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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
If you're talking about the rarity of mixed regiments then no, that's referred to in both Caiphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghosts.

For Ciaphas Cain, in a footnote.

See above, the matter of mixed units is not just a throwaway line. The mixed nature of the 597th Valhallan is out of the ordinary, a direct result of the amalgamation of two under-strength regiments in the wake of a Tyranid invasion.

It's literally a footnote. What isn't a footnote, and what is indeed out of the ordinary, and a big plot point, is two differents fixed gender regiments being mixed into one.

Once again, all this is academic. It would be so easy for GW to say that in the wake of the 13th Black Crusade and the fall of Cadia that it becomes much more common to mix genders. Job done.

Sure, there are other regiments. But we don't know if they'll get plastic kits anyway yet.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It's literally a footnote. What isn't a footnote, and what is indeed out of the ordinary, and a big plot point, is two differents fixed gender regiments being mixed into one.

And the Perlian PDF following IG structure with their gender-divided units.

That said, Cain doesn't mention whether this is still the case on Perlia several generations later at the start of the 13th Black Crusade. The militia units he inspects during that time are definitely mixed.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It's literally a footnote. What isn't a footnote, and what is indeed out of the ordinary, and a big plot point, is two differents fixed gender regiments being mixed into one.

It is literally a footnote. And also Something Cain mentions in main text in every story involving the 597th.

 Mmmpi wrote:

1.A few people want female only. Most of the people who want female want some female. Most IG players just want better models. Nope, my first sentence checks out.
2.I don't care if it's a starter box or not. IG in general are popular for soup armies, you'll find people to buy the ones you don't want. Hell, you can even make a profit on it, as long as you're charging less then the price of a full box.
3.Which is why I said most. He does raise a good point. Nothing is stopping you from using them, or selling them. And why should your desire be put ahead of someone else who feels the exact opposite. (You is a generic you, rather then specific for the third point.)

Sorry about the men's rights crack.

1. A few people want female only. A large amount of people want mixed regiments in X%. I'd be willing to bet a similarly sized percentage of IG players want male only regiments, or at least visibly similar torsos because they are trying to achieve a particular look for their regiment. I highly doubt someone who want's to make their regiment look like WW1 german stormtroopers or WW2 american army wants boobplate torsos.
2. Again, there are ways to make everyone happy without inconveniencing anyone. Why then must we intentionally pick a path that forces potentially a large percentage of IG players to make double the purchases or involve third party trading/selling sights if they want a particular look for their regiment, whether that be 100% female, or 100% male, or a particular percentage of mixed.
3. See point two. The argument "why do you have to have an all-male regiment?" really doesn't hold any water for the same reason that "why do you have to have an all-female regiment?" doesn't. Because I want it that way. If there is a way to make both parties happy while upsetting nobody then the most logical course of action would be to take that option.

EDIT: I hope this is considered on-topic... I mean we are talking about how popular female IG models would be and is that not the point of this thread?

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It's literally a footnote. What isn't a footnote, and what is indeed out of the ordinary, and a big plot point, is two differents fixed gender regiments being mixed into one.

It is literally a footnote. And also Something Cain mentions in main text in every story involving the 597th.

No. The part I mentioned as "not a footnote" is mentioned in every story involving the 597th. The footnote is never repeated.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

1.A few people want female only. Most of the people who want female want some female. Most IG players just want better models. Nope, my first sentence checks out.
2.I don't care if it's a starter box or not. IG in general are popular for soup armies, you'll find people to buy the ones you don't want. Hell, you can even make a profit on it, as long as you're charging less then the price of a full box.
3.Which is why I said most. He does raise a good point. Nothing is stopping you from using them, or selling them. And why should your desire be put ahead of someone else who feels the exact opposite. (You is a generic you, rather then specific for the third point.)

Sorry about the men's rights crack.

1. A few people want female only. A large amount of people want mixed regiments in X%. I'd be willing to bet a similarly sized percentage of IG players want male only regiments, or at least visibly similar torsos because they are trying to achieve a particular look for their regiment. I highly doubt someone who want's to make their regiment look like WW1 german stormtroopers or WW2 american army wants boobplate torsos.
2. Again, there are ways to make everyone happy without inconveniencing anyone. Why then must we intentionally pick a path that forces potentially a large percentage of IG players to make double the purchases or involve third party trading/selling sights if they want a particular look for their regiment, whether that be 100% female, or 100% male, or a particular percentage of mixed.
3. See point two. The argument "why do you have to have an all-male regiment?" really doesn't hold any water for the same reason that "why do you have to have an all-female regiment?" doesn't. Because I want it that way. If there is a way to make both parties happy while upsetting nobody then the most logical course of action would be to take that option.

EDIT: I hope this is considered on-topic... I mean we are talking about how popular female IG models would be and is that not the point of this thread?

1. I'm saying the bulk of IG players don't care. The number who want male/female only are probably about the same.
2. As opposed to picking a path where the male IG only crowd is catered to, but the include female crowd has to go third party? GW isn't likely to make female upgrade sprues. Based on their track record, it's will be mix gendered sprues, or male. I'd rather have the 1st option, because that way, at least everyone has the ability to make an army the way they want, rather then an entire subset be left out in the cold. People can always sell the parts of the sets they don't want.
3. Male/female only isn't the issue. The issue is that why do the people who want male only get to dictate to everyone else what their plastic army choice is. While I'd like GW to make product to cater to all the tastes, and I'm not saying everyone who wants a male only army is a MRA (just like not everyone who wants a mixed or female only army is a SJW), GW most likely won't do that. We'll be lucky to get multiple regiments, let alone gender packs. So why does one crowd feel it gets to bowl over everyone else? With a mix gender IG box, you can still make all male, and all female armies. They'll just have a quantity of unused models to deal with, which for this hobby in general, and GW in particular, is nothing new.

 Mmmpi wrote:


1. I'm saying the bulk of IG players don't care. The number who want male/female only are probably about the same.

Citation needed. If you can't provide one, then it might be best to not assume the wants of thousands of people you don't know.

2. As opposed to picking a path where the male IG only crowd is catered to, but the include female crowd has to go third party? GW isn't likely to make female upgrade sprues. Based on their track record, it's will be mix gendered sprues, or male. I'd rather have the 1st option, because that way, at least everyone has the ability to make an army the way they want, rather then an entire subset be left out in the cold. People can always sell the parts of the sets they don't want.
3. Male/female only isn't the issue. The issue is that why do the people who want male only get to dictate to everyone else what their plastic army choice is. While I'd like GW to make product to cater to all the tastes, and I'm not saying everyone who wants a male only army is a MRA (just like not everyone who wants a mixed or female only army is a SJW), GW most likely won't do that. We'll be lucky to get multiple regiments, let alone gender packs. So why does one crowd feel it gets to bowl over everyone else? With a mix gender IG box, you can still make all male, and all female armies. They'll just have a quantity of unused models to deal with, which for this hobby in general, and GW in particular, is nothing new.

We just want headswaps so that everyone gets the option. Mixed torsos robs everyone of the choice. Unless for some reason you believe I'm made of money to go buy all the bits I need twice over or on ebay. There are more than enough ways to make headswaps feasible.

1. I'll give a citation when you give me one about thousands wanting male only IG.

2. Which is why I suggested following the example for Kabalites. Where you get 15 torsos, and 10 legs. Some people want more then head swaps, why should your preferences dictate to them?

1. I never made a claim about the number of people who wanted anything. You did. I just said that if you have no evidence then you should not make bold claims. Are there not thousands of guard players you haven't surveyed?

2. This is actually interesting, it seems I missed it. I don't play DE so I am unfamiliar with their kits, but so long as there are enough torsos to go either way then I'm all for it. Just make sure there's enough room for special weapons.

Also:

Some people want more then head swaps, why should your preferences dictate to them?

You should really avoid this line of reasoning because I can use the exact same argument against you. If you are pushing for something, are you not dictating your preferences to others? Example: "Some people just want headswaps, why should your preferences dictate to them?" But that's just academic at this point.

Dandelion wrote:
1. I never made a claim about the number of people who wanted anything. You did. I just said that if you have no evidence then you should not make bold claims. Are there not thousands of guard players you haven't surveyed?

2. This is actually interesting, it seems I missed it. I don't play DE so I am unfamiliar with their kits, but so long as there are enough torsos to go either way then I'm all for it. Just make sure there's enough room for special weapons.

Also:

Some people want more then head swaps, why should your preferences dictate to them?

You should really avoid this line of reasoning because I can use the exact same argument against you. If you are pushing for something, are you not dictating your preferences to others? Example: "Some people just want headswaps, why should your preferences dictate to them?" But that's just academic at this point.

1. You didn't but others who have taken a similar stance as you have. My point stands.

2. Yeah, I said it a couple of times, but I think they were buried fairly quickly. And yes, a squad box should have a HWT option, and the weapons choices. Escpecially since guard tend to have fewer choices for Heavy weapons, special weapons, and sarge upgrades.

The main reason I mentioned "Pushing your view on others", is because people have been saying that in the past couple of pages. Again, while you personally might not have said it, you're defending the side of an argument that has. In my case, it's been a response to other people saying the exact same thing.

 Mmmpi wrote:

3. Male/female only isn't the issue. The issue is that why do the people who want male only get to dictate to everyone else what their plastic army choice is. While I'd like GW to make product to cater to all the tastes, and I'm not saying everyone who wants a male only army is a MRA (just like not everyone who wants a mixed or female only army is a SJW), GW most likely won't do that. We'll be lucky to get multiple regiments, let alone gender packs. So why does one crowd feel it gets to bowl over everyone else? With a mix gender IG box, you can still make all male, and all female armies. They'll just have a quantity of unused models to deal with, which for this hobby in general, and GW in particular, is nothing new.

I am sorry, but why should it be ok for people that want all male IG armies to be forced to buy more boxs to make their armies, because if GW does put females in the IG it is probablly going to be the way they did it with AoS, where they just made the majority of officers,squad leaders and heros female. And deal with it argument is strange. Why don't the minority of IG players that want female models deal with their problem by buying or sculpting their own, and not force other people to do what they want?

Karol wrote:
I am sorry, but why should it be ok for people that want all male IG armies to be forced to buy more boxs to make their armies, because if GW does put females in the IG it is probablly going to be the way they did it with AoS, where they just made the majority of officers,squad leaders and heros female. And deal with it argument is strange. Why don't the minority of IG players that want female models deal with their problem by buying or sculpting their own, and not force other people to do what they want?

Why should the people who want all-male armies force others to do what they want? Why should the people who want more plasma guns instead of grenade launchers force others to do what they want? Why should the people who want new Catachan kits instead of new Mordian kits force others to do what they want? Anyone asking for changes is "forcing" other people to deal with those changes, don't pretend that your preferred state of things is somehow the default and it's only other people that are "forcing" things.

Karol wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

3. Male/female only isn't the issue. The issue is that why do the people who want male only get to dictate to everyone else what their plastic army choice is. While I'd like GW to make product to cater to all the tastes, and I'm not saying everyone who wants a male only army is a MRA (just like not everyone who wants a mixed or female only army is a SJW), GW most likely won't do that. We'll be lucky to get multiple regiments, let alone gender packs. So why does one crowd feel it gets to bowl over everyone else? With a mix gender IG box, you can still make all male, and all female armies. They'll just have a quantity of unused models to deal with, which for this hobby in general, and GW in particular, is nothing new.

I am sorry, but why should it be ok for people that want all male IG armies to be forced to buy more boxs to make their armies, because if GW does put females in the IG it is probablly going to be the way they did it with AoS, where they just made the majority of officers,squad leaders and heros female. And deal with it argument is strange. Why don't the minority of IG players that want female models deal with their problem by buying or sculpting their own, and not force other people to do what they want?

I'm sorry, why should people who want all female, or have armies with mixed gender not be able to make an IG army at all? I've already addressed how it could be done btw, without forcing people who want sausage fest armies to buy anything extra. But having said that, why don't the people who want all male armies just sculpt their own, and not force other people to do what they want? See? That argument works both ways.

 Mmmpi wrote:
1. I'll give a citation when you give me one about thousands wanting male only IG.

2. Which is why I suggested following the example for Kabalites. Where you get 15 torsos, and 10 legs. Some people want more then head swaps, why should your preferences dictate to them?

Kabalites works because, lets face it, Eldar figurines are going to be gender interchangeable aside from the torso. I don't think that will be quite as easy to fix with male and female IG models, unless the Cadian legs are overall made slightly slimmer.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kabalites works because, lets face it, Eldar figurines are going to be gender interchangeable aside from the torso.

Wait, they have the exact same crotch? No bulge? Woah no wonder the eldars are a dying race .

 Mmmpi wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

3. Male/female only isn't the issue. The issue is that why do the people who want male only get to dictate to everyone else what their plastic army choice is. While I'd like GW to make product to cater to all the tastes, and I'm not saying everyone who wants a male only army is a MRA (just like not everyone who wants a mixed or female only army is a SJW), GW most likely won't do that. We'll be lucky to get multiple regiments, let alone gender packs. So why does one crowd feel it gets to bowl over everyone else? With a mix gender IG box, you can still make all male, and all female armies. They'll just have a quantity of unused models to deal with, which for this hobby in general, and GW in particular, is nothing new.

I am sorry, but why should it be ok for people that want all male IG armies to be forced to buy more boxs to make their armies, because if GW does put females in the IG it is probablly going to be the way they did it with AoS, where they just made the majority of officers,squad leaders and heros female. And deal with it argument is strange. Why don't the minority of IG players that want female models deal with their problem by buying or sculpting their own, and not force other people to do what they want?

I'm sorry, why should people who want all female, or have armies with mixed gender not be able to make an IG army at all? I've already addressed how it could be done btw, without forcing people who want sausage fest armies to buy anything extra. But having said that, why don't the people who want all male armies just sculpt their own, and not force other people to do what they want? See? That argument works both ways.

That it works both ways was exactly his point. (nice tactical quoting trimming that part off)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kabalites works because, lets face it, Eldar figurines are going to be gender interchangeable aside from the torso.

Wait, they have the exact same crotch? No bulge? Woah no wonder the eldars are a dying race .

Everyone knows the Drukhari have Ken doll anatomy. It's why they have to try so hard to find alternative sources of sensation.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

3. Male/female only isn't the issue. The issue is that why do the people who want male only get to dictate to everyone else what their plastic army choice is. While I'd like GW to make product to cater to all the tastes, and I'm not saying everyone who wants a male only army is a MRA (just like not everyone who wants a mixed or female only army is a SJW), GW most likely won't do that. We'll be lucky to get multiple regiments, let alone gender packs. So why does one crowd feel it gets to bowl over everyone else? With a mix gender IG box, you can still make all male, and all female armies. They'll just have a quantity of unused models to deal with, which for this hobby in general, and GW in particular, is nothing new.

I am sorry, but why should it be ok for people that want all male IG armies to be forced to buy more boxs to make their armies, because if GW does put females in the IG it is probablly going to be the way they did it with AoS, where they just made the majority of officers,squad leaders and heros female. And deal with it argument is strange. Why don't the minority of IG players that want female models deal with their problem by buying or sculpting their own, and not force other people to do what they want?

I'm sorry, why should people who want all female, or have armies with mixed gender not be able to make an IG army at all? I've already addressed how it could be done btw, without forcing people who want sausage fest armies to buy anything extra. But having said that, why don't the people who want all male armies just sculpt their own, and not force other people to do what they want? See? That argument works both ways.

That it works both ways was exactly his point. (nice tactical quoting trimming that part off)

Where did that happen? The only thing I left out was where he said "And deal with it argument is strange". Quite frankly I didn't know what he meant. I figured it was an ESL issue, which is why I didn't bring it up.
But as it is, that argument has been made several times in one form or another, this being the first to mention sculpting an entire IG army, and I've been throwing it back. So, yes it works both ways. It still doesn't make his whole argument have merit, especially when what he's been pushing for closes doors, while mine opens them. Stay the course caters to two of four groups. Mine makes it possible for four of four groups to actually build armies, rather then just two.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kabalites works because, lets face it, Eldar figurines are going to be gender interchangeable aside from the torso.

Wait, they have the exact same crotch? No bulge? Woah no wonder the eldars are a dying race .

Everyone knows the Drukhari have Ken doll anatomy. It's why they have to try so hard to find alternative sources of sensation.

That or they have splinter pistols instead of darklances. If you catch my drift.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Kabalites works because, lets face it, Eldar figurines are going to be gender interchangeable aside from the torso.

Wait, they have the exact same crotch? No bulge? Woah no wonder the eldars are a dying race .

Everyone knows the Drukhari have Ken doll anatomy. It's why they have to try so hard to find alternative sources of sensation.

That or they have splinter pistols instead of darklances. If you catch my drift.

It's not the size of the agonizer that counts but how you use it.

Karol wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

3. Male/female only isn't the issue. The issue is that why do the people who want male only get to dictate to everyone else what their plastic army choice is. While I'd like GW to make product to cater to all the tastes, and I'm not saying everyone who wants a male only army is a MRA (just like not everyone who wants a mixed or female only army is a SJW), GW most likely won't do that. We'll be lucky to get multiple regiments, let alone gender packs. So why does one crowd feel it gets to bowl over everyone else? With a mix gender IG box, you can still make all male, and all female armies. They'll just have a quantity of unused models to deal with, which for this hobby in general, and GW in particular, is nothing new.

I am sorry, but why should it be ok for people that want all male IG armies to be forced to buy more boxs to make their armies, because if GW does put females in the IG it is probablly going to be the way they did it with AoS, where they just made the majority of officers,squad leaders and heros female. And deal with it argument is strange. Why don't the minority of IG players that want female models deal with their problem by buying or sculpting their own, and not force other people to do what they want?

This is why my sympathy and patience for this kind of complaining wears so thin so quickly. You say "they just make the majority of officers, squad leaders and heros female" and I go "really? I hadn't heard of that, let's take a look at the stormcast"

Ignoring "ez-build" kits, and kits that I could tell at a glance were the exact same thing just with a weapon swap, and just looking at individually sold heroes and unique model kits, there are 10 kits where you can only build male Stormcast, and 3 where you must build mixed squads. And there are 14 male clampack stormcast heroes to 2 female heroes that I can see. Admittedly there might be a couple more in the new big box set that I didn't care to zoom into in my quick scroll through the stormcast page, but I doubt there are TWELVE. I can't figure out if you say things just expecting nobody to ever look for themselves even when it takes 2 seconds to do so on the internet, or you just say them without knowing yourself.

it is OK to expect people who expect all-male armies to buy more kits for the same reason it is OK to expect people who want all their squads to have 3 of one particular special weapon to buy more kits: because it is understood that they want to do something particular with their model collection, and the bits exist to support that. Currently people who want female guardsmen to be in their army at all have ZERO options from Games Workshop and must build their army entirely from third party bits.

And to be clear, nobody is saying "no, you can't have two separate kits" because they're going "ha ha feth those guys who want all male guardsmen, force them to buy more because they're evil anti-PC nonos!", they're saying that because it's frankly not an available course of action. Games workshop has only ever produced a variant kit of the same unit a vanishingly tiny number of times (to my knowledge, Tactical Marines and Terminators are pretty much the only ones, and at the time Tactical Marines were outselling WHFB). The idea of a separate upgrade frame is asinine when the shift in sprue space economy between the current 3rd ed era guardsmen and sprues made now is going from this https://www.games-workshop.com/en-WW/Imperial-Guard-Cadian-Shock-Troops-2017 to this https://www.games-workshop.com/en-WW/Necromunda-Orlock-Gang-2018. D'you think there's enough space on there to fit a few more heads? I dunno, kind of seems like it given the new sprues have nearly twice as many bits on them.

Historically GW has been against upgrade sprues sold separately but it is becoming more common. We've got the GSC sprue and a whole bunch of marine ones.

They could do all sorts for guard with a sprue like that. Not just female guardsmen (a bunch of heads and an officer coat torso) but cadians with respirators, veteran upgrade parts, DKoK style heads for hypothetical future steel legion minis, etc.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Mine makes it possible for four of four groups to actually build armies, rather then just two.

I agree with you that the best path is probably including female torsos and heads in the basic infantry box to be able to build 10 female soldiers or 10 male soldiers or any percentage mix you want.

What I don't agree with is including non-optional female torso sculpts in the infantry box and forcing anyone who wants to run a mono-gendered regiment (male or female) to spend twice the money. Sure it accomplishes the objective of getting female soldiers on the tabletop, but it is a really ham-fisted way of doing it, it goes against the fluff, and promotes the agenda of one side to the detriment of the other.

There is a way to do this that makes everyone happy. Why do people seem to be so against that?

the_scotsman wrote:



it is OK to expect people who expect all-male armies to buy more kits for the same reason it is OK to expect people who want all their squads to have 3 of one particular special weapon to buy more kits: because it is understood that they want to do something particular with their model collection, and the bits exist to support that. Currently people who want female guardsmen to be in their army at all have ZERO options from Games Workshop and must build their army entirely from third party bits.

And to be clear, nobody is saying "no, you can't have two separate kits" because they're going "ha ha feth those guys who want all male guardsmen, force them to buy more because they're evil anti-PC nonos!", they're saying that because it's frankly not an available course of action. Games workshop has only ever produced a variant kit of the same unit a vanishingly tiny number of times (to my knowledge, Tactical Marines and Terminators are pretty much the only ones, and at the time Tactical Marines were outselling WHFB). The idea of a separate upgrade frame is asinine when the shift in sprue space economy between the current 3rd ed era guardsmen and sprues made now is going from this https://www.games-workshop.com/en-WW/Imperial-Guard-Cadian-Shock-Troops-2017 to this https://www.games-workshop.com/en-WW/Necromunda-Orlock-Gang-2018. D'you think there's enough space on there to fit a few more heads? I dunno, kind of seems like it given the new sprues have nearly twice as many bits on them.

This is what I've been saying for at least two pages now. Thank you the_scotsman for your excellent rewording.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Mine makes it possible for four of four groups to actually build armies, rather then just two.

I agree with you that the best path is probably including female torsos and heads in the basic infantry box to be able to build 10 female soldiers or 10 male soldiers or any percentage mix you want.

What I don't agree with is including non-optional female torso sculpts in the infantry box and forcing anyone who wants to run a mono-gendered regiment (male or female) to spend twice the money. Sure it accomplishes the objective of getting female soldiers on the tabletop, but it is a really ham-fisted way of doing it, it goes against the fluff, and promotes the agenda of one side to the detriment of the other.

There is a way to do this that makes everyone happy. Why do people seem to be so against that?

I am not. If they do female-specific torsos (which seem unlikely, at least in a basic Cadian kit) then they're likely to be more like the Kabalite warrior kit, where you can make ~4 female models if you want, or 10 male.

10 female or 10 male would obviously be the best thing, which would make everyone happy. I'd also like to see 3 of every special weapon, a HWT included as standard in the box, etc. Doesn't seem likely, but I'd love all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At least the upside of not being Games Workshop's cash cow faction is that they're unlikely to take the Space marine approach of jamming the new kit down everyone's throat by including the Brand New Shmalzma Gun! The Shmalzma gun is the best gun ever and the new kit has one but the old kit didn't! They're the best option in the game (until we nerf it next edition) and YOU GOTTA HAVE EM!