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.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Why are we imposing a limit on the IG in this scenario?

Because they have limits.
There might be billions of power packs on Forge World Batteri, but only ten thousand of them made it to the front lines thanks to logistics. Better ration your ammo.

Okay, then why specify it for the IG only and not both sides?

 Bobthehero wrote:
Okay, then why specify it for the IG only and not both sides?

Because we're talking about the IG and not whatever xeno, heretics, mutants or rebels they might be fighting.

Lord Damocles wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And regardless of what real life bias you want to apply to the hobby the company that makes it clearly is going in a different direction. All guard releases, be they models, books or art contain a high proportion of female frontline soldiers.

What are we classing as a 'high proportion' here?

Because looking at the models range(s), for example:

2nd ed. Cadians - all dudes
3rd ed. Cadians - all dudes
new Cadians - ~30% (?) female if you max out on the heads
Tallarn - all dudes
Vostroyans - all dudes
Steel Legion - all dudes
Valhallans - all dudes
Mordians - all dudes
Praetorians - all dudes
Forge World Death Korps - all dudes
new Death Korps - all dudes
Elysians - all dudes
Catachans - 1 female (metal grenade launcher)
Other/Misc - 4 (?) female (Warrior Woman, Raine, recent BL Cadian officer, metal Tanith lasgun)

I'm not sure about the most recent Codex: Astra Militarum, but across all prior editions, you could probably count the number of female soldiers depicted in artwork on one hand (I can think of two...)


It seems to be more that the most recent batch of Cadians specifically has a relatively high proportion of females; but that's probably to be expected given the proportion of the population of the world under arms.

I wouldn't want to judge Steel Legion based on the models- they wear heavy enough gear it is hard to tell, and I'd apply the same to scions, although most combat-capable Schola females will go to Sisters or Commissars before scions. Same for DKoK, but I think canonically they are all male as designer war babies.

You missed Rocket Girl and the recent LE Catachan sergeant from the miscellaneous (was the old female commissar model official? I forget). Just nitpicking The thrust of your point is correct overall regarding a paucity of female models in the range, although it is higher in recent models.

Arschbombe wrote:

 Haighus wrote:


IIRC, historically this has pretty consistently capped out at about 50kg for maximum sustainable human-carried load incl. clothes, armour, weapons, survival gear etc...

Pounds, not kg. Historically, soldiers have carried 36 kg or less. General rule of thumb is a soldier can carry about 1/3 to 1/2 of his bodyweight on an approach march and still be able to do something when he gets to the fight. Above that and you start breaking them down and reducing their ability to fight. It's not a new problem.

See A Soldier's Load

Ah! Thanks. Caught out by dastardly Imperial measurements...

Pyroalchi wrote:Out of curiosity as I have none of their models: could you tell if a Krieger was female? Gasmask + Greatcoat might cover up a lot...

See above.

Arschbombe wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
.
Unless there's a thus far unmentioned massive gender gap in the eldar population.

I'm actually thinking about making a thread on that and how it might differ from say Biel-tan to Iybraesil.

Please do! The Aeldari deep dive threads are always interesting to see you, Wyldhunt, and Iracundus hash out.

Bobthehero wrote:Why would the Guardsman carry less ammo than he can? No reason to have him carry less packs.

Edit: The body armor of the IG is also about 2 KG heavier than the US one, and roughly half a KG more than the Canadian Forces' one, though it includes forearm and lower leg protection. Only War does not have individual pieces for Guardsmen-issued kit so it's a bit hard to draw a comparision if the modern soldier had those pieces too, but I'd wager it would at best match it in term of weight for the US's kit, and go over for the CF's

Yeah, lighter equipment typically means more stuff carried. Sure, some stuff might not be available, but you have an ideal load and then what is supplied today. Sometimes the guard will carry less due to supply issues, but they probably have an intention to carry as much as possible/loot it from corpses as available.

Worth noting that mass of gear is not equal. Leg and arm armour is more tiring and weighs more as it is moved more and is held further from the torso. Leg armour is much more fatiguing than the same mass of torso armour. One of the reasons soldiers throughout history do not typically favour leg armour before other areas, although somewhat doctrine dependent (hoplites would use greaves because their legs were exposed below the shields, for example).

For ammo i could totally see some adeptus beancounter doing the math.

Expected life span of soldier in combat vs. optimal firing rate compared to magazine capacity.

As mathematically the number of shots needed per guardsmen in combat probably is within a rounding error of “zero” they should be glad they are issued ammo in the first place!

Think of all the savings, both in expense and weight that the poor souls need to lug around if we just trimmed this statistically irrelevant bit of kit.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And regardless of what real life bias you want to apply to the hobby the company that makes it clearly is going in a different direction. All guard releases, be they models, books or art contain a high proportion of female frontline soldiers.

What are we classing as a 'high proportion' here?

Because looking at the models range(s), for example:

2nd ed. Cadians - all dudes
3rd ed. Cadians - all dudes
new Cadians - ~30% (?) female if you max out on the heads
Tallarn - all dudes
Vostroyans - all dudes
Steel Legion - all dudes
Valhallans - all dudes
Mordians - all dudes
Praetorians - all dudes
Forge World Death Korps - all dudes
new Death Korps - all dudes
Elysians - all dudes
Catachans - 1 female (metal grenade launcher)
Other/Misc - 4 (?) female (Warrior Woman, Raine, recent BL Cadian officer, metal Tanith lasgun)

I'm not sure about the most recent Codex: Astra Militarum, but across all prior editions, you could probably count the number of female soldiers depicted in artwork on one hand (I can think of two...)


It seems to be more that the most recent batch of Cadians specifically has a relatively high proportion of females; but that's probably to be expected given the proportion of the population of the world under arms.

Edit my post to include the new, my bad for being clear. I meant new releases.

 Haighus wrote:

I wouldn't want to judge Steel Legion based on the models- they wear heavy enough gear it is hard to tell, and I'd apply the same to scions, although most combat-capable Schola females will go to Sisters or Commissars before scions. Same for DKoK, but I think canonically they are all male as designer war babies.

It's Schrodinger's woman! Nobody has ever looked at the Steel Legion or Death Korps models and said to themselves 'they're likely to be women'.

Good catch on Rocket Girl and the Catachan nobody could get hold of.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I wouldn't want to judge Steel Legion based on the models- they wear heavy enough gear it is hard to tell, and I'd apply the same to scions, although most combat-capable Schola females will go to Sisters or Commissars before scions. Same for DKoK, but I think canonically they are all male as designer war babies.

It's Schrodinger's woman! Nobody has ever looked at the Steel Legion or Death Korps models and said to themselves 'they're likely to be women'.

Good catch on Rocket Girl and the Catachan nobody could get hold of.

Not disagreeing with that, merely pointing out that visible gender differences are gonna be minimal under all that clobber, so nothing stopping someone from saying half their Steel Legion are female based on the models. There are definitely female Steel Legion troopers in lore too (even in Armageddon stormtrooper companies).

The Catachan sergeant wasn't too hard to get, I managed to get two. The Catachan colonel however, that was a real unicorn

The Colonel was meant to be a store birthday figure while Ripper Jackson was meant to be a store opening figure.

 Tyran wrote:

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:


OP was asking why we rarely see female-majority IG regiments in the books.

I explained that the reason is because books are largely inspired by real life, and in real life female soldiers are a rarity because of physical differences between men and women. And for elite units - which IG is, or at least is *supposed to be* - women will be even rarer.

Most 40k books focus on Space Marines that are literally one in a trillion as far as demographics are concerned. So no, this whole debate of demographic ratios have nothing to do with narrative focus.

Moreover some of the regimes everyone loves to write about like Cadians and Catachans pretty much the tell biology to feth off by having planets and societies in which everyone is a soldier (and an 80s walking meme in the case of Catachan), which you know probably wouldn't work in real life but it never really stopped them.

This actually is a good point... at least for individual regiments.

But as I said: the reason why we rarely see female-majority IG regiments in the books is because they are rare in real life, and authors are inspired by real life. And there are very good reasons why they are rare in real life.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And we're in the 40k Background subforum. You can leave reality at the door.

I cannot, because 40k WRITERS live in the reality. Therefore, they will be heavily influenced by it.

Plus, as I explained: assumption in fiction is that things are the same as in the Real Life unless explicitly noted as different. I actually don't think it makes sense why women in PDF are that rare - after all, PDF as something where "everybody on the planet should at least know how to use a lasgun" makes sense.

But for IG, from what we know of the setting, it actually does make sense to recruit best of the best.

The explanation is "the Imperium doesn't care". I don't know why you can't wrap your head around that.

Again, I go again to your suggestion that "books are largely inspired by real life" - lolwut?? How? Why? Where? What part of 40k has given you that impression??

I know Imperium doesn't care about spending human lives. I don't think Imperium doesn't care about combat effectiveness, however.

In fact, we KNOW it does care: hence why they go to such trouble to create Space Marines and recruit elite regiments.

And yes, books are largely inspired by real life. Even the setting itself is an overblown parody, but it is in fact easy to see where inspirations come from - and many are from real life. I will make a different thread for that, though.

So, explain soldiers like Larkin, Dorden, Domor or many of the Tanith. Explain the Salvar Chem-Dogs. Or the explicit mention of all-female and mixed sex regiments.

Uh, Salvar Chem Dogs are a) a penal legion that b) only came into existence due to the exact same circumstances as I had described as being a logical reason to waive any standards.

Tanith recruitment standards will be based on their own world - they will obviously be different from what standards would be on e.g. Catachan. In fact, having same standards for both would make no sense. Tanith are basically rangers, so their requirements will be based more towards endurance and stealth whereas Catachan obviously value physical strength due to the way they fight.

As for all-female and mixed sex regiments, I have already pointed out that they will exist. After all, it isn't that ALL women will be incapable of military service. Rather, so long as you apply equal standards, men will outnumber women by a significant amount.

But even then, the math dictates that there will be females, unless cultural reasons dictate them not to be.

I will illustrate what I am saying - and HAVE been saying all along - on an example...

Let's take a civilized world, population 10 billion.

Assume relatively normal First World recruitment levels for PDF - so 0,5% of the population.

This gives us 50 000 000 PDF troops overall.

84% of women fail fitness test compared to 30% men:
https://work.chron.com/can-female-join-us-army-infantry-27891.html

This means that pass rate is 70% for men and 16% for women (so 23% of that of men). Meaning women will be 18,6% of the PDF, if we base it solely on the fitness test.

So we have 40 700 000 men and 9 300 000 women in PDF.

But only 10% make it to the Guard (if we take "tithe" as being literal). And assuming we have similar standards for the Imperial Guard as we do for the PDF, we now have another chokepoint.

If Guard fitness tests have similar recruitment outcome as with the original percentages, relative pass rate for men will be 49% compared to 2,56% for women.

This means that out of the 5 000 000 guardsmen, some 5% will be women - a ratio of 19 to 1. So you get 4 750 000 men and 250 000 women in the Guard batch in question.

Capisce?

"In reality" - yes, there's your problem. In reality, we don't have 12 foot tall greenskins, we don't warp powers, and we don't have Space Marines. So, drop it.
(oh, but your comment about 85% of the Imperium being starvation victims - have you SEEN the state of the Hive Cities? Not 85%, but it certainly ain't a small amount)

As I said: fiction is always assumed to be like reality except for the parts where it EXPLICITLY is not. So unless baseline humans in 40k are fundamentally different from modern-day humans (of which I have seen no evidence so far) or Imperium employs large-scale enhancement programme for IG recruits (of which I have also seen no evidence so far), I see no issue with applying real life standards.

I know what Hive Cities are like. But Hive Worlds, despite their massive population, are not exactly a standard in the Imperium.

And what advantages do those mean in the 41st millennium?

If this really is a debate, as you put it, explain to me why any real world logic is important in this discussion.

Ah, I'm sure the Catachans with their sleeveless flak vests are quaking about those concerns.

If these factors really were so meaningful, then explain the disparity between Tanith Guardsmen, Cadian Guardsmen, and Catachan Guardsmen, and how they're all rolled under the same banner.

Again, all I'm saying is that *GW doesn't recognise any distinction, and includes plenty of women in their regiments, both mono-sex and mixed.* For all your talk of the real world, neither GW or I care. If you can't discuss 40k without relying on IRL logic, and without acknowledging that 40k frequently abandons IRL logic, this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

I already have, multiple times - though perhaps not to you specifically.

But basically, there are two main reasons why real world logic matters here:
1) 40k writers live in the real world, and will be inspired by what they see in the real world. Therefore, they will often reflect the real world regardless of whether it makes sense in the setting or not.
2) Fiction is based on the real world. Therefore, inherent assumption in reading any kind of fiction (fantasy, sci-fi, whatever) is that things are the same as in the real world except where explicitly noted otherwise.

You don't assume that humans of the Warhammer Fantasy are inherently superhuman just because they live in a fantasy world? Or those of Star Wars or Homeworld, both of which are in literally different galaxies from our own?

Same thing here.

As for disparity between individual regiments, that is easy to explain by each world having its own tests - which, considering different fighting styles, only makes sense. Add cultural reasons on top of that, and you have a playground for "anything goes".

But law of averages still means that majority of the Imperial Guard overall will be men.

That's a really long post without a single Games Workshop or affiliated citation. It really makes me think.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:


But as I said: the reason why we rarely see female-majority IG regiments in the books is because they are rare in real life, and authors are inspired by real life. And there are very good reasons why they are rare in real life.

Which doesn't mean that they can't be more equal 40,000 years in the future. After all, it wasn't all that long ago where women couldn't have professional careers, own property, or even vote, because they were considered physically or mentally more unfit than men.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:


I cannot, because 40k WRITERS live in the reality. Therefore, they will be heavily influenced by it.

Except science fiction writers typically write for...not reality? Think of writers in the 20's and 30's writing about female doctors or lawyers. Or hell, writing about things like satellites or computers or smart phones.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

But for IG, from what we know of the setting, it actually does make sense to recruit best of the best.

Well, that depends on what one considers 'the best of the best.' The Tanith regiments, for example, are considered exemplary light skirmish troops not because of their physicality but because of their minor mutation that they never get lost. That doesn't seem gender locked.

Ogryns are unintelligent to the point where some of them can't even reload anything but the most basic of weapons. Ratlings are more slender thanks to their low-grav origins.

I think one could make the argument that the Astra Militarum is such a large organization that they can find a place for anyone, even all female regiments.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:


I know Imperium doesn't care about spending human lives. I don't think Imperium doesn't care about combat effectiveness, however.

In fact, we KNOW it does care: hence why they go to such trouble to create Space Marines and recruit elite regiments.

And yes, books are largely inspired by real life. Even the setting itself is an overblown parody, but it is in fact easy to see where inspirations come from - and many are from real life. I will make a different thread for that, though.

I'd make the argument that anything involving Space Marines is more driven by sales goal than anything approaching logic or 'real life comparisons.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:


Uh, Salvar Chem Dogs are a) a penal legion that b) only came into existence due to the exact same circumstances as I had described as being a logical reason to waive any standards.

Tanith recruitment standards will be based on their own world - they will obviously be different from what standards would be on e.g. Catachan. In fact, having same standards for both would make no sense. Tanith are basically rangers, so their requirements will be based more towards endurance and stealth whereas Catachan obviously value physical strength due to the way they fight.

As mentioned before, the uniqueness for Tanith is their mutation which was far as I know, isn't gender specific. Though given the state of Tanith, it's unlikely we'll find out.

Catachan's uniqueness is that their origin is an infamous death world, which last I checked isn't populated solely by men. It's entirely possible that women from Catachan are just as deadly as their male counterparts, or close enough that it doesn't matter.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

As for all-female and mixed sex regiments, I have already pointed out that they will exist. After all, it isn't that ALL women will be incapable of military service. Rather, so long as you apply equal standards, men will outnumber women by a significant amount.

But even then, the math dictates that there will be females, unless cultural reasons dictate them not to be.

I will illustrate what I am saying - and HAVE been saying all along - on an example...

Let's take a civilized world, population 10 billion.

Assume relatively normal First World recruitment levels for PDF - so 0,5% of the population.

This gives us 50 000 000 PDF troops overall.

84% of women fail fitness test compared to 30% men:
https://work.chron.com/can-female-join-us-army-infantry-27891.html

This means that pass rate is 70% for men and 16% for women (so 23% of that of men). Meaning women will be 18,6% of the PDF, if we base it solely on the fitness test.

So we have 40 700 000 men and 9 300 000 women in PDF.

But only 10% make it to the Guard (if we take "tithe" as being literal). And assuming we have similar standards for the Imperial Guard as we do for the PDF, we now have another chokepoint.

If Guard fitness tests have similar recruitment outcome as with the original percentages, relative pass rate for men will be 49% compared to 2,56% for women.

This means that out of the 5 000 000 guardsmen, some 5% will be women - a ratio of 19 to 1. So you get 4 750 000 men and 250 000 women in the Guard batch in question.

Capisce?

The problem with this is that you're using the argument for standard humans on their home planet that's not in a state of total war.

Let me just throw a few wrenches into your arguments.

High grav worlds would naturally produce sturdier individuals. Yes, even women. An average woman who grew up in a 1.3g world could outlift and outperform all but the most dedicated males on Earth. Take it to a large enough extreme and you have ogryns that, while strong, would in no way pass even the most basic of exams--since even putting down their name is an issue for most of them.

Low grave worlds. Take the above and inverse it. Women on earth would most likely be far stronger than a male that grew up on a .7g world. Take it to extremes and you get ratlings--who *are* in the Guard and don't get a pass because of their diminutive nature.

Even on Earth, people who have grown up in high altitude locations tend to perform better physically than those not, which is why Kenya produces such excellent runners. People who have spent generations diving are able to hold their breath better, etc.

Then there's the bionic enhancements, chemical cocktails, and otherwise advanced medical technology available within the Imperium.

There's also the fact that on Necromunda, arguably one of the most dangerous and deadly hives in the Imperium, women are not only not considered inferior, there's a very successful House located there that's primarily made up of women.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:


As I said: fiction is always assumed to be like reality except for the parts where it EXPLICITLY is not. So unless baseline humans in 40k are fundamentally different from modern-day humans (of which I have seen no evidence so far) or Imperium employs large-scale enhancement programme for IG recruits (of which I have also seen no evidence so far), I see no issue with applying real life standards.

I know what Hive Cities are like. But Hive Worlds, despite their massive population, are not exactly a standard in the Imperium.

Except your arguments are based on our current reality but not the logical expansion of the 40k universe, in which there is genetic modification and mutations (unless you think no one ever bothered outside of the Space Marines, or that Tanith's mutation was purely unique). You've ignored the influence of gravity, of growing up in different environments, and the effect of the Imperium's effectively on-going total war stance, and the fact that they've just too big and bureaucratic to make any efficiency changes.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

I already have, multiple times - though perhaps not to you specifically.

But basically, there are two main reasons why real world logic matters here:
1) 40k writers live in the real world, and will be inspired by what they see in the real world. Therefore, they will often reflect the real world regardless of whether it makes sense in the setting or not.

If scifi writers are writing purely based off the real world, with current world sensibilities, in a setting that's pretty explicitly space fantasy 40,000 years into the future, they're arguably not worth the paper they're writing on. Imagine Star Trek treating Uhura as an anomaly on that show because it was written with the sensibilities of the 70's as the primary focus. Whereas today, most of us wouldn't even bat an eye at a woman or non-white person being an officer.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

2) Fiction is based on the real world. Therefore, inherent assumption in reading any kind of fiction (fantasy, sci-fi, whatever) is that things are the same as in the real world except where explicitly noted otherwise.

Fiction? Maybe. Science/fantasy fiction? Absolutely not.

The only time where this applies if it's fiction written in contemporary or within specific timeframes (like Stargate). And even then, those fictions are usually written or are going to poke at the backwards mentality of those timeframes.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

You don't assume that humans of the Warhammer Fantasy are inherently superhuman just because they live in a fantasy world? Or those of Star Wars or Homeworld, both of which are in literally different galaxies from our own?

Except...they sometimes are? Humans in the Empire, much less the chaos wastes, *can* be superhuman, whether through raw physical prowess or being able to make reality their bitch with their brains. Star Wars, you can actually have random people turn into super human space wizards, or even those that aren't can be 'force sensitive' and end up inherently better than the people around them.

For Homeworld, they could very well be super human but the only thing that would matter in that universe is if they could survive in 2000C environments. Which we have empirical evidence that they cannot.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:


As for disparity between individual regiments, that is easy to explain by each world having its own tests - which, considering different fighting styles, only makes sense. Add cultural reasons on top of that, and you have a playground for "anything goes".

It's more likely the Imperium provides the criteria that the planetary government must meet. "You are hereby called upon to provide a regiment of 3,000 men/women, between the ages of X and Y, with no chronic conditions that were result in impaired service within 20 years" etc. etc.

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

But law of averages still means that majority of the Imperial Guard overall will be men.

Actually, the law of averages means that roughly half of the Imperial Guard will be men.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That's a really long post without a single Games Workshop or affiliated citation. It really makes me think.

Just saying 'source please' isn't in itself an argument...

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

I already have, multiple times - though perhaps not to you specifically.

But basically, there are two main reasons why real world logic matters here:
1) 40k writers live in the real world, and will be inspired by what they see in the real world. Therefore, they will often reflect the real world regardless of whether it makes sense in the setting or not.

If scifi writers are writing purely based off the real world, with current world sensibilities, in a setting that's pretty explicitly space fantasy 40,000 years into the future, they're arguably not worth the paper they're writing on. Imagine Star Trek treating Uhura as an anomaly on that show because it was written with the sensibilities of the 70's as the primary focus. Whereas today, most of us wouldn't even bat an eye at a woman or non-white person being an officer.

What's also interesting is how some generations today watch the Original Star Trek and they don't actually see any of the progressive, risky elements that they did for what they were. Kirk kissing Uhura in one scene is basically nothing to be remarked on today, yet its one of, if not the first cases of a white and dark skinned person kissing on TV in the world. For its time that was huge, as was having a multi-cultural cast with key roles.

Also even if you are inspired by modern times, which country or even region is being looked at in the modern world? There are cultures today where women are not permitted to step outside without covering up their entire body; and there are cultures where women can walk freely in a bikini. Both are around today, both are modern times. Just like there are armed forces where women are allowed to join and those where they are not. It should also be noted that women serving, whilst not a new thing, is still something which has been expanded with limits and restrictions being lifted even well into this millennium. So its still an active area of growth and change rather than one that's set in stone.

I disagree with the idea that 40k writers are writing based on the real world. But I could see the argument that they are writing based on popular conceptions of historical warfare.

I mean, the IG is mostly thematically designed as a meme of a WW1 military but with nicer weapons: they have weirdly tall rhomboid tanks with sponsons, make heavy use of wave tactics and trenches and mostly static heavy weapon teams and artillery.

It has nothing to do with real life militaries (arguably that is the Tau) but with popular concepts of how the WW1 was fought (not even actually real historical ones).

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Just saying 'source please' isn't in itself an argument...

Would you prefer I make a long rambling schizo post without a single relevant source for my assertion?

A poster who makes a claim like "Women don't make up more than 5% of the Astra Militarum" without a single in-universe citation to lend credence to that claim is not a poster worth considering for anything more than a cheap laugh.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Just saying 'source please' isn't in itself an argument...

Would you prefer I make a long rambling schizo post without a single relevant source for my assertion?

A poster who makes a claim like "Women don't make up more than 5% of the Astra Militarum" without a single in-universe citation to lend credence to that claim is not a poster worth considering for anything more than a cheap laugh.

He can believe what he wants and you can believe what you want. Since there’s nothing in lore that gives us statistics or numbers you both can be right. The game is for everyone. We should just lock this thread. A lot of name calling is coming from this, this thread is gone.

The planet that rebels in Shadowsword explicitely does so because the tithes takes away too many (male) men, the Governess repeats so over and over, and uses the terms husbands and fathers to clarify it means male humans.

The idea to use women (and children) only entered in the context of using them as workforce for the planet while the male workers would get tithed to the Guard.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Just saying 'source please' isn't in itself an argument...

Would you prefer I make a long rambling schizo post without a single relevant source for my assertion?

A poster who makes a claim like "Women don't make up more than 5% of the Astra Militarum" without a single in-universe citation to lend credence to that claim is not a poster worth considering for anything more than a cheap laugh.

He isn't saying that though. He is saying that if we are to use real world numbers and apply them to the Imperial Guard you would expect to see about 5% be women. That isn't the same as saying that the Guard won't be more than 5% women but that if the lore doesn't give us much more details that show how the differences between men and women in the Imperium are vastly smaller than in our own world we should expect there to be more men than women in the guard. The exact ratio we can't figure out and it could be vastly different depending on the world they are recruited from but it does give us a good baseline to start a discussion from if we assume the Imperium has more equality between the sexes and they don't put physical fitness as a higher priority than modern earth do. 5% as a minimum and 49% as a maximum and the truth somewhere in between.

 Bobthehero wrote:
The planet that rebels in Shadowsword explicitely does so because the tithes takes away too many (male) men, the Governess repeats so over and over, and uses the terms husbands and fathers to clarify it means male humans.

The idea to use women (and children) only entered in the context of using them as workforce for the planet while the male workers would get tithed to the Guard.

That’s one specific world, each world will have its own cultures and rules to abide by. It’s not reflection of the greater imperium. That world also celebrated gluttony if I remember correctly and the ruling class were so fat they had to anti grav stuff to move about?? Might have dreamt that though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 AldarionTelcontar wrote:

I already have, multiple times - though perhaps not to you specifically.

But basically, there are two main reasons why real world logic matters here:
1) 40k writers live in the real world, and will be inspired by what they see in the real world. Therefore, they will often reflect the real world regardless of whether it makes sense in the setting or not.

If scifi writers are writing purely based off the real world, with current world sensibilities, in a setting that's pretty explicitly space fantasy 40,000 years into the future, they're arguably not worth the paper they're writing on. Imagine Star Trek treating Uhura as an anomaly on that show because it was written with the sensibilities of the 70's as the primary focus. Whereas today, most of us wouldn't even bat an eye at a woman or non-white person being an officer.

What's also interesting is how some generations today watch the Original Star Trek and they don't actually see any of the progressive, risky elements that they did for what they were. Kirk kissing Uhura in one scene is basically nothing to be remarked on today, yet its one of, if not the first cases of a white and dark skinned person kissing on TV in the world. For its time that was huge, as was having a multi-cultural cast with key roles.

Also even if you are inspired by modern times, which country or even region is being looked at in the modern world? There are cultures today where women are not permitted to step outside without covering up their entire body; and there are cultures where women can walk freely in a bikini. Both are around today, both are modern times. Just like there are armed forces where women are allowed to join and those where they are not. It should also be noted that women serving, whilst not a new thing, is still something which has been expanded with limits and restrictions being lifted even well into this millennium. So its still an active area of growth and change rather than one that's set in stone.

Exactly! Remember a time when women couldn’t join he military in he west, or not so combat roles? If you base stuff “real world” what they really mean if their interpretation of the real world, their experience of it. A certain view of the real world would have zero women in the guard if women in that culture can’t vote, drive or fight.

And this is the problem of using science to explain their misogyny. Men are tougher, men pass the fitness test more often etc. it wasn’t that long again that it was thought by science that women shouldn’t be educated because their brains couldn’t handle it, that vehicles couldn’t go over 20 miles per hour because women would pass out and die they were so delicate. “Science” isn’t without bias, certainly not the sources quoted in this thread.

This is a fantasy setting that is supposed to push the boundaries of what is and isn’t possible or acceptable. We don’t have a number for women in the guard so head canon what you like but dint sorry someone else’s is wrong because “science”. For me, plenty women in the guard, so many that it isn’t an issue to see one, like in the fluff. There are planets where it’s men only and regiments where it’s women only (and probably planets). Hell, I even have female marines in my home brew chapter (the horror!).

A little tangential, but you'd think woman would be just fine in a tank regiment. Hauling shells and wrestling with machinery takes some extra brawn, but that's all that comes to mind. They might even fit inside those Leman Russ's better .

Klickor wrote:

He isn't saying that though. He is saying that if we are to use real world numbers and apply them to the Imperial Guard you would expect to see about 5% be women. That isn't the same as saying that the Guard won't be more than 5% women but that if the lore doesn't give us much more details that show how the differences between men and women in the Imperium are vastly smaller than in our own world we should expect there to be more men than women in the guard. The exact ratio we can't figure out and it could be vastly different depending on the world they are recruited from but it does give us a good baseline to start a discussion from if we assume the Imperium has more equality between the sexes and they don't put physical fitness as a higher priority than modern earth do. 5% as a minimum and 49% as a maximum and the truth somewhere in between.

I didn't care about his rambling post without a single canonical source. What makes you think I'd care about yours?

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Klickor wrote:

He isn't saying that though. He is saying that if we are to use real world numbers and apply them to the Imperial Guard you would expect to see about 5% be women. That isn't the same as saying that the Guard won't be more than 5% women but that if the lore doesn't give us much more details that show how the differences between men and women in the Imperium are vastly smaller than in our own world we should expect there to be more men than women in the guard. The exact ratio we can't figure out and it could be vastly different depending on the world they are recruited from but it does give us a good baseline to start a discussion from if we assume the Imperium has more equality between the sexes and they don't put physical fitness as a higher priority than modern earth do. 5% as a minimum and 49% as a maximum and the truth somewhere in between.

I didn't care about his rambling post without a single canonical source. What makes you think I'd care about yours?

Sticking your finger in your ears and saying "la la la la if its not in the sacred GW texts its not real" doesn't lend any credence to your argument. Using data and historical norms from the real world is far more valid than whatever you think you are accomplishing and anyone with a brain is going to dismiss you entirely.

There seems to be 2 groups here.

One group that thinks men are most likely a clear majority due to the same reasons we have mostly men in modern armies but that the exact ratios may very well be closer to 50% than the low % we have currently. There are after all a lot of differences between 40k and the Imperium and 2023 Earth. Most seem to be very open to some worlds being majority or even only female regiments though they think overall men would be most common. It is just an interesting discussion trying to find out where in the 1%-49% range the amount of women would be. It is more about facts and world building than any ideology or values.

Then there is a group that want it to be an almost 50/50 split due to ideology and uses arguments only for their side (when often the same enhancements/improvements/changes could as well work in the other direction) and think anyone who argues against them are sexists that don't want women at all in the Imperial Guard.

I belong in the first group and I assume most others in that group are as open to the idea that we are actually quite wrong in our assumptions as soon as more background info is released and we can get a better backing on how the distribution really is. Anything can be justified and explained with the right world building. We just don't have any at the moment that should give us an expectation that it is close to a 50/50 split.

The second group I feel would be more against lore that made the guard a 1/10 or 1/5 ratio of women to men than the first group would be against lore that made women 30-50% of the guard since they aren't after a world that is coherent in its world building but after a world that reflects how they think it should be. If it doesn't fit their view of the world then they want to impose their will on it to change it.

I would be fine even with a majority women in the guard if they made up a good enough reason for it that I would think fit into the setting. It doesn't have to behave to our modern values and logic since there is a lot of rot and decay in the Imperium. So the reason just have to make some twisted since in the 40k universe and I would be fine with it. But there needs to be a reason.

Regarding ideological arguments: he who smelled it dealt it.

Nice try twisting words though, sadly you failed to realize that doesn't really work on a forum thread.

I perhaps wasn't really clear in what I meant. Not really using ideology as political world view that aligns to certain party politics but as how they wish the world should be. Nothing wrong with that but it is a different angle seeing or attacking this subject compared to those that come from what we know of militaries in real world and what we know or not know about the 40k setting and try to argue this subject from that direction.

I think quite a few of those that are coming from this more "ideological" or "preferable" way of thinking are assuming bad intentions from those that don't. It is quite easy to understand why this misconception happens though. If they argue from what they believe is how it should be and then also assumes that their opponents in this discussion are also arguing from the same angle then it is easy to assume bad intentions. A lot of the proponents for a closer to a 50/50 split is obviously arguing from a position that it should be so and that it is a better outcome if it is more equal. It is a "good" moral argument. So if you are against it then you must be a "bad" person.

But the people arguing against an equal split being likely aren't doing it for moral reasons but from what they see is facts. It being good or bad or morals in general have nothing at all to do with it.

Which is why after 10 pages there still is 2 largely split camps since they are arguing past each other due to not having a common understanding on what basis they are arguing on.

TLR Some is arguing from how it seems to be and some from how they think it should be and some people thus have a hard time arguing in good faith because they think everyone is arguing the same way they are.

What we actually know about female IG: they exist, and are common enough to be unremarkable. That's it.

Also that they exist at all Ranks.

Again anything in our head canon goes (for the most part). The universe was made to be like that. If you want to believe it’s a 50-50 split ok cool it’s canon. If you want to believe it’s vastly majority men, ok cool it’s canon. It’s your hobby, it’s made for everyone.

It’s really disappointing how aggressive and rude some people are being in this thread.

Klickor wrote:
I perhaps wasn't really clear in what I meant. Not really using ideology as political world view that aligns to certain party politics but as how they wish the world should be. Nothing wrong with that but it is a different angle seeing or attacking this subject compared to those that come from what we know of militaries in real world and what we know or not know about the 40k setting and try to argue this subject from that direction.

I think quite a few of those that are coming from this more "ideological" or "preferable" way of thinking are assuming bad intentions from those that don't. It is quite easy to understand why this misconception happens though. If they argue from what they believe is how it should be and then also assumes that their opponents in this discussion are also arguing from the same angle then it is easy to assume bad intentions. A lot of the proponents for a closer to a 50/50 split is obviously arguing from a position that it should be so and that it is a better outcome if it is more equal. It is a "good" moral argument. So if you are against it then you must be a "bad" person.

But the people arguing against an equal split being likely aren't doing it for moral reasons but from what they see is facts. It being good or bad or morals in general have nothing at all to do with it.

Which is why after 10 pages there still is 2 largely split camps since they are arguing past each other due to not having a common understanding on what basis they are arguing on.

TLR Some is arguing from how it seems to be and some from how they think it should be and some people thus have a hard time arguing in good faith because they think everyone is arguing the same way they are.

Ah, my apologies then, I misread your post.

I do disagree with assuming stuff that hasn't been filled in works like what we're used to now. Applying current day expectations* to a setting 38k years in the future, and applying real world logic to a magical fantasy setting (in space), these things don't make sense to me. I think a more reasonable approach would be to base assumptions only on in-universe sources and logic, and "we don't know, hopefully they'll fill this in someday" would be an acceptable answer for unknown stuff. Sure we can theorize, but we can't be sure.

So I'm arguing against assuming a female minority in the guard from what I see as logic and facts, and I am indeed having a hard time understanding the other side :p no "this is how it should be" or whatever here.

*many of these expectations are based on current cultural developments that are still in motion, such as doctors or soldiers being men-only. It's changed drastically in the past decades, and I think it'll look different than today a few decades from now. Which makes it really weird to me to apply a snapshot of an unfinished process as some sort of representative end-state for a future so far away that it boggles the mind. I think this is also the true cause of the split between our two camps.

And yes, this topic overlaps with some current ideological discussions, making it easy to assign the opposing camp to the matching ideology. This applies equally to both camps here I'd say.