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.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

pinecone77 wrote:
From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...

Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.

Guards-persons? Nope, but you want the sprue to answer as many questions as possable, so the torsos might be useful for Cachacans as the don't wear all of the kit...etc....maybe a wild Wyrd psycher/ prophetess character...etc

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."

pinecone77 wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

pinecone77 wrote:
From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...

Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.

Guards-persons? Nope, but you want the sprue to answer as many questions as possable, so the torsos might be useful for Cachacans as the don't wear all of the kit...etc....maybe a wild Wyrd psycher/ prophetess character...etc

I would expect radically different regiments like Catachan to have their own kit which would include their own female components. Also remember you are buying a kit of Imperial guard and not a kit for anything else. The kit should not contain utterly lore breaking components that have no place being in that kit. If you are making a kit of just female guardsmen or separate upgrade type kit than yeah totally go nuts with variety.

Introduce a new 'all-women' IG Regiment from an Amazonian-like world - give it an OP doctrine, special character and Stratagems; milk it for all its worth, till someone complains, then pull it.

But realistically, for at least the Cadians, a head swap would work well enough, Valhallans (if they ever get plastics) the same, a couple others may have issues, but put like 2-3 female bodies/heads in per box of 10 and players will swap them around as needed (or buy extra for the all female force).

 Kcalehc wrote:
Introduce a new 'all-women' IG Regiment from an Amazonian-like world - give it an OP doctrine, special character and Stratagems; milk it for all its worth, till someone complains, then pull it.

That would be the business equivalent of stepping on a landmine and hoping it's a dud.

having not read any of the previous replies (so it might have been answered already), but it might be about 70-80% of what a male guardsman makes.

 heckler wrote:
having not read any of the previous replies (so it might have been answered already), but it might be about 70-80% of what a male guardsman makes.

Only if they work 8 hours less a week than the men

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.

I read the title and thought it was about the salary of a guardsmanwomwn.

the_scotsman wrote:
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.

I'm not saying it's 100% going to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to point out that making a move like that isn't 100% foolproof against outrage.

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
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.

I'm not saying it's 100% going to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to point out that making a move like that isn't 100% foolproof against outrage.

Nothing is "foolproof against outrage". GW has gotten more flack for making the furries wait for their codex then they did for the Daughters of Khaine release.

I think most would agree they would be a welcome addition to any regiment. I think the bigger issue at this point is whether we will have models at all going forward. All the metal regiments have been discontinued. Cadia gone. Elysians discontinued. Traitor guard being discontinued. Lets hope they are being redone in plastic with female counterparts.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Nothing is "foolproof against outrage".

Plenty of things are. I don't see how anyone could complain about say... GW giving away free models or something. Even if someone were to find a convoluted reason to be upset they'd quickly be shouted down by more reasonable people.

This idea of "the right to be offended" has become so common these days that nobody tries to dispute the vocal minorities that spout crazy stuff and make outrageous demands.

w1zard wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Nothing is "foolproof against outrage".

Plenty of things are. I don't see how anyone could complain about say... GW giving away free models or something. Even if someone were to find a convoluted reason to be upset they'd quickly be shouted down by more reasonable people.

This idea of "the right to be offended" has become so common these days that nobody tries to dispute the vocal minorities that spout crazy stuff and make outrageous demands.

Literally the minute GW announces something like that the immediate response would be "ugh, more Space Marines?"

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.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

pinecone77 wrote:
From a "business" point of view...the likely "best" solution is when (if) Sisters get plastic, add an extra sprue of female heats/torsos to the molds. Then you satisfy the Sisters players, And add in options for people who want to add in female soldiers, inquisitors etc...

Would there be a difference in the torso of a female guardsmen? With the added bulk of the flak armor you couldn't tell a difference other than the face which even then will likely have a helmet on. Female guardsmen should not have crappy boob carapace armor or any such nonsense. It looks stupid and functions even worse for protective purposes.

Because its a over the top fantasy game - same reason Blood Angels (and in fact some ancient warriors in reality) have nipples on their armour.

Works for the new female Stormcast.

It wouldn't fit the guard at all though. They are not about having their soldiers have ornate armor at all. Their female guardsmen (assuming they are wearing standard issue carapace or equivalents that the overwhelming majority of guard will use) would wear mass produced armor, made by the lowest bidder with just enough protection to somewhat protect the wearer. A female guardsmen would be almost identical to a male one (model wise) outside of the face. Once you put armor on their chest can be 100% identical.

Nope - it would not fit the Cadian regiments - there is a vast variety of Guard Regiments (far more than any other branch of the Imperial military) - some of which have highly ceremonial armour , battledress what have you - some of which wear furs, or laser reflective armour or polished breastplates etc etc

Many of them would be very obvious its a woman.

Go and take a look at the fluff - plenty of examples - Cadians are just one style of Regiment amongst MANY.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Introduce a new 'all-women' IG Regiment from an Amazonian-like world - give it an OP doctrine, special character and Stratagems; milk it for all its worth, till someone complains, then pull it.

But realistically, for at least the Cadians, a head swap would work well enough, Valhallans (if they ever get plastics) the same, a couple others may have issues, but put like 2-3 female bodies/heads in per box of 10 and players will swap them around as needed (or buy extra for the all female force).

They are already in a older Guard Codex.

 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.

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.

 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.

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?

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:

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.

Her name is Samantha Swords.

Get outta here

 Mmmpi wrote:
To take the question literally:

In the Ciaphes Cain novels, he serves with a mixed gender regiment, and it implies that all guards are paid the same, based on rank.

It's called fiction

 Ratius wrote:

Her name is Samantha Swords.

Get outta here

That's her 'stage' name.

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

 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.

 koooaei wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
To take the question literally:

In the Ciaphes Cain novels, he serves with a mixed gender regiment, and it implies that all guards are paid the same, based on rank.

It's called fiction

What's your point?

 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.

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

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

Ever read the fem40k thread on BOLS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

w1zard wrote:

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

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

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

None of this happened when this year when GW released:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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