Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

w1zard wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope...

Yes it did happen. The fact that you were unaware of the outrage was thankfully because there weren't enough of them screaming loudly enough, but I read some threads and saw some message boards.

Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?

the_scotsman wrote:
Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.

However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.

You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.

The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.

And you may be totally correct and there won't be any backlash, or the backlash would be so small as to be easily ignored.

All I'm saying though is that it wouldn't surprise me if "over-sexualized" female guardsmen become a hot-button issue. People love to get offended.

You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.

There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.

Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.

None of this happened when this year when GW released:

Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.

or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....

This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.

It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).

Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.

So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.

Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GW HQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?

If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.

Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.

All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.

Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.

Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.

Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.

So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.

Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.

Wrong - if people think all regiments are represented by the Cadians - then they need to be told they are wrong? That's what I was pointing out - that the appearance of a guardsman/woman is highly variable across the Imperium.

No idea what you are on about by "best hat actress" and why that's relevant to anything

Nope I’m correct, those examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing that they exist, so you and yours need to stop harping on about it, we all already know, your trying to make an argument for something that no one is arguing, it’s pointless.

Heh, best hat actress, funny typo there, it’s supposed to say “some of the most beloved characters” that’s auto correct for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope...

Yes it did happen. The fact that you were unaware of the outrage was thankfully because there weren't enough of them screaming loudly enough, but I read some threads and saw some message boards.

Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?

the_scotsman wrote:
Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.

However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.

You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.

The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.

And you may be totally correct and there won't be any backlash, or the backlash would be so small as to be easily ignored.

All I'm saying though is that it wouldn't surprise me if "over-sexualized" female guardsmen become a hot-button issue. People love to get offended.

You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?

Use the search bar, go on Facebook, google it, check you tube etc. Etc.

The tools you need are at your finger tips

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?

Here is one thread discussing female/male heads among other things:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/77vbcl/feminist_40k_admins_respond/

I'll try to find more later. As I said, they were only here and there in a few places. It takes time to dig through garbage.

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.

There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.

Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.

None of this happened when this year when GW released:

Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.

or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....

This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.

It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).

Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.

So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.

Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GW HQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?

If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.

Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.

All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.

Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.

Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.

Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.

So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.

Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.

Wrong - if people think all regiments are represented by the Cadians - then they need to be told they are wrong? That's what I was pointing out - that the appearance of a guardsman/woman is highly variable across the Imperium.

No idea what you are on about by "best hat actress" and why that's relevant to anything

Nope I’m correct, those examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing that they exist, so you and yours need to stop harping on about it, we all already know, your trying to make an argument for something that no one is arguing, it’s pointless.

Heh, best hat actress, funny typo there, it’s supposed to say “some of the most beloved characters” that’s auto correct for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope...

Yes it did happen. The fact that you were unaware of the outrage was thankfully because there weren't enough of them screaming loudly enough, but I read some threads and saw some message boards.

Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?

the_scotsman wrote:
Yes, people want recognizably female models. See the fact that the most requested thing out of the big 40k survey was sisters of battle. See the overwhelmingly positive feedback games workshop is getting with their new Celestine/Gemini models and the 3d model they showed of the new battle sister. Boob armor, no helmet, recognizably female.

However, for a new guard kit, you are MUCH more likely to see a couple female heads thrown into the kit - exactly the same way they incorporated female Tau into the fire warrior kit. You could do a couple helmetless heads with ponytails or buns, you could also do some helmeted heads and it'd probably still be perfectly recognizable. Maybe we'll see some slightly smaller torsos with molded chestplates like the female stormcast or eldar guardians, but it'd be in a single kit. Either of those approaches, I'd be happy with. Having a completely separate box for female guardsmen would be strange because it's so unnecessary, but you're not going to see significant outrage.

You said it yourself: radical feminist complaints are a tiny, tiny splinter of the 40k fanbase. Desire for more female models is apparently not. Seems like there's a low overlap then, so I would propose that logically, a very small number of the people asking for more female models are slavering radical feminists, and instead are just people who think it'd make the models more interesting and varied.

The Necromunda thread is still up if you want to gauge the reaction to the escher models in the first few pages. I'll even tally them up. In the first 5 pages, there are 12 positive comments about the escher models, and 4 negative. Of the 4, only one specifies why they don't like them, and it's because they're too fat/ugly/omgfeministsruining40k. if the radical feminists exist, they aren't on dakka. Or on Reddit, because on the r/warhammer40k post for necromunda, there are many more negative comments, but they're all universally "why are they so fat/ugly". You have to sort by controversial and scroll for a WHILE to find a "omg so sexist" complaint.

And you may be totally correct and there won't be any backlash, or the backlash would be so small as to be easily ignored.

All I'm saying though is that it wouldn't surprise me if "over-sexualized" female guardsmen become a hot-button issue. People love to get offended.

You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?

Use the search bar, go on Facebook, google it, check you tube etc. Etc.

The tools you need are at your finger tips

Burden of proof. Yadda, yadda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:

Reemule wrote:
About what 78% the male Guardsmen make due to the messed up society?

Wage gaps a myth.

Average man works 8 hours more a week when you factor that in women make 95%

Then by accounting for the fact they don't do the more dangerous jobs like working on oil rigs you have women making 97.5%

Then you factor in more men choose stem even though 60% of collage students are female you go up to 99.5%

Finally women are worse at wage negotiations in executive positions which accounts for the final 0.5%

If you want a more in depth explanation consult an economist I personally like Christina hoff-summers.

HA! You're a funny guy. Working in a payroll business, I can tell you for a fact it is not a myth, not remotely and the new Gender pay gap reporting laughs at you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?

Here is one thread discussing female/male heads among other things:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/77vbcl/feminist_40k_admins_respond/

I'll try to find more later. As I said, they were only here and there in a few places. It takes time to dig through garbage.

Ew, Reddit? If I must. And only if I can get a disinfectant wash later.

"Over-sexualized female guardsmen" would only become an issue if, like "female space marines" and "plastic sisters of battle" you had threads that stretched to multiple pages primarily occupied by people complaining about hypothetical complainers like, oh, I don't know

"Unfortunately it's a no-win situation for GW if they decide to make them.

They'll be called sexist for making them an upgrade pack instead of their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for making them their own kit.
They'll be called sexist for continuing to sell the male models instead of replacing them with the female models.
They'll be called sexist for allowing players to shoot and kill female models.
They'll be called sexist if they make them "attractive".
They'll be called sexist if they make them "ugly".

The only winning move is not to play."

"This is exactly the kind of response they'd get, fekke sake look at peta and their stupid complaints about plastic fur on sisters. "

"According to whom, normal people probablly not, The outrage brigade on the other hand would find it sexist 10 out of 10 time."

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
There's no such thing as a business that doesn't take risks. You just think the things that cater specifically to you aren't risks.

There are such things as 0 risk business decisions, you know that right? They are uncommon but they do exist.

Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.

None of this happened when this year when GW released:

Cheerleaders for various Blood Bowl team
Female members of Necromunda Gangs
Esher gang
Idoneth Deepkin
Female Stormcast.

or for the Daughters of Khaine - half naked women who bathe in the blood of their enemies.....

This argument is just incredibly silly - it didn't happen for ANY of the above so why would it now.

It has happened though, there are literally whole threads on the subject of inclusivity in the hobby, people claiming the whole Wargaming hobby is full of sexist rapists etc. (Fem40k).

Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height.

So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad.

Did it happen with any of the above ranges which had pin up cheerleaders, sexy bikin clad elves who bathe in blood, medusae with breasts exposed, Nope. None of these allegded SJW crusaders stormed GW HQ. The only thing I can recall in the last fewe years is something saying - do you have to use fur etc?

If you look at the current IG codex - a number of female soliders, not sexulaised but recognisibly female - same with various ranges out there.

Also there is at least one canon IG regiment which is bascially Esher figures.

All regiments are very different if you read the fluff - granted GW only bothered to make one regiment in plastic but thats absolutely NOT what they all (or indeed most look like) - some will look like Cadians, some like street gangs, others like medieval warriors, steampunk fighters, pretty much any trope or sterotype for "warrrors" will exist in the Guard.

Some will likely even proclaim / use their gender - in fact there are examples of this in 30k fluff.

Yes it did happen, thankfully the parasitical nature of those people has yet to latch onto 40k so far, maninly due to the concentrated backlash after the infamous Fem40k article on BOLS, so they are not as loud in our community.

Go check out the Facebook groups and a few of the threads on here about it, the virtue signaling was real but mostly ignored.

So you admit to wanting recognisably female models, cool, so they will need to be exaggerated, but of boob armour and long hair, I have no issue with that.

Your fluff examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing there are lots of woman in the background, even some of the best hat actress and most beloved by the fan base are woman, this is a point that does not need constant repeating.

Wrong - if people think all regiments are represented by the Cadians - then they need to be told they are wrong? That's what I was pointing out - that the appearance of a guardsman/woman is highly variable across the Imperium.

No idea what you are on about by "best hat actress" and why that's relevant to anything

Nope I’m correct, those examples are irrelevant, no one is arguing that they exist, so you and yours need to stop harping on about it, we all already know, your trying to make an argument for something that no one is arguing, it’s pointless.

Heh, best hat actress, funny typo there, it’s supposed to say “some of the most beloved characters” that’s auto correct for you.

I specfically replied to this statement

Fact is unless you over emphasise the female form for a guardsman they woman would look identical in PPE (personal protection equipment), the osprey body armour, webbing and eye pro hide nearly all female features bar the height and men can be the same height. So what people are asking for is NOTICABLY female guard, no helmet for long hair (if they even have long hair) and exaggerated female proportions, that can Land GW in hot water with the SJWs... it’s sad

My entire point is that not all imperial guard look alike - the guard has all these wierd and wonderful regiments so noticeble femlae guard would be fine.

Do you see what I am saying? Nothing to do with if women are in the guard but how they (and men) look

Yep I see what your saying mr Morden and I don’t disagree, I see so many options avavaiable in 3rd party manufacturers that it simply is not an issue to me, would I prefer GW did more, sure! I think current guard are bloody crap, I’d love more variation and if that means adding some female heads, cool, but pointing out that all these other variants exist that GW will NEVER make is pointless, we all know they exist, we all want more, it’s just never gonna happen.

So the central premise of noticable female guard is fine, hammering people who already know they exist in the fluff is not.

w1zard wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You got any links? Because I've not seen any outrage whatsoever. BOLS is trash, everyone knows that. But what are some of these other groups and threads?

Here is one thread discussing female/male heads among other things:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/77vbcl/feminist_40k_admins_respond/

I'll try to find more later. As I said, they were only here and there in a few places. It takes time to dig through garbage.
.

Did...did you even look at your link? The reddit link itself links to a BOLS article, where Feminist 40k has a statement posted roughly along the lines of "give more representation to women and minorities, and in a less sexualized manner." The actual reddit thread itself is a dumpster fire of people yelling about how the SJW are ruining 40k, and comic books, and whatever else.

This kind of talk is exactly why I don't take it seriously when people complain and moan about how SJW and the feminists and so on are ruining everything. 9 out of 10 times it seems, the talk is just strawmanning to preemptively make the side that wants more inclusiveness look bad, often in terms of "these OUTSIDERS want to change OUR THING, we can't let them because it is OUR THING." It usually can be summed up as the group in power flinging anything they can at the wall so that they can maintain it.

Honestly with 40k this seems less of a thing than in other franchises, though it still exists. Just look at all the trash the new Star Wars movies got for daring to have a black man and an Asian woman on screen, and compare it to the general shrug of indifference or outright approval the new Battle Sister mockup got or the handful of soldiers they painted up with black skin.



On the actual topic at hand, Guard is a stupidly easy faction to mix genders with - their armor will hide most body features, so GW just needs to add more heads to the kit, which is something they love to do with newer kits anyways. I can easily see the next iteration of Guard having 20-25 heads - 10 helmeted, and then the remainder a 50/50 split of bare male and female heads. Bonus points if they are scaled right to work on Genestealer Cultists, Tempestus Scions, Battle Sisters, etc with minimal fuss.

 Formosa wrote:
Yep I see what your saying mr Morden and I don’t disagree, I see so many options avavaiable in 3rd party manufacturers that it simply is not an issue to me, would I prefer GW did more, sure! I think current guard are bloody crap, I’d love more variation and if that means adding some female heads, cool, but pointing out that all these other variants exist that GW will NEVER make is pointless, we all know they exist, we all want more, it’s just never gonna happen.

So the central premise of noticable female guard is fine, hammering people who already know they exist in the fluff is not.

Which is not what I did - the poster claimed that the Guard all look like, which they don't. There is a ongoing myth that they are look like Cadians,

I can actually see GW as more now more likely to do a variant Regiment than just more Cadians - they know that people have the already so they need sell new different ones.

IF they were a bit more savy they would have used the Escher models for a Xenonia Regiment - done a short artcile and a few data sheets in White Dwarf.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yep I see what your saying mr Morden and I don’t disagree, I see so many options avavaiable in 3rd party manufacturers that it simply is not an issue to me, would I prefer GW did more, sure! I think current guard are bloody crap, I’d love more variation and if that means adding some female heads, cool, but pointing out that all these other variants exist that GW will NEVER make is pointless, we all know they exist, we all want more, it’s just never gonna happen.

So the central premise of noticable female guard is fine, hammering people who already know they exist in the fluff is not.

Which is not what I did - the poster claimed that the Guard all look like, which they don't. There is a ongoing myth that they are look like Cadians,

I can actually see GW as more now more likely to do a variant Regiment than just more Cadians - they know that people have the already so they need sell new different ones.

IF they were a bit more savy they would have used the Escher models for a Xenonia Regiment - done a short artcile and a few data sheets in White Dwarf.

Misunderstanding then, apologies for that.

See I don’t see Gw making a new plastic guard regiment, I would love to be wrong though.

Agreed they could easily do a “necromunda” guard auxiliary or regiment, like you say, drop it in white dwarf

kurhanik wrote:

Did...did you even look at your link? The reddit link itself links to a BOLS article, where Feminist 40k has a statement posted roughly along the lines of "give more representation to women and minorities, and in a less sexualized manner." The actual reddit thread itself is a dumpster fire of people yelling about how the SJW are ruining 40k, and comic books, and whatever else.

Uhh... yes, that is exactly my point. Someone asked for a link to a discussion outside of BOLS that involved people arguing over female representation in 40k... I gave it to them. The discussion on that thread may be ABOUT a BOLS article, but the discussion itself is a purely organic one between people on that subreddit.

FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN 40K IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL FETHING POINT. I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE STILL TRYING TO ARGUE THIS.

w1zard wrote:
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.

You can't link "Kotaku in action" subreddit in good faith. That place is a cesspool of conspiracy theorists. You have to be joking.

w1zard wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

Did...did you even look at your link? The reddit link itself links to a BOLS article, where Feminist 40k has a statement posted roughly along the lines of "give more representation to women and minorities, and in a less sexualized manner." The actual reddit thread itself is a dumpster fire of people yelling about how the SJW are ruining 40k, and comic books, and whatever else.

Uhh... yes, that is exactly my point. Someone asked for a link to a discussion outside of BOLS that involved people arguing over female representation in 40k... I gave it to them. The discussion on that thread may be ABOUT a BOLS article, but the discussion itself is a purely organic one between people on that subreddit.

FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN 40K IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL FETHING POINT. I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE STILL TRYING TO ARGUE THIS.

w1zard wrote:
Anyways, my original point is that inclusion of females into traditionally male dominated media/hobbies is a really touchy subject for a lot of people. Basically no matter what you do you will have people screaming at you. From the hardcore misogynists who get mad that women are invading their safe space, to the militant feminists who think that anything less than 50/50 representation doesn't go far enough. You will even get people mad at the how the women in question are represented... either they look too much like men in which case their femininity is being disrespected and the business is being lazy, or they are "overly sexualized" and their portrayal is patronizing and a further extension of misogyny.

He, that is my bad, and what I get for skipping a page there...and your original point there I can basically fully agree with. Though generally I see more of the hardcore misogynist crowd harping about others joining in than militant feminists.

My bad - I thought you were throwing that link in as proof that people who want more representation in 40k were stirring lots of trouble, not that the existence of such a group can cause trouble. On the plus side, the other half of your post makes more sense now, I thought you were arguing both sides there.

kurhanik wrote:
He, that is my bad, and what I get for skipping a page there...and your original point there I can basically fully agree with. Though generally I see more of the hardcore misogynist crowd harping about others joining in than militant feminists.

My bad - I thought you were throwing that link in as proof that people who want more representation in 40k were stirring lots of trouble, not that the existence of such a group can cause trouble. On the plus side, the other half of your post makes more sense now, I thought you were arguing both sides there.

Not a problem.

Yeah, that is all I was really trying to argue, that no matter what GW does on this issue that SOMEONE has the potential to be offended, and sometimes both opposing sides at the same time get mad for differing reasons.

If r/kotatuinaction is offended then GW knows they're doing fine. Those people are offended by She Ra not being a runway model.

w1zard wrote:
FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN 40K IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL FETHING POINT. I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE STILL TRYING TO ARGUE THIS.

People are arguing about your choice of evidence because it's less evidence of legitimate controversy and more an example of a few irrelevant lunatics screaming about how SJWs are destroying everything if women (other than mostly-naked porn stars) exist in a thing. By the standard of evidence that admits that conversation anything is contentious, because there will always be irrelevant fringe nutcases ranting about stupid stuff while everyone else ignores them.

 mugginns wrote:
If r/kotatuinaction is offended then GW knows they're doing fine. Those people are offended by She Ra not being a runway model.

It was just an example. There are countless others out there if you care to look.

You do realize that if the women are too "manly" that people have the potential to get offended too right? Straight head swaps with "male" bodies might piss a group of people off just as much as the "oversexualized" females piss a certain group off. To avoid not offending anyone GW has to do a careful balancing act, where females are recognizably female without being too "overly sexual". Even then landing right in the middle has the potential to make EVERYONE unhappy because nobody is getting what they really want.

 Peregrine wrote:
By the standard of evidence that admits that conversation anything is contentious, because there will always be irrelevant fringe nutcases ranting about stupid stuff while everyone else ignores them.

The problem is that these 'irrelevant fringe nutcases' are extremely loud and enjoy semi-mainstream, tacit support. Both on the misogynist womenz hating side, and the militant feminist side. That makes them not so 'irrelevant'.

w1zard wrote:
Even then landing right in the middle has the potential to make EVERYONE unhappy because nobody is getting what they really want.

Except that third-party manufacturers already do female IG models that most people like, so it's hardly as difficult as you're suggesting. There's plenty of middle ground to create recognizably feminine models that aren't sexualized and make everyone but the raving lunatics happy.

All it takes is for one viral facebook post about GW being sexist, and then everyone jumps on the public smear campaign bandwagon and GW is in hot water.

Until GW shows the models and everyone says "nope, that's not sexist" and the whole thing dies.

Alternatively, if they piss off enough of their original fanbase that don't like seeing women be anything but SOB/inquisitors/Eldar they could face boycotts and fan outrage.

Boycotts from a fringe minority who don't buy anything anyway because they're too busy masturbating to their old 2nd edition rulebooks and stash of unopened RTB01 kits. This is not a group GW needs to be concerned with.

w1zard wrote:


You do realize that if the women are too "manly" that people have the potential to get offended too right? Straight head swaps with "male" bodies might piss a group of people off just as much as the "oversexualized" females piss a certain group off. To avoid not offending anyone GW has to do a careful balancing act, where females are recognizably female without being too "overly sexual". Even then landing right in the middle has the potential to make EVERYONE unhappy because nobody is getting what they really want.

Nope

Plenty of other companies are doing it just fine and the world hasn't ended because of women Stormcast, Necromunda gangs, Deepkin, etc. The lunatic fringe is still the lunatic fringe.

 Peregrine wrote:
Except that third-party manufacturers already do female IG models that most people like, so it's hardly as difficult as you're suggesting. There's plenty of middle ground to create recognizably feminine models that aren't sexualized and make everyone but the raving lunatics happy.

 mugginns wrote:
Nope

Plenty of other companies are doing it just fine and the world hasn't ended because of women Stormcast, Necromunda gangs, Deepkin, etc. The lunatic fringe is still the lunatic fringe.

Plenty of other companies who don't have the size nor the importance of GW, and just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. I can smoke in a room full of gasoline barrels and have nothing happen, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, nor safe in the slightest.

 Peregrine wrote:
Until GW shows the models and everyone says "nope, that's not sexist" and the whole thing dies.

Boycotts from a fringe minority who don't buy anything anyway because they're too busy masturbating to their old 2nd edition rulebooks and stash of unopened RTB01 kits. This is not a group GW needs to be concerned with.

Ahem:

w1zard wrote:
The problem is that these 'irrelevant fringe nutcases' are extremely loud and enjoy semi-mainstream, tacit support. Both on the misogynist womenz hating side, and the militant feminist side. That makes them not so 'irrelevant'.

Dang, the lunatic fringe is definitely alive and well on DakkaDakka. Surprised the mods tolerate this kind of stuff.

Back on-topic, I think if GW were to do female Astra Militarum troopers, I would think they would be (should be?) caricatured/distorted/etc to the same extent as the metals are. Catachans are overly-muscled to make it obvious that they're beefy from three feet away (the plastic basic troopers overdid it, but the command and heavy weapon sprues are OK, IMO). So, not Roginshirozz-style beachballs under the flak vest, but still with a noticeable bust and hips. Personally, I see no reason why the split shouldn't be 50-50. With the trend towards single-stance torso/leg pieces it wouldn't affect the variety of poses available, either.

IIRC, Eldar Guardians have been gender-neutral for ages - some of the torsos have breasts, some of the legs have a more prominent crotch. Some people don't notice, though, leading to the appearance that Eldar come in four visibly-distinct sexes.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
She looks like a teenager to me. I mean, the shape of the face may look like a specific other cartoon character, but neither of them are particularly accurate anatomical specimens.

Personally I don't like the redesign, but only because it appears to make the characters into youngish teenagers rather than the young adults that the originals were (this is all based off seeing half a dozen stills - I have no idea of th context of this new series). If there are people complaining that they're now insufficiently sexualised, then I would suggest that the "corruption" accusation is pointing the wrong way.

As for spoiling the original, I don't see how. In the case of Star Wars or Thundercats, it's not like the original was cancelled to make way for the new one you don't like. Just ignore the new stuff and the old stuff is still there. The Last Jedi didn't do anything to your DVD of Star Wars, after all. Comics are a bit different, admittedly.

https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/She-Ra-and-Catra-Cropped.jpg

I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.

Or I guess it could be one of those "marketing decisions" where a studio executive decided it might make more sense to market the design of their reboot character to make them look more like the preteen/teen girls they were targeting as their desired audience instead of something that adult men would like to buy a plastic toy of to put on their dresser. And I suppose it's possible that this is due to the widespread financial success of many other shows portraying characters as kids closer to the age of their target audience rather than as adults, more directly bridging the gap of a heroic character that kids desire to be/act like by making them more relatable (ben 10, teen titans, avatar the last airbender, etc).

No, that makes too much sense, it's gotta be those SJWs.

You mean like how Alien 3 craps all over the character development of Hicks in Aliens? I just ignore Alien 3. Some people like it; fair play to them. I don't like the Star Wars prequels, for other people they're beloved childhood events. Fair play to them.

I'll let you into a secret - it's all made up. I can pick and choose the stories I like, and ignore the ones I don't. Like a lot of the Horus Heresy stuff, actually. Vulkan being an Eternal? Nah, I don't hold with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:


https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/She-Ra-and-Catra-Cropped.jpg

I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.

a "man"? an adolescent boy, perhaps (from the neck up, at least) - which is pretty reasonable. Both of those characters look like they're supposed to be female to me.
(edit - missed the sarcasm, sorry)

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
No am saying that some dudes in the XIX century britain were against giving women the power to vote, by the way they were also against giving most men the power to vote too. The funny part about the whole thing is, that as much wrong as they were, the stuff they mentioned as some of the arguments against women rights, actually did happen. The same happened with marvel comics, which were already super inclusive from the get go. Some mad man claimed that stuff like Rictor and Shatterstar getting married will end up with everyone being gay in the end. Crazy people then, but when you look at marvel comics, not movies, today, you get something like Iceman, who not only makes no sense as a gay character, but is also horribly writen.

It would be funny, IMO, if stuff like warhammer legends ment that in 10-15 years, we would end up with weapon hating factions running around w40k.


What is a welp?

it's an expression of mild amazement and some resignation, kind of an abbreviation for "well, this is happening" I guess.

In this thread, you've commented on how weird it is that peta would protest games workshop and how it would be "funny" if they were secretly trying to gain some sort of cushy position at a company based in another country by protesting the business until they hire their people as 'diversity managers'. Then you said it wouldn't surprise you if this random feminist 40k facebook group were doing the same thing, as if by transitioning from one thing to another you'd proven that the first weird conspiracy theory with the crazy animal rights group targeting a british company who makes plastic army men was a real thing.

And now we're on this subject. Where once again, every statement is very carefully wrapped up in "oh ha ha this is only a joke or funny observation, merely a weird thing I have noticed that these old conservative slippery slope arguments seem to have occurred in our society today!"

It's either an attempted insulation from the argument that you want to make, but don't want to be held accountable for making, or a method of slipping things into a discussion without having to prove them first. Either way, this is now the second thread you've helped devolve into a lock by doing it.

I don't think those organisations do anything in a secretive manner. They have sites, public blogs done by members and write stuff in articles about their goals Nothing secretive in how they work, or how they aquire funds. It ain't illegal or shady either.
There is a ton of people who build their whole careers on attacking what ever they feel like attacking, It does happen to be the case that right now the feminist/eco people do it the best, but a few decades ago it was the anti music organisations on the right etc. Right now in Poland we have a tele evangelist who is making milions of dollars by attacking everything, to a point where goverment controled companies give him money or sponsor his school/radio/TV/drilling operations , and yes you read it right he does everything sells alcohols, does minining etc Is a monk too, so technicly can't own stuff.
What I point out is not that I am against a right or left wing people being against something, but the fact that there are always people who instead of making something their own, make money by attacking other people and claiming their are X or Y. In some part of the world it is the firemen coming around each year and saying how nice house you have and how bad it would be if burst in flames one day,with them being unable to reach you in time out of lack of gas money, And in other parts of the world it is someone attacking a company that produces toy soldiers for boys to play with for having furn on some of the models.


As the argument that am somehow part of a conservative agenda being valid. Well am too young to be a conservative, but I do find some things funny, and the most funny thing to me is when someone comes up with a true or right result from wrong data. You know stuff like storks being actually the things that bring babies, because there is a strong corelation between bigger number of storks in an area and larger number of kids being born in the same place at the same time. But humor is subjectives, and I don't claim that things that are funny to me have to be funny to others.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
You mean like how Alien 3 craps all over the character development of Hicks in Aliens? I just ignore Alien 3. Some people like it; fair play to them. I don't like the Star Wars prequels, for other people they're beloved childhood events. Fair play to them.

I'll let you into a secret - it's all made up. I can pick and choose the stories I like, and ignore the ones I don't. Like a lot of the Horus Heresy stuff, actually. Vulkan being an Eternal? Nah, I don't hold with that.

^^^^^^^^^^This guy gets it.

We're in the age of "look, it's the THING YOU KNOOOOOOW". You have to accept it, understand it, and when it's horrible/something you disagree with...just don't watch it.

It means that some of the time, old things you loved and adored will get brought back for actually well thought out, interesting developments, you'll get to see a cool interpretation of an old character, and get to read/watch something that makes you feel the same way the original thing did - that's great. I loved the new Blade Runner, many of the new comic book movies (now that they're finally straying out of ultra-mega-safe territory, at least), a couple of the new Star Wars films, the latest Star Trek, etc.

but it also means you're going to get a lot of nostalgia-driven crap that's just terrible, and you're just going to have to ignore.

ON THE SUBJECT OF NEW GUARD SCULPTS (hey look! The topic!) that means if they did come out and include women, the sculpts would almost certainly be objectively better quality, and much more interesting to paint. Does it matter if it was done just to cynically include women if you get something good out of it, like a kit that doesn't make it look like your guardsmen report to Mel Brooks in a comically oversized vader helmet? We get stuff like Harlequins, Genestealer cult, Necromunda, Rogue frickin traders in plastic!

if that means I have to ignore the egregious new plot with guilliarmo del smurfo and his great Slightly Taller Marines(tm), I can do that all day long baby.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


I dunno, looks like a character got made into a man to appease the evil feminazi overlords to me.

a "man"? an adolescent boy, perhaps (from the neck up, at least) - which is pretty reasonable. Both of those characters look like they're supposed to be female to me.
(edit - missed the sarcasm, sorry)

the_scotsman wrote:
... some of the time, old things you loved and adored will get brought back for actually well thought out, interesting developments,

...

but it also means you're going to get a lot of nostalgia-driven crap that's just terrible, and you're just going to have to ignore.

And sometimes, not everyone agrees which category a given thing falls into. See: Adeptus Titanicus, Warhammer Quest Silver Tower, Kill Team, for some examples.

text removed.
Reds8n

Does it matter if it was done just to cynically include women if you get something good out of it, like a kit that doesn't make it look like your guardsmen report to Mel Brooks in a comically oversized vader helmet? We get stuff like Harlequins, Genestealer cult, Necromunda, Rogue frickin traders in plastic!

Well I could imagine that if someone was anti women, and pro women camp liked to see more women models, they could be very happy about anything that makes the other side unhappy. so the longer there would be no new or as few as possible female models, the better for them.
Work both ways too, am sure if someone decided to make a Grey Knight that is female, because "magic", even if it would make no sense at all, the pro women camp would love it. Same way as some people claim the last jedi isn't a totally horrible movie.