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.

w1zard wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I wasn't aware Gender was addressed in IG lore, except saying that some regiments were unisex, some regiments were not.

Both the Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain novel series repeat ad nauseum that the majority of guard regiments are unisex. They do it so often because the "protagonist regiments" in both novel series are mixed sex and it causes problems sometimes. They go out of their way to mention it multiple times over the course of both series.

I think it is also mentioned in other IG novels as well.

Right, so how is saying "regiments are unisex usually but not always" somehow translate to "Mixed regiments are changing the fluff?"

Just because they're rare doesn't mean they're unfluffy. Hell, Draigo and Guilliman are rarer than mixed sex guard regiments, but I see more of them than I do female guardsmen, even in narrative games...

the_scotsman wrote:
....you do? You think that someone expressing a ridiculous opinion and someone else ridiculing that opinion are equivalent?

No, they are two equally ridiculous opinions.

the_scotsman wrote:
basic plastic kits for a given faction are almost always going to include the most generic options that appeal to the most people.

It is unrealistic that Games Workshop is going to take the opportunity to make two separate kits, purely for the aesthetic distinction of the models' sex.

This pleases people who would like their guard regiments to be only male, like yourself. It makes things the hardest for people who would like their guard regiments to be only female, and it requires anyone who would like any female models at all to go to third party model manufacturers.

If you include more options in a single kit, the people who want their guys to be all one thing can make that so by buying multiple kits.

So you are automatically assuming GW is going to limit itself to one kit, even though they have run multiple guard lines in the past? Ok fine...

-Assuming GW limits itself to one infantry kit.
-Assuming that they don't want to include female heads with unisex torsos.
-Assuming they won't include 10 female body sculpts and 10 male ones and only give 10 sets of legs/arms.

But all those assumptions makes it seem like GW is going out of its way to force something on a lot of people who may not want it. Hell, I'm even fine with female torsos if they are tastefully done, but "tastefully" done to me pretty much looks like a male torso anyway so why even bother? I just really don't want to see guard boobplate in my regiment.

the_scotsman wrote:
And I am not implying that you are sexist, nor have I from the start of the thread.

You haven't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, so how is saying "regiments are unisex usually but not always" somehow translate to "Mixed regiments are changing the fluff?"

Just because they're rare doesn't mean they're unfluffy. Hell, Draigo and Guilliman are rarer than mixed sex guard regiments, but I see more of them than I do female guardsmen, even in narrative games...

By changing the basic infantry box to have non-optional mixed sex torsos, pretty much every guard regiment is going to be mixed sex on the tabletop unless you want to buy double the boxes. This would be directly contradictory to the lore in which only a small percentage of regiments are mixed sex.

So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.

w1zard wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, so how is saying "regiments are unisex usually but not always" somehow translate to "Mixed regiments are changing the fluff?"

Just because they're rare doesn't mean they're unfluffy. Hell, Draigo and Guilliman are rarer than mixed sex guard regiments, but I see more of them than I do female guardsmen, even in narrative games...

By changing the basic infantry box to have non-optional mixed sex torsos, pretty much every guard regiment is going to be mixed sex on the tabletop unless you want to buy double the boxes. This would be directly contradictory to the lore in which only a small percentage of regiments are mixed sex.

What the devil leap of argument is this?

The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.

Stux wrote:
So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.

Sure, but again, I think there are better ways to get female guardsmen on the tabletop then retconning almost every Imperial Guard novel ever written, and forcing people to run mixed sex regiments unless they want to pay twice the money.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What the devil leap of argument is this?

The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.

It's not a leap at all. By that logic we should have female space marine models because feth the lore right?

I mean, yes. That's called an own goal, lol

w1zard wrote:

Stux wrote:
So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.

Sure, but again, I think there are better ways to get female guardsmen on the tabletop then retconning almost every Imperial Guard novel ever written, and forcing people to run mixed sex regiments unless they want to pay twice the money.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What the devil leap of argument is this?

The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.

It's not a leap at all. By that logic we should have female space marine models because feth the lore right?

I mean, the models obviously feth the lore. Like, really obviously. Marines aren't even bigger than Cadians, for example.

To say "the models are X, therefore the lore must change to match them" obviously you should be advocating a reduction in size of Marines to match that of regular guys in bulletproof jackets while wearing much thicker armour. Stick marines!

w1zard wrote:

Stux wrote:
So change that bit of the lore. It's not exactly a linchpin, they've retconned much bigger things at a whim.

Sure, but again, I think there are better ways to get female guardsmen on the tabletop then retconning almost every Imperial Guard novel ever written, and forcing people to run mixed sex regiments unless they want to pay twice the money.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What the devil leap of argument is this?

The models in boxes have damn near never reflected the fluff, unless every single guard regiment in the history of ever is Cadian or Catachan. You shouldn't try to equivocate between models and fluff, or you'll break yourself.
Unless you're prepared to never use Leman Russes because the model doesn't actually weigh 88 tons and can't fit six Guardsmen inside, even at scale.

It's not a leap at all. By that logic we should have female space marine models because feth the lore right?

You have to understand that at this point your entire argument boils down to "I want this thing not to change to convenience someone else and inconvenience me, because a point of lore so minor that it's not ever been even mentioned in the army's codex and only appears in two expanded-universe background novel series says that things should stay the way they are."

That is not a terribly convincing argument. Marines' sex is an actually ingrained part of their lore, being direct gene-seeded clones of a male emperor with plenty of units named things like "Sword brothers" "brother captains" and "battle brothers."

and again, like I just said: In most plastic kits that include models of both sexes, this is not an issue because it's done via torso halves, and most often, at least the kits I have experience with, you do in fact have enough male torso halves to make all models male. The only kits I am finding that ACTUALLY forces a person to build at least one model in the box as female are dark eldar wyches (two must be female) and the new stormcasts.

Yes I want female steel legion models!

Gas masks and trench coats are so in this season.

But in all seriousness I get why people would want female models. But a head swap is really all that can be done, a flakk jacket and trench coat isn't going to show much of the female form.

So yeah it'd be a plus other than that I'd call in a non issue.

But for what it's worth I'd say I love the new Stormcast with their mixed kits

w1zard wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I wasn't aware Gender was addressed in IG lore, except saying that some regiments were unisex, some regiments were not.

Both the Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain novel series repeat ad nauseum that the majority of guard regiments are unisex. They do it so often because the "protagonist regiments" in both novel series are mixed sex and it causes problems sometimes. They go out of their way to mention it multiple times over the course of both series.

I think it is also mentioned in other IG novels as well.

The Last Chancers were unisex ('Rocket Girl' Mikhaels & Warrior Woman), and there were female Guard in the Space Marine video game.

Y'all should probably give up the fluff argument. The fluff is so broad and unstructured that you could argue for anything really.

Now, pretty much everyone agrees that female guard is a good idea. I personally think headswaps are the best bet. Distinctly female torsos are not something I can get behind for a couple reasons:
- It gives players less freedom on how they want to build their regiment (all male, all female or anything in between)
- The one-size-fits-all actually adds to the uncaring logistics of the guard.
- And, we already know what female guard look like:

She looks just like the dude. Except the face is different.
Then there's this:

Despite the horrific cadian proportions they look like women.

Or my personal fave:

(That's a woman, take my word for it)

w1zard wrote:
Changing the IG from a unisex fighting force involved retconning pretty much all of the established IG lore.

No it bloody wouldn't! It is obscure piece of trivia from tie-in books that most of the people are not aware of. No one else in this thread except you even had heard of or remembered that bit. It has never appeared in the studio fluff. Ignoring the bit about gender from BL books is like ignoring multilaser wielding terminators and Slaanesh worshipping Farseers.

Dandelion wrote:
Y'all should probably give up the fluff argument. The fluff is so broad and unstructured that you could argue for anything really.

Now, pretty much everyone agrees that female guard is a good idea. I personally think headswaps are the best bet. Distinctly female torsos are not something I can get behind for a couple reasons:
- It gives players less freedom on how they want to build their regiment (all male, all female or anything in between)
- The one-size-fits-all actually adds to the uncaring logistics of the guard.
- And, we already know what female guard look like:

Spoiler:

She looks just like the dude. Except the face is different.
Then there's this:

Spoiler:

Despite the horrific cadian proportions they look like women.

Or my personal fave:

Spoiler:

(That's a woman, take my word for it)

It depends on regiment, because there's also this:




Edit: failed at putting quote in spoilers

 Crimson wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Changing the IG from a unisex fighting force involved retconning pretty much all of the established IG lore.

No it bloody wouldn't! It is obscure piece of trivia from tie-in books that most of the people are not aware of. No one else in this thread except you even had heard of or remembered that bit. It has never appeared in the studio fluff. Ignoring the bit about gender from BL books is like ignoring multilaser wielding terminators and Slaanesh worshipping Farseers.

the_scotsman wrote:
You have to understand that at this point your entire argument boils down to "I want this thing not to change to convenience someone else and inconvenience me, because a point of lore so minor that it's not ever been even mentioned in the army's codex and only appears in two expanded-universe background novel series says that things should stay the way they are."

That is not a terribly convincing argument.

Firstly, it's not just "two background novel series" it is THE two background novel series that are the most popular IG novels in the fluff. It isn't just those two novels series either, I think it is at least mentioned in passing or implied in almost every IG novel ever released.

It would inconvenience anyone who didn't want a mixed sex regiment, not just me. Including players who want an all-female regiment.

BTW, I think you all are misunderstanding me. I'm fine with female headswaps and unisex bodies. I'm fine with obviously female torsos and heads included in the infantry box so long as you have the option to build 10 male or 10 female soldiers. What I am not fine with is being forced to have my regiment be mixed sex unless I spend twice the money.

 fraser1191 wrote:
But in all seriousness I get why people would want female models. But a head swap is really all that can be done, a flakk jacket and trench coat isn't going to show much of the female form.

I suggested this and people said they wanted (obviously) female body sculpts too.

Dandelion wrote:
Y'all should probably give up the fluff argument. The fluff is so broad and unstructured that you could argue for anything really.

Now, pretty much everyone agrees that female guard is a good idea. I personally think headswaps are the best bet. Distinctly female torsos are not something I can get behind for a couple reasons:
- It gives players less freedom on how they want to build their regiment (all male, all female or anything in between)
- The one-size-fits-all actually adds to the uncaring logistics of the guard.

I was only making the fluff argument because people were suggesting obviously female body sculpts with no options in the infantry box, so that half of your soldiers would have to be men, and half would have to be women unless you wanted to buy two boxes and throw away half of your models.

beast_gts wrote:
The Last Chancers were unisex ('Rocket Girl' Mikhaels & Warrior Woman), and there were female Guard in the Space Marine video game.

The last chancers were a mixed sex kill team, not a line regiment. I think it is even mentioned in the Last Chancers novel series that the penal legions that the Chancers were recruited from were unisex. There was ONE female guardswoman in the Space Marine video game IIRC, and she was an officer.

w1zard wrote:



I was only making the fluff argument because people were suggesting obviously female body sculpts with no options in the infantry box, so that half of your soldiers would have to be men, and half would have to be women unless you wanted to buy two boxes and throw away half of your models.
.

Yeah, this isn't an argument for a few reasons.

1. Most players don't care if their IG are mixed regiment. Most of the people outside this thread who want female IG are people who want inclusion, not replacement.
2. How many people build their armies using starter boxes? Like the recent Admech vs Necrons? How many of them threw away the other half of the box, as opposed to splitting it with a friend, or god forbid(!) Ebay.
3. It's not hard to make a box with ten legs, 20 heads, fifteen sets of arms, and fifteen torsos. Make five torsos, 10 heads, and five arm sets female and you're set. Just like Kabalites and wytches (Kabalites male/female, wytches female/male). The stock Cadian Sprue has tons of room, where you could easily add in extras like that, special weapons for the entire squad, and a HWT option.

But none of this is new. All three have been pointed out to you in the last ten pages. With #2 you still get your all male force, while 'all female' units would still have to sell models, so you can keep your men's rights friendships.

 Mmmpi wrote:


It depends on regiment, because there's also this:

Spoiler:

Edit: failed at putting quote in spoilers

Fine, geez. There are cases where female torsos would be noticeable. Mixed torsos is still a bad idea regardless for the reasons I've already stated.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, this isn't an argument for a few reasons.

1. Most players don't care if their IG are mixed regiment. Most of the people outside this thread who want female IG are people who want inclusion, not replacement.
2. How many people build their armies using starter boxes? Like the recent Admech vs Necrons? How many of them threw away the other half of the box, as opposed to splitting it with a friend, or god forbid(!) Ebay.
3. It's not hard to make a box with ten legs, 20 heads, fifteen sets of arms, and fifteen torsos. Make five torsos, 10 heads, and five arm sets female and you're set. Just like Kabalites and wytches (Kabalites male/female, wytches female/male). The stock Cadian Sprue has tons of room, where you could easily add in extras like that, special weapons for the entire squad, and a HWT option.

But none of this is new. All three have been pointed out to you in the last ten pages. With #2 you still get your all male force, while 'all female' units would still have to sell models, so you can keep your men's rights friendships.

1. Your first sentence is laughably wrong. Your second sentence is correct. We need female guard models, but it needs to be done the right way where one group doesn't benefit at the expense of another.
2. We aren't talking about a starter box, we are talking about the 10 man infantry box.
3. I'm perfectly fine with unisex torsos and female headswaps. I'm perfectly fine with an infantry box coming with the option to build 10 male soldiers or 10 female soldiers or any combination thereof. That is not what people have been suggesting. See this quote...

 Peregrine wrote:
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".

Also, that men's rights quip was a low blow.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, this isn't an argument for a few reasons.

1. Most players don't care if their IG are mixed regiment. Most of the people outside this thread who want female IG are people who want inclusion, not replacement.
2. How many people build their armies using starter boxes? Like the recent Admech vs Necrons? How many of them threw away the other half of the box, as opposed to splitting it with a friend, or god forbid(!) Ebay.
3. It's not hard to make a box with ten legs, 20 heads, fifteen sets of arms, and fifteen torsos. Make five torsos, 10 heads, and five arm sets female and you're set. Just like Kabalites and wytches (Kabalites male/female, wytches female/male). The stock Cadian Sprue has tons of room, where you could easily add in extras like that, special weapons for the entire squad, and a HWT option.

But none of this is new. All three have been pointed out to you in the last ten pages. With #2 you still get your all male force, while 'all female' units would still have to sell models, so you can keep your men's rights friendships.

1. Your first sentence is laughably wrong. Your second sentence is correct. We need female guard models, but it needs to be done the right way where one group doesn't benefit at the expense of another.
2. We aren't talking about a starter box, we are talking about the 10 man infantry box.
3. I'm perfectly fine with unisex torsos and female headswaps. I'm perfectly fine with an infantry box coming with the option to build 10 male soldiers or 10 female soldiers or any combination thereof. That is not what people have been suggesting. See this quote...

 Peregrine wrote:
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".

Also, that men's rights quip was a low blow.

1.A few people want female only. Most of the people who want female want some female. Most IG players just want better models. Nope, my first sentence checks out.
2.I don't care if it's a starter box or not. IG in general are popular for soup armies, you'll find people to buy the ones you don't want. Hell, you can even make a profit on it, as long as you're charging less then the price of a full box.
3.Which is why I said most. He does raise a good point. Nothing is stopping you from using them, or selling them. And why should your desire be put ahead of someone else who feels the exact opposite. (You is a generic you, rather then specific for the third point.)

Sorry about the men's rights crack.

90% of all these arguments are complete trash for 1 reason.
These are plastic toys. Not people...

Seems any topic of female this or female that everyone goes coco in the loco.

Once again :

there's a topic, stick to it.

If the same people persist in derailing the thread then we'll start suspending accounts.

I paid good money for some Victoria Miniatures guardmen and guardswomen. But on top of having guardwomen they also have better proportions than GW guardsmen and more variety.

I still think there is money to be made by having guardwomen added into the guards box.

 reds8n wrote:
Once again :

there's a topic, stick to it.

If the same people persist in derailing the thread then we'll start suspending accounts.

My post was on topic reds8n, not sure why you have deleted it, I directly covered the points of this thread.

It may be worth opening another thread in off topic however.

w1zard wrote:

Firstly, it's not just "two background novel series" it is THE two background novel series that are the most popular IG novels in the fluff. It isn't just those two novels series either, I think it is at least mentioned in passing or implied in almost every IG novel ever released.

Yet no one except you even remembered this insignificant piece of background detail. I really hope that you're championing equally hard to get those multilasers in terminators kits!

Has it been established that the regiment-specific designs (Vostroyan/Valhallan/Steel Legion etc) are not big sellers? If there is still profit to be made introducing a new all-female regiment squad would be a simple solution the turns a profit.

If regiment-specific casts are not profitable, and I think there is some indication from what others have said that it is not, then the introduction of a new Cadian line with a 1/5 or 1/4 ratio of female figurines would be the only viable alternative. Would it sell as well as the previous line? Possibly, I don't know if gender would make a difference beyond alienating a few that resent the change enough to stop buying.

 Crimson wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Firstly, it's not just "two background novel series" it is THE two background novel series that are the most popular IG novels in the fluff. It isn't just those two novels series either, I think it is at least mentioned in passing or implied in almost every IG novel ever released.

Yet no one except you even remembered this insignificant piece of background detail. I really hope that you're championing equally hard to get those multilasers in terminators kits!

If you play Imperial Guard and read books, which is likely a higher proportion of the population than average, then you will have probably at least heard of these two series. They are as far from obscure as can be in the 40k lore.

Are you arguing that the rulebook, codices and NOTHING ELSE constitutes acceptable lore resources? Because if not then Gaunt's Ghosts, Caiphas Cain and Last Chancers would be at the front of the queue for fleshing out IG lore.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

If you play Imperial Guard and read books, which is likely a higher proportion of the population than average, then you will have probably at least heard of these two series. They are as far from obscure as can be in the 40k lore.

As BL novels go, these books are pretty well known, sure. I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.

Are you arguing that the rulebook, codices and NOTHING ELSE constitutes acceptable lore resources? Because if not then Gaunt's Ghosts, Caiphas Cain and Last Chancers would be at the front of the queue for fleshing out IG lore.

I think the studio fluff should take precedence, yes. Due the fact that BL authors have a lot of creative freedom, you really cannot cling to some specific details that are mentioned in passing. Abnett is so famous at contradicting stuff fluff, that his version of the setting is often called 'Abnettverse.' Which is fine if it helps him craft better stories, but then you cannot just assume that everything he writes directly applies to the GW studio lore. It is like trying to apply specific details from Nolan's Batman films to DC comic continuity.

 Crimson wrote:
I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.

Just to check, are we talking about that one footnote by Vail? I can't really find any counter-argument to saying a literal footnote in one of a series of many books is a rather obscure point of fluff.

In Before the Lock +

Female Astra Militarum Models would be cool. That way Imperial Guard Model Armies would not be sausage festivals.

If complete Female Imperial Guard squads were available they would probably sell well for a while being something that hasn't been done for 40K Imperial Guard as far as I know.

 Crimson wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

If you play Imperial Guard and read books, which is likely a higher proportion of the population than average, then you will have probably at least heard of these two series. They are as far from obscure as can be in the 40k lore.

As BL novels go, these books are pretty well known, sure. I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.

Are you arguing that the rulebook, codices and NOTHING ELSE constitutes acceptable lore resources? Because if not then Gaunt's Ghosts, Caiphas Cain and Last Chancers would be at the front of the queue for fleshing out IG lore.

I think the studio fluff should take precedence, yes. Due the fact that BL authors have a lot of creative freedom, you really cannot cling to some specific details that are mentioned in passing. Abnett is so famous at contradicting stuff fluff, that his version of the setting is often called 'Abnettverse.' Which is fine if it helps him craft better stories, but then you cannot just assume that everything he writes directly applies to the GW studio lore. It is like trying to apply specific details from Nolan's Batman films to DC comic continuity.

If there was contradictory fluff on the matter of gender-mixed and all-female regiments being proportionately uncommon you'd be correct. BL contradicts itself all the time but, where it is consistent, shouldn't it be accepted as lore?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I didn't say the books themselves are obscure, merely this particular detail.

Just to check, are we talking about that one footnote by Vail? I can't really find any counter-argument to saying a literal footnote in one of a series of many books is a rather obscure point of fluff.

If you're talking about the rarity of mixed regiments then no, that's referred to in both Caiphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghosts. Both feature female IG soldiers regularly, but the mixed nature of the story-central unit is frequently brought up as an exception rather than the rule. During the First War of Perlia (against the Orks) even the PDF divisions are mono-gender, with the female Leman Russ crew coming from an all-female armoured division.

beast_gts wrote:


The Last Chancers were unisex ('Rocket Girl' Mikhaels & Warrior Woman), and there were female Guard in the Space Marine video game.

The Last Chancers are a penal unit, drawing from the miscreants of many regiments. Like a discount version of Deathwatch, which draws from many different chapters for a specific purpose. Like the Tanith 1st and the 597th Valhallan, it is an exception to the general rule.

Although this is only a personal example, my Hive World regiment is mixed (using the same headswap from @Dandelion's pictures and the occasional torso/leg swap from Victoria minatures). The fluff justification for that is the huge demand on manpower and meeting tithe quotas means so that gender is non-issue so long as they meet the Administratum's standard for a tithe. The justification for mixed regiments is there with minimum effort dependent on the founding world's culture, but the standard certainly does indicate single-gender regiments from a fluff standpoint.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
If you're talking about the rarity of mixed regiments then no, that's referred to in both Caiphas Cain and Gaunt's Ghosts.

For Ciaphas Cain, in a footnote.