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.

Seriously, let’s all take this to the off topic forum and discuss it there, this thread is supposed to be about female guard, I’m guilty of knocking it off topic too but let’s get it back on eh

Warlord Games have released this Daughters of the Motherland Patriot Team today, as an expansion for the existing Daughters of the Motherland box.



(Not sure what's happening with that first picture)

They might work as female guard with some weapon swaps.

Warlord minis look.... odd next to 40k.

They are quite nice .

Guess they must be wiling to brave the onslaught of all these outraged women!

A . realistic build for what a female super soldier would look like. B nice historical link to the tragic WWI all female units and the ones from WWII.

Good way to add female models to a table top game. Female catachans should probablly look a bit like that.

Can warlord not find a decent painter? That kills the models for me much in the same way forgeworlds dodgy paintings do.

I'd need to see the bare plastic before considering touching them.

 Mr Morden wrote:
We had the same nonsense baout female models not selling for Stormcast and pretty much every fantasy line - then they made some and guess what they keep making them cos they sell

Isn't this more a function of you get that (female) model in the set(s) it comes in by default given the set is sculpted as 1 in 4 (or whatever ratio) is female. Anyone wanting that set to use in game gets female by default which is not necessarily indicative they went out of their way to buy it for that one female model. If GW use that logic as a basis to judge female models sell then they are running on a flawed argument - what sold was the set, either for the full aesthetics of that set, or more likely, the rules functions. Where someone set out with the sole intention of buying the Stormcast set with the chick in it, would in my view, be entirely an immaterial proportion of all sales of that set. The better view would have been to consider sales of Sisters of Silence where there is a ready proxy force available for them (Sisters of battle) which could have indicated to GW there was a desire for (all) female forces/models.

Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.

I'M BACK EVERYONE! WHAT IS GOING ON IN... HOLY GAK, WHAT THE FETH HAPPENED HERE!?

I think this discussion just proves my original point that the subject of inclusiveness is still a super touchy one for a lot of people.

I for one would love female guard heads on the guardsmen sprue, so long as they came extra and didn't replace male heads. That way you could make a regiment of all women or all men depending on your regiment's lore.

It's not going to happen anytime soon IMO, for the exact same reasons I outline in my original posts. Very vocal minorities in their fanbase will criticize GW no matter what direction they take, whether they have new female body sculpts or keep the male bodies and just include female heads. Someone is always going to be unhappy for some reason. However, in modern times with the existence of the internet, these unhappy people can find each other, form cliques and then proceed to make a lot of noise. Then they tie their extreme opinions to popular social movements (both on the misogynist side and the feminist side) and suddenly become immune to criticism.

There are already female models in the guard boxes. Just like modern real soldiers once their wearing armor and a helmet you can't tell the difference between them and the joe next to them. Also how does anyone know how any of those guardspeople identify maybe a bunch of them identify as female.

dkoz wrote:
There are already female models in the guard boxes. Just like modern real soldiers once their wearing armor and a helmet you can't tell the difference between them and the joe next to them. Also how does anyone know how any of those guardspeople identify maybe a bunch of them identify as female.

Mostly true for Cadian style regiments - and even then the GW artwork makes it clear they are identifiable.

However as I have said several times before most regiments have their own unique style - some will be asily identifiable as women - or may be single gender, others won't.

Isn't this more a function of you get that (female) model in the set(s) it comes in by default given the set is sculpted as 1 in 4 (or whatever ratio) is female. Anyone wanting that set to use in game gets female by default which is not necessarily indicative they went out of their way to buy it for that one female model. If GW use that logic as a basis to judge female models sell then they are running on a flawed argument - what sold was the set, either for the full aesthetics of that set, or more likely, the rules functions. Where someone set out with the sole intention of buying the Stormcast set with the chick in it, would in my view, be entirely an immaterial proportion of all sales of that set. The better view would have been to consider sales of Sisters of Silence where there is a ready proxy force available for them (Sisters of battle) which could have indicated to GW there was a desire for (all) female forces/models.

Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.

And the reverse is currently true - you often don't get a choice if you want a Stormcast - its a bloke - now they are starting to match the fluff and have both - if you want to have a male only Stormcast, well that does not match the actual background of the Mortal Realms setting and you can self select for it but asking other people to do so seems very self centered.

GW have established that male and female Stormcast have different bodies - see new models. Again you are free to have your own alt universe where they don't but its not official.

 FrothingMuppet wrote:
Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.

Why are you required to have an all-male army? Why can't you use any female models that come in the box? And why should your desire be more important than the demand for female models from someone who considers all male parts on a sprue to be trash?

Also, "neutral" does not mean "male".

Actually if there would be Female models for guard i'd imagine there would be an interesting case to be made for an Slaaneshi traitor guard. Granted it depends on the models and their looks but anyways.
Of course only for science.

dkoz wrote:
There are already female models in the guard boxes. Just like modern real soldiers once their wearing armor and a helmet you can't tell the difference between them and the joe next to them. Also how does anyone know how any of those guardspeople identify maybe a bunch of them identify as female.

Except lots of countries are providing different uniforms for female soldiers based on comfort to the female form, including more space for the breasts >_> That is a real thing, not just some style deal. Sorry to break it to people, but boobs actually need room to breath. I know seeing boobs much less feeling or having them on Dakka Dakka is rare, but squishing them inside of armor or restictive clothing gets super uncomfortable after awhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually if there would be Female models for guard i'd imagine there would be an interesting case to be made for an Slaaneshi traitor guard. Granted it depends on the models and their looks but anyways.
Of course only for science.

I think Khorne is the only true Chaos God for the IG...What other army kills off their own troops so frequently?

I don't think your definition of "extreme" matches the one in the dictionary.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Idea: If you want female soldier models so badly, stop whining and create and sell them yourselves.

We did, and you started bitching about a global conspiracy.

 mugginns wrote:
Dang, the lunatic fringe is definitely alive and well on DakkaDakka. Surprised the mods tolerate this kind of stuff.

This. I just read the last few pages and there are some vile, vile posts. Maybe Dakka should just merge with 4chan? The post content seems to be the same anytime anyone mentions women. It’s shameful.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Idea: If you want female soldier models so badly, stop whining and create and sell them yourselves.

Not how the far left progressives work old chum, they prefer to infiltrate something popular and then corrupt it.

See:
Ghostbusters 2016
Oceans 8th
Magic
She ra
Marvel comics
Star wars
New atheism
Games journalism
Etc.

And if you don't like how they corrupt your hobby you are an incel racist bigot because it's impossible that they just made a crap product.

Every time the results the same you push extreme 3rd wave feminism you drive people away, because surprisingly your customers don't like hearing that they are responsible for all evil because they were born with their plumbing on the outside.

>new athiesm

Get outta here with that ya nerd. Religious beliefs arent a freakin music genre, and have no place in a plastic minis forum.

I bet you still believe in Dad Gnosticism

...Wat.

Fair odds hobojebus self-identifies as an incel...

@Mr Morden and Peregrine - Cheers for the responses.

I agree there wasn’t a choice prior to the latest round of Stormcast releases (from Shadespire I think) as they came as default male out of the gates. To me personally that was a non-issue (noting all of what follows is my personal view, no different to any personal view anyone else on a forum expresses in that its personal to me, and non binding on anyone else), but as I probably poorly conveyed in my earlier post, it had never bothered me to think they were male (or rather lacking female) as I’ve never put much thought in a need or want for female versions of the minis produced by GW – accepting by default the provision of predominantly male only minis (excluding Sisters, Dark Elf Witches etc). Maybe that’s a reflection of an internal bias brought on from how the hobby/society reflected on these matters prior to the broad availability of social media (noting a push on gender diversity – while always lurking in the background – appears much easier to organise as a social story in today’s multi-channel comms environment); and/or an innate thinking ‘war is a man’s event’; notwithstanding, the evidence to the contrary that war does not discriminate and there are ample examples of women joining the fight in a formal (Army) or informal (partisan) way.

I can understand why it is important to have the diversity options available to you when building a force to reflect fluff you are invested in; however, at the same time, there are those (I’d count myself amongst them) who would not have turned their mind to that at all. That is for me, the fluff aspect provides context to my games, but does in no way drive my spending habits beyond giving me something to attach my spending choice too. For example I buy Custodes and Sisters of Silence because after reading Watchers of the Throne I thought they were kickass so wanted to model some. When I read Gaunts Ghosts I also developed an interest in building a Guard army. The lack of female guard minis in no way made me pause and think I wouldn’t build the Guard Army that currently sits on my shelves of shame. The fluff called the idea of female guard out, but the lack of representation in mini form didn’t stop me buying the all male Guard line. At the end of the day the minis are mere tokens to make real the mechanics of an otherwise 2 dimensional dice game. Diversity at that level is really a non-starter to my mind, beyond those same tokens needing to be something that grabs my attention enough to have wanted to buy, build and paint them in the first place. Again, the lack of females in the range to date hasn’t stopped me from doing any of that.

As you say Mr Morden, that thinking may be self centred/selfish to an extent; but is probably no more than one of the sins that falls out of consumerism in general. We each of us, turn our minds and spending to that which we each individually find draws our attention. The hobby, nor much else in consumer society, is the domain of altruistic group endeavour where we willingly spend for the ‘common’ or ‘social’ good.

On a similar tone, my views in no way stop anyone else for that matter from wishing for and calling for greater diversity in a range. But in the same way it could be construed as selfish of me for not seeking change in the formula as it stands; is it not selfish on those others to seek change that suits their mind?

Without knowing the demographic spectrum of GW’s market, ie split between those who look for diversity in their minis and those who oppose it for a clearly identified bias; and those who are in the middle so are indifferent (noting that bracket would also include those who are indifferent but if presented with choice will split between those who would choose (if available) one end or the other, as well as those being genuinely neutral), it’s hard for me (or any of us for that matter) to sit back and judge GW on its decisions to include diverse models, or not, in its range. I for one think if GW even turns its mind to these kinds of discussions, puts itself in a place where, in todays open, communicative environment, it is never going to satisfy all, and is likely to wind up some with any choice it makes, or doesn’t make.

Ultimately, GW makes decisions that it thinks best will make it the most money for least cost. It clearly thinks its market accepts a move to greater diversity in its range, including within mixed gender squads that it is releasing. It either thinks the market will accept the change in diversity offer simply because at the end of the day people hold the view they are playing pieces, as I expressed above I have been happy to do for 20 years with all male units; or that those who won’t accept such change, and therefore switch off and don’t spend with them (or at least on that product line), are not a sufficiently large part of their market that any loss they suffer from non-spend by those participants can be absorbed, or recouped from new entrants attracted to the greater diversity offer.

As I expressed in my original post, I haven’t an interest in female guard, or Marines for example which is another one I see sprout up here from time to time (Sisters of Silence represent that niche well enough for me). That is mainly because I am ambivalent to the social cause/argument that seems attached to the idea, and the resultant ‘with us or against us’ mindset that I generally perceive accompanies such argument. Also, those same tokens that I have collected for so long all fit one mold/type which I have accepted as all male, and I personally don’t have an interest in changing that this late in the game. So if new Guard were to be released, I would hope the choice to have female/male; all female; all male squads, is left solely to me on the sprue as I expressed originally. I am not in favour of the approach to adopt the Stromcast model whereby the choice in diversity is made for me. That’s my selfish wish, but I am entitled to wish it, and express it, just as any other is entitled to wish the opposite or something entirely else. Ultimately it’s up to GW to make its own decisions and then we all are left with the simplest of choices, buy the product or not.

Peregrine, to take up your point, I’m not required to have anything at all – male or female. To date, GW has made male models; ergo, I have male models. I am attracted to the setting because I like sci-fi and this brand of sci-fi works for me. I am attracted to the minis in that setting as they are to me, intricate playing pieces that I enjoy collecting, building, sometimes painting, and pushing around the tabletop. Would I buy them if they were all female – I don’t know, but probably not. I own Sisters models, but am not as attached to them as I am my Marines. There’s probably something in that as far as personal bias in younger me being drawn to the ‘macho’ stereotype of the hero Space Marines over Sisters of Battle; setting me up for 20 years of collecting on the same basis, ingraining the collector in me to collect more of the same rather than something ‘other’. If there had been female parts back in the day, would I have used them, I don’t know. Would I use them now – sure I could, but I probably wouldn’t, unless it was my goal to specifically reflect the fluff per Mr Mordens comment about matching what GW says Stormcast hosts are like if I played Stormcast. My point is though, the choice to do so, should be mine. For that choice to be made, the minis need to exist, but as I hopefully explained above, my view is that if they were to exist, it wouldn’t be at the expense of choice as to not use them – ie the Stormcast route. But for that choice to exist, GW would need to in essence duplicate some part of each kit on diversity lines – ie 10 male heads and 10 female heads, if not 10 heads and torsos and arm and leg sets of each sex etc – that to me seems too much to ask given half a sprue (at the extreme) would go wasted (if not put up on the secondary market).

Apologies for the longwinded reply. I normally sit on the sidelines on these kinds of discussions, but for once felt I would like to ‘air’ my views rather than internalising them. Open discussion with others is what changes mindset, or assists in perceiving the others point of view. Doesn’t mean I agree/disagree with sentiment shared, or will about face on my own thinking, but I do welcome and thankyou for engaging with my first post.

hobojebus wrote:
Getting people fired for tweets they made 10 years ago isn't extreme?

Whatever your opinions of the incident may be, this one was done by the right, not by the left.

Constantly insulting men for their gender sexual preferences and skin colour isn't extreme?

Nobody important is doing that, and none of the things on your list have anything to do with this. Unless I missed the character in Star Wars who insulted straight men for not sleeping with other men, and started organizing the mandatory gay camps to fix the problem?

Attacking people for wearing maga hats isn't extreme?

Antifa isn't extreme?

That would be an extremist minority, but one that has nothing to do with any of the items on the list. Unless I missed the Antifa character in MTG?

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Getting people fired for tweets they made 10 years ago isn't extreme?

Whatever your opinions of the incident may be, this one was done by the right, not by the left.

Constantly insulting men for their gender sexual preferences and skin colour isn't extreme?

Nobody important is doing that, and none of the things on your list have anything to do with this. Unless I missed the character in Star Wars who insulted straight men for not sleeping with other men, and started organizing the mandatory gay camps to fix the problem?

Attacking people for wearing maga hats isn't extreme?

Antifa isn't extreme?

That would be an extremist minority, but one that has nothing to do with any of the items on the list. Unless I missed the Antifa character in MTG?

Kharn, the motherland's true proletariot!

 Peregrine wrote:

 FrothingMuppet wrote:
Personally, I have no interest in having female models sold on sprue to me, particularly where it skews the sprue in such a way I cant not use them where they have been placed on sprue as a replacement of the male alternative - ie making 2 of 10 heads female rather than 2 of 12 in a 10 person unit. If it is done as the +1(x) option - ie an addition to the male part, not a replacement - then I have no care either way as I am not required to use it if I dont want. If it is something GW looked at, I agree in the main with most posts that it should be nothing more than a head part as bodywise the bodies are neutral as is.

Why are you required to have an all-male army? Why can't you use any female models that come in the box? And why should your desire be more important than the demand for female models from someone who considers all male parts on a sprue to be trash?

Also, "neutral" does not mean "male".

Because forcing people to have mixed sex regiments when most IG regiments are either all male or all female for pretty obvious reasons goes against the lore?

I don't think you will have a good time telling a feminist "why are you required to have an all-female army?"

Just include 10 female heads and 10 male heads in the infantry box, with 10 bodies. That way anyone who wants an all-male guard regiment, an all-female guard regiment, or a mixed regiment can all be happy.

Still won't happen though because of extremist idiots on both sides.

w1zard wrote:
Because forcing people to have mixed sex regiments when most IG regiments are either all male or all female for pretty obvious reasons goes against the lore?

The lore includes mixed-gender regiments, and fluff-wise it makes sense. The Imperium does not care what is between your legs, all are equally capable of dying in the meat grinder of attrition warfare. In fact, all-male or all-female regiments would likely be the exception to the rule, only provided by planets where extreme cultural beliefs are allowed to take priority over maximizing the number of bodies provided.

Just include 10 female heads and 10 male heads in the infantry box, with 10 bodies. That way anyone who wants an all-male guard regiment, an all-female guard regiment, or a mixed regiment can all be happy.

That still doesn't provide female bodies. Heads are a good starting point, but the ideal solution would include complete female models as well. If your regiment's fluff is that it's one of the rare few that are all-male or all-female you'll have to buy multiple kits to get enough parts, but at least then it's fair instead of having the all-male regiments fully supported while anyone who wants an all-female regiment has to buy third-party kits.

Holy gak, and there are extremist idiots even here. Someone was saying women's suffrage was a bad idea... followed by other people claiming that anyone who doesn't share their opinion is a sexist bigot that deserves to be publicly ridiculed. This is why I hate politics.

-No, just because people aren't as progressive as you doesn't mean they are all closet nazis/sexists.

-No, just because people want to see more women and minorities in traditionally white-male dominated media doesn't mean they are evil communists who want to destroy America and everything you hold dear.

Can we please stop trying to demonize the other side and treat each other like people with differing opinions?

 FrothingMuppet wrote:
@Mr Morden and Peregrine - Cheers for the responses.

I agree there wasn’t a choice prior to the latest round of Stormcast releases (from Shadespire I think) as they came as default male out of the gates. To me personally that was a non-issue (noting all of what follows is my personal view, no different to any personal view anyone else on a forum expresses in that its personal to me, and non binding on anyone else), but as I probably poorly conveyed in my earlier post, it had never bothered me to think they were male (or rather lacking female) as I’ve never put much thought in a need or want for female versions of the minis produced by GW – accepting by default the provision of predominantly male only minis (excluding Sisters, Dark Elf Witches etc). Maybe that’s a reflection of an internal bias brought on from how the hobby/society reflected on these matters prior to the broad availability of social media (noting a push on gender diversity – while always lurking in the background – appears much easier to organise as a social story in today’s multi-channel comms environment); and/or an innate thinking ‘war is a man’s event’; notwithstanding, the evidence to the contrary that war does not discriminate and there are ample examples of women joining the fight in a formal (Army) or informal (partisan) way.

I can understand why it is important to have the diversity options available to you when building a force to reflect fluff you are invested in; however, at the same time, there are those (I’d count myself amongst them) who would not have turned their mind to that at all. That is for me, the fluff aspect provides context to my games, but does in no way drive my spending habits beyond giving me something to attach my spending choice too. For example I buy Custodes and Sisters of Silence because after reading Watchers of the Throne I thought they were kickass so wanted to model some. When I read Gaunts Ghosts I also developed an interest in building a Guard army. The lack of female guard minis in no way made me pause and think I wouldn’t build the Guard Army that currently sits on my shelves of shame. The fluff called the idea of female guard out, but the lack of representation in mini form didn’t stop me buying the all male Guard line. At the end of the day the minis are mere tokens to make real the mechanics of an otherwise 2 dimensional dice game. Diversity at that level is really a non-starter to my mind, beyond those same tokens needing to be something that grabs my attention enough to have wanted to buy, build and paint them in the first place. Again, the lack of females in the range to date hasn’t stopped me from doing any of that.

As you say Mr Morden, that thinking may be self centred/selfish to an extent; but is probably no more than one of the sins that falls out of consumerism in general. We each of us, turn our minds and spending to that which we each individually find draws our attention. The hobby, nor much else in consumer society, is the domain of altruistic group endeavour where we willingly spend for the ‘common’ or ‘social’ good.

On a similar tone, my views in no way stop anyone else for that matter from wishing for and calling for greater diversity in a range. But in the same way it could be construed as selfish of me for not seeking change in the formula as it stands; is it not selfish on those others to seek change that suits their mind?

Without knowing the demographic spectrum of GW’s market, ie split between those who look for diversity in their minis and those who oppose it for a clearly identified bias; and those who are in the middle so are indifferent (noting that bracket would also include those who are indifferent but if presented with choice will split between those who would choose (if available) one end or the other, as well as those being genuinely neutral), it’s hard for me (or any of us for that matter) to sit back and judge GW on its decisions to include diverse models, or not, in its range. I for one think if GW even turns its mind to these kinds of discussions, puts itself in a place where, in todays open, communicative environment, it is never going to satisfy all, and is likely to wind up some with any choice it makes, or doesn’t make.

Ultimately, GW makes decisions that it thinks best will make it the most money for least cost. It clearly thinks its market accepts a move to greater diversity in its range, including within mixed gender squads that it is releasing. It either thinks the market will accept the change in diversity offer simply because at the end of the day people hold the view they are playing pieces, as I expressed above I have been happy to do for 20 years with all male units; or that those who won’t accept such change, and therefore switch off and don’t spend with them (or at least on that product line), are not a sufficiently large part of their market that any loss they suffer from non-spend by those participants can be absorbed, or recouped from new entrants attracted to the greater diversity offer.

As I expressed in my original post, I haven’t an interest in female guard, or Marines for example which is another one I see sprout up here from time to time (Sisters of Silence represent that niche well enough for me). That is mainly because I am ambivalent to the social cause/argument that seems attached to the idea, and the resultant ‘with us or against us’ mindset that I generally perceive accompanies such argument. Also, those same tokens that I have collected for so long all fit one mold/type which I have accepted as all male, and I personally don’t have an interest in changing that this late in the game. So if new Guard were to be released, I would hope the choice to have female/male; all female; all male squads, is left solely to me on the sprue as I expressed originally. I am not in favour of the approach to adopt the Stromcast model whereby the choice in diversity is made for me. That’s my selfish wish, but I am entitled to wish it, and express it, just as any other is entitled to wish the opposite or something entirely else. Ultimately it’s up to GW to make its own decisions and then we all are left with the simplest of choices, buy the product or not.

Peregrine, to take up your point, I’m not required to have anything at all – male or female. To date, GW has made male models; ergo, I have male models. I am attracted to the setting because I like sci-fi and this brand of sci-fi works for me. I am attracted to the minis in that setting as they are to me, intricate playing pieces that I enjoy collecting, building, sometimes painting, and pushing around the tabletop. Would I buy them if they were all female – I don’t know, but probably not. I own Sisters models, but am not as attached to them as I am my Marines. There’s probably something in that as far as personal bias in younger me being drawn to the ‘macho’ stereotype of the hero Space Marines over Sisters of Battle; setting me up for 20 years of collecting on the same basis, ingraining the collector in me to collect more of the same rather than something ‘other’. If there had been female parts back in the day, would I have used them, I don’t know. Would I use them now – sure I could, but I probably wouldn’t, unless it was my goal to specifically reflect the fluff per Mr Mordens comment about matching what GW says Stormcast hosts are like if I played Stormcast. My point is though, the choice to do so, should be mine. For that choice to be made, the minis need to exist, but as I hopefully explained above, my view is that if they were to exist, it wouldn’t be at the expense of choice as to not use them – ie the Stormcast route. But for that choice to exist, GW would need to in essence duplicate some part of each kit on diversity lines – ie 10 male heads and 10 female heads, if not 10 heads and torsos and arm and leg sets of each sex etc – that to me seems too much to ask given half a sprue (at the extreme) would go wasted (if not put up on the secondary market).

Apologies for the longwinded reply. I normally sit on the sidelines on these kinds of discussions, but for once felt I would like to ‘air’ my views rather than internalising them. Open discussion with others is what changes mindset, or assists in perceiving the others point of view. Doesn’t mean I agree/disagree with sentiment shared, or will about face on my own thinking, but I do welcome and thankyou for engaging with my first post.

Thanks for the very full response.

Couple of things to pick up on. If I read it correctly you are saying that the fluff is not that important to you and neither is the gender expecially but its more that you have mostly made models and want to stay the same?

If you put a female model in you Stormcast unit - does that look somehow "wrong " to you or just not fit with the rest? Which is fair enough. If its just a playing piece - the gender won't matter unlesss its pure asthetics?

I just wondered.

The lore includes mixed-gender regiments, and fluff-wise it makes sense. The Imperium does not care what is between your legs, all are equally capable of dying in the meat grinder of attrition warfare. In fact, all-male or all-female regiments would likely be the exception to the rule, only provided by planets where extreme cultural beliefs are allowed to take priority over maximizing the number of bodies provided.

Yep they are in the lore and several are legendary - however the Lore does also say that they are rarer than single gender units - this is different to say Stormcast Eternals.

 Peregrine wrote:
The lore includes mixed-gender regiments, and fluff-wise it makes sense. The Imperium does not care what is between your legs, all are equally capable of dying in the meat grinder of attrition warfare. In fact, all-male or all-female regiments would likely be the exception to the rule, only provided by planets where extreme cultural beliefs are allowed to take priority over maximizing the number of bodies provided.

This is not true. In the Ciaphas Cain and Guant's Ghost novels, both authors go out of their way to state that mixed sex regiments are the exceptions to the norm, despite both novel series focusing on a mixed sex regiment.

It's the simple matter of having men and women in close proximity to each other. It's human nature that romantic relationships will form, and they will find ways to "entertain" themselves in their downtime. This is not ideal because these kind of entanglements damage battlefield efficiency. Pregnant women can't fight and are out of action for nine months. Two lovers may go to extreme lengths to save another despite breaking orders or something, not to mention if one of them gets promoted and gets into an authority position over the other. Plus all the drama associated with scorned advances, a man or woman bouncing between lovers, etc. It is a dumpster fire waiting to happen. I'm not saying it's impossible... it's just that mixed sex regiments are usually more trouble then they are worth.

It is far easier to just separate men and women into two autonomous groups and be done with it. It's the same reasoning why we have modern day bathrooms separated by sex, even though adults should be mature enough for it not to matter. Most adults are mature enough, but the exceptions are such a huge headache that it's far easier just to sidestep the issue altogether.

 Peregrine wrote:
That still doesn't provide female bodies. Heads are a good starting point, but the ideal solution would include complete female models as well. If your regiment's fluff is that it's one of the rare few that are all-male or all-female you'll have to buy multiple kits to get enough parts, but at least then it's fair instead of having the all-male regiments fully supported while anyone who wants an all-female regiment has to buy third-party kits.

Or just have neither obviously male or female bodies covered in armor/clothes and just have mixed heads and be a lot more flexible. Or are you dead set on female body sculpts?

w1zard wrote:
Its the simple matter of having men and women in close proximity to each other. It's human nature that romantic relationships will form, and they will find ways to "entertain" themselves in their downtime. This is not ideal because these kind of entanglements damage battlefield efficiency. Pregnant women can't fight and are out of action for nine months.

You're assuming that a guardsman is expected to survive for nine months. They aren't. Expected time from deployment to death is a few minutes, maybe a day or two for the luckiest veterans. Pregnant women don't suffer any effects until long after a guardsman is expected to be dead. And TBH, would it even matter? The Imperial Guard is run on the principle of "we have more bodies than you have bullets, we win". A pregnant woman can force the enemy to spend a bullet just as well as a man, all that matters is sheer numbers.

Two lovers may go to extreme lengths to save another despite breaking orders or something, not to mention if one of them gets promoted and gets into an authority position over the other. Plus all the drama associated with scorned advances, a man or woman bouncing between lovers, etc. It is a dumpster fire waiting to happen. I'm not saying it's impossible... it's that mixed sex regiments are usually more trouble then they are worth.

Again, long-term consequences for short-term soldiers. And in the unlikely event that a unit lasts long enough to have that kind of conflict, well, the mine-clearing penal units always require more volunteers.

It is far easier to just separate men and women into two autonomous groups and be done with it.

Actually it's much more difficult, because it requires the inventory system to track men and women separately. Remember, to the Imperium's war machine guardsmen are not people, they are simply another inventory item, another form of ammunition to be supplied and consumed. It's much easier to note that the war plan requires 500,000,000 guardsmen to be spent and send that many, along with 250,000,000 lasguns, 500,000,000 t-shirts, etc. Cadian? Mordian? Male? Female? Who knows, who cares. Allocate 500,000,000 pieces of guardsmen to the meat grinder and throw them into battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the whole realism argument is pretty funny in a setting where genetically engineered super-soldiers in terminator armor that puts their heads in the middle of their chests travel through hell to fight a horde of rioting British soccer fans (which are actually a sentient fungus) led by Margaret Thatcher, with perhaps a bonus round against the space elves in BDSM gear who have to fill a torture quota to hide from the god of excess their drug-fueled orgy spawned. But sure, human nature and romantic relationships are definitely an obstacle here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
Or just have neither obviously male or female bodies covered in armor/clothes and just have mixed heads and be a lot more flexible. Or are you dead set on female body sculpts?

IOW, "keep the same male sculpts and treat male as the default, ignoring any physical differences outside of head swaps". Yes, I do want to see actual female guardsmen instead of the same old male Cadian bodies with female heads.

 Peregrine wrote:
A pregnant woman can force the enemy to spend a bullet just as well as a man, all that matters is sheer numbers.

LOL so grimdark, I love it. Unfortunately that portrayal is never going to make it into mainstream lore for obvious reasons.

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, long-term consequences for short-term soldiers. And in the unlikely event that a unit lasts long enough to have that kind of conflict, well, the mine-clearing penal units always require more volunteers.

You are aware that a large percentage of men/women retire from the guard after long years of service aren't you. Not everyone is slated to die a glorious death on the battlefield.

 Peregrine wrote:
Actually it's much more difficult, because it requires the inventory system to track men and women separately. Remember, to the Imperium's war machine guardsmen are not people, they are simply another inventory item, another form of ammunition to be supplied and consumed. It's much easier to note that the war plan requires 500,000,000 guardsmen to be spent and send that many, along with 250,000,000 lasguns, 500,000,000 t-shirts, etc. Cadian? Mordian? Male? Female? Who knows, who cares. Allocate 500,000,000 pieces of guardsmen to the meat grinder and throw them into battle.

You are aware that most equipment is capable of being used by both genders right? Allocating an all-female or all-male regiment lasguns and flak armor makes no difference. All I'm saying is that male and female regiments are probably separate to keep the commissars from blowing their own brains out in frustration. Battlefield morale plays a huge part in how a regiment performs on the field both IRL and I would imagine in 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, "keep the same male sculpts and treat male as the default, ignoring any physical differences outside of head swaps". Yes, I do want to see actual female guardsmen instead of the same old male Cadian bodies with female heads.

Which just proves my original point that some people won't be happy unless there are female sculpts and not just head swaps, which is why GW will never do it. Forcing people to buy multiple boxes if they want a unisex regiment is not a good business practice.

Or just have neither obviously male or female bodies covered in armor/clothes and just have mixed heads and be a lot more flexible. Or are you dead set on female body sculpts?

So male body sculpts?

Why so set against female body sculpts - works for Necromunda, Stormcast, Eldar, Dark Eldar etc - and of course all the non GW imperial Guard models.

I think that assessment of Imperial Guard is not 100% accurate Peregrine. It depends on the source, the author, and just what level of grimdark they are going for.

There are stories of Guardsmen who see many combats over multiple engagements and survive.

 Mr Morden wrote:
So male body sculpts?

Why so set against female body sculpts - works for Necromunda, Stormcast, Eldar, Dark Eldar etc - and of course all the non GW imperial Guard models.

In theory I'm not. I would love female body sculpts. Unfortunately if GW sticks with the "10 bodies per box" mentality for IG they will effectively force people who want a unisex regiment to buy double the boxes.

It is also a bad business move to include 20 bodies (10 male and 10 female) per box, because it means doubling the plastic required for production.