Adding more diversity to the 40K universe.

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.

**godardc**

Da Kommizzar wrote:
Everyone is getting #rekt left and right in a silly debate that will forever run in circles. Both parties, or at least one, claim that the argument is futile as long as they convince GW and yet they keep the toxicity levels from going down. I applaud the 40k Fanbase with a standing ovation.

Then why are you posting here and not helping anything from changing for the better?
Because this is hilarious to watch.

So, english speakers say "Bravo" too ? That's funny. I love when different languages use the same word, it's beautiful

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Insectum7 wrote:
If the issue is that Sisters should, as a faction, be more supported and have more SC's, I'm all on board.

If the issue is that "GW thinks that women can't take to the field of battle without a man being in charge." I can't agree with that.

If the issue is that Sisters should have a codex dedicated to them, and not other members of the Ecclesiarchy. . . Maybe? I just think so far it's been a convenient thing to do for GW.

The “issue” is that Yodhrin quoting the Sisters of Battle codices as some kind of justification for the all-male nature of the Space Marines was not in any way a relevant argument. As I already pointed out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

godardc wrote:
So, english speakers say "Bravo" too ? That's funny. I love when different languages use the same word, it's beautiful

And Iranians say “Merci” too

.

**Insectum7**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

The “issue” is that Yodhrin quoting the Sisters of Battle codices as some kind of justification for the all-male nature of the Space Marines was not in any way a relevant argument. As I already pointed out.

I suppose. Though you did point out that the SOB codexes included more male SCs than female. I felt the point that Yodhrin was making was more "in-universe" than "in-codex".

IMO, in-universe the SoBs seem like more of a female mirror to the all male Space Marines, even if their representation by GW is sorely lacking.

**Gen.Steiner**

TheCustomLime wrote:Ahh, the old false binary choice argument. No, you don't need to crowbar in women into the Space Marines to add diversity to Warhammer 40k. Properly support the Adepta Sororitas, increase the diversity in factions that already have it and for god's sake stop making everything about Space Marines. Most of the Imperium's wars are fought by the Imperial Guard. Even as a Space Marine player I am sick of the attention lavished on Space Marines.

Absolutely.

It is entirely possible to maintain the post-human Space Marines as an entirely male force and increase both variety and diversity within the game.

As far as Codex: Sisters of Battle, (WD) Codex: Sisters of Battle, Codex: Witchhunters, (WD) Codex: Sisters of Battle, and Codex: Adepta Sororitas go... the Ecclesiarchy's characters and models are all male; the Sisters of Battle characters and models are all female. It seems strange that there are no female priest figures on one level, but frankly that's something that can be solved with, er, a new Codex...

**Plumbumbarum**

According to FFG, Imperium is mysogynistic:

Dark Heresy Rulebook wrote:"The wartorn 41st millenium is not always an encouraging place to be for a female. Few get the opportunities of their male counterparts, but by the same token they do not get exposed to the danger out there in the wilder parts of the galaxy. Certain Imperial Guard regiments recruit females to fight alongside men; the Eclessiarchy and the Inquisition likewise employ females at all ranks, but again their number is not in proportion to men

... but that ofc makes the universe better, because it fits the tone of backwards, oppressive society. The number of women should stay exactly the same, SoB, some Inquisitors and few % in IG.

**Otto Weston**

Jewelfox wrote:
Come on, everyone, we all know the real reason why there are no female space marines.

Seriously though, as someone who struggles to see herself represented in any media, I fail to see why someone else's mild preference / discomfort takes priority. It reflects very poorly on Games Workshop and the entire 40k fandom that "only men" is still a thing, and that anyone defends it for any reason. This communicates something loud and clear, and if you realized what it was you may not like what it says about you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also just going to point out that apparently this rigorous Space Marine making process kills anyone who's transgender, because otherwise I guarantee you'll have female Space Marines one way or another.

Seriously, at some point you need to ask yourself why this is a hill you want to die on, and what that says to the people around you. Someone important to you could come out of the closet or express personal concern about something you've made jokes about, minimized the importance of, or belittled the people who care about it, and you're going to feel like a fething heel.

I know I did.

I'm just gonna weigh in here.

I do believe that Female Space Marines COULD have been made by the Emperor. He made the Primarchs after all which are a hell of a lot more complicated but for some reason he couldn't be bothered with Females. Whilst it COULD have been done, it wasn't. We have to accept that because that's the fictional universe we're playing in.

You can't just say -- I dislike that fundamental facet of a faction in this fictional universe and it should be changed, people who refuse are 'choose one' (bigoted/misogynists/chauvinists/pigs).

That's like reading the Lord of the Rings and saying -
'The Dead Men of Dunharrow are all male! I demand representation and your refusals to change this fictional group says something about you irl!'

Now you'll probably call me out as marine fanboy but I'm the exact opposite; I am extremely fed up with all the Space Marine focus GW keeps promoting and prefer the stories of normal humans instead. I am also fed up with movie marines and their mary-sue-ness. Also as I said earlier, I believe Female Space Marines could have been made. I just believe that if we choose to play and enjoy the 40k universe, we have to accept the fictional restrictions (Warp, Psychic Powers, Chaos Gods, Teleportation etc. etc.).

**Plumbumbarum**

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:
Out of interest - do you believe works of literature should be censored or rewritten to remove any product-of-its-time language and sentiments that relate to gender, race, sexuality etc? Not to say 40K is literature, but I'm interested to find out if you're only in favour of rewriting 40K background because it doesn't meet some arbitrary personal threshold of importance, or if altering established elements of existing works of fiction based on modern left-liberal ethics is a point of principle.

The background to 40K isn't literature (which you do acknowledge), it's a context for a product GW wants to sell. The context is exclusionary to a large segment of the population (the majority in the United States, I'll point out). Changing the background so it's not exclusionary isn't SJW meddling, it's just smart business practice. It effectively doubles the size of the audience the product can appeal to.

GW is currently behind the demographic curve, having little female representation in most of their armies, and none in their flagship product. That's not a recipe for bringing more female gamers into 40K. Having one mostly-female army (that's still all-metal, has sub-par rules, and can only be bought online) doesn't redress the balance, it's just tokenism that serves to further highlight how underrepresented females are. I'd argue that in order to catch up to the demographic curve, GW has to increase the representation of women in the products they sell, and ideally that would include female Space Marines. That would probably cause countless heads to explode and a GamerGate-esque uproar, but there's really no two ways about it. Either have female Space Marines, or be open to criticism about female representation in the game.

That said, ANY increased female representation would be an improvement. Hence my idea about Chapter Serf units. That would allow some female representation in Space Marine armies without retconning the precious (rolls eyes) fluff. A female Cadian sprue. A female Farseer, and some female Aspect Warrior bodies in the temples that aren't Howling Banshees. How about a friggin' mini for Inquisitor Valyria? Are these things really too hard for GW to produce?

Oh yes, tokenism. When there's no women or people of other skin color, it's sexism/ racism/ whatever. When there's a few, or a designated faction, it's tokenism. We can only rest when everything is fair and represents the demographics. Why don't you and other representarians just write some guidelines with percentages so we can finaly have some true diversity with every creative product showing exactly the same society and concerned about same issues.

Why is it smart to bring more female gamers by bringing female space marines, do you have any data? What if a big part of that apparently mysogynistic, unwelcoming, nasty white male 40k crowd decides that this girly 40k is not for them anymore, and then it turns out that this bloated, time consuming, ultra militaristic, statistics heavy strategy wargame doesn't appeal to most females anyway? Just saying.

I think it's better to allow girls to enjoy 40k for what it is. I find all this cheap, stats and polls induced marketing tricks insulting anyway, no matter towards women or me, hey we have awesome girly space marinette just for you our special super stronk girl player. I think women can take 40k as is, just as I can take the portrayal of soviet inspired commisar as cool after my grandfather was in a soviet camp and returned home below 40kg of weight and extremaly sick, not to mention hundreds of thousands of my countrymen enslaved, raped or just shot in the back of the head by soviets.

**Selym**

To concur with Plumbumbarum, in the UK we have an organisation called the Cadet Corps. Teenagers can sign up to be a cadet to recieve a toned-down version of the military experience, with a focus on helping the local community and learning discipline.
Being militaristic, however, is is very boyish. There is lots of talk about guns and war machines, lots of crawling through mud, and you all get referred to as "lads" or "men", or get told to "man up".

As expected, more boys join than girls. Is this because everyrhing is male-oriented? I do not think so. My Air Cadet Squadron (1166) had a near 50/50 split of male and female at one time. Some girls just liked the nature of being a Cadet. It did not matter that the army is usually considered a schlong-fest, they just enjoyed running, jumping, climbing trees...

It may well be that women in general just do not like war games. Just like how men in general aren't into high fashion (and you never see campaigns to masculinise the fashion industry)

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Plumbumbarum wrote:
... but that ofc makes the universe better

Uh, no.

Gen.Steiner wrote:
It is entirely possible to maintain the post-human Space Marines as an entirely male force and increase both variety and diversity within the game.

Not in a significant way as long as SM keeps having 7 different codicies.

Otto Weston wrote:
You can't just say -- I dislike that fundamental facet of a faction in this fictional universe and it should be changed, people who refuse are 'choose one' (bigoted/misogynists/chauvinists/pigs).

I'm pretty sure we can. Especially if the rhetoric used by those that refuse shows they are.

**Gamgee**

Selym wrote:
To concur with Plumbumbarum, in the UK we have an organisation called the Cadet Corps. Teenagers can sign up to be a cadet to recieve a toned-down version of the military experience, with a focus on helping the local community and learning discipline.
Being militaristic, however, is is very boyish. There is lots of talk about guns and war machines, lots of crawling through mud, and you all get referred to as "lads" or "men", or get told to "man up".

As expected, more boys join than girls. Is this because everyrhing is male-oriented? I do not think so. My Air Cadet Squadron (1166) had a near 50/50 split of male and female at one time. Some girls just liked the nature of being a Cadet. It did not matter that the army is usually considered a schlong-fest, they just enjoyed running, jumping, climbing trees...

It may well be that women in general just do not like war games. Just like how men in general aren't into high fashion (and you never see campaigns to masculinise the fashion industry)

Zoolander disagrees with you. Ugh.

**Selym**

If you mean the guy in that movie, he is not the general male population incarnate.

Ugh.

**Gamgee**

Selym wrote:
If you mean the guy in that movie, he is not the general male population incarnate.

Ugh.

Haha. I was just making a joke. Anyways no more off topic. Oh god I said the joke word. Incoming triggered everyone since its dakkadakka.

**AllSeeingSkink**

If diversity means adding new factions or updating non-Space Marine factions, sure, I'l all for more diversity!

If diversity means adding female Space Marines coz feminism, then no, I don't want diversity in 40k.

**Gen.Steiner**

Why are we even talking about female Space Marines?

I have seen some excellent conversions to give people's armies female Marines (I'm specifically thinking of Raja Khandar Madu from the Fighting Tigers of Veda), but I don't think there needs to be any official support for that, because it's been the case for so long and is so embedded in the background.

What I'm asking for, and what I think most people on here are asking for, is:

- more female figures in general in the armies that they are supposed to be in, e.g. Guard, Chaos, etc.;
- a properly supported Codex: Sisters of Battle and a properly supported Codex: Inquisition;
- different facial features represented across the human armies, so we can have all sorts of humanity represented;
- more strange and non-humanoid aliens.

Does anybody have any actual, serious, problems with this?

**AllSeeingSkink**

Gen.Steiner wrote:
Does anybody have any actual, serious, problems with this?

Only in the sense that GW have a finite amount of time and resources to dedicate so people will want them to focus on the things they personally care about.

**SemperMortis**

Pouncey wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
HANZERtank wrote:
How would people here go about adding more diversity to the 40k universe. I hear things about female space marines need to be added in. I'm personally not too bothered about that as it currently doesn't exist in the fluff. I get that maybe it should amd feel free to discuss it. However I do believe that distinctly female options should be made for Guard and Tau. Both of these have female warriors in the fluff yet not properly represented (at least with gw minis) on the table.

Sisters of battle are Female SMs and they are written into the fluff and beyond that it actually makes sense.

Is this really about more diversity or "We need more female models" There is a difference.

:: slams own face against desk repeatedly ::

Sisters of Battle are NOT female Space Marines in ANY way, shape, or form.

Yes they are. Do they wear power armor like SMs? yes
Do they have bolters like SMs? Yes
Do they look like SMs? Yes

Are the rules the same or in other words are SOB as good as SMs? Hell no, but SoB are still Female Space Marines.

**Grand.Master.Raziel**

Cue GamerGate-esque head explosion.

quote=Plumbumbarum]
Oh yes, tokenism. When there's no women or people of other skin color, it's sexism/ racism/ whatever. When there's a few, or a designated faction, it's tokenism. We can only rest when everything is fair and represents the demographics. Why don't you and other representarians just write some guidelines with percentages so we can finaly have some true diversity with every creative product showing exactly the same society and concerned about same issues.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Gen.Steiner wrote:
but I don't think there needs to be any official support for that, because it's been the case for so long and is so embedded in the background.

“It's been the case for a long time” is not in itself a good argument not to change something.

SemperMortis wrote:
Do they look like SMs? Yes

I completely disagree here.

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
People are talking about female Space Marines because Space Marines are GW's flagship product, because 40K is GW's best-selling game, and because Space Marines are at the heart of the background for 40K.

The reason Space Marines are so popular is because the central event of 40K's setting, the Horus Heresy, is all about them. They're undeniably the setting's main protagonist and antagonist. Anything besides the conflict between the IoM and Chaos is a sideshow to the main event. Therefore, those factions are going to attract more players to the game than any of the others.

And don't forget, a BIG part of what makes Space Marines very popular is that they are by a huge margin a blank state to be filled with diverse inspiration. If all marines were just the basic marines from, say, the Novamarine chapter, they would draw a lot less interest. But they also have the Austere Monk/Paranoid secretive schemers with skeletons in the closet marines, the Renaissance Artists and Vampire marines, the Crusaders marines, the Cyborg marines, the Viking/ Werewolves/WOLFWOLFWOLFYMCWOLF marines, the pyromaniac blacksmith with giant lizards marines, the Mongol hordes marines, …
I mean, there is even a whole chapter of canon Depressed Marines for crying out loud.
But while none of those are “against the themes of the setting”, female space marines definitely would be! Come on, Wolfy McWolfPersonn feasting and drinking super strong ale so that even with his enhanced biology he can still be a drunken idiot singing bawd songs is totally suitably grimdark, it really speaks of how the Imperium is an oppressive backward society, but female space marines? Damn that would break all immersion amirite?

**Desubot**

Well Female Space Marine would break immersion current as the fluff is written :/

and that is the story that GW penned and is on right now.

And almost all of the quarks that all the other chapters have has various fluff that have also been established.

yeah its all OOT and crazy but thats the 40k universe for you.

**Melissia**

Desubot wrote:
Well Female Space Marine would break immersion current as the fluff is written :/

So does every piece of new lore, what's your point?

GW retcons lore, including some bits of lore that are quite major, every time they release a new codex.

This would be yet another one. I don't care if there's female astartes myself. But I find this objection to them ridiculous.

**Desubot**

Melissia wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Well Female Space Marine would break immersion current as the fluff is written :/

So does every piece of new lore, what's your point?

Like what new lore?

**Melissia**

Desubot wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Well Female Space Marine would break immersion current as the fluff is written :/

So does every piece of new lore, what's your point?

Like what new lore?

The existence of Imperial Knights, and any other new units and factions that are added to any codex ever-- or for that matter, removed from the codex. GW retconning Sisters to have only 3 major orders, then retconning it back to 6 some months later. The massive changes to Necrons, the C'tan, and such. Blood Angels and Necrons working together, creating a stupid meme and ending the idea of Necrons being unable to do anything resembling diplomacy. The introduction of the Tau Empire. The various additions to Chaos, such as the Forge of Souls. The insane new tech used by the Skitarii. The Wolfy Wolfkin Wulfen Wolfifying of the Wolf Marines.... err, I mean Space Wolves. The insanity that is Draigo.

And so on and so forth. And even if you hate some of these changes, you accept it. Because GW did the retcon so it's now the official canon, until GW changes it again.

**Manchu**

There haven't been major changes to the basic SM fluff of late but an example from otherwhere would be the 5th Ed Necrons dex, which totally revamped the faction. Arguably, that was not necessarily a retcon (as the previous dex could just be taken as indicative of the Imperium's one-time ignorance regarding Necrons).

Melissia - Imperial Knights aren't new. TBH none of your examples, perhaps barring Necrons, is really a retcon. Mind you, adding female SM would not have to be either (missing primarchs bleh).

**Melissia**

Like I said, I don't have any dog in this hunt, as I don't really care to start a Marine army of any kind. I just find the "you can't just change the lore" argument stupid, because GW does it with every additional codex, adding new stuff to the lore, and removing and altering old stuff.

**Desubot**

Well fair enough about the crons i kinda forgot about it :/ i like that the more powerful dudes have actual character instead of literally everyone being soulless killing machines.

Also IIRC IK existed since epic. a lot of the stuff that is coming out are already established things. maybe not the skitaree and admech being separate but that i dont really know.

Asides from Cros changing completely nothing has been added as new fluff that hasn't already existed.

**Melissia**

Manchu wrote:
TBH none of your examples, perhaps barring Necrons, is really a retcon.

"Reframing past events to serve a current plot need" is the definition of retcon I am using.

**Manchu**

Sure, the fluff obviously can be and often is changed - at a certain level. But - again, aside from the Necrons, and even there only arguably and not necessarily - there are certain fundamental brand elements that seem to be sacrosanct. Some people think the SM being, essentially, an all-male religious order is one of them (including me). Similarly, I think the all-female nature of the SoB is a fundamental element of that faction. Why SM are all-male obviously isn't as explicit in the fluff, of course.

**Melissia**

Manchu wrote:
Similarly, I think the all-female nature of the SoB is a fundamental element of that faction.

And yet there's been far more male special characters for Sisters of Battle than female ones.

**Desubot**

Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Similarly, I think the all-female nature of the SoB is a fundamental element of that faction.

And yet there's been far more male special characters for Sisters of Battle than female ones.

And thats a complete shame.

honestly.

**TheCustomLime**

Desubot wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Similarly, I think the all-female nature of the SoB is a fundamental element of that faction.

And yet there's been far more male special characters for Sisters of Battle than female ones.

And thats a complete shame.

honestly.

Agreed. I wish GW would make a seperate Forces of the Ecclesiarchy dex and make the SoB codex full of just... SoB.