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.

So what? Make them stand on their own legs instead of having them exist to be a foil of the main faction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Or we could change it.

I think that is far too simple of answer, What would we change?

Why would we need to change it?

I mean if any one here is familar with design it should be lets dissect the problem first see if it exists and then see how we can solve by research.


Can anyone post any other articles that point to a similar conclusion other than their own biases?

 Ashiraya wrote:
So what? Make them stand on their own legs instead of having them exist to be a foil of the main faction.

It would solve more than a "Female Space marine" band-aid.

But it'd also take more effort on GW's part. And GW putting that much effort in to Sisters is about as likely as China admitting it doesn't own Taiwan.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
They are (or were) supposed to be the Yin to the Astartes' Yang.

I have Codex: Sisters of Battle, from 2nd edition, and the answer is NO. Nope. Not by a long shot. Have you ever given this venerable document a look? It actually almost focuses more on the Ecclesiarchy than on the Sisters. It feature details about the story of Gogue Vandire and Sebastian Thor that were never edited again. It gives us the story of Bucharis and Dolan Chirosius. It gives us a completely different insight of the Imperium, by focusing more on civilian and political matters, and less on “My chapter master is so strong he stand at the door and kill one million orks! Yeah, and my primarch is so strong that he punches a titan warlord to death and then throw it at a space ship to make both explode! BOOM!”.
The Sisters are a reflection of the Ecclesiarchy on the battlefield. If there is a reason for them being all female, it as much more to do with showing how the politics of the Imperium are devious than to contrast marines.

 Melissia wrote:
But it'd also take more effort on GW's part. And GW putting that much effort in to Sisters is about as likely as China admitting it doesn't own Taiwan.

So why don't you guys write some Dakka-official fluff for sisters?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
So what? Make them stand on their own legs instead of having them exist to be a foil of the main faction.

It would solve more than a "Female Space marine" band-aid.

Why not both?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
So what? Make them stand on their own legs instead of having them exist to be a foil of the main faction.

It would solve more than a "Female Space marine" band-aid.

Why not both?

Sexism. It works both ways.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
But it'd also take more effort on GW's part. And GW putting that much effort in to Sisters is about as likely as China admitting it doesn't own Taiwan.

So why don't you guys write some Dakka-official fluff for sisters?

I created an entire new fan-codex for Sisters back in fifth edition. It's still better than anything GW has put out to date.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Sexism. It works both ways.

It mostly works just one way. Regardless, your lazy assertion of "it's sexist against men!" needs substantiation.

 Melissia wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Sexism. It works both ways.

It mostly works just one way. Regardless, your lazy assertion of "it's sexist against men!" needs substantiation.

Of course its a lazy assertion, just like this entire thread. Its all whining and moaning about gak we can't change. Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men. No one is excluded from this. This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable. Eldar and Tau have female models and females in the fluff, its just one faction that doesn't get representation on the table or the fluff, SoB. There is likely a reason why Sisters get no love and it might have something to do with how well they sell. GW only follows a money trail and clearly, SoB doesn't have one or they would have had an updated model line.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Of course its a lazy assertion, just like this entire thread.

People in this thread have put actual efforts in to their discussion, and more thought in to their arguments-- on both sides-- than just a single halfarsed, poorly thought through one-liner.

Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.

 Melissia wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Of course its a lazy assertion, just like this entire thread.

People in this thread have put actual efforts in to their discussion, and more thought in to their arguments-- on both sides-- than just a single halfarsed, poorly thought through one-liner.

Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.

I didn't put a single one liner... That's just what you cherry picked out. Most people would argue everything I said, but alas, this thread has shown we only know how to cherry pick. I bet Dakkadakka could start a Cherry farm with how good we are at cherry picking.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I didn't put a single one liner... That's just what you cherry picked out. Most people would argue everything I said, but alas, this thread has shown we only know how to cherry pick. I bet Dakkadakka could start a Cherry farm with how good we are at cherry picking.

I did argue with what you said.

And I quote (as did you, in case you weren't paying attention):

 Melissia wrote:
Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.

Your entire argument works off of the assumption that GW is perfectly rational. Except GW is made up of human beings, who are, by their very nature, incapable of being perfectly rational.

As recently as one of the horus Heresy novels series this was addressed again and clearly stated that there are no female primarchs and the process does not work on woman. GW has doubled down on this and everyone should just accept their decision. If you feel that a game oppresses you, compared to all the other issues in the world today, I question your priorities.

 Melissia wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I didn't put a single one liner... That's just what you cherry picked out. Most people would argue everything I said, but alas, this thread has shown we only know how to cherry pick. I bet Dakkadakka could start a Cherry farm with how good we are at cherry picking.

I did argue with what you said.

And I quote (as did you, in case you weren't paying attention):

 Melissia wrote:
Asserting ultimate rationality upon GW is not, in and of itself, an assumption that can be proven to be true.

Your entire argument works off of the assumption that GW is perfectly rational. Except GW is made up of human beings, who are, by their very nature, incapable of being perfectly rational.

Games Workshop is a Model Company. Why would I assume they were rational?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.

Yeah, they could. But not holding power is not really going to help them, does it?
To argue that it works both way means that either you are blind, or you are deciding to focus on things that are “possible” rather than things that are actually happening.

"If you don't like it you're obviously feeling oppressed, therefor shut up and go away" is not an effective argument, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Games Workshop is a Model Company. Why would I assume they were rational?

Good question, why do you make that argument if you don't believe in its base assumption?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.

Yeah, they could. But not holding power is not really going to help them, does it?
To argue that it works both way means that either you are blind, or you are deciding to focus on things that are “possible” rather than things that are actually happening.

Our president is a daemon prince of Tzeentch "black." Your argument is invalid

Did I say something about victim mentality? I think I did.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways. Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.

Yeah, they could. But not holding power is not really going to help them, does it?
To argue that it works both way means that either you are blind, or you are deciding to focus on things that are “possible” rather than things that are actually happening.

Could you clarify what you mean here? I'm unclear on what you are referring to in this response.

I mean, it seems to me that everyone can discriminate against everyone, but I don't think that's what you were addressing.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Sexism. It works both ways.

It mostly works just one way. Regardless, your lazy assertion of "it's sexist against men!" needs substantiation.

...Its all whining and moaning about gak we can't change.

It's not very nice to call calm discussion "whining and moaning." Things don't usually change without people talking about them, either.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Sexism, racism, etc, works both ways.

Sexism does not "work both ways." Our culture suffers from ingrained institutional sexism - specifically, it is male-supremacist. It glorifies attributes it sees as masculine, and defines as masculine attributes that it sees as admirable. Conversely, it tends to denigrate attributes that it sees as feminine and assign attributes that it sees as negative to femininity.

Men can suffer from our male supremacist culture too. For example, men who are seen to be insufficiently masculine are looked down upon or even physically assaulted. So are men who exhibit qualities that our culture defines as feminine. This is not a state of affairs intrinsic to existence - we can change it with conscious effort.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Black people can be discriminatory against white people and women can discriminate against men.

Sexism and racism are not really about the isolated prejudices of individuals. They are about broad patterns across society. To use racism as an example, studies have shown that people with, for lack of a better term, non-white-sounding names are evaluated as less competent than their counterparts with white-sounding names. There is no reflection here, because white people predominantly control the wealth in our society - even if an individual black person (say) were to discriminate in an identical way against white people, it would not have the same effect because the institutional power lies with the white person.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
No one is excluded from this. This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.

There are a couple of cool things about representation. We are affected by culture, and we in turn shape culture. By changing culture, we can help change our own attitudes. By including women, we wear away at sexist prejudice, in however small a way.

It's nice to be able to see yourself represented. If you're a white guy, it's probably really easy to take that for granted, because our society is filled with that representation.

It's also nice when you feel like you are included in something. When women encounter things like the space marine or ork fluff, it sends a message that for whatever reason, we are not welcome. For some reason, these things have been written to specifically exclude women from the setting for no apparent reason. It's alienating.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
There is likely a reason why Sisters get no love and it might have something to do with how well they sell. GW only follows a money trail and clearly, SoB doesn't have one or they would have had an updated model line.

"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.

GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.

Did I say something about victim mentality?

oz of the north wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.

GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.

The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.

Yes, you did.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

oz of the north wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.

GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.

The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.

A company has an ethical responsibility to keep it self in business and to keep its employees paid. If they fail at either of those then they won't be a company for much longer. Your statement about that being morally incoherent, makes no sense. If they did not want to redo sisters because they made a statement saying they hate women that is bad. If they dont redo sisters since they never sold well that is fine, and the intelligent and proper way to proceed.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.

Yes, you did.

I did, but we keep looking at where there isn't representation. Its like looking at Imperial Fists and saying there isn't any minorities represented, when the Crimnson Fists are Latino.

oz of the north wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

oz of the north wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.

GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.

The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.

A company has an ethical responsibility to keep it self in business and to keep its employees paid. If they fail at either of those then they won't be a company for much longer. Your statement about that being morally incoherent, makes no sense. If they did not want to redo sisters because they made a statement saying they hate women that is bad. If they dont redo sisters since they never sold well that is fine, and the intelligent and proper way to proceed.

Companies aren't alive. They're groupings of people. People have ethical responsibilities, and I think one of those is to try and make the world a little better in whatever way. Since companies are just groupings of people, they also share this responsibility.

Yes, they do have to work within our society's capitalistic framework to survive, but a cool thing is a lot of inclusivity doesn't actually cost more. It just means keeping it in mind when working on the stories and the models. Hopefully by doing that they'll be able to make a better product that makes people even happier than it does now.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

oz of the north wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

oz of the north wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


"Only follow the money trail" is not good enough. People have a responsibility to act in an ethical way, not just the way that generates the most profit, and it is totally fine for people to hold them to that standard.

GW is only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. They can do what ever they feel, or knows will make them a profit. If sisters do not make a profit, there is no need for them to recast them, and there is nothing unethical about not selling something that does not make you money/ profit.

The only way you can possibly justify that is if you think individual human beings are only responsible for following a money trail, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Corporations aren't anything other than groupings of people. To say they have no ethical responsibility just because they're a social group is morally incoherent.

A company has an ethical responsibility to keep it self in business and to keep its employees paid. If they fail at either of those then they won't be a company for much longer. Your statement about that being morally incoherent, makes no sense. If they did not want to redo sisters because they made a statement saying they hate women that is bad. If they dont redo sisters since they never sold well that is fine, and the intelligent and proper way to proceed.

Companies aren't alive. They're groupings of people. People have ethical responsibilities, and I think one of those is to try and make the world a little better in whatever way. Since companies are just groupings of people, they also share this responsibility.

Yes, they do have to work within our society's capitalistic framework to survive, but a cool thing is a lot of inclusivity doesn't actually cost more. It just means keeping it in mind when working on the stories and the models. Hopefully by doing that they'll be able to make a better product that makes people even happier than it does now.

The company's ethical responsibility is to keep people on the pay roll. Should we lay people off to cover the cost of more models that haven't sold well? Is your personal enjoyment worth more than keeping a family fed?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.

Yes, you did.

I did, but we keep looking at where there isn't representation. Its like looking at Imperial Fists and saying there isn't any minorities represented, when the Crimnson Fists are Latino.

And when you look at the whole product line of 40K, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in 40K is absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are mysoginistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium). I think there is nothing more strange than and more representative of «victim mentality» than a man protesting or victime blaiming a group when his priviledge are critiqued.

epronovost wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
This stupid victim mentality of "Women don't have enough representation!" in Warhammer 40k is laughable.

Yes, you did.

I did, but we keep looking at where there isn't representation. Its like looking at Imperial Fists and saying there isn't any minorities represented, when the Crimnson Fists are Latino.

And when you look at the whole product line of 40K, you realise that women presence amount to tokenism and very, very far from equal (or near equal) representation. Thinking that women are well represented in 40K is absurd and I don't even know why anybody would argue that it is (unless you are mysoginistic enough to consider that women should have no place or very little place in that medium). I think there is nothing more strange than and more representative of «victim mentality» than a man protesting or victime blaiming a group when his priviledge are critiqued.

I thought we could get through this argument without me having to check my privilege. I was wrong.

What is wrong with putting more resources into the fluff of the SoB? Give them some fanfare, get people interested, get people excited for a new model line of SoB. Logic like this doesn't apply for GW.