Discussions about whether this should or should not happen have already been had and the topic was closed!
So please, do not use this thread to continue the discussion, as the Mods said, the conversation was only going in circles at this point.
If anybody ignores this and tries to start up the argument, please ignore it and don't respond. Please. Just leave this for voting!
Out of that discussion (found here) we have gotten a few options for how to add female marines, which have been discussed enough to be considered viable, IE they all had at least one person who was adamant that it was the best way, so they are all getting an airing here to see what the majority of people think.
If you do post in this thread, keep it as a description of your vote and your reasoning. Do Not Argue Against Other Peoples Decisions or Reasons.. Your post is only to voice your opinions on the vote, and not your opinion on other people's decisions.
I will be opening another thread on The Models, which will cover the physical aspect of what the models look like and not the lore justification on it. Please vote in both!
Out of curiocity, why DONT there exist female space marines in the lore?
Is it because of the whole gene seed thing with primarchs being only men and thus not working for females? space marine lore isnt really my forté as i play orks. so i have no idea
Apple fox wrote: So the emperor was kinda just dumb, I think it’s a great lore point. The effective eternal leader of the imperium being sexist fits the setting well enough.
I'm pro female space marines (because why would the imperium turn down any meat for the grinder?) but I like this reasoning, as long as it is explicit. Also, would give a nice contrast for having Primaris female space marines.
Beardedragon wrote: Out of curiocity, why DONT there exist female space marines in the lore?
Originally? They were convicts inducted into convents - brainwashed homicidal space monks. The lore changed a bit into space romans and the primarchs but aspects of the monk/monastery stuff remained, band of brothers, etc.
I don't think there is anything in the early books stating that marines had to be male, there just wasn't the same push for anachronistic representation in the 80s. By the time anyone cared all the marines were mini-mes of the primarchs.
The space nuns had their own distinct range and lore - the adepta sororitas.
Apple fox wrote: So the emperor was kinda just dumb, I think it’s a great lore point.
It would be, if you could find it anywhere in the lore.
The current justification is that the female physiology can't take the modifications, primarily due to lack of testosterone.
I also think that, since Astartes recruit from the very top percentile of physical prowess, the nature of normal distribution means that the number of women in that percentile is close to zero anyway.
If you were to add them, the only real way is to say "Cawl waved his magic wand again", which is pretty boring by now.
Wasn't it just that the genome changes that made people into space marines were on the Y chromosome?
Regardless of the exact mechanism, I think it's been a specific part of the lore for so long that you can't really just hand-wave it away and say "No, there's always been female space marines, you just can't tell under the armour" or anything like that. I'd go for Cawl finding a way to do it - could just be something like the Primaris process is slightly different to the original marine process, and you know what? Turns out it works on the ladies too...
Apple fox wrote: So the emperor was kinda just dumb, I think it’s a great lore point. The effective eternal leader of the imperium being sexist fits the setting well enough.
I'm pro female space marines (because why would the imperium turn down any meat for the grinder?) but I like this reasoning, as long as it is explicit. Also, would give a nice contrast for having Primaris female space marines.
I think it’s fine that most or all known chapters keep up tradition, as it creates a bit more of a imperium that’s it’s own worst enemy at times feel.
Cowl letting slip that it could be easy to implement to others in his close cercle could be fun as well.
Of corse I would like to see more presence in the other factions to drive home this in the space marines, and would be cool for other factions to get some look at evening them out with stronger troops. Sisters of silence where a good place
Or we could not, stop the whole forced attempt at diversification.
Instead, sit down and finally make guard and xeno and chaos armies represent the diversity and total type warfare of the setting better as already established in their already existing background, get better guard, chaos guard and xeno model representation too boot and leave it at that? (nvm that we might get boxes that are actually potentially worth gw's asking price because you now get atleast 2 -3 heads per model per box?)
We would also get a whole slew of better spread releases for a whole slew of factions which didn't have much time in the sun so to speak that way?
I think they missed a big opportunity there when they released the Primaris... They did well with the Sigmarines on the AoS side of things, and could have gone with "male-only on the initial batch was a crutch because the Emperor was short on time so he went the quick way (testosterone dependency for the initial set of implants)", and Cawl improved on this design because he had a couple extra millenia to work.
Now that they missed this opportunity, I think it would be a bit difficult to fit in the lore without a huge retcon... That's why I'll vote No on Female Marines on the Lore side, not because I'm against it per se, but because GW let the boat sail and I think the positive (more diverse Astartes) would be, in this case, outweighted by the negative (size of the retcon needed to introduce it).
And that's a problem how? 40k is rife with retcons at all levels, the only people who really care about lore purity are fans, GW changes lore at a whim.
I really think female space marines comes up more as a bit of a silly roll the eyes at nerds media.
Basically most people I have seen discussion wise understand the idea of a brotherhood or sisterhood style faction. The issue is that so often in nerd media, it’s basically every faction.
With representative diversity being more pandering to those same people than as some really for others.
And often it’s crap design issues on top of that, other factions having good support allows space marines to be unique.
The other issue is that in 40k women can’t be strong, since it’s even rarer for a necrons and other factions to have any female character reference.
GW getting better, but they still stuck way behind.
GW actually hasn't answered the issue, people suggest testestrone may be a part of it mostly due to inferance. Right now we know Space Marines recruit from juvinile boys, and the process begins around 12-14 years of age. this is, as you know doubt know about the age puberty kicks in among boys.
Part of the process of creating a space marine results in the subject putting on both height and muscle mass, this is ALSO part of male puberty.
We also know that the surgery on adult males was doable (at least during the heresy era) but had a MUCH MUCH higher chance of going wrong.
So, whats the take away from this? my theory is that the changes imposed on a human body during the process of creating an Astartes are great, and puts considerable stress on the body, leading to increased likelyhood of rejection and complications. You can REDUCE these factors considerably by using a body already primed for a dramatic short term gain in size and muscle mass, such as a boy about to enter puberty, in the middle of puberty or having just finished it.
This means that female space marines are theoreticly possiable, but the odds are stacked so far against them it's not seen as worthwile doing. especially as given that one also needs to be geneticly compatable with the geneseed, women are better off being kept in the population to ensure those genetic markers aren't completely removed.
Or at least that's my attempt to provide a pseudo-scientific reason for it. if that doesn't work for you... maybe the emperor was just sexist
I did vote "Cawl did it" but at the same time there's already a possibility for Firstborn female SM. The 21st Founding was an attempt by the High Lords to fix problems with gene-seed. What if a Magos fixed the compatibility issue with female hosts? A Chapter is created with both male and female SM but due to the political ramifications, the Magos is disappeared and the Chapter is sent on an impossible task in the depths of space. Cawl finds this Magos' data and the original Chapter returns battered but successful in their impossible task.
There needs to be a very good reason beyond 'just cus'.
It would be prejudicial to deny female marines simply because a person doesn't want/like women in their game, but it would also be prejudicial to include them just because it would meet a standard of representation.
I'm also not sure how this would interact with Sisters of Battle and Silence. Maybe it wouldn't be a problem at all; bloat and redundancy aren't exactly alien to GW and their games.
Personally I would like to see some engaging and interesting lore written to allow for it, but I don't know if that's even achievable (and, as a whole, 40k lore isn't exactly the crème de la crème of lore).
I would certainly be interested to see someone try, without resorting to a cheap shorthand or deus ex machina.
There used to be female Space Marine models in the old old days. Hideous sculpts but female marines did exist, as well as in some of the more obscure lore.
Then at some point everything got retconned and Space Marines became toys for boys and it got stuck like that to the point that GW is probably afraid of changing it due to potential backlash from certain segment of players. Thankfully they managed to steer Stormcast away from doing the same mistake so AoS has become a much more diverse and friendly hobby for new people entering it.
Personally I would think it is great to add some women into the Space Marine chapters, but I won't be holding my breath for it. Instead I'll just model my marines as female Marines(a head switch does wonders, especially with the cool female heads from Stormcast kits.
In the end the models are yours to do with as you please so if you an all women Space Marine Chapter and are willing to model it as such then by all means do.
As far as I'm aware female space marines never officially existed. They featured as a segment in what was essentially a fan magazine, but have never been featured by GW.
From a lore point of view I see no reason to change it.
From a model POV you wouldn't see a difference anyway.
From a "diversity" POV I see it as unnecessary as asking for male Sisters of Battle. Plenty of space in every other army to introduce opposite-sex models without the need to change the lore.
Every model made needs to be anchored in the lore. The lore currently states 'male only'. Therefore a retcon of 'ha! They were always there!' or else a change in the 'modern 40k era' is required. I'm.wary of retcons and imo 'they were always there' is lazy.
So...
Expand on the older lore. Something along the lines of it was always intended however
the original SM project was unfinished as the scattering of the primarchs buggered the Emperors plans. He had to make do with limited data/materials and due to time constraints, needed soldiers now to conquer terra and to be ready for when the warpstorms abated and the Great Crusade could begin. That's why the original marines were all male. He couldn't complete the project at the time.
And fair enough, he figured he'd have plenty time to fix it, even started tinkering with the idea. Unfortunately horus wanted to be Emperor instead of the Emperor and the galaxy burned.
The few remaining loyalist primarchs find out about the project after the big e is put on his throne and decide it must be completed, it will offer them an edge over their traitorous kin.
Unfortunately so much knowledge was destroyed they're limited in what they can do. They turn to cawl and ask him to complete the emperors work.And the primaris releases to dare were only a part of his plans.
In the meantime the limitations of the 'old system' get turned into dogma that cannon be questioned, aside from cawl, the original plan is forgotten and thus,the current 'vision's of Space marines.
If anybody ignores this and tries to start up the argument, please ignore it and don't respond. Please. Just leave this for voting!
If you do post in this thread, keep it as a description of your vote and your reasoning. Do Not Argue Against Other Peoples Decisions or Reasons.. Your post is only to voice your opinions on the vote, and not your opinion on other people's decisions.
Eldarsif wrote: There used to be female Space Marine models in the old old days. Hideous sculpts but female marines did exist, as well as in some of the more obscure lore.
They were part of the 'adventurers' line rather than the marines. Back in RT power armour wasn't a marine only thing, nor were they significantly bio-enhanced (the black carapace was literally black plastic armour bonded to their torso).
They were men because they were space monks rather than space nuns, and that's about as far as rogue trader went lore wise.
Cawl did it. After the rift robbed the Imperium of half of its worlds it's in a really bad spot. So Cawl found a way to enable recruitment from about 50% more of the Population.
I wouldn't even be opposed to Chaos/Fabius Bile doing the first step and Cawl copying from him. "Oh look, dem Chaos dudes made it work on women, that thought never crossed me in 10K years!" the Lords of Terra might be even more grumpy about him but who cares when Roboute approves.
Voted "Always been female marines".
Reason: Given that gender difference has never been relevant to Space Marine lore, it is a change that demands no explanation.
I always find the appeal to biology so peculiar. Most generally, biological realities provide no necessary constraints on fictional contexts. All the less so in a science fiction setting. All but none in a setting of space magic.
Space Marines already represent a tremendous departure from biological necessity. They are ficitonal beings. Does that mean that we can attribute anything to them? Yes. Does that mean we reasonably should? No. What must stay the same? The essence of a Space Marine. What is the essence of a Space Marine? They're super soldiers! Does gender have any purchase on the concept of a super soldier? Nope. So go hard!
I voted for don't include as I can't see a lore friendly way for them to be added. (Not that this stopped GW before; i.e. from having the IoM suddenly rediscover hover tech) and I really really don't like the "it was like this all along" type explanations.
If they HAD to be included, then I'd vote for Add to the lore to say that Cawl found a way to make the process work for women, with the specific note that big E never tried this particularly hard because he's a short sighted sexist. I.e. tie it into one of his many flaws.
For me personally retcon 'they always were there' would be fine. I am really not fanatically committed to the fluff minutiae, and things have gotten retconned before. However, 'Cawl did it' would probably be better received. He gave marines three new organs, so hacking this stuff work on women really shouldn't be a big deal.
Like it or not a big part of space marine identity beyond big shoulderpads is the brotherhood of warrior monks. If you want diversity convert some female IG/GSC/Eldar or start a Sisters army. Or feth it, we'll just turn everything in a giant grey blob you can project whatever you want onto. That works right?
And come to think of it, when was the last time 'marines are male only' was explicitly stated in a codex? I don't think current one says that, and it might not have said that for several editions. So were I a complete noob, and picked up a marine codex I wouldn't necessarily conclude the female marines are a literal impossibility. Like sure, they are not mentioned and models look like males, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. After all, pretty much all guard models used to be male until recently too.
So perhaps we could just consider 'marines must always be male' to be phased out old fluff like half-eldar marines or Space Wolves being cool?
Current setting, a symbiotic relationship exists between IoM and the Adeptus Astartes - marines cannot procreate so need humans for recruits, humans are too weak to survive in the galaxy at constant war, so need space marines to conquest and defend IoM territory (one cannot survive without the other).
There is no logical reason why magic future space tech cannot make a female space marine, so Cawl once again one-ups the Emperor and invents a female marine creation process.
Fast forward a few millenia, new Imperial civil war breaks out as the marine population has expanded to the point it is competing with humans for resources and marine loyalties are now contested between loyalty to the Emperor and family ties. Instead of defending humanity, marines instead inevitably win the war and enslave humans, becoming a literal master race.
Beardedragon wrote: Out of curiocity, why DONT there exist female space marines in the lore?
Is it because of the whole gene seed thing with primarchs being only men and thus not working for females? space marine lore isnt really my forté as i play orks. so i have no idea
Well, male Marines pre-date the Primarchs, gene-seed and all that.
Marines were already all-male (with the odd male half-Eldar in the mix though) back when all the "single-colour" chapters (such as Ultramarines) were successors to the multi-colour Rainbow Warriors and Calgar was a former slave to a Genestealer Cult Patriarch in his Limo, lol.
(not to mention the half-Eldar chief librarian also switched careers from Dark Angels to Ultramarines half-way through. No "genetics" involved in what made a "chapter").
it should have just been done with the primaris marines. no need to change the sculpts even. mention something about candidates of both genders and all gender characteristics being lost in the process so unless somehow they are naked from the bottom down all marines look are the same
Current setting, a symbiotic relationship exists between IoM and the Adeptus Astartes - marines cannot procreate so need humans for recruits, humans are too weak to survive in the galaxy at constant war, so need space marines to conquest and defend IoM territory (one cannot survive without the other).
There is no logical reason why magic future space tech cannot make a female space marine, so Cawl once again one-ups the Emperor and invents a female marine creation process.
Fast forward a few millenia, new Imperial civil war breaks out as the marine population has expanded to the point it is competing with humans for resources and marine loyalties are now contested between loyalty to the Emperor and family ties. Instead of defending humanity, marines instead inevitably win the war and enslave humans, becoming a literal master race.
You dont get it, FSM cannot be different from current male SM in any significant manner, so the question about marine procreation is out of the picture.
The lore can only change regarding the fact that some candidates would be female gender at the start of the marine recruitment process.
Current setting, a symbiotic relationship exists between IoM and the Adeptus Astartes - marines cannot procreate so need humans for recruits, humans are too weak to survive in the galaxy at constant war, so need space marines to conquest and defend IoM territory (one cannot survive without the other).
This isn't remotely true. A huge, HUGE majority of conflicts in the Imperium don't involve space marines at all. Space marines don't deploy in entire armies for every car park punch up like GW would have you believe. They're a strike force that sends a few dudes to go make surgical strikes if they feel inclined and are in the area. If Marines didn't exist all that would happen is it would cost more resources to do the same job and the Inperium isn't exactly short of resources.
Beardedragon wrote: Out of curiocity, why DONT there exist female space marines in the lore?
Is it because of the whole gene seed thing with primarchs being only men and thus not working for females? space marine lore isnt really my forté as i play orks. so i have no idea
Well, male Marines pre-date the Primarchs, gene-seed and all that.
Marines were already all-male (with the odd male half-Eldar in the mix though) back when all the "single-colour" chapters (such as Ultramarines) were successors to the multi-colour Rainbow Warriors and Calgar was a former slave to a Genestealer Cult Patriarch in his Limo, lol.
(not to mention the half-Eldar chief librarian also switched careers from Dark Angels to Ultramarines half-way through. No "genetics" involved in what made a "chapter").
Spoiler:
The lack of half-breed (human-xenos) charecters in the current 40K setting really shows the regressive state in which the community has been dweling for ages.
Adding FM marines is easy lore wise.
Pick one:
1) Cawl reveals what else he's been working on....
They are of course Primaris.
OR
2) You know how there's 2 (3?) Chapters that have always remained unnamed, all info sticken from the record?
Well, the veil of secrecy on one of them gets lifted revealing the chapter to be all FM.
This way no existing lore needs rewritten pronoun wise & nobody needs to pretend that they were always here.
Lore wont matter to GW. It never has in the last few years.
Sales will
If there is evidence that adding female space marines on top of Sisters will bring in another mass revenue stream and a whole host of new players who were not sure about 40K up till now but will jump in the exact second female space marines are added..... then GW will do it. If there isn't GW wont.
Current setting, a symbiotic relationship exists between IoM and the Adeptus Astartes - marines cannot procreate so need humans for recruits, humans are too weak to survive in the galaxy at constant war, so need space marines to conquest and defend IoM territory (one cannot survive without the other).
There is no logical reason why magic future space tech cannot make a female space marine, so Cawl once again one-ups the Emperor and invents a female marine creation process.
Fast forward a few millenia, new Imperial civil war breaks out as the marine population has expanded to the point it is competing with humans for resources and marine loyalties are now contested between loyalty to the Emperor and family ties. Instead of defending humanity, marines instead inevitably win the war and enslave humans, becoming a literal master race.
You dont get it, FSM cannot be different from current male SM in any significant manner, so the question about marine procreation is out of the picture.
The lore can only change regarding the fact that some candidates would be female gender at the start of the marine recruitment process.
This was not specified by OP, you are moving goalposts. What was specified was how to deal with the lore - which I have done.
Current setting, a symbiotic relationship exists between IoM and the Adeptus Astartes - marines cannot procreate so need humans for recruits, humans are too weak to survive in the galaxy at constant war, so need space marines to conquest and defend IoM territory (one cannot survive without the other).
This isn't remotely true. A huge, HUGE majority of conflicts in the Imperium don't involve space marines at all. Space marines don't deploy in entire armies for every car park punch up like GW would have you believe. They're a strike force that sends a few dudes to go make surgical strikes if they feel inclined and are in the area. If Marines didn't exist all that would happen is it would cost more resources to do the same job and the Inperium isn't exactly short of resources.
The Great Crusade begs to differ. Introducing female marines would eventually lead to marine population reaching/surpassing Great Crusade era levels.
ccs wrote: Adding FM marines is easy lore wise.
2) You know how there's 2 (3?) Chapters that have always remained unnamed, all info sticken from the record?
Well, the veil of secrecy on one of them gets lifted revealing the chapter to be all FM.
This way no existing lore needs rewritten pronoun wise & nobody needs to pretend that they were always here.
There are supposedly 1000 Marine Chapters and like at a push 250 are named in GW publications. 750 Marine Chapters could exist that have female SM, that's how empty the records are for SM.
I prefer to use the tool already in the setting, specifically unreliable narrator.
Essentially, Female Spaces Marines have always been possible (we debated why the exclusion don't make sense even from a fictional science perspective), so anyone may legitimately create his/her Female Firstborns without being restricted to Primaris... but it is only with the innovations introduced by Cawl and the arrive of Primaris that their existence become common and aknowledged by the rest of the Imperium, being for the first time explicitly included in the lore.
That would have the advantages of not retconning retroactively anything (Female Space Marine would always existed, albeit in negligible numbers and ignored by the Imperium)and to double down on how the Imperium and its own ignorance is the worst enemy of itself.
What I haven't understood is why should the introduction of female marine broke all the other rules that are already in place to contain their numbers (Marine are created by Progenoids, they're capped at 1000 etc etc).
Add - for those who do agree for model reason there's another poll with the options to say they don't want it for modelling reasons.
PenitentJake wrote: I voted not to add female space marines. Not for the reason you might think.
Space Marines have enough freakin models. When there are 100+ models in every other faction, ask me again and the answer might be different.
Yeah, the last thing we need is to give GW an excuse to make even more space marines, especially when they finally pulled their thumbs out of their arses long enough to make sisters of battle.
ccs wrote: Adding FM marines is easy lore wise.
2) You know how there's 2 (3?) Chapters that have always remained unnamed, all info sticken from the record?
Well, the veil of secrecy on one of them gets lifted revealing the chapter to be all FM.
This way no existing lore needs rewritten pronoun wise & nobody needs to pretend that they were always here.
There are supposedly 1000 Marine Chapters and like at a push 250 are named in GW publications. 750 Marine Chapters could exist that have female SM, that's how empty the records are for SM.
Don't get pendentict, you know what I'm talking about. The list of the original chapters/Legions- DA, UM, SW, World Eaters, DG, etc where there's always 2 or 3 that are {redacted}.
I wasn't I was just adding on to your point by emphasising just how empty the Chapter Roster is.
There's still a redacted one on the Primaris version of the Chapters poster.
Apologies if it came across as confrontational.
Sisters are the lore and gameplay space marine equivalents. Women should not be able to be space marines. It inherently contradicts the lore and undermines the idea of a militant fraternal order (which the sisters are a sorority equivalent).
By doing so you will make both sisters and space marines feel less unique, and IMO harm the game way more than you'll ever help it. This change also makes sisters increasingly redundant both as a product, and inside the universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: I prefer to use the tool already in the setting, specifically unreliable narrator.
Essentially, Female Spaces Marines have always been possible (we debated why the exclusion don't make sense even from a fictional science perspective), so anyone may legitimately create his/her Female Firstborns without being restricted to Primaris... but it is only with the innovations introduced by Cawl and the arrive of Primaris that their existence become common and aknowledged by the rest of the Imperium, being for the first time explicitly included in the lore.
That would have the advantages of not retconning retroactively anything (Female Space Marine would always existed, albeit in negligible numbers and ignored by the Imperium)and to double down on how the Imperium and its own ignorance is the worst enemy of itself.
Female space marines were reputedly verboten because they were not meant to be a replacement for humanity. They are meant to be the tools used to shepherd humanity into their eventual transformation into godhood. Space Marines were never meant to be the human ideal, or the eventual evolution of the species as intended by the emperor.
ccs wrote: Adding FM marines is easy lore wise.
Pick one:
1) Cawl reveals what else he's been working on....
They are of course Primaris.
OR
2) You know how there's 2 (3?) Chapters that have always remained unnamed, all info sticken from the record?
Well, the veil of secrecy on one of them gets lifted revealing the chapter to be all FM.
This way no existing lore needs rewritten pronoun wise & nobody needs to pretend that they were always here.
It could also I spose we tied into a reorganization of existing chapters, maybe switching from 1000 members each to 2000 members each and to meet the recruitment drive switching to taking male or female entries.
Honestly I have felt that as SM forces have become more and more diverse the 1000 number has looked increasingly small for a chapter.
Voted no, leave as is. Plenty of other areas in 40k already have strong female representation...Guard, Inquisition, Rogue Traders, Eldar, Tau, and of course Sisters. No reason to push for change IMHO. And let's face it, some of the current female characters are damn good (both in Lore and use). Shadowsun, Kyria Draxus, Morvenn Vahl. 40K is not lacking in this area.
Storywise, there really shouldn't be a reason to not include them, I just don't think it's necessary.
Just a reminder, for the sake of trying to keep this poll going for long enough to get decent results:
Please can anyone who wants to argue with anyone over what they've said in a post here do it via Private Message!
By all means voice your own opinions on the subject, but please don't pick up something someone else has said and try to tell them that they are wrong about it!
I really don't want these threads to get shut down before they've had a chance to run for a couple of days!
Space marines are not male or female. All their sexual organs and hormones that gave them a sex to begin with are removed and replaced with machines/drugs/hormones/manufactured organs that make them better at killing. This entire debate is irrelevant. Whatever human form the space marine used to posses as a child is gone - they are asexual cyborgs.
Though I have never read about it - it is entirely possible that female husks were chosen to become astartes at some point. Though I imagine the process would be different. It would have required special drugs/ equipment/ and hormones to add to an already extremely delicate process with a failure rate close to 99%. Forge the narrative if you wish. IMO though - regardless of whether a male or a female is chosen to start the process - the end result would be much the same and look nearly identical.
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: Space marines are not male or female. All their sexual organs and hormones that gave them a sex to begin with are removed and replaced with machines/drugs/hormones/manufactured organs that make them better at killing. This entire debate is irrelevant. Whatever human form the space marine used to posses as a child is gone - they are asexual cyborgs.
Though I have never read about it - it is entirely possible that female husks were chosen to become astartes at some point. Though I imagine the process would be different. It would have required special drugs/ equipment/ and hormones to add to an already extremely delicate process with a failure rate close to 99%. Forge the narrative if you wish. IMO though - regardless of whether a male or a female is chosen to start the process - the end result would be much the same and look nearly identical.
"Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother. [1][2a][3]
Even once the organs are implanted they are generally inactive or useless without associated training and hypnotherapy and chemical treatment. Most recruits join the ranks as a brother between the age of 16-18 years.[Needs Citation] "
These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If these tests prove successful, a candidate becomes a neophyte. With the completion of organ implantation and attendant chemical and hypnotic training, the subject becomes an initiate. An initiate receives training before joining the ranks as a full brother. A Marine usually joins the ranks between the ages of 16-18, but such are the hormonal changes induced by the process of creating a Space Marine that recruits are physically fully grown before then. Pressures during wartime may accelerate the process.
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: Space marines are not male or female. All their sexual organs and hormones that gave them a sex to begin with are removed and replaced with machines/drugs/hormones/manufactured organs that make them better at killing. This entire debate is irrelevant. Whatever human form the space marine used to posses as a child is gone - they are asexual cyborgs.
Though I have never read about it - it is entirely possible that female husks were chosen to become astartes at some point. Though I imagine the process would be different. It would have required special drugs/ equipment/ and hormones to add to an already extremely delicate process with a failure rate close to 99%. Forge the narrative if you wish. IMO though - regardless of whether a male or a female is chosen to start the process - the end result would be much the same and look nearly identical.
"Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother. [1][2a][3]
Even once the organs are implanted they are generally inactive or useless without associated training and hypnotherapy and chemical treatment. Most recruits join the ranks as a brother between the age of 16-18 years.[Needs Citation] "
These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If these tests prove successful, a candidate becomes a neophyte. With the completion of organ implantation and attendant chemical and hypnotic training, the subject becomes an initiate. An initiate receives training before joining the ranks as a full brother. A Marine usually joins the ranks between the ages of 16-18, but such are the hormonal changes induced by the process of creating a Space Marine that recruits are physically fully grown before then. Pressures during wartime may accelerate the process.
Don't dispute any of that. It is conceded that the lore only supports males being chosen for the process. It is possible that females are also chosen in rare circumstances. Like I said before the end result would be the same. You'd get a frankestine cyborg that is indistinguishable mentally, an in physical appearance with a human being anyways. So the idea of "female space marines" is just nonsense. Space marines have no sex - they have no gender.
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: Space marines are not male or female. All their sexual organs and hormones that gave them a sex to begin with are removed and replaced with machines/drugs/hormones/manufactured organs that make them better at killing. This entire debate is irrelevant. Whatever human form the space marine used to posses as a child is gone - they are asexual cyborgs.
Though I have never read about it - it is entirely possible that female husks were chosen to become astartes at some point. Though I imagine the process would be different. It would have required special drugs/ equipment/ and hormones to add to an already extremely delicate process with a failure rate close to 99%. Forge the narrative if you wish. IMO though - regardless of whether a male or a female is chosen to start the process - the end result would be much the same and look nearly identical.
"Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother. [1][2a][3]
Even once the organs are implanted they are generally inactive or useless without associated training and hypnotherapy and chemical treatment. Most recruits join the ranks as a brother between the age of 16-18 years.[Needs Citation] "
These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If these tests prove successful, a candidate becomes a neophyte. With the completion of organ implantation and attendant chemical and hypnotic training, the subject becomes an initiate. An initiate receives training before joining the ranks as a full brother. A Marine usually joins the ranks between the ages of 16-18, but such are the hormonal changes induced by the process of creating a Space Marine that recruits are physically fully grown before then. Pressures during wartime may accelerate the process.
Don't dispute any of that. It is conceded that the lore only supports males being chosen for the process. It is possible that females are also chosen in rare circumstances. Like I said before the end result would be the same. You'd get a frankestine cyborg that is indistinguishable mentally, an in physical appearance with a human being anyways. So the idea of "female space marines" is just nonsense. Space marines have no sex - they have no gender.
citation needed. We know almost nothing about space marines genetalia.
kirotheavenger wrote: As far as I'm aware female space marines never officially existed. They featured as a segment in what was essentially a fan magazine, but have never been featured by GW.
GW absolutely made female space marine minis in the 80's. When you bought a pack of 3 random space marines, there was a chance at getting a female space marine. Unfortunately, retailers at the time found that those blisters didn't sell and asked GW to stop sending them. As a result, GW stopped making those female marines.
Technically the whole "women SM didn't sell" is not confirmed as the source is one ex-GW employee who also apparently isn't known for being truthful.
If multiple ex-employees were saying it I'd be more inclined to believe it.
Does it matter? I'm inclined to believe it purely based on the time. Meaning the 80's, when any sort of miniature hobby was even more male-dominated than it is now.
Regardless of the reason, the matter still stands that Games Workshop did at one point produce female space marine miniatures.
Mr. Grey wrote: GW absolutely made female space marine minis in the 80's. When you bought a pack of 3 random space marines, there was a chance at getting a female space marine
You don't happen to have one of these blister packs do you?
Seems odd they would have sold mixed-line blisters, they wouldn't even have been part of the same casting.
(10x marines, 20x orks, 30x squats, 40x eldar, 50x guard, 60x various)
This isn't remotely true. A huge, HUGE majority of conflicts in the Imperium don't involve space marines at all. Space marines don't deploy in entire armies for every car park punch up like GW would have you believe. They're a strike force that sends a few dudes to go make surgical strikes if they feel inclined and are in the area. If Marines didn't exist all that would happen is it would cost more resources to do the same job and the Inperium isn't exactly short of resources.
The Great Crusade begs to differ.
The Great Crusade and the subsequent Heresy is exactly why the marines take such a limited part in the overall Imperial war machine.
I feel like selling female space marines just because, is a stupid reason. also it would invalidate the reasoning for having adepta sororitas.
We have an all male adeptus in the space marines, and we have a female in the sororitas. adding females to space marines is like adding men to sisters of battle.
It looks stupid, the majority at best, dont give a damn, and it would be a big difference in terms of all the sculpt kits that needs to be redone, just to appease a very very small amount of people who happen to be woke.
Space Marines are not heroes. The Imperium is not a heroic organization. It's a fascist religious dictatorship, and space marines are their special military force. The fact that there are no female space marines should be played up on in the lore as another reason that the Imperium is not a rational, logical, enlightened form of government, but instead a deeply oppressive, hidebound institution.
I am all for better representation where it makes sense, but the Imperium is not supposed to be an organization you look up to as an exemplar of equal opportunity. They're not the good guys, at least they weren't supposed to be. To the extent that GW is trying to rehabilitate the Imperium and make it into the good goods, that's really genuinely problematic in terms of our current values, much more so than having a deeply oppressive dictatorship not be a paragon of gender equality.
Sledgehammer wrote: "Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother.
However, as already noted, current fluff doesn't say this, and haven't done so for almost twenty years. And last time GW reproduced the article with this quote, they specifically stated that it is out of date and might not reflect the current lore.
Adepta Sororitas are a more specific, fleshed out faction with a lot of personality to them and a much more specific aesthetic. Plus I wouldn't be opposed to sticking males in there for consistency's sake.
Space Marines are a blank slate you can customize in any way you want, any culture, color, or bizarre genetic configuration, but for some reason they canonically lack a gender select switch, and this makes zero sense. A Space Wolf Shieldmaiden, for example, would not be the same thing as a Sister of Battle, and there is no reason to lump them into the same bucket just because they would have two X chromosomes and power armor.
Sledgehammer wrote: "Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother.
However, as already noted, current fluff doesn't say this, and haven't done so for almost twenty years. And last time GW reproduced the article with this quote, they specifically stated that it is out of date and might not reflect the current lore.
At the risk of sounding aggressive. Citation needed. You're going to need to back that one up with a screenshot.
Sledgehammer wrote: "Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother.
However, as already noted, current fluff doesn't say this, and haven't done so for almost twenty years. And last time GW reproduced the article with this quote, they specifically stated that it is out of date and might not reflect the current lore.
At the risk of sounding aggressive. Citation needed. You're going to need to back that one up with a screenshot.
If you looked at my links, the warhammer community article was from November 16th 2019.... Right here
Sledgehammer wrote: "Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother.
However, as already noted, current fluff doesn't say this, and haven't done so for almost twenty years. And last time GW reproduced the article with this quote, they specifically stated that it is out of date and might not reflect the current lore.
At the risk of sounding aggressive. Citation needed. You're going to need to back that one up with a screenshot.
If you looked at my links, the warhammer community article was from November 16th 2019.... Right here
Which luckily has the Editor's Note stating that it is out of date and might not reflect the current lore.
*2016. And it specifically contains a caveat that the information contained is from an old publication and that content has been amended and updated since the initial publishing of Index Astartes 1 in 2002.
As soon as I figure out how to add a screenshot I'll get Codex: Space Marines 9th Edition "The Creation of a Space Marine" page on here.
Gert wrote: *2016. And it specifically contains a caveat that the information contained is from an old publication and that content has been amended and updated since the initial publishing of Index Astartes 1 in 2002.
As soon as I figure out how to add a screenshot I'll get Codex: Space Marines 9th Edition "The Creation of a Space Marine" page on here.
That's really all i've ever seen of this. Unless you can provide a more updated version that DIRECTLY contradicts space marines only being men, (not simply a lack of mention in regrades to sex) then i'll concede. As is I've never seen a single piece of lore that has indicated females can become space marines.
My comments on faction identity and fraternal / soritorial orders remain nonetheless. If you want Female space marines they should absolutely not be Adeptus Astates. The sisters is far more fitting.
After the return of sisters of battle we don't need female space marines.
I love me some female stormcast but yeah. Just look at the 9th edition cinematic. Sisters of Battle ARE for all effects female space marines.
Now I'll say all "biological" explanations for why all SM need to be male are just stupid from a fluff perspective in the context of a scifi universe were things like Orks or Kroot exist. Back in the day GW writters wanted something that sounded minimally plausible and they used that excuse. So theres no reason to take it as some sacred piece of fluff.
Gert wrote: *2016. And it specifically contains a caveat that the information contained is from an old publication and that content has been amended and updated since the initial publishing of Index Astartes 1 in 2002.
As soon as I figure out how to add a screenshot I'll get Codex: Space Marines 9th Edition "The Creation of a Space Marine" page on here.
And that's really all i've ever seen of this. Unless you can provide a more updated version that DIRECTLY contradicts space marines only being men, (not simply a lack of mention in regrades to sex) then i'll concede. As is I've never seen a single piece of lore that has indicated females can become space marines.
My comments on faction identity and fraternal / soritorial orders remain nonetheless. If you want Female space marines they should absolutely not be Adeptus Astates. The sisters is far more fitting.
From Ashes of Prospero, by Gav Thorpe
‘Just give us strong, smart and brave lads and the Sons of Russ will endure.’
‘Just sons?’ said Tyra, her humour edged with a hard look. ‘Perhaps there is more water that must learn to flow.’
Arjac looked at this fierce woman, the sharp spear held easily in her hand, and recalled that she had overcome her fear not with psychodoctrination but raw courage. She had been the first to run to aid him against the wyrm, whether he needed her or not. The spirit of Fenris was in all of its people, elder and child, man and woman. He had seen first-hand that Roboute Guilliman had brought back miracle warriors from the time of the Allfather Abroad. Space Marines moulded from even sharper steel. If that was possible, anything was. He laughed at the thought.
Tyra frowned at him, thinking he mocked her. He calmed his humour and bowed his head in apology, eyes never leaving hers.
‘Perhaps,’ he said.
Suggests that if the Space Marine process *is* still male only, either Arjac Rockfist is unaware of that fact or thinks it can be overcome.
I believe that by existing female space marines would make sisters of battle less unique.
What I really want are FEMALE Adeptus Custodes. Give me some Fate/Zero Saber fantasy yelling Scaribar while yetting a keeper of secrets to outer space.
Galas wrote: I believe that by existing female space marines would make sisters of battle less unique.
What I really want are FEMALE Adeptus Custodes. Give me some Fate/Zero Saber fantasy yelling Scaribar while yetting a keeper of secrets to outer space.
This is when it'll get weird, because you say that and then they'll argue because they're not a flagship faction that it's not good enough. That plus Custodes being all male helps validate some posters' perception of the Emperor being a mysogynistic character.
Galas wrote: After the return of sisters of battle we don't need female space marines.
I love me some female stormcast but yeah. Just look at the 9th edition cinematic. Sisters of Battle ARE for all effects female space marines.
Now I'll say all "biological" explanations for why all SM need to be male are just stupid from a fluff perspective in the context of a scifi universe were things like Orks or Kroot exist. Back in the day GW writters wanted something that sounded minimally plausible and they used that excuse. So theres no reason to take it as some sacred piece of fluff.
It serves more as a explanation within the lore to justify one position vs the other. The meat of the argument is IMO one around faction identity and themes such as militant orders of battle. Templars and nuns with guns don't work if you let anybody join.
Galas wrote: After the return of sisters of battle we don't need female space marines.
I love me some female stormcast but yeah. Just look at the 9th edition cinematic. Sisters of Battle ARE for all effects female space marines.
Now I'll say all "biological" explanations for why all SM need to be male are just stupid from a fluff perspective in the context of a scifi universe were things like Orks or Kroot exist. Back in the day GW writters wanted something that sounded minimally plausible and they used that excuse. So theres no reason to take it as some sacred piece of fluff.
It serves more as a explanation within the lore to justify one position vs the other. The meat of the argument is IMO one around faction identity and themes such as militant orders of battle. Templars and nuns with guns don't work if you let anybody join.
Unfortunately, even the idea of exclusivity seems to be taboo nowadays for some reason, even if its for thematic and faction-building reasons.
yukishiro1 wrote: Space Marines are not heroes. The Imperium is not a heroic organization. It's a fascist religious dictatorship, and space marines are their special military force. The fact that there are no female space marines should be played up on in the lore as another reason that the Imperium is not a rational, logical, enlightened form of government, but instead a deeply oppressive, hidebound institution.
I am all for better representation where it makes sense, but the Imperium is not supposed to be an organization you look up to as an exemplar of equal opportunity. They're not the good guys, at least they weren't supposed to be. To the extent that GW is trying to rehabilitate the Imperium and make it into the good goods, that's really genuinely problematic in terms of our current values, much more so than having a deeply oppressive dictatorship not be a paragon of gender equality.
Imagine that when in another thread I suggested that FSM could be introduce by Fabius Bile and later copied by the Imperium... Some argue that introducing FSM throught a "mad scientist" from an "evil faction" was against the spirit of FSM... Which should only be introduce by "not mad, not evil" entities like Cawl and the Imperium.
Apparently the IOM shouldnt be oppresive in any sense to any current day real life indentity (except working people, those can suffer without remorse)... for the advocates of FSM making the IOM look as the good guys dosent matter or is needed in favour of a greater good.
So y'all just going to ignore how your argument about "males only" isn't supported beyond one term in the 9th Ed Codex?
Also, Vatsetis please don't misrepresent my posts on other threads. If people would like to read what Vatsetis is talking about you can find the posts in the last pages of the "Heresy of the worst kind" thread.
At the middle of page 67 of that thread is where the polemic reference by Gert starts.
Cawl was actually describe as fundamentally distinct in a moral sense from Bile... Endorsing the problematic narrative that as protagonist the IOM and the loyalist marines are the default good guys while their antagonist are only evil doers.
There’s another thread for talking about whether you think it’s a good idea. It got locked, you can’t post in it, and that’s not the topic of this thread.
I hope Gert and Crimson and anyone else will not talk about whether it’s a good idea. For purposes of this thread, and this thread only, we are taking as given that it may happen someday.
You’re just talking about stuff for a different thread. A thread that’s locked, so there’s nowhere for you to talk about it, except facebook or discord or something
We already have Sisters, who're a thousands times more interesting in terms of lore and visuals than Space Marines. No need to risk diluting Sisters (of Battle and to a lesser degree, Silence) and ensuring they're relegated to the same Background Red Shirt status as the Imperial Guard than by having GW make female Space Marines.
I'm not airing an opinion here.
In fact, you'll specifically see that all I have posted is a request for confirmation that GW doesn't focus on SM Aspirants being male-only, asked Vatsetis not to misrepresent what I posted in the thread that did contain the discussion, and how I best think female SM would be introduced back on page 1 which is the point of this thread.
Interesting that you singled me out though when there have been multiple posters giving their arguments against the introduction of female SM despite that being specifically not asked for in the OP's post.
Quote the part of the OP where somebody asked you. Nobody asked, in this thread, for anyone’s opinions on sisters or on women being in the space marines.
Quote the part of the OP where somebody asked you. Nobody asked, in this thread, for anyone’s opinions on sisters or on women being in the space marines.
That's nice. Still stating what I think on the subject though.
Quote the part of the OP where somebody asked you. Nobody asked, in this thread, for anyone’s opinions on sisters or on women being in the space marines.
The question was" How to best add female space marines"? The answer is you don't as it undermines faction identity and thematic elements deeply ingrained in the setting. Adding female space marines undermines the entire theme of having fraternal militant orders of space knights crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. That is why the sisters exist. They provide the female equilivant of the fantasy, just without the gene augmentation (which IMO makes them way more interesting and relatable than space marines). By having them join the space marines you do a disservice to both factions.
This is a discussion board and getting mad at people answering your question in a way you don't like defeats the purpose of the discussion.
Discussions about whether this should or should not happen have already been had and the topic was closed!
Yeah, basically. We already had a big 70+ page knock-down drag-out argument about all of this in Background over the last couple months. It was a damn rollercoaster, that's for sure - And kudos to the mods and most of the participants for letting it go that long without degenerating into a total old-school flame-war and getting locked, because it's absolutely an important discussion to have - But whooooo could I use a break, and I was hardly the most vigilant poster there.
To answer your question in the terms that you have dictated, you let sisters of battle cross the Rubicon Primaris. This keeps the distinct identities and themes of the factions intact.
My absolute favorite kind of lore is to introduce something in a specific campaign. For example you have an Imperial Armor campaign book with the red Scorpions or howling griffons, and that chapter in particular has always had women in the chapter. Then out-of-universe they can be in any chapter. GW has always done this the way land speeder tempest was invented by the white scars and has proliferated nonspecific to other chapters, or the way some chapters supposedly don’t use razorbacks because they’re an “innovation” but it’s never specified which chapters, so anyone’s army can have razorbacks.
So just like everything else in 40k, you could make a Dark Angels siege assault list (the army list with siege mantlets and the LR Achilles) even though it’s not particularly in the dark angels codex or on their stereotypical dualwing theme.
And OP I think there’s a different response to saying how should women be introduced as space marines than how should female space marines added. It makes it more personal, you know, like when you talk someone down by personalizing your relationship.
I picked "Don't add female marines." Not only is there plenty of female representation in Sisters of Battle to make this option redundant, but it can conceivably believed that other factions have plenty of female representation in the with enough creativity. Female AM is a viable option, likewise the same CSM, Daemons, Craftworld, Drukhari, and Tyranids.
Anyway, my personal lore for my Void Hunters is that they're cursed founding chapter with experimental geneseed. Basically a primaris testbed chapter. And one of the experimental modifications is that their gene-seed also works on women. Considering that some cursed founding chapters are able to grow giant bone scythe-blades out of their arms, this seems relatively mild to me. And it still works with the widely accepted canon that female marines do not normally exist, making this a rare exception.
Though at this point I am starting to feel that no such justification is really needed, as canonicity of male-only marines is pretty shaky to begin with and I have kinda stopped caring about the official fluff anyway.
TinyLegions wrote: I picked "Don't add female marines." Not only is there plenty of female representation in Sisters of Battle to make this option redundant, but it can conceivably believed that other factions have plenty of female representation in the with enough creativity. Female AM is a viable option, likewise the same CSM, Daemons, Craftworld, Drukhari, and Tyranids.
But CSM are the evil antagonist... Thats a negative vessel for female representation.
TinyLegions wrote: I picked "Don't add female marines." Not only is there plenty of female representation in Sisters of Battle to make this option redundant, but it can conceivably believed that other factions have plenty of female representation in the with enough creativity. Female AM is a viable option, likewise the same CSM, Daemons, Craftworld, Drukhari, and Tyranids.
But CSM are the evil antagonist... Thats a negative vessel for female representation.
TinyLegions wrote: I picked "Don't add female marines." Not only is there plenty of female representation in Sisters of Battle to make this option redundant, but it can conceivably believed that other factions have plenty of female representation in the with enough creativity. Female AM is a viable option, likewise the same CSM, Daemons, Craftworld, Drukhari, and Tyranids.
But CSM are the evil antagonist... Thats a negative vessel for female representation.
The imperium is also the villain, and sometimes worse than the literal daemon worshipers they fight.
Note that I'm neutral to the change.
Argive wrote: Will this be a trend now every other week until people get fed up or mindless bickering and leave the site??
You're welcome to leave too. You will not be missed.
Argive wrote: We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
As long as it's an issue, it should be discussed, whether you like that or not or whatever labels you choose to attach to it. And saying it like this is not going to win you converts.
I voted "Don't add Female Space Marines". With that said, if you want to create your own homebrew chapter of female Space Marines go for it, i'll gladly play against them if they are done correctly.
So lets go scientific. Who gets recruited to become a Space Marine (Generally) . The top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of Males who aren't yet fully grown into adults (Ragnar's books read like he is close to 18). So you are talking about the top 0.001% at the absolute most, and its probably significantly less than that. The Current Fastest 5k Run by a female of any age group from any country is 14:06.62 by a Woman named Letesenbet GIDEY, The fastest 5k by a US High School boy is 13:37.91 by a guy named Galen Rupp.
The Heaviest Bench press by any female of any age is 600.8 lb by Becca Swanson, the Heaviest Bench press by a Texas high school boy was 700lbs
I can keep going, the point being that if you are attempting to recruit the best physical specimen of a 12-18 year old range, its going to be exclusively Male.
Just for comparison, the US High School records for female athletes in those same events is 15:37.12 5k (2 minutes slower) and for Bench press, the highest I could find was a Teen female by the name of Lexi Harris who was able to Bench 435 (265lbs less), and she beat EVERYONE by a country mile, the next closest was 360lbs.
One of the biggest issues we saw in the Military with Female soldiers and injuries was joints and connective tissue injuries. The US army conducted a joint experiment featuring new recruits and found that Female Recruits were over 2x more likely to be injured from training, the US Marines did a similar study a few years back and they found very similar numbers, 40.1% of Females suffered some form of injury while 18.8% of men suffered similar injuries.
So from a strictly Scientific perspective, the strongest/fastest will be males and they will be about 50% as likely to sustain injuries while training which leads to a lower attrition rate.
From a game perspective, it wouldn't matter, but what would the point be except to please a very vocal minority who in my experience, don't even really play/buy the models so much as enjoy complaining about it. I mean, we already have Sisters of Battle as a full female army, we have Necrons which are literal killer robots devoid of gender, we have Orkz which are called "boyz" but reproduce Via Fungus spores, we have Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, IG and others who have female model ranges. I wouldn't mind them being fleshed out more, especially IG since there is a fair amount of fluff regarding all female regiments and mixed gender regiments, but as far as Female Space Marines go, I see no purpose other than a niche for a specific gamer group and pandering to the outrage mob who have made attempts at this before.
Castozor wrote: But there is no issue, you want wimminz in power armor go play Sisters, they have a lovely new range. No need to bastardize SM.
Sisters are a pretty specific thing with a pretty specific set of iconography and traits, though. A Space Wolf Shieldmaiden or Valkyrie, for instance, would be a far different thing from a Sister of Battle.
And sure, Sisters are awesome - but they're also not the customizable blank slate that Marines are, the fact that made them popular. They can have any culture, be specialized to any method of warfare; they can be Mongol warriors, Vikings, bikers, crusading zealots, Romans, samurai, or basically anything you can imagine - but for some inexplicable reason they lack a gender select switch, which is an artifact of a previous time - and the Stormcast Eternals suggest that monogendering a flagship faction is not a mistake GW would repeat today.
What if you don't want just one gender of superwarrior? Hell, I'd be for putting men in the Sororitas - although I'd definitely start calling it the Sororitas at that point - just to maintain reciprocity if that's what it took.
The funniest possible position that people fake-hold in these threads is, "Female Space Marines would make Space Marines less unique"
Space Marines aren't unique. They're large, aggressive, highly-trained, muscular men in armour suits with big guns. That's the potato of the sci-fi faction lookbook.
Castozor wrote: But there is no issue, you want wimminz in power armor go play Sisters, they have a lovely new range. No need to bastardize SM.
Sisters are a pretty specific thing with a pretty specific set of iconography and traits, though. A Space Wolf Shieldmaiden or Valkyrie, for instance, would be a far different thing from a Sister of Battle.
And sure, Sisters are awesome - but they're also not the customizable blank slate that Marines are, the fact that made them popular. They can have any culture, be specialized to any method of warfare; they can be Mongol warriors, Vikings, bikers, crusading zealots, Romans, samurai, or basically anything you can imagine - but for some inexplicable reason they lack a gender select switch, which is an artifact of a previous time - and the Stormcast Eternals suggest that monogendering a flagship faction is not a mistake GW would repeat today.
What if you don't want just one gender of superwarrior? Hell, I'd be for putting men in the Sororitas - although I'd definitely start calling it the Sororitas at that point - just to maintain reciprocity if that's what it took.
Space marines are at their core militant orders of fraternal religious brethren that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. The sisters are a sorority of religious sisters that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. To throw all of the themes of catholic orders, and crusades out simply to appease that is ludicrous.
Altruizine wrote: The funniest possible position that people fake-hold in these threads is, "Female Space Marines would make Space Marines less unique"
Space Marines aren't unique. They're large, aggressive, highly-trained, muscular men in armour suits with big guns. That's the potato of the sci-fi faction lookbook.
Exactly; A look that works well because you can canonically put any take you want on them, except, for some reason, that one.
I'm not about to accuse people of holding fake positions, though. Not entirely thought out ones, yes, because honestly this topic doesn't get discussed enough for everyone to have fully considered opinions about it yet, so until I have reason to believe otherwise I'll assume they're being earnest.
Castozor wrote: But there is no issue, you want wimminz in power armor go play Sisters, they have a lovely new range. No need to bastardize SM.
Sisters are a pretty specific thing with a pretty specific set of iconography and traits, though. A Space Wolf Shieldmaiden or Valkyrie, for instance, would be a far different thing from a Sister of Battle.
And sure, Sisters are awesome - but they're also not the customizable blank slate that Marines are, the fact that made them popular. They can have any culture, be specialized to any method of warfare; they can be Mongol warriors, Vikings, bikers, crusading zealots, Romans, samurai, or basically anything you can imagine - but for some inexplicable reason they lack a gender select switch, which is an artifact of a previous time - and the Stormcast Eternals suggest that monogendering a flagship faction is not a mistake GW would repeat today.
Can you really not do that with Sisters though? There are thousands of orders across thousands of worlds, aren't there? Surely they aren't all uniform? Surely they would have picked up local customs and garbs resulting in some curious variations?
That could even be how you can get your Shieldmaidens or Valkyries; they are Sisters of Battle stationed on Fenris or similar Norse themed world, and they went a tad native.
Personally though I always thought that allowing Marines to field Chapter serfs is a fair compromise; that is an aspect of their fluff that is barely touched upon, even though chapter serfs are supposed to be an integral part of the day to day functioning of the chapter. Whilst Marines might be only males, there is nothing that limits serfs in that respect.
It would also explain how Marines, despite having such pitiful numbers, are capable of engaging in large scale conflicts; they use chapter serf auxiliaries. This would solve one of the critiques of Space Marine use, that they do not have actually have the numbers to operate as they do.
Argive wrote: We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
As long as it's an issue, it should be discussed, whether you like that or not or whatever labels you choose to attach to it. And saying it like this is not going to win you converts.
He is however right that is a rule on this site that politics and religion are banned on this site. That the mods are somehow failing to enforce this lately has been more of the issue.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are at their core militant orders of fraternal religious brethren that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. The sisters are a sorority of religious sisters that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. To throw all of the themes of catholic orders, and crusades out simply to appease that is ludicrous.
You say "Appease," I say "Include," and in a game that encourages you to invest yourself, you want to give people as many customization options as feasible. Also, my understanding is that the Marines revere the Emperor as their genefather, but outside the Black Templars don't necessarily consider him a god, which would be a marked difference from a faction of truly religious zealots.
You also left out "Genetically altered superhuman," and that's kind of a point of difference. Someone said it was like comparing Batman and Superman - These aren't the same thing or the same kind of fantasy; both awesome for different reasons. Additionally, the heavily gothic, baroque aesthetic of the Sisters is a far different one from the flat, techier, boxier look of the Marines - that flat look that allows so much space to do whatever you want with them.
The Catholic monasteries also didn't have gyrojet rocket launchers as standard issue. The Marines really don't lose anything by including women any more than any other historically-based setup loses by including laser cannons.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are at their core militant orders of fraternal religious brethren that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. The sisters are a sorority of religious sisters that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. To throw all of the themes of catholic orders, and crusades out simply to appease that is ludicrous.
You say "Appease," I say "Include," and in a game that encourages you to invest yourself, you want to give people as many customization options as feasible. Also, my understanding is that the Marines revere the Emperor as their genefather, but outside the Black Templars don't necessarily consider him a god, which would be a marked difference from a faction of truly religious zealots.
You also left out "Genetically altered superhuman," and that's kind of a point of difference. Someone said it was like comparing Batman and Superman - These aren't the same thing or the same kind of fantasy; both awesome for different reasons. Additionally, the heavily gothic, baroque aesthetic of the Sisters is a far different one from the flat, techier, boxier look of the Marines - that flat look that allows so much space to do whatever you want with them.
The Catholic monasteries also didn't have gyrojet rocket launchers as standard issue. The Marines really don't lose anything by including women any more than any other historically-based setup loses by including laser cannons.
And what about the people that have invested themselves in a factions themes? You don't care about how they feel about having their space knights templars no longer be space knights templars?
You don't have to crush existing lore in order to make it more inclusive.
Xenos 40k Players for a decade: Hey can we get some new sculpts for literally any of the Xenos armies?
Imperial 40k Players for a decade: No, they aren't popular enough and they wont sell enough to justify the production costs.
And than You: "We should do all the things to include others"
I'm being a bit silly here and over simplifying it, but damn dude, how many people would jump on the "FEMALE SPEESE MEHREENS!" bandwagon compared to how many players they would lose because this was the straw that broke the camels back, waiting years for an update, getting salty about the ridiculous amounts of SPEESE MEHREENS! only to be told, yeah we wont be making new models for Eldar/Nidz, Tau etc because we need to push out this pet project to appease the woke mob.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are at their core militant orders of fraternal religious brethren that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. The sisters are a sorority of religious sisters that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. To throw all of the themes of catholic orders, and crusades out simply to appease that is ludicrous.
I must disagree.
Space Marines are transhuman warriors armed with the best weapons and armor available to the Imperium.
Sisters of Battle are an order of female fanatical religious servants of the Imperial Church armed with the best weapons and armor the Church can purchase.
Space marine chapters and members religiosity varies greatly. Every single Sister of Battle is a religious fanatic.
Exactly; A look that works well because you can canonically put any take you want on them, except, for some reason, that one.
Yeah. I think a big part of marine popularity is their thematic flexibility. You can flavour them in many differnt ways, so it is pretty silly to ban this one specific seasoning. And allowing it doesn't really remove the male-only themes. Like if my techno-barbarian tacticool space hunters chapter has some female marines that doesn't prevent someone making an all-male templarish knightly brotherhood chapter.
And no, as much as I love SoB they're not thematically flexible in the same way as marines are. Their themes are much more focused, which is both strength and weakness. Like if marines were always explicitly medievalish knightly templar brotherhoods same way than SoB are always catholic-inspired warrior nuns I would get the opposition on thematic grounds better. But that has really never been the case, marines already cover many different thematic roles.
Castozor wrote: But there is no issue, you want wimminz in power armor go play Sisters, they have a lovely new range. No need to bastardize SM.
Sisters are a pretty specific thing with a pretty specific set of iconography and traits, though. A Space Wolf Shieldmaiden or Valkyrie, for instance, would be a far different thing from a Sister of Battle.
And sure, Sisters are awesome - but they're also not the customizable blank slate that Marines are, the fact that made them popular. They can have any culture, be specialized to any method of warfare; they can be Mongol warriors, Vikings, bikers, crusading zealots, Romans, samurai, or basically anything you can imagine - but for some inexplicable reason they lack a gender select switch, which is an artifact of a previous time - and the Stormcast Eternals suggest that monogendering a flagship faction is not a mistake GW would repeat today.
What if you don't want just one gender of superwarrior? Hell, I'd be for putting men in the Sororitas - although I'd definitely start calling it the Sororitas at that point - just to maintain reciprocity if that's what it took.
Who says you can't do that with Sisters? They have various orders all of which approach battle differently. At the end of the day all Marines are bulky dudes in power armor regardless of whether they prefer to shank you in the back, from a bike or while being called Wolfy McWulfsson.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are at their core militant orders of fraternal religious brethren that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. The sisters are a sorority of religious sisters that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. To throw all of the themes of catholic orders, and crusades out simply to appease that is ludicrous.
I must disagree.
Space Marines are transhuman warriors armed with the best weapons and armor available to the Imperium.
Sisters of Battle are an order of female fanatical religious servants of the Imperial Church armed with the best weapons and armor the Church can purchase.
Space marine chapters and members religiosity varies greatly. Every single Sister of Battle is a religious fanatic.
Space Marines still have a religious aspect though.
They have Chaplains in their ranks, they live and train in Fortress Monasteries, they spend a lot of time praying, they refer to each other as Brother (which also has a double meaning), they are organized in Chapters, and they do have some design elements reminiscent of Knightly Orders, although it's more obvious in a few cases than most.
They might not be the militant arm of the Church and absolute fanatics like the Sisters (barring, of course, a couple of notable Chapters), but they are not a secular organization.
I guess they are comparable to the Brotherhood of Steel from Fallout? Not overtly religious, but the monastic inspiration is clear.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are at their core militant orders of fraternal religious brethren that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. The sisters are a sorority of religious sisters that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. To throw all of the themes of catholic orders, and crusades out simply to appease that is ludicrous.
I must disagree.
Space Marines are transhuman warriors armed with the best weapons and armor available to the Imperium.
Sisters of Battle are an order of female fanatical religious servants of the Imperial Church armed with the best weapons and armor the Church can purchase.
Space marine chapters and members religiosity varies greatly. Every single Sister of Battle is a religious fanatic.
They absolutely are based off of orders militant. There is no disputing that.
SemperMortis wrote: Xenos 40k Players for a decade: Hey can we get some new sculpts for literally any of the Xenos armies?
Imperial 40k Players for a decade: No, they aren't popular enough and they wont sell enough to justify the production costs.
And than You: "We should do all the things to include others"
I'm being a bit silly here and over simplifying it, but damn dude, how many people would jump on the "FEMALE SPEESE MEHREENS!" bandwagon compared to how many players they would lose because this was the straw that broke the camels back, waiting years for an update, getting salty about the ridiculous amounts of SPEESE MEHREENS! only to be told, yeah we wont be making new models for Eldar/Nidz, Tau etc because we need to push out this pet project to appease the woke mob.
Do not get me wrong: "Space Marines have gotten too much attention lately" is a problem, and we're still recovering from Marine fatigue. I get that, I agree with that, fully, and it's for that reason I'm not saying this needs to happen nownownow. It absolutely should happen - but it can wait for a bit. I'd like it if they said FSM were coming and that the lore was officially updated to match in the more immediate term, but models? Whenever they were going to release more Marine stuff anyway, they throw in some head sprues. Boom.
EDIT: Derp, didn't respond to part 2:
As for the financial impact - That's difficult to evaluate. There would be some immediate fits, but in the long term I think they'd get more players than they lost, because A) if you haven't been turned off by all the other gak GW's done, why would this be the final straw?, and B) as I said, If I heard another game's longterm fans were having a hissy-fit about a major faction's suddenly increased gender representation, I'd check that game out in a heartbeat.
Sledgehammer wrote: Space marines are at their core militant orders of fraternal religious brethren that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. The sisters are a sorority of religious sisters that crusade across the galaxy in the name of their god. To throw all of the themes of catholic orders, and crusades out simply to appease that is ludicrous.
I must disagree.
Space Marines are transhuman warriors armed with the best weapons and armor available to the Imperium.
Sisters of Battle are an order of female fanatical religious servants of the Imperial Church armed with the best weapons and armor the Church can purchase.
Space marine chapters and members religiosity varies greatly. Every single Sister of Battle is a religious fanatic.
They absolutely are based off of orders militant. There is no disputing that.
Organizationally, yes. But that is not what sets them apart. The entire Imperium of Man is dripping with religious themes, so that doesn't really matter. What makes space marines different from other special forces of the Imperium is they are transhuman, not that they have some monastic traditions.
Space Marines still have a religious aspect though.
SM are specifically noted as generally being not religious and instead view the Emperor as a kind of father figure of Humanity rather than a God. Worship isn't inherently a religious thing.
They have Chaplains in their ranks,
Chaplains look after the spiritual and mental wellbeing of the Chapter, indoctrinate Aspirants into the Chapter creed, guard the relics of the Chapter, and are enforcers of the Codex Astartes.
they live and train in Fortress Monasteries,
Living in a Monastery doesn't make you religious.
they spend a lot of time praying,
Prayer and meditation are similar also technically not inherently religious.
they refer to each other as Brother (which also has a double meaning)
They all have the same dad.
they are organized in Chapters,
Not inherently religious.
and they do have some design elements reminiscent of Knightly Orders, although it's more obvious in a few cases than most.
Only very recently has GW gone for "Knightly" SM designs with Indomitus.
They might not be the militant arm of the Church and absolute fanatics like the Sisters (barring, of course, a couple of notable Chapters), but they are not a secular organization.
It explicitly states in the SM Codex that they aren't religious.
I guess they are comparable to the Brotherhood of Steel from Fallout? Not overtly religious, but the monastic inspiration is clear.
IMO that's a great comparison since monastic living doesn't require you to be religious.
Just for clarity, very pro-female SM but the rest of the range needs updating first. Except for Aedlari Guardians. They must stay.
I've actually been tinkering with a DA or RG Primaris chapter using all female or mixed gender heads, actually.
Now, I'm still going through the newest lore changes and reading through all the nuances of stuff, but my thought is this. There are no female space marines. The original, firstborn gene stock were incompatible with female biology and thus short of warp shenanigans by Slaanesh or Tzeentch, female Astartes just weren't possible.
Then here comes Cawl with Primaris marines and the initial surge of reinforcements swells the Astartes ranks and gives the Imperium a second wind. It also acts as a sort of test for Cawl. As the Firstborn chapters settle in and get acclimated to the Primaris' introduction and performance on the field, he kicks in the second half of his plans.
He'd figured out how to make the geneseed not dependent on testosterone, or at least not exclusively dependent. That little shift allows him to use female biology, though it is, perhaps, either more dangerous or more experimental or whatever you wanna slap into there to show they have reduced numbers in comparison. Or, you could just argue that he did a thorough job and women becoming Primaris are just as as numerous as men becoming Primaris.
With the first, full wave of Primaris marines running amuck and the Imperium as a whole settling in to getting used to the New Boys kicking tail and taking names, here comes the second wave of either all women or mixed gender Primaris. Probably received similarly to the Primaris' first wave, but you just have Guilleman do the rounds again with Cawl and things eventually settle down.
For the purist fans out there, doubt Cawl and Guilleman showboating will put out the fires of pure rage, but you can't make everyone happy, so there's that as well.
Arguable the knightly influence predates Indomitus; the beaky helmets were inspired by the Houndskul helmet.
And of course we have the Mark II and III armors which also take inspiration from medieval helmets.
As I said, Brother has a double-meaning; it is both a reference to their lineage to the Emperor and also a nod to monastic life.
Also, I left out Crusades. Which is pretty obvious reference to, well, the Crusades, again showing the Knightly Order reference.
Perhaps religious is not the right word to describe them, but they do have heavy monastic knight undertones.
psipso wrote: I thought that once implanted the gen-seed, an SM is asexual, so what's the point of having females or males? They are neither of them.
They have the same aspect because of the heavy modifications and implants and they are no longer human.
If Marines were always referred to as "They" rather than "He," that might be closer to valid, but they're not - and aspirants are canonically all monogendered.
If it was canonical that both genders went through the process and came out looking extremely similar, that'd still be a huge improvement.
SemperMortis wrote: Xenos 40k Players for a decade: Hey can we get some new sculpts for literally any of the Xenos armies?
Imperial 40k Players for a decade: No, they aren't popular enough and they wont sell enough to justify the production costs.
And than You: "We should do all the things to include others"
I'm being a bit silly here and over simplifying it, but damn dude, how many people would jump on the "FEMALE SPEESE MEHREENS!" bandwagon compared to how many players they would lose because this was the straw that broke the camels back, waiting years for an update, getting salty about the ridiculous amounts of SPEESE MEHREENS! only to be told, yeah we wont be making new models for Eldar/Nidz, Tau etc because we need to push out this pet project to appease the woke mob.
Do not get me wrong: "Space Marines have gotten too much attention lately" is a problem, and we're still recovering from Marine fatigue. I get that, I agree with that, fully, and it's for that reason I'm not saying this needs to happen nownownow. It absolutely should happen - but it can wait for a bit. I'd like it if they said FSM were coming and that the lore was officially updated to match in the more immediate term, but models? Whenever they were going to release more Marine stuff anyway, they throw in some head sprues. Boom.
EDIT: Derp, didn't respond to part 2:
As for the financial impact - That's difficult to evaluate. There would be some immediate fits, but in the long term I think they'd get more players than they lost, because A) if you haven't been turned off by all the other gak GW's done, why would this be the final straw?, and B) as I said, If I heard another game's longterm fans were having a hissy-fit about a major faction's suddenly increased gender representation, I'd check that game out in a heartbeat.
"It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
I don't know man, I think it would be rad and hilarious if Necrons got Pillar-men and Pillar-Women as part of their reverse biotransference experiments, complete with well-oiled abs.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Necrons technically man and woman already? Since every single one of them got uploaded (?) into their new skeletal forms.
Castozor wrote: Well correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Necrons technically man and woman already? Since every single one of them got uploaded (?) into their new skeletal forms.
Yeah, and we also know that there are, indeed, female necrons, as one of the dynasty heads is a Queen. There's a title they used for the female version of a pharon, but I forgot was it was.
Chances are though that since most necrons got their personality and memory wiped the vast majority of them are just genderless droids.
Personally I preferred them being a faceless legion of kill-bots, but that's just me.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Arguable the knightly influence predates Indomitus; the beaky helmets were inspired by the Houndskul helmet.
And of course we have the Mark II and III armors which also take inspiration from medieval helmets.
Nobody looks at a Mk6 Helmet and thinks anything but "Bird", hence beaky. Mk2/3 yeah they look very knightly but they aren't the primary armour used by SM of either Primaris or Firstborn. Mk7 and MkX are generic scifi super soldier looks.
How is praying not an inherently religious activity? The purpose of prayer is to commune with a deity.
Technically you can pray to anything you worship and worship isn't inherently a religious activity. It is a point of contention because the Emperor has influenced events before and is pretty godlike but what about prayers of activation and junk for machines? They aren't worshipping the machines (well some are but it's rare) but they still do prayers.
Also, I left out Crusades. Which is pretty obvious reference to, well, the Crusades, again showing the Knightly Order reference.
Yeah, absolutely the Christian Crusades are an influence but crusade is also a synonym for campaign. Not all military actions conducted by SM or even the Imperium are called crusades but it sounds cooler than "Damocles Gulf War" or "Indomitus War". Personally, I would prefer GW switched it out from time to time because it gets boring. Would "Indomitus Reclamation" have been so bad?
There absolutely are influences from multiple religious institutions but saying that SM are a religious order just because they share a couple of similarities with X Medieval Christian institution is a stretch.
I do agree that the Mk7 are indeed sci-fi helmets as they appear to be stormtrooper helmet knockoffs. I'd argue though that the MkX does have some slight influence from medieval helmets, as the respirator plate does look similar to what some of those helmets have.
As I wrote earlier, perhaps religious is the wrong word for them, but they do take inspiration from Knightly Orders and monks.
If you're going to concede that space marines are organizationally, and culturally (maybe even if some aren't religious they have do what amounts to religious rituals) based on orders militant, then you must also concede that by allowing for the opposite sex to join you're undermining that fundamental aspect of their identity. Same goes for sisters. Faction identity is important, and the word crusade is used very intentionally in 40k.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't know man, I think it would be rad and hilarious if Necrons got Pillar-men and Pillar-Women as part of their reverse biotransference experiments, complete with well-oiled abs.
I know at one point I was honestly curious if Necrons had sexual dimorphism or not and whether or not that carried into biotransference.
Also, I posted this in the other thread, but this is similar just want to thank very nearly all of you on either side for remaining quite civil on this topic - This is actually pretty enjoyable so far.
Maybe it's because I have a better grasp of the topic than the last time around, but I'm quite liking these threads and generally how they're turning out. Makes me hopeful that it won't just be a taboo firestarter topic that nothing ever gets done about because no one can ever discuss it on neutral ground.
"It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
It's rarely so binary a decision. It's a bunch of little things and small thoughts that add up. It's hard to tell what constitutes the tipping point between someone checking out a game versus not checking it out. Maybe you'd rather not be a hyper-religious zealot? Maybe you saw the Dark Angels or Space Wolves and thought "I'd like to do that, but... Oh, they're only men?... I see..." I certainly know at least one person who would like to do an FSM Raven Guard successor.
In addition to bringing people in, it is in part about disempowering the people who actually are bigoted and using the lore - lore that basically has little structural or thematic effect in Warhammer, as Guardsmen, Inquisitors, and High Lords of Terra can be women at this point - as a cudgel to keep other genders out of their playspaces. I am not suggesting you're one of them, but they do exist. If GW is indeed backing up its claim that "Warhammer Is For Everyone," this is a logical step in that regard.
And... please chill. Breathe. I think you're very much overestimating the negative consequences of this decision. Like I said - GW does objectively stupid stuff all the time, and despite it they still seem to be doing just fine. I do not think that FSM is a dumber or more objectionable decision than, say, constant price hikes or Primaris Marines or the Start of 9th points changes. Indeed, I hate those and yet they seem to be making GW more money than ever. If those didn't financially ruin the hobby, then neither will FSM, unless GW truly does something so bizarrely and inexplicably objectionable with the release even I can't immediately picture it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't know man, I think it would be rad and hilarious if Necrons got Pillar-men and Pillar-Women as part of their reverse biotransference experiments, complete with well-oiled abs.
The 9th Edition teaser for Crons had buff Necrons in the trailer and I am beyond outraged that there are no buff Necrons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: As I wrote earlier, perhaps religious is the wrong word for them, but they do take inspiration from Knightly Orders and monks.
I think that's the important point to remember. SM take inspiration from loads of different places to the point where they are one thing only, Space Marines. One person could find 20 examples of SM being crusading Knights and another could find 20 examples of SM being stealthy Ninja-Assassins, then a third person comes along with fur-clad Barbarian berserkers.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't know man, I think it would be rad and hilarious if Necrons got Pillar-men and Pillar-Women as part of their reverse biotransference experiments, complete with well-oiled abs.
The 9th Edition teaser for Crons had buff Necrons in the trailer and I am beyond outraged that there are no buff Necrons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: As I wrote earlier, perhaps religious is the wrong word for them, but they do take inspiration from Knightly Orders and monks.
I think that's the important point to remember. SM take inspiration from loads of different places to the point where they are one thing only, Space Marines. One person could find 20 examples of SM being crusading Knights and another could find 20 examples of SM being stealthy Ninja-Assassins, then a third person comes along with fur-clad Barbarian berserkers.
Yeah and they've been what they are (male only) for 30 years.
psipso wrote:I thought that once implanted the gen-seed, an SM is asexual, so what's the point of having females or males? They are neither of them.
Just want to clear something up here on the words here.
Asexual means no sexual attraction. Not agender, which is not having a gender. However, yes, Space Marines do seem to be asexual. As for them being agender, that is more complicated. They use male pronouns, but whether that's because of them being AMAB or simply just using male pronouns as Space Marines is unclear.
What would be interesting is if women recruits adopted male pronouns upon becoming Astartes. And, you could expand on that further, with some Chapters doing the opposite (some Chapters using all-female pronouns - a hypothetical Shieldmaidens of Russ Chapter, for example), or others either having mixed gender, or no gender at all (going by gender-neutral pronouns, and only seeing themselves as "Astartes").
Basically, Space Marine gender is not exactly clearly understood.
SemperMortis wrote:"It absolutely should happen" Why?
Why shouldn't it?
is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same?
First "ruin"? Why is this "ruining" anything? Second, having a visibly mixed gender super soldier force, in such a prominent position as 40k? That's not "the same" as everything else.
Hell, if you want to talk about things being the same, we should probably start by making Space Marines ONLY women, and making the unaugmented power armoured humans all male - that would *really* make things unique.
Should we have Female Necrons as well?
... we already do.
How about Female Orkz?
Orks are fungi. Not humans.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, and we also know that there are, indeed, female necrons, as one of the dynasty heads is a Queen. There's a title they used for the female version of a pharon, but I forgot was it was.
I believe the term is Phaerahk?
Chances are though that since most necrons got their personality and memory wiped the vast majority of them are just genderless droids.
Yeah, most Necrons are lacking an identity overall, let alone a gender identity. More than likely, it's only your Immortals, Lychguard, Triarch, and ruling courts who would have anything like that.
Sledgehammer wrote:If you're going to concede that space marines are organizationally, and culturally (maybe even if some aren't religious they have do what amounts to religious rituals) based on orders militant, then you must also concede that by allowing for the opposite sex to join you're undermining that fundamental aspect of their identity.
And similarly, I would think that having such a hard restriction on what Space Marines can be is undermining the more fundamental aspect of their player freedoms and customisation.
I've raised this point previously, and I won't go in depth (if you want to, please feel free to look in the other thread, and perhaps not debate this here, as per OP's request), but basically, as other users have said, Space Marines are really not *that* closely tied to their whole Warrior-Monk image. I mean, look at the Space Wolves. Look at the Raptors. Look at the Black Dragons. Their primary identifiers aren't their (few) monastic ways, but their cultures and larger aesthetic ideals. Space Marines are far often more organisationally based on the the cultures they ape from and copy - and as I believe previously mentioned, we're all very happy to handwave aircraft, tanks and big zoggin' guns into what I'm sure the Orders Militant didn't have.
If having women undermines the Orders Militant, why doesn't also having a big old tank or jump jet strapped to your back?
Faction identity is important, and the word crusade is used very intentionally in 40k.
Guardsmen are also part of those crusades. They're a mixed gender faction. Hell, the actual *Crusaders*, a unit in game, has no restriction on gender, from my understanding.
And, just to hammer that "faction identity is important" - you're right. It is important - which is why it blows my mind that people think that Sisters of Battle are anywhere equivalent to women Space Marines. I mean, that'd be like saying that you don't need male Space Marines, you have Custodes! They're two completely distinct factions, with their own "important faction identity" as you put it. Ergo, Sisters of Battle aren't a replacement for women Space Marines.
Anyways, if you want to see much more in depth arguments, you're welcome to see them in the other thread, rather than have to see them all over here again.
psipso wrote:I thought that once implanted the gen-seed, an SM is asexual, so what's the point of having females or males? They are neither of them.
Just want to clear something up here on the words here.
Asexual means no sexual attraction. Not agender, which is not having a gender.
However, yes, Space Marines do seem to be asexual. As for them being agender, that is more complicated. They use male pronouns, but whether that's because of them being AMAB or simply just using male pronouns as Space Marines is unclear.
What would be interesting is if women recruits adopted male pronouns upon becoming Astartes. And, you could expand on that further, with some Chapters doing the opposite (some Chapters using all-female pronouns - a hypothetical Shieldmaidens of Russ Chapter, for example), or others either having mixed gender, or no gender at all (going by gender-neutral pronouns, and only seeing themselves as "Astartes").
Basically, Space Marine gender is not exactly clearly understood.
SemperMortis wrote:"It absolutely should happen" Why?
Why shouldn't it?
is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same?
First "ruin"? Why is this "ruining" anything? Second, having a visibly mixed gender super soldier force, in such a prominent position as 40k? That's not "the same" as everything else.
Hell, if you want to talk about things being the same, we should probably start by making Space Marines ONLY women, and making the unaugmented power armoured humans all male - that would *really* make things unique.
Should we have Female Necrons as well?
... we already do.
How about Female Orkz?
Orks are fungi. Not humans.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, and we also know that there are, indeed, female necrons, as one of the dynasty heads is a Queen. There's a title they used for the female version of a pharon, but I forgot was it was.
I believe the term is Phaerahk?
Chances are though that since most necrons got their personality and memory wiped the vast majority of them are just genderless droids.
Yeah, most Necrons are lacking an identity overall, let alone a gender identity. More than likely, it's only your Immortals, Lychguard, Triarch, and ruling courts who would have anything like that.
Sledgehammer wrote:If you're going to concede that space marines are organizationally, and culturally (maybe even if some aren't religious they have do what amounts to religious rituals) based on orders militant, then you must also concede that by allowing for the opposite sex to join you're undermining that fundamental aspect of their identity.
And similarly, I would think that having such a hard restriction on what Space Marines can be is undermining the more fundamental aspect of their player freedoms and customisation.
I've raised this point previously, and I won't go in depth (if you want to, please feel free to look in the other thread, and perhaps not debate this here, as per OP's request), but basically, as other users have said, Space Marines are really not *that* closely tied to their whole Warrior-Monk image. I mean, look at the Space Wolves. Look at the Raptors. Look at the Black Dragons. Their primary identifiers aren't their (few) monastic ways, but their cultures and larger aesthetic ideals. Space Marines are far often more organisationally based on the the cultures they ape from and copy - and as I believe previously mentioned, we're all very happy to handwave aircraft, tanks and big zoggin' guns into what I'm sure the Orders Militant didn't have.
If having women undermines the Orders Militant, why doesn't also having a big old tank or jump jet strapped to your back?
Faction identity is important, and the word crusade is used very intentionally in 40k.
Guardsmen are also part of those crusades. They're a mixed gender faction. Hell, the actual *Crusaders*, a unit in game, has no restriction on gender, from my understanding.
And, just to hammer that "faction identity is important" - you're right. It is important - which is why it blows my mind that people think that Sisters of Battle are anywhere equivalent to women Space Marines. I mean, that'd be like saying that you don't need male Space Marines, you have Custodes! They're two completely distinct factions, with their own "important faction identity" as you put it. Ergo, Sisters of Battle aren't a replacement for women Space Marines.
Anyways, if you want to see much more in depth arguments, you're welcome to see them in the other thread, rather than have to see them all over here again.
And i'd argue that there are other factions out there that can appeal to you without undermining the thematic underpinnings of an already established one.
Sledgehammer wrote: Yeah and they've been what they are (male only) for 30 years.
That's a thing, though; I don't quite understand how this is necessarily critical to their identity - or more relevantly, their relative lack thereof. Space Marines can be anything else, so why is chromosomal masculinity mentioned in a 20-word chunk 18 years ago the one line they cling to when they can be Vikings, cyborgs, on fire, or anything else? I swear I'd get less flak if I actually went and made full-on anthro-furry LSM if I made them as Space Wolf successors than if I tried doing loyalist FSM.
I actually get the argument that the Imperium is supposed to be a dystopian hellhole and that sexism would be one of their numerous evils in the How Not To Do It book, it's just that it... isn't. At least not anywhere else. Of the many flaws the Imperium has, sexism (as well as Earth-standard melanin-based racism) doesn't seem to be among them because women can be pretty much anything except the one faction that happens to constitute a good 40-50% of the playerbase, and it's kind of hard to talk around, y'know?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What would be interesting is if women recruits adopted male pronouns upon becoming Astartes. And, you could expand on that further, with some Chapters doing the opposite (some Chapters using all-female pronouns - a hypothetical Shieldmaidens of Russ Chapter, for example), or others either having mixed gender, or no gender at all (going by gender-neutral pronouns, and only seeing themselves as "Astartes").
Basically, Space Marine gender is not exactly clearly understood.
That's actually a thought process I hadn't even considered. Mind if I snag this for some potential headcanon down the line after my DG are finished?
Sledgehammer wrote: Yeah and they've been what they are (male only) for 30 years.
That's a thing, though; I don't quite understand how this is necessarily critical to their identity - or more relevantly, their relative lack thereof. Space Marines can be anything else, so why is chromosomal masculinity mentioned in a 20-word chunk 18 years ago the one line they cling to when they can be Vikings, cyborgs, on fire, or anything else? I swear I'd get less flak if I actually went and made full-on anthro-furry LSM if I made them as Space Wolf successors than if I tried doing loyalist FSM.
I actually get the argument that the Imperium is supposed to be a dystopian hellhole and that sexism would be one of their numerous evils in the How Not To Do It book, it's just that it... isn't. At least not anywhere else. Of the many flaws the Imperium has, sexism (as well as Earth-standard melanin-based racism) doesn't seem to be among them because women can be pretty much anything except the one faction that happens to constitute a good 40-50% of the playerbase, and it's kind of hard to talk around, y'know?
Because as I said earlier it has everything to do with space marines being monastic orders of space knights that go on crusades. By having the opposite sex within that brotherhood you fundamentally damage their identity and cheapen that of the sisters as well.
The actual lore serves to provide justification for the themes and factions. When you start to suggest lore that undermines the themes you need to take a step back and think.
Sledgehammer wrote:And i'd argue that there are other factions out there that can appeal to you without undermining the thematic underpinnings of an already established one.
Okay, I'm curious - if I want a faction of human-aligned supersoldiers with big, durable, power armour, with the freedom to give them anything from barbarian furs, to Greco-Roman stylings, to Knights Templar tabards, to modern spec-ops tacticool pouches, and have both men and women in that, which faction should I go for?
Again, "thematic underpinnings" - I'd say that Space Wolves being all werewolfy and mjod-intoxicated and frost-frost-wolf-wolf all the time would undermine those "warrior-monk" ideals already, without there being women involved.
PappyNurgle wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What would be interesting is if women recruits adopted male pronouns upon becoming Astartes. And, you could expand on that further, with some Chapters doing the opposite (some Chapters using all-female pronouns - a hypothetical Shieldmaidens of Russ Chapter, for example), or others either having mixed gender, or no gender at all (going by gender-neutral pronouns, and only seeing themselves as "Astartes").
Basically, Space Marine gender is not exactly clearly understood.
That's actually a thought process I hadn't even considered. Mind if I snag this for some potential headcanon down the line after my DG are finished?
Of course! I don't have a monopoly on ideas, if that inspires you to come up with a new and inventive Chapter, I'm all for it!
I understand that it was probably too much nuance to put in the main post, but if I had to pick how they were integrated, I think this would be one of my top picks. Some Chapters are all for integration, some have no integration (either male or female), some have mixed integration but force their aspirants to take on different pronouns (again, both masculine and feminine), and others just say goodbye to gender entirely - I could even imagine which canon Chapters might fit into those various categories!
Sledgehammer wrote:Because as I said earlier it has everything to do with space marines being monastic orders of space knights that go on crusades. By having the opposite sex within that brotherhood you fundamentally damage their identity and cheapen that of the sisters as well.
Why does having the opposite sex damage their knightly image, and not, I don't know, Santa Logan? Aircraft? Mad mjod drinking seshes in The Fang?
I'm not saying that some Chapters don't have that "identity", but it doesn't apply to every Chapter evenly.
I would think that the Space Marine identity is tied to their player freedoms and customisation.
You mention "cheapen the Sisters" - no, what's cheapening the Sisters is this idea that they're just a stand-in for women Space Marines. They're their own unique faction with their own identity. Not just the "if you want women Space Marines, play Sisters" faction - that's the real cheapening here.
Sledgehammer wrote: Because as I said earlier it has everything to do with space marines being monastic orders of space knights that go on crusades. By having the opposite sex within that brotherhood you fundamentally damage their identity and cheapen that of the sisters as well.
I think I put my finger on at least one of the places we're just going to have to diverge on opinion: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're seeing 40K as an outcrop of something retro-historically inspired and those parallels to history being critical to the setting, and I think of 40K first as deliberately ludicrous and over-the-top science-fantasy which the addition of women superwarriors would do nothing to 'cheapen.' While certainly many forces can and do draw on a lot of historical inspiration, I believe the benefits from allowing FSM to diverge from those roots outweigh the downsides.
EDIT: Additionally, there's places they don't even diverge; see Viking Shieldmaidens. It's practically a historical divergence to expressly disallow them!
I also don't think that FSM cheapen SoB any more than female Guard soldiers 'cheapen' anyone, or the canonical allowance of bionic limbs in other armies or the existence of the Iron Hands 'cheapens' AdMech.
Actually, hang on, I've just hit on something; Could you say that FSM is to SoB as Iron Hands are to AdMech? It's a little reductive, but I think it gets the idea across that they aren't the same thing.
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to. You can still style them as romans or vikings if you want, probably less lore breaking then just turning SM into woman because you specifically would want that.
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.
I specified power armoured super soldiers. And neither D99 or the Death Korps have that.
He is however right that is a rule on this site that politics and religion are banned on this site. That the mods are somehow failing to enforce this lately has been more of the issue.
To be clear, the ban on politics and religion applies to the Off-topic section specifically. Real world politics and religion were always off-topic in the rest of the forum, except where they are part of a topic that specifically concerns wargaming. So long as the focus remains on the wargaming concerns, and the discussion remains civil, there is no reason to not let the discussion continue.
And as always, if you see a thread or post that you feel doesn't belong, the correct response is to report it and leave it to the mods to decide whether or not that is actually the case.
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.
I specified power armoured super soldiers. And neither D99 or the Death Korps have that.
And you can't make a sisters order with similar augments?
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.
I specified power armoured super soldiers. And neither D99 or the Death Korps have that.
And you can't make a sisters order with similar augments?
I thought that would break the lore, to give Sisters hover tanks and such things that are so clearly only for warrior monks .
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Then you are unfortunately SOL, just like I am with my wish for Death Guard Havocs. But Sisters did just get their own Predator so who knows, maybe the dumb floaty bricks will be available to them in the future as well.
Castozor wrote: They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.
But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.
Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.
Then you are unfortunately SOL, just like I am with my wish for Death Guard Havocs.
That's a shame. Death Guard should be able to have Havocs, like how Space Marines should be able to have women.
I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.
So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?
Tempting as it is to keep going at this full-bore, I gotta get to actually doing my job for a bit, but in case it somehow death spirals while I'm away, I must say it has been a genuine joy to have this - all things considered - quite reasonable exchange. Thank you all!
Crimson wrote: I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.
So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?
The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated. If there were intended to be female space marines they would have had a much bigger presence in both the lore and physical products. The only evidence I've seen is the rogue trader era adventurer sprues, which I think we can all agree is pretty paltry and has been an abjuration more than anything else.
Sledgehammer wrote: The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated. If there were intended to be female space marines they would have had a much bigger presence in both the lore and physical products. The only evidence I've seen is the rogue trader era adventurer sprues, which I think we can all agree is pretty paltry and has been an abjuration more than anything else.
But my my point is that the claim 'but the lore says no' actually isn't true. No current lore preventing female space marines exists. So it is just the same situation when in the past there were no female IG soldiers or Knight pilots mentioned. They still could exist. All we can honestly conclude from the current lore is that female space marines might be rather rare, as they're not mentioned.
Crimson wrote: I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.
So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?
The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.
Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.
Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!
Crimson wrote: I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.
So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?
The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.
Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.
Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!
And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.
Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.
Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs.
That would undermine the lore far more severely. Sisters being normal humans with decent gear, faith and grit is essential to their identity. Being men is not essential to marine identity.
Sledgehammer wrote: And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.
Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.
I feel like, given how much most factions in this game have changed over the years, if rigidity of the source material is of such paramount importance to you then maybe 40K is just not the game for you to begin with.
Necrons are completely different to how they started. Sisters went from being the militant arm of the Eclessiarchy, to being the militant arm of the Ordo Hereticus, and then back to the Eclessiarchy again. Remember when Tau didn't use battlesuits bigger than a crisis suit, because they had aircraft to fill the roles bigger suits would fill?
The game background is constantly changing and evolving. And it will continue to do so. Railing against that change is ultimately just nailing jelly to a tree.
Crimson wrote: I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.
So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?
The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.
Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.
Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!
And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.
Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.
Lore changes all the time, this just comes off as the only thing sacred is keeping women out.
If it wasn’t a constant over all of Nerd media I think it would come off better, GW itself has had issues and 40k is even more behind than there other games are slowly becoming.
With sisters of battle, you cannot deny they have not been highly fetishised over the years and even as they remove some of that. The faction still holds a lot of that baggage and is not for everyone.
Sisters of silence doesn’t really get support, so that’s a bit of a wash. Sorta left with dark Eldar and small access to craftworld forces.
Space marines also get so much focus, so it adds up that people don’t really see much value in looking in other places.
Necrons themselves would be easy, just focus on names and the way language is used, but we even have to battle for that.
It’s where it’s left itself.
Crimson wrote: I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.
So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?
The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.
Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.
Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!
And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.
Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.
Lore changes all the time, this just comes off as the only thing sacred is keeping women out.
If it wasn’t a constant over all of Nerd media I think it would come off better, GW itself has had issues and 40k is even more behind than there other games are slowly becoming.
With sisters of battle, you cannot deny they have not been highly fetishised over the years and even as they remove some of that. The faction still holds a lot of that baggage and is not for everyone.
Sisters of silence doesn’t really get support, so that’s a bit of a wash. Sorta left with dark Eldar and small access to craftworld forces.
Space marines also get so much focus, so it adds up that people don’t really see much value in looking in other places.
Necrons themselves would be easy, just focus on names and the way language is used, but we even have to battle for that.
It’s where it’s left itself.
I will always argue elevation is the best path for representation. Female space marines feels more like a disservice to the fantasy and the lore rather than something positive.
One of the philosophies I cling to with 40k is that if I don't like it, I don't play it, and that if it isn't in my army I don't need to acknowledge its existence, except for occasionally executing it when I happen to see it on the other side of the battlefield.
If they introduced a unit of battle bros for the sisters of battle, I wouldn't buy them, I wouldn't use them and the preceptories, commanderies and missions represented by my models would not include them in their background.
As such, they would not affect me whatsoever.
Now admittedly, it is sometimes hard to do this. If chasing the meta and being competitive is an important part of how and why you play this game, and the unit you hate is so competitive that you can't play without it, certainly the line is blurrier.
Or if your faction is only in one animation or BL novel and that work happens to include the undesirable content.
Marines, having more than 100 other units to choose from, and being the subject of easily 2/3 of all entertainment arms of the franchise, don't really suffer from either of the conditions which would make tolerating an undesirable unit particularly egregious.
There are players out there, for example, for whom the Primaris just don't exist. They may not be winning the tourney circuit. But they exist.
If female SM where to be introduced, as others have mentioned, I think it's easier to do it with Primaris, and generic models would be the way to do it- that would make it easier for people who didn't like them to exclude them: ie. FSM exist, but not in the Chapter I'm playing.
PenitentJake wrote: One of the philosophies I cling to with 40k is that if I don't like it, I don't play it, and that if it isn't in my army I don't need to acknowledge its existence, except for occasionally executing it when I happen to see it on the other side of the battlefield.
If they introduced a unit of battle bros for the sisters of battle, I wouldn't buy them, I wouldn't use them and the preceptories, commanderies and missions represented by my models would not include them in their background.
As such, they would not affect me whatsoever.
Now admittedly, it is sometimes hard to do this. If chasing the meta and being competitive is an important part of how and why you play this game, and the unit you hate is so competitive that you can't play without it, certainly the line is blurrier.
Or if your faction is only in one animation or BL novel and that work happens to include the undesirable content.
Marines, having more than 100 other units to choose from, and being the subject of easily 2/3 of all entertainment arms of the franchise, don't really suffer from either of the conditions which would make tolerating an undesirable unit particularly egregious.
There are players out there, for example, for whom the Primaris just don't exist. They may not be winning the tourney circuit. But they exist.
If female SM where to be introduced, as others have mentioned, I think it's easier to do it with Primaris, and generic models would be the way to do it- that would make it easier for people who didn't like them to exclude them: ie. FSM exist, but not in the Chapter I'm playing.
So why are we advocating for adding something that creates this paradigm within the player base? If you have to interact with it in that way, it doesn't sound like it should have been added.
Crimson wrote: I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.
So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?
The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.
Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.
Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!
And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.
Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.
Lore changes all the time, this just comes off as the only thing sacred is keeping women out.
If it wasn’t a constant over all of Nerd media I think it would come off better, GW itself has had issues and 40k is even more behind than there other games are slowly becoming.
With sisters of battle, you cannot deny they have not been highly fetishised over the years and even as they remove some of that. The faction still holds a lot of that baggage and is not for everyone.
Sisters of silence doesn’t really get support, so that’s a bit of a wash. Sorta left with dark Eldar and small access to craftworld forces.
Space marines also get so much focus, so it adds up that people don’t really see much value in looking in other places.
Necrons themselves would be easy, just focus on names and the way language is used, but we even have to battle for that.
It’s where it’s left itself.
I will always argue elevation is the best path for representation. Female space marines feels more like a disservice to the fantasy and the lore rather than something positive.
From my honest opinion they should expand sisters of silence with some real effort, they could use current models and in the future a few extra. And give them +1 to strength to give them something different.
Like with a lot of these issues, it comes from a place where it’s the same in so much in media. More kick ass women across the board enables outliers to be that with interesting story’s. Right now, it’s just the standard that women are the exception, and all guys tends to be the norm. Thankfully changing.
Make some female Custodes for the super soldier woman. They're less explicitly all male afaik and it wouldn't tread on the well established SM lore.
Plus, lore-wise the Custodes are a more individualized, tailor made upgrade iirc, making cross-gender compatability potentially more in-universe feasable than the Marines which are still more mass produced.
Altima wrote: Hmm, what if the two missing primarchs were women?
I assume they're still missing. I haven't exactly been keeping up with the Horus Heresy books after the number of them went out of control.
Hey, the first interesting suggestion of how to integrate female space marines in the thread. Kudos to you. This is a genuinely thought-provoking idea. And what if part of the reason they were "missing" is because they were purged from the records by a sexist Imperial organization that wanted to suppress the idea that women could be superhuman, too?
Their return would then presumably create huge fractures in the Imperial orthodoxy as it fundamentally challenged basic ideas of what space marines are, and as other space marines realized the full extent of the degree to which their nature and origins had been hidden from them.
If you're going to do it...this is the way to do it. Make it a big thing, because it is a big thing. Don't just hand-wave it away as "it's always been this way" or "Cawl made it possible and now everybody's ok with it." Let it threaten to bring the whole Imperium down. Maybe even give it a sort of Battletech vibe to it, where the returning primarchs have spent the last 11,000 years beyond the edge of the galaxy creating their own society that is dramatically different from the Imperium (e.g. radically egalitarian with merit being the only basis for advancement, anti-religious, but also fiercely factional and vulnerable to infighting, basically an inverse Imperium). And now they're back, at the head of a massive fleet of warriors, self-proclaimed saviors of humanity...but will they actually only succeed in fracturing human strength and giving Chaos (who they don't properly appreciate the threat of) and the Xenos a chance to exploit humanity's divisions?
It would be a fundamentally new direction for the IP, and I don't for a minute thing GW is brave enough to do it...but it wouldn't be boring.
I don't disagree, it's not something I'd particularly like to see...but if they are actually committed to female space marines, they ought to treat it with the importance it deserves and really explore the fallout that occurs, not just pretend like oh well, it's 2021 in the real world, that means it's 2021 for the imperium too so nobody will care.
Insectum7 wrote: Make some female Custodes for the super soldier woman. They're less explicitly all male afaik and it wouldn't tread on the well established SM lore.
Plus, lore-wise the Custodes are a more individualized, tailor made upgrade iirc, making cross-gender compatability potentially more in-universe feasable than the Marines which are still more mass produced.
yeah I'd be fine with female custodes it just feels less like a part of their identity, I mean space marines are always brothers this, brothers that, being a brotherhood is kiiiiiinda a big part of their identity in the lore.
I don't see a need for GW to change that just so I can fake my cred at being open minded. and I certainly don't think that the presence of all male space marines is somehow driving a mysigionistic culture among gamers, mostly because if that was the case it would be a problem isolated to 40k. which it isn't. The more likely explination is that gamers include a larger pecentage then normal of Maladjusted young (and not so young) men, many of whom are on the autistic spectrum, then normal society.
likewise I don't think adding a option for female heads on space marines would make space marines any more appealing to girls. I really do think GW needs to make space marines and Sisters of battle "co-equal" in terms of advertising etc. sisters of battle are obviously female yet clearly bad ass. and this BTW means for 10th edition I think GW should take a break from Marines and let the Sisters be the IoM faction fighting. (if they have to have marines of some type make it sisters vs chaos marines)
I think trying to shoehorn female space marines into the lore is a sign of lack of faith in the stand alone concept of a super human female being successful on its own merits in the same way that making an all female Ghostbusters and Oceans movie was a bust. It feels forced without adding anything of value.
In this case I am against it for the same reasons I am against Primaris. It goes against established lore and weakens it.
Space Marines are singled out because they are the most popular army who happens to be all male, so you want in on the action just to push the envelope and break the glass ceiling. You aren't interested in making Space Marines stronger as a concept, you just don't want to be left out. But maybe Space Marines are popular with young boys because it appeals to their fantasy of wanting to be powerful and masculine at an age where you are anything but. Having a girl in the club kinda changes that dynamic.
Running around yelling "anything you can do, I can do too" and demanding change where none is required isn't going to win people over. It's going to push people away, and we've seen this quite a few times, and not only with the movies I've cited. You can chalk that up to sexism, and some of it definitely is, but I think most people just don't want you changing their beloved stories that they grew up with that adds nothing of value.
There's lots of great stories about women that have yet to be told. Go tell them, don't ride the coattails of something already existing because you don't want to put the effort of starting from scratch or are afraid of its failure.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I think trying to shoehorn female space marines into the lore is a sign of lack of faith in the stand alone concept of a super human female being successful on its own merits in the same way that making an all female Ghostbusters and Oceans movie was a bust. It feels forced without adding anything of value.
In this case I am against it for the same reasons I am against Primaris. It goes against established lore and weakens it.
Space Marines are singled out because they are the most popular army who happens to be all male, so you want in on the action just to push the envelope and break the glass ceiling. You aren't interested in making Space Marines stronger as a concept, you just don't want to be left out. But maybe Space Marines are popular with young boys because it appeals to their fantasy of wanting to be powerful and masculine at an age where you are anything but. Having a girl in the club kinda changes that dynamic.
Running around yelling "anything you can do, I can do too" and demanding change where none is required isn't going to win people over. It's going to push people away, and we've seen this quite a few times, and not only with the movies I've cited. You can chalk that up to sexism, and some of it definitely is, but I think most people just don't want you changing their beloved stories that they grew up with that adds nothing of value.
There's lots of great stories about women that have yet to be told. Go tell them, don't ride the coattails of something already existing because you don't want to put the effort of starting from scratch or are afraid of its failure.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I think trying to shoehorn female space marines into the lore is a sign of lack of faith in the stand alone concept of a super human female being successful on its own merits in the same way that making an all female Ghostbusters and Oceans movie was a bust. It feels forced without adding anything of value.
Huh? Do the exact opposite is doing the same thing? I think you need a better argument then this.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I think trying to shoehorn female space marines into the lore is a sign of lack of faith in the stand alone concept of a super human female being successful on its own merits in the same way that making an all female Ghostbusters and Oceans movie was a bust. It feels forced without adding anything of value.
Huh? Do the exact opposite is doing the same thing? I think you need a better argument then this.
Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and is ultimately self defeating.
Elevate your new diverse characters in new and interesting ways. Simply making the ghost busters female, just like space marines, shows a lack of understanding of the source material, and fails to further your goals of inclusivity and telling a good story.
Making Peter Parker black wouldn't work, because we all know so much about Peter Parker, his identity and his history. Miles Morales is a great inclusion and a good character in his own right, elevating both the characters and the franchise. Characters are so much more than "insert trait here" they can have diverse histories and backgrounds that can allow you to go in entirely new directions rather than just inserting a trait.
Sledgehammer wrote: Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and ultimately self defeating.
Sledgehammer wrote: Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and ultimately self defeating.
Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.
You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap. Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.
Sledgehammer wrote: You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap.
Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.
Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.
Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.
Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'
You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap. Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.
Marines main selling point is their thematic flexibility. We do not understand how giving other people the option in any way invalidates your decisions. This was a quote in the original thread that sums up the position better than I ever could, and I might just make it my forum sig:
"here's this faction that we've turned into a gigantic uber-customizable metagolem of infinite customizability, you can have them in a car on the ground in a plane, in every conceivable playstyle that exists in the game, every single represented aesthetic, ninety-trillion different armor marks and styles, historical inspirations, every color in the rainbow, every race and culture of humanity...
...but you CANT make them ladies. that is the sacred line across which we must throw our bodies and souls! Space Marines can be every conceivable configuration of 'your dudes' imaginable, SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT IMAGINE THEM AS YOUR DUDETTES!
Sledgehammer wrote: You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap.
Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.
Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.
Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.
Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'
No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so? Why upset "looks at poll" 65% of the playerbase to do so?
Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.
Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.
Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'
No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so? Why upset "looks at poll" 65% of the playerbase to do so?
Because the "established lore" was established back in 1980-some, when attitudes were quite different, when GW was a different company. Because that lore was very flimsily established in a few words 19 years ago. Because it has no visible underpinnings in the rest of the setting, as the dystopia presented does not have sexism as an acknowledged evil anywhere else - up to and including allowing for female High Lords of Terra. Because it is a setting that encourages you to invest yourself in it with the creation of your armies, Your Dudes, and it is bizarre that this blank-slate faction lacks a gender select switch. Because it is not a hard piece of canonical absolutism and has never been.
What was that saying? "Everything is canon, not everything is true?" Perhaps it never was true that the Marine process only worked on males - to the extent that anything in the 40K universe can be.
I guarantee you that a significant number of that "65%" just doesn't care, or just want Marine releases to stop, and won't quit outright if marines can suddenly be women. Some of them might have if GW forced their marines to be women, but we're explicitly not suggesting this.
I posit that more people will join up to replace the ones that do.
No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so?
For me personally, it's simply because I think female marines would be a nice addition, and because I don't see any intrinsic value in them being only male. It's a change that alters a couple of lines of lore that dates back to a period from which most of the lore is long-since-replaced or altered. Including women changes nothing about what Marines are. It doesn't change their organisation. It doesn't change their warrior ethos. It doesn't change their battle tactics. It doesn't change their colour schemes. The sole change would be that some of them would be referred to as 'sister' instead of 'brother'.
Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.
Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.
Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'
No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so? Why upset "looks at poll" 65% of the playerbase to do so?
Because the "established lore" was established back in 1980-some, when attitudes were quite different, when GW was a different company. Because that lore was very flimsily established in a few words 19 years ago. Because it has no visible underpinnings in the rest of the setting, as the dystopia presented does not have sexism as an acknowledged evil anywhere else - up to and including allowing for female High Lords of Terra. Because it is a setting that encourages you to invest yourself in it with the creation of your armies, Your Dudes, and it is bizarre that this blank-slate faction lacks a gender select switch. Because it is not a hard piece of canonical absolutism and has never been.
What was that saying? "Everything is canon, not everything is true?" Perhaps it never was true that the Marine process only worked on males - to the extent that anything in the 40K universe can be.
I guarantee you that a significant number of that "65%" just doesn't care, or just want Marine releases to stop, and won't quit outright if marines can suddenly be women. Some of them might have if GW forced their marines to be women, but we're explicitly not suggesting this.
I posit that more people will join up to replace the ones that do.
"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.
Sledgehammer wrote: "I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.
No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.
Sledgehammer wrote: "I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.
No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.
Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.
Sledgehammer wrote: Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and ultimately self defeating.
Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.
ITs entirely irrelevant that not "all " are in the lieu of the faction, stop strawmanning positions.
"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.
Well, to be honest it dosent need to be a good argument if you are able to repeat it endlessly.
Also if you believe really hard that the most small scale change (IE allowing FSM in the lore bia a few pronouns and on models with a FSM head sprue) can have the biggest of postive impacts (IE ending sexism and bad behaviour in the gamming community once and for all) it will surely happen, right?
Sledgehammer wrote: Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.
Let's not start accusing one another of being disingenuous; down that road lies unproductive flame wars, and this has been as civil as I could reasonably ask for so far.
The problem is this:
Why can't there be militant sororities that are genetically enhanced Space Marines?
See, the problem with arguing from that historical accuracy is, first, that this isn't history; second, Marine chapters have been based on religious crusading - the Black Templars run hard with that theme - But then you have people like the Space Wolves, and the White Scars, and those do not follow traditional Western crusader themes. I would go so far as to say that not all of them have to be based on that. I still haven't gotten a rebuttal to ideas like Space Wolf Shieldmaidens - in some ways, it's less true to thematic historical roots to say that women simply can't be Space Marines. You might say it's rarer, but to disallow it completely? That just seems churlish.
I just think it's dissonant, an artifact of a time we should be moving beyond for this not to be a thing. There's a part of GW that certainly thinks so, judging how they did Stormcast Eternals. I do push harder against it than some because, frankly, I find the pushback the idea gets completely baffling; In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures." But it hasn't, and if there's anything the last few years have taught me, it's vital to understand why and to keep having these conversations openly and as honestly as possible, or else you never fix those divides.
"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.
Well, to be honest it dosent need to be a good argument if you are able to repeat it endlessly.
Also if you believe really hard that the most small scale change (IE allowing FSM in the lore bia a few pronouns and on models with a FSM head sprue) can have the biggest of postive impacts (IE ending sexism and bad behaviour in the gamming community once and for all) it will surely happen, right?
Ah, see, here I need to do a spot of disabusing. No. No one thinks it will outright end sexism or make the hobby gender ratio 50/50 or make the clouds dispense gummy bears. Alright? None of that. The sky doesn't fall if GW doesn't make this change tomorrow.
But it is a change that will help, and a change that makes sense. It will invite a larger portion of the population, and remove one of the largest lore-cudgels that those genuinely bigoted elements - and they do exist - use to keep women out of what should by this point be a pretty inclusive hobby. "Warhammer is for Everyone," did they not say as such?
Cultural progress is incremental, bit by bit. It will take years, but welcoming another gender into the largest and most thematically diverse faction in the game strikes me as a move in a positive direction.
insaniak wrote: Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.
ITs entirely irrelevant that not "all " are in the lieu of the faction, stop strawmanning positions.
I'm not sure what that means, but the point is that allowing women to exist as Marines does not mean that your Marines cannot still be all male. And if it doesn't affect Your Dudes, then why object?
Sledgehammer wrote: "I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.
No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.
Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.
I would think that those themes have been so muted at this point, both by GW writing and a lot of the community that looking at the setting those are lost.
Marines have kinda just been made into the super cool themed dudes, but not really looking at any of there themes well in depth. There is a reason Boller porn is so common when referring to a lot of the books.
There isn’t really a huge lore reason needed, cowl and gulliman did it should be enough. The emperor being kinda meh as a person, the reason not too is a way better reason than anything else.
One of the reasons fleshing out so much of the setting is we don’t have those myths to work from, so now we need better ideas for things in the modern setting. And I would think most writers are not up to the task when writing for another’s setting.
Rule of cool is basically all GW needs to justify way dumber things, and that’s all so many nerds give to justify other stuff in the setting.
The BEST thing about female Custodes would be all the people trying to arguee that It makes no sense for one to be S5/T5 VS S4/T4 of a marine.
And then kill his dudes with her.
In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures."
So which is it, don’t accuse each other of bad faith or imply people who disagree with you are insane?
Chill. I admit a certain degree of bafflement here; I confess that my expectations and hopes and what I'm seeing are at odds, and I am trying to understand why whilst still advocating for what I believe is right.
It is entirely possible that my expectations and hopes are flawed or unrealistic - I simply have enough belief in them at the moment that I am prepared to continue arguing their case, to advance the conversation in a reasonable fashion.
And I'm quite enjoying doing so. This is probably the best I've felt about a debate in... Ever. Thanks to the last thread - in which I'll admit I let some emotions get the better of me - I now have a firmer grasp of the topic and come away from the thread much more proud of what I've done than last time.
Galas wrote: The BEST thing about female Custodes would be all the people trying to arguee that It makes no sense for one to be S5/T5 VS S4/T4 of a marine.
And then kill his dudes with her.
I really like custodies, but I haven’t got any as I just don’t really feel I need another all guy army. Need variety in my life >.< would also be a great way to seperate them from the marines more.
Chill. I admit a certain degree of bafflement here; I confess that my expectations and hopes and what I'm seeing are at odds, and I am trying to understand why whilst still advocating for what I believe is right.
To be fair, I suspect that the biggest part of the pushback against is nothing to do with women specifically, and just the result of people not liking change in the things they like. If, prior to the introduction of Primaris Marines, you had started a poll asking if people wanted a new type of marine models that are bigger and tougher with new rules and weapons and high tech vehicles, you would likely have seen a similar pushback.
But, as I said elsewhere, this is really the wrong game to be invested in if you are seriously opposed to change. Hell, the vast majority of the contents of the Marine codex wasn't there at the start. Rhinos and their variants. Land Raiders. Scouts. Flyers. Centurians. It's all been added later. Even the creation process from which this whole 'boys only' theme comes from was not a part of the original Marine background... it was added after the fact.
I realised some time ago that it was easier (and far less stressful) to accept that change happens and just embrace it, or choose to ignore the bits I was less fond of, rather than rail against it happening at all.
I wonder why Manchu... Maybee because stormcast were NOT an established faction fleshed out with an identity and inherently started that way?
But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM
Sledgehammer wrote: Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.
Let's not start accusing one another of being disingenuous; down that road lies unproductive flame wars, and this has been as civil as I could reasonably ask for so far.
Coming from the person indirectly acusing others of insanity for not supporting what they "believe as right" that is a mighty high ladder to fall down from so to speak.
Sledgehammer wrote: "I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.
No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.
Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.
You keep citing "fraternal orders," "monastic orders," etc. while skirting the fact that the material conditions in our world which led to the creation and promotion of those orders do not exist in the deep future dystopia of 40K, (and that, therefore, those orders as they appear in the 40K setting are substantiated on style, appearance, referentiality, and PURE VIBES rather than any intricate/consistent worldbuilding).
40K would/could have libido suppressing drugs, contraception and sterilization, no line of male succession, no family units, no competing religions, technological strength & ability augmentation and literally dozens or hundreds of other factors that comprehensively erode the social/civilizational pressures that caused the formation of the orders these fictional versions echo.
Chill. I admit a certain degree of bafflement here; I confess that my expectations and hopes and what I'm seeing are at odds, and I am trying to understand why whilst still advocating for what I believe is right.
To be fair, I suspect that the biggest part of the pushback against is nothing to do with women specifically, and just the result of people not liking change in the things they like. If, prior to the introduction of Primaris Marines, you had started a poll asking if people wanted a new type of marine models that are bigger and tougher with new rules and weapons and high tech vehicles, you would likely have seen a similar pushback.
But, as I said elsewhere, this is really the wrong game to be invested in if you are seriously opposed to change. Hell, the vast majority of the contents of the Marine codex wasn't there at the start. Rhinos and their variants. Land Raiders. Scouts. Flyers. Centurians. It's all been added later. Even the creation process from which this whole 'boys only' theme comes from was not a part of the original Marine background... it was added after the fact.
I realised some time ago that it was easier (and far less stressful) to accept that change happens and just embrace it, or choose to ignore the bits I was less fond of, rather than rail against it happening at all.
Pushback against change is plausible. Likely even. I ultimately don't want to - I refuse to - believe that 65% of the people on these boards are just bigoted and that the hobby is in that bad a state. That's too easy, too divisive, too Us and Them and won't get anything done. Sure, there've been a couple who've just heckled the debate, but they're very much in the minority (and tend to get moderated pretty fast.) So there must be something else going on. I very much welcome the otherwise frustratingly rare opportunity to talk about it, and most posters have seemed willing to engage quite reasonably.
Pushback against change was one of the reasons that I was initially pretty attracted to the Because Cawl Said So method of introducing FSM - I was one of the people who really didn't care for Primaris, and was not happy nor quiet about these new marines supplanting my old army - but FSM Primaris would have made, and might still make, me come around on them. N birds with n-1 stones.
What I now hope that the Primaris demonstrates, however, and GW's continued success in the wake of it, is that change needn't be ruinous to the hobby, at least not to its financial stability.
I would certainly buy some female Noise Marines, as that is a long-time wish list item for me. Gender-bending seems like an appropriate “gift” for those seeking the favor of Slaanesh.
Additionally, the existence of female CSM in and of itself would be an argument against the divinity of the Emperor. They are beyond the power of the Corpse God to “manufacture” — it requires the true omnipotence of the Ruinous Powers.
In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures."
So which is it, don’t accuse each other of bad faith or imply people who disagree with you are insane?
Chill.
That’s sorta the point I was trying to make to you.
Then I'll confess I could have worded it better and did not intend to imply that people in opposition are just crazy. My sincere hope, and a belief underpinning my engagement in this conversation, is that most people in opposition aren't, because I don't want to live in a world or hobby where 65% of people are just crazy or bigoted; the moment of adrenaline-fueled vindication I'd get out of coming to that conclusion would be slowly eaten away by festering disgust over a much longer period, and leave me worse off than before, not to mention it would not win me any converts.
But there's something in the way, and I am... feeling out the shape of it. Insaniak might have pointed to it a bit more directly - resistance to change being a block there, but I want to make sure I have the facets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I would certainly buy some female Noise Marines, as that is a long-time wish list item for me. Gender-bending seems like an appropriate “gift” for those seeking the favor of Slaanesh.
Additionally, the existence of female CSM in and of itself would be an argument against the divinity of the Emperor. They are beyond the power of the Corpse God to “manufacture” — it requires the true omnipotence of the Ruinous Powers.
...Yeah, the ease with which one could present a broad gender spectrum may be on the list of the things that led me to create an EC army. I'd have a quippier way of saying that but I think I'm stuck in Essay Mode.
Not Online!!! wrote: I wonder why Manchu... Maybee because stormcast were NOT an established faction fleshed out with an identity and inherently started that way?
But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM
At no point did I declare that everyone must accept change. I merely pointed out that it's easier on the liver than shouting at clouds.
Not Online!!! wrote: I wonder why Manchu... Maybee because stormcast were NOT an established faction fleshed out with an identity and inherently started that way?
But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM
At no point did I declare that everyone must accept change. I merely pointed out that it's easier on the liver than shouting at clouds.
And at no point is it shouting at clouds either.
Kiro had a nice post in the other thread. Change and retcons just because are damaging to the setting, or indeed all settings. He brought up Harry potter and hermione.
Kiro had a nice post in the other thread. Change and retcons just because are damaging to the setting, or indeed all settings. He brought up Harry potter and hermione.
That really depends on the change, and the setting.
40K as a setting has been changing constantly since its inception. And almost every one of those changes has been heralded by someone as the thing that will destroy the setting. And yet, 30 years on, here we are.
It’s nothing complicated. People who like a thing, like that thing. People who don’t like a thing, want it to be something else that they would or might like.
Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now, with some conversions (or even NO conversions, considering how some of them envision female SMs) and some homebrew fluff. Anything more than that is a separate desire; for a corporation to validate their opinions on what other people should think about SMs. That logic is the objectionable part.
Manchu wrote: It’s nothing complicated. People who like a thing, like that thing. People who don’t like a thing, want it to be something else that they would or might like.
Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now, with some conversions (or even NO conversions, considering how some envisions female SMs) and some homebrew fluff. Anything more than that is a separate desire; for a corporation to validate their opinions on what other people should think about SM. That logic is the objectionable part.
Does complaining about the existence of Primaris Marines, or Centurians, or Stormtalons actually achieve anything?
GW gonna GW and GW is greedy so reselling marines to marine players was naturally happening sooner or later.
Doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of SM players that just don't bother with the primaris stuff.... or centurions for that matter.
Kiro had a nice post in the other thread. Change and retcons just because are damaging to the setting, or indeed all settings. He brought up Harry potter and hermione.
That really depends on the change, and the setting.
40K as a setting has been changing constantly since its inception. And almost every one of those changes has been heralded by someone as the thing that will destroy the setting. And yet, 30 years on, here we are.
Except that it has been quite stable for quite some time verifyably so for quite a lot of factions. And that the shift in f.e. the introduction of the unreliabe narrator etc was also comparatively recent aswell and from a lore perspective one can argue that there was a drop in quality following that shift aswell.
Not Online!!! wrote: But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM
I will apologize for inadvertently implying insanity. I like to believe I'm coming from a position of 'reasonable,' and I'm excited to see if it works.
It feels better, at least. I've tried yelling. It's not fun past the short term, and unless you own a significant social media account or news site, only so effective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Does complaining about the existence of Primaris Marines, or Centurians, or Stormtalons actually achieve anything?
If we’re talking about introducing female SM as a matter of homebrew fluff, there could be any number of unrelated, simultaneous explanations. The galaxy is vast and full of variety.
For example: One could imagine a Chapter of SM that have been out of contact with the High Lords for millennia. They have very poor records of their origins and cannot recall, and so are not even aware of, a time when they did NOT have female members. When they re-contact the wider Imperium, they are persecuted for gene-heresy. Or perhaps, in order to avoid persecution, they become highly secretive.
Anyhow, this is a lot more interesting than some corporate mandate that “from now on we will sell female SM.”
Manchu wrote: It’s nothing complicated. People who like a thing, like that thing. People who don’t like a thing, want it to be something else that they would or might like.
You're missing the camp in the middle that like a thing, but are also willing to accept changes to that thing.
I like Spiderman. I couldn't care less whether his web shooters are artificial or inbuilt. I like the Star Wars EU, but I don't mind that the prequels and sequels both ignored it. I like the 40K setting... and I liked both the version of it as it existed in 2nd edition when I started, and the version that exists now.
Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now, with some conversions (or even NO conversions, considering how some envisions female SMs) and some homebrew fluff. Anything more than that is a separate desire; for a corporation to validate their opinions on what other people should think about SM. That logic is the objectionable part.
I think for many it's less about corporate validation directly, and more about the fact that corporate validation would result in them receiving less abuse online for those conversions.
GW gonna GW and GW is greedy so reselling marines to marine players was naturally happening sooner or later.
Doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of SM players that just don't bother with the primaris stuff.... or centurions for that matter..
So... if they already ignore the bits they don't like anyway, why would the addition of women to the ranks be a problem? Couldn't they just ignore them along with the Primaris and Centurions?
Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now, with some conversions (or even NO conversions, considering how some of them envision female SMs) and some homebrew fluff. Anything more than that is a separate desire; for a corporation to validate their opinions on what other people should think about SMs. That logic is the objectionable part.
This is exactly the point, well put.
When it's supported by such thin justification as "I see no reason not to change it" and/or "I personally don't feel very strongly about current lore" it gets even more objectionable.
My desire is for people to don't berate the other depending on how the play with their toys.
It's sad that in order to have that, we have to pass through the validation of a corporation, because I too would prefer that gamer can do simply whatever they want... but that's not the world we live in: people judge, and we can't pretend everyone to simply don't care (I don't care at all of what other think of me, even less while I play - at anything. But I learned I can't pretend everyone to do the same).
So, you it's not smart thinking, it's simply callousness.
I'm pretty happy anyway to find out so many people are ok with female space marine, as long as they're an amateur fan project without mainstream value that need to rely on your condescendence to go beyond the fact that they're wrong.
It's the quintessential definition of discrimination: but you be you.
And again, I'm waiting to see all those defender of the modelling freedom the next time a female space marine appear online.
I think for many it's less about corporate validation directly, and more about the fact that corporate validation would result in them receiving less abuse online for those conversions.
Strong disagree.
First, people aren’t going out of their way to care about conversions unless they are either notably cool or notably lame.
Second, if your female SM conversions are notably lame then the problem is not that they are female but that, however you have converted them in particular, is lame.
Third, if your female SM conversions and/or homebrew fluff is cool, people on balance will not object.
There is, or at least there was years ago, a kneejerk reaction against FSM conversions because they tended to be really bad. I don’t think that exists anymore. Conversions in general are better these days but there is also stuff like IRL women cosplaying as Space Marines in a way that looks cool.
because I too would prefer that gamer can do simply whatever they want... but that's not the world we live in
Yes it is. You can play with your toys however you want without getting anyone’s permission. But if you want other people to agree with how you do it or praise you, that’s a separate matter.
Considering that a lot of people are ignoring my requests in the opening posts and arguing about this here, which IExplicitly asked them not to...
I just want to thank everyone who voted before these threads are inevitably shut due to people not following the rules.
Seriously, if there were a disappointed emoji, I would be using it right now.
Big thanks to everyone who did follow the rules and just posted their reasons for voting, without feeling the need to pick holes in other peoples reasons!
What is the tangible, fictional, creative je ne se quoi of categorically irrevocably enshrining the mono sex of space marines? What is its value to the setting that people want to defend it changing?
We know the imperium employs women across all facets of its military, from assassins, to guard, to skitarii, to sororitas, inquisitors, high lords, naval leaders, generals, storm troopers, scions etc etc etc.
It's pretty clear that the Imperium itself wouldn't CARE if women became space marines.
So my question is what is it about them NOT being space marines that adds to an empire that clearly would have them if they could?
I think the reason female space marines results in such flamewars is because it's wrapped but in divisive modern politics and is often framed along moral lines.
There's been many references in these threads to sexists/misogynists/bigots/similar.
People generally object to being labelled like that, especially when they're not like that and in fact they've reached their opinion for entirely different reasons.
So they defend themselves, not always politely.
Marines to not have a sex or gender after the process
they are heavily altert to become more than humans that there is nothing left for them that you could refer to as "male" (or female)
I think that was specifically in regards to going genderless, presumably meaning "Battle Sibling". Which just sounds awful next to the beautifully alliterate "Battle Brother" that rolls off the tongue a lot nicer as well.
But even just adding female marines would hurt it. "He who fights by my side shall be my brother" doesn't make as much sense when there's a chance they'd be your sister instead, to name just one example.
Manchu wrote: Also, there is something really iconic about SM calling each other “brother” that would be terrible to lose.
There was something iconic about marines being indoctrinated criminals at the time they were released, but everyone got over that (well except blizzard).
There are plenty of things that have changed in the setting that people simply accepted as a retcon and moved on. Primarchs not being immortal and them all dying by M35, primarchs not being giants. vulcan dying at Istvaan - except now he's a literal daemon that regrows his body and can't die.
Iconic is subjective, all these discussions are subjective. What people do and don't like is subjective. GW has no problem retconning marines being allowed their own naval and airforce assets, despite them clearly saying they were taken away after the heresy to split up command and make it harder for a marine chapter to ever again do what horus did. But that doesn't sell marine fliers.
In the end, there is nothing that having female space marines takes away (except gendered noun brother). there is nothing that a human with XX chromosomes joining the marines and being super soldiered does that makes marines somehow less (except arguments that are nothing more than 'women are worse').
And as I said above, the imperium itself wouldn't blink if 50% of all its marines started out as prepubescent girls rather than boys. They're all just soldiers in the imperial machine like every other woman in every conceivable position within the imperium.
What they ADD is a particular power fantasy (that only MARINES provide, not sisters) currently only provided to male gamers, and representation which scientifically objectively matters.
Of course he's spot on.
Problem is that all the bad discriminatory behaviors in the history do not come because a few racist (or mysoginist, or whatever) people go around and subjugate the entire population.
It's because we (has a species) don't care about what happens outside our nose and outside our view (for prove see: history).
We need pointers out when we have discriminatory behaviors small and big because, unless we're the one caught in a pickle, we can't realize that.
(And that's one of the big tragedy of the Imperium: it's the incarnation of this indifference)
We're talking about a fictional world, and you feel hurt/annoyed/disturbed only because someone propose the idea of changing a faction to add option while not requiring you to do anything to either recognize or implement the change.
And, almost in the same post, there is this going around telling other people to be indifferent to what other thinks "because it's just a game".
The lore really is badly written about this topic: we've debated it at length. Flies in the face of SM faction, is biologically unsusteinable, don't add to the setting... While the opposite will improve modelling opportunities, provide an interesting backstory for the change, and won't be remotely bad or shoehorned as every other changes already done to the setting
You're defending bad writing that should be amended, because you're nostalgic. Own it.
Manchu wrote: Also, there is something really iconic about SM calling each other “brother” that would be terrible to lose.
well, we don't have that in German and phrases like Battle Brother is kind of similar to Brothers in Arms without the dedicated Gender but more like "you are close like siblings and not just people doing the same job"
so it always was more like Battle Buddy than "brother not sister"
going with a term that replaces brother with something that does not refer to a Gender but still sounds cool would do the job
Cybtroll wrote: Of course he's spot on.
Problem is that all the bad discriminatory behaviors in the history do not come because a few racist (or mysoginist, or whatever) people go around and subjugate the entire population.
It's because we (has a species) don't care about what happens outside our nose and outside our view (for prove see: history).
We need pointers out when we have discriminatory behaviors small and big because, unless we're the one caught in a pickle, we can't realize that.
We're talking about a fictional world, and you feel hurt/annoyed/disturbed only because someone propose the idea of changing a faction to add option while not requiring you to do anything to either recognize or implement the change.
And, almost in the same post, there is this going around telling other people to be indifferent to what other thinks "because it's just a game".
The lore really is badly written about this topic: we've debated it at length. Flies in the face of SM faction, is biologically unsusteinable, don't add to the setting... While the opposite will improve modelling opportunities, provide an interesting backstory for the change, and won't be remotely bad or shoehorned as every other changes already done to the setting
You're defending bad writing that should be amended, because you're nostalgic. Own it.
oh boy are you missing the ballpoint by a large margin. Its not just about not wanting female space marine from a lorewise perspective.
You talk about female space marines but why arent you talking female chaos space marines? Why would there be female space marines but not female chaos space marines? So already now, if you were Games workshop, you would be dedicated to make new kits not just for space marines but also female chaos space marines. thats double up on kits already there.
Then after the dust is settled, the next woke person, like you, would ask, why does fungus, aka orks, have to look masculine? why couldnt they also have feminine traits? then people would rage at the lack of female commisars, and the snowball is already moving.
Theres no stopping the woke train where people want to demand diversity in a setting that never gave a damn about it, with a playerbase that generally speaking also dont give a damn about it.
From GW point of view, doing all these things you guys want isnt just a snap with their fingers, its entirely new kits that needs to be made for both space marines and chaos space marines. You cant just add extra helmets in a tiny little bag and put it in the box as well, it would have to be placed on the sprue that we all receive.
And given this is extra work i can assure you, it would mean pushing back everything else, just to make room for your wokeness. Meaning new releases that are actually relevant, such as new models for the new codexes and thus, the new codexes themselves, would be pushed back as well.
Lets talk the ork scenario going on atm. new releases that happens along side the new codex. Even if the codex is done, if they werent finished with the new sculpts they would not release the codex. So because we wanted to add new female variants to two different factions, because again, adding female space marines but not female chaos space marines would be slowed as F, we're now pushing back new releases and thus, possibly new codexes.
Im not going to want to have new female models so much i would like to see actually relevant new releases being pushed back. Even if you said, hey! we can just add new female space marines, and not have females in other positions like aggressors etc. And i would just say, sure, but how long would that keep up? People would complain that there werent ENOUGH female space marines in enough positions. why cant they be aggressors? So its a complete overhaul of the entire faction. + parts of the chaos space marine faction. its not a small thing you are asking for. So no its not just about the lore. But sure the lore is a little weird around that point but you know what? thats okay. Its okay for the lore to be a little skewered and not make 100% sense but what angers people is when lore is being retconned. So if female space marines dont exist and suddenly they do? thats a retcon, and people hate retcons because it messes up everything.
that people werent happy with sisters of battle and started craving more and more diversity is just proving my point, that people wouldnt stop at female space marines. It would never end there, its a snowball effect because thats what being woke is. we would be asking for feminine orks as well as feminine looking khorne daemons. because daemons and fungus dont have an actual gender, so why cant they be feminine?
Let me stop you right there. We’re not creating this IP. We’re not rebooting it. It’s been around for decades and is already highly successful.
Again: it isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing.
If someone wants to do something with their own toys that is an exception to what’s “canon”, that’s fine. That exception doesn’t need to become the “new canon.”
To be clear, the best way to introduce female Space Marines, lorewise, is for each person who wants to do this to come up with their own homebrew backstory for the how’s and why’s of THEIR GUYS (or Their Gals or Their Gals & Guys) being the way they are.
Let me stop you right there. We’re not creating this IP. We’re not rebooting it. It’s been around for decades and is already highly successful.
Again: it isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing.
If someone wants to do something with their own toys that is an exception to what’s “canon”, that’s fine. It doesn’t need to become the “new canon.”
Ok so when GW makes female marines you'll just go along with it.
GW can do no wrong. Ok fine. Then get out of the conversation because you've just shown it's a pointless one for you. You've just stated that your premise denies this whole thread.
You responded before my edit but I think it bears clarifying again.
I have no problem with the idea that in the vastness of the galaxy depicted by 40k, and not just vastness in terms of space and time but also the sheer amount of potential for strange things to happen, that somewhere there could be female Space Marines.
That specific “somewhere” in terms of the real world is, in the creative hands of the hobbyists who want to play that specific possibility.
It’s not that female SM strictly have no place in 40k; rather, the place for that is still today what it has always been: as a personal project.
Let me stop you right there. We’re not creating this IP. We’re not rebooting it. It’s been around for decades and is already highly successful.
Again: it isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing.
If someone wants to do something with their own toys that is an exception to what’s “canon”, that’s fine. It doesn’t need to become the “new canon.”
Ok so when GW makes female marines you'll just go along with it.
GW can do no wrong. Ok fine. Then get out of the conversation because you've just shown it's a pointless one for you. You've just stated that your premise denies this whole thread.
It's a pointless conversation for all of us at the end of the day. telling someone to GTFO just because he disagrees with you while admitting it is silly.
Manchu wrote: You responded before my edit but I think it bears clarifying again.
I have no problem with the idea that in the vastness of the galaxy depicted by 40k, and not just vastness in terms of space and time but also the sheer amount of potential for strange things to happen, that somewhere there could be female Space Marines.
That specific “somewhere” in terms of the real world is, in the creative hands of the hobbyists who want to play that specific possibility.
It’s not that female SM strictly have no place in 40k; rather, the place for that is still today what it has always been: as a personal project.
Can't you see the optics on this though? Of ALL the what if scenarios and options in 40k, you've decided that this one thing of all of them shouldn't be legitimised but left in the same realm as the hobby equivalent of fan fiction?
And your sitting on the appeal to tradition fallacy to justify it?
Heads, heads are all that's needed. It is disingenuous to think differently. If you think a Centurion armour need changes to accommodate a female... I really think there's nothing to add here rather than suggesting to look more carefully.
And yes, ALSO some new kits would be AWESOME, specifically for Chaos.
Emperor's Children and World Eaters would be a fantastic place to start introducing new kits with more options for different genders (EC because... Well, just because) and World Eaters because as far as I'm aware if you're angry enough you're good for Khorne (and they have the non secondary impact of recognizing that violence and anger isn't a male prerogative).
I can get behind potential supply chain issue, another overloading of Marines releases etc etc. But those are GW's problems, not us. And you can shout down anything, including inventing fire, if you focus on possible bad effects (everything has those, at least potentially, even the smallest changes).
Tell me how an additional sprue of female head and the official legitimation to make Female Marine hurts your hobby, because I'm see derailing and obfuscation, but not an answer to that.
It's exactly the same that that we already have in terms of additional sprue to create a specific Chapter like DA or SW.
And, I won't to reiterate again: I'm one of those who don't aknowledge Primaris, don't collect them, and I stay true to my Firstborns. There's a very high chance I won't even purchase female marine if available: but I'm not a egocentric maniac: why should my personal indifference come at the expenses of other which instead may want such option? It's an extra option, not a gender-swap.
Fun fact: I never realized, but there's a pretty good alternate Sammael for DA by Wargame Exclusive that is a female. Love the bike (much better than the original) but never thought about buying it because converting the rider would be an hassle.
If Female Marine would have been a thing, I've probably bought it without thinking twice.
So, even when you think something doesn't involve you, you really can never know.
For what it's worth, the original rogue trader marines were also referred to as 'battle-kin'. The battle brother stuff was a reference to them being monks as much as anything else, they were a much more religious organisation back then.
Cybtroll wrote: It's because we (has a species) don't care about what happens outside our nose and outside our view (for prove see: history).
Perhaps it was brought up in the 70 page megathread, but a frequent element of these two new threads is 'make girl marines for girls, because girls aren't represented by boy marines'
At the end of the day is it really inclusiveness to demand a game represent us personally, or are we being tribal about splitting the toy factions into 'like us' and 'not like us' ?
Not Online!!! wrote: But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM
I will apologize for inadvertently implying insanity. I like to believe I'm coming from a position of 'reasonable,' and I'm excited to see if it works.
It feels better, at least. I've tried yelling. It's not fun past the short term, and unless you own a significant social media account or news site, only so effective.
its not so much yelling or telling.
It's the attitude and, pardon this, incessant nagging ontop of what looks to a lot of people, including me, more often a morale high horse with broken legs, (because dare bring up that the IP has its draw because it is as it is, and watch getting branded various nices things from outside or inside the hobby, the other thread was full of that gak from both sides), rather than an actual debate. Its simply put: Why would the IP you like not be better if we change it so i like it better, proof that or you are wrong and as proof only my meassurements are accurate and yours are not. and its counter argument: Proof that it needs to be changed! and only my meassuremt is important! When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
IF people really want inclusivity then force GW to actually diversify the ranges that allow for that or should be that... Especially guard and humanoid xenos factions, but don't attempt to force down change in either sisters of battle or Marines because these factions happen to be popular and you need to make a statement. And as much as that might hurt, that is not a reasonable position, thats validation seeking not change.
Its the incessant need to have ones views on necessary "change" (really just statements not change) validated by, OUT OF ALL THINGS* a fething corporation and at large by a community of Hobbiests that are there to relax and escape reality for some hours a day, that want to imerse themselves in a far flung fantastical universe that has nothing to do with our reality and by virtue of that doesn't NEED to care about our realties politics. (Need is highlighted because 40k was satire, it can care about our politics but it doesn't have to. as does any fictional universe.)
Its the same strain of argument that makes people applaude gw for taking a "stance" in regards to BLM, at a time where that was neither a theme localy where GW is nor has GW as a coporation done anything really, contrary GW has been damaging the TG scene with its predominance quite heavily over the years. It is in most cases internet brownie pts collection and fake change, PR something gw learnt after kirby left but nothing more beyond viedogame style monetisation, since nothing happened and will, nvm that the actually disadvantaged never will be able to enjoy this hobby period due to price alone. Gw still also pays only a pittance to their staff so even fails at providing in its baseline social responsibility that it actually HAS and yet somehow we applaud them for some letters arranged in a sentence about people that don't care about 40k by and large?!?
* i am not a socialist, far from it infact, but jesus chriest a fething company, a corporation even traded in the stockmarket? Why not actually do something and engage locally in politics , attempt to actually make things better for once instead of just berating others and attempting to force them to feel miserable because you need some brownie pts?
And yes i realise this is harsh. But considering Hellebores comment there...
Tell me how an additional sprue of female head and the official legitimation to make Female Marine hurts your hobby, because I'm see derailing and obfuscation, but not an answer to that.
It has been answered, you've just ignored the answer.
It retcons the lore. That alone is harmful.
Why should the desire of 1/3 of this community trump the desire of the remaining 2/3?
Tell me how an additional sprue of female head and the official legitimation to make Female Marine hurts your hobby, because I'm see derailing and obfuscation, but not an answer to that.
It has been answered, you've just ignored the answer.
It retcons the lore. That alone is harmful.
Why should the desire of 1/3 of this community trump the desire of the remaining 2/3?
I'd like to point out that GW retcons the lore all the time. There used to be a time where it was taboo to have any conflict past the 13th Black Crusade. There used to be a time where anti grave technology was just flat out non existent except for one Raven Guard character.
The fact of the matter is, GW doesn't particularly respect its lore except as a way to leverage their IP and increase its value, whether that's through the hobby or licensing deals.
However, with the Primaris shenanigans, we're in an interesting place where there is now an excuse to include female marines that doesn't retcon six or seven words from forty years ago during a time that many of us should find fairly horrific in its treatment of minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, and that GW was a fraction of the size it is now and whose target base was 16-24 year old white males whose buying power has drastically declined since then. We don't have to retcon old lore--we can, in fact, add new lore.
GW could come out tomorrow and say "Including all the random nonsense we threw out there to legitimize primaris since we were too afraid to properly squat the firstborn because of how you grognards reacted to WHFB and AOS, Crawl also made the process work on women, mazel tov!"
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.
Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!
And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.
Shame, because 40k's been doing that for years.
Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care
b-b-but that's breaking the lore!!
Sledgehammer wrote:So why are we advocating for adding something that creates this paradigm within the player base? If you have to interact with it in that way, it doesn't sound like it should have been added.
So Space Marine Bikes shouldn't have been added, because I don't like them? I don't particularly like Dark Eldar, should they not exist?
If I have to "interact" with them that way, why were they added? Maybe, just maybe, it's because there's people who *would* like it.
Apple fox wrote:Right now, it’s just the standard that women are the exception, and all guys tends to be the norm. Thankfully changing.
Quite true. The amount of times I've heard "if you want women, just play Sisters", as if Sisters are only special because they're women - which is a massive underselling of what the Sororitas are.
Insectum7 wrote:Make some female Custodes for the super soldier woman. They're less explicitly all male afaik and it wouldn't tread on the well established SM lore.
Custodes have also never been "established" as having women, and are just as explicitly male as the Space Marines are by virtue of also only using male pronouns. Sorry, but Custodes are just as "male" as Space Marines, using all the same arguments that people have used in support of Space Marines being all-male.
Unless you're telling me that maybe we *can* handwave "well established lore"?
Plus, lore-wise the Custodes are a more individualized, tailor made upgrade iirc, making cross-gender compatability potentially more in-universe feasable than the Marines which are still more mass produced.
And, lore-wise, the Emperor seems to have been a massive sexist, making it MORE LIKELY that the Custodes would be all male, and less likely that the Emperor would particularly care to make the Astartes all-male.
You said yourself - Space Marines are mass-produced. In the Imperium, mass-produced things tend to have less things restricting their recruitment: Guardsmen, for example, being mixed gender.
yukishiro1 wrote:I don't disagree, it's not something I'd particularly like to see...but if they are actually committed to female space marines, they ought to treat it with the importance it deserves and really explore the fallout that occurs, not just pretend like oh well, it's 2021 in the real world, that means it's 2021 for the imperium too so nobody will care.
You touch on a great point - it's the 41st millenium. Why would the Imperium care about sex or gender? It's not the real world, it's not 2021 in the Imperium, so they should just not care about sex at all!
Sledgehammer wrote:Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and is ultimately self defeating.
Including women Astartes isn't gender-switching. It's gender inclusivity.
Elevate your new diverse characters in new and interesting ways.
But I thought that you were all about preserving the "well established" setting - adding "new diverse characters" would be counter to that.
That's the problem with the whole "we need to preserve the good ol' status quo" argument - you can't then advocate for other change in it without sounding hypocritical.
Simply making the ghost busters female, just like space marines, shows a lack of understanding of the source material, and fails to further your goals of inclusivity and telling a good story.
Again with that old chestnut? The Ghostbusters remake wasn't bad because "women", it was bad because it was a bad film.
But you mention a lack of understanding of the source material - like the lack of understanding that Space Marines are more defined by their factional customisation than their warrior-monk theme (which not all Chapters even follow).
And look, I get it. You like your Black Templars, or your Dark Angels, or your (insert Knightly Chapter here). That's fine. But for every knightly-looking Chapter, there's a White Scars, or Space Wolves, or Emperor's Spears, or Raptors.
Characters are so much more than "insert trait here"
Like how Sisters of Battle are so much more than "women in power armour", and therefore not a suitable substitute for women Astartes?
Sledgehammer wrote:Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting
In... two, three factions? And in one of those factions, was only last mentioned explicitly in a republished web lore document years ago? Wow. Very ingrained.
You know what's also ingrained into the setting? The Imperium being utterly dehumanising and not caring which gender gets thrown into the trenches on the front lines.
But sure - you want to keep a fraternal order around? Why not keep the Custodes?
You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.
Isn't that literally what you're doing with preventing making women Astartes canon? You're throwing out their chances of being recognised and validated, all because you can't bring yourself to share a design space with them? You're throwing out what they enjoy to get what you want?
Manchu wrote:One thing to note is, people who disagree that GW must or should make female SM on the whole seem to have no problem with female Stormcast.
Hey, you do know that the first comment on the "women Stormcast" thread had to be removed because they had more than a little problem with women Stormcast, right? As a mod, I would have expected you to perhaps be aware of the moderation on this site.
Manchu wrote:
I think for many it's less about corporate validation directly, and more about the fact that corporate validation would result in them receiving less abuse online for those conversions.
Strong disagree.
First, people aren’t going out of their way to care about conversions unless they are either notably cool or notably lame.
I'm going to stop you right there, and say that's utter baloney.
In the sister thread to this, Crimson posted a picture of their own woman Astartes. I had the pleasure of seeing that same picture on a facebook group, which is actually where I first saw it. Last I saw, there were three comments on it, going out of their way to denigrate the gender, or the non-canonicity of the model.
Tell me, what was lame about that model that deserved those responses?
kirotheavenger wrote:English doesn't handle genderless too well though, and typically defaults to the male when in doubt.
Look at my sig.
English handles genderless just fine.
Manchu wrote:Again: it isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing.
Sorry, I didn't know you were the arbiter on that.
kirotheavenger wrote:Totally agree, but it wasn't invented now so we need to consider the immense body of established lore.
(edit: I'm talking about the argument that it breaks the lore)
No it doesn't.
Cawl says hello. His friend Unreliable Narrator join to salute. And the homebrew chapter all around the world plus GW itself are currently and constantly gaking all over your precious lore...
Lore in 40k is explicitly and purposely built to be impossible to broke, it's always a misunderstanding of the previous accounts when it happens.
It's pretty easy to notice: I'm baffled you haven't.
You know what happened to Imperial Knight? They were advanced unknowable multi-purpose machines during the DAoT that was disfigured by the war attitude of the Imperium... Until they became war-machine to defend the DAoT colonies and we're always exact of this shape with a chivalrous attitude.
So, retconning? Betraying a faction identity? Cry me a river.
Anyway, I think this shows the necessity for change: people need the official stigmata, like an Imperial Citizen need a permit to add a spoon to their knife.
(BTW, if the reason is the lore, the topic is the other one: I get that you don't have any issue model-wise with female space marine).
Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.
I did mention earlier than "Cawl waved his wand" is the best way for GW to implement female marines.
That doesn't mean I think that's a good way to do it. It's a cheap excuse and honestly that ship sailed two years ago anyway.
The fact that GW has made other, arguably worse, retcons in the past doesn't mean retcons aren't a bad thing.
I totally agree GW could make that retcon, and even that they will make that retcon if they think it's in their interest.
But this topic is about what we think, so I'm sharing what I think so that's really not all that important.
Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?
And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.
Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.
kirotheavenger wrote: Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.
I did mention earlier than "Cawl waved his wand" is the best way for GW to implement female marines.
That doesn't mean I think that's a good way to do it. It's a cheap excuse and honestly that ship sailed two years ago anyway.
The fact that GW has made other, arguably worse, retcons in the past doesn't mean retcons aren't a bad thing.
I totally agree GW could make that retcon, and even that they will make that retcon if they think it's in their interest.
But this topic is about what we think, so I'm sharing what I think so that's really not all that important.
Cawl making it happen isn’t a retcon, it’s a setting making progress.
kirotheavenger wrote: Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.
Oh, I agree. I've never had an issue with hover tanks or Primaris.
But also, women Space Marines have existed before, back in Rogue Trader. So, it's hardly like they've also been "non-existent" either.
kirotheavenger wrote: Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.
I did mention earlier than "Cawl waved his wand" is the best way for GW to implement female marines.
That doesn't mean I think that's a good way to do it. It's a cheap excuse and honestly that ship sailed two years ago anyway.
The fact that GW has made other, arguably worse, retcons in the past doesn't mean retcons aren't a bad thing.
I totally agree GW could make that retcon, and even that they will make that retcon if they think it's in their interest.
But this topic is about what we think, so I'm sharing what I think so that's really not all that important.
So what you're saying is, there is no situation in which you would accept female space marines and be happy or even neutral about it? Because it would retcon the existing lore? And adding new lore around this particular subject would be 'bad'?
kirotheavenger wrote: It's a gross mischaracterisation to suggest anyone is saying the 40k universe is predicated on the denial of women in Space Marines.
So why are people saying that it was be ruinous to the setting?
It certainly sounds like that if Space Marines were allowed to have women, the setting would be "ruined", and 40k would become this "generic" piece of sci-fantasy, and everything that people love would evaporate.
And I'm purely going on what people have said in this thread.
Similarly, appeals to previous retcons are stupid.
And similarly, appeals to the sanctity of the lore and how it's all "well established" are stupid too by the same logic!
Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?
And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.
Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.
The necron rewrite I think is a big look at how the setting treats women, they gained far more personality and went from a genderless malevolent beings. To male, the only necrons with any feminine traits where killed off in a book they where introduced in years after the change.
Unless the newer book has changed that it shows that at least in the passed that GW was a issue in that treatment itself.
Nerdy media has a big issue with this and it’s only though significant push that we even get the chance at representation without objectification.
Until that evens I think the desire for female marines will stay quite hot, as to gain equal support in this GW part of the hobby it’s really the only way at current.
Retcon as usually intended can't happens in 40k because the setting isn't wrote like that.
We know those are retcon, GW knows that, but they're not. Their lore is ineffable, so it can't contradict itself. There's always a way, and I find depressing that player of a supposed creative game don't get it.
If tomorrow GW presented an all female Chapter emerged from the depths of space because none ever told them that Marine were male only and their planetary culture is similar to Amazon with female warrior and male caring houses and children...
That would be fine and 100% coherent with the lore: space is big, and the Imperium itself (but I dare to say: the Emperor himself) don't know the finessesa
and intricacies of the process: what we have is only a crude (unreliable) account of a process designed 10k year ago.
That was a "retcon" by the way: rather than the genius Emperor's work Space Marine are created by his scientist. Do you have any idea how much of the older lore this contradicts?
There were female Space Marines early on: Both models and the Sister Sin purging a Rainbow Warrior artwork from the Rogue Trader era.
Then GW did it right and instead made Sisters of Battle into their very own cool thing. Do not dilute this improvement of 40k worldbuilding: Monk and nun elite warrior orders shall not be mixed. Pluck archaic strings, and know your instrument.
There is fundamentally no other reason than this: It isn't about space tech, popular palatability or anything else. Sometime in the 1990s, GW saw that they played better to the spirit of their own setting by making elite warrior monks and elite warrior nuns into their own separate orders. The plebeian Imperial Guard is not the arena for this, and neither is the eclectic Inquisition or the Mechanicus and Titanicus with their contempt for matters of the flesh. No, the Astartes, Sororitas, Custodes and Sisters of Silence are the relevant arenas for religious warrior orders. Monks and nuns of war.
This is the crux of the matter, and the final say for those with the holistic vision to see the setting as a whole.
Just turn the steak around: How bland and un-archaic wouldn't the concept of male Sisters of Battle be?
Kudos to Games Workshop for sticking to their guns where so many others would have folded.
Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?
And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.
Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.
These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.
you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.
You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.
Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.
But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
Sisters of silence have as well if I rember reading back, also super neglected.
Also can large pictures be spoilered. Makes the entire page effectively unreadable on my tablet.
Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?
And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.
Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.
Spoiler:
These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.
you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.
You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.
Yeah, the whole idea that people aren't interested in the hobby because there aren't enough X models is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the game is a niche hobby with an expensive price tag that also happens to have some maladjusted individuals.
A smokescreen that works in GW's favor, because whilst everyone is arguing over that they are just going to keep ramping up the price.
It's backwards thinking, there are more complex factors at play here than "not enough girly marines"
Well, praising GW for creative integrity I think it's more than enough to put into a precise context all the rest of your consideration.
Also, put image in spoiler please: I get that you don't evaluate much others in your consideration, but you are making this page unreadable by phone browser.
Apple fox wrote: Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.
But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art" If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.
Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?
And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.
Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.
Did it ever ocur to you, that a lot of people are disagreeing with you because you are willfully missrepresenting them and by virtue of that start to become hostile to you?
Apple fox wrote: Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.
But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art" If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.
Rule 34 you mean. Not just the fanbase. If it exists theres porn is about the only universal rule for Mankind.
Karak Norn Clansman wrote:Monk and nun elite warrior orders shall not be mixed. Pluck archaic strings, and know your instrument.
But werewolves, vampires, and tacticool spec ops? Those are all fine tunes to be plucked on archaic strings?
Sounds like those strings are a little bit dissonant, if you ask me.
No, the Astartes, Sororitas, Custodes and Sisters of Silence are the relevant arenas for religious warrior orders. Monks and nuns of war.
Are Space Marines also the relevant arena for werewolves? Wolf driven hover sleds?
This is the crux of the matter, and the final say for those with the holistic vision to see the setting as a whole.
I *think* I just about heard that dogwhistle there. Nearly went over my head.
Just turn the steak around: How bland and un-archaic wouldn't the concept of male Sisters of Battle be?
I'd be pretty fine with it. After all, Sisters of Battle are much more than just their gender, aren't they?
Kudos to Games Workshop for sticking to their guns where so many others would have folded.
That is creative integrity.
On the other hand, sticking to firing guns that have no target is also a waste of ammunition. Just to keep the metaphor.
BrianDavion wrote:These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.
And my gender is none of your concern, but I collect armies from across the gender spectrum. I don't need to match genitals with my plastic war dolls (also, gender isn't the same as sex or genitals. Just to correct on that) - but I do want to see a good range of stuff, and I want to see it visibly.
you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.
I never said it was the only way. Don't put words in my mouth.
Also, you claim that wanting to have models that represent you is "sexist"? Gee, I think you might just be calling some of the people who are anti-women Astartes in this thread here sexist!
You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.
And I've spoken to my friends (women, I figured I should specify), and they've said that how women are relegated to sexualised factions, and the fervour that people will go to in order to fight back against women Astartes is what puts them off, and contributes to that "maladjusted basement dwelling" attitude.
These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.
This is not really up for debate. It's well established in marketing is that you market to an audience. Do you think it's a coincidence that media movies aimed for the 18-34 white male demographic has male leads all in that range or slightly older?
And if someone walks into a Games Workshop and all they see are hyper masculine space marines in all the advertising, they're going to be less inclined to join the hobby. In fact, realistically, their only options are hyper religious, sexualized zealots or evil hellraiser space elves because every other army has gak representation. Versus the astartes, which make up over half the hobby and are the lowest common denominator as far as flexibility. Except only as long as they're dudes.
you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.
Uhm. People in this very thread are basically saying that adding women to space marines will ruin the hobby forever, even though it actually won't affect their models and the only difference being they can't denigrate anyone for having custom female marines. Oh, and I guess they might occasionally see a space marine with long hair?
Granted, that's not everyone. Pretty much any currently 40k playing female will have to play with models that are a different gender than them unless they lean heavily into dark eldar, Tau, or SoB. But how many new players could be attracted to the hobby if women were better represented? We'll probably never know because people continually lose their gak whenever the subject is brought up.
At the end of the day, it's a subject that keeps getting brought up, so there is clearly a portion of the community that does in fact want female space marines, for whatever reason. So are you going to tell them to suck it up because you play SoB but have the option of playing every other army as male or gender neutral only that they shouldn't even have the option?
You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.
And you don't think that the flagship face of the hobby being a hyper masculine boys only club isn't sending a specific kind of message on what this space is and might in some way be contributing to that unwelcoming culture?
Apple fox wrote: Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.
But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art" If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.
I will say, the same has already been done with *male* Space Marines too.
I'm sure that's not what you're arguing, but the "we can't make that canon, they'll make NSFW material of it!" argument has already faltered by now.
Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?
And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.
Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.
Did it ever ocur to you, that a lot of people are disagreeing with you because you are willfully missrepresenting them and by virtue of that start to become hostile to you?
What part am I wilfully misrepresenting?
And bold to claim that the same isn't being done back to me. I've already had to point out how I never claimed that "women Space Marines will fix everything and this is the only problem with 40k's blatant faults of representation!"
So please, if I'm misrepresenting, I'd love to see where. Perhaps you can elaborate on what I'm missing.
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: There were female Space Marines early on: Both models and the Sister Sin purging a Rainbow Warrior artwork from the Rogue Trader era.
Then GW did it right and instead made Sisters of Battle into their very own cool thing.
It went the other way - Space Marines became their own thing while the sisters stayed largely unchanged.
Remember the original marines were penitent orders of roided-up ex-convict monks in power armour.
Sister Sin herself was also a political joke (French iconography, special forces, blowing a hole in the side of the rainbow warrior - very 80s)
Apple fox wrote: Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.
But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art" If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.
That's fanart. SoB are fetishized in their official models. They go into combat in corsets and blatant boob (power) armor. And that's not even getting into the previous incarnation of repentia.
Do you see Space Marines going into battle naked, with only a loin cloth and gimp mask? How about even just topless to show off rippling muscles (which should be deformed to the point of appearing non human but we all know that if GW were to depict said look, they'd appear as chiseled adonises)?
Contrary to popular belief, not every woman is enamored with the SoB style. Which makes the fact that they're only option for a human female army kind of the problem for anyone who wants to be on the 'good guy' Imperial side.
kirotheavenger wrote:Who has said that adding female Space Marines will ruin the setting forever? Where/when?
You're misrepresenting people's positions.
Am I?
Spoiler:
Argive wrote: Will this be a trend now every other week until people get fed up or mindless bickering and leave the site??
We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
SemperMortis wrote: "It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
Should I be ignoring these comments? And I've not even looked in the other threads, but I don't think I'd have a hard time finding similar.
Apple fox wrote: Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.
But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art" If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.
That’s actually fine, it’s GW that has made them like that. Sexuality is fine for me in media, I think dark Eldar are cool. And even have more sisters than I know what to do with.
But the only real representation out side of some spots here and there is the fetishisation, it doesn’t look good and isn’t good.
This sorta comes back to, space marines get to be cool. And everyone else has to sit in there spotlight.
When allmost every faction is just mostly all guys, the space marines being all men doesn’t seem that sacred.
Cybtroll wrote: Heads, heads are all that's needed. It is disingenuous to think differently. If you think a Centurion armour need changes to accommodate a female... I really think there's nothing to add here rather than suggesting to look more carefully.
And yes, ALSO some new kits would be AWESOME, specifically for Chaos.
Emperor's Children and World Eaters would be a fantastic place to start introducing new kits with more options for different genders (EC because... Well, just because) and World Eaters because as far as I'm aware if you're angry enough you're good for Khorne (and they have the non secondary impact of recognizing that violence and anger isn't a male prerogative).
I can get behind potential supply chain issue, another overloading of Marines releases etc etc. But those are GW's problems, not us. And you can shout down anything, including inventing fire, if you focus on possible bad effects (everything has those, at least potentially, even the smallest changes).
Tell me how an additional sprue of female head and the official legitimation to make Female Marine hurts your hobby, because I'm see derailing and obfuscation, but not an answer to that.
It's exactly the same that that we already have in terms of additional sprue to create a specific Chapter like DA or SW.
And, I won't to reiterate again: I'm one of those who don't aknowledge Primaris, don't collect them, and I stay true to my Firstborns. There's a very high chance I won't even purchase female marine if available: but I'm not a egocentric maniac: why should my personal indifference come at the expenses of other which instead may want such option? It's an extra option, not a gender-swap.
Fun fact: I never realized, but there's a pretty good alternate Sammael for DA by Wargame Exclusive that is a female. Love the bike (much better than the original) but never thought about buying it because converting the rider would be an hassle.
If Female Marine would have been a thing, I've probably bought it without thinking twice.
So, even when you think something doesn't involve you, you really can never know.
helmets? Why would a female wear a different helmet from a man? Are female heads somehow different in the universe of warhammer?
Apple fox wrote: Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.
But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art" If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.
That’s actually fine, it’s GW that has made them like that. Sexuality is fine for me in media, I think dark Eldar are cool. And even have more sisters than I know what to do with.
But the only real representation out side of some spots here and there is the fetishisation, it doesn’t look good and isn’t good.
This sorta comes back to, space marines get to be cool. And everyone else has to sit in there spotlight.
When allmost every faction is just mostly all guys, the space marines being all men doesn’t seem that sacred.
Yeah, also when you add all the marine factions and chaos marine factions together you get like...10/20 factions in the game, and probably over 50% of the model releases.
kirotheavenger wrote:Who has said that adding female Space Marines will ruin the setting forever? Where/when?
You're misrepresenting people's positions.
Am I?
Spoiler:
Argive wrote: Will this be a trend now every other week until people get fed up or mindless bickering and leave the site??
We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
SemperMortis wrote: "It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
Should I be ignoring these comments? And I've not even looked in the other threads, but I don't think I'd have a hard time finding similar.
I wonder if you've read the comments beyond what you've underlined. Because it seems clear to me they're not referring to female space marines but the agenda pushing them.
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: There were female Space Marines early on: Both models and the Sister Sin purging a Rainbow Warrior artwork from the Rogue Trader era.
Then GW did it right and instead made Sisters of Battle into their very own cool thing. Do not dilute this improvement of 40k worldbuilding: Monk and nun elite warrior orders shall not be mixed. Pluck archaic strings, and know your instrument.
There is fundamentally no other reason than this: It isn't about space tech, popular palatability or anything else. Sometime in the 1990s, GW saw that they played better to the spirit of their own setting by making elite warrior monks and elite warrior nuns into their own separate orders. The plebeian Imperial Guard is not the arena for this, and neither is the eclectic Inquisition or the Mechanicus and Titanicus with their contempt for matters of the flesh. No, the Astartes, Sororitas, Custodes and Sisters of Silence are the relevant arenas for religious warrior orders. Monks and nuns of war.
I've seen quite a few claim "Space Marines aren't warrior monks anymore" in reply to this, as if for some reason the whole fortress monasteries, a monastic and ascetic lifestyle involving large amounts of routine, ritual and prayers, calling each other battle-brothers etc thing doesn't count, with claims that them being male isn't a important part of their lore because the last place that definitely mentioned it was Index Astartes back in the early 2000s and it hasn't appeared in a codex since.
I'm talking about unhelmeted head obviously. Does it need specification or were you just muddling the water even more?
(And that's about model anyway, not lore).
And about their supposed monastic life... Did you read the standard day of a Marine? It's much more akin to a special forces training regimen then a monastic life.
Aside from the fact that, of course, that I would say that the biggest part of monks and nuns identities are their detachment for material worries, and the fact that they don't fight. Both flying in the face of Marine.
So, maybe you are confusing your stereotypes of monks with the real deal. Kind of life you're stereotyping people as woke because they think more options is better than less.
Manchu wrote: One thing to note is, people who disagree that GW must or should make female SM on the whole seem to have no problem with female Stormcast.
I mean I distinctly remember that in the thread about the new AOS starter box there was pretty heated discussion because several people expressed their opposition to female Stormcast...
kirotheavenger wrote:Who has said that adding female Space Marines will ruin the setting forever? Where/when?
You're misrepresenting people's positions.
Am I?
Spoiler:
Argive wrote: Will this be a trend now every other week until people get fed up or mindless bickering and leave the site??
We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
SemperMortis wrote: "It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
Should I be ignoring these comments? And I've not even looked in the other threads, but I don't think I'd have a hard time finding similar.
I wonder if you've read the comments beyond what you've underlined. Because it seems clear to me they're not referring to female space marines but the agenda pushing them.
What agenda? People wanting to be represented in media. Woke as a negative term is pushing an agenda, this entire push against it is an agenda.
The pushback here is veiled in sexism and GW itself help perpetuate that, things can be done well. And GW mostly pushed towards low effort and easy. And now it’s a issue since they are behind and it just makes the setting look dumb.
No, Marines are. All faction allow personalization by design, but no product line come even closer to the variety that Marine have reflected in their model line.
How many regiment of Guardsmen are currently sold? 3? 4?
How many Orks clan have specific miniatures (even simple stuff like a pauldrons)?
Cybtroll wrote: I'm talking about unhelmeted head obviously. Does it need specification or were you just muddling the water even more?
(And that's about model anyway, not lore).
And about their supposed monastic life... Did you read the standard day of a Marine? It's much more akin to a special forces training regimen then a monastic life.
Aside from the fact that, of course, that I would say that the biggest part of monks and nuns identities are their detachment for material worries, and the fact that they don't fight. Both flying in the face of Marine.
So, maybe you are confusing your stereotypes of monks with the real deal. Kind of life you're stereotyping people as woke because they think more options is better than less.
We have the DIY faction: let's take it seriously.
Special Forces have morning, midday and afternoon prayer, that lasts for an hour at a time?
Of course Space Marines are going to have combat training, they are soldiers. What makes them monastic are the prayer sessions, the rituals, the iconography and the terminology.
Imagine if the Navy Seals started wearing robes, crosses, call each other Brother, hang out in a monastery and are required to pray at certain times. Would they not be monastics?
Cybtroll wrote: No, Marines are. All faction allow personalization by design, but no product line come even closer to the variety that Marine have reflected in their model line.
How many regiment of Guardsmen are currently sold? 3? 4?
How many Orks clan have specific miniatures (even simple stuff like a pauldrons)?
I would say that's a different thing.
If selling models is all you want, why aren't you happy with the new Cadian kit?
Does monks have training exercises?
(Spoiler: they don't). Like, even manual labour is not mandatory for all monks order is n the middle ages.
To be precise: the AdMech focus on transcribing old knowledge is much much more "monks" than what Marines will ever be.... ..they even have the robes to show it.
So, they're as much special forces as they are monks. And then again, you're stereotyping ""monks" as Western ones... But Marine encompasses all cultures, so Easter monks (mixed gender) should be allowed to.
PS: because it's not me, or you that need to be happy. Who need to be happy are as many people as possible, and I'm no authority to tell people their fun ruins my fun. Are you?
Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!
Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?
And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.
Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.
Did it ever ocur to you, that a lot of people are disagreeing with you because you are willfully missrepresenting them and by virtue of that start to become hostile to you?
What part am I wilfully misrepresenting?
And bold to claim that the same isn't being done back to me. I've already had to point out how I never claimed that "women Space Marines will fix everything and this is the only problem with 40k's blatant faults of representation!"
So please, if I'm misrepresenting, I'd love to see where. Perhaps you can elaborate on what I'm missing.
I dunno, the rest of the point you graciously didn't quote.. maybee there? Actually not maybee but that's irrelevant for you like the rest of that comment you so choose to graciously ignore?
Cybtroll wrote: No, Marines are. All faction allow personalization by design, but no product line come even closer to the variety that Marine have reflected in their model line.
How many regiment of Guardsmen are currently sold? 3? 4? How many Orks clan have specific miniatures (even simple stuff like a pauldrons)?
That's a consequence of marine bloat, the solution to which is not more marines. Guardsmen are in sore need of an update (and they actually HAD models for multiple regiments), and you're expected to kitbash orks because conversions are meant to be their focus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: Does monks have training exercises? (Spoiler: they don't).
Yes, actually, they did if they are of the Military Order variety. You know, like the Knight Templars, which one Marine chapter is a clear reference to. Don't tell me I'm stereotyping Marines as Western Monks when you apparently don't know what Military Orders are.
kirotheavenger wrote:Who has said that adding female Space Marines will ruin the setting forever? Where/when?
You're misrepresenting people's positions.
Am I?
Spoiler:
Argive wrote: Will this be a trend now every other week until people get fed up or mindless bickering and leave the site??
We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
SemperMortis wrote: "It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
Should I be ignoring these comments? And I've not even looked in the other threads, but I don't think I'd have a hard time finding similar.
I wonder if you've read the comments beyond what you've underlined. Because it seems clear to me they're not referring to female space marines but the agenda pushing them.
What "agenda"? The only agenda I've described is adding women Astartes.
kirotheavenger wrote:Aren't Imperial Guard the DIY faction?
In lore, or in practice? In lore, yes, infinitely so.
In practice? Absolutely not. The only sufficiently multipose Guardsman ranges are Cadians and Catachans, and unless the player invests a TON into greenstuff, kitbashes, or third party bits, their Guardsmen will barely be any different from the next generic Cadian variant.
Space Marines, on the other hand, were one of the first of the new batch of Codexes to get custom Chapter rules, and GW has been very vocal in creating "your own Chapter". Hell, they even made a series on it in White Dwarf, about their Tome Keepers Chapter.
That's not to mention their ready sales of upgrade kits, nice flat armour, and easily customisable bits that switch between kits like a glove.
Practically, Space Marines are defined far more as the "homebrew faction.
They're portrayed as far more flexible than even Astartes.
Only in the lore, and even that's not super touched on. Compare the difference between the noble, Greco-Roman Ultramarines with their pure geneseed and adherence to the Codex and the Space Wolves who are their complete opposite, including literal werewolves in their army.
Now compare even something like the Savlar Chem-Dogs to the Vostroyans. Yeah, there's difference, but *werewolf* level differences?
Or aren't Orks the DIY faction? Their whole shtick is unique ramshackle constructs.
Orks are the "convert what you like, it's already scrap" faction. That only applies their vehicles and weapons though - not to the Orks themselves necessarily.
Or maybe there is no "DIY faction"
I have one of those unpainted Primaris funko pops right on my deskside. Do you know what it says on the box of that Primaris funko pop?
"DIY".
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Special Forces have morning, midday and afternoon prayer, that lasts for an hour at a time?
Of course Space Marines are going to have combat training, they are soldiers. What makes them monastic are the prayer sessions, the rituals and the terminology.
Imagine if the Navy Seals started wearing robes, crosses, call each other Brother, hang out in a monastery and are required to pray at certain times. Would they not be monastics?
Do all Chapters do that? Because if I'm not mistaken that particular excerpt was only in reference to one Chapter's routine, as was last printed, what, in 3rd edition? 4th?
If the Navy Seals started drinking not!Mead from horns, wearing wolf pelts, and singing about their sagas, I'd be more likely to call them vikings than monastics.
It's almost like some Chapters are more monastically inspired than others!
kirotheavenger wrote:Who has said that adding female Space Marines will ruin the setting forever? Where/when?
You're misrepresenting people's positions.
Am I?
Spoiler:
Argive wrote: Will this be a trend now every other week until people get fed up or mindless bickering and leave the site??
We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
SemperMortis wrote: "It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
Should I be ignoring these comments? And I've not even looked in the other threads, but I don't think I'd have a hard time finding similar.
I wonder if you've read the comments beyond what you've underlined. Because it seems clear to me they're not referring to female space marines but the agenda pushing them.
What agenda? People wanting to be represented in media. Woke as a negative term is pushing an agenda, this entire push against it is an agenda.
The pushback here is veiled in sexism and GW itself help perpetuate that, things can be done well. And GW mostly pushed towards low effort and easy. And now it’s a issue since they are behind and it just makes the setting look dumb.
There you go again accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being sexist! can you please stop knocking down that strawman? Do you really belive over 2/3rds of the dakka dakka community are a bunch of mysigionistic donkey-caves?
Manchu wrote: One thing to note is, people who disagree that GW must or should make female SM on the whole seem to have no problem with female Stormcast.
I mean I distinctly remember that in the thread about the new AOS starter box there was pretty heated discussion because several people expressed their opposition to female Stormcast...
True, true.
But I think what you mean by "heated discussion" is some people didn't like female Stormcast and then the usual dog piling and gaslighting with "YuR a SeXiSt" began.
It would be interesting to see the sales numbers on the new Stormcast, whenever these topics come up I always think about the stores I go to, their shelves are full of Nolzur's female models, stacked twice as deep as the males and monsters... collecting dust.
kirotheavenger wrote:Who has said that adding female Space Marines will ruin the setting forever? Where/when?
You're misrepresenting people's positions.
Am I?
Spoiler:
Argive wrote: Will this be a trend now every other week until people get fed up or mindless bickering and leave the site??
We have a ban on politics and religion for a reason. Wokness is a political religion that will gobble up and spit out and ruin everything it touches..
SemperMortis wrote: "It absolutely should happen" Why? is it just too much to ask for the woke mob to not ruin everything in their attempt to make everything the same? Can you name me a single person who said "I was going to start playing 40k but when I found out there was only a single ALL FEMALE army that was just massively updated with new rules and a feth ton of new models...I couldn't play the game in good conscious".
Should we have Female Necrons as well? How about Female Orkz? Why? The only reason I can see is to appease the woke mob who scream and complain and than when a company finally gives in, it loses money and fans because the 12 people who fought the issue tooth and nail had no intention of actually playing the game in the first place.
Should I be ignoring these comments? And I've not even looked in the other threads, but I don't think I'd have a hard time finding similar.
I wonder if you've read the comments beyond what you've underlined. Because it seems clear to me they're not referring to female space marines but the agenda pushing them.
What agenda? People wanting to be represented in media. Woke as a negative term is pushing an agenda, this entire push against it is an agenda.
The pushback here is veiled in sexism and GW itself help perpetuate that, things can be done well. And GW mostly pushed towards low effort and easy. And now it’s a issue since they are behind and it just makes the setting look dumb.
There you go again accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being sexist! can you please stop knocking down that strawman? Do you really belive over 2/3rds of the dakka dakka community are a bunch of mysigionistic donkey-caves?
Both those posts are. And I never said anything specific about all people. But to say a lot of this discussion doesn’t have issues is a bit of a joke. Those posts both highlight it specificity.
And bold to claim that the same isn't being done back to me. I've already had to point out how I never claimed that "women Space Marines will fix everything and this is the only problem with 40k's blatant faults of representation!"
So please, if I'm misrepresenting, I'd love to see where. Perhaps you can elaborate on what I'm missing.
I dunno, the rest of the point you graciously didn't quote.. maybee there?
Such as? Please, could you show me?
When I edit sections from quotes out, I do it to avoid massive blocks of text. Lord knows my text blocks are large enough as is.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, like the Knight Templars, which one Marine chapter is a clear reference to.
Underlined for emphasis.
You're right. There are some Chapters which are especially well linked to ancient orders of knights and warrior-monks. But there are others that aren't. That's why I'm so dubious of "look how important this warrior monk thing is", when it's so clearly handwaved to make way for other cool things, like Space Werewolves, or Space Maori, or Space Vampires, or Space Tacticool, or Space Flaming Daemon Skeletons.
I'm not saying that no Space Marines have warrior monk trappings or references. Only that it doesn't apply to all of them.
Manchu wrote: One thing to note is, people who disagree that GW must or should make female SM on the whole seem to have no problem with female Stormcast.
I mean I distinctly remember that in the thread about the new AOS starter box there was pretty heated discussion because several people expressed their opposition to female Stormcast...
True, true.
But I think what you mean by "heated discussion" is some people didn't like female Stormcast and then the usual dog piling and gaslighting with "YuR a SeXiSt" began.
If I recall correctly, wasn't your comment on the Stormcast thread removed by mods?
Manchu wrote: One thing to note is, people who disagree that GW must or should make female SM on the whole seem to have no problem with female Stormcast.
I mean I distinctly remember that in the thread about the new AOS starter box there was pretty heated discussion because several people expressed their opposition to female Stormcast...
True, true.
But I think what you mean by "heated discussion" is some people didn't like female Stormcast and then the usual dog piling and gaslighting with "YuR a SeXiSt" began.
If I recall correctly, wasn't your comment on the Stormcast thread removed by mods?
I wonder why?
No, you're confusing the Stormcast release day rumour thread with a completely different thread in AoS background
And bold to claim that the same isn't being done back to me. I've already had to point out how I never claimed that "women Space Marines will fix everything and this is the only problem with 40k's blatant faults of representation!"
So please, if I'm misrepresenting, I'd love to see where. Perhaps you can elaborate on what I'm missing.
I dunno, the rest of the point you graciously didn't quote.. maybee there?
Such as? Please, could you show me?
When I edit sections from quotes out, I do it to avoid massive blocks of text. Lord knows my text blocks are large enough as is.
Multiple points in the same ballpark of the part you quoted. Including but not limited to the typical debate style involved centered squarly arround subjective sentiments, with not so much a hint of understanding or attempt at of the opposing side (both ways). An need to seek validation via company for a (supposedly) needed social political change in an fantastical universe which serves as a ground escapism for reasons of validation again of ones own agenda. Because there ARE options for GW to increase the diversity without NEEDING to force feed an agenda into Marines OR Sisters for that matter.
Not Online!!! wrote: Are they really sexist? or are they critical of certain attempts at influence by a minority or outsiders of the hobby?
We happen to be part of the hobby, it’s entirely that to dismiss and push us out.
It’s that specifically that turn this discussion hostile, using terms like Woke as a negative is used constantly in very specific ways.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, like the Knight Templars, which one Marine chapter is a clear reference to.
Underlined for emphasis.
You're right. There are some Chapters which are especially well linked to ancient orders of knights and warrior-monks. But there are others that aren't. That's why I'm so dubious of "look how important this warrior monk thing is", when it's so clearly handwaved to make way for other cool things, like Space Werewolves, or Space Maori, or Space Vampires, or Space Tacticool, or Space Flaming Daemon Skeletons.
I'm not saying that no Space Marines have warrior monk trappings or references. Only that it doesn't apply to all of them.
Most "generic" chapters still have references to monastics though. It's just that some chapters go all in (such as Black Templars and arguably Dark Angels) and others barely touch upon it (such as Space Wolves). Vikings also underwent their own set of religious rituals too, so they arguably were the Norse version of Military Orders anyway.
the Lords of Terra might be even more grumpy about him but who cares when Roboute approves.
