I didn't see a thread yet about Solaria, so I thought I'd start one.

In the Dawn of War 3 trailers, it has been made clear we'll be able to field Imperial Knights, or at least one of them. The one seen so far is Lady Solaria, a free blade.

And... I was kind of shocked.

The issue of gender in 40k keeps forums like this one hopping. Could there be female Space Marines? (Nope, says the forum, too unrealistic, upper body strength, etc) What about female Imperial Guard miniatures? (Nope, says the forum, when women put on a uniform they look exactly like men) In the dark future, at least for humanity, there are only men. (And the occasion inquisitor or ancient battle sister)

So, when Imperial Knights came out, I thought "Oh, well, there's one race you can say has female fighters - no one can claim only men can sit in a chair and run a robot. You don't need superior upper body strength to use a joystick or a nuero-helmet or whatever." Then I read that codex, and learned that, no, like all human armies in games workshop games they're absolutely one hundred percent Y chromosome oriented, just like every other human army. Sorry buddy, steer your daughter toward Eldar when she wants to play, humans reproduce by spore, and the biggest and muscley-est are the ones in charge.

Then, Relic goes and says "Yeah, we didn't read that codex, you shouldn't have either," and pops out with The Forbidden Gender piloting a knight. Honestly, it was like when there was a black Space Marine librarian in DOW2, and I realized I had never seen a space marine painted anything other than "tanned flesh." The games, it seems, invariably go for more diversity than GW feels comfortable with.

So, what do you think? Anything gained in having female knight pilots be a thing? Anything lost?

Everything is gained, nothing is lost. For what it's worth, BrookM's Knightly House are piloted entirely by women, and my own currently imaginary House Skye is a nice mix of men and women.

The licensed properties and Black Library books consistently portray a much more diverse Imperium than the ALL WHITE MEN shown in the Codexes. Everything from female techpriests and Naval officers to black Guardsmen and all sorts of other people.

Which is, you know, sensible and accurate and conforms to the background - because it is the background.

So hurrah! for Lady Solaria!

Oggthrok wrote:


The issue of gender in 40k keeps forums like this one hopping. Could there be female Space Marines? (Nope, says the forum, too unrealistic, upper body strength, etc)

This is down to lore and physiology - the female body cannot withstand the implants and enhancements needed to become a Space Marine. If they could, there would be zero reason not to have them. Instead, female soldiers who want to be just as fanatical as the Space Marines are part of the Adeptus Sororitas.

What about female Imperial Guard miniatures? (Nope, says the forum, when women put on a uniform they look exactly like men) In the dark future, at least for humanity, there are only men. (And the occasion inquisitor or ancient battle sister)

This is silly - female Guardsman are very common and it would be cracking if they had model representation outside of 3rd party miniatures. I think you've got twisted with the thread regarding the DKOK, who wear so much heavy fatigues that making out males from females would be pretty hard.

So, what do you think? Anything gained in having female knight pilots be a thing? Anything lost?

Nothing gained in theory since females exist and work in practically every Imperial organisation outside of the Adeptus Astartes, but it is a gain to actually see some more human females on the field.

G.A

Oggthrok wrote:
I realized I had never seen a space marine painted anything other than "tanned flesh."

I have to disagree. The whole Salamander chapter is black. And how the players paint their chapter isn't up to GW. Dark Angels were Native American.
And I have the feeling that there are more white people playing 40k than non white, so it isn't really suprising^^

 godardc wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I realized I had never seen a space marine painted anything other than "tanned flesh."

I have to disagree. The whole Salamander chapter is black. And how the players paint their chapter isn't up to GW. Dark Angels were Native American.
And I have the feeling that there are more white people playing 40k than non white, so it isn't really suprising^^

No, the whole Salamanders Chapter used to be black, but now they are literally black. As in, coal-black-with-red-eyes-like-a-demon black.

And Space Marines aren't actually the best at displaying skin colour, as almost all chapters can wildly vary the amount of melanin in their skin anyway, depending on local conditions and whether or not they're in or out of armour. Space Marines aren't really humans any more.

The Dark Angels were still painted white, even back in the day when they recruited heavily from the Planet of the Native Americans, before it was Genestealerised and the Deathwing painted their armour bone.

And, sure, I suspect the entire staff of GW HQ are going to be white, but it hasn't killed me to paint my Guardsmen black and brown and white as opposed to white, white and MOAR WHITE.

All that said, there have been at least two White Dwarf articles showing how to paint black skin...

 Gen.Steiner wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I realized I had never seen a space marine painted anything other than "tanned flesh."

I have to disagree. The whole Salamander chapter is black. And how the players paint their chapter isn't up to GW. Dark Angels were Native American.
And I have the feeling that there are more white people playing 40k than non white, so it isn't really suprising^^

No, the whole Salamanders Chapter used to be black, but now they are literally black. As in, coal-black-with-red-eyes-like-a-demon black.

And Space Marines aren't actually the best at displaying skin colour, as almost all chapters can wildly vary the amount of melanin in their skin anyway, depending on local conditions and whether or not they're in or out of armour. Space Marines aren't really humans any more.

The Dark Angels were still painted white, even back in the day when they recruited heavily from the Planet of the Native Americans, before it was Genestealerised and the Deathwing painted their armour bone.

And, sure, I suspect the entire staff of GW HQ are going to be white, but it hasn't killed me to paint my Guardsmen black and brown and white as opposed to white, white and MOAR WHITE.

All that said, there have been at least two White Dwarf articles showing how to paint black skin...

Catachan were frequently shown to be black. Also how did I know someone would rebuke the post that the Salamanders are black? White Scars are Asian, there's your non-whites. Unless Asian's arent brown enough for you.

They are your dudes paint them how you want.

I'm not sure why people are so keen for a more diverse Imperium when it's supposed to be a cruel and archaic regime that openly discriminates against any who fall outside of its ideal.
On the issue of female Knights, it's been done, no real gains just your typical mulan type stuff.
As for Salamanders having been black, the very same codex which originally showed this had one black Salamander compared with two white Salamanders, so they've never been the black guy chapter until they turned pitch black.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:

The licensed properties and Black Library books consistently portray a much more diverse Imperium than the ALL WHITE MEN shown in the Codexes. Everything from female techpriests and Naval officers to black Guardsmen and all sorts of other people.

Graham McNeil's Knights of the Imperium have the male knights react in shock and indignation when it's revealed that their mystery Freeblade is a woman. At least the novel suggests that female Knight pilots are unheard of.

Animus wrote:
I'm not sure why people are so keen for a more diverse Imperium when it's supposed to be a cruel and archaic regime that openly discriminates against any who fall outside of its ideal.

The thing is that the Imperium cannot afford to discriminate anyone other than the Mutant and the Heretic, since manpower is its greatest weapon outside of the Space Marines. To disregard, or not to make good use, of such a large chunk of Imperial populations (that being females) in war efforts across the galaxy would be way too idiotic even for humanity in the 41st Millennium to consider.

I know what kind of argument might come of that - "But G.A, females could just be used to increase the population and raise male children to fight for the Imperium". Yeah, but in the 18 years it would roughly take to raise young, who may or may not be male, their mothers could be employed to serve in the military arms of the Imperium. This actually happens on Cadia, where even female regiments have been created or companies have been formed to be attached to already existing forces. As for the ones who care for children, they often serve in the PDF on Cadia, either on deck or as other military personnel, such as logistics and communications. Point is, to cut them out of being able to serve in these jobs would be a cost the Imperium can't cover.

As for race within the human race, same kinda principle - if you aren't a filthy Mutant, you're in. Just because GW hasn't painted many black guys for their display armies doesn't invalidate their existence, since no piece of lore has ever said they don't. To that end, I have plenty of black, white and a bit in between Guardsman, as well as a black Commissar. Hell, I've even painted a black Blood Angels Scout, as the Master of Recruits is not going to disregard talent and worthiness to become a Space Marine based on a person's skin colour.

So believe it or not, the Imperium is actually very diverse. We just have a 0 tolerance policy for heretics

G.A

Oggthrok wrote:
I didn't see a thread yet about Solaria, so I thought I'd start one.

In the Dawn of War 3 trailers, it has been made clear we'll be able to field Imperial Knights, or at least one of them. The one seen so far is Lady Solaria, a free blade.

And... I was kind of shocked.

The issue of gender in 40k keeps forums like this one hopping. Could there be female Space Marines? (Nope, says the forum, too unrealistic, upper body strength, etc) What about female Imperial Guard miniatures? (Nope, says the forum, when women put on a uniform they look exactly like men) In the dark future, at least for humanity, there are only men. (And the occasion inquisitor or ancient battle sister)

So, when Imperial Knights came out, I thought "Oh, well, there's one race you can say has female fighters - no one can claim only men can sit in a chair and run a robot. You don't need superior upper body strength to use a joystick or a nuero-helmet or whatever." Then I read that codex, and learned that, no, like all human armies in games workshop games they're absolutely one hundred percent Y chromosome oriented, just like every other human army. Sorry buddy, steer your daughter toward Eldar when she wants to play, humans reproduce by spore, and the biggest and muscley-est are the ones in charge.

Then, Relic goes and says "Yeah, we didn't read that codex, you shouldn't have either," and pops out with The Forbidden Gender piloting a knight. Honestly, it was like when there was a black Space Marine librarian in DOW2, and I realized I had never seen a space marine painted anything other than "tanned flesh." The games, it seems, invariably go for more diversity than GW feels comfortable with.

So, what do you think? Anything gained in having female knight pilots be a thing? Anything lost?

The BL novels are much better than GW which has been erasing its female characters and ignoring those that are left - like say Adepta Sororitas.

That Imperial Knights were suddenly men only was annoying - but then the tie in book (which is quoted directly in the original codex) has a femlae pilot so its not impossible just unusual and likely tradition rather than anything to do with tech or biology like it is with Astartes.

Nothing to say a Knight world could not (like any Imperial world) be female dominated - interestingly the importance and influence of the consort was highlighted in the original codex and erased in the second.

Animus wrote:
I'm not sure why people are so keen for a more diverse Imperium when it's supposed to be a cruel and archaic regime that openly discriminates against any who fall outside of its ideal.

Only to a certain extent. The Imperium is a massive empire of a million worlds and thousands of different cultures. Look at the Imperial Guard regiments alone and see how the Tallarn differ from the Vostroyans or the Tanith. For a grimdark empire the Imperium is surprisingly diverse place with countless different cultures and planets. You have have a dizzy array of differences from hive worlds, to shrine worlds, to agri-worlds, to Space MArines homeworlds, to death worlds, etc, etc.

Black Library and Fantasy Flight Games tend to really expand on this more.

GW has done its best to try to pretend the female gender does not exist, and all the males seem to be pasty white. As others have already noted, BL and other publications do better at showing females and other ethnicities, although GW has made Salamanders supernatural black rather than ethnically black, and White Scars are token stereotypical Mongol (and artwork often even then shows ethnically white person dressed up as Mongol-like, like who white actors portrayed Mongol characters in movies during the 50's and 60's).

GW has tried to handwave things like Knights only being suited for males on a physiological or neurological issue, despite then this conflicting with the existence of female Knight pilots. One could rationalize this I suppose as biased pseudo-science, in the same way that historically (male) scholars had falsely concluded that females had a temperament and physiology unsuitable to getting a formal education, and that doing so would be harmful to their fragile brains.

the nurological issue with knights ISN'T that women can't do it. the neurloigcal issue is that the mental conditioning that produces knight societies ALSO tends to enchourage a patriarchial system. now, moving away from that...

GW has told us about a number of freeblades. of that number we know the identities of 3. (including Lady Solaria) of thsoe 3, 2 are women. given I know for a fact that GW would have had a hand in approveing Solaria, my guess is their intent is that freeblades are often women, breaking the shackles of society etc.
I suspect GW made this decision because they wanted a faction they could tell stories of knighthoods etc in space. freeblades are intended to fill the role of the "Black Knight" and part of that story tradtion is the "Eowyn"

not sure it really has worked out that way, and if I was in charge of writing a 8th edition IK codex I'd specificly include in the codex that "despite the tendancy towards patriarchial society, legends abound of women knight pilots, stepping up as freeblades and becoming great heros in their own rights"

Only male knights is so stupid, indeed...
I don't understand why they did it. Why had they to tell us this ? What do they earn by doing this ? Really surprising to me.

 godardc wrote:
Only male knights is so stupid, indeed...
I don't understand why they did it. Why had they to tell us this ? What do they earn by doing this ? Really surprising to me.

To make it more like medieval knights?

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Only male knights is so stupid, indeed...
I don't understand why they did it. Why had they to tell us this ? What do they earn by doing this ? Really surprising to me.

To make it more like medieval knights?

Oh, that's not a stupid idea, in fact.
How did I miss it ?

Relic have always been excellent at representation. This is the first I've heard of this (other than the basic knowledge that there was a Knight character in DoW3), and I'm thoroughly pleased.

EDIT: Not only that, she's the ruler of her house and is known for being "fierce and stubborn". Excellent.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:


The issue of gender in 40k keeps forums like this one hopping. Could there be female Space Marines? (Nope, says the forum, too unrealistic, upper body strength, etc)

This is down to lore and physiology - the female body cannot withstand the implants and enhancements needed to become a Space Marine. If they could, there would be zero reason not to have them. Instead, female soldiers who want to be just as fanatical as the Space Marines are part of the Adeptus Sororitas.

This is very much a cop out on GWs part. They are putting a human body through such a vast transformation that it barely resembles a human afterwards except for some outward characteristics. The differences between a man and woman are pathetically small compared to the differences in the end result from where you start.

To argue that the technology which can accomplish that big a change from man to Space Marine cannot do so from a woman base that is only marginally different to a male is absurd.

Score one for Relic.

Can we get GW to catch up on this please?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:


The issue of gender in 40k keeps forums like this one hopping. Could there be female Space Marines? (Nope, says the forum, too unrealistic, upper body strength, etc)

This is down to lore and physiology - the female body cannot withstand the implants and enhancements needed to become a Space Marine. If they could, there would be zero reason not to have them. Instead, female soldiers who want to be just as fanatical as the Space Marines are part of the Adeptus Sororitas.

This is very much a cop out on GWs part. They are putting a human body through such a vast transformation that it barely resembles a human afterwards except for some outward characteristics. The differences between a man and woman are pathetically small compared to the differences in the end result from where you start.

To argue that the technology which can accomplish that big a change from man to Space Marine cannot do so from a woman base that is only marginally different to a male is absurd.

It wouldn't be a problem (for me) if not for the sheer lack of women otherwise in the setting. I'm fine with them wanting all-male monastic-space-knight Astartes and Orks. Making it a result of the process of their creation, in the case of Astartes, is much preferable to "women can, but they're just not allowed to", especially given the nature of the Imperium as discussed previously. It's only when this is considered alongside the suspiciously missing women (particularly of the Eldar and other Imperial groups like the Guard and Inquisition, not forgetting the treatment of the all-female Sisters of Battle) that it becomes telling of a wider issue. If girls got to be cool too, it wouldn't matter that they couldn't be Space Marines. As it is, however, the only women we see are there specifically to be women - ie, they are women because their position requires them to be. The Sisters of Battle are female because they're space nuns, while one out of the eight Phoenix Lords - Jain Zar of the Howling Banshees - is only female because the mythological banshee is a female spirit. The Howling Banshees themselves are thus the only Aspect (out of 9+) to be shown as regularly having female members. Of four kinds of Assassin, only the Callidus is regularly shown as female; the in-universe explanation is that it is because of Polymorphine (groan), but that just means that the only women among the Assassins are the ones who literally have to be female or else their equipment won't work - but why can't they use a big sniper rifle, a head-cannon, or crazy drugs?

The Knight thing, however, is inexcusable for a number of reasons. It makes no sense within the context of itself for one; because women are fully capable of piloting Knights, this barrier is purely cultural even though we know that these worlds are far removed from each other and have vast cultural differences, even if they are all shaped by the presence of giant mechs. To state that the majority of these "many hundreds" of worlds have cultures which specifically disallow women from piloting is absurd. If it was because they wanted to make female Knight pilots whose story incorporates this, they should have made it specific to the House that pilot comes from. In-universe discrimination can be used as a powerful character background if it's handled properly, but this is not the narrative they were aiming to create and it shows. It is a blatant "cop out", as you said.

This all said, GW has created a record-breaking number of three whole female character models recently (Drycha Hamadreth, Alarielle, the Mistweaver Saih, as well as male and female Branchwraiths). And one black man, even! One can only hope that these shocking creations are the start of a new trend.

You are always free to fill in whatever head canon you please. Why would anyone wait on GW to make it official to have a female pilot model in an IK?

Immolator pilot with any bare head would be perfect I would think.

Which chapter is the Russel Peters Indian of space marines?



What about the mexican sm chapter?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:


The issue of gender in 40k keeps forums like this one hopping. Could there be female Space Marines? (Nope, says the forum, too unrealistic, upper body strength, etc)

This is down to lore and physiology - the female body cannot withstand the implants and enhancements needed to become a Space Marine. If they could, there would be zero reason not to have them. Instead, female soldiers who want to be just as fanatical as the Space Marines are part of the Adeptus Sororitas.

This is very much a cop out on GWs part. They are putting a human body through such a vast transformation that it barely resembles a human afterwards except for some outward characteristics. The differences between a man and woman are pathetically small compared to the differences in the end result from where you start.

To argue that the technology which can accomplish that big a change from man to Space Marine cannot do so from a woman base that is only marginally different to a male is absurd.

It's not about the end result, it's about the process. A human male can naturally grow and develop faster after puberty than a female can, and typically finds it much easier than a female to develop muscle across the arms, the cortex and so forth, and to maintain their development. This is what makes them able to withstand the harsh transformation into a Space Marine from a young age.

At least this is what biology theorises in real life - it may or may not have a huge impact, but I assume it does based on the reasons that male and female sports exist separately to achieve "fairness" and how the average man is likely to be stronger than the average woman. This effect could be greater on certain recruitment worlds even, with the population being weaker or stronger based on environmental factors.

Again, I reckon that if females could be plausibly enhanced into a Space Marine en mass, the Imperium would not hesitate to do so if it had the resources. I believe that the idea would have been debunked by the Emperor himself many years ago though, since all the Gene Seed Zygotes are "keyed to male hormones and tissue types". Females seem better off, therefore, serving in the Adeptus Sororitas, with training to match a Space Marine's skill combined with armour that better fits their physique.

Argh, the point is not to replicate modern day nationalities in 40K, but to demonstrate that 38,000 years in the future, there are ethnic differences from world to world and thus throughout the Imperium. Hell, there'll be ethnic differences within global populations as well, because 30,000 years of space colonisation and living is long enough to create evolutionary divergence, not to mention the side effects of Golden Age of Technology genetic meddling with space travellers and colonists.

So rather than talking about "Mexican Space Marines", we need to be talking about different skin colours across the Imperium, and also the depiction of women within the Imperium.

I too am glad to see more female figures coming out of AoS, and more non-white paintjobs, but it would be nice to have even more, and also less of all this "HURR NO GURLS CAN DRIVE KNIGHTS" business.

 godardc wrote:
Only male knights is so stupid, indeed...
I don't understand why they did it. Why had they to tell us this ? What do they earn by doing this ? Really surprising to me.

Probably because they're stereotypical medieval knights... IN SPACE! Right down to the patriarchal society, and the Knights being shocked in that-one-novel when their Freeblade pilot turns out to be a woman.

Honestly, I'm a bit torn. I think Imperial Knights being patriarchal and potential Freeblades being women to get away from that adds a more unique spin on the idea of a female Knight, rather than "the Imperium is 110% politically correct when it comes to us humans." On the other hand, there's so many worlds in the Imperium that out there among a million planets there would be at least one Knight-world that doesn't have enforced gender roles for its pilots. So eh, I'm mostly indifferent.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

The Knight thing, however, is inexcusable for a number of reasons. It makes no sense within the context of itself for one; because women are fully capable of piloting Knights, this barrier is purely cultural even though we know that these worlds are far removed from each other and have vast cultural differences, even if they are all shaped by the presence of giant mechs. To state that the majority of these "many hundreds" of worlds have cultures which specifically disallow women from piloting is absurd. If it was because they wanted to make female Knight pilots whose story incorporates this, they should have made it specific to the House that pilot comes from. In-universe discrimination can be used as a powerful character background if it's handled properly, but this is not the narrative they were aiming to create and it shows. It is a blatant "cop out", as you said.

Knights share a culture across worlds because the throne mechanicum affects their minds, turning them into feudal lords. And Harlequins and Dark Eldar have loads of females.

Hey, thank you for the replies everyone! I'm actually surprised to hear so much support for female knight pilots, and diversity in general, but it's good to hear.

To add my response to what some folks have said - I absolutely agree that, in most cases, the all male armies have fluff reasons for why they're all male. They're patriarchal, they're old fashioned, they're intolerant, they're etc etc etc.

Which is cool... it's just, it gets really old. And, the fluff is only that way, because they keep writing it that way. Because, ultimately, this is all fantastical fiction.

And, there are cases where the exclusion makes sense to me. Take the Space Marines - I'd love there to be random female marines amongst the men. But, thematically, I can see a very good reason why there shouldn't be that has nothing to do with genotyping or gender-genetics or whatever. The reason is, because it would give the marines hope. Hope for a life of any sort like that which normal men and women enjoy. Hope for families, or affection, or any sort of relationship outside of their brotherhood. Concepts like family, or mother and fatherhood, are torn from a young marine recruit's world view, to make room for the singular, miserable task they must devote their lives to. They understand us and the way we live, the way we understand plants and photosynthesis. We can explain the whole process, we can stand in the sun and enjoy the warmth, but ultimately we have no idea what it's like for the plants. To change this, I feel, would relieve some of the atmosphere that marines are both much more and much less than ordinary humans, which for me makes them so interesting.

But, for my giant robots... I grew up on Battletech and tales of Natasha Kerensky. It gives me no joy to hear they're too stoic or patriarchal or whatever... variety is the spice of life, and gaming, after all.

The irony is, when I imagine a female pilot in my Knight in 40k... no one would know or care, because at the end of the day, it's just a stompy robot to the people it's shooting at.

The Space Marine conversion process being incompatible with women doesn't have anything to do with arm-chair biology, it has to do with the fact that the Emperor based the process on the Primarchs who were in turn based upon his own genetic template. The result being something that only works on men is a medical limitation, that those men had to be particularly good specimens to survive the process was a separate and distinct limitation.

At the time he didn't see a need to refine the process to be compatible with women (whatever those reasons were, who knows, but the Emperor wasn't infallible) but they served in all other facets of the Great Crusade without it being commented on, so I don't really think one can infer the Emperor or the society he was building was necessarily sexist.

But to my point: the Imperium has regressed technologically, the process is breaking down, mutations are being introduced, space marines need to be recruited from increasingly young ages and failure rates are much higher. It is less equipped now than its ever been to modify the process and what may have began as a whim of the emperor (or simply a matter of expediency) is now an unchangeable fact.

... Also, GW wanted to explain why they didn't have female space marine minis without using the words 'target audience', 'focus group', and 'concerned parents'. It was the 20th century, after all...

As for the other things, I'm less patient: fluf-wise the Tau field mixed regiments as a rule but our poor human eyes aren't able to pick out their dimorphosizm, and the Eldar do the same, even if the middle range is over saturated with relatively masculine parts.

The guard ostensibly field units with varied gender ratios depending largely on their world's attitude towards their tithe. Some send out mixed gendered units, some segregated, some planets treat women as second-class citizens unsuitable for fighting, others as second-class citizens to be rounded up and shipped off to fight, etc. There's lots of opportunity, but very few actual female models. I don't really buy the idea that a female Cadian would look exactly like a male in armour, but the Lt. Mira solution in Space Marine goes way too far, with her extra small armour plate and insistence that her men never refer to her with personal pronouns in order to maximize the reveal. (We were saved by the leftennant, you'll find the leftennant in the leftennant's command bunker, tell the leftennant I said hi!)

The knight one is particularly egregious. I actually didn't believe it the first time I heard someone complaining about it, they argued it seemed like they only made up that women couldn't pilot knights just so they could introduce this female knight pilot in the same breath.

Black Library has always been more actively diverse in its depiction of the Imperium, probably intentionally, and i think to good effect. The Cain books alone have male and female regiments, black valhallan's, female commissars, stormtroopers, homosexuality, and so forth, and generally does a good job depicting it all as such a useless thing to worry about in the times they're facing.

BL also made the entire Celestial Lions chapter black, if you're sick of parroting that Salamanders argument.

... that doesn't make any sense, since a given man is going to be more genetically-similar to his sister than he is to some other, random guy off the street.

If I had to make a guess as to why Astartes are only selected from males, my guess is it'd have something to do with testestrone.

BL also made the entire Celestial Lions chapter black, if you're sick of parroting that Salamanders argument.

And then did unto them what movie directors have done unto the black actors in their films for years, to be fair - not that that invalidates the argument.

But yeah. Knightly houses are from worlds with a deliberate 'medieval europe' feel. Result; patriarchal, therefore few female pilots.

It's not any physical limitation, though, so logically there's no reason for a matriarchal world out there.

More importantly, those houses more closely tied to the mechanicus won't give a monkey's about gender because senior scions will be about 60% chrome by mass anyway.

I'd agree that it's nice to see them; because exceptions to a rule that's not a biologically immutable one (like with marines) help keep the feel of the universe's diversity.

A lot of the artwork for the FFG RPG Only War has female guardsmen.

For that matter, one of the first Callidus Assassins encountered in a Black Library book was male.

I think the only army with a decent mix of genders is the newer Dark Eldar, if I remember right.

I don't want to see female Space Marines because we have the Sisters of Battle, the latter being about a million times more interesting than the former. If we saw female Space Marines you can absolutely bet that would be taken as the final nail to Squat the Sisters.

 Psienesis wrote:
... that doesn't make any sense, since a given man is going to be more genetically-similar to his sister than he is to some other, random guy off the street.

But barring consideration for certain genetic disorders, that sister isn't going to have any of the 200+ genes so far discovered only present on the Y chromosome.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Argh, the point is not to replicate modern day nationalities in 40K, but to demonstrate that 38,000 years in the future, there are ethnic differences from world to world and thus throughout the Imperium. Hell, there'll be ethnic differences within global populations as well, because 30,000 years of space colonisation and living is long enough to create evolutionary divergence, not to mention the side effects of Golden Age of Technology genetic meddling with space travellers and colonists.

So rather than talking about "Mexican Space Marines", we need to be talking about different skin colours across the Imperium, and also the depiction of women within the Imperium.

I too am glad to see more female figures coming out of AoS, and more non-white paintjobs, but it would be nice to have even more, and also less of all this "HURR NO GURLS CAN DRIVE KNIGHTS" business.

It sounds like you're asking for more ethnicities, which if you are, Mexican space marines and African space marines fits quite well. The whole point is so different players have something to identify with, and have variety. Mexican and African chapters are just that. And don't try to argue they aren't, especially when the Celestial Lions act as a stereotypical African tribe and Crimson Fists chapter master is named Pedro.

Gree wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:

The licensed properties and Black Library books consistently portray a much more diverse Imperium than the ALL WHITE MEN shown in the Codexes. Everything from female techpriests and Naval officers to black Guardsmen and all sorts of other people.

Graham McNeil's Knights of the Imperium have the male knights react in shock and indignation when it's revealed that their mystery Freeblade is a woman. At least the novel suggests that female Knight pilots are unheard of.

The implication was not that it is unheard of, but rather that it was not something that is approved of.

Additionally, we get everything in Knights of the Imperium from the perspective of House Cadmus where the women are considered important for keeping the traditions and scions of Cadmus alive.

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Argh, the point is not to replicate modern day nationalities in 40K, but to demonstrate that 38,000 years in the future, there are ethnic differences from world to world and thus throughout the Imperium. Hell, there'll be ethnic differences within global populations as well, because 30,000 years of space colonisation and living is long enough to create evolutionary divergence, not to mention the side effects of Golden Age of Technology genetic meddling with space travellers and colonists.

So rather than talking about "Mexican Space Marines", we need to be talking about different skin colours across the Imperium, and also the depiction of women within the Imperium.

I too am glad to see more female figures coming out of AoS, and more non-white paintjobs, but it would be nice to have even more, and also less of all this "HURR NO GURLS CAN DRIVE KNIGHTS" business.

It sounds like you're asking for more ethnicities, which if you are, Mexican space marines and African space marines fits quite well. The whole point is so different players have something to identify with, and have variety. Mexican and African chapters are just that. And don't try to argue they aren't, especially when the Celestial Lions act as a stereotypical African tribe and Crimson Fists chapter master is named Pedro.

Yes, I am asking for different ethnic backgrounds for my future fantasy soldiers - but I want them to be distinct, not Space Marines From The Country Of Africa, or Mexican Marines (I mean, Pedro Kantor isn't a Mexican necessarily anyway, Pedro is just a Hispanic name). Draw from inspiration, definitely, but let's have a mix - how about taking cues from Hindu mythology and pairing it with Aztec imagery, or drawing from medieval North African art, renaissance Venice, and coupling that with the Vietnamese empire? And then you can have black Guardsmen, or brown, or Asian, or Oriental, or what-have-you, without being reduced to Planet Of The Hats like the Vampire Italians of the Blood Angels.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The implication was not that it is unheard of, but rather that it was not something that is approved of.

Semantics. It's pretty clear from the book that she was not supposed to pilot that knight and that it's not allowed. Which was my main point.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Additionally, we get everything in Knights of the Imperium from the perspective of House Cadmus where the women are considered important for keeping the traditions and scions of Cadmus alive.

You can look at it that way, but it doesn't much explain why the Freeblade hides her face from all the other Knightly Houses and Imperial Forces. The Freeblade be definition isn't part of House Cadmus.
Graham McNeill very much seemed going the route of Medieval Europe's own patriarchal knight culture and transposing it into 40k Knight Houses. Apparently, at least according to McNeill, female knights are taboo. It's at least supported by the 6th edition Codex that only mention women as consorts and men as warriors.

Of course Relic chose to ignore it and that's probably for the best.

( I should probably put forward a disclaimer that I'm all for female Knight and such. It's just that we have at least one source that seems to imply otherwise.)

Gree wrote:

Of course Relic chose to ignore it and that's probably for the best.

Did they though? Their female Knight is also apparently a Freeblade.

Animus wrote:

Gree wrote:

Of course Relic chose to ignore it and that's probably for the best.

Did they though? Their female Knight is also apparently a Freeblade.

She's the ruler of House Varlock according to the website.

I thought the lore actually supported female knight pilots in kind of a Jeanne d'Arc way, really uncommon due to the type of civilisations knight worlds tend to be but not impossible. Really the only impossibility is male sisters of battle and female space marines so that should be seen as a fair trade to hopefully let that stupid arguement go finally.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, we get everything in Knights of the Imperium from the perspective of House Cadmus where the women are considered important for keeping the traditions and scions of Cadmus alive.

This, so much this. It's very much a case of "who indeed is wearing the pants of power in this establishment?"

The men may be strong on the battlefield, but their wives and consorts are running that gak in the background, influencing almost every aspect of the running of the House.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gree wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The implication was not that it is unheard of, but rather that it was not something that is approved of.

Semantics. It's pretty clear from the book that she was not supposed to pilot that knight and that it's not allowed. Which was my main point.

Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Everything is gained, nothing is lost. For what it's worth, BrookM's Knightly House are piloted entirely by women, and my own currently imaginary House Skye is a nice mix of men and women.

Actually my house, while Amazonian now due to a large batch of girls being born, is actually cognatic, meaning both genders are allowed to become pilots.

Then again, my House is an outcast offshoot of House Terryn during the Heresy era, so some more leeway is given, but this can be nicely forged into a narrative as to why they're kicked out to begin with.




I'm curious though, is there a definitive source that states that only men can become pilots of Knights?

 BrookM wrote:
Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.

Of course the protagonist grows to respect her, but there is also the whole thing about her being female that he's shocked by.

Gree wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.

Of course the protagonist grows to respect her, but there is also the whole thing about her being female that he's shocked by.

Oh yes, quite. When the unveil happened he wanted to take her Knight away, but his wife would have none of that gak and told him to have the Knight fixed and let her have another go at getting revenge.

Cognatic. A lovely word!

I really do think all this insanity on GW's part boils down to their generalising across an Imperium of over a million worlds, with more cultures than we've ever had exist on Earth.

Sure, there will be male-only Knight Houses, and female-only ones, and mixed ones, and ones where the Knights are permanently wired into their Command Thrones, and ones where you can only become a Knight once you're more machine than human, and more beside.

Saying "It is like this, and only this" is just... madness.

 BrookM wrote:

Gree wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.

Of course the protagonist grows to respect her, but there is also the whole thing about her being female that he's shocked by.

Oh yes, quite. When the unveil happened he wanted to take her Knight away, but his wife would have none of that gak and told him to have the Knight fixed and let her have another go at getting revenge.

I think it's pretty clear from the novel that while they don't fight, the women in house Cadmus are wearing the pants.

It certainly does not help that indeed we have this massive galaxy of wonder, our gaze is always being directed to such a small selection of what is on offer.

Some things are cast in stone and have become something of a cornerstone of the fluff, like Space Marines all being male only, the Ecclesiarchy not being allowed to take men under arms ever again or that the Imperial Guard has become a massive joke army that cannot win unless they throw large amounts of bodies at it.

But I'll ask the question again, is there a definitive source that states that only men are allowed to be the pilots of Knights?

I personally feel that players should do as they see fit, there are worse things out there one can do with the established fluff, like having magical space girls represent space marines..

It is interesting that Relic made Solaria the High Queen, or whatever the local term is for the supreme ruler of her Household, instead of a Freeblade, which would be more befitting of the setting. I'd love to see a damned good explanation as to why the ruler of a house of Imperial Knights spends so much time with those magpies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
I think it's pretty clear from the novel that while they don't fight, the women in house Cadmus are wearing the pants.

Yes, this is something I keep saying. While the men are off having their moment, the ladies are stuck unravelling a plot, all the while running the house.

There are a few lines here and there in the novel that certainly hammer home how much power they actually wield without the lads knowing about it. Though a part of me likes to think that Roland is okay with that, as most nobles live for the fight, not the courts.

 BrookM wrote:
It certainly does not help that indeed we have this massive galaxy of wonder, our gaze is always being directed to such a small selection of what is on offer.

Some things are cast in stone and have become something of a cornerstone of the fluff, like Space Marines all being male only, the Ecclesiarchy not being allowed to take men under arms ever again or that the Imperial Guard has become a massive joke army that cannot win unless they throw large amounts of bodies at it.

But I'll ask the question again, is there a definitive source that states that only men are allowed to be the pilots of Knights?

There is no such thing as a "definitive source" for anything fluff-related in 40k, because the entire IP doesn't work like that. Apart from a few really basic things, there's no such thing as "canon" to 40k, which separates it from the Star Wars IP. SW had an official chart that established which sources were more-canon than what other sources. 40k has no such thing, and is not ever intended to have any such thing. To GW/BL, "all of it is true, especially the parts that contradict each other".

So on the topic of female Imperial Knights, Freeblade or otherwise, the only real answer is "it's however you want it to be". There's dozens of variations to the question and its answers, but none of them are wrong.

Of course there is a canon. If someone tried to write that their bolters shoot rainbow lasers, they would get told they are wrong because bolters shoot mass reactive bolts and use ammunition. The fact such a definitive statement can be said about anything in the 40K universe shows there is a de facto canon at work. The 40K canon is not very consistent due to the lack of interest by GW in screening out errors or inconsistencies and their habit of inserting retcons, but there is a canon, a body of definitively known and set in stone facts about the 40K universe.

The boltguns of the Emperor's Children, having spent ten thousand years in the Warp, now fire rainbow lasers that seem to scream with a thousand voices of ecstasy and agony as they deliver the caress of the Warp to victims of the Legion.

 Psienesis wrote:
The boltguns of the Emperor's Children, having spent ten thousand years in the Warp, now fire rainbow lasers that seem to scream with a thousand voices of ecstasy and agony as they deliver the caress of the Warp to victims of the Legion.

"You're wrong. Bolters don't fire lasers." That is what an editor would toss back at any Black Library writer that tried such a blatant error. GW and BL editing is sloppy with regards to content but when there are major contradictions to established facts about 40K then they would knock it back. Try writing the Ultramarines wear pink and have always done so, the Heresy never happened, etc... Without some form of canon, some level of internal consistency and fixed facts about how a fictional universe works, fictional universes collapse into nonsense.

If 2 individuals decide there were never Primarchs, never any Tau, and never a Heresy with still 20 Legions of Space Marines running round, are they still playing in the 40K universe? No, not the 40K universe as understood by others. They are off in their own fan universe. Not all things in 40K are mutable. There are effective facts dictated by GW, some of which they might retcon, but once retconned exist as facts. Without fixed unalterable details, no discussion can be had and there is no 40K universe because nothing can be ruled as any more acceptable or ridiculous than anything else. A person could claim all bolters fire nerfballs or daisies, Orks are really blue, Horus being really female, Homer Simpson was really the Primarch of the Blood Angels, Grots being able to tear Titans limb from limb in close combat, and that would have to be taken as worthy and legitimate as any claim of bolters firing mass reactive shells since "nothing is fixed and everything is possible." Without constraints on what is or is not possible, you don't have a setting. You have nonsense.

The whole "no such thing as canon" stance came from a former staff member of BL during the era that produced such abominations as Goto's books. That was the same era in which BL's policy was that they would never ever have any non-human viewpoints in their books. Since that time, they have backtracked on their stance as shown by the existence of xenos books like the Eldar Path trilogy, the Asurmen book, and an upcoming Jain Zar book.

For the 500th time... no, it isn't, as we are told by BL authors:

http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/
http://philipsibbering.com/blog/articles/canon/

Marc Gascoigne wrote:
“I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a “big question” doesn’t matter. It’s all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is “Yes and no” or perhaps “Sometimes”. And for me, that’s the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be “sometimes” or “it varies” or “depends”.

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It’s a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW’s definition of canon? Perhaps we don’t have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I’m not telling you.”

And, as is obvious in things that are different between two different BL authors, the editors at BL don't really give a feth. Terminators doing backflips? Sure. Flying Rhinos? Go ahead. Servitors cracking jokes with an Inquisitor? Sounds good to us.

Are there certain fundamental aspects to the setting? Of course. There's the Emperor. There's the Primarchs. Space Marines and Orks, Eldar and Tau. But, apart from these very broad strokes, nothing about these things is immutable, and your snip. Reds8n nit-pickery over this kind of detail is, frankly, fething tiresome.

Obviously, there are story elements that exist in 40k that make it 40k, but these elements are painted in very broad strokes. It is when you start claiming that specific details are "canon" is where you go wrong. Do bolters fire bolts? Sure. Maybe. What's a bolt? Well, it's either a cased or a caseless ammunition that either explodes like a grenade or acts as a frangible round. It may or may not be self-guiding. It may or may not pop power armor like a hot knife through butter. Could a boltgun fire lasers? Possibly. It's an ancient weapon design, there may be relics from the Dark Age of Technology that combined bolts with las-tech.

Marc is the same person that claimed there would never be a xenos novel from Black Library due to "aliens being alien and therefore impossible to understand" or some other such copout. All that blather was just excuses for author and editor laziness and lack of continuity checking and consistency. Now we have multiple xenos trilogies with what seems to be another Phoenix Lord series on the way so his word counts for nothing as previously stated. Black Library's publication history shows that position is now obsolete if it was ever true in the first place.

"Immutable facts" and "fundamental aspects" are canon. That is what canon is. It is not anything goes if there are any lines that cannot be crossed, if there are some things that are immutable. You have just admitted you are wrong about the existence of canon. A loose canon is still an existent canon, albeit one with still many loopholes, retcons, and inconsistencies. It just means it is loose and is not religiously fact checked or defined down to little details. However a de facto canon still exists as is clearly apparent to many other 40K players out there.

GW can decide to retcon it and change what is canon in the future but at this particular point in time, there is a de facto canonical state even if not fully explicitly stated or delineated in every detail or limit. A player or writer claiming the Emperor and the entire Imperium never ever existed in the first place would be told they are wrong. If they wrote they had a run of the mill standard issue bolter that fired 1 shot and blew away half the galaxy, they would be told they are wrong and that it didn't happen and cannot happen. There are internal limits imposed upon the ficitonal unverse and these limits are part of the canon, because they define the universe and what is or is not possible. And yes, there are fuzzy unknown states where things are not explicitly stated. One bolter firing caseless while another fires cased rounds is a discrepancy but might slip past editing or be chalked up to differing designs. Where the limit is for what is not acceptable is not explicitly stated though it is pretty certain a galaxy destroying standard bolter is beyond that limit.

 BrookM wrote:

But I'll ask the question again, is there a definitive source that states that only men are allowed to be the pilots of Knights?

Not that I can find in the Codex. It may have been a throwaway line in WD or some other Black Library source.

However the fact that a female did act as a Freeblade and pilot a Knight shows it is not a technical impossibility, but rather one of sexism and social disapproval. In-universe people might come up with pseudo-medical reasonings against women piloting Knights, much in the same way that in the past educated scholars and physicians claimed it was harmful for women to receive formal educations or do certain activities. If a woman lacks the formal training or implants, of course they are likely to fumble at controlling the Knight, which of course might lead to the male Knights nodding and claiming this "proves" women fundamentally cannot do it.

Gascoigne's entire spiel is a clear copout and non-answer.

By definition, something cannot be both true (canon) and untrue (non-canon) simultaneously. Either its true, or it isn't.


It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).


Given the level of criticism levelled at GW generally, and Black Library sloppiness specifically, it's always amazed me that an answer which essentially boils down to 'Meh. Not going to give an answer' is held up as if it's making some deep, worthwhile, or even logical point.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Gascoigne's entire spiel is a clear copout and non-answer.

By definition, something cannot be both true (canon) and untrue (non-canon) simultaneously. Either its true, or it isn't.


It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).


Given the level of criticism levelled at GW generally, and Black Library sloppiness specifically, it's always amazed me that an answer which essentially boils down to 'Meh. Not going to give an answer' is held up as if it's making some deep, worthwhile, or even logical point.

It's a "I meant to do that"/"All part of the plan" excuse. A mea culpa admission of mistake would garner greater respect IMO, or if it really is an area which has not been decided or fleshed out then simply say "We don't know or haven't decided".

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).

So then, how tall is a Space Marine?

The models depict 6', if that.

The competition from earlier showed 7'.

The Black Library newsletter released right after showed 8'.

Black Library novels can show 9' or even more.

That is how tall according to Jes Goodwin, which given his role in 40K over the years, is a pretty definitive statement.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).

So then, how tall is a Space Marine?

Nothing is canon. There are no Space Marines.

That is literally how absurd the claim that there is no canon is.



Besides which, the majority of sources say/suggest around 7'. Model scale is all over the place. Where are you getting 9' from?


EDIT: I'm not sure how responding to 'there is broad consistency with only a relatively few exceptions' with 'here's an exception!' is a useful line of argument anyway..?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Besides which, the majority of sources say/suggest around 7'. Model scale is all over the place. Where are you getting 9' from?

9' in particular is from The Last Detail.

If you would like a fun read of how 'consistent' 40k is, have a gander at this compendium.

it's possiable space marine sizes simply, like humans, vary. humans can range in size from under 5 feet to over 6 feet. seems fair to me that there are some 7 foot marines, 8 foot marines, and a few 9 foot giants.
this is partiuclarly true as some geneseed may result in taller marines then others

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).

So then, how tall is a Space Marine?

Nothing is canon. There are no Space Marines.

That is literally how absurd the claim that there is no canon is.



Besides which, the majority of sources say/suggest around 7'. Model scale is all over the place. Where are you getting 9' from?


EDIT: I'm not sure how responding to 'there is broad consistency with only a relatively few exceptions' with 'here's an exception!' is a useful line of argument anyway..?

What a majority of sources say creates a consensus, not a canon.

This is where we point out that "broad consistencies" include having Space Marines... but the detail of their height (and everything else) varies from author to author, and has no canon definition. The ones that make an appearance in the first Eisenhorn book are said to have fingers "the thickness of an Arbiter's truncheon"... that'd be between one and two inches thick. That would make someone fething *huge* in size. Is Dan Abnett wrong? No... but neither is someone who claims the Marine is 7 feet tall (finger thickness about 1 3/4 centimeters).

Please note that the picture that Jes is sitting next to starts at the 1 foot mark, not the 0 foot mark.

A de facto canon is not an actual canon, it simply makes it a consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

"De facto (/dᵻ ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ-/,[1] Latin: [deː ˈfaktoː]) is a Latin expression that means "in fact, in reality, in actual existence, force, or possession, as a matter of fact" (literally "of fact").[2][3] In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established". It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "according to (the) law"; literally "from law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice."

A de facto canon IS canon. The very existence of such a term denotes that things can exist in fact even if not in law or by name. De facto relationships are real relationships and people in de facto relationships can have similar legal rights as de jure relationships. You are bending backwards and trying to imply and redefine de facto to mean not real, to avoid admitting there is in fact a canon that is adhered to.

Space Marines exist in 40K. That is not "just" consensus opinion among a majority. It is a fact of the 40K universe. Someone arguing that Space Marines never existed at all is not expressing an equally valid minority opinion on an issue. They are wrong about reality in that fictional universe. Yes, Dan Abnett would be wrong. But then he has been wrong about many things in 40K because he can't be bothered to do his homework or wants to write his own special snowflake stuff. In a shared IP, it takes more effort to color within the lines.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).

So then, how tall is a Space Marine?

Nothing is canon. There are no Space Marines.

That is literally how absurd the claim that there is no canon is.



Besides which, the majority of sources say/suggest around 7'. Model scale is all over the place. Where are you getting 9' from?


EDIT: I'm not sure how responding to 'there is broad consistency with only a relatively few exceptions' with 'here's an exception!' is a useful line of argument anyway..?

What a majority of sources say creates a consensus, not a canon.

This is where we point out that "broad consistencies" include having Space Marines... but the detail of their height (and everything else) varies from author to author, and has no canon definition. The ones that make an appearance in the first Eisenhorn book are said to have fingers "the thickness of an Arbiter's truncheon"... that'd be between one and two inches thick. That would make someone fething *huge* in size. Is Dan Abnett wrong? No... but neither is someone who claims the Marine is 7 feet tall (finger thickness about 1 3/4 centimeters).

Please note that the picture that Jes is sitting next to starts at the 1 foot mark, not the 0 foot mark.

A de facto canon is not an actual canon, it simply makes it a consensus.

is Dan Abnett wrong?....... Maybe, I'd argue in this case proably the entire Eisenhorn series is ICly Narrated by an individual. individuals (yes even Inqusitors) are prone to exaggeration etc. EVERYTHING said in Eisenhorn needs to be considered through the filter of the narrator.

BrianDavion wrote:

is Dan Abnett wrong?....... Maybe, I'd argue in this case proably the entire Eisenhorn series is ICly Narrated by an individual. individuals (yes even Inqusitors) are prone to exaggeration etc. EVERYTHING said in Eisenhorn needs to be considered through the filter of the narrator.

I think it more than just exaggeration. Wasn't there some phrase in one of his first books where some character threatens to speak to a Marine's Primarch, as if Primarch were merely the title of a superior officer rather than worshipped demigod that has been dead or missing for thousands of years? That is quite simply an error.

At some point it is better for a writer to just admit a mistake rather than resort to increasingly preposterous attempts to deny it or spin it as some intentional "deep" twist.

Wasn't the Freeblade in one of the novels that came out after the Knights book dropped a woman?

I was more under the impression that the women can't be Knights thing was more of a tradition amongst the Knightly houses rather than a hard rule. One of my Freeblades in my Freeblade army is a woman piloting a Knightly suit called 'Blind Faith'.

A bit of diversity ain't bad. I'm happy that Lady Solaria is a thing.

Alright ill post this now because i know this is going to quickly descend into a gak storm

Female guards: A O.K. no one cares

Female Freeblades: A O.K. no one cares

Sisters of battle: A O.K. no one cares....literally no one cares about them because still metal lol sorry SoB players ;~;

Female space marines: No, goes against lore, and would only serve as a shoe horn for reasons. Space marines are modeled after their primarchs which are dude which are modeled after the Big E. Besides lets not piss off the poor SoB plays more buy giving Female space marines before they give them SoB

Why do we assume that the Emperor, and therefore the Primarchs, have the basic XY male chromosome combination or that the Y chromosome plays the important role in the space marine genetic engineering process?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do we assume that the Emperor, and therefore the Primarchs, have the basic XY male chromosome combination or that the Y chromosome plays the important role in the space marine genetic engineering process?

Because like it or not, men are genetically more proficient at combat and warfare because their are built for it.

Best analogy i can give is this. Lets say you have a Subaru WRX, and you have a Toyota Carolla. Now with enough time an energy you can make that toyota corolla perform just as good as a WRX, but the WRX has more potential end game, and a higher top end then the corolla will ever have and for less cost. So if you have a car that can already go fast and perform well, why try and upgrade a car that will need FAR more work to get to the place the WRX already is.

I would assume it does not, because they dont actually care about passing on the traits and geenes in the normal way, as space marines cant breed, its implanted into the gene seed so. If anything Space marines would more akin to being a gender but are pumped so full of testastrone to build muscles and strength it wont matter.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do we assume that the Emperor, and therefore the Primarchs, have the basic XY male chromosome combination or that the Y chromosome plays the important role in the space marine genetic engineering process?

Because like it or not, men are genetically more proficient at combat and warfare because their are built for it.

Best analogy i can give is this. Lets say you have a Subaru WRX, and you have a Toyota Carolla. Now with enough time an energy you can make that toyota corolla perform just as good as a WRX, but the WRX has more potential end game, and a higher top end then the corolla will ever have and for less cost. So if you have a car that can already go fast and perform well, why try and upgrade a car that will need FAR more work to get to the place the WRX already is.

I would assume it does not, because they dont actually care about passing on the traits and geenes in the normal way, as space marines cant breed, its implanted into the gene seed so. If anything Space marines would more akin to being a gender but are pumped so full of testastrone to build muscles and strength it wont matter.

But Space Marines undergo extensive genetic modification. They are no longer human men, so why assume that a human male chromosome is important to such a process?

Because for the example i just gave, both cars are so heavily modified they are no longer their original right?

Well whats going to be easier to modify into a better performance car? A Porsche 911 or a toyota carolla? The corolla you would need to rip everything out, completely built it from the ground up and would require much more time and energy to get it even close to the level that a sports care comes stock.

For the art of war in the 40k men are better suited from the get go, their bodies are already pre disposed to handle testosterone and build muscles it requires less genetic modification then it would to boost a human female to those levels.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because for the example i just gave, both cars are so heavily modified they are no longer their original right?

Well whats going to be easier to modify into a better performance car? A Porsche 911 or a toyota carolla? The corolla you would need to rip everything out, completely built it from the ground up and would require much more time and energy to get it even close to the level that a sports care comes stock.

For the art of war in the 40k men are better suited from the get go, their bodies are already pre disposed to handle testosterone and build muscles it requires less genetic modification then it would to boost a human female to those levels.

You're not modifying them, though. You are effectively just building a new car. The chassis (skeletal structure) is completely different, the engine (internal organs) is completely different, the electronics (nervous system) is completely different. If you start with a mini, put in a ferrari engine, then replace the whole framework with ferrari framework, then all the electronics with ferrari electronics and so on, then at the end of the day you don't have a modified mini, you have a ferrari. For the transformation from human to Space Marine it doesn't matter what the initial start point really is, as everything in the final product is different to what you started with. By that point it is not modified, it is completely new.

A Space Marine is not just a modified human, they are effectively a completely different species. A Space Marine is just as alien in physiology to a human as Tau or Eldar are and in many ways more so.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do we assume that the Emperor, and therefore the Primarchs, have the basic XY male chromosome combination or that the Y chromosome plays the important role in the space marine genetic engineering process?

Because the canon as it is now is that the process is only compatible with men. That a random sampling of women subjected to that process would die 100% of the time (as opposed to the same random sampling of men dying only like 99% of the time) and that begs some kind of rationalization.

I prefer the idea that the Y-chromosome plays a part in the process because it presents the idea that the limitation of that technology has to do with the fundamental building-blocks of what makes the person subjected to it, and not some arbitrary and, frankly, asinine notion that a more wholistic appraisal of a person's physical development somehow matters when you're talking about completely re-engineering their body anyway.

I mean, I prefer the idea that it has to do with the specific chromosome because I absolutely hate explanations like this:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because like it or not, men are genetically more proficient at combat and warfare because their are built for it.

'Man tough!' is not an argument you can apply to Astartes. They aren't even men when they need to be collected and begin surgical alterations, and the end result is so above baseline humanity that the difference between the most fit unaltered man and woman is as inconsequential as the difference between the most fit and least fit unaltered human.

The only thing that leaves us with is the fact that canon states the process can't be used on women. We can speculate as to the reasons why in-universe but the statement itself is there...

Personally I think it was one of a set of precautions the Emperor took to prevent his creation from supplanting humanity...

"But Space marines undergo extensive Genetic modification "

"You're not modifying them though."

"Space marines is not just a modified human."
implying they are modified.

Well which is it haha, are you or are you not modifying them?

At the end you do have the moral question yes are they human anymore, but again, the male Physique is a better building platform for the space marine modification. Im not saying it cant be done on a female. But it boils down to why go to all the extra work when you have a better base platform to work with?

Even then, i think its safe to say the techniques in even doing the genetic modification to humans is long lost and the only reason it still exists for space marines is because they only know how to do it on human males since the modification on males would not be the same as those done on females.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do we assume that the Emperor, and therefore the Primarchs, have the basic XY male chromosome combination or that the Y chromosome plays the important role in the space marine genetic engineering process?

Because the canon as it is now is that the process is only compatible with men. That a random sampling of women subjected to that process would die 100% of the time (as opposed to the same random sampling of men dying only like 99% of the time) and that begs some kind of rationalization.

I prefer the idea that the Y-chromosome plays a part in the process because it presents the idea that the limitation of that technology has to do with the fundamental building-blocks of what makes the person subjected to it, and not some arbitrary and, frankly, asinine notion that a more wholistic appraisal of a person's physical development somehow matters when you're talking about completely re-engineering their body anyway.

I mean, I prefer the idea that it has to do with the specific chromosome because I absolutely hate explanations like this:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because like it or not, men are genetically more proficient at combat and warfare because their are built for it.

'Man tough!' is not an argument you can apply to Astartes. They aren't even men when they need to be collected and begin surgical alterations, and the end result is so above baseline humanity that the difference between the most fit unaltered man and woman is as inconsequential as the difference between the most fit and least fit unaltered human.

The only thing that leaves us with is the fact that canon states the process can't be used on women. We can speculate as to the reasons why in-universe but the statement itself is there...

Personally I think it was one of a set of precautions the Emperor took to prevent his creation from supplanting humanity...

ooooo i actually really like that last point, thats something i never thought about. Thats legitimately a good reasoning.

Hypothetical if some how though the centuries of modification and natural mutation, it could be possible for space marines to regain their ability to procreate, and if you had female space marines having the ability to have a child then i could see them start to think, why do we need normal humans then?

If we modify every gene in a tomato into the genes of a satsuma, is it still a tomato?

If you modify the genetics of a thing enough, then it will cease to be that thing which it initially was.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If we modify every gene in a tomato into the genes of a satsuma, is it still a tomato?

If you modify the genetics of a thing enough, then it will cease to be that thing which it initially was.

Agreed, so with the extensive amount of modification needed to reach the level of an Astartes would you even be able to call them men or women at that point?

Even still the lore has been written it does not work on Women currently, if the Big E comes back maybe he will find a way to do it. But i really do like the idea of the Big E not doing it as a fail safe to prevent the space marines for going, "Well why do we need basic humans anymore?"

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If we modify every gene in a tomato into the genes of a satsuma, is it still a tomato?

If you modify the genetics of a thing enough, then it will cease to be that thing which it initially was.

Agreed, so with the extensive amount of modification needed to reach the level of an Astartes would you even be able to call them men or women at that point?

Even still the lore has been written it does not work on Women currently, if the Big E comes back maybe he will find a way to do it. But i really do like the idea of the Big E not doing it as a fail safe to prevent the space marines for going, "Well why do we need basic humans anymore?"

I do like that explanation. It doesn't put some arbitrary limit on the technology. After all, X to Y transformation already happens in nature anyway, so the idea that technology so advanced it can make Space Marines cannot do it is a bit silly unless it was purposefully engineered to be that way.

Still, can't help but think that it would be better to just engineer infertility into the Space Marines during the transformation than cut off half your population as a possible source of super soldiers.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If we modify every gene in a tomato into the genes of a satsuma, is it still a tomato?

If you modify the genetics of a thing enough, then it will cease to be that thing which it initially was.

Agreed, so with the extensive amount of modification needed to reach the level of an Astartes would you even be able to call them men or women at that point?

Even still the lore has been written it does not work on Women currently, if the Big E comes back maybe he will find a way to do it. But i really do like the idea of the Big E not doing it as a fail safe to prevent the space marines for going, "Well why do we need basic humans anymore?"

I do like that explanation. It doesn't put some arbitrary limit on the technology. After all, X to Y transformation already happens in nature anyway, so the idea that technology so advanced it can make Space Marines cannot do it is a bit silly unless it was purposefully engineered to be that way.

Still, can't help but think that it would be easier to just engineer infertility into the Space Marines during the transformation than cut off half your population as a possible source of super soldiers.

Well iirc Space marines are already infertile, their bolt guns are shooting blanks

Now stepping out of the 40k relm and into the marketing relm, i think female space marines wont get made for a few reasons, one, sisters of battle exist, two, SOB did not sell as well or well enough to keep them going, and three, how much butt hurt would there be if they made female space marines, but not make SoB models.

Well, assuming that it was more than just some Space Marine heads with hair, it would at least provide plastic female power armour models for Sisters players to convert

I am so confused by this thread.

I think it got answered a while back, someone went through the Codex and couldn't find a single line about "women cannot at all in any way shape or form be Knight pilots".

So... er... it's just a cultural thing, so knock yourself out, have as many female pilots as you want, hurrah for Lady Solaria.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
I am so confused by this thread.

I think it got answered a while back, someone went through the Codex and couldn't find a single line about "women cannot at all in any way shape or form be Knight pilots".

So... er... it's just a cultural thing, so knock yourself out, have as many female pilots as you want, hurrah for Lady Solaria.

yup that's exactly what it is, a cultural thing. now the throne thingy that basicly brainwashes the pilots does tend to push houses in a certain direction culturally but..lots of room for female knight pilots in 40k.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
I am so confused by this thread.

I think it got answered a while back, someone went through the Codex and couldn't find a single line about "women cannot at all in any way shape or form be Knight pilots".

So... er... it's just a cultural thing, so knock yourself out, have as many female pilots as you want, hurrah for Lady Solaria.

yup that's exactly what it is, a cultural thing. now the throne thingy that basicly brainwashes the pilots does tend to push houses in a certain direction culturally but..lots of room for female knight pilots in 40k.

Cultural prejudice has often taken the form of "known biological facts". In RL, in the past, it was claimed by some in Europe that women were inherently unsuited for formal education and that formal subjects like mathematics would damage their fragile brains. Those that did get an education were dismissed as rare exceptions or freaks of nature, rare enough to be dismissed as freaks going against the natural order of things. This same kind of reasoning may apply on the Knight worlds.

Iracundus wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
I am so confused by this thread.

I think it got answered a while back, someone went through the Codex and couldn't find a single line about "women cannot at all in any way shape or form be Knight pilots".

So... er... it's just a cultural thing, so knock yourself out, have as many female pilots as you want, hurrah for Lady Solaria.

yup that's exactly what it is, a cultural thing. now the throne thingy that basicly brainwashes the pilots does tend to push houses in a certain direction culturally but..lots of room for female knight pilots in 40k.

Cultural prejudice has often taken the form of "known biological facts". In RL, in the past, it was claimed by some in Europe that women were inherently unsuited for formal education and that formal subjects like mathematics would damage their fragile brains. Those that did get an education were dismissed as rare exceptions or freaks of nature, rare enough to be dismissed as freaks going against the natural order of things. This same kind of reasoning may apply on the Knight worlds.

also there's tradtion, which is said to hold an absurd level of power among knight holdings.

BrianDavion wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
I am so confused by this thread.

I think it got answered a while back, someone went through the Codex and couldn't find a single line about "women cannot at all in any way shape or form be Knight pilots".

So... er... it's just a cultural thing, so knock yourself out, have as many female pilots as you want, hurrah for Lady Solaria.

yup that's exactly what it is, a cultural thing. now the throne thingy that basicly brainwashes the pilots does tend to push houses in a certain direction culturally but..lots of room for female knight pilots in 40k.

Cultural prejudice has often taken the form of "known biological facts". In RL, in the past, it was claimed by some in Europe that women were inherently unsuited for formal education and that formal subjects like mathematics would damage their fragile brains. Those that did get an education were dismissed as rare exceptions or freaks of nature, rare enough to be dismissed as freaks going against the natural order of things. This same kind of reasoning may apply on the Knight worlds.

also there's tradtion, which is said to hold an absurd level of power among knight holdings.

Rational logical thought is also something which is not exactly taught or prized in the Imperium.

Male Knight: Women couldn't possibly be Knights. Their bodies and minds couldn't possibly tolerate the implants and training.

Modern minded questioner: How do you know they would not tolerate the implants and training? Have you tried before?

Male Knight: Of course not! That would go against all our traditions and besides, it would be pointless since we know they would not tolerate it!

Modern minded questioner: That's circular reasoning. How can you know they would not tolerate it if you have never tried it? Yet you refuse to try it because you already assume they would not tolerate it.

Male Knight stares blankly at questioner as he does not understand the question or what circular reasoning is.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
I am so confused by this thread.

I think it got answered a while back, someone went through the Codex and couldn't find a single line about "women cannot at all in any way shape or form be Knight pilots".

So... er... it's just a cultural thing, so knock yourself out, have as many female pilots as you want, hurrah for Lady Solaria.

Yeah, it was started by me, when I was surprised to see a female knight in Dawn of War 3, when there are no female knights.

Where did I get that from, as we can't "find a single line" about it?

That would be the 6th edition codex, the one with only two knight variants in it, under the heading "TRADITION & RITUAL"

Here are excerpts:

"The only escape from the smothering ennui of courtly life lies
in conflict; both the heroic challenge of the field of battle as an
Imperial Knight, and the more ignoble but no less enthralling
political contests that take place between the knightly houses.
The first of these is solely the preserve of the first or second
sons of the aristocracy, for only they are allowed to pilot suits
of Knight armour."

So, only sons may pilot the armor, explicitely stated. What role of women in the knightly orders? They continue:

"The courts of the knightly houses are riven with political factions, each trying to
outdo the others in any way possible. These political intrigues
are not the sole purview of the Nobles themselves. All Nobles
have a high-born consort, it being considered vital that the
Noble has sons to inherit their name and titles, and daughters
to marry as consorts to other knightly families in order to
cement alliances. A Noble's consort can have considerable
influence, and political intrigue offers them just about their only
escape from the drudgery of courtly life. Many a Noble has
risen to high power thanks to the intelligence, cunning and
ruthless ambition of his consort, while the Noble himself has
found his pleasures on the field of battle."

So, again, the boys are in big stompy robots, the girls chattel to cement alliances, plotting and scheming behind the scenes.

And, here's what this thread got me to do: read the new codex. Because, when GW replaced the knight codex I bought within one year, I decided to not toss another $50 at them to re-read what I assumed was the same material, plus how ever many new data sheets.

But, when I read the new codex, I discovered this whole consorts and sons thing has been expunged. It's not repudiated, and all gender pronouns still refer to "he" and "his" and "high kings" without any "high queens." But, the actual part where pilot gender is defined, is not there any longer. So, yay, I love me some gender diversity.

As for the conversation about female marines going on in the thread... that concept is just gamer catnip, they can't resist it. Mention gender in 40k at all, and folks will be going on about how women could or couldn't be marines for pages.

Iracundus wrote:
Male Knight glares hatefully back at the questioner, draws his side arm and executes the Emperor's Will upon the Heretic.

Fixed that for you.

Oggthrok wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
I am so confused by this thread.

I think it got answered a while back, someone went through the Codex and couldn't find a single line about "women cannot at all in any way shape or form be Knight pilots".

So... er... it's just a cultural thing, so knock yourself out, have as many female pilots as you want, hurrah for Lady Solaria.

Yeah, it was started by me, when I was surprised to see a female knight in Dawn of War 3, when there are no female knights.

Where did I get that from, as we can't "find a single line" about it?

That would be the 6th edition codex, the one with only two knight variants in it, under the heading "TRADITION & RITUAL"

Here are excerpts:

"The only escape from the smothering ennui of courtly life lies
in conflict; both the heroic challenge of the field of battle as an
Imperial Knight, and the more ignoble but no less enthralling
political contests that take place between the knightly houses.
The first of these is solely the preserve of the first or second
sons of the aristocracy, for only they are allowed to pilot suits
of Knight armour."

So, only sons may pilot the armor, explicitely stated. What role of women in the knightly orders? They continue:

"The courts of the knightly houses are riven with political factions, each trying to
outdo the others in any way possible. These political intrigues
are not the sole purview of the Nobles themselves. All Nobles
have a high-born consort, it being considered vital that the
Noble has sons to inherit their name and titles, and daughters
to marry as consorts to other knightly families in order to
cement alliances. A Noble's consort can have considerable
influence, and political intrigue offers them just about their only
escape from the drudgery of courtly life. Many a Noble has
risen to high power thanks to the intelligence, cunning and
ruthless ambition of his consort, while the Noble himself has
found his pleasures on the field of battle."

So, again, the boys are in big stompy robots, the girls chattel to cement alliances, plotting and scheming behind the scenes.

And, here's what this thread got me to do: read the new codex. Because, when GW replaced the knight codex I bought within one year, I decided to not toss another $50 at them to re-read what I assumed was the same material, plus how ever many new data sheets.

But, when I read the new codex, I discovered this whole consorts and sons thing has been expunged. It's not repudiated, and all gender pronouns still refer to "he" and "his" and "high kings" without any "high queens." But, the actual part where pilot gender is defined, is not there any longer. So, yay, I love me some gender diversity.

Actually neither of those quotes show the gender restriction to be anything more than tradition and culture not allowing. There is no physical or technical reason given in those quotes, so no actual impossible barrier. That was what the "can't find it" was in reference to: actual physical reasons barring women from being piloting Knights.

So, basically, on some worlds, the idea of female Knight pilots is anathema, on others it's totally normal, on others still the idea of male Knight pilots is weird, and finally there's the Mechanicus, for whom the definition of human ... varies.

Yes? Good.

I think we are going to start to see more...balance.
"Battle for Vedros" ad marketing has a boy and girl playing together and one of the recent kill team reports was also a guy and a girl.

Privateer and Wyrd showed you can create strong female characters and models and GAIN players...not lose them.

I wish people would get off this diversity train. Women and brown people are in 40k stuff all the time, quit whining about it.

can you show us the great number of women and brown people in the TTG?
SIsters don't count...they are cringe worthy and NOT what female players need in this game.

tpryan01 wrote:
can you show us the great number of women and brown people in the TTG?

40k table top is a minis game, you're welcome to paint people up whatever colour you want em.

BrianDavion wrote:

tpryan01 wrote:
can you show us the great number of women and brown people in the TTG?

40k table top is a minis game, you're welcome to paint people up whatever colour you want em.

You can also stick dog heads on them, but that doesn't really change anything about the games representation.

 Chef_of_Cadia wrote:
I wish people would get off this diversity train. Women and brown people are in 40k stuff all the time, quit whining about it.

Really? Where? Show me the studio armies filled with a sensible mix of skin colours! Show me the Imperial Guard box set that contains female soldiers! Please.

On the topic of diversity - I find it interesting and really neat that the Dusk Raiders - who would later be absorbed into the Death Guard - were basically all Albanian.

There's loads of cool cultural backgrounds to take inspiration from!

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
There's loads of cool cultural backgrounds to take inspiration from!

there are but 40k doesn't delve into the culture of local worlds etc much at all (and 40k is further into the future then human civilization is old lotta room for new things to grow too) I'd kill for more books like Eisenhorn that really explore the setting outside of "this is a boltgun, it's awesome and killing stuff, space marines are so awesome. chaos is screwed up. Orks are wacky"

that said adapting cultures you need to be careful, while it's easy to rip off a european cultural motiff, these days make a china or japan in space and you could be accused of racism.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
There's loads of cool cultural backgrounds to take inspiration from!

there are but 40k doesn't delve into the culture of local worlds etc much at all (and 40k is further into the future then human civilization is old lotta room for new things to grow too) I'd kill for more books like Eisenhorn that really explore the setting outside of "this is a boltgun, it's awesome and killing stuff, space marines are so awesome. chaos is screwed up. Orks are wacky"

that said adapting cultures you need to be careful, while it's easy to rip off a european cultural motiff, these days make a china or japan in space and you could be accused of racism.

Absolutely. Dan Abnett and Sandy Mitchell's books and stories really do show you a bit about what daily life is like - Abnett more so - than the Spess Muhreen bolter-porn that a lot of the Black Library works are (and there's nothing wrong with that).

It'd be nice to see more about Lady Solaria. A book would be nice. Is there one?

tpryan01 wrote:
can you show us the great number of women and brown people in the TTG?
SIsters don't count...they are cringe worthy and NOT what female players need in this game.

Women appear in a huge variety of roles in Black Library who arguably actually talk about the 40k universe rather than a few linked battles as Codexes have increasingly become.

The only organisation that (in BL) women are not shown in all roles is the Astartes - and even then they can be part fo the support services such as the fleet - although usually failed aspirants are favoured in many chapters.

I would agree that GW's main codexes are steering away for women characters sadly.

In the same way, males can not be in the Sororitas

I know several female players who really like the Sisters, also some also like Wyches and some like Orks and Tau. Same with male players. Weird huh?

"brown" people are the same, except of couse they can be both Astartes and Sororitas

BrianDavion wrote:

that said adapting cultures you need to be careful, while it's easy to rip off a european cultural motiff, these days make a china or japan in space and you could be accused of racism.

The Tau and Eldar already borrow some aspects of Japanese and Chinese culture, blended with other stuff.

Attempts at China or Japan in space come off as racist caricatures when they are done by white guys with obviously little knowledge of the cultures in question beyond the superficial amount skimmed off a textbook, and perhaps laden with outsider cultural preconceptions. Any company attempting "country in space" would do well to ask someone from that culture with in depth knowledge of the history and background to do it, and accept that the final product does not have to be a theme park caricature (i.e. Space Japan does not necessarily have to have space samurai committing suicide with swords or space daimyo).

I dunno, as an Englishman, I rather liked GW's theme park caricature of the 19th century British - complete with pith helmets!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I dunno, as an Englishman, I rather liked GW's theme park caricature of the 19th century British - complete with pith helmets!

To be fair, the Praetorians are just the most obvious bit of tongue-in-cheek self-deprecation...!

Iracundus wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

that said adapting cultures you need to be careful, while it's easy to rip off a european cultural motiff, these days make a china or japan in space and you could be accused of racism.

The Tau and Eldar already borrow some aspects of Japanese and Chinese culture, blended with other stuff.

Attempts at China or Japan in space come off as racist caricatures when they are done by white guys with obviously little knowledge of the cultures in question beyond the superficial amount skimmed off a textbook, and perhaps laden with outsider cultural preconceptions. Any company attempting "country in space" would do well to ask someone from that culture with in depth knowledge of the history and background to do it, and accept that the final product does not have to be a theme park caricature (i.e. Space Japan does not necessarily have to have space samurai committing suicide with swords or space daimyo).

yup, I know I played battletech for years, as I got older and a little more worldly I began to realize the Draconious Combine and the Capellan Confederation where shallow caricatures that could come off as a bit racist.

From the 30k rulebook, knight army list:

The Knight Households are not simply a
military force but a hereditary bloodline
of war, a bloodline whose sons and
daughters must be tempered in the fires
of battle from a young age.

/thread

 Peregrine wrote:
From the 30k rulebook, knight army list:

The Knight Households are not simply a
military force but a hereditary bloodline
of war, a bloodline whose sons and
daughters must be tempered in the fires
of battle from a young age.

/thread

Yeah. That settles that really!

First, I'm not sure if OP is a troll or largely ignorant of the role women play in the universe of 40k.

Oggthrok wrote:


The issue of gender in 40k keeps forums like this one hopping. Could there be female Space Marines? (Nope, says the forum, too unrealistic, upper body strength, etc)

That's not why, and it's been answered so many times before. Would you consider it sexist that men can't join the Adepta Sororitas? At least women can't join the ranks of the Space Marines due to fluff-explained gentic incompatibility rather than "no, you're a man."

Oggthrok wrote:

What about female Imperial Guard miniatures? (Nope, says the forum, when women put on a uniform they look exactly like men) In the dark future, at least for humanity, there are only men. (And the occasion inquisitor or ancient battle sister)

I would love female IG, especially the Mordant Acid Dogs. This is a genuine weakness from GW, luckily companies like Victoria Miniatures offer fantastic female guard. However, AdMech also use females as bases for their soldiers - you just can't recognise their gender after that much alteration. However, there's plenty of women in the Imperial Army (Heresy-era), so it's there fluff-wise, just missing the models.

Oggthrok wrote:

So, when Imperial Knights came out, I thought "Oh, well, there's one race you can say has female fighters - no one can claim only men can sit in a chair and run a robot. You don't need superior upper body strength to use a joystick or a nuero-helmet or whatever." Then I read that codex, and learned that, no, like all human armies in games workshop games they're absolutely one hundred percent Y chromosome oriented, just like every other human army. Sorry buddy, steer your daughter toward Eldar when she wants to play, humans reproduce by spore, and the biggest and muscley-est are the ones in charge.

What? Nobody has ever said there are no female Knight pilots.

Oggthrok wrote:


Then, Relic goes and says "Yeah, we didn't read that codex, you shouldn't have either," and pops out with The Forbidden Gender piloting a knight. Honestly, it was like when there was a black Space Marine librarian in DOW2, and I realized I had never seen a space marine painted anything other than "tanned flesh." The games, it seems, invariably go for more diversity than GW feels comfortable with.

Uuuuuuuuuuh. As mentioned, Salamanders are black/grey. Because most players are white, they paint what they're familiar with. There's lots of pigment variation within the BL publications. GW's market is also largely white (and male), so their models reflect this.

 Peregrine wrote:
From the 30k rulebook, knight army list:

The Knight Households are not simply a
military force but a hereditary bloodline
of war, a bloodline whose sons and
daughters must be tempered in the fires
of battle from a young age.

/thread

Have an Exalt.

Ah, man, the Mordant Acid Dogs! I'd forgotten all about them. They're badass as anything. Expert tunnel fighters if I recall correctly, right? Recruited from a hive world and thus brilliant at fighting in enclosed spaces and in toxic conditions.

AdMech Skitarii would probably have lost any secondary sexual characteristics due to enhanced testosterone, muscle mass boosting, and enormous levels of combat drugs as well as all sorts of bionics. Similar to Astartes, too, really, except, you know, smaller.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Ah, man, the Mordant Acid Dogs! I'd forgotten all about them. They're badass as anything. Expert tunnel fighters if I recall correctly, right? Recruited from a hive world and thus brilliant at fighting in enclosed spaces and in toxic conditions.

AdMech Skitarii would probably have lost any secondary sexual characteristics due to enhanced testosterone, muscle mass boosting, and enormous levels of combat drugs as well as all sorts of bionics. Similar to Astartes, too, really, except, you know, smaller.

I adore them! Makes me think of Terminator-setting human resistance fighters! I love Arkhan, Praetorian, Catachan, and Mordant Acid Dogs. Acid Dogs are extra cool in that they're not shamelessly lifted from the pages of history.

Yeah, the various units that don't have instantly obvious historical analogues - Savlar Chem-Dogs, for example - are a really wonderful glimpse at the true madness of the setting.

tpryan01 wrote:
can you show us the great number of women and brown people in the TTG?
SIsters don't count...they are cringe worthy and NOT what female players need in this game.

By that standard, there's no white people in the game either, since everything comes out of the box grey (or silver if you're still using metal figs.).

In the grim future of the 41st millennium, there is only shades of plastic.

Also, newsflash for ya, Sisters isn't an army designed for female players. It's designed for people who really get into the twist on religion 40k portrays in the Ecclesiarchy.

If I recall correctly, one of the very first Knight books by Black Library after the Knight codex came out had a female knight pilot, despite the codex explicitly stating they were only male.

Forgeworld, as shown above, completely ignores that line about only men being knights, too.

It's almost as if quite a few people even near/in GW instantly knew that GW's completely random and arbitrary sexism is ridiculously stupid.

....seriously whoever decided to come up with that line in the codex that knights explicitly were only male should be dragged off to one of those sensitivity/tolerance/"You are sexist even if you don't realize it so stop that. Stop that now." courses or something.

TiamatRoar wrote:
If I recall correctly, one of the very first Knight books by Black Library after the Knight codex came out had a female knight pilot, despite the codex explicitly stating they were only male.

Forgeworld, as shown above, completely ignores that line about only men being knights, too.

It's almost as if quite a few people even near/in GW instantly knew that GW's completely random and arbitrary sexism is ridiculously stupid.

....seriously whoever decided to come up with that line in the codex that knights explicitly were only male should be dragged off to one of those sensitivity/tolerance/"You are sexist even if you don't realize it so stop that. Stop that now." courses or something.

ok, honest question...

Do you consider George RR Martin Sexist? GoT shows a HORRIABLY sexist society, yet no one suggests that this is because of sexism on the part of the writer. yes we do see women who transcend the sexism inheriant in the setting but, as you yourself said, the VERY FIRST novel showed us a female knight. the original codex also mentions, repeatedly, how hidebound and tradition blinded the knight houses are, I suspect the sexism was their attempt to ram that home.

BrianDavion wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
If I recall correctly, one of the very first Knight books by Black Library after the Knight codex came out had a female knight pilot, despite the codex explicitly stating they were only male.

Forgeworld, as shown above, completely ignores that line about only men being knights, too.

It's almost as if quite a few people even near/in GW instantly knew that GW's completely random and arbitrary sexism is ridiculously stupid.

....seriously whoever decided to come up with that line in the codex that knights explicitly were only male should be dragged off to one of those sensitivity/tolerance/"You are sexist even if you don't realize it so stop that. Stop that now." courses or something.

ok, honest question...

Do you consider George RR Martin Sexist? GoT shows a HORRIABLY sexist society, yet no one suggests that this is because of sexism on the part of the writer. yes we do see women who transcend the sexism inheriant in the setting but, as you yourself said, the VERY FIRST novel showed us a female knight. the original codex also mentions, repeatedly, how hidebound and tradition blinded the knight houses are, I suspect the sexism was their attempt to ram that home.

The issue with that logic is that it is not just limited to the Knight Houses. GW (not BL but GW itself) has almost non-existent representations of women, barring a few exceptions such as all female warrior cults like the SoB or Eldar Banshees or Dark Eldar Wyches. Ok, I know that technically Banshees and Wyches are not 100% female but their profession is generally seen as a female role. So basically aside from Amazon warrior cults, battle nuns, maybe Daemonettes, females are almost absent. Normal balanced female characters that are not some walking stereotype hardly exist in GW's publications. Regiments of Imperial Guard are supposed to settle new worlds upon retirement, yet you'd think they would all die out within a generation given how they seem entirely devoid of women in GW's writing and artwork.

It is part of that strange standard where certain topics or content like war, gore, slaughter are acceptable for kids/teens to be exposed to yet anything even vaguely sexual or that might detract from brawny men doing manly things is off-limits. The rare exception only proves the rule in GW's case.

ruhe.bryan wrote:
On the topic of diversity - I find it interesting and really neat that the Dusk Raiders - who would later be absorbed into the Death Guard - were basically all Albanian.

I'd thought they were Scottish, myself. (Alba is the gaelic name for Scotland).

 Psienesis wrote:
Also, newsflash for ya, Sisters isn't an army designed for female players. It's designed for people who really get into the twist on religion 40k portrays in the Ecclesiarchy.

This. This needs to be said, repeated, and emphasized over and over again .

Lots of sensible things said in the last few posts.

I had to pinch myself.

I particularly appreciate the bit about the Sisters of Battle.

Oggthrok wrote:
So, what do you think? Anything gained in having female knight pilots be a thing? Anything lost?

Hopefully we will gain the chance to take IK with twin Gat cannons on the tabletop Oh and some sculpted amour pads with her sweet house emblem.

So far Renegade Knights can take double gatlings, but sadly loyalists can't.

Frankly, given the total lunacy of 40K as it stands, I don't see any reason whatsoever to deny people the joy of fielding dual gatling mega-bolter uber-cannon death-weapons on their Loyal Knights.