[poll] In your opinion what is the best way for GW to release female/cultural themed minis into 40k?

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.

**the_scotsman**

Elbows wrote:
I don't think it's necessary business-wise for GW to chase the female demographic by catering to them, so that idea is off the table. This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"? At this point, whatever GW does will be wrong according to someone. Too little boob? Not female enough! Too much boob? Sexist and awful!

If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units. The aftermarket already caters to this with excellent female heads and full rein guardsmen though.

As an Eldar player I have plenty of female miniatures in my army already (Jain Zar, Howling Banshees, I have female guardian models and a head-swapped female Farseer)...so that army is catered to already. Many of othe other armies don't need female models because they simply don't:

Admech: Questionable - how could you tell anyway?
Knights: Pointless, though you could release a female pilot model?
Tyranids: Nope
Orks: Nope
Tau: Maybe?
Harlequins: Already exist
Dark Eldar: Already exist
Space Marines: Fluff-wise don't exist and GW would only create a shitstorm by retconning them in, so don't bother
Chaos: One of the few armies which has a lot of female sculpts on the Slaanesh side, but has room for new wytch-like unit? Maybe?
Daemons: Pointless, though Slaanesh has predominantly female-equipped figures
Necrons: Pointless, though there are 3rd party companies with boobed robots..so there's that
etc.

So excluding the few races with have females already, the others don't need them - leaving mankind/Imperium. You have Sisters of Battle about to get an entire army. You have Sisters of Silence, a couple of new female characters for the Imperium, etc. Outside of some guard players wanting a couple of female bodies (which they can source already) or easier, female heads (Statuesque for days), I don't see the lack of female miniatures. I don't see logical non-hamfisted ways to cram more in, and I don't believe a load of new female miniatures would do very well business-wise for GW. After all that's the main goal, regardless of how a company or players butter it up.

When Sisters of Battle were out - a few years after release, my best friend (a GW manager) and his buddies (fellow GW managers and area managers) were very open about how poorly they were selling. They really were not a high sales volume army, even when all of their kits were available. GW is probably very wary of this.

The "just 3rd party 'em" argument is a bit strange to me because A, games workshop is clamping down harder than ever on 'non-official' models being not usable and other event organizers are generally even more strict, to the point where the ork rumor thread has a huge amount of whinging about rebasing their orks IN RESPONSE to games workshop saying they didnt have to.... and B, the existence and success of 3rd party female miniatures for guard would seem to indicate a market to me of people interested in buying new guard and other figures for that reason.

As I said before - it's just an aesthetic distinction between a new and old kit for me. I'm less interested in making an army of all identical dudes personally.

**Manchu**

Elbows wrote:
This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?

Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.

Elbows wrote:
If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.

There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.

Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.

**Rocmistro**

the_scotsman wrote:
Rocmistro wrote:
My answer to this, which I didn't answer in the poll because I'm not really sure the poll reflects the answer, is based on customer demand.

-If GW thinks there's enough of a female market that will actually be enticed to the hobby by the production of female minis, by all means have at it.

-What *I* don't like to see is anyone (individual or company) getting bullied by an SJW type crowd/audience, that really has no interest in the game or hobby, and just want to take shots at targets they feel are not "inclusive" enough.

My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.

There's a couple things I think I disagree with you on here.

First off - yeah, it's absolutely obnoxious when any politically motivated outside group works to stir up a shitstorm for a company, regardless of political affiliation of that group, and no decisions should be made based on pressure from outside groups.

I disagree that introducing miniatures that depict women or other groups is primarily a tool used to get those groups more interested in the hobby. I think primarily it just..gives people a reason to purchase a newer kit when you can make models that are aesthetically different with the kit. If you look at the wave 1 stormcasts vs wave 2, I'd probably be more likely to buy into wave 2 because the models don't look like just the same identical guy holding different weapons. I'd view a kit of imperial guard including both female and male guardsmen the same way I'd view a new Space Marine kit with a different armor mark: I have much more of a reason to want it if I already have an existing army.

That's fine Scotsman. My point is mainly that it should be the company (GW) and it's actual buyers/players that get to decide the direction on models....some combination of demand, interest, attracting new players, keeping old players, etc. I'd absolutely buy female Guardsmen. I just don't want to be FORCED to buy female guardsmen or be labeled a bigot by parties/entities that have no interest in the game, hobby, etc.

**Galef**

Crimson wrote:
People who feel that representing themselves on the tabletop is important are probably most drawn to more human faction to begin with, and the Guard is most human of the human factions.

Generally, sure, but there are a lot of players, including myself, who want to represent themselves on the tabletop as something MORE than what they are.
I'm already a regular human, so it's boring for me to just plant myself as-is into the setting. I wanna be a super human or some kind of near-human alien.
That's one reason I play Eldar, plus there are plenty of female Eldar and Elf models to paint.
Heck, I even painted myself as a Primaris Marine, beard and all:

Spoiler:

But yes, many players also want to see themselves as-is in the setting, which I can agreed the bog standard Guard range doesn't quite cover.

Also, I think it's important for GW not to release sets SPECIFICALLY because they are female, unless the fluff dictates this. All Female Sister box? Perfect. All Female Guard box? No thanks
Mixed Male and Female Guard box? Yes, just like many Eldar sets

-

**Manchu**

The fantastical genres exist precisely because people can and do identify with and find compelling something other than what they are IRL.

We need Guardswomen sculpts not to lure more women into buying product from GW but rather so that people who already like Astra Militarum can have better products.

**Crimson**

Rocmistro wrote:

That's fine Scotsman. My point is mainly that it should be the company (GW) and it's actual buyers/players that get to decide the direction on models....some combination of demand, interest, attracting new players, keeping old players, etc. I'd absolutely buy female Guardsmen. I just don't want to be FORCED to buy female guardsmen or be labeled a bigot by parties/entities that have no interest in the game, hobby, etc.

You're not forced to buy anything. You're not force to buy current Guard kits, you're not force to buy the mixed-gender Van Saar kits, nor would you be forced to buy the future hypothetical mixed-gender Guard kits.

(I think there is decent chance that the next generation of Guard models, should such a thing ever happen, will be mixed-gender, considering how many guardswomen there has been in the art recently.)

**the_scotsman**

Manchu wrote:
Elbows wrote:
This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?
Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.
Elbows wrote:
If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.
There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.

Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.

it does.

Games workshop has established that the sexual dimorphism of tau is primarily visible in their facial structure, and included several male and female heads in the fire warrior kit.

This makes sense because the Tau are much more "caste-morphic" in the fluff, with Fire Caste being a warrior subset of the overall species.

**Asmodios**

NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
@OP - they already have for years. OK, they might be hyper-sexualised in some instances (Slaanesh approves) but they are out there in droves.

Perhaps a better question would have been 'how could GW make 40K more accessible for females to take up as a hobby?'.

Unfortunately, the answer to that, in terms of GW in-store games, is get rid of a vast swathe of GW's male customers.

The answer to how to draw in female customers is actually really simple and there's a good example of it here in Texas with the Warhammer cafe.

1. Location: They need more stores like the warhammer cafe or the of grapevine mills store (mall store). You are not going to get women through the door at some random box store with nothing around to draw a woman in. Its worth taking a loss on these stores to draw in customers. I found out about miniature gaming because of the mall store when i was younger and i must know about 100 people that play Games Workshop games because of that store even though the majority usually buy stuff from cheaper stores once they get hooked. You need these high profile stores in prime locations not to sell your product but to introduce it to people.

2. Have more female employees: This weekend some random women wandered into the store out of curiosity and the female employee working there walked over and was answering what the hobby was. It's always more comforting to have someone of the same sex helping you with a product.

3. Focus on the hobby portion: most women I know or have met in the hobby start originally because painting a model seems like fun. Obviously, some women like playing but im put money on most women originally being much more into the painting aspect (just like the women this weekend that seemed truly interested in the building/painting but was generally surprised people "played with these".

**secretForge**

I'm hoping that GW one day do a line of skinny pale balding pacifists in their mid 30s who have given up on life and are slowly spiraling into the depths of self destruction.

WHERE IS MY REPRESENTATION!

**the_scotsman**

Galef wrote:
Crimson wrote:
People who feel that representing themselves on the tabletop is important are probably most drawn to more human faction to begin with, and the Guard is most human of the human factions.
Generally, sure, but there are a lot of players, including myself, who want to represent themselves on the tabletop as something MORE than what they are.
I'm already a regular human, so it's boring for me to just plant myself as-is into the setting. I wanna be a super human or some kind of near-human alien.
That's one reason I play Eldar, plus there are plenty of female Eldar and Elf models to paint.
Heck, I even painted myself as a Primaris Marine, beard and all:

Spoiler:

But yes, many players also want to see themselves as-is in the setting, which I can agreed the bog standard Guard range doesn't quite cover.

Also, I think it's important for GW not to release sets SPECIFICALLY because they are female, unless the fluff dictates this. All Female Sister box? Perfect. All Female Guard box? No thanks
Mixed Male and Female Guard box? Yes, just like many Eldar sets

-

as a bobblehead Spaceballs regect with a permanent jowly scowl on my potato-carved face and 1.5 foot long arms, I reject your notion that the current imperial guard sculpts poorly represent me!

**Galas**

Manchu wrote:
Elbows wrote:
This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?
Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.
Elbows wrote:
If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units.
There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.

Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.

Actually the Fire Warrior kit comes with both males and femlales. It comes with 5 bare heads, 3 male and 2 female, I think. But unlike Imperial Guard and humans, Tau are actually indistinguible with uniform. But even then, they have those bare heads to make clear that in fact the unit is intended to be gender-mixed.

**LunarSol**

Galef wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40k are already invested in.

Agreed.

A side note, I think you bring up a good point. Adding female models just to add female models would not, in fact, draw in a larger female community, but be to appease the existing fanbase.
And often, it may just draw in more men. Speaking for myself, I like female models because I like the female form, not necessarily from a "culturally diversified" perspective.
-

Do I think female models will suddenly make, say, my wife interested in 40k? Absolutely not. Do I think they would make my daughter interested in the game someday? Quite probably. There's a big difference between developed and developing tastes. Kids are looking for things to emulate; they look for things like themselves to find their place in the world and quickly determine whether or not something is "for" them by how they see themselves represented. The wargame market has spent decades pretty aggressively showcasing itself as something "for boys" and even directly presenting the idea its "not for girls". Expecting female models to change that overnight is kind of missing the point. You don't take down the "no girls allowed" sign to try and bring back people who you already turned away at the door; you take it down to stop discouraging people finding it for the first time.

**Manchu**

the_scotsman wrote:
Games workshop has established that the sexual dimorphism of tau is primarily visible in their facial structure, and included several male and female heads in the fire warrior kit.

I’m not convinced we should reason from kits to fluff. GW has spent almost no time or energy working out anything about Tau fluff. In this context, the female heads on the sprue seem like a bonus rather than a declaration about Tau phenotypic expression. This doesn’t touch on anything in-setting, but just as a matter of designing a product, Shadowsun was not stuffed into yet another faceless, “masculine” XV8 suit. Instead, GW invented a whole new, more “feminine” looking Crisis Suit for her. I think if GW gave any real thought to female Tau, theynwouldn’t just be Y-slits rather than I-slits on the forehead.

**dkoz**

2 of the answers are basically the same because regardless of if GW does or doesn't release these models as part of a unit or as independent units players can choose to put them in their armies or not. I would like to see some models that would be considered wildly offensive by today's SJWs & some that were understated & more realistic.

**Karol**

I don't understand why people think that having female models is suddenly mean a huge influx of female players. The gate keepers to w40k or comperable hobbies are not the models, or even the male players, but the females that are around the girls that may want to play.

Now I get that it becomes more of a free choice for people that are adults. But w40k is not targeted at people that are adults, but for people in their teens like me.

**Crimson**

Karol wrote:
I don't understand why people think that having female models is suddenly mean a huge influx of female players.

It wouldn't. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have any impact at all.

**the_scotsman**

Manchu wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Games workshop has established that the sexual dimorphism of tau is primarily visible in their facial structure, and included several male and female heads in the fire warrior kit.
I’m not convinced we should reason from kits to fluff. GW has spent almost no time or energy working out anything about Tau fluff. In this context, the female heads on the sprue seem like a bonus rather than a declaration about Tau phenotypic expression. This doesn’t touch on anything in-setting, but just as a matter of designing a product, Shadowsun was not stuffed into yet another faceless, “masculine” XV8 suit. Instead, GW invented a whole new, more “feminine” looking Crisis Suit for her. I think if GW gave any real thought to female Tau, theynwouldn’t just be Y-slits rather than I-slits on the forehead.

A stealth suit is a "feminine" crisis suit?

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120113044_TauXV25StealthTeam01.jpg

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99810113004_CommanderShadowsunNEW01.jpg

That is clearly a special stealth suit.

**Just Tony**

It harms nothing to include options, It helps nothing to exclude completely OR to remove the choice completely.

So my vote is for options in the kit, but options to NOT build it that way if you so see fit.

**Manchu**

the_scotsman wrote:
That is clearly a special stealth suit.

Well yes it clearly is special, as you can see by its design and designation.

**Karol**

Crimson wrote:
Karol wrote:
I don't understand why people think that having female models is suddenly mean a huge influx of female players.

It wouldn't. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have any impact at all.

Ok, but would the impact be worth it. They would have to remake the sprues and new molds cost money. And enough people would have to want to buy those. They could of course force people by hard codex changes to buy boxs of the new stuff, but I don't think they would like to risk that. I think we should wait to see how SoB sales are, and if GW gives them proper rules.

Also I still think they have a lot more people to draw in from the male market, then trying getting female players. It may not be worth the investment, at least in monetary terms.

**the_scotsman**

Manchu wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
That is clearly a special stealth suit.
Well yes it clearly is special, as you can see by its design and designation.

Right. So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit. Because then you have a regular armor character, a Crisis suit character, a Tank character, an ethereal character and a stealth suit character.

Unless you think Games Workshop had to design a whole new masculine crisis suit for Longstrike to fit his 65-foot long shlamalamadingdong.

"they don't call me Longstrike in Railgun Hammerhead for nothing"

-Commander Longstrike

**dkoz**

I agree that most of the armies like AM, GSC, Tau, etc should have female models ones with established fluff like AA don't need them. There is no need to bow to the SJW pressure just to please a bunch of jerks especially because no matter what GW does it won't be enough.

**Crimson**

Karol wrote:

Ok, but would the impact be worth it. They would have to remake the sprues and new molds cost money. And enough people would have to want to buy those. They could of course force people by hard codex changes to buy boxs of the new stuff, but I don't think they would like to risk that. I think we should wait to see how SoB sales are, and if GW gives them proper rules.

Also I still think they have a lot more people to draw in from the male market, then trying getting female players. It may not be worth the investment, at least in monetary terms.

Guard plastics are pretty ancient and bad. They need to be redone sooner or later anyway, so once they do, they might as well throw in some guardswomen for variety.

**LunarSol**

dkoz wrote:
I agree that most of the armies like AM, GSC, Tau, etc should have female models ones with established fluff like AA don't need them. There is no need to bow to the SJW pressure just to please a bunch of jerks especially because no matter what GW does it won't be enough.

If you want young girls to feel like 40k is for them, you need to include them in the poster boys for the game. Regulating them to only monsters and peons sends that exact message.

**JNAProductions**

I'd say option three.

Obviously Marines are a boys-only club, since the Emperor was deathly afraid of cooties, but female Guardsmen, Aspect Warriors, Cultists... Go nuts.

**Manchu**

the_scotsman wrote:
[So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.

Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.

**the_scotsman**

Manchu wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
[So they didn't "make her a new, feminine crisis suit" they put her in a special stealth suit.
Remember that the “THEY” in that sentence is Games Workshop. As I carefully pointed out, I am not talking about this as a matter of in-setting “reality.” The XV22 exists solely because GW designed it to represent a female Tau character. Her male contemporary in the product line was Farsight, who in fact was just another GUY in an XV8.

I wasn't talking about in-setting reality either. In armies of that era, Games Workshop almost always released named characters who were "special" versions of an existing normal character or unit.

See orks:

Ghazzy - special warboss on foot
Wazdakka - special biker
Badrukk - special flash git
Zogwart - special weirdboy
Snikrot - special Kommando
Grotsnik - special Painboy

So, you're saying that when GW redesigned the Stealth Team from a form that looked like a fire warrior with a bigger shoulderpad and a burst cannon into a smaller mark of battlesuit, they did so specifically in an attempt to make it look "feminine?"

I guess I'm going to need a bit more evidence behind that claim, because stealth suits don't look particularly feminine to me, they just look like GW wanted Tau to have a "terminator sized" unit.

**Manchu**

The XV22 is not just another stealthsuit. The only XV22 in the game is worn by a female character. Farsight rides around in a XV8 like anybody else in an XV8. GW could have but did not put Shadowsun in a XV25.

**dkoz**

LunarSol wrote:
dkoz wrote:
I agree that most of the armies like AM, GSC, Tau, etc should have female models ones with established fluff like AA don't need them. There is no need to bow to the SJW pressure just to please a bunch of jerks especially because no matter what GW does it won't be enough.

If you want young girls to feel like 40k is for them, you need to include them in the poster boys for the game. Regulating them to only monsters and peons sends that exact message.

See this is fairly stupid if you want girls to feel like 40K is for them you don't need to just knuckle under to SJW pressure to rewrite your whole history to include women in to AA. To make girls feel included parents just need to pass on their love of the game to their kids. The fake that people think AA not being women means women are regulated to peons is stupid and clearly untrue because some of the best fluff characters are women.

**Crimson**

Well, the issue kinda is that the Marines are crazy over represented in the fluff, so it may feel like that if you're not a Marine, you're a nobody. That is kinda problem even if we ignore the gender aspect.