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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

TBH, lack of females in the guard kit is at best a secondary issue to the long ass list of problems that the guard kit has. The kit itself is ancient old, the proportions are hilarious, the sculpting is terrible quality, and it contains what, about a quarter of the weapon options that you can get in total on guardsmen?

So far, every time games workshop has put out a kit that has some female sculpts, it is either A) barely noticed or not noticed at all (Tau Firewarriors, Necromunda Van Saar, Harlequins) or B) actively praised (new Sisters of Battle stuff, new female stormcasts).

You've set up this pessimistic hypothetical (oh the rampaging liberals will just whinge about it and call it sexist) for something that isn't at all hypothetical and is a thing that games workshop has actively been doing for years now.

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Step 1: Throw some heads into a new kit with more feminine facial features and hair, and a slightly smaller face (small face is 90% of what you need to register with the human brain as a woman at first glance - just ask a drag queen)

Step 2: There is no step 2. They're wearing the same standard-issue body armor that the imperium issues to mutated hivers, hulking high-grav worlders, diminuative ratlings, and three-armed totally loyal citizens without batting an eyelash. They'd look the same from the neck down, like a modern day soldier does.

Just to point out, this might get GW flamed for making a "low-effort, sexist, and patronizing attempt at adding women to the Imperial Guard line. Female guardsmen are deserving of their own original sculpts."

Once again: this is literally a thing Games Workshop has done multiple times in the past and has somehow NOT had a horde of shrieking feminist harpies descend upon them for.

You are creating hypothetical boogeymen (boogeypeople?) where the hypothetical is reality and your imagined criticisms did not occur.

The only thing Games Workshop is actually getting criticisms for at this point is when they create a kit, especially one that's nearly or entirely monopose (like say, Kairic Acolytes, where they only vary by which mask you want to put them and their hands) and they just make everyone an identical dude even when you could include a female sculpt or two just for variety. When they do the opposite, pretty much the only mention of it that you see is "oh neat, theres some ladies in there too." Like with the new Van Saar gang kit.

Gitdakka wrote:
There already are female guardsmen in the armageddon steel legion line. Well there could be at least....
I noticed when painting a squad that some of them are slightly smaller than the others (one box from gw), particulary the one model advancing and hip firing it's lasgun.
But who knows really?

I also choose to believe that the separation between the steel codpiece and steel "skirt" in the skitarii troop line is an indicator of biological sex, because the only reason the mechanicus would have to create those two different designs for their armor instead of standardizing on one is that they're trying to protect a different bit vital for the creation of new skitarii recruits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

So, your argument here is that after releasing a Necromunda gang of women in belly shirts and high heels and an AOS army of bikini-clad elves and getting no blowback, Games Workshop should not release female guardsmen heads because the evil invisible army of SJW feminazis might just be LAYING IN WAIT for the next female model to be released?

the only complaints about any of the new female models released, whether that be Eschers, new Celestine or the female Stormcast, have not been from imagined SJWs, they've been from people complaining the models were too fat and had too small bewbs. Because evidently Games Workshop used some actual female athletes as a model for how women in an all-female street gang would look.

 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.

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.

"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."

 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.

 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:

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.

Weird how people can have these things where they like stuff that might not agree with you, and it DOESNT make either of you objectively right, wrong, or part of a vast conspiracy intent on destroying the thing you love.

Also, it's not like this is new. At all. Remember when Batman got rebooted to be a completely different guy in a sci-fi setting with a weird rastafarian-looking joker?

Pepperidge farm remembers.

Karol wrote:

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.

here's an example right here: I watched the Last Jedi last night because I saw it was on netflix and I hadn't seen it yet.

And I

*GASP*

DIDN'T think it was the worst thing ever.

Were there characters that made me hit my head against a wall? Yes. But I got to cheer when they died, so all is forgiven, movie. I didn't get to see the planet of the gungans blown up at the end of the prequels, so that's a comparative point in the favor of TLJ. I pretty much liked everything involving the Rey/Luke/Ben Swolo plot.

And you know what's weird about it?

it doesn't make me part of a conspiracy to do it. Money did not slowly eject out of the CD slot of my computer when I smiled at the movie with a little note from kathleen kennedy that I was in on it now.

How We Took Down the Woman Guardsmen Conspiracy One Hashtag At a Time


Femaloid GuardsMEN conspiracy DESTROYED #walkaway #forthemanperor #stopthemadness

Star Wars Movie Profits:

Ep 4: A new Hope: $786,598,007
Ep 5: Empire: $534,171,960
Ep 6: Return: $572,705,079
Ep 1: Phantom: $1,027,044,677
Ep 2: Clone: $656,695,615
Ep 3: Revenge: $848,998,877
Ep 7: Awakens: $2,058,662,225
Ep 8: Jedi: $1,318,092,040

I was curious about your statement, because I hdan't heard that it was a flop, and as it turns out that's one of those things. What do you call them? Exaggerations?

This is all-time money, by the way. Literally ALL the money they've made from the sale of the original trilogy over all the years it's been around getting put on DVDs and VHS and Blu-Rays. TLJ is currently the eleventh highest grossing movie of all time, second highest grossing star wars movie, and a solid 30% above the average that a star wars movie makes...just counting the main series films.

You can say you don't like something all you want, but if you say its a financial failure...you're going to have to meet a slightly higher burden of proof than that. Profits are down compared to the opening film in the trilogy...pretty much the exact same percentage that every other second film in the other two trilogies. Sequels make money more reliably than originals, but they make less money overall than the original.

 Ratius wrote:
We've gone from how much female guardsmen would make to what would star wars make.
Dont we have enough SW threads down in the geek media forum?..... ho hum.

Sorry, I realize that was off topic. I just had been pretty much ignoring the whole star wars controversy thing because I hadn't bothered to see the film, and I'd seen the claim that it had flopped a bunch of times and I assumed they were actually right.

I just thought it was hilarious just HOW much the claim was a lie...

Also, leliths face is not as much a problem with the model as it is the gw studio paintjob.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xJeGksupyl0/UtIKyw94UWI/AAAAAAAAAoM/R5PPNNuwGFE/s1600/Lelith1.jpg

I just got a metal one off eBay and I was worried about it but the face is pretty much a blank slate. Also I love me the new Eschers, I'm partway through the second box of them and I love their sculpts.

But once again, how do you take the guardsman kit and NOT improve on the sculpts? Sgt dickard isn't a high bar: https://i.redd.it/uobhrkmbk3jz.jpg

OMG did you see what those weak horrible effeminate weeb liberals are doing to Robin in this new awful TV show?

How can you take a character like this https://i.pinimg.com/736x/00/55/fe/0055fe9ba2c3f292b78743dadf6ba1db--night-wing-batman-beyond.jpg

and end up with something like this
https://pm1.narvii.com/6776/e2faf2fc854fd75ff4ec7c3ea5a6e4d37347bb35v2_hq.jpg

It's PC culture gone mad I tell you! he looks like a little girl?!?! what is this anime bullcrap!

Robins robinpanties are a CORE and IMPORTANT part of his character and nobody can tell me otherwise!

oh wait, never mind, the anti-SJW rage brigade doesn't mind the fact that robin generally wears fifteen times more pants now than he used to.

Weird.

I wonder why that is.

w1zard wrote:
Holy gak, and there are extremist idiots even here. Someone was saying women's suffrage was a bad idea... followed by other people claiming that anyone who doesn't share their opinion is a sexist bigot that deserves to be publicly ridiculed. This is why I hate politics.

-No, just because people aren't as progressive as you doesn't mean they are all closet nazis/sexists.

-No, just because people want to see more women and minorities in traditionally white-male dominated media doesn't mean they are evil communists who want to destroy America and everything you hold dear.

Can we please stop trying to demonize the other side and treat each other like people with differing opinions?

I saw the post claiming womens' suffrage was a bad idea, but could you point out the post where someone said anyone who didnt share their opinion was a sexist bigot who deserved to be publicly ridiculed? Because you're trying to set up a dichotomy here where both sides are equally bad, but it kind of looks like you're basing the extreme behavior of one side on what they say, and the extreme behavior of the other on your own interpretation of what they imply.

w1zard wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
Hey man they're already doing this with Stormcast, drukhari, Deepkin, etcetc

Sure, but like I said, it's different because almost all guard regiments are unisex in the lore. Most guard players also have an idea about how they want to represent their regiment as well, and female soldiers (or male soldiers) may not be part of that.

I play greatcoat+gasmask guardsmen and use third party pieces. But I do use the torsos from the GW infantry box and I would be pretty peeved if I had to start filling up my regiment with boobplate torsos... and it will be boobplate torsos, because if GW is going to go through the trouble of making female sculpts they are going to be obviously female.

This is why I think female headswaps or an entirely female infantry box would be a better option for all parties involved. We definitely need female guardsmen though. It's not fair that people who want to have a female or mixed regiment have to go third party.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read the latest thread, you're still trying to set yourself up as a "reasonable middle ground" and to do that you need to cast people who do not want female guardsmen as crazy conservative fringe and people who want female guardsmen in the same kit as crazy liberal fringe.

THATS why you have to pretend that the response to "women should not have the right to vote" was "you are a sexist misogynist woman-hater if you disagree at all with my view" instead of the much more common "wtf are you talking about, there is not a horde of feminists losing their minds when GW puts out kits with women in them" response that you'll actually read if you go through those pages.

Sorry. carry on with your narrative. I thought it might have been a mistake you pretending to have people saying crazy left wing stuff.

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read the latest thread, you're still trying to set yourself up as a "reasonable middle ground" and to do that you need to cast people who do not want female guardsmen as crazy conservative fringe and people who want female guardsmen in the same kit as crazy liberal fringe.

THATS why you have to pretend that the response to "women should not have the right to vote" was "you are a sexist misogynist woman-hater if you disagree at all with my view" instead of the much more common "wtf are you talking about, there is not a horde of feminists losing their minds when GW puts out kits with women in them" response that you'll actually read if you go through those pages.

Sorry. carry on with your narrative. I thought it might have been a mistake you pretending to have people saying crazy left wing stuff.

What?

I'm not trying to set myself up as anything.

I agree that it would be cool to see female guardswomen, but I don't think that forcing people to run mixed regiments by putting them in the same box is the way to do it.

I just think the people who respond with "lol women shouldn't be able to vote", or "we need female guard models in the basic infantry box and feth anyone who gets upset about it (while strongly implying the upset people are sexist)" are as equally bad as each other.

....you do? You think that someone expressing a ridiculous opinion and someone else ridiculing that opinion are equivalent?

basic plastic kits for a given faction are almost always going to include the most generic options that appeal to the most people.

It is unrealistic that Games Workshop is going to take the opportunity to make two separate kits, purely for the aesthetic distinction of the models' sex.

This pleases people who would like their guard regiments to be only male, like yourself. It makes things the hardest for people who would like their guard regiments to be only female, and it requires anyone who would like any female models at all to go to third party model manufacturers.

If you include more options in a single kit, the people who want their guys to be all one thing can make that so by buying multiple kits.

It does not make you sexist, bigoted or otherwise to want to make your guys all one thing, but it does make you extremely naive if you think the approach GW is likely to take is not going to be to add more variety to the single sprue. Regardless of what option you want. If you wanted the guard kit to include 3 plasma guns and for GW to produce another kit with only flamers so that you can have an easier time building your guys as all plasma guns, I'd say you were being equally unrealistic. And I am not implying that you are sexist, nor have I from the start of the thread. If a new guard kit ever was made, it would probably include female torsos and heads.

If you're lucky, you might get the Harlequin, Eldar, Kabalite or Tau treatment, where there are enough male parts in the kit to make all males if you want.

w1zard wrote:

Stux wrote:
So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.

Sure, but again, I think there are better ways to get female guardsmen on the tabletop then retconning almost every Imperial Guard novel ever written, and forcing people to run mixed sex regiments unless they want to pay twice the money.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What the devil leap of argument is this?

The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.

It's not a leap at all. By that logic we should have female space marine models because feth the lore right?

You have to understand that at this point your entire argument boils down to "I want this thing not to change to convenience someone else and inconvenience me, because a point of lore so minor that it's not ever been even mentioned in the army's codex and only appears in two expanded-universe background novel series says that things should stay the way they are."

That is not a terribly convincing argument. Marines' sex is an actually ingrained part of their lore, being direct gene-seeded clones of a male emperor with plenty of units named things like "Sword brothers" "brother captains" and "battle brothers."

and again, like I just said: In most plastic kits that include models of both sexes, this is not an issue because it's done via torso halves, and most often, at least the kits I have experience with, you do in fact have enough male torso halves to make all models male. The only kits I am finding that ACTUALLY forces a person to build at least one model in the box as female are dark eldar wyches (two must be female) and the new stormcasts.

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.

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!