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.
2016/08/24 17:52:44
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Pouncey wrote: Well, with Necrons, if the species that became them had females, which I think became canon at some point because there's a female Necron character somewhere, and their mechanical selves recall their past lives at all and retain any of their personality, it's well within lore that they might have their female members have a more feminine robot form and their male members have a more masculine robot form.
There's a female Cryptek in one of the books, yeah.
2016/08/24 17:54:19
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Desubot wrote: The tau ghost keel kit has a female head.
shadowsun obviously has a alt bare head as well.
i dont recall the new firewarrior/breacher squad having one but a quick gander at the sprue could yield an answer.
I haven't bought a Tau kit in years...
Nether have i. i just see the sprue pics when they come up in news and rumors.
also you should probably not be taking in fluff and lore from dakka dakka only. the various books do a lot of flesh things out and is a direct source over opinions and bits and pieces tainted by bias
Desubot wrote: The tau ghost keel kit has a female head.
shadowsun obviously has a alt bare head as well.
i dont recall the new firewarrior/breacher squad having one but a quick gander at the sprue could yield an answer.
I haven't bought a Tau kit in years...
Nether have i. i just see the sprue pics when they come up in news and rumors.
also you should probably not be taking in fluff and lore from dakka dakka only. the various books do a lot of flesh things out and is a direct source over opinions and bits and pieces tainted by bias
And if I found any joy in reading books anymore and felt like spending hundreds of dollars on dozens of overpriced 40k books to learn about the lore, I would happily learn about the lore from the books.
But I don't, so... I kinda have to rely on Dakka and Lexicanum. And Lexicanum doesn't go into much detail or even cover everything.
2016/08/24 17:58:12
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Lexicanum is the only source outside of the books themselves that I credit as trustworthy. Even when you post a personal theory on Dakka, it doesn't always come across as just a personal theory. For example, I have seen a poster here discussing a fluff point as if one of my own theories, which had come down to them one way or another, was canon.
Er ... no reason. Don't tell the commissar I asked!
In all seriousness, I just wondered if there was any citation for the idea that clothed but unarmored male and female Tau are indistinguishable apart from their facial slits.
Manchu wrote: Lexicanum is the only source outside of the books themselves that I credit as trustworthy. Even when you post a personal theory on Dakka, it doesn't always come across as just a personal theory. For example, I have seen a poster here discussing a fluff point as if one of my own theories, which had come down to them one way or another, was canon.
And Lexicanum's only real reference to female IG is a vague reference to the offspring of Guardsmen being used to reinforce their own numbers a couple of decades after being born.
They don't even mention the female-only IG regiments in particular.
Er ... no reason. Don't tell the commissar I asked!
In all seriousness, I just wondered if there was any citation for the idea that clothed but unarmored male and female Tau are indistinguishable apart from their facial slits.
I don't know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 18:03:47
2016/08/24 18:06:13
Subject: Re:Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Sure it is political, which doesn't mean you have to constantly over-analyse and demand changes for every bit that offends your sensibilities. If everyone did that, there would be no 40k because it's offensive all around.
Yeah, I agree, GW should choose the people they are okay with being offensive too. I certainly never meant that nothing should be offensive to anyone. If 40k is offensive to religious bigots, for instance, I am perfectly fine with this.
I really don't know why so many people seem to use that argument you put forward of “not being offensive to anyone” when actually I never heard anyone say that anything like that. It's a weird strawman.
Thank you man, I always claimed that all those leftist sensibilities are super selective and they are just as bigoted and hateful as all those facists, racists etc just against different groups, and now you're so beautifuly shameless about it. You just made my day.
So, why is it okay now for 40k to be offensive to religious bigots, but not okay to be offensive to leftist fanatic? Because you say so? You just confirmed that your case is worthless as long as it's about discrimination etc.
Can we just leave the politics out of it and say that offending bigots of all types is something we shouldn't be afraid of doing as a species?
Sure, I used "leftist fanatic" as an equivalent of "religious bigot" and it was all to highlight how, after all the preaching about empathy, it turns out the particular poster's crusade is not out of concern but just political agenda and how arbitrarily the discriminated group is chosen. It can offend religion (bigots! by default apparently), descendants of genocide victims (not them) but women are no go, hurts too much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 18:28:37
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
2016/08/24 18:08:56
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Let's take a look at how well women are represented in those categories.
- female xenos: The Dark Eldar do okay with female representation. I don't know what the percentages are, but there are female minis across the range rather than having them pigeonholed into one unit, like their craftworld cousins. Speaking of which, the Eldar have one female unit. The Tau have one demonstrably female mini. The other xenos species are kind of irrelevant physically.Tau women are, to my knowledge, only identified by a different groove on the face, making Tau indistinguishable when in full armour/battlesuit. Eldar females should have more representation.
- female daemons: One unit. Though, I suppose Nurgle's daemons would be indistinguishable one way or another.Daemons are embodiments of warp stuff. They may appear a certain way, but are ungendered.
- female Inquisitors: One mini that dates back to the release of Codex: Witchhunters.There aren't exactly many Inquisitor models anyways, so the female model makes a large proportion of all Inquisitor models.
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors: An army with an entirely pewter range, a limited number of minis, substandard rules, and can only be bought online.Which should have an update, which no-one disagrees with. The potential is still there.
- female cultists: none that I've noticedAnd there's only five Cultist models anyway. Hardly a major unit.
- female IG: none currently in the range, unless Shaeffer's Last Chancers are still being sold, in which case there's 2 female minis in that set.Valid point, which also should be fixed.
Not doing so well with the representation there.But the potential is there, eliminating the need for femarines.
My points in red.
Plumbumbarum wrote:Listen man, this setting and game is not "exclusionary". There are SoB for anyone who wants to play Imperial girls and that btw includes me if only they're ever released in plastic and reasonably priced.
Exclusionary is another politicaly involved term in this context btw.
Here's an imo great post about the exclusion issue from some old thread:
Code wrote: I think, there are plenty of problems with that approach to fiction.
1) If you take it seriously, then every fictional work ever has to follow this rule. That means, if I create a fictional setting, no matter how far away into the future or how far away into the past, no matter how fundamentally different it is from our world, it HAS to represent 21st century US demographics. This idea alone is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.
2) I'm not even sure, what the problem is.
You say, some people might not be comfortable to escape to a place with a single race and gender imbalace. So apparently they are still confortable escaping to a place, where human life has absolutely no worth and is thrown away by the millions just to have minor military victories. Where there is exactly one religion and if you don't follow it, you're going to get killed. Where people are hoarded to planet earth like animals, so the one true ruler of mankind can consume their souls... but gender imbalance really is a deal breaker!
Doesn't make sense to me.
Others have said, there should be people that look like you, so everyone feels represented. The thing is, there is nobody in 40k that looks like me! I'm 5 ft 7, 155 lbs and wear glasses. Who exactly looks like me. You pick ONE external characteristic, skin color, ignore everything else and then make representation about this one thing. That's arbitrary.
3) Building on the last point: It's a slippery slope. You want black people represented in 40k, fine. But now obviously you need hispanic, asian and arabic people as well, so you put in those. Now you've got all the big ethnicities covered, but what about the smaller ones? What about the native americans and polynesians, that don't feel represented? Ok, so we put in every possible ethnicity, that exist today and we're done right?
But what about the disabled people? Shouldn't they be represented as well? What about transgender people? And gay people? What about people with autism? What about Little People? What about amputees?
So we are not done, until we have a gay 4 ft 5 transgender autistic Space Marine, that may or may not have native alaskan heritage...
4) To me this approach to fiction KILLS immersion. And I'm convinced, that most people of the affected groups feel the same way. When you see this happening (and most of the time it's blatantly obvious) you're starting to think of real-world politics and stop thinking about the world you're trying to experience, which kills the fun.
This is one of the worst problem of "everything is political". TV shows are political, books are political, music is political, movies are political and 40k is political. Ironically the people suffering the most from this, are the ones trying to push this agenda. Can they even enjoy ANY media anymore? How can you enjoy something, when all you're thinking about is "Let's see how well everyone is represented in this"? How can you get lost in a work of fiction, when all you do, is trying to judge how well this supports your political goals?
In short: Keep politics where they belong! There are more than enough real-world issues in need of solving, where your commitment to social justice is well placed and productive (Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, etc.) But if you're taking your politics to places, that are supposed to be a fun escape from the real world, and taking them back into the real world in the process, all you're doing is alienating people and hurting your cause. (especially as it might not even be a problem, see point 2
1: No setting has to be representative of anything anywhere on an artistic level. However, if you want to sell a product, you want to make good faith efforts to appeal to the broadest audience possible, or appeal to an under-served audience (which is why Twilight exploded the way it did). 40K doesn't do either - the art and the minis are almost all white guys, with few to no women.
Mostly because most art is of Space Marines, who are all male, and specifically Ultramarines, who are generally white.
Now, in factions where there should be different ethnicities (non-Cadian guard regiments) and discernibly different genders (Eldar, Dark Eldar, Guardsmen, Inquisition, Scions, Cultists), there *should* be more variety, as per the lore.
2: The fictional aspects of the 40K universe are clearly fictional, whereas racism and sexism aren't, thus people not having a problem with the Emperor of Mankind eating souls to stay alive does not de-legitimize people's issues with the lack of non-white/non-male representation in the setting and range.
But they're in a fictional universe?
The argument for Sisters getting extra treatment in the form of models is absolutely correct, IMO.
The argument for femarines? It's an IN UNIVERSE trait that Astartes are male only.
Some of those examples are clearly ridiculous, as a gay person or an autistic person wouldn't physically look any different from anybody else, for instance.
What about the issue with, say, Polynesian heritage?
Disability?
Being abnormally short/tall?
Why can't these be represented in my Space Marines - if being able to identify with my tabletop models is that sancrosant that you'll rewrite canon to do it, why can't I have my tall polynesian disabled Space Marines? (Apologies to any tall polynesian disabled guys/gals reading)
Insectum7 wrote:
Now I'm not necessarily advocating it, but just to float the idea: What if, going forward beyond the 41st Millenium, the number of high level threats in the galaxy puts sufficient pressure onto the Imperium that they decide they must swell the numbers of Space Marines, and they have discovered/engineered/modified ye-olde geneseed to accept women into the ranks?
People have often chaffed at the notion that only 1,000,000 Space Marines are enough to secure the galaxy, so on the one hand we swell the number of marines, and on the other, begin accepting female recruits.
None of the past history is wiped away, none of the original chapter histories change, but the setting begins to evolve. This is not to say the Imperium has a new period of enlightenment (though it could, but I like my grimdark), just that the High Lords have decided to risk Great Crusade numbers of Space Marines again out of desperation. Chapters remain restricted, there are no new Primarchs, the "lost legions" remain lost, etc. There are just more marines, and some are female.
Personally, this is something I could get behind if it was handled well.
That could work. Assassins start off as normal humans, as far as I know, but are S4 T4 like Space Marines. So, clearly there are other ways to achieve the same effect.
Except that innovation is heresy of the highest order.
I have a headcanon that the Emperor *could* have created female Astartes and Primarchs. He chose not to, as an in-universe decision. Henceforth, he referred to Astartes as his sons. When it came to recruiting, the Emperor's edict was followed, and only boys were chosen. When he ascended to the Golden Throne, people used boys still, because they are the Emperor's sons. Stagnation overcame a possibility.
I completely disagree with the premise put forward - anything involving the Lost Legions is something I want to steer clear from. Not to mention the heresy of gene-seed tampering.
Gen.Steiner wrote:I understand, from a business perspective, and also from the point of view that the background is mutable, that there is no good argument against female Space Marines.
However. I don't think they're necessary. They may be the poster boys (fnar) of the setting, but if they are the only all-male faction (and the Sisters of Battle are the only all-female faction), you then have fantastic analogues for monks and nuns - which, in fact, is what they are: warrior-monks and warrior-nuns. Meanwhile, the rest of the Imperium is happily gender-mixed, because it clearly is in the background.
I suppose that could also work. If GW improved the female representation in the armies where such is relevant and supported the Sisters of Battle at least as well as, say, the Craftworld Eldar, then that would probably satisfy most people. Sort of in the same vein as Title IX law here in the USA, where public high schools generally don't have a girl's (American) football team, but offer a roughly equivalent alternative (usually field hockey). They'd have to increase the relevance of the Sisters of Battle in the background to go along with it. Wouldn't need too much though, as the Age of Apostasy is almost as major an event as the Horus Heresy.
This. The SoB don't NEED to be marine-ified. They just need more attention, and the SM less.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:That Sisters are inferior to men because they have less stuff than Space Marines, do please consider that Sisters have more than the Scions do. And whilst they could and should have far more in their range, Scions do have less.
I don't think that's a very legitimate counterpoint. It was kind of ridiculous to blow up the Militarum Tempestus into a separate army list. They could have just had a formation detachment in the Astra Militarum book.
True, but they exist now, and have a grand total of what, five units to their entire army? What about Knights?
The argument that SoB have the least units based on GW's misogyny is not accurate at all. Do they need more units, in order to expand the force as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus, a la Deathwatch and Grey Knights? Yes. Should they get a model overhaul? Yes. Should they get a paperback codex at least? Yes.
What does, in this image, sets the character apart from a simple warrior? Well, mostly our knowledge that his general look, and especially the insignia on his torso, is very very reminiscent of an actual warrior monk order. Just like the Diablo 3 monk above is really recognizable as a monk so easily because it is reminiscent of another very famous order of warrior monks. The White Scar look is reminiscent of… a Mongol warrior that is not a monk.
So, because it doesn't look like a monk to you, say it shouldn't be a monk?
Okay.
I'm just going to ignore the implications of that (genderfluidity, gender identity, sexuality, and profession) and just say I disagree with that train of thought.
It SAYS flat out in the lore that the Adeptus Astartes are a monastic band of warrior-monks. If you're going to ignore that, then I ignore all Sisters lore and say that Sisters of Battle are just a fevered dream in the mind of an impressionable girl accused of heresy being taken to slaughter.
Plumbumbarum wrote: As for commissars, yes everyone thinks they are cool. Nowhere in the fiction is it stated that women are inferior or unworthy of command but it still doesn't stop the representarians gang to claim inherent mizogyny, discrimination etc.
I don't think Commissars are cool. I avoid taking them in my IG armies wherever possible because I think they're awful, and it's not for gameplay reasons.
And the "representarians" generally point out that while women are equals in the lore, there have only been a handful of female IG models. That's where that sentiment comes from. Not the lore. The official models that are actually produced.
So if the lore's not a problem, why are people asking for female Space Marines?
I dunno. I've been away from Dakka for a couple of days. When I left, everyone was all like, "Marines can be all male, and that's fine."
I think certain vocal users pushed their views on that somewhat recently.
I'd love for more female representation in 40k, be it through female cultists, xenos (where appropriate - Tyranids, Orks, and Necrons biologically don't count) and humans. Add in more special characters, revamp the Sisters.
Sounds good, though aren't Tyranids mostly female to begin with? Isn't that why so many of the different types of creatures have female-gendered names like harpies and harridans?
Tyranids are pretty much asexual. They breed asexually, and most Tyranid bioforms never actually need to reproduce.
The female names is just a naming trope of GW, using mythical beast names. I mean, there's no evidence or reason that the Swarmlord is male, yet "lord" implies it. So I think that's just a naming convention.
Regarding the point made that Sisters are inferior to men because they have less stuff than Space Marines, do please consider that Sisters have more than the Scions do. And whilst they could and should have far more in their range, Scions do have less.
It's less a case of men>women, but more Space Marines>everyone else.
Are the Scions actually male-only in their lore? I haven't read up much on them but I thought they were in the same situation as IG, where they can easily be female in the lore but have no female models. I'll readily admit I could very easily be wrong about that.
I think there's been a misunderstanding.
Scions are mixed gender, at least, in my knowledge, and can't see a reason they shouldn't be.
The reason I brought Scions up is irrespective of their gender - some people say that the Sisters are proof of GW's misogyny because they have very little as a model line, compared to Space Marines. However, this argument falls flat when one considers Scions, who have very few kits, and mixed gender. Therefore, the Sister's lack of stuff is regrettable, but not because of misogyny.
Manchu wrote:@Pouncey - I don't doubt that there are people with misogynistic attitudes playing 40k and posting on Dakka Dakka. To the extent that someone argues that the existing 40k setting is wrong or bad or unbelievable, etc., because women serve in the IG as a matter of canon, they may very well be evincing such attitudes. But proposing that XYZ must be added to the canon, and if it isn't added then the setting is misogynistic, or that anyone who opposes adding XYZ is misogynistic, I think those are presumptively bad faith arguments at best and thinly disguised personal attacks at worst. And when I say "presumptively," I really mean "based on seeing these 'arguments' on a regular basis over the past seven years."
This. Absolutely this.
They/them
2016/08/24 18:13:44
Subject: Re:Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
I can't find my last post. I don't know where I was.
So I'll just say that, as somebody else said earlier (I think), with what they managed to achieve with the dark eldar kits, I'm sure it's possible to have cadain and catachan females in any new ones. Along with the option for either lasguns or shotguns but that's a different matter. Especially because the multi parts of today are not like the ones of yesterdecade. They're more adavanced. For both cadains and catachans there's no reason why you couldn't fit two-three female bodies into the kit with like six different female heads as well. I'm sure it could be done.
2016/08/24 18:25:29
Subject: Re:Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
I would say no, generally. Physical disabilities have a tendency of hampering battlefield capability, so you wouldn't likely see them on the battlefields the tabletop represents, at least not as soldiers on either side. Though now that I think about it, some disabilities actually do have lore and even model representation. The Iron Hands Chapter makes a habit of amputating their own limbs and replacing them with high-tech prosthetics called bionics. Some models have bionic eyes, like Commissar Yarrick and a variety of generic Space Marine parts. There's an Imperial Guard bit on one of the Command Squad sprues with an arm in a sling though, and one bit with a bionic arm with a power sword. Wheelchairs are extremely poorly-suited to the battlefield, as are crutches and being blind in general.
Mental disabilities you can't really see either way, and some of them would likely exclude military service too. For example, a schizophrenic lacks the ability to bond with fellow soldiers (and most people in general), even though he or she may be physically capable of performing the duties required, so schizophrenics, even properly medicated and treated ones, are generally excluded from military service entirely. At least in real life.
2016/08/24 19:06:19
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors: An army with an entirely pewter range, a limited number of minis, substandard rules, and can only be bought online.Which should have an update, which no-one disagrees with. The potential is still there.
Not doing so well with the representation there.But the potential is there, eliminating the need for femarines.
My points in red.
I disagree with your conclusion. Sisters could even up the representational gap if GW properly supported them. However, GW doesn't properly support them. There is only one faction we know GW is not going to neglect in any edition, and that's Space Marines. So, to even up the represenational gap, GW could properly support Sisters, which to wildly understate matters they haven't reliably done in the past, or they could alter the fluff to allow female Space Marines. Heck, they altered the fluff to get rid of them, so I don't see why the current fluff against them is considered so sacrosanct.
But, OK, IF Sisters were properly supported and given some love in the fluff, then yes, they could work. That is a monumental IF, though.
1: No setting has to be representative of anything anywhere on an artistic level. However, if you want to sell a product, you want to make good faith efforts to appeal to the broadest audience possible, or appeal to an under-served audience (which is why Twilight exploded the way it did). 40K doesn't do either - the art and the minis are almost all white guys, with few to no women.
Mostly because most art is of Space Marines, who are all male, and specifically Ultramarines, who are generally white.
Now, in factions where there should be different ethnicities (non-Cadian guard regiments) and discernibly different genders (Eldar, Dark Eldar, Guardsmen, Inquisition, Scions, Cultists), there *should* be more variety, as per the lore.
On a related question, why should Ultramarines and Cadians be all-white? Did only white Europeans make it to the space colonization game? Even if you accept the idea that there are mono-ethnicity planets (which is kind of ridiculous, but okay), the Ultramarines recruit from multiple planets. You'd think at least some of them would have a different color skin.
Some of those examples are clearly ridiculous, as a gay person or an autistic person wouldn't physically look any different from anybody else, for instance.
What about the issue with, say, Polynesian heritage?
Disability?
Being abnormally short/tall?
Why can't these be represented in my Space Marines - if being able to identify with my tabletop models is that sancrosant that you'll rewrite canon to do it, why can't I have my tall polynesian disabled Space Marines? (Apologies to any tall polynesian disabled guys/gals reading)
I think 40,000 years in the future, we can reasonably expect to have developed technological work-arounds to virtually all disabilities. Paint your mini with a Polynesian skin tone. Talk to GW about the height and facial sculpts - I've argued for a broader range of face sculpts.
The fact that it would be inordinately difficult for one company to represent every possible ethnic variation doesn't excuse said company making no effort at all to represent any ethnic variation outside of white Europeans. Good faith efforts to represent at least the planet's major ethnicities would make good business sense, be fairly easy to do, and even give some aesthetic variety to armies that are otherwise rather monotonous.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:That Sisters are inferior to men because they have less stuff than Space Marines, do please consider that Sisters have more than the Scions do. And whilst they could and should have far more in their range, Scions do have less.
I don't think that's a very legitimate counterpoint. It was kind of ridiculous to blow up the Militarum Tempestus into a separate army list. They could have just had a formation detachment in the Astra Militarum book.
True, but they exist now, and have a grand total of what, five units to their entire army? What about Knights?
The argument that SoB have the least units based on GW's misogyny is not accurate at all. Do they need more units, in order to expand the force as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus, a la Deathwatch and Grey Knights? Yes. Should they get a model overhaul? Yes. Should they get a paperback codex at least? Yes.
Knights are another faction that should never have been made a full 40K army in the first place. However, point in fact, Knights have been getting a lot more attention since their introduction than Sisters have in the same time period.
If GW had kept the Sisters up with the Space Marines over the editions, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Their 3rd/4th ed lists were fairly equivalent. Lately though, SMs have had an explosion of new units, whereas Sisters have not kept up. In order for Sisters to serve as a legitimate counterpoint, they'd need to be brought up to speed.
GW missed an opportunity to revamp Sisters instead of bringing us Deathwatch. Really, Deathwatch didn't need a whole army list either. A detachment formation with Sternguards and Vanguards would have worked just fine. Plus, GW could have replaced the Storm Raven model with that Deathwatch flyer - or not bothered and just let Deathwatch use the Storm Raven. If it's good enough for the Grey Knights, it ought to be good enough for the Deathwatch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 19:10:11
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Hey, my argument can be boiled down to this: Hey GW! There are underserved audiences! Serving them would make you more money!
I don't see how that's very political.
Sorry, not you.
I was referencing the conversation about... you know what, it's not important. Let's move on and pretend I said nothing.
2016/08/24 21:41:02
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Manchu wrote: Anyone who actually cares about whether/how GW could introduce more female figures into their ranges ought to be discussing IG and, secondarily, "mortal" Chaos worshippers. The problem with that discussion is, there is nearly unanimous agreement that women should be better represented in those lines; i.e., there's no opportunity to sneer at "misogynists." The only thing to argue about is whether there should be specifically female sculpts or whether there should just be head swaps. Paradoxically, the same people who rabbit on about female Space Marines actually oppose the idea that GW should actually make female IG sculpts.
I don't think I can take that at face value. I think I'm going to need you to quote actual posts in a way that allows me to see the post is genuine before I can believe it.
I find it hard to believe anyone seriously thinks GW shouldn't do female minis for ranges like the Eldar, Tau, and Guard. It's actually baffling that they haven't done so already, even if only to add a little visual variety to armies where the player is going to have massive amounts of visually identical minis (ie, Guard). Increasing female representation in those armies is not controversial at all.
The question is, is that enough? Can GW afford to keep Space Marines male-only while offering Sisters as a counter-balancing alternative? Sure, if GW is willing to put in the effort. Give the Sisters an updated set of rules making them as good to play as Space Marines. Update the range to plastic and expand it, including a greater variety of units. Feature Sisters more prominently in the fluff. Maybe have Sisters come to the aid of a beleaguered Space Marine force in a campaign. Have a starter box that features Sisters as the Imperial army.
The thing is, GW's past behavior doesn't inspire a lot of confidence they're going to do any of those things. There are currently 6 full Space Marine dexes (SMs, BAs, DAs, SWs, GKs, and now Deathwatch) with fully supported plastic ranges, while Sisters have a sub-par set of rules and an overpriced, limited all-metal range that GW doesn't even bother to stock in their stores. It doesn't take a genius to look at these things and see they're unequal. As for starter sets, so far there's been SMs vs DE, then SMs vs Orks, and now SMs vs Chaos. I don't think there's even been a Guard-based starter set, much less a SoB-one.
If you aren't a feminist, you cannot be an egalitarian. Posts like this are utter garbage.
*The More You Know*
There is a fad of zealotry that, without effort at understanding, throws accusations of sexism around at the drop of a hat. ("If you're not supportive of the Ghostbusters remake, you're sexist!") It's immature, and ultimately destructive to dialogue. But please, don't let that behavior define/redefine for you what feminism actually means. Feminism and egalitarianism are effectively the same thing.
Manchu wrote: The problem with that discussion is, there is nearly unanimous agreement that women should be better represented in those lines; i.e., there's no opportunity to sneer at "misogynists."
That's just a a silly thing to say. If there's unanimous (or near enough unanimous for the context of an internet forum) agreement about a set of issues, it's only logical to move on to the place where people continue to disagree, and explore the space. Poke the bear. Find out where the lines are and why the lines are there. See if there's any flex, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 21:41:52
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I did understand your point, but you also used terms like tokenism or sth and then proceeded to say how it only highlights the female underrepresentation and just those terms show that you are at least a bit ideologicaly involved, because only ideologicaly involved, 50/50 or nothing people see "tokenism" as a problem. So, you're not attracting female gamers, you're attracting ideologicaly involved female gamers who are offended by tokenism in games. Not to mention that the you have absolutely no proof that it's tokenism and it highlighting the female underrepresantation that keeps female gamers off 40k, even the feminist ones as we have a few girls/ women here with strong views on the subject but they seem to be playing/ collecting anyway.
The first line in Wikipedia's entry on tokenism is as follows:
Tokenism is the policy and practice of making a perfunctory gesture towards the inclusion of members of minority groups.
So, even setting aside the whole debate on whether there should or should not be female Space Marines, in the setting there is little-to-no reason for the other factions to not have strong female representation, particularly within the Imperial Guard, the Eldar, the Inquisition, and the Tau. No one can argue this is the case. Within those factions, there is one all-female unit, one female IC, and one female special character. Oh, and I suppose there is a smattering of female torsos in the Guardian kit, whch is at least proof the concept can work. There is also one mostly-female force that GW can barely be bothered to support. If the current state of the game doesn't represent tokenism, I don't know what does.
Well Imperial Guard and Inquisition don't have strong female representation in 40k universe according to FFG.
Anyway, if we set aside the female SM debate, I don't really care tbh. I'm not against adding more female models to Eldar, DE etc by default but if it was because of bs like demographic, new markets or representation then I'd rather not, I prefer them doing things out of creative ideas. On the other hand, if there's demand from the existing players then they shouldn't ignore it and should add more female models to existing units where it makes sense, sure.
I wouldn't like for example mixed IG squads ~50/50 making it to the art though, it would look lame like High Lords of Terra just decided to take a vote and pass parity.
"Tokenism" is not really a problem though. You don't know if it's a real reason for the number of female models (and GW are basicaly old punkish nerds so I doubt it) and even if so, it's their universe and that's how they choose to deal with the issue and cover women and other races, for better or worse. Freedom babe.
Plumbumbarum wrote:Great riddance, I hate sexist donkey-caves as well. For the sake of balance, let's also get rid of other extremes like feminism.
Yes it indeed seems like you're not coming from high moral grounds and it again sounds a bit like the female rights warriors, they're the same as those hardcore misogyns just on the other side of the barricade, they want to get rid of females and female rights warriors want to get rid of them.
Again, what of the number of leaving misogyns exceeds the number of the incoming females? Your prediction is as good as mine and you said that It would be smart. How would it be smart, if it lost money.
Get real. A lot of sexists may make noise about quitting the game over the inclusion of female Space Marines, but given the time, energy, and money that goes into acquiring, assembling, and painting a 40K army, almost none actually will, because they have too much invested in it to actually do so.
Are they really sexists or maybe they just don't want the diluted, 50/50 correct, driven by marketing polls and current political agenda crap. More data please.
Plumbumbarum wrote:Oh yes, it's hilarious. What makes it even more hilarious is that I didn't think you're a girl.
Well, you did call me a girl player. So, either that means you thought I was a girl, or you thought calling me a girl player was a put-down. I went with the more generous assumption.
Let's look at the quote in question
Plumbumbarum wrote: I find all this cheap, stats and polls induced marketing tricks insulting anyway, no matter towards women or me, hey we have awesome girly space marinette just for you our special super stronk girl player.
Now, read with the bolded in quotation marks. But yes sexist put-down. GamerGate.
Plumbumbarum wrote:What about this documentary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask ? They cut the funding for Nordic Gender Institute soon after the showing. I'm not saying the documentary is 100% right but it raises a strong case for such differences in sexes and the debate is not as settled as you think it is.
That you highly doubt sth doesn't mean it's not true.
Did you really go looking for a documentary to back your argument?
20 years ago, gamers were arguing that video games and RPGs don't appeal to girls either. Look where we are now.
Yes I really used a documentary to back my argument. You on the other hand said that you "doubt it's in our DNA", which is clearly a wildguess and I'd rather go for the biologist there in the movie. Maybe watch it and come with some proper counter arguments because vaguely extrapolating what was 20 years ago on now is not a strong argument either.
Plumbumbarum wrote:Listen man, this setting and game is not "exclusionary". There are SoB for anyone who wants to play Imperial girls and that btw includes me if only they're ever released in plastic and reasonably priced.
Exclusionary is another politicaly involved term in this context btw.
Here's an imo great post about the exclusion issue from some old thread:
Code wrote: I think, there are plenty of problems with that approach to fiction.
1) If you take it seriously, then every fictional work ever has to follow this rule. That means, if I create a fictional setting, no matter how far away into the future or how far away into the past, no matter how fundamentally different it is from our world, it HAS to represent 21st century US demographics. This idea alone is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.
2) I'm not even sure, what the problem is.
You say, some people might not be comfortable to escape to a place with a single race and gender imbalace. So apparently they are still confortable escaping to a place, where human life has absolutely no worth and is thrown away by the millions just to have minor military victories. Where there is exactly one religion and if you don't follow it, you're going to get killed. Where people are hoarded to planet earth like animals, so the one true ruler of mankind can consume their souls... but gender imbalance really is a deal breaker!
Doesn't make sense to me.
Others have said, there should be people that look like you, so everyone feels represented. The thing is, there is nobody in 40k that looks like me! I'm 5 ft 7, 155 lbs and wear glasses. Who exactly looks like me. You pick ONE external characteristic, skin color, ignore everything else and then make representation about this one thing. That's arbitrary.
3) Building on the last point: It's a slippery slope. You want black people represented in 40k, fine. But now obviously you need hispanic, asian and arabic people as well, so you put in those. Now you've got all the big ethnicities covered, but what about the smaller ones? What about the native americans and polynesians, that don't feel represented? Ok, so we put in every possible ethnicity, that exist today and we're done right?
But what about the disabled people? Shouldn't they be represented as well? What about transgender people? And gay people? What about people with autism? What about Little People? What about amputees?
So we are not done, until we have a gay 4 ft 5 transgender autistic Space Marine, that may or may not have native alaskan heritage...
4) To me this approach to fiction KILLS immersion. And I'm convinced, that most people of the affected groups feel the same way. When you see this happening (and most of the time it's blatantly obvious) you're starting to think of real-world politics and stop thinking about the world you're trying to experience, which kills the fun.
This is one of the worst problem of "everything is political". TV shows are political, books are political, music is political, movies are political and 40k is political. Ironically the people suffering the most from this, are the ones trying to push this agenda. Can they even enjoy ANY media anymore? How can you enjoy something, when all you're thinking about is "Let's see how well everyone is represented in this"? How can you get lost in a work of fiction, when all you do, is trying to judge how well this supports your political goals?
In short: Keep politics where they belong! There are more than enough real-world issues in need of solving, where your commitment to social justice is well placed and productive (Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, etc.) But if you're taking your politics to places, that are supposed to be a fun escape from the real world, and taking them back into the real world in the process, all you're doing is alienating people and hurting your cause. (especially as it might not even be a problem, see point 2
1: No setting has to be representative of anything anywhere on an artistic level. However, if you want to sell a product, you want to make good faith efforts to appeal to the broadest audience possible, or appeal to an under-served audience (which is why Twilight exploded the way it did). 40K doesn't do either - the art and the minis are almost all white guys, with few to no women.
2: The fictional aspects of the 40K universe are clearly fictional, whereas racism and sexism aren't, thus people not having a problem with the Emperor of Mankind eating souls to stay alive does not de-legitimize people's issues with the lack of non-white/non-male representation in the setting and range.
3: As far as ethnicity goes, one can do a lot with the paint scheme. It's not perfect, as it doesn't get facial features, but it's something the individual has some control over. I'd encourage GW to use some non-white facial sculpts for minis that show faces, and for their artwork and studio paint schemes to depict some non-white people in their armies.
Some of those examples are clearly ridiculous, as a gay person or an autistic person wouldn't physically look any different from anybody else, for instance.
The issue here isn't whether GW is doing a good enough job representing non-whites or females in the setting. The issue is that they're hardly trying at all. I don't expect them to get it exactly right all the time, but I do think they should start making good-faith efforts.
4: That's an easy attitude to cop when one is a part of the population that is over-represented.[/spoiler]
1. Yeah broadest audience possible, let's just try to appeal to pacifists then. Not every product has to be for everyone. And no I'm not saying it should be exclusively for white males, just that the obsession with perfect product is silly.
2. Bloodshed is not fictional, nuclear weapons are not fictional, tyranny is not fictional etc yet it's sexism that is a problem.
3. Sure, wherever it makes sense.
4. I had fun of my life playing GTA San Andreas, where I was heavily under represented. I have fun in games where I can't play men. I would have heaps of fun playing exclusively female SoB army. It's just normal attitude, sorry but it seems like you would find cop outs, tokenisms, under representations and white elitism in a bag of tomatoes. You're not alone though, if that's any consolation.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
2016/08/24 22:49:39
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
This shouldn't even be a argument. No % of the actual 40k fanbase wants female space marines. It wouldn't cause people who actually like the lore to buy it, rather it would cause them to go away.
But more than that, it is just plain arrogance that a subset of people can come forward and say indirectly that I'm a misogynist. If I disagree with you I'm one, if I agree I'm selling out my own belief (not that I ever would). No, you don't like how a game is played? You don't like this made up setting? Go make your own. Raziel you need to cool it with your accusations, you are doing nothing but deliberately antagonizing an non-issue. No one CARES about the non-existent female space marines, people actually CARE about the nearly non-existent Sisters of Battle. The fact mods haven't closed this thread is quite amazing, it is a subject that has been retread by trolls for trolls for years. I can only imagine it has been able to continue as long as it has because of it's masquerade as a topic of true diversity.
If female space marines ever happen it would make sense to have it occur in a new IP, one whose selling point isn't lore but rather about the characters they introduce within it. Outside of that Sisters of Battle is going to remain the only hope of a female space marine analogue anyone is going to likely get, yes they're hamstrung five different ways but anyone who likes 40k knows about them and wants to see them come back in some form.
I've said it once before this thread I'll say it again, why aren't you attacking similar all-male warrior societies? The Witcher has only male witchers for the same exact reason as 40k. No one can address this as it is simple artistic vision, it is part of a coherent narrative that explains the world. It is one of the most popular series of recent times, its success encompassing traditional and digital media in multiple cultures.
Quickjager wrote: This shouldn't even be a argument. No % of the actual 40k fanbase wants female space marines.
I think the frequent questions about it on every 40k forum that discusses Marines at all says otherwise. You might say the percent is small. But it's there.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/08/24 23:06:30
Subject: Re:Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
I would say no, generally. Physical disabilities have a tendency of hampering battlefield capability, so you wouldn't likely see them on the battlefields the tabletop represents, at least not as soldiers on either side. Though now that I think about it, some disabilities actually do have lore and even model representation. The Iron Hands Chapter makes a habit of amputating their own limbs and replacing them with high-tech prosthetics called bionics. Some models have bionic eyes, like Commissar Yarrick and a variety of generic Space Marine parts. There's an Imperial Guard bit on one of the Command Squad sprues with an arm in a sling though, and one bit with a bionic arm with a power sword. Wheelchairs are extremely poorly-suited to the battlefield, as are crutches and being blind in general.
Mental disabilities you can't really see either way, and some of them would likely exclude military service too. For example, a schizophrenic lacks the ability to bond with fellow soldiers (and most people in general), even though he or she may be physically capable of performing the duties required, so schizophrenics, even properly medicated and treated ones, are generally excluded from military service entirely. At least in real life.
So you're telling me that because there is an IN-UNIVERSE reason why disabilities wouldn't be represented, I can't be represented? (And no, I'm not counting prosthetics. I'm talking about wheelchairs, crutches, etc)
Huh. Swap out "disabilities" with "female Astartes", and that's an argument against femarines.
Again, the points about IRL don't matter - 40k is an entirely different beast, and I wouldn't be surprised if schizophrenics were sent into combat.
(I'll be honest, I'm sure most people have moved past the femarine issue, but seeing as we're pretty much all in agreement that other races should get more variety, it's a decent point to bring up.)
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
- female super-elite, power-armored warriors: An army with an entirely pewter range, a limited number of minis, substandard rules, and can only be bought online.Which should have an update, which no-one disagrees with. The potential is still there.
Not doing so well with the representation there.But the potential is there, eliminating the need for femarines.
My points in red.
I disagree with your conclusion. Sisters could even up the representational gap if GW properly supported them. However, GW doesn't properly support them. There is only one faction we know GW is not going to neglect in any edition, and that's Space Marines. So, to even up the represenational gap, GW could properly support Sisters, which to wildly understate matters they haven't reliably done in the past, or they could alter the fluff to allow female Space Marines. Heck, they altered the fluff to get rid of them, so I don't see why the current fluff against them is considered so sacrosanct.
But, OK, IF Sisters were properly supported and given some love in the fluff, then yes, they could work. That is a monumental IF, though.
I would ask you to read my notes again.
I used the word "potential" a lot - potential representing that GWcan do things with the Sisters, but have not yet. Literally, your entire point is agreeing with mine - if Sisters were treated better, which they have the potential to be, femarines don't need to exist.
Also, where did you get that female marines were once a thing? I'm curious to know.
1: No setting has to be representative of anything anywhere on an artistic level. However, if you want to sell a product, you want to make good faith efforts to appeal to the broadest audience possible, or appeal to an under-served audience (which is why Twilight exploded the way it did). 40K doesn't do either - the art and the minis are almost all white guys, with few to no women.
Mostly because most art is of Space Marines, who are all male, and specifically Ultramarines, who are generally white.
Now, in factions where there should be different ethnicities (non-Cadian guard regiments) and discernibly different genders (Eldar, Dark Eldar, Guardsmen, Inquisition, Scions, Cultists), there *should* be more variety, as per the lore.
On a related question, why should Ultramarines and Cadians be all-white? Did only white Europeans make it to the space colonization game? Even if you accept the idea that there are mono-ethnicity planets (which is kind of ridiculous, but okay), the Ultramarines recruit from multiple planets. You'd think at least some of them would have a different color skin.
The reason they're white is the same reason that Space Wolves are Viking Marines and White Scars are Mongol Marines - because GW designed them that way.
They made the Cadians an analogue for the American military (assumed, at least) and guess what most American soldiers are? White and male.
The Ultramarines are Greco-Roman inspired. In pop-culture, both empires are typically represented by white men (inaccurately, some might say).
Cadians are probably descended from a common ancestor base - a single ethnic group who colonised Cadia. It may have just happened to be white. Because Cadia probably keeps itself rather insular regarding breeding, there would be little race mixing and result in Cadians looking similar generation after generation.
You bring up the point of UM recruiting from different worlds, and should have recruits of different colour skin.
So, I bring the point of the Raven Guard and Salamanders. Both Chapters cause the skin pigmentation of the gene-sees host to become more like that of their Primarch. Who is to say that UM don't have a similar effect?
Again, you dismiss the idea of a mono-race society, but it's been thousands of years. Literally. Who is to say that only White Europeans went to the stars? Other ethnicities may all have been wiped out, save for a handful of others (White Scars, Space Wolves). Or, perhaps all races have simply merged together so much over time there ceases to be a real difference in ethnicity? We don't know what happened, so why are you so quick to dismiss that?
Some of those examples are clearly ridiculous, as a gay person or an autistic person wouldn't physically look any different from anybody else, for instance.
What about the issue with, say, Polynesian heritage?
Disability?
Being abnormally short/tall?
Why can't these be represented in my Space Marines - if being able to identify with my tabletop models is that sancrosant that you'll rewrite canon to do it, why can't I have my tall polynesian disabled Space Marines? (Apologies to any tall polynesian disabled guys/gals reading)
I think 40,000 years in the future, we can reasonably expect to have developed technological work-arounds to virtually all disabilities. Paint your mini with a Polynesian skin tone. Talk to GW about the height and facial sculpts - I've argued for a broader range of face sculpts.
See my point above regarding the timespan and ethnicities simply being all bred together.
Also - reasonably cannot apply to an empire which throws men into meat grinders as a standard way of war.
The fact that it would be inordinately difficult for one company to represent every possible ethnic variation doesn't excuse said company making no effort at all to represent any ethnic variation outside of white Europeans. Good faith efforts to represent at least the planet's major ethnicities would make good business sense, be fairly easy to do, and even give some aesthetic variety to armies that are otherwise rather monotonous.
Cue slippery slope.
If one group is portrayed, why didn't you do the other group?
Business sense only matters if it improves sales. And I can't provide statistics to support nor contest that point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:That Sisters are inferior to men because they have less stuff than Space Marines, do please consider that Sisters have more than the Scions do. And whilst they could and should have far more in their range, Scions do have less.
I don't think that's a very legitimate counterpoint. It was kind of ridiculous to blow up the Militarum Tempestus into a separate army list. They could have just had a formation detachment in the Astra Militarum book.
True, but they exist now, and have a grand total of what, five units to their entire army? What about Knights?
The argument that SoB have the least units based on GW's misogyny is not accurate at all. Do they need more units, in order to expand the force as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus, a la Deathwatch and Grey Knights? Yes. Should they get a model overhaul? Yes. Should they get a paperback codex at least? Yes.
Knights are another faction that should never have been made a full 40K army in the first place. However, point in fact, Knights have been getting a lot more attention since their introduction than Sisters have in the same time period.
If GW had kept the Sisters up with the Space Marines over the editions, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Their 3rd/4th ed lists were fairly equivalent. Lately though, SMs have had an explosion of new units, whereas Sisters have not kept up. In order for Sisters to serve as a legitimate counterpoint, they'd need to be brought up to speed.
GW missed an opportunity to revamp Sisters instead of bringing us Deathwatch. Really, Deathwatch didn't need a whole army list either. A detachment formation with Sternguards and Vanguards would have worked just fine. Plus, GW could have replaced the Storm Raven model with that Deathwatch flyer - or not bothered and just let Deathwatch use the Storm Raven. If it's good enough for the Grey Knights, it ought to be good enough for the Deathwatch.
Well, Knights are here to stay, I'm fairly sure. So regardless of if you think they shouldn't exist, they do. And they have less models than even the Sisters. Plus, what attention have Scions had since their codex release? Nothing. They're worse than SoB if we rule out the (very legitimate and totally agreeable) point that they haven't been treated for far less time than the poor SoB.
Deathwatch are a nice addition, and make sense if GK are a thing, seeing as they represent the same thing for different Ordos. They should exist.
Now, this just goes more reason that SoB should come.
DW should be an army of their own, much like how the Sisters should be.
If you're going to say that DW shouldn't exist because they could just be Van/Sternguatd Veterans, Grey Knights shouldn't have a codex either, and should only be Terminators with some CCW Tactical Squads.
And hell, CSM shouldn't exist - they should just use the SM book.
And if you want to use the "it's good enough for X" argument, then why don't Guardsmen carry bolters? I mean, it's good enough for the Sisters. Or, maybe, there's production or simply preference issues - the Blackstar might suit the DW better than the Stormraven.
*some points made above are purely for the sake of Devil's Advocate, and do not represent any personal views*
2016/08/24 23:10:21
Subject: Re:Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: [There are currently 6 full Space Marine dexes (SMs, BAs, DAs, SWs, GKs, and now Deathwatch) with fully supported plastic ranges
7, you forgot the Chaos Marines.
Azreal13 wrote: But we know he's a fething monk because he's a fething Space Marine and the lore says they're monks!
I already addressed that.
Manchu wrote: As you say, they are warrior monks no matter whether they wear Christian-esque priestly vestments, wolf pelts, or the Khan's fur-trimmed high heels
They are warrior-monk despite not having none of the traits of a monk because, duh, reasons! No need to go beyond saying “It's true because I tell you it's true”!
Plumbumbarum wrote: It's not the first time you seem to have trouble following conversation.
.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Lol. I'd love to see you expand your point on Jewish descendants of concentrations camps prisoners, I guess they can't be ever offended because it's not them. Ridiculous, by that logic a cool portrayal concentration camp guard who loves shooting Jews is ok, why don't you go to Israel and ask them if they are afraid that Adolf will get them or what.
It's funny that you would take that route, because it just so happen that my own grand-mother was German and Jewish and had to flee all over Europe, and had family members that died during the holocaust.
Great job buddy, trying to shame the descendant of a Jewish victim of the Nazis using the descendants of other victims of the Nazi parti .
And yet you don't see me cry offensive anytime Nazi or Nazi-like figures are portrayed in the media, do you?
(And actually, you would get surprised at the kind of stuff that was made and sold in Israel just after WW2.)
Plumbumbarum wrote: Thank you man, I always claimed that all those leftist sensibilities are super selective and they are just as bigoted and hateful as all those facists, racists etc just against different groups, and now you're so beautifuly shameless about it. You just made my day.
So, why is it okay now for 40k to be offensive to religious bigots, but not okay to be offensive to leftist fanatic? Because you say so? You just confirmed that your case is worthless as long as it's about discrimination etc.
That's quite a long way to write “If anti-sexism is okay, then sexism must be okay” lol. I believe it's okay to be offensive to religious bigots but not to “leftist fanatics” because I believe the reasons the “leftist fanatics” have to be offended are valid and relevant, while those of the religious bigots are not, and are often used to enforced unjust and harmful stuff. And you are doing the very exact same “double standard” every day, are you not? Pushing for your ideas rather than those of people you strongly disagree with? Nah, sure, you treat every one's opinion as exactly equivalent in merit as your own. You perfectly demonstrated that in this discussion .
Plumbumbarum wrote: It's not super coherent but it will only get worse with female SM, further diluting any identity there.
That seems like a super-important problem . It's nice to see that even you would agree that “It's not coherent” (which is putting it lightly to the least, but at least it's an acknowledgment).
Plumbumbarum wrote: It can offend religion (bigots! by default apparently), descendants of genocide victims (not them) but women are no go, hurts too much.
Ah it's funny how you are trying to distort words! I said it can offend “religious bigots”, you suddenly decided I said “religious people, that are by definition bigot”. And then you'll tell me how I distort your words. Also, care to show me all the descendant of genocide victim that are offended by GW's commissar? I mean, really offended, not just using this as a rhetorical device to score points in debates on internet forums? Because, yeah, it's harder to get compassion for people pretending to be hurt by something, but only, literally only when it serves their rhetorical needs.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2016/08/24 23:16:59
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
Hybrid, if your refuse to accept what the fluff tells you, and has told you for several editions, simply because you won't accept it, then why even care about lore?
There's no reason not to dismiss the Sisters as ever existing in the lore. There no reason I can't say the Emperor is fine and just having a bad dream. Nothing to stop me saying that Calgar is a frog in TDA plate.
But the lore actually tells us otherwise. If you're ignoring that piece of lore, what makes any other piece of it any more valuable?
They/them
2016/08/24 23:21:47
Subject: Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.
nou wrote: Current state clearly sells well enough.
I think I might've choked on my drink if I'd been sipping it at this part.
Have you seen their financials in recent years?
There's absolutely no justification or evidence that any perceived lack of diversity has had a negative impact on their sales, nor that an increase would have a positive one.
The change of edition and subsequent apparent decline in popularity would much more closely track any negative financial performance, although it's important to note they are still making a profit, and the introduction of some female models would likely do zero to reverse the declining trend.
@Pouncey - As Azreal wrote: do you seriously think, that gender diversity or lack of it has more influence on sales than general trend of entertainment industry towards simple board games, computer games, mobile entertainment and so on? My statement is written clearly in a gender context so please, do read with assumption, that I'm not an utter idiot. Compare complexity of 2nd ed WH40k, RPG games from '90 (both classic and computer) classic vs modern x-com games etc… And then tell me, if my "sells well enough" is still hilarious. Decline in sales after 6th ed has more to do with market shifting to mobile entertainment than it has with the actual wh40k ruleset (as clearly most of GW consumer base do not even play the game, just collect the models and play not more than couple of times a year if ever). There is a poll here, clearly showing a spectrum of frequency of playing within dakaa comunity, and dakka comunity itself groups most involved hobbyists...
I know that even Call of Duty lets you play a female character in some of their more recent games.
I know that even Halo has female Spartans now.
I know that the most popular subscription-based MMORPG in history has lasted 12 years and counting, still has millions of people paying to play it, and when it first came out in 2004 it altered pre-existing lore that said things like Night Elf men couldn't be hunters, priests or warriors and Night Elf women couldn't be Druids in favor of more gender equality.
I know that if you take the same game and make two different advertisements for it, one with women in the ad and one without women in the ad, women who see the ad with women in it are more likely to buy the game.
I know that eventually the tabletop wargaming hobby is going to stop being a boys club and have to include women, and a lot of women introduced to 40k have their first question being, "Where are all the women?"
I know that the Assassin's Creed game that offered the ability to make a custom character for online play suffered harsh criticism for not being designed to let you play a female character if you wanted to.
I know that one of the things 40k is founded upon is making your own custom army to your own specifications.
So no, I'm not seeing that there's no market for more female characters in gaming or even 40k in particular.
Where the heck in mine or Azreal post did you read that we claim, that there is no market for more female characters in games? I clearly wrote, that in the particular case of 40K there is just absolutely no proof whatsoever (at least in this thread or any available and verifiable marketing data regarding 40K), that gender diversity of 28mm figures has any meaningfull impact on sales. I have provided more viable possible reasons for sales decline, yet you have ignored all of them. And after reading your previous posts, you make some quite bold comparisons between mostly virtual, enormous market of computer gaming industry and limited, physical market of miniature wargaming… And fail to understand the nature of economic viability of making new sculpts - even such popular and in-game powerfull army as Eldar has only 5% market share within GW product line (according to dakka poll) and this is not enough to update Aspect Warriors, which have 15 year old sculpts… And Eldrad got an update after what - 20 years? From economic standpoint it is much more possible for you to see Femarine accesory/head sprue added to every Space Marine box than to see an all-female IG box… Simply because sales volumes of those two factions.
And Warhammer operates on entirely different market than Overwatch or Halo. Compare the sole number of existing, actively produced wargames to the number of (even only) AAA computer games released each year and their combined budgets and maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about… We have only a handfull of succesfull miniature gaming companies around the world, almost all new kickstarter startups fail to deliver anything and those who do and almost all small companies live off producing accesories for already succesfull games of large companies and not from their own game systems. And reasons for that are simply market volume and saturation.
And to be crystal clear, as this thread has seen all sorts of false mysogynism accusations - I do not claim, that it would be disastrous for GW to introduce new female sculpts anywhere and anywhen they want, or anywhere majority of buyers want, or anywhere "significant minority" of buyers want. My wife play Tyranids (obviously gender indifferent) and I'm largely indifferent to breastplates on my 28mm Eldar/Harlequin figures. And I'm completely indifferent about what happens to Space Marines or IG, as I do not play with or against them. But I do claim, that forced resculpting of existing product line only to satisfy demands of a miniscule minority within wargaming community, driven by politcal correctness and not hard numbers of market demand would certainly be disastrous from economical standpoint. And yes, I do think that this gender representation problem is miniscule and that women are driven away from 40K not because gender imbalance within miniature range, but because of particular setting, playstyle, hobby aspect and existing male-dominant (and ideed largely and trully mysoginistic and/or sexist) community of this game all combined.
If, as you claim, I am completely wrong, and there is a strong market demand for female models, or that there is in fact any substance to claim, that (US centric) demographically correct gender and racial representation in miniature wargaming plays any significant role in sales, then we will see GW adapt in years to come, at a rate justifiable from technical cycle standpoint. Or otherwise they will collapse in a few years if they won't, which will be ultimate proof that you are right. But I wholeheartedly doubt it.
Don't tell the commissar I asked!
Member of 
DKoK Blog:
Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey
.
.