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
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






The point would be that males are not required for making a Space Marine.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Found what the "They said it was outdated/non-canon on the community site" that was mentioned without any actual quote.

Editor’s Note: This article comes from one of yesteryear’s publications called Index Astartes I, originally printed in 2002, and the information contained within has been revisited and updated in many a Codex: Space Marines since. For posterity’s sake, we wanted to present the original article in full, despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/

It's simply them stating the fact that later lore has reworded and updated things many many times over the years, with each subsequent codex things get re-written, modified or condensed slightly. There's nothing there that indicates there's more to that.

Saying "current codex leaves it out so they got rid of it" doesn't quite hold up when (that i can see) neither the 3rd or 4th edition codex, those closest to the publishing of Index Asartes 1, included it either despite it being recent material at the time. Index Asartes was a much more descriptive background book that was able to detail much more than what was included in Codex's. It not being included in the Codex doesn't suggest anything either way.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 17:14:52


 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






And yet it can still be discussed that the changes made could be viewed as intent to move away from the all-male SM concept.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 17:14:38


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gert wrote:
And yet it can still be discussed that the changes made could be viewed as intent to move away from the all-male SM concept.


Considering the information doesn't seem to have been detailed to that extent since index Astartes was released (as in there hasn't been a book with a similar amount of information on the topic that I know of, albeit I don't know what the 2013 Index Astartes includes) and the wording of the creation pages in the codex is something that varies often with it being fairly neutral since at least 2008, what changes are you referring to specifically?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 17:24:06


 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






Before we go on, can you tell me what side of the discussion you are on here, pro-female SM or anti-female SM?
You kind of seem to just be focussing on the one article and how people interpreted it.

What I'm saying is GW is using gender-neutral terms to describe the creation of a SM, which according to you they have been doing since 2008. The one piece of lore that gets trotted out every single time to oppose female SM is declared outdated and is no longer in use.
So where is the lore reason for no female SM?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 17:27:18


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 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.
The point being that Space Marines *needing* to be men, and them being male was integral to their core identity.

If GW haven't been reinforcing that Space Marines need to be men, then do they need to be men?

 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.
No worries, I'll re-link it here, with the excerpt extracted:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/
Warhammer Community wrote:Editor’s Note: This article comes from one of yesteryear’s publications called Index Astartes I, originally printed in 2002, and the information contained within has been revisited and updated in many a Codex: Space Marines since. For posterity’s sake, we wanted to present the original article in full, despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years.



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Gert wrote:
And yet it can still be discussed that the changes made could be viewed as intent to move away from the all-male SM concept.


Considering the information doesn't seem to have been detailed to that extent since index Astartes was released (as in there hasn't been a book with a similar amount of information on the topic that I know of, albeit I don't know what the 2013 Index Astartes includes) and the wording of the creation pages in the codex is something that varies often with it being fairly neutral since at least 2008, what changes are you referring to specifically?

The 'Creation of a Space Marine' was re-published with an added paragraph about Primaris in White Dwarf a couple of years ago; and since nobody has ever claimed differently, I'm willing to assume that it made no implication of female marines being any more possible than in the previous two decades.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 17:28:41


 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The point being that Space Marines *needing* to be men, and them being male was integral to their core identity.

If GW haven't been reinforcing that Space Marines need to be men, then do they need to be men?

What Smudge said. They're better at this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 17:34:03


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Mentlegen324 wrote:It's simply them stating the fact that later lore has reworded and updated things many many times over the years, with each subsequent codex things get re-written, modified or condensed slightly. There's nothing there that indicates there's more to that.
The way I see the editor's note, it's a polite way of saying "not everything in this is accurate any more, or what we consider to be relevant to modern canon, we're just reposting some of our older stuff for clicks", most especially the "despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years" section.

Considering that one of the most glaring omissions from that text which hasn't really been seen in more modern printings is the whole "male hormones and tissues" section, I think it's a reference to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The point being that Space Marines *needing* to be men, and them being male was integral to their core identity.

If GW haven't been reinforcing that Space Marines need to be men, then do they need to be men?

What Smudge said. He's better at this.
If it's all the same, 'they', please.

Thank you!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 17:32:44




They/them

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Sweden

To reiterate: The issue isn't one of sales or anything else. It is only and exclusively a wise worldbuilding choice.

Exclusive warrior nun and monk orders respectively plays upon archaic strings. That is why there are no male Sisters of Silence or female Space Marines. Women elite warriors have their wonderful concepts in Sororitas and Sisters of Silence, and males in Astartes and Custodes. And the twain shall never mix.

Games Workshop did the right call. They understand how their setting ticks.

It is an archaic pulse.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Karak Norn Clansman wrote:
To reiterate: The issue isn't one of sales or anything else. It is only and exclusively a wise worldbuilding choice.

Exclusive warrior nun and monk orders respectively plays upon archaic strings. That is why there are no male Sisters of Silence or female Space Marines. Women elite warriors have their wonderful concepts in Sororitas and Sisters of Silence, and males in Astartes and Custodes. And the twain shall never mix.

Games Workshop did the right call. They understand how their setting ticks.

It is an archaic pulse.


You still haven't answered the question I posed to you the last time you posted this:

The Primaris line of space marines did not alter the fact that Astartes are all male.

The new Necromunda model range did alter all the necromunda gangs to include members of both sexes.

Is the Primaris line of space marines therefore true to the spirit of the setting of the 41st millennium, and the new Necromunda model range a departure and betrayal?

"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:
Before we go on, can you tell me what side of the discussion you are on here, pro-female SM or anti-female SM?
You kind of seem to just be focussing on the one article and how people interpreted it.

What I'm saying is GW is using gender-neutral terms to describe the creation of a SM, which according to you they have been doing since 2008. The one piece of lore that gets trotted out every single time to oppose female SM is declared outdated and is no longer in use.
So where is the lore reason for no female SM?


I can totally understand why people might want it - representation and diversity are both something that would be good to have more of - but i don't agree with the notion that there needs to be "justification" for Space Marines to be how they are. Their original theming amounts to them being a combination of a monastic order and a warrior brotherhood, and while that isn't the case for every chapter, it's still a large part of their overall idea. I don't think that lessening parts of their identity to take away part of that theming would be a good thing - several of the the arguments for this idea seem to be able to be applied to GW suddenly making male Adepta Sororitas too, yet if that was the topic being discussed I doubt many would be in favour.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:It's simply them stating the fact that later lore has reworded and updated things many many times over the years, with each subsequent codex things get re-written, modified or condensed slightly. There's nothing there that indicates there's more to that.
The way I see the editor's note, it's a polite way of saying "not everything in this is accurate any more, or what we consider to be relevant to modern canon, we're just reposting some of our older stuff for clicks", most especially the "despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years" section.

Considering that one of the most glaring omissions from that text which hasn't really been seen in more modern printings is the whole "male hormones and tissues" section, I think it's a reference to that.


The point I was trying to make is that, at least from what I can find, no Space Marine codex has included that information in the first place. 3rd, 4th, 5th and 8th all don't have that information included that i can see. It's something that was featured in White Dwarf articles and Index Astartes, it's not fair to compare that full background book to the condensed much more limited information included in the codex. It wasn't in the codex at the time of the publishing of that material either, they're not the right place to expect it given in that level of detail.

Saying "they omit it so it's no longer in use" seems a little strange to claim if it wasn't a case of it being part of the lore that showed up often at one point and then was suddenly gone, it was detailed in a specific background book that hasn't really been republished or over-written since, and from what I can see as mentioned by Lord Damocles, White Dwarf August 2017 included the "creation of a Space Marine" article and updated it with Primaris Marines. I can't find my issue to see if it's any different other than the original though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 18:05:34


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Karak Norn Clansman wrote:To reiterate: The issue isn't one of sales or anything else. It is only and exclusively a wise worldbuilding choice.
Doesn't that clash with what Alan Merritt said about the situation, in that the not!women Space Marines they made simply didn't sell, and they just quietly pretended they never existed?

Exclusive warrior nun and monk orders respectively plays upon archaic strings.
But not all Space Marine Chapters fit the "archaic warrior monk" trope - maybe they used to, decades ago, but that design trope has left a lot of their design.

Does it remain in some Chapters, such as the Black Templars, Dark Angels, and suchlike? Absolutely. But in other Chapters, like the Space Wolves, or Carcharadons, or Raptors, or Emperor's Spears? They don't have the same trappings, the same design and focus on that. Considering the Space Marines are now more strongly defined by their customisation and player freedoms than by their "warrior monk" design, I think the "worldbuilding" should better reflect that.
Games Workshop did the right call. They understand how their setting ticks. It is an archaic pulse.
Is that why the Primaris Marines exist? Is that why GW have moved further and further away from the "warrior monk" aesthetic in favour of a more varied design, open to player freedoms and customisation, running the whole range from "warrior monk" to "techno-barbarian" to "elite spec-ops" to "historical culture IN SPAAAAACE" and everything in between?

Sorry, but I really don't buy the whole "Space Marines are supposed to represent ancient warrior monks", because that design cue just ain't around any more in the macro scale. Custodes could be argued to have that still, because the "companions" imagery and their faction design is much narrower - you don't have Viking Custodes running alongside Mongolian Custodes and Spec-Ops Custodes and Roman Custodes. You just have "Custodes".

Space Marines have diversified too much to still be considered any one thing beyond "elite super soldiers" - and I think that's a good thing, which GW are very understanding of in how their market ticks: people like customisation, and they like easily representable merch.



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






 Karak Norn Clansman wrote:
To reiterate: The issue isn't one of sales or anything else. It is only and exclusively a wise worldbuilding choice.

Exclusive warrior nun and monk orders respectively plays upon archaic strings. That is why there are no male Sisters of Silence or female Space Marines. Women elite warriors have their wonderful concepts in Sororitas and Sisters of Silence, and males in Astartes and Custodes. And the twain shall never mix.

Games Workshop did the right call. They understand how their setting ticks.

It is an archaic pulse.


Firstly, SM aren't monks. Stop calling them monks.

Further, the Imperium's "archaic" nature is based on the fact that it places the doctrines and dogma of its religion above the needs of the state and people. Religion controls exactly one of the segregated factions and even then in that very army, there are instances of mixing.
The Imperium doesn't regard sex/gender/skin colour/sexuality in its people, which is more than we can say today, so they can't be archaic that way. The vast majority of Imperial tech far outstrips our own so again, not archaic there.

As for "it's not a sales thing", yeah it is chief. The only reason SM are male-only in the first place is that female models didn't sell well back in the '80s
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:It's simply them stating the fact that later lore has reworded and updated things many many times over the years, with each subsequent codex things get re-written, modified or condensed slightly. There's nothing there that indicates there's more to that.
The way I see the editor's note, it's a polite way of saying "not everything in this is accurate any more, or what we consider to be relevant to modern canon, we're just reposting some of our older stuff for clicks", most especially the "despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years" section.

Considering that one of the most glaring omissions from that text which hasn't really been seen in more modern printings is the whole "male hormones and tissues" section, I think it's a reference to that.


I can understand that, but the point I was trying to make is that, at least from what I can find, no Space Marine codex has included that information in the first place. 3rd, 4th, 5th and 8th all don't have that information included that i can see. It's something that was featured in White Dwarf articles and Index Astartes, it's not fair to compare that full background book to the condensed much more limited information included in the codex. It wasn't in the codex at the time of the publishing of that material either, they're not the right place to expect it given in that level of detail.
And so, if it's not included in the Codexes, why is it so important? If it were so critical to their factional identity, I'd have expected it to be laid out front and centre. The Sisters of Battle have their mono-gendered reasoning laid out in nearly every work they have, if I'm not mistaken. Their history is massively intertwined with the Decree Passive. Space Marines... evidently not.

Again, it's just this matter of "how important really is this lore"? If it's not being repeated in Codexes, or if GW themselves aren't emphasising Space Marines' all-maleness in the same way they highlight the Sororitas' womanliness, is it really that integral that they *are* men?



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Look... Its painfully obvious people have so much bias and investment into the idea that Male Sm or male popularity of wargaming is a problem they cant even watch the 9th edition trailer without going:

"see!! woman saved by man! man bad! man mysogynist!"

This case study can be an example where the argument for representation is trying to drive narrative and storytelling... ​
Why?

Because people are unhappy that a space marine/man saved a SOB/woman because that's somehow misogynist and at the same time completely disregard the rest of the narrative where the SOB is kicking ass and the only reason SM can kill big bad robot is because of her help. ITs' clear teamwork is the main component of the victory... But people cannot see past their own narrative. asnd hyperffocus on "mysgnist SM" narartive..
That's how stupid this conversation is.

​By this metric, the writers would have to consciously make stories where no SOB or a woman can ever be saved by a male because its misogynist?
If not every story, how many times do they need to avoid this "mysoginist trope" ?? How many other tropes would people consider not inclusive or misogynist.? Who gets to decide? Do we police writers now? Its stupid. And illustrates how this is a can of worms and clearly, the agenda is to control narrative and control creativity.

To be honest, I dont think you guys really think that.
I think you are doubling down on your concept because admiting that SOB are badass and are being pushed to the forefront in terms of marketing and being given the space that features women in 40k undermines your whole narrative where SM must be bad and always will be bad because there are no women.

Why is the fact 40k seems to be more popular with men than women an issue ?

AOS is being touted as starting from nothing. This is utter bullcrap. AOS is built on the corpse of WHFB and the peripheral popularity of 40k.

My point was, if we run Scotsman numbers where 60 players play 40k and all male and 40 players play AOS and are 50/50 female. It seems like 40k is doing pretty darn good in terms of engagement.. I don't think Scotsman the type of person that would allow any players to conduct themselves in bad way towards women when organising the club games. Are you going to tell me all 60 players are drawn to 40k because of misogynist SM and dislike girls? Absurd..

Maybe the 40ks appeal to men is because it's a different style of game to AOS than the content of the gendered models?

I don't subscribe to the narrative that 40k is somehow irredeemable and evil because SM has no women or that they need to be changed just because you don't like SOB or SOS for whatever reason... Im sorry you dont like the dichotomy of the setting. But I don't see how that's anyone's problem least of all creators.. Their product seems plenty popular.

Take your blinkers off and you might enjoy the world a bit more. Not everything n is some sort of an manifsestation of sexism just because men enjoy it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 18:13:11


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





 Argive wrote:
Look... Its painfully obvious people have so much bias and investment into the idea that Male Sm or male popularity of wargaming is a problem they cant even watch the 9th edition trailer without going:

"see!! woman saved by man! man bad! man mysogynist!"
No-one said that.
It's just that you claimed that "see, there's a woman in it, everyone's equal!!", and yet the video you touted as proof did not show them as equal. Don't bring up bad evidence.

This case study can be an example where the argument for representation is trying to drive narrative and storytelling... ​
Why?

Because people are unhappy that a space marine/man saved a SOB/woman because that's somehow misogynist and at the same time completely disregard the rest of the narrative where the SOB is kicking ass and the only reason SM can kill big bad robot is because of her help. ITs' clear teamwork is the main component of the victory... But people cannot see past their own narrative. asnd hyperffocus on "mysgnist SM" narartive..
Again, no-one said it was misogynist. Seriously, the whole misrepresenting people's arguments got old several pages ago.

We're just pointing out the obvious - the Sister did not kill the big bad skeleton. The Space Marine did.
​By this metric, the writers would have to conciously make stories where no SOB or a woman can ever be saved by a male because its misogynist?
If not every story, how many times do they need to avoid this "mysoginist trope" ?? How many other tropes would people consider "not inclusive"..? WHo gets to decide? Do we police writers now? ts stupid. And illustrates how this is a can of worms and clealry the agenda is to control narrative and control creativity.
At the risk of repeating myself, no-one said that either.

We're just pointing out how, in the work you claimed showed how women were empowered and equal, we watched our focal Sister of Battle need to get saved from certain death. And that's honestly fine, in the same way we see the Guardsmen needed saving from the Necrons by the Sisters. But it makes it very clear that the Space Marines are the top of the food chain presented. And if women can't be at the top of that food chain, but the men can? Well, why not?

I think you are doubling down on your concept because admiting that SOB are badass and are being pushed to the forefront in terms of marketing and being given the space that features women in 40k undermines your whole narrative where SM must be bad and always will be bad because there are no women.
Sisters of Battle *are* badass. But they're not Space Marines. And if you're after Space Marines, Sisters won't scratch that.

Why is the fact 40k seems to be more popular with men than women an issue ?
Well, it depends *why* it's more popular. If it's more popular purely because women feel like 40k is less accepting of women, then that *is* a problem.

So, yeah - while I'm not pointing fingers, perhaps we really should be wondering why AoS has a high proportion of women players than 40k does.

AOS is being touted as starting from nothing. This is utter bullcrap. AOS is built on the corpse of WHFB and the peripheral popularity of 40k.
And yet, is more popular with women. Why is that?

Are you going to tell me all 60 players are drawn to 40k because of misogynist SM and dislike girls? Absurd..

Maybe the 40ks appeal to men is because it's a different style of game to AOS than the content of the gendered models?
In what way is 40k a "different style of game"? Perhaps it's more than just "gendered models" - but that would require making a detailed and cross-cultural analysis asking those questions. And I genuinely would be interested in the answer.

What I'd have to ask you is "if" it turned out that women said they were put off by 40k because of the feeling of masculine-dominance and exclusionary behaviour towards women, and cited the vociferous defence of keeping Space Marines all male as emblematic of it, what would you propose to do about it?

I don't subscribe to the narrative that 40k is somehow irredeemable and evil because SM has no women or that they need to be changed just because you don't like SOB or SOS for whatever reason... Im sorry you dont like the dichotomy of the setting. But I don't see how that's anyone's problem least of all creators.. Their product seems plenty popular.
If I'm reading that right...
"Space Marines need to be men, and if you don't like that, get lost"?

Folks, I think we might have our answer for why women might feel that 40k isn't for them.

Take your blinkers off and you might enjoy the world a bit more. Not everything n is some sort of an manifsestation of Msexism just because men enjoy it.
The issue isn't that men enjoy it. The issue is why doesn't everyone else enjoy it? Is it because they simply don't enjoy it in the first place, or is it because those men enjoy the exclusionary parts?

Men are allowed to enjoy things. No-one said otherwise. But why is male enjoyment tied to "women can't be Space Marines"?



They/them

 
   
Made in us
Revving Ravenwing Biker




New York City

I've never thought for once that Space Marines are misogynistic. I just want female space marines. And anyone with the notion that current space marine lore is misogynistic, are doing so with preconceived notions.

But adding females to the ranks of the Astartes can only be good for 40K. At the worst, nothing happens. Unless you're a misogynist; then adding females to the ranks of the Astartes makes 40K worse for you.

Fight for our dead! Death to their living! And claim them in the name of the Emperor!
Lego Warhammer 40,000. Someone make it happen. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Are female marines possible? Sure. The science to make space marines is practically magic. Should there female marines? No. It’s the fluff that bothers me not the capabilities of women. I think we have to consider who made the marines in the first place. Do you really think the Big E would consider something like gender inclusivity in his grand plan? Doubtful. The Emperor protects. He doesn’t empathize. The same goes for Cawl. I’m not sure we can even call Cawl a man with as many pieces as he’s had lopped off. Fleshy concerns such as Gender do not seem like concerns of the devotees of the machine god. The Imperium are a group of xenophobic, genocidal, bigoted, paranoid zealots. Why would we expect them to share decent 21st century values? They’re not the good guys. We shouldn’t expect them to act like it. As far as female representation in 40k surely someone has mentioned the Eldar, DE and Tau in addition to the Guard SoS and SoB.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 18:47:16


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Argive wrote:

"see!! woman saved by man! man bad! man mysogynist!"

Why is the fact 40k seems to be more popular with men than women an issue ?

AOS is being touted as starting from nothing. This is utter bullcrap. AOS is built on the corpse of WHFB and the peripheral popularity of 40k.

My point was, if we run Scotsman numbers where 60 players play 40k and all male and 40 players play AOS and are 50/50 female. It seems like 40k is doing pretty darn good in terms of engagement.. I don't think Scotsman the type of person that would allow any players to conduct themselves in bad way towards women when organising the club games. Are you going to tell me all 60 players are drawn to 40k because of misogynist SM and dislike girls? Absurd..

Maybe the 40ks appeal to men is because it's a different style of game to AOS than the content of the gendered models?

I don't subscribe to the narrative that 40k is somehow irredeemable and evil because SM has no women or that they need to be changed just because you don't like SOB or SOS for whatever reason...


Maybe you're having trouble with all this stuff because you're out here on the internet, arguing with an imaginary secret version of a person who doesn't exist who's saying things like.....aaaaaaaany of this really.

AOS came from nothing in the area I've been playing games the last 10 years. There was functionally zero WHFB scene, now there is a large AOS scene nearly as large as the 40k scene.

40k only appealing to men is only a problem to me because of the fact that it seems like only AOS gets any kind of new players. The pool of people who quit 40k in 6th and 7th edition and are coming back because the rules are less miserable to play now can't be infinite, and AOS has some kinda magic juju that's getting the newbies who weren't into wargaming at all before into it. It's the same store, and the same club group, but after a decade you can see trends in who is playing a game, and while the 40k scene has grown pretty steadily since the launch of 8th from our absolute trough of only having like 15 active members at the end of 7th, 40k players have gotten much older on average since I started out at the beginning of college.

40k and AOS are fundamentally different games. If you actually read my post, like, even the TINIEST bit honestly, you'll note that I actually discussed what I thought was one of the primary appeals to newer players that had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with what gender the models were - the fact that DnD is having a massive renaissance, which is getting people into AOS through the fact that it's a high fantasy setting.

So let's go over claims that I didn't, and I haven't seen anybody, actually making:

-a thing that men enjoy is inherently bad
-40k is irredeemable and evil
-all players are drawn to 40k because they are misogynists and hate girls
-40k is failing because SMs are only men



"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
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






Kurotenshi wrote:
Are female marines possible? Sure. The science to make space marines is practically magic. Should there female marines? No. It’s the fluff that bothers me not the capabilities of women. I think we have to consider who made the marines in the first place. Do you really think the Big E would consider something like gender inclusivity in his grand plan? Doubtful. The Emperor protects. He doesn’t empathize. The same goes for Cawl. I’m not sure we can even call Cawl a man with as many pieces as he’s had lopped off. Fleshy concerns such as Gender do not seem like concerns of the devotees of the machine god. The Imperium are a group of xenophobic, genocidal, bigoted, paranoid zealots. Why would we expect them to share decent 21st century values. They’re not the good guys. We shouldn’t expect them to act like it. As far as female representation in 40k surely someone has mentioned the Eldar, DE and Tau in additional the Guard SoS and SoB.


The Imperium needs more soldiers, why is it actively cutting it's recruiting options in half for its best soldiers?

The female rep for other factions is:
A - Non-human (sexual deviants, models made before iPhones were a thing, and T'au).
B - Religious zealots, that still have male models in their range making them better for representation than most other factions.
C - An army of one kit (SoS)
D - Guard who have a grand total of 1 character, some heads for 1 kit and an MTO mini.

Not exactly what I would call representative.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 18:48:10


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Kurotenshi wrote:
Do you really think the Big E would consider something like gender inclusivity in his grand plan? Fleshy concerns such as Gender do not seem like concerns of the devotees of the machine god. The Imperium are a group of xenophobic, genocidal, bigoted, paranoid zealots. Why would we expect them to share decent 21st century values. They’re not the good guys.


Yeah, here's the thing though: people like to claim nowadays that making some setting gender-inclusive makes the setting MORE political, but actually it tends to make it less.

Portraying misogyny and sexism and traditional, skin-color-based 21st century racism within your science fiction setting is making that setting more political given the current norms of society. That's exactly why you've got so many incredibly unambiguously gleefully irredeemably evil baddie bad bad bad guys in 40k and why a lot of the time the oppression shown within the imperium is just...regular labor servitude/random killing and violence for no reason type stuff.

Star Trek was political for portraying a future society that didnt give a crap about gender and 21st century conceptions of race....in the fething 1960s...

"this is my super space soldier future sci fi setting, the super space soldiers only take male recruits and women arent allowed because sexism" would be inserting the modern day political discussions surrounding women in the military into 40k.

"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
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Kurotenshi wrote:Are female marines possible? Sure. The science to make space marines is practically magic. Should there female marines? No. It’s the fluff that bothers me not the capabilities of women. I think we have to consider who made the marines in the first place. Do you really think the Big E would consider something like gender inclusivity in his grand plan? Doubtful. The Emperor protects. He doesn’t empathize. The same goes for Cawl. I’m not sure we can even call Cawl a man with as many pieces as he’s had lopped off. Fleshy concerns such as Gender do not seem like concerns of the devotees of the machine god. The Imperium are a group of xenophobic, genocidal, bigoted, paranoid zealots. Why would we expect them to share decent 21st century values. They’re not the good guys. We shouldn’t expect them to act like it. As far as female representation in 40k surely someone has mentioned the Eldar, DE and Tau in additional the Guard SoS and SoB.
See, the problem with that though is that I totally agree the Imperium wouldn't go out of their way for gender equality.

The issue is that the lore goes out of it's way to be exclusive. There's no reason that the Magic Space Super Soldier Serum Juice should have excluded women in the first place, and no reason that the Emperor (or rather, Amar Astarte, a woman) would go out of their way to design a serum that actively halved the amount of recruits the Imperium could get.

The whole "the Imperium doesn't care about gender equality" argument falls flat when we look at the Guardsmen, who are mixed gender. We look at the High Lords - or rather, High Lords and Ladies. You're right - the Imperium doesn't care about gender, which is why it's a largely gender-neutral society, except, weirdly, for Space Marines, Sisters of Silence, Sisters of Battle and Custodes. So, the point you made about "they're not the good guys, so they shouldn't have any women Space Marines" doesn't hold up when we see women soldiers elsewhere in the Imperium. Are they sexist, or are they not?

Of those four factions, I'm not well aware enough on why Sisters of Silence are all women, but I can definitely say that the only reason Space Marines aren't is because of biology mumbo-jumbo - and for that, I then need to ask "but why can't the Magic Space Super Soldier Serum Juice work on women"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, here's the thing though: people like to claim nowadays that making some setting gender-inclusive makes the setting MORE political, but actually it tends to make it less.
Exactly. Not to mention how we clearly see the Imperium is (on paper), incredibly lax when it comes to gender and race. They don't, and shouldn't, care what you are, as long as you're human (and even then, they'll happily use abhumans when they need to).

Why on earth would they want to cut their potential recruiting pool in half?

(This is, of course, still omitting that the only real reason women can't be Space Marines is because there was a made up biological reason in the first place, which literally does not need to exist.)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 18:55:18




They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

If a new player was to come in to the game now, is there anything in print that states that marines have to be men?
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





The Imperium needs more soldiers, why is it actively cutting it's recruiting options in half for its best soldiers?

That’s logical, but Since when has the Imperium ever let logic get in the way of tradition?

The female rep for other factions is:
A - Non-human (sexual deviants, models made before iPhones were a thing, and T'au).
B - Religious zealots, that still have male models in their range making them better for representation than most other factions.
C - An army of one kit (SoS)
D - Guard who have a grand total of 1 character, some heads for 1 kit and an MTO mini.

If you think Space marines aren’t religious zealots, then don’t go telling the black templars or any of the chaplins that are on like every army.

I would definitely like to see more diverse model ranges in the non marine armies you mentioned. Hell, my main army is Eldar.

I do have to wonder would you be willing to support male Sisters of Battle? That’s not vary inclusionary either. Or what about the fact that space marines chapters discriminate by only allowing applicants from certain planets. Once you start going down this road it changes the nature of the setting. Which is supposed to be ugly.
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Andykp wrote:
If a new player was to come in to the game now, is there anything in print that states that marines have to be men?
In print? Not that I'm sure, aside from gendered pronouns?

In practice, all the Marines we see are male, all the options for bare heads are masculine-presenting, and there's a decent chance that if you put a female-presenting head on your model, someone will shoot it down for being "non-canon" or "trying to make 40k political".



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






Kurotenshi wrote:

If you think Space marines aren’t religious zealots, then don’t go telling the black templars or any of the chaplins that are on like every army.


So the vast minority of SM are religious zealots. Cool. What was the point there?

I would definitely like to see more diverse model ranges in the non marine armies you mentioned. Hell, my main army is Eldar.

I do have to wonder would you be willing to support male Sisters of Battle? That’s not vary inclusionary either. Or what about the fact that space marines chapters discriminate by only allowing applicants from certain planets. Once you start going down this road it changes the nature of the setting. Which is supposed to be ugly.


Multiple times has it been stated in this thread you clearly haven't read that the same people advocating for female SM also want those armies that have mixed ranges to be updated to actually represent it.
Oh good the male SoB is getting trotted out again, yay. The difference between SoB and SM is that SoB HAVE male models in their range making the army mixed. SM only have dudes.
As for SM only taking from specific planets being exclusionary, just shut up. You know that's not a proper argument.

Any other slippery slopes you want to go down while we're here?
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Kurotenshi wrote:
The Imperium needs more soldiers, why is it actively cutting it's recruiting options in half for its best soldiers?


That’s logical, but Since when has the Imperium ever let logic get in the way of tradition?
So why does the Imperium have women serving in the Imperial Guard?

If you think Space marines aren’t religious zealots, then don’t go telling the black templars or any of the chaplins that are on like every army.
But not all Chapters are the Black Templars. I don't think that the Space Wolves are religious zealots in quite the same way, and when you've got Chapters like the Raptors or Minotaurs who are less on the religious side, and more on the "let's just kill them" spectrum, you can see why people question the necessity of Space Marines needing the "monk" imagery they largely seem to have shed.

I do have to wonder would you be willing to support male Sisters of Battle? That’s not vary inclusionary either.
Funny you say that, as you can actually take men in a Sisters of Battle army - Priests, arco-flagellants, and Crusaders.
But, for actual men wearing the Sororitas armour? I mean, clearly, the identity of the Sisters of Battle is much more tied to their gender presentation than what it is for the Space Marines (as I mentioned earlier, the reason that Sisters are all women is mentioned at least in nearly all of their media, whereas the whole "male tissue types" is barely repeated), but hey, I don't hate it. Church-bound humans in power armour is a very different niche to independent elite super soldier warrior cultures, even if gender was removed from the equations of both.
Or what about the fact that space marines chapters discriminate by only allowing applicants from certain planets.
That's mostly out of geographic reasons, not cultural though, if I'm not mistaken. Space Marines recruit from the worlds in their domain, but their domains can often be limited by their relationship with the rest of the Imperium.

Evidently, the Ultramarines don't discriminate on race, if that's what you're referring to, judging from one of their latest book covers.
Once you start going down this road it changes the nature of the setting. Which is supposed to be ugly.
So why do Guardswomen exist then? Why is it *Space Marines* who don't get women because the setting is "ugly", but everyone else apparently does?

Is the Imperium a sexist hellhole, or is it so uncaring of sex that it throws everyone into the meatgrinder?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 19:13:27




They/them

 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





"this is my super space soldier future sci fi setting, the super space soldiers only take male recruits and women arent allowed because sexism" would be inserting the modern day political discussions surrounding women in the military into 40k.


I agree. How would you even introduce female marines into the fluff at this point? Could you imagine Rowboat having a conversation about the sexist policies of the Imperium? He almost got overthrown due to the indomitus crusade and that didn’t even involve meaningful change of the generally crappy society that is the imperium.
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Andykp wrote:
If a new player was to come in to the game now, is there anything in print that states that marines have to be men?
In print? Not that I'm sure, aside from gendered pronouns?

In practice, all the Marines we see are male, all the options for bare heads are masculine-presenting, and there's a decent chance that if you put a female-presenting head on your model, someone will shoot it down for being "non-canon" or "trying to make 40k political".


That is all true. But it kind of ends the debate that the lore must be adhered too, the last mention of this was 19 years ago, before that maybe 32 years ago. Couldn’t possibly change that.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: