Welcome back Smudge, I was beginning to think you’d abandoned me!
[spoiler]
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
People with fish heads are fictional. Women aren't.
Why would people struggle to accept that women are a thing?
But why is the fiction removing women? Why is that such an important aspect? And, again, if you remove those thirteen words from the lore, and just move on, there'd be no reason to believe that women could never be Astartes in the first place.
I shouldn't be having to debate why women are similar to fish people.
You’re approaching this as if the people who are playing now don’t realise those words exist, or that marines are all male.
Having stepped away for a while and come back afresh, I can see the idea that not mentioning it and just adding female models isn’t going to require half as much lore justification as fish-marines would, because (as you said) women do exist and fish people don’t. But it will require
some.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It should be treated like any other change in 40k, yes. The problem for you is that most changes in 40k are done exactly as I describe - with no fanfare or lore development. It just suddenly *exists*.
As for "as well received as possible", I don't believe that should include appeasement. So, yes - as well received as possible, without appeasement. And from your own argument, you're painting the lore as a form of appeasement.
It is true that most things suddenly exist, but they also suddenly exist in the lore as well. They don’t just make the models and let people assume that these things exist now – both are changed in tandem. This reinforces my views that the models represent the lore, and the lore represents the models. Changing one without the other isn’t the right way to do it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, as you say, we're a cynical bunch - which is why I have no doubts that people would still say, even with a lore explanation, that this was solely for political reasons.
Those people will say that no matter what, we agree on that. But what you then need is for someone to come to the rescue of that new person who’s being told that women are only in
40k for political reasons by saying “actually, >lore dump of how cool female marines are and all the benefits the change has made to the imperium<”.
People are interested in
40k because of the models and the lore, and usually those who are attracted to the models find that they enjoy the lore about their favourite models as well. Imagine finding out that the models which drew you into the hobby have no lore?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"Because it's cool, and 40k's always been about rule of cool".
Same answer I'd give about things like Centurion warsuits, or grav-guns, or Stormtalons.
But with Centurions, Grav-guns and Stormtalons, there are also lore reasons why they are cool. Without the lore, what makes grav-guns cool? They have the models and their rules, neither of which explain what a grav gun does. Without the lore, you might think a meltagun is just a small anti-tank rocket launcher. Even the basic description of these things is lore, and that lore is
why they are cool.
Can you explain to me why grav-guns are cool without using any lore about them?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why should I be "re-educating" people who are so actively opposed to women?
Once again, I am discussing people who aren’t actively opposed to women. I am discussing that large group of people who are influenced by the environment that they are in. The people who have spent years in a boys-club where the only female models are battle-nuns in corsets.
The whole premise of this was to add female models so that the impressionable players don’t see women as outside their hobby but as a part of it. But now, you’re suggesting that these same impressionable people which you wanted to help are actively sexist, as opposed to “just not used to seeing women”.
Yes, the people actively opposed to women (
IRL, not those opposed to female models) need to be ostracised, because their behaviour harms others. But those who make women feel uncomfortable by acting like they’ve never seen one before and staring at them as they perform the most perfunctory of polite glances round the shop before practically leaping out of the door are the ones which need to be helped, not kicked out.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sure - and I'd have to then have the same conversation we're having right now with the "the change was unnecessary!" group (which would almost certainly still exist with your proposed idea still) and challenge why Space Marines need to men in the first place.
Nothing changes, as far as I'm concerned, except they lose legitimacy.
Both groups will exist, but they will draw greater numbers if there is nothing to oppose their views.
If a lot of people could be stopped from thinking that it was all political just by justifying the models’ existence in the lore instead of justifying it in the real world, then that’s a good thing to do, isn’t it?
Once again, I reiterate that every model in
40k is justified to exist based on the lore, not based on the real world. There are definitely real-world reasons to include them (£££, mostly) but the lore is still there. Nothing in
40k exists solely for political reasons, even if it was added for them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
…But I can't dictate how people choose to react to their arguments being shown wrong.
You have missed the largest group, I think – those who don’t have any argument about this. The people who will simply pick up on what others are saying and pass it on.
If a person spends too long in the company of sceptics, they become sceptical. If a person spends too ling in the company of people who say the change was political, they will tell others the change was political. They are the parrots who amplify the viewpoints of the outspoken. If nobody is saying “actually it’s because these reasons” then every parrot in society will say “bwaark, it’s political!”.
I feel like the parrots of the warhammer community are probably more concerned with the game than the politics. They would far rather repeat cool titbits of lore, stories of battles won by the increased marine population, and so on than “bwaark, it’s political!” over and over. But if that lore’s not there, then they won’t be able to repeat it.
Now have those people strongly against the change leave the
GW (they don’t live there after all) and some new people come in who are interested in female marines. Hearing all the parrots say “bwaark, it’s political” will make them less interested than hearing all the cool lore about them.
Further adding to the cool lore aspect, when was the last time they added a weapon or unit to
40k which wasn’t actively described in the coolest way it could be? Are they about to add guard models with autoguns instead of lasguns and be like “eh, they fire bullets instead of lasers”? Or will the next weapons added fire >scifi-tech< enhanced by >40k stuff< which results in >gory descriptions<?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The people who are for it are armed with "there's literally no justifiably consistent reason why Space Marines need to be all-male, so why are they?" and "I want people to have as much choice as possible in their hobby".
I’m talking about people who support it post-change, who we want to be making the stores a better place, not a worse one.
And, honestly, that first one is a terrible argument. Here’s It laid out:
“The only reason for >change< was politics!”
“Actually, there was no reason not to do >change<!”
“So what was the reason for >change<?”
“…There wasn’t a reason not to…”
“I’ll tell you the reason – politics!”
Notice who won that argument?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
because real human people literally just existing doesn't need lore.
I get what you’re saying. I really do. But 1: Space marines aren’t real people, and 2: Space marines currently exist as all male, both on the table and in the lore. Female guardsmen existed in the lore, and were late being added to the table. The addition of the models was their models catching up with the lore they are meant to represent. Space marine lore has no female marines for the models to represent. As such, it needs to be changed.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But WHY aren't women Space Marines a thing right now??
They literally won't stick out at all any more so than women Guardsmen stick out.
They aren’t a thing because they aren’t in the lore. Not being there is as good as being actively denied when it comes to the lore, especially when the models also only show male marines.
Why is that? Business decisions and 13 words. Regardless of whether you agree with the decisions made or the conclusions drawn, they were made and they were drawn. This is the reality of the situation right now, regardless of how frustrating it is!
Women guardsmen are mentioned in the lore. Show me a mention of a female marine in the lore, and we can represent them with a model without needing to change it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Neither were grav-guns, or Centurions, or Stormravens or any of the countless other things GW just invented.
Why is "women" such a hard hurdle?
“Women” is irrelevant.
It’s a thing which doesn’t exist now and we want to exist. If we just make the models, it will still not be in the lore, and the model will not represent anything in the lore, and so it will not be the same as every other model in the game, and as such, will stick out like a sore thumb.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"Because it's cool, and we wanted to give people options. Same reason why we have all these cool new units!"
Explain why it’s cool without any lore explaining what effect it has had in the
40k universe. Every option is justified in the lore (make your own chapter with its own colours is justified in the lore by saying that there are lost or forgotten ones), why should this one be any different?
I can explain to you why Grav-Guns are cool. They use ancient tech to manipulate gravity to crush the target under its own mass, turning them to pulp. Against heavy armour, it reduced them to nothing more than a crimson trickle.
Without the lore, I can tell you grav guns are cool because they are another weapon option for marines. That’s not cool, that’s just existence.
So you can explain why female marines exist without the lore – they exist because they exist – but you cannot explain why they are cool.
And once you add the lore, you can’t even explain why they exist without changing the lore from excluding them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
People will make that assumption regardless of whatever reason you give, unfortunately - as evidenced by Primaris and women Stormcast. If someone wants to ascribe political motivations to it, they will, no matter what you tell them.
So nobody at all just thought they were cool, and read the lore about why they are there (they take anyone who shows promise) and thought “that’s so cool!”?
If someone says “female stormcast only exist for politics”, there’s a chance someone will reply “actually, they don’t care who you are for making a stormcast ,they take anyone who’s worthy”.
And anyone listening can draw their conclusions from both sides of the argument.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes. The explanation for how they came to be, and how come they weren't there before on older models is never addressed. There's no "Celisarius Bawl invented the grav-gun in M41, and that's why you never see them in the Tyrannic Wars". It's like they always existed.
The only lore they have is literally "these exist now". Which is exactly what I'm advocating for women Astartes.
The only issue I can see there is that there was no lore saying “space marines don’t have grav guns”.
The lore currently excludes something which exists
IRL. Without changing the lore, adding it is contradictory.
I’d be happy enough with lore explanation of them just existing, though I would prefer to see them added differently.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, did black Space Marines not exist until they were explicitly mentioned/shown? Was everyone in the Imperium white?
The lore isn't "permissive" at all, otherwise the whole concept of custom Chapters is killed in the crib. The lore is incredibly flexible and open-ended to player creativity, with only a handful of hard limits and restrictions - which is why the whole "you can do anything except have women in your Space Marines" is so bafflingly bizarre.
There was no mention in the lore of every marine being white, so it did not exclude other ethnicities. But there is mention of every marine being male, so that does exclude female marines, unless they are somehow also male.
Custom chapters are permitted by them saying “chapters are lost, so they could look like anything!”.
The hard limit on making custom chapters of marines is “they are marines”.
Then we are faced with “what are marines”, and the lore says “superhuman all-male soldiers”.
The issue is nothing to do with the fact that they are female.
Let’s say they went a different route – one we have discussed – where they make marines look less human so they aren’t representative of anyone.
If they did that, they would need some justification for it in the lore, the lore would have to change – because the models and the lore wouldn’t match any more. They made the models something that aren’t marines, lore-wise, so the lore has to change to make the new models fit into the
40k universe.
Remove the political justification for including female models from the argument – it’s got no opposition from me, because there is no counter argument. Just look at the facts: Marine models currently are as they are in the lore. We want marine models to be something else, therefore the lore has to change.
When they added a proper range of skin tones, they will have looked at the lore and said “does anything in here stop this from being a thing?” If there were a piece of lore saying “only white boys get to be marines”, then that is definitely getting cut out for it – the lore would have been changed and the lore & models/paint would continue to match. As it was, there was nothing to change.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't get why you seem to think that "women being written in the lore" means "we need to explain how they suddnely exist" instead of just "we include women in the lore".
I guess it’s because they do suddenly exist. But I do concede that they could just as easily be written as having always existed – but I feel that would require explanations of why they had never been mentioned before. I’m all for the idea that female marines are only subtly different in appearance, and that they were mistaken for male marines by all the scribes, and they don’t care so didn’t correct them, because what they were before they were space marines doesn’t matter to them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Exactly - they never cared about women in the first place. So when women Astartes are added, no matter what lore reason you give, they'll still grimace at the inclusion of women, because they don't care about women. Simply including women will be seen as political, because to them, anything not in the game is "political", and because women weren't in the game before, this will be political.
These same people wouldn’t have seen grav-guns as political, or centurion suits, or primaris (business =/= political). Just because it wasn’t there and is now doesn’t make people assume it’s political.
Most people, if given a cool reason for things existing, will accept it. It’s only if there’s nothing that they will not accept it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because that ammunition can be removed without writing things in as well.
The problem with writing stuff in is that it still creates the impression that the lore is more important than people, and that it still doesn't remove that "but this was a political change!!" motive.
“The lore is important” =/= “The lore is more important than the people”.
40k exists outside of reality. The universe itself is entirely fictional, and you can represent the things in that universe fighting one another using the models
GW sells. Changing the lore in the same way you would for any other change doesn’t offer any comparison between it and people, because the two don’t even exist in the same universe. One’s entirely fiction, the other’s entirely real.
You might as well say “Changing the models would imply that the models are more important than people!”
I’m not suggesting it will remove the argument – but it will give their opposition something to use to shut them up. And shutting up the people making the place bad is the goal, so that’s a win.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, it doesn't. And GW don't even agree with that principle. As I've said - grav-guns, Stormtalons, Centurion suits, etc etc.
All of which have lore explaining their existence, retrospective or otherwise.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, they don't - not like how you're describing how you want to add women Astartes.
Where's the lore "backing up" women Tau? Because I don't think anything ever backs it up beyond "this exists".
Bear in mind that space marines are in a unique situation in that their lore says that female marines don’t exist. T’au has no such restriction. The lore never excluded women, the models just never represented them. Space marines have a different problem, that needs to be solved in a different way.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sure. So you change the lore to say that Space Marines are gender neutral, and anyone can be recruited, or simply remove any mention of exclusionary recruiting processes.
Simple.
Yep. You change the lore so the new models represent the current lore, and it’s all consistent. We agree! (sound the trumpets!
day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.
