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 us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I think Arbitrary is the wrong term. I think subjective is more apt. It's entirely based off the "head canon" of a bunch of boys playing toy soldiers.
   
Made in gb
Thinking of Joining a Davinite Loge





I've never seen SM as "warrior monks" anyway. The vast majority don't worship the Emperor as a God and are as secular as you can get in the modern Imperium. They aren't especially living ascetic lifestyles, especially chapters like the Space Wolves. They aren't even celibate by choice, it's a side effect of being an Astartes AFAIK. They call each other brother because they are brothers, they all share the same fathers within each gene-line. What makes them monks? Is it the Fortress-Monastery? If I buy an old monastery and live in it does that make me a monk?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 14:28:42


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





yeah arbitrary if you ignore the time span from 3-8th. Insiting on that bit of consistency is neither qeustionable nor headcannon. The vast majority of the lifespan of the game. Indeed it's one of the few things in regards to marines or IoM that has remained consistent into 8th and 9th

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 14:35:24


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah arbitrary if you ignore the time span from 3-8th. Insiting on that bit of consistency is neither qeustionable nor headcannon.


It is arbitrary because it has no impact on their actual characterisation and is most likely a result of failure to simply produce the miniatures.

You have failed to provide any meaningful reasoning as to why it is necessary that Space Marines remain all male except for "well, it's always been the case". It's effectively a circular argument and appeal to tradition. It's fallacious reasoning.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 14:38:04


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah arbitrary if you ignore the time span from 3-8th. Insiting on that bit of consistency is neither qeustionable nor headcannon.


It is arbitrary because it has no impact on their actual characterisation and is most likely a result of failure to simply produce the miniatures.

You have failed to provide any meaningful reasoning as to why it is necessary that Space Marines remain all male except for "well, it's always been the case". It's effectively a circular argument and appeal to tradition. It's fallacious reasoning.


No, it's not a circular argument, it is simply put consitency of the narrative, which i provided a time span on that stretches into 9th edition even despite the recent changes.

It's you that argue for a demand for change, and so far you have failed to provide bar the one exemple with cawl an working somewhat consitent alternative. Ergo the remaining on the position that the change is unnecessary is neither arbitrary nor sexist. And for the record i am perfectly willing to accept a deus ex cawl modification to geneseed, however the ulterior motives of GW do make me question if it is indeed progress for the narrative sake, which was an argument as to why 40k must change with the galaxy now being spllit apart and primaris as a vocal point, and not just because it goes for a quick PR stunt.
Nevermind that there are still doubts about Primaris lore to this day, rightfully so, because it's not high quality or even medicore quality narrative sotry telling.
Which is why i brought up GW's hypocrisy.

And btw, when you regard an argument from a traditional basis (which this is not let's be honest, this is an argumentation about the leftover bits of GW's internal narrative consistency but side show.) as fallacious, there's the contrary which is just as "fallacious" .or also known as argumentum ad novitatem.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 14:45:41


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

I wonder why Game haven't use the Primaris horrible fluff to AT LEAST introduce Female Space Marines.

That would have probably been a better reason to introduce them than the money-hrab we get.
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Cybtroll wrote:
I wonder why Game haven't use the Primaris horrible fluff to AT LEAST introduce Female Space Marines.

That would have probably been a better reason to introduce them than the money-hrab we get.


Probably some concerns that they'd change the DNA of the SM design too much, which at that point is also a ridicoulus point if one considers that the IoM is supposed to be technologically stagnant... but like i said, the argument above can be just as easily be justified as the argument here..


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah arbitrary if you ignore the time span from 3-8th. Insiting on that bit of consistency is neither qeustionable nor headcannon.


It is arbitrary because it has no impact on their actual characterisation and is most likely a result of failure to simply produce the miniatures.

You have failed to provide any meaningful reasoning as to why it is necessary that Space Marines remain all male except for "well, it's always been the case". It's effectively a circular argument and appeal to tradition. It's fallacious reasoning.


No, it's not a circular argument, it is simply put consitency of the narrative, which i provided a time span on that stretches into 9th edition even despite the recent changes.

It's you that argue for a demand for change, and so far you have failed to provide bar the one exemple with cawl an working somewhat consitent alternative. Ergo the remaining on the position that the change is unnecessary is neither arbitrary nor sexist. And for the record i am perfectly willing to accept a deus ex cawl modification to geneseed, however the ulterior motives of GW do make me question if it is indeed progress for the narrative sake, which was an argument as to why 40k must change with the galaxy now being spllit apart and primaris as a vocal point, and not just because it goes for a quick PR stunt.
Nevermind that there are still doubts about Primaris lore to this day, rightfully so, because it's not high quality or even medicore quality narrative sotry telling.
Which is why i brought up GW's hypocrisy.

And btw, when you regard an argument from a traditional basis (which this is not let's be honest, this is an argumentation about the leftover bits of GW's internal narrative consistency but side show.) as fallacious, there's the contrary which is just as "fallacious" .or also known as argumentum ad novitatem.


I mean no, it is a circular argument. You are stating it is as such and should be as such because it as such. Everyone is aware that GW has had Space Marines always be male since 3rd edition, but people are asking why, and feel the reasoning to be arbitrary or silly (because it is).

You aren't explaining why it should remain that way besides "Well, it always has been" - but that seems to implicate any kind of changes can't occur. It's a relatively minor change, and it doesn't impact the overall continuity of the setting - it impacts it even less than Primaris. Your entire argument is "Well, it has always been that way, so it should be that way" (the near definition of a circular argument). I can understand liking consistency, but this is such a minor point of consistency it seems silly to fixate on the maintenance of it.

The argument in favour of it isn't arbitrary because there is a reason because "Well, it should be". An arbitrary point is one without reasoning or argument behind it. People have provided numerous examples of why it should be, including,

> wider diversity in figure range
> wide range for modelling
> it's more inclusive and open
> the actual in-lore justification seems silly
> I like female characters and want more of them - and ones that aren't limited to specific "factions for girls"

These aren't arbitrary arguments.

I struggle to see how Female Space Marines are bad story telling.

And it is an appeal to tradition. Your entire argument hinges on "Well it's always been like that, so it should always be like that". You talk about consistency, but the only consistency this impacts is the consistency of Space Marines always being male (when if the change was made as one that only happens from point X, no consistency is changed, all pre-existing lore remains the same). It doesn't impact anything else in the setting. So it is concern over the consistency of probably a couple hundred words at most. It seems like a silly consistency to fixate upon.

And assertion my argument is an appeal to novelty is pointless unless you can demonstrate it is an appeal to novelty.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:



The above image is a post from Alan Merrett, a former head of Games Workshop’s intellectual property, explaining the in-depth lore reasoning behind a lack of female Space Marines (pro tip; it's entirely based in business stuff).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 15:06:08


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah arbitrary if you ignore the time span from 3-8th. Insiting on that bit of consistency is neither qeustionable nor headcannon.


It is arbitrary because it has no impact on their actual characterisation and is most likely a result of failure to simply produce the miniatures.

You have failed to provide any meaningful reasoning as to why it is necessary that Space Marines remain all male except for "well, it's always been the case". It's effectively a circular argument and appeal to tradition. It's fallacious reasoning.


No, it's not a circular argument, it is simply put consitency of the narrative, which i provided a time span on that stretches into 9th edition even despite the recent changes.

It's you that argue for a demand for change, and so far you have failed to provide bar the one exemple with cawl an working somewhat consitent alternative. Ergo the remaining on the position that the change is unnecessary is neither arbitrary nor sexist. And for the record i am perfectly willing to accept a deus ex cawl modification to geneseed, however the ulterior motives of GW do make me question if it is indeed progress for the narrative sake, which was an argument as to why 40k must change with the galaxy now being spllit apart and primaris as a vocal point, and not just because it goes for a quick PR stunt.
Nevermind that there are still doubts about Primaris lore to this day, rightfully so, because it's not high quality or even medicore quality narrative sotry telling.
Which is why i brought up GW's hypocrisy.

And btw, when you regard an argument from a traditional basis (which this is not let's be honest, this is an argumentation about the leftover bits of GW's internal narrative consistency but side show.) as fallacious, there's the contrary which is just as "fallacious" .or also known as argumentum ad novitatem.


I mean no, it is a circular argument. You are stating it is as such and should be as such because it as such. Everyone is aware that GW has had Space Marines always be male since 3rd edition, but people are asking why, and feel the reasoning to be arbitrary or silly (because it is).


"Lore from the offical source has remained constant on this issue for the vast span of the games live, despite changes sourounding it, it has become part of the core identity of the faction." --> "nu uh circular argument"

You aren't explaining why it should remain that way besides "Well, it always has been" - but that seems to implicate any kind of changes can't occur. It's a relatively minor change, and it doesn't impact the overall continuity of the setting - it impacts it even less than Primaris. Your entire argument is "Well, it has always been that way, so it should be that way" (the near definition of a circular argument). I can understand liking consistency, but this is such a minor point of consistency it seems silly to fixate on the maintenance of it.

I don't have to, simply put it's the advocate for change that should argue as to why it should change, and bring reasonable points forward as to why, until now you haven't done that much beyond simply proclaiming that lore consistency is irrelevant , which is arguable, and for some would go against the core perception of the constant narrative sourounding space marine organisation. Which is debatable, i have admitted to such that the primaris exemple could've easily done so, what however is also the case that the narrative progression in which change should occur in a story ( and it is arguable in howfar GW has done a good job for such a narrative). There's also the issue that 40k for the most part was more of a setting (which is even more dependant upon the organisational form and has to be more stringent in regards lore accuracy and consistency) which bites itself with the progress made in the newer narrative, which i suspect has less to do with ambitions in telling a good story and more to do as a vehicle to resell the same army to the same people in essence again.


The argument in favour of it isn't arbitrary because there is a reason because "Well, it should be". An arbitrary point is one without reasoning or argument behind it. People have provided numerous examples of why it should be, including,

> wider diversity in figure range
In the best case scenario that is indeed the case, but then again GW model sales wise is rarely best case, considering how long it took for them to add some variety to Guardsmen and how few helmets and torso options are in the AoS set it's arguably that the effort ends in tokenism or just nothing of relevance. It's also very optimistic that GW would therefore produce something more diverse, and the recent focus on monopose doesn't really help this argument either. In an optimal world f.e. in regards to guard or AoS sigmarines you'd get your 20 torsoes and 40 heads for cheaper than right now, and gw would still earn alot, however GW isn't really custommer friendly and will skimp as you so nicely provided , on logistics for a bigger sales margine.

> wide range for modelling
That assumes NR 1 will happen, which there can be brought up two counter arguments N1: it's unlikely that GW would increase the quality of the kits enough. N2 is it really needed.

> it's more inclusive and open
Tied to the quality it's questionable if it wouldn't end up with tokenistic representation.

> the actual in-lore justification seems silly
Considering as to what 40k started out as that is not really an argument for the inclusion. And narrative consistency is important for the suspension of disbelieve. (of course you could argue with cawl that went so hard out the window that the defenestration of prague is positively mild but like i said i don't like primaris lore and neither am i fan of the new and "improved " story progression because the quality of that is already lackluster... )

> I like female characters and want more of them - and ones that aren't limited to specific "factions for girls"
That is an arbitrary and subjective demand though. Quite frankly if GW wouldn't have dropped the ball on guard as hard that would also be less a problem?

These aren't arbitrary arguments.
the last one though is entirely subjective and arbitrary, which isn't inherently wrong since GW want's to sell to custommers and that includes wishes of you me and everyone else technically, but it's arbitrary, let's not kid ourselves.

I struggle to see how Female Space Marines are bad story telling.
when you at that point remove the only singular remaining narrative design choices consistency of a faction tieing it together in a background sense , yes it can be argued it is. Does make my argument however atackable via the questionable primaris lore and general inconsitency, but it certainly makes the general switch from setting to progressing story a place for debate as to what was better. Which tbh should happen in regards to 40k.


And it is an appeal to tradition. Your entire argument hinges on "Well it's always been like that, so it should always be like that". You talk about consistency, but the only consistency this impacts is the consistency of Space Marines always being male (when if the change was made as one that only happens from point X, no consistency is changed, all pre-existing lore remains the same). It doesn't impact anything else in the setting. So it is concern over the consistency of probably a couple hundred words at most. It seems like a silly consistency to fixate upon.

And assertion my argument is an appeal to novelty is pointless unless you can demonstrate it is an appeal to novelty.


An argument based upon the last remaining bit of consistent narrative tieing together the core design in a background fashion which has remained consistent regardless of the recent switch from setting to progressing narrative is not traditionalistic or circular.

An argument to Deus Ex and facilitate a change to accomondate an universe that existed long before your participation of the hobby is an argument torwards the change of that for the sake of acomodating novelty.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 15:34:33


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







"Lore from the offical source has remained constant on this issue for the vast span of the games live, despite changes sourounding it, it has become part of the core identity of the faction." --> "nu uh circular argument"


This is very much a strawman of my position, which I should have come to expect since practically everyone in this debate has engaged in incredibly poor faith. Incidentally, I have repeatedly asked why being male is a core element of being a Space Marine, and you have consistently failed to provide reasoning besides "Well, it's always been like that" (we've already gone over your warrior monk argument and found that wanting).

I don't have to, simply put it's the advocate for change that should argue as to why it should change, and bring reasonable points forward as to why, until now you haven't done that much beyond simply proclaiming that lore consistency is irrelevant.


You are right - which is why I provided I believe 5 reasons as to why the change should be made. At the same time, you have made claims yourself, and are required to back those with arguments.

On the point of consistency. I have not claimed consistency is irrelevant. I have claimed and argued the following,

> 40k's existing consistency is dubious and lacking already
> this is a minor consistency within the lore which effectively exists to prop itself up - its relevance to the setting is minor and so changing it impacts very little in the overarching consistency of the setting

This does not equate to your claim that "lore consistency is irrelevant".

which is arguable, and for some would go against the core perception of the constant narrative sourounding space marine organisation


Said some should really start providing arguments that go beyond "Well, Space Marines have always been that way". I again ask why should Space Marines be exclusively male? What about Space Marines requires them to be male?


In the best case scenario that is indeed the case, but then again GW model sales wise is rarely best case, considering how long it took for them to add some variety to Guardsmen and how few helmets and torso options are in the AoS set it's arguably that the effort ends in tokenism or just nothing of relevance.


This point is somewhat bizarre and rambly (I have cut out some other pieces that did not seem to address my argument or were still talking about Primaris which are another issue entirely. Primaris live rent free in so many people's heads, they might as well declare them Fortress Monasteries).

I do not really see what 'tokenism' is going on. You're going to have to explain how these additions are 'tokenism'.

That assumes NR 1 will happen, which there can be brought up two counter arguments N1: it's unlikely that GW would increase the quality of the kits enough. N2 is it really needed.


I mean, no, it doesn't. One can simply convert their own (as many do!) or make use of the bits provided. I feel this is effectively a whole other argument relating to options it kits, and has effectively nothing to do with Female Space Marines.

Tied to the quality it's questionable if it wouldn't end up with tokenistic representation.


Why is it tied to quality? Why would it be tokenism? I have always found the phrase tokenism to be a massive dogwhistle. You are going to have to expand on this premise for it to be meaningful and not just ap poisoning of the well, because it really does just seem like a way for you to deride any inclusive options.

Considering as to what 40k started out as that is not really an argument for the inclusion. And narrative consistency is important for the suspension of disbelieve. (of course you could argue with cawl that went so hard out the window that the defenestration of prague is positively mild but like i said i don't like primaris lore and neither am i fan of the new and "improved " story progression because the quality of that is already lackluster... )


You will have to explain your argument further beyond stating "this is not an argument".

Narrative consistency is important, and as such, I have argued there are ways to include female Space Marines while maintaining the existing lore - make them a new thing from this point onwards. The narrative is fully maintained.

That is an arbitrary and subjective demand though.


I do not see how that is either arbitrary and subjective. Explain.

the last one though is entirely subjective and arbitrary, which isn't inherently wrong since GW want's to sell to custommers and that includes wishes of you me and everyone else technically, but it's arbitrary, let's not kid ourselves.


How is it arbitrary? How is "I think this concept would be cool, and I would rather my choices of who I can play as not be limited to certain factions" arbitrary? Explain!

when you at that point remove the only singular remaining narrative design choices consistency of a faction tieing it together in a background sense , yes it can be argued it is. Does make my argument however atackable via the questionable primaris lore and general inconsitency, but it certainly makes the general switch from setting to progressing story a place for debate as to what was better. Which tbh should happen in regards to 40k.


I mean this is almost entirely wrong. There's plenty of things that have remained consistent about Space Marines - and the male thing isn't really that important. I mean what, are women in the Astartes going to change the basics of the faction?

Space Marines are
> humanities elite protectors
> genetically modified, indoctrinated
> clad in unique suits of power armour
> armed with bolters, chainswords and such

I don't see how saying "Oh and here's Sally, she's Captain of the Ultrablades - and likes walks on the beach" changes the core identity and consistency of the faction especially if it is a change that comes from this point on, rather than from being retroactively introduced. The male thing doesn't seem like a core aspect of the Space Marines to me - and even if female marines were introduced, the male dominated nature of the Marines wouldn't change.


An argument based upon the last remaining bit of consistent narrative tieing together the core design in a background fashion which has remained consistend regardless of the recent switch from setting to progressing narrative is not traditionalistic or circular.


How is that the last bit of consistent narrative? This seems like an incredibly strong claim - that the last consistent narrative of 40k is that Space Marines ... are all men? There's plenty of other things that have remained the same since 3rd. For example,

* Space Marines remain humanities most prominent and elite defenders
* Space Marine equipment, gear and structure largely remains the same
* Space Marines remain organised as chapters

etc.

You are making a huge claim which little to back it up by claiming Space Marines last remaining consistent narrative is that they're all men - a relatively minor detail amongst everything else.

An argument to Deus Ex and facilitate a change to accomondate an universe that existed long before your participation of the hobby is an argument torwards the change of that for the sake of acomodating novelty.


You are doing to have to explain Deus ex' argument. You are also going to have to explain how my is 'accommodating novelty'

Engaging with your argument is incredibly hard in part because it is not just bad, but so few of your claims are baked or explained.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 15:51:28


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





Considering you regard the problem of tokenism as a dogwhistle i won't bother.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 15:54:15


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Not Online!!! wrote:
Considering you regard the problem of tokenism as a dogwhistle i won't bother.


Let's have a live action replay of what I said,

Why is it tied to quality? Why would it be tokenism? I have always found the phrase tokenism to be a massive dogwhistle. You are going to have to expand on this premise for it to be meaningful and not just ap poisoning of the well, because it really does just seem like a way for you to deride any inclusive options.


I have asked you to explain what you mean by Tokenism. You clearly can't do that without revealing true colours (in general you can't even make other arguments, you simply assert things). Maybe one day you will be able to explain why it is a core feature of Space Marines that they remain male, without the argument of 'Well, it's been like that for a while."
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Considering you regard the problem of tokenism as a dogwhistle i won't bother.


Let's have a live action replay of what I said,

Why is it tied to quality? Why would it be tokenism? I have always found the phrase tokenism to be a massive dogwhistle. You are going to have to expand on this premise for it to be meaningful and not just ap poisoning of the well, because it really does just seem like a way for you to deride any inclusive options.


I have asked you to explain what you mean by Tokenism. You clearly can't do that without revealing true colours (in general you can't even make other arguments, you simply assert things). Maybe one day you will be able to explain why it is a core feature of Space Marines that they remain male, without the argument of 'Well, it's been like that for a while."

Look it's pretty clear that you are not intending to even regard the argument for a good narrative being a consistent one as counting, it's also pretty clear that you are not interested in a good faith argument either by proclaiming constantly that anyone not sharing your opinion argues in bad faith. And yes you questioning the basic premise of space marine creation is pretty major ergo you regard consistency as closeish to irrelevant.

But since you insist i will give you the answer which was readable above:
GW sucks at providing model kits that are actually decently modifyable or for that matter have enough bits in them to be. Therefore ANY change in the range for models will not ammount to something good for the player but rather be dictated by the company. GW then has done nothing and instead implemented a general standard because the options will be nevitably lacking since gw couldn't be arsed to make a decent model kit including more options for customisation. Ergo, for some people it will have too few women in there inevitably, hence there will be people crying tokenism, for some it will have too much. Nobody has anything from that situation.

IF GW would actually do decent kits, like f.e. WGA, where you find atleast 3 head options on historically non army builder kits up to 7 then this would be not an issue, however since GW won't do so the only thing happening is now that you are forced to buy multiples if you want an all female / all male force

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 16:09:25


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Look it's pretty clear that you are not intending to even regard the argument for a good narrative being a consistent one as counting, it's also pretty clear that you are not interested in a good faith argument either by proclaiming constantly that anyone not sharing your opinion argues in bad faith. And yes you questioning the basic premise of space marine creation is pretty major ergo you regard consistency as closeish to irrelevant.


Yeah I'm questioning a basic premise because it doesn't make any sense and changing it would have a limited impact on the overall game and the lore. This is not like saying "Actually, Space Marines shouldn't have a Black Carapace", because imo that does set them apart from every other power armoured faction. Again, I ask why it is so important to the narrative of the Space Marines (and all you can say is "well, it's always been that way!"). I am claiming you arguing in bad faith because you are misrepresenting points or not explaining your own fully.

GW sucks at providing model kits that are actually decently modifyable. Therefore ANY change in the range for models will not ammount to something good for the player but rather be dictated by the company. GW then has done nothing and instead implemented a general standard because the options will be nevitably lacking since gw couldn't be arsed to make a decent model kit including more options for customisation. Ergo, for some people it will have too few women in there inevitably, hence there will be people crying tokenism, for some it will have too much. Nobody has anything from that situation.


Cool, I agree GW aren't good at offering kits that can be converted. I don't see how adding in female heads are going to cause any issues however. None of this seems to result in 'tokenism' however - and those people would have to provide arguments as to why it is tokenism to be meaningful. Your issue over 'tokenism' is the potential for people to cry about tokenism - which seems like absurd reasoning against it.

Your entire argument seems to be 'it'll upset people, so it shouldn't happen'. Any change will upset people.

IF GW would actually do decent kits, like f.e. WGA, where you find atleast 3 head options on historically non army builder kits up to 7 then this would be not an issue, however since GW won't do so the only thing happening is now that you are forced to buy multiples if you want an all female / all male force


Cool, I agree! GW should make better kits. And those kits should contain enough torsos and heads to make any squad fully male, fully female, or a mix between the two. I don't feel the ability of GW to make good kits should determine if female Space Marines exist though.
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 blood reaper wrote:
Look it's pretty clear that you are not intending to even regard the argument for a good narrative being a consistent one as counting, it's also pretty clear that you are not interested in a good faith argument either by proclaiming constantly that anyone not sharing your opinion argues in bad faith. And yes you questioning the basic premise of space marine creation is pretty major ergo you regard consistency as closeish to irrelevant.


Yeah I'm questioning a basic premise because it doesn't make any sense and changing it would have a limited impact on the overall game and the lore. This is not like saying "Actually, Space Marines shouldn't have a Black Carapace", because imo that does set them apart from every other power armoured faction. Again, I ask why it is so important to the narrative of the Space Marines (and all you can say is "well, it's always been that way!"). I am claiming you arguing in bad faith because you are misrepresenting points or not explaining your own fully.


Simply put, no i did, the lore reason for the narrative consistency is stated, you not liking it is the issue as to why for you the suspension of disbelive doesn't work anymore. It^s the same reason when someone argues that there should be male SoB equivalents, it would go against a certain rather important decree the Echlesiarchy bypasses via employing only females. Which arguably represents that rather splintered and internally corrupt and bickering imperium quite well in a narrative consistent way. The same reason why the complete separation of one gender represents the complete and utter disonance of Marine chapters torwards humanity as a whole.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 16:20:40


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Look it's pretty clear that you are not intending to even regard the argument for a good narrative being a consistent one as counting, it's also pretty clear that you are not interested in a good faith argument either by proclaiming constantly that anyone not sharing your opinion argues in bad faith. And yes you questioning the basic premise of space marine creation is pretty major ergo you regard consistency as closeish to irrelevant.


Yeah I'm questioning a basic premise because it doesn't make any sense and changing it would have a limited impact on the overall game and the lore. This is not like saying "Actually, Space Marines shouldn't have a Black Carapace", because imo that does set them apart from every other power armoured faction. Again, I ask why it is so important to the narrative of the Space Marines (and all you can say is "well, it's always been that way!"). I am claiming you arguing in bad faith because you are misrepresenting points or not explaining your own fully.


Simply put, no i did, the lore reason for the narrative consistency is stated, you not liking it is the issue as to why for you the suspension of disbelive doesn't work anymore. It^s the same reason when someone argues that there should be male SoB equivalents, it would go against a certain rather important decree the Echlesiarchy bypasses via employing only females. Which arguably represents that rather splintered and internally corrupt and bickering imperium quite well in a narrative consistent way. The same reason why the complete separation of one gender represents the complete and utter disonance of Marine chapters torwards humanity as a whole.



Cool, we finally have another (but very weak) argument; "consistency and suspension of disbelief", but I really struggle to see how 'suspension of disbelief' is going to be lost if someone were to say "After decades of effort, it is now possible to expand Space Marine recruit to women".

I don't see issue with SOB male equivalents ... and indeed, they exist in the lore! Frateris Militia! Another clever way to get around an existing decree.

I don't see how the presence of only men reflects dissonance of Space Marines to humanity. Plenty of Space Marines also live very much within and around humanity (see Ultramar). Not all Space Marines are apart sociopaths. Some are clearly very social.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Honest question: Where was it originally established that only Males could bond with the black Carapace, or the Geneseed? Was that established in any book, or was it back in like 1st edition?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, the SoB have no problems with making the Arco Flaggelents being male, or the Priests and ecclesiarchs. Why would it suddenly be wrong to put men in the suits of war?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 16:26:49


 
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

If you believe the Emperor was a misogynist, then it makes sense, there are no female Space Marines because the Emperor didn't want female Space Marines. But I don't think that has ever been implied, specially as the Great Crusade did have high ranking women in other imperial institutions outside the Space Marines Legions.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 16:31:57


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Look it's pretty clear that you are not intending to even regard the argument for a good narrative being a consistent one as counting, it's also pretty clear that you are not interested in a good faith argument either by proclaiming constantly that anyone not sharing your opinion argues in bad faith. And yes you questioning the basic premise of space marine creation is pretty major ergo you regard consistency as closeish to irrelevant.


Yeah I'm questioning a basic premise because it doesn't make any sense and changing it would have a limited impact on the overall game and the lore. This is not like saying "Actually, Space Marines shouldn't have a Black Carapace", because imo that does set them apart from every other power armoured faction. Again, I ask why it is so important to the narrative of the Space Marines (and all you can say is "well, it's always been that way!"). I am claiming you arguing in bad faith because you are misrepresenting points or not explaining your own fully.


Simply put, no i did, the lore reason for the narrative consistency is stated, you not liking it is the issue as to why for you the suspension of disbelive doesn't work anymore. It^s the same reason when someone argues that there should be male SoB equivalents, it would go against a certain rather important decree the Echlesiarchy bypasses via employing only females. Which arguably represents that rather splintered and internally corrupt and bickering imperium quite well in a narrative consistent way. The same reason why the complete separation of one gender represents the complete and utter disonance of Marine chapters torwards humanity as a whole.



Cool, we finally have another (but very weak) argument; "consistency and suspension of disbelief", but I really struggle to see how 'suspension of disbelief' is going to be lost if someone were to say "After decades of effort, it is now possible to expand Space Marine recruit to women".

I don't see issue with SOB male equivalents ... and indeed, they exist in the lore! Frateris Militia! Another clever way to get around an existing decree.

I don't see how the presence of only men reflects dissonance of Space Marines to humanity. Plenty of Space Marines also live very much within and around humanity (see Ultramar). Not all Space Marines are apart sociopaths. Some are clearly very social.


Your perception of that argument is that it is weak, it's not. Consistency is A-Z for writing in general, but especially for the more fantastical genres.

And it's in essence the same problem that primaris face. Simply put the overarching theme of a corrupt empire dying and stagnating technology just fails to pull when there is stuff like brandspanking new Hover tanks (something the IoM didn't really have even during the heresy). And considering how overall primaris still get regarded as bad narratively adding that to it, whilest not really worsening the narrative consistency just expands the problem of inconsistency. And it then jives even more with the setting.
Basically any setting can stomach a certain degree of inconsistency. 40k can stomach even more since it's nature atleast in the beginning was intended as satirical (and in some instances that still shines through), there's only however so much "bad" narrative change and progress the setting can stomach before the suspension of disbelieve shatters. For some it allready did, for others it didnt.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 16:32:20


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k is not MLP in terms of inclusivity or open mindedness to new ways of thinking. That being said, attacking a stance by the shareholders as "deserving of contempt" is slightly odd. Why attack a company for attempting to make itself more inclusive?

It already is inclusive. You have Sisters of Battle if you want a female in Power Armor.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k is not MLP in terms of inclusivity or open mindedness to new ways of thinking. That being said, attacking a stance by the shareholders as "deserving of contempt" is slightly odd. Why attack a company for attempting to make itself more inclusive?

It already is inclusive. You have Sisters of Battle if you want a female in Power Armor.


Well background technically it's really inclusive, just modelwise.... yeah between the prices filtiering out a lot of people and armies like guard beeing run on fumes and limited in their models. it isn't really either.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Not Online!!! wrote:Considering that SM are literally supposed to be you know in some cases, templar like monk orders
The Ultramarines aren't. The Space Wolves aren't. The Blood Angels aren't really. The Emperor's Spears aren't. The Iron Hands aren't. The White Scars aren't.

You're totally right that in "some" cases they do have those features, in the same way that in some Chapters, animal companions are considered the norm, or that they worship the Omnissiah, or hate using Dreadnoughts. So guess what - perhaps those specific Chapters don't have women Astartes.

harlokin wrote:After bio modificaton, chem treatment, hypno indoctrination and all that jazz they should shouldn't be any fething different.
Agreed. So let them be women. After all, they wouldn't be any different.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k is not MLP in terms of inclusivity or open mindedness to new ways of thinking. That being said, attacking a stance by the shareholders as "deserving of contempt" is slightly odd. Why attack a company for attempting to make itself more inclusive?

It already is inclusive. You have Sisters of Battle if you want a female in Power Armor.
Call me when Sisters have the same market presence Space Marines do.

Otherwise, can we get rid of Space Marines, because we already have Custodes as "men in power armour"?

They/them 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges








Your perception of that argument is that it is weak, it's not. Consistency is A-Z for writing in general, but especially for the more fantastical genres.

And it's in essence the same problem that primaris face. Simply put the overarching theme of a corrupt empire dying and stagnating technology just fails to pull when there is stuff like brandspanking new Hover tanks (something the IoM didn't really have even during the heresy). And considering how overall primaris still get regarded as bad narratively adding that to it, whilest not really worsening the narrative consistency just expands the problem of inconsistency. And it then jives even more with the setting.
Basically any setting can stomach a certain degree of inconsistency. 40k can stomach even more since it's nature atleast in the beginning was intended as satirical (and in some instances that still shines through), there's only however so much "bad" narrative change and progress the setting can stomach before the suspension of disbelieve shatters. For some it allready did, for others it didnt.


My perception the argument is weak is because its premises do not lead to its conclusion. Your argument that "It has always been that way, so it should remain as such" isn't a strong argument for it should remain that way. That is the definition of a weak argument.


The problem with the Primaris comparison is the following,

* Primaris, whether you love them or hate them, radically change the setting
* Primaris in many ways did not originally match the original aesthetics of the Space Marines
* Primaris felt originally like they were replacing old marines (this is no longer clearly the case though)

But the setting advancing is not out of character. the Imperium stagnating does not mean it doesn't innovate (this is a terrible lorelet conception). Here's a good thread on the subject,
https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/comments/82icbq/how_much_does_the_admech_actually_know_about_what/dvac5lb/?st=jzizn4x2&sh=34158b83

I do not disagree that 40k has changed, and often for the worse, but I do not really see how female Space Marines violate the original setting. Their lack of inclusion (as demonstrated by the people who MADE THE ORIGINAL GAME!) was a matter of logistics. Nothing about the archaic nature of the Imperium dictates women aren't allowed to fight. I do not see how this massively disrupts the 'consistency of the setting' (which by the way, it has never been consistent!). Especially if the change was introduced from this point onwards. How would that affect the consistency of the setting, exactly?

The idea that female Space Marines would 'shatter your sense of disbelief' is hysterical. It is a minuscule change. It's importance to the lore is a footnote. If your sensitivity to change is that great I do not really know what to say.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k is not MLP in terms of inclusivity or open mindedness to new ways of thinking. That being said, attacking a stance by the shareholders as "deserving of contempt" is slightly odd. Why attack a company for attempting to make itself more inclusive?

It already is inclusive. You have Sisters of Battle if you want a female in Power Armor.


I don't want women in power armour. I want fully fledged female Space Marines. A Space Marine is more than just power armour.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Sgt_Smudge 798058 11126067 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k is not MLP in terms of inclusivity or open mindedness to new ways of thinking. That being said, attacking a stance by the shareholders as "deserving of contempt" is slightly odd. Why attack a company for attempting to make itself more inclusive?

It already is inclusive. You have Sisters of Battle if you want a female in Power Armor.
Call me when Sisters have the same market presence Space Marines do.

Otherwise, can we get rid of Space Marines, because we already have Custodes as "men in power armour"?

They do have marketing presence. You literally forget they were the primary hero in the video promotions for 9th, going as far as to defeat Necrons with relative ease?

Also many people have problems with Custodes, myself included, because of the design space issue created along with lore. Actually, if anything, I'm for female Custodes and have pushed that idea before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k is not MLP in terms of inclusivity or open mindedness to new ways of thinking. That being said, attacking a stance by the shareholders as "deserving of contempt" is slightly odd. Why attack a company for attempting to make itself more inclusive?

It already is inclusive. You have Sisters of Battle if you want a female in Power Armor.


I don't want women in power armour. I want fully fledged female Space Marines. A Space Marine is more than just power armour.

You're right, and Sisters are more than just Power Armor. So now you get the best of both worlds, problem solved. You have that boob Armor to stare at already.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 19:04:57


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Thinking of Joining a Davinite Loge





So your logic behind SoB having the same marketing presence as SM is they were in the 9th edition Trailer? They weren't in Indomitus, they aren't in any of the ETB starter sets, they've not got their Codex yet, they get decisively less novels than SM, SM are on the posters that get put in shop windows, nearly every single warhammer 40k video game has centred on SM. Do I need to go on or is the point made?

Oh and keep going with the "you only want female space Marines so you can perv on them", that'll win you arguments

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 19:12:38


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Gert wrote:
So your logic behind SoB having the same marketing presence as SM is they were in the 9th edition Trailer? They weren't in Indomitus, they aren't in any of the ETB starter sets, they've not got their Codex yet, they get decisively less novels than SM, SM are on the posters that get put in shop windows, nearly every single warhammer 40k video game has centred on SM. Do I need to go on or is the point made?

Most armies haven't gotten their codices yet, what a dumb argument.

They also don't need to be in Indomitus because they're getting another Vs starter set. Your arguments basically hinge on saying Superman should be a woman because Wonderwoman herself doesn't have marketing presence (which is obviously wrong since the 2017 film made a LOT of money, like 800mill last I checked).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
yeah arbitrary if you ignore the time span from 3-8th. Insiting on that bit of consistency is neither qeustionable nor headcannon.


It is arbitrary because it has no impact on their actual characterisation and is most likely a result of failure to simply produce the miniatures.

You have failed to provide any meaningful reasoning as to why it is necessary that Space Marines remain all male except for "well, it's always been the case". It's effectively a circular argument and appeal to tradition. It's fallacious reasoning.

That's been the same exact argument for bringing male Sororitas into the fold but none of you have been really arguing against that point and instead ignore it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 19:14:17


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





England

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 DalekCheese wrote:
I personally would much prefer female custodes than female marines. It makes much more sense IMO- it’s a different process, and a more refined one, with none of the concessions to (relative) mass-production that were made with the Astartes.


I believe those are called Sisters of Silence. They were designed to fight with and be part of the Custodes. Which is intense, as anyone whos able to train to be part of a Custodes melee unit must be of equal or close skill level.


They’re part of the Talons of the Emperor, and do fight alongside Custodes, but they’re not actually custodes- physically they’re just very, very fit baseline humans. The worst part is this:

See that stuff above? Completely true. All of it, every single word. Stands to reason. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Gert wrote:

Oh and keep going with the "you only want female space Marines so you can perv on them", that'll win you arguments

I'm not wrong here, sorry. As is, a Marine is mutated so that very few times will the standard armor not fit (which is why it's a point to make in lore that characters like Abbadon and Tyberos have very modified armor). Marines are mutated so they wont exactly have boobs. Outside Blood Angels and Space Wolves, none of the Marines are exactly pretty boys and have long flowing hair. They're mostly scarred and often have shaved heads as standard.

So the female heads will have what to define them exactly outside the bobcuts you want to steal from the Sororitas?

Hell, many people were complaining that the female commisar released just not long ago didn't look female enough.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Thinking of Joining a Davinite Loge





We're not comparing most armies though are we? We're comparing SM and SoB. As for your beloved trailer, the Marines literally show up to save the SoB. So much for them effortlessly beating the Necrons.
As for your garbage SM VS WW analogy, if SoB and SM had relieved equal attention in the last 30 odd years then whatever argument you were trying to make would maybe make sense. But they haven't had they? It took until 2019 for Sisters to get a plastic release outside of a rhino chassis. And that was after the introduction of Primaris and then less than a year later more Primaris. The Piety and Pain boxset is not where near the same value indomitus was. Even without that, SM still got the ETB starter sets. That you think SoB and SM have the same market presence is actually a joke.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Gert wrote:
We're not comparing most armies though are we? We're comparing SM and SoB. As for your beloved trailer, the Marines literally show up to save the SoB. So much for them effortlessly beating the Necrons.
As for your garbage SM VS WW analogy, if SoB and SM had relieved equal attention in the last 30 odd years then whatever argument you were trying to make would maybe make sense. But they haven't had they? It took until 2019 for Sisters to get a plastic release outside of a rhino chassis. And that was after the introduction of Primaris and then less than a year later more Primaris. The Piety and Pain boxset is not where near the same value indomitus was. Even without that, SM still got the ETB starter sets. That you think SoB and SM have the same market presence is actually a joke.

Sisters didn't get plastic kits because GW literally prided themselves on ZERO market research and didn't realize people would buy plastic over obnoxious metal kits. This isn't rocket science.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: