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.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think GW could do a lot by just giving us new head sprues that could be used interchangably with existing kits. Sadly upgrade sprues tend to be going out for GW so this might be more something up FW's alley.

In regards to theme they could introduce a new IG kit for a planet force not used before and just have it split 50/50 like DE tends to do. For story purposes they could even say it is a homeworld that utilizes everyone combat capable. Hell, could be a Cadian resculpt for all I care(although I'd love to see Steel Legion).

I do believe they could do a fantastic job if they were to expand the Inquisition and have it a good mix of genders. It would also give the artists a wide berth for their creative process to create unique and interesting characters.

They could also go wild and expand Sisters of Silence further.

My view - just make units with female models. Like they did with Stormcast. A mixture, some dedicated. Don't make a big fuss about it - it should be normal that there are female and male (and other) figures. Make it that way.

An excellent point.

They could start by just making some of the new SoB heads available to other models. Idk if it works scale wise, but I don't see why it can't be easy to do.

Respect the fluff that's all anyone wants

Tyel wrote:
Just to add - I think gender is different to what we are calling culture.

I don't feel male/female heads on Kabalites/Wyches/Guardians etc materially effects the coherency of the unit. They are all the same - just male and female.

By contrast if you have one with Egyptian iconography, one with say Viking runes, one with a roman style etc etc then it can end up looking like a mess. This applies to units and indeed whole armies.

Its kind of like how most people for a long time have said the way to paint an army is to pick 3 colours that unite most of the army together (obviously detail like gemstones etc can be exceptions). You don't want to do a 2nd edition Eldar force where every units is in its own colour because while each individual may look great, on the table it looks like a mess.

Not a bad point, which is why I'm a bit surprised that so much discussion revolves around female models when the bigger challenge for GW is to integrate different visual themes into an army (if that's what they or their customers want).

I'd add that it's also a question of personal taste. I liked the look of 2nd ed Guard armies drawn from various regiments, or Marine crusade armies. As long as they brought along enough of their buddies to give a portion of the board a somewhat unified appearance I was always happy to go with that. By contrast, I have a much bigger problem with Deathwatch where a single shoulder pad is enough to make it clear that one Marine has no cultural link to the next Marine. That looks a lot messier to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
They should release a scantily clad army of women wearing fur and fighting with sharpened bones made from cute animals while consuming meat jerky.

Those offended will not be missed

Don't they have a race of elfs in AoS, that consists of nothing else but 99% naked women of all shapes and sizes already?

They are very modestly clad naked women.

There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.

In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.

In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.

By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.

 Crimson wrote:
By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.

The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony tails would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you shouldn't be able to tell

I feel GW does a good enough job a representing an accurate depiction of a grim-dark sci-fantasy future world and all the likely cultures and diversity it would have.

-

Female IG figs would be just plain good news. Even if one isn’t particulalry bothered by getting some cool Guardswomen sculpts, the only way we’ll get them at all is if the Astra Militarum line is significantly updated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory

This needs to stop being repeated. Female bodies are not male bodies. Head swaps don’t give us female figures. The guard uniform isn’t a shapeless potato sack. According to the fluff, there are billions of Guardswomen. Having them a[pear on the tabletop will just make Astra Militarum that much cooler and thematically “correct.”

 akaean wrote:

I think that the Female Guardian models do a really good job. You can tell they are women because they have a slightly different torso, but because of the way all Guardians hold their gun once they are put together you absolutely cannot tell what gender the model is from any reasonable distance... man, woman, an Eldar Guardian is just cannon fodder at the end of the day.

With Eldar my own interpretation/headcanon is that the 'female' armour (i.e. the ones with boobplate) are decorative more than anything else and that female eldar will typically fit just fine into the flat-chested armour. The styling of the armour is representative of an exaggerated eldar form, rather than actually containing and protecting the *ahem* features that it represents. In that way, any of the seers/aspect warriors/guardians etc could be male or female and you never know which unless they're helmetless. Similarly a Howling Banshee might be male, but because he joined that shrine he wears the traditional armour, which represents a female aspect of Khaine. A female eldar joining the Fire Dragons similarly wears the male-styled armour of that aspect.

There's a couple of reasons that I like that approach. One is that the concept of women's armour actually needing obvious breast-shaped protrusions is just silly - and before anybody mentions that 40k is fundamentally silly, I feel that the idea that all the women in 40k have such large knockers that they need boobplate is a silly step in the wrong direction. The other reason I like it is just the idea that I can decide which of my models are male or female, or even if I just find the concept to be irrelevant and just decide that I don't need to know any more than the fact that they're eldar in armour. The problem with that, from the perspective of having visible women in 40k is clear though; if a model doesn't have some obvious visual cue that the model is female I expect most people would assume it was male.

So my preferred approach would be:
- The exaggerated female characteristic models need to be around in some form for those who want their female models to be 'obvious'. However I do think things like boobplate should be used sparingly and only for models, units or factions where there is a good explanation of why their armour is so hyper-stylised. Examples are Howling Banshees representing a female aspect of Khaine and Sisters of Battle clearly "showing" that they're women to confirm the ecclesiarchy isn't breaking it's no men under arms rule. Perhaps also powerful individuals like Inquisitors who can style their gear however they damn well please. There's room for some new things that use this styling, but I wouldn't want to see too many.

- For factions where the troops might be either gender (or in the case of humans, different racial origins), show it by including a wide diverse range of heads in new kits. The Imperial Guard are the prime candidate, but they need diversity in more ways than one in the form of new kits to represent a wider range of regiments. An ideal situation would be multiple different regiment kits (or differently styled kits, e.g. greatcoats, dress uniform, cadian style etc), and in each kit include plenty of diverse head options. The whole regiment should be wearing the same standard issue gear, and the only real way to tell the sex of the wearer would be to look at the face. They could perhaps also make the bodies a subtle mix of body shapes so you could pair a female head with a slightly smaller body if you so chose, but you could equally just use that body to represent a shorter man. Similarly a taller body could be an average man or a tall woman.

- Allow more variety in characters. In the guard while troops should be identical aside from the face, there's perhaps a bit more scope to sculpt an entire character to be a woman. Do some of these, it would be cool - but in a sensible way rather than exaggerated.

Generally I think the guard and inquisition are the best place to try to show some more gender diversity. So many factions are genderless (or if they have gender you couldn't tell anyway due to being weird aliens or so mechanically augmented that most of their original body features are gone), canonically mono-gender for some reason or other, or clad in full body armour where you sensibly wouldn't be able to tell much at all whether it was a man or a woman wearing it. It's the unaugmented regular humans who go to war with their faces visible where the diversity really needs to start coming in.

Cultural? For years GW has already used many earth cultures and tropes to reflect armies fielded, especially in the old Imperial Guard. They certainly could add more female figures in current ranges where appropriate, however.

Should they? I believe so.

If they don't? It's not a big deal, and they can produce whatever they wish; they have done so far and always will.

Half the fun of this hobby is putting your own stamp on an army, even if it strictly follows a published faction. I am currently building an all female Guard desert mechanized force, with infantry mostly from Victoria miniatures since GW doesn't produce the requisite models. If GW wants its customers to spend their money elsewhere that is on them, but they are under no obligation to make anything for anybody.

 Galef wrote:
The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony taisl would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you wouldn't be able to tell

-

Nah, those are obviously all blokes. And no boob armour needed, there are way subtler ways to do this. Victoria Miniatures are a perfect example how to make the models look female while still wearing the same gear as the guys.

My answer to this, which I didn't answer in the poll because I'm not really sure the poll reflects the answer, is based on customer demand.

-If GW thinks there's enough of a female market that will actually be enticed to the hobby by the production of female minis, by all means have at it.

-What *I* don't like to see is anyone (individual or company) getting bullied by an SJW type crowd/audience, that really has no interest in the game or hobby, and just want to take shots at targets they feel are not "inclusive" enough.

My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.

Rocmistro wrote:


My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.

Having diversity represented in the models shouldn't need to have anything to do with commercial concerns.

I don't think the argument of 'women don't like these games so we don't need women in the games' is a good one at all.

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.

The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony taisl would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you wouldn't be able to tell

-

I broadly agree, but I actually think it's important to show the range by having 'a few heads with pony-tails' too.

Rocmistro wrote:
My answer to this, which I didn't answer in the poll because I'm not really sure the poll reflects the answer, is based on customer demand.

-If GW thinks there's enough of a female market that will actually be enticed to the hobby by the production of female minis, by all means have at it.

-What *I* don't like to see is anyone (individual or company) getting bullied by an SJW type crowd/audience, that really has no interest in the game or hobby, and just want to take shots at targets they feel are not "inclusive" enough.

My personal experience is that women just don't enjoy toys and hobbying the way guys do. I could be wrong, but I'm not the one taking the risk with my capitol; GW is. If they think it's a good risk, do it. If not, don't. Just don't be pressured into it by the vocal minority crying about their feels and diversity.

There's a couple things I think I disagree with you on here.

First off - yeah, it's absolutely obnoxious when any politically motivated outside group works to stir up a shitstorm for a company, regardless of political affiliation of that group, and no decisions should be made based on pressure from outside groups.

I disagree that introducing miniatures that depict women or other groups is primarily a tool used to get those groups more interested in the hobby. I think primarily it just..gives people a reason to purchase a newer kit when you can make models that are aesthetically different with the kit. If you look at the wave 1 stormcasts vs wave 2, I'd probably be more likely to buy into wave 2 because the models don't look like just the same identical guy holding different weapons. I'd view a kit of imperial guard including both female and male guardsmen the same way I'd view a new Space Marine kit with a different armor mark: I have much more of a reason to want it if I already have an existing army.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony taisl would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you wouldn't be able to tell

-

Nah, those are obviously all blokes. And no boob armour needed, there are way subtler ways to do this. Victoria Miniatures are a perfect example how to make the models look female while still wearing the same gear as the guys.

That's very nicely done.

the_scotsman wrote:

I disagree that introducing miniatures that depict women or other groups is primarily a tool used to get those groups more interested in the hobby. I think primarily it just..gives people a reason to purchase a newer kit when you can make models that are aesthetically different with the kit. If you look at the wave 1 stormcasts vs wave 2, I'd probably be more likely to buy into wave 2 because the models don't look like just the same identical guy holding different weapons. I'd view a kit of imperial guard including both female and male guardsmen the same way I'd view a new Space Marine kit with a different armor mark: I have much more of a reason to want it if I already have an existing army.

Quite. It's an assumption that people often make for some reason that boys only want to play with boy models and girls only want to play with girl models. I can see that being true for people getting into the hobby when they're 10 or something like that, but I think most of us here are well past that point in our lives. A more diverse range gives everybody more different models to build/paint/play, and that can only be a good thing.

 Manchu wrote:

 Galef wrote:
the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory

This needs to stop being repeated. Female bodies are not male bodies. Head swaps don’t give us female figures. The guard uniform isn’t a shapeless potato sack. According to the fluff, there are billions of Guardswomen. Having them a[pear on the tabletop will just make Astra Militarum that much cooler and thematically “correct.”

With how baggy and bulky the Guard uniform is, the only realistic difference would be shorter Guardsmen. All other "body differences" would be obscured by the uniform.
So while, yes, a few thinner, shorter Guardsman with longer hair would be cool, it's hardly necessary to represent female Guardsman.
And let's also not forget that in 38,000 years of evolution on different planets, some population may even have larger women that have similar musculature as M2k men.

If the current Guardman box was super old and in desperate need of an update, I'd be all for putting in 3-4 "female" bodies and heads. But it's hardly a priority, so we should be content for now.
Plastic Sisters are far more a need right now.

-

Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40k are already invested in.

I think representation really matters for getting people interested. Not in the sense that that boys only want to play with boy models and girls only want to play with girl models but seeing the people like you being part of the setting in some form matters. And if that form is only some weird fetish assassin* then that kinda sends a message too. Not that this would be the main motivation for adding female models in the first place, but still.

(*Nothing against weird fetish assassins as such, they're an integral part of the setting.)

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.

In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.

SJ

On some level I have historically agreed with this.
But I am not so convinced these days.

Part of the hobby is "your dudes (...) being you". See that Space Marine Captain, Farseer, Warboss whatever? That's me on the table that is. Leading the army. Being awesome (hopefully).
It might be a somewhat childish take - and I don't really think things through that way any more - but when I started out in the hobby from around 11 to 14 or whatever I did, and frankly most of the other players did to some degree. It was part of the fantasy.
So I can understand that women (or really girls if we are talking comparable ages) would appreciate - and therefore buy - female characters they could imagine in the same way.

 Manchu wrote:
Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40k are already invested in.

This.

Oh, all my Khorne Berserkers are girls.
I know Space Marines aren't supposed to be able to be females but it's amazing what you can do with Butcher's Nails.

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
By this logic GW should not ever do anything new. Guardswomen already exist in the fluff and art, it is a high time that we get models to match.

The current Guardsman boxset already has female Guardsman. As-in, the uniform makes males and females indistinguishable, in theory. If you are wanting boob armour and long flowing hair, Guard is not the army you want. Sure, a few heads with pony tails would be nice, but that would be the extent of what you would need to represent female guardsmen, but the majority would wear their helmets, so you shouldn't be able to tell

I feel GW does a good enough job a representing an accurate depiction of a grim-dark sci-fantasy future world and all the likely cultures and diversity it would have.

-

Yes and no. The current guard line does an incredibly poor job off representing woman. While Male and Female soldiers neck down look fairly similar, the faces would still look different, we could really used some female heads with out helmets and catachans don't wear more than a t shirt so they would look a bit different.

 Manchu wrote:
Well in any case, the argument for having actual female sculpts for Guardswomen isn’t to trick women who don’t like 40k into liking it; the argument is that such sculpts will make table top armies more accurate to the background that people, both men and women (but sure mostly men), who actually do like 40k are already invested in.

Agreed.

A side note, I think you bring up a good point. Adding female models just to add female models would not, in fact, draw in a larger female community, but be to appease the existing fanbase.
And often, it may just draw in more men. Speaking for myself, I like female models because I like the female form, not necessarily from a "culturally diversified" perspective.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While Male and Female soldiers neck down look fairly similar, the faces would still look different, we could really used some female heads with out helmets and catachans don't wear more than a t shirt so they would look a bit different.

Well, to be fair most MALE human heads do a piss-poor job of representing the average man and are often pretty hideous. So if anything, the heads in general need an update.

-

I don’t believe an institution that takes women’s participation for granted would insist on dressing them in clothing fitted for men.

Also, GW miniatures are not relistically porportioned. The maleness of the Cadian sculpt is very nearly as overt as that of the Catachan.

I don't think it's necessary business-wise for GW to chase the female demographic by catering to them, so that idea is off the table. This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"? At this point, whatever GW does will be wrong according to someone. Too little boob? Not female enough! Too much boob? Sexist and awful!

If GW puts an obviously female body or two into a basic Imperial Guard squad, many people who don't want female minis in their army will be pissed because they'll have to buy more kits to field normal sized units. The aftermarket already caters to this with excellent female heads and full rein guardsmen though.

As an Eldar player I have plenty of female miniatures in my army already (Jain Zar, Howling Banshees, I have female guardian models and a head-swapped female Farseer)...so that army is catered to already. Many of othe other armies don't need female models because they simply don't:

Admech: Questionable - how could you tell anyway?
Knights: Pointless, though you could release a female pilot model?
Tyranids: Nope
Orks: Nope
Tau: Maybe?
Harlequins: Already exist
Dark Eldar: Already exist
Space Marines: Fluff-wise don't exist and GW would only create a shitstorm by retconning them in, so don't bother
Chaos: One of the few armies which has a lot of female sculpts on the Slaanesh side, but has room for new wytch-like unit? Maybe?
Daemons: Pointless, though Slaanesh has predominantly female-equipped figures
Necrons: Pointless, though there are 3rd party companies with boobed robots..so there's that
etc.

So excluding the few races with have females already, the others don't need them - leaving mankind/Imperium. You have Sisters of Battle about to get an entire army. You have Sisters of Silence, a couple of new female characters for the Imperium, etc. Outside of some guard players wanting a couple of female bodies (which they can source already) or easier, female heads (Statuesque for days), I don't see the lack of female miniatures. I don't see logical non-hamfisted ways to cram more in, and I don't believe a load of new female miniatures would do very well business-wise for GW. After all that's the main goal, regardless of how a company or players butter it up.

When Sisters of Battle were out - a few years after release, my best friend (a GW manager) and his buddies (fellow GW managers and area managers) were very open about how poorly they were selling. They really were not a high sales volume army, even when all of their kits were available. GW is probably very wary of this.

 Galef wrote:
With how baggy and bulky the Guard uniform is, the only realistic difference would be shorter Guardsmen.

This is not the setting for realism. In humans and other races in 40k, if a female individual of that species is there you will see it. At least for humans and eldar (with a variable level of androgynous individuals in the latter case - they are elves as depicted in recent fiction, after all).
Let's be honest about that.
People posted Victoria's models, that are the best way to illustrate that you can show subtle femininity without transforming the female soldier in some sexy thing - that is, show that is a woman AND a fighter. I think that pic should settle it.

Tyel wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There is no reason for GW to opt in to the Female/cultural themed armies any more than they already do/have done. Women already either join the hobby because they like it, or avoid it because they don’t. Just like men do. The hobby is more than just playing with your little plastic army men, it’s an artistic endeavor that spans modeling, painting, dioramas, art work, cosplay, written fiction, video games, and the occasionally epic fan movie. Sure, it would be nice to see more women across the game table, but that’s aspect of the hobby the I am focused on. The dozen and more women I do know in the hobby are into competition level models, painting, and dioramas, while handful that game seem to enjoy the same aspects of the game I do.

In short, no need to cater to a group that isn’t interested. GW already filters out their customer base via pricing and availability. If you like their product, buy it. If not, don’t.

SJ

On some level I have historically agreed with this.
But I am not so convinced these days.

Part of the hobby is "your dudes (...) being you". See that Space Marine Captain, Farseer, Warboss whatever? That's me on the table that is. Leading the army. Being awesome (hopefully).
It might be a somewhat childish take - and I don't really think things through that way any more - but when I started out in the hobby from around 11 to 14 or whatever I did, and frankly most of the other players did to some degree. It was part of the fantasy.
So I can understand that women (or really girls if we are talking comparable ages) would appreciate - and therefore buy - female characters they could imagine in the same way.

But this doesn't really hold too much weight as there are already female-focused factions that a woman can play. Sister=female power armored bad so the game's version of SM for girls. And then bother eldar factions have girls so you already have a FM loyalist / xeno faction to play so there is plenty of reason to get into the hobby right their. The only real argument could be there isn't "normal human" female faction to which im fine with some female guardsmen or any store owner worth his salt would show how easy head swaps or conversions are. There is already plenty of female representation and i guarantee forcing females into every race would drive away far more players then it would draw in

Good point, Galef. I am up to buy female figures, too. I’ve poured all this time and money into table top gaming thanks to the Sisters of Battle. That’s where it all started.

@OP - they already have for years. OK, they might be hyper-sexualised in some instances (Slaanesh approves) but they are out there in droves.

Perhaps a better question would have been 'how could GW make 40K more accessible for females to take up as a hobby?'.

Unfortunately, the answer to that, in terms of GW in-store games, is get rid of a vast swathe of GW's male customers.

People who feel that representing themselves on the tabletop is important are probably most drawn to more human faction to begin with, and the Guard is most human of the human factions. There really should be representation there. They're the normal people of the setting, and normal people are diverse. Whilst tough as nails fetish nuns may appeal to some people (and why wouldn't they, they're awesome!) it is very different thing than more down to earth normal Janes and Joes in their (somewhat) practical battlegear.