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.

 Manchu wrote:
As to the representation argument, I think people are importing a concept that is important when we’re talking about real life professions and it doesn’t really fit the context of pursuing a hobby. Plenty of women like watching NFL football despite there being no female players, whether as “poster boys” or otherwise, for example.

And people who aren't represented well in 40k (or similar media/hobbies) have said "this matters to me", so your theory is wrong.

What if one were to have wanted to vote for two of the three?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
On the otherhand, female Catachan would be more obvious and would let us get Ripley from Aliens into our army (which would be awesome):

GW already did this:

Yeah, but we could always get it redone in plastic and done better.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I think for the most part as far as guard go, with female models the safest bet would be characters. Special commissar who is noticeably female, or a tank commander, a medic etc.

I'd think it's fair to say that when a new infantry squad kit comes out, whenever that may be, it'll have both genders. If I had to guess 7-3 ratio seems about right. And as said above somewhere an all female box would do terrible. Not cause people hate women or anything but most likely you'd only want 1 or 2 to flesh out your army. No, there needs to only be a couple ladies in the box so you need to buy more boxes.

Aos stormcast has a decent amount of ladies mixed in and in my opinion it was done right.

Female Cadians would be harder to notice honestly. Unless they specifically make some of the hips wider on some models, the flak vest would hide the other obvious secondary sexual markers we'd use to identify them (aka boobs). Basically it'd come down to face sculpt for most models which would make it easier for people to make a choice on if they want guys or girls in their unts.

On the otherhand, female Catachan would be more obvious and would let us get Ripley from Aliens into our army (which would be awesome):


Honestly I kind of want an all ladies version of the Vostroyan First Born where it's the planets daughters who are sent off because they have a mutation that causes most of the planet's population to be women or something. Mostly because I love variety on the table and that would allow for a way to add in a new subfaction for Guard (maybe give them a kind of victorian era flair or base their uniforms off of the 1800s US Calvary or something) and would let the people who want the all female guard army to have one with less fuss with 3rd party companies.

Exactly cadians you'd never be able to tell. Same could probably be said for Kreig, steel legion, Valhallans, tallarn.
Catchans would be pretty obvious
And mordians would be quite a sight too
That vostroyan firstborn idea is pretty cool though. Just say it's a disease where male survival rate is low or something.

If you've ever played Mass Effect there's a alien race where only 1/1000 survives birth and females of the species are very rare. So something like that lol

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As to the representation argument, I think people are importing a concept that is important when we’re talking about real life professions and it doesn’t really fit the context of pursuing a hobby. Plenty of women like watching NFL football despite there being no female players, whether as “poster boys” or otherwise, for example.

And people who aren't represented well in 40k (or similar media/hobbies) have said "this matters to me", so your theory is wrong.

You conclusory comment in no way responds to what I wrote. Moreover, ”X matters to me” and similar sentiments are true no matter who feels them, regardless of how well or poorly they can claim to be represented in a miniatures game about a gothic genocide fantasy. But such sentiments are only meaningful - like all feelings - to the individual experiencing them. Idiosyncratic sentiment is not the appropriate basis for a policy to be applied to other individuals who can just as validly claim that “X matters to me,” considering X will with certainty mean conflicting and even contradictory things as between individuals.

This is why the example of Guardswomen figures is so important. Someone might passionately feel that there should be no female Guard figures - but so what? At best, we can say then don’t have any in your own collection. But the setting produced for the enjoyment of all already has female Guard; billions of them in fact. GW should make Guardswomen figures to portray the setting as it already is, the thing we all allegedly alteady are on board for, the reason we’re even discussing the topic on this site.

 Crimson wrote:

dkoz wrote:


This is a typical uninformed opinion. No one is shedding tears or gnashing teeth because a women got a laser sword it's the lazy way they made the girl wielding a laser sword so OP with no story or anything to explain it.

Suure!

<Phantom Menace Picture>

Damn, if someone in the film would just have said that Rey's midichlorian count was off the charts it all would have been absolutely fine!

Did you really post a picture from Phantom Menace as an example of people *not* gnashing teeth?? I mean, any backlash Force Awakens got was absolutely *nothing* compared to the backlash Phantom Menace received on release, and still received today. Phantom Menace was considered so bad that many Star Wars fans even today refuse to acknowledge its existence.... If anything that picture is a counter point which establishes that fans actually *do* care more about the development and plot of the character and don't give a free pass to males.

Much of what was so disappointing about TPM was that the little kid was naturally good at anything, and he didn't have any real character development- the very same criticisms being leveled against Rey. The counter point to Rey is Luke. I don't know if you remember the OG Star Wars movies, but Luke was very under powered throughout the entire series. The big duel of the first movie was Vader v Obi Wan because Luke was completely powerless to do anything. He lost hard in the showdown in Empire, and was outclassed even in his final rematch in Return, he only prevailed because Vader chose to die to protect him. Luke's character grows, he is aware of his limitations and constantly pressing against them and failing. Rey by contrast is perfect at everything she does and succeeds on her first attempt, and with no training wins her first light saber duel against an alleged prodigy. It destroys all of the tension in the Force Awakens in much the same way Anakin's Dues Ex Machina ability destroys the tension in TPM. There would be far less complaints against her if she had weaknesses and we could grow with her as a character. Disney missed a big opportunity by not making Kylo Ren an absolute unit in the first movie who steamrolled whenever he showed up, because he came off as a push over and they have struggled since to give us any sort of respect for him.... and as a principle antagonist he needs to command respect to drive the plot.

ANYWAY, the point is, female characters just need proper development. They are not inherently criticized and they are not inherently good or bad. It just needs to be handled right. Same goes for any universe, including 40K.

 Manchu wrote:
You conclusory comment in no way responds to what I wrote.

Of course it does. You claimed that representation "doesn't really fit the context" of pursuing a hobby and provided the example of women who like the all-male NFL. The existence of people who DO feel that representation matters disproves your argument that it doesn't fit.

Moreover, ”X matters to me” and similar sentiments are true no matter who feels them, regardless of how well or poorly they can claim to be represented in a miniatures game about a gothic genocide fantasy. But such sentiments are only meaningful - like all feelings - to the individual experiencing them. Idiosyncratic sentiment is not the appropriate basis for a policy to be applied to other individuals who can just as validly claim that “X matters to me,” considering X will with certainty mean conflicting and even contradictory things as between individuals.

I really don't see what your point here is. Yes, you can argue that "X matters to me" is only important to the individual, but that's true of everything in 40k. You don't see threads discussing proposed balance changes getting hijacked into absurd philosophical tangents about whether sentiments about {unit} being overpowered are meaningful other than to the individual, so why do you think that it is relevant here?

This is why the example of Guardswomen figures is so important. Someone might passionately feel that there should be no female Guard figures - but so what? At best, we can say then don’t have any in your own collection. But the setting produced for the enjoyment of all already has female Guard; billions of them in fact. GW should make Guardswomen figures to portray the setting as it already is, the thing we all allegedly alteady are on board for, the reason we’re even discussing the topic on this site.

Ok, sure, this is an argument for female IG models. They should make them. They should also make female Tau, female space marines (as long as they dominate the setting the way they do now), etc. Talking about what the setting currently contains is of limited value in the context of a game company that will blatantly change the setting any time it's convenient to sell new models, and has no reluctance to overturn things that have always been true if it gets in the way of the marketing department's new plan. Just look at primaris marines being accepted as the saviors of the Imperium and the new face of the IP, when by previous fluff the would have been destroyed as blasphemous abominations and everyone involved in their creation would have been executed for tech heresy. But because GW needed to sell a new product line the fluff changed to support it.

Excluded an horrible minority of people, most fans criticizing Rey don't do that because she is a woman. We could think about many, many sci-fi and fantasy female characters better written than her. Please no strawmen.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Excluded an horrible minority of people, most fans criticizing Rey don't do that because she is a woman. We could think about many, many sci-fi and fantasy female characters better written than her. Please no strawmen.

It's pretty obvious that the fact that she's a woman is relevant when similar criticism is not directed at Mary Sue male characters, and those male characters are even embraced as beloved favorites by their fans.

Please discuss Star Wars characters in the Geek Media sub-forum rather than in this thread. Thanks!

EDIT: SORRY POSTED IN THE SAME MOMENT
I WILL PM

My opinion is pretty consistent on this. GW should make every attempt possible to ensure that they are as inclusive as possible while remaining faithful to the world that they maintain.

Guardsmen with non-masculine potato heads? Great! Space Marines with ethnicities that aren't just beard/emo hair/bald screaming man? Perfect! (I believe the Deathwatch box does have a head that is more suited for Salamanders than any other). More Admech/Necron named characters using female pronouns? (not models, there wouldn't be a difference) Lovely!

Give the selected factions either conversion packs, or mix them into the units, I don't have a strong preference (preference being mixed into the kit, with enough options to do either/or, but that's wishful thinking), and increase the exposure of non-white male characters in those groups.

EDIT: (Deleted a massive bit about SW. *sigh*)

40K desperately needs more prominent female characters, and if the lore is not to be altered, that means more prominence to non-marine factions. In this light too I find Guilliman to be unfortunate; he is such a glory magnet that there is little room for other characters. I always though it would be cool had they given a tabletop model for a High Lord, but not like this. Give us someone who is female equivalent of Lord Solar Macharius; a great warrior and most importantly a great leader. Inquisitors should get more spotlight too; sure marines might be all male, but both the Deathwatch and GK armies could be lead by Inquisitors that can be female.

 Crimson wrote:

EDIT: (Deleted a massive bit about SW. *sigh*)

40K desperately needs more prominent female characters, and if the lore is not to be altered, that means more prominence to non-marine factions. In this light too I find Guilliman to be unfortunate; he is such a glory magnet that there is little room for other characters. I always though it would be cool had they given a tabletop model for a High Lord, but not like this. Give us someone who is female equivalent of Lord Solar Macharius; a great warrior and most importantly a great leader. Inquisitors should get more spotlight too; sure marines might be all male, but both the Deathwatch and GK armies could be lead by Inquisitors that can be female.

In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples. Oh, and Like, Ten Tallarns, Who We Made A Bit Falafelly.

It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.

It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.

They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.

It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.

They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.

Ayuh, but I'm talking about the sculpts, not just the painting. DIfferent ethnic groups have different facial structures, tissue depths etc. etc. EVERY GW human mini, except Tallarns, was sculpted to be painted as an IC1.

 Manchu wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?

Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.

 Elbows wrote:
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.

There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.

Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.

I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).

EDIT: For the sake of argument, I'd suggest the best option being tossing in five female heads on the new guard kits when they come out - as the most 'safe' option from a business perspective. But throwing boobs and hips on guard models will have a backlash, I could almost guarantee. Regarding 3rd party models being looked down on at GW events - those are exceptionally rare, and even GW wouldn't give a gak if you showed up with resin female heads on your minis...so it is an incredibly valid consideration (not to mention the cheapest option).

A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.

It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.

They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.

Ayuh, but I'm talking about the sculpts, not just the painting. DIfferent ethnic groups have different facial structures, tissue depths etc. etc. EVERY GW human mini, except Tallarns, was sculpted to be painted as an IC1.

Again, see my point about the concern that models could come across as racist parody (though "caricature" is likely the better word I guess). Especially when dealing with such small faces.

I think they'd be best mixing and matching different racial traits across the models to give them more depth, but I can understand if they don't do that as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
This leaves an increase in female units or characters for "reasons"?

Example reason: to make the kit more accurate to the existing fluff.

 Elbows wrote:
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.

There’s no reason for GW to cater to people that want all-male Guard armies, no more so than to anyone who wants an all-female Guard army.

Tau are sexually dimorphic for sure and Fire Caste males and females serve together. The Fire Warrior kit should also come with some female sculpts. As with Astra Militarum, this is just a matter of making the products more desirable to people who already like 40k because these changes would better represent the setting on the table top.

I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).

A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.

Based on what little we know about Tau physiology....the only difference between the sexes you can see is in the face, and they provide female heads for them:


For the record this is a male Tau model:


So it's not like Tau don't already give us a mix of sexes, it's just that most people don't notice it.

 Elbows wrote:


I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).

A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.

Considering that SoB were the most demanded thing in the GW questionnaire and that guradswomen are something many people want to see and quite a few are particularly opposed to it, it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority.

 Crimson wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


I'd have to disagree...as catering the those who want all-male armies would likely be a much better business decision, hence why they do it in the first place. Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience? That in itself is a questionable business decision. As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around. It's one of the reasons they didn't get support for what, a decade and a half? It's risky even doing them now (though with their massed profits they can eat a loss on the occasional mini line - and I'm sure Sisters will sell strong for a year or two with the full re-release).

A company should never cater to a tiny fringe element if it risks a large sales base...that's dumb. I also heavily question the other folks saying "Well, the success of 3rd party guard..." ---- without having any quantifiable numbers or sales data to back that up. I'd imagine the numbers are far smaller than people imagine. GW should simply do what's in their best interest and right now, I'd wager that's not trying to attract a tiny vocal minority.

Considering that SoB were the most demanded thing in the GW questionnaire and that guradswomen are something many people want to see and quite a few are particularly opposed to it, it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority.

I want some factions to stay monosex: Marines, Custodes, Sisters (both flavors) and Orks (we don't need Ork boobs, sorry). The rest should be fair game.

Though when it comes to Guard I'd like the Vostroyans to stay all male because it's one of their defining traits. We just need a mirror match for them where we have an all female regiment for those who want that instead while the rest should probably be mixed (in different ratios).

 Elbows wrote:
Why risk your profit on a tiny fringe audience?

Why are you assuming that the people who would stop buying if GW added female models are:

1) A significant enough group to matter in their sales numbers.

and

2) Not a toxic mess that no sane company wants anywhere near their company.

Even if the demand for female models comes from a small group it's still almost certainly larger than the number of sales from non-misogynist-ass customers they'd lose by meeting that demand.

As I stated in my earlier post...Sisters of Battle sold like ass the first time around.

A fact which almost certainly has very little to do with the fact that they are women and a lot to do with them being an all-metal army (IOW, extremely expensive and a pain to build/convert) with weak rules. You may have noticed a lot of hype for then new SoB line, likely because they will be plastic kits with (hopefully) good rules.

But throwing boobs and hips on guard models will have a backlash, I could almost guarantee.

Of course it will. But the question is why GW should care if a few misogynistic s whine and cry about the existence of women in their hobby, instead of being glad that such a toxic element of the community has voluntarily removed itself.

 Crimson wrote:

EDIT: (Deleted a massive bit about SW. *sigh*)

40K desperately needs more prominent female characters, and if the lore is not to be altered, that means more prominence to non-marine factions. In this light too I find Guilliman to be unfortunate; he is such a glory magnet that there is little room for other characters. I always though it would be cool had they given a tabletop model for a High Lord, but not like this. Give us someone who is female equivalent of Lord Solar Macharius; a great warrior and most importantly a great leader. Inquisitors should get more spotlight too; sure marines might be all male, but both the Deathwatch and GK armies could be lead by Inquisitors that can be female.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only War And White Men Descended from Western Europeans or possibly Slavic Peoples.

It loses some punch as a marketing term when you call it like it is.

They have done dark skinned paint jobs before, but I feel like they always have a concern that doing non-Caucasion ethnicities for models may come off as insensitive or as a racist parody.

Ayuh, but I'm talking about the sculpts, not just the painting. DIfferent ethnic groups have different facial structures, tissue depths etc. etc. EVERY GW human mini, except Tallarns, was sculpted to be painted as an IC1.

Again, see my point about the concern that models could come across as racist parody (though "caricature" is likely the better word I guess). Especially when dealing with such small faces.

I think they'd be best mixing and matching different racial traits across the models to give them more depth, but I can understand if they don't do that as well.

I mean, it's possible, but this is also a company that named an Ork warlord (THE Ork Warlord) after Margaret Thatcher (who I personally despised, but you can't deny her historical significance) and which makes Tau a lazy, hodge-podge facsimile of Asia + Maoism. They've never seemed overly anxious of how they've been received in the past.

You're also making huge assumptions about the GW design team, IMO. Specifically that they're all whiter than a ginger bird's arse.

I totally can see a scenario where someone would claim a non-IC1 mini is lazily racist (like Tau are) but I also believe that it is an almost total defence to such a claim to point out that in fact no, it was designed and sculpted, whether totally or in part,by a non-IC1 person.

 Crimson wrote:
it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority

Tiny perhaps but certainly not vocal. I’ve never run across anyone actually devoted to something as patently contrary to lore as excluded Guardswoman figures.

 Manchu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
it is probably the people who want the armies to stay exclusively male who are the tiny vocal minority

Tiny perhaps but certainly not vocal. I’ve never run across anyone actually devoted to something as patently contrary to lore as excluded Guardswoman figures.

You have elbows on ignore too, eh?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we have a setting that explicitly is not canon in any way, that is in fact retconned regularly and majorly and people are arguing women should stay out of certain factions because of canon. When I first got into 40k, Necrons did not exist. Tau did not exist. Genestealer Cults didn't exist. DKoK didn't exist. Forge World didn't exist. Flyers didn't exist. Knights didn't exist. Custodes didn't exist. Imperial tanks were restricted to four or five designs.

Aren't you glad nothing changed?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Yeah, but the Space Marines are only important when it's their story. The rest of the time it's someone else's spotlight. That's like saying James Bond is the paramount of importance in a Tomb Raider movie just because he was in the background of a single scene.

Except in 40k it's almost always the space marines' story, and every other faction shares a tiny spotlight when GW bothers to remember them at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I meant more uplifiting them to have insanely long lifespans, incredible durability and fighting prowess. You know, give them the ol' "Super Soldier" treatment.

Why not do the same for every guardsman? It's clear that uplifting is a limited-availability thing and not every faction gets it.

Except in the case of the Sisters of Silence, they were an organization set up and originally run by the Emperor. He could have done it if it was possible or had actual practical applications.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's clear there is some limiting factor there or else it'd be done already inside of the lore.

Because the choice is pre-Great Crusade meaning that this is something that predates the modern 40k era's silliness.

On the other hand all of that era's records are myths and half-truths, so who knows what happened then. The modern era is the only setting we have any definite information on.

We used to but they've been peeling back the curtain on that lately.

 Peregrine wrote:

And I've yet to see anyone provide proof that their was any sort of "don't tamper with the geneseed" clause, especially when we have a cursed founding based around tampering with the geneseed, but no word of anyone being punished for it.

It's tech-heresy that gets you executed if you put a different gun on a tank. Over and over again we saw statements that the space marines were already perfect and the geneseed was sacred, even if it wasn't explicitly stated that altering it was not permitted. It's certainly not going to have weaker no-modifications rules than an IG tank.

You say we see things that say that but no one ever coughs up an actual quote or source for that. And again: Lamenters are an explicit example of geneseed tampering and yet it was seen as a positive move by those who ran the project as it'd (potentially) cure the Black Rage.

And the Razorback and two versions of the Land Raider are "different guns on a tank" and yet no one was executed and I've even been told it's "not the same thing" when I've pointed it out that it's been done.

To the mod who keeps deleting the posts, is female Custodians now a banned topic too?

Edit by Manchu: Based on the posts I deleted, the issue of Custodes is basically used to smuggle in discussion of Space Marines. In effect, Custodes are similar enough to be the target of complaints that they are just another SM army so they are also close enough to be subject to this specific ban.

There is a bright orange sign at the top of the OP advising that posts arguing about femarines will be deleted. Folks who keep bringing it up will have to take a break from posting on Dakka Dakka. Thanks!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Based on what little we know about Tau physiology....the only difference between the sexes you can see is in the face

The issue there is the assumption is based on an admitted lack of information. We know that Tau have sexually dimorphic facial features. And we don’t know anything else. GW generously, I suppose, included female heads on the sprue. I don’t think we should jump to conclusions based on that.