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.

 Melissia wrote:
Outside of the Norn-Queen (whose alternative name, "splicer-beasts", is non-gendered, and is kind of obscure fluff anyway not appearing on the tabletop at all), they don't use gendered terminology.

Well, termagants, hive crones, harpies, dominatrix, harridans, broodlords and the swarmlord.
But I agree with your general point.

Himmelweiss wrote:
I have:
Ultramarines
Tyranids
Death Guard
Necrons
Blood Angels
Orks
soon IG

6 (soon 7) freaking huge armies that don't appeal to female players at all. Not even Blood Angels. Atleast at my location.

What i am missing now is an serious female army. Sisters of Silence are just meh, SoB would be much much better, so everyone says here atleast (including females)!

Sisters of Silence kinda were just a misleading and disappointing release anyway... I was expecting SoB when they clearly said "Sisters of Battle" are coming. On their Facebook page they quote they never said "Sisters of Battle" just "Sisters..." but as everyone knows that's just bull...

40k in it's current state is absolutely nothing for female players, only a few want to play some random armies.
Most female players i met want SoB, but as soon they look at the 2nd edition stuff and expecially at the price tag they decide to rather play something different or (in most cases) not play at all.

Yes i know, some say "female" players don't really want/need female models to play 40k or any tabletop.
But that's just wrong imo, i have a complete different experience. Just use MMORPGs as an example, pretty much every female player plays an female char. Whereas male players usualy play female chars, go figure :p

Women don't play 40k for the same reason they don't play x-wing because as a general rule they don't enjoy competitive games, adding more female oriented stuff won't magically change that.

Same with video games adding female avatars to battlefront didn't make women flock to play it, women like mmo's because its a cooperative experience.

Female leads in action movies don't suddenly make women want to go see it.

They should add sisters because there's a demand not to further a regressive agenda.

The sexes have different interests and that's fine.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

Himmelweiss wrote:
I have:
Ultramarines
Tyranids
Death Guard
Necrons
Blood Angels
Orks
soon IG

6 (soon 7) freaking huge armies that don't appeal to female players at all. Not even Blood Angels. Atleast at my location.

What i am missing now is an serious female army. Sisters of Silence are just meh, SoB would be much much better, so everyone says here atleast (including females)!

Sisters of Silence kinda were just a misleading and disappointing release anyway... I was expecting SoB when they clearly said "Sisters of Battle" are coming. On their Facebook page they quote they never said "Sisters of Battle" just "Sisters..." but as everyone knows that's just bull...

40k in it's current state is absolutely nothing for female players, only a few want to play some random armies.
Most female players i met want SoB, but as soon they look at the 2nd edition stuff and expecially at the price tag they decide to rather play something different or (in most cases) not play at all.

Yes i know, some say "female" players don't really want/need female models to play 40k or any tabletop.
But that's just wrong imo, i have a complete different experience. Just use MMORPGs as an example, pretty much every female player plays an female char. Whereas male players usualy play female chars, go figure :p

It was hard to read your response (grammatically etc).
However, I get what you are saying. Though, your emphasis is on female players (obviously you said it like 9 times...). Multi-gender armies are not defined by one gender. For example, Eldar/Dark Eldar have a good mix of both genders (without being totally defined by it).

Yes SoB are totally defined by their gender and I love them as a parabola to SM, but there is a lot of multi or no gender armies in 40k, nids, orks, crons, etc. You seem to surmise your small pool of friends that want to play and project it on to all, well then??? I have multiple 'female friends' that do play a multitude of armies...do my friends out number yours to make it 'most'?

You say pretty much every player... do you know every player?

SC

Yup, my grammar can be very horrible in english. I am aware of it, so sorry for that.

Ofc. i don't know every player, but in Bavaria, Munich and Nuernberg there are really tons of players, so i know quite a few. But it is still, as you said, a small pool of friends.
However, it is no secret that many in the world wide web want an SoB update. Not just an Codex update...

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Meaning take a shower.

Thank you NentokaMoon, basic human decency (hygiene being an important part) is a good step.

Back on track, I really like Sisters of Battle and consider them an important fixture of the setting. More often than not they work just as well as Space Marines when trying to find a group that "embodies" 40k. I would gladly buy a SoB force (at least a SW:A squad) but for the price and the all-metal minis being a pain to convert.

hobojebus wrote:

Himmelweiss wrote:
I have:
Ultramarines
Tyranids
Death Guard
Necrons
Blood Angels
Orks
soon IG

6 (soon 7) freaking huge armies that don't appeal to female players at all. Not even Blood Angels. Atleast at my location.

What i am missing now is an serious female army. Sisters of Silence are just meh, SoB would be much much better, so everyone says here atleast (including females)!

Sisters of Silence kinda were just a misleading and disappointing release anyway... I was expecting SoB when they clearly said "Sisters of Battle" are coming. On their Facebook page they quote they never said "Sisters of Battle" just "Sisters..." but as everyone knows that's just bull...

40k in it's current state is absolutely nothing for female players, only a few want to play some random armies.
Most female players i met want SoB, but as soon they look at the 2nd edition stuff and expecially at the price tag they decide to rather play something different or (in most cases) not play at all.

Yes i know, some say "female" players don't really want/need female models to play 40k or any tabletop.
But that's just wrong imo, i have a complete different experience. Just use MMORPGs as an example, pretty much every female player plays an female char. Whereas male players usualy play female chars, go figure :p

Women don't play 40k for the same reason they don't play x-wing because as a general rule they don't enjoy competitive games, adding more female oriented stuff won't magically change that.

Same with video games adding female avatars to battlefront didn't make women flock to play it, women like mmo's because its a cooperative experience.

Female leads in action movies don't suddenly make women want to go see it.

They should add sisters because there's a demand not to further a regressive agenda.

The sexes have different interests and that's fine.

Actually i have to agree with you on all points.

But when it comes to video games, Overwatch from Blizzard is quite different there. A LOT of womens play Overwatch and it is an very competive shooter.
But that's just 1 game, so you are still right :p

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Outside of the Norn-Queen (whose alternative name, "splicer-beasts", is non-gendered, and is kind of obscure fluff anyway not appearing on the tabletop at all), they don't use gendered terminology.

Well, termagants, hive crones, harpies, dominatrix, harridans, broodlords and the swarmlord.
But I agree with your general point.

Well, those terms are the terms the Imperium uses to descrive them. Is not like Tyranids call themselves that. I doubt Tyranids call themselves anything.

And I don't know why you say that Dark Eldar are bad in the female-male ratio? Actually they are the best ones in that. All of their plastic kits have a mix of male-female torsos (6 male torsos:4 female torsos in the Kabalite Warrior box, and the opposite in the Wytchs box). Jetbikes, the ones with wings, etc... they all have both male and female torsos. One can say that in characters, males have the predominance with I believe... one special male character and two generic male characters, when theres only one special female character and one generic female character.

Himmelweiss wrote:
Actually i have to agree with you on all points.

But when it comes to video games, Overwatch from Blizzard is quite different there. A LOT of womens play Overwatch and it is an very competive shooter.
But that's just 1 game, so you are still right :p

Are you saying that he is demonstrably wrong but you still agree with him?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Well, those terms are the terms the Imperium uses to descrive them. Is not like Tyranids call themselves that. I doubt Tyranids call themselves anything.

Well, yeah, but the tyranid don't call themself Norn-Queen either so my answer made sense in context .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Himmelweiss wrote:
Actually i have to agree with you on all points.

But when it comes to video games, Overwatch from Blizzard is quite different there. A LOT of womens play Overwatch and it is an very competive shooter.
But that's just 1 game, so you are still right :p

Are you saying that he is demonstrably wrong but you still agree with him?

No, he was totally right with what he was saying.

Just that one video game "Overwatch" came into my mind which is just an exception.

Now I'm wondering, what kinky imperial officer saw a Dominatrix for the first time and tought "You know what that giant moster reminds me...?"

I like the Female SoB models b.c the are just cool looking, they are Sleeker than SM, i dont like SM models, i also like DE and Harlequins for the same reason.

I also like the play style where i dont like SM play style.

I honestly never thought SOB was "meant for women" i mean it was 30yrs ago made by men... we all know why they were made

I really don't like these realms of conversation. Why can't we have Sisters of Battle because we just want Sisters of Battle? Why does every topic about Sisters of Battle turn into a big gender and political argument? Whether or not GW tries to appeal more to women is a whole separate issue from Sisters of Battle.

They have already released Celestine and her design is very in line with the old Sisters of Battle models. In other words, the boob plate is here to stay. I think if GW wanted to tip-toe around gender politics, they would have changed that drastically by now.

Himmelweiss wrote:
No, he was totally right with what he was saying.

Just that one video game "Overwatch" came into my mind which is just an exception.

“This is totally true please ignore that glaring counterexample and pretend it doesn't exist” ?

A man who says women don't enjoy competition, is a man who has never actually paid any attention to women.

drbored wrote:
Why does every topic about Sisters of Battle turn into a big gender and political argument?

Because any time someone wants new female miniatures it gets labeled "politics" by default by hypocrites who want to pretend they're not being political in order to make themselves feel better about their political views.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
Back on track, I really like Sisters of Battle and consider them an important fixture of the setting. More often than not they work just as well as Space Marines when trying to find a group that "embodies" 40k. I would gladly buy a SoB force (at least a SW:A squad) but for the price and the all-metal minis being a pain to convert.

Indeed. Sisters basically embody the best and worst aspects of the Imperium of Man as a whole, to me. Fanatical warriors following the cult of a dying god-emperor, that yet also run some of the most effective charity, medical, and administrative elements of the nation. The multi-faceted nature of their lore makes them far deeper than most Space Marine lore could ever hope to be. .

drbored wrote:
I really don't like these realms of conversation. Why can't we have Sisters of Battle because we just want Sisters of Battle? Why does every topic about Sisters of Battle turn into a big gender and political argument? Whether or not GW tries to appeal more to women is a whole separate issue from Sisters of Battle.

They have already released Celestine and her design is very in line with the old Sisters of Battle models. In other words, the boob plate is here to stay. I think if GW wanted to tip-toe around gender politics, they would have changed that drastically by now.

Politics



Anyway, I like the "boob plate". The whole decorative nature of our armor set really does capture the church-at-war aspect of our army.

I always loved boob plate myself.

I'd prefer something more platemail lke, but as long as it's similar to what the redone Celestine (as opposed to the obnoxious nipple-spike canoness model, or the skull-fethed stupid heeled "not actually wearing power armor" blanchian crap) I don't mind. It's quite an iconic design for Sisters, so I'm not gonna be upset at no major changes to the armor design.

I will be upset at no major changes to our army list. We really need new units, new -stuff-.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Himmelweiss wrote:
No, he was totally right with what he was saying.

Just that one video game "Overwatch" came into my mind which is just an exception.

“This is totally true please ignore that glaring counterexample and pretend it doesn't exist” ?

Ok what do you want to hear? Are you bored or something or why are you nitpicking over this so heavy?

 Melissia wrote:
A man who says women don't enjoy competition, is a man who has never actually paid any attention to women.

drbored wrote:
Why does every topic about Sisters of Battle turn into a big gender and political argument?

Because any time someone wants new female miniatures it gets labeled "politics" by default by hypocrites who want to pretend they're not being political in order to make themselves feel better about their political views.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
Back on track, I really like Sisters of Battle and consider them an important fixture of the setting. More often than not they work just as well as Space Marines when trying to find a group that "embodies" 40k. I would gladly buy a SoB force (at least a SW:A squad) but for the price and the all-metal minis being a pain to convert.

Indeed. Sisters basically embody the best and worst aspects of the Imperium of Man as a whole, to me. Fanatical warriors following the cult of a dying god-emperor, that yet also run some of the most effective charity, medical, and administrative elements of the nation. The multi-faceted nature of their lore makes them far deeper than most Space Marine lore could ever hope to be. .

Except I didn't say that did I so that's a strawman argument right from the start.

It wasn't political until someone chimed in with " more female models=more female gamers" which every bit of research on gender preference disproves, so your insulting the feminists which I don't think was your intention.

Not really following rule #1 either.

Himmelweiss wrote:
Ok what do you want to hear?

Nothing. Actually I'll stop this part of the conversation right now.

hobojebus wrote:
It wasn't political until someone chimed in with " more female models=more female gamers" which every bit of research on gender preference disproves

They do? Really? Wow. Where can I find that research which shows more female representation doesn't increase the appeal to women?

Well we have this thing called the internet and you can use this thing called a browser to search for information.

Its kinda new but its catching on.

You are making a pretty specific claim and looking for sources on my favorite search engines gave me no result of any studies confirming it. So, in keeping with your sarcastic and unpleasant tone, I am going to say your affirmation is 100% made up all false, without backing my claim with anything except "literally hundreds of studies, 100% of the studies, I have the best studies".

hobojebus wrote:
It wasn't political until

Pretending you're not being political is cute, but dishonest.

If anything, you're the one that's injecting politics in to this. Before you started your rants, people were just talking about what they wanted for the future of the hobby. And then you inserted your political views by calling anyone who disagreed with you political in order to try to shut down conversation.

Apparently, anyone who likes the hobby in a way other than The Way As Approved By HoboJesus is just "being political", and the only way to not "be political" is to agree with hobojesus.

Politics aside, WE HAVE A NEW SISTERS RUMOR!!

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/10/rumor-sisters-as-first-army-of-2018.html

"via Lord Fangio in the Comments on Spikey Bits
Link sent in via a reader

https://spikeybits.com/2017/10/hard-plastic-sisters-wolves-kickstarter-canceled.html

Lord Fangio •
Considering that a staffer at GW yesterday absentmindedly told me that his first army of 2018 would be sisters because he will finally not have to deal with metal. Then tried to backtrack after being given the evils by the manager, I have my suspicions as to why the Kickstarter got canned.


Lord Fangio jexinator •
I have been waiting excitedly for plastic sisters since 2003. Sadly I have suffered so many dissapointments during this wait that even this I take with a handful of salt.

Though that said, the manager in the above story then started to explain how the plastic Sisters of Silence had been made to prove to the investors that there was a market for female miniatures outside of FW. And they have sold very well. Then we also have the recent investor report about wanting to make more female figurines.

Also, early this year I was talking to a GW manager in one of the London stores and he told me with great confidence that he expected Sisters to be the 11/12th codex. At the time the 10 codices before Xmas hadn't been announced, so I just assumed he meant it would be next Summer or Autumn (which was cool enough).

Again, I refuse to get excited in case GW HQ has been feeding misinformation down the lines."

Well, at least it matches all the other Sisters rumors we've heard for the past 20 years.

The Kickstarter being cancelled means nothing as I don't see how Shieldwolf Miniatures could have any information on a future Sisters release, and it wouldn't even change the number of backers they already had.
And Lord Fangio's comments on Spikey Bits it not the most reliable source, and GW explicitely admitted to trolling Sisters of Battle players before so... won't raise my hopes up.

 Melissia wrote:
If anything, you're the one that's injecting politics in to this.

That's not really true. It's drbored who started to talk about politics, here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/740222.page#9632340
What hobojesus did, however, was post that message:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/740222.page#9620760
which really really really doesn't play in his favour but oh well.
I'm sure he'll post some interesting studies very soon though.

Yes, clearly he's just taking his time doing research.

Incorrect information was being presented so I offered an opposing stance.

The fact your attacking me instead of my argument means there's no point carrying on, you've taken it personally but for me it isn't I just dislike false narratives being pushed as if they were true.

I've seen what this kind of thing has done to atheism and marvel comics I'd rather it not infect wargames.

hobojebus wrote:
The fact your attacking me instead of my argument

Actually, I am attacking your argument. You made the argument that anyone who disagreed with you was being political, and that argument, I attacked as utter nonsense; at its very core, it is an argument made in bad faith.

hobojebus wrote:
Incorrect information was being presented so I offered an opposing stance.

The fact your attacking me instead of my argument means there's no point carrying on, you've taken it personally but for me it isn't I just dislike false narratives being pushed as if they were true.

Nobody is asking you to argue. I was just curious about your sources. Post a few simple URLs and be done with it.
Or, alternatively, when you are trying to push your own narrative because you are irritated by reading things that goes against it, don't invent studies that do not exist to support your viewpoint. Whichever applies. Really I am fine with both.

That kickstarter could have been canceled by a cease and desist by GW. You don't need to have a lawsuit going to file a DMCA, and if Shieldwolf Miniatures decided to respect that, then there you go.

It could also be that they ran into some other issue that helped them realize they couldn't deliver on their promise. Dotting some i's and crossing some t's, or a decimal point in the wrong place.

Either way, I'm really surprised they didn't post a reason as to why, as that would clear that up right away.

I can dream that it's because GW told them 'Hey, cut that out, we want to make this first.'