Lathe Biosas wrote: Because I am a glutton for punishment I went to my Chatgpt buddy, the Omnissiah, and asked him for a female marine, and I got this:
The AI obviously scraped pictures of Commander Shepard from Mass Effect to make this. The neck and waist armour is identical to a lot of the N7 armour.
Andykp wrote: I love that over the years we have persisted with these threads and each time it gets less toxic and more progressive.
I know this post is a few days old, but I wanted to leave a quick comment.
I had one person reach out to me directly to express their support for some of my posts in this thread. They also explained that they and someone they know are not participating on purpose because they're afraid of reprisals against their account. I've seen at least two other users have their (not pro-FSM) text removed within a day of posting. Meanwhile, repeated summaries of the anti-FSM side as being misogynistic and sexist, or even the outright call for their exclusion (in the other thread), didn't even result in a "keep it down, folks" post from a moderator.
If this thread is anything to go by how previous discussions about the topic were handled, then your impression for it becoming "less toxic and more progressive" stems not from changing the hearts and minds of people, but from intimidation and forced exclusion (=bans). I hope the irony of the situation is not lost on you.
I suggest you revisit the old threads, they were very nasty places and only one side was being abusive I assure you. If people are too afraid to come and spout hateful and toxic garbage then it’s getting a bit nicer here. If you are unhappy with how the mods are dealing with this topic take it up with them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Considering that one of those users was attempting a transphobic dogwhistle, I think that's for good reason. Blatant transphobia (and yes, I'm not just talking "ooh, they disagree with me", I'm referring to Actually Transphobic Comments) have no place here or anywhere else.
Can't speak for the other, mostly because I don't remember it, but I'm going to assume it wasn't because they were opposed to women Astartes.
Could I just have confirmation that you agree that transphobic comments (Actually Transphobic Comments and rhetoric, not just "you disagree with me", just to clarify) are abhorrent?
Including transphobic comments, nobody should be subjected to online abuse. Which is why I have an issue with - and call out - the seemingly one-sided moderation. As made apparent in this thread (and the other one that started it), the following things do not break rule #1 on Dakka:
- Accusing others of holding sexist views.
- Accusing others of holding misogynist views.
- Accusing others of lying.
- Calling for the exclusion of people.
- Gaslighting people.
I can't speak for or against the two deleted posts, as I haven't screenshotted them. One was about something with Orks, the other about making unisex models, iirc.
Examples for the list above are still present in this thread, however.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Considering that one of those users was attempting a transphobic dogwhistle, I think that's for good reason. Blatant transphobia (and yes, I'm not just talking "ooh, they disagree with me", I'm referring to Actually Transphobic Comments) have no place here or anywhere else.
Can't speak for the other, mostly because I don't remember it, but I'm going to assume it wasn't because they were opposed to women Astartes.
Could I just have confirmation that you agree that transphobic comments (Actually Transphobic Comments and rhetoric, not just "you disagree with me", just to clarify) are abhorrent?
Including transphobic comments, nobody should be subjected to online abuse. Which is why I have an issue with - and call out - the seemingly one-sided moderation. As made apparent in this thread (and the other one that started it), the following things do not break rule #1 on Dakka:
- Accusing others of holding sexist views.
- Accusing others of holding misogynist views.
- Accusing others of lying.
- Calling for the exclusion of people.
- Gaslighting people.
I can't speak for or against the two deleted posts, as I haven't screenshotted them. One was about something with Orks, the other about making unisex models, iirc.
Examples for the list above are still present in this thread, however.
I don't have the full context, but the picture this paints is that people were saying sexist, misogynistic lies and that others called them out for it. And that when those people continued to be toxic, the rest of the posters got sick of it and wanted to stop wasting energy listening to the toxic slop.
If that scenario is at all accurate, I don't see a problem with the consequences being one-sided. It sounds like one side was saying some gross stuff and got called out on it. Calling people out when they're being gakky isn't something that should get you punished.
The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
. . .
It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.
Breton wrote: How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo. . .
1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
From this exchange it seems like the idea that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is a MOD supported view.
So a "lore conservative" like myself is just gonna catch that labeling, I guess?
Obviously I haven't seen every post in every thread on this topic, so it's possible I've missed something. But I have seen plenty of people including myself point out reasons why adding FSM would potentially be awkward/cringe without then getting accused of toxicity.
The only times I've seen people get called sexist/misogynist/etc. in here is when they start trying to use some sketchy real-world reasoning into the space fantasy discussion. Your, "Girls can't be marines because they're bad at bench presses," type arguments.
While I haven't read every post of every thread, I have read a lot of posts in this sort of thread. And so far, I haven't seen a compelling reason to *not* have marines other than the fact that it would be sort of awkward to introduce them out of the blue. Which *would be* an awkward retcon, but I'd argue having your franchise's flagship faction be a sausage fest is also kind of cringe. And Cawl and his primaris tweaks are right there to offer an in-universe justification for introducing FSM goign forward.
Wyldhunt wrote: Obviously I haven't seen every post in every thread on this topic, so it's possible I've missed something. But I have seen plenty of people including myself point out reasons why adding FSM would potentially be awkward/cringe without then getting accused of toxicity.
The only times I've seen people get called sexist/misogynist/etc. in here is when they start trying to use some sketchy real-world reasoning into the space fantasy discussion. Your, "Girls can't be marines because they're bad at bench presses," type arguments.
While I haven't read every post of every thread, I have read a lot of posts in this sort of thread. And so far, I haven't seen a compelling reason to *not* have marines other than the fact that it would be sort of awkward to introduce them out of the blue. Which *would be* an awkward retcon, but I'd argue having your franchise's flagship faction be a sausage fest is also kind of cringe. And Cawl and his primaris tweaks are right there to offer an in-universe justification for introducing FSM goign forward.
I don't think people appreciate that female Marines wouldn't be stereotypically female in any sense. At best, they would resemble SF6's Marisa.
I don't get it. We have a real world example of men on excessive PEDs in strongmen and bodybuilders. The women that compete in the open class of those end up looking like men because they're pumping insane amounts of test and HGH on top over other PEDs.
I don't see anything wrong with women being Space Marines, but I don't think people understand that they're not going to cutesy anime waifus, let alone remotely feminine. They're going to be juiced and modifed to the gills. Literally, to the point where you'd have to see them nude to tell the difference. How are you going to tell the models apart?
Space Marines are currently technically male, but to me, they're technically sexless. Their sex is largely irrelevant to what they do and adding females to their numbers will change nothing.
Wyldhunt wrote: Obviously I haven't seen every post in every thread on this topic, so it's possible I've missed something. But I have seen plenty of people including myself point out reasons why adding FSM would potentially be awkward/cringe without then getting accused of toxicity.
The only times I've seen people get called sexist/misogynist/etc. in here is when they start trying to use some sketchy real-world reasoning into the space fantasy discussion. Your, "Girls can't be marines because they're bad at bench presses," type arguments.
While I haven't read every post of every thread, I have read a lot of posts in this sort of thread. And so far, I haven't seen a compelling reason to *not* have marines other than the fact that it would be sort of awkward to introduce them out of the blue. Which *would be* an awkward retcon, but I'd argue having your franchise's flagship faction be a sausage fest is also kind of cringe. And Cawl and his primaris tweaks are right there to offer an in-universe justification for introducing FSM goign forward.
I don't think people appreciate that female Marines wouldn't be stereotypically female in any sense. At best, they would resemble SF6's Marisa.
I don't get it. We have a real world example of men on excessive PEDs in strongmen and bodybuilders. The women that compete in the open class of those end up looking like men because they're pumping insane amounts of test and HGH on top over other PEDs.
I don't see anything wrong with women being Space Marines, but I don't think people understand that they're not going to cutesy anime waifus, let alone remotely feminine. They're going to be juiced and modifed to the gills. Literally, to the point where you'd have to see them nude to tell the difference. How are you going to tell the models apart?
Space Marines are currently technically male, but to me, they're technically sexless. Their sex is largely irrelevant to what they do and adding females to their numbers will change nothing.
There's a reason most people have been asking for an upgrade sprue of heads and for future kits to include a similar amount of male and female unhelmeted heads.
We don't WANT anime waifu Marines. We want the lore to change to be more inclusive for the real world.
As for your last bit, Marines aren't really presented that way. They're consistently presented as male. If they were presented as agender, that'd be a different story, but they're not.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Considering that one of those users was attempting a transphobic dogwhistle, I think that's for good reason. Blatant transphobia (and yes, I'm not just talking "ooh, they disagree with me", I'm referring to Actually Transphobic Comments) have no place here or anywhere else.
Can't speak for the other, mostly because I don't remember it, but I'm going to assume it wasn't because they were opposed to women Astartes.
Could I just have confirmation that you agree that transphobic comments (Actually Transphobic Comments and rhetoric, not just "you disagree with me", just to clarify) are abhorrent?
Including transphobic comments, nobody should be subjected to online abuse. Which is why I have an issue with - and call out - the seemingly one-sided moderation. As made apparent in this thread (and the other one that started it), the following things do not break rule #1 on Dakka:
- Accusing others of holding sexist views.
- Accusing others of holding misogynist views.
- Accusing others of lying.
- Calling for the exclusion of people.
- Gaslighting people.
I can't speak for or against the two deleted posts, as I haven't screenshotted them. One was about something with Orks, the other about making unisex models, iirc.
Examples for the list above are still present in this thread, however.
I think I'd need to actually see what these posts are responding to.
In my experience when people say these things on dakka the person they're responding to isn't actually doing some innocent difference of opinion based on pure lore-reverence and apolitical views. You only have to scratch the surface and you start getting stuff about cultural-marxism and reactionary buzzwords that make the alarm bells start going AWOOGA AWOOGA AWOOGA.
Of course I'm not saying that applies to you, idk what your views are. But I will say if someone is an intolerant bigot I do absolutely want them excluded from the hobby until they change those views. I don't see how that's so wrong or something to be criticised.
But y'know, this forum has a long held reputation for harbouring really horrible bigoted views amongst its userbase. This is one of the reasons so much discussion has dried up over the years. It's certainly a lot better than it used to be, as are most 40k communities, but the reputation remains and isn't something that was just made up, it has very real history to it.
The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
. . .
It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.
Breton wrote: How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo. . .
1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
From this exchange it seems like the idea that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is a MOD supported view.
So a "lore conservative" like myself is just gonna catch that labeling, I guess?
Read carefully what I wrote in your quote there.
I clearly said there was room for well meaning politics as well as toxic, it is you attaching the word toxic to every use of the word politics, I accept that some people will have genuine beliefs that are well intentioned and not harmful that mean they would prefer to keep gender politics out of 40K. You quotation that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is entirely your own creation and not anything I said.
And if someone feels so strongly that females should not be represented in the hobby that they leave when it’s attempted then that’s an attitude I’m happy to see leave.
My point about there being no debate beyond that is that there is no point rehashing the same lore arguments over and over because they have been shown to be completely baseless. Yourself as a “lore conservative”, you must have some tolerance for lore changes or you wouldn’t have stayed with 40K over all the sweeping lore changes that have been across the decades of its existence. Or do you not acknowledge tau, dark eldar, leagues of votan, every spacemarine tank that isn’t a landraider, rhino or predator all the new and wonderful marine units added over the years??? Where your red line lore wise, just female marines? I suspect, because the lore arguments don’t add up that there are other reasons, but I have no idea how toxic or wholesome they are.
The reason that the lore as is creates a toxic environment is because it enables those that do hold toxic beliefs and gives them authority to enforce those. And THAT needs challenging to create an environment where abuse and exclusion are not tolerated and have no support. And a faction of the community claiming to be the victims whilst attempting to exclude people from the hobby does nothing but reinforce the toxic culture. The only people I want to see out of the hobby are those that will abuse and exclude others, and I’m pretty sure most would agree with that stance.
I was wondering why GW didn't introduce Femarines when they introduced Primaris. It did seem to be the perfect time*. 'True-scale marine' projects were really popular at the time, so I don't think GW expected a backlash against Primaris.
So 'changing too much at once'...I'm not sure that was on their radar.
This is purely speculation - and I stress that I'm not advocating the argument - but are they afraid of hurting the golden goose? Marines still seem to be their biggest seller, hands down. The USA is their largest market, I think.
From what I understand from a couple of statistics podcasts, the actual changes to sales figures seem to be very brief blips whether up or down, despite the 'go woke, go broke' crowd telling us otherwise. However, particularly with...er...policital trends in the USA I'm wondering if GW were worried about how their largest market might react. In this still very male-dominated niche, might they lose more customers to third party solutions than they gain?
Yes, folks would easily be able to trade their unwanted male or female models but I'm sure there would be an outsize wailing and gnashing of teeth. No, it isn't cool if GW is bowing to that kind of pressure.
The obvious counter question: are they losing enough money to third party folks that are supplying Femarines? If they saw that as a big enough market, they'd be crazy not to go after it.
Maybe GW aren't sure what folks want as a kit. I've only gone back about six pages but some folks just want female heads, others want that as a minimum but seem hazy as to what they would want . The comments I've seen seem to dismiss both Sisters and female Stormcast as too feminine for the Marine look.
Personally, I'd make dedicated female marine models the same scale as modern Chaos Marines (which IIRC are a tad smaller than Primaris.) Not other difference to the armour. Then add in suitably scaled female heads. It's an interesting bit of variation to the unit without adding Boob Plate or Lady Ankles.
*They could have made one of the Necron character models female, too. I don't mean with giving her Roboboobs but an optional head with a long metallic hair piece or something.
the challenge for anyone who is anti FSM is basically to find a way to hold that view without it coming across as bad in any one of the myriad ways many other people have held it.
Because, pretty much any argument made that's not pro sex/exclusion related, has a counter. Now you may not agree with that counter but it's still there.
Examples:
The lore is sacred and shouldn't be changed - counter - it has and will continue to be changed and the particular version of the lore you happen to think is the one true lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other.
It's just genetics - counter genetics don't work that way.
And so on.
I'm totally open to someone coming through with an argument that manages to avoid the more gross end of the manosphere's opinions, which ARE there and ARE pushed.
I am also sympathetic to the idea of being 'tarred' with the same brush just because you hold a view that happens to align with someone else's when they have different reasoning, where the reasoning is the problem and not the view itself.
But I struggle to see anything like that when the arguments boil down to
'I personally don't like it and refuse to examine my reasoning further'
or 'i have a view of how sacrosanct GW SHOULD treat lore based on a particular version that was produced between specific time periods and I will act as though that is true, rather than accept that GW changes the lore and evolves and adapts it continuously and my version is just one adapted and changed version that invalidated a previous one'.
As to the gender politics angle - that concept is a creation of people trying to shut down minorities attempting any real demand for equality and equity.
No one wakes up in the morning and says 'gee whiz I'm glad the colour of my skin, genitals or identity are political and used as a football by bigots!' No one TRIED to make those things political.
When you are a minority and suffer at the hands of society, SOCIETY makes your existence political when you dare speak up and society uses said label to try and shut down your self advocacy. Because politics is something you don't HAVE to talk about, so 'no political talk here please' sounds reasonable, until society conflates someone's very existence with politics and suddenly youre literally shutting down someone's ability to talk about themselves, because someone else labeled them political.
What might be worth keeping in mind is that, up until Primaris happened? Marines had barely changed since 2nd Ed, and the wider array of Chapter specific rules.
Yes, they got new units added every edition. But for the most part, their core structure remained pretty much as it was. Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Veteran, Terminator.
And folks seemed pretty happy with that, probably because they kept getting lots of new toys. Mostly tanks, but oddities like the Centurions.
Then came Primaris. Whole new squad types with different strategic roles. And it upset some folk. Why? Ask them. I’m not here to make, champion or decry the next person’s opinion on Primaris.
But from my perspective (and I’ve been around a long, long time), the desire for female Marines has gathered pace only post-Primaris.
It could be that Primaris were such a change to Marines, it was seen as the next logical progression, or a sign that the background was more mutable going forward.
Certainly I’m one to endorse the addition of female Space Marines as being an in-universe development of the overall process, rather than “and they were there all along” thing.
The latter worked for Custards, because Custards are still a relatively new army and prior to that hadn’t received a huge amount of background. Certainly not compared to Marines.
We’ve also since 2017 had the new House Goliath background. Where before they were just Meathead Beefcake, and not a little sexist toward House Escher, they’re now, in essence, a genetic experiment to create a resilient, if purposefully short lived, slave caste which could do all the really incredibly nasty jobs.
For those not familiar? The Goliaths aren’t a natural development, but a co-production between Houses Escher and Van Saar. They started off all male, and importantly all sterile, as a means of control.
Time progressed and life, uh, found a way. And it’s now comprised of Vat Born (not clones, but brought into being by science including rapid maturation, and data slugs to teach them their given role), Nat Born (fairly rare still, but born the old fashioned way. This is where female Goliaths first came about, and were, presumably, originally “hybrids”, as the first mother to a Goliath female couldn’t, by definition, be Goliath) and Unborn.
Unborn are particularly interesting, as there they’re regular humans enhanced to the Goliath standard, including new muscle being physically added. A dangerous process, but as they can help increase the number of Natborn, and introduce greater genetic variety, an important part of House Goliath.
And Unborn can be from any gender, the process isn’t limited to males.
Which, whilst a poor shadow of the Astartes process, suggests with sufficient research and development, the Astartes process could be extended to female recruits.
Cawl is the likely father of such a development, being the one with the keys to that part of the Emperor’s overall toybox.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for tarring others with the same brush? I for one have been very studious in only addressing points raised. I’ve not tried to put words in other’s mouths. I’ve not tried to draw conclusions about a person’s motivations and rationales.
There are a couple of people I’ll admit I’m a bit suspicious of. But I keep those suspicions to myself.
Others have been pretty blatant though, including at least one outright playing the “go woke go broke” card, which I countered with a link to GW’s further record profits and joining of the FTSE 100, which according to some, uh, “sources” shouldn’t have happened because Female Custards were meant to destroy GW’s profits, not join them.
And of course there’s the poster who makes odd claims, and point blank refuses to explain them, despite multiple people asking for clarification, every single time the claim in question is made.
Now that last one? I still don’t draw a conclusion about their motivation or rationale there. I mean, it could be they’ve just genuinely not thought it through that well. And for sake of not poisoning the well, that’s my working assumption, though other assumptions are available.
Hellebore wrote: The lore is sacred and shouldn't be changed - counter - it has and will continue to be changed and the particular version of the lore you happen to think is the one true lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other.
After cash and press this is probably next in GWs list of actual reasons.
They make money selling models but they retain custom as much through investment in the world as hobbycraft and gaming. Sure they can and do change the lore but people get invested in it - GWwants them to get invested in it. Each change can cost that as you are telling your customers that they were always at war with eastasia.
And GW do not promote 'all lores are equally valid' - the old necron lore died on arrive of the new necron lore for example. Female space marines are no different as if/when GW decide to push them they will exist, will have always existed, and anyone who suggests otherwise will be officially, retroactively, wrong. As per female custodes.
Hellebore wrote: The lore is sacred and shouldn't be changed - counter - it has and will continue to be changed and the particular version of the lore you happen to think is the one true lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other.
After cash and press this is probably next in GWs list of actual reasons.
They make money selling models but they retain custom as much through investment in the world as hobbycraft and gaming. Sure they can and do change the lore but people get invested in it - GWwants them to get invested in it. Each change can cost that as you are telling your customers that they were always at war with eastasia.
And GW do not promote 'all lores are equally valid' - the old necron lore died on arrive of the new necron lore for example. Female space marines are no different as if/when GW decide to push them they will exist, will have always existed, and anyone who suggests otherwise will be officially, retroactively, wrong. As per female custodes.
And yet they announced female custodes and their stock price continued to climb. So I don't think they are that scared of backlash.
But yeah, they promote 'the current lore is the one we support with products' approach. So if and when female marines appear, they will be part of the current lore paradigm supported with products.
Custodes aren’t Astartes. And have a different conversion process. One tailored to the individual. How tailored remains a mystery, as we don’t really know what makes a Custodes what they are in the way we do for Astartes.
And so, it’s entirely possible no two Custodes are quite alike on the inside, with it instead being a catch-all title for incredibly high level, bleeding edge of the science, biomancy and genhancement.
Astartes? They’re production line. A process designed to be one size fits some, so the numbers needed for the Crusade were possible. And remember, Legions didn’t just number into the tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands, but could sustain that level through ongoing recruitment.
Now, in 40K the Chapters are incredibly sniffy and choosy about candidates. But I argue that is a direct result of the changes Guilliman put forward, and a strict cap on how many Astartes you can have.
So, Legions were “we’ll take as many as we can convert, arm, equip and supply”. Chapters? “Well, we only have 16 spots open this year, so we might as well be incredibly rigorous, because our recruitment pool is vast compared to how many we need”.
Though ongoing degradation of Geneseed (which Cawl has helped reverse/slow somewhat) is likely another factor compared to Legions.
After all, when your Primarch is still alive, entirely new Geneseed can be cultured from them. So even a “number out my arse for demonstration only” conversion failure rate of 1 in 10 is no big thing. But when you don’t have that failsafe, and your conversion failure rate has increased to another “number out my arse for demonstration only” of 1 in 5? Carefully screening the candidates can help mitigate that risk of failure.
Anyways, sorry for the wibble.
But, with Cawl actively progressing the Astartes project? There’s a more solid route to “and now we can convert female Candidates into full Astartes”. So there’s no need to make it a retcon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, would be a cracking opportunity to address GW’s Very Silly Numbers problem.
After all, as stupid hard as they are, 1,000 Marines is the merest drop in an ocean of staggering proportion.
With Primaris, thus far, showing now signs of turning traitor, could be time to revise that and allow Chapters to enlarge their numbers. Still have a specific cap (say, 5,000), because then they’re all self-enforcing, as any given Chapter will have fewer warriors under its command than any two Chapters sent to bring them to heel/do a Prospero at them.
A.T. wrote: Female space marines are no different as if/when GW decide to push them they will exist, will have always existed, and anyone who suggests otherwise will be officially, retroactively, wrong. As per female custodes.
I think you're making a rather large assumption, here. And even if they did, so what? I have little faith that it would have a negative impact on the share price, and anyone who decides to light their models on fire in response will just be that one Dark Elf player we all roundly mocked after the End Times.
Hellebore wrote: And yet they announced female custodes and their stock price continued to climb. So I don't think they are that scared of backlash
The popularity of marines is the make or break of the companies bottom line, particularly in other media. Of course they are scared of any backlash that might put that at risk.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: (Replying to A.T.) Yeah. Except….no.
Custodes aren’t Astartes. And ---(extended lore post)----
I do not know which part of my post you are replying to - that GW has a vested interest in people being invested in their lore?
That doesn't change the fact that you're making an assumption. You're assuming that just because they did it with Custodes* they would do the same thing with Astartes. I, personally, think they would go with, "Cawl did it" since that would be the path of least resistance.
*We can debate until the cows come home as to whether this was a clarification or a full-on retcon, and frankly I lean toward the latter. I, personally, would NOT retcon in female Astartes, since there is a much larger body of background for the creation of Astartes as opposed to Custodes.
Perhaps just crossed wires here. I don't believe that GW will support a 'this lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other' position, that's all.
They will put out new lore / retcon / whatever and that will be gospel. Until they change it again.
@MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.
No, forget Cawl. Actually let the Chaos Marines be the inventive, rule-breaking ones for once.
Have Fabius Bile crack the Femarines ‘problem’. Imagine how smug he could be having cracked the ‘unsolvable’ barriers, double the CSM recruitment pool and wind up any legionnaires that think only boys can be marines.
Start adding in Chaos Femarine options.
Briefly show the Imperium as the tradition-bound facistisy twonks they are before Cawl is ordered to get loyalist Marines on par.
Give everyone the option.
At the very least it’s telling a story, rather than just a dull retcon.
The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
. . .
It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.
Breton wrote: How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo. . .
1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
From this exchange it seems like the idea that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is a MOD supported view.
So a "lore conservative" like myself is just gonna catch that labeling, I guess?
Read carefully what I wrote in your quote there.
I clearly said there was room for well meaning politics as well as toxic, it is you attaching the word toxic to every use of the word politics, I accept that some people will have genuine beliefs that are well intentioned and not harmful that mean they would prefer to keep gender politics out of 40K. You quotation that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is entirely your own creation and not anything I said.
Fair call, I misread that. My bad. There was something more blatant earlier in the thread, but that wasn't you.
My point about there being no debate beyond that is that there is no point rehashing the same lore arguments over and over because they have been shown to be completely baseless. Yourself as a “lore conservative”, you must have some tolerance for lore changes or you wouldn’t have stayed with 40K over all the sweeping lore changes that have been across the decades of its existence. Or do you not acknowledge tau, dark eldar, leagues of votan, every spacemarine tank that isn’t a landraider, rhino or predator all the new and wonderful marine units added over the years??? Where your red line lore wise, just female marines? I suspect, because the lore arguments don’t add up that there are other reasons, but I have no idea how toxic or wholesome they are.
Hehe. I have to say it's you who are making assumptions here though. I've been vocal about many, many changes over the years. Primaris, Centurions, the addition of SM flyers to the army. The changes making Necrons into "Newcrons", degradations or shifts in statlines changing factional balances etc. and I disliked it when the Salamanders went from being "black" to "coal-black-mutation". I dislike generally moving the story forward, The Great Rift, the returning of the Primarchs, and to be fair, I'm not too keen on anything that isn't the classic Land Raider loadout either, although it's easier to waive that one because it HAS been 10,000 years and chassis-weapon-variants has some history. If you want to get nitty gritty, I didn't mind things like Tau and Dark Eldar because they didn't actually change any pre-existing lore or themes that I'm aware of, they just added to the 40K tapestry.
And my money has already gone where my mouth is. I don't give any money to GW anymore. My collection is extensive and I've got what I want, and if I really want anything else I get it secondhand. When I field my Space Marines they'll look quite a bit like an army that could have been fielded in 2nd edition. And when I field my Eldar infantry, they'll be all metal.
Mind you, I'm vocal about the FSM not because I'm particularly passionate about it, but more because the topic is interesting. Can there be products or stories aimed primarily at young men? I think so. Are Space Marines one of those products? I think so. Does a fictional universe have a right to impose restrictions or sensibilities some find problematic? Spicy, but yeah they have that right. Where's the cutoff? Oooh, I dunno.
Andykp wrote: The reason that the lore as is creates a toxic environment is because it enables those that do hold toxic beliefs and gives them authority to enforce those. And THAT needs challenging to create an environment where abuse and exclusion are not tolerated and have no support. And a faction of the community claiming to be the victims whilst attempting to exclude people from the hobby does nothing but reinforce the toxic culture. The only people I want to see out of the hobby are those that will abuse and exclude others, and I’m pretty sure most would agree with that stance.
I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.
More/better female representation can be had in 40K without resorting to lore changes. It's already happening and I'm all for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: @MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.
I actually don't know where progression was described prior to the Ward 5th edition book, or what it was.
If Primaris is a thing, surely there's enough leeway in the lore to adjust previous geneseed adaptations to allow for non-male implementations. Even if FSM were not possible before, could Primaris not make this viable?
Also, more representation in models surely leads to more non-male players joining in.
After 32 pages of comments, some of which I have not managed to read, I'd hope these have been mentioned already.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: @MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.
I was referring to the army structure. Bits of the background have been changed/clarified, but the squad types remained the same until Primaris.
More/better female representation can be had in 40K without resorting to lore changes. It's already happening and I'm all for it.
I think the only problem with that is that GWs attention across the 40K range is so uneven, to the point that it basically feels like you're just the NPC baddies if you don't play Space Marines. Space Marines seemingly get new releases every couple of months, whereas the female faction that is largely pointed to as providing representation literally went untouched for, what, 20+ years...
Insectum7 wrote: I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.
With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.
With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.
I think it is far easier to do if the bigotry being depicted is "allegorical fantasy bigotry" rather than discrimination of the same groups that face discrimination in the real life.
Insectum7 wrote: I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.
With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.
Broadly speaking most people understand that the people behind Warhammer don't actually support child soldiers, slavery, forced sterilization, genocide, regulated breeding, no holidays for workers, etc...
The factories at GWHQ are also not a Necromunda factory - GW has health and safety; they don't spill pollution everywhere; they aren't killing their staff with unsafe work practice and deadly chemicals
Basically if you believe GW supports the values and ideals of the Imperium of Man chances are that's more a reflection on the person than it is on GW. Everyone else has the maturity to separate fiction from reality.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: @MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.
I was referring to the army structure. Bits of the background have been changed/clarified, but the squad types remained the same until Primaris.
FSM won’t change the squad types, either, though. I’m not sure why you’re singling out that one kind of change.
It was a pretty big deal at the time when basic marines went from the raw hopefuls to the seasoned old hands. People who like to model their units befitting their character, or who write chapter lore and name their dudes, were thrown for a loop. It may not have been as big as Primaris or Newcrons, but it was the first big break n SM lore I can remember causing a backlash.
My argument here is that up until the advent of the Primaris Marines, the overall army structure of Marines had remained pretty constant, just with new dooberies added here and there.
And during that period, the calls for Female Marines weren’t as numerous.
Primaris were a major shake up, as I could now field an army entirely devoid of those classic squad types, with no completely direct analogy squads.
And so, when that shake up occurred? It all felt a bit more fair game. Marines weren’t the same Marines anymore. The setting’s most popular option had undergone a fundamental change. And so, adding Female Marines no longer felt quite so distant.
This is just my take on it of course. As ever I’m not presenting as an authority.
My point is that making some of them FSM doesn’t affect the kind of structure you’re talking about at all. It’s more like the kind of lore shifts that have already happened. Compared to Primaris, the change is minor.
Primaris involved the creation (or refinement, depending on how you look at it) entirely new organs, which create the improvements in the finished products.
Cracking a chromosomal adaptation doesn’t seem necessarily more complex or dramatic.
I mean the change of allowing for FSM is minor compared to making Primaris marines, in that it won’t change the structure of the army the way Primaris did.
I brought up that Primaris were a significant change, and it’s after that change that we saw Female Marines become a more popular request.
It had always been there, but with such a significant overhaul, it seemed more possible, particularly as the Astartes conversion process is no longer sacrosanct.
And so, at the time of Primaris, the impetus to extend it to Female candidates was lesser. And so either wasn’t thought of, was discounted etc.
I think it had more to do with the general rise of women in gaming in general that happened to coincide prior to the Primaris revamp.
The MMO era brought with it a huge need for character creators and with that a huge opportunity for people to represent themselves in games. Mobile gaming created a huge surge in different kinds of games. Combined, the demographic exploded beyond the bounds of what it had previously confined itself to.
I think for a lot of people it was pretty eye opening. Suddenly instead of being something hidden to avoid pushing girls away, games became something a lot of people shared. I think its pretty natural to then look to other hobbies you enjoy and ask why women seem to still treat them the way videogames were just a few years ago.
Insectum7 wrote: I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.
With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.
I honestly don't know how you get away from the gleeful over-the-top-violent/oppressive mentality without fundamentally changing the character of 40K. I feel a big part of the draw is that it's still a universe where religious fervor is often played a bit for laughs. "Burn heretic", "Cleanse with holy fire", along with "Blood for the blood god" are fairly iconic 40K characterizations. Then there's the more subtle "Knowledge is power, guard it well.", "An open mind is like a fortress unbarred and unguarded", or the "only those who prosper can truly judge what is sane", which all speak to a fearful/oppressive mentality. I don't know how you square that circle with "mainstream" without seriously chipping away at the 40k "pathos", for lack of a better term.
Like, how you remove the grimdark from 40k and still have it be 40k? It's where grimdark comes from.
Insectum7 wrote: I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.
With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.
I honestly don't know how you get away from the gleeful over-the-top-violent/oppressive mentality without fundamentally changing the character of 40K. I feel a big part of the draw is that it's still a universe where religious fervor is often played a bit for laughs. "Burn heretic", "Cleanse with holy fire", along with "Blood for the blood god" are fairly iconic 40K characterizations. Then there's the more subtle "Knowledge is power, guard it well.", "An open mind is like a fortress unbarred and unguarded", or the "only those who prosper can truly judge what is sane", which all speak to a fearful/oppressive mentality. I don't know how you square that circle with "mainstream" without seriously chipping away at the 40k "pathos", for lack of a better term.
Like, how you remove the grimdark from 40k and still have it be 40k? It's where grimdark comes from.
You can't remove it.
Yes you could "sanitise" it into something different ,but it would be a fundamentally different thing by the end and would lose all of its original appeal.
Now you could make it different and still popular - sure that's possible.
But it wouldn't be the same thing and right now the over-the-top grim dark is selling like crazy for GW so they've zero pressure to change and all the encouragement to keep going!
Yeah. I totally understand the concern that going mainstream might mean obscuring the satire or the no longer highlighting that imperium = bad. But even the more popular sources of 40k media like Space Marine 2 don't really shy away from it. Like, sure, SM2 doesn't have you murdering the population of a local hab block for fear of chaos corruption, but we still have lobotomized cyborg zombies doing physical labor, guardsmen getting executed for cowardice, etc.
If the average 'casual' that is being attracted by reductive clickbait tiktoks and youtube videos is anything to go by, that ship has well and truly sailed.
Plenty of fans of 40k have been enjoying it for years unironically assuming the imperium and space marines are heroes, that the ends justifies the means makes the imperium 'gee shucks we just have to be bad because of this carefully constructed narrative that makes anything else fail' a sad good guy, doing terrible things but ultimately being noble while doing it.
The satire is not really there anymore except as a shield to deflect fash-sympathy criticism, so that GW can post about how it's for everyone and is clearly satirical. then go right back to mainlining heroic imperium marines forever.
It's a boiler plate disclaimer used in the event a schoolshooter says he was just killing heretics like Titus.
It's not their fault your comprehension skills weren't good enough to understand how clearly satirical it was and never to be taken seriously - here buy this new dozen book series about how the imperium is the only hope for humanity.
If even some of your consumers are taking it straight, then your messaging isn't clear enough. If GW truly wants it to be the satire it was originally, they need to be very very obvious about it.
The lack of clearly horrible quotes about open minds, xenocide, ignorance as virtue etc has removed a lot of these lampshade hanging moments.
Wasn't the Satire basically back in the Rogue Trader days when it was less Satire and more copying all the other Satire and creations of the time and the general theme.
40K has been its own Grimdark setting for ages now and within the setting itself it takes it seriously not in satire.
As I said earlier GW doesn't have to change the media to "appease the masses" they are already appeasing a big enough market that their capacity can only just keep up.
Sure there are real world hate groups that also like 40K. They might even try and justify it somehow; but I think if you go through the motion of trying to suppress anything hate groups might possibly one day potentially use in a hateful manner you'll have to sanitise everything and in the end the hate group wins cause they'll just use something else to attack with.
Again 40K is a fiction, a fantasy. It's up to those who engage with it to have the maturity to separate reality from fiction.
The very same way that WWII games don't remove the Nazis; or GRRM doesn't have to write whole pages of essays on how he doesn't condone the actions that took place at the Red Wedding.
Plus lets pause and remember once more that GW is already being popular and approaching mainstream and its doing it without making sweeping changes.
Overread wrote: The very same way that WWII games don't remove the Nazis; or GRRM doesn't have to write whole pages of essays on how he doesn't condone the actions that took place at the Red Wedding.
The WWII games that don't remove Nazis, aren't painting the Nazis as heroes. Likewise, GRRM doesn't make heroes of the Freys.
In contrast, GW does often portray the Imperium as the good guys. Heroes who are doing what is necessary. Not as the unnecessarily zealous extremists they are.
Overread wrote: The very same way that WWII games don't remove the Nazis; or GRRM doesn't have to write whole pages of essays on how he doesn't condone the actions that took place at the Red Wedding.
The WWII games that don't remove Nazis, aren't painting the Nazis as heroes. Likewise, GRRM doesn't make heroes of the Freys.
In contrast, GW does often portray the Imperium as the good guys. Heroes who are doing what is necessary. Not as the unnecessarily zealous extremists they are.
Um, The Imperium portrays the Imperium as the good guys; nobody wants to think they're the bad guys, and propping yourself up as the hero is how you dupe the masses into following you into Hell.
GW just tells the stories from the Imperium's perspective, flawed as it is.
BorderCountess wrote: Um, The Imperium portrays the Imperium as the good guys; nobody wants to think they're the bad guys, and propping yourself up as the hero is how you dupe the masses into following you into Hell.
GW just tells the stories from the Imperium's perspective, flawed as it is.
I 100% agree that this is probably the intent.
But IMO, that intent is becoming lost. And I don't just mean, lost on consumers with poor media comprehension. I mean, lost by GW themselves. To the point that product descriptions on the website describe imperial forces as "noble".
Now, maybe (though I doubt it), the GW website's product descriptions are meta/ironically supposed to be written from the Imperial perspective. But, if true (and, as I say, I doubt it), then that's a very unwise choice if they actually expect anyone to interpret it that way. I think the truth is much simpler: GW (or, at least, important elements at GW) keep forgetting that the Imperium aren't noble. Either way, the suffocating frequency with which they're portrayed as such, means that any defense of "oh, we don't actually believe this voice we're writing in" would ring hollow.
Overread wrote: The very same way that WWII games don't remove the Nazis; or GRRM doesn't have to write whole pages of essays on how he doesn't condone the actions that took place at the Red Wedding.
The WWII games that don't remove Nazis, aren't painting the Nazis as heroes. Likewise, GRRM doesn't make heroes of the Freys.
In contrast, GW does often portray the Imperium as the good guys. Heroes who are doing what is necessary. Not as the unnecessarily zealous extremists they are.
Um, The Imperium portrays the Imperium as the good guys; nobody wants to think they're the bad guys, and propping yourself up as the hero is how you dupe the masses into following you into Hell.
GW just tells the stories from the Imperium's perspective, flawed as it is.
And as GW are the creators of the imperium and how it acts, GW are the ones portraying them that way. And if they aren't explicit about it, the reader is not expected to assume that's what they're doing anyway. Few of the books published by BL have any preface that lays out how this is a propaganda piece by the munitorum, or a framing device of a administratum official correcting the story to make it seem heroic. They're almost all told from the perspective of space marines doing whatever mission they've been ordered to do and being badass at it.
EDIT: What Matt says. The intent may be there, but it's so thin now that only people immersed in it long enough will see it and not always then. When you're playing with questionable things like these as entertainment, it behoves you to be crystal clear with your audience. We have seen plenty of examples how not doing so impacts people. Especially when children are one of the core demographics, people who don't have sophisticated enough comprehension or experience to understand things like this.
Overread wrote: The very same way that WWII games don't remove the Nazis; or GRRM doesn't have to write whole pages of essays on how he doesn't condone the actions that took place at the Red Wedding.
The WWII games that don't remove Nazis, aren't painting the Nazis as heroes. Likewise, GRRM doesn't make heroes of the Freys.
In contrast, GW does often portray the Imperium as the good guys. Heroes who are doing what is necessary. Not as the unnecessarily zealous extremists they are.
Um, The Imperium portrays the Imperium as the good guys; nobody wants to think they're the bad guys, and propping yourself up as the hero is how you dupe the masses into following you into Hell.
GW just tells the stories from the Imperium's perspective, flawed as it is.
And as GW are the creators of the imperium and how it acts, GW are the ones portraying them that way. And if they aren't explicit about it, the reader is not expected to assume that's what they're doing anyway. Few of the books published by BL have any preface that lays out how this is a propaganda piece by the munitorum, or a framing device of a administratum official correcting the story to make it seem heroic. They're almost all told from the perspective of space marines doing whatever mission they've been ordered to do and being badass at it.
EDIT: What Matt says. The intent may be there, but it's so thin now that only people immersed in it long enough will see it and not always then. When you're playing with questionable things like these as entertainment, it behoves you to be crystal clear with your audience. We have seen plenty of examples how not doing so impacts people. Especially when children are one of the core demographics, people who don't have sophisticated enough comprehension or experience to understand things like this.
I think this is incredibly disingenous and frankly insulting to people enjoying the basics of escapism in entertainment that you basically think they're braindead enough to not be able to distinguish fiction vs reality and you're veering strongly into the debunked argument of "playing video games cause children/people to be violent" where you literally have to write out how people should feel about everything taking place because you don't trust people to be able to read subtext or understand that the setting is a vehicle for having fun. Do you need flashing reminders every time you watch Looney Tunes to "DO NOT USE DYNAMITE ON ROADRUNNERS" or an annoying meta-narrator that keeps stating how violence is bad and you shouldn't use it as a last resort every time Batman beats a goon on screen?
Do you think RPG's (tabletop or video game wise) where you're allowed to kill, maim, or otherwise do terrible things shouldn't be allowed or either heavily censored or you as a player are constantly being blasted by the DM or the game that you're a bad person for doing so?
I never said anything of the sort and glamorising fighting monsters is in no way equivalent to normalising fascism as the heroic ideal of your setting.
Your argument is a false equivalence based on a sweeping standardisation. Just because you call something entertainment doesn't suddenly mean they all affect people identically. Watching people get murdered used to be entertainment. I'm pretty sure you'd take a dim view to a game where you play a child molester and you're rewarded for it or even exist in a setting where for some reason it's the only way to save humanity. Similarly, play a game being rewarded and supported in being hans lander from inglorious Basterds and do what he does in a straight unapologetic fashion.
You examine things on their individual merits not on what label they have. Killing monsters and getting buried treasure are highly fantastical and separate from reality. Mixing real-world ideologies and behaviours into the fiction that are relatable to the audience DO have an impact, which is what childhood cartoons like bluey work from. Normalise intolerance, normalise fascism and glorify it in your fiction and it's a lot less clear than fighting imaginary creatures and buried treasure.
And we already have concrete real-world examples of fans of 40k using it to treat trans and gender diverse people, women and other minorities terribly on social media. The very reason gw put up their 'its all satire guys' message was specifically because a fan was emboldened to literally wear his intolerance on his sleeve.
I never said it should be banned for the kids, I said they need to be CLEAR in how they portray their products that they are bad if they want people to actually think they are bad.
And it is abundantly clear that a worryingly large proportion of the western world CAN'T tell fantasy from reality, or we wouldn't have the ridiculous amount of woowoo bs, conspiracy theories and ivamectin eating, flat earth spouting lunacy we currently have.
Grimskul wrote: I think this is incredibly disingenous and frankly insulting to people enjoying the basics of escapism in entertainment that you basically think they're braindead enough to not be able to distinguish fiction vs reality ...
I didn't read that at all from Hellebore's post (and I certainly didn't write it in mine). I haven't seen any accusation of confusion of fiction and reality.
The erosion of distinction that was discussed isn't between fiction and reality, but between author's voice and character's voice. And I don't think you have to be "braindead" to confuse those two things when distinction is lacking.
Grimskul wrote: I think this is incredibly disingenous and frankly insulting to people enjoying the basics of escapism in entertainment that you basically think they're braindead enough to not be able to distinguish fiction vs reality ...
I didn't read that at all from Hellebore's post (and I certainly didn't write it in mine). I haven't seen any accusation of confusion of fiction and reality.
The erosion of distinction that was discussed isn't between fiction and reality, but between author's voice and character's voice. And I don't think you have to be "braindead" to confuse those two things when distinction is lacking.
It wasn't my original intent, but the discussion around the media literacy of the populace is itself an important issue and leads to poor outcomes in a range of areas, like medicine.
The tldr of it for me is - if gw cares that their customers understand the imperium is bad and they shouldn't venerate it, they are doing a terrible job and it doesn't surprise me that many people unironcially see marines as true noble heroes. I've no dog in the fight, but I think it's pretty disingenuous of GW to post about the game being for everyone without any effort to lampshade these things in the game itself. That's all my comments were about.
GW is free to do whatever it wants, nobleify marines, glorify the imperium..or not. But their messaging is pretty mixed in the subject and imo they need to pick a lane and be very clear about it.
But who's going to buy a book where the protagonist kicks dogs all the time in addition to killing the more evil demons? It's always very convenient that the protagonist never gets depicted ethnically cleansing a planet because their genome failed its purity test, slaughtering children because their parents were exposed to chaos etc. you know, the things we are told the imperium does which makes it bad and would thus hang a lampshade on it...
Hellebore wrote: If the average 'casual' that is being attracted by reductive clickbait tiktoks and youtube videos is anything to go by, that ship has well and truly sailed.
Plenty of fans of 40k have been enjoying it for years unironically assuming the imperium and space marines are heroes, that the ends justifies the means makes the imperium 'gee shucks we just have to be bad because of this carefully constructed narrative that makes anything else fail' a sad good guy, doing terrible things but ultimately being noble while doing it.
The satire is not really there anymore except as a shield to deflect fash-sympathy criticism, so that GW can post about how it's for everyone and is clearly satirical. then go right back to mainlining heroic imperium marines forever.
It's a boiler plate disclaimer used in the event a schoolshooter says he was just killing heretics like Titus.
It's not their fault your comprehension skills weren't good enough to understand how clearly satirical it was and never to be taken seriously - here buy this new dozen book series about how the imperium is the only hope for humanity.
If even some of your consumers are taking it straight, then your messaging isn't clear enough. If GW truly wants it to be the satire it was originally, they need to be very very obvious about it.
The lack of clearly horrible quotes about open minds, xenocide, ignorance as virtue etc has removed a lot of these lampshade hanging moments.
Sad but true. This is the actual biggest issue with he current GW lore, and like I said in the thread about changes you'd make, this would be the main thing I'd change were I in charge. Of course not to make the Imperium good, but make it explicit that they're not the good guys, that it is corrupt, stupid and ineffective, and even that if chaos is terrible too, they might actually have a pretty good point in trying to bring the Imperium down.
Also, female marines, LGBT representation etc are also good tools to make it clear that it is not about apologia of real bigotry. People who unironically idolise Imperium hate that sort of stuff, so it is an easy and effective to way to get the message across.
And we already have concrete real-world examples of fans of 40k using it to treat trans and gender diverse people, women and other minorities terribly on social media. The very reason gw put up their 'its all satire guys' message was specifically because a fan was emboldened to literally wear his intolerance on his sleeve.
And I'd argue that's as far as GW had to go. After that the Warhammer community can just ignore/oust a person who is behaving intolerably.
That person would have used any hint of lore/story or whatever from Warhammer or anything else. The key thing is that they are looking for a way or means to insult. This is one of those "you can't beat stupid" situations where you can't lower yourself to their level to win. You could change all the lore of 40K and they'd still find some way to connect something they enjoy with their political/social ideals; even to the point of "Well 40K is a universe so I made my own faction who are racist haters and its allowed because GW says I can make my own stuff up so its Cannon" or such.
And it is abundantly clear that a worryingly large proportion of the western world CAN'T tell fantasy from reality, or we wouldn't have the ridiculous amount of woowoo bs, conspiracy theories and ivamectin eating, flat earth spouting lunacy we currently have.
This isn't a western thing this is just a people thing. The important distinction is that GW doesn't present itself as fact. It's not trying to convince people the Earth is Flat as a proven point of fact; its a toy. Warhammer is a Toy brand making toys with stories behind them.
As I said if someone thinks that is reality then that is on that person not on the Warhammer community, GW, 40K lore or such
I don't disagree with any of that. But I don't think it does GW any favours for there to be ambiguity on whether the imperium is good or bad. Although if it's just a toy, why is it not ok to have space nazis as scifi toys for kids? The difference between alternate future space nazis and the imperium isn't that great, because they both purport to represent our future. One just has the swastikas filed off - is that enough to make it so fantastical that no one can connect it to reality? Would it change anything if the imperium was built off a holy text the emperor venerated called Main Kimf? Everything else on Terra references real countries, peoples and ideologies.
There is a line we have, it's just a subjective one and often falls outside the things we enjoy ourselves.
Like I said, they used to have very clear lamp shading text spread throughout their books that were highly satirical - the 'an open mind is like a bastion with its gates unbarred', 'only the insane prosper, only those who prosper can judge what is sane', etc. Quotes from people in setting that shows their true colours.
The more at odds with modern sensibilities those quotes were, the more obvious that this was a flying rodent gak insane setting that people really shouldn't want to live in or emulate. But we've lost all that and now we're prose-led, ie only characters talking about themselves and the righteousness of their actions and conveniently their actions are always positioned as heroic, or necessary no matter how evil they actually are.
I don't see it getting any better as it moves into the mainstream via Amazon.
Hellebore wrote: I don't disagree with any of that. But I don't think it does GW any favours for there to be ambiguity on whether the imperium is good or bad. Although if it's just a toy, why is it not ok to have space nazis as scifi toys for kids? The difference between alternate future space nazis and the imperium isn't that great, because they both purport to represent our future. One just has the swastikas filed off - is that enough to make it so fantastical that no one can connect it to reality? Would it change anything if the imperium was built off a holy text the emperor venerated called Main Kimf? Everything else on Terra references real countries, peoples and ideologies.
Are Space Marine players indoctrinated when they buy into the army?
I've not played SM ever so I don't know, but playing all the other factions I have across the other games I was never forced to join the ideologies of those factions.
I feel like this argument is heading down the same pathway as "video games make people violent and create school-shooters". Something that you can propose, but which has no actual evidence of being outside of an exceptionally tiny number of people for whom existing mental issues were the primary cause.
Heck look at Helldivers 2 which is promoting violent genocide in the name of spreading democracy and in-game they aren't hiding any of it. It's right there fully bold in your face.
And yes if you directly based the Imperium off a real world faction like the Nazis complete with direct easily referenced parallels and iconography it would change things. For starters the German market is likely to be locked out unless you changed those elements. After that who knows - there's Konflict 42 doing alternate WW2 history; there's also likely a bunch of other wargames and such in the market doing likewise. But that's moving the goalposts a bit - the Imperium of Man isn't copying or trying to hold up a single recent historical group - its a mishmash of everything.
Like I said, they used to have very clear lamp shading text spread throughout their books that were highly satirical - the 'an open mind is like a bastion with its gates unbarred', 'only the insane prosper, only those who prosper can judge what is sane', etc. Quotes from people in setting that shows their true colours.
I think some of what you're seeing is less "GW changing for mainstream" and more just a change in how they do codex. You might also have noticed that the last couple have done away with the page/half a page per model on in-world lore and now they only do a bit on the newly added models instead of the full army. Something that was disappointing to me when I got a new army codex, but all the previously released models didn't have any entries for digging into their lore even a little bit.
Hellebore wrote: But we've lost all that and now we're prose-led, ie only characters talking about themselves and the righteousness of their actions and conveniently their actions are always positioned as heroic, or necessary no matter how evil they actually are.
To this point- if you look at popular 40K media right now, you've got a Secret Level episode that is 100% bolter porn without a hint of self-criticism or satire, and Space Marine 2 which is pretty much the same thing in interactive form. People call SM2 still grimdark because it features servitors and summary executions- no doubt accompanied by breathless twenty-page essays on Lexicanum about how the logistical situation of the Imperium justifies the use of both practices against overwhelming odds blah blah blah. Meanwhile Call of Duty of all friggin' things had a level where you gun down civilians in an airport to highlight just how bad the bad guys are.
I'm not really worried about kids getting radicalized by 40K or whatever, but I do think we're seeing a distinct and deliberate shift from a satirical setting, where the Imperium is gakky because it's full of gakky people doing gakky things, to a serious setting, where the Imperium is gakky because of external factors and being a genocidal fascist is objectively The Right Thing To Do. And when they get called out on it, GW claims satire, but... I don't see it anymore. They gave Guilliman a freaking halo on the cover of the rulebook.
And I think that's reflected in this thread, which is why I brought the topic up, Insectum. Marines as a boys-only club is in-character with a reading of the Imperium as a backwards, ultra-conservative institution that works against its own interests and where you would never want to be a cog in its machine. But the drive for inclusivity demonstrates that that's not how Marines are perceived. They're the protagonists, they're the Good Guys, you want to be them and you want to see yourself in them. The grimdark is being sanded off in favor of a more mainstream-friendly image, more edgy than evil.
Don't forget the best Space Marine game released in the past few years: Boltgun.
But I digress.
Since 5th edition, the Company (Games Workshop, not Weyland-Yutani) has painted the Ultramarines with the positive paintbrush.
The Ultramarines have been honorable, have a sector of space that the common people don't suffer as bad as most of the rest of the Imperium, and have been used as the poster boys for pretty much everything (from movies to video games to merchandise).
They really are the outlier in the GrimDark Imperium, and that's why they are a safer choice when introducing new people to the universe.
And yes if you directly based the Imperium off a real world faction like the Nazis complete with direct easily referenced parallels and iconography it would change things. For starters the German market is likely to be locked out unless you changed those elements. After that who knows - there's Konflict 42 doing alternate WW2 history; there's also likely a bunch of other wargames and such in the market doing likewise. But that's moving the goalposts a bit - the Imperium of Man isn't copying or trying to hold up a single recent historical group - its a mishmash of everything.
My point was that the concept that entertainment is beholden to nothing and can be produced with abandon is not entirely true and we do draw lines on things, and we are happy and consider it normal TO draw lines like that. My question was, how close a mishmash of realworld things do you need to get before it crosses that line? And if GW itself agrees that the imperium is terrible because of these horrible real world ideologies why are they failing at writing their material to reflect that? My comments are true for any entertainment product, but we're talking about GW.
It's hypocritical - condemn the imperium in your products, not just as PR spin when someone does something that could make your product look bad. Or embrace the edginess of turning fascists into heroes and don't bother to pretend otherwise. GW are trying to have it both ways.
Because characters like Titus, Eisenhorn, Gaunt, Ventris - they're all enforcers of the imperium's ideology, unapologetically and are thus themselves fascist 'heroes'. The nuremburg trials outlined very precisely how 'just following orders' is not a protected position, so I have no problem at all condemning those characters for their actions on behalf of their repressive regime. Being a nice guy and still following Hitler's orders doesn't protect you.
Do you think anyone reading those characters truly thinks they are villains/bad people though? That they are the Himmlers, Goerings and Geobels of the imperium - the 'heroes' of a terrible regime? Do you think we should try to defend them AS real heroes and not villains? Would that not be apologism?
I suppose what I'm asking is - what do you think the 'correct' (how you do, or how you think we should) way for a consumer approaching the imperium and its fiction is? Should they be approaching it as reading a story about the equivalent of an SS officer who just so happens to pause their eugenic genocides of sections of humanity to kill things that are more violent than them? Or a poor hero caught in the machinery of a regime they can't get out of and who commits atrocities because they 'have' to, which is ok?
I don't have an answer, but I see people say 'we all know the imperium is bad and GW says so' but I don't really see that reflected in how people consume such 'bad' fiction. To analogise it looks a bit like dealing with a racist uncle - we ignore the terribleness of their ideology because we can get along talking football (badass murdering of demons and aliens).... leaving said uncle to continue to spout their intolerance unchecked because he can also talk Gronk for hours.
Hellebore wrote: But we've lost all that and now we're prose-led, ie only characters talking about themselves and the righteousness of their actions and conveniently their actions are always positioned as heroic, or necessary no matter how evil they actually are.
To this point- if you look at popular 40K media right now, you've got a Secret Level episode that is 100% bolter porn without a hint of self-criticism or satire, and Space Marine 2 which is pretty much the same thing in interactive form. People call SM2 still grimdark because it features servitors and summary executions- no doubt accompanied by breathless twenty-page essays on Lexicanum about how the logistical situation of the Imperium justifies the use of both practices against overwhelming odds blah blah blah. Meanwhile Call of Duty of all friggin' things had a level where you gun down civilians in an airport to highlight just how bad the bad guys are.
I'm not really worried about kids getting radicalized by 40K or whatever, but I do think we're seeing a distinct and deliberate shift from a satirical setting, where the Imperium is gakky because it's full of gakky people doing gakky things, to a serious setting, where the Imperium is gakky because of external factors and being a genocidal fascist is objectively The Right Thing To Do. And when they get called out on it, GW claims satire, but... I don't see it anymore. They gave Guilliman a freaking halo on the cover of the rulebook.
And I think that's reflected in this thread, which is why I brought the topic up, Insectum. Marines as a boys-only club is in-character with a reading of the Imperium as a backwards, ultra-conservative institution that works against its own interests and where you would never want to be a cog in its machine. But the drive for inclusivity demonstrates that that's not how Marines are perceived. They're the protagonists, they're the Good Guys, you want to be them and you want to see yourself in them. The grimdark is being sanded off in favor of a more mainstream-friendly image, more edgy than evil.
I agree that there's a perception of Marines being "the good guys" on a surface level at least, and I'd say that's not too out of step with older editions either. I think back to the famous 2nd edition box art with the bright red Blood Angel Captain/Sergeant. And I agree that the dark underbelly isn't quite as forward as it was in the years of RT through . . . 4th-ish? I definitely don't like Guilliman-With-A-Halo either. But I wonder if the grimdark has actually brightened once you dig into it. It seems to me that it's still there, but the candy coated shell is shinier/thicker these days. Or maybe there's just more of it because GW is in full on marketing mode with all the modern frills.
But then we get into perceptions vs. substance, and whether or not to change the substance to fit the perceptions, or leave the substance as-is and use the dissonance to add tension to the exploration of the setting. This dissonance seems like the stance GW has had throughout it's history really. "Marines are good! Check out these awesome heroes!" and then you dig in and it becomes "Oh . . . Oh nooo. . . they do what now?! . . . Oh no no noooo" And then you have a bunch of people wanting to play Salamanders because they're the "nice ones". I think that dissonance is good. Maybe more than good. Important.
And I have to apologize catbarf, this deserves a better/longer reply and I just can't do that right now.
Edit: I also have to say I've never been into the whole self-insert thing/argument either. Maybe it's just me, but the overall character of a faction has been what drives me beyond appearance and playstyle.
For me, BL IS NOT LORE. Video games ARE NOT LORE. It's all fan-fic, and most of it is wrong. The game, however, will ALWAYS set you straight.
There were plenty of stories of Imperial atrocity in the campaign books of 9th. When everyone was complaining about the shift in tone, I didn't really see it, because only the game mattered.
Did I read some BL stuff?
Sure.But it never connected to the game. That's not to say it wasn't worth reading- it is. But it's like watching the Rick and Morty Anime: it's good, but it is its own thing.
I don’t really see the imperium as fascist, that never rang true with me, I see them as much more of a Stalinist regime. Much more utilitarian than the nazis, yes they are intolerant and xenophobic but only to protect the state, the state (imperium) is all. Which is may the no female marines makes no sense. The imperium being very utilitarian and Stalinist is very happy to make use all people in the state.
And to be clear calling it Stalinist is not a good thing, they were as evil as the nazis, and so is the imperium.
Andykp wrote: I don’t really see the imperium as fascist, that never rang true with me, I see them as much more of a Stalinist regime. Much more utilitarian than the nazis, yes they are intolerant and xenophobic but only to protect the state, the state (imperium) is all. Which is may the no female marines makes no sense. The imperium being very utilitarian and Stalinist is very happy to make use all people in the state.
And to be clear calling it Stalinist is not a good thing, they were as evil as the nazis, and so is the imperium.
Yeah, no. The Imperium is fascist. The Imperium seeks to maintain a highly stratified society ruled by literal noble bloodlines where power is hereditary. That's about as far from Stalin as you can get who hated rich landowners so much that he had them all killed.
The state was everything in Nazi Germany as well. It also utilised a strict hierarchical structure for its society based on nazi pseudo-biology which separated the people into different groups, like the untermenschen. This is also seen in the Imperium where abhumans occupy a lesser role in imperial society relative to non-mutant humans based on their biology, and many mutants are literally classed as needing to be genocided, just like the classes that the Nazis considered impure like the Jews, the disabled, the Romani etc.
My history is sketchy, but didn't Stalin then just impose new rich land owners by the end of the regime. Or if not impose they would arise within the system anyway.
It's a common practice with a violent or rapid succession of power to oust the old rich and steadily bring in new rich.
Kings and Queens did it for generations - kill the ruling powers; wipe them out and then put your own in their place.
The Imperium is a mish-mash of different ruling systems. It has a top end, but at the local system end it can be almost anything. Royals, democracy, etc....
You can also argue that in many ways its basically a military dictatorship since every wing of power is basically a military force.
The one joke Space Marine 2 DOES get right consistently is the Mechanicum. They constantly order you perform some sacred right or complete a ritual prior to having you press a button or flip a switch. It definitely leaves you aware that no one has any idea how any of this works.
Beyond that there's not really a depiction of the Imperium itself. By the time the game starts the world is already fully engaged with the Tyranids and you're basically playing through the ruins of a world that's already dead.
The Imperium is characterized by authoritarian rule, extreme nationalism, and a rigid hierarchy, which are common traits associated with fascism.
Key aspects that contribute to this perception include:
1. Authoritarianism: The Imperium is ruled by the God-Emperor, and there is little tolerance for dissent. The Adeptus Terra, the governing body, enforces strict control over the populace.
2. Militarism: The Imperium places a strong emphasis on military power and expansion, often engaging in brutal warfare against perceived threats.
3. Cult of Personality: The Emperor is venerated as a god, and this cult-like devotion mirrors aspects of fascist regimes that glorify their leaders.
4. Xenophobia: The Imperium is highly xenophobic, viewing alien species as threats to humanity and often engaging in genocidal campaigns against them.
5. Suppression of Individualism: The needs of the state and the collective are prioritized over individual rights, with citizens often expected to sacrifice for the greater good of humanity.
While these elements can be seen as fascist, the Warhammer 40,000 universe is intentionally exaggerated and dystopian, drawing on various historical and political influences to create a grim dark setting.
The portrayal of the Imperium serves as a critique of authoritarianism and the consequences of extreme ideologies.... at least it used to.
Fascist Regency now Guilliman has returned and been declared, well, Regent.
But prior to his return, it was still some form of Regency, where The Emperor was the de facto head of state. But due to being mostly all dead, couldn’t play an active role, so the High Lords spoke for him.
I dare say there is a term for that, but I’m not sure what that term might be,
Overread wrote: My history is sketchy, but didn't Stalin then just impose new rich land owners by the end of the regime.
I think you are thinking of the people who benefitted from the New Economic Policy under Lenin, which was a roll back of the original Bolshevik policy towards farming, in which farmers who produced more than the required quota were allowed to sell the excess and make profit. The people who were able to effectively utilise this policy were the richer landowning peasants called the kulaks. They were effectively liquidated as a class by Stalin via executions, land confiscation and deportation during the collectivisation of soviet farmland which put the vast majority of it effectively under control of the soviet state, mostly via "worker co-operative" collective farms called Kolkhozes. By 1940, around 78% of soviet farmland was under the control of Kolkhozes, 9% under directly state controlled farms, and 9.5% individual peasant farms. In 1928 96% of farmland in the Soviet Union had been under the control of individual peasant farms.
You can make the argument that Stalin himself was fascist with the cult of personality he build around himself, all the wars of conquest and expansion he did, all the repression and genocide and how he centralized power on the Communist Party and on himself.
And while that's a Rogue Trader image, there's a modern version of the Ultramarines (the "good guys") in military parade, it's just from the side looking down the rows of troops. The composition is less overt, but it's essentially the same thing.
You know LOADS of countries do that right?
Parading your army before your leaders in the capital is kinda a thing countries like to do. Many do it every single year.
Like if they were to do one for the Krieg they'd probably pick some photos based on the UK mounted cavalry parading with the Krieg Cavalry parading
And while that's a Rogue Trader image, there's a modern version of the Ultramarines (the "good guys") in military parade, it's just from the side looking down the rows of troops. The composition is less overt, but it's essentially the same thing.
George Lucas did the same thing for Star Wars.... which Abrams would steal and wedge into his Trilogy.
Overread wrote: You know LOADS of countries do that right?
Parading your army before your leaders in the capital is kinda a thing countries like to do. Many do it every single year.
Like if they were to do one for the Krieg they'd probably pick some photos based on the UK mounted cavalry parading with the Krieg Cavalry parading
It's very likely that a bunch of people in the UK growing up in the post-war era and leaning towards a major interest in the history of warfare would reference nazi propaganda to immediately convey "vicious dictatorship" to what they thought would be mostly people similar to themselves.
And while that's a Rogue Trader image, there's a modern version of the Ultramarines (the "good guys") in military parade, it's just from the side looking down the rows of troops. The composition is less overt, but it's essentially the same thing.
George Lucas did the same thing for Star Wars.... which Abrams would steal and wedge into his Trilogy.
Leni Riefenstahl movies obviously had an impact on Hollywood's depiction of armies in formation. Even moreso than the actual parades.
And while that's a Rogue Trader image, there's a modern version of the Ultramarines (the "good guys") in military parade, it's just from the side looking down the rows of troops. The composition is less overt, but it's essentially the same thing.
George Lucas did the same thing for Star Wars.... which Abrams would steal and wedge into his Trilogy.
Leni Riefenstahl movies obviously had an impact on Hollywood's depiction of armies in formation. Even moreso than the actual parades.
Oh is that image from the Riefenstahl film/s? Makes sense.
In the context of the greater argument we should be honest and say that at least in the Star Wars usage it was clear that those were the bad guys. The tension in 40k is that the outward presentation is heroic, and then as you dig deeper you get the "wait . . Are we the baddies?" moment.
So either way, the imperium are douche bags who exploit everything and everyone in it, so why not have the whole population eligible to become super soldiers?
Because its the same Imperium that has the technology and resources to create the Space Marines and yet they choose to rely most upon the Imperial Guard - an armed force that uses meat-grinder tactics and trench warfare.
The same Imperium that will request munitions from a world under siege to send to a munitions depo that's so over-stocked that they are destroying munitions upon arrival.
And while that's a Rogue Trader image, there's a modern version of the Ultramarines (the "good guys") in military parade, it's just from the side looking down the rows of troops. The composition is less overt, but it's essentially the same thing.
George Lucas did the same thing for Star Wars.... which Abrams would steal and wedge into his Trilogy.
Leni Riefenstahl movies obviously had an impact on Hollywood's depiction of armies in formation. Even moreso than the actual parades.
Oh is that image from the Riefenstahl film/s? Makes sense.
In the context of the greater argument we should be honest and say that at least in the Star Wars usage it was clear that those were the bad guys. The tension in 40k is that the outward presentation is heroic, and then as you dig deeper you get the "wait . . Are we the baddies?" moment.
The scene in Star Wars is the award ceremony at the end of A New Hope. I certainly hope the rebellion weren't the bad guys.... or were they?
Overread wrote: Because its the same Imperium that has the technology and resources to create the Space Marines and yet they choose to rely most upon the Imperial Guard - an armed force that uses meat-grinder tactics and trench warfare.
The same Imperium that will request munitions from a world under siege to send to a munitions depo that's so over-stocked that they are destroying munitions upon arrival.
They have the technology and resources to create Custodes (which aren't gender-locked), so why do they even bother with Astartes?
The answers to your question and mine have nothing to do with the core question of: "Why can't girls be Marines?"
Overread wrote: Because its the same Imperium that has the technology and resources to create the Space Marines and yet they choose to rely most upon the Imperial Guard - an armed force that uses meat-grinder tactics and trench warfare.
The same Imperium that will request munitions from a world under siege to send to a munitions depo that's so over-stocked that they are destroying munitions upon arrival.
They have the technology and resources to create Custodes (which aren't gender-locked), so why do they even bother with Astartes?
The answers to your question and mine have nothing to do with the core question of: "Why can't girls be Marines?"
The issue that a lot of people have is that there isn't a good reason to deny this.
And after reading 4 hours of lore changes to the frigging Necrons, I've learned nothing is set in stone.
The Oldcrons/Newcrons break was my stepping off point for the fluff. It’s when 40k went from a great setting with lore that I felt must be respected to the equivalent of a JJ Abrams reboot for me. There’s still some fun to be had thanks to Black Library, but my emotional investment in 40k dropped dramatically.
And yet, I bought plenty of the Newcron models to use in my Oldcron army. I even bought a Tombkings Sphinx to use as my C’Tan. If they ever release plastic Ushabti, I’d probably get one to use as a rival C’Tan. I got to keep my dudes as my dudes, despite the lore changes. And I’ve found many better game settings since losing my GW-only hobby.
The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
. . .
It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.
Breton wrote: How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo. . .
1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
From this exchange it seems like the idea that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is a MOD supported view.
So a "lore conservative" like myself is just gonna catch that labeling, I guess?
Read carefully what I wrote in your quote there.
I clearly said there was room for well meaning politics as well as toxic, it is you attaching the word toxic to every use of the word politics, I accept that some people will have genuine beliefs that are well intentioned and not harmful that mean they would prefer to keep gender politics out of 40K. You quotation that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is entirely your own creation and not anything I said.
Fair call, I misread that. My bad. There was something more blatant earlier in the thread, but that wasn't you.
My point about there being no debate beyond that is that there is no point rehashing the same lore arguments over and over because they have been shown to be completely baseless. Yourself as a “lore conservative”, you must have some tolerance for lore changes or you wouldn’t have stayed with 40K over all the sweeping lore changes that have been across the decades of its existence. Or do you not acknowledge tau, dark eldar, leagues of votan, every spacemarine tank that isn’t a landraider, rhino or predator all the new and wonderful marine units added over the years??? Where your red line lore wise, just female marines? I suspect, because the lore arguments don’t add up that there are other reasons, but I have no idea how toxic or wholesome they are.
Hehe. I have to say it's you who are making assumptions here though. I've been vocal about many, many changes over the years. Primaris, Centurions, the addition of SM flyers to the army. The changes making Necrons into "Newcrons", degradations or shifts in statlines changing factional balances etc. and I disliked it when the Salamanders went from being "black" to "coal-black-mutation". I dislike generally moving the story forward, The Great Rift, the returning of the Primarchs, and to be fair, I'm not too keen on anything that isn't the classic Land Raider loadout either, although it's easier to waive that one because it HAS been 10,000 years and chassis-weapon-variants has some history. If you want to get nitty gritty, I didn't mind things like Tau and Dark Eldar because they didn't actually change any pre-existing lore or themes that I'm aware of, they just added to the 40K tapestry.
And my money has already gone where my mouth is. I don't give any money to GW anymore. My collection is extensive and I've got what I want, and if I really want anything else I get it secondhand. When I field my Space Marines they'll look quite a bit like an army that could have been fielded in 2nd edition. And when I field my Eldar infantry, they'll be all metal.
Mind you, I'm vocal about the FSM not because I'm particularly passionate about it, but more because the topic is interesting. Can there be products or stories aimed primarily at young men? I think so. Are Space Marines one of those products? I think so. Does a fictional universe have a right to impose restrictions or sensibilities some find problematic? Spicy, but yeah they have that right. Where's the cutoff? Oooh, I dunno.
Andykp wrote: The reason that the lore as is creates a toxic environment is because it enables those that do hold toxic beliefs and gives them authority to enforce those. And THAT needs challenging to create an environment where abuse and exclusion are not tolerated and have no support. And a faction of the community claiming to be the victims whilst attempting to exclude people from the hobby does nothing but reinforce the toxic culture. The only people I want to see out of the hobby are those that will abuse and exclude others, and I’m pretty sure most would agree with that stance.
I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.
More/better female representation can be had in 40K without resorting to lore changes. It's already happening and I'm all for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: @MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.
I actually don't know where progression was described prior to the Ward 5th edition book, or what it was.
I thought I should take the time to reply to you directly as you did with me, and it’s really refreshing to have a reply like yours, thank you.
I grant you I may ave some assumptions and fair play to you making a stand and not buying GW stuff etc but you do admit that you have “some” tolerance to lore changes but you clearly like your lore old school.
I have nothing against products and things being aimed at young men, but they shouldn’t be “exclusive” to them, something like Warhammer 40K that aims to build a community should be inclusive.
For me, the reason the lore needs to change is that that bit of lore is used to exclude real people and defend really unpleasant attitudes and views. It would be a huge step for inclusion in the hobby and would disarm the Misogynistic minority who want to exclude women. Not only that, in this day and age it sounds silly that girls aren’t allowed.
When I compare this thread to one I started on this topic years ago that was closed down after a barrage of hate and bile in a matter of hours, we are seeing real progress. And if that progress is just that those who spout that hate just don’t feel able to do so anymore that’s still progress. The community is still better off because of it. If those people have left, even better, off you feth. Hopefully some of those will actually have seen how stupid they were being and changed their mind. People who just disagree but can be civil and respectful of others don’t need to go anywhere.
Would Space Marines stop being aimed at "young men" if there were women in their ranks?
Surely it didn't stop (new) Star Wars if you look at any Kindergarten.
It never stopped Star Trek from being popular among young men.
It doesn't stop Tau, to stay at 40k, they're pretty similar in their appearance to SM: giant suits with pew pew. They also have women (and they're aliens) but I wouldn't say they don’t appeal to boyz?
Overread wrote: Because its the same Imperium that has the technology and resources to create the Space Marines and yet they choose to rely most upon the Imperial Guard - an armed force that uses meat-grinder tactics and trench warfare.
The same Imperium that will request munitions from a world under siege to send to a munitions depo that's so over-stocked that they are destroying munitions upon arrival.
They have the technology and resources to create Custodes (which aren't gender-locked), so why do they even bother with Astartes?
The answers to your question and mine have nothing to do with the core question of: "Why can't girls be Marines?"
The issue that a lot of people have is that there isn't a good reason to deny this.
And after reading 4 hours of lore changes to the frigging Necrons, I've learned nothing is set in stone.
On Guardsman - Astartes - Custodes?
It’s a matter of resources.
The Imperium is vast. Mind bogglingly so.
Guardsmen, like non-com smelly hoomans are very much ten a penny. And man’s inhumanity to man, to protect, erm, *checks notes*….man? That’s a central part of the satire. Millions killed every day by brutal and uncaring tactics, to prop things up so tomorrow….Millions can be killed by brutal and uncaring tactics, to prop things up so tomorrow….and so on and so forth.
Astartes? Well to make one, you need Geneseed. And Geneseed is a strictly finite resource. Yes the more Marines you create, the more Geneseed you can harvest. Eventually. Plus you then need to arm, equip and transport them.
Custodes? We still don’t know exactly how they’re made beyond “hand wavey bio space magic science stuff”. But being His personal bodyguard? You only need so many. And whatever the underlying process is? If it could’ve been done on a massive scale, we simply wouldn’t have Astartes as they are now.
The problem is its hard to apply sensible logistical issues to 40k.
If Marines were as scarce as regularly mentioned in lore - i.e. 1000 chapters of 1000 marines (before Primaris anyway), then they'd have long ceased to exist.
Thats about a million Marines.In a universe of... what? Countless trillions? Quadrillions?
I mean Eldar are "a dying race". Sure - but they've got nothing on say the Ultramarines or Blood Angels etc, who in demographic terms may as well not exist - and would almost certainly be wiped out in even a small engagement. (This is in turn why you need/get Movie Marines).
Its "there are as many elves as the plot requires" all the way down.
Guardsmen, like non-com smelly hoomans are very much ten a penny. And man’s inhumanity to man, to protect, erm, *checks notes*….man? That’s a central part of the satire. Millions killed every day by brutal and uncaring tactics, to prop things up so tomorrow….Millions can be killed by brutal and uncaring tactics, to prop things up so tomorrow….and so on and so forth.
Astartes? Well to make one, you need Geneseed. And Geneseed is a strictly finite resource. Yes the more Marines you create, the more Geneseed you can harvest. Eventually. Plus you then need to arm, equip and transport them.
I'm not sure how the development of Primaris disrupted the 1k limit on marines, which I think I read once upon a time, was imposed after the Heresy to limit the potential for another Heresy. If so, and if Primaris DID disrupt that prohibition, GW could be laying the groundwork for another Heresy four or five editions from now... Except Hersy 2.0 won't exclude Sisters and Xenos in the same way as HH.
Either way, however, if we're assuming that the conversion process from human to Marine is what give the Marine its strength and durability and not so much the traits of the pre-transformation human, the rarity of Marines isn't really an argument for excluding women. I think chapters may look for strength of character to ensure that candidates stay true to chapter and Imperium post conversion knowing that the physical stuff will be taken care of by the transformation itself.
Custodes? We still don’t know exactly how they’re made beyond “hand wavey bio space magic science stuff”. But being His personal bodyguard? You only need so many. And whatever the underlying process is? If it could’ve been done on a massive scale, we simply wouldn’t have Astartes as they are now.
I think a big part of the Custodes is that they have to be tough enough to defend AGAINST renegade Marines. But Guilliman's decision to deploy Custodes as part of the Indomitus Crusade may mean that production was stepped up in order to ensure that the defenders of Terra are still plentiful enough despite the Indomitus deployments.
Tyel wrote: The problem is its hard to apply sensible logistical issues to 40k.
If Marines were as scarce as regularly mentioned in lore - i.e. 1000 chapters of 1000 marines (before Primaris anyway), then they'd have long ceased to exist.
Thats about a million Marines.In a universe of... what? Countless trillions? Quadrillions?
I mean Eldar are "a dying race". Sure - but they've got nothing on say the Ultramarines or Blood Angels etc, who in demographic terms may as well not exist - and would almost certainly be wiped out in even a small engagement. (This is in turn why you need/get Movie Marines).
Its "there are as many elves as the plot requires" all the way down.
There are around 3,000 Navy SEALs to 345,000,000 Americans. Small numbers are only an impediment if you treat Marines like the de facto fighting force of the Imperium while everyone else cheerleads behind them, rather than as special forces used to carry out sensitive missions or act as force multipliers.
Tyel wrote: The problem is its hard to apply sensible logistical issues to 40k.
If Marines were as scarce as regularly mentioned in lore - i.e. 1000 chapters of 1000 marines (before Primaris anyway), then they'd have long ceased to exist.
Thats about a million Marines.In a universe of... what? Countless trillions? Quadrillions?
I mean Eldar are "a dying race". Sure - but they've got nothing on say the Ultramarines or Blood Angels etc, who in demographic terms may as well not exist - and would almost certainly be wiped out in even a small engagement. (This is in turn why you need/get Movie Marines).
Its "there are as many elves as the plot requires" all the way down.
Sources back around 4th edition implied 100’s of trillions to quadrillions of Imperial Guard, 100’s of quadrillions to quintillions of humans in the IoM. There are likely a million times as many blanks in the galaxy as there are space marines.
Tyel wrote: The problem is its hard to apply sensible logistical issues to 40k.
If Marines were as scarce as regularly mentioned in lore - i.e. 1000 chapters of 1000 marines (before Primaris anyway), then they'd have long ceased to exist.
Thats about a million Marines.In a universe of... what? Countless trillions? Quadrillions?
I mean Eldar are "a dying race". Sure - but they've got nothing on say the Ultramarines or Blood Angels etc, who in demographic terms may as well not exist - and would almost certainly be wiped out in even a small engagement. (This is in turn why you need/get Movie Marines).
Its "there are as many elves as the plot requires" all the way down.
There are around 3,000 Navy SEALs to 345,000,000 Americans. Small numbers are only an impediment if you treat Marines like the de facto fighting force of the Imperium while everyone else cheerleads behind them, rather than as special forces used to carry out sensitive missions or act as force multipliers.
Yeah, Space Marines should have been an elite option for the Imperial Guard, not whole armies complete with large scale battle tactics (on open fields, no less!) and armoured vehicles.
I suspect its because of the move from 2nd ed to 3rd ed.
IIRC 2nd ed was more of a skirmish game where having a faction dedicated to an elite faction like marines makes sense, but 3rd ed was a company level system. Instead of designing marines to make sense to reflect the change in scale (such as making them incredibly powerful but rare unit choices for imperial armies or having them accompanied by chapter serfs to explain how they can deploy in open battle without relying on plot armour), they kept them as they are and had to make them more ridiculous to keep up.
Marine favoritism and its consequences have been a disaster for the game's system and setting.
I'm not sure about that. How well is Horus heresy doing? Horus heresy is nearly nothing but marines.
If marines are the only reason for the game's success, then HH would surely surpass 40k, no?
I'm not saying that marines don't make up a large part of 40k's sales, but saying that marines are the sole reason why 40k is successful, hence why they should only be the focus, seems off to me.
How do you know that the game wouldn't have been successful if they focused on guard, gave them the best artwork, the best attention, the most publicity, and most of the sculpts? Because to me guard are pretty damn bad arsed too. Even more so because they can do it without magical space gene steroids and power armour.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about that. How well is Horus heresy doing? Horus heresy is nearly nothing but marines.
If marines are the only reason for the game's success, then HH would surely surpass 40k, no?
Not necessarily. Given that 40k has existed a lot longer and is generally more well-known (looking how many 40k video games there are compared to HH video games) and that it still supports all the same marine factions HH does plus a bunch more... It's hard to make the argument that you seem to be going for. They're just very different beasts. But think of it this way: Marines are popular enough that HH can be 90% marine content and still be successful enough to be its own game with enough success to make it into a second edition.
As someone whose mostly played Xenos factions since the mid 90s I think 40k would be a much shallower game if it was just Marines.
I think its difficult though to separate out the fact GW have pushed Marines since 40k's inception - but also that as a faction, its a good starter.
Its the same reason I think over the last few years Custodes might have been knocking on their door as the most common starting army.
Elite armies are generally cheaper to buy than horde armies.
They are usually easier to transport - which is an underrated concern if you don't just play in your own garage.
And for Marines and Custodes they are relatively easy to paint to a "battle ready" standard (or whatever GW is calling it these days). Undercoat, spray a colour, pick out some details, chuck something on the base and move on.
Obviously how much painting matters can be debated (my first models had about an inch thick of paint on them.) But, and maybe this is a bias - but if you pick something like GSC, I feel they look obviously "bad" if painted in a rush. There's so much detail that you need lots of different colours, before getting into shading/layering etc.
Another point is that Marines are jack-of-all-trades and pretty good at it. They are pretty durable and hit hard and most of their units are really simple to see what they do and use on the table.
All in all they are very beginner friendly. They aren't a glass cannon like Dark Eldar; or have quirky mechanics like the Necrons old "Phase out"
Couple that to marketing; being in big starter kits and boxed sets regularly and so forth and its no wonder a lot of people's first impression and exposure to 40K is the Marines and if that first exposure drew them in then its no shock marines sell well.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about that. How well is Horus heresy doing? Horus heresy is nearly nothing but marines.
If marines are the only reason for the game's success, then HH would surely surpass 40k, no?
I'm not saying that marines don't make up a large part of 40k's sales, but saying that marines are the sole reason why 40k is successful, hence why they should only be the focus, seems off to me.
How do you know that the game wouldn't have been successful if they focused on guard, gave them the best artwork, the best attention, the most publicity, and most of the sculpts? Because to me guard are pretty damn bad arsed too. Even more so because they can do it without magical space gene steroids and power armour.
It could be argued that Space Marines are the only reason GW didn't go bankrupt throughout the years that they made somewhat dubious financial decisions and marketing strategies (or lack there of). Its certainly their top selling product line and hard carried the company financially just like how Magic the Gathering is the revenue backbone of many FLGS. Sure more attention could of been given to other factions to try and make them the center piece of the IP but Space Marines just seem to resonant with people more as it provides that power fantasy and has the right blend of medieval meets science fiction that is fascinating about 40k. It gets people to make the first step into the hobby and they are also relatively easy to paint which makes novice painters feel less horrible about their painting skills.
Like I said, it is understandable for GW to be rather cautious with the marines. But the primaris happened. They made marine players to rebuy their armies. And that did not drive people away. So I doubt female marines would, especially if they were just couple of extra heads people could choose not to use if they wouldn't want to.
Perhaps, but the marine range is already heavily saturated. I'd rather they spend that time, effort and money focusing on and expanding other ranges, than releasing yet another marine lieutenant, except with longer hair this time and a half-arsed fluff reason as to why marines get to have more even more stuff.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Perhaps, but the marine range is already heavily saturated. I'd rather they spend that time, effort and money focusing on and expanding other ranges, than releasing yet another marine lieutenant, except with longer hair this time and a half-arsed fluff reason as to why marines get to have more even more stuff.
I mean they're gonna release new stuff for marines anyway. If there is one thing that is certain about what GW will do it is that.
Hi all. I'm going to share my opinion (probably an unpopular one). Personally, I don't like Female Space Marines because I'm an old-school guy. I mostly play xenos factions, but when I play with Space Marines, I’m not looking for them to represent me in any way (just like when I play Tyranids or Necrons, I’m not seeking any kind of personal representation either). I also have a Sisters of Battle army, and I have no problem playing with them despite the lack of male miniatures. I mention this because of the argument often made that FSM should be added so women can feel represented in that faction.
For me, Primaris don’t exist, nor have the Primarchs been resurrected. I can’t imagine a Custodes army operating outside Terra. I want a xenophobic Imperium, with masculine (and misogynistic, why not) Space Marines, fanatical Sisters of Battle, and expendable humans.
In short, I want to play in a dark and grim dystopia. That said, I don’t mind if GW decides to add FSM or not, as I stepped away from the 'mainstream' 40k scene long ago and only play in private groups with like-minded people. So, I’m not opposed to the release of FSM; they just don’t—and never will—exist in my personal 40k lore, frozen in the year 999.M41 prior to the fall of Cadia. Cheers.
Are Space Marines actively sexist in older lore? Besides not including women in their ranks, I don’t recall any examples of Marines being misogynistic.
And I don’t think kidnapping young girls from their families, putting them through brutal trials that will kill many of them, then surgically altering and hypno indoctrinating the survivors is a good thing. It doesn’t make 40k less grim dark to say women are thrown into the meat grinder alongside men-but it does disarm bigots of a big tool they use.
There’s nothing I can think of in Codex type background. And we’ve examples of female ship Captains in Astartes fleets being no big deal to their Astartes masters.
Broadly speaking the Imperium doesn't really have sexism. Ignoring gender requirements to be a Marine or Sister of Battle, the Imperium doesn't really care if you're male or female.
Now of course some worlds might well have a cultural bias on them and there probably are worlds where one gender is more oppressed than the other. But in the grand scheme of things the top end of the Imperium doesn't care.
I would argue that there is a bias toward seeing more men in uniform than women and that many positions of power - being linked to the military in the setting, thus often have men in charge. But there doesn't seem to be the gender pressures and politics that we have in the real world today.
Basically "no one cares" or at least cares enough for it to ever get mentioned
Now granted a LOT of the lore we have focuses on the military side of things. So we can certainly say that the Military is like this - socially on worlds we can extrapolate that its likely the same
Space Marines would probably be more dismissive of the fact that they are unmodified humans rather than being women. Iirc, that is something that happens quite often in the fluff. Some chapters, such as Salamanders are happy with humans and get along fine. Others, such as the Marines Malevolent not so much.
Funnily enough, it seems that they do respect the Sisters of Battle despite being unmodified, as they are very well trained and disciplined.
In short, they aren't misogynist, just somewhat misanthropic due to losing part of their humanity through extensive modifications.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Are Space Marines actively sexist in older lore? Besides not including women in their ranks, I don’t recall any examples of Marines being misogynistic.
And I don’t think kidnapping young girls from their families, putting them through brutal trials that will kill many of them, then surgically altering and hypno indoctrinating the survivors is a good thing. It doesn’t make 40k less grim dark to say women are thrown into the meat grinder
Except that's dumb, even by 40k standards.
Iirc, most marines get their recruits from feral worlds. How are such worlds going to maintain a healthy population if they keep giving their girls away to be sterilized?
Not to mention that marines are highly selective of their recruits, preferring the strongest and healthiest subjects as those have a higher chance of surviving the operation. Such subjects would typically be male, because that's how sexual dimorphism among humans works.
Grim Dark does not have to mean stupid. That seems to be a common misconception I've observed among the fan base.
"Of course they are going to throw 69 billion soldiers in to a death trap to gain 1 square centimeter of land. Its Grim Daaaaark! "
Except that's dumb, even by 40k standards.
Iirc, most marines get their recruits from feral worlds. How are such worlds going to maintain a healthy population if they keep giving their girls away to be sterilized?
Not to mention that marines are highly selective of their recruits, preferring the strongest and healthiest subjects as those have a higher chance of surviving the operation. Such subjects would typically be male, because that's how sexual dimorphism among humans works.
Grim Dark does not have to mean stupid. That seems to be a common misconception I've observed among the fan base.
"Of course they are going to throw 69 billion soldiers in to a death trap to gain 1 square centimeter of land. Its Grim Daaaaark! "
Marines are tiny in number and many live very long lives. As a result their recruitment has almost no impact on world populations which is why many can recruit from only a very small number of worlds. This isn't like the Imperial Guard Tithe where its a large number of warriors. Even then we've seen worlds like Cadia provide vast numbers of troops without any problem of reproducing more.
Also you're forgetting that 40K comes from the era of "harsh living makes you stronger". So Marines will draw recruits from places like Necromunda Underhives. You know where chances are you've got infected lungs; probably burns and chemical scarring and god knows if you're even fully healthy. The transformation of the Marines is so vast to the body conditions that chances are the process doesn't really care too much about what you are going into the process - you'll come out changed at the genetic level anyway.
And yes the Imperium 100% does subscribe to the extremist WW1 approach of vast lives lost for small gains. OR somethings no gains at all.
Let’s look at the population of Medieval England alone, shall we? Pre Black Death. Pre Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland.
A relatively small island, estimates on population range between 3,700,000 and 6,500,000.
Now, at most, a Chapter is only after 1,000 full Astartes. And that’s assuming an entirely new Founding (less some senior members imported from existing Chapters).
And all would-be aspirants need to be pre-pubescent, or just entering puberty.
Thats…not going to be a large number in itself. And importantly? It’s not reducing the number of sexually mature individuals, is it? Because male or female, they’re less desirable as recruits. I say less desirable, as it was possible during the Great Crusade.
If losing a couple of hundred young girls scuppers your population? Your population wasn’t healthy to begin with.
Let’s look at the population of Medieval England alone, shall we? Pre Black Death. Pre Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland.
A relatively small island, estimates on population range between 3,700,000 and 6,500,000.
Now, at most, a Chapter is only after 1,000 full Astartes. And that’s assuming an entirely new Founding (less some senior members imported from existing Chapters).
And all would-be aspirants need to be pre-pubescent, or just entering puberty.
Thats…not going to be a large number in itself. And importantly? It’s not reducing the number of sexually mature individuals, is it? Because male or female, they’re less desirable as recruits. I say less desirable, as it was possible during the Great Crusade.
If losing a couple of hundred young girls scuppers your population? Your population wasn’t healthy to begin with.
Doesn't the marine creation process have a high rate of failure though? They are only going to recruit a 1000 individuals if they are all successful, which seems unlikely. If the conversion process is that dangerous and risky, its likely that they will keep recruiting more and more until they get enough successes.
Doesn't the marine creation process have a high rate of failure though? They are only going to recruit a 1000 individuals if they are all successful, which seems unlikely. If the conversion process is that dangerous and risky, its likely that they will keep recruiting more and more until they get enough successes.
We are still talking about small numbers.
Marines recruit from specific worlds and typically different worlds for different Chapters.
Even with a high failure rate you're still dealing with numbers in the thousands for Imperial worlds that number in the billions for most worlds. Tens of billions for Hive Worlds.
They will lose more people to accidents than they lose to Marine Recruitment.
Even in the real world, 1000 people a year is a small number on the global population. Even in the UK we lose 1600 people to roadkill in a year; and we have generally very safe roads.
The Feudal/Feral worlds are also not even going to be touched by Marine recruitment. Where Marine recruitment DOES have an impact is more at the social level if they come and take a leader's child or such. Marines can recruit anyone so its more likely that any blowback would be them recruiting someone destined for a position of power/influence in the population.
And to counter the rest of your post, we know that not all Chapters look for physical strength and the current poster-boy for the Ultramarines, Titus, was selected for his willpower and lack of fear.
Unless I'm mistaken, literally the ONLY thing in the lore that prevents women from becoming Astartes is some failure of the geneseed to work without a Y chromosome.
Doesn't the marine creation process have a high rate of failure though? They are only going to recruit a 1000 individuals if they are all successful, which seems unlikely. If the conversion process is that dangerous and risky, its likely that they will keep recruiting more and more until they get enough successes.
We are still talking about small numbers.
Marines recruit from specific worlds and typically different worlds for different Chapters.
Even with a high failure rate you're still dealing with numbers in the thousands for Imperial worlds that number in the billions for most worlds. Tens of billions for Hive Worlds.
They will lose more people to accidents than they lose to Marine Recruitment.
Even in the real world, 1000 people a year is a small number on the global population. Even in the UK we lose 1600 people to roadkill in a year; and we have generally very safe roads.
The Feudal/Feral worlds are also not even going to be touched by Marine recruitment. Where Marine recruitment DOES have an impact is more at the social level if they come and take a leader's child or such. Marines can recruit anyone so its more likely that any blowback would be them recruiting someone destined for a position of power/influence in the population.
Not just failure rate, selection rate as well. Marines are supposed to be exceptional, after all, so its probably like less than 1% of the population that's viable for conversion or something ridiculous like that.
Which would probably not affect the population that much after all.
Given the Imperium's penchant for eugenics, its more likely that any viable woman would be left alone to ensure future generations of potential recruits, especially if they are trying to keep on good terms with a feral world.
It would probably go over better diplomatically if they turned such individuals into some sort of priestess class, rather than depriving a world of both their best sons and daughters.
In a world where Adepta Sororitas plastic models exist (and Sisters of Silence could possibly be expanded as a faction), the need for "female Space Marines" and another "we are modern and progressive look at us" retcon (hello Adeptus Custodes), seems like a very politically oriented agenda to me, that is unnecessary to the settings, and also to the model range.
That said, given what we have seen in the videogame industry during the last 10years, and the Custodes precedent, it is only a matter of time i guess.
And to counter the rest of your post, we know that not all Chapters look for physical strength and the current poster-boy for the Ultramarines, Titus, was selected for his willpower and lack of fear.
Unless I'm mistaken, literally the ONLY thing in the lore that prevents women from becoming Astartes is some failure of the geneseed to work without a Y chromosome.
Given that the conversion process is supposed to be physically taxing, I daresay that physical fitness is also something they look for.
I'm aware that it's within the fluff that the geneseed only works with a Y chromosome. I'm just skeptical of the idea that that's the only restriction, that there wouldn't be other factors in play, such as demographics or cultural norms.
Population probably wouldn't be affected that much though, I can concede on that point.
And to counter the rest of your post, we know that not all Chapters look for physical strength and the current poster-boy for the Ultramarines, Titus, was selected for his willpower and lack of fear.
Unless I'm mistaken, literally the ONLY thing in the lore that prevents women from becoming Astartes is some failure of the geneseed to work without a Y chromosome.
Given that the conversion process is supposed to be physically taxing, I daresay that physical fitness is also something they look for.
I'm aware that it's within the fluff that the geneseed only works with a Y chromosome. I'm just skeptical of the idea that that's the only restriction, that there wouldn't be other factors in play, such as demographics or cultural norms.
Population probably wouldn't be affected that much though, I can concede on that point.
They turn little children into space marines, I'm not sure to what degree "strength" is that important for the actual physical process. The standars for physical fitness might be very technical. I'm sure there's a lot of cultural norms in how you select and what you select for, not the least in the target population you nab people from.
Plus, a big theme in 40K is that what the imperial administration says is what happens isn't actually what factually happens. No doubt there's a lot of instances of "I order you to perform X action" is correctly understood as "do Z". Euphemism and self-deception is not out of character for the people recruiting marines.
Given that the conversion process is supposed to be physically taxing, I daresay that physical fitness is also something they look for.
Tell that to the Blood Angels.
Doesn't their recruitment process involve a bunch of gladiatorial combat and athletics? Pretty sure that counts as physical fitness.
Its not as if the Blood Angels grab some poor kid off the street and make him drink from a cup, and even that process is physically demanding, with most of their aspirants just dying from the sheer strain of the metabolic processes going on.
Again don't forget 40K is like Dune and a bunch of other things from its era. A core component of the story and setting is that growing up in harsh environment will push you to the edge to perform better and be stronger/fitter/smarter/more fighty.
Ergo someone from a hell-world who is under-fed; possibly has injuries; maybe a deformity - is going to win against someone from a "soft" world who grew up with plenty (but not excess). etc....
It defies the reality that we know that in the real world malnutrition, injury and so forth will result in a weaker person with physical limitations.
Given that the conversion process is supposed to be physically taxing, I daresay that physical fitness is also something they look for.
Tell that to the Blood Angels.
Doesn't their recruitment process involve a bunch of gladiatorial combat and athletics? Pretty sure that counts as physical fitness.
Its not as if the Blood Angels grab some poor kid off the street and make him drink from a cup, and even that process is physically demanding, with most of their aspirants just dying from the sheer strain of the metabolic processes going on.
They specifically recruit miserable dregs suffering from radiation sickness.
And to counter the rest of your post, we know that not all Chapters look for physical strength and the current poster-boy for the Ultramarines, Titus, was selected for his willpower and lack of fear.
Unless I'm mistaken, literally the ONLY thing in the lore that prevents women from becoming Astartes is some failure of the geneseed to work without a Y chromosome.
Given that the conversion process is supposed to be physically taxing, I daresay that physical fitness is also something they look for.
I'm aware that it's within the fluff that the geneseed only works with a Y chromosome. I'm just skeptical of the idea that that's the only restriction, that there wouldn't be other factors in play, such as demographics or cultural norms.
Population probably wouldn't be affected that much though, I can concede on that point.
They turn little children into space marines, I'm not sure to what degree "strength" is that important for the actual physical process.
Well the blood angels want their recruits to cross a desert full of canyons which would require a bit of athletic prowess and be able to win in gladiatorial combat, so it would seem that it matters.
But maybe that's an outlier, let's see what the Ultramarines do.
Oh, they make their recruit live out in the wilderness, with the world often being a death world. Pretty sure strength and endurance is important there too. Then they have to fight a battle-brother in a duel, with them being graded on how badly they fail because, well, no one is expecting the kid to actually win.
During the Unification Wars the IXth Legion (what would become the Blood Angels) recruited from some of the most degraded and mutated stock of humanity left on Terra, and turned them into nigh angelic beings.
The same happens on Baal and there is a specific example of a child with a physical defect getting picked as an aspirant because fixing his damaged spine is nothing to Astartes Apothecaries when he shows remarkable resistance to the strain of combat and watching his father being consumed by a Tyranid bioweapon.
That's what Astartes look for, aspirants who can handle the mental strain of having their entire existence ripped apart and remade. Strength helps but simply being strong doesn't cut it and again, strength can be gained through training. You can't train an aspirant to push themselves beyond their physical limits, that's something innate to each individual.
Given that the conversion process is supposed to be physically taxing, I daresay that physical fitness is also something they look for.
Tell that to the Blood Angels.
Doesn't their recruitment process involve a bunch of gladiatorial combat and athletics? Pretty sure that counts as physical fitness.
Its not as if the Blood Angels grab some poor kid off the street and make him drink from a cup, and even that process is physically demanding, with most of their aspirants just dying from the sheer strain of the metabolic processes going on.
They specifically recruit miserable dregs suffering from radiation sickness.
Ok and? Apparently they are still expected to cross a desert. Maybe I'm using out of date information, but that is what I could find on their recruitment process.
A chunk of the selection process is finding those to whom the chemical, hypnotic and psychic indoctrination will take.
Not just for loyalty to the Chapter and Imperium, but to essentially give them the subconscious ability not just to run the human physiology, but the Astartes physiology. Because you can’t just take a person, stuff them full of Space Magic Squishy Organs and expect the brain to just know what to do.
As for failure rate? That seems to vary wildly.
Dark Angel and Ultramarine geneseed is known to be remarkable stable, showing relatively little degeneration down the millennia. Other Chapters have lost certain implant organs entirely, and may have higher failure rates.
This is part of the reason every Chapter tithes Geneseed to the Administratum. As well as preserving samples in a “eggs aren’t all in one basket” way, it’s checked for stability and purity, stockpiled not just to help ensure that Chapter’s continued existence, but for future Foundings.
As I think Gert said? You can transform anyone’s body with proper diet, exercise and that. But changing someone’s personality? That’s much trickier. And that’s before we start considering the necessities of Spade Magic Body Upgrades.
And as I’ve said before? In the grand scheme of things the physical differences between men and women really aren’t that pronounced. And given just how ridiculously strong and tough an Astartes can make even a heavily irradiated wretch compared to a non-enhanced irradiated wretch, I really don’t see a hypothetical female Astartes being that much different, if at all, than a male candidate when all is literally said and done.
Think Captain America. It amplifies everything, including your “spirit”. And so you’re cautious to ensure you have a compliant, pliable candidate who’ll do as they’re indoctrinated to.
To carry this further? A pet hypothesis of mine. We’re often told Astartes know no fear. And for Loyalists that’s represented on the tabletop. But not for Chaos Marines. My hypothesis there? Chaos Marines have at least partially broken their conditioning, and begin to exhibit a great degree of self preservation, being willing to fall back from an untenable situation, if doing so would allow them to regroup and sort out a future attack, where a regular Astartes likely needs a specific order to yield ground.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm a little confused about this tangent... what does it have to do with women not being viable Imperial Space Marines?
The point is that given the recruitment milieu and incredibly lethal and selective process, its highly unlikely for there to be FSM in any significant quantity.
Imagine if training for SEAL meant you have a incredibly high chance of dying. Not actually deploying, training itself. That's basically the space marine process but worse, and remember that very few women, if any, even qualify to become a SEAL.
I do not see Feudal and Feral worlds being keen on sending young girls off to die in some wilderness somewhere either.
Ironically, Sisters of Battle should make good stock, as they are already exceptional individuals and are even respected by Marines.
However, I don't think erasing one faction in favor of another is a good idea.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Except, No Modern Military Turns Its Recruits Into Post-Human Monstrosities, so you’re argument is a non-starter.
Except there's still a grueling selection process to go through, so no, my argument is not a non-starter, as the recruits are still very much human when they are required to cross through a desert, ash wastes, live on a deathworld or survive in a vacuum.
You don't just pump an aspirant full of geneseed and then start training them, there's a selection process to go through first to make sure that they can even survive receiving the geneseed to begin with, as its such a huge investment of precious resources.
This isn't captain America where all you need is a little injection of a wonder drug, there's more to it than that.
Marine training starts as a child - SoB are already too old by the time they are trained to be standard consideration for Marine Training.
Also I think you're vastly under-estimating the populations the Imperium has to work with. The SoB are by no means big enough to have recruited every able bodied woman in the Imperium suitable for battlefield deployment - not even close.
Heck even the Imperial Guard can't recruit on that scale from the entire population (though some worlds are near enough like that on recruitment).
The Imperium sends many to war; but its got a VAST population.
Again even the real world planet you live on today could support several Chapters worth of Space Marines in recruitment even with a high fail rate. If it were open to men and women then you've an even better situation because now you've 50% MORE population to work with.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Except, No Modern Military Turns Its Recruits Into Post-Human Monstrosities, so you’re argument is a non-starter.
Except there's still a grueling selection process to go through, so no, my argument is not a non-starter, as the recruits are still very much human when they are required to cross through a desert, ash wastes, live on a deathworld or survive in a vacuum.
You don't just pump an aspirant full of geneseed and then start training them, there's a selection process to go through first to make sure that they can even survive receiving the geneseed to begin with, as its such a huge investment of precious resources.
This isn't captain America where all you need is a little injection of a wonder drug, there's more to it than that.
Actually Captain America is a perfect example because there WAS a training program before selection. The only difference is that Space Marine training is more brutal and based on real combat and danger situations not just on theory or training grounds. Again the Marines don't care if you die - the Imperium has a grossly overpopulated population to throw into battle. They are more limited on the war front by munitions, supplies and transports than human bodies.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ok and? Apparently they are still expected to cross a desert. Maybe I'm using out of date information, but that is what I could find on their recruitment process.
I'm curious as to what part of crossing a desert requires being male.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ok and? Apparently they are still expected to cross a desert. Maybe I'm using out of date information, but that is what I could find on their recruitment process.
I'm curious as to what part of crossing a desert requires being male.
Where did I say that being male was an absolute requirement? That was in response to the claim that Blood Angels just need their aspirants to drink from the gross sippy cup.
It's going to be bloody difficult for either a boy or a girl, and either one has a high rate of failure because that's what the marine selection process is designed to do.
Please do not take what I write out of context.
Again even the real world planet you live on today could support several Chapters worth of Space Marines in recruitment even with a high fail rate. If it were open to men and women then you've an even better situation because now you've 50% MORE population to work with.
I'm not sure a substantial increase in training related casualties is healthy overall. I'm sure the population would recover eventually, Europe did survive the black death and the world wars, after all, but I think in terms of morale it might be a bit of problem. Marines may not care if their recruits die, but I'm pretty sure that recruits relatives do.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ok and? Apparently they are still expected to cross a desert. Maybe I'm using out of date information, but that is what I could find on their recruitment process.
I'm curious as to what part of crossing a desert requires being male.
Where did I say that being male was an absolute requirement? That was in response to the claim that Blood Angels just need their aspirants to drink from the gross sippy cup.
It's going to be bloody difficult for either a boy or a girl, and either one has a high rate of failure because that's what the marine selection process is designed to do.
Please do not take what I write out of context.
You've been defending the 'no girls allowed' stance by claiming those assigned female at birth aren't going to be able meet the Astartes' nebulous physical standards. I'm not sure how I misinterpreted the context of your 'crossing the desert' example.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Except, No Modern Military Turns Its Recruits Into Post-Human Monstrosities, so you’re argument is a non-starter.
Except there's still a grueling selection process to go through, so no, my argument is not a non-starter, as the recruits are still very much human when they are required to cross through a desert, ash wastes, live on a deathworld or survive in a vacuum.
You don't just pump an aspirant full of geneseed and then start training them, there's a selection process to go through first to make sure that they can even survive receiving the geneseed to begin with, as its such a huge investment of precious resources.
This isn't captain America where all you need is a little injection of a wonder drug, there's more to it than that.
Gruelling that a pre or barely pubescent kid can survive. Y’know, before sexual dimorphism has really manifested itself.
Not post-puberty. Whilst your body is still largely that of a child. Importantly? Keep in mind that during the Great Crusade, constant expansion and backfilling saw Astartes recruited in vast numbers, galaxy wide.
The implication there is the exacting standards of modern Chapters isn’t a necessity, but a preference where their recruitment has a strict limit. That where you might be looking to recruit two rather than two hundred, you will be fussier.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'm a little confused about this tangent... what does it have to do with women not being viable Imperial Space Marines?
The point is that given the recruitment milieu and incredibly lethal and selective process, its highly unlikely for there to be FSM in any significant quantity.
Imagine if training for SEAL meant you have a incredibly high chance of dying. Not actually deploying, training itself. That's basically the space marine process but worse, and remember that very few women, if any, even qualify to become a SEAL.
See, you and I looked at the same evidence and came away with dramatically different interpretations. We know that Blood Angels recruit from sickly people who have basically been undergoing forced chemotherapy via their planet's irradiated wasteland. Being a Mad Max war boy on his worst day apparently doesn't prevent a guy from being chosen to become an astartes. And your argument is that a healthy, well-fed, well-trained warrior woman from a Catachan-esque planet is going to be worse at sports than the poisoned guy suffering from lifelong malnourishment? Not to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're expecting sexual dimorphism to do a crazy amount of work there. Like, an unreasonable amount.
I do not see Feudal and Feral worlds being keen on sending young girls off to die in some wilderness somewhere either.
The imperium is enormous and full of Planets of Hats. And full of planets who treat having a family member join the astartes as a massive honor. You don't think that somewhere in the vastness of the imperium where there is only war, there might be a few planets where badass shield maidens exist and want to beat up aliens so that their families will benefit from the resulting honor for centuries to come?
EDIT: The physical competitions for becoming a marine are also kind of impractical. Like, they exist because we like reading about the nonsense involved and going, "Woah! Brutal!" But in-universe, there isn't much practical reason for it. If you want to find out who has good instincts for fighting or survival, you can test those traits without having to actually kill a bunch of potentially useful recruits. And if you're trying to get them in shape to help their bodies survive the implantation process, that's probably better achieved through healthy diet and exercise than through death tournaments or having them rock climb over an active volcano or whatever.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ok and? Apparently they are still expected to cross a desert. Maybe I'm using out of date information, but that is what I could find on their recruitment process.
I'm curious as to what part of crossing a desert requires being male.
Where did I say that being male was an absolute requirement? That was in response to the claim that Blood Angels just need their aspirants to drink from the gross sippy cup.
It's going to be bloody difficult for either a boy or a girl, and either one has a high rate of failure because that's what the marine selection process is designed to do.
Please do not take what I write out of context.
You've been defending the 'no girls allowed' stance by claiming those assigned female at birth aren't going to be able meet the Astartes' nebulous physical standards. I'm not sure how I misinterpreted the context of your 'crossing the desert' example.
I don't see how "pass or you die" is a nebulous standard. That seems pretty definitive to me.
Given that marine aspirants are indeed kids, and often recruited from populations with way less than ideal living conditions, I'd surmise that the testing is more about grit, fighting spirit and other such psychological aspects.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Except, No Modern Military Turns Its Recruits Into Post-Human Monstrosities, so you’re argument is a non-starter.
Except there's still a grueling selection process to go through, so no, my argument is not a non-starter, as the recruits are still very much human when they are required to cross through a desert, ash wastes, live on a deathworld or survive in a vacuum.
You don't just pump an aspirant full of geneseed and then start training them, there's a selection process to go through first to make sure that they can even survive receiving the geneseed to begin with, as its such a huge investment of precious resources.
This isn't captain America where all you need is a little injection of a wonder drug, there's more to it than that.
Gruelling that a pre or barely pubescent kid can survive. Y’know, before sexual dimorphism has really manifested itself.
Except there are repeated parts in the fluff where they do die. So yes, they are sending children off to their deaths, with only a few individuals passing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Except, No Modern Military Turns Its Recruits Into Post-Human Monstrosities, so you’re argument is a non-starter.
Except there's still a grueling selection process to go through, so no, my argument is not a non-starter, as the recruits are still very much human when they are required to cross through a desert, ash wastes, live on a deathworld or survive in a vacuum.
You don't just pump an aspirant full of geneseed and then start training them, there's a selection process to go through first to make sure that they can even survive receiving the geneseed to begin with, as its such a huge investment of precious resources.
This isn't captain America where all you need is a little injection of a wonder drug, there's more to it than that.
Gruelling that a pre or barely pubescent kid can survive. Y’know, before sexual dimorphism has really manifested itself.
Except there are repeated parts in the fluff where they do die. So yes, they are sending children off to their deaths, with only a few individuals passing.
You're missing the point. They're saying that puberty hasn't kicked in yet, so sex is irrelevant at that point. Unless you're trying to make the case that a prepubescent boy suffering from radiation poisoning is just infinitely stronger than a well-fed, well-trained girl from a planet known for its population's impressive physical strength.
EDIT: And again, it feels like malnutrition and radiation poisoning vs healthy diet and curated exercise should probably be a bigger factor than sex even after puberty. You're saying marines would rather recruit from a skeleton in the cancer ward than recruit an olympic athlete because the skeleton is going to beat the olympic athlete at sports...
Except there are repeated parts in the fluff where they do die. So yes, they are sending children off to their deaths, with only a few individuals passing.
Some certainly will die. But the tests are generally not pass or fail binaries. Many chapters recruit failed aspirants as chapter serfs, which sorta implies that those failed aspirants are alive...
Crimson wrote: Given that marine aspirants are indeed kids, and often recruited from populations with way less than ideal living conditions, I'd surmise that the testing is more about grit, fighting spirit and other such psychological aspects.
That would explain the death world camping trips and crossing deserts, yes.
So you agree that physical strength is not the primary trait that Astartes aspirants are selected for and that it is instead the indomitable human spirit that is looked for, thereby determining that there is no real reason female aspirants couldn't be a thing?
Crimson wrote: Given that marine aspirants are indeed kids, and often recruited from populations with way less than ideal living conditions, I'd surmise that the testing is more about grit, fighting spirit and other such psychological aspects.
That would explain the death world camping trips and crossing deserts, yes.
It indeed does.Those things would be utterly trivial to an actual marine, and probably quite a bit easier for a fit and healthy normal adult. But they're challenging to these kids. They will let the marines to see who will persevere, who will keep their cool, who has the willpower, courage and fighting spirit to be a marine.
Gert wrote: So you agree that physical strength is not the primary trait that Astartes aspirants are selected for and that it is instead the indomitable human spirit that is looked for, thereby determining that there is no real reason female aspirants couldn't be a thing?
Eager to hear CthulhuSpy's answer to this.
If you want to claim that grit is the deciding factor, then surely we can agree that plenty of women have grit in spades.
If you want to claim that physical fitness is the deciding factor, then surely the poisoned, malnourished skeleton boy is going to be worse at sports than the trained-from-birth athlete girl. Especially before puberty, but probably after puberty too.
Not trying to put words in your (CthulhuSpy's) mouth, but it really feels like you're just trying to say that all boys are better at physical activities than all girls regardless of any other factors. And that's obviously absurd.
Thanks for kicking this dead horse just to tell us that you don't have a real position on this subject.
I think I’ve made my "position" quite clear when I said that personally, I don’t like FSM and won’t include them in my lore. As I mentioned, I’m an old-school player and won’t get into debates about whether the lack of female Astartes is due to political reasons or if it makes sense within the 'science' of 40K. That’s just how it used to be, and that’s how it will remain for me.
I also don’t play with Primaris or Primarchs, and I have nothing against their sale—I simply don’t care about the current lore. Cheers.
Thanks for kicking this dead horse just to tell us that you don't have a real position on this subject.
I think I’ve made my "position" quite clear when I said that personally, I don’t like FSM and won’t include them in my lore. As I mentioned, I’m an old-school player and won’t get into debates about whether the lack of female Astartes is due to political reasons or if it makes sense within the 'science' of 40K. That’s just how it used to be, and that’s how it will remain for me.
I also don’t play with Primaris or Primarchs, and I have nothing against their sale—I simply don’t care about the current lore. Cheers.
And that's cool for you, it's your hobby, you can play it how you like.
We have an entire thread devoted to playing older editions of the games for Games Workshop.
No one us saying you have to accept anything in any of the canon.
What I mean by this is that there are a lot of people wish Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau was not the name of 40k's first Inquisitor ["A tireless exposer of psychic misdeeds and genetic deviance." Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader, pg. 144], and choose play there version of 40k as very grimdark without the goofiness if the older editions.
But what is at stake here, is the telling of certain players that they can't play the game how they want.
The interests point is that this street goes two ways. Some really don't want this and some do.
A compromise could be, the Horus Heresy Space Marines are all male, while a later 40k discovery (Ala Cawl) could have female Marines.
Gert wrote: So you agree that physical strength is not the primary trait that Astartes aspirants are selected for and that it is instead the indomitable human spirit that is looked for, thereby determining that there is no real reason female aspirants couldn't be a thing?
Yes, mental and physical fortitude would be sought after in a marine candidate. Hence why all of their tests require both components. I mentioned SEAL earlier for a reason, as that also requires both competences and to a lesser degree would be a close approximation of marine selection (well, except without high fatality rate). You don't need to be a weight lifter to be a SEAL either.
As for the Blood Angel recruitment, if their recruits are truly as irradiated as claimed (which I doubt, as that would be silly. Its more likely that the healthiest individuals among the population would undergo the process, as that would already show a degree of resilience) then that is just poor writing as you'd need a wee bit more than just grit to pass that selection process. Remember that it's not just a desert, they have to dodge monsters and cross canyons as well. The Indomitable Human Spirit will not save one from gravity after failing to jump a gap.
But then again, GW can't seem to decide if the recruits are children, adolescents or old enough to drink and wrestle a space wolf, or be incarcerated in a space prison, so I suppose poor and inconsistent writing is just the norm for marines.
Gert wrote: So you agree that physical strength is not the primary trait that Astartes aspirants are selected for and that it is instead the indomitable human spirit that is looked for, thereby determining that there is no real reason female aspirants couldn't be a thing?
Yes, mental and physical fortitude would be sought after in a marine candidate. Hence why all of their tests require both components. I mentioned SEAL earlier for a reason, as that also requires both competences and to a lesser degree would be a close approximation of marine selection (well, except without high fatality rate). You don't need to be a weight lifter to be a SEAL either.
As for the Blood Angel recruitment, if their recruits are truly as irradiated as claimed (which I doubt, as that would be silly. Its more likely that the healthiest individuals among the population would undergo the process, as that would already show a degree of resilience) then that is just poor writing as you'd need a wee bit more than just grit to pass that selection process. Remember that it's not just a desert, they have to dodge monsters and cross canyons as well. The Indomitable Human Spirit will not save one from gravity after failing to jump a gap.
But then again, GW can't seem to decide if the recruits are children, adolescents or old enough to drink and wrestle a space wolf, or be incarcerated in a space prison, so I suppose poor and inconsistent writing is just the norm for marines.
They can’t have completed puberty, ironically for the same in universe reason they can’t currently be girls.
40k just seems to have particularly precocious children, cf also Necromunda, presumably for the extra grimdarkness…
Fwiw the old Rites of Initiation said the optimum start age was 10-12 - generally pre-puberty, especially for boys.
But what is at stake here, is the telling of certain players that they can't play the game how they want.
And I agree, that's silly. If you want your custom chapter of valkyrie marines, sure whatever.
If you want mexican necrons, ok fine. Aussie Orks? I know a guy who did that and it was funny.
The point of the game is to convert your models as you want.
However, it goes both ways. One cannot demand that the fluff accommodates their custom army.
As much as I prefer that the necrons still served the C'tan, they don't and the current fluff is the current fluff. Even if its bad and lame.
40k just seems to have particularly precocious children, cf also Necromunda, presumably for the extra grimdarkness…
Fwiw the old Rites of Initiation said the optimum start age was 10-12 - generally pre-puberty, especially for boys.
That is just weird. I was reading the marine recruitment practices and I kept thinking "these cannot be 10 year olds, that one is drinking space wolf ale and Marneus Calgar probably elbow dropped a child at one point".
I suspect the authors wrote as if they were adolescents to young adults, but forgot that they are meant to be 10-12 year olds.
The interests point is that this street goes two ways. Some really don't want this and some do.
A compromise could be, the Horus Heresy Space Marines are all male, while a later 40k discovery (Ala Cawl) could have female Marines.
That's not a compromise, that's a profound choice.
The only true compromise is that female marines lobbyists play Adepta Sororitas instead ?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That is just weird. I was reading the marine recruitment practices and I kept thinking "these cannot be 10 year olds, that one is drinking space wolf ale and Marneus Calgar probably elbow dropped a child at one point".
I suspect the authors wrote as if they were adolescents to young adults, but forgot that they are meant to be 10-12 year olds.
Each Chapter has their own methods, and the Space Wolves aren't the most straight-edged Chapter out there.
The interests point is that this street goes two ways. Some really don't want this and some do.
A compromise could be, the Horus Heresy Space Marines are all male, while a later 40k discovery (Ala Cawl) could have female Marines.
That's not a compromise, that's a profound choice.
The only true compromise is that female marines lobbyists play Adepta Sororitas instead ?
Tell me you haven't read the whole thread without telling me you haven't read the whole thread. Short version: Sororitas aren't a compromise because they're explicitly NOT Astartes.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That is just weird. I was reading the marine recruitment practices and I kept thinking "these cannot be 10 year olds, that one is drinking space wolf ale and Marneus Calgar probably elbow dropped a child at one point".
I suspect the authors wrote as if they were adolescents to young adults, but forgot that they are meant to be 10-12 year olds.
Each Chapter has their own methods, and the Space Wolves aren't the most straight-edged Chapter out there.
Yeah, but isn't the alcohol they make on fenris like, super strong though? I'm not even sure most adults outside of Fenris can handle it. It's probably not actual Fenrisian ale because that's meant to be fatal to humans, but still, a 10 year drinking that stuff?
Even if they aren't straight edged, the space wolves still use gene seed (albeit with the Canis Helix mutation), which logically should require the same ages as everyone else. So if they do take recruits at an older age (which is what the fluff seems to imply, given that they walk into long houses and pick fights with the warriors there to see who's worthy), then they shouldn't work.
So yeah, I'm not even sure the writers know what age the recruits are meant to be be, because it's wildly inconsistent and doesn't even make sense if you try to analyze it logically.
My summary of the last few pages, marines recruit any old dregs while they’re young and put them through harsh to lethal trials. None of that means aspirants must be male or are more likely to succeed if they are male. It makes no difference at all.
Siegfriedfr wrote: In a world where Adepta Sororitas plastic models exist (and Sisters of Silence could possibly be expanded as a faction), the need for "female Space Marines" and another "we are modern and progressive look at us" retcon (hello Adeptus Custodes), seems like a very politically oriented agenda to me, that is unnecessary to the settings, and also to the model range.
That said, given what we have seen in the videogame industry during the last 10years, and the Custodes precedent, it is only a matter of time i guess.
I have Sword Angels (Dark Angels and Blood Angels) for the bling, Ultramarines for the classical look, Space Wolves and a small force of Egyptian themed ‘loyalists’ because I love all those flavors. SOB only come in one flavor, one which pisses off my wife, which is extremely limiting. If they start selling Classical, werewolf and Egyptian flavor Sisters of Battle, maybe you’d have a point.
Except there are repeated parts in the fluff where they do die. So yes, they are sending children off to their deaths, with only a few individuals passing.
Some certainly will die. But the tests are generally not pass or fail binaries. Many chapters recruit failed aspirants as chapter serfs, which sorta implies that those failed aspirants are alive...
In Wraight’s Space Wolf books, aren’t there like dozens of serfs for every Space Wolf? Granted, most of them were born into the role, but I recall they’re all failed aspirants or descendants of failed aspirants.
Siegfriedfr wrote: In a world where Adepta Sororitas plastic models exist (and Sisters of Silence could possibly be expanded as a faction), the need for "female Space Marines" and another "we are modern and progressive look at us" retcon (hello Adeptus Custodes), seems like a very politically oriented agenda to me, that is unnecessary to the settings, and also to the model range.
That said, given what we have seen in the videogame industry during the last 10years, and the Custodes precedent, it is only a matter of time i guess.
I have Sword Angels (Dark Angels and Blood Angels) for the bling, Ultramarines for the classical look, Space Wolves and a small force of Egyptian themed ‘loyalists’ because I love all those flavors. SOB only come in one flavor, one which pisses off my wife, which is extremely limiting. If they start selling Classical, werewolf and Egyptian flavor Sisters of Battle, maybe you’d have a point.
They really should. Marines and Guard (or used to rather, before GW axed most of their lines leaving just Cadia and Catachans. At least Krieg is coming out) get a bunch of variants, but sisters? A bit limited.
I like their overall baroque aesthetic but some Eastern Orthodox, Shield Maiden or Middle Eastern inspired variants would be nice.
Thanks for kicking this dead horse just to tell us that you don't have a real position on this subject.
I think I’ve made my "position" quite clear when I said that personally, I don’t like FSM and won’t include them in my lore. As I mentioned, I’m an old-school player and won’t get into debates about whether the lack of female Astartes is due to political reasons or if it makes sense within the 'science' of 40K. That’s just how it used to be, and that’s how it will remain for me.
I also don’t play with Primaris or Primarchs, and I have nothing against their sale—I simply don’t care about the current lore. Cheers.
This is a stance I respect, as I also don’t do Primaris marines*. GW can sell them, but I chose not to let them into my hobby.
*I did buy a bunch of the skull mask stealth Primaris heads to make chaplains, though.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: SOB only come in one flavor, one which pisses off my wife, which is extremely limiting. If they start selling Classical, werewolf and Egyptian flavor Sisters of Battle, maybe you’d have a point.
I mean "only one flavour" is how pretty much EVERY faction that isn't a Space Marine or WW2 army comes in most games.
In the lore there are LOADS but in the game as physical models GW only makes 1 type of each brand unless its a Marine because they are an abnormality that just sells like crazy even when its the same design language and model just one has a horse hoof on its shoulder and the other a teardrop and another has some wolf pelts on it.
I'd love to see Tyranids from different Hive Fleets; different Craftworlds and more - but I also accept that sales wise that doesn't work for GW unless those armies are bonkers popular and just nothing else touches on marines. Especially in a consistent manner over the decades.
Of course today you've got 3d printing and 3rd parties - you can find alternatives out there that aren't just "GW model", but hwich fit the scale, army slots and basic design language.
Lets not forget until recently with the plastic, SoB were a back-burner army that didn't even get a proper codex for ages nor even an advance upgrade of models into finecast.
Originally? Chaff unit in the form of Freataris Militia.
Then the chaff was Redemptionists.
Then you had no chaff, but got more metal models, sans Codex if memory serves. But what you’ve always had, until what feels relatively recently? No Plastic Infantry. Indeed, the only plastic model in their range was the old Rhino chassis. Then the new Rhino chassis.
Originally? Chaff unit in the form of Freataris Militia.
Then the chaff was Redemptionists.
Then you had no chaff, but got more metal models, sans Codex if memory serves. But what you’ve always had, until what feels relatively recently? No Plastic Infantry. Indeed, the only plastic model in their range was the old Rhino chassis. Then the new Rhino chassis.
Sisters were basically all metal until very recently yeah. They did that whole "skipping an edition" with their codex; didn't get any updated plastic models nor any new models for utterly ages. So basically they got zero attention which chipped away their sales and popularity to theory popularity. If they'd been removed entirely it would not have been a shock.
Instead GW went all in and honestly should have kept going all in featuring them more in marketing alongside Marines
And as someone who was there at the time? A slightly tongue in cheek quote.
Tim Bisley wrote: You are so blind! You so do not understand! You weren't there at the beginning! You don't know how good it was, how important!
Sisters of Battle released right at the very arse end of 2nd Edition. And they were mega.
Not just all female, at a time when pretty much any female model was a genuine novelty? But a whole new Imperial army, and a deep dive into the Ecclesiarchy and its foibles, like we’d never had before. Even when their range comprised of assorted characters, Frateris Militia, Sisters Infantry, Seraphim, Rhino and Immolator.
They were John Blanche artwork brought to the tabletop. They had a gothic, severe aesthetic, and some of my favourite helmets ever sculpted by anyone anywhere.
See, in 2nd Edition? New armies were rare. Necrons followed after, but other than that? It’s basically Tyranids, which weren’t New new, but had a major refresh and that.
Then? For years, lip service (not that, dirty Dakkanaut) at best. Years. The only army done anywhere near as dirty would be Dark Eldar, who basically got two thirds of fifty percent of absolutely feth all until….when did I sort my life out? 2010/2011, having been introduced and promptly shoved down a Warhammer Giant’s undies since 1998.
Yeah I have to say for all the Gothic themes in the Imperium its really only the SOB army that REALLY brings the gothic to the table.
Space Marines are honestly actually on the bland side in terms of gothic designwork. The Imperial Guard are more Grim-Dark WW1 and the Mechanicus are more pisons and machines but get some gothic elements with the servo skulls and such.
Siegfriedfr wrote: In a world where Adepta Sororitas plastic models exist (and Sisters of Silence could possibly be expanded as a faction), the need for "female Space Marines" and another "we are modern and progressive look at us" retcon (hello Adeptus Custodes), seems like a very politically oriented agenda to me, that is unnecessary to the settings, and also to the model range.
That said, given what we have seen in the videogame industry during the last 10years, and the Custodes precedent, it is only a matter of time i guess.
I have Sword Angels (Dark Angels and Blood Angels) for the bling, Ultramarines for the classical look, Space Wolves and a small force of Egyptian themed ‘loyalists’ because I love all those flavors. SOB only come in one flavor, one which pisses off my wife, which is extremely limiting. If they start selling Classical, werewolf and Egyptian flavor Sisters of Battle, maybe you’d have a point.
In the words of other posters, nothing stops you from cutomizing your SoB/SoS models however you see fit with third-party bits.
You could also retrofit Stormcast Eternals as space marines if you so wished.
Wanting "female Space Marines" officially recognized in the lore after 40 years of it not being the case, is a very strange obsession when other options are available.
I only had to wait, what? 27 years for a Mechanicus army... or a viable Custodes force (still not there yet, as the good tanks and dreadnoughts are still FW resin).
Waiting a long time for something you want shouldn't be penalized or held against you.
You should reward people that have stuck around waiting for you to release what they've always wanted.
And please don't quote the lore as if it I'd written in stone. Even GW has said that the canon is mutable, and they've changed things all the time.
They could release a book tomorrow in which one of the many time travelers from the future (and this trope happens a lot) brings back female space Marines on board... people will grumble on the interwebs.
And we will go on playing, and waiting for more cool stuff... together.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: See, in 2nd Edition? New armies were rare. Necrons followed after, but other than that? It’s basically Tyranids, which weren’t New new, but had a major refresh and that.
Then? For years, lip service (not that, dirty Dakkanaut) at best. Years. The only army done anywhere near as dirty would be Dark Eldar, who basically got two thirds of fifty percent of absolutely feth all until….when did I sort my life out? 2010/2011, having been introduced and promptly shoved down a Warhammer Giant’s undies since 1998.
Tau say hi.
Also obligatory "DE haven't meaningfully had anything in the intervening 13-14 years so no change there."
I think Sisters were hit especially hard because IIRC they had no plastic models at all. So they were very expensive to start. And then GW kind of abandoned them.
Anyway I think its highly likely GW will create female Space Marines at some point by 12th edition. I guess whether they go "yes, there were always female marines, just, uh, don't ask where they were in all the historic lore" is more open to question. Its hardly costing much to add a female head or two in each sprue. Pretty sure most people prefer all helmets anyway.
There will be much outcry and then the overwhelming majority of people who spend money on Games Workshop stuff will shrug and move on.
Waiting a long time for something you want shouldn't be penalized or held against you.
You should reward people that have stuck around waiting for you to release what they've always wanted.
There are people that are still waiting for updated aspect warriors, Eldar Corsairs, plastic armageddon steel warriors and other guard variants and Pariahs. And they've probably been waiting a lot longer than those who want female space marines.
Where's their reward? Why should they play second fiddle?
Games Workshop once again ignoring those in favor of yet more marines that not everyone even wants and seems to be a point of contention seems off to me.
And please don't quote the lore as if it I'd written in stone. Even GW has said that the canon is mutable, and they've changed things all the time.
Yeah, and it's crap. If they actually put some effort then it wouldn't be so bad, but they do it in such a half-arsed manner that it's mildly insulting to anyone who actually cares about narrative consistency and world-building.
Imagine if the first two Lord of the Rings books started off normally, and then suddenly in book 3 Sauron himself showed up in an Eva unit and Tolkein was like "nah bro, there have always been Eva units in the setting, they were just invisible".
That's basically what GW does, and its dumb.
Updated Aspect Warriors? The units that have, barring Warp Spiders, had multiple incarnations, and now we get them all in plastic early next year?
Eldar Corsairs? You mean the short lived Forgeworld variant list, which was never a “full Codex? Or do you mean these lads and lasses?
Guard variants? There’s Krieg just around the corner. Problem there is GW added too many, too fast. But the vast majority of the Guard is now 100% plastic.
Pariahs? They seem to be gone my dude. And it’s not as if we didn’t get rough equivalence in Lychguard and Praetorians. Plus remember, Pariahs stuck out in their army. No Ressurrection. No teleportation. No transport.
And time for the big question again. In a world where Female Astartes become a thing? What exactly does anyone lose?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Updated Aspect Warriors? The units that have, barring Warp Spiders, had multiple incarnations, and now we get them all in plastic early next year?
Eldar Corsairs? You mean the short lived Forgeworld variant list, which was never a “full Codex? Or do you mean these lads and lasses?
Guard variants? There’s Krieg just around the corner. Problem there is GW added too many, too fast. But the vast majority of the Guard is now 100% plastic.
Pariahs? They seem to be gone my dude. And it’s not as if we didn’t get rough equivalence in Lychguard and Praetorians. Plus remember, Pariahs stuck out in their army. No Ressurrection. No teleportation. No transport.
Even Vostroyans and Steel Legion? Pretty sure those aren't plastic, so no, its not 100%.
Per the corsairs...I might have done goofed. When I wrote that I was thinking of the guys with dinosaurs, which I thought were they but apparently its the Exodites that get those, which I'm pretty sure never had any sort of release. Given that the likes of Custodes and Sisters of Silence have a codex though, Corsairs might as well have one too.
Just as Sisters of Battle are not Space Marines, as seems to be the mantra, Lychguard are not Pariahs. I've been wanting those for a very long time, "my dude", so where's my "reward"?
No one in the Necron army had transport (no, teleportation via monoliths doesn't count as transport, it was just glorified deep strike), and whilst they didn't have WBB they didn't contribute to Phase Out either, so it sort of balances out. Not that Phase Out was a good rule anyway. Perhaps it was needed in 3rd ed, but it didn't seem to age well.
And time for the big question again. In a world where Female Astartes become a thing? What exactly does anyone lose?
From what I've read what other marine players think, army identity apparently. Similar to have having male Sisters of Battle. And no, clergy don't count, they aren't Sisters of Battle, just as an servitor in a space marine army doesn't count as a space marine.
Also time and resources spent on yet more marine bits that could have been used for literally anything else.
The rest is just arguing semantics. I wouldn’t say no to Pariahs returning meself, as I like their concept. But to pretend they’re just gone, with no direct equivalent replacement isn’t arguing in good faith.
As for the question I posed, and your response? What part of the Marines would be lost by such an occurrence?
It is the monastic lifestyle? The horrific alteration process by which mankind’s most powerful defenders are no longer really human in body, spirit or experience? Is it their preference for jumping straight on the enemy command and ripping it out root and stem, making life an awful lot easier for the other Imperial forces? Is it their signature arms and armour?
It is the monastic lifestyle? The horrific alteration process by which mankind’s most powerful defenders are no longer really human in body, spirit or experience? Is it their preference for jumping straight on the enemy command and ripping it out root and stem, making life an awful lot easier for the other Imperial forces? Is it their signature arms and armour?
Or is it in fact….none of the above?
I mean, there's the whole thing about battle-brothers and the fact that one of the chapters is called Sons of the Emperor and the idea that they are supposed to be over blown pastiches of hyper aggressive macho-men action heroes too. So yeah, that might get lost.
If it doesn't look like a male Rob Liefield character, its probably not a space marine
The rest is just arguing semantics. I wouldn’t say no to Pariahs returning meself, as I like their concept. But to pretend they’re just gone, with no direct equivalent replacement isn’t arguing in good faith.
They don't have a direct replacement. Lychguard are NOT pariahs. Pariahs are dedicated anti-psyker units armed with unique warscythes that have built in blasters with special rules that separate them from your typical necron, to give the idea that they are something unique, something "advanced". They even had a rule that limits how many you can have in an army to highlight just how experimental and new they were.
Lychguard are elite melee infantry that are just glorified immortals who chop instead of shoot.
Saying that they are the same because they both have warscythes completely misses the point. They are not equivalent at all.
And please don't quote the lore as if it I'd written in stone. Even GW has said that the canon is mutable, and they've changed things all the time.
Yeah, and it's crap. If they actually put some effort then it wouldn't be so bad, but they do it in such a half-arsed manner that it's mildly insulting to anyone who actually cares about narrative consistency and world-building.
Imagine if the first two Lord of the Rings books started off normally, and then suddenly in book 3 Sauron himself showed up in an Eva unit and Tolkein was like "nah bro, there have always been Eva units in the setting, they were just invisible".
That's basically what GW does, and its dumb.
You can’t compare a literary work, where consistency is crucial to the story, with a tabletop game where the lore is there solely to embellish the matches. The problem is that it’s gotten out of hand, and they’ve started publishing books with overly significant stories when it would have been better to release side stories without any major arcs. The lore should be a framework for each person to create their own stories, not a script to follow.
"
