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.
Cheesecake certainly still has a market (although I'm not sure those linked sculpts qualify for that description)... but it's not what most gamers want on the table, from my experience.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/11/25 23:24:14
Serious question - does gender even mean much at that point?
Well, it also seems to matter to people who oppose it awfully lot for some reason.
Is it about getting female heads for SMs
That would be very nice. There currently are no GW female heads that would fit that purpose particularly well. They're too small, and marines have very distincrive "collars." A lot of people use third party heads, which is not money GW could be getting.
Is this about changing the lore?
Yes, that is the most important part. It is making it officially OK to have female marines and deny the cover of "but lore" from bigots who attack you if you make female marines.
Is it about getting SM models with literal breastplate armour?
Absolutely not. That is definitely not something I would want and I would be disappointed if that was the excecution. I don't think female marines should have different armours than the male ones. Basically with helmet, you wouldn't know.
Serious question - does gender even mean much at that point?
I suppose what I'm asking is what people actually want.
So i think this question answers more than you think for many people, but not in the way you might mean. I tend to analogise a lot in these conversations because I find it helps to see things from different angles, so for another one, I'm going to analogise 'does gender mean much' with the idea that 'guys is gender neutral'.
Now in theory there's no issue. But in reality, the practical issues society has means everything has baggage and context is more important than theoryhammer. So I've seen a lot people (men) try to say that guys is a gender neutral phrase, to justify them not changing their terminology when talking to rooms of mixed people. However, those same men will be very uncomfortable if you asked them if they went down on guys, or made love to guys. Because the word is clearly not neutral, but is often used in a neutral way, which isn't the same thing. And they know that.
Similarly, 'gender doesn't matter' suddenly does matter to many men, if the default assumed gender of every character they read is now female. For it to actually not matter, it needs to not affect you as well. If all marines were now just default female but their gender didn't matter, it would not be an acceptable solution for many of the men that don't want FSM.
And that's the main issue - society is by default male and all men have grown up with the unconscious assumption of male is default. Women never see themselves as the default, to the point where 'female' is still used as a trait in fantasy (we are still talking about female space marines because the default marine is male). When people talk about guard, they have to say it would be cool to see female guard, because guard are not assumed female by default. And on and on and on. And sometimes women are 'given' a spot, designed for them, by men, and then everyone pats themselves on the back like they did a good job, deciding they've now solved the 'woman issue'. Which they haven't because nothing has changed.
Until the underlying fabric is truly neutral, no theoryhammer equivalences will ever actually be equal, because the context underpinning it is inherently unequal.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Would it be considered offensive if the FSM were Chaos Marines at first?
Chaos has always struck me as a meritocracy (even if it's mercurial at best). I don't think the Chaos gods - or even mortal lords - care what's in your pants if you can get the job done. I've got a model that I use as a Chaos Lord to represent the leader of my Chaos Knights when she's not in her Rampager, and I've also got some female Thousand Sons awaiting paint jobs.
Cool. Is she the pilot of the green Chaos Knight you posted?
She is!
I haven't finished painting her Marine version, but I'll post her when I do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/11/25 23:49:27
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
Nope. Because they’re no longer human, and are entirely removed from the regular human experience.
Depends what definition of 'matter' you are using and for whom.
because it certainly seems to matter in every fictional portrayal of space marines ever published by GW, where being men and male is intrinsic to their identity. Where they are very clearly NOT portrayed as asexual agendered individuals.
And it then matters to the readers who have only encountered marines as power fantasy men, space spartans ala 300. We would have definitely heard the complaints if Dante wanted to be referred to with they/them and mused about how he didn't like his doodle because it wasn't how he saw himself.
There's a difference between saying it doesn't matter and then actually seeing the consequences of it not mattering. Otherwise it's 'dont ask don't tell' levels of lip service.
Nope. Because they’re no longer human, and are entirely removed from the regular human experience.
They might not be running off to get married and have kids, but they're not so far removed from the 'human condition' that they can't fathom a difference of gender. They might be honed to be perfect warriors, but they still suffer human failings - the Heresy proves that much, at least.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
My point is that the Emperor was sexist. The non-sexist nature of the IoM is a happy accident, just like how its theocratic nature is a blatant deviation from the Emperor's blatant radical and violent atheism.
Expanding on the above, the core lore reason is that FSM cannot exist is because the geneseed doesn't work on women for "reasons". Those reasons aren't technological limitations, as all other trans-human augmentations work on women just fine. FSM doesn't exist because the Emperor didn't want FSM to exist.
And the Emperor does have a documented preference of men over women, I mean all the Primarchs, who were literally custom built down to their genetic level if not even deeper, are male.
^Expanding on that, an entertaining framework for interpreting the Imperium is as the very faulty product of a hyoer-patriarchy.
But as for Space Marines in particular, I think it's fine to
A: make products/product lines aimed at young men/boys
B: make products that draw upon historical/real world precedents
But make no mistake, I'm sympathetic to the pro-FSM side as well. I like that Custodes are both, and was pro-female Custodes before it happened/was officially acknowledged.
The issue isn't the existence of an all-male faction.
The issue is that the only all-male faction is the poster faction, getting the lion's share of releases, promotional work, exposure, etc.
If GSC could only be male, that'd be dumb, but also not nearly the issue that Marines being a boys-only club is.
I understand that tension, but I think it also falls into the category of "Can products exist that cater to young men or a male fantasy?". Because I'd argue that that's ok.
I would love it if SMs weren't constantly in the spotlight though. That'd be great.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/11/26 01:46:09
Crimson wrote: Mate. They use chainsaws as weapons. It is made up and never made any sense. If the writer says that female marines work, then that doesn't lessen the sensemakery of the setting one bit.
Would you argue that nothing needs to make sense within the setting then? Either the game then just becomes a vehicle for pushing politics trying to remain within the rule of cool only enough so that people still play the game. Or is it just that Femarines are less nonsense than most of the fantastical gak in the game? How nonsensical does something have to be before it cannot be included on the grounds of progressive politics alone and needs to actually make more sense (as Femarines being one in a hundred thousand idea I had) or further the art of the thing by being faction-appropriate like having female Inquisitors, Eldar, Astra Militarum.
Hellebore wrote: The blood angels geneseed already does things to scrawny misshapen mutants that make a girl space marine look boring by comparison.
As JNA says, there is no fictional limitation that will prevent the story changing, the limitations are all self imposed and supported for a variety of reasons.
To mix and mash some memes, if you don't want female space marines then don't get gay married.
ie, adding them does nothing to your doods if you choose to make your doods all doods. No one will force you to have girlmarines, it will just give ' lore permission' to people who would like to.
And for better or worse, the GW fandom is now absolutely bound by its lore. The days of 'do whatever you want' are long gone and people get ganged on line for working with ideas that don't 'fit' the lore. Down to using the wrong shade of blue for your ultramarines.
The social pressure to conform to 'correctness' means that no matter how 'do what you want' you try to be, large portions of the fanbase that you have to interact with in this inherently social hobby, will deny you, decry you, or abuse you for daring to go against lore.
All adding them does is provide an inclusive throughline for other members in the audience who would appreciate it, and GW's 'lore accurate approval' TM that people won't be doing anything wrong if they do.
Thank you for posting me to the new thread and posting this. If there are Femarines on the cover of the Space Marines book, if I lose helmets that could have been male to make room for more female helmet or if the boxes become bigger and more expensive to fit the extra sprues needed for Femarines then it does cost all the players that want to play manly macho Marines something. Maybe I am awful, I'll have a think about it, I am glad these threads got separated.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Would it be considered offensive if the FSM were Chaos Marines at first?
Chaos has always struck me as a meritocracy (even if it's mercurial at best). I don't think the Chaos gods - or even mortal lords - care what's in your pants if you can get the job done. I've got a model that I use as a Chaos Lord to represent the leader of my Chaos Knights when she's not in her Rampager, and I've also got some female Thousand Sons awaiting paint jobs.
The novel Storm of Iron, published back in 2002, featured a Khornate champion's female slave who kills him and takes his armour (with a little boost from her newly adopted patron), with nobody being any the wiser...
This is cool, Valkia is cool, welcoming women into the hobby is cool, pushing different factions to market the game towards women is cool. Not a fan of female Space Marines being a major thing, making it possible in the lore is fine if GW did it quietly, playing against someone once with a Femarine army is fine. Not a fan of progressive politics trying to change everything all the time. Not a fan of one in ten Marines being women, children or stunted in growth.
Crimson wrote: Well, it also seems to matter to people who oppose it awfully lot for some reason.
Eh, it barely matters, but if you let progressives change everything that barely matters then they will change a whole lot and ultimately ruin a lot of things even if each individual thing was only marginally wrong. So a little pushback against every encroachment against things being artistic and making sense might help in the grand scheme. I deleted my original reply on the topic of Femarines until someone said they didn't feel I was welcome in the hobby for having a different opinion than them on the subject. The hobby should be inclusive to a broad population, that means we cannot have Nazis since they will try to exclude anyone who isn't of European ethnicity and do so just by being allowed to be part of the hobby while openly espousing their affiliation with Nazism, but extremists will want to not just exclude Nazis but everyone who isn't super progressive and at that point they really should just make a private club, Reddit and Facebook group for themselves if they cannot tolerate regular people being a part of the hobby.
vict0988 wrote: "Girl Space Marines doesn't make logical sense"
Crimson wrote: Mate. They use chainsaws as weapons. It is made up and never made any sense. If the writer says that female marines work, then that doesn't lessen the sensemakery of the setting one bit.
Would you argue that nothing needs to make sense within the setting then? Either the game then just becomes a vehicle for pushing politics trying to remain within the rule of cool only enough so that people still play the game. Or is it just that Femarines are less nonsense than most of the fantastical gak in the game? How nonsensical does something have to be before it cannot be included on the grounds of progressive politics alone and needs to actually make more sense (as Femarines being one in a hundred thousand idea I had) or further the art of the thing by being faction-appropriate like having female Inquisitors, Eldar, Astra Militarum.
Hellebore wrote: The blood angels geneseed already does things to scrawny misshapen mutants that make a girl space marine look boring by comparison.
As JNA says, there is no fictional limitation that will prevent the story changing, the limitations are all self imposed and supported for a variety of reasons.
To mix and mash some memes, if you don't want female space marines then don't get gay married.
ie, adding them does nothing to your doods if you choose to make your doods all doods. No one will force you to have girlmarines, it will just give ' lore permission' to people who would like to.
And for better or worse, the GW fandom is now absolutely bound by its lore. The days of 'do whatever you want' are long gone and people get ganged on line for working with ideas that don't 'fit' the lore. Down to using the wrong shade of blue for your ultramarines.
The social pressure to conform to 'correctness' means that no matter how 'do what you want' you try to be, large portions of the fanbase that you have to interact with in this inherently social hobby, will deny you, decry you, or abuse you for daring to go against lore.
All adding them does is provide an inclusive throughline for other members in the audience who would appreciate it, and GW's 'lore accurate approval' TM that people won't be doing anything wrong if they do.
Thank you for posting me to the new thread and posting this. If there are Femarines on the cover of the Space Marines book, if I lose helmets that could have been male to make room for more female helmet or if the boxes become bigger and more expensive to fit the extra sprues needed for Femarines then it does cost all the players that want to play manly macho Marines something. Maybe I am awful, I'll have a think about it, I am glad these threads got separated.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Would it be considered offensive if the FSM were Chaos Marines at first?
Chaos has always struck me as a meritocracy (even if it's mercurial at best). I don't think the Chaos gods - or even mortal lords - care what's in your pants if you can get the job done. I've got a model that I use as a Chaos Lord to represent the leader of my Chaos Knights when she's not in her Rampager, and I've also got some female Thousand Sons awaiting paint jobs.
The novel Storm of Iron, published back in 2002, featured a Khornate champion's female slave who kills him and takes his armour (with a little boost from her newly adopted patron), with nobody being any the wiser...
This is cool, Valkia is cool, welcoming women into the hobby is cool, pushing different factions to market the game towards women is cool. Not a fan of female Space Marines being a major thing, making it possible in the lore is fine if GW did it quietly, playing against someone once with a Femarine army is fine. Not a fan of progressive politics trying to change everything all the time. Not a fan of one in ten Marines being women, children or stunted in growth.
Crimson wrote: Well, it also seems to matter to people who oppose it awfully lot for some reason.
Eh, it barely matters, but if you let progressives change everything that barely matters then they will change a whole lot and ultimately ruin a lot of things even if each individual thing was only marginally wrong. So a little pushback against every encroachment against things being artistic and making sense might help in the grand scheme. I deleted my original reply on the topic of Femarines until someone said they didn't feel I was welcome in the hobby for having a different opinion than them on the subject. The hobby should be inclusive to a broad population, that means we cannot have Nazis since they will try to exclude anyone who isn't of European ethnicity and do so just by being allowed to be part of the hobby while openly espousing their affiliation with Nazism, but extremists will want to not just exclude Nazis but everyone who isn't super progressive and at that point they really should just make a private club, Reddit and Facebook group for themselves if they cannot tolerate regular people being a part of the hobby.
Why do you put women in the same category as children and cripples? (Which are, respectively, the main source of Marines and the main source of Blood Angels.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Either the lore matters or it doesn't, if it is infinitely malleable then nothing matters and we may as well just ignore it entirely.
What I can not stand is people comparing the ridiculous concept of a chainsword to a female space marine, it is not the same thing because for what ever reason the choice was made in the early concepts of the game to make chainsaw swords. Female marines are something explicitly unknown/not allowed in the lore. It was an arbitrary choice just like all choices are arbitrary but it is a part of a foundation for a setting older than a lot of the people in this thread. I am not arguing that things should be kept the same just for the sake of it but for me personally, it plays into the dystopian hateful atrocity that is the Imperium of Man.
I hate the reintroduction of loyalist Primarchs, I hate Primaris marines, the concept of moving forward is the antithesis of the Imperium that I grew up with and how I perceive the setting. I don't like the push for heroism that has pervaded the setting in the past few editions as I think that 40k worked best when it was highlighting the hypocrisy of all of the factions that tried to prove their own moral superiority. Maybe because I am a heretic at heart but I liked Chaos factions because they were honest about who and what they are, which was a stark contrast to the delusion of the Imperium.
The introduction of Primaris and loyalist Primarchs is just part of an effort to turn the setting into a boring Good vs Evil stereotypical fantasy setting. Female marines would just be a continuation of that - on the same hand I would LOVE for Fabius Bile to create female chaos marines because that would fit the established lore. Well, Fabius Bile wants to progress past Astartes but my point remains...
I get that this is no longer the game for me. 10th edition is so unpalatable to me that I've never made it past trying to make a list to actually play the game. List crafting to fit the lore of my own created factions was a huge part of the game for me and now there are no meaningful ways to make my dudes, My Dudes. The lore is continuing in ways to create more stories of good vs evil when I want evil vs evil. I can already hear someone coming along and saying that, I can still do all of that, I just use my imagination! Well if I wanted to create my own setting I always have that option but I much more enjoy taking part in something larger, a shared fantasy setting that I can relate to people with.
I accept that I am likely the minority, I had a similar argument recently over the wheel chair in DnD thing that made rounds. I can not wrap my head around the concept of a setting where you can bring people back from the dead but somehow can not heal someones injuries requiring a wheel chair. In the end I understood that some people are looking to see themselves in their fantasy, I just want to immerse myself in a world outside of myself.
Or it's not actually a binary issue, and the background material can be important while also not being completely immune to change. Which is how things have to be for a game to evolve. And games that don't evolve generally don't last as long as 40K has.
vict0988 wrote: The hobby should be inclusive to a broad population, that means we cannot have Nazis since they will try to exclude anyone who isn't of European ethnicity and do so just by being allowed to be part of the hobby while openly espousing their affiliation with Nazism, but extremists will want to not just exclude Nazis but everyone who isn't super progressive and at that point they really should just make a private club, Reddit and Facebook group for themselves if they cannot tolerate regular people being a part of the hobby.
I don't think any of that means what you think it means.
If you think I don't want Nazis in my hobby, you're absolutely correct. Does not wanting Nazis in my hobby make me an extremist? Does wanting lore-official female Space Marines make me an extremist?
And just how do you define 'normal people'? Are you implying that people who want lore-official female Space Marines aren't 'normal'? What is normal?
And why does opening up the poster faction to a broader audience offend you so?
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
It’s never been fixed. It has always been mutable and changing.
‘Member when GW introduced female Custards the other months? And how there was an attempt to whip up controversy over how precious the lore is?
Funny how those decrying that change had nothing to say about that same faction going from skinny blokes in pointy helmets, wearing cloaks, yoga pants and posing pouches to Auramite Clad Hand Crafted Super Duper Wuper Soldiers. Because surely if one retcon is bad and wrong and indeed…..badong, they all are?
Think my description of the original Custodes might be hyperbolic? I’ve got two words and a pic for you!
Word. Up.
And do not get me started on everything else that’s a change in the lore and so, by the same logic, should be consigned to the dustbin. No. Really. Don’t. You’ll cry, I’ll cry, the Mods’ will cry. Everyone will cry.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/11/26 09:31:30
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Regarding seeing male as the default, it makes sense in 40k, given it's a wargame, and in current human history, 99,9999% (and a lot more 9's, probably) of soldiers are/were male, the setting defaulting to that makes sense, given the world's history. Funnily enough, there's probably more % of female soldiers representation in 40k as a whole than in history as a whole, even with the overwhelming presence of the Marines in the lore.
Women get excluded from Warhammer 40k because there are no female Space Marines. This is objectively false. GW itself stated that Warhammer is for everyone. There are no shop guidelines or laws that keep women out of 40k. Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I get the feeling some people are mixing these two things up. Humans can like things without seeing themselves represented in something.
Some people use the official canon to gatekeep or ridicule others because there are no female Space Marines. Does anybody here think these people would become shining paragons of the community if FSM were introduced? Would you suddenly want to play games with a person that was making fun of you just last week for the female head you put on your Captain? Everybody is responsible for their own community, so go ahead and make it a better place. You already have your legitimation from the highest entity in the game (GW approval from above). Bad people will find other things to latch onto and be dicks to you.
Warhammer would be more appealing to women if the "hero" of the story was female / mixed gender. Yes, probably. But this can be achieved without eroding a long standing faction identity. Everybody who is not (exclusively) playing Space Marines would benefit from the lore and following support (miniatures, video games, novels, audio books, merch, boardgames, ...) switching the focus equally to other factions. Just because this would take more effort does not automatically make the other option better or correct.
Lore has been changed before, why is this one so important? It does not change much about the feeling of a faction to retcon certain new weapons or units. I can live with Space Marines suddenly having Sternguard and Vanguard along with Relic blades and some other stuff. I do not agree to substantial changes to a factions identity. I would not approve of Khorne suddenly using psykers, I would not approve of SoB suddenly ignoring the "no men at arms" law and I would not approve of SM suddenly using female recruits.
The only real life reason for no FSM existing in the lore was the poor reception of the models 40 years ago. I'm aware of that and it does not change anything of what I wrote above.
---
All of this aside, I even wrote on this forum that I saw avenues for an (imo) proper introduction of female Space Marines into the setting without just saying "they have always been there".
BUT I have an issue with people who not only want to introduce FSM, but then actually telling everybody who had a problem with it, regardless of the reason, to no longer be welcomed in the hobby. THIS is what actual exclusion looks like and is just despicable:
F) Female space marines would be a thing on the spot, I dont care the in-universe reason, but I would be sure to have a nice and clear public announcement that anyone that has a problem with that is no longer welcome anywhere in the GW ecosystem.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
It’s the weird little gatekeepers. Those self appointed guardians of something not in fact theirs. The sort to throw around the term “hobby tourist” in place of anything approaching a rational, cohesive argument.
I don’t disagree that should such a change come? It needs to be covered in the lore. Whilst I’d prefer it to be a Cawl development, if it was “and there always has been” let’s just say Teddy would still be snuggled up in my personal pram.
As for your quote? I see where you’re coming from, but keep the context of the originating thread in mind. Because context is crucial. Here? Of a “power trip” thread where we’ve the power as an individual to run GW for a day, with the implication what gets done stays done.
Note I’m not accusing you of quote mining, or deliberately presenting something outside of its context, here. Just providing the correct context for the quote.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Think my description of the original Custodes might be hyperbolic? I’ve got two words and a pic for you!
For people who are not knowledgable about it, I think it would only be fair to mention that "Rogue Trader" lore was very, very different from the rest of everything else that came, starting with Warhammer 40k, 2nd edition. It was a time when the Warhammer universe was not defined and refined, yet. Everybody including Eldar and Orks were running around with lasguns, Space Marines were convicts, we had a half eldar half human psyker Ultramarine and Leman Russ was just an Imperial general among other things. IIRC the guy you are showing was sold as "Imperial Bodyguard", I can't remember if "Custodes" was a word being used at all.
The "modern" Custodes have been depicted in heavy armor shortly afterwards already in "Codex Imperialis" during 2nd edition. Arguably the edition where GW started putting everything they had come up with so far in place and made a coherent setting out of it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As for your quote? I see where you’re coming from, but keep the context of the originating thread in mind. Because context is crucial. Here? Of a “power trip” thread where we’ve the power as an individual to run GW for a day, with the implication what gets done stays done.
Emphasis mine. Sorry, but I don't see how this makes the quoted part from my post better.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/11/26 11:33:26
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Ah yes. Space marines in rogue trader had actual female sculpts. Then that was changed to marines being a power armored sausage fest (that change doesn't count though, for completely non-arbitrary reasons!). So now introducing female space marines would be an unprecedented retcon and destroy their lore.
So some people have expressed fear that this would be watering down the grimdark and that the "progressives" want to turn the Imperium into good guys and the setting into simplistic good vs evil.
I absolutely do not want that. In the other thread most of my lore changes were explicitly about emphasising the grimdark satire. But I what I don't want is the accidental fascist propaganda the current 40K lore often comes way too close to.
And whilst the one comment about getting rid of everyone who has a problem with female marines was harsher than how I would have put it, it would definitely send a message to to the alt-right-bros plaguing the hobby that identify with the Imperium.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I get that this is no longer the game for me. 10th edition is so unpalatable to me that I've never made it past trying to make a list to actually play the game. List crafting to fit the lore of my own created factions was a huge part of the game for me and now there are no meaningful ways to make my dudes, My Dudes. The lore is continuing in ways to create more stories of good vs evil when I want evil vs evil. I can already hear someone coming along and saying that, I can still do all of that, I just use my imagination! Well if I wanted to create my own setting I always have that option but I much more enjoy taking part in something larger, a shared fantasy setting that I can relate to people with.
Yeah, this is where I'm at at the moment, and one of the reasons I'm rather dispassionate on this topic (the other being that I don't play SMs, and making them women won't change that).
For me, 10th poured a dumptruck of sand on the already dwindling spark of enthusiasm I had for 40k. My favourite army has been neglected for over a decade, and virtually everything I enjoyed about my armies and the game in general has been systematically hammered into paste. So now all that's left is a bland, grey slop that feels less like a wargame and more like playing a bad Magic The Gathering clone with some models involved.
Thus, seeing people arguing for female space marines is akin to watching someone painstakingly measure out 3ml of water for their house-plant, while the rest of the house burns around them.
Anyway, I'll leave some final thoughts on this topic:
As a few posters noted previously, men and women are different. Not just physically but mentally. For example, women will generally try to avoid conflict and mediate situations that could lead to such.
This isn't a bad thing, but one might expect it to have an impact on how SMs operated if a significant number of women were made into Astartes. Would this be something you would want to see explored?
Now, the obvious alternative would be to argue that the process of becoming Astartes would make up not only for any physical differences but also any mental ones - so by the end of the process, they'll be every bit as trigger-happy and violent as their male counterparts.
However, if GW was to say "SMs were female all along and it made no difference whatsoever", then this would seem to hand a big question mark over the point of making such a change in the first place. Even from the standpoint of representation, I would question how many women want to see women represented in name only, being physiologically and psychologically indistinguishable from men.
At that point, it seems you might as well just ask GW to make SM models with girlier hair.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
On men and women and alleged psychological differences?
How do you know that has a physiological root, and not a sociological root? Because your wording suggests it’s the former, which is gonna need evidence as a claim.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
How do you know that has a physiological root, and not a sociological root? Because your wording suggests it’s the former, which is gonna need evidence as a claim.
Such differences are almost certainly mostly or completely sociological. Even in supposedly gender equal nations boys and girls are brought up differently and different expectations are placed upon them. There has been numerous studies about this. The thing being specifically mentioned, the women being less confrontational, totally a sociological. It is trait that is far more tolerated in boys than girls, far more encouraged in men in than women. But in 40 000 years, on many different worlds, this is not necessarily true any more.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/11/26 12:56:40
Member of 
DKoK Blog:
Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey
