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.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Trust me

You have not earned that privilege.

 Psienesis wrote:
Mayhaps you should investigate, oh, I dunno, the *rest* of the miniatures world? Female Figs are very, very, *very* popular in other miniatures wargames, not to mention the figs released for standard RPGs, like Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons.

Well yes, but GW doesn't really do market research.

 Crimson wrote:

En Excelsis wrote:

I know I risk sounding "sexist" by today's standards for saying this, but equality of the sexes is an illusion. I would say that equality in general is as well, but that's another discussion for another time.

Oh, wow! Well, if the intent was to sound sexist, mission bloody accomplished!

So do you think things were better a century or two ago? That it was totally OK that women didn't have same rights as men?

I think it is very easy for people of this day and age to confuse terms that they personally have formed no associations with. Equality is almost always used in a legal, or political sense and is incorrectly imposed upon the social setting where it doesn't belong. Legally the distinction is perfectly acceptable. I quite like the fact that both genders can enjoy the same liberties and freedoms, but I would be a fool to think that every woman and every man should be the treated "equally" in every situation. Simply put that is a naïve or juvenile point of view. At the very lest it is uneducated.

My region of the country was recently truck by a series of back-to-back blizzards and thunderstorms. We received a large amount of snowfall that literally shut down the city for a day. Some areas were without power, but not for very long. The company that I work for shut down early and sent everyone home about mid day during the first storm. We had already received nearly 12" of snow by that time and it caused a LOT of problems for folks as the scrambled to get home. There were quite a few accidents.

As I was leaving the building and heading my usual parking lot, my workmates and I noticed that a good deal of people had gotten their cars pretty well stuck in the snow, and were not only unable to leave themselves, but were preventing other people from leaving behind them. We quickly banded together and started helping people out as best we could. Some of us helped push the stuck vehicles while others helped drive or navigate the people who were stuck. It took nearly two hours for everyone to leave the parking area before my mates and I left ourselves.

I am proud to say that we were VERY sexist in our approach. We made sure that all the women were given priority. We made sure that they did not have to get out in the snow and get their feet wet in the heavy snow to push heavy cars around. We guided them out first, making sure to give them safety instructions before moving on the stuck men, who in some cases waited over an hour for our help.

I don't feel bad at all that I intentionally drew a line between men and women. That I issued them different treatment. I would do it again if the situation called for it.

This comes back around to that false sense of entitlement I mentioned earlier. I don't recall a single woman complaining that she was given preferential treatment. I don't think any of them bothered to rally behind the men who were clearly being forced to wait longer for help "just because they were men". They happily took the special favors that helped them move along more quickly.

Now, given my social insight to the people I live and work with every day... I can promise you that many of those same women, if they even caught the scent of "sexism" in the office, would literally single a flag and rally behind to defend their gender from "inequality".

It's a double edged sword, and a sharp one. By the social definition, I am quite sexist. I have been, currently am, and will be for the foreseeable future. I will continue to distinguish between the genders and treat them quite differently. Yet at the same time, I have no plans to infringe upon the legal rights of either.

Since WH40k is strictly a social part of my life, and one that I play almost exclusively with my mates. I don't really feel that it needs to conform to any of the rigid legal guidelines regarding gender equality. While I don't personally think WH40k is even remotely sexist, I firmly believe that if it wanted to be it should have every right. It's a piece of fiction, of fantasy. In the real world, I have to put up with LOTS of things that I don't like... in my fantasy I can be as misogynistic I damn well please, and since it's a freakin' fantasy, not a soul out there has a right to complain.

Every honest man has had a fantasy about being with more than one woman (or at least enough men have that this analogy still works). And when you are playing that scene out in your mind you don't round out the figures and think "hey there are 10 women in my room, statistically 1 in 10 of them should be a minority of such and such ethnic decent." That never happens... your fantasy plays out however the hell it does.

However, I am getting off topic.

As it pertains to 40k, I think that the current amount of "sexism" is perfecting fitting given the setting, the characters, and the fact that it's a work of fiction. Also remember that it's a game designed to sell plastic models of fictional toy soldier to men between the ages of 13 and 40 who will "battle" each other by rolling cups of dice back and forth. Think about that. IF GW made any changes to the role females play in their game, it would be to attract more men, and would probably not portray women in a light that they would be particularly fond of. (but it would help sales )

Which is not an argument for the status quo.

En Excelsis wrote:This comes back around to that false sense of entitlement I mentioned earlier. I don't recall a single woman complaining that she was given preferential treatment. I don't think any of them bothered to rally behind the men who were clearly being forced to wait longer for help "just because they were men". They happily took the special favors that helped them move along more quickly.
Now, given my social insight to the people I live and work with every day... I can promise you that many of those same women, if they even caught the scent of "sexism" in the office, would literally single a flag and rally behind to defend their gender from "inequality".

And what does that have to do with gender?

You're not trying to propagate the idea that it is a "female thing" to readily accept benefits yet complain about perceived injustice, do you? Because I assure you, there are many men (even on this very forum) who have voiced their dissatisfaction regarding things like positive discrimination or some courts' autmatic preference for mothers when it comes to child custody, just like there are many men who are quite happy with the continueing (but slowly declining) advantage they have in other sectors of social life and business (also voiced on this very forum).
If you do not recognise that this is a -human- thing, I guess you're really just biased.

En Excelsis wrote:As it pertains to 40k, I think that the current amount of "sexism" is perfecting fitting given the setting, the characters, and the fact that it's a work of fiction.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the Imperium as written in GW's material is not sexist, regardless of how much you would like that to be. It's rather that the current range of miniatures as well as the frequency in fluff do not represent the society well, by omitting the women that the books have already said should be there.

"On the most war-torn planets, the entire population is destined for a military life; the recruiting and birth rates are synonymous."
- 6E Rulebook p.148

The most obvious example of the above would be the Cadians, also the current "default" IG regiment, yet made up entirely of male soldiers if you go by the box.
It is an oddity and inconsistency between how the setting is described in the fiction, and how it is then represented by its miniatures and rules.

En Excelsis wrote:
in my fantasy I can be as misogynistic I damn well please, and since it's a freakin' fantasy, not a soul out there has a right to complain.

Of course people have a right to complain. "But it's just my fantasy" isn't an absolute defense. Imagine if GW decided to release an army composed of a white HQ and a bunch of black slaves to use as human wave attacks and meatshields (complete with chains and a white "sergeant" in every unit). Would this be offensive? Would people have a right to complain? Of course they would.

And no, your fantasy isn't as bad as that extreme example. But it does have consequences. Don't forget that women might want to play the game too, and by insisting on your "fantasy" you push them away from it.

Also remember that it's a game designed to sell plastic models of fictional toy soldier to men between the ages of 13 and 40 who will "battle" each other by rolling cups of dice back and forth. Think about that. IF GW made any changes to the role females play in their game, it would be to attract more men, and would probably not portray women in a light that they would be particularly fond of. (but it would help sales )

GW's insane marketing decisions and complete refusal to consider any other audience is not justification. A sensible company would understand that women are also a potential market and take appropriate action.

 Melissia wrote:
Which is not an argument for the status quo.

I suppose not.

But think of it like this: If 40k were your brain child, and you had envisioned it the way it currently is. Does it even matter that a few peeps would like to see a few more female models?

Hell why stop there. Why not make two versions of every model. One male and one female. That way everyone can arrange their armies in whatever combination of genders they like. The time-tempered concept of supply vs demand be damned right?

 ragingmunkyz wrote:


You want to know what the real problem with the internet is?

It gives uninformed bigots a place to spread their nonsense.

Anyways, back to relevant 40k discussions!

Gosh I forgot what a wonderful and decent place the internet is. I must have missed the memo that went out saying how it's suddenly home to such enlightened fellows as yourself who resolve every conflict of interests by resorting to name-calling. You'll have to pardon my ignorance oh great historically enlightened one.

Honestly... did you just Wikipedia random events involving women and then list them off as though there were all the start of some sort of over-arcing movement? wow... I bow to your superior understanding of history.

Since I am apparently a sexist bigot anyway though, I may as well turn it around on you.

If this topic is really just about how GW should throw the ladies a bone and cast a few new models so they can "fem" up their armies a bit. How do you honestly think that the real world population of females would respond? Does having a few more female models suddenly make the game better? And do the currently existing female models in ANY way embody a sense of gender equality? You'd be literally mad to think so.

Take Lilith Hesperax for example. She's an almost entirely naked elf woman of unrealistic proportions bouncing around a battlefield of oddly modest IG, SM, Tau, and even Eldar.

The female models that currently exist in the game are not marketed towards women in search of gender equality in table top games. They're marketed to 13 year old boys. Any additional female models they cast will probably also be marketed to the same demographic. So while you're think up new an ingenious ways to accuse me of being sexist and unfair to women, think a little bit first about how adding more half-naked Barbie warriors models to the line up is going to improve anything.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


GW's insane marketing decisions and complete refusal to consider any other audience is not justification. A sensible company would understand that women are also a potential market and take appropriate action.

I would like to think that GW's ultimate goal is to make money. And like most companies, they have a shark-like nose for it. If there were money to be made from doing something, they would be doing it. As a company I don't think they need more justification than that

En Excelsis wrote:
But think of it like this: If 40k were your brain child, and you had envisioned it the way it currently is. Does it even matter that a few peeps would like to see a few more female models?

Good question. Is it better to sell more models or to exclude potential customers and sell fewer models?

Hell why stop there. Why not make two versions of every model. One male and one female. That way everyone can arrange their armies in whatever combination of genders they like. The time-tempered concept of supply vs demand be damned right?

Nice straw man. Nobody is arguing for perfect 50/50 equality with every single model having male and female versions. Now can we limit the conversation to the reasonable proposals people actually do suggest?

Does having a few more female models suddenly make the game better?

Sure it does. The fact that it doesn't necessarily make it better enough to offset finecast/insane prices/mistreatment of independent retailers/etc doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an improvement.

And do the currently existing female models in ANY way embody a sense of gender equality?

You realize that's part of the problem, right?

The female models that currently exist in the game are not marketed towards women in search of gender equality in table top games. They're marketed to 13 year old boys. Any additional female models they cast will probably also be marketed to the same demographic. So while you're think up new an ingenious ways to accuse me of being sexist and unfair to women, think a little bit first about how adding more half-naked Barbie warriors models to the line up is going to improve anything.

Yeah, this makes complete sense.

GW wants to add female figures to make the game more appealing to women --> GW completely forgets about women and instead asks what 13 year old boys want --> GW produces more sexist garbage.

What about how a sensible company would do it?

GW wants to add female figures to make the game more appealing to women --> GW asks what women want --> GW produces reasonable female models.

Luckily for the Imperium, there was a woman to create the technology for the Astronomicon.

En Excelsis wrote:
Equality is almost always used in a legal, or political sense and is incorrectly imposed upon the social setting where it doesn't belong.

WOW.

I don't even know how to respond to that one. I'm trying to imagine what the world would look like if people who thought like this made all the rules, and it's pretty terrifying. You realize that all of those things - legal, political and social - are intrinsically linked, right? Or maybe you just think that women should be able to vote, just so long as they stay in the kitchen. I'm going to quote you a little something, brace your self, its from "history times."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Thats the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Now of course it was poorly applied at the time, as it really meant land-owning white men, but the philosophy with which those words were conceived remains strong. The idea is that equality is so much more than a legal or political notion. Its something which we all fundamentally have a right to. The laws aren't there to impose equality. They're there to protect equality.

En Excelsis wrote:
You'll have to pardon my ignorance oh great historically enlightened one.

Honestly... did you just Wikipedia random events involving women and then list them off as though there were all the start of some sort of over-arcing movement? wow... I bow to your superior understanding of history.

Did I have to wikipedia Seneca Falls? Literally the single most recognizable and historically significant moment in the women's suffrage movement? No. See, I went to this place called a "college," where you can participate in these things called "classes," and there you can learn about a variety of subjects like "History," "Political Science," and "Gender Studies." Maybe if you also took some time to educate yourself you would become a better informed human being and you wouldn't have such incredibly misguided theories on history and civil rights.

It's not like I just randomly showed up and started throwing some facts around, you presented a version of history which literally never happened, and I pointed out how very wrong you were. You got called out, its what happens when you don't know what you're talking about. I love your response though. It essentially sounds like this: "Hey, everybody! Look at this guy! He actually knows stuff! I bet he had to read things! What a loser, amirite!?"

Maybe if you also read, oh I don't know, the first couple of pages in this thread, you would realize that I and several others have already discussed your incredibly clever response on female models. But, boy, oh boy you sure turned it around on me!

En Excelsis wrote:
If this topic is really just about how GW should throw the ladies a bone and cast a few new models so they can "fem" up their armies a bit. How do you honestly think that the real world population of females would respond? Does having a few more female models suddenly make the game better? And do the currently existing female models in ANY way embody a sense of gender equality? You'd be literally mad to think so.

Take Lilith Hesperax for example. She's an almost entirely naked elf woman of unrealistic proportions bouncing around a battlefield of oddly modest IG, SM, Tau, and even Eldar.

The female models that currently exist in the game are not marketed towards women in search of gender equality in table top games. They're marketed to 13 year old boys. Any additional female models they cast will probably also be marketed to the same demographic. So while you're think up new an ingenious ways to accuse me of being sexist and unfair to women, think a little bit first about how adding more half-naked Barbie warriors models to the line up is going to improve anything.

I'll give you the bullet points of the previous discussions, since you haven't even bothered to read anything before responding to a thread because you assumed it was all about how GW was sexist.
- No one is asking them to "fem" up their armies, just make models to represent the women which the fluff says are already in those armies
- I, and several others do think it would make the game better, it would add depth to the game, support the fluff, and give us more fun models to assemble, paint and play with.
- Of the current models, some do and some don't represent gender equality, as covered earlier. Lelith Hesperax's model isn't that bad, DE are supposed to be lean and lithe, and she's also running around amongst other dark eldar men who are shirtless/shoeless/have lots of exposed flesh. Its DE, they aren't modest, it fits.
- We aren't just asking GW to make new female models, we're asking them to make female models that aren't absurdly and unnecessarily sexual.

En Excelsis wrote:
I must have missed the memo that went out saying how it's suddenly home to such enlightened fellows as yourself who resolve every conflict of interests by resorting to name-calling

I don't think it was name calling, in fact I technically didn't even refer to you specifically, though implications may have been made. Either way, it's a true statement. You are uninformed, you've proved it in every post with straw man arguments, wild assumptions, and made up history. You also outright state that you are against social equality, so, yes, I suppose that makes you a bigot.

Please go back under your bridge now.

En Excelsis wrote:
But think of it like this: If 40k were your brain child, and you had envisioned it the way it currently is. Does it even matter that a few peeps would like to see a few more female models?

Yes. Because 40k tabletop having a few more female models would make it more representative of the way it currently is depicted in the fluff. It represents that the Imperial Guard is made up of the masses of humanity, conscripted without care for extenuating circumstances. That the Schola Progenium produces exceptional people regardless of gender, as shown by numerous examples in the lore of female commissars and the like. It shows that the psyker gene doesn't care for gender, just like in the lore-- in fact, some of the most powerful psykers in human history, the most dangerous alpha-plus, were a pair of creepy little girls. It represents that the Eldar are a society where gender is mostly irrelevant save for reproduction. It would represent that the Inquisition takes only those of indomitable will, regardless of background, to defend humanity against threats from within,from without, and from beyond. It would represent in the Tau (even just including more female special characters but NOT making it physically obvious that they are female) that they have an entire caste that is dedicated wholly and utterly to the making of war on land. It would represent in the forces of Chaos that the dedication of cultists, and the insanity of their dedication and belief in their god, is more important than something the chaos gods don't likely even understand or care about in the first place, like gender.

Tell me, did adding new female models to Dark Eldar make that race worse? Hell no, they were some of the most prized models of the new army! The fanbase fething loved it. There's a market out there you know. GW's incompetence doesn't mean that there isn't. And some of us actually give a gak about the lore. You might not, but I certainly do, and I would love to see GW release more models to better represent the massive, and massively interesting, lore that's already there.

Defo be cool to see women guardsmen, like vasquez from aliens. Totally agree with you melissia, only just read ghostmaker as of last night, lelith is freakin badass. Im a bit rusty on lore, but aren't several of the progenoid glands male specific? So no chick marines maybe?

Marines are male-only, but the way GW tried to justify it is lame and unscientific, so I'd really rather not derail; this thread with that discussion

 Melissia wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Trust me

You have not earned that privilege.

So what do you have to do to earn that privilege?

Like, foot massages?

 Melissia wrote:
Marines are male-only, but the way GW tried to justify it is lame and unscientific, so I'd really rather not derail; this thread with that discussion

To be fair the entire 40k setting is pretty unscientific. It is sci-fi after all.

Well it's science fantasy really, but even 40k has things that make sense in scientific terms. Such as the effect lasguns have on people-- when hot enough, a laser would literally superheat body fluids (blood, etc) on the point of impact, creating massive, nasty wounds and NOT cauterizing the wound, creating a wound as nasty as any high caliber rifle or heavy machinegun. So one can easily see such a nasty weapon killing people in one hit, even marines and Orks.

And while boltguns are silly in some regard, there is actually a good reason to have such a weapon design-- even if it's not utilized by the Astartes. Namely, a two-stage weapon like a boltgun could be very accurate over long ranges and have much longer range than a standard bullet (which is why there's rocket-assisted artillery in the real world, often making use of laser guidance and the like to increase accuracy making it almost pinpoint accurate).

I don't play the TT game so i can't say modelwise but there is no shortage of well written female characters.

As far as BL and fluff goes goes, you normally wouldn't be able to tell the gender of characters without the book saying which gender it was.

Ex. Inquisitor Adrastia, Lieutenant Mira, Tona Criid, Patience Kys.

Nobody who dies in the name of the Emporer dies in vain, be they man, woman, or on death worlds children.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

There's already a female Inquisitor in the GK book.

And she doesn't have a model.

Neither do Tyranid Mycetic Spores, and they've been around four times longer.

Is 40K also unacceptably biased against 25-ft high chitinous spore pods?

 Melissia wrote:
Well it's science fantasy really, but even 40k has things that make sense in scientific terms. Such as the effect lasguns have on people-- when hot enough, a laser would literally superheat body fluids (blood, etc) on the point of impact, creating massive, nasty wounds and NOT cauterizing the wound, creating a wound as nasty as any high caliber rifle or heavy machinegun. So one can easily see such a nasty weapon killing people in one hit, even marines and Orks.

And while boltguns are silly in some regard, there is actually a good reason to have such a weapon design-- even if it's not utilized by the Astartes. Namely, a two-stage weapon like a boltgun could be very accurate over long ranges and have much longer range than a standard bullet (which is why there's rocket-assisted artillery in the real world, often making use of laser guidance and the like to increase accuracy making it almost pinpoint accurate).

Sorry just a 13F chiming in, but RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectiles) are horribly inaccurate compared to standard, and the copperhead has been replaced by the Excalibur (GPS guided round) and while the RAP rounds do add a considerable boost to a artillery systems range it also makes it dangerous to fire into a danger close enviroment, carry on.

I've always seen 40K as entirely asexual.

 Miraclefish wrote:

Neither do Tyranid Mycetic Spores, and they've been around four times longer.

Is 40K also unacceptably biased against 25-ft high chitinous spore pods?

Possibly, but because there is only one example of a missing model for a chitinous spore pod it is hard to draw definite conclusions. However, there is a really long list of missing models for females that do exist in the fluff.

I do wish that both females and chitinous spore pods would be better represented in the model range.

Ive read through most of this thread and i have to agree there arent enough female models in 40k. Female guardsmen would be gratefully received by most i think. But having said this i cannot agree with the derision that some of the existing/past sculpts have been given, especially regarding SoB and necromunda Escher.

Earlier someone posted a picture of escher gangers. If you have ever painted these models then you will probably know that the sculpting of these models is good and some specific models are fantastically sculpted. A lot of the flak that they get is due to the overly colourful paint jobs that the 'eavy metal team gave them back in the mid 90's. If you take away the garish colours, and replace them with a more up-to-date scheme of neutrals and realistic colours then these models look great. I know they are still not "normal" as they are very punky looking, but that is a taste issue rather than a sculpt issue. There are far far far worse sculpts than these particularly regarding non-armoured "normal" humans (look at the current Catachan range for instance, they are terrible particularly the plastics). Im currently in the process of amassing an all-female IG ally force for my SoB army using, primarily Escher models, with a smattering of other models such as the missile launcher carrying woman from the Last Chancers and from other manufacturers, such as Copplestone Castings.

One thing that the Escher models and the SoB models suffer from is un-dynamic poses due to the casting restrictions at the time of sculpting. The current SoB models are in general 10-15year old sculpts, the Escher sculpts are even older. The standard SoB models have a great level of detail on them and arent as Fetish-y as people let on. Especially if not given a "leather" look paint job. This said, the repentia models are a definite exception, as well at the mistress repentia. Both of which arent great in my opinion as they lack realistic proportions.

I would like to see IG-females sculpted along the lines of the last chancer missile launcher. See below:


She looks exactly how i would imagine a guardswoman to look. Drab, un-remarkable, tough but obviously a woman. Much like a Vasquez-like figure. I dont see woman in the IG being overtly feminine or standing out from their male counterparts. For authority figures or charcters i see sculpts like the female inquisitor with slightly less crazy hair being a nice place to start. Sophisticated looking but not too over the top (except hair as stated):



I think GW have struggled with sculpting female models in the last few years, especially when you look at the old wych models, but the newest female sculpts are much better (new wych plastics, current inquistor above, Valkia the Bloody), so they can produce the models they just arent for other reasons. If the were to produce current technology plastics/finecast for female guardsmen, characters, cultists, inquisition and maybe Tau, then i believe the models could be very good, but from fluff reasons i cant see very many other areas (i am happy to stand corrected) where female models would fit into the fluff and the current army lists.

Escher models are indeed excellent, and a good starting point for IG soldiers or Chaos cultists.

However, I think the main strength of GWs model range is the the multipart plastic kits, as those allow wide array of customisation and mixing and matching bits, and that is the area where the problem is. There just is no plastic human female models of any sort at all.

The other element, of course, is market forces.

There are very few girls, relatively, who play 40K. Potentially adding more female rank-and-file as well as character models would add some, but would it generate enough sales to counter the cost of additional development, sculpting, mould creation etc?

And would those figures/characters sell to male gamers also? Maybe, sure.

It's a bit chicken and egg, the models aren't there, so the demand isn't. The demand isn't there, so the models aren't.

All said and done, 40K is much more equal and egalitarian than 2K, so I don't feel like it's an issue. When real life catches up and exceeds 40K, then it is.

In books about Space Marines, female characters will always be secondary whether as supporting cast or antagonists. The rest of the 40k franchise can easily support female characters. The trouble is that fans think of the franchise as an alternate universe rather than IP. As a fictional universe, we probably wouldn't go far wrong in assuming that 50% of everyone involved is female. As IP expressed via product, it's closer to 10% of everyone being female. Think of this in terms of Space Marines: In-universe, only an infinetsimal percentage of humans are Space Marines. That number is tremendously over represented in terms of the product line. This is because 40k is basically a game about Space Marines. Whoever they fight with or against is generally a secondary matter, as I said.

The recent exception to this, or so the rumors go, is that IG outsold Marines the year before the DE release. But even if that's true, it doesn't seem to have happened again or to have been supported by GW.

Anyway, the point is that there's really no reason that the product line needs to be representative of the fluff. The fluff is only there in the first place to help market the products. Only with regard to BL are product and fluff genuinely the same thing. Unsurprisingly, this (along with the RPG) is where 40k is its most inclusive.

 Miraclefish wrote:
The other element, of course, is market forces.

There are very few girls, relatively, who play 40K. Potentially adding more female rank-and-file as well as character models would add some, but would it generate enough sales to counter the cost of additional development, sculpting, mould creation etc?

And would those figures/characters sell to male gamers also? Maybe, sure. It's a bit chicken and egg, the models aren't there, so the demand isn't. The demand isn't there, so the models aren't. .

Most of the female models that I have seen on the table top have been fielded by men - often big strapping men - but men I have loads...... make of that what you will!

Those female models that have been produced recently - for instance the Dark Eldar - I think I am right in saying they met with universal aclaim - especially Lelieth. Unlike say the new Space marine flyers, the new demons etc which tend to have as many detractors as supporters

There are plenty of awesome female models in:

Warmachine / Hordes
Malifeux

They don't seem to be suffering or having problems selling them? In fact a very high proportion of their range are female?

I also have no problem with the present SOB / Escher models - I was using my Sisters last night and only narrowly lost................

 Miraclefish wrote:
There are very few girls, relatively, who play 40K. Potentially adding more female rank-and-file as well as character models would add some, but would it generate enough sales to counter the cost of additional development, sculpting, mould creation etc?

More likely than not, yes.

It's not just women that want these models. Female soldier models are quite popular in non-GW lines (look at Infinity for example, and plenty of other places), and there's very little reason to think that 40k would be an exception to this.

I'm just gonna toss out my two bolter shells.

If you don't like the supposed lack of women in the fluff, write your own. My homebrew Space Marines are going to have two Land Raiders named after women and their Fortress built where these women lived. Now, how can Land Raiders be named after women? Easy. They performed an act that inspires Space Marines. I'm going to try and make it a full short story with character development and everything.

Also, look at fluff reasons... SM implants only work with the male physiology. That's not sexism, that's genetics. Orks have no gender, Necrons are skeletal. >.>

Neutralista wrote:
SM implants only work with the male physiology. That's not sexism, that's genetics.

Dude, don't even fething start. The Space Marine implants and physiology/genetics bullgak is anything but scientific.

A brother and sister have closer genetics than two non-familial men do, yet one is supposed to believe that the genetic implants, which are picky based off of genetics, work better on those who are LESS genetically similar than those who are more. Despite the fact that it says otherwise. The Y-gene really doesn't code for much (it's a very tiny gene and basically just codes for male genitalia, and things not related to that are also coded for in the X gene, which the Y gene is derived from), and women use the exact same hormones and the like as men do-- yes, women use testosterone and steroids in their body. In fact, testosterone is more important to a developing female then it is to a developing male, and women who lack it are hit much harder than men who lack it.

There is no science behind limiting Space Marines to male-only for biological reasons. Games Workshop is not staffed by scientists, they don't know what the feth they're talking about. It's a cultural thing amongst the Imperium to have space marine be only men, nothing more. And that's really enough reason. It's the same reason that there's no "male Sisters of Battle"-- the Imperium's culture demands that there be no such thing, so there isn't. Don't try to bring pseudoscience in to the discussion. It just sounds stupid.

Well thats just the way its written. If it bothers you that much then maybe its time to look for another table top wargame. Though it may seem ridiculous to some I highly doubt they will retcon 30 years of canon to make a small minority in the community happy.

Its just the way things are, for better or for worse.

 Thatguy91 wrote:
Well thats just the way its written. If it bothers you that much then maybe its time to look for another table top wargame. Though it may seem ridiculous to some I highly doubt they will retcon 30 years of canon to make a small minority in the community happy.

I never asked for a retcon to make female space marines.

I only stated that GW's reasoning is stupid with a side of stupid. And it is.

 Thatguy91 wrote:
Its just the way things are, for better or for worse.

That argument?

Yeah...

That still continues to fail to be a good argument for the status quo.