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.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Haha! Yeh, the only factions that need added genders are Eldar and Human ones.

Human factions need different facial features.

Then we can add the strange and wonderful aliens into Codex: Xenos Mercenaries or something.

But....eldar have that already??

Howling banshees and various HQs hell eldar is almost half half

best way to go about it for guard would be sell it as a extra spru for 5 bucks

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:So yeah, sure, diversity is good because people like to see themselves reflected in the stories and art they consume, so including more "unremarkable" female and recognisably non-white European male models will make the hobby more attractive to women and non-white European males, but grumbling about it seems silly considering we're not even talking about it just not costing you anything; having more variety is an unqualified positive for everybody whether it's because they feel more accepted in their chosen hobby, because it aligns with your ethics, or just because it gives you more cool and interesting models to build and paint and create stories with. Literally nobody loses, so there's no reason not to support the idea.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!

Nobody loses!

Keep Space Marines male, Sisters of Battle female, and everyone else gets a mix of genders - and EVERY human faction should have a wider variance of facial features.

Except Orkz.

There is no gender, and only one ethnicity. Green. Coz green iz best. Non green iz loozaz.

EDIT: Reading fail on my part. Missed the "human" bit.

Digganobz!!

Whot.

Sorry, just my tired brain seeing you talking about orks before realising you were replying to a post solely about humans made me think of Diggas - humans that have taken on Ork Kultur as their own and who emulate the greenskins (going so far as to paint all their skin green).

Do they drink too much and worship the fell god Fu'tbal?

 Selym wrote:
Do they drink too much and worship the fell god Fu'tbal?

The Diggas are a tribe of people descended from the survivors of an Adeptus Mechanicus Explorator ship that crashed on the planet Angelus. They were trapped underground for centuries (hence the 'Digga' bit), and eventually freed by accident by Orks. They were so enamoured of the Orks and Orky Kultur that they pretend to be Orks. The Orks think they're mad, but for the most part tolerate them the same way they tolerate Grots.

It's all there in the Gorkamorka supplement Digganob.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

But....eldar have that already??

Howling banshees and various HQs hell eldar is almost half half

best way to go about it for guard would be sell it as a extra spru for 5 bucks

No, they don't. The Eldar have a few female torsos in the Guardian box (IIRC), and the Howling Banshees. They should also have female torsos in all the other Aspect Warrior units, at least one female Warlock, and female torsos for their vehicle crews and jetbike riders.

GW doesn't sell extra sprues really, but I suppose something like the Ultramarines Upgrade Clampack might work?

Ima pretend they worship Fut'Bal.

It's not like I pay attention to reality anyway.

Now where's my .75 Cal armour penetrating, rocket propelled, high explosive grenade launcher?

 Selym wrote:
40k is the medieval era IN SPAAACE. The Imperium is roman catholicism IN SPAAACE. Marines are Monks/Crusaders IN SPAAACE[…]That is why there are no female marines. It's just not thematic gor the IOM to be unbiased towatds gender.

Tau are medieval era? No.
Sebastian Thor brought the reform, it's Protestantism in Space now .
White Scars are monks/crusaders ? No.
All your comparison are approximations. None of them are absolute. The Imperium has a bunch of inspirations. Inspirations. But GW never meant it to be an accurate reproduction of anything. When SM chapter whatever has sources of inspiration that are pretty damn well compatible with female warriors, like say Space Wolves, then there is no reason they shouldn't include some. If it is not fitting for, say, Dark Angels, well, they can be an exception to the rule if you really, really want it.
Because deep down, the space marines are a BLANK CANVAS under which every chapter get some personality added over. A very boring blank canvas that just says “super-human warrior with likely some religious beliefs”. And it's intentional. It allows people great freedom when creating their own SM chapters. Your spiritual liege, for instance, are inspired by Roman legions and organizations. Black Tempars are indeed inspired by Crusaders, and Dark Angels by monks, but White Scars are inspired by the Mongol warriors, Blood Angels are inspired by vampires and Italian artists of the Renaissance, …
Let's make that blank canvas a little more open, a little more free.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Bollocks, by that standard Mechanicus and Necrons are basically the same because they're both really hype about machines.

That's exactly how I feel about your explanation that Sisters and Marines are the same. I feel it's bollocks. I guess that means my comparison was apt then.

 Yodhrin wrote:
And I've had enough of big lore changes in IP's I enjoy, thanks.

Well, you don't own the IP, I don't need to convince you. If I do convince the owner though, too bad for you.

 Yodhrin wrote:
You'll have to cite the codex for SoB that include male SoB, because it's not one I recall.

I am going to write this again and maybe you'll understand. The 2nd edition Codex: Sisters of Battle had 3 male special characters, 2 female special characters. The Codex : Witch-hunter had 1 male and 1 female special character. The WDex had 2 male and 1 female special characters. The eBook Codex: Sisters of Battle has 1 male and 1 female special character. On the other hand, literally none of the much, much more numerous Space Marines codecies, that include much, much more special characters than your average Sisters of Battle codex, ever included any female special character.10
How can you complain that men are not represented enough in the different codecies for Sisters of Battle? Are you arguing in bad faith?

 Yodhrin wrote:
Out of interest - do you believe works of literature should be censored or rewritten to remove any product-of-its-time language and sentiments that relate to gender, race, sexuality etc?

That argument would hold so much more merit if 40k's fluff wasn't expanded, modified and retconned every damn time, and that apparently never prevented you from enjoying it. Really if you like 2nd edition fluff more, nothing is preventing you from enjoying it. Your old books won't be rewritten behind your back. Just the new material is going to be different, and you'll be free to ignore it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Selym wrote:
40k is the medieval era IN SPAAACE. The Imperium is roman catholicism IN SPAAACE. Marines are Monks/Crusaders IN SPAAACE[…]That is why there are no female marines. It's just not thematic gor the IOM to be unbiased towatds gender.

Tau are medieval era? No.
Sebastian Thor brought the reform, it's Protestantism in Space now .
White Scars are monks/crusaders ? No.
All your comparison are approximations. None of them are absolute. The Imperium has a bunch of inspirations. Inspirations. But GW never meant it to be an accurate reproduction of anything. When SM chapter whatever has sources of inspiration that are pretty damn well compatible with female warriors, like say Space Wolves, then there is no reason they shouldn't include some. If it is not fitting for, say, Dark Angels, well, they can be an exception to the rule if you really, really want it.
Because deep down, the space marines are a BLANK CANVAS under which every chapter get some personality added over. A very boring blank canvas that just says “super-human warrior with likely some religious beliefs”. And it's intentional. It allows people great freedom when creating their own SM chapters. Your spiritual liege, for instance, are inspired by Roman legions and organizations. Black Tempars are indeed inspired by Crusaders, and Dark Angels by monks, but White Scars are inspired by the Mongol warriors, Blood Angels are inspired by vampires and Italian artists of the Renaissance, …
Let's make that blank canvas a little more open, a little more free.

Tau are representative of the emergence of freethought and progress. The IOM's response to them is the same as how humans in general used to treat such things. It's not absolute, but there are massive historical influences involved in 40k, directing the thematics and designs of things like Space Marines. And White Scars are Mongols.

 Selym wrote:
Tau are representative of the emergence of freethought and progress.

Tau are not known for free-thought, rather for suspicion of thought control. And no, they are not medieval. The emergence of technological prowess is not a thematic element linked to the medieval period.
Also White Scars are not mongols. White Scars are inspired by Mongols. Which means they can be different from actual Mongols in any way GW wants them to.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Tau are representative of the emergence of freethought and progress.

Tau are not known for free-thought, rather for suspicion of thought control. And no, they are not medieval. The emergence of technological prowess is not a thematic element linked to the medieval period.
Also White Scars are not mongols. White Scars are inspired by Mongols. Which means they can be different from actual Mongols in any way GW wants them to.

Right, I'm not sure you read my post. Try again.

I'll even highlight some key points:

 Selym wrote:
Tau are representative of the emergence of freethought and progress. The IOM's response to them is the same as how humans in general used to treat such things. It's not absolute, but there are massive historical influences involved in 40k, directing the thematics and designs of things like Space Marines. And White Scars are Mongols.

Perhaps the concepts need sorting a bit. On the one hand, we have the concept of variety. This simply stands for the idea that the model ranges ought to better reflect/portray the richness of the 40k setting. The key example would be female IG sculpts. On the other hand, we have the concept of diversity. That means the model ranges, and the 40k setting itself, should be aligned with a contemporary IRL political ideology. The banner example for this concept is female Space Marines.

Everyone is getting #rekt left and right in a silly debate that will forever run in circles. Both parties, or at least one, claim that the argument is futile as long as they convince GW and yet they keep the toxicity levels from going down. I applaud the 40k Fanbase with a standing ovation.




Then why are you posting here and not helping anything from changing for the better?
Because this is hilarious to watch.


---


I think what GW is in the process of, or is going to do, is to pull a Lucasfilms and purge most of the lore. They'll then make a claim of something like.... "All this stuff from this point on is to be taken as Canon, anything before is just a mess because we hadn't built a super-duper-leak-proof-foundation and is to be treated as 'Tales from the Warp'." This would fix most of the but gw is darn inconsistent and It has always been that way because GW would be making the final say. Do I expect GW to introduce Spesh Mahreens as female-inclusive? Probably not, but it is a possibility.

Some of the arguments I am seeing are:
If you get female Space Marines then I get to have male bras without it being called cross-dressing because if 40k is no longer being marketed to only the dominant male demographic then neither should underwear. Or the button-shirts that are buttoned on the "wrong side" This kind of argument spawned boxers for females.

Can't everyone share?
And this spawned Communism (Just Kidding).

I hold a nostalgic value in maintaining traditions and patterns despite any other inconsistencies that may lie within the game's lore
Which is kinda where I am at. I do not like change because I am sexist, I just am comfortable with things kinda being the same a lot. I still hate the new Necron lore with a burning passion because I enjoyed what Necrons had been previously, mindless terminators. Would I be opposed with something that I have read countless pages of changing? I'd be real uncomfortable and shaken up that "everything I knew was wrong", but I'd get used to the new stuff fine enough because I just wanna put the liquid on my models and make my army my own despite whatever the lore says. Anyone can make their army their own without changing the "official gak", look at the people who play Star Wars Expanded Universe exclusively or the people who write fan-fiction. Does this prevent Space Marines from being female? Not really, because there would be a group who claims the opposite either way in their play groups.

The list of arguments is exhaustible but I do not want to type anymore of them.

No one is going to get anywhere with their arguments on this thread because everyone is arguing for something else. Everyone is standing on their own "Little Big Horn" with different previous experiences and opinions. It's like if a bunch of blind people arguing about what colour the sign in front of them was, they'll argue in circles but nobody is going to be able to see the truth in each other's argument.

In the end: 40k is like a cloud, it can be interpreted anyway you want it to be but not everyone is going to see the same picture as you. So be fine with eachother's interpretations and let them do their thing, GW is a big boy and can make marketing decisions without being pestered by gamers of every point-of-view imaginable.

What is certain, mostly: More diversity brings in customers, but that is up to GW.

One final argument:

Screw the lore, I just want better gameplay choices for faction x.
Me, in the full sense of the sentence. Like I said.... Regimental Doctrines, Ork Clans, etc please.... This is the Diversity that is 90% needed and will actually matter. I just want to be thrown a bone for following Blood Axes or have some rule-aspects to further personalize my army beyond the modelling part.

I have seen Bronie Armies with the same list as an Ultramarines army, they were the same list but different armies. Look at Protieus' Rebel Grot army, he made goblins use the Imperial Guard rules, because the fluff doesn't matter when you have your own vision. you just need the rules and the Rebel Grot Conversion Project had to use something as the codex without restricting itself to 1 unit choice.

You can say whatever you want about your army, except the rules. Please make the factions' codi, the rules, more diverse since that is what ultimately matters at an Official Event

 Jewelfox wrote:
Come on, everyone, we all know the real reason why there are no female space marines.

Seriously though, as someone who struggles to see herself represented in any media, I fail to see why someone else's mild preference / discomfort takes priority. It reflects very poorly on Games Workshop and the entire 40k fandom that "only men" is still a thing, and that anyone defends it for any reason. This communicates something loud and clear, and if you realized what it was you may not like what it says about you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also just going to point out that apparently this rigorous Space Marine making process kills anyone who's transgender, because otherwise I guarantee you'll have female Space Marines one way or another.

Seriously, at some point you need to ask yourself why this is a hill you want to die on, and what that says to the people around you. Someone important to you could come out of the closet or express personal concern about something you've made jokes about, minimized the importance of, or belittled the people who care about it, and you're going to feel like a fething heel.

I know I did.

So basically everything has to be you? Or at the very least, you should be specifically represented in every form of fiction? Or maybe I should say every faction? Social Justice has to hit a wall at some point. As far as transgender Space Marines go, the aspirants don't want to be male OR female, they want to be Space Marines. Being a Space Marine is to strip away damn near every aspect of your old life, INCLUDING any sort of romance or intimacy you had before. You think anyone with any sort of female mindset would want that? Nope.


Also, if we're going by the "everything must be me" card, should I boycott GW until they produce a model with supporting fiction that is a Heterosexual Cisgendered Disabled Lithuanian-American Veteran and Sci Fi fan, Musician, Artist, Machinist AND Transformers collector? Hell, just being Baltic makes me more of a minority than most people claiming the status. Yet I'm fine with how models are produced because I can simply write whatever background for whatever model I have that represents whatever character I want. So I ask again, what are you even fighting for?

 Backspacehacker wrote:


But....eldar have that already??

Howling banshees and various HQs hell eldar is almost half half

best way to go about it for guard would be sell it as a extra spru for 5 bucks

About the 50/50 of eldars on gender representation, well let say its not nearly the case.

Only Guardians have the option two different sex. Its 3 female torse for 7 male ones. Banshees are the only female aspect warriors. While there is no gender restriction on any of the fluff on any aspect warriors (including banshees), all the other are strictly male. There is only one female special character for 6 men. At most you can argue that 15 to 20% of eldars are represented has women.

In the dark eldar range, things are slightly more balanced. Kabalite warriors have the same option for gender than guardians, For wytches its 50/50. There is has much female torse than male ones. Hellions have one female in a group of 5, Scourge 2 in a group of 5, Incubi are all male so are Mandrakes and Wracks, there is three female HQ (two wytches and the lhamaean) for 5 male ones. Thus, dark eldar are much more representative than eldar but still cap at around 30% which matches the presence of women in pretty much all medias from movies to television, to newspaper, cartoons, comic book, etc.

Gen.Steiner wrote:
As for Chapter Serfs, I was always under the impression that they were failed aspirants, so, again, all male.

Actually, aspirants who fall short generally die in the attempt. Or, if they're really unlucky, get turned into servitors. So the chapter serfs come from a different talent pool, and there's no reason to think they're segregated. For that matter, since the various chapters tend to drain the male half of the tiny little warrior societies the fluff tends to have them recruit from, you'd think they'd have to have female serfs to avoid completely depleting said tiny little warrior societies' ability to reproduce.

The tenuousness of the recruitment pool official fluff posits for GW-written chapters is why my chapter recruits from hive city gangers. But that's off topic.

Yodhrin wrote:
Out of interest - do you believe works of literature should be censored or rewritten to remove any product-of-its-time language and sentiments that relate to gender, race, sexuality etc? Not to say 40K is literature, but I'm interested to find out if you're only in favour of rewriting 40K background because it doesn't meet some arbitrary personal threshold of importance, or if altering established elements of existing works of fiction based on modern left-liberal ethics is a point of principle.

The background to 40K isn't literature (which you do acknowledge), it's a context for a product GW wants to sell. The context is exclusionary to a large segment of the population (the majority in the United States, I'll point out). Changing the background so it's not exclusionary isn't SJW meddling, it's just smart business practice. It effectively doubles the size of the audience the product can appeal to.

GW is currently behind the demographic curve, having little female representation in most of their armies, and none in their flagship product. That's not a recipe for bringing more female gamers into 40K. Having one mostly-female army (that's still all-metal, has sub-par rules, and can only be bought online) doesn't redress the balance, it's just tokenism that serves to further highlight how underrepresented females are. I'd argue that in order to catch up to the demographic curve, GW has to increase the representation of women in the products they sell, and ideally that would include female Space Marines. That would probably cause countless heads to explode and a GamerGate-esque uproar, but there's really no two ways about it. Either have female Space Marines, or be open to criticism about female representation in the game.

That said, ANY increased female representation would be an improvement. Hence my idea about Chapter Serf units. That would allow some female representation in Space Marine armies without retconning the precious (rolls eyes) fluff. A female Cadian sprue. A female Farseer, and some female Aspect Warrior bodies in the temples that aren't Howling Banshees. How about a friggin' mini for Inquisitor Valyria? Are these things really too hard for GW to produce?

Ahh, the old false binary choice argument. No, you don't need to crowbar in women into the Space Marines to add diversity to Warhammer 40k. Properly support the Adepta Sororitas, increase the diversity in factions that already have it and for god's sake stop making everything about Space Marines. Most of the Imperium's wars are fought by the Imperial Guard. Even as a Space Marine player I am sick of the attention lavished on Space Marines.

 Just Tony wrote:
Or at the very least, you should be specifically represented in every form of fiction?

That's not too far from what being a cis white het man is .

 Just Tony wrote:
You think anyone with any sort of female mindset would want that? Nope.

I… just what?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I am going to write this again and maybe you'll understand. The 2nd edition Codex: Sisters of Battle had 3 male special characters, 2 female special characters. The Codex : Witch-hunter had 1 male and 1 female special character. The WDex had 2 male and 1 female special characters. The eBook Codex: Sisters of Battle has 1 male and 1 female special character. On the other hand, literally none of the much, much more numerous Space Marines codecies, that include much, much more special characters than your average Sisters of Battle codex, ever included any female special character.10
How can you complain that men are not represented enough in the different codecies for Sisters of Battle? Are you arguing in bad faith?

Well, that's a little disingenuous. The 2nd Ed Codex, while being titled "Sisters of Battle", is still pulling in elements of the Ecclesiarchy. Sisters of Battle themselves remain all female, even if the Preachers, Confessors, etc. could be either gender. The reverse would be the Daemonhunters codex, in which the all-male Grey Knights were joined/led by adjuncts without gender restrictions.

It IS too bad that there aren't more female SCs accross the Imperium, there's certainly room for them. But the ranks of the SoB themselves are still exclusively filled with women.

Exactly - plus is anyone arguing against there being some Ecclesiarchal characters (or even units) in a hypothetical SoB dex? I mean, that would wonderfully contextualize their place in the setting.

Again Variety versus Diversity. Having lots of options is not the same thing as some IRL political agenda.

 Manchu wrote:
Exactly - plus is anyone arguing against there being some Ecclesiarchal characters (or even units) in a hypothetical SoB dex? I mean, that would wonderfully contextualize their place in the setting.

Im down with the clown frown.

i would love a lot more female characters as well in IG and various Xeno factions.

RELEASE THE DOMINATRIX! (actually cant recall if there was 40k scale model of it)

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well, that's a little disingenuous.

Pointing out that the Sisters of Battle codecies have always included the same number or more male SC than female SC is disingenuous, but pretending that the existence of this single, extremely neglected codex that includes more male SC than female SC is in any way, shape or form a meaningful counterbalance to the fact the numerous and very generously filled SM codecies are all strictly, 100% male only is not disingenuous? Is that what you believe?

 Insectum7 wrote:
The reverse would be the Daemonhunters codex, in which the all-male Grey Knights were joined/led by adjuncts without gender restrictions.

Oh but did you forget how the Inquisition got separated from the rest, leaving a 100% male only Grey Knight codex without Inquisitors in it, and a Sisters of Battle codex with more male SC than female SC without Inquisitors in it?

 Insectum7 wrote:
But the ranks of the SoB themselves are still exclusively filled with women.

Yes, and that is not in any way equivalent to the fact SMs are exclusively male, for the reasons explained above.

Simple question - are any Space Marine SCs not Space Marines?

Hybrid for fear of misunderstanding your point... what are you getting at?

A. You want female Space Marines
B. You want female options for IG
C. You want Sisters of Battle supported

I really don't understand what you are getting at anymore.

I think the idea is, an all-female militant religious order having a dex with more male than female SCs is evidence of GW being misogynistic?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well, that's a little disingenuous.

Pointing out that the Sisters of Battle codecies have always included the same number or more male SC than female SC is disingenuous, but pretending that the existence of this single, extremely neglected codex that includes more male SC than female SC is in any way, shape or form a meaningful counterbalance to the fact the numerous and very generously filled SM codecies are all strictly, 100% male only is not disingenuous? Is that what you believe?

 Insectum7 wrote:
The reverse would be the Daemonhunters codex, in which the all-male Grey Knights were joined/led by adjuncts without gender restrictions.

Oh but did you forget how the Inquisition got separated from the rest, leaving a 100% male only Grey Knight codex without Inquisitors in it, and a Sisters of Battle codex with more male SC than female SC without Inquisitors in it?

 Insectum7 wrote:
But the ranks of the SoB themselves are still exclusively filled with women.

Yes, and that is not in any way equivalent to the fact SMs are exclusively male, for the reasons explained above.

Yeah yeah yeah, I get all that. Codex SoB, (the 2nd Ed. one) is really "Codex: Ecclesiarchy", but just as it happens, their militant arm is all women, and the Sisters are the iconic battlefield presence there. Could it have had more female SC's in it? Sure.

No, I did not forget that Grey Knights and Inquisition got split into their respective codexes. But given that the provided examples of SoB Codexes are from well over a decade ago, and that the format of releases has changed since then, I don't think it's as relevant as you might be implying.

But the Grey Knight codex is also symptomatic of what I think is a supporting problem that you may have with marines being exclusively male. The focus of GW production is too marine-centric. Because GW laivshes a ton of emphasis on marines, it further skews the ratio of gender representation. We just got Codex: Deathwatch (another marine book) when I think a lot of us would have much rather had a new Codex: Sisters. Which, now that the Inquisition has it's own book, a Sisters book might feature more female SCs than Male.

 Quickjager wrote:
A. You want female Space Marines
B. You want female options for IG
C. You want Sisters of Battle supported

I would love C, enjoy B and A.

 Quickjager wrote:
Hybrid for fear of misunderstanding your point... what are you getting at?

A. You want female Space Marines
B. You want female options for IG
C. You want Sisters of Battle supported

I really don't understand what you are getting at anymore.

Il take D all of the above. including A only because of the rage it would induce in the 40k population. not because i actually want female space marines. i think its a horrible stab at the fluff. not if there was an alternative not space marine space marine faction of super genetically enhanced female warriors i think that would be cool. just dont call them space marines,.

If Sisters got a Deldar-style release, I expect that new SoB SCs would be part of that. But Ecclesiarchal SCs would also likely be a part of that. The trick is, how many of the latter would also be women?

 Insectum7 wrote:
But given that the provided examples of SoB Codexes are from well over a decade ago, and that the format of releases has changed since then, I don't think it's as relevant as you might be implying.

I also provided example from the 5 years old and the 3 years old codices too. I literally listed every Sisters of Battle rules ever, except for the Chapter Approved from 2001 because I couldn't get the info on that one.
So, what's not relevant?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Which, now that the Inquisition has it's own book, a Sisters book might feature more female SCs than Male.

Out of the four codices I mentioned, only one featured any Inquisitor at all…
How does the Codex: Inquisition, that was released a mere month after the last Codex: Sisters of Battle, has to do with anything at this point?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
But given that the provided examples of SoB Codexes are from well over a decade ago, and that the format of releases has changed since then, I don't think it's as relevant as you might be implying.

I also provided example from the 5 years old and the 3 years old codices too. I literally listed every Sisters of Battle rules ever, except for the Chapter Approved from 2001 because I couldn't get the info on that one.
So, what's not relevant?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Which, now that the Inquisition has it's own book, a Sisters book might feature more female SCs than Male.

Out of the four codices I mentioned, only one featured any Inquisitor at all…
How does the Codex: Inquisition, that was released a mere month after the last Codex: Sisters of Battle, has to do with anything at this point?

Well, then it's clear that Codex: SoBs are really Codex Ecclesiarchy, with representatives of the Imperial Church, no?

If the issue is that Sisters should, as a faction, be more supported and have more SC's, I'm all on board.

If the issue is that "GW thinks that women can't take to the field of battle without a man being in charge." I can't agree with that.

If the issue is that Sisters should have a codex dedicated to them, and not other members of the Ecclesiarchy. . . Maybe? I just think so far it's been a convenient thing to do for GW.