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.

FemMarines
Misters of Battle
The recently announced lady Custodes

General thoughts and feelings on the various genders of 40k forces?
Split off from a news and rumours thread to avoid too much sidetracking.

The only two I feel, personally, should have distinctive lines are the Marines and Sisters of Battle.

But I would like to see them start pushing Marines more into the realm of "logic" while Sisters of Battle push more for "Faith".

Hey, if they're wanting to be inclusive, be inclusive. Otherwise stay with gender segregation.

i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either

 Kanluwen wrote:
But I would like to see them start pushing Marines more into the realm of "logic" while Sisters of Battle push more for "Faith".

That leans hard into some fairly dated stereotypes about men and women, though, unless it's used ironically. As in - Marines are touted as the logical ones, but actually have a habit of making spur-of-the-moment decisions from emotion, and Sisters are touted as making their decisions on Faith, but actually just do whatever seems the most tactically sound and find a Faith justification for it later...

My view is that Marines have lore, a story, a structure behind who they are and what they are. That lore does NOT have to reflect modern gender politics.

In fact the VAST majority of factions in GW do not follow modern morality nor social values. Marines will issue genocide orders on whole planets at times.


I don't ask that my Marines observe the Geneva Convention, Human Rights and Articles of War - so why do they have to follow gender balance?




The Marines have a story behind them and yes you can argue that the science might be wonky; but freaking heck this is a sci-fi universe where the factions run around with chainsaws on the battlefield and their main battle tank is straight out of WW1.



Sisters of Battle are the same. They don't have to have Bothers of Battle added to them. Again they've a story; that story defines part of what they are officially.




NOW what I put above is what I feel the official GW angle should be. What YOU do with YOUR army and models - do whatever the heck you want. Female Marines; Hello Kitty Marines; Pony Marines; Mechanical Marines; Brothers of Battle

Do whatever you want. The market is flooded wtih material for conversions and 3D printing has expanded that roster in a massive way.

I'm 100% all for people converting to represent what they wish and to adapt the lore to suit themselves within the bubble of their own game and their corner of the mad, insane world that is 40K.







ps my point about the lore being the lore also means GW should be adding more women to the ranks of the Guard, because they've always been present in the lore and story of the setting. Indeed whilst you could argue the marines are regressive on that front; the Imperial Guard is highly progressive

Your models, your fluff. GW makes rules, but literally, who cares. There isn't a single rule regarding gender in 40k. There is no rule that says a model must identify as such and such, or cannot be X/Y. There is only rules for a named unit or models in a unit. Other than that, nothing about colors, hair, biological bits, or gender depiction exists in the table top rules. You do you. Anyone else who says otherwise is lying.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But I would like to see them start pushing Marines more into the realm of "logic" while Sisters of Battle push more for "Faith".

That leans hard into some fairly dated stereotypes about men and women, though, unless it's used ironically. As in - Marines are touted as the logical ones, but actually have a habit of making spur-of-the-moment decisions from emotion, and Sisters are touted as making their decisions on Faith, but actually just do whatever seems the most tactically sound and find a Faith justification for it later...

When I say "Logic" for Marines, I mean that they are the product of logic and science. They're created by science, not a natural phenomenon or force of will. That science may be corrupted and enmeshed with rote ritual now, but that doesn't change the what of their origin.

It's the opposite situation for the Sisters of Battle. It's a kind of natural phenomenon for lack of a better term, something where their miracles could be expected to exist even if the Sisters of Battle ceased to exist. So long as the Imperial Faith or a similar bit was present? We should see the same miraculous events occur.

Take away the science behind Marines, and they cease to exist.

With all of that said, I have zero issue with the Ecclesiarchy getting to go all Bene Gesserit on things. More faith weaponization!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But I would like to see them start pushing Marines more into the realm of "logic" while Sisters of Battle push more for "Faith".

That leans hard into some fairly dated stereotypes about men and women, though, unless it's used ironically. As in - Marines are touted as the logical ones, but actually have a habit of making spur-of-the-moment decisions from emotion, and Sisters are touted as making their decisions on Faith, but actually just do whatever seems the most tactically sound and find a Faith justification for it later...

When I say "Logic" for Marines, I mean that they are the product of logic and science. They're created by science, not a natural phenomenon or force of will. That science may be corrupted and enmeshed with rote ritual now, but that doesn't change the what of their origin.

It's the opposite situation for the Sisters of Battle. It's a kind of natural phenomenon for lack of a better term, something where their miracles could be expected to exist even if the Sisters of Battle ceased to exist. So long as the Imperial Faith or a similar bit was present? We should see the same miraculous events occur.

Take away the science behind Marines, and they cease to exist.

With all of that said, I have zero issue with the Ecclesiarchy getting to go all Bene Gesserit on things. More faith weaponization!

I agree with this, but more into the themes that marines reflect and there place in the setting. Which I think is often at odds with how people see them. Marines are to often too representing of the Cool of 40K and there themes often get entirely overlooked when they just too cool to be the bad guys.
Most marines in the imperium are probably a few bad days from a chaos marine, just as brutal and dangerous as the marines on the other side.

As GW does more to diversify the marine themes actually gets stronger and potentially more interesting. The lore itself is more just common Sci-fi stuffs.

I do wish the sisters of silence got some more work, since we also need good minis GW.

 Overread wrote:
My view is that Marines have lore, a story, a structure behind who they are and what they are.

It'd be good to give a detailed analysis of the publication dates and authors of the background and rules that give them this structure. Sometimes people just don't have the knowledge to make these claims.


If the best we get is "in the early days" or "some studio members," that's not doing it for me. Naming publication dates and bylines gets us partway there, it gets to the very bottom of bloom's taxonomy. At the bare minimum, you'd have to give some comparison of Armies of the Imperium with Realms of Chaos with Origins of the Legiones.

Right now you have what's visually a long post, but not really an effort post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either

Oh yeah more importantly.

Thats male normativitiy. We know that the Imperium is structured on conquest and subjugation. When there's a very tall hierarchy using a military to direct most of the product of industry for their private benefit, then women are commodities. Women either have the ability to semi-voluntarily sell themselves, or theyre sold by their families, and access to women is one of the rewards of different levels of the hierarchy. The phenomenon of a small portion of men becoming rent boys validates this concept that discrimination against women is a function of the economic model.

There's no such thing as gender equity in an Imperial military. The hierarchy uses a minority of the population mostly men to lug weapons around and to crack heads. The majority of the population is subject to some level of precarity, and so women are commodified and subject to gendered abuse of various kinds. The existence of the Imperium depends on a deep disparity between men and women.

pelicaniforce wrote:

There's no such thing as gender equity in an Imperial military. The hierarchy uses a minority of the population mostly men to lug weapons around and to crack heads. The majority of the population is subject to some level of precarity, and so women are commodified and subject to gendered abuse of various kinds. The existence of the Imperium depends on a deep disparity between men and women.

This is not actual 40k background at all. It's entirely out of your own head.

The Imperium has historically mostly been represented on the tabletop with men because the game was made in the 90s when 'soldier =man' was the default that everyone just took for granted. But even with that, there had never been any suggestion of women being treated any more or less as commodities than men. They're ALL just grist for the mill.

By this point, we have background material suggesting that women do just fine in the guard, v in the Inquisition, in the ministorium, in the mechanicum, in the administratum... The Imperium doesn't care what's in their pants, just whether or not they do their job.

The only places it matters is the Sisters, whose existence relies entirely on a lame joke from the 90s, and the Marines, due to an old piece of fluff created to justify the models all being male back when female models simply didn't sell well, also in the 90s.

Female Custodes allows folks that want to officially play female genetically enhanced warriors to do so.

It leaves Marines and SoB as specific sexes for their equally outdated/historcal/important (delete as you see fit) reasons of models with dubious background excuse.

I’m fine with that. I wonder if part of GW’s reasoning was that it kicks the ‘need’ for female Marines into the long grass.

What I find amusing are the folks referencing Alexander the Great and his companions (historians still seem to be debating whether one was his lover) as being the cool male-only template for Custodes, while bemoaning the change as being down to a desire to pander to LGBT folks.

 JNAProductions wrote:
FemMarines
Misters of Battle
The recently announced lady Custodes

General thoughts and feelings on the various genders of 40k forces?
Split off from a news and rumours thread to avoid too much sidetracking.

I had completely missed that there was a female Custodes - interesting!

For me - like others - the only gendered organisations are the Asartes, Sororitas and Sisters of Silence - and even then the Marines have women serving the chapter as Thralls (or whatever designation they use for the Chapter) as they did pre-Heresy

Although I have missed in lore who does all the tech stuff in both the female organisations so you could have male Tech priests in both?

Part of the problem with Space Marines being male only is that they dominate the game to a ridiculous degree and are supported as a faction more than every other faction combined.

I don't think anyone can really argue this point. If there's a narrative update, Space Marines are at the forefront. If there's a new release, Space Marines will typically get something to go along with it. Hell, range updates were basically suspended for two years when Primaris were introduced.

And GW comes out and says it's a boys only club. That puts an unfortunate look and spin to any perspective hobbyists, or just anyone from the outside looking in.

It would be one thing if the Space Marines were a niche faction like GSC or DE. But they're not. They're the poster child. They have half a dozen subfactions, who even get their own unique kits and special characters. Marines come in every flavor you could possibly want--from norse-influenced space werewolves to inhumanly beautiful blood drinking types to religious fanatics with enough zeal to make an Adepta Sororitas Canoness blush. Except girl, that's the only flavor not allowed.

You could say it violates the lore but does it violate the lore more than primaris marines? Not really. GW makes the lore. It's literally whatever they say it is. If they say that the missing two legions were actually female space marines kept on ice for reasons, that's the lore then despite how silly or illogical they make it--after all, how much silly lore have they put out since the Fall of Cadia? A whole lot.

Female space marines wouldn't hurt anyone. Female custodes don't hurt anyone else. If you don't like them, don't use them, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that no one should like it ever.

Honestly, making the game less of a boys only club would be the least offensive thing a company that squatted a bunch of people's models--or entire races--has done in a while.

Is it pandering? Well, yes. GW is a company at the end of the day, and they want to make money. They're not trying to save the world or support female empowerment--they think that these moves will get them a bigger customer base and make them more money. But there's a reason they think that. Might have something to do with AoS's fairly generous amount of female characters didn't end the fething world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Although I have missed in lore who does all the tech stuff in both the female organisations so you could have male Tech priests in both?

I believe techmarines handle the duties of tech priests, though it's likely they have enginseer equivalents among their serfs to help

From what I recall of Sisters of Battle, and I'm not sure if the lore has been changed since, but the Sisters Diagolus help maintain their machines.

Though it's likely that techpriests serve extensively in both organizations. However, a person can be trained in upkeep and maintenance of the holy machines without being full on tech priests.

If you play the (quite excellent) Rogue Trader CRPG, you'll see a lot of tech types that assist in the maintenance and service of your flag ship who are not tech priests, though they may or may not be affiliated with the Mechanicum.

Yeah, lay tech artisans are a thing, although they are typically overseen by an ordained techpriest at some level.

That's a good point. GW already "ruined" marines by introducing Primaris, that's as big of a retcon/shakeup as you can imagine. Making all factions suddenly gender-agnostic is a small step in comparison.

Mod edit - Removed

I have a couple of opinions on this topic.
1. The "scientific" explanation for why SM are men only is rubbish. Scrap it. Just say: Emperor wanted only men for his marines, so we got only men. End of story. With the desparate position the Imperium is in and Cawl/Primaris it would also easily allow for female Marines. Or not, because Guilliman doesn't want even more friction with conservative faction.
2. If you want "Misters of battle" give them boob armour/ the same armour, just head swaps. Same as with Banshees recently. The armour doesn't have the form because of the woman inside, but because if ritual meaning. The armour has to be that way because of the founding story of "no men at arms" for the church, so it's imperial dogma, but the higher ups know there are also men inside those armours. Maybe there's even a secret decree for male Sisters of battle to never take off their helmets in public .
3.
Female Chaos Space Marines should happen as they don't care about stupid "science" of 10K years ago. They also don't care about imperial dogma.
4. Female Custodes... well fluff never said otherwize to my knowledge, we just got a clarification they're actually there. Hopefully models will follow.

Altima wrote:
Part of the problem with Space Marines being male only is that they dominate the game to a ridiculous degree and are supported as a faction more than every other faction combined.

I don't think anyone can really argue this point. If there's a narrative update, Space Marines are at the forefront. If there's a new release, Space Marines will typically get something to go along with it. Hell, range updates were basically suspended for two years when Primaris were introduced.

And GW comes out and says it's a boys only club. That puts an unfortunate look and spin to any perspective hobbyists, or just anyone from the outside looking in.

It would be one thing if the Space Marines were a niche faction like GSC or DE. But they're not. They're the poster child. They have half a dozen subfactions, who even get their own unique kits and special characters. Marines come in every flavor you could possibly want--from norse-influenced space werewolves to inhumanly beautiful blood drinking types to religious fanatics with enough zeal to make an Adepta Sororitas Canoness blush. Except girl, that's the only flavor not allowed.

You could say it violates the lore but does it violate the lore more than primaris marines? Not really. GW makes the lore. It's literally whatever they say it is. If they say that the missing two legions were actually female space marines kept on ice for reasons, that's the lore then despite how silly or illogical they make it--after all, how much silly lore have they put out since the Fall of Cadia? A whole lot.

Female space marines wouldn't hurt anyone. Female custodes don't hurt anyone else. If you don't like them, don't use them, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that no one should like it ever.

Honestly, making the game less of a boys only club would be the least offensive thing a company that squatted a bunch of people's models--or entire races--has done in a while.

Is it pandering? Well, yes. GW is a company at the end of the day, and they want to make money. They're not trying to save the world or support female empowerment--they think that these moves will get them a bigger customer base and make them more money. But there's a reason they think that. Might have something to do with AoS's fairly generous amount of female characters didn't end the fething world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Although I have missed in lore who does all the tech stuff in both the female organisations so you could have male Tech priests in both?

I believe techmarines handle the duties of tech priests, though it's likely they have enginseer equivalents among their serfs to help

From what I recall of Sisters of Battle, and I'm not sure if the lore has been changed since, but the Sisters Diagolus help maintain their machines.

Though it's likely that techpriests serve extensively in both organizations. However, a person can be trained in upkeep and maintenance of the holy machines without being full on tech priests.

If you play the (quite excellent) Rogue Trader CRPG, you'll see a lot of tech types that assist in the maintenance and service of your flag ship who are not tech priests, though they may or may not be affiliated with the Mechanicum.

Yeah really enjoy the RT game and seen plenty of examples of lay priests in the lore but would be nice to have some sisters themed Tech priests - al al Techmarines - - although there is also no reason why they can not be female - or genderless.

Missed the Diagolus reference!

And I guess there is not much Sisters of Silence lore....

Altima wrote:
Part of the problem with Space Marines being male only is that they dominate the game to a ridiculous degree and are supported as a faction more than every other faction combined.

I don't think anyone can really argue this point. If there's a narrative update, Space Marines are at the forefront. If there's a new release, Space Marines will typically get something to go along with it. Hell, range updates were basically suspended for two years when Primaris were introduced.

And GW comes out and says it's a boys only club. That puts an unfortunate look and spin to any perspective hobbyists, or just anyone from the outside looking in.

It would be one thing if the Space Marines were a niche faction like GSC or DE. But they're not. They're the poster child. They have half a dozen subfactions, who even get their own unique kits and special characters. Marines come in every flavor you could possibly want--from norse-influenced space werewolves to inhumanly beautiful blood drinking types to religious fanatics with enough zeal to make an Adepta Sororitas Canoness blush. Except girl, that's the only flavor not allowed.

You could say it violates the lore but does it violate the lore more than primaris marines? Not really. GW makes the lore. It's literally whatever they say it is. If they say that the missing two legions were actually female space marines kept on ice for reasons, that's the lore then despite how silly or illogical they make it--after all, how much silly lore have they put out since the Fall of Cadia? A whole lot.

Female space marines wouldn't hurt anyone. Female custodes don't hurt anyone else. If you don't like them, don't use them, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that no one should like it ever.

Yeah, this is why the discussion has historically been mostly about the marines; they're half of the game.

They also are the ultimate customisable faction that you can flavour for you liking, so denying this one specific flavouring is just weird.
Viking, marines? Sure! Vampire marines? Go ahead! Samurai marines? Sounds cool, make it happen! Amazon marines? Get out of here!

So yeah, female custodes is nice, but also that faction being all male was not really a huge problem.

I don't really like the idea of female space marines. I mean, a roided up, extremely genetically modified woman with extreme amounts of testosterone, hormones, and geneseed ( as well as the fact that many chapters like Blood Angels are modeled after their primarch in a sense, and sanguinius is male, etc.) basically just seems like a man to me. Female custodes? I don't mind them, I never knew Custodes were only male either, to be honest. But for space marines, I wouldn't do it. SoB when you break them down, are effectively just unmodified female space marines but with very similar equipment. Obviously there's a lot more, but if anyone wants a 'strong female character' aesthetic, SoB have access to rhinos, bolters, and advanced equipment, many of which the Spacemarines use. They aren't augmented, but are highly trained. I think that's a lot more interesting, having unaugmented humans who aren't part of the IG, and are all one gender. It's not bad in my opinion, it's pretty cool at least to me. If a cool, battle-nun sisterhood isn't sexist, then I don't see how only male space marines are.

I mean think about it, Sister Act with oversized guns and swords, and weird bondage servitors sounds pretty rad to me.

 Mr Morden wrote:


And I guess there is not much Sisters of Silence lore....

Well…they don’t like to talk about it.

Took me ages on phone to clear the rest of the text. Totally worth it.

Just another line of thinking here - do people want to see Napoleonic and WW2 armies feature more women as regular infantry too? Indeed most ancient armed games have full male armies and those with a higher percentage (or total) of women tend to only come from fantasy model lines.

It's not just a "product of the 90s" its a product of men dominating warfare for thousands of years in many western cultures. Even when women did feature on the battlefield it was loan hiding individuals or specialist groups such as the Russian The Night Witches.



And as Bullisariuscowl notes, the SoB basically are female marines. They wear similar armour; drive the same rhino chassis for all their vehicles and have their own form of dreadnoughts and more. However they are more interesting than "female marines" because "female marines" would likely just be female heads on regular marine bodies with some light chest armour adjustments. Ergo they really are not going to look much different as models.

Design wise they don't bring anything to the table that the SoB don't already bring.



Also do armies really have to represent us on the tabletop and modern gender politics on the tabletop? I can't help but feel that 40K in the 80s and the 90s wasn't really emulating anything real either.

And again we swing back to the point that if you want to do it anyway, you can.



Finally the biggest thing in all this is the undercurrent. That female marines are needed to bring more women into the hobby. That one huge barrier is that the marines, not the Eldar or the Orks, or the Tyranids, or the Tau; just the Marines and only the Marines not having women is the barrier.

Now I get you, if your posterboy army has no women that can be a barrier. But that's not a marine issue, that's a GW marketing issue and they've loads of ways that they already show women in the setting. Several major Imperial Guard book series are now featuring women Commissars and soldiers.
Furthermore is it fantasy women you need or is it real women presenting media; women in the shop wearing the red shirt; women on the social media pages doing videos and presentations; women winning in competitions etc....


I can't help but feel that the whole "female space marines" is a wasted effort if the end goal is more women joining the hobby in terms of it really not being a true barrier in the first place. Instead I think its everything else around the game; its marketing; its social dynamics on display; the composition of clubs and groups etc... The notable heroes and most influential individuals within the community. That Is where I think the real impact is.

 Overread wrote:
Just another line of thinking here - do people want to see Napoleonic and WW2 armies feature more women as regular infantry too? Indeed most ancient armed games have full male armies and those with a higher percentage (or total) of women tend to only come from fantasy model lines.

It's not just a "product of the 90s" its a product of men dominating warfare for thousands of years in many western cultures. Even when women did feature on the battlefield it was loan hiding individuals or specialist groups such as the Russian The Night Witches.

Fiction and history are different things. History is what it is, fiction is what you choose it to be.

And as Bullisariuscowl notes, the SoB basically are female marines. They wear similar armour; drive the same rhino chassis for all their vehicles and have their own form of dreadnoughts and more.

Conceptually and aesthetically, they absolutely aren't. They're badass fetish nuns. And I love them for it, but that's very different from big bulky superhuman marines.

However they are more interesting than "female marines" because "female marines" would likely just be female heads on regular marine bodies with some light chest armour adjustments. Ergo they really are not going to look much different as models.

Absolutely no different chest armour! Just different heads, that's all. Ans yes, them not looking that different to male marines would be the point. I don't really mind hyperfeminity of the SoB, it is cool, but if that's the only flavour of femininity on the table, then that's an issue.

I can't help but feel that the whole "female space marines" is a wasted effort if the end goal is more women joining the hobby in terms of it really not being a true barrier in the first place. Instead I think its everything else around the game; its marketing; its social dynamics on display; the composition of clubs and groups etc... The notable heroes and most influential individuals within the community. That Is where I think the real impact is.

I mostly agree that it is not the main barrier. The biggest issue with female marines is the reaction that happens when one dares to suggest them. It is very hostile and toxic, and would no doubt be extremely off-putting to most women. So making female marines official, GW would deny ammo from that toxic part of the community.

 Overread wrote:
Just another line of thinking here - do people want to see Napoleonic and WW2 armies feature more women as regular infantry too? Indeed most ancient armed games have full male armies and those with a higher percentage (or total) of women tend to only come from fantasy model lines.

This is a false equivalence. The Napoleonic Wars were a thing that actually happened and are extremely well documented as well.

While the likes of Spanish and Portuguese Partisans were certainly made up of all sorts of folk from all walks of life, the standing armies of the Napoleonic era were very much men only. While people can certainly have alt-history applying this logic doesn't work because the reason people play historical wargames is to reenact history that happened.

40k isn't real and as such has no obligation to follow "historical precedent" or real-world cultural restrictions. Most importantly the background for 40k has been extremely consistent on the point that sex, gender, and race (in the human sense, not the species sense) are no longer considerations in humanity's culture.
Service is based on numbers on a spreadsheet. One man and one woman are both still one human and that's all anyone cares about.

Explicitly telling customers marines are boys only has the same optics of star wars telling you only men can be Jedi.

It's exclusionary for no reason, and is the MOST visible representation of the IP being sold.

It would definitely be less of an issue if it wasn't the central marketing pillar of the franchise.


For me personally, I find the 'lore" used to justify male marines only as one of the more ridiculous bits of pseudoscience in 40k. It just comes across as 10 year Olds fighting over there anti laser shields and anti laser shield lasers - my anti girl geneseed...

There is nothing inherent to human genetics that makes something incompatible with someone because of their chromosomal configuration. You would literally have to put complex mechanisms into the geneseed to prevent them working with half the population. It wouldn't default to incompatible. Thats not how these things work.

I'll preface this post by clarifying (for the avoidance of any doubt) that I don't have much of a horse in this particular race. SMs have never appealed to me as an army, and the addition or subtraction of females would not change that.

Anyway, I don't see an issue with SMs being all-male and SoB being all-female in the lore (and official models).

There is absolutely no reason why GW should add female SMs (or male SoB) just to pander to the gender-politics of the Current Year.

If I am to be brutally honest, I think far too many people are desperate for some sort of validation (in this case from Daddy GW). You have always been free to put female heads on SMs. You can even use green stuff to make boob-armour for them if it floats your boat. You can make up your own lore about how they're a super-secret, extra-special chapter, consisting only of women. Go nuts.

I doubt even the most fanatical of GW store managers is going to be looking between the legs of all your models to make sure their sex is appropriately lore-accurate.

However, just because you want a chapter of female marines doesn't mean GW should be required to change the longstanding lore and models just to affirm you.

Frankly, I despise this idea that every fantasy and sci-fi franchise must change its lore to reflect a specific set of modern-day politics. The whole point of escapist fiction is to see and experience worlds, creatures, civilisations etc. that are far removed from our own. There is absolutely no reason why fantasy/sci-fi civilisations should confirm to the current day, western, left-wing views on gender. It's especially bizarre in a universe of 40k, where even the factions we're supposed to be rooting for are genocidal maniacs.

Long story short, model your armies however you want. Play female marines. Play furry marines (I know one poster on Dakka has a furry army). Play Star Wars marines. Build or convert your models in whatever way appeals to you, official models and lore be damned. Make up whatever lore you like, even if it would be considered heretical in the canon. But please don't demand that the official lore be re-written to cater to you (or your political ideology).

 Gert wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Just another line of thinking here - do people want to see Napoleonic and WW2 armies feature more women as regular infantry too? Indeed most ancient armed games have full male armies and those with a higher percentage (or total) of women tend to only come from fantasy model lines.

This is a false equivalence. The Napoleonic Wars were a thing that actually happened and are extremely well documented as well.

While the likes of Spanish and Portuguese Partisans were certainly made up of all sorts of folk from all walks of life, the standing armies of the Napoleonic era were very much men only. While people can certainly have alt-history applying this logic doesn't work because the reason people play historical wargames is to reenact history that happened.

40k isn't real and as such has no obligation to follow "historical precedent" or real-world cultural restrictions. Most importantly the background for 40k has been extremely consistent on the point that sex, gender, and race (in the human sense, not the species sense) are no longer considerations in humanity's culture.
Service is based on numbers on a spreadsheet. One man and one woman are both still one human and that's all anyone cares about.

From what I have read there were a small number of female soliders in these armies - often to join up with their husbands. Not many but some as their was often through history. Same with 18th c warships - quite often women aboard, not always in a combat mode and relatively small numbers but they were there.

However Agreed re having women models etc - personally prefer no male Sisters or female Marines as I like that element of the lore - but you could have representation in those armies with support units.....I would much prefer to see Thralls, chapter officers etc than yet another slightly different marine unit or rubbish like Centurions invented... Same with Sisters - have some frateris milita etc.

Support units I feel just don't work in 28-32mm wargames. At least on your standard tabletop battle. You just start running out of space to put them and have them feel like they properly fit on the battlefield.

Cool as models, dioramas or as npcs in a "attack on camp" type affair ,but not always easy to put on the table.

I feel like they work better in 6-20mm games where you've a LOT more space ot have proper camps, support waggons and the like. Where you can put all those things down and the armies as well and it all fits.

40K is already overcrowding with aircraft and big models;

my alternate take to all-male space marines and all-female sisters is that we can say the enhancement process for both involves transitioning. ie, the process of becoming a space marine, with the geneseed and all that, brings the recipient's body closer in line with their primarch, making any afab space marines transmasc. you can do something similar for sisters and say that by allowing for the inclusion of trans women, they open up their potential recruitment field even further. after all, trans women are still women, so the "no men under arms" policy would still apply!

 Hellebore wrote:
Explicitly telling customers marines are boys only has the same optics of star wars telling you only men can be Jedi.
It's exclusionary for no reason, and is the MOST visible representation of the IP being sold.
It would definitely be less of an issue if it wasn't the central marketing pillar of the franchise.

what would change?
look, the fascist engineered killer machines that would purge a planet if a single person on it has the wrong hair colour because rather be safe than sorry, now has females as well which is more appropriate to modern society as also woman can be killers machines for a fascist regime

so the Imperium is less evil if woman a represented equally, or is 40k running in a dead-end with the "everyones evil" plot and now going to change things for Marines becoming the good guys with equal representation and purging mutants and heretics is not a thing any more.

the IP sold does not have any good guys and being exclusive with the Poster Boys is not because it was ok back then but this is what those factions are, exclusive fascist dictatorships that are committing genocide for breakfast as training lesson and changing the background to make more money and the last argument to go with 40k (30 years of developed background) is gone as well

a new game every 3 years, with rules, models and background being replaced by something different but keeping the names the same so people don't get confused