Ok, I am just curious what women's role in the imperium is, as I heard they were equal, but then heard that ( at least on Krieg) they're purpose is make bodies, and the men die in some of the worst conditions. So, what does the Imperium think of women. I do not wished anything to be changed for 'equality' simply wondering what the Imperium's views on women are.
The Imperium consists of a million worlds. On every single one of these million worlds the role of women will be different. So to your question there are a million different answers. It is too broad to answer.
If by Imperium, you mean the Administratum? They don't give two effs if you're male or female. You're life is a currency and they'll spend it all the same. Male, female, or whatever.
But there are surely worlds that are backwards AF and others where females rule and everything in between.
CommanderRednaxela wrote: Ok, I am just curious what women's role in the imperium is, as I heard they were equal, but then heard that ( at least on Krieg) they're purpose is make bodies, and the men die in some of the worst conditions. So, what does the Imperium think of women. I do not wished anything to be changed for 'equality' simply wondering what the Imperium's views on women are.
Its 40k - it depends
Its unlikely that the Imperium as a whole or even the major organisations think about men or women in that sense, there are areas that are designated for one sex or another but these are normally highly specalised and/or cultural - eg the Asartes and the Sororitas. many kinght worlds have men only piloting the Knights (but not all)
People in pretty much all branches of the imperium can be men or women.
If you look for inspiration, just look through different time-lines and cultures/societis of history of Earth and every situation might and would be presented somewhere in the Imperium.
Be it a culture where women are revered as life-givers or demi-gods, or where women are the ruling class, through modern (more or less equal) societies or to less fortunate situations like medieval Europe or a Sharia law forced in muslim counties...
There might be different representations of every said situation and like has been already said, million worlds, million different situations.
As far as upper echelons go, I see no reason women can't hold positions of power in the HLOT.
As far as all the positions go, only the Captain-General of the Custodes is essential to be male, and the Abbess of the Sisters of Battle has to be female. Regarding all the others, I don't see any lore stating that they aren't able to be held by women, even though they have masculine titles (which could probably be switched for the female equivalent).
An important bit of information here is that Games Workshop fluff have been written almost exlusively by men. Regular geeky slightly misogynist brittish men. They have made a product that has mostly been marketed towards men and boys. They started more than a generation ago and builds on a tradition of conservative gender roles in fantasy/sci-fi.
The models available and the fluff reflects this. Count the number of female models available, and compare what percentage of them have versions of boob armor...
Lately GW have started sorting this out a bit. For example by claiming that women are common in the imperial guard and by including more female characters in books. But they still have a _looong_ way to go. (And I'm not even sure they want to, because demographics...)
So feel free to help GW along to take the 41st millennium into the equality standards of the 2nd ;-)
Please, DON'T make out of this another "GW are misogynist/racist/whateveristifeelwouldgo and it needs more diversity" thread. It rarely makes any good and usually ends up locked.
Hawky wrote: Please, DON'T make out of this another "GW are misogynist/racist/whateveristifeelwouldgo and it needs more diversity" thread. It rarely makes any good and usually ends up locked.
Thank you.
But it's all truuuue :-D
But seriously, I think it is useful to give the OP a bit of background to why the 40k universe can seem a bit... confused on how it depicts women. That it varies quite a lot over time and between mediums. That women are more common in the RPGs and the (non-spacemarine) books than among actual models is a good example of such an incongruency.
You have some places where it's 100% equal. On Cadia for example "the birth rate and the recriutment rates on Cadia are synonymous" and "All Cadians - no matter their age, gender or station - must know how to fight" (AM codex pg 14)
Lately GW have started sorting this out a bit. For example by claiming that women are common in the imperial guard and by including more female characters in books. But they still have a _looong_ way to go. (And I'm not even sure they want to, because demographics...)
So feel free to help GW along to take the 41st millennium into the equality standards of the 2nd ;-)
So forced conscription in to the Military on Cadia is your idea of equality?
That's the only way you'll see enough women in uniform I assure you but damned if anyone cared for the right of an individual to choose. Imperium doesn't care of course, human life is currency, spend it well and all but I really grow tired at the concept of women serving front-line roles. Their bodies cannot sustain the punishment as long as men can and they will burn out faster.
A fictional military order for women that understands women, like the Sisters of Battle, is a much better representation. Seriously, they look like they can fight while on their period I'm not kidding. And no that isn't a stab at women I am being serious, PMS is actual bring you to your knees for most women, so anyone that can attempt operating in a war-zone during that kind of internal pain deserves a purity seal.
But as for women in the Imperial Guard lasting as long as the men? utter fiction, unless of course Cadian women are built internally like men are then it's justified (being fiction anything is possible) but that is not the impression I get.
Ginsu33 wrote: Their bodies cannot sustain the punishment as long as men can and they will burn out faster.
Wrong. Women can sustain just as much punishment as men. Both can be blow apart instantly by a bolter shot, be poisoned and die screaming against xenos horrors, etc. The average life expectancy in combat of IG troops, male or female, is measured in seconds. So who cares about some theoretical difference in strength or toughness, both are dead, send in the next wave.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this, of all things is the thing you "grow tired of"? 40k is fiction. Assuming that men and women are equal in combat for the sake of having female characters for people to identify with is a pretty minor violation of realism compared to sentient fungus monsters that act like rioting British soccer fans, FTL travel that consists of literally traveling through hell and hoping you don't end up devoured by demons or arriving centuries before you left, chainsaw swords, tank designs that WWI engineers would be appalled by, etc.
Ginsu33 wrote: Their bodies cannot sustain the punishment as long as men can and they will burn out faster.
Wrong. Women can sustain just as much punishment as men. Both can be blow apart instantly by a bolter shot, be poisoned and die screaming against xenos horrors, etc. The average life expectancy in combat of IG troops, male or female, is measured in seconds. So who cares about some theoretical difference in strength or toughness, both are dead, send in the next wave.
Because it's not theoretical, it's about 2 weeks max of continued field operations until the female soldier will sustain injury. This is why females cannot complete special forces training even if they manage to go through the course initially.
Second.. you are describing some kind of offensive/assault where Imperial Guard are being thrown as waves. While this is typical, you should know that the Imperial Guard fight all types of land warfare, from sieges, to large scale offensives, counter-insurgency etc. So your d-day storm the beaches scenario, while a good example for your justification, is not an actual representation of what the Imperial Guard are expected to do.
If you want more information you should google independent studies conducted within the British, US, and most importantly Israeli armed forces. Telling me I am wrong, doesn't mean I am wrong, but it does discredit the combat experience learned by those forces and IMO it is ignorant to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this, of all things is the thing you "grow tired of"? 40k is fiction. Assuming that men and women are equal in combat for the sake of having female characters for people to identify with is a pretty minor violation of realism compared to sentient fungus monsters that act like rioting British soccer fans, FTL travel that consists of literally traveling through hell and hoping you don't end up devoured by demons or arriving centuries before you left, chainsaw swords, tank designs that WWI engineers would be appalled by, etc.
I didn't say they are not equal in combat.. lol I said they burn out faster.
Ginsu33 wrote: Because it's not theoretical, it's about 2 weeks max of continued field operations until the female soldier will sustain injury. This is why females cannot complete special forces training even if they manage to go through the course initially.
This is 40k. If you survive 2 minutes you consider yourself lucky.
Second.. you are describing some kind of offensive/assault where Imperial Guard are being thrown as waves. While this is typical, you should know that the Imperial Guard fight all types of land warfare, from sieges, to large scale offensives, counter-insurgency etc. So your d-day storm the beaches scenario, while a good example for your justification, is not an actual representation of what the Imperial Guard are expected to do.
No, actually it's an entirely accurate representation of what they do. IG win by overwhelming numbers and throwing bodies at the problem until the enemy runs out of bullets.
If you want more information you should google independent studies conducted within the British, US, and most importantly Israeli armed forces. Telling me I am wrong, doesn't mean I am wrong, but it does discredit the combat experience learned by those forces and IMO it is ignorant to do so.
Those studies are about the real world. This is 40k.
I didn't say they are not equal in combat.. lol I said they burn out faster.
And, again, who cares if it's a bit unrealistic? Nothing else in 40k is realistic so why does this matter so much to you?
If you want to use studies conducted by armed forces on women capacity for sustained combat, you should also read the response of the scientific community on those studies as well as take some elements of consideration that didn't applied to women soldiers in the past and might not apply to them in the furute.
The most famous study published by the US armed forces was by the US Marine Corp and was wracked by methodological issues. It had poor sampling, was based on annecdotal experience and not clear controlled groups, had many conclusion that were contradicted by other, better designed sutidies, for example for the maximal charge a young adult women between 140 and 160 pound can carry or differences in terms of sleep and food deprivation symptomes.
All modern armies are birth from the same military tradition and follow, roughly, the same kind of training, indoctrination and equipment. All of these elements were designed for the use of fighting men not fighting women. The UK forces do recognise that most of their equipment is inadapted to for women. The standard body armor are too cumbersome and don't fit properly a typical women, providing lower protection, more discomfort and still represent a heavy load. Gun's handle and spacing is designed for a men's hand and arms which are usualy larger making manipulation of large caliber weapon more difficult. Bags and pouches and even uniform cut and underwears aren't ideal or even good since women don't habe the same musculature and won't balance weight in the same fashion than men. The Israeli army mentionned that the psychological environment of combat unit isn't optimal for women's integration, etc.
Women, in the past and right now, do participate in sustained combat situation. While all armies are hesitant for various reasons to send women in the front line, where the fight is the hardest, circomstances of war sometimes make the hardest fight come them instead. In those cases, there is very little difference between men and women since physical might doesn't play an as important role in modern warfare as deployment, good logistic, equipment, numbers or the level of moral of the fighting force in question for example. A unit can hardly stay in the thick of the fight for more than 2 weeks of continous combat before being subject to injuries. Psychological exhaustion is also an enormous factor and one can hardly be trained. In fact, during WWI, the longest time a unit was forced to stay in combat was 6 weeks and let say those who survived were all suffering tremendously. Technically the ideal time was 2 weeks. After that, new units were to be sent to avoid "burning troops".
In a contexte of a 40K war, who knows what sort of equipment and fighting tradition these people have. Some might favor women because their training methods and equipment favors smaller and lighter combattant over larger and stronger ones. We barely know anything about how an actual battle or war is fought. Plus, even if women were clearly inferior combattant, human society aren't all that rational and theocratic dictatorial regime even less so. You could a see a planet with armies composed only of women with innapropriate weapons, equipment and training methods simply because of some religious or cultural reasons.
The Imperium is sort of insane. I wouldn't be surprised if they sent a bunch of small teenager girls, almost stripped nacked, armed with cumbersome maces and large caliber shotguns in the guards because on their planet a very famous saintly women killed a Chaos Space Marines with a blast of shotgun to the face and then finished him up by cracking his skull with a mace. The diverse (and insane) nature of the Imperium makes all sorts of discussion on the combat capacities of men vs women based on our data (which aren't all that numerous and of good quality since its a rather recent field of study) almost pointless. With gene enhancement, cybernetics, other planet biospheres, we don't even know if what we know of the human body (which is far from being complete, we don't even know for sure all the differences between men and women physically speaking) holds true.
Lately GW have started sorting this out a bit. For example by claiming that women are common in the imperial guard and by including more female characters in books. But they still have a _looong_ way to go. (And I'm not even sure they want to, because demographics...)
So feel free to help GW along to take the 41st millennium into the equality standards of the 2nd ;-)
So forced conscription in to the Military on Cadia is your idea of equality?
That's the only way you'll see enough women in uniform I assure you but damned if anyone cared for the right of an individual to choose. Imperium doesn't care of course, human life is currency, spend it well and all but I really grow tired at the concept of women serving front-line roles. Their bodies cannot sustain the punishment as long as men can and they will burn out faster.
A fictional military order for women that understands women, like the Sisters of Battle, is a much better representation. Seriously, they look like they can fight while on their period I'm not kidding. And no that isn't a stab at women I am being serious, PMS is actual bring you to your knees for most women, so anyone that can attempt operating in a war-zone during that kind of internal pain deserves a purity seal.
But as for women in the Imperial Guard lasting as long as the men? utter fiction, unless of course Cadian women are built internally like men are then it's justified (being fiction anything is possible) but that is not the impression I get.
And sisters of battle are all female.
And highly feared as a displined, well capable combat force yo be reckoned with.
There equality in that. Woman can take the fight to emprors enemies freely as men.
Peregrine wrote: No, actually it's an entirely accurate representation of what they do. IG win by overwhelming numbers and throwing bodies at the problem until the enemy runs out of bullets.
While the Guard are more than willing to spend lives where necessary, they do not spend them frivolously. To do so wastes property of the Emperor. They may not always do it in the most logical way but I'm pretty sure there's a story of an IG commander who was punished for taking vastly inappropriate losses.
Peregrine wrote: And, again, who cares if it's a bit unrealistic? Nothing else in 40k is realistic so why does this matter so much to you?
Do we have numbers on PDF and IG tithing? The standard PDF is going to be some percentage of the population; bigger population, bigger PDF, bigger IG tithe right? So what kind of percentages are we looking at? I don't mean for crazy planets like Cadia or Krieg, just your average planet, where the overwhelming bulk of the IG would come from. I would be surprised if it was much higher than a few percent at most. So it's reasonable to assume that the average PDF soldier is a better physical specimen than the vast majority of the population, in the same way the average US marine is in better shape than the bulk of US citizens. I'm not sure it's still the go, but weren't IG tithes the best of the PDF? In which case the average IG regiment is made of up the best soldiers from the upper end of the population a planet has to offer. Which would mean there's every reason to believe that IG troops are high end physical specimens.
But as you said, realism is thrown out the window for so many things, why pick on this one? Getting caught up over whether women would make the cut is a realistic concern in the same way worrying about how boob armour might perform is. Neither is particularly valid to what is essentially fantasy with pew pew. Doesn't make sense? Throw it on the pile, keep killing heretics.
Those are fair points, but I have to disagree on your perspective of IG tactics. IG are as diverse as their Regiments are in tactics, and while they can behave that way and are depicted in many situations to do so, we also see them depicted to behave very differently as the situation dictates.
@epronovostMade
Fair points made as well, I refer to UK and Israeli studies, Israeli being the most accurate as they have extensive data on mixed male/female mechanized units and their performance, it was Israeli officers who also warned the US about the dangers of mixed units. The two weeks field operations does not actually include sustained combat either, which is the key point, they burn out even without fighting where the male units do not or have minimal injuries.
But yeah, they can still fight and i'm sure some Regiments use them.
@jhe90Made
I think sisters of battle are cool.
@KojiroMade
It's a realism concern because while the argument may be that including such characters will reach out to a broader demographic, it's not an accurate representation of women and therefore not what women would even identify with. Males are different, if we are interested enough in something we will find elements we identify with or interest us, from the heroic actions of Guardsmen, to the responsibilities of the Marines, to the creativity of Orks, the perspective of Tau, the all knowing Eldar.. Cold Necrons.. Tyranids munch munch munch..
But what are female soldiers bringing to the table if their robbed of their vulnerabilities and femininity? Their just men with female bodies? Or soldiers with a forced sex appeal.. and really who is that appealing to, what kind of girl is going to identify with that?
It's a realism concern because while the argument may be that including such characters will reach out to a broader demographic, it's not an accurate representation of women and therefore not what women would even identify with.
A few counterpoints.
Given that it's a fantasy (IN SPAAAACE!!!) accuracy is completely besides the point. 40k has guys in trenches fighting big bug monsters who can make bone as hard as steel. Realism has left the building a long time ago. Secondly women are not a monolithic group and their tastes are as diverse as males.
Males are different, if we are interested enough in something we will find elements we identify with or interest us, from the heroic actions of Guardsmen, to the responsibilities of the Marines, to the creativity of Orks, the perspective of Tau, the all knowing Eldar.. Cold Necrons.. Tyranids munch munch munch..
Women are exactly as able to find those things. Now I grant you I've never understood the 'identify with gender' thing some women have but it's far from the only thing they like about things.
But what are female soldiers bringing to the table if their robbed of their vulnerabilities and femininity?
Who says they have to be robbed of vulnerability? I mean, it's not like a male guardsman should ever feel especially safe? "Bolters? Oh they'll rip a woman right up. Good thing I have a penis!" Hell given the state of the game Terminator aren't really that safe.
I won't address your 'femininity' point as I'm not sure what you mean by it, but it seems like you mean 'weak, in need of protection, passive' and other 'soft' traits. Some women are that, but so are some men and any woman who made it to the PDF, then made it to the Guard isn't going to be that kind of person. Actually I sorta did address that.
Their just men with female bodies? Or soldiers with a forced sex appeal.. and really who is that appealing to, what kind of girl is going to identify with that?
1) They're humans with female bits. Just like men and humans with male bits. On the scale and purpose of 40k, they're all meatbags waiting to explode that hope to make a few of the other guys explode first. 2) Sex appeal has no place in the IG. The only place it has any merit in 40k is with Slaanesh and even then is only an element of Slaanesh. 3)As to what kind of girl is going to identify with it, what the hell does that matter?
It costs us nothing to have women included in the guard range (save perhaps the tooling costs of new molds GW will undoubtedly pass on to us) and if it makes a few people a happier, all the better.
Now don't get me wrong, if someone wants to have an all male unit/army that's entirely their choice too. But I cannot see a problem with the option being on the table.
There is a few things to keep in mind when it comes to soldiers injuries while on deployment or in training. Most light injuries are self reported. Unless the injuries involves an accident, combat or is severe, things like back, neck or joint pain (pretty common light injuries due to mechanical stress) are pretty much all self reported. Soldiers don't have complete medical checkup that regularly even in training where they are followed by trainers more closely. Women in civilian society report medical trouble at around twice the rate than man. It shouldn't be different in the army. So are women really injured more often or are they reporting stress pain more often to medical officers and trainers? Is it a bit of both? Is the training innadapted to women? Are trainer knowledgeable enough and allowed to teach different methods to aliveate risks of injuries in atypical soldiers? Is the equipment in cause? These are all difficult questions to which no one to my knowledge really has a good answer.
On your point about demographic, I believe you are completly wrong. Women aren't different than men. They like power fantasy with them as the central piece just like anybody else. Women love to feel in power and in control, to be considered heroic just like men. Badass women are very popular amongst female demographic. You only need to look at Hunger Games or at the popularity of the YPJ units (the female branch of the Syrian Kurdish militia) in propaganda against ISIS to attest of this fact. Heroic warrior women sell very well to all demographics.
We'll agree on having different opinions on the issue, I think that people share both our perspectives but I've side-tracked things getting in to personal opinions.
@epronovostMade
Regardless of the type of injury, anything that results in a soldier not being able to continue his/her duty is a casualty.
Training in-adapted to women? It's infantry training, if women can't do it, they are sub-standard infantry units. I don't know why you think no one has a good answer when Israel has enough combat experience to state very clearly what women should and should not be getting involved in.
The only place to have women performing their role well enough with the lowest rate of sustained injury is in mechanized or at least motorized units. Mounted in vehicles, or most extreme case light dismounted infantry defending fixed positions.
The less stress on their bodies, the longer they can operate. That's what every study has found. The moment you try to get women to do what men do for as long as men do, they fail. That's reality.
Which just raises the point of why use women if you have readily available men that last longer on the job? Cadia, considering it's circumstances makes sense for forced conscription of all. But it's not going to mean that women are equal to male soldiers.
Regarding demographics, yes they love female heroes but these females are also feminine or at least hold the qualities of such. I used to watch Ripley as a kid, I understand the angle there and I'm not opposed to female units in 40k, considering we already have them, but it should be done properly. Female assassins sure, female imperial guard, okay but do it properly, female storm troopers? forget it.
Sisters of battle different matter all together and they fit perfectly in the lore.
Ginsu33 wrote: Males are different, if we are interested enough in something we will find elements we identify with or interest us, from the heroic actions of Guardsmen, to the responsibilities of the Marines, to the creativity of Orks, the perspective of Tau, the all knowing Eldar.. Cold Necrons.. Tyranids munch munch munch..
None of these things are realistic representations of men. If men can identify with such blatantly unrealistic things then women can identify with their female counterparts.
I do a lot of "recruiting" to the hobby. Public gaming events at everything from conventions to libraries to the FLGS. Most of those events are aimed at younger potential players, tweens and young teenagers. The sadest thing that I see over and over again. It happens a bit after a young woman is fascinated by the models, gameplay, stories, strategy or similar and start to pick up a wider interest in the hobby:
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
Mellon wrote: I do a lot of "recruiting" to the hobby. Public gaming events at everything from conventions to libraries to the FLGS. Most of those events are aimed at younger potential players, tweens and young teenagers. The sadest thing that I see over and over again. It happens a bit after a young woman is fascinated by the models, gameplay, stories, strategy or similar and start to pick up a wider interest in the hobby:
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
In universe cannon - ie Black Library has far higher representation of women than the table top.
For whatever reason GW went through a period of purging / ignoring their female tabletop characters - hopefully that has concluded.
The thing I like about 40K is the equality. There are many, many examples of women who have a high position in the imperial society. Inquisitors, Planetary Governors, IG generals - you name it, they can do it. For the Imperials gender dosen't matter, as long as you're doing your duty and are faithful to the Emperor.
Small quesiton/point. Who says that females in the IG are automaticly foot soldiers? The IG needs rear echilon focres (supply, logictics, admin, medical, etc...) just like any other military (Army vet here). Would it not make sence here to assume that many of these non-direct combat personnel are disprapotionaly female. Females are the ones that drive the supply trucks, file the paperwork, fix the weapons, etc... Stuff where only training matters. Maybe they are also that tank drivers. LRBT while large are probably cramped inside. Female being usually smaller would fit and be able to move better in such spaces.
Salted Diamond wrote: Small quesiton/point. Who says that females in the IG are automaticly foot soldiers? The IG needs rear echilon focres (supply, logictics, admin, medical, etc...) just like any other military (Army vet here). Would it not make sence here to assume that many of these non-direct combat personnel are disprapotionaly female. Females are the ones that drive the supply trucks, file the paperwork, fix the weapons, etc... Stuff where only training matters. Maybe they are also that tank drivers. LRBT while large are probably cramped inside. Female being usually smaller would fit and be able to move better in such spaces.
If you want it to you can - but there are big women and small men as well?
The regiment that Commissar Cain took over was previously a male only front line regiment and a female only support regiment - merged together due to casualties against the Tyranids - they became a very formidable veteran front line mixed regiment
Salted Diamond wrote: Small quesiton/point. Who says that females in the IG are automaticly foot soldiers? The IG needs rear echilon focres (supply, logictics, admin, medical, etc...) just like any other military (Army vet here). Would it not make sence here to assume that many of these non-direct combat personnel are disprapotionaly female. Females are the ones that drive the supply trucks, file the paperwork, fix the weapons, etc... Stuff where only training matters. Maybe they are also that tank drivers. LRBT while large are probably cramped inside. Female being usually smaller would fit and be able to move better in such spaces.
If you want it to you can - but there are big women and small men as well?
The regiment that Commissar Cain took over was previously a male only front line regiment and a female only support regiment - merged together due to casualties against the Tyranids - they became a very formidable veteran front line mixed regiment
Well that's my point. The support regiment was all female. Yes they merged and were effective, but that's secondary in this. Where were the women, in the support regiment. They are still taught to fight, and in some places will, but in most "standard" IG regiments, women are probably placed in more support roles.
Salted Diamond wrote: Small quesiton/point. Who says that females in the IG are automaticly foot soldiers? The IG needs rear echilon focres (supply, logictics, admin, medical, etc...) just like any other military (Army vet here). Would it not make sence here to assume that many of these non-direct combat personnel are disprapotionaly female. Females are the ones that drive the supply trucks, file the paperwork, fix the weapons, etc... Stuff where only training matters. Maybe they are also that tank drivers. LRBT while large are probably cramped inside. Female being usually smaller would fit and be able to move better in such spaces.
If you want it to you can - but there are big women and small men as well?
The regiment that Commissar Cain took over was previously a male only front line regiment and a female only support regiment - merged together due to casualties against the Tyranids - they became a very formidable veteran front line mixed regiment
Well that's my point. The support regiment was all female. Yes they merged and were effective, but that's secondary in this. Where were the women, in the support regiment. They are still taught to fight, and in some places will, but in most "standard" IG regiments, women are probably placed in more support roles.
You could also look at Gaunt's Ghosts, where the Verghastite influx into the Tanith First contained a large number of female personnel. They showed up in just about every role that their male counterparts did - marksmanship, heavy weapons, leadership, and beating the gak out of malcontents who didn't like them in charge.
Nobody mouths off to Tona Criid.
Or you could look at Lieutenant Mira from the Space Marine video game - sure, she's in charge because the orks have killed everyone higher up on the chain of command, but there's no indication that her regiment was intended for support duties. They looked pretty front-line combat to me, with the exceptions of the guys manning the Earthshakers...and if you stop to listen, you can hear them squabbling over how to use them correctly and wishing the orks hadn't killed all of the tech-priests, indicating that they're not really familiar with the correct rites of operation.
There's a lot of supplementary (read: non-model) material to indicate that women in the Guard, on average, receive the same treatment as their male counterparts. If you can stand up (or be propped up), hold the line, and fire your flashli...lasgun on full auto at the charging Carnifex while only pooping yourself a little bit, then congratulations, trooper, the Emperor has a use for you; he doesn't care about sex or gender, he's too busy making sure that the Imperium isn't devoured by daemons to be prejudiced (against anything that's human, anyway). Anyone who doesn't like it can sit in the corner with Lijah Cuu.
Males are different, if we are interested enough in something we will find elements we identify with or interest us, from the heroic actions of Guardsmen, to the responsibilities of the Marines, to the creativity of Orks, the perspective of Tau, the all knowing Eldar.. Cold Necrons.. Tyranids munch munch munch..
But what are female soldiers bringing to the table if their robbed of their vulnerabilities and femininity? Their just men with female bodies? Or soldiers with a forced sex appeal.. and really who is that appealing to, what kind of girl is going to identify with that?
SERIOUSLY?! Men can identify with a diverse range of completely inhuman (but created by human) fictional creatures but Women can't? Based on what infinite pool of wisdom is this sweeping generalization and deduction made? Cause I'm a freaking women and I've never thought to myself 'gee-golly-gosh them Orks and Nids are so unfeminine how could I ever play them'. I really have to quit 40k, I cannot handle the online fanbase.
Differance between men and women of the Imperium? ok lets give an example you have a 2016 penny we'll say its a male, then we have a 2016 penny and we will say its female, there is your difference.
want to see the difference of say Cadian's in a movie? watch Starship Troopers that would be like a typical Cadian army.
So, to satisfly people like Ginsu33, from today, all female models have T2 instead of T3 and in the beggining of movement phase you roll d6. On a roll of , female models have hysteric outburst and cannot perform any action, except from moving 3+d3. Roll single die for every model.
Female vulnerability and femminity are present so you should be happy.
Again, for all the talk of "real world studies" - this 40k. Your disbelief can be suspended to accept a fungus walking, talking, and being a major challenge for a spacefaring humanity ruled by a sentient corpse, but not for women to have exactly the same role as a man in combat?
Bobthehero wrote: Cadians would be do much better than the MI from ST tho.
well that is because Cadian's know how to strip a weapon before they know how to walk, they are taught from a young age, but my example is about the differences between men and women. essentially there is none, unless you consider one has boobies and the other has moobies or such.
Hawky wrote: So, to satisfly people like Ginsu33, from today, all female models have T2 instead of T3 and in the beggining of movement phase you roll d6. On a roll of , female models have hysteric outburst and cannot perform any action, except from moving 3+d3. Roll single die for every model.
Female vulnerability and femminity are present so you should be happy.
No that wouldn't satisfy me at all because that would imply female infantry are weaker than male in a hypothetical engagement. I state that female infantry do not last as long as male in a long term operation/deployment. To be specific, 2 weeks.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, for all the talk of "real world studies" - this 40k. Your disbelief can be suspended to accept a fungus walking, talking, and being a major challenge for a spacefaring humanity ruled by a sentient corpse, but not for women to have exactly the same role as a man in combat?
If they have the same role as men, then they are the first fictional depiction of a species not to have a fictional explanation for their new found endurance levels.
What justifies fiction? A fictional explanation. Instead here we have a very real implication by GW and fans alike that women are actually capable of this in reality/today. thus no explanation required. - Well sorry but no, excuse me and my interests in real world military for raining on the gender equality parade, but I am not ignorant to the facts and therefore this is ridiculous for me to accept.
Of course if GW said tomorrow that in the grim darkness of the far future, women complete infantry training at male standards, I have no argument at all, I have nothing to complain about. Some kind of human evolution of tens of thousands of years or Cadian women are not typical women, whatever the reason.
Hawky wrote: So, to satisfly people like Ginsu33, from today, all female models have T2 instead of T3 and in the beggining of movement phase you roll d6. On a roll of , female models have hysteric outburst and cannot perform any action, except from moving 3+d3. Roll single die for every model.
Female vulnerability and femminity are present so you should be happy.
No that wouldn't satisfy me at all because that would imply female infantry are weaker than male in a hypothetical engagement. I state that female infantry do not last as long as male in a long term operation/deployment. To be specific, 2 weeks.
So, seeing as it's easily possible that any female guardsmen on table are working in their "two week operational period", would you object to seeing female guardsmen models?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, for all the talk of "real world studies" - this 40k. Your disbelief can be suspended to accept a fungus walking, talking, and being a major challenge for a spacefaring humanity ruled by a sentient corpse, but not for women to have exactly the same role as a man in combat?
If they have the same role as men, then they are the first fictional depiction of a species not to have a fictional explanation for their new found endurance levels.
What justifies fiction? A fictional explanation. Instead here we have a very real implication by GW and fans alike that women are actually capable of this in reality/today. thus no explanation required. - Well sorry but no, excuse me and my interests in real world military for raining on the gender equality parade, but I am not ignorant to the facts and therefore this is ridiculous for me to accept.
Of course if GW said tomorrow that in the grim darkness of the far future, women complete infantry training at male standards, I have no argument at all, I have nothing to complain about. Some kind of human evolution of tens of thousands of years or Cadian women are not typical women, whatever the reason.
I'm not exactly sure what you just said, especially at the start, but I'll infer that you want some explanation for this increased female military competence?
My response:
1. You are judging the infantry training as if the male standard remains the same in the 41st Millennium as is does now. What is to say that the standardisation hasn't changed, and that the new tests are more accommodating to female subjects? You're judging the 40k universe by our own, and as such IRL things like physics, relativism, and your "facts" mean precisely nothing in this universe. To use that argument is to suggest that laws in the Halo or Star Wars universes have a bearing on 40k. The ONLY universe that matters to the 40k one is, three guesses, the 40k one.
2. You say that fiction needs an explanation? Explain how Orks work as a sentient warlike fungus with a psychic gestalt field. Explain how Necron biotransference works. Explain the physics of Space Marines canonically moving faster than the speed of sound. Explain the Warp. Explain why Ursus Claws are seen as effective weapons in void combat. If you can believe and accept all these, why not female soldiers undertaking the same roles as men?
3. Related to the above, perhaps GW and the fans, as you say, would assume that most people could accept an egalitarian conscription and military force in 38000 years. Apparently not.
Hawky wrote: So, to satisfly people like Ginsu33, from today, all female models have T2 instead of T3 and in the beggining of movement phase you roll d6. On a roll of , female models have hysteric outburst and cannot perform any action, except from moving 3+d3. Roll single die for every model.
Female vulnerability and femminity are present so you should be happy.
No that wouldn't satisfy me at all because that would imply female infantry are weaker than male in a hypothetical engagement. I state that female infantry do not last as long as male in a long term operation/deployment. To be specific, 2 weeks.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, for all the talk of "real world studies" - this 40k. Your disbelief can be suspended to accept a fungus walking, talking, and being a major challenge for a spacefaring humanity ruled by a sentient corpse, but not for women to have exactly the same role as a man in combat?
If they have the same role as men, then they are the first fictional depiction of a species not to have a fictional explanation for their new found endurance levels.
What justifies fiction? A fictional explanation. Instead here we have a very real implication by GW and fans alike that women are actually capable of this in reality/today. thus no explanation required. - Well sorry but no, excuse me and my interests in real world military for raining on the gender equality parade, but I am not ignorant to the facts and therefore this is ridiculous for me to accept.
Of course if GW said tomorrow that in the grim darkness of the far future, women complete infantry training at male standards, I have no argument at all, I have nothing to complain about. Some kind of human evolution of tens of thousands of years or Cadian women are not typical women, whatever the reason.
you are aware several countries have female military that actually work in Combat? War has no regard to a persons sex or age or religion, it will kill a woman as fast as a man. so does not a woman have the right to pick up a weapon and defend her self/family/country/planet and so forth ?
Asterios wrote: you are aware several countries have female military that actually work in Combat? War has no regard to a persons sex or age or religion, it will kill a woman as fast as a man.
Pretty much this, especially in a sci fi universe; when 20mm self propelled Bolt shells exist (that's nearly 4 times the size of a modern NATO round) and can blow an Ork's internal organs through his skin in front of his eyes, I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter if you are male or female. No amount of ease of developing muscle as a male will even stop a lasbolt from causing fatal and traumatic injury, let alone the myriad destructive weapons out there in the 41st Millennium.
In a universe where such genetically deviant abhumans like Ogryns and Squats exist, why anyone should assume that the majority of women are exactly the same as they are on this planet, and wouldn't be slightly mutated to the point whereby they can fight on the battlefield is beyond me. It would be a rather minor fluff development compared to what they face, are equipped with, and fight alongside.
Ketara wrote: In a universe where such genetically deviant abhumans like Ogryns and Squats exist, why anyone should assume that the majority of women are exactly the same as they are on this planet, and wouldn't be slightly mutated to the point whereby they can fight on the battlefield is beyond me. It would be a rather minor fluff development compared to what they face, are equipped with, and fight alongside.
You don't even need this to justify women fighting in the Guard ranks. 9 times out of 10, the Imperium can't afford to be picky when drawing from its manpower - they need anyone who can run and fire a Lasgun before they ship them off to basic training, and will take from the noble classes, regular workers and even recruit whole hive gangs and criminals. A human female can put out just as much firepower as a human male, and that's all that matters to the Munitorum.
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
Are you serious? So to play a game you absolutely neeeed to be represented in the models? Okay, where are the skinny teen orks? If the only reason you don't play a game is because you're not 'represented', you're a bit too fragile for miniwargaming.
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
Are you serious? So to play a game you absolutely neeeed to be represented in the models? Okay, where are the skinny teen orks? If the only reason you don't play a game is because you're not 'represented', you're a bit too fragile for miniwargaming.
And where's the fat marines?. Honestly I'm tired of this fat shaming and has driven many players out of the game due to being alieanated due to the lack of representation of fat people.
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
Are you serious? So to play a game you absolutely neeeed to be represented in the models? Okay, where are the skinny teen orks? If the only reason you don't play a game is because you're not 'represented', you're a bit too fragile for miniwargaming.
And where's the fat marines?. Honestly I'm tired of this fat shaming and has driven many players out of the game due to being alieanated due to the lack of representation of fat people.
Yeah, and why isn't Anita Sarkeesian a HLOT already? Come on people, we are better than this!
On a serious note, out of the 4 factions I've played only one has been strictly male. And I'm even adding Sisters of Silence to it! Does this make me trans? No it makes me a person who likes fluff. Orks are fungi. They don't have genders. Tau are fish. Chaos cultiss can be anything. Daemons are genderless.
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
Are you serious? So to play a game you absolutely neeeed to be represented in the models? Okay, where are the skinny teen orks? If the only reason you don't play a game is because you're not 'represented', you're a bit too fragile for miniwargaming.
And where's the fat marines?. Honestly I'm tired of this fat shaming and has driven many players out of the game due to being alieanated due to the lack of representation of fat people.
Yeah, and why isn't Anita Sarkeesian a HLOT already? Come on people, we are better than this!
On a serious note, out of the 4 factions I've played only one has been strictly male. And I'm even adding Sisters of Silence to it! Does this make me trans? No it makes me a person who likes fluff. Orks are fungi. They don't have genders. Tau are fish. Chaos cultiss can be anything. Daemons are genderless.
orks are genderless, Necrons could be swinging both ways. And first and foremost: this is a bloody game of plastic models! Do you really need to be so obsessed with it? most likely not, so don't go around nitpicking.
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
Are you serious? So to play a game you absolutely neeeed to be represented in the models? Okay, where are the skinny teen orks? If the only reason you don't play a game is because you're not 'represented', you're a bit too fragile for miniwargaming.
And where's the fat marines?. Honestly I'm tired of this fat shaming and has driven many players out of the game due to being alieanated due to the lack of representation of fat people.
Yeah, and why isn't Anita Sarkeesian a HLOT already? Come on people, we are better than this!
On a serious note, out of the 4 factions I've played only one has been strictly male. And I'm even adding Sisters of Silence to it! Does this make me trans? No it makes me a person who likes fluff. Orks are fungi. They don't have genders. Tau are fish. Chaos cultiss can be anything. Daemons are genderless.
orks are genderless, Necrons could be swinging both ways. And first and foremost: this is a bloody game of plastic models! Do you really need to be so obsessed with it? most likely not, so don't go around nitpicking.
I was talking to the guy who said women wouldn't play the game when they saw there were only 2 factions with females in them (which isn't true at all.)
When they hit the brickwall of dudebroish boysclub that is the actual GW representation of models. When they realised that they can choose between nuns (SoB) or skin and boob-armor (Wyches) for their representation. And that all the cool models that are fronted are male space marines and male chaos cultists and male imperial guards etc etc. We loose so many new players that way, and it makes me cry and die a little inside every time.
The hobby could gain a lot of new members by having a better representation of women. And I think that is way more important than any in-world canon.
Are you serious? So to play a game you absolutely neeeed to be represented in the models? Okay, where are the skinny teen orks? If the only reason you don't play a game is because you're not 'represented', you're a bit too fragile for miniwargaming.
And where's the fat marines?. Honestly I'm tired of this fat shaming and has driven many players out of the game due to being alieanated due to the lack of representation of fat people.
Yeah, and why isn't Anita Sarkeesian a HLOT already? Come on people, we are better than this!
On a serious note, out of the 4 factions I've played only one has been strictly male. And I'm even adding Sisters of Silence to it! Does this make me trans? No it makes me a person who likes fluff. Orks are fungi. They don't have genders. Tau are fish. Chaos cultiss can be anything. Daemons are genderless.
Tau are closer to cows crossed with Roswell Aliens, actually. Fish don't have hooves, and the Tau originated from a Desert world, iirc.
There are some rare species of fish that could be found in some deserts, but when I think fish I do not think desert.
Tau are closer to cows crossed with Roswell Aliens, actually. Fish don't have hooves, and the Tau originated from a Desert world, iirc.
There are some rare species of fish that could be found in some deserts, but when I think fish I do not think desert.
The whole idea of them being fish people may have come from the fact that the riverside dwelling Tau on T'au were the first to create real settlements and civilisation, along with trading with other groups. Still, there wasn't much of a biological difference between the river Tau, the Mountain Tau and the plains Tau.
But yes, T'au is a very arid world - the Tau have more connections to land based animals than they do to fish because of it.
Tau are closer to cows crossed with Roswell Aliens, actually. Fish don't have hooves, and the Tau originated from a Desert world, iirc.
There are some rare species of fish that could be found in some deserts, but when I think fish I do not think desert.
The whole idea of them being fish people may have come from the fact that the riverside dwelling Tau on T'au were the first to create real settlements and civilisation, along with trading with other groups. Still, there wasn't much of a biological difference between the river Tau, the Mountain Tau and the plains Tau.
But yes, T'au is a very arid world - the Tau have more connections to land based animals than they do to fish because of it.
It probably doesn't help people's perception given all of the fish name designations for Tau Aircraft (Remora, Sunshark, Razorshark, Tiger Shark, Manta, Orca, Barracuda) and Vehicles (Piranha, Devilfish, Hammerhead, Skyray, Swordfish).
My response:
1. You are judging the infantry training as if the male standard remains the same in the 41st Millennium as is does now. What is to say that the standardisation hasn't changed, and that the new tests are more accommodating to female subjects? You're judging the 40k universe by our own, and as such IRL things like physics, relativism, and your "facts" mean precisely nothing in this universe. To use that argument is to suggest that laws in the Halo or Star Wars universes have a bearing on 40k. The ONLY universe that matters to the 40k one is, three guesses, the 40k one.
No, I can't judge Imperial Guard training methods because we don't have enough sources for them, and training may have various differences between Regiments. I don't know why you are talking about laws between fictional universes not having a baring on another... did I say that? lol
2. You say that fiction needs an explanation? Explain how Orks work as a sentient warlike fungus with a psychic gestalt field. Explain how Necron biotransference works. Explain the physics of Space Marines canonically moving faster than the speed of sound. Explain the Warp. Explain why Ursus Claws are seen as effective weapons in void combat. If you can believe and accept all these, why not female soldiers undertaking the same roles as men?
I said that fiction needs a fictional explanation, or we are left to wonder/assume things... so I believe and accept fictional answers to fictional things.
3. Related to the above, perhaps GW and the fans, as you say, would assume that most people could accept an egalitarian conscription and military force in 38000 years. Apparently not.
It would make as much sense to accept one in 38000 years as it would today, unless something about the female body changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Also say take a woman on catchan and tell her she is too weak and frail to fight. ..
Hospitals that way.
Every planet will differ. The guard is one of the most varied orgonizationans in a Sci fi universe. Every world has own tradition even regiments.
Everything from all woman to nomwomen will exist.
That's good, I like those points and they make sense given the setting.
you are aware several countries have female military that actually work in Combat? War has no regard to a persons sex or age or religion, it will kill a woman as fast as a man. so does not a woman have the right to pick up a weapon and defend her self/family/country/planet and so forth ?
Yes, hence we have enough data to know what works and doesn't. I thought I was clear on that when I mentioned 3 of those countries. My point is the logical ones don't employ them in direct combat roles, Israel will put them in motorized or Mechanized groups but that's as close as it gets and this was a decision made based on female solder performance.
Don't know what you are talking about regarding a woman having a right to defend herself, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
My response:
1. You are judging the infantry training as if the male standard remains the same in the 41st Millennium as is does now. What is to say that the standardisation hasn't changed, and that the new tests are more accommodating to female subjects? You're judging the 40k universe by our own, and as such IRL things like physics, relativism, and your "facts" mean precisely nothing in this universe. To use that argument is to suggest that laws in the Halo or Star Wars universes have a bearing on 40k. The ONLY universe that matters to the 40k one is, three guesses, the 40k one.
No, I can't judge Imperial Guard training methods because we don't have enough sources for them, and training may have various differences between Regiments. I don't know why you are talking about laws between fictional universes not having a baring on another... did I say that? lol
So, if we can't judge Guard training methods, why do you compare them to modern ones, namely the male/female physical tests? If you didn't judge them, then your point about IRL studies is irrelevant as the conditions of that study were not met in the 40k universe.
I am attempting to show that our universe should have as much bearing on the 40k one as other fiction universes have on the 40k one - ie, they don't.
2. You say that fiction needs an explanation? Explain how Orks work as a sentient warlike fungus with a psychic gestalt field. Explain how Necron biotransference works. Explain the physics of Space Marines canonically moving faster than the speed of sound. Explain the Warp. Explain why Ursus Claws are seen as effective weapons in void combat. If you can believe and accept all these, why not female soldiers undertaking the same roles as men?
I said that fiction needs a fictional explanation, or we are left to wonder/assume things... so I believe and accept fictional answers to fictional things.
But you haven't answered my question: HOW does a Space Marine move faster than the speed of sound? HOW do Orks manifest a gestalt field? HOW can Space Marine aircraft such as the Stormtalon and Stormraven take off and fly with any degree of aerodynamics? No fictional explanation is given for these, yet you accept them.
Regardless, I use my fictional answer to the female guardsman issue - females are functionally the same as males in a warlike environment in the 40k universe, and can be deployed in exactly the same positions as men, as GW show.
Done.
3. Related to the above, perhaps GW and the fans, as you say, would assume that most people could accept an egalitarian conscription and military force in 38000 years. Apparently not.
It would make as much sense to accept one in 38000 years as it would today, unless something about the female body changes.
Quote - "as much sense" - so females CAN be deployed in the same positions as men in the Imperial Guard?
Iron_Captain wrote: The Imperium consists of a million worlds. On every single one of these million worlds the role of women will be different. So to your question there are a million different answers. It is too broad to answer.
Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
Just Tony wrote: Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
I think it's down to the lack of model representation; if people go to these threads after only registering that GW doesn't make many female models, they are probably not going to dig deeper into the lore to find that women in service exist across the Imperium. Not in abundance, but certainly a noticeable and considerable amount to make a difference.
Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
it is - in the fluff - so why is not on the tabletop? If you want to be true to 40k then you need plenty of female 40k models.
it is - in the fluff - so why is not on the tabletop? If you want to be true to 40k then you need plenty of female 40k models.
There's quite a lot of stuff in 40k missing from the tabletop really; as much as I want to be able to mix female Guardsmen in with my already existing Guardsmen models, I know that there are also much bigger and more significant gaps in the current model range representing the 41st Millennium, such as human rogues (pirates, rebels and traders who don't affiliate with the Imperium or Chaos), or even the many Tau auxilliaries that exist, or the many xenos species that have a significant presence in the galaxy, like the Hrud. Even existing lines like Ad Mech and GSC are fairly scant, hardly enough to really label them as armies really.
I'd also say that you can still play "true to 40k" without female models. Servicewomen exist throughout the Imperium's army chain, but they don't exist everywhere; in fact, if the IG lore is anything to go by, they're often fairly contained, with the 10% of female Guard roughly in service more frequently forming entire female regiments rather than being recruited into existing ones.
And don't forget the multiple examples posted in the previously gender focused pages that show that a female troop in body armor is almost indistinguishable from a male in body armor, even more so at the scale of 40K
Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
it is - in the fluff - so why is not on the tabletop? If you want to be true to 40k then you need plenty of female 40k models.
How is this thread still going...it really just seems like people are agreeing but arguing over how much they agree.
So may I ask, how do you want it represented then in the table top if it's not already more representative? Again, likely the only way to tell a male and a female guardsmen apart is going to be if she has her helmet off.
Forgetting the occasional anti-female twinge like the nonsense of Codex: Imperial Knights and the utterly awful Tempestus Scions fluff, I think one of the biggest issues with representation is the lack of female characters in actual "Games Workshop" publications. As in, actual female characters on the tabletop and in Codexes. Because I think there are about four of those, and most are female only because of their job title. Shadowsun is literally the only female character with a model who could be swapped interchangeably with a man (unless you think they'd seriously make Leland Hesperax in that costume).
All the Necron characters with models are male (explicitly referred to as "he" and "him")*. All the Imperial Guard characters are male, even the wide cast of silly characters they purged relatively recently. All the Inquisitors with actual models and rules are male, as the single female one mysteriously disappeared. All the named Tech-Priests (as much as I love you, Forge World) are male. The Eldar have exactly one female character out of ten, but she's only female because her Aspect has the name of a female spirit (because scorpions, dragons, hawks and avengers are obviously male things). Literally all Chaos Daemons are male, except for Slaanesh because obviously women can only represent the God of Excess. Let's not even get into the sheer neglect for the Sisters of Battle.
But things are changing. GW is changing. The Sylvaneth are an unprecedented example of GW representation with two new female characters (one who is a badass ball of rage) and the non-gender-specific tree-spirit-thing models have multiple male and female torsos. Silver Tower has a female character and an actual black man. It's kind of amazing.
As for male and female Guardsmen being indistinguishable, well... their helmets are largely open-faced and they all look like pug-faced men.
*
Spoiler:
Please, nobody try to argue that Necrons are "genderless". They're really, really not. Not just because we have actual female characters like Xun'bakyr to prove it.
So, if GW makes some of their faction complete male, it means they are anti-female?
Please, let me have a laugh...
You (somehow) forgot: Howling Banshees, Wyches, all Sisters of Battle, all Sisters of Scilense and maybe others I can't recall atm..
And again, if you are not satisfied with models GW produces, look elsewhere. There are tons of 3rd party female models you could work with.
In almost every novel Black Library publises are women...
Examples:
Gaunts Ghosts - considerable amount of female soldiers
Last Chancers - One female soldier and many, many civilians
Ciaphas Cain - half of the regiment is female...
Gregor Eisenhorn - his blank is a female + tons of others...
Priests of Mars - Female techpriest, female workers, female crew...
issue is if you have noticeable females in say like a Cadian army then people will complain their boobs are sexualizing them, if you don't have the boobs you cannot tell male from female, so as far as we know half of each squad is male and other half female.
Forgetting the occasional anti-female twinge like the nonsense of Codex: Imperial Knights and the utterly awful Tempestus Scions fluff, I think one of the biggest issues with representation is the lack of female characters in actual "Games Workshop" publications. As in, actual female characters on the tabletop and in Codexes. Because I think there are about four of those, and most are female only because of their job title. Shadowsun is literally the only female character with a model who could be swapped interchangeably with a man (unless you think they'd seriously make Leland Hesperax in that costume).
All the Necron characters with models are male (explicitly referred to as "he" and "him")*. All the Imperial Guard characters are male, even the wide cast of silly characters they purged relatively recently. All the Inquisitors with actual models and rules are male, as the single female one mysteriously disappeared. All the named Tech-Priests (as much as I love you, Forge World) are male. The Eldar have exactly one female character out of ten, but she's only female because her Aspect has the name of a female spirit (because scorpions, dragons, hawks and avengers are obviously male things). Literally all Chaos Daemons are male, except for Slaanesh because obviously women can only represent the God of Excess. Let's not even get into the sheer neglect for the Sisters of Battle.
But things are changing. GW is changing. The Sylvaneth are an unprecedented example of GW representation with two new female characters (one who is a badass ball of rage) and the non-gender-specific tree-spirit-thing models have multiple male and female torsos. Silver Tower has a female character and an actual black man. It's kind of amazing.
As for male and female Guardsmen being indistinguishable, well... their helmets are largely open-faced and they all look like pug-faced men.
*Please, nobody try to argue that Necrons are "genderless". They're really, really not. Not just because we have actual female characters like Xun'bakyr to prove it.
In theory, the Tau Fire Warriors have both male and female models, considering the shape of their faces can determine a male Tau from a female Tau.
The Eldar Aspects accept any Eldar travelling along the Path of the Warrior. Some Aspects just have more females than others based on the mythology that supposedly created them, such as the Howling Banshees being mostly female as the Banshee spirit is considered to be female. However, every Aspect will accept Eldar of both sexes into their Shrines.
Daemonettes are also technically half man, half woman, since this is also how Slaanesh presents itself; it's why the models are flat chested on one half, and not on the other.
Technicalities aside, I can't explain why GW doesn't publish more stories focused on women, other than responding with "seriously, who cares?!". When I look for a good character in a story, I look at their personality, their motives, their interactions with other characters, and most importantly, their believability as a character. Whether they are male or female is typically the last thing that comes to my mind (although in most fantasy universes, I will comment on a distinct lack of female personalities if I see it). 40k however explains the lack of females in most parts of the Imperium's prevalent military as either a low recruitment rate or the impossible chance of making females into fully fledged Space Marines. Female characters seem to be more common in the more obscure parts of the Imperium, such as the Inquisition and the Assassin Temples.
Allow me to go off on a tangent here. I remember a lot of video game media praising the protagonist of Mirror's Edge, Faith, as being a strong female lead, to which I can only laugh; she has to be one of the most bland characters I've ever stepped in the shoes of in a video game - absolutely boring and completely forgettable. It very much felt like Ubisoft wanted a female lead in that game for the sake of having a female lead, so people would jump up and down and praise them for not being "sexist like the rest of the industry" or some along the lines of that. Despite having plenty of screen time in various cutscenes and in game dialogue, Faith is totally forgettable to me.
This is a complete opposite to Overwatch, where I've been hooked on almost all of its female cast from when the game was announced back in 2014 for being dynamic and interesting characters that make up the heroes and villains of that setting, despite them only having about 3 paragraphs of background text each to read. None of them have yet had their own personal animated short showing more about them, and no Overwatch character takes centre stage in any plot behind the universe due to the nature of the game itself, but yet they are so much more interesting than a character that was supposedly laboured on by many developers to be a likeable and badass protagonist.
My point is this - a character doesn't have to be at the front of something to be a great and memorable one. In fact, well written characters can make a longer lasting impression on someone than a centre stage protagonist in just a snippet of the time that they have on centre stage. Women don't have to be in the limelight to be appreciated, especially in 40k (do not interpret that as me saying that men are meant to take centre stage, thankyou ) - they can serve just as strongly as supporting characters in stories, especially in a universe that is naturally male dominated in the aspects of war.
Does that mean we should abandon the idea of female leads and more female models? Hell no, I'd love to see that, but please, can we calm down a little with how significant we're trying to make this?
And while I won't argue that Necrontyr are genderless (they're not), I will argue that their current iteration deliberately gives them that appearance; most Necrons have had their identity stripped from them, their very selves taken away to become something cold, emotionless, and only learned in the ways of war. Give them more "female" characters? Cool. Give them female models?
Spoiler:
No thanks.
Also the Excelsior Warpriest isn't an actual black man - he's a model that's been painted black. You can do this to almost any non character model in 40k and it will make sense.
I also am aware that I have perhaps not selected the best time to argue about female representation with my current avatar I'll make it clear here that I want to see more female models, but also understand that my collection is not lost as a whole without them. Women aren't a common sight in the 41st Millennium; I'll be one of the first to go off and buy a box of female Guardsmen if GW makes them, but until then, I'm not going to make a fuss over what has become a ridiculously bloated and poorly proportioned argument of significance about their absence.
chnicalities aside, I can't explain why GW doesn't publish more stories focused on women, other than responding with "seriously, who cares?!". When I look for a good character in a story, I look at their personality, their motives, their interactions with other characters, and most importantly, their believability as a character. Whether they are male or female is typically the last thing that comes to my mind (although in most fantasy universes, I will comment on a distinct lack of female personalities if I see it). 40k however explains the lack of females in most parts of the Imperium's prevalent military as either a low recruitment rate or the impossible chance of making females into fully fledged Space Marines. Female characters seem to be more common in the more obscure parts of the Imperium, such as the Inquisition and the Assassin Temples.
I agree and disagree
The story and character is hgely important However - Black Library does exactly this and is full of intersting male and female characters - soem good, some bad, flawed and impressive. Its only in the tabletop and indeed recenty tabeltop fluff that has reduced the female element. In the actual novels female characters are foud throughout the Imperium and there is no mention of low recruitment - rather there is virtually never any mention of surprise to see a woman in a given role.
Even in the Astartes, women can be found in support roles - be that as naval officers or Astropaths and navigators.
As noted - the Inquisition Codex removed the female character for no reason, there is a glaring lack of female Aspect warriors (except HB) - techniclaly there should also be male one or two as they are specificlaly noted as rare. It was sad and diapoitning to watch this purge take place across the codexes as they chipped out Special characters.
Women aren't a common sight in the 41st Millennium
; No thats wrong they are only not a common sight on the tabletop.
The story and character is hgely important However - Black Library does exactly this and is full of intersting male and female characters - soem good, some bad, flawed and impressive. Its only in the tabletop and indeed recenty tabeltop fluff that has reduced the female element. In the actual novels female characters are foud throughout the Imperium and there is no mention of low recruitment - rather there is virtually never any mention of surprise to see a woman in a given role.
No mention in novels, but there is in the lore.
Lexicanum: "less than 10% of all Guard soldiers are female, and the vast majority of these serve in all-female regiments, such as the Valhallan 296th Ice Warriors. Mixed-sex regiments, such as the Tanith First and the Valhallan 597th, are a rarity"
I don't think this lore is anything new either. It certainly shouldn't be surprising to most characters in 40k to see a female in a particular role - they just aren't a common sight.
Even in the Astartes, women can be found in support roles - be that as naval officers or Astropaths and navigators.
Correct. There are even female planetary governors and advisers, such as Elena Derosa. There are plenty of women in roles of significance and importance. Certainly plenty of opportunity to create some pretty cool characters.
No thats wrong they are only not a common sight on the tabletop.
Women exist in almost every millitary role in the 41st Millennium, this does mean they exist in abundance. With only 10% of the Guard being females, and the rest of them typically filling fairly niche roles such as the ones you said above, they are certainly not common, at least outside of the SoB
Lexicanum is not always right sadly - what is their lore source for the 10% figure I wonder?
They had some cool female tabletop characters - they got rid of them - see Inquisitor Valeria and Lady Malys.
Bizarely GW also seem quite happy for other companies to fill in the gaps - something that they are usually more than paranoid about.
The Space Marines are certainly not common by the fluff - there are only approx a thousand of each chapter, and yet they are centre stage?
I never mentioned niche roles except in the context of those serving with the Astartes where humans regardless of gender serve niche roles - and here the non Astartes fighting force would mainly male as thye are often failed aspirants - something that would be something cool for GW to add IMO
No females in the new Genestealer Cults? Now they do have some unpleseant breeding systems and many females will not be in afir state to fight - the older Deathwatch novels go into this in some detail but some females would doubtless be part of the uprising.
No females in the Ad Mech sprues
No female Navy Advisors
No Female Commisars
etc etc
No female Inqusitors - seriously- half the BL Inqusitors are female and they even get mentioned in the Codex - well just about.
Mr Morden wrote: Lexicanum is not always right sadly - what is their lore source for the 10% figure I wonder?
Ciaphas Cain: Hero of the Imperium, apparently. Lexicanum typically never adds anything without a citation, and while the piece on Guardswomen is labelled as being from one source, I personally don't doubt its accuracy.
They had some cool female tabletop characters - they got rid of them - see Inquisitor Valeria and Lady Malys.
Bizarely GW also seem quite happy for other companies to fill in the gaps - something that they are usually more than paranoid about.
We don't know why they were pulled - everyone believes they were pulled because they are female, but they have no evidence to support this claim. It could very well be a business decision that made them remove them, such as not selling enough of them to merit creating more moulds.
The Space Marines are certainly not common by the fluff - there are only approx a thousand of each chapter, and yet they are centre stage?
Because good stories are almost always told following acts of heroism, which Space Marines are known for.
I never mentioned niche roles except in the context of those serving with the Astartes where humans regardless of gender serve niche roles - and here the non Astartes fighting force would mainly male as thye are often failed aspirants - something that would be something cool for GW to add IMO
Nor did I say that niche roles were the only roles available to women. Again, women are in every aspect of the Imperium more or less, just perhaps not in abundance when it comes to their military arm.
No females in the new Genestealer Cults? Now they do have some unpleseant breeding systems and many females will not be in afir state to fight - the older Deathwatch novels go into this in some detail but some females would doubtless be part of the uprising.
No females in the Ad Mech sprues
No female Navy Advisors
No Female Commisars
etc etc
No female Inqusitors - seriously- half the BL Inqusitors are female and they even get mentioned in the Codex - well just about.
Perhaps creating an extra cast for those models just for females may have been too time consuming? If it is going to be done properly, it would need a lot more effort than just creating a female torso like they have for Eldar Guardians. We just don't know the reason behind why the absence is there.
I guess I'll have to stress again that I do want to see more female models. This is not a defence of GW, but more an alternate suggestion to the potential reason why females may be lacking. For instance, if GW made SoB, and not many people bought into them, would it be a reasonable judgement to perhaps hold back on female models in the future as an (almost) all female faction is failing to sell well? Perhaps not entirely - people like you and me may just want a few models mixed into their existing armies. However, from a business standpoint, with that information and feedback in hand, perhaps it has been ruled that the additional investment in making female parts on certain sprues will not turn itself over.
I'm not saying that's the right judgement - GW seems to have a problem with listening to their customers - but it is another explanation for why there is a consistent void in their model ranges
Well realistically, there's quite a few reasons why there's less women.
1. The average man would make a better soldier than the average just by things like muscle mass and such, as we've seen by research. This is almost certainly the weakest reason, seeing as the difference between man and woman is neglible when faced with genetically engineered fungal killing machines, ancient psychic beings or the foul beings of Chaos. Still, the point, however weak, exists.
2. Much more reasonably is the birthrate. A planet that's sent off its men to fight while retaining its women will have a much higher birthrate than one that sent both. A planet with 1 million men and 100 million women can have 100 million kids born a year and a lot of "productive", polygamous men, while one with 50.5 million men and 50.5 million women has half that birthrate. It just makes more sense to send men to keep a high birth rate in many situations.
3. Sexism is a factor. Whilst the Imperium as a whole doesn't care about gender, individual worlds almost certainly do. There is an abundance of worlds that has regressed to feudal or other states. It's likely that many of these worlds regressed attitudes about gender as well. While these worlds are definitely sexist, that doesn't change the fact that they'll be a lot of them that have this regressive attitude, and given the ratio of Patriarchal to Matriarchal societies in history, these worlds will vastly outnumber any that believe only women should fight.
All in all, whilst the majority of fighting forces being male makes sense, female representation does need to increase among the Imperium and Chaos. Whilst I think among the Tau and Eldar it's actually fair enough, and Space Marines and Sisters of Battle counteract each other and just shouldn't be messed with as the gender of units is built into the lore and the concept of female space marines is just silly, the rest of the Imperium does need an increase in female models, as well as Chaos. People seem to act like this would involve an infusion of feminity to 40k, that's simply ridiculous. 40k is a hyper-masculine world, and should stay that way. But do they need some more bad-ass, Ripley-esque hardcore females? Absolutely, and there's really no reason to not have them.
1. The average man would make a better soldier than the average just by things like muscle mass and such, as we've seen by research. This is almost certainly the weakest reason, seeing as the difference between man and woman is neglible when faced with genetically engineered fungal killing machines, ancient psychic beings or the foul beings of Chaos. Still, the point, however weak, exists.
I mean yeah it exists as a potential factor, but even so, with the Imperium relying so much on their manpower, I think even any shred of possibility that a female soldier may be worse than a male one will be written off.
I think in general there isn't a clear explanation as to why there is a lack of females in some military roles in the Imperium - it seems to be a combination of potential reasoning rather than a clear answer.
The Cain novels are a parody (both in-universe and out) of 40k. That is why Cain makes snide references to Gaunt (and Dan Abnett), amongst other things. Nothing mentioned within those books should be taken as "canon" (also because GW doesn't have a canon).
Mr Morden wrote: They had some cool female tabletop characters - they got rid of them - see Inquisitor Valeria and Lady Malys.
We don't know why they were pulled - everyone believes they were pulled because they are female, but they have no evidence to support this claim. It could very well be a business decision that made them remove them, such as not selling enough of them to merit creating more moulds.
To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
You know which other characters lost their rules at the same time as Malys? - Vect, Sathonyx, Sliscus, Kheradruakh - all male. They lost their rules because they didn't have models. Not because they were male.
Psienesis wrote:The Cain novels are a parody (both in-universe and out) of 40k. That is why Cain makes snide references to Gaunt (and Dan Abnett), amongst other things. Nothing mentioned within those books should be taken as "canon" (also because GW doesn't have a canon).
Even if it is intended as a parody of shows such as Dad's Army and other comedy media both in and out, that does not mean the contextual information in it relevant to the setting is not accurate, provided, of course, as long as said information is not being told from a character's potentially biased perspective.
Lord Damocles wrote:
To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
You know which other characters lost their rules at the same time as Malys? - Vect, Sathonyx, Sliscus, Kheradruakh - all male. They lost their rules because they didn't have models. Not because they were male.
Well this provides some good context - I wasn't aware that these characters had no models in the first place. Thanks for mentioning that
Solar-powered_chainsword wrote: 2. Much more reasonably is the birthrate. A planet that's sent off its men to fight while retaining its women will have a much higher birthrate than one that sent both. A planet with 1 million men and 100 million women can have 100 million kids born a year and a lot of "productive", polygamous men, while one with 50.5 million men and 50.5 million women has half that birthrate. It just makes more sense to send men to keep a high birth rate in many situations.
IG recruitment is nowhere near enough to make a difference on planetary-scale birth rates. Remember, the IG recruits from the elite of the PDF (at least in theory). Outside of a handful of worlds like Krieg or Cadia you simply aren't taking millions of guardsmen at a time. And, while PDF recruitment is done in much larger numbers, the PDF also doesn't leave the planet. In any case where the PDF is suffering enough losses to have an effect on birth rates it's already an "end of the world" scenario where everyone, regardless of gender, who can fire a gun is thrown into a desperate fight for survival.
3. Sexism is a factor. Whilst the Imperium as a whole doesn't care about gender, individual worlds almost certainly do. There is an abundance of worlds that has regressed to feudal or other states. It's likely that many of these worlds regressed attitudes about gender as well. While these worlds are definitely sexist, that doesn't change the fact that they'll be a lot of them that have this regressive attitude, and given the ratio of Patriarchal to Matriarchal societies in history, these worlds will vastly outnumber any that believe only women should fight.
There is no real reason to assume that partriarchy is the default. 40k is not our world, it has 38,000 years of additional history behind it. There are probably patriarchal societies, matriarchal societies, egalitarian societies, etc, with the system of government being largely independent of technology levels. And there are a great many ways in which a society can be horrible without being sexist. For example, one might believe very strongly in gender equality but have a rigid caste system defined by which family you are born into and tyrannical nobles who ruthlessly oppress the lower castes to protect their own position.
Lord Damocles wrote: To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
Well, one could definitely ask oneself why they didn't had models, and why almost all characters that had models were male .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozen Ocean wrote: Forgetting the occasional anti-female twinge like the nonsense of Codex: Imperial Knights and the utterly awful Tempestus Scions fluff
You forgot the nonsense about the SM creation process being incompatible with female recruit. Just because it's old doesn't mean it gets a pass.
you have to remember there could be whole armies of female warriors in the IG, they could be from Amazon type of planets where they are the dominant sex, we just haven't seen them yet just like we have not seen all SM chapters.
"Attention all units, a Gender Crusader has been sighted in your area. Avoid contact at all costs, I repeat, avoid contact at all costs! If not possible abort mission and retreat. HQ out!"
Lord Damocles wrote: To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
Well, one could definitely ask oneself why they didn't had models, and why almost all characters that had models were male .
You're obviously implying that they didn't have models because they were female.
True. Temestus are from Schola Progenium, where large ortion of women go into the ranks of Ecclesiarchy and some into Commissariat, Inquisition, Officios, Ministorums etc...
Tempestus are special operatives, and like it their real world equivaents, there are no women either.
As fas as I know (and my logical deduction goes), I never noticed anything about female tempestus in their fluff. But If you can prove me wrong, I'l accept it.
Hawky wrote: As fas as I know (and my logical deduction goes), I never noticed anything about female tempestus in their fluff. But If you can prove me wrong, I'l accept it.
Fortunately that fluff is non-canon (and badly written) fanfiction and can safely be ignored. Storm troopers are drawn from normal IG sources, so can potentially include whatever men or women are in their initial regiments. Cadian Kasrkin would likely have female soldiers to go along with the 100% recruitment rate for people on Cadia, regardless of gender.
It has been the fluff for some time in the Codexes that mention the Schola that men only become Commissars ad Storm troopers, however its directly contradicted by many BL novels including Helsreach and the Cain novels.
The latter I do treat as just as cannon as anything else GW produces.
Ciaphas Cain: Hero of the Imperium, apparently. Lexicanum typically never adds anything without a citation, and while the piece on Guardswomen is labelled as being from one source, I personally don't doubt its accuracy.
I need to go back and read my Cain books as I don't recall the 10% but do recall Inquisitor Vail and Cain talking about how regiments are normally single sex to avoid "issues".
Because good stories are almost always told following acts of heroism, which Space Marines are known for.
But that's irrelevant to my point - if women are not included because they are uncommon than by the same logic Marines should be even rarer.
If they had established the 40k universe as a male dominated one that would make sense form a fluff point of view but the fact that the supporting and equally official novels show a very different Imperium is odd and annoying.
It has been the fluff for some time in the Codexes that mention the Schola that men only become Commissars ad Storm troopers,
What? No, all it says is that women of exceptionnal faith go to be Sobs, that's it, no mention of Stormtroopers or Commissar being gender-locked.
It does in the SOB Codex's. However as I said that's then contradicted by other official sources. I don't have the current Tempestus Codex so can't say either way what that says.
I need to go back and read my Cain books as I don't recall the 10% but do recall Inquisitor Vail and Cain talking about how regiments are normally single sex to avoid "issues".
I just need to read them, honestly. I typically don't read 40k novels, since I like to absorb as much "factual" information as possible from various areas so I can create stories while either playing on the tabletop or when I'm painting my collections.
But that's irrelevant to my point - if women are not included because they are uncommon than by the same logic Marines should be even rarer.
Incorrect - A Space Marine is more likely to showcase acts of heroism in 40k than almost anyone else, hence why they are featured so much despite being such a small organisation.
If you're talking about the tabletop game, then yes the logic doesn't exactly add up. But then again, Triptide Wings don't make sense in the lore either.
If they had established the 40k universe as a male dominated one that would make sense form a fluff point of view but the fact that the supporting and equally official novels show a very different Imperium is odd and annoying.
I would personally say that it is a male dominated universe. This is not to say that women do not have a significant role, but that they are in smaller quantity in most cases than men.
Boss! Yes, boss ! Sure, boss! How many push-up should I do boss?
You don't have to prove him wrong if you don't want to, but I don't think there is any need for snarkiness.
I personally will be very interested if you have some evidence to prove that GW deliberately didn't make models for them because they're female - not much about the meaning behind their business practices is known to the general public these days...
Matthew wrote: I mean, GW has announced they're making new Sisters models...
and I don't see how they would make Guardsmen look like women in other ways than boob armour.
Either through the shape of their faces or the shape of their legs and arms. Making them more slender next to the male Guardsmen should make them look noticeably different without the need for bare heads/boob armour.
Mind you, even that's still bound to piss some sensitive people off - "not all women are that shape!". Can't have it both ways, guys, and there's only so many casts a model company can make for a single box set.
If victoria miniatures can pull it off, then theoretically so could the "greatest miniatures company in the world"
I for one would like to see more Imperial Guard regiments? Remember how we had Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Last Chancers, First and Only, Tallarn and Mordians? That was awesome. Now its just Cadians and Catachans.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If victoria miniatures can pull it off, then theoretically so could the "greatest miniatures company in the world"
Emphasis on theoretically, of course. GW is a much bigger company than Victoria Miniatures, and that can bring both benefits and complications when thinking and creating new product lines.
I for one would like to see more Imperial Guard regiments? Remember how we had Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Last Chancers, First and Only, Tallarn and Mordians? That was awesome. Now its just Cadians and Catachans.
Agreed, I'd like to see those return. But again, you have the same potential complications with making a squad of female Guardsmen, not to mention the fact that, if we were to get those regiments back, people would want them to cast females for every regiment.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If victoria miniatures can pull it off, then theoretically so could the "greatest miniatures company in the world"
I for one would like to see more Imperial Guard regiments? Remember how we had Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Last Chancers, First and Only, Tallarn and Mordians? That was awesome. Now its just Cadians and Catachans.
Limited Tallarn, Mordian, Steel Legion, Tanith and Vostroyan ranges are still available direct from GW. As are the entirety of the Last Chancers.
Matthew wrote: I mean, GW has announced they're making new Sisters models...
and I don't see how they would make Guardsmen look like women in other ways than boob armour.
Either through the shape of their faces or the shape of their legs and arms. Making them more slender next to the male Guardsmen should make them look noticeably different without the need for bare heads/boob armour.
Mind you, even that's still bound to piss some sensitive people off - "not all women are that shape!". Can't have it both ways, guys, and there's only so many casts a model company can make for a single box set.
G.A
problem is we are talking GW where SM's are supposed to tower over Cadian troops and yet in miniature they are the same size, also at 28mm facial features can get lost under helmets and hats.
Matthew wrote: I mean, GW has announced they're making new Sisters models...
and I don't see how they would make Guardsmen look like women in other ways than boob armour.
Here's a pretty good example!
problem is those pictures are like twice the size of the actual minis, so other then the ones with hair it would be hard to distinguish them from males.
General Annoyance wrote: You don't have to prove him wrong if you don't want to, but I don't think there is any need for snarkiness.
Yeah I was just very annoyed by how he made it sound like an order.
For the record I don't think it was the result of some explicit policy that they didn't made models for many female special characters, rather just good old unconscious bias. And I do believe that there was an explicit policy to remove characters without a model. My response was mostly in jest (hence the smiley) with a grain of truth (I really believe there is some unconscious bias at work on how most SC, especially the most prominent one, are male). While I don't have any proofs to provide, I am pretty sure neither does Lord Damocles, and I really don't think shouting “Prove it” can lend itself to some fruitful exchange.
problem is we are talking GW where SM's are supposed to tower over Cadian troops and yet in miniature they are the same size, also at 28mm facial features can get lost under helmets and hats.
Keep in mind it is Heroic scale, meaning that not everything is in correct proportions. Also, much like Orks, most Space Marines aren't standing up straight, and would be about the right height if they stood upright and weren't in running or firing positions.
problem is those pictures are like twice the size of the actual minis, so other then the ones with hair it would be hard to distinguish them from males.
Compared to the male versions those models have more slender legs and arms, and there is a distinctive groove in their armour. That is a small thing to notice, yes, but one that will be more easy to notice when you put the models together, which you certainly will be for Guardsmen.
General Annoyance wrote: You don't have to prove him wrong if you don't want to, but I don't think there is any need for snarkiness.
Yeah I was just very annoyed by how he made it sound like an order.
For the record I don't think it was the result of some explicit policy that they didn't made models for many female special characters, rather just good old unconscious bias. And I do believe that there was an explicit policy to remove characters without a model. My response was mostly in jest (hence the smiley) with a grain of truth (I really believe there is some unconscious bias at work on how most SC, especially the most prominent one, are male). While I don't have any proofs to provide, I am pretty sure neither does Lord Damocles, and I really don't think shouting “Prove it” can lend itself to some fruitful exchange.
What isn't a 'fruitful exchange' is assigning motives to people for which you have absolutely no evidence.
You're the one making the claim, so it's your responsibility to support your assertions (accusations).
Yeah I was just very annoyed by how he made it sound like an order. For the record I don't think it was the result of some explicit policy that they didn't made models for many female special characters, rather just good old unconscious bias. And I do believe that there was an explicit policy to remove characters without a model. My response was mostly in jest (hence the smiley) with a grain of truth (I really believe there is some unconscious bias at work on how most SC, especially the most prominent one, are male). While I don't have any proofs to provide, I am pretty sure neither does Lord Damocles, and I really don't think shouting “Prove it” can lend itself to some fruitful exchange.
Unconscious bias, as in having a preference for male models over females?
I mean I guess... could you elaborate that point to me a bit more?
We have no evidence to prove it either way, really, hence why we should really not be making such a big deal out of this subject all the time. If GW came out and said "yeah well we can't be bothered to make female models" or something similar to that, then I'd understand, but currently, this discussion has and will not make any extra progress over the other dozen threads that have discussed it in the past.
I don't think he was yelling at you to prove it. A bit passive aggressive, sure, but even so, we should always try our best to keep everything at head level on threads like this, even if others are not - controversial discussion is always more fruitful (in the non sarcastic way) when people stay polite and positive
problem is those pictures are like twice the size of the actual minis, so other then the ones with hair it would be hard to distinguish them from males.
I think they're a little more distinguishable than that, but even if that's true, that works fine for me. At a distance, they're all part of another faceless squad rushing into enemy fire. If you look up close to admire the paint or something, you start to pick out the differences...and then they all get killed by fleshborers anyway.
Lord Damocles wrote: You're the one making the claim, so it's your responsibility to support your assertions (accusations).
You know, that's precisely why I don't want to have a conversation with you. I pointed out some unsupported assumption you made (i.e. “[SC] don't have models not because they are female but for some other reason”). You made this assumption implicitly when you implied that “[SC] were removed because they had no model” was in direct contradiction with “[SC] were removed because they were female”. I merely pointed out that you didn't bring anything to support it. But rather than supporting it, you now play the “burden of proof” game famously used by online debaters that care more about being, or at least appearing right (and self-righteously so) than about convincing anyone. The whole “burden of proof” concept used as a rhetorical argument is completely shallow, but here we are even in a position when if applied correctly it goes in my favor.
Copplestone do some really good ones as well, as do Reaper.
Some of my favourite sci-fi war films have plenty of women - Aliens, Starship Troopers, Edge of Tomorrow,
I'll have to check those out - I was aware of (and thinking of buying from) Victoria Miniatures, but those other ones are new to me. Cheers
I think GW would do well with female characters - Inquisitors, especially (I'm writing about my own female Inquisitor for use in storytelling). I think they should at least consider making female HQ's for armies where it would fit; those wouldn't require as much effort as making sculpts for a whole new box of Guardsmen.
well i see this thread has still made no productivity as always.
When ever this topic gets brought up it always ends the exact same way
We want female models
Ok well sisters of battle are coming out.
No in guard
Alright well, they could jsut do female heads.
No female models!
well the only way to define that would be breasts which with armor on you would not notice.
at which point we end up in a downward spiral of back and forth bickering, and cheap shots and ultimately arrive at the same conclusion.
The only way to make models that are distinguished as female other then female heads would be sexualized armor, which would then get bitched about, but then when you make it normal that gets bitched about because you cant tell they are female, which gets bitch about, so you sexualize the armor which gets bitched about, so you... ect ect.
I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)
So like always, this thread makes no progression, only makes people salty, and ends in a bitching contest.
I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)
If you look closely you can see that their armor tapers in more towards the waist marking them as feminine. But on a table top in a game I doubt anyone will be looking that closely.
I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)
If you look closely you can see that their armor tapers in more towards the waist marking them as feminine. But on a table top in a game I doubt anyone will be looking that closely.
Please understand when i say this, this is not me trying to attack you directly.
With that said, if the backing argument boils down to, "Well if you look really closely, you will notice this small detail you would have missed if i did not point it out." Its not a very good way to back it, know what i mean?
Looking at it from a business argument, do you really think GW is going to recreate models to give them a slightly smaller waist? The best hope is for them to make a female guard upgrade spreu, which would be just heads, maybe a chest or two, and that would be it, the only other way you could make them look female would be grossly exaggerated feminine feature, or then running around in tank tops, which again, armor.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If victoria miniatures can pull it off, then theoretically so could the "greatest miniatures company in the world"
Emphasis on theoretically, of course. GW is a much bigger company than Victoria Miniatures, and that can bring both benefits and complications when thinking and creating new product lines.
I for one would like to see more Imperial Guard regiments? Remember how we had Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Last Chancers, First and Only, Tallarn and Mordians? That was awesome. Now its just Cadians and Catachans.
Agreed, I'd like to see those return. But again, you have the same potential complications with making a squad of female Guardsmen, not to mention the fact that, if we were to get those regiments back, people would want them to cast females for every regiment.
Eh, it depends.
IIRC, Vostroyans recruited from first born sons, and I think Mordians don't recruit women. Not sure about Valhallans, Tallarn and Steel Legion though, and I think there are supposed to be women in the First and Only and Last Chancers regiments, albeit not as numerous as men.
I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)
If you look closely you can see that their armor tapers in more towards the waist marking them as feminine. But on a table top in a game I doubt anyone will be looking that closely.
Its possible though. I've had people pick up my minis (with permission, and only from the death pile ) to have a closer look at the details, and I know I've done the same.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If victoria miniatures can pull it off, then theoretically so could the "greatest miniatures company in the world"
Emphasis on theoretically, of course. GW is a much bigger company than Victoria Miniatures, and that can bring both benefits and complications when thinking and creating new product lines.
I for one would like to see more Imperial Guard regiments? Remember how we had Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Last Chancers, First and Only, Tallarn and Mordians? That was awesome. Now its just Cadians and Catachans.
Agreed, I'd like to see those return. But again, you have the same potential complications with making a squad of female Guardsmen, not to mention the fact that, if we were to get those regiments back, people would want them to cast females for every regiment.
Eh, it depends.
IIRC, Vostroyans recruited from first born sons, and I think Mordians don't recruit women. Not sure about Valhallans, Tallarn and Steel Legion though, and I think there are supposed to be women in the First and Only and Last Chancers regiments, albeit not as numerous as men.
Casting steel legion females is kinda pointless. Seeing as how in lore, steel legion have to wear gasmasks and sealed suits because their planet is so toxic, there would be no way to pick out men and women. Additionally, they are a primarily vehicle based so.
Yeah, I vaguely remember something about female valhallan regiments from those books now. Iirc, they tend to be all women or all men, with Cain's regiment being the exception.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, I vaguely remember something about female valhallan regiments from those books now. Iirc, they tend to be all women or all men, with Cain's regiment being the exception.
Both had been mangled pretty bad and were merged in order to produce one full regiment.
As it turned out, a relatively well supplied regiment that the quill-pushers somehow kept mistaking for two regiments.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Sure I need to go now and I'm a bit late but I'll do so later. But I'm afraid I don't have any spectacular wisdom in stock, sorry ^^'.
So, I guess most people tend to automatically assume male as the default for wargame characters and go with it unless they have some very specific reason so choose otherwise, will go with male. Shadowsun is a shiny glowing example of this NOT happening though, but for instance Jain-Zhar is female because Banshees are female in the mythology, Lelith is female because, well, “sexy → female” (another unconscious or sometime conscious bias), etc. Meanwhile Creed, Eldrad, Aun'Va, and so on are all male for no specific reason. They are male, imho, because nobody is the design process even asked himself or herself “What gender should that character be?”.
Backspacehacker wrote: When ever this topic gets brought up it always ends the exact same way
We want female models
Ok well sisters of battle are coming out.
No in guard
Alright well, they could jsut do female heads.
No female models!
well the only way to define that would be breasts which with armor on you would not notice.
at which point we end up in a downward spiral of back and forth bickering, and cheap shots and ultimately arrive at the same conclusion.
The only way to make models that are distinguished as female other then female heads would be sexualized armor, which would then get bitched about, but then when you make it normal that gets bitched about because you cant tell they are female, which gets bitch about, so you sexualize the armor which gets bitched about, so you... ect ect.
I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)
So like always, this thread makes no progression, only makes people salty, and ends in a bitching contest.
Different people means different opinions. Personally if GW would include models similar to the Victoria ones in their official sprue for guards, extends the mixed gender approach they took for Dark Eldars into Craftworld Eldars beside just guardians, keep doing female head for Tau, add some female head for marines and introduce female SC and more female characters in the fluff of each of those codex I really would be perfectly happy.
I'm ok with it being an upgrade Sprue, because like I pointed out, aside from hair, you can't tell those Victoria miniatures are even female, unless you point it out.
The one thing that's a hard stance though is female space marines, just no, because no matter how you try and broach it, it's gonna get shoe horned. We have sisters, which thank god they are finally coming back because now I don't have to listen to people crying for them.
Female space marines has been talked into the ground, and it always ends up with the side wanting them, using a very VERY bad argument for them. Their for argument is always , wel why not?" Not an argument for them.
Backspacehacker wrote: I'm ok with it being an upgrade Sprue, because like I pointed out, aside from hair, you can't tell those Victoria miniatures are even female, unless you point it out.
Well, I would like this to be included stock, and I don't see how the fact you personally won't notice change anything?
Backspacehacker wrote: Female space marines has been talked into the ground, and it always ends up with the side wanting them, using a very VERY bad argument for them. Their for argument is always , wel why not?" Not an argument for them.
That seems like a very very good argument to me. I mean, if you cannot beat that argument it means there are literally no argument for not adding them.
Price, look at deathwatch stuff, they upped stuff by like 5 bucks just for a gakky upgrade Sprue
Lack of something does not mean we should add it. We don't have a faction of pacifist marines that just want to spread love and harmony with hugs and kisses. Why not make them?
There is very good reason, it's been argued how the male body is predisposed to be a fighter, they bodies are designed to handle it.
The best reasoning for it I have heard is that by allowing female space marines there runs the possibility of them eventually realizing they don't need humanity anymore, at that point they could forgo the sterilization process in making marines, and breed naturally, at that point, they would surpass humans, which is not what they are for, they are the protectors of humanity not meant to replace them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also to add, the suggestion of female space marines, while not a good one, is a legitamite idea, but the proof of burden rests on the person presenting the idea. And the, "why not" is not a valid argument or reasoning for them. You need to prove to the community that female space marines are a logical and reasonable decision to put into the game officially.
You know what? if they have some bare female heads on a sprue and someone wants to make female Space Marines, it doesn't change the game in one way, shape, or form. Now in some fluff heavy thing, absolutely not.
Just Tony wrote: You know what? if they have some bare female heads on a sprue and someone wants to make female Space Marines, it doesn't change the game in one way, shape, or form. Now in some fluff heavy thing, absolutely not.
On the table, sure not a problem, but ham fisting them into lore, not so much.
Salted Diamond wrote: You have some places where it's 100% equal. On Cadia for example "the birth rate and the recriutment rates on Cadia are synonymous" and "All Cadians - no matter their age, gender or station - must know how to fight" (AM codex pg 14)
Of course, the one thing people don't realize with this quote is that the ideal reproductive ages and the ideal military recruitment ages are identical.
Which means reproduction on Cadia is state-run, too. As is childcare and education. Say hellow to Teacher-Sergeant Baker and Daycare-Corporal Peterson.
There's a giant logistical apparatus behind any combat force. You can't just have a force that is 100% infantry and tankers and artillery, etc. Women on Cadia probably end up like women in the IDF. Given basic training similar to the men, and then largely stashed away in rear echelon administrative and logistical occupations that are necessary for the running of a world where military mobilization is near-100%.
Consider the Soviet Union, for example. The vast majority of women who served int he WW2 Red Army served as drivers, or radio operators, etc. Jobs that didn't require any significant physical capability, but could free up a man for the front lines. Total Soviet mobilization was just about only a quarter of their population. All the stories you read about the exploits of female soldiers were largely propaganda works by the Soviets. To be fair, most of the numbers you read about their male war heroes were ridiculously inflated by the propagandists too.
If the Cadians are mobilizing essentially 100% of their military-aged population, it just means that basically every task is has been "militarized", and all citizens are considered military Reservists.
The one thing the galaxy has no lack of is people. It's why I've suggested nobody would bother trying to create female Space Marines. It's adding and unnecessary complication to a process that has no shortage of recruits. When you consider that there are 1,000ish Chapters of 1,000ish Space Marines, even with the majority of male children being incompatible with the geneseed process, a single Hive World could supply every Space Marine in the galaxy. With that said, given the significantly more lax regulations on Imperial Guardsmen, you can see why "man"power is the one thing that will very rarely influence recruiting decisions. Imperial planets are probably happy to supply Imperial Guard regiments. People are the one resource they always have enough of.
None of this is to shut down the idea of female Guardsmen. It doesn't take a ton of mental hurdles to explain why your regiment has some ladyfighters in it. But in a galaxy where men are still society's most expendable resource, they're going to continue to be expended in favor of a valuable social resource like a fertile woman. Which also means that the biological specialization we've seen in human evolution that makes men larger and more robust is unlikely to have changed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Sure I need to go now and I'm a bit late but I'll do so later. But I'm afraid I don't have any spectacular wisdom in stock, sorry ^^'.
So, I guess most people tend to automatically assume male as the default for wargame characters and go with it unless they have some very specific reason so choose otherwise, will go with male. Shadowsun is a shiny glowing example of this NOT happening though, but for instance Jain-Zhar is female because Banshees are female in the mythology, Lelith is female because, well, “sexy → female” (another unconscious or sometime conscious bias), etc. Meanwhile Creed, Eldrad, Aun'Va, and so on are all male for no specific reason. They are male, imho, because nobody is the design process even asked himself or herself “What gender should that character be?”.
I personally haven't even considered the gender of most characters in 40k and other sci fi universes till threads like this have pointed this out. Is that because I'm male? I doubt it; it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender most of the time - I focus on the character themselves. While I will say that I do notice and appreciate main casts of characters having a mix of characters of all backgrounds and both genders, most of the time I find this irrelevant next to the character's actions both alone and when mixed into the rest of the cast.
Perhaps this is very well an unconscious bias flowing through 40k, but I do feel that a character is typically made based on how likeable or hated (in a good way) they are to the reader. Their gender, their race and their background can augment their likeability by the reader, but only after the good character has been made, if that makes sense. That's how I see it at least.
I personally am writing a story involving a female Inquisitor and a female Farseer, as well as quite a few female supporting roles. I can't tell you exactly why I chose to run them as females instead of males, other than to possibly use their sex disposition as a way to direct the story and their character in what I believe to be a male dominated universe. Having a female perspective can certainly have a different effect over having a male one, but again, making the character good is far more important than trivial information that can be read by the reader from simple observation.
Hopefully that all makes sense; it is 12:30 in the morning. A lot of people would say a scenario such as 40k's in terms of gender balance is not down to coincidence in terms of its stories. I personally think it's a coincidence that all the writers had the same fixation on what they either consciously or unconsciously wanted their character's gender to be, rather than the idea that the favouritism of a male character is prevalent in wargame universes.
General Annoyance wrote: Is that because I'm male? I doubt it; it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender most of the time - I focus on the character themselves.
Being male is why you don't notice it. You're used to male names/pronouns being the default, so you don't notice it when there are few/no female names/pronouns. Trust me, women notice these things.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, I vaguely remember something about female valhallan regiments from those books now. Iirc, they tend to be all women or all men, with Cain's regiment being the exception.
Both had been mangled pretty bad and were merged in order to produce one full regiment.
As it turned out, a relatively well supplied regiment that the quill-pushers somehow kept mistaking for two regiments.
It also helps having a "Hero of the Imperium" in your ranks and that a Inquisitor considers you "useful and mainly trustworthy"
Personally as I see it - the table top is a version of action movies - and there are plenty of females in those.
Again some of my go to Sci-fi war films are Starship Trooper and Aliens - anyone not see the women like Vasquez in those or think they are not bad ass?
There is a large body of supporting information that shows us how important women are, some good, some bad, in the universe,
Lord Damocles wrote: You're the one making the claim, so it's your responsibility to support your assertions (accusations).
You know, that's precisely why I don't want to have a conversation with you. I pointed out some unsupported assumption you made (i.e. “[SC] don't have models not because they are female but for some other reason”). You made this assumption implicitly when you implied that “[SC] were removed because they had no model” was in direct contradiction with “[SC] were removed because they were female”. I merely pointed out that you didn't bring anything to support it. But rather than supporting it, you now play the “burden of proof” game famously used by online debaters that care more about being, or at least appearing right (and self-righteously so) than about convincing anyone. The whole “burden of proof” concept used as a rhetorical argument is completely shallow, but here we are even in a position when if applied correctly it goes in my favor.
Sure I need to go now and I'm a bit late but I'll do so later. But I'm afraid I don't have any spectacular wisdom in stock, sorry ^^'.
There are female models in GW's range: jain zar, mystweaver, the masque (ish) shadowstrike, Lelith alarielle and a few more. He doesn't need to prove his argument because in itself it can be proved by you simply going into the range of products: they don't shy away from making female models. Also male units lost their rules too, because they didn't get models (for hell's sake, the FACTION LEADER didn't have model AND had its rules removed). Quite a few if we count both settings, it's a thing that has been going across the years and more frequent in males than females (does anyone remember morglum necksnapper?). Now, if instead of playing on a guild trip and trying to get the high ground you' could actually contribute to the discussion and actually back your claims by something more substantial than an ad hominem... that would be wonderful actually.
Being male is why you don't notice it. You're used to male names/pronouns being the default, so you don't notice it when there are few/no female names/pronouns. Trust me, women notice these things.
Perhaps I didn't word that very well; I do observe a lack of females in an area of 40k or in a story, but it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender. Not until I either like or dislike the character will I look at that particular significance and why the author may (or may not) have chosen it.
That being said, I don't doubt that the ladies among us notice this trend more than I do in 40k. I guess I just feel like it's always been a given that 40k is male dominated judging by how little we know about female activity, but also that 40k puts so little significance on your gender in a galaxy in all out war, to the point where it almost doesn't matter; it seems to be more about what you do than who you are in 40k if you want to survive.
General Annoyance wrote: Is that because I'm male? I doubt it; it's more like I don't see the significance of the character's gender most of the time - I focus on the character themselves.
Being male is why you don't notice it. You're used to male names/pronouns being the default, so you don't notice it when there are few/no female names/pronouns. Trust me, women notice these things.
This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
So since I'm a guy my opinion doesn't matter since I can't see the 'sexism'?
That's like saying I only enjoy games because I can play as men...
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
this reminds me of an old argument about LEGO, the LEGO community was in an uproar over the lack of female minifigures (like half a dozen at the time) and really the only way to tell females from males was lipstick and pony tail hair and drawn boob lines and that was it, but people were incensed over the lack of females, eventually LEGO started doing more females and even female oriented LEGO (according to LEGO) sets.
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.
When ever this topic gets brought up it always ends the exact same way
We want female models
Ok well sisters of battle are coming out.
No in guard
Alright well, they could jsut do female heads.
No female models!
well the only way to define that would be breasts which with armor on you would not notice.
at which point we end up in a downward spiral of back and forth bickering, and cheap shots and ultimately arrive at the same conclusion.
The only way to make models that are distinguished as female other then female heads would be sexualized armor, which would then get bitched about, but then when you make it normal that gets bitched about because you cant tell they are female, which gets bitch about, so you sexualize the armor which gets bitched about, so you... ect ect.
I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)
So like always, this thread makes no progression, only makes people salty, and ends in a bitching contest.
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.
Is gender not a part of a character's identity?
Yes, but gender is irrelevant to it. I don't hate Mirror's Edge for having a woman as a main character. I don't love Just Cause 2 because Rico is a man. I like them both because the games are good and the characters are good.
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.
Is gender not a part of a character's identity?
in video games it only matters what you want to play as, in third person shooters it doesn't matter what you play, you could be a glob as far as a third person shooter is concerned.
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.
Is gender not a part of a character's identity?
Yes, but gender is irrelevant to it. I don't hate Mirror's Edge for having a woman as a main character. I don't love Just Cause 2 because Rico is a man. I like them both because the games are good and the characters are good.
Are you saying gender is irrelevant to a character's identity, or that gender is irrelevant to whether or not you, personally, like a character? They're a little different, and I'd argue that gender absolutely does matter in whether or not a character is 'good', especially when taken in context of what else is on offer. Shadow of Mordor, for instance, is a great game; the protagonist is fairly flat and uninteresting for most of it, and part of that is due to the fact that he's the same old grizzled white man with a revenge story that we've seen over and over and over, with little else to distinguish him.
We're drifting a little off topic here, though.
I mean honestly the models from Victoria, block out the heads, you cant tell if they are male or female models. (As it should be because the armor is standard.)
So why are we blocking out one of the model's major distinguishing features? Also, the lighter build lends a clue or two.
Matthew wrote: This, right here, is bullgak. Since I'm a guy I don't notice 'sexism'?
No, it's not 'bullgak', and Peregrine knows very well what he is talking about. It's awfully easy to 'not care about gender' when indifference means maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is firmly in your favour.
Just like whenever I express an opinion on genders in video games (namely that I say gender doesn't matter, since you play a character not a gender) but i always get dismissed because I'm a guy. If that's not sexism I don't know what is.
Is gender not a part of a character's identity?
in video games it only matters what you want to play as, in third person shooters it doesn't matter what you play, you could be a glob as far as a third person shooter is concerned.
Sorry, are you saying video game characters are all flat and undeveloped? Or that all video game characters are sandboxy self-inserts?
Are you saying gender is irrelevant to a character's identity, or that gender is irrelevant to whether or not you, personally, like a character? They're a little different, and I'd argue that gender absolutely does matter in whether or not a character is 'good', especially when taken in context of what else is on offer. Shadow of Mordor, for instance, is a great game; the protagonist is fairly flat and uninteresting for most of it, and part of that is due to the fact that he's the same old grizzled white man with a revenge story that we've seen over and over and over, with little else to distinguish him.
We're drifting a little off topic here, though.
So if it was a woman of color with the same backstory it would be more exciting/interesting?
Are you saying gender is irrelevant to a character's identity, or that gender is irrelevant to whether or not you, personally, like a character? They're a little different, and I'd argue that gender absolutely does matter in whether or not a character is 'good', especially when taken in context of what else is on offer. Shadow of Mordor, for instance, is a great game; the protagonist is fairly flat and uninteresting for most of it, and part of that is due to the fact that he's the same old grizzled white man with a revenge story that we've seen over and over and over, with little else to distinguish him.
We're drifting a little off topic here, though.
So if it was a woman of color with the same backstory it would be more exciting/interesting?
It would be different, and give a different perspective on the story, or provide a different way for the protagonist to interact with the other characters. I was actually thinking of his wife, though - obviously she's a tough woman, living at the Black Gate garrison; you could do the tutorial with Talion showing her the basics of swordfighting, and then she picks up the rest as she goes on/gets it because she's possessed by the Wraith, just like he is. It would have avoided one or two cliches and, depending on how they played out the opening scene, made some of the late-game conversations with the Wraith more interesting.
Or, even better, you could have played as Ratbag. But that's a bit of a pipe dream.
Are you saying gender is irrelevant to a character's identity, or that gender is irrelevant to whether or not you, personally, like a character? They're a little different, and I'd argue that gender absolutely does matter in whether or not a character is 'good', especially when taken in context of what else is on offer. Shadow of Mordor, for instance, is a great game; the protagonist is fairly flat and uninteresting for most of it, and part of that is due to the fact that he's the same old grizzled white man with a revenge story that we've seen over and over and over, with little else to distinguish him.
We're drifting a little off topic here, though.
So if it was a woman of color with the same backstory it would be more exciting/interesting?
It would be different, and give a different perspective on the story, or provide a different way for the protagonist to interact with the other characters. I was actually thinking of his wife, though - obviously she's a tough woman, living at the Black Gate garrison; you could do the tutorial with Talion showing her the basics of swordfighting, and then she picks up the rest as she goes on/gets it because she's possessed by the Wraith, just like he is. It would have avoided one or two cliches and, depending on how they played out the opening scene, made some of the late-game conversations with the Wraith more interesting.
Or, even better, you could have played as Ratbag. But that's a bit of a pipe dream.
But it would still be the same story in the end. Except it's a wife's tale of revenge and not a husband's. I mean, I guess that's different than the normal "Guy avenges girl" but I feel like we're putting our modern day biases and applying them to a fantasy world that's not at all meant to make a political or social statement. (Not that gender equality is or should be considered political. I don't think it is or should be)
I'm not saying it needed to be like that to make a statement, I'm saying that it needed to be different to be more interesting. We've seen this dark-haired white bearded dude over and over, we've seen this they-killed-my-wife-and-child story over and over - I honestly do think swapping it to they-killed-my-husband-and-child would be a little better story-wise, if only to contrast with certain flashback events. Orc Murder Simulator is a great game, I'll play it over and over and it did much more justice to its source material than I thought it would, but the protagonist's story is just so bland, and it could have been better.
Farewell, Ratbag. Best character in the game, never did anything but help you and never got the credit he deserved. Maybe Ioreth would have been less of a jerk to him.
However, what we can see from almost every industry is that "more interesting" almost never equates to "more money". That is the end goal of almost every product we consume - to make money. You don't sell video games to 13 year-old boys by saying "come play the fierce housewife who wants to avenge her husband's murder!".
That story line might work for a book or maybe a movie - but I doubt many video game studios are going to take a chance on that. Mountain Dew addled teenagers aren't concerned about diversity and "interesting new takes". Who cares.
in video games it only matters what you want to play as, in third person shooters it doesn't matter what you play, you could be a glob as far as a third person shooter is concerned.
Sorry, are you saying video game characters are all flat and undeveloped? Or that all video game characters are sandboxy self-inserts?
what i'm saying in the overall scheme of things it does not matter. you can take any character switch the gender identity or even species identity and you will still have the same game.
in video games it only matters what you want to play as, in third person shooters it doesn't matter what you play, you could be a glob as far as a third person shooter is concerned.
Sorry, are you saying video game characters are all flat and undeveloped? Or that all video game characters are sandboxy self-inserts?
what i'm saying in the overall scheme of things it does not matter. you can take any character switch the gender identity or even species identity and you will still have the same game.
You totally won't, though. Shadow of Mordor's story would have been totally different if you were playing as Ioreth or Ratbag. Even if you just change the gender without the overall character traits or major story points altering, swapping to Taliona instead of Talion, you would have avoided some of the major cliches the game brings up. If you played as a Sister of Battle instead of Captain Titus in Space Marine - a third-person shooter, for the record - you could have made some interesting story tweaks. Genderswap the protagonist of the first season of The Walking Dead - oh, neat, you don't even have to change Lee's name! - and the main drive becomes a surrogate mother-daughter relationship instead of a surrogate father-daughter relationship. Different, but still very powerful.
There's definitely games out there where the gender of the player character doesn't matter, but it's a ludicrous generalization to say that it doesn't matter at all.
However, what we can see from almost every industry is that "more interesting" almost never equates to "more money". That is the end goal of almost every product we consume - to make money. You don't sell video games to 13 year-old boys by saying "come play the fierce housewife who wants to avenge her husband's murder!".
That story line might work for a book or maybe a movie - but I doubt many video game studios are going to take a chance on that. Mountain Dew addled teenagers aren't concerned about diversity and "interesting new takes". Who cares.
Most big studios don't seem to want to, which sucks, but it's something to try and change rather than to just shrug on. There's plenty of markets out there beside the stereotypical hyperactive teen boy, and some of them are interested in video games. The Walking Dead, for instance - check out the mountains of money that made for Telltale.
in video games it only matters what you want to play as, in third person shooters it doesn't matter what you play, you could be a glob as far as a third person shooter is concerned.
Sorry, are you saying video game characters are all flat and undeveloped? Or that all video game characters are sandboxy self-inserts?
what i'm saying in the overall scheme of things it does not matter. you can take any character switch the gender identity or even species identity and you will still have the same game.
You totally won't, though. Shadow of Mordor's story would have been totally different if you were playing as Ioreth or Ratbag. Even if you just change the gender without the overall character traits or major story points altering, swapping to Taliona instead of Talion, you would have avoided some of the major cliches the game brings up. If you played as a Sister of Battle instead of Captain Titus in Space Marine - a third-person shooter, for the record - you could have made some interesting story tweaks. Genderswap the protagonist of the first season of The Walking Dead - oh, neat, you don't even have to change Lee's name! - and the main drive becomes a surrogate mother-daughter relationship instead of a surrogate father-daughter relationship. Different, but still very powerful.
There's definitely games out there where the gender of the player doesn't matter, but it's a ludicrous generalization to say that it doesn't matter at all.
but it doesn't, think about it, you change the gender of the video games hero and all parties involved and it is still the same game.
in video games it only matters what you want to play as, in third person shooters it doesn't matter what you play, you could be a glob as far as a third person shooter is concerned.
Sorry, are you saying video game characters are all flat and undeveloped? Or that all video game characters are sandboxy self-inserts?
what i'm saying in the overall scheme of things it does not matter. you can take any character switch the gender identity or even species identity and you will still have the same game.
You totally won't, though. Shadow of Mordor's story would have been totally different if you were playing as Ioreth or Ratbag. Even if you just change the gender without the overall character traits or major story points altering, swapping to Taliona instead of Talion, you would have avoided some of the major cliches the game brings up. If you played as a Sister of Battle instead of Captain Titus in Space Marine - a third-person shooter, for the record - you could have made some interesting story tweaks. Genderswap the protagonist of the first season of The Walking Dead - oh, neat, you don't even have to change Lee's name! - and the main drive becomes a surrogate mother-daughter relationship instead of a surrogate father-daughter relationship. Different, but still very powerful.
There's definitely games out there where the gender of the player doesn't matter, but it's a ludicrous generalization to say that it doesn't matter at all.
but it doesn't, think about it, you change the gender of the video games hero and all parties involved and it is still the same game.
I just provided a bunch of examples where it would change the way characters interacted. Do you mean it's still going to have the same game mechanics? I mean, yeah, probably, but that was never my point. Or are you actually arguing that it would have no effect on the story or characters?
(Although a Sister of Battle would have different weapons. Drop that heretical experimental mine launcher and hand me a heavy flamer!)
And here I am thinking that the primary purpose of the main character in a video game is to serve as the player's way of interacting with the world, and as such any bit of characterization is mostly cosmetic in order to try to differentiate them from the multitude of other player characters for marketing reasons.
Elbows wrote: However, what we can see from almost every industry is that "more interesting" almost never equates to "more money". That is the end goal of almost every product we consume - to make money. You don't sell video games to 13 year-old boys by saying "come play the fierce housewife who wants to avenge her husband's murder!".
That story line might work for a book or maybe a movie - but I doubt many video game studios are going to take a chance on that. Mountain Dew addled teenagers aren't concerned about diversity and "interesting new takes". Who cares.
I remember how "everyone" thought having a female lead in Tomb Raider was foolish and would make the game not appeal to male gamers.
Wierd how female action hero's in moives do well.
Wierd how all these people making female figures in their ranges are loosing money on them.
Wierd how many people in on line games choose female avatars - especially boys and men
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And here I am thinking that the primary purpose of the main character in a video game is to serve as the player's way of interacting with the world, and as such any bit of characterization is mostly cosmetic in order to try to differentiate them from the multitude of other player characters for marketing reasons.
There's games where that's true, and there's games where that's patently untrue.
(What a cynical edit )
Look at the Arkham series. You're playing as Batman, and it goes out of its way to make you feel like Batman. He's the primary way of interacting with the game world, yeah, but he does this by doing Batman things - swooping around Gotham, breaking criminal limbs, punching the Joker over and over and over, that sort of stuff. Or, to go back to the Telltale well, look at their Game of Thrones game. You play multiple characters, and your dialogue choices and actions can change some of their characterization, but each of them has a distinct core personality. You're using them to interact with the game world, but Asher and Rodrik aren't going to get the same interaction options or conversations with some characters, because they're different people.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And here I am thinking that the primary purpose of the main character in a video game is to serve as the player's way of interacting with the world, and as such any bit of characterization is mostly cosmetic in order to try to differentiate them from the multitude of other player characters for marketing reasons.
There's games where that's true, and there's games where that's patently untrue.
(What a cynical edit )
Look at the Arkham series. You're playing as Batman, and it goes out of its way to make you feel like Batman. He's the primary way of interacting with the game world, yeah, but he does this by doing Batman things - swooping around Gotham, breaking criminal limbs, punching the Joker over and over and over, that sort of stuff. Or, to go back to the Telltale well, look at their Game of Thrones game. You play multiple characters, and your dialogue choices and actions can change some of their characterization, but each of them has a distinct core personality. You're using them to interact with the game world, but Asher and Rodrik aren't going to get the same interaction options or conversations with some characters, because they're different people.
so instead of playing as Batman your playing as Batgirl(woman) hell look at the recent animated Batman cartoon they replaced Robin with Batgirl. look at Tomb Raider its just a female Indiana Jones. (but more modern), they have had female Thor, not once but twice even. and the list goes on.
Elbows wrote: However, what we can see from almost every industry is that "more interesting" almost never equates to "more money". That is the end goal of almost every product we consume - to make money. You don't sell video games to 13 year-old boys by saying "come play the fierce housewife who wants to avenge her husband's murder!".
That story line might work for a book or maybe a movie - but I doubt many video game studios are going to take a chance on that. Mountain Dew addled teenagers aren't concerned about diversity and "interesting new takes". Who cares.
I remember how "everyone" thought having a female lead in Tomb Raider was foolish and would make the game not appeal to male gamers.
Wierd how female action hero's in moives do well.
Wierd how all these people making female figures in their ranges are loosing money on them.
Wierd how many people in on line games choose female avatars - especially boys and men
To counter your point without trying to be that guy...
There's a reason they over sexualized her (Lara) in the Tomb Raider games. They didn't think a female lead would succeed. UNLESS! "Give 'er huge knockers and focus the camera on her butt".
Ah, but does it feel like batman because that is what batman could do, or does it feel like batman because it has his face on it? If you were to replace batman with generic muscleman (or musclewoman) #33, will it still be Arkham? I would say so; the mechanics are there, they are the same, its just that it no longer has a recognizable setting derived from a pre-existing (and profitable. Cynicism ahoy! ) comic book series. You certainly won't be able to call it Arkham, as that refers to a specific setting, but it is still effectively that game.
I must confess, I am not too familiar with the Telltale games, but they do seem to be an interesting case from a design standpoint, as they straddle the line between an interactive story (or, to use a more derogatory term, a "choose your own adventure" book) and a video game. On one hand, you have a set series of events that are triggered by a set series of options (turn to page X for outcome Y), and yet it offers navigation and fail events determined by a series of (faulty) command inputs, characteristics of a video game.
Elbows wrote: However, what we can see from almost every industry is that "more interesting" almost never equates to "more money". That is the end goal of almost every product we consume - to make money. You don't sell video games to 13 year-old boys by saying "come play the fierce housewife who wants to avenge her husband's murder!".
That story line might work for a book or maybe a movie - but I doubt many video game studios are going to take a chance on that. Mountain Dew addled teenagers aren't concerned about diversity and "interesting new takes". Who cares.
I remember how "everyone" thought having a female lead in Tomb Raider was foolish and would make the game not appeal to male gamers.
Wierd how female action hero's in moives do well.
Wierd how all these people making female figures in their ranges are loosing money on them.
Wierd how many people in on line games choose female avatars - especially boys and men
To counter your point without trying to be that guy...
There's a reason they over sexualized her (Lara) in the Tomb Raider games. They didn't think a female lead would succeed. UNLESS! "Give 'er huge knockers and focus the camera on her butt".
Eh, I read somewhere that the large breasts where due to graphical limitations; turns out its hard to denote a polygon based character as female unless you really exaggerate some bits of her, especially if you really intend on showing that the lead is a lady. She become known for her figure, so in later games they kept with the formula because apparently it worked really well.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And here I am thinking that the primary purpose of the main character in a video game is to serve as the player's way of interacting with the world, and as such any bit of characterization is mostly cosmetic in order to try to differentiate them from the multitude of other player characters for marketing reasons.
There's games where that's true, and there's games where that's patently untrue.
(What a cynical edit )
Look at the Arkham series. You're playing as Batman, and it goes out of its way to make you feel like Batman. He's the primary way of interacting with the game world, yeah, but he does this by doing Batman things - swooping around Gotham, breaking criminal limbs, punching the Joker over and over and over, that sort of stuff. Or, to go back to the Telltale well, look at their Game of Thrones game. You play multiple characters, and your dialogue choices and actions can change some of their characterization, but each of them has a distinct core personality. You're using them to interact with the game world, but Asher and Rodrik aren't going to get the same interaction options or conversations with some characters, because they're different people.
so instead of playing as Batman your playing as Batgirl(woman) hell look at the recent animated Batman cartoon they replaced Robin with Batgirl. look at Tomb Raider its just a female Indiana Jones. (but more modern), they have had female Thor, not once but twice even. and the list goes on.
Then you're playing as Batgirl or Batwoman, or you're playing as Indiana Jones instead of Lara Croft. You do realize these are different characters, right? With different backstories and different traits?
Ah, but does it feel like batman because that is what batman could do, or does it feel like batman because it has his face on it?
Yes
The game series does a fantastic job showing off Batman's key traits and abilities - not least of which is the ability to do something ludicrously brutal to someone but make sure you know they're alive - and tie that in with the game mechanics. You could change it to generic muscleman #33 and it would still be a good game, but it would still feel like a Batman game precisely because of what it allows you to do and how it is designed. Who knows what the story would be like, though. They made good use of the characters they drew on.
It just seems weird to me to take this piece of media that's obviously able to create complex stories and say 'no, it can't have a main character with any recognizable traits beyond the utterly superficial, because that character allows the player to place themselves in the game world'. Bella Swan exists, and nobody's saying that books can't have a protagonist with solid characterization; Master Chief or the latest Elder Scrolls main character shouldn't preclude games from having a defined character.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And here I am thinking that the primary purpose of the main character in a video game is to serve as the player's way of interacting with the world, and as such any bit of characterization is mostly cosmetic in order to try to differentiate them from the multitude of other player characters for marketing reasons.
There's games where that's true, and there's games where that's patently untrue.
(What a cynical edit )
Look at the Arkham series. You're playing as Batman, and it goes out of its way to make you feel like Batman. He's the primary way of interacting with the game world, yeah, but he does this by doing Batman things - swooping around Gotham, breaking criminal limbs, punching the Joker over and over and over, that sort of stuff. Or, to go back to the Telltale well, look at their Game of Thrones game. You play multiple characters, and your dialogue choices and actions can change some of their characterization, but each of them has a distinct core personality. You're using them to interact with the game world, but Asher and Rodrik aren't going to get the same interaction options or conversations with some characters, because they're different people.
so instead of playing as Batman your playing as Batgirl(woman) hell look at the recent animated Batman cartoon they replaced Robin with Batgirl. look at Tomb Raider its just a female Indiana Jones. (but more modern), they have had female Thor, not once but twice even. and the list goes on.
Then you're playing as Batgirl or Batwoman, or you're playing as Indiana Jones instead of Lara Croft. You do realize these are different characters, right? With different backstories and different traits?
Ah, but does it feel like batman because that is what batman could do, or does it feel like batman because it has his face on it?
Yes
The game series does a fantastic job showing off Batman's key traits and abilities - not least of which is the ability to do something ludicrously brutal to someone but make sure you know they're alive - and tie that in with the game mechanics. You could change it to generic muscleman #33 and it would still be a good game, but it would still feel like a Batman game precisely because of what it allows you to do and how it is designed. Who knows what the story would be like, though. They made good use of the characters they drew on.
It just seems weird to me to take this piece of media that's obviously able to create complex stories and say 'no, it can't have a main character with any recognizable traits beyond the utterly superficial, because that character allows the player to place themselves in the game world'. Bella Swan exists, and nobody's saying that books can't have a protagonist with solid characterization; Master Chief or the latest Elder Scrolls main character shouldn't preclude games from having a defined character.
yeah they are different characters in different stories, but in a game it does not matter, you are not watching a movie or reading a book you are playing an avatar going thru doing things, and what gender or species that avatar is, makes no difference.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And here I am thinking that the primary purpose of the main character in a video game is to serve as the player's way of interacting with the world, and as such any bit of characterization is mostly cosmetic in order to try to differentiate them from the multitude of other player characters for marketing reasons.
There's games where that's true, and there's games where that's patently untrue.
(What a cynical edit )
Look at the Arkham series. You're playing as Batman, and it goes out of its way to make you feel like Batman. He's the primary way of interacting with the game world, yeah, but he does this by doing Batman things - swooping around Gotham, breaking criminal limbs, punching the Joker over and over and over, that sort of stuff. Or, to go back to the Telltale well, look at their Game of Thrones game. You play multiple characters, and your dialogue choices and actions can change some of their characterization, but each of them has a distinct core personality. You're using them to interact with the game world, but Asher and Rodrik aren't going to get the same interaction options or conversations with some characters, because they're different people.
so instead of playing as Batman your playing as Batgirl(woman) hell look at the recent animated Batman cartoon they replaced Robin with Batgirl. look at Tomb Raider its just a female Indiana Jones. (but more modern), they have had female Thor, not once but twice even. and the list goes on.
Then you're playing as Batgirl or Batwoman, or you're playing as Indiana Jones instead of Lara Croft. You do realize these are different characters, right? With different backstories and different traits?
Ah, but does it feel like batman because that is what batman could do, or does it feel like batman because it has his face on it?
Yes
The game series does a fantastic job showing off Batman's key traits and abilities - not least of which is the ability to do something ludicrously brutal to someone but make sure you know they're alive - and tie that in with the game mechanics. You could change it to generic muscleman #33 and it would still be a good game, but it would still feel like a Batman game precisely because of what it allows you to do and how it is designed. Who knows what the story would be like, though. They made good use of the characters they drew on.
It just seems weird to me to take this piece of media that's obviously able to create complex stories and say 'no, it can't have a main character with any recognizable traits beyond the utterly superficial, because that character allows the player to place themselves in the game world'. Bella Swan exists, and nobody's saying that books can't have a protagonist with solid characterization; Master Chief or the latest Elder Scrolls main character shouldn't preclude games from having a defined character.
yeah they are different characters in different stories, but in a game it does not matter, you are not watching a movie or reading a book you are playing an avatar going thru doing things, and what gender or species that avatar is, makes no difference.
I think we either play entirely different games or place different value on the stories found in them, if that's what you think.
Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And here I am thinking that the primary purpose of the main character in a video game is to serve as the player's way of interacting with the world, and as such any bit of characterization is mostly cosmetic in order to try to differentiate them from the multitude of other player characters for marketing reasons.
There's games where that's true, and there's games where that's patently untrue.
(What a cynical edit )
Look at the Arkham series. You're playing as Batman, and it goes out of its way to make you feel like Batman. He's the primary way of interacting with the game world, yeah, but he does this by doing Batman things - swooping around Gotham, breaking criminal limbs, punching the Joker over and over and over, that sort of stuff. Or, to go back to the Telltale well, look at their Game of Thrones game. You play multiple characters, and your dialogue choices and actions can change some of their characterization, but each of them has a distinct core personality. You're using them to interact with the game world, but Asher and Rodrik aren't going to get the same interaction options or conversations with some characters, because they're different people.
so instead of playing as Batman your playing as Batgirl(woman) hell look at the recent animated Batman cartoon they replaced Robin with Batgirl. look at Tomb Raider its just a female Indiana Jones. (but more modern), they have had female Thor, not once but twice even. and the list goes on.
Then you're playing as Batgirl or Batwoman, or you're playing as Indiana Jones instead of Lara Croft. You do realize these are different characters, right? With different backstories and different traits?
Ah, but does it feel like batman because that is what batman could do, or does it feel like batman because it has his face on it?
Yes
The game series does a fantastic job showing off Batman's key traits and abilities - not least of which is the ability to do something ludicrously brutal to someone but make sure you know they're alive - and tie that in with the game mechanics. You could change it to generic muscleman #33 and it would still be a good game, but it would still feel like a Batman game precisely because of what it allows you to do and how it is designed. Who knows what the story would be like, though. They made good use of the characters they drew on.
It just seems weird to me to take this piece of media that's obviously able to create complex stories and say 'no, it can't have a main character with any recognizable traits beyond the utterly superficial, because that character allows the player to place themselves in the game world'. Bella Swan exists, and nobody's saying that books can't have a protagonist with solid characterization; Master Chief or the latest Elder Scrolls main character shouldn't preclude games from having a defined character.
yeah they are different characters in different stories, but in a game it does not matter, you are not watching a movie or reading a book you are playing an avatar going thru doing things, and what gender or species that avatar is, makes no difference.
I think we either play entirely different games or place different value on the stories found in them, if that's what you think.
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
look at the new Star Wars movies, same story but with a female hero instead of a male hero.
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
in a game? no because you are not limited to the story, you can alter it and change it.
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
in a game? no because you are not limited to the story, you can alter it and change it.
Then we're coming at this from fundamentally different directions. From my point of view, story always matters.
And, again, that statement depends on the game, and how you mean 'alter'. Are you talking about different choices and story paths? There's still a set story that the developers are telling, you're just choosing which one.
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
in a game? no because you are not limited to the story, you can alter it and change it.
Then we're coming at this from fundamentally different directions. From my point of view, story always matters.
And, again, that statement depends on the game, and how you mean 'alter'. Are you talking about different choices and story paths? There's still a set story that the developers are telling, you're just choosing which one.
in a game you can do almost what you want as long as it falls within the parameters of the game, if you want Batman to beat up good guys and ignore the bad guys and die doing it and presto change-o its a new story a new version
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
in a game? no because you are not limited to the story, you can alter it and change it.
Then we're coming at this from fundamentally different directions. From my point of view, story always matters.
And, again, that statement depends on the game, and how you mean 'alter'. Are you talking about different choices and story paths? There's still a set story that the developers are telling, you're just choosing which one.
in a game you can do almost what you want as long as it falls within the parameters of the game, if you want Batman to beat up good guys and ignore the bad guys and die doing it and presto change-o its a new story a new version
...no, you can't. The Arkham games don't let you punch Commissioner Gordon in the face.
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
in a game? no because you are not limited to the story, you can alter it and change it.
Then we're coming at this from fundamentally different directions. From my point of view, story always matters.
And, again, that statement depends on the game, and how you mean 'alter'. Are you talking about different choices and story paths? There's still a set story that the developers are telling, you're just choosing which one.
in a game you can do almost what you want as long as it falls within the parameters of the game, if you want Batman to beat up good guys and ignore the bad guys and die doing it and presto change-o its a new story a new version
...no, you can't. The Arkham games don't let you punch Commissioner Gordon in the face.
Again, not every game is Skyrim.
but does the game make you attack the bad guys? or can you just ignore them and die and become Suicide man.
I feel like a major point is entirely being missed here. Yes you can absolutely run mario into the first Goomba 800,000,000 times but that will not actually accomplish the game nor does it change the rules of it (if Mario hits Goomba, he dies, game over) as opposed to (if Mario dodges Goomba, completes level, progress) both do not result in the same thing and therefore do not alter the gameplay. Back do Gender, the point is not that gender changes the gameplay at all, in fact, it really shouldn't in most circumstances. A girl can leap of faith off a 100 story building (even though it should kill everyone), she can be an elite COG soldier, and a guy can be a stay at home father caught up in the zombie apocalypse. The point is that whether you know it or not, as a male, we've been identifying with the male heroes of those games since we were children and putting ourselves into those roles. As such, and as the over-represented group, we cannot discuss what is "appropriate" or "balanced" representation because well, we already are. It is the job of any corporation to create an equal opportunity for all who identify with all non-gameplay changing aspects and allow us to choose for ourselves. If you don't identify with Mario or Marcus or Assman23 the Skyrim character, that's fine, but others do, and it's not our job to decide. So going back on point, it's not GW's job to exclude a group thinking they know best who identifies, it is their job to be inclusive and allow people to decide for themselves. If there's just one guy or girl out there looking to build a badass female guard regiment than they should. One person who couldn't wait to cosplay as a female assassin, be a badass lady commissar, then it's enough. The novel writers understand this, which is why Gaunts Ghosts and other series have actual representation, letting the reader decide for themselves who to identify with. So there, rant over.
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
in a game? no because you are not limited to the story, you can alter it and change it.
Then we're coming at this from fundamentally different directions. From my point of view, story always matters.
And, again, that statement depends on the game, and how you mean 'alter'. Are you talking about different choices and story paths? There's still a set story that the developers are telling, you're just choosing which one.
in a game you can do almost what you want as long as it falls within the parameters of the game, if you want Batman to beat up good guys and ignore the bad guys and die doing it and presto change-o its a new story a new version
...no, you can't. The Arkham games don't let you punch Commissioner Gordon in the face.
Again, not every game is Skyrim.
but does the game make you attack the bad guys? or can you just ignore them and die and become Suicide man.
You can, but you're not really creating a story at that point, you're doing something dumb for a quick laugh. You're playing with the game, not playing the game.
SplinteredShield wrote: I feel like a major point is entirely being missed here. Yes you can absolutely run mario into the first Goomba 800,000,000 times but that will not actually accomplish the game nor does it change the rules of it (if Mario hits Goomba, he dies, game over) as opposed to (if Mario dodges Goomba, completes level, progress) both do not result in the same thing and therefore do not alter the gameplay. Back do Gender, the point is not that gender changes the gameplay at all, in fact, it really shouldn't in most circumstances. A girl can leap of faith off a 100 story building (even though it should kill everyone), she can be an elite COG soldier, and a guy can be a stay at home father caught up in the zombie apocalypse. The point is that whether you know it or not, as a male, we've been identifying with the male heroes of those games since we were children and putting ourselves into those roles. As such, and as the over-represented group, we cannot discuss what is "appropriate" or "balanced" representation because well, we already are. It is the job of any corporation to create an equal opportunity for all who identify with all non-gameplay changing aspects and allow us to choose for ourselves. If you don't identify with Mario or Marcus or Assman23 the Skyrim character, that's fine, but others do, and it's not our job to decide. So going back on point, it's not GW's job to exclude a group thinking they know best who identifies, it is their job to be inclusive and allow people to decide for themselves. If there's just one guy or girl out there looking to build a badass female guard regiment than they should. One person who couldn't wait to cosplay as a female assassin, be a badass lady commissar, then it's enough. The novel writers understand this, which is why Gaunts Ghosts and other series have actual representation, letting the reader decide for themselves who to identify with. So there, rant over.
"Over-represented group" Would you kindly who's the main gaming market? Who WAS the dominant gaming market? Men weren't over-represented, they were over-dominant in that market and that translated to them getting the centre stage.
Only that no, that's not their job. They make and sell toys THAT'S IT. They are telling a story. THAT'S IT. They are in no way obliged to include and/or pander all or as many as possible groups. If you don't like it don't take it, in no way you're forced to take a product that you don't like.
And in no way does your analogy work out: Dan Abnett is writing a story. That's what he's selling. A female characters (as well as male ones) just happens to be an addition to said products, so to speak. Dan Abnett is not incurring in any cost for writing in an organic way into the story a female. What DOES cost is making a mould, filling it with plastic and hoping it sells well or that that ONE guy buys a bucketload of them. There's something called aversion to risk and by and large GW has been totally adverse to it.
Just Tony wrote: Skyrim lets you design your character from the ground up, allowing opportunity for race, gender, AND after the Mara quest, sexual orientation. Do you know how much of the game is legitimately affected by your gender choice? None.
Right, but not all games are Skyrim, which is almost word for word the point I made a few posts above
and yet you take a game about a male character and there is game similar to it with a female character or an alien or what have you, the only difference is the story.
That is exactly what I said, yes. Do you not view the story as important?
in a game? no because you are not limited to the story, you can alter it and change it.
Then we're coming at this from fundamentally different directions. From my point of view, story always matters.
And, again, that statement depends on the game, and how you mean 'alter'. Are you talking about different choices and story paths? There's still a set story that the developers are telling, you're just choosing which one.
in a game you can do almost what you want as long as it falls within the parameters of the game, if you want Batman to beat up good guys and ignore the bad guys and die doing it and presto change-o its a new story a new version
...no, you can't. The Arkham games don't let you punch Commissioner Gordon in the face.
Again, not every game is Skyrim.
but does the game make you attack the bad guys? or can you just ignore them and die and become Suicide man.
You can, but you're not really creating a story at that point, you're doing something dumb for a quick laugh. You're playing with the game, not playing the game.
but its how that person wants to play the game, there are videos abounding where players altered the games story, even in Arkham where Batman does not rescue the good guys nor goes killing the bad guys just goes thru the areas looking.
You're only looking backwards a certain length though and that's the inherent problem. Gaming was dominated by men because games were marketed to boys and made unavailable to females because young gaming companies assumed that games were too manly for girly girls to enjoy. In the last 20 years things have changed drastically in favor equality in gaming, comics, fantasy cinema, roleplaying games, and yet not the tabletop. Its a massive surprise to hear of a girl playing 40k and the "boys club" mentality plays a huge factor. Those who identify as "video game players" is almost at a 50/50 split and while you're right a company hold no legal responsibility to be inclusive it's nonetheless a poor business decision. The market is there and more than anything it is FLTFG mentality discouraging female participants and if GW was making an effort they would see their audiences grow. The fact stands that their fluff is massively contradictory and has many female characters and yet the tabletop has none.
SplinteredShield wrote: You're only looking backwards a certain length though and that's the inherent problem. Gaming was dominated by men because games were marketed to boys and made unavailable to females because young gaming companies assumed that games were too manly for girly girls to enjoy. In the last 20 years things have changed drastically in favor equality in gaming, comics, fantasy cinema, roleplaying games, and yet not the tabletop. Its a massive surprise to hear of a girl playing 40k and the "boys club" mentality plays a huge factor. Those who identify as "video game players" is almost at a 50/50 split and while you're right a company hold no legal responsibility to be inclusive it's nonetheless a poor business decision. The market is there and more than anything it is FLTFG mentality discouraging female participants and if GW was making an effort they would see their audiences grow. The fact stands that their fluff is massively contradictory and has many female characters and yet the tabletop has none.
Would you kindly provide me the statistic that it is split 50/50?? In fact, give me the statistic that table top gaming is split 50/50 more or less. I've played a lot of games and the majority are males wether we are talking of Infity, Malifaux or 40k/warhammer/skubmar. Also, marketed at boys? It was marketed at adults, without any other appelative, originally, didn't stop it being a male dominated market. You know why? Because gaming then required a set of knowledge involved with computers and at that time those career paths were male dominated (and still are, but the tech has spread).
The main issue is people who think they are gurus of the economy: it's a poor business decision! No it's not, it's called having a fixed demographic and a definite identity: secure a market and keep it as yours, keep a set song and have people be attached to it and don't go around sacrificing stuff just for pandering potential groups. The moment an IP starts changing and making sacrifices just so you "Include" (and it can totally backfire) they are set in a vicious path that can dilute their orignal image.
And again, boy's club mentality has more to do with "communities" (and I put massive air quotes because wherever I've gone the women didn't get bad treatment) that push back certain demographics. Because it's all the way back to the issue of identifying. This is a bloody fantasy setting, if we went and only wanted to play something we identified as, no one would play anything else other than imperial guard, scions, inqusition or sororitas because the rest would be totally alien to us. And fun note: out of the three girls that play 40k at our LGS, one plays daemons, the other plays ork and ravenwing and the third plays tau and deldar... haemonculus covens. The haemounculous is a female conversion though... Nevertheless, none picked up the "female" factions per se. Nor they care, and I've seen quite a few similar cases across the years. It DOESN'T MATTER.
Backspacehacker wrote: Price, look at deathwatch stuff, they upped stuff by like 5 bucks just for a gakky upgrade Sprue
Meh, price is a completely different topic. I don't think making a sprue with models that have (Victoria-style) male and female bodies would be more expensive than making a sprue with models that have only one type of bodies. Same amount of plastic and all that. It could be a little more expensive on the sculpting side, but really it's more a question of GW executive deciding a price tag based one unrelated considerations.
Backspacehacker wrote: We don't have a faction of pacifist marines that just want to spread love and harmony with hugs and kisses. Why not make them?
I just want to make sure before: is it purely rhetorical, or do you want me to answer it?
Backspacehacker wrote: There is very good reason, it's been argued how the male body is predisposed to be a fighter, they bodies are designed to handle it.
What you are giving here is an in-universe justification, rather than the out-of-universe reason I was asking for.
Beside, female Imperial Assassins, with their female bodies, are already capable of tearing a new one to most if not all space marines, both in the lore and on the tabletop, so…
Backspacehacker wrote: Also to add, the suggestion of female space marines, while not a good one, is a legitamite idea, but the proof of burden rests on the person presenting the idea.
The very notion of “burden of proof” is asinine. The “burden of proof” doesn't exist. No-one has a burden to prove anything to anyone else. But if you want the convince people, you'd rather work for it yourself. Doesn't necessarily necessitate to prove anything though, most people are convinced by convincing arguments rather than formal proofs…
Backspacehacker wrote: You need to prove to the community that female space marines are a logical and reasonable decision to put into the game officially.
Well, no. I just need to prove it to GW . I may look facetious, but I am completely serious. If you want to change any IP, you don't need to convince the current fans of the IP. You don't need their approval, you don't owe them anything. Only the IP owners have the right to decide what they want to do about the IP. The fandom can complain all they want, that's all fair and perfectly understandable, but when they start pretending that not taking their preferences in consideration was morally reprehensible, that's when they become entitled little crybullies. (And I am in no way talking about you, just general musings of mine about something I have seen happen often in video games and comics and stuff).
And what they'd earn with "female space marines"? I keep hearing this but nobody has EVER mentioned what they truly gain with that change to such an old piece of the lore. A company doesn't change stuff unless they see a clear potential for profit and, considering they have sororitas, they don't really see it.
Backspacehacker wrote: You need to prove to the community that female space marines are a logical and reasonable decision to put into the game officially.
Well, no. I just need to prove it to GW . I may look facetious, but I am completely serious. If you want to change any IP, you don't need to convince the current fans of the IP. You don't need their approval, you don't owe them anything. Only the IP owners have the right to decide what they want to do about the IP. The fandom can complain all they want, that's all fair and perfectly understandable, but when they start pretending that not taking their preferences in consideration was morally reprehensible, that's when they become entitled little crybullies. (And I am in no way talking about you, just general musings of mine about something I have seen happen often in video games and comics and stuff).
If one was to create Female Space Marines (thus changing the IP), why should Sisters of Battle not receive the same treatment and become polygender too? After all, if GW decided to make male SoB, anyone who complained would be "entitled little crybabies", seeing as GW own the IP for Sisters.
Personally, I think both Sisters and Space Marines should be monogender. But they should be the only ones that are. In any other case, there should be no excuse. But hey, I don't own the IP, so my words are meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Kragan wrote: And what they'd earn with "female space marines"? I keep hearing this but nobody has EVER mentioned what they truly gain with that change to such an old piece of the lore.
Well, representation of females a genetically engineered demigods of war, which is a pretty decent earning. However, seeing as lore opposes it, I do not think they should exist from an in-universe standpoint. Of course, that same logic applies to make SoB monogender too.
Backspacehacker wrote: You need to prove to the community that female space marines are a logical and reasonable decision to put into the game officially.
Well, no. I just need to prove it to GW . I may look facetious, but I am completely serious. If you want to change any IP, you don't need to convince the current fans of the IP. You don't need their approval, you don't owe them anything. Only the IP owners have the right to decide what they want to do about the IP. The fandom can complain all they want, that's all fair and perfectly understandable, but when they start pretending that not taking their preferences in consideration was morally reprehensible, that's when they become entitled little crybullies. (And I am in no way talking about you, just general musings of mine about something I have seen happen often in video games and comics and stuff).
If one was to create Female Space Marines (thus changing the IP), why should Sisters of Battle not receive the same treatment and become polygender too? After all, if GW decided to make male SoB, anyone who complained would be "entitled little crybabies", seeing as GW own the IP for Sisters.
Personally, I think both Sisters and Space Marines should be monogender. But they should be the only ones that are. In any other case, there should be no excuse. But hey, I don't own the IP, so my words are meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Kragan wrote: And what they'd earn with "female space marines"? I keep hearing this but nobody has EVER mentioned what they truly gain with that change to such an old piece of the lore.
Well, representation of females a genetically engineered demigods of war, which is a pretty decent earning. However, seeing as lore opposes it, I do not think they should exist from an in-universe standpoint. Of course, that same logic applies to make SoB monogender too.
Now you've said it: they don't get gak. They gain "representation" which can perfectly translate in the same number of sales as monogender. Number one reason we won't see female SMs.
For that matter not to be argumentative, but I said the tabletop is where that split is nowhere near 50/50 and thats a problem. Here's how I see it and while I agree I'm not a tabletop business guru I do in fact run my own company and I have a hard time seeing a downside. By adding a female range and supporting the already existing female models in the fluff they open their customer base. Who exactly do they stand to lose off of this idea? You can't really say anymore that they would take a massive hit financially because with GSC theyve shown willingness to design a totally new mini line from the ground up. The fact is my wife plays video games with me, she watches LCS, she's played DnD but she's never wanted to try 40k or anything involved because she can't connect to the game. Which is just too bad and something I think a lot of us would love to share with our significant others. I think I have a hard time understanding these threads that start out as "how do women operate in 40k" and the fluff, endorsed by GW supports a completely different reality than their main IP. Hell their newest mobile IP has a female imperial knight, yet the model range has none of that whatsoever. I don't see why people are so against connecting the inspiration someone finds in the fluff to the game they love to play without massive conversion from 3rd party sources.
For that matter not to be argumentative, but I said the tabletop is where that split is nowhere near 50/50 and thats a problem. Here's how I see it and while I agree I'm not a tabletop business guru I do in fact run my own company and I have a hard time seeing a downside. By adding a female range and supporting the already existing female models in the fluff they open their customer base. Who exactly do they stand to lose off of this idea? You can't really say anymore that they would take a massive hit financially because with GSC theyve shown willingness to design a totally new mini line from the ground up. The fact is my wife plays video games with me, she watches LCS, she's played DnD but she's never wanted to try 40k or anything involved because she can't connect to the game. Which is just too bad and something I think a lot of us would love to share with our significant others. I think I have a hard time understanding these threads that start out as "how do women operate in 40k" and the fluff, endorsed by GW supports a completely different reality than their main IP. Hell their newest mobile IP has a female imperial knight, yet the model range has none of that whatsoever. I don't see why people are so against connecting the inspiration someone finds in the fluff to the game they love to play without massive conversion from 3rd party sources.
Again, you provide wrong examples: genestealer cults are a hit because they are a new army: it brings new (and very interesting) toys to the table. What you're suggesting is yet a nother re-skin of a concept one that wouldn't have anything to offer unlike the deathwatch. There's a reason there's only cadians/catachans in the IG range now. And again, your arguments have no support whatsoever: do females need "boobs" to be a attracted by something? My experience generally tells me not, they aren't necessary. Generally speaking that kind of people get out of the hobby in less than a year because the novelty wears out.
They dont need boobs, but they dont want to be in a world set backwards from their own either. Women are soldiers on earth right now, but after 38,000 years we've realised that women are just breeding stock so...here's some guys to shoot....Imperial Guard have one of the most outdated ranges in the entire set. The new Neophyte box is essentially a reskin of guard, basically an upgrade sprue really, and adds an immense amount of life and depth to a unit that for IG, is bland and boring. Which also gives you almost a dozen extra heads just to add variety to your squad! If they revamped the cadian unit, just added 20 new heads, new poses, and 3 of them were female with no body change whatsoever, then added a female commissar clampack and a female head for a company command squad itd be done. And Im not on the bandwagon of changing fluff just for inclusion either. Space Marines can stay all male because it makes sense in the universe, Sisters are amazing and unique and all it would take is inclusion in a new video game, some promotion, and an updated model line and youd see tons of new players interested in picking them up too.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If one was to create Female Space Marines (thus changing the IP), why should Sisters of Battle not receive the same treatment and become polygender too?
Because literally no-one is asking for it? But yeah, if it happened I definitely wouldn't cry over it, despite what you seem to assume for no particular reason…
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If one was to create Female Space Marines (thus changing the IP), why should Sisters of Battle not receive the same treatment and become polygender too?
Because literally no-one is asking for it? But yeah, if it happened I definitely wouldn't cry over it, despite what you seem to assume for no particular reason…
I'm not assuming anything, merely just consolidating your logic.
However, you are incorrect in that no-one is asking for male SoBs. If one of them were made polygender, I would expect the only other monogender faction in the game to follow suite. If Female Space Marines became a thing, I would expect Male SoB to become one as well.
And there are certainly people out there who do ask for Male SoB. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Leave SoB female, leave SM male. Promote the sisters' line via new kits and hardback codex, and add female representation in armies that need it (Guard, Scions, Cultists, Eldar, Tau, Inquisition).
Because literally no-one is asking for it? But yeah, if it happened I definitely wouldn't cry over it, despite what you seem to assume for no particular reason…
That would kinda take the "Sisters" out of "Sisters of Battle" though wouldn't it?
I think the point Smudge is making is that doing something like that messes with the identity of the faction. Usually I'd say that gender is unimportant when it comes to 40k factions, but both Space Marines and SoB are the exceptions; messing with them in that way is both not needed and will also create way more holes in their background than holes that can be patched up, since it's always been a known thing for most 40k enthusiasts that Space Marines = all male, Sisters of Battle = all female (obviously not including the Priests in SoB and the advisers and backstage crews in Space Marine Chapters who are the opposite gender)
SplinteredShield wrote: They dont need boobs, but they dont want to be in a world set backwards from their own either. Women are soldiers on earth right now, but after 38,000 years we've realised that women are just breeding stock so...here's some guys to shoot....Imperial Guard have one of the most outdated ranges in the entire set. The new Neophyte box is essentially a reskin of guard, basically an upgrade sprue really, and adds an immense amount of life and depth to a unit that for IG, is bland and boring. Which also gives you almost a dozen extra heads just to add variety to your squad! If they revamped the cadian unit, just added 20 new heads, new poses, and 3 of them were female with no body change whatsoever, then added a female commissar clampack and a female head for a company command squad itd be done. And Im not on the bandwagon of changing fluff just for inclusion either. Space Marines can stay all male because it makes sense in the universe, Sisters are amazing and unique and all it would take is inclusion in a new video game, some promotion, and an updated model line and youd see tons of new players interested in picking them up too.
Only that that neophyte box is an excuse to tell people: hey guys! you can use your guard models too wink wink! And it's back to the original point: it won't sell you more stuff. The neophyte box is also a repack as it includes HW squads which the standard box lacks, and once you do the math you find out that you are getting that upgrade sprue for free as the squad is 35 eur while a hwt would be 11 and a regular cadian squad is 24. It is a deal to boot. The point still stands regardless of wether or not you move the goalpost: is it necessary to have a "lot" (so to speak) of female models to attract females? Judging by the looks of it, no. The issue is how time consuming this game is, which turns off many people.
Honestly this is a sterile field already of discussion but I digress.
While I agree, no amount of discussion on either of our parts will convince GW to do one or the other, they could add a female line or a whole female warrior mad max style renegade army and either could pass or fail to meet numbers or new audiences. I have to disagree that revamped models dont sell. I do believe in the appeal of "here's the new version of the thing you have!" Mentality. Its why the i-phone or COD have been so successful. I think GW has been afraid to refresh and redesign in the last decade hoping that printing books will make more money than redesigning models. I only hope that the trend continues and GW does take more risk in the content they release and the improvement of the deals you get. Maybe that will mean more female models and maybe not. We do thankfully have amazing conversion kits elsewhere and if GW doesn't want a piece of that that's entirely their decision. Id just say this, the world of 40k is vast and an amazing fantasy setting, so there's room for plenty of us to be right about things and just enjoy the world we get to play in.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm not assuming anything, merely just consolidating your logic.
You are not consolidating any specific logic. You just think you found a “gotcha”. But you didn't.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And there are certainly people out there who do ask for Male SoB.
I am of course going to ask you to name one.
General Annoyance wrote: That would kinda take the "Sisters" out of "Sisters of Battle" though wouldn't it?
Meh. I could care less, but barely.
General Annoyance wrote: Usually I'd say that gender is unimportant when it comes to 40k factions, but both Space Marines and SoB are the exceptions;
Sisters maybe as being all-female kind of sets them apart in a universe that is mostly male and more so because the whole Decree Passive thing is a perfect and very evocative illustration of the byzantine ways of the Imperium where what matters is saving face and following the word of the law rather than the spirit of it is usual business. Marines? Hardly… It never set Marines apart in a universe where male are hardly rare. Being all-male never featured heavily in their identity, which I think is worth repeating : they are spacerenaissance vampireparanoid monkmongolviking furriesroman legions of blacksmithcrusaders of depressed doomcyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators. Of course I am only talking about the loyalist, because everyone knows that marines can also be spacepunisher batmanhair metal drug addicts … I mean, with such a very broad identity as “space renaissance vampire paranoid monk mongol viking furries roman legions of blacksmith crusaders of depressed doom cyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators”, I really don't think adding mixed-gendered to the mix is taking it a step too far, and neither do I think it is diluting this very very specific concept that is a space marine.
You missed the chance to call them "Space Borings", so many SOB players will be upset.
Yeah, there's pretty much no argument you can bring to the table that is valid for your point except "Nobody should have monogender anything except women", which is pretty much a sexist attitude without being mysogynist. I think Marines and SOB are fine the way they are. Chaos does give a chance for something, though. Daemonic posession could easily increase a female's capacity for Power Armor, and have damn near the same effect as the Marine process.
Okay, one thing: never lie again, because you've just lied about this now and,conflated two different things as the article did. It's not 50+% gamer women because what they mainly play is mobile game, puzzle games at that. I'm sorry but no, playing 5 minutes of candy crush in the train while on the way to work is nowhere the dedication associated to a gamer or the needed to play 40k. To fruther drive home this, the study further signals that half of women don't play any other source (haven't played it in more than 6 months which is quite a while). There's no true dedication in it. Taking away this and you get that female gamers are somewhere around 20%. Respectable but the point still stands that the "proper" (read: needs more dedication) game market is dominated by males.
Even more, the study states that these games are popular in women due to the simplicity and non-necessity to learn. In other words: it's not bein a gamer, it's being bored and using a video-game. The study's data goes even further and showing that genres like strategy have a worse, much worse. Why? Because it requires more effort and they say: feth it, ain't got time for this gak! Do you really thing then, seeing this profile as a rule, do you think this demographic will go and spend HOURS assembling painting, buying the material (which is, again, one of the other reasons the mobile games dominate: they are FtP most of the time) worth in the hundreds of dollars, learning the basics of a gargantuan setting... and then spending HOURS playing? NO, ain't happening, the same study gives us the clues as to why.
Furthermore this study sins of being "too easy" to pass: once in six months? That doesn't make you a gamer of consoles/computer/online! Furthermore they add flash games which are inherent of facebook which makes me raise an eyebrow considering the origins of part of this "online games".
Lord Kragan wrote: "Over-represented group" Would you kindly who's the main gaming market? Who WAS the dominant gaming market? Men weren't over-represented, they were over-dominant in that market and that translated to them getting the centre stage.
Only that no, that's not their job. They make and sell toys THAT'S IT. They are telling a story. THAT'S IT. They are in no way obliged to include and/or pander all or as many as possible groups. If you don't like it don't take it, in no way you're forced to take a product that you don't like.
And in no way does your analogy work out: Dan Abnett is writing a story. That's what he's selling. A female characters (as well as male ones) just happens to be an addition to said products, so to speak. Dan Abnett is not incurring in any cost for writing in an organic way into the story a female. What DOES cost is making a mould, filling it with plastic and hoping it sells well or that that ONE guy buys a bucketload of them. There's something called aversion to risk and by and large GW has been totally adverse to it.
Well they are dominant because back then video games and miniature wargaming was percieved by society as not something girls or women should be into wich meant that no women bought them wich created the skewed market. You see this all the time with many different products, an easy example being make up, what in make up states that this is an only women thing? Traditional gender roles passed through generations.
but when times change so do opinion and there are many today who think that companies hold a greater responsibility toward the rest of society, they cant get away with just selling a products because they maintain the ideals and biases of the rest of society. This means that to some degree they are responsible to atleast try to get representation into their game.
Female space marines, more female models and marketing both to women and men would create pr that could get more people interested because now they can show that they care about all people and arent just a boys club, or that they are atleast trying.
Lord Kragan wrote: "Over-represented group" Would you kindly who's the main gaming market? Who WAS the dominant gaming market? Men weren't over-represented, they were over-dominant in that market and that translated to them getting the centre stage.
Only that no, that's not their job. They make and sell toys THAT'S IT. They are telling a story. THAT'S IT. They are in no way obliged to include and/or pander all or as many as possible groups. If you don't like it don't take it, in no way you're forced to take a product that you don't like.
And in no way does your analogy work out: Dan Abnett is writing a story. That's what he's selling. A female characters (as well as male ones) just happens to be an addition to said products, so to speak. Dan Abnett is not incurring in any cost for writing in an organic way into the story a female. What DOES cost is making a mould, filling it with plastic and hoping it sells well or that that ONE guy buys a bucketload of them. There's something called aversion to risk and by and large GW has been totally adverse to it.
Well they are dominant because back then video games and miniature wargaming was percieved by society as not something girls or women should be into wich meant that no women bought them wich created the skewed market. You see this all the time with many different products, an easy example being make up, what in make up states that this is an only women thing? Traditional gender roles passed through generations.
but when times change so do opinion and there are many today who think that companies hold a greater responsibility toward the rest of society, they cant get away with just selling a products because they maintain the ideals and biases of the rest of society. This means that to some degree they are responsible to atleast try to get representation into their game.
Female space marines, more female models and marketing both to women and men would create pr that could get more people interested because now they can show that they care about all people and arent just a boys club, or that they are atleast trying.
Sigh. No it wasn't something that "boys· ought to do. That's playing football/volley/whatever sport is popular in the region. That's what was expected from a guy. Playing with toy soldiers at a moderately advanced age (and honestly good look trying to teach a 4-5 year old kid the rules)? It wasn't a traditional gender role but another beast. Specially old videogames, they required extensive scripting knowledge so rather than "men" it was more of "nerd" and it was a derogatory and you know it.
No they don't hold that kind of responsability. Corporate responsability doesn't mean to pander to every demographic ever been. Corporate responsability consists on doing things for the betterment of society not the egos of people.
GW doesn't do marketing, their policy is: let people talk about us and word will spread. When was the last time you saw a GW ad??
Just because times have changed doesn't mean Don Quixote ought to be afro-american in the re-boot of the story.
Lord Kragan wrote: "Over-represented group" Would you kindly who's the main gaming market? Who WAS the dominant gaming market? Men weren't over-represented, they were over-dominant in that market and that translated to them getting the centre stage.
Only that no, that's not their job. They make and sell toys THAT'S IT. They are telling a story. THAT'S IT. They are in no way obliged to include and/or pander all or as many as possible groups. If you don't like it don't take it, in no way you're forced to take a product that you don't like.
And in no way does your analogy work out: Dan Abnett is writing a story. That's what he's selling. A female characters (as well as male ones) just happens to be an addition to said products, so to speak. Dan Abnett is not incurring in any cost for writing in an organic way into the story a female. What DOES cost is making a mould, filling it with plastic and hoping it sells well or that that ONE guy buys a bucketload of them. There's something called aversion to risk and by and large GW has been totally adverse to it.
Well they are dominant because back then video games and miniature wargaming was percieved by society as not something girls or women should be into wich meant that no women bought them wich created the skewed market. You see this all the time with many different products, an easy example being make up, what in make up states that this is an only women thing? Traditional gender roles passed through generations.
but when times change so do opinion and there are many today who think that companies hold a greater responsibility toward the rest of society, they cant get away with just selling a products because they maintain the ideals and biases of the rest of society. This means that to some degree they are responsible to atleast try to get representation into their game.
Female space marines, more female models and marketing both to women and men would create pr that could get more people interested because now they can show that they care about all people and arent just a boys club, or that they are atleast trying.
Do you seriously think we'll get a swathe of new female gamers in 40K simply because of a few female Marine models? We've had 25 years or so of Sisters of Battle models to pull them in, if that's what they wanted. Hell, we had Dawn of War: Soulstorm shine the spotlight on Sisters, so by that logic the Sisters should have sold so well that they would have gotten a new model range before the Tau. Yeah, that didn't happen. I sincerely doubt there is an army of women, people who identify as women, or the obligatory SJWs suffering from testicle guilt who are waiting in the wings boycotting the game until such time as two heads and two boob armor chest plates are added to a SM sprue.
General Annoyance wrote: Usually I'd say that gender is unimportant when it comes to 40k factions, but both Space Marines and SoB are the exceptions;
Sisters maybe as being all-female kind of sets them apart in a universe that is mostly male and more so because the whole Decree Passive thing is a perfect and very evocative illustration of the byzantine ways of the Imperium where what matters is saving face and following the word of the law rather than the spirit of it is usual business. Marines? Hardly… It never set Marines apart in a universe where male are hardly rare. Being all-male never featured heavily in their identity, which I think is worth repeating : they are spacerenaissance vampireparanoid monkmongolviking furriesroman legions of blacksmithcrusaders of depressed doomcyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators. Of course I am only talking about the loyalist, because everyone knows that marines can also be spacepunisher batmanhair metal drug addicts … I mean, with such a very broad identity as “space renaissance vampire paranoid monk mongol viking furries roman legions of blacksmith crusaders of depressed doom cyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators”, I really don't think adding mixed-gendered to the mix is taking it a step too far, and neither do I think it is diluting this very very specific concept that is a space marine.
Those are only inspirations for a fairly original idea, though. The Space Marine as a concept may include those inspirations for their design, but in practice they are their own idea, not something that necessarily has to be influenced by what they're inspired from.
Lord Kragan wrote: "Over-represented group" Would you kindly who's the main gaming market? Who WAS the dominant gaming market? Men weren't over-represented, they were over-dominant in that market and that translated to them getting the centre stage.
Only that no, that's not their job. They make and sell toys THAT'S IT. They are telling a story. THAT'S IT. They are in no way obliged to include and/or pander all or as many as possible groups. If you don't like it don't take it, in no way you're forced to take a product that you don't like.
And in no way does your analogy work out: Dan Abnett is writing a story. That's what he's selling. A female characters (as well as male ones) just happens to be an addition to said products, so to speak. Dan Abnett is not incurring in any cost for writing in an organic way into the story a female. What DOES cost is making a mould, filling it with plastic and hoping it sells well or that that ONE guy buys a bucketload of them. There's something called aversion to risk and by and large GW has been totally adverse to it.
Well they are dominant because back then video games and miniature wargaming was percieved by society as not something girls or women should be into wich meant that no women bought them wich created the skewed market. You see this all the time with many different products, an easy example being make up, what in make up states that this is an only women thing? Traditional gender roles passed through generations.
but when times change so do opinion and there are many today who think that companies hold a greater responsibility toward the rest of society, they cant get away with just selling a products because they maintain the ideals and biases of the rest of society. This means that to some degree they are responsible to atleast try to get representation into their game.
Female space marines, more female models and marketing both to women and men would create pr that could get more people interested because now they can show that they care about all people and arent just a boys club, or that they are atleast trying.
Do you seriously think we'll get a swathe of new female gamers in 40K simply because of a few female Marine models? We've had 25 years or so of Sisters of Battle models to pull them in, if that's what they wanted. Hell, we had Dawn of War: Soulstorm shine the spotlight on Sisters, so by that logic the Sisters should have sold so well that they would have gotten a new model range before the Tau. Yeah, that didn't happen. I sincerely doubt there is an army of women, people who identify as women, or the obligatory SJWs suffering from testicle guilt who are waiting in the wings boycotting the game until such time as two heads and two boob armor chest plates are added to a SM sprue.
Oh dear - what total nonsense post.
We have had 25 years focus on the Space Marines with occasional grudging mention of the SOB and women in general on the tabletop (in direct contrast to the fluff).
Weirdly enough if you focus all your sale potential and support almost entirely on one line then they sell the best, and oh look that's were we are with Space Marines.
Dark Eldar did not sell well until - guess what they had a massive push and loads of new models.
Once again to drive the point home to you - why are all these other game companies having plenty of women in their ranges if gamers are going to scream and run from the room when they arrive.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm not assuming anything, merely just consolidating your logic.
You are not consolidating any specific logic. You just think you found a “gotcha”. But you didn't.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And there are certainly people out there who do ask for Male SoB.
I am of course going to ask you to name one.
General Annoyance wrote: That would kinda take the "Sisters" out of "Sisters of Battle" though wouldn't it?
Meh. I could care less, but barely.
General Annoyance wrote: Usually I'd say that gender is unimportant when it comes to 40k factions, but both Space Marines and SoB are the exceptions;
Sisters maybe as being all-female kind of sets them apart in a universe that is mostly male and more so because the whole Decree Passive thing is a perfect and very evocative illustration of the byzantine ways of the Imperium where what matters is saving face and following the word of the law rather than the spirit of it is usual business. Marines? Hardly…
It never set Marines apart in a universe where male are hardly rare. Being all-male never featured heavily in their identity, which I think is worth repeating : they are spacerenaissance vampireparanoid monkmongolviking furriesroman legions of blacksmithcrusaders of depressed doomcyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators. Of course I am only talking about the loyalist, because everyone knows that marines can also be spacepunisher batmanhair metal drug addicts …
I mean, with such a very broad identity as “space renaissance vampire paranoid monk mongol viking furries roman legions of blacksmith crusaders of depressed doom cyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators”, I really don't think adding mixed-gendered to the mix is taking it a step too far, and neither do I think it is diluting this very very specific concept that is a space marine.
"I don't think..."
Most people would "think" to disagree. Sisters of Battle were created for those that wanted a female version of the Space Marine. Your reason behind why it would be okay for their to never be male "Sisters of Battle" could pretty easily be applied in the opposite as to why Space Marines can only be male. To say nothing of all the reasons given in this thread in regards to genetics.
In the end...this has got to be the silliest argument. Space Marines=all male. Sisters of Battle=all female. When it comes to the fluff proper. But hey, if you want female brony space marines with wonder twin powers activated, knock yourself out. It's your 40K.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm not assuming anything, merely just consolidating your logic.
You are not consolidating any specific logic. You just think you found a “gotcha”. But you didn't.
Why are you assuming that? I've nothing to gain from that, I'm just reaffirming the argument you made. In no way did I try to find a "gotcha", as you put it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And there are certainly people out there who do ask for Male SoB.
I am of course going to ask you to name one.
Hybrid Son of Oxayatl wrote:
The very notion of “burden of proof” is asinine. The “burden of proof” doesn't exist. No-one has a burden to prove anything to anyone else. But if you want the convince people, you'd rather work for it yourself. Doesn't necessarily necessitate to prove anything though, most people are convinced by convincing arguments rather than formal proofs…
Sounds familiar? Still, I can name them, but as friends who have no account on Dakka, I'm afraid I can't give any more proof than just names.
General Annoyance wrote: Usually I'd say that gender is unimportant when it comes to 40k factions, but both Space Marines and SoB are the exceptions;
Sisters maybe as being all-female kind of sets them apart in a universe that is mostly male and more so because the whole Decree Passive thing is a perfect and very evocative illustration of the byzantine ways of the Imperium where what matters is saving face and following the word of the law rather than the spirit of it is usual business. Marines? Hardly…
It never set Marines apart in a universe where male are hardly rare. Being all-male never featured heavily in their identity, which I think is worth repeating : they are spacerenaissance vampireparanoid monkmongolviking furriesroman legions of blacksmithcrusaders of depressed doomcyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators. Of course I am only talking about the loyalist, because everyone knows that marines can also be spacepunisher batmanhair metal drug addicts …
I mean, with such a very broad identity as “space renaissance vampire paranoid monk mongol viking furries roman legions of blacksmith crusaders of depressed doom cyborg parading as ghost rider impersonators”, I really don't think adding mixed-gendered to the mix is taking it a step too far, and neither do I think it is diluting this very very specific concept that is a space marine.
But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
As for the Sisters, the Decree Passive is the only thing stopping them being male. Cut the Decree, and then men can join.
So, why should the Decree be held sancrosanct and cannot be changed, but the various reasons as to why a Space Marine is male should be?
But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
As for the Sisters, the Decree Passive is the only thing stopping them being male. Cut the Decree, and then men can join.
So, why should the Decree be held sancrosanct and cannot be changed, but the various reasons as to why a Space Marine is male should be?
The problem with this is that all the reasons are stated are in universe explanations. These can be entirely rewritten, just like other things has been rewritten.
For example the whole necron background were rewritten and the ctan shattered into pieces.
The same goes for the decree. you can rewrite it to be a matter of interpretation where one part of the ecchlesiarchy takes it literally thus employing the sisters, but one group interpretates it as no standing army but the preachers and missionarier should have the means to "defend" themselves, thus leading to enough arms to be coonsidered a standing army in everything but name, with the important bit of explicitly being for "self defense". Then you have an opening for a schism in the ecchlisiarchy as a whole.
the same goes for space marines. My point being you can make these things without losing the identity of the already existing chapters/factions if you want. Just because female space marines are added, that doesnt mean all the already existing chapters becomes genderswapped.
So we see this is going to be a civil discussion, and sides aren't already drawn.
Mr Morden wrote: We have had 25 years focus on the Space Marines with occasional grudging mention of the SOB and women in general on the tabletop (in direct contrast to the fluff).
We have 25 years of 40K, with Marines being the more popular of the forces as early as Rogue Trader. Do you think a company would push one quarter of their product at the risk of losing on the other three quarters? Not so much. Now, if something IS selling well, do you focus on that portion of the franchise? You'd be a fool not to. I'm thinking your cause/effect order is reversed.
Mr Morden wrote: Weirdly enough if you focus all your sale potential and support almost entirely on one line then they sell the best, and oh look that's were we are with Space Marines.
Once again, it's asinine to think a company would actively push a fraction of their product, which nowadays there are a dozen (maybe?) factions with 3 of them being Marines or Chaos. ESPECIALLY with development costs for new plastic kits.
Mr Morden wrote: Dark Eldar did not sell well until - guess what they had a massive push and loads of new models.
Dark Eldar didn't sell well until the pewter models and the more ugly sculpts got replaced OR the fact that their codex was actually playable compared to their previous one. Period. If they make a codex that works well in the game, and the models don't look like absolute grave rot, then it will sell.
Mr Morden wrote: Once again to drive the point home to you - why are all these other game companies having plenty of women in their ranges if gamers are going to scream and run from the room when they arrive.
Sheesh.
You're right, and that mass of sales is probably overshadowing GW's sales as we speak. Oh, wait...
Yeah Warmachine is suffering hard because it makes female figures - try harder.
re-read you posts and absorb the inherent contradictions - GW focus on one range and its sells well.
GW don't on Dark Eldar and then suddenly they do with new models and rules and hey guess what - it sells well.
Consider the implications for selling female models from your own words.
Once again, it's asinine to think a company would actively push a fraction of their product, which nowadays there are a dozen (maybe?) factions with 3 of them being Marines
Sigh - at least try and get your facts right
Specific Marine factions - Space Marines (with subfactions), Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves. Then you have Horus Heresy era Marines
I don't think anyone on either side of this discussion will be persuaded to join the other by this point. Probably best we let this thread get locked, and not bring this topic back on Dakka until something changes.
I don't think anyone on either side of this discussion will be persuaded to join the other by this point. Probably best we let this thread get locked, and not bring this topic back on Dakka until something changes.
G.A
I'm actually going to join the other side... to get into trouble and do nothing productive with the discussion.
This, it always, ALWAYS goes the same way, and its ALWAYS the same people chiming in with the same argument and its always the same people going back and forth with one another.
Honestly i wish at this point Mods would just make a sticky thread for the subject and every week it gets flushes out and starts over so we can have a containment thread for it.
Just Tony wrote: Yeah, there's pretty much no argument you can bring to the table that is valid for your point except "Nobody should have monogender anything except women",
So you go from “There is a slightly better reason for Sisters than for Marines” directly to “It is always okay to be monogender for women and never okay for men”? WTF dude? I mean, it would definitely make sense for, say, Dark Angels to be men only because of the very strong monastic theme of the chapter. And as I already mentioned, I wouldn't mind if the Sisters became mixed gendered. And let's be honest for a second, the army has always had a lot of male models, unlike space marines which never had a single female model while having a hundred time more miniatures.
General Annoyance wrote: The Space Marine as a concept may include those inspirations for their design, but in practice they are their own idea, not something that necessarily has to be influenced by what they're inspired from.
My point was that they are a canvas, with a voluntarily very very indistinct identity so that they can be declined in tons of various concepts. Adding the opportunity for female marines is definitely keeping in touch with this canvas aspect.
Lusall wrote: Sisters of Battle were created for those that wanted a female version of the Space Marine.
I obviously disagree. Do you have anything to support this?
Lusall wrote: Your reason behind why it would be okay for their to never be male "Sisters of Battle" could pretty easily be applied in the opposite as to why Space Marines can only be male.
Let's try together. I wrote that the Decree Passive was a nice illustration of the byzantine ways of the Imperium. Would this work for space marines? Are space marines only male because of a Decree that illustrate the byzantine ways of the Imperium? Well, no. Okay, then I guess we can all agree that my reason for why it could be okay for Sisters of battle to be only women could not be pretty easily applied to space marines. Now it would be completely okay to introduce another faction who is all-male because of some Decree that illustrate the byzantine ways of the Imperium. But there currently ain't one.
Lusall wrote: To say nothing of all the reasons given in this thread in regards to genetics.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Still, I can name them, but as friends who have no account on Dakka, I'm afraid I can't give any more proof than just names.
Meh.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
There is literally one reason currently, and that reason is “The space magic from the space wizard to make space marines only work on space men and not on space women”. I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
Is it relevant if you find an arbitrary restriction compelling or not? People are discussing this issue as if we're investigating Games Workshop for human rights violations etc.
They're a company who makes plastic toy soldiers. They don't owe anything to society or consumers (as long as you get what's on the cover of the box). They could come out and simply declare "we don't want to make female Space Marines" and that'd be the end of the discussion. Even worse they could simply state "there has never been a successful Space Marine created from a female, blah blah blah" if they really wanted to rock the nerd world. They don't have to justify anything to anyone. Producing a hobby consumer product is precisely that: arbitrary. The lore and fluff is their baby.
If a consumer doesn't like it? They don't buy it, carry on. Games Workshop sales will either remain the same, or won't.
Elbows wrote: Is it relevant if you find an arbitrary restriction compelling or not?
To the current discussion? Yeah. I mean, of course GW doesn't owe us anything, doesn't prevent us from talking about 40k and what we like about it and what we don't like about it. I mean, it's the whole point of this forum…
Just Tony wrote: Yeah, there's pretty much no argument you can bring to the table that is valid for your point except "Nobody should have monogender anything except women",
So you go from “There is a slightly better reason for Sisters than for Marines” directly to “It is always okay to be monogender for women and never okay for men”? WTF dude?
I mean, it would definitely make sense for, say, Dark Angels to be men only because of the very strong monastic theme of the chapter. And as I already mentioned, I wouldn't mind if the Sisters became mixed gendered. And let's be honest for a second, the army has always had a lot of male models, unlike space marines which never had a single female model while having a hundred time more miniatures.
General Annoyance wrote: The Space Marine as a concept may include those inspirations for their design, but in practice they are their own idea, not something that necessarily has to be influenced by what they're inspired from.
My point was that they are a canvas, with a voluntarily very very indistinct identity so that they can be declined in tons of various concepts. Adding the opportunity for female marines is definitely keeping in touch with this canvas aspect.
Lusall wrote: Sisters of Battle were created for those that wanted a female version of the Space Marine.
I obviously disagree. Do you have anything to support this?
Lusall wrote: Your reason behind why it would be okay for their to never be male "Sisters of Battle" could pretty easily be applied in the opposite as to why Space Marines can only be male.
Let's try together. I wrote that the Decree Passive was a nice illustration of the byzantine ways of the Imperium. Would this work for space marines? Are space marines only male because of a Decree that illustrate the byzantine ways of the Imperium? Well, no. Okay, then I guess we can all agree that my reason for why it could be okay for Sisters of battle to be only women could not be pretty easily applied to space marines. Now it would be completely okay to introduce another faction who is all-male because of some Decree that illustrate the byzantine ways of the Imperium. But there currently ain't one.
Lusall wrote: To say nothing of all the reasons given in this thread in regards to genetics.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Still, I can name them, but as friends who have no account on Dakka, I'm afraid I can't give any more proof than just names.
Meh.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
There is literally one reason currently, and that reason is “The space magic from the space wizard to make space marines only work on space men and not on space women”. I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
Beyond the fact that the Primarchs are the Emperor's sons and that they were made in his image (being that he's a dude) and the Space Marines are made in the Primarch's image...and by your logic (which is sound) why would the Imperium do anything different than what has been done for 10,000+ years? And done by the God Emperor no less. All assuming that female space marines are even possible in the first place.
Now, obviously there's nothing (to my knowledge) that explicitly states that women can't be space marines in the way the decree passive states only women can be Sisters of Battle. Pretty sure the reason for that is two fold.
1) In my opinion, GW never thought that we nerds would ever post endless threads about this in Dakka Dakka, thus never thought it would be necessary to say undoubtedly that Space Marines are only Male.
2) Also my opinion, they didn't think anyone would think about Space Marines being female because there are sisters of battle.
3) Almost certainly true, the outcry from a piece of fluff stating "Males Only" would be pretty powerful. From a PR standpoint at the very least.
Lusall wrote: Beyond the fact that the Primarchs are the Emperor's sons and that they were made in his image (being that he's a dude) and the Space Marines are made in the Primarch's image...
The primarchs look massively different from one another. Space marines certainly are not clones either. Your argument is invalid.
I mean, you are literally telling me that having literally wings, as a part of your own body, is an acceptable difference but having a different sex is not. Wut?
Lusall wrote: and by your logic (which is sound) why would the Imperium do anything different than what has been done for 10,000+ years?
How were the various storm-flyers and thunder-flyers introduced? Retcon. How were the grav weapons introduced? Retcon. How were the Centurion armors introduced? Retcon. How were the Wulfen introduced? Retcon. How were the Sanguinary Guard introduced? Retcon. How was anything that wasn't part of rogue trader introduced for marines? Retcon. It's always the same, they introduce stuff not as “Marines just discovered that”, just as “Marines had that for a long time (but it's the first time we mention it)”.
My point was that they are a canvas, with a voluntarily very very indistinct identity so that they can be declined in tons of various concepts. Adding the opportunity for female marines is definitely keeping in touch with this canvas aspect.
Sorry if I'm being a bit dumb, but I don't understand. You're saying that Marines have an identity and feel that's vague enough to allow for the encompassing of female Marines?
But couldn't you argue that specially selected, genetically engineered and doctrined superhumans who have done away with any pleasures life has to offer to fight for the Emperor, and who see most things that lie outside of the Codex Astartes as being heresy, would not be very welcoming of the idea of female Marines?
Lusall wrote: Now, obviously there's nothing (to my knowledge) that explicitly states that women can't be space marines in the way the decree passive states only women can be Sisters of Battle.
Lusall wrote: 2) Also my opinion, they didn't think anyone would think about Space Marines being female because there are sisters of battle.
Sisters of battle are not female space marines, at all. They are a completely different army. Even if both armies became completely mix-gendered, Sisters would still be very distinct from marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote: You're saying that Marines have an identity and feel that's vague enough to allow for the encompassing of female Marines?
I guess there is a misunderstanding ^^. I mean “the identity of space marines” as in “what makes the concept of space marines”, not as “the individuality of each marine”. What I meant is that the concept of the Space Marine is just “an elite super warrior” with a very strong emphasis on how each of the chapters can have very different tactics, belief systems, culture, etc. Hence allowing for even more variety on that front is definitely not a betrayal of the concept.
I guess there is a misunderstanding ^^. I mean “the identity of space marines” as in “what makes the concept of space marines”, not as “the individuality of each marine”. What I meant is that the concept of the Space Marine is just “an elite super warrior” with a very strong emphasis on how each of the chapters can have very different tactics, belief systems, culture, etc. Hence allowing for even more variety on that front is definitely not a betrayal of the concept.
Ah, gotcha.
Well I mean "Elite Super Warrior" may be cutting it a little too short - it's also a lot about their loyalty and often very rigid lifestyles, even if these vary massively between Chapters. The very rigid and narrow system by which they live and fight as Marines seems almost indicative of their nature; we all know how idiotic Space Marines can be in combat as they'll get themselves killed needlessly over thinking tactically and possibly making a retreat, or they'll run into fights guns blazing despite being severely outgunned by the enemy. It just seems very indicative of their indoctrination, and perhaps the writers behind the Space Marines wanted to emphasise this with how restricted the boundaries are of becoming a Space Marine.
I think we've reached the paradox point of the argument, however, when both sides can make very valid points about why we should/shouldn't have female Space Marines, but neither seems to be superior over the other; it's that point in 40k lore where it really is down to interpretation.
I don't think I'd be entirely against female Space Marines if they were to happen. I'm just more inclined to feel that this is how 40k has been written, and that we should go along with that. Hardly like we're in the position to suggest to a creator how they should make their universe anyway. I do also feel that, despite their clear differences, bridging the gender gap between Space Marines and the Adeptus Sororitas would weaken both factions overall.
Lusall wrote: Beyond the fact that the Primarchs are the Emperor's sons and that they were made in his image (being that he's a dude) and the Space Marines are made in the Primarch's image...
The primarchs look massively different from one another. Space marines certainly are not clones either. Your argument is invalid.
I mean, you are literally telling me that having literally wings, as a part of your own body, is an acceptable difference but having a different sex is not. Wut?
Lusall wrote: and by your logic (which is sound) why would the Imperium do anything different than what has been done for 10,000+ years?
How were the various storm-flyers and thunder-flyers introduced? Retcon. How were the grav weapons introduced? Retcon. How were the Centurion armors introduced? Retcon. How were the Wulfen introduced? Retcon. How were the Sanguinary Guard introduced? Retcon. How was anything that wasn't part of rogue trader introduced for marines? Retcon. It's always the same, they introduce stuff not as “Marines just discovered that”, just as “Marines had that for a long time (but it's the first time we mention it)”.
Word to the wise, stating someone's argument is invalid doesn't make it so. Allow me to point out the particular words here. Son. Male. As in...the gender. Nowhere did I say that they look the same. However, in some chapters, space marines do take on physical features of their primarchs. More to the point...I'm simply using your argument. They are his sons. It's stated in the fluff that they are his sons as part of the "Angels of Death" dogma (or whatever you want to call it). Making something "in your image"doesn't mean that they are going to be exactly like you in every way.
My point is, if the echlisarchy is going to go by the letter (ie, creating an army of women because they can't have "men" under arms), and that's just the byzantine way they do things in the Imperium...you don't think that it would be then weird for someone to go "Well I mean, gee. Of course. They're his sons, but there can be daughters too". All of this of course (again) ignores genetics part it. I know...I know. You're stuck on the "It's witchcraft" part of it, but like all sci-fi there is at least a small bit of reality that it's based.
For someone who wants to be civil, you're really not being that. But you're also completely missing what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth. Please read what I said again. In my opinion (obviously, no one here is reading old dev studio people's minds) Sisters were made to be the female equivalent to space marines. They have 3+ save (from power armor) and bolt guns and they even have rhinos and the whole shebang. Prove to me that that's not the case and I'll concede the point. I realize that I'm making an educated guess but then...most of us are making educated guesses?
And unless that bit of fluff about only male space marines has also been retconned, what are we arguing?
((I really proof read my response in the future to avoid having to edit the message a million times for simple grammar/spelling mistakes))
And on a side note...iD4chan's article on this might be one of the funniest things I've read in a while. And I hate 4chan and anything attatched to it.
But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
As for the Sisters, the Decree Passive is the only thing stopping them being male. Cut the Decree, and then men can join.
So, why should the Decree be held sancrosanct and cannot be changed, but the various reasons as to why a Space Marine is male should be?
The problem with this is that all the reasons are stated are in universe explanations. These can be entirely rewritten, just like other things has been rewritten.
For example the whole necron background were rewritten and the ctan shattered into pieces.
The same goes for the decree. you can rewrite it to be a matter of interpretation where one part of the ecchlesiarchy takes it literally thus employing the sisters, but one group interpretates it as no standing army but the preachers and missionarier should have the means to "defend" themselves, thus leading to enough arms to be coonsidered a standing army in everything but name, with the important bit of explicitly being for "self defense". Then you have an opening for a schism in the ecchlisiarchy as a whole.
the same goes for space marines. My point being you can make these things without losing the identity of the already existing chapters/factions if you want. Just because female space marines are added, that doesnt mean all the already existing chapters becomes genderswapped.
Thank you for essentially repeating what I said.
Yes, it CAN be rewritten. Should it? Not in my opinion. Marines are fine as all male, Sisters are fine as all female. Should Sisters receive more attention from GW? Yes.
(And yes, making a small group of a mono-gender faction the opposite gender DOES make the faction lose identity. What if there were an all-male order of "Sisters"? A group of peaceful, pacifist Orks? Tyranids that didn't follow the Hive Mind and didn't have animal instincts?
These all break set rules of fluff of their faction, and it does lessen the identity of it. Because at that point, are they really what they were? Is a pacifistic, peaceful, caring, weak pink skinned Ork still an Ork?)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Lusall wrote: Your reason behind why it would be okay for their to never be male "Sisters of Battle" could pretty easily be applied in the opposite as to why Space Marines can only be male.
Let's try together. I wrote that the Decree Passive was a nice illustration of the byzantine ways of the Imperium. Would this work for space marines? Are space marines only male because of a Decree that illustrate the byzantine ways of the Imperium? Well, no. Okay, then I guess we can all agree that my reason for why it could be okay for Sisters of battle to be only women could not be pretty easily applied to space marines. Now it would be completely okay to introduce another faction who is all-male because of some Decree that illustrate the byzantine ways of the Imperium. But there currently ain't one.
I'm sorry, have you forgotten the perfectly valid hypotheses I suggested? If so, allow me to repeat:
1. The Space Marines and Primarchs were created by one man, the Emperor. Either because of his own misogyny (which should be in no way interpreted as indicative of the whole Imperium) or simply his incapability to bond Astartes gene-seed to female subjects, he only made male Marines.
1b. Due to the Imperium's reliance on dogma and tradition, as well as the fear of tampering with gene-seed or simple failure on attempts, no female Space Marines were successfully created, either because they were not given chance by the Chapters, or failed to accept the implants.
2. Geneseed may be linked exclusively to the Y chromosome.
3. All reference to Space Marines is as the Emperor's "sons" or "grandsons", implying male. Due to these traits, it may be commonly accepted in the Imperium that Space Marines are ONLY men due to these depictions, and it would be wrong to deviate from tradition.
Yes, there is no "Decree". But are there explanations as to WHY Space Marines are male only? Yes. I listed them before, and have done so now.
You're right - there ain't one. There's three.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Still, I can name them, but as friends who have no account on Dakka, I'm afraid I can't give any more proof than just names.
Meh.
Thank you for accepting that point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
There is literally one reason currently, and that reason is “The space magic from the space wizard to make space marines only work on space men and not on space women”. I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
Please see above.
Of course, the same thing applies - "a badly written space law from the space government was bypassed by space church and somehow no-one cared that they had a full space army, which the space law was passed to prevent, so really, why do they even have the space law when what it stood for is so easily circumvented". And I quote - I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
Seriously, replace any reference of "man" with "person" on the Decree Passive. Boom. No more Sisters. That's the easiest retcon I've seen - replace a word.
Would I like that? Not at all.
Lusall wrote: Allow me to point out the particular words here. Son. Male. As in...the gender.
Those words that you didn't use about Space Marines? Yeah. Well, maybe the Emperor of Mankind only reigns over the men too? As I explain below, the significance of the text you are quoting is totally different from the significance of the Decree Passive. And just as a quick preview: have you noticed how the Decree Passive is always explicitly mentioned as the reason why Sisters of Battle are all female, while on the other hand the text you are quoting, which as far as I can tell doesn't even have a name, is literally never mentioned as the reason why, or even related to, the fact all space marines are males?
Lusall wrote: It's stated in the fluff that they are his sons as part of the "Angels of Death" dogma (or whatever you want to call it).
I like the “whatever you want to call it”, as it further emphasize the difference between the Decree Passive (a text whose existence and context in-universe is clearly defined) and the texts you are referencing (i.e. flavor text for rulebooks and codecies whose existence, context and relevance in-universe are completely unknown. They don't even have a name, for crying out loud!
Lusall wrote: My point is, if the echlisarchy is going to go by the letter (ie, creating an army of women because they can't have "men" under arms), and that's just the byzantine way they do things in the Imperium...you don't think that it would be then weird for someone to go "Well I mean, gee. Of course. They're his sons, but there can be daughters too".
I sense that you are quite unaware of the context in which the Decree Passive was passed, and how the current situation came to be. Too bad, it's among the most interesting fluff in 40k, and that's why you don't understand what I am talking about. The “Angel of Death” stuff is just about how awesome awesomesauce the marines are supposed to be, but there is absolutely no depth there. Well, it's a flavor text. The Decree Passive happened in a very specific situation where the political balance of the Imperium was completely off-balance, and where there were a lot of conflicting needs. The parties involved had to : - maintain the illusions that things followed the rules and laws - reorganize the power balance between the different organizations of the Imperium - and most importantly, deal with Sebastian Thor, a figure that they really really needed to have by their side as he was very very popular and could bring stability, but that they were also very wary off as he could be pretty easily considered a rebel. And it was really, really important for them not to encourage anyone to become a rebel. Beside, he didn't had any real place in the hierarchy of the Imperium. And to make thinks worse he was unruly and unwilling to take the job they needed him to take.
That is why stuff like the Decree Passive happened. It is not a case of someone randomly writing some stuff about how the Ecclesiarchy shouldn't have men under arm because “hey, why not, it sounds pretty cool”. The result of a political struggle between Thor, who didn't want to become Ecclesiarch, and the power that be, that needed him to become Ecclesiarch, along with the necessity to prevent abuses of the power that the position of Ecclesiarch gave like those that just happened…
Lusall wrote: All of this of course (again) ignores genetics part it. I know...I know. You're stuck on the "It's witchcraft" part of it, but like all sci-fi there is at least a small bit of reality that it's based.
“Being based in a small bit of reality” means it's okay to have a gland that allows you to learn the memories of anything you eat, but it is not okay to make women in “that kind” of supersoldier. Making them into other kind of super-humans (like, say, assassins) is perfectly fine, though. But it's because of this really needed small bit of reality. I'm sorry, that is beyond preposterous.
The space marine creation process is “A wizard did it” therefore literally anything less ridiculous than the Omophagea is fair game. Having women became space marines is orders of magnitude less ridiculous than the Omophagea. It's not even ridiculous to begin with…
Lusall wrote: In my opinion (obviously, no one here is reading old dev studio people's minds) Sisters were made to be the female equivalent to space marines.
Well, that is just your opinion. Not sure what you expect me to do about it. I already stated I disagree with it, and I don't think using the same wargear makes Sisters some space marine. Is an Inquisitor with power armor/terminator armor and a bolgun riding in a land raider a “male space marine” because he uses the same wargear?
Lusall wrote: And unless that bit of fluff about only male space marines has also been retconned, what are we arguing?
I don't know about you, but I am arguing that this fluff is stupid and should be retconned.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm sorry, have you forgotten the perfectly valid hypotheses I suggested? If so, allow me to repeat:
1. The Space Marines and Primarchs were created by one man, the Emperor. Either because of his own misogyny (which should be in no way interpreted as indicative of the whole Imperium) or simply his incapability to bond Astartes gene-seed to female subjects, he only made male Marines. 1b. Due to the Imperium's reliance on dogma and tradition, as well as the fear of tampering with gene-seed or simple failure on attempts, no female Space Marines were successfully created, either because they were not given chance by the Chapters, or failed to accept the implants.
2. Geneseed may be linked exclusively to the Y chromosome.
3. All reference to Space Marines is as the Emperor's "sons" or "grandsons", implying male. Due to these traits, it may be commonly accepted in the Imperium that Space Marines are ONLY men due to these depictions, and it would be wrong to deviate from tradition.
That is hypotheses, i.e. fan interpretations, definitely not canon explanations. Very unlike the Decree Passive.
There is literally one reason currently, and that reason is “The space magic from the space wizard to make space marines only work on space men and not on space women”. I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
Please see above.
Okay. There is only one canon reason currently.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Of course, the same thing applies - "a badly written space law from the space government was bypassed by space church and somehow no-one cared that they had a full space army, which the space law was passed to prevent, so really, why do they even have the space law when what it stood for is so easily circumvented".
Just like Lusal, part of the problem is that you actually don't know much about the Decree Passive. Why did they had the law passed? Because they needed to disband the Frateris Militia after all the abuse Goge Vandire had done. Too much concentration of power. Why did they allow for the law to be bypassed? Because Sebastian Thor was enough in a position of power that he could get away with it, and because the Daughters of the Emperor had just killed the traitor Vandire themselves, proving that they were reliable and valorous. And you know what? None of this is fan-made. This is all stuff that were explicitly written in official Games Workshop publications. Try to give the same details and explanation about “The space magic from the space wizard to make space marines only work on space men and not on space women” without resorting to fan-made stuff. You will see you cannot.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And I quote - I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
I don't know if actually learning about it changed your mind, but this kind of politics and power play are for me among the most interesting part of 40k. It is definitely not random, it derives from very specific events and very specific situation of the Imperium. It is quite intrinsically linked to one of the event that was the most significant in shaping the Imperium as we know it today after the Heresy. Something that I wish was much more expanded about. While we know somewhat what happened to the Ecclesiarchy and the Officio Assassinorum after the Reign of Blood, we have very few information on what happened to the Administratum after it, even though there very certainly was a lot of reform, given how Vandire was originally Master of the Administratum.
P.S. : Did I mention that one of the first things that happened after Vandire was killed was they set up a trial for Sebastian Thor? See, that's what I explained above: he was still not part of the power structure of the Imperium, and yet he had led the people to resist Vandire. As such they really had to clear his name as not a rebel before they could promote him. And it really helped that he had never called for or participated in any violent act, else he might have been executed instead of become Ecclersiarch and the Imperium would be VERY different from the one we have now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I feel like quite the nerd but I oh so love this kind of lore. The 40k lore that speaks of normal humans is the best 40k fluff, much more interesting imo than all this “Our primarch was super strong and will come back in the end to save us”…
Lusall wrote: Allow me to point out the particular words here. Son. Male. As in...the gender.
Those words that you didn't use about Space Marines? Yeah. Well, maybe the Emperor of Mankind only reigns over the men too? As I explain below, the significance of the text you are quoting is totally different from the significance of the Decree Passive. And just as a quick preview: have you noticed how the Decree Passive is always explicitly mentioned as the reason why Sisters of Battle are all female, while on the other hand the text you are quoting, which as far as I can tell doesn't even have a name, is literally never mentioned as the reason why, or even related to, the fact all space marines are males?
Actually, I believe you linked an article which mentions women can't be Space Marines? Canon doesn't need to fully explain - if it did, I would expect to see something I the canon explaining how Leman Russ Battle Tanks are combat capable vehicles, and how Space Marine flyers are actually capable to flight.
Lusall wrote: It's stated in the fluff that they are his sons as part of the "Angels of Death" dogma (or whatever you want to call it).
I like the “whatever you want to call it”, as it further emphasize the difference between the Decree Passive (a text whose existence and context in-universe is clearly defined) and the texts you are referencing (i.e. flavor text for rulebooks and codecies whose existence, context and relevance in-universe are completely unknown.
They don't even have a name, for crying out loud!
But it IS canon. Just as canonical as the Decree Passive, as it seems. Every time a character in a novel recites a verse about "sons" of the Emperor, THAT is canon. However, it's just so ubiquitous, it is overlooked as such.
Ignore it if you want, but under the same pretence, I'll just ignore the Decree Passive, okay?
Lusall wrote: All of this of course (again) ignores genetics part it. I know...I know. You're stuck on the "It's witchcraft" part of it, but like all sci-fi there is at least a small bit of reality that it's based.
“Being based in a small bit of reality” means it's okay to have a gland that allows you to learn the memories of anything you eat, but it is not okay to make women in “that kind” of supersoldier. Making them into other kind of super-humans (like, say, assassins) is perfectly fine, though. But it's because of this really needed small bit of reality.
I'm sorry, that is beyond preposterous.
The space marine creation process is “A wizard did it” therefore literally anything less ridiculous than the Omophagea is fair game. Having women became space marines is orders of magnitude less ridiculous than the Omophagea. It's not even ridiculous to begin with…
Whilst I may not completely agree with Lusall, I disagree with your logic.
There are obviously two or more kinds of supersoldier - Astartes and Assassin, for the purposes of this argument. Are they both supersoldiers? Yes. Are they the same? No. As hypothesised, geneseed may require the Y chromosome, unlike the Assassin modifications. That simple reason alone would allow women to be assassins, and only men to be Astartes. Not all supersoldiers are created equal.
Having the Decree Passive be written like a proper law (using "person" instead of gender specific pronouns) is more believable than someone exploiting it based on that colossal error. Oh, I'm sorry, we're in 40k - magic is real, and it's called "whatever GW want to happen".
Lusall wrote: And unless that bit of fluff about only male space marines has also been retconned, what are we arguing?
I don't know about you, but I am arguing that this fluff is stupid and should be retconned.
Why do you think it's stupid? Why is Sisters of Battle having a fluff reason to be mono-gender more valid than Space Marines having the same? Especially when there's just as much evidence to support both - the Decree versus the Creation of a Space Marine article.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm sorry, have you forgotten the perfectly valid hypotheses I suggested? If so, allow me to repeat:
1. The Space Marines and Primarchs were created by one man, the Emperor. Either because of his own misogyny (which should be in no way interpreted as indicative of the whole Imperium) or simply his incapability to bond Astartes gene-seed to female subjects, he only made male Marines.
1b. Due to the Imperium's reliance on dogma and tradition, as well as the fear of tampering with gene-seed or simple failure on attempts, no female Space Marines were successfully created, either because they were not given chance by the Chapters, or failed to accept the implants.
2. Geneseed may be linked exclusively to the Y chromosome.
3. All reference to Space Marines is as the Emperor's "sons" or "grandsons", implying male. Due to these traits, it may be commonly accepted in the Imperium that Space Marines are ONLY men due to these depictions, and it would be wrong to deviate from tradition.
That is hypotheses, i.e. fan interpretations, definitely not canon explanations. Very unlike the Decree Passive.
However, alongside my interpretations (as I will concede) is the canon evidence of the Creation of a Space Marine article.
There is literally one reason currently, and that reason is “The space magic from the space wizard to make space marines only work on space men and not on space women”. I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
Please see above.
Okay. There is only one canon reason currently.
Which is the same amount of canon support as, you guessed, the Decree Passive. When both reasons exist, I cannot see why one is valid, and the other not.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Of course, the same thing applies - "a badly written space law from the space government was bypassed by space church and somehow no-one cared that they had a full space army, which the space law was passed to prevent, so really, why do they even have the space law when what it stood for is so easily circumvented".
Just like Lusal, part of the problem is that you actually don't know much about the Decree Passive. Why did they had the law passed? Because they needed to disband the Frateris Militia after all the abuse Goge Vandire had done. Too much concentration of power. Why did they allow for the law to be bypassed? Because Sebastian Thor was enough in a position of power that he could get away with it, and because the Daughters of the Emperor had just killed the traitor Vandire themselves, proving that they were reliable and valorous. And you know what? None of this is fan-made. This is all stuff that were explicitly written in official Games Workshop publications.
Try to give the same details and explanation about “The space magic from the space wizard to make space marines only work on space men and not on space women” without resorting to fan-made stuff. You will see you cannot.
Thank you for assuming I haven't actually read my copy of the Sisters of Battle codex. However, I have read it, and I still believe my point is valid.
The law was passed to prevent military units under direct command of the Ecclesiarchy, yet because someone used gender specific pronouns, they went ahead and STILL created military units under direct command of the Ecclesiarchy. And no-one even batted an eyelid when they broke exactly what the Decree stood for. I'm sorry, but I do not see that as any more rational than the Creation of a Space Marine article which is just as vague as any of the following:
Working Space Marine aircraft
Psychic powers
Mechanically flawed Leman Russes
How strong is plascrete, plasteel, rockcrete, ferrocrete etc etc
If the canon says it doesn't work on women, it doesn't work on women. That's enough for me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And I quote - I'm sorry I don't feel that random arbitrary restriction compelling at all.
I don't know if actually learning about it changed your mind, but this kind of politics and power play are for me among the most interesting part of 40k. It is definitely not random, it derives from very specific events and very specific situation of the Imperium. It is quite intrinsically linked to one of the event that was the most significant in shaping the Imperium as we know it today after the Heresy. Something that I wish was much more expanded about. While we know somewhat what happened to the Ecclesiarchy and the Officio Assassinorum after the Reign of Blood, we have very few information on what happened to the Administratum after it, even though there very certainly was a lot of reform, given how Vandire was originally Master of the Administratum.
P.S. : Did I mention that one of the first things that happened after Vandire was killed was they set up a trial for Sebastian Thor? See, that's what I explained above: he was still not part of the power structure of the Imperium, and yet he had led the people to resist Vandire. As such they really had to clear his name as not a rebel before they could promote him. And it really helped that he had never called for or participated in any violent act, else he might have been executed instead of become Ecclersiarch and the Imperium would be VERY different from the one we have now.
I feel like quite the nerd but I oh so love this kind of lore. The 40k lore that speaks of normal humans is the best 40k fluff, much more interesting imo than all this “Our primarch was super strong and will come back in the end to save us”…
No, I agree. I absolutely enjoy that element of the Sisters. It does reflect the nature of the Imperium well, and is a fun reason to have a mono-gender faction. And human centric lore is easily some of the best.
However, that doesn't mean I see the Creation of a Space Marine article as bad - I support them equally, and believe wholeheartedly both factions should be monogender. Feel free to disregard that, but canon supports both - just one is better written and more fleshed out than the other, but that does not affect the validity of said canon in any way.
So, if we can't judge Guard training methods, why do you compare them to modern ones, namely the male/female physical tests? If you didn't judge them, then your point about IRL studies is irrelevant as the conditions of that study were not met in the 40k universe.
I am attempting to show that our universe should have as much bearing on the 40k one as other fiction universes have on the 40k one - ie, they don't.
Conditions of the study? The study is that women burn out faster than men when soldiering.
But you haven't answered my question: HOW does a Space Marine move faster than the speed of sound? HOW do Orks manifest a gestalt field? HOW can Space Marine aircraft such as the Stormtalon and Stormraven take off and fly with any degree of aerodynamics? No fictional explanation is given for these, yet you accept them.
Regardless, I use my fictional answer to the female guardsman issue - females are functionally the same as males in a warlike environment in the 40k universe, and can be deployed in exactly the same positions as men, as GW show.
Done.
So enjoy your fan-fiction. I'm not asking you to prove something to me.
But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
As for the Sisters, the Decree Passive is the only thing stopping them being male. Cut the Decree, and then men can join.
So, why should the Decree be held sancrosanct and cannot be changed, but the various reasons as to why a Space Marine is male should be?
The problem with this is that all the reasons are stated are in universe explanations. These can be entirely rewritten, just like other things has been rewritten.
For example the whole necron background were rewritten and the ctan shattered into pieces.
The same goes for the decree. you can rewrite it to be a matter of interpretation where one part of the ecchlesiarchy takes it literally thus employing the sisters, but one group interpretates it as no standing army but the preachers and missionarier should have the means to "defend" themselves, thus leading to enough arms to be coonsidered a standing army in everything but name, with the important bit of explicitly being for "self defense". Then you have an opening for a schism in the ecchlisiarchy as a whole.
the same goes for space marines. My point being you can make these things without losing the identity of the already existing chapters/factions if you want. Just because female space marines are added, that doesnt mean all the already existing chapters becomes genderswapped.
Thank you for essentially repeating what I said.
Yes, it CAN be rewritten. Should it? Not in my opinion. Marines are fine as all male, Sisters are fine as all female. Should Sisters receive more attention from GW? Yes.
(And yes, making a small group of a mono-gender faction the opposite gender DOES make the faction lose identity. What if there were an all-male order of "Sisters"? A group of peaceful, pacifist Orks? Tyranids that didn't follow the Hive Mind and didn't have animal instincts?
These all break set rules of fluff of their faction, and it does lessen the identity of it. Because at that point, are they really what they were? Is a pacifistic, peaceful, caring, weak pink skinned Ork still an Ork?)
I would say that i essentially didnt repeat what you said. I showed an exapmle where you can have the sisters faction and still open up another faction in the ecclisiarchy by just bringin up different interpretations that could happen opening up for more storiues in the ecclisiarchy.
This is not the same as the space marines who just blankly states NO GIRLS ALLOWED. There is no oppertunity for interpretation here, just a no.
My point was that you cant say there can be no female space marines because there exists an in universe explanation, because it can be rewritten. The fictional universe can be written anyway anytime so if the only limitation on female space marines is the fluff says no, and the fluff can be rewritten, then what is the problem here? Why cant there be female space marines? Non hive mind tyranids? Peaceful orks?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Actually, I believe you linked an article which mentions women can't be Space Marines?
Have you read it? I linked an article that explicitly says that canonically, the reason is “A wizard did it”. Not some text about marines being sons that is applied over-zealously.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, we're in 40k - magic is real, and it's called "whatever GW want to happen".
Have you even glanced at the page about “A wizard did it” I linked to? Because that's my point: just saying “A wizard did it” is a very convenient way to justify anything, and could just as easily be used to justify the opposite.
Because it throws a random arbitrary limitation for no reason, and I don't like this limitation.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is Sisters of Battle having a fluff reason to be mono-gender more valid than Space Marines having the same?
If you understood my position, what I am saying is that the fluff reason for Sisters of Battle to be mono-gender is directly linked to a really nice piece of the history of the Imperium that illustrate some of the most interesting aspects of the setting (and yet sadly one of the least developed currently too), while the lore justification for space marines being all male is literally ONE sentence in a WD article that has absolutely no relation with any other aspect of the lore and that just amounts to “A wizard did it”.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, alongside my interpretations (as I will concede) is the canon evidence of the Creation of a Space Marine article.
I am not sure why you are telling me when I am the one who mentioned it first…
No you didn't. You said something completely different from what I said. What I said was “[…]If you want to change any IP, you don't need to convince the current fans of the IP.[…]”. What you answered was “If one was to create Female Space Marines (thus changing the IP), why should Sisters of Battle not receive the same treatment and become polygender too?” which had nothing to do with what I said. I also said “The fandom can complain all they want, that's all fair and perfectly understandable, but when they start pretending that not taking their preferences in consideration was morally reprehensible, that's when they become entitled little crybullies.” and you answered with “After all, if GW decided to make male SoB, anyone who complained would be "entitled little crybabies", seeing as GW own the IP for Sisters.”. Reading failure much? And again, the whole reason why you wrote this is because you assumed I was against male Sisters of Battle.
Which is the same amount of canon support as, you guessed, the Decree Passive. When both reasons exist, I cannot see why one is valid, and the other not.
I explained a dozen time already the difference between the reason that is “A wizard did it” and the reason that is one of consequence from a huge, very detailed, very interesting event with a myriad of other implications for the setting. But yeah, let's pretend that it is a question of number. 1 = 1.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Thank you for assuming I haven't actually read my copy of the Sisters of Battle codex.
I didn't assume you had not read the Sisters of Battle codex. I assumed you didn't knew the event we were talking about, because WHAT YOU WROTE DELIBERATELY IGNORED SOME OF THE OFFICIAL CANON. From Codex: Sisters of Battle from 2nd edition, notably. That you have not read. Have you?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The law was passed to prevent military units under direct command of the Ecclesiarchy, yet because someone used gender specific pronouns, they went ahead and STILL created military units under direct command of the Ecclesiarchy. And no-one even batted an eyelid when they broke exactly what the Decree stood for.
And there is an official canon explanation for why no one batted an eyelid. Can you find that official canon explanation all by yourself? Hint, I ALREADY MENTIONED IT EXPLICITLY . So if you cannot find it then discussing with you is not worth my time and I'll stop. What good is it if you don't even read what I write?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, that doesn't mean I see the Creation of a Space Marine article as bad
I think you meant “that very specific one sentence from the Creation of a Space Marine” sentence, because unlike the Decree Passive, it has no relationship at all with any other part of the article, let alone any other piece of fluff. That is, once again, to show the amount of fluff that would be impacted by a retcon on female marines : ONE sentence. Not the whole WD article, not even two sentence of the WD article, literally ONE sentence from ONE article. Everything else works fine after the change.
Changing the Sisters to be mixed gender could work, but one would have to rewrite the whole Reign of Blood storyline to make it work. I mean, one could change the original cult of the Daughters of the Emperor to a mixed-gender one, and then the Decree Passive to just “The church cannot have an army except for the “Brides and Husbands of the Emperor”, but then you loose all the flavorful part of the “word of the law” vs “spirit of the law” thing. So if you want to keep all the flavor in, it requires a lot of work. Is it possible? Sure. But given that there is no-one pushing for it and that it requires a lot of work to rewrite stuff, while there are lots of people pushing for female space marines and it require no efforts at all (again, just remove one sentence and VOILA, you are done)…
I am still amazed at the amount of time and dedication several of you devote and display (respectively) to this topic and debating it between a few consistent parties. This isn't sarcastic, this is my genuine "harumph" of mild astonishment of the investment being made here.
deathmagiks wrote: I am still amazed at the amount of time and dedication several of you devote and display (respectively) to this topic and debating it between a few consistent parties. This isn't sarcastic, this is my genuine "harumph" of mild astonishment of the investment being made here.
Well who doesn't like ham-fisting a controversial discussion about women in the world at large into our pastime hobby with toy soldiers?
See...that's the problem. You think it's stupid. And I respect that, that's your opinion. But you're applying your own bias and demanding that someone else change their IP. Essentially, you're demanding the artist change the painting to fit your taste.
I've said a million times, I don't care if you (as in anyone) have female Space Marines in your little slice of 40K. But demanding it in the fluff proper because you think it's stupid shouldn't be a valid enough reason for it to happen.
As this is entirely based on opinion (even your argument that female space marines don't change/ruin anything), I'll simply finish with this. Sisters of Battle were created to be the female version of space marines. They retconned female space marines out of the fluff early on (there were female models in old days). Then retconned some fluff about some guy reading the rules and going "Ah! AH! Says no -men- under arms! Ahaha!" and boom, now we can have female "space marines" in the game which our fans have been clamoring for.
You call it this amazing piece of fluff. I call it lazy writing. It's literally the kind of thing where one of our fellow nerds is reading the 40K rule book and goes "Well see, it says you can charge up to 7 inches, not down 7 inches". Seriously, why would the Imperium suddenly go "Well gee, you found the loophole! You can keep your army!" when it's so freaking angsty about checks and balances? Of course, that goes into a different argument about the state of the current fluff, but that's a different argument.
So, if we can't judge Guard training methods, why do you compare them to modern ones, namely the male/female physical tests? If you didn't judge them, then your point about IRL studies is irrelevant as the conditions of that study were not met in the 40k universe.
I am attempting to show that our universe should have as much bearing on the 40k one as other fiction universes have on the 40k one - ie, they don't.
Conditions of the study? The study is that women burn out faster than men when soldiering.
No, the conditions of the study being that women from OUR universe were used. You are talking about the result of the study. Seeing as the women in the 40k universe are not the same as our women, why on earth can we expect the result to be the same? The 40k universe barely obeys the laws of physics, let alone gender.
But you haven't answered my question: HOW does a Space Marine move faster than the speed of sound? HOW do Orks manifest a gestalt field? HOW can Space Marine aircraft such as the Stormtalon and Stormraven take off and fly with any degree of aerodynamics? No fictional explanation is given for these, yet you accept them. Regardless, I use my fictional answer to the female guardsman issue - females are functionally the same as males in a warlike environment in the 40k universe, and can be deployed in exactly the same positions as men, as GW show. Done.
So enjoy your fan-fiction. I'm not asking you to prove something to me.
Why is your statement anything more than fanfiction?
But unlike other mixed gender factions, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the Space Marines are male - which I believe I mentioned in the Female Space Marine thread - which also reflect the dogmatic and byzantine nature of the Imperium.
As for the Sisters, the Decree Passive is the only thing stopping them being male. Cut the Decree, and then men can join.
So, why should the Decree be held sancrosanct and cannot be changed, but the various reasons as to why a Space Marine is male should be?
The problem with this is that all the reasons are stated are in universe explanations. These can be entirely rewritten, just like other things has been rewritten.
For example the whole necron background were rewritten and the ctan shattered into pieces.
The same goes for the decree. you can rewrite it to be a matter of interpretation where one part of the ecchlesiarchy takes it literally thus employing the sisters, but one group interpretates it as no standing army but the preachers and missionarier should have the means to "defend" themselves, thus leading to enough arms to be coonsidered a standing army in everything but name, with the important bit of explicitly being for "self defense". Then you have an opening for a schism in the ecchlisiarchy as a whole.
the same goes for space marines. My point being you can make these things without losing the identity of the already existing chapters/factions if you want. Just because female space marines are added, that doesnt mean all the already existing chapters becomes genderswapped.
Thank you for essentially repeating what I said.
Yes, it CAN be rewritten. Should it? Not in my opinion. Marines are fine as all male, Sisters are fine as all female. Should Sisters receive more attention from GW? Yes.
(And yes, making a small group of a mono-gender faction the opposite gender DOES make the faction lose identity. What if there were an all-male order of "Sisters"? A group of peaceful, pacifist Orks? Tyranids that didn't follow the Hive Mind and didn't have animal instincts? These all break set rules of fluff of their faction, and it does lessen the identity of it. Because at that point, are they really what they were? Is a pacifistic, peaceful, caring, weak pink skinned Ork still an Ork?)
I would say that i essentially didnt repeat what you said. I showed an exapmle where you can have the sisters faction and still open up another faction in the ecclisiarchy by just bringin up different interpretations that could happen opening up for more storiues in the ecclisiarchy.
This is not the same as the space marines who just blankly states NO GIRLS ALLOWED. There is no oppertunity for interpretation here, just a no.
My point was that you cant say there can be no female space marines because there exists an in universe explanation, because it can be rewritten. The fictional universe can be written anyway anytime so if the only limitation on female space marines is the fluff says no, and the fluff can be rewritten, then what is the problem here? Why cant there be female space marines? Non hive mind tyranids? Peaceful orks?
BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"? You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not. Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation. If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Actually, I believe you linked an article which mentions women can't be Space Marines?
Have you read it? I linked an article that explicitly says that canonically, the reason is “A wizard did it”. Not some text about marines being sons that is applied over-zealously.
Actually, canonically, it says "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." Not "a wizard did it". That's about as straight to the point as it gets - genetically, women are incapable, according to the article you linked.
Please use the correct quotes, if you're going to berate me for not doing the same.
No, it IS still canon, because the characters ALL refer, without fail, to Astartes as MALE. Not gender neutral - male. Your linked article just supports the same thing - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types."
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, we're in 40k - magic is real, and it's called "whatever GW want to happen".
Have you even glanced at the page about “A wizard did it” I linked to? Because that's my point: just saying “A wizard did it” is a very convenient way to justify anything, and could just as easily be used to justify the opposite.
And I quote you - "very convenient way to justify anything" - so, I can use the Wizard Did It card on the Sisters' organisation too? I mean, you happily ignore the canon you yourself linked - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." What is different between that and the Decree?
Because it throws a random arbitrary limitation for no reason, and I don't like this limitation.
What is to stop me from saying "The Decree Passive is a random arbitrary limitation which has no reason, so I don't think it should exist." I don't think your response answers my question at all, but I can't push you.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is Sisters of Battle having a fluff reason to be mono-gender more valid than Space Marines having the same?
If you understood my position, what I am saying is that the fluff reason for Sisters of Battle to be mono-gender is directly linked to a really nice piece of the history of the Imperium that illustrate some of the most interesting aspects of the setting (and yet sadly one of the least developed currently too), while the lore justification for space marines being all male is literally ONE sentence in a WD article that has absolutely no relation with any other aspect of the lore and that just amounts to “A wizard did it”.
No, the article you linked states a perfect valid reason that has no reference to wizards, and is purely genetic - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." Is genetics and biology sexist now? And why should the Space Marine one be any less important than the Sisters one? They're both canon. If quantity of fluff matters more, then I guess there's a lot of alien races that don't exist because the GW didn't write more about them...
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, alongside my interpretations (as I will concede) is the canon evidence of the Creation of a Space Marine article.
I am not sure why you are telling me when I am the one who mentioned it first…
And is also ignoring the canon evidence presented in their own article - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types."
No you didn't. You said something completely different from what I said. What I said was “[…]If you want to change any IP, you don't need to convince the current fans of the IP.[…]”. What you answered was “If one was to create Female Space Marines (thus changing the IP), why should Sisters of Battle not receive the same treatment and become polygender too?” which had nothing to do with what I said. I also said “The fandom can complain all they want, that's all fair and perfectly understandable, but when they start pretending that not taking their preferences in consideration was morally reprehensible, that's when they become entitled little crybullies.” and you answered with “After all, if GW decided to make male SoB, anyone who complained would be "entitled little crybabies", seeing as GW own the IP for Sisters.”. Reading failure much? And again, the whole reason why you wrote this is because you assumed I was against male Sisters of Battle.
I am sorry to disappoint, but the only person assuming here is you. I kindly ask that you stop accusing me of something I've not done.
Which is the same amount of canon support as, you guessed, the Decree Passive. When both reasons exist, I cannot see why one is valid, and the other not.
I explained a dozen time already the difference between the reason that is “A wizard did it” and the reason that is one of consequence from a huge, very detailed, very interesting event with a myriad of other implications for the setting. But yeah, let's pretend that it is a question of number. 1 = 1.
Why should one canon be more valid than another? It is stated as outright fact in the article you linked, nothing to do with wizards, and in just the same tone it affirms that Space Marine Neophytes need to be taken young - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." How is that at all a nebulous quote? It is solid, stated fact. Why is it so malleable to you, yet the Decree Passive, which is the ONLY reason Sisters can't have men, considered so sacrosanct? I think there's a bit of a double standard.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Thank you for assuming I haven't actually read my copy of the Sisters of Battle codex.
I didn't assume you had not read the Sisters of Battle codex. I assumed you didn't knew the event we were talking about, because WHAT YOU WROTE DELIBERATELY IGNORED SOME OF THE OFFICIAL CANON. From Codex: Sisters of Battle from 2nd edition, notably. That you have not read. Have you?
Sorry to disappoint, but I have. And I figured if you'd insert some reference about a wizard doing something, and actually ignoring the given reason ("They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types.") I could speak in much the same way. And really, how wrong am I?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The law was passed to prevent military units under direct command of the Ecclesiarchy, yet because someone used gender specific pronouns, they went ahead and STILL created military units under direct command of the Ecclesiarchy. And no-one even batted an eyelid when they broke exactly what the Decree stood for.
And there is an official canon explanation for why no one batted an eyelid. Can you find that official canon explanation all by yourself? Hint, I ALREADY MENTIONED IT EXPLICITLY . So if you cannot find it then discussing with you is not worth my time and I'll stop. What good is it if you don't even read what I write?
What is the use in ignoring the canon you yourself provide? I'll provide it again, for the sake of the argument - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." Is that not enough canon for you, and why do you see it as unworthy in your eyes?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, that doesn't mean I see the Creation of a Space Marine article as bad
I think you meant “that very specific one sentence from the Creation of a Space Marine” sentence, because unlike the Decree Passive, it has no relationship at all with any other part of the article, let alone any other piece of fluff. That is, once again, to show the amount of fluff that would be impacted by a retcon on female marines : ONE sentence. Not the whole WD article, not even two sentence of the WD article, literally ONE sentence from ONE article. Everything else works fine after the change. Changing the Sisters to be mixed gender could work, but one would have to rewrite the whole Reign of Blood storyline to make it work. I mean, one could change the original cult of the Daughters of the Emperor to a mixed-gender one, and then the Decree Passive to just “The church cannot have an army except for the “Brides and Husbands of the Emperor”, but then you loose all the flavorful part of the “word of the law” vs “spirit of the law” thing. So if you want to keep all the flavor in, it requires a lot of work. Is it possible? Sure. But given that there is no-one pushing for it and that it requires a lot of work to rewrite stuff, while there are lots of people pushing for female space marines and it require no efforts at all (again, just remove one sentence and VOILA, you are done)…
Yes, you might delete a sentence from the Space Marine lore and make them multigender. I won't dispute that. But all I have to do is change the word "men-under-arms" to "persons-under-arms", and then Sisters don't even exist at all. One WORD. Everything else works fine after that change.
Just one word - their entire existence is based on the fact that someone (let's say, A Wizard Did It) didn't take a class in Law or RAW, and said men instead of the gender neutral "persons". And you say Space Marine genes being incompatible with women is a stretch.
I would like to confirm again that I like Sisters of Battle. They make sense in lore, they are a unique presence on the table, far more deserving of a Faction slot than Grey Knights and Deathwatch, who I also have and equally enjoy. My argument here is purely in the sake of showing that Space Marines and Sisters of Battle have equal right to be mono-gender.
I have a rule: I ignore anybody's point if they link back to TVTropes as their citation.
The gyst of this entire debate is that nobody gives any sort of gak about women in 40K when it comes down to it. You have 5% of the gaming population who WILL NOT PLAY any army unless there is a female option, even if it's the same 3 models over and over and over. On the other hand, you have the 5% who will not run female models at all, unless there is some semblance of fluff background that necessitates female models. The rest of us? It's really irrelevant, with the exception of squashing a large amount of fluff because reasons. The rest is just the same bickering back and forth.
You forgot me. I play armies with no women at all (Chaos Space Marines is my main army, and I have a considerable amount.)
But I really really want an army with a decent amount of women who do not look stupid, and if it appeared, I would be likely to buy that army. They don't have to look like the lady in my avatar. I just want them to have armour that looks like armour.
Ashiraya wrote: You forgot me. I play armies with no women at all (Chaos Space Marines is my main army, and I have a considerable amount.)
But I really really want an army with a decent amount of women who do not look stupid, and if it appeared, I would be likely to buy that army. They don't have to look like the lade in my avatar. I just want them to have armour that looks like armour.
I fully support this. Beef up the Sisters' aesthetic, make it look and feel like proper power armour. And whilst we're at it, renew the entire Sisters' line. Emperor knows they need it.
Ashiraya wrote: You forgot me. I play armies with no women at all (Chaos Space Marines is my main army, and I have a considerable amount.)
But I really really want an army with a decent amount of women who do not look stupid, and if it appeared, I would be likely to buy that army. They don't have to look like the lade in my avatar. I just want them to have armour that looks like armour.
Death Korps, Scions with their masks on (arguable, but lets be a bit extreme), Elysians with rebreather masks (and even then...) would probably fit the bill. Could even go with Cadian using FW Respirators.
Bobthehero wrote: Death Korps, Scions with their masks on (arguable, but lets be a bit extreme), Elysians with rebreather masks (and even then...) would probably fit the bill. Could even go with Cadian using FW Respirators.
The problem with those is that they're not clearly women. I think Ashiraya is getting at female models that look more reserved in one or more of the factions we currently have where they would fit.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Lusall wrote: Then retconned some fluff about some guy reading the rules and going "Ah! AH! Says no -men- under arms! Ahaha!" and boom, now we can have female "space marines" in the game which our fans have been clamoring for.
You call it this amazing piece of fluff. I call it lazy writing. It's literally the kind of thing where one of our fellow nerds is reading the 40K rule book and goes "Well see, it says you can charge up to 7 inches, not down 7 inches". Seriously, why would the Imperium suddenly go "Well gee, you found the loophole! You can keep your army!" when it's so freaking angsty about checks and balances?
Damn, if you willfully ignore basically everything about the context of the Decree Passive, then the Decree Passive doesn't make sense! Maybe try not ignoring all this then? Have you tried it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, it IS still canon, because the characters ALL refer, without fail, to Astartes as MALE. Not gender neutral - male.
Isn't using the masculine form the usual way in English to refer to a mixed-gender group?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I mean, you happily ignore the canon you yourself linked - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." What is different between that and the Decree?
I already explained this. If you want to react to that explanation, you are welcome. But I won't repeat myself.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What is to stop me from saying "The Decree Passive is a random arbitrary limitation which has no reason, so I don't think it should exist."
Nothing. Nothing stops you from saying the Sun rises in the West and the sky is red with the color of the pancreas either.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, the article you linked states a perfect valid reason that has no reference to wizards, and is purely genetic - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." Is genetics and biology sexist now?
Ahah genetics. Valid. Omophagea. Valid genetics.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is it so malleable to you, yet the Decree Passive, which is the ONLY reason Sisters can't have men, considered so sacrosanct?
I already explained this. If you want to react to that explanation, you are welcome. But I won't repeat myself.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Is that not enough canon for you, and why do you see it as unworthy in your eyes?
I already explained this. If you want to react to that explanation, you are welcome. But I won't repeat myself.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But all I have to do is change the word "men-under-arms" to "persons-under-arms", and then Sisters don't even exist at all.
One WORD. Everything else works fine after that change.
If you wanted to do that. But no-one wants to do that. Too bad. I was answering the question about making Sisters mixed-gender, not making Sisters disappear.
(Also you forgot about needing to rewrite every bit of fluff that involved the Sisters of Battle so your example doesn't even work at all lol)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: My argument here is purely in the sake of showing that Space Marines and Sisters of Battle have equal right to be mono-gender.
It is not working. The Sisters being mono-gendered is linked to interesting backstory, the Space Marines being mono-gendered is linked to literally one single sentence of techno-babble in an article that present organs that make no damn sense. You can't refute that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Holy cow, you're a 7 foot tall genetic supersoldier? No? Then the Marines don't represent you as it stands. We're talking about escapism science fiction at an inch tall on a gameboard, If you want representation, then sculpt an exact replica of yourself and come up with rules from a generic commander. There's no Lithuanian American disabled veteran musician artist Transformers collectors in the fiction, I demand that every army have a character that fits that bill because, you know, representation. I already have minis that evoke my look in a few armies, so I have that covered. You don't need the background rewritten to simply be able to say "See that one inch model? That's me, undisputedly!" You can do that within the rules of the game and write your own fluff. Does nobody get this?
Lusall wrote: Then retconned some fluff about some guy reading the rules and going "Ah! AH! Says no -men- under arms! Ahaha!" and boom, now we can have female "space marines" in the game which our fans have been clamoring for.
You call it this amazing piece of fluff. I call it lazy writing. It's literally the kind of thing where one of our fellow nerds is reading the 40K rule book and goes "Well see, it says you can charge up to 7 inches, not down 7 inches". Seriously, why would the Imperium suddenly go "Well gee, you found the loophole! You can keep your army!" when it's so freaking angsty about checks and balances?
Damn, if you willfully ignore basically everything about the context of the Decree Passive, then the Decree Passive doesn't make sense! Maybe try not ignoring all this then? Have you tried it?
No...no I get it. I'm just saying it's not that clever. It's the dumbest excuse they could come up with to make a female space marine army. Seriously...why, after all the blood that was spilled in the age of apostasy, would the High Lords of Terra make a rule saying the Ecclesiarchy can't have an army, only to forget all that and go "Dang man. That's super dope clever. No men under arms. But they're women. So smart of you...guess you can have your army bro"?
But all of this has gone completely off track. If you want female space marines in your army...knock yourself out. I literally couldn't care. But for the fluff proper there are plenty of good reasons to explain why females can't be a space marine that aren't "It's sexist".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Holy cow, you're a 7 foot tall genetic supersoldier? No? Then the Marines don't represent you as it stands. We're talking about escapism science fiction at an inch tall on a gameboard, If you want representation, then sculpt an exact replica of yourself and come up with rules from a generic commander. There's no Lithuanian American disabled veteran musician artist Transformers collectors in the fiction, I demand that every army have a character that fits that bill because, you know, representation. I already have minis that evoke my look in a few armies, so I have that covered. You don't need the background rewritten to simply be able to say "See that one inch model? That's me, undisputedly!" You can do that within the rules of the game and write your own fluff. Does nobody get this?
Self-insertion and representation is not the same thing. Representation is that games workshop acknowledges that women may want to represent themselves as something other than zealous battle nuns in corsets or aliens. Its easy to find something to represent you if you share gender with the vast majority of the tabletop. Why are you so adamant to not have the background rewritten but then say that if you dont feel represented, in the case of female space marines, you have to rewrite the fluff?
Lusall wrote: Then retconned some fluff about some guy reading the rules and going "Ah! AH! Says no -men- under arms! Ahaha!" and boom, now we can have female "space marines" in the game which our fans have been clamoring for.
You call it this amazing piece of fluff. I call it lazy writing. It's literally the kind of thing where one of our fellow nerds is reading the 40K rule book and goes "Well see, it says you can charge up to 7 inches, not down 7 inches". Seriously, why would the Imperium suddenly go "Well gee, you found the loophole! You can keep your army!" when it's so freaking angsty about checks and balances?
Damn, if you willfully ignore basically everything about the context of the Decree Passive, then the Decree Passive doesn't make sense! Maybe try not ignoring all this then? Have you tried it?
No...no I get it. I'm just saying it's not that clever. It's the dumbest excuse they could come up with to make a female space marine army. Seriously...why, after all the blood that was spilled in the age of apostasy, would the High Lords of Terra make a rule saying the Ecclesiarchy can't have an army, only to forget all that and go "Dang man. That's super dope clever. No men under arms. But they're women. So smart of you...guess you can have your army bro"?
But all of this has gone completely off track. If you want female space marines in your army...knock yourself out. I literally couldn't care. But for the fluff proper there are plenty of good reasons to explain why females can't be a space marine that aren't "It's sexist".
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. For a regime so paranoid about betrayal and order, they sure seem fine with the Church flagrantly disregarding one of their laws. Maybe its because the SoB isn't really an army, as they are supposed to be less numerous than marines, but then why would they be presented as a stand alone army with armored vehicles?
I mean, its a cool concept and I do like the Baroque aesthetic, but its really one of the weaker parts of the IoM's lore.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
But they are/can be represented in every other gendered field aside from Space Marines. If GW got up and did something about the existing lore, we could have female Guardsmen, Eldar, Tau and an updated Sisters range. Space Marines and their variants are the ONLY all male groups, and I would fully support if GW toned down the Space Marine love for the sake of the regular humans.
And can I use this same argument to have male Sisters of Battle? Could you give me an out-of-universe argument as to why GW shouldn't have male SOBs?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Lusall wrote: Then retconned some fluff about some guy reading the rules and going "Ah! AH! Says no -men- under arms! Ahaha!" and boom, now we can have female "space marines" in the game which our fans have been clamoring for.
You call it this amazing piece of fluff. I call it lazy writing. It's literally the kind of thing where one of our fellow nerds is reading the 40K rule book and goes "Well see, it says you can charge up to 7 inches, not down 7 inches". Seriously, why would the Imperium suddenly go "Well gee, you found the loophole! You can keep your army!" when it's so freaking angsty about checks and balances?
Damn, if you willfully ignore basically everything about the context of the Decree Passive, then the Decree Passive doesn't make sense! Maybe try not ignoring all this then? Have you tried it?
Yes, but considering the Imperium's level of paranoia and angst about so many issues - case in point, Inquisitor Karamazov - why on earth was the Decree passed with such an obvious fault?
I'm not ignoring the context, I'm well aware of it. I'm just saying that it's almost as if the loophole was left in (you might even say by a Wizard) to allow for the Sisters of Battle to be all female, and not because it's a natural event.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, it IS still canon, because the characters ALL refer, without fail, to Astartes as MALE. Not gender neutral - male.
Isn't using the masculine form the usual way in English to refer to a mixed-gender group?
Not in my experience. Children of the Emperor is gender neutral. Sons of the Emperor is not.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I mean, you happily ignore the canon you yourself linked - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." What is different between that and the Decree?
I already explained this. If you want to react to that explanation, you are welcome. But I won't repeat myself.
And I offered a counterargument. You have yet to make a counterargument which doesn't involve a wizard's interference.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What is to stop me from saying "The Decree Passive is a random arbitrary limitation which has no reason, so I don't think it should exist."
Nothing. Nothing stops you from saying the Sun rises in the West and the sky is red with the color of the pancreas either.
So really, it's not a very valid argument, is it? Not to mention it also applies to your own comment on "random arbitrary limitations".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, the article you linked states a perfect valid reason that has no reference to wizards, and is purely genetic - "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types." Is genetics and biology sexist now?
Ahah genetics. Valid. Omophagea. Valid genetics.
I'm sorry, since when was the Omophagea the only implant? There's 18 more.
And last I checked, females did have different hormone and tissue types to men. Making it a perfectly valid biological difference which affects Space Marine biology. Is that sexist?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is it so malleable to you, yet the Decree Passive, which is the ONLY reason Sisters can't have men, considered so sacrosanct?
I already explained this. If you want to react to that explanation, you are welcome. But I won't repeat myself.
And I offered a counterargument. You have yet to make a counterargument which doesn't involve a wizard's interference. And said wizardly interference ALSO applies to your own argument.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Is that not enough canon for you, and why do you see it as unworthy in your eyes?
I already explained this. If you want to react to that explanation, you are welcome. But I won't repeat myself.
And I offered a counterargument. You have yet to make a counterargument which doesn't involve a wizard's interference. As it stands, you apply the Wizard Did It card to anything you don't seem to support, creating a rather large double standard. Why is the Decree Passive exempt from the Wizard Did It card?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But all I have to do is change the word "men-under-arms" to "persons-under-arms", and then Sisters don't even exist at all.
One WORD. Everything else works fine after that change.
If you wanted to do that. But no-one wants to do that. Too bad. I was answering the question about making Sisters mixed-gender, not making Sisters disappear.
(Also you forgot about needing to rewrite every bit of fluff that involved the Sisters of Battle so your example doesn't even work at all lol)
Actually, by causal effect, removing the inception of the Sisters would, by nature, delete all reference of the Sisters. I'm talking about this from an in-universe reasoning, which is what I care about. There is an in-universe reason for both factions being mono-gender, therefore I support both factions being mono-gender.
And I already disproved you in that there are people who want male SOBs. "Too bad."
I was showing how if you're going to change small details, I only need to change a word to delete Sisters. It's that simple. Their existence hinges on someone being unable to write laws - which I can imagine you would use the Wizard Did It card if you wanted to remove Sisters with the same passion you want to rewrite Marine fluff.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: My argument here is purely in the sake of showing that Space Marines and Sisters of Battle have equal right to be mono-gender.
It is not working. The Sisters being mono-gendered is linked to interesting backstory, the Space Marines being mono-gendered is linked to literally one single sentence of techno-babble in an article that present organs that make no damn sense. You can't refute that.
But they are both canon, so are therefore both acceptable reasons.
Sisters backstory relies on someone not writing laws properly. Space Marine backstory hinges on GW's biology laws. They are the same.
Not to mention "interesting" is an opinion, unlike the fact of female incompatibility to Astartes genetic material.
If you're talking about things not making sense, please explain how the Decree Passive was passed as a law when the author of it seems to have no actual law training.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Holy cow, you're a 7 foot tall genetic supersoldier? No? Then the Marines don't represent you as it stands. We're talking about escapism science fiction at an inch tall on a gameboard, If you want representation, then sculpt an exact replica of yourself and come up with rules from a generic commander. There's no Lithuanian American disabled veteran musician artist Transformers collectors in the fiction, I demand that every army have a character that fits that bill because, you know, representation. I already have minis that evoke my look in a few armies, so I have that covered. You don't need the background rewritten to simply be able to say "See that one inch model? That's me, undisputedly!" You can do that within the rules of the game and write your own fluff. Does nobody get this?
Self-insertion and representation is not the same thing. Representation is that games workshop acknowledges that women may want to represent themselves as something other than zealous battle nuns in corsets or aliens. Its easy to find something to represent you if you share gender with the vast majority of the tabletop. Why are you so adamant to not have the background rewritten but then say that if you dont feel represented, in the case of female space marines, you have to rewrite the fluff?
So, I want to see Chaos Space Marines that follow the Emperor. Khorne Bloodletters that worship Nurgle. Direct contradictions of what actually MAKES them possible. Because representation doesn't care about established fluff, right?
Representation is fine, so long as it obeys in-universe laws. Otherwise, what's the point of having established rules (ie, Decree Passive and female incompatibility with gene-seed) if you wave the "Representation" stick around and bypass that?
And funnily enough, women should be lore represented in EVERY GENDERED ARMY except Space Marines. Only Space Marines deny female entry. So aside from Space Marines, who get far too much publicity, there should be more than enough female representation in gendered armies (so Daemons, Tyranids, Orks, and to some extent Necrons, whose form doesn't change, but fluffwise can be female - see the leader of the Maynarkh Dynasty).
Lusall wrote: Then retconned some fluff about some guy reading the rules and going "Ah! AH! Says no -men- under arms! Ahaha!" and boom, now we can have female "space marines" in the game which our fans have been clamoring for.
You call it this amazing piece of fluff. I call it lazy writing. It's literally the kind of thing where one of our fellow nerds is reading the 40K rule book and goes "Well see, it says you can charge up to 7 inches, not down 7 inches". Seriously, why would the Imperium suddenly go "Well gee, you found the loophole! You can keep your army!" when it's so freaking angsty about checks and balances?
Damn, if you willfully ignore basically everything about the context of the Decree Passive, then the Decree Passive doesn't make sense! Maybe try not ignoring all this then? Have you tried it?
No...no I get it. I'm just saying it's not that clever. It's the dumbest excuse they could come up with to make a female space marine army. Seriously...why, after all the blood that was spilled in the age of apostasy, would the High Lords of Terra make a rule saying the Ecclesiarchy can't have an army, only to forget all that and go "Dang man. That's super dope clever. No men under arms. But they're women. So smart of you...guess you can have your army bro"?
But all of this has gone completely off track. If you want female space marines in your army...knock yourself out. I literally couldn't care. But for the fluff proper there are plenty of good reasons to explain why females can't be a space marine that aren't "It's sexist".
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. For a regime so paranoid about betrayal and order, they sure seem fine with the Church flagrantly disregarding one of their laws. Maybe its because the SoB isn't really an army, as they are supposed to be less numerous than marines, but then why would they be presented as a stand alone army with armored vehicles?
I mean, its a cool concept and I do like the Baroque aesthetic, but its really one of the weaker parts of the IoM's lore.
Very much this. I have no real issue with the Decree Passive, but if people will ignore the Marine fluff to justify one idea, the inverse should also be true. Seriously, it's almost as if by some Deus Ex Machina that they didn't have anyone who could write proper laws and used a gender specific pronoun instead of a neutral one.
Bobthehero wrote: Death Korps, Scions with their masks on (arguable, but lets be a bit extreme), Elysians with rebreather masks (and even then...) would probably fit the bill. Could even go with Cadian using FW Respirators.
The problem with those is that they're not clearly women. I think Ashiraya is getting at female models that look more reserved in one or more of the factions we currently have where they would fit.
To clarify, taking a male model with no skin showing and claiming it is female is really not good enough. Some claim to be unable to tell the difference, but I certainly can.
I do not want something like helmeted female space marines. The difference is invisible and irrelevant from a model standpoint. I want something like this.
''Male models'' They're genderless, if you see everything as male by default, its your own problem.
Personally, I can't stand that stupid trope about wearing full armor without wearing at least some sort of head protection, and the visor in your screenshots sure as hell don't do it.
Do you have a better term than male model for 'model designed to look male'?
The DKoK are closest with a 'maybe' but even then complete androgynousness is not what I am after. I don't have a problem with a model whose sex is identifiable, I just want some gosh darn nuance!
As for the example, it was just an example. A helm works too. But I like the visor.
Bobthehero wrote: Death Korps, Scions with their masks on (arguable, but lets be a bit extreme), Elysians with rebreather masks (and even then...) would probably fit the bill. Could even go with Cadian using FW Respirators.
The problem with those is that they're not clearly women. I think Ashiraya is getting at female models that look more reserved in one or more of the factions we currently have where they would fit.
To clarify, taking a male model with no skin showing and claiming it is female is really not good enough. Some claim to be unable to tell the difference, but I certainly can.
I do not want something like helmeted female space marines. The difference is invisible and irrelevant from a model standpoint. I want something like this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
But they are/can be represented in every other gendered field aside from Space Marines. If GW got up and did something about the existing lore, we could have female Guardsmen, Eldar, Tau and an updated Sisters range. Space Marines and their variants are the ONLY all male groups, and I would fully support if GW toned down the Space Marine love for the sake of the regular humans.
And can I use this same argument to have male Sisters of Battle? Could you give me an out-of-universe argument as to why GW shouldn't have male SOBs?
Well if the game opened up abit and female representation was more widespread in the miniatures range with things like female space marines then i have no problem with adding male sisters of battle. But just adding male sisters without this is just a slap in the face considering how many female models there is in the game.
I personally think that the sisters being the only armed force of the ecclisiarchy is immensly stupid, and would welcome such a change to diversify the ecclisiarchy as a faction. But i also realise the problems with it coonsidering the situation were in now.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, I want to see Chaos Space Marines that follow the Emperor. Khorne Bloodletters that worship Nurgle. Direct contradictions of what actually MAKES them possible. Because representation doesn't care about established fluff, right?
Representation is fine, so long as it obeys in-universe laws. Otherwise, what's the point of having established rules (ie, Decree Passive and female incompatibility with gene-seed) if you wave the "Representation" stick around and bypass that?
And funnily enough, women should be lore represented in EVERY GENDERED ARMY except Space Marines. Only Space Marines deny female entry. So aside from Space Marines, who get far too much publicity, there should be more than enough female representation in gendered armies (so Daemons, Tyranids, Orks, and to some extent Necrons, whose form doesn't change, but fluffwise can be female - see the leader of the Maynarkh Dynasty).
If there actually was khorne deamons who would object to the depiction of their champion then it would be a problem with representation. Only, Khorne daemons dont exist and women do, wich means your example isnt representation at all.
Another question is also what purpose the gender restriction serves for the faction as a whole, with only dark angels actually having inspiration from something that involve their gender.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It never set Marines apart in a universe where male are hardly rare. Being all-male never featured heavily in their identity
A fairly convenient bit of tailchasing you've done to reason this one out. Sisters of Battle have gender as their identity but the Battle Brothers of the Space Marines don't have gender as an identity. Because reasons, or something.
Except that their lack of sexuality does indeed specifically define them in the 40K lore. The fact that they have multiple sub-themes like being space furries or vampires doesn't set some incredible differentiation from the Sisters of Battle who only have one theme: being Angry Space Nuns.
If being the "Sisters" of Battle is enough to establish gender identity, then being Battle "Brothers" is more than enough to establish the Space Marines. Heck, the entire story of Space Marines dating back to the Heresy has focused around the Father/Son relationships between Emperor and Primarchs, and between the Primarchs and the Marines, because each had in turn been made in the image of the previous. There's literally one throwaway line about "No men under arms" that rationalizes the Sisters of Battle as all-female. The entire mythology of 40K is about the tragedy of the Space Marines /Primarchs and their relationship with their fathers, as well as their inability to understand human conventions of sexuality, love, etc because for them there is no differentiation among their kind. The establishment of gender identity of the Space Marines is right there in the forefront of the lore. Pretending that doesn't exist is kinda silly.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"? You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not. Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation. If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
But they are/can be represented in every other gendered field aside from Space Marines. If GW got up and did something about the existing lore, we could have female Guardsmen, Eldar, Tau and an updated Sisters range. Space Marines and their variants are the ONLY all male groups, and I would fully support if GW toned down the Space Marine love for the sake of the regular humans.
And can I use this same argument to have male Sisters of Battle? Could you give me an out-of-universe argument as to why GW shouldn't have male SOBs?
Well if the game opened up abit and female representation was more widespread in the miniatures range with things like female space marines then i have no problem with adding male sisters of battle. But just adding male sisters without this is just a slap in the face considering how many female models there is in the game.
But why specifically female Space Marines, and not just every other faction that has no reason not have female models? Why do you want to change the ONE faction (and subgroupings) who explicitly don't have females?
Why are Space Marines so important that they must be changed to be polygender?
I personally think that the sisters being the only armed force of the ecclisiarchy is immensly stupid, and would welcome such a change to diversify the ecclisiarchy as a faction. But i also realise the problems with it coonsidering the situation were in now.
Except that the ONLY reason the Ecclesiarchy can even have soldiers in the first place is because of an oversight in the Decree Passive. That oversight ONLY allows for female soldiers, and frankly, one might argue it's stupid that the Ecclesiarchy were even allowed to get away with the Sisters as their army.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, I want to see Chaos Space Marines that follow the Emperor. Khorne Bloodletters that worship Nurgle. Direct contradictions of what actually MAKES them possible. Because representation doesn't care about established fluff, right?
Representation is fine, so long as it obeys in-universe laws. Otherwise, what's the point of having established rules (ie, Decree Passive and female incompatibility with gene-seed) if you wave the "Representation" stick around and bypass that? And funnily enough, women should be lore represented in EVERY GENDERED ARMY except Space Marines. Only Space Marines deny female entry. So aside from Space Marines, who get far too much publicity, there should be more than enough female representation in gendered armies (so Daemons, Tyranids, Orks, and to some extent Necrons, whose form doesn't change, but fluffwise can be female - see the leader of the Maynarkh Dynasty).
If there actually was khorne deamons who would object to the depiction of their champion then it would be a problem with representation. Only, Khorne daemons dont exist and women do, wich means your example isnt representation at all.
Ah, if there were Space Marines who object to the depiction of them only as females... Funnily enough, Space Marines don't exist - which is the exact argument you used on the Khorne Daemons situation.
Women exist IRL. Space Marines do not exist IRL. Women can be depicted in 40k, because they exist IRL. Space Marine women cannot, because Space Marine women do not exist IRL.
Another question is also what purpose the gender restriction serves for the faction as a whole, with only dark angels actually having inspiration from something that involve their gender.
I ask you the same question - what purpose does the gender restriction have on the Sisters?
Lusall wrote: It's the dumbest excuse they could come up with to make a female space marine army. Seriously...why, after all the blood that was spilled in the age of apostasy, would the High Lords of Terra make a rule saying the Ecclesiarchy can't have an army, only to forget all that and go "Dang man. That's super dope clever. No men under arms. But they're women. So smart of you...guess you can have your army bro"?
That is where you got things wrong. They explicitly didn't forget it. Sebastian Thor pushed them to accept the formulation knowing full well that it would therefore allow him to keep Sisters of Battle. The fact they had just saved the day explicitly played a part too.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm talking about this from an in-universe reasoning, which is what I care about.
Oh, I guess that's the problem here. I care for out-of-universe stuff. Because out of universe stuff is the reason why we do things.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And I already disproved you in that there are people who want male SOBs.
Sure you did. There is a huge, very relevant of people who want male SoB and I know because you told me some pals of you that don't have the internet do want male SoB.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why do you want to change the ONE faction (and subgroupings) who explicitly don't have females?
You mean half the range of the game?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that the ONLY reason the Ecclesiarchy can even have soldiers in the first place is because of an oversight in the Decree Passive.
Where you say it's an oversight, I say it's a deliberate way to save face. I just wish I was at my place with my 2nd ed codex to give you a precise quote and be done with it…
Another question is also what purpose the gender restriction serves for the faction as a whole, with only dark angels actually having inspiration from something that involve their gender.
I ask you the same question - what purpose does the gender restriction have on the Sisters?
The answer seems to be in the question already.
Ashiraya wrote: To clarify, taking a male model with no skin showing and claiming it is female is really not good enough.
Works for me. Shadowsun, for instance, could be just that.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Except that their lack of sexuality does indeed specifically define them in the 40K lore.
Except for Space Wolves ? I'll note that not many faction in 40k get any development on their sexuality, though. Not much sexy in the IG, the Mechanicus, the Sororitas, the Orks, the Tau, …
Veteran Sergeant wrote: The fact that they have multiple sub-themes like being space furries or vampires doesn't set some incredible differentiation from the Sisters of Battle who only have one theme: being Angry Space Nuns.
The fact of having hundreds of different and incompatible sub-themes doesn't differentiate them from Sisters who don't have any? Hum, okay, if you say so.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Heck, the entire story of Space Marines dating back to the Heresy has focused around the Father/Son relationships between Emperor and Primarchs, and between the Primarchs and the Marines, because each had in turn been made in the image of the previous. There's literally one throwaway line about "No men under arms" that rationalizes the Sisters of Battle as all-female. The entire mythology of 40K is about the tragedy of the Space Marines /Primarchs and their relationship with their fathers, as well as their inability to understand human conventions of sexuality, love, etc because for them there is no differentiation among their kind. The establishment of gender identity of the Space Marines is right there in the forefront of the lore. Pretending that doesn't exist is kinda silly.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say right there. Is it some kind of idea about father/son relationships?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm talking about this from an in-universe reasoning, which is what I care about.
Oh, I guess that's the problem here. I care for out-of-universe stuff. Because out of universe stuff is the reason why we do things.
But we change things that are in-universe. And those two universe are separate, because one is FANTASY, and therefore is not indicative of reality.
But still - neither argument is more correct than the other.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And I already disproved you in that there are people who want male SOBs.
Sure you did. There is a huge, very relevant of people who want male SoB and I know because you told me some pals of you that don't have the internet do want male SoB.
Actually, I appear to have encountered equal measures of both. You just appear to be "telling me some pals of yours" who want female Space Marines. And it's not number that matters, it's what affects GW.
Regardless of that, you actually accepted my proving of people who wanted male SOBs with a "Meh." You didn't contest it one bit.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why do you want to change the ONE faction (and subgroupings) who explicitly don't have females?
You mean half the range of the game?
If you actually read my comments, you'd see that I do not support the prevalence of Space Marines, and would welcome their reduction.
And again, from an in-universe perspective, because we are going to affect in-universe issues, Space Marines are a relatively small organisation. So, from an in-universe perspective, explain to me why Space Marines should change.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that the ONLY reason the Ecclesiarchy can even have soldiers in the first place is because of an oversight in the Decree Passive.
Where you say it's an oversight, I say it's a deliberate way to save face. I just wish I was at my place with my 2nd ed codex to give you a precise quote and be done with it…
Nope, as far as I can recall, the main reason given is that someone (perhaps these wizards you seem obsessed with, who knows) used a gender specific pronoun.
In fact, I can quote you from the codex.
Sisters of Battle 2nd Edition Codex wrote:Other transformations were at the order of the High Lords of Terra. The most important of these was the Decree Passive 00001288/M36. Amongst other prohibitions on military activity, the Decree Passive forbade the Ecclesiarchy from controlling any "Men under arms" ... This was duly done, but for one exception. Seeing that some military force would be needed, and not wishing the Ecclesiarchy to be totally subservient to the will of the Adeptus Terra and the Imperial Guard, Sebastian Thor kept the one army he was allowed under the Decree Passive. Due to the archaic wording of the law, the Daughters of the Emperor did not break the ban.
Emphasis mine. The High Lords used an "archaic wording" - an oversight - giving Thor a loophole.
Another question is also what purpose the gender restriction serves for the faction as a whole, with only dark angels actually having inspiration from something that involve their gender.
I ask you the same question - what purpose does the gender restriction have on the Sisters?
The answer seems to be in the question already.
I don't see why their name as Sisters means anything, especially coming from the person who said that the masculine naming of Space Marines wasn't relevant. Purely as an unnamed organisation, what purpose does the gender restriction have on the Adeptas Sororitas?
And seeing as you haven't appeared to address any of the comments on this general theme: "What is different between (Space Marine genetics being incompatible with women) and the Decree? You have yet to make a counterargument which doesn't involve a wizard's interference."
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
But they are/can be represented in every other gendered field aside from Space Marines. If GW got up and did something about the existing lore, we could have female Guardsmen, Eldar, Tau and an updated Sisters range. Space Marines and their variants are the ONLY all male groups, and I would fully support if GW toned down the Space Marine love for the sake of the regular humans.
And can I use this same argument to have male Sisters of Battle? Could you give me an out-of-universe argument as to why GW shouldn't have male SOBs?
Well if the game opened up abit and female representation was more widespread in the miniatures range with things like female space marines then i have no problem with adding male sisters of battle. But just adding male sisters without this is just a slap in the face considering how many female models there is in the game.
But why specifically female Space Marines, and not just every other faction that has no reason not have female models? Why do you want to change the ONE faction (and subgroupings) who explicitly don't have females?
Why are Space Marines so important that they must be changed to be polygender?
I actually said the whole game as in every faction and the female space marines was just an example, i dont know why you are talking like i was stating that only the space marines would change and no other.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ah, if there were Space Marines who object to the depiction of them only as females...
Funnily enough, Space Marines don't exist - which is the exact argument you used on the Khorne Daemons situation.
Women exist IRL. Space Marines do not exist IRL. Women can be depicted in 40k, because they exist IRL. Space Marine women cannot, because Space Marine women do not exist IRL.
Im not entirely sure what you mean by that reasoning, but i was pointing out that the example wasnt representation because neither space marines nor khorne daemons is a minority in our society that hasnt been represented well. The reason why space marines was written that way and sisters too could almost certainly have stemmed from these very real issues.
I ask you the same question - what purpose does the gender restriction have on the Sisters?
Well i already stated that i think the restrictions are uneeded and i was in favor of opening up every faction for mixed 50/50 gender ratio.
I am completely at loss at what your point is here.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You just appear to be "telling me some pals of yours" who want female Space Marines.
I never said that. I didn't have too. There is a number of people that vocally call for it online and that I have never even met. But I wrote “Meh” so that settles it, those people you talk about definitely exists and are revelant.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, from an in-universe perspective, explain to me why Space Marines should change.
Why would I do that we neither you nor I live in-universe? Is it some roleplay thing you want me to do? If so I'll just burn you to death for heresy, it's the way we do it in-universe .
Sisters of Battle 2nd Edition Codex wrote:Other transformations were at the order of the High Lords of Terra. The most important of these was the Decree Passive 00001288/M36. Amongst other prohibitions on military activity, the Decree Passive forbade the Ecclesiarchy from controlling any "Men under arms" ... This was duly done, but for one exception. Seeing that some military force would be needed, and not wishing the Ecclesiarchy to be totally subservient to the will of the Adeptus Terra and the Imperial Guard, Sebastian Thor kept the one army he was allowed under the Decree Passive. Due to the archaic wording of the law, the Daughters of the Emperor did not break the ban.
Emphasis mine. The High Lords used an "archaic wording" - an oversight - giving Thor a loophole.
It doesn't say that the archaic wording was an oversight, did it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't see why their name as Sisters means anything, especially coming from the person who said that the masculine naming of Space Marines wasn't relevant.
I don't think it had anything to do with the Dark Angel's name either. Did it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And seeing as you haven't appeared to address any of the comments on this general theme: "What is different between (Space Marine genetics being incompatible with women) and the Decree? You have yet to make a counterargument which doesn't involve a wizard's interference."
Yeah. I am done with this. You ignored all the counter-arguments I gave you, no point in mentioning again how one is a random one-liner of pseudo-science with no link to the rest of the lore and the other one is deeply intertwined with it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't see why their name as Sisters means anything, especially coming from the person who said that the masculine naming of Space Marines wasn't relevant.
I don't think it had anything to do with the Dark Angel's name either. Did it?
Well technically, the name Dark Angels is implied to be a masculine name considering the context in which the name originated.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"? You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not. Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation. If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
But they are/can be represented in every other gendered field aside from Space Marines. If GW got up and did something about the existing lore, we could have female Guardsmen, Eldar, Tau and an updated Sisters range. Space Marines and their variants are the ONLY all male groups, and I would fully support if GW toned down the Space Marine love for the sake of the regular humans.
And can I use this same argument to have male Sisters of Battle? Could you give me an out-of-universe argument as to why GW shouldn't have male SOBs?
Well if the game opened up abit and female representation was more widespread in the miniatures range with things like female space marines then i have no problem with adding male sisters of battle. But just adding male sisters without this is just a slap in the face considering how many female models there is in the game.
But why specifically female Space Marines, and not just every other faction that has no reason not have female models? Why do you want to change the ONE faction (and subgroupings) who explicitly don't have females?
Why are Space Marines so important that they must be changed to be polygender?
I actually said the whole game as in every faction and the female space marines was just an example, i dont know why you are talking like i was stating that only the space marines would change and no other.
But the game can open up to have more female representation without even involving the Space Marines. You don't even need to change the Space Marines to do it. That's my whole argument - female representation is good, except in the one place it doesn't make sense - the Space Marines.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ah, if there were Space Marines who object to the depiction of them only as females... Funnily enough, Space Marines don't exist - which is the exact argument you used on the Khorne Daemons situation.
Women exist IRL. Space Marines do not exist IRL. Women can be depicted in 40k, because they exist IRL. Space Marine women cannot, because Space Marine women do not exist IRL.
Im not entirely sure what you mean by that reasoning, but i was pointing out that the example wasnt representation because neither space marines nor khorne daemons is a minority in our society that hasnt been represented well. The reason why space marines was written that way and sisters too could almost certainly have stemmed from these very real issues.
But those issues do not exist in 40k. Space Marines do not need female representatives, because in your own argument - there are no Space Marines, female or otherwise, that are asking to be represented.
I ask you the same question - what purpose does the gender restriction have on the Sisters?
Well i already stated that i think the restrictions are uneeded and i was in favor of opening up every faction for mixed 50/50 gender ratio.
Or, have two factions, just two, that are monogendered, which counteract eachother. You know, like we have now?
I am completely at loss at what your point is here.
My point is that in-universe matters. In-universe issues like the Decree Passive and female genetic incompatibility.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You just appear to be "telling me some pals of yours" who want female Space Marines.
I never said that. I didn't have too. There is a number of people that vocally call for it online and that I have never even met. But I wrote “Meh” so that settles it, those people you talk about definitely exists and are revelant.
Well, you admit it then. My thanks.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, from an in-universe perspective, explain to me why Space Marines should change.
Why would I do that we neither you nor I live in-universe? Is it some roleplay thing you want me to do? If so I'll just burn you to death for heresy, it's the way we do it in-universe .
If the meaning behind my message wasn't clear, I shall re-iterate. Using solely in-universe logic, devoid of any IRL concerns, why should Space Marines change?
Sisters of Battle 2nd Edition Codex wrote:Other transformations were at the order of the High Lords of Terra. The most important of these was the Decree Passive 00001288/M36. Amongst other prohibitions on military activity, the Decree Passive forbade the Ecclesiarchy from controlling any "Men under arms" ... This was duly done, but for one exception. Seeing that some military force would be needed, and not wishing the Ecclesiarchy to be totally subservient to the will of the Adeptus Terra and the Imperial Guard, Sebastian Thor kept the one army he was allowed under the Decree Passive. Due to the archaic wording of the law, the Daughters of the Emperor did not break the ban.
Emphasis mine. The High Lords used an "archaic wording" - an oversight - giving Thor a loophole.
It doesn't say that the archaic wording was an oversight, did it?
But it was not a foreseen and discussed permission of the HLOT - it was a fault of "archaic wording" - not a predisposed permission.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't see why their name as Sisters means anything, especially coming from the person who said that the masculine naming of Space Marines wasn't relevant.
I don't think it had anything to do with the Dark Angel's name either. Did it?
I fail to see how the Dark Angels relate to this. May you enlighten me?
You still have not plainly answered what purpose the gender restriction has on the Sisters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And seeing as you haven't appeared to address any of the comments on this general theme: "What is different between (Space Marine genetics being incompatible with women) and the Decree? You have yet to make a counterargument which doesn't involve a wizard's interference."
Yeah. I am done with this. You ignored all the counter-arguments I gave you, no point in mentioning again how one is a random one-liner of pseudo-science with no link to the rest of the lore and the other one is deeply intertwined with it.
Why does the level of intertwining matter? They are both canon.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But the game can open up to have more female representation without even involving the Space Marines. You don't even need to change the Space Marines to do it. That's my whole argument - female representation is good, except in the one place it doesn't make sense - the Space Marines.
Well you could open up even more representation by involving the space marines too and the only thing stopping it seems to be the one thing that is easiest to fix.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ah, if there were Space Marines who object to the depiction of them only as females...
Funnily enough, Space Marines don't exist - which is the exact argument you used on the Khorne Daemons situation.
Women exist IRL. Space Marines do not exist IRL. Women can be depicted in 40k, because they exist IRL. Space Marine women cannot, because Space Marine women do not exist IRL.
Im not entirely sure what you mean by that reasoning, but i was pointing out that the example wasnt representation because neither space marines nor khorne daemons is a minority in our society that hasnt been represented well. The reason why space marines was written that way and sisters too could almost certainly have stemmed from these very real issues.
But those issues do not exist in 40k.
Space Marines do not need female representatives, because in your own argument - there are no Space Marines, female or otherwise, that are asking to be represented.
The problem is that 40k wasnt written in a vacuum devoid from contact and influence with the underlying problems and forces that shape our society. These things creep into what we write and how we interpret things in our daily life.
The fact that the issues with representation and shoddy views on women was so strong , and is still strong, means that it is highly unlikely that this didnt find its way into 40k fluff.
It isnt space marines that should have representation because they are fictional and can be changed however GW should decide, but the actual women in this world.
I ask you the same question - what purpose does the gender restriction have on the Sisters?
Well i already stated that i think the restrictions are uneeded and i was in favor of opening up every faction for mixed 50/50 gender ratio.
Or, have two factions, just two, that are monogendered, which counteract eachother. You know, like we have now?
Because i dont like the idea of characters and factions being primarily based on what gender they happen to have, like how i dont like characters in fiction being based on their sexuality and other traits second, wich becomes the focus if they are the only ones who are somehow exempt from something other factions or characters follow.
But, how about this, Say that GW tomorrow changes all of the background to accomodate the female space marines. They are now a thing and all problems retconned.
The question is as follows: What broke? What did this destroy for the space marines?
You know what is the most amusing part of these debates. People say, I want female space marines. I shouldn't only have sisters of battle, they are just crazed nuns. Space marines, on the other hand, are crazed monks. But, now they will be female. Female, craze monks. Wait...
Grumblewartz wrote: You know what is the most amusing part of these debates. People say, I want female space marines. I shouldn't only have sisters of battle, they are just crazed nuns. Space marines, on the other hand, are crazed monks. But, now they will be female. Female, craze monks. Wait...
The difference is that marines have a whole lot more to them than "crazed monks". SoB don't.
Grumblewartz wrote: You know what is the most amusing part of these debates. People say, I want female space marines. I shouldn't only have sisters of battle, they are just crazed nuns. Space marines, on the other hand, are crazed monks. But, now they will be female. Female, craze monks. Wait...
The difference is that marines have a whole lot more to them than "crazed monks". SoB don't.
Oh yea, we have edgy and paranoid crazed monks, vampirical crazed monks, crazed crazed monks (no the repeat ain't a mistake), furry crazed monks, and so on. Literallly the solution revolves around giving more stuff to the sisters, not to the marines.
Grumblewartz wrote: You know what is the most amusing part of these debates. People say, I want female space marines. I shouldn't only have sisters of battle, they are just crazed nuns. Space marines, on the other hand, are crazed monks. But, now they will be female. Female, craze monks. Wait...
The difference is that marines have a whole lot more to them than "crazed monks". SoB don't.
Even assuming that statement is true, don't you think it would be better to expand the Sisters' background and model line (etc.), rather than just pasting some female heads onto the male crazy monks..?
Lord Damocles wrote: Even assuming that statement is true, don't you think it would be better to expand the Sisters' background and model line (etc.), rather than just pasting some female heads onto the male crazy monks..?
But what is there to expand? The problem with the SoB fluff isn't that it's missing lots of stuff, it's that the SoB are a minor faction in the Imperium. They're the enforcers of the church, not a conventional battlefield army. Sure, they see combat when necessary to achieve the objectives of the church, but when you're talking about the kind of epic planet-scale wars that define 40k the Imperium's first choice is the IG/Navy and space marines. To give SoB the same level of fluff as space marines you'd have to vastly expand their size and role in the Imperium, at which point you've created female space marines in all but name.
In-universe stuff matters out-of-universe in the sense that we like stories that are interesting and coherent and self-cohesive. But in-universe doesn't matter in and by itself.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Using solely in-universe logic, devoid of any IRL concerns, why should Space Marines change?
I am not sure why that is an interesting perspective to you, but I can try to roleplay this. However, since neither of us exists in-universe, I cannot try to convince you yourself that marines can change. Who should be the one trying to convince, and who should be the one being convinced? Is it an Inquisitor trying to convince a Mago Biologis? Or a guardsman trying to convince another guardsman? Give me context to work with please ^^.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But it was not a foreseen and discussed permission of the HLOT - it was a fault of "archaic wording" - not a predisposed permission.
Using an archaic wording instead of a predisposed permission is part of what makes it cool-looking. Maybe it was just the way it was agreed. Maybe it was how Thor tricked them, by introducing the wording and then using it as a political tool to force them to accept the consequences afterward. Anyhow what matters is that if Thor didn't have a LOT of political traction, and if the Sisters had not just saved the day, the Imperium definitely would not have allowed the Sisters, archaic wording or not.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I fail to see how the Dark Angels relate to this. May you enlighten me?
Look at the quote you were answering to. What Boneville said, and I agree with him, is that the Dark Angels are the only brand of Space Marines where the gender limitation derive naturally from their inspiration. The Dark Angels are really the only marines that actually draw more than a passing inspiration to monks. They have monk robes, biblical names, all the very stern stuff, austerity unlike other chapters, vows of silences, biblical names, …
It is the difference between a huge change that is hard to do right and a small change that is very easy to do right. I don't mind the Sisters becoming mixed gendered. I stated it numerous time before. But I think it's a way bigger change, and harder to do, than for Marines.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Holy cow, you're a 7 foot tall genetic supersoldier? No? Then the Marines don't represent you as it stands. We're talking about escapism science fiction at an inch tall on a gameboard, If you want representation, then sculpt an exact replica of yourself and come up with rules from a generic commander. There's no Lithuanian American disabled veteran musician artist Transformers collectors in the fiction, I demand that every army have a character that fits that bill because, you know, representation. I already have minis that evoke my look in a few armies, so I have that covered. You don't need the background rewritten to simply be able to say "See that one inch model? That's me, undisputedly!" You can do that within the rules of the game and write your own fluff. Does nobody get this?
Self-insertion and representation is not the same thing. Representation is that games workshop acknowledges that women may want to represent themselves as something other than zealous battle nuns in corsets or aliens. Its easy to find something to represent you if you share gender with the vast majority of the tabletop. Why are you so adamant to not have the background rewritten but then say that if you dont feel represented, in the case of female space marines, you have to rewrite the fluff?
Once again, my comment was sculpt and convert your own female Marines, and write some fluffety fluff fanfic background piece about how your chapter is one of the two blank slate Legions referenced in every Space Marines Codex I've ever owned. Meaning you have a gap to do what you want, as does every other woman (assuming you ARE a woman, since you said representation) who feels they need representation. My distaste for rewriting the background is the fact that we play this game BECAUSE of the background. If it didn't matter, nobody would play it.
Also, is a game board for a war game the best place to fight for equality and representation? Wouldn't it be better to address that with GW proper? What I can tell you from my experience working in a gaming store is that 10% of the clientele that actually played games at the store or hosted events were female, and of those I think 1 played minis at all. The rest were RPGers or CCGers. If that is about the same percentage in other places then I really can't see how anyone would pander to 1% of the customer base. And I will reiterate that I sincerely doubt there is this massive body of female players who will absolutely refuse to game unless Space Marines have female models added, and I can't see how people can dispute that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Holy cow, you're a 7 foot tall genetic supersoldier? No? Then the Marines don't represent you as it stands. We're talking about escapism science fiction at an inch tall on a gameboard, If you want representation, then sculpt an exact replica of yourself and come up with rules from a generic commander. There's no Lithuanian American disabled veteran musician artist Transformers collectors in the fiction, I demand that every army have a character that fits that bill because, you know, representation. I already have minis that evoke my look in a few armies, so I have that covered. You don't need the background rewritten to simply be able to say "See that one inch model? That's me, undisputedly!" You can do that within the rules of the game and write your own fluff. Does nobody get this?
Self-insertion and representation is not the same thing. Representation is that games workshop acknowledges that women may want to represent themselves as something other than zealous battle nuns in corsets or aliens. Its easy to find something to represent you if you share gender with the vast majority of the tabletop. Why are you so adamant to not have the background rewritten but then say that if you dont feel represented, in the case of female space marines, you have to rewrite the fluff?
So, I want to see Chaos Space Marines that follow the Emperor. Khorne Bloodletters that worship Nurgle. Direct contradictions of what actually MAKES them possible. Because representation doesn't care about established fluff, right?
Representation is fine, so long as it obeys in-universe laws. Otherwise, what's the point of having established rules (ie, Decree Passive and female incompatibility with gene-seed) if you wave the "Representation" stick around and bypass that?
And funnily enough, women should be lore represented in EVERY GENDERED ARMY except Space Marines. Only Space Marines deny female entry. So aside from Space Marines, who get far too much publicity, there should be more than enough female representation in gendered armies (so Daemons, Tyranids, Orks, and to some extent Necrons, whose form doesn't change, but fluffwise can be female - see the leader of the Maynarkh Dynasty).
For some reason it seems that there can't be monogender ANYTHING unless it's monogender female. Not sure why, but I also see guys never complain when there's monogender female stuff. Odd as that is.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Holy cow, you're a 7 foot tall genetic supersoldier? No? Then the Marines don't represent you as it stands. We're talking about escapism science fiction at an inch tall on a gameboard, If you want representation, then sculpt an exact replica of yourself and come up with rules from a generic commander. There's no Lithuanian American disabled veteran musician artist Transformers collectors in the fiction, I demand that every army have a character that fits that bill because, you know, representation. I already have minis that evoke my look in a few armies, so I have that covered. You don't need the background rewritten to simply be able to say "See that one inch model? That's me, undisputedly!" You can do that within the rules of the game and write your own fluff. Does nobody get this?
Self-insertion and representation is not the same thing. Representation is that games workshop acknowledges that women may want to represent themselves as something other than zealous battle nuns in corsets or aliens. Its easy to find something to represent you if you share gender with the vast majority of the tabletop. Why are you so adamant to not have the background rewritten but then say that if you dont feel represented, in the case of female space marines, you have to rewrite the fluff?
Once again, my comment was sculpt and convert your own female Marines, and write some fluffety fluff fanfic background piece about how your chapter is one of the two blank slate Legions referenced in every Space Marines Codex I've ever owned. Meaning you have a gap to do what you want, as does every other woman (assuming you ARE a woman, since you said representation) who feels they need representation. My distaste for rewriting the background is the fact that we play this game BECAUSE of the background. If it didn't matter, nobody would play it.
Also, is a game board for a war game the best place to fight for equality and representation? Wouldn't it be better to address that with GW proper? What I can tell you from my experience working in a gaming store is that 10% of the clientele that actually played games at the store or hosted events were female, and of those I think 1 played minis at all. The rest were RPGers or CCGers. If that is about the same percentage in other places then I really can't see how anyone would pander to 1% of the customer base. And I will reiterate that I sincerely doubt there is this massive body of female players who will absolutely refuse to game unless Space Marines have female models added, and I can't see how people can dispute that.
To say that you have to do fanfiction too feel represented is not an answer to the problem. The whole point of representation as a social principle is that you need official representation, wich fanfiction is not. A wargame's fiction and models is a way to relay these ideas and create a base for them. im not saying change it and it immideatly changes society, but it can help influence a group to allow change eventually.
Aside from your example being highly anecdotal, you could justy as easily interpret it as a indicator that some customers dont care for the current product and that a renewal like more diverse models and female space marines might be what gets these people into the hobby. This conclusion is just as much speculation as yours.
I also fail to see the correlation between the discussion of representation and my gender would be, and if its important i can tell you that i am a homosexual man.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: BUT the reason that the Sisters of Battle even exist is because of the Decree - the Decree which prevents men from joining. You add in men to the Sisters, and now there's no reason ALL Orders can't have men. Sisters have just the same NO as Space Marines.
So if fluff can be rewritten, by bother even making a point in Dakka Background if you can bypass the actual lore by saying "it can be rewritten"?
You can't have female Space Marines because the fluff specifically says not.
Non-Hive Mind/Synapse Tyranids are said to "collapse into disarray" - they would be effectively useless without it. So without it, they effectively cease to exist as a force. I think that's a fairly good explanation.
If an Ork loses all "Orky" qualities, by what right are they an Ork? They exist, but they are no longer an Ork, because being warmongering, violent, uncaring, strong green-skinned (the opposite of my example) is INTRINSIC to being an Ork.
Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Holy cow, you're a 7 foot tall genetic supersoldier? No? Then the Marines don't represent you as it stands. We're talking about escapism science fiction at an inch tall on a gameboard, If you want representation, then sculpt an exact replica of yourself and come up with rules from a generic commander. There's no Lithuanian American disabled veteran musician artist Transformers collectors in the fiction, I demand that every army have a character that fits that bill because, you know, representation. I already have minis that evoke my look in a few armies, so I have that covered. You don't need the background rewritten to simply be able to say "See that one inch model? That's me, undisputedly!" You can do that within the rules of the game and write your own fluff. Does nobody get this?
Self-insertion and representation is not the same thing. Representation is that games workshop acknowledges that women may want to represent themselves as something other than zealous battle nuns in corsets or aliens. Its easy to find something to represent you if you share gender with the vast majority of the tabletop. Why are you so adamant to not have the background rewritten but then say that if you dont feel represented, in the case of female space marines, you have to rewrite the fluff?
So, I want to see Chaos Space Marines that follow the Emperor. Khorne Bloodletters that worship Nurgle. Direct contradictions of what actually MAKES them possible. Because representation doesn't care about established fluff, right?
Representation is fine, so long as it obeys in-universe laws. Otherwise, what's the point of having established rules (ie, Decree Passive and female incompatibility with gene-seed) if you wave the "Representation" stick around and bypass that?
And funnily enough, women should be lore represented in EVERY GENDERED ARMY except Space Marines. Only Space Marines deny female entry. So aside from Space Marines, who get far too much publicity, there should be more than enough female representation in gendered armies (so Daemons, Tyranids, Orks, and to some extent Necrons, whose form doesn't change, but fluffwise can be female - see the leader of the Maynarkh Dynasty).
For some reason it seems that there can't be monogender ANYTHING unless it's monogender female. Not sure why, but I also see guys never complain when there's monogender female stuff. Odd as that is.
Well a reason as to why monogender female stuff isnt questioned by guys could be that they are either made as jokes, see nuns with guns, or as fanservice. Never actually giving a good depiction of women for women, but as a depiction of what guys want to see.
Boneville wrote: Well a reason as to why monogender female stuff isnt questioned by guys could be that they are either made as jokes, see nuns with guns, or as fanservice. Never actually giving a good depiction of women for women, but as a depiction of what guys want to see.
I wouldn't exactly say Space Marines are a good depiction of men being the fanatical, genocidal, generally single-minded former-child-soldiers they are.
Regardless I don't think men would object to a good depiction of women for women. Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
Carol Danvers has been one of Marvel's most popular characters for years now, as well as pretty much EVERY female Xmen character with the notable exception of Jean Grey. However, it seems that the internet as a whole won't be satisfied until the white cis male is the token thrown in.
Also, to Boneville, since Space Marines are pretty much asexual, giving themselves fully to their war craft, wouldn't they NOT represent you in the first place? I will say again, NO FICTION IN THE HISTORY OF EVER WILL SHOW EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR EVERY SECT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S EXISTED EVER. That applies to 40K. And yes, writing your own fluff piece can handwave ANYTHING into existence in the game as far as sticking to the rules of the books go. I fail to see how officially femming Marines in publication will change that.
Yeah I don't exactly think that 40K is the place to go to for a good depiction of anything, unless you're looking for a good depiction of "crazy".
That said, the oft touted heroes of the setting are predominantly marines, who are all male. IMO that situation could be improved, although the easiest step to take would be to focus less on marines.
In-universe stuff matters out-of-universe in the sense that we like stories that are interesting and coherent and self-cohesive. But in-universe doesn't matter in and by itself.
So, if in-universe doesn't count, why the double standard on the Decree Passive and the Creation of a Space Marine article? Because both are coherent, self-cohesive and interesting is subjective.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Using solely in-universe logic, devoid of any IRL concerns, why should Space Marines change?
I am not sure why that is an interesting perspective to you, but I can try to roleplay this. However, since neither of us exists in-universe, I cannot try to convince you yourself that marines can change. Who should be the one trying to convince, and who should be the one being convinced? Is it an Inquisitor trying to convince a Mago Biologis? Or a guardsman trying to convince another guardsman? Give me context to work with please ^^.
I'm not sure if I'm not explaining this right, or if you're being obtuse, but I'll assume the former. Allow me to reiterate it.
Without real life concerns and reasons of our world, such as representation of groups, why should Space Marine lore change?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But it was not a foreseen and discussed permission of the HLOT - it was a fault of "archaic wording" - not a predisposed permission.
Using an archaic wording instead of a predisposed permission is part of what makes it cool-looking. Maybe it was just the way it was agreed. Maybe it was how Thor tricked them, by introducing the wording and then using it as a political tool to force them to accept the consequences afterward. Anyhow what matters is that if Thor didn't have a LOT of political traction, and if the Sisters had not just saved the day, the Imperium definitely would not have allowed the Sisters, archaic wording or not.
Funny, but I don't see any of the latter part of your response in there. It appears the only thing that mattered, political traction or not, was the archaic wording, because that is all we're told.
Not to mention "cool-looking" is subjective. One might say, and this is not necessarily my personal opinion, that the archaic wording should not have happened, because they could expect someone, if they actually cared about stopping the Ecclesiarchy having power, would use a gender neutral term.
I'm also seeing some "maybes" thrown in there - it's not even confirmed.
The Creation of a Space Marine article has less fluff around it, but is far more to the point, and allows little deviance from the fact that females are not compatible with Astartes genetic tissue.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I fail to see how the Dark Angels relate to this. May you enlighten me?
Look at the quote you were answering to. What Boneville said, and I agree with him, is that the Dark Angels are the only brand of Space Marines where the gender limitation derive naturally from their inspiration. The Dark Angels are really the only marines that actually draw more than a passing inspiration to monks. They have monk robes, biblical names, all the very stern stuff, austerity unlike other chapters, vows of silences, biblical names, …
Does that matter? Space Marines are prohibited from female members for a reason completely different to the monks. Their aesthetic has nothing to do with it. The ONLY reason cited in canon, as you kindly pointed out, is that gene-seed is not compatible. You don't need to look like a monk to do that.
So, I ask again, as you've avoided the question: What purpose does the gender restriction have on the Sisters?
It is the difference between a huge change that is hard to do right and a small change that is very easy to do right. I don't mind the Sisters becoming mixed gendered. I stated it numerous time before. But I think it's a way bigger change, and harder to do, than for Marines.
Why? Now for Marines, every mention of "Brothers" or "Sons" has to be changed to "Children".
For Sisters, any reference of "Sisters" or "Daughters" needs to be changed to "Children".
What else needs changing? Or better yet - why does it actually NEED changing? There are two mono-gender factions, both opposing, and if Space Marine saturation was reduced and the Sisters getting more love and time, what would be the problem?
Insectum7 wrote:Yeah I don't exactly think that 40K is the place to go to for a good depiction of anything, unless you're looking for a good depiction of "crazy".
That said, the oft touted heroes of the setting are predominantly marines, who are all male. IMO that situation could be improved, although the easiest step to take would be to focus less on marines.
I cannot agree more. 40k is not for depiction and recognition of groups. It is a setting, where the vast majority of people do horrible things, or have horrible things done to them. And Space Marines should get far less limelight. Give it over to someone else.
Boneville wrote: Well a reason as to why monogender female stuff isnt questioned by guys could be that they are either made as jokes, see nuns with guns, or as fanservice. Never actually giving a good depiction of women for women, but as a depiction of what guys want to see.
I wouldn't exactly say Space Marines are a good depiction of men being the fanatical, genocidal, generally single-minded former-child-soldiers they are.
Regardless I don't think men would object to a good depiction of women for women. Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
What im basically getting at is that what you listed is negative traits but the main thing with space marines is how good they ate and how they are the best soldiers of the imperium of man. They are essentially a male powerfantasy that can do anything and encompass most of the good traits. They are Brave, dutyfull, loyal, strong, tough, resourceful etc. Very rarely are they portrayed in the same bad way some other factions are.
there is a implication when you gate this to only men being able to become this. That women dont have these ideals or capacity of becoming it, as i have said earlier these are the sort of subconscious and conscious decision making the factions and characters that seeps into fiction from society as a whole.
Just Tony wrote:Social justice, basically.
Carol Danvers has been one of Marvel's most popular characters for years now, as well as pretty much EVERY female Xmen character with the notable exception of Jean Grey. However, it seems that the internet as a whole won't be satisfied until the white cis male is the token thrown in.
Also, to Boneville, since Space Marines are pretty much asexual, giving themselves fully to their war craft, wouldn't they NOT represent you in the first place? I will say again, NO FICTION IN THE HISTORY OF EVER WILL SHOW EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR EVERY SECT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S EXISTED EVER. That applies to 40K. And yes, writing your own fluff piece can handwave ANYTHING into existence in the game as far as sticking to the rules of the books go. I fail to see how officially femming Marines in publication will change that.
First of all, the comic book industry has begun to change its, lets say, aged approach to writing women. they realised that alot of women read comic books, and behold gradual change. I will claim that all fiction in the history of the world has been greatly influenced by the movements and social expectations of its surroundings, no text is apolitical, and convey this either explicitly or implicitly.
Publication of the idea will mean Officiality, so that people cant just say, oh you have written female space marines? well they dont exist and cant happen your army doesnt actually work in real fluff.
Well since i am male i have just about every army to find someone to represent me in. A thousand varieties of super soldiers? check. Egyptian farao robot? check. A thousand varieties of evil super soldiers? check. Average soldier? check.
and i dont even have to do any custom modeling to get them.
Boneville wrote: Well a reason as to why monogender female stuff isnt questioned by guys could be that they are either made as jokes, see nuns with guns, or as fanservice. Never actually giving a good depiction of women for women, but as a depiction of what guys want to see.
I wouldn't exactly say Space Marines are a good depiction of men being the fanatical, genocidal, generally single-minded former-child-soldiers they are.
Regardless I don't think men would object to a good depiction of women for women. Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
What im basically getting at is that what you listed is negative traits but the main thing with space marines is how good they ate and how they are the best soldiers of the imperium of man. They are essentially a male powerfantasy that can do anything and encompass most of the good traits. They are Brave, dutyfull, loyal, strong, tough, resourceful etc. Very rarely are they portrayed in the same bad way some other factions are.
there is a implication when you gate this to only men being able to become this. That women dont have these ideals or capacity of becoming it, as i have said earlier these are the sort of subconscious and conscious decision making the factions and characters that seeps into fiction from society as a whole.
Actually, men, as in mature, post pubescent males, cannot become Space Marines. BOYS, as in pre/early teen males, are chosen to be Astartes. By the time most of the target audience encounter Space Marines, they will have passed the age of acceptance into being a Space Marine.
Space Marines are not a male power fantasy, simply because what about them is male? They're posthuman, genetically enhanced freaks whose genitalia is probably either atrophied, removed, or just not functioning. At which point, a Space Marine actually pretty much becomes a eunuch who identifies as male. The faction males should identify most with, by your logic, would be Guardsmen.
No-one is saying Sisters of Battle are not brave, dutiful, loyal, strong, tough or resourceful. Hell, a Sister could probably batter a guardsmen male with impunity. And what are the negatives or Sisters? I don't think they have any innate negative traits, in my experience.
Just Tony wrote:Social justice, basically.
Carol Danvers has been one of Marvel's most popular characters for years now, as well as pretty much EVERY female Xmen character with the notable exception of Jean Grey. However, it seems that the internet as a whole won't be satisfied until the white cis male is the token thrown in.
Also, to Boneville, since Space Marines are pretty much asexual, giving themselves fully to their war craft, wouldn't they NOT represent you in the first place? I will say again, NO FICTION IN THE HISTORY OF EVER WILL SHOW EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR EVERY SECT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S EXISTED EVER. That applies to 40K. And yes, writing your own fluff piece can handwave ANYTHING into existence in the game as far as sticking to the rules of the books go. I fail to see how officially femming Marines in publication will change that.
First of all, the comic book industry has begun to change its, lets say, aged approach to writing women. they realised that alot of women read comic books, and behold gradual change. I will claim that all fiction in the history of the world has been greatly influenced by the movements and social expectations of its surroundings, no text is apolitical, and convey this either explicitly or implicitly.
However, comic books maintain a multiple universe/canon nature, unlike 40k, which has one canon universe. It's not the same - a comic book universe can change a character or plotline with far more ease than 40k. 40k isn't quite the platform of political agenda that comic books are, for better or worse.
Publication of the idea will mean Officiality, so that people cant just say, oh you have written female space marines? well they dont exist and cant happen your army doesnt actually work in real fluff.
Yes, the real fluff. Because a fantasy universe has rules. Some of the 40k rules being no Female Astartes, and no Male Sisters of Battle.
Well since i am male i have just about every army to find someone to represent me in. A thousand varieties of super soldiers? check. Egyptian farao robot? check. A thousand varieties of evil super soldiers? check. Average soldier? check. and i dont even have to do any custom modeling to get them.
Errr, what? A thousand varieties of super soldiers - Unless you are a Space Marine, you are not represented by that. They are post-human genetically engineered freaks - you are not, I presume.
Egyptian *Pharaoh* Robot - I'm sorry, have you actually read up on the Orphean War? Because that features a female Phaeron commanding the Dynasty. Not to mention that nothing is actually stopping you having female Necrons. It's just that that will not be reflected in their frame, because their body, built by the Ctan, doesn't distinguish gender - it's a skeletal frame for a glorified automata.
Evil super soldiers - As above, except unless you pledged your soul to unknowable extradimensional deities, you won't be represented like that.
Average soldier - the ONE case. Which I will agree - Imperial Guard, Tau and Eldar variants should all receive a more polygender range of options. However, in lore, you are not prohibited from having female guardsmen.
Boneville wrote: Well a reason as to why monogender female stuff isnt questioned by guys could be that they are either made as jokes, see nuns with guns, or as fanservice. Never actually giving a good depiction of women for women, but as a depiction of what guys want to see.
I wouldn't exactly say Space Marines are a good depiction of men being the fanatical, genocidal, generally single-minded former-child-soldiers they are.
Regardless I don't think men would object to a good depiction of women for women. Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
What im basically getting at is that what you listed is negative traits but the main thing with space marines is how good they ate and how they are the best soldiers of the imperium of man. They are essentially a male powerfantasy that can do anything and encompass most of the good traits. They are Brave, dutyfull, loyal, strong, tough, resourceful etc. Very rarely are they portrayed in the same bad way some other factions are.
there is a implication when you gate this to only men being able to become this. That women dont have these ideals or capacity of becoming it, as i have said earlier these are the sort of subconscious and conscious decision making the factions and characters that seeps into fiction from society as a whole.
Actually, men, as in mature, post pubescent males, cannot become Space Marines. BOYS, as in pre/early teen males, are chosen to be Astartes. By the time most of the target audience encounter Space Marines, they will have passed the age of acceptance into being a Space Marine.
Space Marines are not a male power fantasy, simply because what about them is male? They're posthuman, genetically enhanced freaks whose genitalia is probably either atrophied, removed, or just not functioning. At which point, a Space Marine actually pretty much becomes a eunuch who identifies as male. The faction males should identify most with, by your logic, would be Guardsmen.
No-one is saying Sisters of Battle are not brave, dutiful, loyal, strong, tough or resourceful. Hell, a Sister could probably batter a guardsmen male with impunity. And what are the negatives or Sisters? I don't think they have any innate negative traits, in my experience.
Just Tony wrote:Social justice, basically.
Carol Danvers has been one of Marvel's most popular characters for years now, as well as pretty much EVERY female Xmen character with the notable exception of Jean Grey. However, it seems that the internet as a whole won't be satisfied until the white cis male is the token thrown in.
Also, to Boneville, since Space Marines are pretty much asexual, giving themselves fully to their war craft, wouldn't they NOT represent you in the first place? I will say again, NO FICTION IN THE HISTORY OF EVER WILL SHOW EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR EVERY SECT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S EXISTED EVER. That applies to 40K. And yes, writing your own fluff piece can handwave ANYTHING into existence in the game as far as sticking to the rules of the books go. I fail to see how officially femming Marines in publication will change that.
First of all, the comic book industry has begun to change its, lets say, aged approach to writing women. they realised that alot of women read comic books, and behold gradual change. I will claim that all fiction in the history of the world has been greatly influenced by the movements and social expectations of its surroundings, no text is apolitical, and convey this either explicitly or implicitly.
However, comic books maintain a multiple universe/canon nature, unlike 40k, which has one canon universe. It's not the same - a comic book universe can change a character or plotline with far more ease than 40k. 40k isn't quite the platform of political agenda that comic books are, for better or worse.
Publication of the idea will mean Officiality, so that people cant just say, oh you have written female space marines? well they dont exist and cant happen your army doesnt actually work in real fluff.
Yes, the real fluff. Because a fantasy universe has rules. Some of the 40k rules being no Female Astartes, and no Male Sisters of Battle.
Well since i am male i have just about every army to find someone to represent me in. A thousand varieties of super soldiers? check. Egyptian farao robot? check. A thousand varieties of evil super soldiers? check. Average soldier? check. and i dont even have to do any custom modeling to get them.
Errr, what? A thousand varieties of super soldiers - Unless you are a Space Marine, you are not represented by that. They are post-human genetically engineered freaks - you are not, I presume.
Egyptian *Pharaoh* Robot - I'm sorry, have you actually read up on the Orphean War? Because that features a female Phaeron commanding the Dynasty. Not to mention that nothing is actually stopping you having female Necrons. It's just that that will not be reflected in their frame, because their body, built by the Ctan, doesn't distinguish gender - it's a skeletal frame for a glorified automata.
Evil super soldiers - As above, except unless you pledged your soul to unknowable extradimensional deities, you won't be represented like that.
Average soldier - the ONE case. Which I will agree - Imperial Guard, Tau and Eldar variants should all receive a more polygender range of options. However, in lore, you are not prohibited from having female guardsmen.
The point is i have alot of options to be represented. Women? not so many.
IF the space marines are so unrelatable, that noone but genetically enhanced supermen can be represented by them, then why is it so important that they are male? From your description gender shouldnt matter in the slightest. So why cant we have female space marines? Just because it is hard to rewrite stuff doesnt make it impossible.
Also space marines are not a male powerfantasy, just like H.P Lovecrafts story "the white ape" is not about White and black people interbreeding.
Boneville wrote: Well a reason as to why monogender female stuff isnt questioned by guys could be that they are either made as jokes, see nuns with guns, or as fanservice. Never actually giving a good depiction of women for women, but as a depiction of what guys want to see.
I wouldn't exactly say Space Marines are a good depiction of men being the fanatical, genocidal, generally single-minded former-child-soldiers they are.
Regardless I don't think men would object to a good depiction of women for women. Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
What im basically getting at is that what you listed is negative traits but the main thing with space marines is how good they ate and how they are the best soldiers of the imperium of man. They are essentially a male powerfantasy that can do anything and encompass most of the good traits. They are Brave, dutyfull, loyal, strong, tough, resourceful etc. Very rarely are they portrayed in the same bad way some other factions are.
there is a implication when you gate this to only men being able to become this. That women dont have these ideals or capacity of becoming it, as i have said earlier these are the sort of subconscious and conscious decision making the factions and characters that seeps into fiction from society as a whole.
Actually, men, as in mature, post pubescent males, cannot become Space Marines. BOYS, as in pre/early teen males, are chosen to be Astartes. By the time most of the target audience encounter Space Marines, they will have passed the age of acceptance into being a Space Marine.
Space Marines are not a male power fantasy, simply because what about them is male? They're posthuman, genetically enhanced freaks whose genitalia is probably either atrophied, removed, or just not functioning. At which point, a Space Marine actually pretty much becomes a eunuch who identifies as male. The faction males should identify most with, by your logic, would be Guardsmen.
No-one is saying Sisters of Battle are not brave, dutiful, loyal, strong, tough or resourceful. Hell, a Sister could probably batter a guardsmen male with impunity. And what are the negatives or Sisters? I don't think they have any innate negative traits, in my experience.
Just Tony wrote:Social justice, basically.
Carol Danvers has been one of Marvel's most popular characters for years now, as well as pretty much EVERY female Xmen character with the notable exception of Jean Grey. However, it seems that the internet as a whole won't be satisfied until the white cis male is the token thrown in.
Also, to Boneville, since Space Marines are pretty much asexual, giving themselves fully to their war craft, wouldn't they NOT represent you in the first place? I will say again, NO FICTION IN THE HISTORY OF EVER WILL SHOW EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR EVERY SECT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S EXISTED EVER. That applies to 40K. And yes, writing your own fluff piece can handwave ANYTHING into existence in the game as far as sticking to the rules of the books go. I fail to see how officially femming Marines in publication will change that.
First of all, the comic book industry has begun to change its, lets say, aged approach to writing women. they realised that alot of women read comic books, and behold gradual change. I will claim that all fiction in the history of the world has been greatly influenced by the movements and social expectations of its surroundings, no text is apolitical, and convey this either explicitly or implicitly.
However, comic books maintain a multiple universe/canon nature, unlike 40k, which has one canon universe. It's not the same - a comic book universe can change a character or plotline with far more ease than 40k. 40k isn't quite the platform of political agenda that comic books are, for better or worse.
Publication of the idea will mean Officiality, so that people cant just say, oh you have written female space marines? well they dont exist and cant happen your army doesnt actually work in real fluff.
Yes, the real fluff. Because a fantasy universe has rules. Some of the 40k rules being no Female Astartes, and no Male Sisters of Battle.
Well since i am male i have just about every army to find someone to represent me in. A thousand varieties of super soldiers? check. Egyptian farao robot? check. A thousand varieties of evil super soldiers? check. Average soldier? check. and i dont even have to do any custom modeling to get them.
Errr, what? A thousand varieties of super soldiers - Unless you are a Space Marine, you are not represented by that. They are post-human genetically engineered freaks - you are not, I presume.
Egyptian *Pharaoh* Robot - I'm sorry, have you actually read up on the Orphean War? Because that features a female Phaeron commanding the Dynasty. Not to mention that nothing is actually stopping you having female Necrons. It's just that that will not be reflected in their frame, because their body, built by the Ctan, doesn't distinguish gender - it's a skeletal frame for a glorified automata.
Evil super soldiers - As above, except unless you pledged your soul to unknowable extradimensional deities, you won't be represented like that.
Average soldier - the ONE case. Which I will agree - Imperial Guard, Tau and Eldar variants should all receive a more polygender range of options. However, in lore, you are not prohibited from having female guardsmen.
The point is i have alot of options to be represented. Women? not so many.
In model form? Agreed. That should be rectified.
In fluff form? Incorrect. There are just as many opportunities for female representation as men. Let's go through every 40k faction, and for the sake of lore, combine all Space Marine factions together, because they generally function the same.
Space Marines (inc. Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Chaos Space Marines, any Space Marines in Khorne Daemonkin) - Male, due to genetic restrictions.
Astra Militarum - Mixed gender. No restrictions.
Militarum Tempestus - Mixed gender, as far as I know.
Adeptas Sororitas - Female, due to Decree Passive.
Cult Mechanicus - Do these even have genders? If so, there's nothing preventing females. Mixed gender.
Skitarii - Same as Cult Mech.
Inquisition - Mixed gender.
Imperial Knights - Fluff both ways. Evidence of female Freeblade Knights, but by doctrine, male. Not impossible to fluff female Knights, so mixed gender.
Officio Assassinorum - Mixed gender.
Renegade Knights - Same as Imperial Knights, probably more chance of females, due to being Renegade.
Daemons in Khorne Daemonkin and Chaos Daemons - Agender. Neither male or female, though Slaaneshi daemons will undoubtedly possess sexual characteristics of either/both.
Orks - Agender. They're mushrooms.
Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins - Mixed gender.
Necrons - Mixed gender. Their frames all look the same, but could be any gender pre-transformation, without requiring any converting.
Tau Empire - Mixed gender.
Tyranids - Agender.
Genestealer Cults - Mixed gender. The Hive Mind takes any who will take it in.
As you can see, that's a total of 11 mixed gender races (counting the Admech and Skitarii), 3 agender factions, 1 exclusively male race (seeing as Astartes technically all count as one race, due to the same creation process), and 1 exclusively female race.
I don't see any fluff concern there. I do see a concern in that Space Marine covers a lot, but from a lore perspective, they should not count as different races as they function the same, with a similar biology and equipment. However, I would support a reduced Space Marine presence in both fluff and game, to promote the other factions, especially Sisters.
IF the space marines are so unrelatable, that noone but genetically enhanced supermen can be represented by them, then why is it so important that they are male? From your description gender shouldnt matter in the slightest. So why cant we have female space marines? Just because it is hard to rewrite stuff doesnt make it impossible.
Space Marines are important to be male because the fluff in creating them specifies that females are not genetically compatible for Astartes implants. The fluff that says this is just as canonically valid as the Decree Passive which locks Sisters as monogender.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As you can see, that's a total of 11 mixed gender races (counting the Admech and Skitarii), 3 agender factions, 1 exclusively male race (seeing as Astartes technically all count as one race, due to the same creation process), and 1 exclusively female race.
I don't see any fluff concern there. I do see a concern in that Space Marine covers a lot, but from a lore perspective, they should not count as different races as they function the same, with a similar biology and equipment. However, I would support a reduced Space Marine presence in both fluff and game, to promote the other factions, especially Sisters.
IF the space marines are so unrelatable, that noone but genetically enhanced supermen can be represented by them, then why is it so important that they are male? From your description gender shouldnt matter in the slightest. So why cant we have female space marines? Just because it is hard to rewrite stuff doesnt make it impossible.
Space Marines are important to be male because the fluff in creating them specifies that females are not genetically compatible for Astartes implants. The fluff that says this is just as canonically valid as the Decree Passive which locks Sisters as monogender.
I have never in any of my comments really asked for fluff reasons, seeing as i entered the thread stating that in universe reasons isnt arguments against this and you have yet to actually point out what female space marines would break. in fact what you have done is pointing out how their gender isnt really important for their identity as a faction, seeing as you continually point to one in universe explanation and holding it up instead of actually stating what it means for the faction to open up for women.
From what i have been saying whats canon or not isnt important because, once again, it can be rewritten.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As you can see, that's a total of 11 mixed gender races (counting the Admech and Skitarii), 3 agender factions, 1 exclusively male race (seeing as Astartes technically all count as one race, due to the same creation process), and 1 exclusively female race.
I don't see any fluff concern there. I do see a concern in that Space Marine covers a lot, but from a lore perspective, they should not count as different races as they function the same, with a similar biology and equipment. However, I would support a reduced Space Marine presence in both fluff and game, to promote the other factions, especially Sisters.
IF the space marines are so unrelatable, that noone but genetically enhanced supermen can be represented by them, then why is it so important that they are male? From your description gender shouldnt matter in the slightest. So why cant we have female space marines?
Just because it is hard to rewrite stuff doesnt make it impossible.
Space Marines are important to be male because the fluff in creating them specifies that females are not genetically compatible for Astartes implants. The fluff that says this is just as canonically valid as the Decree Passive which locks Sisters as monogender.
I have never in any of my comments really asked for fluff reasons, seeing as i entered the thread stating that in universe reasons isnt arguments against this and you have yet to actually point out what female space marines would break. in fact what you have done is pointing out how their gender isnt really important for their identity as a faction, seeing as you continually point to one in universe explanation and holding it up instead of actually stating what it means for the faction to open up for women.
From what i have been saying whats canon or not isnt important because, once again, it can be rewritten.
So really, what's the point of 40k actually having canon and lore if it can be rewritten at your whim? Why are in-universe reasons not valid arguments? After all, it's the only reason Sisters of Battle are mono-gender too.
Why bother having a BACKGROUND discussion, when you don't care about BACKGROUND sources? After all, we're in the BACKGROUND subforum.
If you want to argue this point from a meta perspective, I don't think 40k Background is appropriate. 40k General Discussion would fit that better.
And while I can, I'll pose the same question to you - what is the importance of gender identity of the Sisters of Battle? What would it mean to open it up to men?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why bother having a BACKGROUND discussion, when you don't care about BACKGROUND sources? After all, we're in the BACKGROUND subforum.
If you want to argue this point from a meta perspective, I don't think 40k Background is appropriate. 40k General Discussion would fit that better.
And while I can, I'll pose the same question to you - what is the importance of gender identity of the Sisters of Battle? What would it mean to open it up to men?
Boneville wrote:My point was that you cant say there can be no female space marines because there exists an in universe explanation, because it can be rewritten. The fictional universe can be written anyway anytime so if the only limitation on female space marines is the fluff says no, and the fluff can be rewritten, then what is the problem here? Why cant there be female space marines?
Boneville wrote:Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Boneville wrote:Well if the game opened up abit and female representation was more widespread in the miniatures range with things like female space marines then i have no problem with adding male sisters of battle. But just adding male sisters without this is just a slap in the face considering how many female models there is in the game.
As you see i have already answered these questions, here is statements on the in universe stuff as arguments and my thoughts on the sisters. besides, discussing how the background as written could be altered and the out of game reasons one might want to (or not want to) do that seems perfectly fitting for the fluff board to me
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why bother having a BACKGROUND discussion, when you don't care about BACKGROUND sources? After all, we're in the BACKGROUND subforum.
If you want to argue this point from a meta perspective, I don't think 40k Background is appropriate. 40k General Discussion would fit that better.
And while I can, I'll pose the same question to you - what is the importance of gender identity of the Sisters of Battle? What would it mean to open it up to men?
Boneville wrote:My point was that you cant say there can be no female space marines because there exists an in universe explanation, because it can be rewritten. The fictional universe can be written anyway anytime so if the only limitation on female space marines is the fluff says no, and the fluff can be rewritten, then what is the problem here? Why cant there be female space marines?
Boneville wrote:Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Boneville wrote:Well if the game opened up abit and female representation was more widespread in the miniatures range with things like female space marines then i have no problem with adding male sisters of battle. But just adding male sisters without this is just a slap in the face considering how many female models there is in the game.
As you see i have already answered these questions, here is statements on the in universe stuff as arguments and my thoughts on the sisters. besides, discussing how the background as written could be altered and the out of game reasons one might want to (or not want to) do that seems perfectly fitting for the fluff board to me
No, you have just said we can change the fluff. I want to know why that fluff needs changing, with a reason derived from the Background of 40k. I don't want real world examples, because I think that would be more suited to 40k General Discussion.
If your answer is just going to be along the lines of "well, seeing as we can rewrite the fluff so it's irrelevant", then you've just nullified the entire 40k Background section, because it can be rewritten.
"Why do Space Marines carry bolters?" "Doesn't matter, it can be rewritten, so it's irrelevant."
"Who's the strongest Primarch?" "Doesn't matter, it can be rewritten, so it's irrelevant."
"What is the Decree Passive?" "Doesn't matter, it can be rewritten, so it's irrelevant."
Do you see why I don't think that answer's appropriate for a Background discussion?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why bother having a BACKGROUND discussion, when you don't care about BACKGROUND sources? After all, we're in the BACKGROUND subforum.
If you want to argue this point from a meta perspective, I don't think 40k Background is appropriate. 40k General Discussion would fit that better.
And while I can, I'll pose the same question to you - what is the importance of gender identity of the Sisters of Battle? What would it mean to open it up to men?
Boneville wrote:My point was that you cant say there can be no female space marines because there exists an in universe explanation, because it can be rewritten. The fictional universe can be written anyway anytime so if the only limitation on female space marines is the fluff says no, and the fluff can be rewritten, then what is the problem here? Why cant there be female space marines?
Boneville wrote:Well im not saying that the fluff doesnt matter, what i am saying is that those who want female space marines added to 40k knows that female space marines is not a thing in the background and thus are asking if the fluff can be changed to include this to get more miniatures too collect, feel represented in the tabletop and universe etc. etc. To argue against this you need an out of universe argument why you should not change this or why it is a bad idea.
Just stating the current background reason isnt it.
Boneville wrote:Well if the game opened up abit and female representation was more widespread in the miniatures range with things like female space marines then i have no problem with adding male sisters of battle. But just adding male sisters without this is just a slap in the face considering how many female models there is in the game.
As you see i have already answered these questions, here is statements on the in universe stuff as arguments and my thoughts on the sisters. besides, discussing how the background as written could be altered and the out of game reasons one might want to (or not want to) do that seems perfectly fitting for the fluff board to me
No, you have just said we can change the fluff. I want to know why that fluff needs changing, with a reason derived from the Background of 40k. I don't want real world examples, because I think that would be more suited to 40k General Discussion.
If your answer is just going to be along the lines of "well, seeing as we can rewrite the fluff so it's irrelevant", then you've just nullified the entire 40k Background section, because it can be rewritten.
"Why do Space Marines carry bolters?" "Doesn't matter, it can be rewritten, so it's irrelevant."
"Who's the strongest Primarch?" "Doesn't matter, it can be rewritten, so it's irrelevant."
"What is the Decree Passive?" "Doesn't matter, it can be rewritten, so it's irrelevant."
Do you see why I don't think that answer's appropriate for a Background discussion?
That is a very reductionist statement and interpretation on what io have said so far in this thread. Youre setting this argument up so that you dont have to explain your stance on female space marines. Let me explain:
My stance has been as you see that the explanation in universe for no female space marines is all too clear. a blanket no. Myself and some others have said that there is no reason for this limitation because the space marines dont do enough with this in their faction identity.
They can be so many things ranging from space vikings to space marines who has dark secrets etc. But none, not even bog standard space marines has their gender be the most important part.
In light of this i have stated many very real reasons of why and theories on how they became that way. I have been clear on the part that the only limitation on the men in sisters of battle has been that in the current state so many miniatures of women is in the sisters range and just now removing it takes the majority of the female models with it. I have been talking about representation on wich i got back that males wasnt suypposed to be represented by space marines, further diluting the space marines must be male thing.
I also think you can open up alot more stories with female space marines than without. Like space wolf apothecaries that could be modelled after valkyries for example.
But so far these points have been ignored and reduced to "you just want to rewrite everything, nothing matters" when the fact is i care about the background just not this part.
And you still havent explained what in the space marines identity the fact that they are male is important to beyond that one line. But still demand that everyone else gives a reason on sisters.
Lastly Are you really saying that discussion about a fluff passage is not a background disussion?
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Except that their lack of sexuality does indeed specifically define them in the 40K lore.
Except for Space Wolves
That happened in what, one crappy novel written over 15 years ago? Really weak argument to point at one canonically incompatible novel to overwrite almost 30 years of established fluff. Might as well cite Ian Watson's Space Marine while you're at it. Or CS Goto.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: The fact that they have multiple sub-themes like being space furries or vampires doesn't set some incredible differentiation from the Sisters of Battle who only have one theme: being Angry Space Nuns.
The fact of having hundreds of different and incompatible sub-themes doesn't differentiate them from Sisters who don't have any? Hum, okay, if you say so.
Absolutely. In the end, putting a different thematic "skin" on Space Marines is superficial in terms of narrative, because in the end, they're still Space Marines. They differentiating rulesets have been a factor of game economics. The Space Marines sell so many models, Games Workshop came up with different ways to play them. In-universe though, the distinction between a Space Wolf and an Ultramarine is a question of fur pelts and helmet crests. Fundamentally they're the same thing. There are just 1000 different personalities of Space Marines, and only 6 different personalities of Sisters of Battle. Trying to pretend that's an incredible differentiation in the scope of an argument on gender and sexual identity is pointless. Being a male is no different for a Blood Angel than it is for a Dark Angel. The concept of self for a Space Marine is fairly consistent. It's why they all share the same basic rules of ATSKNF, and have since 2nd Edition (the birth of "modern" 40K). Because, at their core, Space Marines are all the same thing. Genetically and biologically modified post-human child-soldiers indoctrinated beyond a sense of self to unquestioned loyalty to the Emperor. The shape of their cuspid teeth or their penchants for tactical bathrobes are flavor text.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say right there.
Boneville wrote: That is a very reductionist statement and interpretation on what io have said so far in this thread. Youre setting this argument up so that you dont have to explain your stance on female space marines.
I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful.
Let me explain:
My stance has been as you see that the explanation in universe for no female space marines is all too clear. a blanket no. Myself and some others have said that there is no reason for this limitation because the space marines dont do enough with this in their faction identity.
They can be so many things ranging from space vikings to space marines who has dark secrets etc. But none, not even bog standard space marines has their gender be the most important part.
Does everything have to be integral to the "faction identity"? One could ask why are orks predominantly green under the same idea. It's just a trait of Space Marines, like how they wear power armour, and are genetically engineered - a side effect of the genetic enhancement being that it cannot work on women.
In light of this i have stated many very real reasons of why and theories on how they became that way. I have been clear on the part that the only limitation on the men in sisters of battle has been that in the current state so many miniatures of women is in the sisters range and just now removing it takes the majority of the female models with it. I have been talking about representation on wich i got back that males wasnt suypposed to be represented by space marines, further diluting the space marines must be male thing.
So, if there was more female representation in the rest of 40k, which I do support wholeheartedly, would you still push for female Astartes?
Space Marines are not an army for representation, because no-one is a 7 foot tall genetically altered killing machine, regardless of your gender.
I also think you can open up alot more stories with female space marines than without. Like space wolf apothecaries that could be modelled after valkyries for example.
A lot more stories could be opened up if Orks could be Space Marines. Like Space Wolf terminators being modelled like Siege Trolls. Or if Tyranids could be Space Marines, because then we can have a Tyranid-ified Thunderwolf Cerberus.
Does this mean we can have Ork and Tyranid Space Marines?
But so far these points have been ignored and reduced to "you just want to rewrite everything, nothing matters" when the fact is i care about the background just not this part.
But why is this part of the background so malleable?
And you still havent explained what in the space marines identity the fact that they are male is important to beyond that one line. But still demand that everyone else gives a reason on sisters.
They are male because the fluff says so. That's what it boils down to for me, in much the same way that orks are green.
Lastly Are you really saying that discussion about a fluff passage is not a background disussion?
No, I'm saying applying reasoning from our logic and world is not a background discussion, especially when one is trying to change the background for real world reasons instead of in-universe ones.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..
Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?
Does everything have to be integral to the "faction identity"? One could ask why are orks predominantly green under the same idea. It's just a trait of Space Marines, like how they wear power armour, and are genetically engineered - a side effect of the genetic enhancement being that it cannot work on women.
Yes, otherwise all factions become space marines if there are nothing that separates them, in the case of the identity of space marines no chapter uses their male gender too such an extent that it is necessary to make such a statement and could just be a later addition to justify it. After all if we cant critizise it- how can we change it?
So, if there was more female representation in the rest of 40k, which I do support wholeheartedly, would you still push for female Astartes?
Space Marines are not an army for representation, because no-one is a 7 foot tall genetically altered killing machine, regardless of your gender.
The point is that it is a power fantasy, something you want to be. Space Marines are made super badass and strong so people can go "I wanna be a super soldier", for this reason they are male because men made the universe and men want to be super men.That fantasy is represented, butr it wasnt written with what women wanted to see.
Yes, i would still be pushing for female space marines. But with a slightly shifted angle, because i see no reason why women cant have a similar power fantasy directed at them.
A lot more stories could be opened up if Orks could be Space Marines. Like Space Wolf terminators being modelled like Siege Trolls. Or if Tyranids could be Space Marines, because then we can have a Tyranid-ified Thunderwolf Cerberus.
Does this mean we can have Ork and Tyranid Space Marines?
Of course. But then you would have to make another thread to discuss it in.
But why is this part of the background so malleable?
Because of the many problems i have with the implications of such a statement.
They are male because the fluff says so. That's what it boils down to for me, in much the same way that orks are green.
Cant terminators do backlflips? What fluff is the right fluff?
No, I'm saying applying reasoning from our logic and world is not a background discussion, especially when one is trying to change the background for real world reasons instead of in-universe ones.
I am putting forth arguments as to why i think you should change the background, the discussion is still firmly about the background.
Boneville, I'm not going to quote your copious walls of text, I'm just going to sum up a few points.
You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
If so, how would you feel if they got the license and permission to start a Drac army in 40K? They are explicitly asexual, reproducing without binary reproduction, and have no sexes OR gender roles. Would that need to be rewritten to cater to your wants? Would you basically say everything Larry B. Longyear wrote in the fiction of his creation?
Just Tony wrote: Boneville, I'm not going to quote your copious walls of text, I'm just going to sum up a few points.
You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
If so, how would you feel if they got the license and permission to start a Drac army in 40K? They are explicitly asexual, reproducing without binary reproduction, and have no sexes OR gender roles. Would that need to be rewritten to cater to your wants? Would you basically say everything Larry B. Longyear wrote in the fiction of his creation?
I'll wait til you get back to me on that.
More or less correct, i wouldnt say every army because there are exceptions. Tyranids is one where i dont feel that gender plays a role at all for example. For necrons there are regalias of queens like cleopatra that could make good models. But yes, the human factions i feel hasnt done enough with their gender limitations to warrant it wich is why i feel it should be changed.
I dont see a problem with the overlapping of the two factions as one is drawn from super soldiers genetically enhanced etc and addinmg space marines wouldnt necessarily mean that all current space marines get genderswapped but would allow for female space marine chapters and mixed ones of course, the other faction can then explore the religious themes of the ecclisiarchy, so i dont see the thematic and aesthetic overlap.
from my research on the drac, they seem to be written explicitly to be alien. i dont see how they would be rewritten considering the point was to be inhuman and alien to us. Much like the tyranids and daemons (although i have huge problems with slaanesh, and their "supposed" androgenous appereance) but more of a "mirror" being. The point has always been that the space marines always has been linked too humanity so they dont have that "pass".
Had the space marines been introduced as a separate hemaphroditic alien faction i wouldnt have a problem.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..
Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?
Firstly, I have no idea what that first sentence referred to.
Secondly, I think the more important thing, which is more accepted in debates like this, is why should be changed in the first place? I shouldn't have to justify that which already exists.
Prove to me that it should be changed, and then I can contest. However, I won't just respond to a "But why not" without a reason.
Does everything have to be integral to the "faction identity"? One could ask why are orks predominantly green under the same idea. It's just a trait of Space Marines, like how they wear power armour, and are genetically engineered - a side effect of the genetic enhancement being that it cannot work on women.
Yes, otherwise all factions become space marines if there are nothing that separates them, in the case of the identity of space marines no chapter uses their male gender too such an extent that it is necessary to make such a statement and could just be a later addition to justify it. After all if we cant critizise it- how can we change it?
I actually have no idea what you just said. Could you re-iterate?
So, if there was more female representation in the rest of 40k, which I do support wholeheartedly, would you still push for female Astartes?
Space Marines are not an army for representation, because no-one is a 7 foot tall genetically altered killing machine, regardless of your gender.
The point is that it is a power fantasy, something you want to be. Space Marines are made super badass and strong so people can go "I wanna be a super soldier", for this reason they are male because men made the universe and men want to be super men.That fantasy is represented, butr it wasnt written with what women wanted to see.
Yes, i would still be pushing for female space marines. But with a slightly shifted angle, because i see no reason why women cant have a similar power fantasy directed at them.
Okay, read these words - I do not want to be a Space Marine devoid of compassion for anything barring the slaughter of the enemies of my state.
I cannot believe that ALL men want that fantasy. You cannot categorise all men want to be super men and have power fantasies, because it is patently incorrect.
Women have just as much of a power fantasy opportunity directed at them - they're called the Sisters of Battle. They wear massive, hulking power armour, making them massively durable, carry the same weapons as the Space Marine, making them strong, and have even more of a thing for fire and purging righteously than Astartes. In fact, the ONLY real difference between the two, barring gender, is that the Sisters face the same threats WITHOUT genetic enhancements - which makes them EVEN MORE badass. They're as close to a Space Marine as a human can get without the Black Carapace.
Women have the option for power fantasy.
They do not have the option to be genetically enhanced by gene-seed. But they CAN be genetically enhanced via the Assassinorum. So really, what is it they're lacking?
A lot more stories could be opened up if Orks could be Space Marines. Like Space Wolf terminators being modelled like Siege Trolls. Or if Tyranids could be Space Marines, because then we can have a Tyranid-ified Thunderwolf Cerberus.
Does this mean we can have Ork and Tyranid Space Marines?
Of course. But then you would have to make another thread to discuss it in.
But really - how different is that to your previous point?
But why is this part of the background so malleable?
Because of the many problems i have with the implications of such a statement.
Which are?
They are male because the fluff says so. That's what it boils down to for me, in much the same way that orks are green.
Cant terminators do backlflips? What fluff is the right fluff?
Due to the increased validity of contrasting canon sources and Goto's track record, the Terminator backflip is not canon. The Creation of a Space Marine quote has never been overridden, to my knowledge, so is therefore correct fluff.
No, I'm saying applying reasoning from our logic and world is not a background discussion, especially when one is trying to change the background for real world reasons instead of in-universe ones.
I am putting forth arguments as to why i think you should change the background, the discussion is still firmly about the background.
Using real world examples and reasoning.
In-universe, there is nothing wrong with Space Marines being all male.
Only males can be space marines for the same reason only females can be slayers in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That's how the creators wanted it. You either accept or don't. If you can't, then there's many other fictions out there to help you escape reality and live out your fantasies.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have explained my stance on Female Space Marines. I do not think they are necessary, because there is a fluff explanation as to why they cannot exist, and I do not see a problem with the limitation, as it runs parallel to the inverse restriction on gender with the Sisters of Battle. I accept the fluff, as there is no reason for me to question it over any other piece of fluff, such as "Why are orks green?" or "Why does a lasgun look like that?" or "Why does the Warp exist?" There is no neglected gender fluff wise, but I can completely agree that representation of women in the factions they should be represented in is shockingly neglectful..
Actually you have referred to a fluff piece that states that women cant be space marines. So i ask you: what would change or break for the space marines if GW tomorrow changes the passage and introduces female space marines? What change is so horrible that the passage cant be changed?
Firstly, I have no idea what that first sentence referred to.
Secondly, I think the more important thing, which is more accepted in debates like this, is why should be changed in the first place? I shouldn't have to justify that which already exists.
Prove to me that it should be changed, and then I can contest. However, I won't just respond to a "But why not" without a reason.
The point of the question was that for someone who is very adamant to not include female space marine, you havent actually elaborated on why such a change would be bad for the faction. you have said that fluff says no, asked what gender means to sisters, but when asked with the same question you refuse to give an answer as to what in the space marines as a faction limits this.
I have my own theory: because you lose nothing. nothing in the space marines description (other than prefixes) or themes of different chapters actually stop working because female space marines are added to them. Or can you prove me wrong?
Does everything have to be integral to the "faction identity"? One could ask why are orks predominantly green under the same idea. It's just a trait of Space Marines, like how they wear power armour, and are genetically engineered - a side effect of the genetic enhancement being that it cannot work on women.
Yes, otherwise all factions become space marines if there are nothing that separates them, in the case of the identity of space marines no chapter uses their male gender too such an extent that it is necessary to make such a statement and could just be a later addition to justify it. After all if we cant critizise it- how can we change it?
I actually have no idea what you just said. Could you re-iterate?
My point was that if gender is such a big deal then why doesnt it come up more often. it just seems like space marines are genetically enhanced super soldiers in power armour with a variety of weapons following the codex astartes. if gender was such a big deal that they just have to be male, why isnt that more pronounced?
So, if there was more female representation in the rest of 40k, which I do support wholeheartedly, would you still push for female Astartes?
Space Marines are not an army for representation, because no-one is a 7 foot tall genetically altered killing machine, regardless of your gender.
The point is that it is a power fantasy, something you want to be. Space Marines are made super badass and strong so people can go "I wanna be a super soldier", for this reason they are male because men made the universe and men want to be super men.That fantasy is represented, butr it wasnt written with what women wanted to see.
Yes, i would still be pushing for female space marines. But with a slightly shifted angle, because i see no reason why women cant have a similar power fantasy directed at them.
Okay, read these words - I do not want to be a Space Marine devoid of compassion for anything barring the slaughter of the enemies of my state.
I cannot believe that ALL men want that fantasy. You cannot categorise all men want to be super men and have power fantasies, because it is patently incorrect.
Women have just as much of a power fantasy opportunity directed at them - they're called the Sisters of Battle. They wear massive, hulking power armour, making them massively durable, carry the same weapons as the Space Marine, making them strong, and have even more of a thing for fire and purging righteously than Astartes. In fact, the ONLY real difference between the two, barring gender, is that the Sisters face the same threats WITHOUT genetic enhancements - which makes them EVEN MORE badass. They're as close to a Space Marine as a human can get without the Black Carapace.
Women have the option for power fantasy.
They do not have the option to be genetically enhanced by gene-seed. But they CAN be genetically enhanced via the Assassinorum. So really, what is it they're lacking?
Wich is probably if you play space marines you look for the chapter with less of that angle and more of others you do want. just because you cannot believe that it began as power fantasy doesnt make it less so, and i was reffering to the creators of space marines not all players. i should have made that clearer, my bad.
I cant compare space marines and sisters. sisters are never portrayed as equal to space marines thus they cannot be each others counterpart. sisters power armour is not as bulky and looks like a corset and comes with high heels. atleast on the early codex cover if i recall correctly. They are nothing alike. The space marines come in different varieties of fanatical, sisters are always fanatical.
as long as the sisters are tied to the church they will always be fanatical in one way and they will never be genetically enhanced like space marines so they can never be super soldiers in the same way.
A lot more stories could be opened up if Orks could be Space Marines. Like Space Wolf terminators being modelled like Siege Trolls. Or if Tyranids could be Space Marines, because then we can have a Tyranid-ified Thunderwolf Cerberus.
Does this mean we can have Ork and Tyranid Space Marines?
Of course. But then you would have to make another thread to discuss it in.
But really - how different is that to your previous point?
I always answered the question at hand wich was about female space marines. What you tried to spin it as was not that.
But why is this part of the background so malleable?
Because of the many problems i have with the implications of such a statement.
Which are?
I already stated them very clearly as the thread went on.
No, I'm saying applying reasoning from our logic and world is not a background discussion, especially when one is trying to change the background for real world reasons instead of in-universe ones.
I am putting forth arguments as to why i think you should change the background, the discussion is still firmly about the background.
Using real world examples and reasoning.
In-universe, there is nothing wrong with Space Marines being all male.
But that doesnt change the fact that it is about the background.
Just Tony wrote: Boneville, I'm not going to quote your copious walls of text, I'm just going to sum up a few points.
You feel that the fluff should be rewritten to make every faction co-ed as to allow an even mix of female models in every army, correct? Wouldn't that basically render the differences thematically and aesthetically between SOB and SM obsolete?
If so, how would you feel if they got the license and permission to start a Drac army in 40K? They are explicitly asexual, reproducing without binary reproduction, and have no sexes OR gender roles. Would that need to be rewritten to cater to your wants? Would you basically say everything Larry B. Longyear wrote in the fiction of his creation?
I'll wait til you get back to me on that.
More or less correct, i wouldnt say every army because there are exceptions. Tyranids is one where i dont feel that gender plays a role at all for example. For necrons there are regalias of queens like cleopatra that could make good models. But yes, the human factions i feel hasnt done enough with their gender limitations to warrant it wich is why i feel it should be changed.
I dont see a problem with the overlapping of the two factions as one is drawn from super soldiers genetically enhanced etc and addinmg space marines wouldnt necessarily mean that all current space marines get genderswapped but would allow for female space marine chapters and mixed ones of course, the other faction can then explore the religious themes of the ecclisiarchy, so i dont see the thematic and aesthetic overlap.
from my research on the drac, they seem to be written explicitly to be alien. i dont see how they would be rewritten considering the point was to be inhuman and alien to us. Much like the tyranids and daemons (although i have huge problems with slaanesh, and their "supposed" androgenous appereance) but more of a "mirror" being. The point has always been that the space marines always has been linked too humanity so they dont have that "pass".
Had the space marines been introduced as a separate hemaphroditic alien faction i wouldnt have a problem.
So an army of entirely male Amazons as someone makes the models able to be 50/50 ratios means someone will inevitably run nothing but one sex. We're not going to throw gender into it, since ANY model can identify as a gender different than their sex. Actually, that might be the best out for you, since you're looking for a reason to do this and it might work in the fluff. Y chromosome? Yep. Identifies as female? Check. Techically, that would make them female Space Marines, or you are invalidating the entire Trans community. You could even run them as The Rainbow Warriors just to make sure you have everything covered.
Past that, the part where someone told you about the Slayers. Same thing applies as far as that goes. You either need to accept the background as it is, or find wiggle room, like I gave you in the last paragraph.
, female models have hysteric outburst and cannot perform any action, except from moving 3+d3. Roll single die for every model.
along the lines of that. Despite having plenty of screen time in various cutscenes and in game dialogue, Faith is totally forgettable to me.
.
