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.

Altima wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Perhaps, but they would also be a mirror to Chaos Cultists or Pox Walkers, which gameplay wise are chaff units in a "elite" army.
Fluff wise it would make sense for Serfs to supplement Marine ground forces in cases where the Imperial Guard can't reach them in time. One of the criticisms of marine fluff that I noticed is that they don't actually have the numbers to carry out their missions, so Serfs could help remedy that.

And if Chaos had a proper mortals army, pox walkers and cultists would step on their toes. But they don't, so those units don't have to compete in the creative space. Instead, chaos is CSM with everything tacked on (or daemons).

Boy do I wish we had traitor guard and dark mechanicus and mutants... Maybe one day.

Didn't they have cultists and mutants at the same time as Lost and the Damned though?
But yeah, Lost and the Damned do need to come back in some form. Maybe let Chaos Marines have the weird cultists and nu-Lost and the Damned be more of a professional outfit.

Cybtroll wrote:We get Kiro, you're ideologically against change. Guess what? That's irrelevant, since your ideology is not an argument (differently from what you seem to believe).

Change is neutral, not bad. Specific implementation are good or bad. But since you're entrenched within an ideological position, there's another approach possible rather than parrot-repeating itself without any significative point added in the discussion.


Am I misunderstanding or do you agree that GW should give visibility to female space marine project and push them as legit way to build their war dolls without changing the lore?

Because that's not an ideological stance, but a pragmatical one. I don't care if the lore says "Marine are male" when people building those as female can point at a White Dwarf article that show off a mixed gender or entirely female Marine army.

Are you fine with that? Because I am.
See: compromise, not ideology. I disagree with your stance on the lore, but I don't care about ideological position rather than practical effect.

To summarize: GW should explicitly make clear that female marine are a legit and welcomed way to build their miniature, even if the don't update the lore (so, the Imperium at large will still be tragically ignorant and the lore is saved and expanded).

I want to bring this back up, and ask people to share their insights on this again, especially the bolded, because I didn't see all that many people address it.

If so many of the people here, as they've said, are totally fine with people making their own women Astartes, what would be the problem in GW showcasing them publicly, like on their Twitch streams, or in a White Dwarf, or on their website? Perhaps you don't need to make them canon - what's wrong with GW just showcasing them and representing them that way?

Not touching your precious lore, and you get to put your money where your mouth is, that you're fine with people making their own women Astartes.

How does that sound?

kirotheavenger wrote:If you can dismiss my "ideology" can I dismiss yours?
I'm going to choose to define wanting female representation as an "ideology".

Everything is an ideology. Including neutrality. What I will highlight is that the first people to start slinging words like "ideology" around were doing so to dismiss the idea of women Astartes.

I don't agree that GW should give visibility to female marine projects. GW should maintain a consistent front on what is and isn't official canon, that includes White Dwarf.
Unless I supposed they did a column that was explicitly non-official but White Dwarf has long since moved away from being so hobby oriented.

My own models have been showcased by GW, and they were a homebrew Chapter. Should they not have been showcased, because they weren't official canon?

Can only what GW have allowed to be canon be represented? If I paint my Ultramarines the wrong shade of blue, am I not allowed to put them in White Dwarf any more?

What's the relevance of this anyway? You don't need official recognition or example in White Dwarf to build an army the way you want.

Why is it so important to you that people *don't* get recognition?

Like, your stance baffles me. You're saying that you're not trying to hurt anyone, but you're *actively* saying that people shouldn't be represented and shouldn't be given visibility. That's not "defending the lore" at that point, that's "I'm stopping you from doing things". How you can claim you're acting in defence here, I have no clue.

kirotheavenger wrote:We're not trying to find you a solution, we're telling you it's not a problem

And why are you the one to dictate that is isn't a problem?

That's like telling me you need a solution for why my walls are painted such an ugly colour, and I shouldn't offer input if I think the walls are already fine.

But that's not what's happening here.

What's happening here is that someone's come in and painted YOUR walls an ugly colour. You complain and want to offer a solution to solve how your own walls are painted in a ugly colour, but the people who painted them are saying that it's not a problem, and you shouldn't offer input because they think that your walls, which they painted, are fine.

The reason that your metaphor doesn't work is that me having women Space Marines doesn't affect you in the slightest. It's not *your* walls that we're complaining about, it's how you won't let us paint our own walls, or if we *do* paint our own walls, we're not allowed to invite people over to showcase our lovely new walls.

It smacks of "you go do your own thing, but not too loud, you're not welcome".

Can't you see that?

I don't agree that the colour of my walls is a problem, regardless of what you say.

You can paint your walls whatever colour you like. But what about *our* walls? Why are you dictating what colour our walls can be, and that it isn't a problem because you don't think our walls look ugly?

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Just because the lore has changed doesn't mean lore changing is a good thing.

So lore should have just remained as it was in the original Rogue Trader book? Fine by me, there is no restriction of marines only being male there.

If you need to retreat over thirty years to make an argument perhaps you need to evaluate how convincing you think you sound.

Hang on, isn't that the reason that you're defending why women Astartes can't be made? Because of lore from 30 years ago, and how it's been there for 30 years?

Sounds like double standards and selective lore if you ask me.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So tell me then when was the lore perfected, and after which no changes should have been made? Give the date.

Perfected? Never, perfection is an impossible pursuit.
When would I concrete the lore? The day I entered the hobby, because then the lore was in a state I liked.

Right, but you *do* understand that that's not very helpful when the lore isn't what it was when you started the hobby, yes?

If you only consider that lore to be "concrete", then you're either considering a lot of modern stuff "non-canon", or you've already started shifting your position on that "concrete lore".

After which would no changes have been made? Define change, retcons - no. Silly, shoehorned additions? No. Logical and awesome expansions? Definitely.

Cawl working out how to create women Astartes sounds pretty logical and awesome to me.
Logical - Cawl is clearly capable of great feats of bio-engineering, and has already demonstrated the ability to work on Space Marines.
Awesome - yeah, warrior women are cool.

Primaris are a silly shoehorned addition, they also arguably include some retcons.

But they *are* canon. If you want to use canon to defend your own arguments, I suggest you stop complaining about that "concrete lore" you're relying on so much.

 the_scotsman wrote:


But I know that's not going to happen. you know that's not going to happen. This "they just need to release models for other factions, bro!" line of defense is only ever thrown out there because the people who throw it out, know it isn't going to happen in a million years. They know GW is going to continue letting every other faction in the entire game share 30% of the model releases between them while space marines get half and Chaos Marines get 20%.

Accusing people who think that of being insincere and disingenuous, classy. Here's a thought, perhaps not everyone is defeatist and actually want to get GW to do something.
And FYI, GW is already putting other factions into the spotlight, so don't act as though it's not already happening.

Crimson wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Interesting! I saw that pop up on an fb group I follow

The Primaris Marine group? They deleted it.

Aye, that's where I saw it. You're not even the first user they've done that to (hey, almost like this *is* a frequent occurrence!). I've seen several posts in that group get removed for no reason beyond they were seemed inappropriate. I've called the moderator of that group out on it repeatedly, but they've proven to be rather cowardly over it.

Pity - it's a lovely model.

A lot of headswaps look weird, because the heads are too dainty. There really aren't many GW female heads that work, perhaps some Stormcast ones do, but they don't have proper neck either. Seeing people do models with these Statuesque heads that are specifically scaled to be bulkier is what convince me to finally add some female marines.

I've had some success with Sisters of Battle heads - not all Space Marine heads as is are the same size, so there's something to be said for different face sizes and shapes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Here's a thought, perhaps not everyone is defeatist and actually want to get GW to do something.

Gee, almost like I could say the same thing to those people who claim that there's no point adding in women Astartes to deal with *actually sexist* chuds, because "they'll just keep doing it, there's no use in trying to stop them".

So, either we can *both* be "defeatist", or we can both hope for better and work towards that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cawl working out how to create women Astartes sounds pretty logical and awesome to me.
Logical - Cawl is clearly capable of great feats of bio-engineering, and has already demonstrated the ability to work on Space Marines.
Awesome - yeah, warrior women are cool.

Cawl working out how to make women Marines seems like a waste of time and resources when recruiting men has worked fine for LITERAL MILLENIA.

And yes, Sisters of Battle are cool. Much cooler and more interesting than Space Marine thats for sure.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cawl working out how to create women Astartes sounds pretty logical and awesome to me.
Logical - Cawl is clearly capable of great feats of bio-engineering, and has already demonstrated the ability to work on Space Marines.
Awesome - yeah, warrior women are cool.

Cawl working out how to make women Marines seems like a waste of time and resources when recruiting men has worked fine for LITERAL MILLENIA.

I'm sure Cawl has the time on their hands. After all, with that many sub-minds, a whole AI back-up, and the galaxy in more peril than it's ever been before? I think now is a perfect time.

Besides, couldn't the same be said of Primaris? "Why reinvent power armour, hover tanks, and new bolters, their current equipment has been fine for LITERAL MILLENIA" - evidently, Cawl's had the time and necessity. A wider recruiting pool could be just what the Imperium need to hold back against all these new threats.

And yes, Sisters of Battle are cool. Much cooler and more interesting than Space Marine thats for sure.

Sisters are awesome, yes! But that doesn't mean they're a replacement for Space Marines, any more so than the Guard being cool are a replacement either.

If I wanted Sisters, I'd play Sisters - and I do, which is neat.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cawl working out how to create women Astartes sounds pretty logical and awesome to me.
Logical - Cawl is clearly capable of great feats of bio-engineering, and has already demonstrated the ability to work on Space Marines.
Awesome - yeah, warrior women are cool.

Cawl working out how to make women Marines seems like a waste of time and resources when recruiting men has worked fine for LITERAL MILLENIA.

Hasn't the Imperium been a crumbling empire losing ground daily for literal millenia?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Here's a thought, perhaps not everyone is defeatist and actually want to get GW to do something.

Gee, almost like I could say the same thing to those people who claim that there's no point adding in women Astartes to deal with *actually sexist* chuds, because "they'll just keep doing it, there's no use in trying to stop them".

So, either we can *both* be "defeatist", or we can both hope for better and work towards that.

And how will adding women Astartes deal with sexists, exactly? How will that solve the problem when Sisters of Battle exist? If the problem is because Marines have more exposure, wouldn't promoting other armies that have female models deal with the issue?
And while we're at it, explain how to get rid of trolls who harass people over paint schemes and harass people for their choice of army?

What you're suggesting does not seem to a feasible solution to a problem that is, quite unfortunately, endemic to most fanbases.
Do not presume my skepticism of your treatment to be a sign of defeatism.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I don't agree that GW should give visibility to female marine projects. GW should maintain a consistent front on what is and isn't official canon, that includes White Dwarf.
Unless I supposed they did a column that was explicitly non-official but White Dwarf has long since moved away from being so hobby oriented.

My own models have been showcased by GW, and they were a homebrew Chapter. Should they not have been showcased, because they weren't official canon?

Were your models contrary to official canon, or did they exist happily in a space of canon deliberately left open for you?
GW shouldn't feature something that is specifically contrary to canon. I'm not singling out anyone or any topic when I say this. I don't think GW should feature Ultrasmurfs or Ponyforce either. Unless as an April Fools, that could be fun.

The reason that your metaphor doesn't work is that me having women Space Marines doesn't affect you in the slightest. It's not *your* walls that we're complaining about, it's how you won't let us paint our own walls, or if we *do* paint our own walls, we're not allowed to invite people over to showcase our lovely new walls.

Perhaps "our walls" would have let the metaphor be expanded a little further, you're that the implied possession is a little misplaced, but I wasn't thinking about that at the time.
I've specifically said, quite clearly, I don't care how you want to paint your walls. The issue is you're not just talking about that. No, you want GW to officially state that "yellow walls are now the official colour, disregard old lore saying they should be orange". Now you've gone beyond your walls and you want changes to our walls (just like it's our lore).

It smacks of "you go do your own thing, but not too loud, you're not welcome".

No, it smacks of "I'm not happy just doing my thing, I need GW to tell everyone it's a good thing".

Can't you see that?

Sounds like double standards and selective lore if you ask me.

How so? I say changing the lore is bad. I've said the time I would concrete the lore iiiiissss... before any changes were made that I was aware of!

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So tell me then when was the lore perfected, and after which no changes should have been made? Give the date.

Perfected? Never, perfection is an impossible pursuit.
When would I concrete the lore? The day I entered the hobby, because then the lore was in a state I liked.

Right, but you *do* understand that that's not very helpful when the lore isn't what it was when you started the hobby, yes?

If you only consider that lore to be "concrete", then you're either considering a lot of modern stuff "non-canon", or you've already started shifting your position on that "concrete lore".

I think you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting stuff here.
I was pushed, hard, to name a time and I reluctantly provided one. I never chose the word "concrete", that was thrust upon me. I hoped I made it quite clear that I did not consider the lore "concrete" and in fact welcomed additions that were well done and positive.

Cawl working out how to create women Astartes sounds pretty logical and awesome to me.
Logical - Cawl is clearly capable of great feats of bio-engineering, and has already demonstrated the ability to work on Space Marines.
Awesome - yeah, warrior women are cool.

It sounds incredibly boring and forced to me, just like Primaris have been.
Cawl has demonstrated an ability to accomplish feats in great excess of what can be expected given the framing of 40k. I call that illogical.
There's plenty of warrior women elsewhere in 40k.

Primaris are a silly shoehorned addition, they also arguably include some retcons.

But they *are* canon. If you want to use canon to defend your own arguments, I suggest you stop complaining about that "concrete lore" you're relying on so much.

You need to stop planting my flag for me, especially when you do it in such ridiculous places.
I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say you're being absolutely ridiculous

Kiro, you are doing a remarkably good job of refusing to be gaslighted. I use that term reluctantly but as H.B.M.C. noted before abandoning this thread, the arguments ITT are basically disingenuous.

I've specifically said, quite clearly, I don't care how you want to paint your walls. The issue is you're not just talking about that. No, you want GW to officially state that "yellow walls are now the official colour, disregard old lore saying they should be orange". Now you've gone beyond your walls and you want changes to our walls (just like it's our lore).

Isn't the more apt metaphor wanting GW to officially state "both orange AND yellow walls are fine. Disregard old lore saying they MUST be orange"?

edit: I'll admit I lost track of the last 4/5 pages of the thread. Are people now advocating for only female space marines?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I hoped I made it quite clear that I did not consider the lore "concrete" and in fact welcomed additions that were well done and positive.

Right. And that's what I was trying to get at. That saying 'change is bad' is incoherent. Change can be good, bad or neutral. And if you think that a specific change is bad, you need to back it up with something other than 'change is bad.'

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Here's a thought, perhaps not everyone is defeatist and actually want to get GW to do something.

Gee, almost like I could say the same thing to those people who claim that there's no point adding in women Astartes to deal with *actually sexist* chuds, because "they'll just keep doing it, there's no use in trying to stop them".

So, either we can *both* be "defeatist", or we can both hope for better and work towards that.

And how will adding women Astartes deal with sexists, exactly?

I've told you. Delegitimising their mentality that this is a male-only space.

How will that solve the problem when Sisters of Battle exist?

Yes, the sidelined sexualised faction. Not exactly a strong message.

If the problem is because Marines have more exposure, wouldn't promoting other armies that have female models deal with the issue?

I thought we were being realistic here?

Are we being realistic, or idealistic?

And while we're at it, explain how to get rid of trolls who harass people over paint schemes and harass people for their choice of army?

When you can show me examples like Crimson's, of people getting their models taken down because they were painted the wrong shade of blue, you can have this point.

I'd love to see your examples.

What you're suggesting does not seem to a logical solution to a problem that is, quite unfortunately, endemic to most fanbases.

Again, I didn't think we were being "defeatist", but then you come out with that.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I don't agree that GW should give visibility to female marine projects. GW should maintain a consistent front on what is and isn't official canon, that includes White Dwarf.
Unless I supposed they did a column that was explicitly non-official but White Dwarf has long since moved away from being so hobby oriented.

My own models have been showcased by GW, and they were a homebrew Chapter. Should they not have been showcased, because they weren't official canon?

Were your models contrary to official canon, or did they exist happily in a space of canon deliberately left open for you?

They were a homebrew Chapter. You just said that "GW should maintain a consistent front what is and isn't official canon". My Space Marines aren't official canon, so why should GW have showcased them.

Again, "deliberately left open" - why can't women be "deliberately left open"?

GW shouldn't feature something that is specifically contrary to canon. I'm not singling out anyone or any topic when I say this. I don't think GW should feature Ultrasmurfs or Ponyforce either. Unless as an April Fools, that could be fun.

My Chapter was neither of the two, but it *isn't canon*.

You just said that GW shouldn't promote non-canon material, so my Chapter shouldn't have been showcased, yes?

The reason that your metaphor doesn't work is that me having women Space Marines doesn't affect you in the slightest. It's not *your* walls that we're complaining about, it's how you won't let us paint our own walls, or if we *do* paint our own walls, we're not allowed to invite people over to showcase our lovely new walls.

Perhaps "our walls" would have let the metaphor be expanded a little further, you're that the implied possession is a little misplaced, but I wasn't thinking about that at the time.

But that's the thing - "our" walls, as in shared owenership. Why do you get to tell me that the walls are fine, and that I can't paint my corner of those walls how I want to?

I've specifically said, quite clearly, I don't care how you want to paint your walls.

Except that you don't want my walls to be shown to other people. If you didn't care about how I paint my walls, why are you telling me that my walls shouldn't be shared?

The issue is you're not just talking about that. No, you want GW to officially state that "yellow walls are now the official colour, disregard old lore saying they should be orange". Now you've gone beyond your walls and you want changes to our walls (just like it's our lore).

Actually, that's not what I've just said, or what the argument I linked was saying.

Let's say I shift my stance, and that I'm not asking GW to change their lore. I'm just asking that they showcase people's plastic models, no matter what heads they stick on them, or however they paint them, or whatever names they give them. No changes, no setting shifts, no rewrites - just little plastic models.

Why would GW showcasing a woman Astartes be changing "your walls"? Where's the "official statement"?

Also, you say "you want changes to OUR walls (just like its OUR lore") - it's MY lore too. I'm not going beyond MY corner of the room when I repaint it to have women Astartes. You can have your corner, and I'll have mine - why does what I do in my corner affect you?

It smacks of "you go do your own thing, but not too loud, you're not welcome".

No, it smacks of "I'm not happy just doing my thing, I need GW to tell everyone it's a good thing".

Can't you see that?

That's not what the situation is at all. Let me describe it to you again, in case you misread it:

No lore change. No setting shift. No official statement. Just showcasing someone's custom women Space Marines, just like how they showcase custom Chapters.
Where's the issue in that?

Sounds like double standards and selective lore if you ask me.

How so? I say changing the lore is bad. I've said the time I would concrete the lore iiiiissss... before any changes were made that I was aware of!

But you understand how that's completely and utterly subjective, and impossible to enforce beyond just you, right?

Again - you say that it's stupid that people would fall on things from 30 years ago to justify their position, but one day, the lore you love will be 30 years old. Will that also be invalid?

Cawl working out how to create women Astartes sounds pretty logical and awesome to me.
Logical - Cawl is clearly capable of great feats of bio-engineering, and has already demonstrated the ability to work on Space Marines.
Awesome - yeah, warrior women are cool.

It sounds incredibly boring and forced to me, just like Primaris have been.

Too bad. Primaris are canon, as are Cawl's abilities.
I thought that canon was important.

Cawl has demonstrated an ability to accomplish feats in great excess of what can be expected given the framing of 40k. I call that illogical.

Don't care. It's canon.
I thought that canon was important.

There's plenty of warrior women elsewhere in 40k.

And there's other all-male factions out there.

If you want to use canon to defend your own arguments, I suggest you stop complaining about that "concrete lore" you're relying on so much.

You need to stop planting my flag for me, especially when you do it in such ridiculous places.
I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say you're being absolutely ridiculous

I could say exactly the same.

Rihgu wrote:

I've specifically said, quite clearly, I don't care how you want to paint your walls. The issue is you're not just talking about that. No, you want GW to officially state that "yellow walls are now the official colour, disregard old lore saying they should be orange". Now you've gone beyond your walls and you want changes to our walls (just like it's our lore).

Isn't the more apt metaphor wanting GW to officially state "both orange AND yellow walls are fine. Disregard old lore saying they MUST be orange"?

Yeah that'd work too. I chose yellow and orange as they're fairly similar colours.
Neither is quite perfect and misses a lot of the nuances.

Removed - BrookM

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, the sidelined sexualised faction. Not exactly a strong message.

Well, they just got a high profile faction overhaul and feature prominently in the promotional material. They were in the trailer alongside Space Marine at the 9th Ed launch trailer thing and they're getting their own animated series on GWs streaming service if I remember rightly? Black Library did a fancy reprint of the Stern comics and fancy novel and they've had two codexes in two years, almost as short a space of time between Space Marine 2.0 in 8th and Space Marine 9th. Doesn't seem sidelined to me anymore.

And I though "Sisters are awesome". Now they're sexualised which you imply to be a bad thing? Which is is?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, the sidelined sexualised faction. Not exactly a strong message.

Well, they just got a high profile faction overhaul and feature prominently in the promotional material. They were in the trailer alongside Space Marine at the 9th Ed launch trailer thing and they're getting their own animated series on GWs streaming service if I remember rightly? Black Library did a fancy reprint of the Stern comics and fancy novel and they've had two codexes in two years, almost as short a space of time between Space Marine 2.0 in 8th and Space Marine 9th. Doesn't seem sidelined to me anymore.

And I though "Sisters are awesome". Now they're sexualised which you imply to be a bad thing? Which is is?

The faction has been highly sexualised and fetishised for a long time, toned down a lot probably as GW could see it as a easy way to ease tensions like this very topic.
But that doesn’t take that history away, nor are they a bastion of representation.

If sisters of silence had been given better attention along with the custodies, maybe we would have a better place. With the rest of the game it reinforced significantly that most of the women in 40k are sexualised or fetishised. Or neglected.
This I don’t think is easy to brush away, GW has put themselves in a hard place.
And ironically, they have skipped a lot of easy places to start over the recent years.

Sisters can be awesome, in the context of the game. But when used as some point against female marines it’s a rather mute point, at best a misrepresentation of the issues presented.

SoB are still only one faction compared to the thirteen SM factions outlined on the GW store.
The Stern comic was a reprint and at the same time, Calgar got a brand new Marvel comic.
How many SM focussed books have been released since SoB were revamped? SoB got a reprinted omnibus and I think one new collection of stories.

SoB have seen a marketing increase but going from zero presence means it is literally impossible for them to not have an increase. SoB might be featuring in marketing more but going from no presence to some presence doesn't mean they're the equals of SM.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Well, they just got a high profile faction overhaul and feature prominently in the promotional material. They were in the trailer alongside Space Marine at the 9th Ed launch trailer thing and they're getting their own animated series on GWs streaming service if I remember rightly? Black Library did a fancy reprint of the Stern comics and fancy novel and they've had two codexes in two years, almost as short a space of time between Space Marine 2.0 in 8th and Space Marine 9th. Doesn't seem sidelined to me anymore.

And I though "Sisters are awesome". Now they're sexualised which you imply to be a bad thing? Which is is?

Sisters definitely are awesome. But yeah, they're sexualised. They're killer fetish nuns in space. And that's cool in my book and not a problem in isolation. But if that's the only or main form of female representation, then that kinda is a problem.

I think the idea that GW do a feature showing off some female marines is an ideal solution.

Most anti female Marines types on here have stated you can do what you like with your dudes and they don’t care. So endorse someone who is. It’s would take the venom out of the online abuse. ( if you don’t believe the online abuse happens, it wouldn’t change anything but certainly nothing negative).

I find the objections to this to be the most hilarious, because it is a compromise that literally yiu have all said would be fine, just in white dwarf on on the community site. And all of a sudden it’s too much.

It’s that goal post shifting all the time that makes me always wonder about real motivations in this debate.

And as for gaslighting, for a MOD to accuse others of it while telling people that have received online abuse that they haven’t and it doesn’t happen is a bit rich and a big worry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Totally agree Manchu, I think that's where most of the vitriol from the "no female space marines" crowd comes from.
Being accused of being a bigot/sexist/whatever is never nice and it's easy to get aggressive defending yourself.
Especially when you feel like people are ruining a hobby you deeply love.

Ruining is such a massive exaggeration, no one is ruining anything and why because you love it should others be excluded or abuse be allowed? Grow up.

theres a lore status quo.
that lore has been quite constant as pointed out above.
Due to that and its popularity due to its nature the universe is liked.
Most people are in it because of that and like it because of that.
In comes you, demands change of the lore for selfish reasons.
And you are now surprised why you get pushback?

Altima wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


WE HAD !
FFS

feth YOU GW.


sorry. it still makes me mad.

You mean lost and the damned, or did I miss something fun?

'cause LatD...I mean, yeeeeeah, kinda, but not really, y'know? I'd want it done properly. Less "sacrifice me!", more "hey, we're a professional army like the blood pact!"

But hey, if that's how you feel about these guys, that's how some people feel about female space marines.

No, I mean IA13 Renegades and heretics. Aka the only good thing of 6th and 7th.
And they were able to represent that and sacrifice mee and darkmech. All in one list.. and it was fun.... and it still pisses me off that GW legended them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Manchu wrote:Kiro, you are doing a remarkably good job of refusing to be gaslighted.

I think the word you're looking for is "lying through their teeth and intentionally dodging points", but yes, they're doing a great job of it.

As an interested bystander in all of this I think that's a massively unfair description of Kiro's participation so far. They've been pretty straight forward in explaining their reasoning and addressing points raised from what I can tell. It would probably help if people who don't like other's responses didn't accuse them of being liars and evasive.

As I see it the core issue here seems to be based on a couple of related but distinct points:

1. 40k needs better representation of female models in the game
2. To do this GW should introduce female Space Marines

I think all but the most unreasonable people have agreed with point 1. Fewer seem to agree that point 2 is the best solution though. The problem is that the conclusion in point 2 does not logically follow from the first premise. There are certainly arguments to be made for why SM should be chosen to solve the problem highlighted in point 1 but it seems to me all too often the pro-FSM side is taking the stance that the second point follows inevitably from the first.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Manchu wrote:Kiro, you are doing a remarkably good job of refusing to be gaslighted.

I think the word you're looking for is "lying through their teeth and intentionally dodging points", but yes, they're doing a great job of it.

I use that term reluctantly but as H.B.M.C. noted before abandoning this thread, the arguments ITT are basically disingenuous.

You're right, but referring to the wrong ones.

There you go again misrepresenting other people to support your narrative. Just stop.

It's funny to me that when GW make a concerted effort to place women in a prominent position like they have with Sisters in the last few years it's met with "Well yes BUT ITS NOT WHAT I WANT".

Hey, Space Marines aren't a great representation of ANYONE either. They're a disgusting, brainwashed aberration of genetic and surgical tampering that look down on humans as lessers, own slaves and destroy planets as a way of "helping" the citizens then piss off and leave the clean up to the plebs. But THAT representation of what is objectively sickening behaviour is okay because they're the poster faction?

And hey, SoBs are awesome warrior women, but you know whats better? BIGGER warrior women. Screw faction identity, we want women in giant shoulder pads or we'll never have true representation.

16 of the 35 factions in 40k are some variety of Space Marine. Of the 21 Imperial factions, 13 are Space Marines. GW has no intention of removing Space Marines from their podium of flagship product and no other faction will ever come as close to them in quantity of model kits, novels, comics, or games.
Anyone who suggests that GW simply take Space Marines out of the spotlight is not arguing in reality.

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's funny to me that when GW make a concerted effort to place women in a prominent position like they have with Sisters in the last few years it's met with "Well yes BUT ITS NOT WHAT I WANT".

Hey, Space Marines aren't a great representation of ANYONE either. They're a disgusting, brainwashed aberration of genetic and surgical tampering that look down on humans as lessers, own slaves and destroy planets as a way of "helping" the citizens then piss off and leave the clean up to the plebs. But THAT representation is okay because they're the poster faction?

And hey, SoBs are awesome warrior women, but you know whats better? BIGGER warrior women. Screw faction identity, we want women in giant shoulder pads or we'll never have true representation.

Sisters of battle where a fetishised representation for men, that has been improved but won’t shake that.
It’s expected that people would also desire that representation to be at the very least, given equal thoughts.

If marines where constantly represent like that, maybe. But they are possibly the poster boys for Cool and ignore all the crazy stuff in the background.
On top of that, it’s really typical of nerd media to do this. Space marines not really unique and often watered down for easy to sell themes.

 Gert wrote:
16 of the 35 factions in 40k are some variety of Space Marine. Of the 21 Imperial factions, 13 are Space Marines. GW has no intention of removing Space Marines from their podium of flagship product and no other faction will ever come as close to them in quantity of model kits, novels, comics, or games.
Anyone who suggests that GW simply take Space Marines out of the spotlight is not arguing in reality.

It's a bit early to say "ever" isn't it? Especially when GW has just started doing exactly that.
Also, you know what wouldn't encourage GW to not favor marines? Get them to make more marines.

 Gert wrote:
16 of the 35 factions in 40k are some variety of Space Marine. Of the 21 Imperial factions, 13 are Space Marines. GW has no intention of removing Space Marines from their podium of flagship product and no other faction will ever come as close to them in quantity of model kits, novels, comics, or games.
Anyone who suggests that GW simply take Space Marines out of the spotlight is not arguing in reality.

Yeah, space marines are always going to be somewhat in the limelight, because they are the most recognizeable part of the IP, but they can shift the spotlight, at least a bit. To Sisters, to eldar and thats not unrealistic, they've been doing it with sisters and are continuing to do it.

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's funny to me that when GW make a concerted effort to place women in a prominent position like they have with Sisters in the last few years it's met with "Well yes BUT ITS NOT WHAT I WANT".

Hey, Space Marines aren't a great representation of ANYONE either. They're a disgusting, brainwashed aberration of genetic and surgical tampering that look down on humans as lessers, own slaves and destroy planets as a way of "helping" the citizens then piss off and leave the clean up to the plebs. But THAT representation of what is objectively sickening behaviour is okay because they're the poster faction?

And hey, SoBs are awesome warrior women, but you know whats better? BIGGER warrior women. Screw faction identity, we want women in giant shoulder pads or we'll never have true representation.

I have decided to permanently lock this topic as it has become a repeat of the previous topic. I am disgusted by the behaviour on display in this thread from both sides of the argument, it is pretty clear that there is no actual interest in debate here, just the flinging of petty insults and making the opposite side look bad.

This topic has become so toxic and while some modicum of discussion was possible for a while, at this point it isn't viable. Any further topics created on this subject will be locked on sight, this subject needs to cool down a for while before it can be reopened for discussion again.