Switch Theme:

Heresy of the worst kind  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Only one side of this argument believes in culture wars and its not the least bit surprising that its the one that uses the most religious metaphors and right wing buzzwords/phrases.
They're also more likely to view a disagreement on their opinion as a personal attack rather than the actual personal attacks they've been doing.
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

I'd like to point out that everything even vaguely lore-related that implies that Space Marine are male-only has already been discussed and clarified pages and pages ago.

Cawl process to produce Primaris can easily be extended to female candidate without any impact or retcon of the "lore" (instead, it can produce quite a lot of good feedback effect on the background... Pointing out how much obtuse the infallible Emperor was/is, better detailing the Renaissance represented by Primaris, within reworking neither the lore or any older marketing material.

If you really care about the lore, Female Space Marine are a huge opportunity.
Otherwise, you've other reason, and the lore is just a smokescreen.

I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Argive wrote:
Andykp wrote:
 LumenPraebeo wrote:
Being inclusive should never be something we work towards without good reason. What's the point of building toward a project that will eventually culminate into something that is worse than it is in the past just to hand the inferior result over to your daughter?

Great thought and care needs to be put into such marketing exercises, just like it needed to be done with previous successes in the past. Ultimately, GW has much better resources to study such things. But if fans are to push GW for inclusivity, it should be done with intelligence and respect, not hair trigger politically correct reactions.


GW have shown how well they can do it with the stormcast range. No fuss, no ham fisted cringe lore. Just cool models that are bad ass and happen to be women. The cover art of the new core book is a female leader of flagship faction, and it doesn’t matter that she’s female. It matters that she’s bad ass and an awesome model.

I checked again today and there is no point in the latest codex that says that marines have to be men, I wonder when that was last actually published?? Heard plenty of arguments where only the most up to date lore is canon, (don’t agree my self) but if that is the case then no need to worry about breaking the game with a lore change.


Ohh yeah the genesis of AOS and the killing of WHFB was "not ham-fisted"

I wouldn't say Storm cast are the AOS flagship faction. AOS doesn't seem to have one. People have drawn parallel of 'sigmarines' in the beginning because it was the faction that was hoggin all the stuff. It seemed like an attempt at introducing that SM factor to a fantasy setting.
Nowa days? I dont think so.. At least from a non AOS players perspective. The marketing and releases appears to be pretty even across all factions and new factions getting introduced.

I think perhaps that is something 40k is trying to emulate now as well.

But maybe its also the reason why AOS is not as popular as 40k on the grand scheme of things but also why 40k is less popular with women.


Can you clarify whether you're implying here that AOS is not as popular as 40k because there is not one single faction taking up 90% of the lore limelight and 50% of the model releases, or that AOS is less popular than 40k because roughly half its factions are not 'no girls allowed' treehouses?

Id honestly be curious to see where the numbers were at at this point. Locally 40k has been continuous - fairly big renaissance in the index era of 8th, but primarily people coming back who had quit in 6th or 7th, still 40k players re-joining. AOS has started from nothing, with mostly new gamers. Practically no old-school fantasy folks, and the group is now fully 2/3 of the size of the 40k group, skewing quite a bit younger and less focused on tournament competitive play.

Personally I've chalked a majority of it up to the massive resurgence in interest in Dungeons and Dragons with the immensely popular 5th edition. GW minis blow the DnD minis out of the water, so people who get into the miniature aspect encounter them and are interested. Several of the people who play AOS on AOS night are also in DnD groups, and a pattern I've seen a couple times is 'one person gets into aos, gets their DnD group interested including a couple of people who were not really at all into 'nerd stuff' prior to playing DnD get into AOS.'


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.

Mk, not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Nothing in the lore precludes an Astartes Aspirant from being female before the gene-seed implantation. It would be horrifically cursed if the process forced a female child into a male SM but that could be a potential scenario.
The only instance of male-coded language used by GW in the Creation of a Space Marine section in the 9th edition Codex is the term "Gene-sons".

Thats it. That is the whole sum of the lore that dictates who does and doesn't get to be a SM Aspirant.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 13:08:27


 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

Lore wise according to the latest codex we are good to go for female marines. Nothing but the occasional pronoun to stop them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.


Summary,
1.There is no bit if the lore that hasn’t been subject to change at some point.
2.The current lore doesn’t not state that marine must be male.
3. So far no one has come up with a reference to make only marines since 1989. Happy to see any later ones, be interesting to see when they last said it.
4. GW writers have said that that bit of lore is silly and outdated.

Seems pretty settled unless you know something I don’t. Why is this but any different than the rest of the lore? Please explain that to me if you can?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 13:16:30


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Andykp wrote:
Lore wise according to the latest codex we are good to go for female marines. Nothing but the occasional pronoun to stop them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.


4. GW writers have said that that bit of lore is silly and outdated.



Have you got a source for this? I've not seen that said before.
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






It was on WarCom when Marines got their 9th Ed release. They took the quote of how a Marine was made from like 3rd Ed but put a disclaimer saying it was an outdated piece of background.
To quote myself:

My question would be what counts as "The Lore"? We know who decides what is and isn't canon, GW btw, and they have already said the specific passage used to justify male-only SM is outdated.
Now you could take that as outdated compared to modern morale concerns OR as in the book is outdated and should no longer be used as a source of reference.

If we look at the 9th edition SM codex, in the Creation of a SM section there is one explicitly male reference and it is in the term Gene-Sons. This does not preclude non-male aspirants just that the end result is male. Pretty cursed IMO but peeps seem to love that whole "Grimdark" aesthetic.


The bit about "what does outdated mean" is what I'm aiming for now.
From the moral standpoint, I would say yes it is outdated. Way back when the game was intended for "boys only" but society has changed in the past 20ish years and hobbies aren't defined by sex or gender.
From the reference standpoint, also yes. You wouldn't reference a science book written in the 1930s for a paper written in 2021, why do the same with 40k lore?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 13:36:56


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Lore wise according to the latest codex we are good to go for female marines. Nothing but the occasional pronoun to stop them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.


4. GW writers have said that that bit of lore is silly and outdated.



Have you got a source for this? I've not seen that said before.


So here's a BL quote (Ashes of Prospero)
‘Just give us strong, smart and brave lads and the Sons of Russ will endure.’

‘Just sons?’ said Tyra, her humour edged with a hard look. ‘Perhaps there is more water that must learn to flow.’

Arjac looked at this fierce woman, the sharp spear held easily in her hand, and recalled that she had overcome her fear not with psychodoctrination but raw courage. She had been the first to run to aid him against the wyrm, whether he needed her or not. The spirit of Fenris was in all of its people, elder and child, man and woman. He had seen first-hand that Roboute Guilliman had brought back miracle warriors from the time of the Allfather Abroad. Space Marines moulded from even sharper steel. If that was possible, anything was. He laughed at the thought.

Tyra frowned at him, thinking he mocked her. He calmed his humour and bowed his head in apology, eyes never leaving hers.

‘Perhaps,’ he said.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 13:40:01


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gert wrote:
It was on WarCom when Marines got their 9th Ed release. They took the quote of how a Marine was made from like 3rd Ed but put a disclaimer saying it was an outdated piece of background.
To quote myself:

My question would be what counts as "The Lore"? We know who decides what is and isn't canon, GW btw, and they have already said the specific passage used to justify male-only SM is outdated.
Now you could take that as outdated compared to modern morale concerns OR as in the book is outdated and should no longer be used as a source of reference.

If we look at the 9th edition SM codex, in the Creation of a SM section there is one explicitly male reference and it is in the term Gene-Sons. This does not preclude non-male aspirants just that the end result is male. Pretty cursed IMO but peeps seem to love that whole "Grimdark" aesthetic.


While I haven't read what was specifically said, If they were talking about lore from 3rd edition then of course they're going to say it's outdated lore in the sense of it's current relevance - there's been an extra 20 years of stuff since then. Making the assumption that they might have instead been talking about what or how it was written in comparison to modern sensibilities just seems odd.

   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






How is it odd? In the context of the discussion in this thread, I think it was a good question to ask.
The specific paragraph held up as the holy grail of justification for male SM has been called outdated by GW.
I simply asked was this in a literal sense, where the book is OOP and shouldn't be referenced, or was it meant along the lines of "really there isn't justification for male-only SM we just don't want to say it outright".
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

I’ve also read through the five editions of codexs and army lists and nothing since 1989 states they must be male.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does anyone have 6th - 8th to see if it says it in there. I don’t have them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 13:59:15


 
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

Just to reiterate: we've discussed at length about how masculine and feminine trait aren't necessarily connected to genetic, how a possible female Space Marine would be essentially the same superhuman monster, and how the definition of "male" and "female" (in our own world, not 40k) aren't clear cut: so it is even more aggravating when you consider that a candidate is selected before puberty and bombarded with hormones and synthetic organs

I can explain it to you.
I can't understand it for you.

The fact you don't get it, doesn't mean it isn't clear.




Post-scriptum: just for bibliographical curiosity, I'll check my Capitolum Adprobavit (I think it's 2002 or something like that) when all the processes to create a Marine are detailed. It's not the original version but a translated one, but maybe there's something interesting there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 14:05:57


I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 Gert wrote:
How is it odd? In the context of the discussion in this thread, I think it was a good question to ask.
The specific paragraph held up as the holy grail of justification for male SM has been called outdated by GW.
I simply asked was this in a literal sense, where the book is OOP and shouldn't be referenced, or was it meant along the lines of "really there isn't justification for male-only SM we just don't want to say it outright".


If the material being referenced was over 20 years old, published many editions ago and since then lore has overall been added to drastically, where there may or may not have been relevant stuff published after, and if there was no actual indication they were commenting on it from the diversity side of things, than the most apparent interpretation is that saying it was outdated meant just that. It's not as if they could try and claim that it wasn't outdated in terms of its age.

   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






I guess most people didn't look at the link I sent about the major video game that decided to force women characters on the community and told players "if you don't like it don't play it"

Spoiler: They didn't buy it and the game tanked.

"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
Made in gb
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman





Guard are now 29 pounds with the new sprue, people who don't want the new heads and just want to make a horde of conscripts now have to pay an extra 6.50 for heads they won't use (32 heads for 10 guys)
They then also removed the EtB guardsmen.

I would be for female space marines if they were an extra sprue not an excuse to raise the cost of the set by 10 pounds


GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.  
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Matt Swain wrote:
I guess most people didn't look at the link I sent about the major video game that decided to force women characters on the community and told players "if you don't like it don't play it"

Spoiler: They didn't buy it and the game tanked.


That's fine and from my perspective, actually Good.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Matt Swain wrote:
I guess most people didn't look at the link I sent about the major video game that decided to force women characters on the community and told players "if you don't like it don't play it"

Spoiler: They didn't buy it and the game tanked.


Ill be honest I thought youd accidentally sent the wrong link....Because You appear to be referring to a game that has not as yet been released?

And claiming that it tanked, as in past tense?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Nah, the first 5 minutes of the video is the creator whining about how Battlefield V wasn't realistic because it had a woman in it, and then the rest of the video is about how good the next Battlefield game is going to be because it doesn't have women in it.
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

First, AoS (which I can't care less about, because I consider the lore important, and AoS lore in my opinion is... simply bad) nonetheless is the same demographics, company and price. So: you can prove that it's failing due to the Female Stormcast... champ.


Second, OF COURSE the addition of female marine will give GW an excuse to raise the price. Exactly like how they raise the price whatever change happens (sometimes because they simply change the box, sometimes because they give you LESS miniature)... So it's a non-sequitur.


But, hey, at least we reach that part of the discussion when everyone is watching the finger rather than the moon. It's a step forward from people not wanting to even look.

I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Interesting. So the claim now is that AOS is failing, and failing because female stormcast exist?

Weird, I didn't know we had sales figures from games workshop split between their games, it seems like they've continued to release AOS models, at a much higher pace than they did with fantasy models just before that got squatted, and their sales have gone up in general.

All I know from my area is: There didn't used to be any fantasy presence at all, now there is a large AOS scene. There did used to be a WMH and Xwing scene rivaling the 40k scene, those are both now dead as a doornail.

The active games in my area are by player group size 40k - AOS - Song of Ice and Fire.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 15:42:24


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Spoiler:
 Matt Swain wrote:
I guess most people didn't look at the link I sent about the major video game that decided to force women characters on the community and told players "if you don't like it don't play it"

Spoiler: They didn't buy it and the game tanked.

Presumably you're talking about BFV, which didn't fail because it added women you muppet.

It failed because when the game was shown to be more like Fortnite than BF1 in terms of character customisation the devs didn't do what CoD did and outline that the MP is designed to be Self Insert into the historical setting, while the campaign was the actual history stuff. Instead the BF devs stomped their feet and threw and tantrum. That's when they said "If you don't like it don't buy it".
Then the Beta was terrible and when the game finally released it was also terrible.

If you're belief that adding women to history games causes them to tank then I counter with both BF1 and CoD WW2, which as far as I'm aware sold pretty well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 15:50:13


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rihgu wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Lore wise according to the latest codex we are good to go for female marines. Nothing but the occasional pronoun to stop them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.


4. GW writers have said that that bit of lore is silly and outdated.



Have you got a source for this? I've not seen that said before.


So here's a BL quote (Ashes of Prospero)
‘Just give us strong, smart and brave lads and the Sons of Russ will endure.’

‘Just sons?’ said Tyra, her humour edged with a hard look. ‘Perhaps there is more water that must learn to flow.’

Arjac looked at this fierce woman, the sharp spear held easily in her hand, and recalled that she had overcome her fear not with psychodoctrination but raw courage. She had been the first to run to aid him against the wyrm, whether he needed her or not. The spirit of Fenris was in all of its people, elder and child, man and woman. He had seen first-hand that Roboute Guilliman had brought back miracle warriors from the time of the Allfather Abroad. Space Marines moulded from even sharper steel. If that was possible, anything was. He laughed at the thought.

Tyra frowned at him, thinking he mocked her. He calmed his humour and bowed his head in apology, eyes never leaving hers.

‘Perhaps,’ he said.


With respect....that's not quite a quote of gw stating 'the bit of lore about SM being male only is outdated', which is what was asked for. Thr closest it really comes is teasing you with a 'well, maaaayyyyyybeeeeeeee'.

Gw are the ultimate authority. You provide them stating this verbally or preferably written down in a statement - that's the end of it, frankly regardless of opinion. The matter is then closed.

This piece doesn't quite do that. That said, I do like the symbolism and and attitude behind the piece. Trust the Space Wolves to blaze a new trail. Thanks for sharing.

Andykp wrote:
Lore wise according to the latest codex we are good to go for female marines. Nothing but the occasional pronoun to stop them.


Are we?

This is interesting. Have they actually updated the text of the 'thirteen words'? What kind of language do they actually employ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 16:03:55


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






They just use Aspirant, Neophyte, Space Marine, that sort of stuff. Completely gender neutral with the only male coded part being "Gene-Sons" to describe the final result.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






My favorite thing about videos like this and the people who enjoy them is that you know that they're people who follow (or are) social media influencers who earn their livings and get their clicks by encouraging their followings to withhold their support or give their support to entertainment properties over perceived political statements they either disagree or agree with...but they've got an internal definition of "Cancel Culture" in their heads that somehow does not include them.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gert wrote:
They just use Aspirant, Neophyte, Space Marine, that sort of stuff. Completely gender neutral with the only male coded part being "Gene-Sons" to describe the final result.


That doesn't seem like some drastic change from previous descrptions. The 8th edition codex was fairly neutral too, and even back in 5th edition there was only 1 use of "Battle-Brothers" and a single use of "his" on the page describing their creation.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




To be VERY fair, the video posted about BF5 was pretty much Arch style crap of a incel raging and trying to "OWN LIBs"

He uses the term "Woke Liberal nonsense" in the first 60 seconds. I mean come on, are we calling this an Unbiased source for an argument?
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero







That doesn't seem like some drastic change from previous descrptions. The 8th edition codex was fairly neutral too, and even back in 5th edition there was only 1 use of "Battle-Brothers" and a single use of "his" on the page describing their creation.


I mean I've only owned the 9th ed codex so thanks I guess for proving the point even more?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 16:26:13


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Argive wrote:Lets say you are a complete lay person/woman who has never heard of Warhammer 40k

Google Warhammer 40k.. and you go to the 40k site

https://warhammer40000.com/

The very first thing you see is a HUGE MOVIG IMAGE MOVIE of a SOB walking towards the screen. and then the whole trailer thing happens where its all KABOOM!!!! PEW PEW PEW!! all about SOB and Marines kicking some evil Necron ass. Its only possible to tell one of the fighters character is female because she starts her pistol without helmet.

As a bystander who knows nothing about 40k, you can obviously tell that in the setting there are women. Who kick ass and wear power armour. Its very apparent these blue guys are obviously part of the same "team" - The human team.
I can then quite clearly see that the Sister of Battle isn't able to defeat the big evil skeleton - but the Space Marine can.

So how does this conversation go when you walk into a GW store?

Random customer(female) - Hey I saw trailer for 40k and I'm really interested in. I was walking by and thought Id check out your shop. What can you tell me about the guys in the trailer?

GW employee: *gives run down of 40k in the fututre humanity beset from all sides blah blah . So in the trailer you saw IOM forces of Sisters of battle and Space Marines fighting of the Evil ancient necrons.

Customer A: Ohh thats cool. And they fight together?

GW Staff: yes they can do. They their own factions factions and models which you you can use to play the game but you dotn have to etc. and there are rules etc. etc. Books. etc. etc. Then goes through to briefly explain each faction.

Customer: *has a walk around the shop* Okay I will buy into faction *tyranids*(or SOB if the gender bias is as important as its made out to be I guess?) what do you recommend I start with?/ No sorry this really doesn't seem like my thing maybe some other time.
So far so good.

And what happens when this plays out?
Spoiler:

"Customer: oh, I really like the armour design of these viking looking ones!

GW Staff: The Space Wolves? Yeah, they're kind of a cross between Norse culture and werewolf stuff!

Customer: Norse aesthetics really speak to me, I love the whole design. What kind of units can they take?

GW Staff: Well, because they're a type of Space Marine, they can pretty much have anything from this whole shelf - and they kits are really customisable, if you want to really personalise them!

Customer: Oh, that sounds great! I can't wait to make some badass shieldmaidens from these Bladeguard Veterans!

GW Staff: Ahaha, that sounds cool, but it's not canon

Customer: Not canon? Why not?

GW Staff: Oh, you see, it's just that women can't be Space Marines.

Customer: Why not?

GW Staff: Ah, well, you see, it says in the lore that...

Customer: But why? Seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction?"


You fancy explaining how that plays out?

At which point would a woman feel not represented in 40k because of marines as a new comer to 40k today?
If/when they express an interest in the cool looking Space Marines, only to be told that you can do whatever you like with them, as long as they're not women?
It certainly isn't the marketing.
Kinda is. When the most badass-ly presented faction has a conspicuous lack of women, that's definitely red flags.
I think a lot of you are coming at this from a very jaded veteran position and are creating problems out of something that is being addressed... Its just not addressed in the way you want it to and that's the part you don't like.
Where is the fundamentally arbitrary exclusion of women from being Space Marines addressed again?

How would people react if The emperor was a woman.
Pretty indifferent, I'll be honest. It's just a corpse on a throne. I don't think male-ness comes into the equation at that point.

Matt Swain wrote:As to more female models and presentation in 40k, fine, as long as they are sold in their own box sets or sprues and only people wanting them have to pay for them. That's fine with me, if the people who want to use them pay 100% for them, fine.

Unfortunately we all know that the bloosuckers running GW will put them in with all box sets them, of course, raise prices on the sets to cover the cost of the design, the sculpting, the molds, the CEOS new porsche, etc.
I'm confused. I don't remember being forced to buy Space Wolves upgrade packs when I picked up Intercessor Squads. I don't remember the Deathwatch sprue being forced on me when I buy Vanguard Veterans. Hell, I don't even remember the Genestealer Cults sprue being forced on me when I want to buy a squad of Cadians.

Having an upgrade sprue doesn't mean that it'll be repackaged with everything. That's just plain scaremongering.

maybe some people will refuse to pay the 'inclusion tax" for things they don't want and won't use.
Oh cool, can I complain about being charged for weapons and bitz that I never use? Can I complain about all the bare male heads which I need to pay the "inclusion tax" for in my Space Marines, because I don't use them?

Now GW players do have more than an either/or solution to the problem of being hit with an inclusion tax which will be part of price hikes of new female guard parts are added. Recasts and 3d printers. Yes, we do have other options and gw knows it.
So why did they release Chapter upgrade sprues if the same could happen with them?

I say no female space marines, Sobs are close enough
They really ain't, in the same way that Custodes are "close enough" to Space Marines.
and the lore says the marines have to be male.
The... made up fiction, right?
I am tired of small but very vocal groups bullying everyone into bowing to their views and i think that 40k should refuse to let a tiny group bully us all into changing the game to include female marines. Just. Say. No.
Asking for women toy soldiers is bullying now? Why does that threaten you?

Female guard, sure. WW2 proved women can fight and make great snipers, just ask the people at stalingrad.
You're right, women are great fighters. So why can't they be Space Marines?

But female marines, no. Just for once someone needs to stand up to these bullies and refuses to back down. Don't let them bully us into submission.
Why is people asking for women Space Marines "bullying"? Why does that threaten you?

So i'm fine with female guard, female elite forces, etc, as long as the majority of us aren't hit with an inclusion tax to pay for them.
Considering you weren't hit with an inclusion tax for Ultramarines or Space Wolves or Blood Angels or Dark Angels, I think an upgrade sprue could be sold separately. Don't worry, your wallet can sleep soundly at night.
Female marines? No. Period. End of discussion.
Why?

Matt Swain wrote:Women hate Being judged by their gender, and i think it's wrong to do so as well
Oh, excellent! We agree! So why can't women be Space Marines? After all, if gender shouldn't matter, why does it for if they can be Space Marines or not?

But the people demanding female marines are saying they can't identify with marines based on their gender.
I never said they couldn't identify. Only that when there is so clearly an active restriction against women, it de-incentivises identification.

Again, it really just sounds like you don't really understand what people are talking about by "identification", and the value people derive from it.

I like the sallies because of their mentality and commitment to protect people, not because they have one set of genitals or another.
I like the Salamanders too. But why on earth must they be all men? Why is that part of their design? Why does it have to be?
If I look at a Salamanders Astartes and think, wow, they're really cool and admirable, I wish I could see myself in their shoes - only then to be told that "nope, no women allowed, you can't be a Salamanders Astartes - that's going to crush any sense of identification or representation I might feel with them.

Honestly, if you want to identify with an army it should be because of their attitudes or what you think is cool, not "What do they have in their pants?"
Agreed. So why do those armies have arbitrary rules saying that you can't be one of them because of what you have in your pants?

Either genitalia is important*, or it's not. Which one is it?

*also, just wanna say that gender isn't genitalia, and you might want to reconsider how you're phrasing your designations accordingly.

LunarSol wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:

This is exactly the issue here. Women hate Being judged by their gender
Correct. They hate being told "you can't be this because you're a girl".
Excellently put.

LumenPraebeo wrote:Being inclusive should never be something we work towards without good reason.
Eh, I think being inclusive is a good reason in it's own right.

LumenPraebeo wrote:I also forgot to mention in my previous posts that, any single move or event should not be expected to draw in a larger fan base. Whatever reasons people get into any hobby, any tabletop wargaming, its rarely for one reason alone.

So yes, adding female Astartes into 40K is a step, a pretty good step IMO. But one step on a flight of stairs. Maybe we will also need marketing, maybe we need new characters. Maybe we need new stories.

Maybe we need to change how GW floor representatives see you for the first time, run up to you and shout in your face when all you wanted to do was buy a box of toys quietly, and head home.

And maybe all it will take is time. Regardless, any type of work worth doing, theres going to be the real possibility that it will take a long time, and a lot of little things will need to be tinkered with and thought about, if we want to see tabletop wargaming become as attractive as something like DnD.
Very much agreed. No single change, short of just snapping my fingers and everyone's all cool now, would fix the issue - but that doesn't mean we can't take steps now.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.
Eh, not quite.
The whole "only works with male tissue" excuse from the very original "Creation of a Space Marine" document hasn't been repeated in modern iterations, and when GW reposted it on their WarCom site, they explicitly mention that some aspects are products of their time, and are no longer considered canon.

Now, they were quite coy with that, but with all the distancing they're making away from the whole "only men can be Space Marines" thing, paired with the excerpt from the Space Wolves book up earlier, perhaps the lore isn't done settling yet.


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gert wrote:

That doesn't seem like some drastic change from previous descrptions. The 8th edition codex was fairly neutral too, and even back in 5th edition there was only 1 use of "Battle-Brothers" and a single use of "his" on the page describing their creation.


I mean I've only owned the 9th ed codex so thanks I guess for proving the point even more?


What point? It hasn't changed in order to make it more gender-neutral as the wording has been similar to that for years already.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:No, you think the lore has been clarified. Doesn't make it so.
Eh, not quite.
The whole "only works with male tissue" excuse from the very original "Creation of a Space Marine" document hasn't been repeated in modern iterations, and when GW reposted it on their WarCom site, they explicitly mention that some aspects are products of their time, and are no longer considered canon.


Got a quote for this? Second time I've seen it mentioned yet no posting of what they actually said.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 16:47:16


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: