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.

Completely independent of racial/gender politics: from a business standpoint GW should totally release intermixed units. From the results of torso-gender distribution amongst Dark Eldar we learn that releasing mixed units is a great way to drive bits prices up because people want to build all-female or all-male units, which leads to people buying more kits than they need and/or people buying kits to part out. And because releasing separate male/female kits makes it easier to build single-gender armies without really making it harder to build co-ed armies (since you usually need enough duplicate units you're buying at least two of any given kit anyway), and a lot of GW's business model is built around making it harder to play the game (see: want lascannons in your Tactical squads? Buy this Devastator kit! Want uniform weapon distribution in your Skitarii? Buy 3x as many Skitarii as you need! Want hammer/shield Deathwing? Better find those hammers elsewhere, we only put shields in the Deathwing kit for Knights!).

The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.

There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.

 Formosa wrote:
Anyone else notice these threads only turn up on weekends... almost as if the lack of weekend mods allows gakposting

Posted at 3.03am GMT Friday, October 19, at least one mod heavily involved in the discussion.

Swing and a miss.

NOTE - do not attempt to debate this post in the thread, I will delete such posts - however, feel free to PM with questions, complaints, etc

Couple of points going forward:

If you think the thread is going off the rails, please PM me or use the Mod Alert button. But don’t thread crap by posting a bunch of commentary about how it’s off the rails.

About female Space Marines (incl. Grey Knights, Custodes, Primarchs, etc) ... Every time we talk about female figures the topic gets twisted into a giant debate about Femarines and inevitably collapses. So this time around, we’re not doing that. Yes Space Marines are THE major faction of 40k but there are plenty of other ways GW could and should add female figures to their product lines. This thread is about all the ways GW could do so other than Femarines.

Next, there’s a lot of political flavored commentary in this thread. That’s inevitable. Please note that while Dakka Dakka has a ban on off-topic political discussion, the ban does not include the political dimensions of on-topic content, i.e., miniatures gaming. All the same, please remember that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Calling each other SJWs, NPCs, misogynists, racists, etc is not acceptable (not that these words themselves are banned).

Finally, post in this thread at your own risk. If you ignore these points going forward, you stand a good chance of having your account suspended.


Thanks!

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:


Which doesn't make sense. You are arguing that they made men who looked like men and women who looked like women, albeit not sociologically 'idealized' women, therefore it made sense that they didn't make any more women?

I'm doing my best to not assume bad things about you, but the casual misogyny in that argument is shocking.

It actually reads like you're trying your hardest to twist his words into something you can condemn him for... But ok

Really, eh? To most English-speakers the question mark at the end of my first EDIT - second sentence would strongly indicate that I'm seeking clarification.

As I read Clockwork's position, he/she is saying that Sisters of Battle had 'man-face' so they stopped making human female minis. No human female minis is a better proposition than 'ugly' human female minis is the logical conclusion of that position and that position (the position, not the poster) is deeply misogynistic, but assuming is for paralegals so I asked.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Anyone else notice these threads only turn up on weekends... almost as if the lack of weekend mods allows gakposting

Posted at 3.03am GMT Friday, October 19, at least one mod heavily involved in the discussion.

Swing and a miss.

Friday is the start of the weekend over here so swing and a hit haha

My point does remain that not just on this site a lot of “contentious” threads pop up on weekends, apparently it’s a meme my mate tells me.

Andykp wrote:
The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.

There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.

Females are not under represented or negatively portrayed in 40K. The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor at most AM could use a couple of female heads without helmets.

dkoz wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.

There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.

Females are not under represented or negatively portrayed in 40K. The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor at most AM could use a couple of female heads without helmets.

At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign. "Games Workshop reduces women to just heads." "Sick Games Company Allows CIS WHITE MALES to fantasise about killing WOMXN!" Yes, I understand it's a tiny amount of very vocal actual legitimate bigots, but social media amplifies that voice to an apathetic public who don't want to be called bigots and nazis for daring to disagree just nod and go along with it.

And if they don't make the heads, people complain that they aren't represented. The only winning move is not to play.

dkoz wrote:
The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor

When you're talking about real life, sure, to some extent. When you're talking about stylised models that are essentially caricatures of actual human beings, it doesn't work that way. Cadian bodies with female heads on them don't look like females in body armour. They look like stylised male models with female heads.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign.

'Social terrorists'...?

Dude, step away from the computer for a while.

BaconCatBug basically spot on. I've got no problems with including female heads for AM but all these fools calling for retconing AA to so there are female Marines is just stupid. Females are well represented in the fluff by GW.

Haha, you’re getting a suspension.

For Cadians, I think women heads would work, but a more slender torso would also help. Boob plate? Meh, based on real world pictures it seems unnecessary but some degree of boobage wouldn’t kill anyone and because it’s minis would help to distinguish on the table top.

Reality has little to do with 40k, after all

 insaniak wrote:

dkoz wrote:
The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor

When you're talking about real life, sure, to some extent. When you're talking about stylised models that are essentially caricatures of actual human beings, it doesn't work that way. Cadian bodies with female heads on them don't look like females in body armour. They look like stylised male models with female heads.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign.

'Social terrorists'...?

Dude, step away from the computer for a while.

This is exactly the sort of foolish SJW headache GW doesn't need, people claiming they want female soldiers with big racks & huge butts so the can tell they're women but the minute GW does it boom the the outrage mob will slam them for being misogynists & demand more placation. If GW makes the heads look female it will lend the whole model a female quality.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

dkoz wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The post has been heavily policed by Manchu who has set very strict terms for the discussion which has both limited it and kept it on track. He deleted dozens of comments.

There is a problem in the community and it boils down to ignorance or immaturity. Model wise women in 40k are shockingly under represented and negatively portrayed. That’s a fact, the numbers are clear as are the styling. Female guard models would be a start. A good one.

Females are not under represented or negatively portrayed in 40K. The truth is men and women are nearly indistinguishable when in body armor at most AM could use a couple of female heads without helmets.

At which point the social terrorists will immediately start a smear campaign. "Games Workshop reduces women to just heads." "Sick Games Company Allows CIS WHITE MALES to fantasise about killing WOMXN!" Yes, I understand it's a tiny amount of very vocal actual legitimate bigots, but social media amplifies that voice to an apathetic public who don't want to be called bigots and nazis for daring to disagree just nod and go along with it.

And if they don't make the heads, people complain that they aren't represented. The only winning move is not to play.

GW have released entire factions of female miniatures already (one recently, and a reboot of another soon) and what you describe simply hasn’t happened. Also these ‘social terrorists’ you have imagined don’t exist.

dkoz wrote:
BaconCatBug basically spot on. I've got no problems with including female heads for AM but all these fools calling for retconing AA to so there are female Marines is just stupid. Females are well represented in the fluff by GW.

In the fluff. This thread is about the models, and unfortunately, they're not that well represented.

Regarding models, and from personal experience, guardsmen, a headswap is really the main thing that would make a model look female. I used Statuesque Miniatures heads on both Cadians and Scions, and they look just fine. Not even a body swap or trimming of the arms/hips/legs.

I have no doubts that the Sisters, when released in plastic, if the heads are as good as the previewed ones we've seen, will look brilliant. I don't really mind the corset aesthetic, seeing as most times it's been used, it is as an aesthetic design in the armour (so no actual corseting), or by a character who favours aesthetic over function (Rogue Trader). Heels on armour is something I do have an issue with, but the most egregious examples I know are Greyfax and Vhane, who, again, aren't fighters first and foremost. Greyfax's armour could well be ceremonial, and besides, it's hardly like Inquisitors do the most rational choices all the time.

Tau are a headswap away from being either gender, and let's be honest, not that many people know the visual differences between male and female Tau. Putting mixed gender heads would hardly register for a lot of people. Eldar and humans are the main ones, but in a lot of cases, headswaps (either as part of a kit, or separate expansion) would be sufficient.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

dkoz wrote:
BaconCatBug basically spot on. I've got no problems with including female heads for AM but all these fools calling for retconing AA to so there are female Marines is just stupid. Females are well represented in the fluff by GW.

In the fluff. This thread is about the models, and unfortunately, they're not that well represented.

Regarding models, and from personal experience, guardsmen, a headswap is really the main thing that would make a model look female. I used Victoria Miniatures heads on both Cadians and Scions, and they look just fine. Not even a body swap or trimming of the arms/hips/legs.

I have no doubts that the Sisters, when released in plastic, if the heads are as good as the previewed ones we've seen, will look brilliant. I don't really mind the corset aesthetic, seeing as most times it's been used, it is as an aesthetic design in the armour (so no actual corseting), or by a character who favours aesthetic over function (Rogue Trader). Heels on armour is something I do have an issue with, but the most egregious examples I know are Greyfax and Vhane, who, again, aren't fighters first and foremost. Greyfax's armour could well be ceremonial, and besides, it's hardly like Inquisitors do the most rational choices all the time.
Tau are a headswap away from being either gender, and let's be honest, not that many people know the visual differences between male and female Tau. Putting mixed gender heads would hardly register for a lot of people. Eldar and humans are the main ones, but in a lot of cases, headswaps (either as part of a kit, or separate expansion) would be sufficient.

They really are well represented with many strong main female characters and a ton a secondary female characters. Lying about their representation in fluff doesn't help the argument that some head swaps for AM would be a good thing even if just from a modeling perspective.

In terms of “representation,” what needs to be represented is the setting.

The current Guard line does not accurately represent the setting becuase there are no female sculpts.

dkoz wrote:
They really are well represented with many strong main female characters and a ton a secondary female characters. Lying about their representation in fluff doesn't help the argument that some head swaps for AM would be a good thing even if just from a modeling perspective.

Not represented well in models though. That's what this thread is about, not the lore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
In terms of “representation,” what needs to be represented is the setting.

The current Guard line does not accurately represent the setting becuase there are no female sculpts.

Exactly.
(Well, there are SOME female Guard sculpts, but they're not REALLY Imperial Guard - there's the Tanith female model, and Rocket Girl from the Last Chancers.)

dkoz wrote:

This is exactly the sort of foolish SJW headache GW doesn't need, people claiming they want female soldiers with big racks & huge butts so the can tell they're women

I never said I wanted female soldiers with 'big racks and huge butts'. What I said was that I don't want 'female' soldiers that are just Teela's head on He-Man's body.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:


Which doesn't make sense. You are arguing that they made men who looked like men and women who looked like women, albeit not sociologically 'idealized' women, therefore it made sense that they didn't make any more women?

I'm doing my best to not assume bad things about you, but the casual misogyny in that argument is shocking.

It actually reads like you're trying your hardest to twist his words into something you can condemn him for... But ok

Really, eh? To most English-speakers the question mark at the end of my first EDIT - second sentence would strongly indicate that I'm seeking clarification.

As I read Clockwork's position, he/she is saying that Sisters of Battle had 'man-face' so they stopped making human female minis. No human female minis is a better proposition than 'ugly' human female minis is the logical conclusion of that position and that position (the position, not the poster) is deeply misogynistic, but assuming is for paralegals so I asked.

There's nothing misogynistic about that. GW is in the business of selling high quality models first, the lore and the rules followed that, we all know this. If you can't make a good quality sculpt of something, that's all the reason they need not to release a line of that. I too want more female characters, but this is just you being over the top. Also, implying he's misogynistic but asking him to explain why he's not, is pretty much in direct conflict with the mod post above yours. You are pretty clearly trying your hardest to turn that into something it's not, and he made this clear.

Wouldn't for misogeni to occur we had to see a fear aspect in the first place? Plus if someone was basing his action around that specific sort of trauma, they would have to be against all women models in the game, not just ugly ones. It is impossible for the w40k fandom to be mysogenic and want new SoB models as the most wanted thing from GW.

What I said was that I don't want 'female' soldiers that are just Teela's head on He-Man's body.

Well the thing with war is, that the male body type is the better suited one for it. So a peak female soldier would be practicly impossible to recognise from a male one.

Not represented well in models though. That's what this thread is about, not the lore.

Would the models sell enough to make it worth GW time? They seem to be sure, after feed back, that SoB will. Other stuff seems questionable. I mean we could technicly assume that GW is stupid, and doesn't want to make more money and that is why they are not adding female models to their IG line. But I don't think it is the case.

In terms of “representation,” what needs to be represented is the setting.

Why does it need to be represented? Most regiments seem to be made out of males. The cadians were recruiting everyone, but cadia blew up. There also don't seem to be many examples of IG regiments that have mixed gender troopers in the same units. There are probablly more female only regiments in fluff then regular mixed ones, after cadia blew up.

In your opinion, which appears to be just as misogynistic as Clockwork's is. You're still just arguing that no human female minis are better than 'man-face' human female minis.

GW has produced hundreds of terrible sculpts and not one of them has ever, in my knowledge, been used to suggest that an entire range should not exist, or that they should just quit. Except now Sisters, the only exclusively female human faction, are accused of 'man-face' and killing GW's interest in sculpting human women.

Stripped to its core, you are arguing that women should be aesthetically pleasing to you or not exist. But no, there's no misogyny in that statement.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

In your opinion, which appears to be just as misogynistic as Clockwork's is. You're still just arguing that no human female minis are better than 'man-face' human female minis.

GW has produced hundreds of terrible sculpts and not one of them has ever, in my knowledge, been used to suggest that an entire range should not exist, or that they should just quit. Except now Sisters, the only exclusively female human faction, are accused of 'man-face' and killing GW's interest in sculpting human women.

Stripped to its core, you are arguing that women should be aesthetically pleasing to you or not exist. But no, there's no misogyny in that statement.

there is nothing wrong with liking a specific esthetic. He maybe narcisistic, but it can't be misogyny. That is fear of women, if it was fear, he wouldn't want any women models, not just the good looking, in his perspective, ones.

The trick with 40k body proportions is that even the male ones are wildly out of proportion. That's what we mean when we call 40k a heroic scale game - everybody looks like an exaggerated Greek god.

He-Man's body is basically what GW has set out to sculpt.

You need to stop making your definition of misogyny happen, Karol. Use the one in the dictionary.

mi·sog·y·ny
/məˈsäjənē/Submit
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Maybe on some marine models and the new AoS stuff. The rest of male models are just plain ugly ugly. With strange body physics one could only explain with warp mutations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You need to stop making your definition of misogyny happen, Karol. Use the one in the dictionary.

mi·sog·y·ny
/məˈsäjənē/Submit
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

In the polish psychological dictionary it is described as an irrational fear of women, based on an inferiority complex or fear of womens reproductiv organs. It can also occur based on a patients bad history with women, stuff like infidelity, being molested as a child etc.

Getting away from the SJW and Femarine crap that Manchu specifically said not to do, what about "cultural" stuff?

For example, GW once did a range of Pygmies:


It's been a while, but is that what people are hoping for?

No.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Getting away from the SJW and Femarine crap that Manchu specifically said not to do, what about "cultural" stuff?

For example, GW once did a range of Pygmies:


It's been a while, but is that what people are hoping for?

My dad says that those models were for an RPG in some ancient WD. And I am not sure if GW makes any RPGs by themselfs anymore. Wouldn't fit in to AoS for sure.

From a long time female player, do not start modifying lore to release females into units that have always been male.

There are places, like guard, where female have been in the lore from early on, but do not retcon lore for the purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From a long time female player, do not start modifying lore to release females into units that have always been male.

There are places, like guard, where female have been in the lore from early on, but do not retcon lore for the purpose.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

In your opinion, which appears to be just as misogynistic as Clockwork's is. You're still just arguing that no human female minis are better than 'man-face' human female minis.

GW has produced hundreds of terrible sculpts and not one of them has ever, in my knowledge, been used to suggest that an entire range should not exist, or that they should just quit. Except now Sisters, the only exclusively female human faction, are accused of 'man-face' and killing GW's interest in sculpting human women.

Stripped to its core, you are arguing that women should be aesthetically pleasing to you or not exist. But no, there's no misogyny in that statement.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
You need to stop making your definition of misogyny happen, Karol. Use the one in the dictionary.

mi·sog·y·ny
/məˈsäjənē/Submit
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Perhaps you need to stop making your own arguments to dispel, and use the ones that were actually said.

That's absolutely not at any point what I'm saying, as I personally want more female models, and I actually had to look up in the lore if my Genestealer Cults didn't infect women or something, based off their model line. I'm just saying that "not being something we can sculpt very well, our business is built around high quality sculpts, and this may not be a good business decision" is not an equivalent to "we dislike and hold contempt for women".

You are incredibly reactionary, and you need to stop calling everything you disagree with "misogyny". It's pretty darn insulting, and a mod literally just said not to, you are being beyond toxic at this point and aren't carrying an argument, just arguing strawman and declaring others as being of lower moral character.

 Manchu wrote:

Next, there’s a lot of political flavored commentary in this thread. That’s inevitable. Please note that while Dakka Dakka has a ban on off-topic political discussion, the ban does not include the political dimensions of on-topic content, i.e., miniatures gaming. All the same, please remember that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Calling each other SJWs, NPCs, misogynists, racists, etc is not acceptable (not that these words themselves are banned).

Finally, post in this thread at your own risk. If you ignore these points going forward, you stand a good chance of having your account suspended.


Thanks!