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.

 Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
How does the birthrate being 50% male and 50% female support the notion that Cadian regiments have an equal gender representation?

I literally said in the post. I pointed out that, on Cadia, the birth rate and recruitment rate for the Cadian IG are synonymous.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked why a synonymous recruitment rate and birthrate implies that their regiments have equal gender representation.

Unless we're too assume that 100% of the Cadian population is enlisted into the Imperial Guard, which I don't think is true.

BlaxicanX wrote:

 Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
How does the birthrate being 50% male and 50% female support the notion that Cadian regiments have an equal gender representation?

I literally said in the post. I pointed out that, on Cadia, the birth rate and recruitment rate for the Cadian IG are synonymous.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked why a synonymous recruitment rate and birthrate implies that their regiments have equal gender representation.

Unless we're too assume that 100% of the Cadian population is enlisted into the Imperial Guard, which I don't think is true.

Given that the amount of population not enlisted probably tallies nicely with the number of AdMech members on the place, it's a moot point. The fact is that the entire Cadian population is militarised.
That's been a part of canon for some time now, and as Melissia points out, even if it wasn't that way before, centuries of Black Crusades have probably cemented the process now.

 Melissia wrote:

guidsgjg wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline

This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.

I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.

Fixed that for you.

Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .

The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.

 Lynata wrote:

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:I think that there should be females in the kits, but they shouldn't obviously be female. By obviously I don't mean overly sexualised like some of the miniatures that are out there.

Like Mr. Morden, I think there should be both. Just like the Catachans are overly "masculinised". And with the Escher-like Xenan regiments in the 3E Guard Codex there's even a GW example.

But if that's referring to the Cadians, then I definitively agree. It's all a matter of what the regiment is supposed to represent!

As for the new Daemonettes ... I really don't think they look androgynous (as in that case they should appeal to both genders) but just ugly. Of course this boils down to perception and preferences, but in my opinion the original minis conveyed the image of Slaaneshi daemons way better than this new "kids-friendly" version.

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree. Didn't really think that out. If the army is a human army, and therefore want to retain some ounce of believability that these guys possibly could be fighting, then I don't think having armour covering nothing except for sensitive areas is quite appropriate. For Eldar and Chaos and stuff, it's easier to suspend your disbelief. Sisters, for example, shouldn't be overly sexualised. It should be clear that they're women, but they shouldn't look like they're workers at a gentleman's club. Dark Eldar, on the other hand, are a different matter altoghther.

guidsgjg wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

guidsgjg wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline

This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.

I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.

Fixed that for you.

Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .

The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.

The vast majority of men can't pass the physical requirements of the military, either. Though, to be blunt, there are no physical requirements for being an infantryman that a man can meet that a woman cannot. Its not about upper body-strength, it's not about how much you can bench, because none of that plays any significant role in modern combat (interestingly enough, it *does* play a role in a mechanics MOS, as you're lifting tires, wheels, engines, etc into place, and women can most certainly be mechanics). For the things we expect, and require, of the infantry, that being the ability to walk from Points A to B under load in foreign lands, meet interesting people and then kill them... women are perfectly suited for this. In fact, they're *better* at this than men are, because their body-strength is proportionately greater in their legs and they retain water better, not to mention that, all else being equal, they have greater margins of endurance.

 Psienesis wrote:

guidsgjg wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

guidsgjg wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline

This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.

I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.

Fixed that for you.

Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .

The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.

The vast majority of men can't pass the physical requirements of the military, either. Though, to be blunt, there are no physical requirements for being an infantryman that a man can meet that a woman cannot. Its not about upper body-strength, it's not about how much you can bench, because none of that plays any significant role in modern combat (interestingly enough, it *does* play a role in a mechanics MOS, as you're lifting tires, wheels, engines, etc into place, and women can most certainly be mechanics). For the things we expect, and require, of the infantry, that being the ability to walk from Points A to B under load in foreign lands, meet interesting people and then kill them... women are perfectly suited for this. In fact, they're *better* at this than men are, because their body-strength is proportionately greater in their legs and they retain water better, not to mention that, all else being equal, they have greater margins of endurance.

But what happens when one of the male 22 stone lardies(who the military apparently don't mind employing in front-line roles) gets a boo-boo and those poor wee girls have to shoulder carry him for 200 miles over mountainous terrain while simultaneously fighting off the entire Taliban?

Oh, and guidsgjg, you should really take a holiday to the UK some time and watch some women's rugby, those ladies are more terrifying than just about every bloke I know, including the ones in the army. I've seen them head on body-tackle a male tight-prop going full tilt for the try line and knock him flat on his backside. Which is what people mean when they talk about it being a cultural issue; the UK has women's rugby, which is the same game played by guys and even sometimes against guys(that there is a distinction at all is still something that needs work of course), while the US has the Lingerie Football League.

They should allow only females to be front line combatants. Because they're lighter than blokes they're easier to carry to safety if they get injured! (Guys can be medics, though.)

Sure, women have greater proportional leg strength, and scientifically are more well suited to endurance tasks. The key word being proportional. Give a man and a woman the same weight load and the men are still going to outperform the women 8/10 times simply because their bodies are stronger. Contrary to your post the modern infantry's physical rigours are no longer "march from point A to point B under load". Realistically, modern combat is more akin to a 400m sprint than a marathon. Gone are the days of forced marches covering hundreds of miles, its all about rushing from cover to cover, under heavy load and negotiating battlefield obstacles. Take an average man and an average woman, you load them down with UBL (unit basic load) of ammunition and water, and add on the weight of their OTV. Do you honestly believe that is most (not all) cases, a woman will physically perform the same as a man under similar loads and physical stressors? I'm not saying combat service is all about how much you can bench or mass upper body strength, and you are correct 88M and other similar mechanic based MOS's often have to perform greater feats of strength than your standard infantry or scout, but rarely under the same combat conditions as these front line troops. I have witnessed first hand the issue that arises when an above average physically fit woman attempts to medevac a below averaged sized male soldier in full kit. This female was a top performer, and was a huge asset as an augmentee to my platoon and I had no reservations about her accompanying us on missions, but the simple fact remained that when an IED struck a vehicle in my convoy, she was unable to evacuate an incapacitated soldier from the burning wreckage. Platoon SOP (standard operating procedure) was that a struck vehicles crew and wingman would perform medevac while the rest of the platoon provides suppressive fire and actions on the enemy. BC she was physically incapable of medevacing the below averaged sized soldier (he was only about 145lbs), I had to dedicated valuable combat power to replace her for MEDEVAC operations. Everything worked out in the end with no loss of life, but had the situation been worse than it was this could have potentially lead to unnecessary loss of life.
I have worked with women in combat, and I am not saying they do not deserve to serve in that role or are uncapable of it. I am merely speaking to averages in the difference in physical capabilities between the genders. As to the asertion that most men can't pass military physical requirements either, are you referring to men on active duty or the united states populace as a whole? Within the military, speaking from a line unit perspective, men who can't pass the standards do not stay on the line for long. Low physical performers are typically concentrated in the combat service support MOS's. As to the US population as a whole, less than 2% of the American population are even ELIGIBLE to serve (based off of more than just physical discriminators, but physical fitness certainly makes up the majority of the restriction). When we specifically target the age groups (17-24) looked at for initial entry into service , of the 32million people in this age category according the US Census, only 4.3 million are fully qualifed without waiver for service (13%). With waivers for things such as asthma and other minor medical issues the number increases to 6.6 million (20%). So your assertion that most men (at least american men) can't pass the requirements is correct when viewed from outside of the active military service.
Numbers aside, my argument still boils down to the fact that a man and a woman are not physically equal in a combat environment, and the women who are capable of meeting these challenges are few and far between. Keeping with the OP's question, I was attempting to state a case for WHY there aren't more women represented in combat roles based off of an analysis on modern militaries and human evolution.

guidsgjg wrote:
[snip]

Even if you DO have combat experience... and let me be the first to remind you that many, many people lie about this to sound cool and win arguments over the internet... a single person's unproven, undocumented, and heavily biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence.

I should remind you that people were saying the exact same thing about homosexuals and African-Americans as well (and in some cases, many people still DO).

@yodhrin
I have visited the UK plenty of times, my wife is actually from Aberdeen and we head back to visit often. Yes, you have women rugby players who can physically outperform most males. If you read my argument more carefully you will see that I say these women do exist, but they are the exception to the rule, not the standard. I'm speaking on the grounds of averages, and I am in no way saying women should be precluded from combat service. And what happens when the huge guys get injured and have to get humped across mountainous terrain? 1. we are talking a matter of hundreds of meters, not thousands of kilometers. In no modern combat environment are you required to manually evacuate a casualty that far, there is always the ability of medevac choppers, ground FLA's or other means of evacuation. The issue is in immediate enemy contact, you must have the physical strength and anaerobic fitness for burst exercise to lift and or drag quickly a casualty to a safe and defensible location while continuing to engage the enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

guidsgjg wrote:
[snip]

Even if you DO have combat experience... and let me be the first to remind you that many, many people lie about this to sound cool and win arguments over the internet... a single person's unproven, undocumented, and heavily biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence.

I should remind you that people were saying the exact same thing about homosexuals and African-Americans as well (and in some cases, many people still DO).

I can assure you I do, and I have enough integrity not to lie about it over the internet. I am a west point graduate and an armor officer in the US army (currently a Captain awaiting command). That may not mean much to you, but for those who know anything about my profession integrity is key. You may think my unproven, undocumented, and biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence, but I would counter that my first hand experience gives me much more insight and perspective on the matter than someone who has never seen combat or served in the military. Yes the same things were said about homosexuals and african americans, but I am not slowed and recognize there are no physical capability differences between sexual orientation and race. It is a biological fact that women and men are not physically the same, which is what my argument is predicated on.

Round and round we go.

BTDT says no, physical capability isn't the same outside of wishful thinking. Armchair commandos say BTDT have no idea what they're talking about, women can run marathons.

None of it has any bearing on plastic space mens.

 Seaward wrote:
Armchair commandos

I'm not being an armchair general. I'm asking for scientific evidence of his claims. Also you ignored the actual meat of the argument to focus on a tangent, but that's normal for you so eh.

 Seaward wrote:
None of it has any bearing on plastic space mens.

I don't disagree on the idea that the supposed "facts" are irrelevant to 40k's lore, either. According to certain people in this thread, it does, however, qualify as a reason to exclude women from the hobby.

 Seaward wrote:
Round and round we go.

BTDT says no, physical capability isn't the same outside of wishful thinking. Armchair commandos say BTDT have no idea what they're talking about, women can run marathons.

None of it has any bearing on plastic space mens.

Seaward, absolutely right, I have strayed way off topic and I apologize. /rant off

Why are we arguing this? It is pretty damn self evident that larger percentage of men than of women are fit to front-line military duty. And we all agree that those women who are fit, should be able to serve, both in RL and in 40K.

guidsgjg wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Round and round we go.

BTDT says no, physical capability isn't the same outside of wishful thinking. Armchair commandos say BTDT have no idea what they're talking about, women can run marathons.

None of it has any bearing on plastic space mens.

Seaward, absolutely right, I have strayed way off topic and I apologize. /rant off

Well, to be fair, it's not like you started it. I wouldn't worry about it. My experience meshes with yours, for what it's worth.

@Crimson,
Agree 100%, thats all I was trying to get at based off of personal experience.
@Seaward
Not worried about it, just acknowledging i got long winded and off OP's topic, felt bad about it

guidsgjg wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

guidsgjg wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline

This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.

I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.

Fixed that for you.

Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .

The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.

I know a few soldiers and none of them can run carrying three hundred pounds, maybe one of them can carry 300lbs but he's disturbingly ripped - those kinds of weights are a bit out there for anyone, regardless of gender. Also have you ever ran a 800m without stopping? Its a long bloody way. With modern mechanized warfare if you have to run literally half a mile with a wounded guy on your back, then your medivac needs improvement.

800 Meters while carrying 300lbs is special forces stuff, just saying.

@Mad_Eddy_13

Yes I have run 800m, with a 262 lbs soldier (thats before his gear is factored in, but i stripped him of everthing but his OTV, so roughly 300lbs). It is indeed a long bloody way, and I felt like puking after I did it, but 300lbs really isnt as uncommon as you'd think. The main gun on a M3A3 bradley (standard scout vehicle) is 242 lbs, and we have to be able to manhandle that behemoth around quite often, just not in combat conditions admittedly. And you are right, modern mech warfare eliminates most situations where you would have to medevac this far, but as cavalry I often have dismounted observation posts seperated anywhere from 1k to 2km away from the nearest vehicle position in screen line conditions. Having to hump 300lbs over 800m is actually more common in a scout capacity than you would think. But that is only one specific combat MOS, as a whole your argument is correct.

 mad_eddy_13 wrote:

guidsgjg wrote:

I know a few soldiers and none of them can run carrying three hundred pounds, maybe one of them can carry 300lbs but he's disturbingly ripped - those kinds of weights are a bit out there for anyone, regardless of gender. Also have you ever ran a 800m without stopping? Its a long bloody way. With modern mechanized warfare if you have to run literally half a mile with a wounded guy on your back, then your medivac needs improvement.

800 Meters while carrying 300lbs is special forces stuff, just saying.

Run, carrying 300 lbs. Doubtful. Maybe slog along slowly... but there shall be no running.

As for running 800 meters being hard... it's not unless you're trying to dead sprint it. But, if you're in good shape, you can maintain a good pace for 600-700m, an have enough left for a sprint out of the last 100-200m.

@traejun
Dead sprint obviously not, slow jog is entirely possible and expected

Ah great, we're getting in to "internet tough guy" territory. Let's go back to talking about 40k instead.

Ultimately, it boils down to this for me, as far as the Imperium is concerned:

There are roughly 1 million worlds in the Imperium. The majority of these worlds are responsible for some sort of tithe to the Imperium, of which most will be required to tithe a percentage of their population for the Imperial Guard.

Some worlds, such as Vostroya, will have traditions that preclude female soldiers (or perhaps not, the First Born are just one regiment from Planet Russia we read about, they may have less-illustrious regiments that are mixed-gender). Other worlds are simply going to meet their tithe requirements in the easiest way possible: mixed-gender units. Hive Worlds, especially, breed far too quickly for a mixed-gender unit to have any appreciable effect on its population. It's not like the tithe ships arrive on a yearly basis (in most cases) anyway.

The Munitorum does not give much of a feth about the relative quality of the IG, only that the regiments provided by a world meet a minimum standard. Whether they are highly-trained drop-troopers or cannibalistic feral tribesmen who dress in the skins of bears and carry a serrated bone axe alongside their standard-issue lasgun is irrelevant to the Munitorum. It's a numbers game to them. They predict they need three-point-two-eight-five million soldiers to successfully prosecute this crusade, they don't care if those soldiers have a pair of X chromosomes or a Y chromosome.

The Munitorum is not expecting every regiment to perform to Cadian standards (which is why Cadia is often depicted as the best of the IG's best). A standard, non-famous-world infantry regiment is going to be, well, pretty lackluster in the setting, compared to forces like the Tanith First-and-Only, the Catachans, the Cadians, the Death Korps, the Firstborn, etc. They get the job done, some people die, some people don't, and on a bad day they get entirely slaughtered. Such is life in the Guard.

So if you have an IG army from one of those worlds that is specifically mentioned as being male-only, then, sure, you have male-only figs on the tabletop. However, because this is an Imperium of a Million Worlds, why are we not given the option, really, to field an entirely-female IG force? The Xenan unit doesn't count, to me, really, as they look like a Hive gang, not a military unit, but I digress. Why are we not given the option to field a mixed-gender regiment?

The way I figure it, the Munitorum probably actually do assign each regiment a 'points cost' and use that to determine where to focus resources.

"Oh, that feral world regiment... Well, they're armed with clubs, so 1 feral regiment will be 30000 men. That Mordian regiment there, they're made up of 5000 men.... Hmm, invasion against the Tyranids on Planet P, we need 50 regiments."

Of course, the question is, is granularity enough that they pay attention to ratios of 'tank regiments' 'infantry regiments' or 'artillery regiments' or is it just a random pot.

Back on topic, I can imagine that every native Cadia is serving Imperial Guard personnel, however combat squad wise, there is a notably greater proportion of male Cadians in the squad, but still a statistically significant portion of female personnel... Such as Lieutenant Mira.

However the not direct combat troops will have the greater proportion of females, an offhand example. - Aren't Guard personnel mostly responsible for intelligence gathering / management on a sub-continental scale, with other sections of the Imperium (mechanicus & navy) focusing on the planetary scale?

I think there's enough leeway to explain everything and still, for example, allow there to be female guard figures in the same ratio as there are female guardians in the eldar troops set.

 Psienesis wrote:
(or perhaps not, the First Born are just one regiment from Planet Russia we read about, they may have less-illustrious regiments that are mixed-gender).

Depends. FFG has depicted Vostroya as "firstborn" rather than "firstborn sons", and depicted a female Vostroyan Firstborn.

Though a few people had nerd-rage over this, I'm much more ambivalent about it-- I just don't like their aesthetics anyway.

 Psienesis wrote:
It's not like the tithe ships arrive on a yearly basis (in most cases) anyway.

Even if they did, when you have a trillion people, even a 0.5% growth rate (which is astonishingly low) would mean five billion people are born each year taht could be tithed while maintaining a stable population.

That would mean in two years, a hive city of 1 billion could tithe more than the current population of Earth even at a pitiful growth rate, and still maintain its population.

 Psienesis wrote:
So if you have an IG army from one of those worlds that is specifically mentioned as being male-only, then, sure, you have male-only figs on the tabletop. However, because this is an Imperium of a Million Worlds, why are we not given the option, really, to field an entirely-female IG force? The Xenan unit doesn't count, to me, really, as they look like a Hive gang, not a military unit, but I digress. Why are we not given the option to field a mixed-gender regiment?

There's Valhallan male-only regiments, female-only regiments, and the occasional mixed-gender regiment as well.

But only male Valhallan infantry models.

The model range is utterly pitiful compared to the lore.

 Melissia wrote:


The model range is utterly pitiful compared to the lore.

A shame really. If there were 3rd party models available to fill the gap, it'd be fine, but we have to rely on Games Workshop, who aren't really concentrating on the Imperial Guard at the moment.

guidsgjg wrote:
@Mad_Eddy_13

Yes I have run 800m, with a 262 lbs soldier (thats before his gear is factored in, but i stripped him of everthing but his OTV, so roughly 300lbs).

I worked for the army as a civilian in the states and in Afghanistan and I must say that I dont believe that the majority of the soldiers I saw or knew, even the ones that were fanatical about PT could literally run 800 M carrying someone that weighed 262 pounds. Also your hyperbole in another post about carrying someone 200 miles while fending off the Taliban is so off the scale it weakens your credibility. Any woman would have been smart enough to call a helicopter/medevac.

Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.

JWhex wrote:
Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.

Passing Kidney stones would be an arguable male comparison.

And while I'm all for equal gender representation for IG models, I'm afraid I have to point out the fact that women's bodys being built for pregnancy actually does make them ever so slightly weaker, (Wider hips, body is designed to keep more fat then muscle, however, I'd like to point out that these differences are rather small) rather then tougher. It is, however, way within the margin of men's strength, so it's practically negligible, despite the exaggerations that others have made.

Really, all these discussions are moot. The fluff for Krieg outright states that a substitute for natural pregnancy is used for high tithe requirement worlds, and women are conscripted into the IG, possibly almost as much, if not as much as men. The amount relative to men, and their combat efficiency compared to men are irrelevant. Canon states that they exist. There's no point in arguing.

 IcarusDA wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


The model range is utterly pitiful compared to the lore.

A shame really. If there were 3rd party models available to fill the gap, it'd be fine, but we have to rely on Games Workshop, who aren't really concentrating on the Imperial Guard at the moment.

I can't tell if this is a joke pointing out that there are plenty of 3rd party Guard options (though comparatively few female ones), or if you're serious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IcarusDA wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.

Passing Kidney stones would be an arguable male comparison.

And while I'm all for equal gender representation for IG models, I'm afraid I have to point out the fact that women's bodys being built for pregnancy actually does make them ever so slightly weaker, (Wider hips, body is designed to keep more fat then muscle, however, I'd like to point out that these differences are rather small) rather then tougher. It is, however, way within the margin of men's strength, so it's practically negligible, despite the exaggerations that others have made.

Really, all these discussions are moot. The fluff for Krieg outright states that a substitute for natural pregnancy is used for high tithe requirement worlds, and women are conscripted into the IG, possibly almost as much, if not as much as men. The amount relative to men, and their combat efficiency compared to men are irrelevant. Canon states that they exist. There's no point in arguing.

Kreig (yes, they intentionally misspelled "Krieg" when naming the planet) has the birthrate suplemented with Vitae Wombs, it doesn't rely solely upon it. So far as I know, there is no canon that involves female members of the Death Korps (though Only War allows you to play as one), though I can't recall if they've ever been explicitly stated not to contain female soldiers.

The Vitae Womb entry does not state that it's a supplement. In fact, the vitae womb has less then a sentence of description behind it.

Krieg Entry in the Warhammer 40k wiki under "Engine of War wrote:This has resulted in suspect practises being tolerated -- some, such as the eugenic policies designed to weed out mutations caused by Krieg's damaged, radioactive biosphere and universal conscription are continuations of policies once required during Krieg's centuries of civil war. It should be noted that Krieg raises an unusually large number of Imperial Guard regiments for such a devastated planet. This is attributed to the enforced use of the "Vitae Womb" birthing technique, which Krieg has been granted special dispensation to use as the result of their famous steel, determination and unswerving loyalty to the Emperor.

I've bolded my next point. The codex information clearly states Universal conscription, which both supports the theory that the Vitae Womb is indeed the main source of reproduction on the planet. However, this is an irrelevant fact in the grand scheme of things. Even if there were only 1% of females in the Guardsmen, they have a unique enough physical appearance to warrant more official models. A useful analogy would be the SM Dreadnought. They are exceptionally rare, and very few Astartes manage to become one, however, it is unique enough that it's rarity can be looked past to add diversity to both the game, and the army itself.

Ah great, we're getting in to "internet tough guy" territory. Let's go back to talking about 40k instead.

This sorta stuff brings back so many childhood memories of my granddad drinking.