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.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I couldn't help but notice your signature and you can't tell me that opinion doesn't have at least some roots in your feminist ideology?

It's the other way around. I do not want diversity because I am a feminist, I am a feminist because - among plentiful other reasons - I want diversity.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I don't, surprisingly enough. I know women soldiers exist in both real life and 40k, but it's not as tactically sound as it could be.

So WHAT?

The Imperium does TONS of stuff that's tactically unsound. It's just part of the setting.

The IG's tanks should logically get stuck on the first patch of any terrain that's not 100% solid, yet they keep using them.

The fact that women are less physically strong than men when they're still plenty strong to hold and fire a lasgun and carry their small amounts of equipment, when they're an army that focuses entirely on shooting combat and their main melee tactic is simply the enemy not having the numbers too kill them all is irrelevant, both by itself and in comparison to the massive technical problems the IG should have but somehow doesn't.

Ok.

So there's lore support for why Marines aren't female, and Sisters are a counterpoint to this and also supported by lore.

There are female options for Craftworld and Dark Eldar and Tau.

Tyranids are mostly sexless, but with some essentially female units and one sort of male.

Necrons are asexual, as ostensibly are daemons, who do still have male and female archetypes within the faction.


So this whole thread is basically just calling for a small number of female components to represent the occasional Guardsman?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

So there's lore support for why Marines aren't female, and Sisters are a counterpoint to this and also supported by lore.

There are female options for Craftworld and Dark Eldar and Tau.

Tyranids are mostly sexless, but with some essentially female units and one sort of male.

Necrons are asexual, as are ostensibly are daemons, who do still male and female archetypes within the faction.


So this whole thread is basically just calling for a small number of female components to represent the occasional Guardsman?

Craftworld Eldar do not have a suitable amount of female options. Outside of Banshees, their Phoenix Lady, and 20% of Guardians there are NO female Craftworld Eldar models. Aspect Warriors are not actually segregated by gender, most of them should be roughly half male and half female. The Banshees should have more than half being female, but they should have male options too since there are actually a not-insignficiant number of male Howling Banshees in the lore. Scorpions lean more towards men so they should remain mostly men, but still have some females. There should be female Warlock and Farseer models too.

The IG issue could fairly easily be solved through conversion kits though.

 Pouncey wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I don't, surprisingly enough. I know women soldiers exist in both real life and 40k, but it's not as tactically sound as it could be.

So WHAT?

The Imperium does TONS of stuff that's tactically unsound. It's just part of the setting.

The IG's tanks should logically get stuck on the first patch of any terrain that's not 100% solid, yet they keep using them.

The fact that women are less physically strong than men when they're still plenty strong to hold and fire a lasgun and carry their small amounts of equipment, when they're an army that focuses entirely on shooting combat and their main melee tactic is simply the enemy not having the numbers too kill them all is irrelevant, both by itself and in comparison to the massive technical problems the IG should have but somehow doesn't.

I know that. I'm not refuting that, no need to caps lock, I don't even know why this discussion is going on anymore. We've both met an impasse and I don't see a way to get through it.

40k is an odd setting, to say the least. Where one can make 6 pages of text arguing if fake women would be just as good as killing as fake men in a fake universe.

Now you're just making me get existential.

So, have a good day I guess?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
I don't, surprisingly enough. I know women soldiers exist in both real life and 40k, but it's not as tactically sound as it could be.

So WHAT?

The Imperium does TONS of stuff that's tactically unsound. It's just part of the setting.

The IG's tanks should logically get stuck on the first patch of any terrain that's not 100% solid, yet they keep using them.

The fact that women are less physically strong than men when they're still plenty strong to hold and fire a lasgun and carry their small amounts of equipment, when they're an army that focuses entirely on shooting combat and their main melee tactic is simply the enemy not having the numbers too kill them all is irrelevant, both by itself and in comparison to the massive technical problems the IG should have but somehow doesn't.

I know that. I'm not refuting that, no need to caps lock, I don't even know why this discussion is going on anymore. We've both met an impasse and I don't see a way to get through it.

40k is an odd setting, to say the least. Where one can make 6 pages of text arguing if fake women would be just as good as killing as fake men in a fake universe.

Now you're just making me get existential.

So, have a good day I guess?

Uhh, you're the one who brought that up. Not me. I was perfectly willing to just leave it at "The lore says there are a lot of female IG, so there should be enough female IG miniature options to actually show that."

Also, one of the things I get pissed off about in Internet arguments is people using an argument that they're unwilling to recognize as valid when used against them.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


I'm serious. Look at the research, you can't tell me with a straight face that a woman can do everything a man can. It's literally scientifically disproven. Women weren't in the drift for a reason, not just because muh sexism.

inb4 hurr GI jane!

What does that have to do with 40k? Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter!

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

So there's lore support for why Marines aren't female, and Sisters are a counterpoint to this and also supported by lore.

There are female options for Craftworld and Dark Eldar and Tau.

Tyranids are mostly sexless, but with some essentially female units and one sort of male.

Necrons are asexual, as are ostensibly are daemons, who do still male and female archetypes within the faction.


So this whole thread is basically just calling for a small number of female components to represent the occasional Guardsman?

Craftworld Eldar do not have a suitable amount of female options. Outside of Banshees, their Phoenix Lady, and 20% of Guardians there are NO female Craftworld Eldar models. Aspect Warriors are not actually segregated by gender, most of them should be roughly half male and half female. The Banshees should have more than half being female, but they should have male options too since there are actually a not-insignficiant number of male Howling Banshees in the lore. Scorpions lean more towards men so they should remain mostly men, but still have some females. There should be female Warlock and Farseer models too.

The IG issue could fairly easily be solved through conversion kits though.

But this isn't about your personal line in the sand, there ARE options. If you're not happy with 20% female guardians, buy more bits, or buy extra boxes and just assemble the females. Banshees are almost exclusively female, a male one would be a notable rarity, plus there's the likes of Scorpions, Reapers and Spiders whose armour is heavier and would be hard pushed to represent feminine attributes and Farseers and Warlocks wear masks and are in a dress, the gender is an assumption.

It's not a dress, it's a robe! A wonderful, flowing robe!

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


I'm serious. Look at the research, you can't tell me with a straight face that a woman can do everything a man can. It's literally scientifically disproven. Women weren't in the drift for a reason, not just because muh sexism.

inb4 hurr GI jane!

What does that have to do with 40k? Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter!

People were arguing the equality of men and women in war for 40k, the closest comparison we can get is men and women today, hence the post.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

So there's lore support for why Marines aren't female, and Sisters are a counterpoint to this and also supported by lore.

There are female options for Craftworld and Dark Eldar and Tau.

Tyranids are mostly sexless, but with some essentially female units and one sort of male.

Necrons are asexual, as are ostensibly are daemons, who do still male and female archetypes within the faction.


So this whole thread is basically just calling for a small number of female components to represent the occasional Guardsman?

Craftworld Eldar do not have a suitable amount of female options. Outside of Banshees, their Phoenix Lady, and 20% of Guardians there are NO female Craftworld Eldar models. Aspect Warriors are not actually segregated by gender, most of them should be roughly half male and half female. The Banshees should have more than half being female, but they should have male options too since there are actually a not-insignficiant number of male Howling Banshees in the lore. Scorpions lean more towards men so they should remain mostly men, but still have some females. There should be female Warlock and Farseer models too.

The IG issue could fairly easily be solved through conversion kits though.

But this isn't about your personal line in the sand, there ARE options. If you're not happy with 20% female guardians, buy more bits, or buy extra boxes and just assemble the females. Banshees are almost exclusively female, a male one would be a notable rarity, plus there's the likes of Scorpions, Reapers and Spiders whose armour is heavier and would be hard pushed to represent feminine attributes and Farseers and Warlocks wear masks and are in a dress, the gender is an assumption.

If I want any female Eldar miniatures whatsoever that I and my opponent can agree on as female, my options are limited to:

-Banshees.
-20% of Guardians and buying extra boxes to even approach an even number.

That is all.

IG have female models too. They have a Last Chancer, a female Catachan with a grenade launcher, and a female Commissar.

If I wanted, I could make an IG army where all my infantry with missile launchers, all my grenade launchers, and all my commissars are female.

Yet that is unacceptable.

And so is the situation with Eldar.

Also your argument about the armor being too heavy is silly. I could also play female Space Marines by just building them with helmets and saying they're female, yet no one would actually believe it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


I'm serious. Look at the research, you can't tell me with a straight face that a woman can do everything a man can. It's literally scientifically disproven. Women weren't in the drift for a reason, not just because muh sexism.

inb4 hurr GI jane!

What does that have to do with 40k? Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter!

People were arguing the equality of men and women in war for 40k, the closest comparison we can get is men and women today, hence the post.

You were comparing human warfare in the modern era to 40k Imperial Guard warfare?

Are you daft?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

So there's lore support for why Marines aren't female, and Sisters are a counterpoint to this and also supported by lore.

There are female options for Craftworld and Dark Eldar and Tau.

Tyranids are mostly sexless, but with some essentially female units and one sort of male.

Necrons are asexual, as are ostensibly are daemons, who do still male and female archetypes within the faction.


So this whole thread is basically just calling for a small number of female components to represent the occasional Guardsman?

Craftworld Eldar do not have a suitable amount of female options. Outside of Banshees, their Phoenix Lady, and 20% of Guardians there are NO female Craftworld Eldar models. Aspect Warriors are not actually segregated by gender, most of them should be roughly half male and half female. The Banshees should have more than half being female, but they should have male options too since there are actually a not-insignficiant number of male Howling Banshees in the lore. Scorpions lean more towards men so they should remain mostly men, but still have some females. There should be female Warlock and Farseer models too.

The IG issue could fairly easily be solved through conversion kits though.

But this isn't about your personal line in the sand, there ARE options. If you're not happy with 20% female guardians, buy more bits, or buy extra boxes and just assemble the females. Banshees are almost exclusively female, a male one would be a notable rarity, plus there's the likes of Scorpions, Reapers and Spiders whose armour is heavier and would be hard pushed to represent feminine attributes and Farseers and Warlocks wear masks and are in a dress, the gender is an assumption.

If I want any female Eldar miniatures whatsoever that I and my opponent can agree on as female, my options are limited to:

-Banshees.
-20% of Guardians and buying extra boxes to even approach an even number.

That is all.

IG have female models too. They have a Last Chancer, a female Catachan with a grenade launcher, and a female Commissar.

If I wanted, I could make an IG army where all my infantry with missile launchers, all my grenade launchers, and all my commissars are female.

Yet that is unacceptable.

And so is the situation with Eldar.

Also your argument about the armor being too heavy is silly. I could also play female Space Marines by just building them with helmets and saying they're female, yet no one would actually believe it.

How is that inacceptable? It'd get boring with the same 3 models, but whatever floats your boat... And the only reason people wouldn't believe you is that it is pre-established lore. Not because of the model.

BossJakadakk wrote:
It's not a dress, it's a robe! A wonderful, flowing robe!

You omitted the Eldar keyword of fabulous !

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

So there's lore support for why Marines aren't female, and Sisters are a counterpoint to this and also supported by lore.

There are female options for Craftworld and Dark Eldar and Tau.

Tyranids are mostly sexless, but with some essentially female units and one sort of male.

Necrons are asexual, as are ostensibly are daemons, who do still male and female archetypes within the faction.


So this whole thread is basically just calling for a small number of female components to represent the occasional Guardsman?

Craftworld Eldar do not have a suitable amount of female options. Outside of Banshees, their Phoenix Lady, and 20% of Guardians there are NO female Craftworld Eldar models. Aspect Warriors are not actually segregated by gender, most of them should be roughly half male and half female. The Banshees should have more than half being female, but they should have male options too since there are actually a not-insignficiant number of male Howling Banshees in the lore. Scorpions lean more towards men so they should remain mostly men, but still have some females. There should be female Warlock and Farseer models too.

The IG issue could fairly easily be solved through conversion kits though.

But this isn't about your personal line in the sand, there ARE options. If you're not happy with 20% female guardians, buy more bits, or buy extra boxes and just assemble the females. Banshees are almost exclusively female, a male one would be a notable rarity, plus there's the likes of Scorpions, Reapers and Spiders whose armour is heavier and would be hard pushed to represent feminine attributes and Farseers and Warlocks wear masks and are in a dress, the gender is an assumption.

If I want any female Eldar miniatures whatsoever that I and my opponent can agree on as female, my options are limited to:

-Banshees.
-20% of Guardians and buying extra boxes to even approach an even number.

That is all.

IG have female models too. They have a Last Chancer, a female Catachan with a grenade launcher, and a female Commissar.

If I wanted, I could make an IG army where all my infantry with missile launchers, all my grenade launchers, and all my commissars are female.

Yet that is unacceptable.

And so is the situation with Eldar.

Also your argument about the armor being too heavy is silly. I could also play female Space Marines by just building them with helmets and saying they're female, yet no one would actually believe it.

How is that inacceptable? It'd get boring with the same 3 models, but whatever floats your boat... And the only reason people wouldn't believe you is that it is pre-established lore. Not because of the model.

It's unacceptable because in the lore, Imperial Guard are not limited to having their women be Commissars, rocketeers, and grenade launcher wielders. And Eldar are unacceptable because female Eldar are not limited to being Banshees and a small portion of Guardians.

It's unacceptable because the lore says these armies have lots of women, that those women look different from men, and yet the models are almost all male.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

So there's lore support for why Marines aren't female, and Sisters are a counterpoint to this and also supported by lore.

There are female options for Craftworld and Dark Eldar and Tau.

Tyranids are mostly sexless, but with some essentially female units and one sort of male.

Necrons are asexual, as are ostensibly are daemons, who do still male and female archetypes within the faction.


So this whole thread is basically just calling for a small number of female components to represent the occasional Guardsman?

Craftworld Eldar do not have a suitable amount of female options. Outside of Banshees, their Phoenix Lady, and 20% of Guardians there are NO female Craftworld Eldar models. Aspect Warriors are not actually segregated by gender, most of them should be roughly half male and half female. The Banshees should have more than half being female, but they should have male options too since there are actually a not-insignficiant number of male Howling Banshees in the lore. Scorpions lean more towards men so they should remain mostly men, but still have some females. There should be female Warlock and Farseer models too.

The IG issue could fairly easily be solved through conversion kits though.

But this isn't about your personal line in the sand, there ARE options. If you're not happy with 20% female guardians, buy more bits, or buy extra boxes and just assemble the females. Banshees are almost exclusively female, a male one would be a notable rarity, plus there's the likes of Scorpions, Reapers and Spiders whose armour is heavier and would be hard pushed to represent feminine attributes and Farseers and Warlocks wear masks and are in a dress, the gender is an assumption.

If I want any female Eldar miniatures whatsoever that I and my opponent can agree on as female, my options are limited to:

-Banshees.
-20% of Guardians and buying extra boxes to even approach an even number.

That is all.

IG have female models too. They have a Last Chancer, a female Catachan with a grenade launcher, and a female Commissar.

If I wanted, I could make an IG army where all my infantry with missile launchers, all my grenade launchers, and all my commissars are female.

Yet that is unacceptable.

And so is the situation with Eldar.

Also your argument about the armor being too heavy is silly. I could also play female Space Marines by just building them with helmets and saying they're female, yet no one would actually believe it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


I'm serious. Look at the research, you can't tell me with a straight face that a woman can do everything a man can. It's literally scientifically disproven. Women weren't in the drift for a reason, not just because muh sexism.

inb4 hurr GI jane!

What does that have to do with 40k? Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter!

People were arguing the equality of men and women in war for 40k, the closest comparison we can get is men and women today, hence the post.

You were comparing human warfare in the modern era to 40k Imperial Guard warfare?

Are you daft?

Maybe, but how much do you think physical structure and basic human evolutionary traits have changed in 40k? Probably not much, considering they still speak english, Earth exists they still smoke cigars, etc. (my point is they still keep many traits from today)

What is the difference between a bullet-proof vest for the military today and flak armour for the Guard, the difference between an autogun in 40k and a rifle today? I can tell you, not much.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


I'm serious. Look at the research, you can't tell me with a straight face that a woman can do everything a man can. It's literally scientifically disproven. Women weren't in the drift for a reason, not just because muh sexism.

inb4 hurr GI jane!

What does that have to do with 40k? Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter!

People were arguing the equality of men and women in war for 40k, the closest comparison we can get is men and women today, hence the post.

The closest comparison we can get is the fluff for 40k, wherein women are pretty active in war. It being a science fiction setting completely made up in people's imaginations, comparing it to the real world really doesn't work, especially considering if you were to, you're basically discounting entirely 38,000 years of social growth and medical advancements that could potentially allow women to physically equal men in strength and endurance. Or that somehow men may get weaker, because in the 40k fluff and art they're carrying just as much as their female counterparts. How do you account for that?

It's by nature a fallacy to compare made-up universes to real life, and can not be used as definitive evidence for what *should* happen in a fictional story.

Also, where did you get the info on the draft? I'm genuinely curious, because I wouldn't have thought that at the time of the draft, such science would have been done. Plus, if you didn't know, it would seem women are being added to the draft, I believe starting in 2018. I can't look it up, though, because work blocking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
What is the difference between a bullet-proof vest for the military today and flak armour for the Guard, the difference between an autogun in 40k and a rifle today? I can tell you, not much.

Can you? How do you know they're not just amped up equivalencies given roughly the same power-to-armor difference yet are both actually much stronger in comparison to what we have today? Did you visit the fictional future of the 41st millennium and perform testing?

The same can be said for my argument though, it's a fictional setting and therefore you have no proof that any of that stuff happened either.

And no science needed to be done, put your average man and woman through training, the man will do better.

(not saying women did not contribute, they were huge for the war effort)

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Maybe, but how much do you think physical structure and basic human evolutionary traits have changed in 40k? Probably not much, considering they still speak english, Earth exists they still smoke cigars, etc. (my point is they still keep many traits from today)

What is the difference between a bullet-proof vest for the military today and flak armour for the Guard, the difference between an autogun in 40k and a rifle today? I can tell you, not much.

Considering that in the last 10,000 years human evolution has actually accelerated by a factor of 100, I imagine that after another 38,000 years we will be very different as a species compared to what we are today.

They speak various forms of Gothic, not English. The english in the lore exists solely to provide a translation for the players which we can read, and the accents used serve to denote a tone.

Earth still exists but in 40k is actually almost completely covered in enormous cities and religious structures and monuments.

Smoking tobacco, yeah, they still do that.

The difference is that flak armor actually protects against an autogun and most Imperial Guard use laser weapons called lasguns instead of any sort of projectile weapon. Which eliminate recoil from even being a thing IG infantry have to worry about or compensate for with their weapons since lasers have no mass to cause recoil and their transfer of energy back into the firing weapon would create heat, not kickback.

So, apparently a HELL of a lot will be different.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:


I'm serious. Look at the research, you can't tell me with a straight face that a woman can do everything a man can. It's literally scientifically disproven. Women weren't in the drift for a reason, not just because muh sexism.

inb4 hurr GI jane!

What does that have to do with 40k? Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter!

People were arguing the equality of men and women in war for 40k, the closest comparison we can get is men and women today, hence the post.

The closest comparison we can get is the fluff for 40k, wherein women are pretty active in war. It being a science fiction setting completely made up in people's imaginations, comparing it to the real world really doesn't work, especially considering if you were to, you're basically discounting entirely 38,000 years of social growth and medical advancements that could potentially allow women to physically equal men in strength and endurance. Or that somehow men may get weaker, because in the 40k fluff and art they're carrying just as much as their female counterparts. How do you account for that?

It's by nature a fallacy to compare made-up universes to real life, and can not be used as definitive evidence for what *should* happen in a fictional story.

Also, where did you get the info on the draft? I'm genuinely curious, because I wouldn't have thought that at the time of the draft, such science would have been done. Plus, if you didn't know, it would seem women are being added to the draft, I believe starting in 2018. I can't look it up, though, because work blocking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
What is the difference between a bullet-proof vest for the military today and flak armour for the Guard, the difference between an autogun in 40k and a rifle today? I can tell you, not much.

Can you? How do you know they're not just amped up equivalencies given roughly the same power-to-armor difference yet are both actually much stronger in comparison to what we have today? Did you visit the fictional future of the 41st millennium and perform testing?

Unfortunately, no. However we can assume from the lore that describes both of these they are VERY similar. Autoguns have bullets, magazines, the whole deal. Flak armour has some plate/kevlar equivalent protecting the wearer, however the Imperium and other races have advanced so much Flak can't stop most stuff anymore.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Not that she cannot, there is far too many variables to give it a flat yes or no, but a man will always be stronger than a woman if they both get the same training. Whether it be man or woman, cultist, or guardsmen.

That's assuming there are no inherent differences between individuals. People start with different baselines, and respond physiologically to training differently. This is noted among professional athletic trainers, who will tell you that despite inherent athletic talent, some individuals take to training much more than others, and some people plateau.

The long and short of it is that there are small men, and there are big women. I've met a firewoman who could have picked up my 6'2" self and thrown me. At the same time not all Special Forces guys are 6' up and swoll, there are weedy looking 5'6" dudes who will get the job done. So while it's true that yes, statistically speaking, men are bigger and stronger than women, the variation between individuals leaves plenty of room for capable women to perform as necessary.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
The same can be said for my argument though, it's a fictional setting and therefore you have no proof that any of that stuff happened either.

And yet they have technology that instantly heals wounds. But you're right, so maybe just accept the facts as they are, that in the fluff there are a good number of women soldiers, and that they seemingly pull just as much weight as the men. That's all we have to go off of, and that's what the people that were arguing with you were using as their evidence. Take away what you and I propose we take away, and they still have an argument, while you do not.

And no science needed to be done, put your average man and woman through training, the man will do better.

(not saying women did not contribute, they were huge for the war effort)

So despite the fact that you said it wasn't just "muh sexism," it was pretty much just "muh sexism" at the time.

Pouncey wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Maybe, but how much do you think physical structure and basic human evolutionary traits have changed in 40k? Probably not much, considering they still speak english, Earth exists they still smoke cigars, etc. (my point is they still keep many traits from today)

What is the difference between a bullet-proof vest for the military today and flak armour for the Guard, the difference between an autogun in 40k and a rifle today? I can tell you, not much.

Considering that in the last 10,000 years human evolution has actually accelerated by a factor of 100, I imagine that after another 38,000 years we will be very different as a species compared to what we are today.

They speak various forms of Gothic, not English. The english in the lore exists solely to provide a translation for the players which we can read, and the accents used serve to denote a tone.

Earth still exists but in 40k is actually almost completely covered in enormous cities and religious structures and monuments.

Smoking tobacco, yeah, they still do that.

The difference is that flak armor actually protects against an autogun and most Imperial Guard use laser weapons called lasguns instead of any sort of projectile weapon. Which eliminate recoil from even being a thing IG infantry have to worry about or compensate for with their weapons since lasers have no mass to cause recoil and their transfer of energy back into the firing weapon would create heat, not kickback.

So, apparently a HELL of a lot will be different.

Are you trying to tell me Gothic isn't a form of English? Please tell me you're not telling me it isn't a form of English.

So nothing on Earth changed.

And yeah, they use lasguns but it'd be a little silly comparing a firearm to a laser weapon, don't you think?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
The same can be said for my argument though, it's a fictional setting and therefore you have no proof that any of that stuff happened either.

And no science needed to be done, put your average man and woman through training, the man will do better.

(not saying women did not contribute, they were huge for the war effort)

Yes we do have proof that in 40k the women are equal to men in combat prowess.

The fictional universe's official lore says that in the IG, women are equal to men in combat prowess.

I.E. the exact reason why female Space Marines don't exist. Because the official lore says so.

Pouncey, you are aware of the numerous, high quality female conversion bits available for Guard from 3rd party manufacturers, correct?

I believe that has been told to him a few times in this thread, and each time he has pointed out that he does not believe his local store will accept them.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Maybe, but how much do you think physical structure and basic human evolutionary traits have changed in 40k? Probably not much, considering they still speak english, Earth exists they still smoke cigars, etc. (my point is they still keep many traits from today)

What is the difference between a bullet-proof vest for the military today and flak armour for the Guard, the difference between an autogun in 40k and a rifle today? I can tell you, not much.

Considering that in the last 10,000 years human evolution has actually accelerated by a factor of 100, I imagine that after another 38,000 years we will be very different as a species compared to what we are today.

They speak various forms of Gothic, not English. The english in the lore exists solely to provide a translation for the players which we can read, and the accents used serve to denote a tone.

Earth still exists but in 40k is actually almost completely covered in enormous cities and religious structures and monuments.

Smoking tobacco, yeah, they still do that.

The difference is that flak armor actually protects against an autogun and most Imperial Guard use laser weapons called lasguns instead of any sort of projectile weapon. Which eliminate recoil from even being a thing IG infantry have to worry about or compensate for with their weapons since lasers have no mass to cause recoil and their transfer of energy back into the firing weapon would create heat, not kickback.

So, apparently a HELL of a lot will be different.

Are you trying to tell me Gothic isn't a form of English? Please tell me you're not telling me it isn't a form of English.

So nothing on Earth changed.

And yeah, they use lasguns but it'd be a little silly comparing a firearm to a laser weapon, don't you think?

Do you have any evidence that is actually IS a form of English? If so, what?

Except the entire planet's surface being covered with cities, instead of most of it being covered with oceans and most of the land being totally devoid of human life, you mean?

Yes. It is silly. Because the IG use lasguns as their main weapon, NOT autoguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I believe that has been told to him a few times in this thread, and each time he has pointed out that he does not believe his local store will accept them.

That, combined with the fact that almost all of them are resin or metal and I pretty much flat-out refuse to work with those materials.

GW has not been using metal or resin for any of their new models, so if they make a conversion kit it will in fact be plastic. Like everything else they've been making.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
The same can be said for my argument though, it's a fictional setting and therefore you have no proof that any of that stuff happened either.

And yet they have technology that instantly heals wounds. But you're right, so maybe just accept the facts as they are, that in the fluff there are a good number of women soldiers, and that they seemingly pull just as much weight as the men. That's all we have to go off of, and that's what the people that were arguing with you were using as their evidence. Take away what you and I propose we take away, and they still have an argument, while you do not.

And no science needed to be done, put your average man and woman through training, the man will do better.

(not saying women did not contribute, they were huge for the war effort)

So despite the fact that you said it wasn't just "muh sexism," it was pretty much just "muh sexism" at the time.

Of course there are female soldiers, but it doesn't make GW have to pump out 50% female guard sculpts.

So nature is sexist? Oh my...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
The same can be said for my argument though, it's a fictional setting and therefore you have no proof that any of that stuff happened either.

And no science needed to be done, put your average man and woman through training, the man will do better.

(not saying women did not contribute, they were huge for the war effort)

Yes we do have proof that in 40k the women are equal to men in combat prowess.

The fictional universe's official lore says that in the IG, women are equal to men in combat prowess.

I.E. the exact reason why female Space Marines don't exist. Because the official lore says so.

Citation needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pouncey wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Maybe, but how much do you think physical structure and basic human evolutionary traits have changed in 40k? Probably not much, considering they still speak english, Earth exists they still smoke cigars, etc. (my point is they still keep many traits from today)

What is the difference between a bullet-proof vest for the military today and flak armour for the Guard, the difference between an autogun in 40k and a rifle today? I can tell you, not much.

Considering that in the last 10,000 years human evolution has actually accelerated by a factor of 100, I imagine that after another 38,000 years we will be very different as a species compared to what we are today.

They speak various forms of Gothic, not English. The english in the lore exists solely to provide a translation for the players which we can read, and the accents used serve to denote a tone.

Earth still exists but in 40k is actually almost completely covered in enormous cities and religious structures and monuments.

Smoking tobacco, yeah, they still do that.

The difference is that flak armor actually protects against an autogun and most Imperial Guard use laser weapons called lasguns instead of any sort of projectile weapon. Which eliminate recoil from even being a thing IG infantry have to worry about or compensate for with their weapons since lasers have no mass to cause recoil and their transfer of energy back into the firing weapon would create heat, not kickback.

So, apparently a HELL of a lot will be different.

Are you trying to tell me Gothic isn't a form of English? Please tell me you're not telling me it isn't a form of English.

So nothing on Earth changed.

And yeah, they use lasguns but it'd be a little silly comparing a firearm to a laser weapon, don't you think?

Do you have any evidence that is actually IS a form of English? If so, what?

Except the entire planet's surface being covered with cities, instead of most of it being covered with oceans and most of the land being totally devoid of human life, you mean?

Yes. It is silly. Because the IG use lasguns as their main weapon, NOT autoguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I believe that has been told to him a few times in this thread, and each time he has pointed out that he does not believe his local store will accept them.

That, combined with the fact that almost all of them are resin or metal and I pretty much flat-out refuse to work with those materials.

GW has not been using metal or resin for any of their new models, so if they make a conversion kit it will in fact be plastic. Like everything else they've been making.

Besides the Gothic English style that was popular for the time that 40k is based on? And that the Emperor started on Earth, a mainly English dominated planet? Besides that, no.

But...haven't you also stated that you primarily and overwhelmingly play at home? Plus, unless you live near literally the worst GW ever, I can't imagine any owner refusing you a table because you have some heads swapped out.

I don't know why you'd refuse to work with resin, especially the likes of Vic Minis, but sure I guess. The options are there anyways, and they're excellent.

I hope for your sake you overcome your dislike of resin because it would single-handedly fix your issue with not having enough female guard.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Of course there are female soldiers, but it doesn't make GW have to pump out 50% female guard sculpts.

I agree. Providing a conversion kit for anyone who chooses to use it would be sufficient, and it can include more than just heads (and no, I'm not asking for huge boobs. There are third-party sculptors who have made replacement female IG torsos that are not ridiculous yet still look female.

And relying on a third-party sculptor is something which I shouldn't HAVE to do when the company making the official stuff is unwilling to negotiate a deal with anyone to allow them to operate, and when those third-party bits don't meet my criteria anyways.

So nature is sexist? Oh my...

Nature is irrelevant in a fictional universe where the rules that describe that universe say that what we know of humans today either does not apply to humans in that universe or is totally irrelevant to their operation in that universe.