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.

I'm all for having my females look like females. Realistic? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!" That's boring to me. (Opinion, obviously)
You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.

Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.

You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.

Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.

But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!"

That is because actually, you assume for no reason whatsoever that gender-neutral armor is “dude-looking”. It's not. It's gender neutral. Inside can be a man or a woman. A male alien or a female alien.
Are you also complaining that the Xenomorph queen doesn't have boobs?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!"

That is because actually, you assume for no reason whatsoever that gender-neutral armor is “dude-looking”. It's not. It's gender neutral. Inside can be a man or a woman. A male alien or a female alien.

And still boring.

 MWHistorian wrote:
You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.

“Heavy”…

 MWHistorian wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.

But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?

The "evidence" (or best evidence you're going to get) is that Games Workshop hasn't done it already.

If Games Workshop thought that redoing Sisters of Battle would be worth the risk of investing the time and money to redo the line, they would have done it, or they'd be planning to do it. The fact that they haven't yet means that they don't think it's worth the investment. They'll make more money updating Tau, or Necrons, or Tyranids, or whatever.

Could they be wrong and underestimating the size of the market for a Sisters of Battle relaunch? Certainly they could. But are they willing to take that risk and put all that money into re-launching the line? So far the answer has been "no".

That's not evidence.
There are lots of things that would be very popular that GW hasn't done.
Chaos legions. Everyone wants them. GW refuses to do them.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.

But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?

We don't have the raw figures, but GW does. It's not impossible that SoB brought in quantifiably less revenue. WHFB was canceled, and we can reliably say that it was more profitable pre-end times than SoB are.

As for why this is, it may be because they don't have enough to set them apart from the other offerings. Salamanders cover power-armored-pyromaniacs, as well as the "bling" that posters insist is a defining theme of SoB. CSM cover power-armored fanatics. The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.

But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?

We don't have the raw figures, but GW does. It's not impossible that SoB brought in quantifiably less revenue. WHFB was canceled, and we can reliably say that it was more profitable pre-end times than SoB are.

As for why this is, it may be because they don't have enough to set them apart from the other offerings. Salamanders cover power-armored-pyromaniacs, as well as the "bling" that posters insist is a defining theme of SoB. CSM cover power-armored fanatics. The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.

The church. One of the biggest parts of the background. Squishy humans in power armor with faith based powers. No other army captures the "purge the heretic" better.

That is because actually, you assume for no reason whatsoever that gender-neutral armor is “dude-looking”.

People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.

Tangent aside. Games Workshop is a collector hobby (their words). When they only believe, however deluded it may be, that only 20% of their customers game.. then it makes sense that they see the Sisters of Battle line as not selling. They make bad rules or let an army sit untouched for a decade, but never seem to put the pieces together that the game itself is a part of the model's value.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 asorel wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

No one claimed that "female armies" would sell poorly. The discussion is only concerned with SoB in particular.

But why won't they sell well?
Even I would be tempted to buy them. There is a market and without facts we don't know how big that market is. So, what evidence is there that they won't sell well?

We don't have the raw figures, but GW does. It's not impossible that SoB brought in quantifiably less revenue. WHFB was canceled, and we can reliably say that it was more profitable pre-end times than SoB are.

As for why this is, it may be because they don't have enough to set them apart from the other offerings. Salamanders cover power-armored-pyromaniacs, as well as the "bling" that posters insist is a defining theme of SoB. CSM cover power-armored fanatics. The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.

The church. One of the biggest parts of the background. Squishy humans in power armor with faith based powers. No other army captures the "purge the heretic" better.

The problem is that everyone in the Imperium does a bit of purging. Honestly, SoB (and Grey Knights for that matter) would be better off as part of Codex: Inquisition.

On the Grey Knights and SOB being in with Inquisition, I agree.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.

People will assume a giant boulder of rock is male unless they put a bow on it, your argument is invalid. But more seriously, it gets way beyond just “warrior”. Male is assumed by default.

 asorel wrote:
The Sororitas simply don't bring anything unique to the table.

And here we have easily the least true statement in this entire thread. Sororitas easily bring:

A unique aesthetic. I'm sorry, but Salamanders are just space marines, maybe with different shoulder pads. There is no direct competion here just because fluff-wise Sallies should be into bling. Almost every Imperial army, and especially every marine army, has a similar look - similar base vehicles, similar design flourishes. Sororitas look as different as any other faction - more so even than some of the lazy marine factions ("Marines with pelts! Now, marines with wings! And now, marines with robes! So different, so exciting!").

A unique mechanic. Acts of Faith in their current incarnation are boring and weak, but they are highly thematic and a revised version has the potential to offer interesting choices during a game. Martyrdom to create a miracle is a pretty cool game mechanic.

A unique gender. You can't outright dismiss this. Kickass chicks sell, at least to some people. Raging Heroes is doing market research on it right now, and the market seems pretty good.

Sisters also offer one last crucial thing that GW would be stupid to ignore - room to release entirely new kits in a dangerously saturated design space. The game is buckling under the weight of each new idiotic addition to factions that were finished 5 years ago. Sisters have room to grow as far as new kits, or revisiting old kits in desperate need of an update.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.

“Heavy”…

That reminds me of Detonator Orgun, where they realize the robot aliens were actually humans who gradually evolved into little more than nervous systems for the space suits that became their bodies.

Because none of the artists have wanted to work on it.

They don't do much pushing on those guys to do things they don't want to do.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.

People will assume a giant boulder of rock is male unless they put a bow on it, your argument is invalid. But more seriously, it gets way beyond just “warrior”. Male is assumed by default.

You just sent me to a youtube channel labeled "Feminist Frequency". Surely the least biased place for me to educate myself. Political agendas aside, don't underestimate the ability of your genetics to lead to predispositions. No amount of social engineering will fix what will require Transhumanism to accomplish. We can call a duck an elephant all day, but unless we change the duck into another creature entirely it will still be a duck.

All of that said, my initial response was a bit off topic. If you would like to discuss it further we can via PMs.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.

People will assume a giant boulder of rock is male unless they put a bow on it, your argument is invalid. But more seriously, it gets way beyond just “warrior”. Male is assumed by default.

That video you linked was very interesting and raised very good points

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm all for having my females look like females. Realistic? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't want a bunch of dude looking armors and have to say" if you pretend, they're females!" That's boring to me. (Opinion, obviously)
You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.

If you can tell the gender of the person in the armor, the armor is doing a terrible job.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
You just sent me to a youtube channel labeled "Feminist Frequency". Surely the least biased place for me to educate myself.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
Political agendas aside, don't underestimate the ability of your genetics to lead to predispositions.

Rocks do not have genetics. Neither do pacman. Aliens are, well, alien to our biology. Do not mistake a cultural phenomenon (here “Characters with nothing implying a specific gender are going to be assumed males”) with genetics. I mean, I could see your point if only fighter characters were assumed male, but this is not the case.

 Wulfmar wrote:
That video you linked was very interesting and raised very good points

Thanks.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You can have heavy armor and differences between the sexes at the same time.

“Heavy”…

That reminds me of Detonator Orgun, where they realize the robot aliens were actually humans who gradually evolved into little more than nervous systems for the space suits that became their bodies.

I guess it does. Because those female models, there is no way that they have any kind of thick armor if they actually have a full human with internal organs and all to protect rather than just a nervous system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:
If you can tell the gender of the person in the armor, the armor is doing a terrible job.

What about when the “armor” is more slender than the average naked person ?

 Wyzilla wrote:
If you can tell the gender of the person in the armor, the armor is doing a terrible job.

Agreed. There is no practical reason (that I can think of) that would not be the case. It really boils down to stylistic purposes. Accentuating feminine elements to hammer a point home and/or to drive sales.

I would prefer an androgynous practical armor with a few head swaps to what has now become the generic "boob plate".

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.

Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.

You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion. Sisters weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. Dark Eldar weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. They were updated and, yes the models fit the aesthetics well and work well for conversion work, they still aren't an army people overall choose to play.

And I have to wonder how many other people claimed the same thing: I'd totally buy into Dark Eldar if they redid the miniature range!

Clearly not a lot.

I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I want my females to be noticeably female. I don't care how PC it is.

SJWs tend to get all hissy when feminine sexual characteristics are exaggerated, not the other way around.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It isn't incompetence if it won't make money. Sisters didn't make money and won't make money. Dark Eldar are the same, except they simply got lucky for an update.

Market research doesn't have to be done to figure that out.

You do realise that just stating your opinion as fact, and saying research isn't needed, doesn't make something true, right? This whole post is an exercise in ignorance, or irony, or at least self-delusion.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion. Sisters weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. Dark Eldar weren't popular, still aren't, and probably won't be. They were updated and, yes the models fit the aesthetics well and work well for conversion work, they still aren't an army people overall choose to play.

And I have to wonder how many other people claimed the same thing: I'd totally buy into Dark Eldar if they redid the miniature range!

Clearly not a lot.

The 5th edition redo of Dark Eldar was massively popular. The army played as intended, looked beautiful, and was one of the most balanced forces they have ever made to date. Then 6th crashed into place shortly thereafter. Dark Eldar started losing games. As the edition wore on it got worse and worse. A lot of their players stopped using them.

Then 7th happened. The new Dark Eldar book brought a horizontal power level shift rather than the vertical one they needed. They just remained Chaos Space Marines to the Eldar's Marines. At the same time the flavor of the force was watered down with massively restricted item selection and some of the unique mechanics being stripped away.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
People typically have reasons for their beliefs. Regardless of whether or not those reasons are substantiated. Men are biologically the "warrior class" of the human race. This means far less in the era of high technology than it once did (which is awesome), but until we start rewriting our genetics themselves this predisposition is likely to keep popping up.

People will assume a giant boulder of rock is male unless they put a bow on it, your argument is invalid. But more seriously, it gets way beyond just “warrior”. Male is assumed by default.

That video makes blanket statements without follow-up or explanation, and makes some very ill-advised assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of both the players and game developers. Not only that, the person delivering them isn't trained in psychology of any sort, and is not in a position to make that sort of claim with any sort of reputability. Take into account that Sarkeesian has demonstrated a willingness to misconstrue facts to further her stated agenda multiple times in the past, and this video does absolutely nothing to prove your point, which itself is greatly separated from the topic at hand.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Why won't a female army sell well? Females sell well in other lines. Why not in 40k?
To say that without any evidence doesn't help.

Cause the rest sell sexy females did you see the SoB....... Not sexy.

Also there is like a three year old petetion to update sob with like 3000 signatures lol.