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.

I'm not arguing. I'm merely stating my opinion. I would love to have some female models in my armies, it would really add some flavor but unfortunately we have to do without.

Just because people aren't with you doesn't mean they are against you. If you honestly want to make a difference and try to make a change then I doubt arguing on an online forum is the right way to go about it.

 Thatguy91 wrote:
I'm not arguing. I'm merely stating my opinion. I would love to have some female models in my armies, it would really add some flavor but unfortunately we have to do without.

Just because people aren't with you doesn't mean they are against you. If you honestly want to make a difference and try to make a change then I doubt arguing on an online forum is the right way to go about it.

I send GW emails and the like. But they don't pay attention to fans, and they don't DO market research.

Still despite this, the more it is talked about, the more likely someone in GW will take notice. Therefor it gets talked about. And it will continue to get talked about.

 Melissia wrote:

Still despite this, the more it is talked about, the more likely someone in GW will take notice. Therefor it gets talked about. And it will continue to get talked about.

This is true. Unfortunately the only time GW seem to change anything in the fluff is when they get a writer with the balls to make changes and as we have come to realize that isn't always a good thing.. *Cough* Matt Ward *Cough*

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

Sooner or later you will tire of your own argument. The status quo as you are clearly very fond of saying, is not in need of justification. If you do not like it... too bad? GW is not forcing you to purchase their models or gather with friends at your FLGS. If you do that at all it's because you enjoy it. If you stop enjoying it, stop doing it. YOU are responsible for the status quo, not GW.

Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.

 Mr Morden wrote:


There are plenty of awesome female models in:

Warmachine / Hordes
Malifeux

I wouldn't go that far. I do applaud PP for it's better-than-average inclusion of women in the setting, in both leadership and non-leadership roles. I also love the general artistic direction of the game as well. However I find the number of female models they have that I would really call "Awesome" is somewhat limited. PP seriously has an issue with Boob-Plate, Combat Heels & Inability to wear armor that covers the vitals. There is maybe 1/5 female miniatures that does not have at least one of these issues.

Sometimes If something like eDenny is trying lampshape it (she got cut in half RIGHT across the area where her armor didn't cover her midriff), but that's probably giving them too much credit. It really wouldn't excuse some of the more eye-rolling stuff they have.

I mean they've got a handful of female sculpts I really like - The Female Gunmage comes to mind. However PP is certainly far from perfection though given they've got a whole "Elf Cleavage" faction.

I can similarly Applaud malifaux for the inclusion of women, but still question some design choices. Like when they have those undead hunters that all take on a ghoulish appearance as a result of their trade, except for the female character she's a hotty in super-tight low-cut pants and t-shirt a size too small.

Of course, if you're the kind of person who doesn't mind combat heels, boob-plate or the like the ranges are a godsend.

En Excelsis wrote:
Sooner or later you will tire of your own argument.

I've been making this argument for close to ten years. Ain't gotten tired of it yet, buddy-boy.

En Excelsis wrote:
The status quo as you are clearly very fond of saying, is not in need of justification.

Yes, it is. It is logically fallacious to say that "things are the way they are and therefor they should stay this way." The status quo is not a logically sound justification for the continuation of the status quo, it never has been and it never will be.

En Excelsis wrote:

Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.

I'm pretty damn sure that it is not only women who wish there were more female models.

The only people tired of the argument, are those who don't understand it. It's a tireless argument to be had, because those who argue against it are part of an inexhaustible system of ignorance.

 Crimson wrote:

En Excelsis wrote:

Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.

I'm pretty damn sure that it is not only women who wish there were more female models.

Not just more, but better qualify. Even just looking for minis when I run RPGs is a trial. For every 20 bare-chested pouty-lipped elves I can't even find 1 woman in armor and sensible shoes.

 Melissia wrote:
I only stated that GW's reasoning is stupid with a side of stupid.

All in-universe explanations are horse gak so far as real life reason goes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:
sensible shoes

The number one feature of top selling miniatures.

En Excelsis wrote:


Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.

Uh, what about us men who want female troopers in our IG squads but aren't very good at converting, or don't want an army made of 12 pounds of greenstuff? Or a female Inquisitor without crazy hair? Women in carapace? Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs? Judge Beeny?

Marketing, incidentally, by its very nature, is sexist. This is how we are convinced that all women must love the color pink, because everything made for them is pink. That you are not a "real man" if you are not spending $500 on *these* flowers and *this* bracelet and *this* box of chocolates for her on Valentine's Day, because that is what "real men" do, and don't you want to be a "real man"? That *this* motorized vehicle will compensate for your... performance issues.

Currently, and historically, yes, 40K is a male-dominated game. This has been true in every format that RPGs (and miniature wargaming is most certainly an RPG) have taken in the last 40 years. That, however, has been changing, slowly, in the 21st century. Being a geek, or a nerd, a "gamer", is growing in popularity across the board, but also becoming more socially acceptable, *especially* for women. Various conventions are seeing female attendees, of all ages, in record number. While 40K, specifically, has not seen a sudden, huge influx of female players, they do exist, and they exist in proportionately larger numbers in other wargames. Though this cannot be definitively said to be caused by the better-representation of females on the table-top (I'm not sure if such market research has been done), I'm sure it doesn't hurt (also not hurting is a more streamlined rule-set and less-byzantine structure, but I digress).

I agree with Melissia to the extent that if we don't change it won't change.

I despise all arguements say that if you don't like it then leave or say nothing. That type of logical fallacy obliterates any chance of improvement. The sheer idiocy of the arguement just makes me angry. I know saying that doesn't make me persuasive but I just hate how many people use it and believe it's true. It's not. Things don't change unless you say something. Nothing is perfect. I could have liked Bush but thought Iraq was complete bs. I can like Warhammer but think their books could involve less bolter porn. You can enjoy 40k and want more female models. They are not mututally exclusive!

But I think the marketing factor is legitimate. Chongara mentioned that if you like that stuff then it's good. I'll be the guy to fall on the grenade. I like that stuff. Not neccessarily with models but definitely for the artwork. The recent success of Kingdom Death speaks to that. It absolutely had a lot of stuff going for it but you can tell just from the comments on the kickstarter that the pin-up models and artwork were also a signigicant and positive contribution toward its success. I think 40k gets marks for not sexualizing their content almost at all. The writers and modelers could all be feminist and they could still make the models the way they are so that they sell better. That is probably the biggest, not only, but biggest reason they are how they are.

 Shlazaor wrote:
I agree with Melissia to the extent that if we don't change it won't change.

I despise all arguements say that if you don't like it then leave or say nothing. That type of logical fallacy obliterates any chance of improvement. The sheer idiocy of the arguement just makes me angry. I know saying that doesn't make me persuasive but I just hate how many people use it and believe it's true. It's not. Things don't change unless you say something. Nothing is perfect. I could have liked Bush but thought Iraq was complete bs. I can like Warhammer but think their books could involve less bolter porn. You can enjoy 40k and want more female models. They are not mututally exclusive!

But I think the marketing factor is legitimate. Chongara mentioned that if you like that stuff then it's good. I'll be the guy to fall on the grenade. I like that stuff. Not neccessarily with models but definitely for the artwork. The recent success of Kingdom Death speaks to that. It absolutely had a lot of stuff going for it but you can tell just from the comments on the kickstarter that the pin-up models and artwork were also a signigicant and positive contribution toward its success. I think 40k gets marks for not sexualizing their content almost at all. The writers and modelers could all be feminist and they could still make the models the way they are so that they sell better. That is probably the biggest, not only, but biggest reason they are how they are.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with T&A. Hell even I like it, sometimes, in the proper context. I tend to not think my Wargames are one of them. In all honesty I'd be much less down on the whole cleaving-bearing pouty-lipped elf thing if I could just find like a handful of models that catered to my taste. I mean seriously I'm at the point where I might toss out 2-3x the money I normally pay for miniatures for something well designed, with qualify sculpt.

There is seriously a market for this stuff. "Shut up and take my money" if any of you miniature makers are reading this.

I'd check out Kingdom Death if you want well crafted female models. There is a division between the realistic female armor and the pin-ups so you can get either one you're interested in and then use them for wargaming. For the record I'd love to have female guardsman at the very least but I also wouldn't want to pay more for gakky female guardsmen models so...

Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs?

right here :

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/miniatures/judge-dredd.html?p=11

plus some other useful female figures including citi def

 Psienesis wrote:

En Excelsis wrote:


Like it or not, women are not a large enough part of the wargaming demographic to be catered to by a company whose sole product base is wargaming. It is silly to assume that GW as a company should create a lineup of models marketed toward 5% or less of their potential buyers. I honestly don't think that sexism is a factor, just marketing.

Uh, what about us men who want female troopers in our IG squads but aren't very good at converting, or don't want an army made of 12 pounds of greenstuff? Or a female Inquisitor without crazy hair? Women in carapace? Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs? Judge Beeny?

Marketing, incidentally, by its very nature, is sexist. This is how we are convinced that all women must love the color pink, because everything made for them is pink. That you are not a "real man" if you are not spending $500 on *these* flowers and *this* bracelet and *this* box of chocolates for her on Valentine's Day, because that is what "real men" do, and don't you want to be a "real man"? That *this* motorized vehicle will compensate for your... performance issues.

Currently, and historically, yes, 40K is a male-dominated game. This has been true in every format that RPGs (and miniature wargaming is most certainly an RPG) have taken in the last 40 years. That, however, has been changing, slowly, in the 21st century. Being a geek, or a nerd, a "gamer", is growing in popularity across the board, but also becoming more socially acceptable, *especially* for women. Various conventions are seeing female attendees, of all ages, in record number. While 40K, specifically, has not seen a sudden, huge influx of female players, they do exist, and they exist in proportionately larger numbers in other wargames. Though this cannot be definitively said to be caused by the better-representation of females on the table-top (I'm not sure if such market research has been done), I'm sure it doesn't hurt (also not hurting is a more streamlined rule-set and less-byzantine structure, but I digress).

Marketing is about the most evil thing in the world. If there was one person you could blame for sexism it would be advertisers and marking people.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs?

right here :

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/miniatures/judge-dredd.html?p=11

They even have Inaba:

 Shlazaor wrote:
I'd check out Kingdom Death if you want well crafted female models. There is a division between the realistic female armor and the pin-ups so you can get either one you're interested in and then use them for wargaming. For the record I'd love to have female guardsman at the very least but I also wouldn't want to pay more for gakky female guardsmen models so...

Kingdom death disappointed me when I actually saw some of the armored female models. In the unarmed modes everything is fair because everyone is half naked wearing a torn sheet, but the armor sets have small alterations that make the female armor less practical and more pinup like. Like the phoenix armor has pants on the male legs and no pants on the female legs. Also in the pictures I looked at the female models had kind of weak poses well the male ones had more assertive poses. The poses could have just been how those models where assembled.

Then KD has the pin up. Pin ups are pin ups, so ya.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Where's my Judge Anderson and Judge Hershey Arbiter figs?

right here :

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/miniatures/judge-dredd.html?p=11

plus some other useful female figures including citi def

Yeah, I can get 3rd party figures that support these images and character-looks pretty much all day long. This is kinda the crux of the issue, though. Would GW not rather that I give them my money for my female Arbites, female Guardsmen, female Vindicare Assassins, female characters-of-any-stripe-for-use-in-Dark-Heresy, rather than one of their competitors?

We've been around and around with conversion kits, 3rd party retailers, scratch-building and every other way available to the hobbyist to model their GW Army to match the fluff... but, sometimes, you just don't have the time to kit out 140 female Guardsmen for your 800 model army, know what I'm saying?

Why do you guyseven want female models in the game? The ones we have now look like gak. Even the Dark Eldar ones, which are the best ones GW's ever had, look pretty damn manly.

I don't really know a whole lot about how molding and making the figures works, so I'm not sure if they suck because it's just hard to female figurines, or if it's just lack of effort on GW's part.
To date I've never seen an actually decent looking female model though, even outside of GW. From my experience they tend to look like men with breasts.

BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game?

Because it's more representative of the lore, and the lore is the only reaosn the game doesn't suck ass.

Yes, the principle of it.

The models look so terrible though.

I say the same thing about the male ones, too.

The vehicles are the only thing that don't suck to paint

BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game? The ones we have now look like gak. Even the Dark Eldar ones, which are the best ones GW's ever had, look pretty damn manly.

I don't really know a whole lot about how molding and making the figures works, so I'm not sure if they suck because it's just hard to female figurines, or if it's just lack of effort on GW's part.
To date I've never seen an actually decent looking female model though, even outside of GW. From my experience they tend to look like men with breasts.

Whyy would we not - otherwise I disagree with every part of your statement

That's actually pretty true. The Guardsman models in particular look horrible.

I don't mind certain Space Marine models too much though, and most of the Xenos ones look okay.

 Mr Morden wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do you guyseven want female models in the game? The ones we have now look like gak. Even the Dark Eldar ones, which are the best ones GW's ever had, look pretty damn manly.

I don't really know a whole lot about how molding and making the figures works, so I'm not sure if they suck because it's just hard to female figurines, or if it's just lack of effort on GW's part.
To date I've never seen an actually decent looking female model though, even outside of GW. From my experience they tend to look like men with breasts.

Whyy would we not - otherwise I disagree with every part of your statement

What you said just now doesn't make any sense. You can't say "otherwise I disagree with you" when you didn't agree with anything I said at all.

Baby-steps, man, baby-steps...

Step 1 is to get GW making them in the first place (other companies show that it can be done and done well). Step 2 is to force GW to design them well. Step 3... profit???

BlaxicanX wrote:What you said just now doesn't make any sense. You can't say "otherwise I disagree with you" when you didn't agree with anything I said at all.

I think I get what he means.
The first part of his response was to address your question with a counter-question, thus challenging its validity.
In the second part, he disagreed with all the female minis already existing looking bad - and I have to say, I don't agree with that assessment, either. Some are bad, but some are perfectly alright. Not outstanding, especially when compared to non-GW minis, but certainly alright.

I understood what he said. It was just kind of a silly post so I responded with something silly.

The thing about the status quo, is that its in the majority of 40k players interests to keep it so, just like in other things like business and movies.

Caveat: I'm a white male, and a long way from being a feminist.

The majority of 40k players are male, and the majority subset is white. 40k as is, is designed around that. It's understandable that this group wants to protect their plastic space men, because its human nature to fear change. What I don't understand, is that in a setting that is so culturally diverse, even just within the IoM, there is such a fear of some differently shaped genitalia.

In reality, I think most 40k players would be happy to see more/better female models, but just saying 'it is what it is', doesn't cut the mustard for me. Rewind a hundred years. Black people are used as slaves and oppressed because of the colour of their skin. Would 'it is what it is' be a rational way to think given a 21st century context?

BlaxicanX wrote:
The models look so terrible though.

Lelith's alright, surely.