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.

BL also made the entire Celestial Lions chapter black, if you're sick of parroting that Salamanders argument.

And then did unto them what movie directors have done unto the black actors in their films for years, to be fair - not that that invalidates the argument.

But yeah. Knightly houses are from worlds with a deliberate 'medieval europe' feel. Result; patriarchal, therefore few female pilots.

It's not any physical limitation, though, so logically there's no reason for a matriarchal world out there.

More importantly, those houses more closely tied to the mechanicus won't give a monkey's about gender because senior scions will be about 60% chrome by mass anyway.

I'd agree that it's nice to see them; because exceptions to a rule that's not a biologically immutable one (like with marines) help keep the feel of the universe's diversity.

A lot of the artwork for the FFG RPG Only War has female guardsmen.

For that matter, one of the first Callidus Assassins encountered in a Black Library book was male.

I think the only army with a decent mix of genders is the newer Dark Eldar, if I remember right.

I don't want to see female Space Marines because we have the Sisters of Battle, the latter being about a million times more interesting than the former. If we saw female Space Marines you can absolutely bet that would be taken as the final nail to Squat the Sisters.

 Psienesis wrote:
... that doesn't make any sense, since a given man is going to be more genetically-similar to his sister than he is to some other, random guy off the street.

But barring consideration for certain genetic disorders, that sister isn't going to have any of the 200+ genes so far discovered only present on the Y chromosome.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Argh, the point is not to replicate modern day nationalities in 40K, but to demonstrate that 38,000 years in the future, there are ethnic differences from world to world and thus throughout the Imperium. Hell, there'll be ethnic differences within global populations as well, because 30,000 years of space colonisation and living is long enough to create evolutionary divergence, not to mention the side effects of Golden Age of Technology genetic meddling with space travellers and colonists.

So rather than talking about "Mexican Space Marines", we need to be talking about different skin colours across the Imperium, and also the depiction of women within the Imperium.

I too am glad to see more female figures coming out of AoS, and more non-white paintjobs, but it would be nice to have even more, and also less of all this "HURR NO GURLS CAN DRIVE KNIGHTS" business.

It sounds like you're asking for more ethnicities, which if you are, Mexican space marines and African space marines fits quite well. The whole point is so different players have something to identify with, and have variety. Mexican and African chapters are just that. And don't try to argue they aren't, especially when the Celestial Lions act as a stereotypical African tribe and Crimson Fists chapter master is named Pedro.

Gree wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:

The licensed properties and Black Library books consistently portray a much more diverse Imperium than the ALL WHITE MEN shown in the Codexes. Everything from female techpriests and Naval officers to black Guardsmen and all sorts of other people.

Graham McNeil's Knights of the Imperium have the male knights react in shock and indignation when it's revealed that their mystery Freeblade is a woman. At least the novel suggests that female Knight pilots are unheard of.

The implication was not that it is unheard of, but rather that it was not something that is approved of.

Additionally, we get everything in Knights of the Imperium from the perspective of House Cadmus where the women are considered important for keeping the traditions and scions of Cadmus alive.

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Argh, the point is not to replicate modern day nationalities in 40K, but to demonstrate that 38,000 years in the future, there are ethnic differences from world to world and thus throughout the Imperium. Hell, there'll be ethnic differences within global populations as well, because 30,000 years of space colonisation and living is long enough to create evolutionary divergence, not to mention the side effects of Golden Age of Technology genetic meddling with space travellers and colonists.

So rather than talking about "Mexican Space Marines", we need to be talking about different skin colours across the Imperium, and also the depiction of women within the Imperium.

I too am glad to see more female figures coming out of AoS, and more non-white paintjobs, but it would be nice to have even more, and also less of all this "HURR NO GURLS CAN DRIVE KNIGHTS" business.

It sounds like you're asking for more ethnicities, which if you are, Mexican space marines and African space marines fits quite well. The whole point is so different players have something to identify with, and have variety. Mexican and African chapters are just that. And don't try to argue they aren't, especially when the Celestial Lions act as a stereotypical African tribe and Crimson Fists chapter master is named Pedro.

Yes, I am asking for different ethnic backgrounds for my future fantasy soldiers - but I want them to be distinct, not Space Marines From The Country Of Africa, or Mexican Marines (I mean, Pedro Kantor isn't a Mexican necessarily anyway, Pedro is just a Hispanic name). Draw from inspiration, definitely, but let's have a mix - how about taking cues from Hindu mythology and pairing it with Aztec imagery, or drawing from medieval North African art, renaissance Venice, and coupling that with the Vietnamese empire? And then you can have black Guardsmen, or brown, or Asian, or Oriental, or what-have-you, without being reduced to Planet Of The Hats like the Vampire Italians of the Blood Angels.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The implication was not that it is unheard of, but rather that it was not something that is approved of.

Semantics. It's pretty clear from the book that she was not supposed to pilot that knight and that it's not allowed. Which was my main point.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Additionally, we get everything in Knights of the Imperium from the perspective of House Cadmus where the women are considered important for keeping the traditions and scions of Cadmus alive.

You can look at it that way, but it doesn't much explain why the Freeblade hides her face from all the other Knightly Houses and Imperial Forces. The Freeblade be definition isn't part of House Cadmus.
Graham McNeill very much seemed going the route of Medieval Europe's own patriarchal knight culture and transposing it into 40k Knight Houses. Apparently, at least according to McNeill, female knights are taboo. It's at least supported by the 6th edition Codex that only mention women as consorts and men as warriors.

Of course Relic chose to ignore it and that's probably for the best.

( I should probably put forward a disclaimer that I'm all for female Knight and such. It's just that we have at least one source that seems to imply otherwise.)

Gree wrote:

Of course Relic chose to ignore it and that's probably for the best.

Did they though? Their female Knight is also apparently a Freeblade.

Animus wrote:

Gree wrote:

Of course Relic chose to ignore it and that's probably for the best.

Did they though? Their female Knight is also apparently a Freeblade.

She's the ruler of House Varlock according to the website.

I thought the lore actually supported female knight pilots in kind of a Jeanne d'Arc way, really uncommon due to the type of civilisations knight worlds tend to be but not impossible. Really the only impossibility is male sisters of battle and female space marines so that should be seen as a fair trade to hopefully let that stupid arguement go finally.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, we get everything in Knights of the Imperium from the perspective of House Cadmus where the women are considered important for keeping the traditions and scions of Cadmus alive.

This, so much this. It's very much a case of "who indeed is wearing the pants of power in this establishment?"

The men may be strong on the battlefield, but their wives and consorts are running that gak in the background, influencing almost every aspect of the running of the House.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gree wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The implication was not that it is unheard of, but rather that it was not something that is approved of.

Semantics. It's pretty clear from the book that she was not supposed to pilot that knight and that it's not allowed. Which was my main point.

Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Everything is gained, nothing is lost. For what it's worth, BrookM's Knightly House are piloted entirely by women, and my own currently imaginary House Skye is a nice mix of men and women.

Actually my house, while Amazonian now due to a large batch of girls being born, is actually cognatic, meaning both genders are allowed to become pilots.

Then again, my House is an outcast offshoot of House Terryn during the Heresy era, so some more leeway is given, but this can be nicely forged into a narrative as to why they're kicked out to begin with.




I'm curious though, is there a definitive source that states that only men can become pilots of Knights?

 BrookM wrote:
Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.

Of course the protagonist grows to respect her, but there is also the whole thing about her being female that he's shocked by.

Gree wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.

Of course the protagonist grows to respect her, but there is also the whole thing about her being female that he's shocked by.

Oh yes, quite. When the unveil happened he wanted to take her Knight away, but his wife would have none of that gak and told him to have the Knight fixed and let her have another go at getting revenge.

Cognatic. A lovely word!

I really do think all this insanity on GW's part boils down to their generalising across an Imperium of over a million worlds, with more cultures than we've ever had exist on Earth.

Sure, there will be male-only Knight Houses, and female-only ones, and mixed ones, and ones where the Knights are permanently wired into their Command Thrones, and ones where you can only become a Knight once you're more machine than human, and more beside.

Saying "It is like this, and only this" is just... madness.

 BrookM wrote:

Gree wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Quite so, she was lacking the implants required to properly interface with the Throne. The Throne will still seek a connection, but it will be a painful one every step of the way, something the protagonist grudgingly respected her for.

Of course the protagonist grows to respect her, but there is also the whole thing about her being female that he's shocked by.

Oh yes, quite. When the unveil happened he wanted to take her Knight away, but his wife would have none of that gak and told him to have the Knight fixed and let her have another go at getting revenge.

I think it's pretty clear from the novel that while they don't fight, the women in house Cadmus are wearing the pants.

It certainly does not help that indeed we have this massive galaxy of wonder, our gaze is always being directed to such a small selection of what is on offer.

Some things are cast in stone and have become something of a cornerstone of the fluff, like Space Marines all being male only, the Ecclesiarchy not being allowed to take men under arms ever again or that the Imperial Guard has become a massive joke army that cannot win unless they throw large amounts of bodies at it.

But I'll ask the question again, is there a definitive source that states that only men are allowed to be the pilots of Knights?

I personally feel that players should do as they see fit, there are worse things out there one can do with the established fluff, like having magical space girls represent space marines..

It is interesting that Relic made Solaria the High Queen, or whatever the local term is for the supreme ruler of her Household, instead of a Freeblade, which would be more befitting of the setting. I'd love to see a damned good explanation as to why the ruler of a house of Imperial Knights spends so much time with those magpies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
I think it's pretty clear from the novel that while they don't fight, the women in house Cadmus are wearing the pants.

Yes, this is something I keep saying. While the men are off having their moment, the ladies are stuck unravelling a plot, all the while running the house.

There are a few lines here and there in the novel that certainly hammer home how much power they actually wield without the lads knowing about it. Though a part of me likes to think that Roland is okay with that, as most nobles live for the fight, not the courts.

 BrookM wrote:
It certainly does not help that indeed we have this massive galaxy of wonder, our gaze is always being directed to such a small selection of what is on offer.

Some things are cast in stone and have become something of a cornerstone of the fluff, like Space Marines all being male only, the Ecclesiarchy not being allowed to take men under arms ever again or that the Imperial Guard has become a massive joke army that cannot win unless they throw large amounts of bodies at it.

But I'll ask the question again, is there a definitive source that states that only men are allowed to be the pilots of Knights?

There is no such thing as a "definitive source" for anything fluff-related in 40k, because the entire IP doesn't work like that. Apart from a few really basic things, there's no such thing as "canon" to 40k, which separates it from the Star Wars IP. SW had an official chart that established which sources were more-canon than what other sources. 40k has no such thing, and is not ever intended to have any such thing. To GW/BL, "all of it is true, especially the parts that contradict each other".

So on the topic of female Imperial Knights, Freeblade or otherwise, the only real answer is "it's however you want it to be". There's dozens of variations to the question and its answers, but none of them are wrong.

Of course there is a canon. If someone tried to write that their bolters shoot rainbow lasers, they would get told they are wrong because bolters shoot mass reactive bolts and use ammunition. The fact such a definitive statement can be said about anything in the 40K universe shows there is a de facto canon at work. The 40K canon is not very consistent due to the lack of interest by GW in screening out errors or inconsistencies and their habit of inserting retcons, but there is a canon, a body of definitively known and set in stone facts about the 40K universe.

The boltguns of the Emperor's Children, having spent ten thousand years in the Warp, now fire rainbow lasers that seem to scream with a thousand voices of ecstasy and agony as they deliver the caress of the Warp to victims of the Legion.

 Psienesis wrote:
The boltguns of the Emperor's Children, having spent ten thousand years in the Warp, now fire rainbow lasers that seem to scream with a thousand voices of ecstasy and agony as they deliver the caress of the Warp to victims of the Legion.

"You're wrong. Bolters don't fire lasers." That is what an editor would toss back at any Black Library writer that tried such a blatant error. GW and BL editing is sloppy with regards to content but when there are major contradictions to established facts about 40K then they would knock it back. Try writing the Ultramarines wear pink and have always done so, the Heresy never happened, etc... Without some form of canon, some level of internal consistency and fixed facts about how a fictional universe works, fictional universes collapse into nonsense.

If 2 individuals decide there were never Primarchs, never any Tau, and never a Heresy with still 20 Legions of Space Marines running round, are they still playing in the 40K universe? No, not the 40K universe as understood by others. They are off in their own fan universe. Not all things in 40K are mutable. There are effective facts dictated by GW, some of which they might retcon, but once retconned exist as facts. Without fixed unalterable details, no discussion can be had and there is no 40K universe because nothing can be ruled as any more acceptable or ridiculous than anything else. A person could claim all bolters fire nerfballs or daisies, Orks are really blue, Horus being really female, Homer Simpson was really the Primarch of the Blood Angels, Grots being able to tear Titans limb from limb in close combat, and that would have to be taken as worthy and legitimate as any claim of bolters firing mass reactive shells since "nothing is fixed and everything is possible." Without constraints on what is or is not possible, you don't have a setting. You have nonsense.

The whole "no such thing as canon" stance came from a former staff member of BL during the era that produced such abominations as Goto's books. That was the same era in which BL's policy was that they would never ever have any non-human viewpoints in their books. Since that time, they have backtracked on their stance as shown by the existence of xenos books like the Eldar Path trilogy, the Asurmen book, and an upcoming Jain Zar book.

For the 500th time... no, it isn't, as we are told by BL authors:

http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/
http://philipsibbering.com/blog/articles/canon/

Marc Gascoigne wrote:
“I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a “big question” doesn’t matter. It’s all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is “Yes and no” or perhaps “Sometimes”. And for me, that’s the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be “sometimes” or “it varies” or “depends”.

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It’s a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW’s definition of canon? Perhaps we don’t have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I’m not telling you.”

And, as is obvious in things that are different between two different BL authors, the editors at BL don't really give a feth. Terminators doing backflips? Sure. Flying Rhinos? Go ahead. Servitors cracking jokes with an Inquisitor? Sounds good to us.

Are there certain fundamental aspects to the setting? Of course. There's the Emperor. There's the Primarchs. Space Marines and Orks, Eldar and Tau. But, apart from these very broad strokes, nothing about these things is immutable, and your snip. Reds8n nit-pickery over this kind of detail is, frankly, fething tiresome.

Obviously, there are story elements that exist in 40k that make it 40k, but these elements are painted in very broad strokes. It is when you start claiming that specific details are "canon" is where you go wrong. Do bolters fire bolts? Sure. Maybe. What's a bolt? Well, it's either a cased or a caseless ammunition that either explodes like a grenade or acts as a frangible round. It may or may not be self-guiding. It may or may not pop power armor like a hot knife through butter. Could a boltgun fire lasers? Possibly. It's an ancient weapon design, there may be relics from the Dark Age of Technology that combined bolts with las-tech.

Marc is the same person that claimed there would never be a xenos novel from Black Library due to "aliens being alien and therefore impossible to understand" or some other such copout. All that blather was just excuses for author and editor laziness and lack of continuity checking and consistency. Now we have multiple xenos trilogies with what seems to be another Phoenix Lord series on the way so his word counts for nothing as previously stated. Black Library's publication history shows that position is now obsolete if it was ever true in the first place.

"Immutable facts" and "fundamental aspects" are canon. That is what canon is. It is not anything goes if there are any lines that cannot be crossed, if there are some things that are immutable. You have just admitted you are wrong about the existence of canon. A loose canon is still an existent canon, albeit one with still many loopholes, retcons, and inconsistencies. It just means it is loose and is not religiously fact checked or defined down to little details. However a de facto canon still exists as is clearly apparent to many other 40K players out there.

GW can decide to retcon it and change what is canon in the future but at this particular point in time, there is a de facto canonical state even if not fully explicitly stated or delineated in every detail or limit. A player or writer claiming the Emperor and the entire Imperium never ever existed in the first place would be told they are wrong. If they wrote they had a run of the mill standard issue bolter that fired 1 shot and blew away half the galaxy, they would be told they are wrong and that it didn't happen and cannot happen. There are internal limits imposed upon the ficitonal unverse and these limits are part of the canon, because they define the universe and what is or is not possible. And yes, there are fuzzy unknown states where things are not explicitly stated. One bolter firing caseless while another fires cased rounds is a discrepancy but might slip past editing or be chalked up to differing designs. Where the limit is for what is not acceptable is not explicitly stated though it is pretty certain a galaxy destroying standard bolter is beyond that limit.

 BrookM wrote:

But I'll ask the question again, is there a definitive source that states that only men are allowed to be the pilots of Knights?

Not that I can find in the Codex. It may have been a throwaway line in WD or some other Black Library source.

However the fact that a female did act as a Freeblade and pilot a Knight shows it is not a technical impossibility, but rather one of sexism and social disapproval. In-universe people might come up with pseudo-medical reasonings against women piloting Knights, much in the same way that in the past educated scholars and physicians claimed it was harmful for women to receive formal educations or do certain activities. If a woman lacks the formal training or implants, of course they are likely to fumble at controlling the Knight, which of course might lead to the male Knights nodding and claiming this "proves" women fundamentally cannot do it.

Gascoigne's entire spiel is a clear copout and non-answer.

By definition, something cannot be both true (canon) and untrue (non-canon) simultaneously. Either its true, or it isn't.


It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).


Given the level of criticism levelled at GW generally, and Black Library sloppiness specifically, it's always amazed me that an answer which essentially boils down to 'Meh. Not going to give an answer' is held up as if it's making some deep, worthwhile, or even logical point.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Gascoigne's entire spiel is a clear copout and non-answer.

By definition, something cannot be both true (canon) and untrue (non-canon) simultaneously. Either its true, or it isn't.


It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).


Given the level of criticism levelled at GW generally, and Black Library sloppiness specifically, it's always amazed me that an answer which essentially boils down to 'Meh. Not going to give an answer' is held up as if it's making some deep, worthwhile, or even logical point.

It's a "I meant to do that"/"All part of the plan" excuse. A mea culpa admission of mistake would garner greater respect IMO, or if it really is an area which has not been decided or fleshed out then simply say "We don't know or haven't decided".

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).

So then, how tall is a Space Marine?

The models depict 6', if that.

The competition from earlier showed 7'.

The Black Library newsletter released right after showed 8'.

Black Library novels can show 9' or even more.

That is how tall according to Jes Goodwin, which given his role in 40K over the years, is a pretty definitive statement.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).

So then, how tall is a Space Marine?

Nothing is canon. There are no Space Marines.

That is literally how absurd the claim that there is no canon is.



Besides which, the majority of sources say/suggest around 7'. Model scale is all over the place. Where are you getting 9' from?


EDIT: I'm not sure how responding to 'there is broad consistency with only a relatively few exceptions' with 'here's an exception!' is a useful line of argument anyway..?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Besides which, the majority of sources say/suggest around 7'. Model scale is all over the place. Where are you getting 9' from?

9' in particular is from The Last Detail.

If you would like a fun read of how 'consistent' 40k is, have a gander at this compendium.

it's possiable space marine sizes simply, like humans, vary. humans can range in size from under 5 feet to over 6 feet. seems fair to me that there are some 7 foot marines, 8 foot marines, and a few 9 foot giants.
this is partiuclarly true as some geneseed may result in taller marines then others

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's clear that GW isn't following some 'nothing is canon' line, since 99% of their output is consistent (with the remainder being errors and/or retcons).

So then, how tall is a Space Marine?

Nothing is canon. There are no Space Marines.

That is literally how absurd the claim that there is no canon is.



Besides which, the majority of sources say/suggest around 7'. Model scale is all over the place. Where are you getting 9' from?


EDIT: I'm not sure how responding to 'there is broad consistency with only a relatively few exceptions' with 'here's an exception!' is a useful line of argument anyway..?

What a majority of sources say creates a consensus, not a canon.

This is where we point out that "broad consistencies" include having Space Marines... but the detail of their height (and everything else) varies from author to author, and has no canon definition. The ones that make an appearance in the first Eisenhorn book are said to have fingers "the thickness of an Arbiter's truncheon"... that'd be between one and two inches thick. That would make someone fething *huge* in size. Is Dan Abnett wrong? No... but neither is someone who claims the Marine is 7 feet tall (finger thickness about 1 3/4 centimeters).

Please note that the picture that Jes is sitting next to starts at the 1 foot mark, not the 0 foot mark.

A de facto canon is not an actual canon, it simply makes it a consensus.