rey's midichlorian count was off the charts it all would have been absolutely fine!
Did you really post a picture from Phantom Menace as an example of people *not* gnashing teeth?? I mean, any backlash Force Awakens got was absolutely *nothing* compared to the backlash Phantom Menace received on release, and still received today. Phantom Menace was considered so bad that many Star Wars fans even today refuse to acknowledge its existence.... If anything that picture is a counter point which establishes that fans actually *do* care more about the development and plot of the character and don't give a free pass to males.
Much of what was so disappointing about TPM was that the little kid was naturally good at anything, and he didn't have any real character development- the very same criticisms being leveled against Rey. The counter point to Rey is Luke. I don't know if you remember the OG Star Wars movies, but Luke was very under powered throughout the entire series. The big duel of the first movie was Vader v Obi Wan because Luke was completely powerless to do anything. He lost hard in the showdown in Empire, and was outclassed even in his final rematch in Return, he only prevailed because Vader chose to die to protect him. Luke's character grows, he is aware of his limitations and constantly pressing against them and failing. Rey by contrast is perfect at everything she does and succeeds on her first attempt, and with no training wins her first light saber duel against an alleged prodigy. It destroys all of the tension in the Force Awakens in much the same way Anakin's Dues Ex Machina ability destroys the tension in TPM. There would be far less complaints against her if she had weaknesses and we could grow with her as a character. Disney missed a big opportunity by not making Kylo Ren an absolute unit in the first movie who steamrolled whenever he showed up, because he came off as a push over and they have struggled since to give us any sort of respect for him.... and as a principle antagonist he needs to command respect to drive the plot.
ANYWAY, the point is, female characters just need proper development. They are not inherently criticized and they are not inherently good or bad. It just needs to be handled right. Same goes for any universe, including 40K.
Manchu wrote: You conclusory comment in no way responds to what I wrote.
Of course it does. You claimed that representation "doesn't really fit the context" of pursuing a hobby and provided the example of women who like the all-male NFL. The existence of people who DO feel that representation matters disproves your argument that it doesn't fit.
Moreover, ”X matters to me” and similar sentiments are true no matter who feels them, regardless of how well or poorly they can claim to be represented in a miniatures game about a gothic genocide fantasy. But such sentiments are only meaningful - like all feelings - to the individual experiencing them. Idiosyncratic sentiment is not the appropriate basis for a policy to be applied to other individuals who can just as validly claim that “X matters to me,” considering X will with certainty mean conflicting and even contradictory things as between individuals.
I really don't see what your point here is. Yes, you can argue that "X matters to me" is only important to the individual, but that's true of everything in 40k. You don't see threads discussing proposed balance changes getting hijacked into absurd philosophical tangents about whether sentiments about {unit} being overpowered are meaningful other than to the individual, so why do you think that it is relevant here?
This is why the example of Guardswomen figures is so important. Someone might passionately feel that there should be no female Guard figures - but so what? At best, we can say then don’t have any in your own collection. But the setting produced for the enjoyment of all already has female Guard; billions of them in fact. GW should make Guardswomen figures to portray the setting as it already is, the thing we all allegedly alteady are on board for, the reason we’re even discussing the topic on this site.
Ok, sure, this is an argument for female IG models. They should make them. They should also make female Tau, female space marines (as long as they dominate the setting the way they do now), etc. Talking about what the setting currently contains is of limited value in the context of a game company that will blatantly change the setting any time it's convenient to sell new models, and has no reluctance to overturn things that have always been true if it gets in the way of the marketing department's new plan. Just look at primaris marines being accepted as the saviors of the Imperium and the new face of the IP, when by previous fluff the would have been destroyed as blasphemous abominations and everyone involved in their creation would have been executed for tech heresy. But because GW needed to sell a new product line the fluff changed to support it.
Excluded an horrible minority of people, most fans criticizing Rey don't do that because she is a woman. We could think about many, many sci-fi and fantasy female characters better written than her. Please no strawmen.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Excluded an horrible minority of people, most fans criticizing Rey don't do that because she is a woman. We could think about many, many sci-fi and fantasy female characters better written than her. Please no strawmen.
It's pretty obvious that the fact that she's a woman is relevant when similar criticism is not directed at Mary Sue male characters, and those male characters are even embraced as beloved favorites by their fans.
My opinion is pretty consistent on this. GW should make every attempt possible to ensure that they are as inclusive as possible while remaining faithful to the world that they maintain.
Guardsmen with non-masculine potato heads? Great! Space Marines with ethnicities that aren't just beard/emo hair/bald screaming man? Perfect! (I believe the Deathwatch box does have a head that is more suited for Salamanders than any other). More Admech/Necron named characters using female pronouns? (not models, there wouldn't be a difference) Lovely!
Give the selected factions either conversion packs, or mix them into the units, I don't have a strong preference (preference being mixed into the kit, with enough options to do either/or, but that's wishful thinking), and increase the exposure of non-white male characters in those groups.
40K desperately needs more prominent female characters, and if the lore is not to be altered, that means more prominence to non-marine factions. In this light too I find Guilliman to be unfortunate; he is such a glory magnet that there is little room for other characters. I always though it would be cool had they given a tabletop model for a High Lord, but not like this. Give us someone who is female equivalent of Lord Solar Macharius; a great warrior and most importantly a great leader. Inquisitors should get more spotlight too; sure marines might be all male, but both the Deathwatch and GK armies could be lead by Inquisitors that can be female.
40K desperately needs more prominent female characters, and if the lore is not to be altered, that means more prominence to non-marine factions. In this light too I find Guilliman to be unfortunate; he is such a glory magnet that there is little room for other characters. I always though it would be cool had they given a tabletop model for a High Lord, but not like this. Give us someone who is female equivalent of Lord Solar Macharius; a great warrior and most importantly a great leader. Inquisitors should get more spotlight too; sure marines might be all male, but both the Deathwatch and GK armies could be lead by Inquisitors that can be female.
We could start by bringing back some of the named female characters we had in the 2nd ed Sisters codex, the named female character from the 5th edition Inquisition rules, the generic female Inqusitor models, Lady Malys, and toss in a female Commisar model for good measure.
In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples. Oh, and Like, Ten Tallarns, Who We Made A Bit Falafelly.
It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.
Excommunicatus wrote: In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.
It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.
They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.
Excommunicatus wrote: In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.
It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.
They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.
Ayuh, but I'm talking about the sculpts, not just the painting. DIfferent ethnic groups have different facial structures, tissue depths etc. etc. EVERY GW human mini, except Tallarns, was sculpted to be painted as an IC1.
Elbows wrote: This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?
Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.
Elbows wrote: If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.
There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.
Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.
I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).
EDIT: For the sake of argument, I'd suggest the best option being tossing in five female heads on the new guard kits when they come out - as the most 'safe' option from a business perspective. But throwing boobs and hips on guard models will have a backlash, I could almost guarantee. Regarding 3rd party models being looked down on at GW events - those are exceptionally rare, and even GW wouldn't give a gak if you showed up with resin female heads on your minis...so it is an incredibly valid consideration (not to mention the cheapest option).
A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.
Excommunicatus wrote: In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.
It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.
They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.
Ayuh, but I'm talking about the sculpts, not just the painting. DIfferent ethnic groups have different facial structures, tissue depths etc. etc. EVERY GW human mini, except Tallarns, was sculpted to be painted as an IC1.
Again, see my point about the concern that models could come across as racist parody (though "caricature" is likely the better word I guess). Especially when dealing with such small faces.
I think they'd be best mixing and matching different racial traits across the models to give them more depth, but I can understand if they don't do that as well.
Elbows wrote: This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?
Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.
Elbows wrote: If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.
There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.
Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.
I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).
A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.
Based on what little we know about Tau physiology....the only difference between the sexes you can see is in the face, and they provide female heads for them:
For the record this is a male Tau model:
So it's not like Tau don't already give us a mix of sexes, it's just that most people don't notice it.
I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).
A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.
Considering that SoB were the most demanded thing in the GW questionnaire and that guradswomen are something many people want to see and quite a few are particularly opposed to it, it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority.
I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).
A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.
Considering that SoB were the most demanded thing in the GW questionnaire and that guradswomen are something many people want to see and quite a few are particularly opposed to it, it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority.
I want some factions to stay monosex: Marines, Custodes, Sisters (both flavors) and Orks (we don't need Ork boobs, sorry). The rest should be fair game.
Though when it comes to Guard I'd like the Vostroyans to stay all male because it's one of their defining traits. We just need a mirror match for them where we have an all female regiment for those who want that instead while the rest should probably be mixed (in different ratios).
Elbows wrote: Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience?
Why are you assuming that the people who would stop buying if GW added female models are:
1) A significant enough group to matter in their sales numbers.
and
2) Not a toxic mess that no sane company wants anywhere near their company.
Even if the demand for female models comes from a small group it's still almost certainly larger than the number of sales from non-misogynist-ass customers they'd lose by meeting that demand.
As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around.
A fact which almost certainly has very little to do with the fact that they are women and a lot to do with them being an all-metal army (IOW, extremely expensive and a pain to build/convert) with weak rules. You may have noticed a lot of hype for then new SoB line, likely because they will be plastic kits with (hopefully) good rules.
But throwing boobs and hips on guard models will have a backlash, I could almost guarantee.
Of course it will. But the question is why GW should care if a few misogynistic s whine and cry about the existence of women in their hobby, instead of being glad that such a toxic element of the community has voluntarily removed itself.
40K desperately needs more prominent female characters, and if the lore is not to be altered, that means more prominence to non-marine factions. In this light too I find Guilliman to be unfortunate; he is such a glory magnet that there is little room for other characters. I always though it would be cool had they given a tabletop model for a High Lord, but not like this. Give us someone who is female equivalent of Lord Solar Macharius; a great warrior and most importantly a great leader. Inquisitors should get more spotlight too; sure marines might be all male, but both the Deathwatch and GK armies could be lead by Inquisitors that can be female.
Agreed. Less Marine focus (still focus on them in their own material, and no need to underplay them), and more showing off what the female characters can pull off too.
Excommunicatus wrote: In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.
It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.
They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.
Ayuh, but I'm talking about the sculpts, not just the painting. DIfferent ethnic groups have different facial structures, tissue depths etc. etc. EVERY GW human mini, except Tallarns, was sculpted to be painted as an IC1.
Again, see my point about the concern that models could come across as racist parody (though "caricature" is likely the better word I guess). Especially when dealing with such small faces.
I think they'd be best mixing and matching different racial traits across the models to give them more depth, but I can understand if they don't do that as well.
I mean, it's possible, but this is also a company that named an Ork warlord (THE Ork Warlord) after Margaret Thatcher (who I personally despised, but you can't deny her historical significance) and which makes Tau a lazy, hodge-podge facsimile of Asia + Maoism. They've never seemed overly anxious of how they've been received in the past.
You're also making huge assumptions about the GW design team, IMO. Specifically that they're all whiter than a ginger bird's arse.
I totally can see a scenario where someone would claim a non-IC1 mini is lazily racist (like Tau are) but I also believe that it is an almost total defence to such a claim to point out that in fact no, it was designed and sculpted, whether totally or in part,by a non-IC1 person.
Crimson wrote: it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority
Tiny perhaps but certainly not vocal. I’ve never run across anyone actually devoted to something as patently contrary to lore as excluded Guardswoman figures.
Crimson wrote: it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority
Tiny perhaps but certainly not vocal. I’ve never run across anyone actually devoted to something as patently contrary to lore as excluded Guardswoman figures.
So we have a setting that explicitly is not canon in any way, that is in fact retconned regularly and majorly and people are arguing women should stay out of certain factions because of canon. When I first got into 40k, Necrons did not exist. Tau did not exist. Genestealer Cults didn't exist. DKoK didn't exist. Forge World didn't exist. Flyers didn't exist. Knights didn't exist. Custodes didn't exist. Imperial tanks were restricted to four or five designs.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, but the Space Marines are only important when it's their story. The rest of the time it's someone else's spotlight. That's like saying James Bond is the paramount of importance in a Tomb Raider movie just because he was in the background of a single scene.
Except in 40k it's almost always the space marines' story, and every other faction shares a tiny spotlight when GW bothers to remember them at all.
ClockworkZion wrote: I meant more uplifiting them to have insanely long lifespans, incredible durability and fighting prowess. You know, give them the ol' "Super Soldier" treatment.
Why not do the same for every guardsman? It's clear that uplifting is a limited-availability thing and not every faction gets it.
Except in the case of the Sisters of Silence, they were an organization set up and originally run by the Emperor. He could have done it if it was possible or had actual practical applications.
It's clear there is some limiting factor there or else it'd be done already inside of the lore.
Because the choice is pre-Great Crusade meaning that this is something that predates the modern 40k era's silliness.
On the other hand all of that era's records are myths and half-truths, so who knows what happened then. The modern era is the only setting we have any definite information on.
We used to but they've been peeling back the curtain on that lately.
And I've yet to see anyone provide proof that their was any sort of "don't tamper with the geneseed" clause, especially when we have a cursed founding based around tampering with the geneseed, but no word of anyone being punished for it.
It's tech-heresy that gets you executed if you put a different gun on a tank. Over and over again we saw statements that the space marines were already perfect and the geneseed was sacred, even if it wasn't explicitly stated that altering it was not permitted. It's certainly not going to have weaker no-modifications rules than an IG tank.
You say we see things that say that but no one ever coughs up an actual quote or source for that. And again: Lamenters are an explicit example of geneseed tampering and yet it was seen as a positive move by those who ran the project as it'd (potentially) cure the Black Rage.
And the Razorback and two versions of the Land Raider are "different guns on a tank" and yet no one was executed and I've even been told it's "not the same thing" when I've pointed it out that it's been done.
To the mod who keeps deleting the posts, is female Custodians now a banned topic too?
Edit by Manchu: Based on the posts I deleted, the issue of Custodes is basically used to smuggle in discussion of Space Marines. In effect, Custodes are similar enough to be the target of complaints that they are just another SM army so they are also close enough to be subject to this specific ban.
There is a bright orange sign at the top of the OP advising that posts arguing about femarines will be deleted. Folks who keep bringing it up will have to take a break from posting on Dakka Dakka. Thanks!
ClockworkZion wrote: Based on what little we know about Tau physiology....the only difference between the sexes you can see is in the face
The issue there is the assumption is based on an admitted lack of information. We know that Tau have sexually dimorphic facial features. And we don’t know anything else. GW generously, I suppose, included female heads on the sprue. I don’t think we should jump to conclusions based on that.
Manchu wrote: There is a bright orange sign at the top of the OP advising that posts arguing about femarines will be deleted. Folks who keep bringing it up will have to take a break from posting on Dakka Dakka. Thanks!
ClockworkZion wrote: Based on what little we know about Tau physiology....the only difference between the sexes you can see is in the face
The issue there is the assumption is based on an admitted lack of information. We know that Tau have sexually dimorphic facial features. And we don’t know anything else. GW generously, I suppose, included female heads on the sprue. I don’t think we should jump to conclusions based on that.
Xenology shows they lack mammaries (meaning they most likely aren't mammals and every busty Tau girl pic you've seen is wrong), but we don't know much else beyond that.
That said, the males and females look similar enough in armour that it apparently doesn't matter which heads you put on which bodies, so we could argue that their sexual dimorphism could be less external and more internal.
I think the Tau way makes the most sense. Men and women serve equally under the same command structure. All female units or especially armies always struck me as a weird concept.
Andykp wrote: ALL factions should have females in them.
Well if we look at the main factions (Imperium, Chaos, Orks, Aeldari, Necrons, Tau and Tyranids) only Orks lack anything female on any level of the army, the rest being a mixed back all over the place on how many females could be said mixed into the subfactions themselves.
That said, we do need more female cultist models since we have none right now and that's a bit odd since GSC and Chaos Cultists have men and women running around causing havoc.
Andykp wrote: ALL factions should have females in them.
I think Orks and Tyranids are asexual species. I don't know enough about Necrons to say if they had two sexes, but they'd be in a weirder case now because they're now all sexless robots.
Xenology can’t be trusted at all. The very image in question shoes toes instead of hooves. Ordo Xenos sometimes gets carried away by its prejudices.
Female cultists are a huge oversight. I mean, what about Cultist-chan for throne’s sake? A female Chaos cultist is one of the most popular fan characters of all time.
Andykp wrote: ALL factions should have females in them.
Well if we look at the main factions (Imperium, Chaos, Orks, Aeldari, Necrons, Tau and Tyranids) only Orks lack anything female on any level of the army, the rest being a mixed back all over the place on how many females could be said mixed into the subfactions themselves.
That said, we do need more female cultist models since we have none right now and that's a bit odd since GSC and Chaos Cultists have men and women running around causing havoc.
Manchu wrote: Xenology can’t be trusted at all. The very image in question shoes toes instead of hooves. Ordo Xenos sometimes gets carried away by its prejudices.
Yeah, but the point remains that the models don't make a difference on whose body the female heads can go onto, meaning that they don't have a massive amount of external dimorphism (such has hip to shoulder ratios, bone structure, height, ect)
I would like to see a visibly female Necron lord (lady). Now that Necron have personalities, and more importantly personality quirks, it’s easy to imagine an ancient obsesssion with mortal beauty or the like among the Space TK.
Manchu wrote: I would like to see a visibly female Necron lord (lady). Now that Necron have personalities, and more importantly personality quirks, it’s easy to imagine an ancient obsesssion with mortal beauty or the like among the Space TK.
That shouldn’t really look any different though. Like I say it should just be the pronoun that changes. Although the overlords did have some fancy bodies so a female necron could well be dolled up. But it doesn’t need to be to be inclusive.
Andykp wrote: How many female human models do we have right now. In plastic it’s maybe less than ten.
Most of the ones we had were metal, but currently we have:
Sisters of Silence (that's 10), Celestine and the Gemini (that's 3), the Rogue Trader set (that's 3), various Dark Eldar models (that's at least 10) and a mix of Tau whose sex can't be told unless they're not wearing their helmets (that's ????).
So we have an okay representation, and of course Necromunda gives us more, but I'll never turn down the option for more variety.
jeffersonian000 wrote: There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.
In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.
By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.
Manchu wrote: I would like to see a visibly female Necron lord (lady). Now that Necron have personalities, and more importantly personality quirks, it’s easy to imagine an ancient obsesssion with mortal beauty or the like among the Space TK.
I agree. It's not really known if the Lords or Crypteks would bother having a different body for females, but I doubt it, meaning that anyone's lord could be a female if they want them to.
And of course since the Warriors were the civilians of the race, that means having around half of those be women makes sense. Question is how male driven their armies were is all that we really need answered to know how diverse the robot zombie army is.
Andykp wrote: How many female human models do we have right now. In plastic it’s maybe less than ten.
Most of the ones we had were metal, but currently we have:
Sisters of Silence (that's 10), Celestine and the Gemini (that's 3), the Rogue Trader set (that's 3), various Dark Eldar models (that's at least 10) and a mix of Tau whose sex can't be told unless they're not wearing their helmets (that's ????).
So we have an okay representation, and of course Necromunda gives us more, but I'll never turn down the option for more variety.
Sisters of silence is 5 really. Grey fax and the Celestine and her twins. Forgot the rogue traders. That’s not really well represented. In humans. And all of them have boob plate on and or high heels. Age of Sigmar had managed this much better. Stormcast just are male or female and it makes no difference. It isn’t an issue. And there are very string and feminine models in the line without overt sexualisation.
Andykp wrote: How many female human models do we have right now. In plastic it’s maybe less than ten.
Most of the ones we had were metal, but currently we have:
Sisters of Silence (that's 10), Celestine and the Gemini (that's 3), the Rogue Trader set (that's 3), various Dark Eldar models (that's at least 10) and a mix of Tau whose sex can't be told unless they're not wearing their helmets (that's ????).
So we have an okay representation, and of course Necromunda gives us more, but I'll never turn down the option for more variety.
Sisters of silence is 5 really. Grey fax and the Celestine and her twins. Forgot the rogue traders. That’s not really well represented. In humans. And all of them have boob plate on and or high heels. Age of Sigmar had managed this much better. Stormcast just are male or female and it makes no difference. It isn’t an issue. And there are very string and feminine models in the line without overt sexualisation.
I forgot Greyfax, but thought there were 10 Sisters of Silence models and not 5.
Boob plate I can live with as a way to try and go "this is a female" on a 28mm scale since the face sculpts have largely been hit or miss.
OH! I forgot Harlequinns and Yvrainne which adds like another 5 or so female models (Harlequin players and a Shadowseer). Plus the Culexas assassin for another 1.
GW hasn't really gone too far down the road of sexualizing minatures, but they do play into trying to use visual shorthand to point out the sex of the model: usually with boobs.
Manchu wrote: I would like to see a visibly female Necron lord (lady). Now that Necron have personalities, and more importantly personality quirks, it’s easy to imagine an ancient obsesssion with mortal beauty or the like among the Space TK.
That shouldn’t really look any different though. Like I say it should just be the pronoun that changes. Although the overlords did have some fancy bodies so a female necron could well be dolled up. But it doesn’t need to be to be inclusive.
I happen to be quite fond of a particular fanmade Xun'bakyr design. You can see it for yourself to the left of this post.
Making female Necron Ladies is as easy as giving them head pieces and modifications in their skull to show that.
I doubt the... "beard" of the new Cryptek model is there to have some function. Necrons have personalities now. When you are an individual you want to differentiate yourself from the rest
.That does not mean we need robot skeletons with boobs but is absolutely possible to make an Skeleton that looks feminine with a combination of "clothes", pose, etc...
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
Okay, but what is "female" for a Necrontyr? Were they mammals? Birds? Reptiles? We don't even know if the Necrons look close to the same as what the Necrontyr looked like, so it makes it hard to know what a female Necron "should" look like. For all we know they all looked basically the same and sex was conveyed by clothing style or scent markers instead of obvious sexual characteristics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Making female Necron Ladies is as easy as giving them head pieces and modifications in their skull to show that.
I doubt the... "beard" of the new Cryptek model is there to have some function. Necrons have personalities now. When you are an individual you want to differentiate yourself from the rest
.That does not mean we need robot skeletons with boobs but is absolutely possible to make an Skeleton that looks feminine with a combination of "clothes", pose, etc...
Female Pharohs wore the beard too so it's more a call back to Egyptian culture than a gender marker design wise I think.
The state of GW's fem minis is even more deplorable when you consider that one of their twelve releases is 'Dark Eldar prisoners', two hyper-sexualised figures with dubious proportions and pixie features in submissive poses and underwear, which would arguably make sense in a Slaanesh 'kink' aesthetic but makes none in Dark Eldar's 'sadist' aesthetic.
Somewhere, Andrea Dworkin just rolled over in her grave.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
NO SHE MUST BE ALL BOOBS, NOTHING BUT BOOBS ALL THE WAY DOWN!
Kidding aside, I dunno what you mean. If we have Necron Lady, presumably because we want to visibly suggest that Necrons can be feminine as well as mascline and moreover that its okay for women and girls to like Necrons, then this character will need to be immediately recognizable as female. So sure, she doesn’t need to be a writhing mass of breasts or whatever but neither did I suggest such a model would be ...
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?
The name, mostly. That's all that's really necessary, especially for a faction who has extreme uniformity as a defining aesthetic trait. For an example from a different franchise the Arakkoa have no sexual dimorphism and you can only tell the difference from their voice and their names, and I personally loved those designs.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
NO SHE MUST BE ALL BOOBS, NOTHING BUT BOOBS ALL THE WAY DOWN!
Kidding aside, I dunno what you mean. If we have Necron Lady, presumably because we want to visibly suggest that Necrons can be deminine too and that its okay for women and girls to like Necrons, then this character will need to be immediately recognizable as female. So sure, she doesn’t need to be a writhing mass of breasts or whatever but neither did I suggest such a model would be ...
No but the representation of women in 40k would suggest it was going that way. So far we haven’t got a single female human in the range who isn’t in Lycra or corseted armour.
Excommunicatus wrote: The state of GW's fem minis is even more deplorable when you consider that one of their twelve releases is 'Dark Eldar prisoners', two hyper-sexualised figures with dubious proportions and pixie features in submissive poses and underwear, which would arguably make sense in a Slaanesh 'kink' aesthetic but makes none in Dark Eldar's 'sadist' aesthetic.
Somewhere, Andrea Dworkin just rolled over in her grave.
Those "prisoners" never made it into plastic and are from the original Dark Eldar line.
And how submissive is it for a woman to be hiding a knife behind her back again? Because the Sister of Battle on the right is hiding a shiv behind her back:
I won't argue that they're not bad models (they're horrible on several levels) but complaining that an army that degrades their captives is degrading their captives seems a little silly.
I am 100% ok with the introduction of female mini's to GW's ranges. EXCEPT where it requires a lore retcon. I would be totally ok with the next 4 factions being female only. I am not ok with retcon for many reasons.
That being said, Imperial Guard are a perfect vehicle for the introduction of more female miniatures. SoB need a upgrade. And female cultists would be hella cool.
Note : I am also sick to death of the people who want to import real world politics and morality to a fictional universe. 40K is a terrible place. Its rife with sexism, murder, genocide and famine. It is one of the most brutal settings imaginable. People, and females, are going to get used up and chewed out by the various factions in this universe. Rape, while probably not common place, would be a very real problem in this setting. As it always has been in theatres of conflict. 40k is the summation of the worst of humanity. Stop trying to give us a happy ending folks. We have Star Trek for that.
I also recognize I need to keep my own politics and morality out of the game more frequently ( even if my inclusion of them is only in response ). So I will be trying more and more to come at topics like this with a logical mindset rather than a emotional one.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
NO SHE MUST BE ALL BOOBS, NOTHING BUT BOOBS ALL THE WAY DOWN!
Kidding aside, I dunno what you mean. If we have Necron Lady, presumably because we want to visibly suggest that Necrons can be deminine too and that its okay for women and girls to like Necrons, then this character will need to be immediately recognizable as female. So sure, she doesn’t need to be a writhing mass of breasts or whatever but neither did I suggest such a model would be ...
No but the representation of women in 40k would suggest it was going that way. So far we haven’t got a single female human in the range who isn’t in Lycra or corseted armour.
Yeah there are. There's two in chains and their underwear.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?
Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.
Manchu wrote: Female IG figs would be just plain good news. Even if one isn’t particulalry bothered by getting some cool Guardswomen sculpts, the only way we’ll get them at all is if the Astra Militarum line is significantly updated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory
This needs to stop being repeated. Female bodies are not male bodies. Head swaps don’t give us female figures. The guard uniform isn’t a shapeless potato sack. According to the fluff, there are billions of Guardswomen. Having them a[pear on the tabletop will just make Astra Militarum that much cooler and thematically “correct.”
Female bodies are virtually indistinguishable from male bodies in uniform and body armor, with the only defining trait being a different hip/waist ratio that is mostly covered up by thick coats, webbing, and armor. All they need is heads, although all guardsmen really need new models.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
Okay, but what is "female" for a Necrontyr? Were they mammals? Birds? Reptiles? We don't even know if the Necrons look close to the same as what the Necrontyr looked like, so it makes it hard to know what a female Necron "should" look like. For all we know they all looked basically the same and sex was conveyed by clothing style or scent markers instead of obvious sexual characteristics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Making female Necron Ladies is as easy as giving them head pieces and modifications in their skull to show that.
I doubt the... "beard" of the new Cryptek model is there to have some function. Necrons have personalities now. When you are an individual you want to differentiate yourself from the rest
.That does not mean we need robot skeletons with boobs but is absolutely possible to make an Skeleton that looks feminine with a combination of "clothes", pose, etc...
Female Pharohs wore the beard too so it's more a call back to Egyptian culture than a gender marker design wise I think.
I mentioned the beard because it is clearly something that is not there for a pragmatic reason but for an aesthetic or traditional reason. Necrons decorate themselves. If males do, females would to it too.
Also I wouldn't over-cothinkg about how Necrontyr society worked. They are clearly Tomb Kings on Space. Clearly GW hasn't put more tought into that. They are metal humanoid skeletons.
We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?
Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.
While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to more female Overlords, Xun'bakyr already exists as the Phaerakh of the Maynarkh Dynasty, and Forge World in their infinite wisdom just made the HQ choices for the dynasty a couple of dudes who work under her instead.
While I really hope cadians get new models, all female guard need for them is heads. Google real life female soldiers in modern gear. If you covered their faces it would be tough to tell gender apart other than guessing based on height and weight since men generally are a taller and heavier.
Andykp wrote: We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.
I’ll say it again. 1 model.
They said "corseted armor", which clearly doesn't apply to the rogue trader herself.
I'd argue that corsets fit fine into the setting if we assume that they're part of Imperial fashion (it's not like they didn't start as a fashion choice before after all). Boob plate is the big one that most people want to see become more practical (or see gone depending on who you ask), though I can respect why GW might stick with it as it does make it easier for new players to go "oh, those are girls".
Andykp wrote: We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.
I’ll say it again. 1 model.
Honest question. Because I really don't have a answer. How much of that is the aesthetics of the setting?
Excommunicatus wrote: The state of GW's fem minis is even more deplorable when you consider that one of their twelve releases is 'Dark Eldar prisoners', two hyper-sexualised figures with dubious proportions and pixie features in submissive poses and underwear, which would arguably make sense in a Slaanesh 'kink' aesthetic but makes none in Dark Eldar's 'sadist' aesthetic.
Somewhere, Andrea Dworkin just rolled over in her grave.
Those "prisoners" never made it into plastic and are from the original Dark Eldar line.
And how submissive is it for a woman to be hiding a knife behind her back again? Because the Sister of Battle on the right is hiding a shiv behind her back:
I won't argue that they're not bad models (they're horrible on several levels) but complaining that an army that degrades their captives is degrading their captives seems a little silly.
Daemonettes are not, IMO, female. Slaanesh is genderfluid.
It doesn't matter how they were released, or in what medium. It matters that they were released and that in a product line that contains roughly twelve women, two of them are depicted as victims, trussed up in their underwear. The presence of a shiv hardly seems relevant, either, except to suggest that Drukhari, as I suppose I should get used to calling them, are [Expletive Deleted] idiots who can't search their captives properly.
Again, in a Slaanesh aesthetic where the main focus is broad kink, they make sense. In the Drukhari aesthetic, they are torture porn.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?
Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.
While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to more female Overlords, Xun'bakyr already exists as the Phaerakh of the Maynarkh Dynasty, and Forge World in their infinite wisdom just made the HQ choices for the dynasty a couple of dudes who work under her instead.
Respect the female pronouns used for them if you're going to start talking about being genderfluid (actually according to Ian Watson they're hermaphrodites (since he described them as very feminine with "bulging loins" but that is a topic about their sex, not gender).
Andykp wrote: The rogue trader is in a corset. With mr whippy boobs.
She's dressed in moderate clothing and tall boots. Don't hate the fashion just because you don't like it. A corset is just a piece of clothing unless you're wearing it for kink reasons after all.
Daemonettes aren’t human they are demons. They don’t have gender, as they are made of the warp and that stuff is unreal in its being.
They have gendered pronouns used for them, therefore the Daemonettes can be called "female". It's like you're going out of your way to claim we have less female models in the game or something.
Manchu wrote: I don’t see why a Necron Lady couldn’t have arranged a feminine body for herself. Surely, inclusiveness also apllies here?
She could but it doesn’t have to be all boobs like human females have to be.
But then how would players know it's a "female" robot?
Make her a named Necron overlord character like Imotekh and Trazan, just give her a feminine Egyptian-sounding name and maybe emphasize her femininity just a little bit in the fluff. She overthrew various feuding Necron lords and seized control of part of a Necron dynasty, for instance.
While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to more female Overlords, Xun'bakyr already exists as the Phaerakh of the Maynarkh Dynasty, and Forge World in their infinite wisdom just made the HQ choices for the dynasty a couple of dudes who work under her instead.
Respect the female pronouns used for them if you're going to start talking about being genderfluid (actually according to Ian Watson they're hermaphrodites (since he described them as very feminine with "bulging loins" but that is a topic about their sex, not gender).
Ayuh, I even refer to my version of Zarakynel as 'Herself', however it is entirely possible to prefer to be addressed using feminine forms and not be biologically female. We are, however, skirting to close to discussing identity politics, which the OP asked us not to do, so perhaps its best to drop this.
Don’t get too into in-setting perspective about Daemonettes. As the name makes explicit, and the models clearly illustrate, they are female-gendered and will be perceived by pretty much everyone who is not splitting hairs as females, just as all other daemons are perceived as male.
Now, that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be more female models. A female Necron character, Fire Warriors who look like females, and a bunch of characters as well as rank and file Guardswomen should all be added - not with any big fanfare, as noted above, just added in because they make sense and would make the setting’s table top depiction more accurate to the existing background.
Slaanesh daemons are female largely because GW isn't terribly interested in exploring gender roles in the physical manifestations of chaos and corruption, cool as that would have been. Regardless of the reasons she/her are the pronouns they use so she's and her's they are.
Slaanesh is known as the dark prince and she who thirsts which I think speaks volumes to the preferred pronouns of their daemons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Don’t get too into in-setting perspective about Daemonettes. As the name makes explicit, and the models clearly illustrate, they are female-gendered and will be perceived by pretty much everyone who is not splitting hairs as females, just as all other daemons are perceived as male.
Now, that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be more female models. A female Necron character, Fire Warriors who look like females, and a bunch of characters as well as rank and file Guardswomen should all be added - not with any big fanfare, as noted above, just added in because they make sense and would make the setting’s table top depiction more accurate to the existing background.
But that leaves the massive elephant in the room. Age of Sigmar is all in. Female poster boys right there front and centre.
Andykp wrote: But that leaves the massive elephant in the room. Age of Sigmar is all in. Female poster boys right there front and centre.
Yeah, but the equiv to those are Space Marines and the processess for making them is different.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have female models mind you, I'm just saying they're not the best example of meshing them into the setting for that reason.
Andykp wrote: We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.
I’ll say it again. 1 model.
Nope. It's at least 4. In addition to the Dark Eldar Prisoners (who are humans), we also have...
No corset there!
For the record, I own almost all of the metal female minis the GW has made available since 3E
There are more, but I'm waiting for you to keep putting your foot in your mouth, insisting that there's just one.
Given that GW seems to be going all-in on the Emperor being a bastard, it might be an interesting excuse if they just make him flagrantly misogynistic and play up the dissonance with how otherwise egalitarian the Imperium is. It is notable how, with the exception of the Sisters of Battle which were designed to get around a weird exception in a specific rule, all of the gender-specific factions in the Imperium were deliberately designed that way by Big E.
Manchu wrote: You’re not using your imagination, Mr. Hwang!
As to poster boys, GW need to use Guard for this position much more often. It works very, very well in Regimental Standard.
I agree, Guard do need to be more important. I get why Marines are used for marketting, but for representing humanity to the player/reader, Guard should be used more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: Given that GW seems to be going all-in on the Emperor being a bastard, it might be an interesting excuse if they just make him flagrantly misogynistic and play up the dissonance with how otherwise egalitarian the Imperium is. It is notable how, with the exception of the Sisters of Battle which were designed to get around a weird exception in a specific rule, all of the gender-specific factions in the Imperium were deliberately designed that way by Big E.
If you assume he did it because he didn't want his tools replacing humanity it makes sense (by breeding out humanity), but that's just the take I've always had on it.
Andykp wrote: We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.
I’ll say it again. 1 model.
Nope. It's at least 4. In addition to the Dark Eldar Prisoners (who are humans), we also have...
No corset there!
For the record, I own almost all of the metal female minis the GW has made available since 3E
There are more, but I'm waiting for you to keep putting your foot in your mouth, insisting that there's just one.
I did initially ask about them in plastic. So that is just one. And if that’s what you are doing then you are missing the point massively. However many it is, it isn’t enough. By a LONG way. And the examples you have given aren’t exactly perfect examples of inclusion and diversity are they. So carry on by all means but at some point you will have to admit that women are under represented in 40k. Or represented in a negative way. (I’m looking at repentia sisters things).
Andykp wrote: We have one. One female model in the human range who isn’t in a corset or Lycra (or less of us count the prisoners). A medic from the rogue trader box.
I’ll say it again. 1 model.
Nope. It's at least 4. In addition to the Dark Eldar Prisoners (who are humans), we also have...
No corset there!
For the record, I own almost all of the metal female minis the GW has made available since 3E
There are more, but I'm waiting for you to keep putting your foot in your mouth, insisting that there's just one.
I did initially ask about them in plastic. So that is just one. And if that’s what you are doing then you are missing the point massively. However many it is, it isn’t enough. By a LONG way. And the examples you have given aren’t exactly perfect examples of inclusion and diversity are they. So carry on by all means but at some point you will have to admit that women are under represented in 40k. Or represented in a negative way. (I’m looking at repentia sisters things).
Why are we discounting the RT exactly? She's wearing REGULAR CLOTHING for Imperial high society, not armour. Why is a corset in this situation somehow a bad thing?
Geez, it's like people will move goal posts over and over again to preserve a narrative.
The Rogue Trader box is a clear step in the right direction, personally - not only does it have female models but it has female models with distinct styles and personalities conveyed through their appearance, from the impractically fashionable Rogue Trader herself to the far more serious doctor.
Arachnofiend wrote: The Rogue Trader box is a clear step in the right direction, personally - not only does it have female models but it has female models with distinct styles and personalities conveyed through their appearance, from the impractically fashionable Rogue Trader herself to the far more serious doctor.
I don't think the RT's fashion is anymore impractical than this is:
I mean it's strange to be wearing a large brimmed hat with a veil, but I won't fault her for it.
The Imperium is egalitarian? Sometimes I wonder if I read the same fluff other people read. Don't tell the psykers that are fed to the Big E's vanity that they have the same fundamental rights as a Planetary Governor, whatever you do.
The Imperium is a totalitarian, fascist state. It could not be less egalitarian if it tried.
My point was that most the women been in corseted armour portrayed a negative and objectified image of women in the setting. So a female model in high heals, an actual corset and a veil doesn’t really disprove my point. It kind of adds to it.
I get corsets might be fashionable in 40k circles but would all the women really wear them? All the time? The men in the setting wear a huge diversity of styles but the women all totter in on their heals in a corset of some sort.
I mean "impractical" from the standards of somebody who's going to be ducking behind a crate and shooting chaos mutants. She's a high-class aristocrat so looking good is more important to her than wearing sturdy, flexible military gear even though the latter would reasonable be more helpful in what she does; this is the kind of thing that a lot of franchises do with their Exactly One female character, which is why it's nice that the doctor is also there to provide contrast and a different personality type.
Andykp wrote: My point was that most the women been in corseted armour portrayed a negative and objectified image of women in the setting. So a female model in high heals, an actual corset and a veil doesn’t really disprove my point. It kind of adds to it.
I get corsets might be fashionable in 40k circles but would all the women really wear them? All the time? The men in the setting wear a huge diversity of styles but the women all totter in on their heals in a corset of some sort.
I disagree that wearing a corset automatically objectifies anyone. Then again I don't assume women are objectified based on how they dress, so take that with a grain of salt I guess.
And the huge range of style for male models? Isn't it all coats and big hats or robes and big hats if they're not wearing power amour?
Strange gothic fashion is eminently appropriate to 40k. If you don’t care for this stuff, 40k may not be your thing. That said, Guardswomen would not be dressed in strange personality-expressing fashion but rather personality-erasing AdMunitorum BDUs.
Excommunicatus wrote: The Imperium is egalitarian? Sometimes I wonder if I read the same fluff other people read. Don't tell the psykers that are fed to the Big E's vanity that they have the same fundamental rights as a Planetary Governor, whatever you do.
The Imperium is a totalitarian, fascist state. It could not be less egalitarian if it tried.
That was pretty much a brain fart on my part, yes; I meant "men and women are generally treated by the same standards" rather than, well, what egalitarian actually means. xp
There is inherently nothing wrong with corsets and high heels etc (can we have some men in these as well?) but it is kinda problem if that's the majority of the representation. If there were some tough guardswomen in more practical(ish) gear too it wouldn't be an issue.
Excommunicatus wrote: The Imperium is egalitarian? Sometimes I wonder if I read the same fluff other people read. Don't tell the psykers that are fed to the Big E's vanity that they have the same fundamental rights as a Planetary Governor, whatever you do.
The Imperium is a totalitarian, fascist state. It could not be less egalitarian if it tried.
That was pretty much a brain fart on my part, yes; I meant "men and women are generally treated by the same standards" rather than, well, what egalitarian actually means. xp
The standard being that 99% of them are illiterate and uneducated masses that serve the grinding gears of the Imperium.
Manchu wrote: Strange gothic fashion is eminently appropriate to 40k. If you don’t care for this stuff, 40k may not be your thing. That said, Guardswomen would not be dressed in strange personality-expressing fashion but rather personality-erasing AdMunitorum BDUs.
We don’t have any female guards women and that’s my point. You can keep the flavour of 40k and still have women in it. As it stands there are too few and they are all of the same trope. That is a failing and the numbers of female players is a consequence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: There is inherently nothing wrong with corsets and high heels etc (can we have some men in these as well?) but it is kinda problem if that's the majority of the representation. If there were some tough guardswomen in more practical(ish) gear too it wouldn't be an issue.
Excommunicatus wrote: The Imperium is egalitarian? Sometimes I wonder if I read the same fluff other people read. Don't tell the psykers that are fed to the Big E's vanity that they have the same fundamental rights as a Planetary Governor, whatever you do.
The Imperium is a totalitarian, fascist state. It could not be less egalitarian if it tried.
That was pretty much a brain fart on my part, yes; I meant "men and women are generally treated by the same standards" rather than, well, what egalitarian actually means. xp
The standard being that 99% of them are illiterate and uneducated masses that serve the grinding gears of the Imperium.
For the 99% yes, and the 1% are also generally equal to each other; female Inquisitors, Tech-Priests, etc. are all common and not considered to be unusual in any way. It's only the Space Marines and the Custodes that are a boy's club, everyone else has an equal opportunity to die for the Emperor.
Crimson wrote: There is inherently nothing wrong with corsets and high heels etc (can we have some men in these as well?) but it is kinda problem if that's the majority of the representation. If there were some tough guardswomen in more practical(ish) gear too it wouldn't be an issue.
Well we do have the Escher Gang who wear no corsets:
[In before the "halter tops objectify women" complaints happen]
Excommunicatus wrote: The Imperium is egalitarian? Sometimes I wonder if I read the same fluff other people read. Don't tell the psykers that are fed to the Big E's vanity that they have the same fundamental rights as a Planetary Governor, whatever you do.
The Imperium is a totalitarian, fascist state. It could not be less egalitarian if it tried.
Manchu wrote: Strange gothic fashion is eminently appropriate to 40k. If you don’t care for this stuff, 40k may not be your thing. That said, Guardswomen would not be dressed in strange personality-expressing fashion but rather personality-erasing AdMunitorum BDUs.
We don’t have any female guards women and that’s my point. You can keep the flavour of 40k and still have women in it. As it stands there are too few and they are all of the same trope. That is a failing and the numbers of female players is a consequence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: There is inherently nothing wrong with corsets and high heels etc (can we have some men in these as well?) but it is kinda problem if that's the majority of the representation. If there were some tough guardswomen in more practical(ish) gear too it wouldn't be an issue.
This.
I generally support what you're saying here, but the bolded, nope, italicized, is extremely speculative unless you have something to bolster it.
Manchu wrote: Strange gothic fashion is eminently appropriate to 40k. If you don’t care for this stuff, 40k may not be your thing. That said, Guardswomen would not be dressed in strange personality-expressing fashion but rather personality-erasing AdMunitorum BDUs.
We don’t have any female guards women and that’s my point. You can keep the flavour of 40k and still have women in it. As it stands there are too few and they are all of the same trope. That is a failing and the numbers of female players is a consequence.
We don't have any named characters, but it's rather hard to tell if the Cadian model is male or female due to the age of the sculpt and lack of finer facial detail for most of them. You can argue that there are not enough characters, but you can't argue that every Guard model "must" be a guy.
Manchu wrote: Strange gothic fashion is eminently appropriate to 40k. If you don’t care for this stuff, 40k may not be your thing. That said, Guardswomen would not be dressed in strange personality-expressing fashion but rather personality-erasing AdMunitorum BDUs.
We don’t have any female guards women and that’s my point. You can keep the flavour of 40k and still have women in it. As it stands there are too few and they are all of the same trope. That is a failing and the numbers of female players is a consequence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: There is inherently nothing wrong with corsets and high heels etc (can we have some men in these as well?) but it is kinda problem if that's the majority of the representation. If there were some tough guardswomen in more practical(ish) gear too it wouldn't be an issue.
This.
I generally support what you're saying here, but the bolded, nope, italicized, is extremely speculative unless you have something to bolster it.
You are right. I’m am making assumptions there. Thought I would get called out on it as I typed it.
Excommunicatus wrote: It's really not. Cadians are very classically masculine faces.
you could say that about almost all GW models.
Female bodies are virtually indistinguishable from male bodies in uniform and body armor, with the only defining trait being a different hip/waist ratio that is mostly covered up by thick coats, webbing, and armor. All they need is heads, although all guardsmen really need new models.
I don't know about the military, never been in one. But I am a scout, and the difference between the male and female scout is that in the first 4km the male scout carries a larger bag of stuff and past 4km he also has to carry the female scouts bag. Male IG should look like mules, all HWT dudes should be Dudes and most snipers should be female.
Andykp wrote: So were are clutching at straws now to the extent that if you don’t look too closely some of the human models could be female in the right light.
The current state of females in the 49k setting and range is indefensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: If you are saying that the lack of Guardswomen models is a problem that GW should fix ASAP then we are completely in agreement.
Yes it is. Then move on to other human lines.
It IS defensible in the respect that GW used to REALLY suck at doing female faces and models but has gotten better. That said, it's a matter of actually taking the time and money to update existing armies to meet the level of ability the company now has.
Cadian models do not look at all like women and really cannot be mistaken for women, if we’re being serious. They were designed pretty clearly to be tough looking men. They even look masculine stood next to Space Marines.
Andykp wrote: So were are clutching at straws now to the extent that if you don’t look too closely some of the human models could be female in the right light.
The current state of females in the 49k setting and range is indefensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: If you are saying that the lack of Guardswomen models is a problem that GW should fix ASAP then we are completely in agreement.
Yes it is. Then move on to other human lines.
It IS defensible in the respect that GW used to REALLY suck at doing female faces and models but has gotten better. That said, it's a matter of actually taking the time and money to update existing armies to meet the level of ability the company now has.
That doesn’t defend the lack of females in the fluff. I admit it is better than in the model line and improving but it’s still weak. They have been able to sculpt women to a decent standard for the line to be in better shape than it is now. Two new female models this edition is not much.
Sisters of Battle look like women. Cadians look like men. If you had a point, I'm not seeing it.
The fact that you can say almost all of GW's minis have classically masculine faces is exactly why we have a (currently) nine-page thread about women in 40k...
Arachnofiend wrote: I mean "impractical" from the standards of somebody who's going to be ducking behind a crate and shooting chaos mutants. She's a high-class aristocrat so looking good is more important to her than wearing sturdy, flexible military gear even though the latter would reasonable be more helpful in what she does.
Oh, I don't know about that. It can totally be possible that a rich enough noble can buy a fashion accessory that doubles as good armor.
Remember that Rogue Traders has a wider access to certain exotic equipment than most Imperials, so a seemingly fragile corset could in fact double as a piece of sturdy armor due to special materials or hidden alien tech.
Andykp wrote: So were are clutching at straws now to the extent that if you don’t look too closely some of the human models could be female in the right light.
The current state of females in the 49k setting and range is indefensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: If you are saying that the lack of Guardswomen models is a problem that GW should fix ASAP then we are completely in agreement.
Yes it is. Then move on to other human lines.
It IS defensible in the respect that GW used to REALLY suck at doing female faces and models but has gotten better. That said, it's a matter of actually taking the time and money to update existing armies to meet the level of ability the company now has.
That doesn’t defend the lack of females in the fluff. I admit it is better than in the model line and improving but it’s still weak. They have been able to sculpt women to a decent standard for the line to be in better shape than it is now. Two new female models this edition is not much.
We do have females in the fluff, the problem is the majority of the books are Marine focused (and I've complained about having Marines as protagonists before) which leads to a majority of them having male protagonists.
GW did add some females in 5th to the rules side of things, but had to then pull them in 6th when they realized they couldn't protect the IP of the characters they don't produce models for. I wish they'd just given them models instead, but it's an issue that likely has to do with how Kirby ran GW.
@Excommunicatus: You clearly haven't seen how many "man face" complaints I've seen regarding the current Sisters line then.
Is it not fine how they're doing it now? They've slid women into AoS naturally and without creating a stink, why buck the trend and come up with something new? Just release a few new eldar torsos, a mixed set of guard heads (or give us a whole do over because boy do they need it), maybe even a guard female HQ and boom, done. Plus they're already making Sisters of Battle. As for the cultural stuff... Maybe 40k isn't the best place for serious cultural depictions.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Is it not fine how they're doing it now? They've slid women into AoS naturally and without creating a stink, why buck the trend and come up with something new? Just release a few new eldar torsos, a mixed set of guard heads (or give us a whole do over because boy do they need it), maybe even a guard female HQ and boom, done. Plus they're already making Sisters of Battle. As for the cultural stuff... Maybe 40k isn't the best place for serious cultural depictions.
They'll probably only do it as they update/replace kits to be honest.
@Excommunicatus: You clearly haven't seen how many "man face" complaints I've seen regarding the current Sisters line then.
I have, I just don't agree that you can hand-wave everything away by saying 'sculpts used to be less than ideal', nor that you can say that a face which does not accord to what you (not personally you, you understand) thinks of as a female face somehow doesn't count.
Subjective 'man-face' or not, the Sister' faces are female and obviously so, even at a distance.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Is it not fine how they're doing it now? They've slid women into AoS naturally and without creating a stink, why buck the trend and come up with something new? Just release a few new eldar torsos, a mixed set of guard heads (or give us a whole do over because boy do they need it), maybe even a guard female HQ and boom, done. Plus they're already making Sisters of Battle. As for the cultural stuff... Maybe 40k isn't the best place for serious cultural depictions.
doesn't it have a serious depiction of culture, the imperial one . Between 2000s earth and the 40k, there is a ton of time, If we tried to make a todays story about anything that includes any culture living anywhere other then africa, then a span of 38k years inclusion would give us a book or a movie that makes no sense. In europe 500 years would be enough with all the dislocations that happened.
@Excommunicatus: You clearly haven't seen how many "man face" complaints I've seen regarding the current Sisters line then.
I have, I just don't agree that you can hand-wave everything away by saying 'sculpts used to be less than ideal', nor that you can say that a face which does not accord to what you (not personally you, you understand) thinks of as a female face somehow doesn't count.
Subjective 'man-face' or not, the Sister' faces are female and obviously so, even at a distance.
My "hand waving" was more saying that I can understand why they chose to not do female Guard heads at the time considering how bad at it they were (plus the lack of detail in their mold making process to support the finer details a female face would have).
@Excommunicatus: You clearly haven't seen how many "man face" complaints I've seen regarding the current Sisters line then.
I have, I just don't agree that you can hand-wave everything away by saying 'sculpts used to be less than ideal', nor that you can say that a face which does not accord to what you (not personally you, you understand) thinks of as a female face somehow doesn't count.
Subjective 'man-face' or not, the Sister' faces are female and obviously so, even at a distance.
My "hand waving" was more saying that I can understand why they chose to not do female Guard heads at the time considering how bad at it they were (plus the lack of detail in their mold making process to support the finer details a female face would have).
Which doesn't make sense. You are arguing that they made men who looked like men and women who looked like women, albeit not sociologically 'idealized' women, therefore it made sense that they didn't make any more women?
I'm doing my best to not assume bad things about you, but the casual misogyny in that argument is shocking.
Excommunicatus wrote: Not really. The Imperium is just 1984 in space. It's not a serious cultural depiction.
There are lots of cultural/historical references in 40K, I would be hard-pressed to describe any of them as 'serious'.
but then it would be communist, and the imperium maybe many things, but communist it is not. It is a theocracy.
My "hand waving" was more saying that I can understand why they chose to not do female Guard heads at the time considering how bad at it they were (plus the lack of detail in their mold making process to support the finer details a female face would have).
They didn't get much better at sculpting though. Something that on old models can be explained as old esthetics, right now with stuff like demonets or the various eldar and elf females with DDR body builder faces is impossible. So either GW just didn't have any good sculptors in house after Diaz, or this is exactly the faces they want and like to have on their females. And looking at the mock ups of the new SoB faces, I must say that the full helmet and gas mask version are the best versions of heads for SoB shown.
Karol wrote: They didn't get much better at sculpting though. Something that on old models can be explained as old esthetics, right now with stuff like demonets or the various eldar and elf females with DDR body builder faces is impossible. So either GW just didn't have any good sculptors in house after Diaz, or this is exactly the faces they want and like to have on their females. And looking at the mock ups of the new SoB faces, I must say that the full helmet and gas mask version are the best versions of heads for SoB shown.
They've gotten better at sculpting female looking heads, but part of the problem I've seen is the paint jobs tend to make the faces look thicker than they are.
Maybe I had a look at old models. But the SCE females are new, no idea how new the elf and eldar models are, but they don't seem very old. they are all plastic. Both the AoS and w40k wych look like female bodybuilders including the faces.
Excommunicatus wrote: Not really. The Imperium is just 1984 in space. It's not a serious cultural depiction.
There are lots of cultural/historical references in 40K, I would be hard-pressed to describe any of them as 'serious'.
but then it would be communist, and the imperium maybe many things, but communist it is not. It is a theocracy.
Which is why it's not a serious depiction. 1984 is about Stalinism, FYI, and Stalinism was closer to a theocracy than it was to true Communism. It's not a failing, really, the dystopian future-of-mankind thing is dominated by imagery from 1984 and Brave New World.
Cultural/historical references in 40K are little more than head-nods, they don't (usually) incorporate outside material wholesale.
I mean, what's with Ultramarines pretending to be Romans and not even advancing in a formation of spears and shields? Phonys.
So, 5/7 voters are well adjusted people. That's my take away.
Just playing. People like what they like, but this small sample seems to indicate a general trend that Dakkites are open to having new models that include women.
I remember that moving from Dark Eldar to the Guard, I was surprised that there were no women models. The Warriors and Wyches had men and women in the ranks, and it seemed weird to me that the Guard would be all men.
Manchu wrote: Cadian models do not look at all like women and really cannot be mistaken for women, if we’re being serious. They were designed pretty clearly to be tough looking men. They even look masculine stood next to Space Marines.
They are also horrifically proportioned and look like a man in a man suit wearing body armor.
i think unisex units of guardsmen could work so long as they work on making the proportions right.
i mean if they go like the scion route with bigger torso armor and armored arms then only legs and heads would be really needed. or not. im no scientist.
I’m actually really satisfied with GW on this front lately.
When Imperial Knights came out, only men could be pilots. In the current codex either gender can be pilots.
In Age if Sigmar they released all male Stormcast, but implied women could be them, leading many to speculate Sigmar must turn them into men when he reformed them. Now there’s a new starter with recognizable mixed gender units.
In Warhammer Quest and Rogue Trader we see different races and skin tones, multiple genders, lots of variety.
For folks concerned by such things it’s been a great couple years. I’d still love some female Cadians, even if only as forgeworld releases, and it appears a lot of folks would. Otherwise, keep on keeping on GW, I’m loving all of it!
Oggthrok wrote: I’m actually really satisfied with GW on this front lately.
When Imperial Knights came out, only men could be pilots. In the current codex either gender can be pilots.
In Age if Sigmar they released all male Stormcast, but implied women could be them, leading many to speculate Sigmar must turn them into men when he reformed them. Now there’s a new starter with recognizable mixed gender units.
In Warhammer Quest and Rogue Trader we see different races and skin tones, multiple genders, lots of variety.
For folks concerned by such things it’s been a great couple years. I’d still love some female Cadians, even if only as forgeworld releases, and it appears a lot of folks would. Otherwise, keep on keeping on GW, I’m loving all of it!
Yep, things have definitely markedly improved, so there is plenty of reason to be hopeful that the guardswomen will happen as well.
Andykp wrote: That doesn’t defend the lack of females in the fluff. I admit it is better than in the model line and improving but it’s still weak. They have been able to sculpt women to a decent standard for the line to be in better shape than it is now. Two new female models this edition is not much.
I haven't read anywhere near all the stuff out there, but I've read a good amount, and there is a well written, and if not, at least likeable female character in like every book, and when the setting is "angry men in armor" I actually feel like there's a good female presence in the lore. My favorite one is probably the old iterator in Fulgrims primarch novel, she was awesome
Which doesn't make sense. You are arguing that they made men who looked like men and women who looked like women, albeit not sociologically 'idealized' women, therefore it made sense that they didn't make any more women?
I'm doing my best to not assume bad things about you, but the casual misogyny in that argument is shocking.
It actually reads like you're trying your hardest to twist his words into something you can condemn him for... But ok
I haven not read any posts (except last few and then where like Canada should be happy did read or some crap).... WTF, GW have many female units in the game, just add in a few more. People may rage, omg not enough or to much. "You are sexist" "your are not". F**K them. It's a game. Rage at Black library (Heroin's are in atm so they will be pumping them out don't worry). If there is discrimination bring it up.
However, I personally think if people move on from it and talk about equality not segregation or discrimination. We don't talk about race or sex we talk about humans, we don't talk about class we talk about what can do. The "isims" is what is destroying cultures. All we have now days is crap like selfisim/racisim/genderisim/sexisim and that is what promotes a negative environment.
If we talk about what we are together not what we think others are, we could be...
EDIT:
I didn't hit that pole cause is freakin ridiculous.
I don't get why this is being portrayed as political to have GW make models that exist in their own story. We have a ton of female guardsmen in the back story and the official model line should reflect that. Yes I can go to a third party to get models/bits but in the aftermath of chapter house for once I'd like GW to take a positive spin on that decision and add more options rather than cutting them.
You'll notice in the thread a lot of people overreacting about gender/race/sex issues hypothetically being forced into 40k, but nobody is actually suggesting doing it. They just raise straw men. Not GW, not any serious amount of posters.
The people in favour of more female models are just asking for a reasonable representation of models that fit the background. Nobody wants female Necrons, or Orks or Nids. Mostly they just want female humans in the guard for the most part. I have literally no idea why someone would oppose that when we have female soldiers RIGHT NOW and they exist in the 40k universe. Some of you need to grow up.
Spectral Ceramite wrote: I haven not read any posts (except last few and then where like Canada should be happy did read or some crap).... WTF, GW have many female units in the game, just add in a few more. People may rage, omg not enough or to much. "You are sexist" "your are not". F**K them. It's a game. Rage at Black library (Heroin's are in atm so they will be pumping them out don't worry). If there is discrimination bring it up.
However, I personally think if people move on from it and talk about equality not segregation or discrimination. We don't talk about race or sex we talk about humans, we don't talk about class we talk about what can do. The "isims" is what is destroying cultures. All we have now days is crap like selfisim/racisim/genderisim/sexisim and that is what promotes a negative environment.
If we talk about what we are together not what we think others are, we could be...
EDIT:
I didn't hit that pole cause is freakin ridiculous.
Most of the first two pages (and most of the rest of her topic) is people agreeing that the only thing that needs to happen in a model sense is for AM to get updated kits that reflect their lore.
It's actually been a pretty good conversation.
Spectral Ceramite wrote: I haven not read any posts (except last few and then where like Canada should be happy did read or some crap).... WTF, GW have many female units in the game, just add in a few more. People may rage, omg not enough or to much. "You are sexist" "your are not". F**K them. It's a game. Rage at Black library (Heroin's are in atm so they will be pumping them out don't worry). If there is discrimination bring it up.
However, I personally think if people move on from it and talk about equality not segregation or discrimination. We don't talk about race or sex we talk about humans, we don't talk about class we talk about what can do. The "isims" is what is destroying cultures. All we have now days is crap like selfisim/racisim/genderisim/sexisim and that is what promotes a negative environment.
If we talk about what we are together not what we think others are, we could be...
EDIT:
I didn't hit that pole cause is freakin ridiculous.
Most of the first two pages (and most of the rest of her topic) is people agreeing that the only thing that needs to happen in a model sense is for AM to get updated kits that reflect their lore.
It's actually been a pretty good conversation.
That's awesome then, my post was against Americanisaion and discrimination against culture.
I would love AM female miniatures then I would not have to order from Victoria miniatures (Sorry Victoria but would prefer GW units tbh)
And I want to say I'd love female AM miniatures. Really I would just love any new AM miniatures. AM is my favourite faction and the lack of good models for them is really keeping my enthusiasm for the game at a low point.
Completely independent of racial/gender politics: from a business standpoint GW should totally release intermixed units. From the results of torso-gender distribution amongst Dark Eldar we learn that releasing mixed units is a great way to drive bits prices up because people want to build all-female or all-male units, which leads to people buying more kits than they need and/or people buying kits to part out. And because releasing separate male/female kits makes it easier to build single-gender armies without really making it harder to build co-ed armies (since you usually need enough duplicate units you're buying at least two of any given kit anyway), and a lot of GW's business model is built around making it harder to play the game (see: want lascannons in your Tactical squads? Buy this Devastator kit! Want uniform weapon distribution in your Skitarii? Buy 3x as many Skitarii as you need! Want hammer/shield Deathwing? Better find those hammers elsewhere, we only put shields in the Deathwing kit for Knights!).
The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.
There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.
NOTE - do not attempt to debate this post in the thread, I will delete such posts - however, feel free to PM with questions, complaints, etc
Couple of points going forward:
If you think the thread is going off the rails, please PM me or use the Mod Alert button. But don’t thread crap by posting a bunch of commentary about how it’s off the rails.
About female Space Marines (incl. Grey Knights, Custodes, Primarchs, etc) ... Every time we talk about female figures the topic gets twisted into a giant debate about Femarines and inevitably collapses. So this time around, we’re not doing that. Yes Space Marines are THE major faction of 40k but there are plenty of other ways GW could and should add female figures to their product lines. This thread is about all the ways GW could do so other than Femarines.
Next, there’s a lot of political flavored commentary in this thread. That’s inevitable. Please note that while Dakka Dakka has a ban on off-topic political discussion, the ban does not include the political dimensions of on-topic content, i.e., miniatures gaming. All the same, please remember that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Calling each other SJWs, NPCs, misogynists, racists, etc is not acceptable (not that these words themselves are banned).
Finally, post in this thread at your own risk. If you ignore these points going forward, you stand a good chance of having your account suspended.
Which doesn't make sense. You are arguing that they made men who looked like men and women who looked like women, albeit not sociologically 'idealized' women, therefore it made sense that they didn't make any more women?
I'm doing my best to not assume bad things about you, but the casual misogyny in that argument is shocking.
It actually reads like you're trying your hardest to twist his words into something you can condemn him for... But ok
Really, eh? To most English-speakers the question mark at the end of my first EDIT - second sentence would strongly indicate that I'm seeking clarification.
As I read Clockwork's position, he/she is saying that Sisters of Battle had 'man-face' so they stopped making human female minis. No human female minis is a better proposition than 'ugly' human female minis is the logical conclusion of that position and that position (the position, not the poster) is deeply misogynistic, but assuming is for paralegals so I asked.
Andykp wrote: The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.
There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.
Females are not under represented or negatively portrayed in 40K. The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor at most AM could use a couple of female heads without helmets.
Andykp wrote: The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.
There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.
Females are not under represented or negatively portrayed in 40K. The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor at most AM could use a couple of female heads without helmets.
At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign. "Games Workshop reduces women to just heads." "Sick Games Company Allows CIS WHITE MALES to fantasise about killing WOMXN!" Yes, I understand it's a tiny amount of very vocal actual legitimate bigots, but social media amplifies that voice to an apathetic public who don't want to be called bigots and nazis for daring to disagree just nod and go along with it.
And if they don't make the heads, people complain that they aren't represented. The only winning move is not to play.
dkoz wrote: The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor
When you're talking about real life, sure, to some extent. When you're talking about stylised models that are essentially caricatures of actual human beings, it doesn't work that way. Cadian bodies with female heads on them don't look like females in body armour. They look like stylised male models with female heads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign.
BaconCatBug basically spot on. I've got no problems with including female heads for AM but all these fools calling for retconing AA to so there are female Marines is just stupid. Females are well represented in the fluff by GW.
For Cadians, I think women heads would work, but a more slender torso would also help. Boob plate? Meh, based on real world pictures it seems unnecessary but some degree of boobage wouldn’t kill anyone and because it’s minis would help to distinguish on the table top.
dkoz wrote: The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor
When you're talking about real life, sure, to some extent. When you're talking about stylised models that are essentially caricatures of actual human beings, it doesn't work that way. Cadian bodies with female heads on them don't look like females in body armour. They look like stylised male models with female heads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign.
'Social terrorists'...?
Dude, step away from the computer for a while.
This is exactly the sort of foolish SJW headache GW doesn't need, people claiming they want female soldiers with big racks & huge butts so the can tell they're women but the minute GW does it boom the the outrage mob will slam them for being misogynists & demand more placation. If GW makes the heads look female it will lend the whole model a female quality.
Andykp wrote: The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.
There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.
Females are not under represented or negatively portrayed in 40K. The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor at most AM could use a couple of female heads without helmets.
At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign. "Games Workshop reduces women to just heads." "Sick Games Company Allows CIS WHITE MALES to fantasise about killing WOMXN!" Yes, I understand it's a tiny amount of very vocal actual legitimate bigots, but social media amplifies that voice to an apathetic public who don't want to be called bigots and nazis for daring to disagree just nod and go along with it.
And if they don't make the heads, people complain that they aren't represented. The only winning move is not to play.
GW have released entire factions of female miniatures already (one recently, and a reboot of another soon) and what you describe simply hasn’t happened. Also these ‘social terrorists’ you have imagined don’t exist.
dkoz wrote: BaconCatBug basically spot on. I've got no problems with including female heads for AM but all these fools calling for retconing AA to so there are female Marines is just stupid. Females are well represented in the fluff by GW.
In the fluff. This thread is about the models, and unfortunately, they're not that well represented.
Regarding models, and from personal experience, guardsmen, a headswap is really the main thing that would make a model look female. I used Statuesque Miniatures heads on both Cadians and Scions, and they look just fine. Not even a body swap or trimming of the arms/hips/legs.
I have no doubts that the Sisters, when released in plastic, if the heads are as good as the previewed ones we've seen, will look brilliant. I don't really mind the corset aesthetic, seeing as most times it's been used, it is as an aesthetic design in the armour (so no actual corseting), or by a character who favours aesthetic over function (Rogue Trader). Heels on armour is something I do have an issue with, but the most egregious examples I know are Greyfax and Vhane, who, again, aren't fighters first and foremost. Greyfax's armour could well be ceremonial, and besides, it's hardly like Inquisitors do the most rational choices all the time.
Tau are a headswap away from being either gender, and let's be honest, not that many people know the visual differences between male and female Tau. Putting mixed gender heads would hardly register for a lot of people. Eldar and humans are the main ones, but in a lot of cases, headswaps (either as part of a kit, or separate expansion) would be sufficient.
dkoz wrote: BaconCatBug basically spot on. I've got no problems with including female heads for AM but all these fools calling for retconing AA to so there are female Marines is just stupid. Females are well represented in the fluff by GW.
In the fluff. This thread is about the models, and unfortunately, they're not that well represented.
Regarding models, and from personal experience, guardsmen, a headswap is really the main thing that would make a model look female. I used Victoria Miniatures heads on both Cadians and Scions, and they look just fine. Not even a body swap or trimming of the arms/hips/legs.
I have no doubts that the Sisters, when released in plastic, if the heads are as good as the previewed ones we've seen, will look brilliant. I don't really mind the corset aesthetic, seeing as most times it's been used, it is as an aesthetic design in the armour (so no actual corseting), or by a character who favours aesthetic over function (Rogue Trader). Heels on armour is something I do have an issue with, but the most egregious examples I know are Greyfax and Vhane, who, again, aren't fighters first and foremost. Greyfax's armour could well be ceremonial, and besides, it's hardly like Inquisitors do the most rational choices all the time.
Tau are a headswap away from being either gender, and let's be honest, not that many people know the visual differences between male and female Tau. Putting mixed gender heads would hardly register for a lot of people. Eldar and humans are the main ones, but in a lot of cases, headswaps (either as part of a kit, or separate expansion) would be sufficient.
They really are well represented with many strong main female characters and a ton a secondary female characters. Lying about their representation in fluff doesn't help the argument that some head swaps for AM would be a good thing even if just from a modeling perspective.
dkoz wrote: They really are well represented with many strong main female characters and a ton a secondary female characters. Lying about their representation in fluff doesn't help the argument that some head swaps for AM would be a good thing even if just from a modeling perspective.
Not represented well in models though. That's what this thread is about, not the lore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: In terms of “representation,” what needs to be represented is the setting.
The current Guard line does not accurately represent the setting becuase there are no female sculpts.
Exactly.
(Well, there are SOME female Guard sculpts, but they're not REALLY Imperial Guard - there's the Tanith female model, and Rocket Girl from the Last Chancers.)
This is exactly the sort of foolish SJW headache GW doesn't need, people claiming they want female soldiers with big racks & huge butts so the can tell they're women
I never said I wanted female soldiers with 'big racks and huge butts'. What I said was that I don't want 'female' soldiers that are just Teela's head on He-Man's body.
Which doesn't make sense. You are arguing that they made men who looked like men and women who looked like women, albeit not sociologically 'idealized' women, therefore it made sense that they didn't make any more women?
I'm doing my best to not assume bad things about you, but the casual misogyny in that argument is shocking.
It actually reads like you're trying your hardest to twist his words into something you can condemn him for... But ok
Really, eh? To most English-speakers the question mark at the end of my first EDIT - second sentence would strongly indicate that I'm seeking clarification.
As I read Clockwork's position, he/she is saying that Sisters of Battle had 'man-face' so they stopped making human female minis. No human female minis is a better proposition than 'ugly' human female minis is the logical conclusion of that position and that position (the position, not the poster) is deeply misogynistic, but assuming is for paralegals so I asked.
There's nothing misogynistic about that. GW is in the business of selling high quality models first, the lore and the rules followed that, we all know this. If you can't make a good quality sculpt of something, that's all the reason they need not to release a line of that. I too want more female characters, but this is just you being over the top. Also, implying he's misogynistic but asking him to explain why he's not, is pretty much in direct conflict with the mod post above yours. You are pretty clearly trying your hardest to turn that into something it's not, and he made this clear.
Wouldn't for misogeni to occur we had to see a fear aspect in the first place? Plus if someone was basing his action around that specific sort of trauma, they would have to be against all women models in the game, not just ugly ones. It is impossible for the w40k fandom to be mysogenic and want new SoB models as the most wanted thing from GW.
What I said was that I don't want 'female' soldiers that are just Teela's head on He-Man's body.
Well the thing with war is, that the male body type is the better suited one for it. So a peak female soldier would be practicly impossible to recognise from a male one.
Not represented well in models though. That's what this thread is about, not the lore.
Would the models sell enough to make it worth GW time? They seem to be sure, after feed back, that SoB will. Other stuff seems questionable. I mean we could technicly assume that GW is stupid, and doesn't want to make more money and that is why they are not adding female models to their IG line. But I don't think it is the case.
In terms of “representation,” what needs to be represented is the setting.
Why does it need to be represented? Most regiments seem to be made out of males. The cadians were recruiting everyone, but cadia blew up. There also don't seem to be many examples of IG regiments that have mixed gender troopers in the same units. There are probablly more female only regiments in fluff then regular mixed ones, after cadia blew up.
In your opinion, which appears to be just as misogynistic as Clockwork's is. You're still just arguing that no human female minis are better than 'man-face' human female minis.
GW has produced hundreds of terrible sculpts and not one of them has ever, in my knowledge, been used to suggest that an entire range should not exist, or that they should just quit. Except now Sisters, the only exclusively female human faction, are accused of 'man-face' and killing GW's interest in sculpting human women.
Stripped to its core, you are arguing that women should be aesthetically pleasing to you or not exist. But no, there's no misogyny in that statement.
In your opinion, which appears to be just as misogynistic as Clockwork's is. You're still just arguing that no human female minis are better than 'man-face' human female minis.
GW has produced hundreds of terrible sculpts and not one of them has ever, in my knowledge, been used to suggest that an entire range should not exist, or that they should just quit. Except now Sisters, the only exclusively female human faction, are accused of 'man-face' and killing GW's interest in sculpting human women.
Stripped to its core, you are arguing that women should be aesthetically pleasing to you or not exist. But no, there's no misogyny in that statement.
there is nothing wrong with liking a specific esthetic. He maybe narcisistic, but it can't be misogyny. That is fear of women, if it was fear, he wouldn't want any women models, not just the good looking, in his perspective, ones.
The trick with 40k body proportions is that even the male ones are wildly out of proportion. That's what we mean when we call 40k a heroic scale game - everybody looks like an exaggerated Greek god.
He-Man's body is basically what GW has set out to sculpt.
Maybe on some marine models and the new AoS stuff. The rest of male models are just plain ugly ugly. With strange body physics one could only explain with warp mutations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excommunicatus wrote: You need to stop making your definition of misogyny happen, Karol. Use the one in the dictionary.
mi·sog·y·ny
/məˈsäjənē/Submit
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
In the polish psychological dictionary it is described as an irrational fear of women, based on an inferiority complex or fear of womens reproductiv organs. It can also occur based on a patients bad history with women, stuff like infidelity, being molested as a child etc.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Getting away from the SJW and Femarine crap that Manchu specifically said not to do, what about "cultural" stuff?
For example, GW once did a range of Pygmies:
It's been a while, but is that what people are hoping for?
My dad says that those models were for an RPG in some ancient WD. And I am not sure if GW makes any RPGs by themselfs anymore. Wouldn't fit in to AoS for sure.
From a long time female player, do not start modifying lore to release females into units that have always been male.
There are places, like guard, where female have been in the lore from early on, but do not retcon lore for the purpose.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From a long time female player, do not start modifying lore to release females into units that have always been male.
There are places, like guard, where female have been in the lore from early on, but do not retcon lore for the purpose.
In your opinion, which appears to be just as misogynistic as Clockwork's is. You're still just arguing that no human female minis are better than 'man-face' human female minis.
GW has produced hundreds of terrible sculpts and not one of them has ever, in my knowledge, been used to suggest that an entire range should not exist, or that they should just quit. Except now Sisters, the only exclusively female human faction, are accused of 'man-face' and killing GW's interest in sculpting human women.
Stripped to its core, you are arguing that women should be aesthetically pleasing to you or not exist. But no, there's no misogyny in that statement.
Excommunicatus wrote: You need to stop making your definition of misogyny happen, Karol. Use the one in the dictionary.
mi·sog·y·ny /məˈsäjənē/Submit noun dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
Perhaps you need to stop making your own arguments to dispel, and use the ones that were actually said.
That's absolutely not at any point what I'm saying, as I personally want more female models, and I actually had to look up in the lore if my Genestealer Cults didn't infect women or something, based off their model line. I'm just saying that "not being something we can sculpt very well, our business is built around high quality sculpts, and this may not be a good business decision" is not an equivalent to "we dislike and hold contempt for women".
You are incredibly reactionary, and you need to stop calling everything you disagree with "misogyny". It's pretty darn insulting, and a mod literally just said not to, you are being beyond toxic at this point and aren't carrying an argument, just arguing strawman and declaring others as being of lower moral character.
Next, there’s a lot of political flavored commentary in this thread. That’s inevitable. Please note that while Dakka Dakka has a ban on off-topic political discussion, the ban does not include the political dimensions of on-topic content, i.e., miniatures gaming. All the same, please remember that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Calling each other SJWs, NPCs, misogynists, racists, etc is not acceptable (not that these words themselves are banned).
Finally, post in this thread at your own risk. If you ignore these points going forward, you stand a good chance of having your account suspended.
) I was totally on board with some panzees tiding me over. Only to get the ten models I needed, I had to buy two boxes instead of one.
so the game's version of 
