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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
If its just the lack of female bodies, which I mean there are still alot of females but admittedly not enough, why the need for Female Space Marines?

Because marines are half of the codex and 80% of the focus of the game.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
If you dont like Space Marines (for example) because of lore or what have you, why would you suddenly like them because they have females? You already establish you dont like them.

Who is you?
Ashiraya for instance like marines but would like them even more if there were female marines.

You is a hypothetical.

Ashiraya might like Marines more because there would be females, some others would too I'd wager. I'd also wager that many more wouldn't. Should we pander to the minority of players?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I take offence when not wanting GW to waste time re-doing space marine moulds _again_ when Sisters, when my Eldar Avatar, when half the Inquisition models, etc, are all in dire, dire, dire need of a reprint, means I'm somehow sexist.

You'd maybe have a point if GW didn't already redo these moulds for Green, Red, and Blue marines. Which don't even play differently and are just cosmetic change on Marines-marines. A change that is frankly not needed, a tiny upgrade sprue would be more than enough.

Gee, why people might want a change that actually matters when they already see GW can make all these pointless, cosmetic ones?

Also, funnily enough, how do you call 'not wanting GW to waste time' that miraculously only appears (or at best is 'just' ten times louder) when people debate potential female models? Because, sometimes a cigar is precisely that, a cigar. Just food for thought.

Or when I don't want someone changing the setting, in any way, because 'Well I think it would be nicer to the real world.' It's _Fiction_. The Imperium is allowed to be sexist, without me being sexist. Space Wizardy is allowed to only make male space marines without it suddenly meaning _anything_ about my personal views on women, least of all because I didn't even design the blooming thing.

Translation - "I got mine, frak everyone who is not aboard". It's not 70s anymore, the setting saw so many retcons one making it actually palatable to modern people losing medieval sensitivities and bigotry that were backwards even in times of Rogue Trader would be among most justified of them.

Also, I like how you project your own views and prejudices on setting. The Imperium is not sexist. A state where 1/4 of soldiers on the front line were women, where women could become cardinals or even pope, where woman could take virtually any rank or position would be called insanely egalitarian today. No one, not even Israel or Soviet Union, with their forced equalization polices, comes anywhere close to that. Perhaps you should examine your own views, only you know, objectively, if you want to push sexism where there is none to begin with?

What Imperium really is is being oppressive and backwards. And frankly, it doesn't matter one bit who does the oppressing for it to exist, man or woman, and denial of that says a lot, sorry.

I think that, in the end, lore could stay as is, but GW could profit a lot from selling sprues with helmeted and unhelmeted female heads that one could fir onto guardsmen, cultist and marine bodies so those who want to have 'em in their headcanon could do so.

Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.

 Dark wrote:
I think that, in the end, lore could stay as is, but GW could profit a lot from selling sprues with helmeted and unhelmeted female heads that one could fir onto guardsmen, cultist and marine bodies so those who want to have 'em in their headcanon could do so.

Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.

and plenty of third party manafacturers allow you to do just that. People who are happy with the fluff remaining as it is and modeling for their personal preferance being otherwise, already are

The debate we are having now would be every time you brough space marines with female sergants. I just wanne play the game when I show up with models, not hash it out with everyone who has an opinion on it in the room. Bringing it to a tournament would mean spending energy on focusing on the play.

...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?

No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?

 Quickjager wrote:
...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?

No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?

People just want to get their licks in on both sides of this hotly debated... debate. If you could call it that.

 Quickjager wrote:
...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?

No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?

or maybe he's simply not have anything to say but thought a novel suggesting female marines in the future WAS worth breaking silence over.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?

No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?

or maybe he's simply not have anything to say but thought a novel suggesting female marines in the future WAS worth breaking silence over.

I have suspicions on the... ah... let us say integrity of people who make topics on female space marines who have no previous post history and never engage in the discussion again. Especially when they are supposedly long time members of the community so they know what a friendly topic this is.

Why make an account so long ago if you aren't going to post? There are no functions outside of subscribing to a thread that can't be used as a visitor. If you say subscribing... you can look at people's subscriptions and he has none.

 Formosa wrote:
Wait whut.... so your solution is to shift MORE focus to marines? Rather than away from marines with expanded sisters of silence or sisters of battle... that don't make sense gaji

“My solution” is to release new Imperial Guard kits, new plastic Sisters of Battle kits, but also when GW release some marines kit, to add some female head, and when GW writes marines stories, add some female characters.
You can literally combined this to have less space marine focus AND female space marines.

 Formosa wrote:
So ash would like female marines, cool, he can make them then and leave everyone else as is, it's his hobby after all, stop trying to force your views on the rest of us then, live and let live.

She.
Using “Live and let live” to explain to me why I shouldn't support the release of female space marines is… weird. I feel it's you not letting me live here.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Wait whut.... so your solution is to shift MORE focus to marines? Rather than away from marines with expanded sisters of silence or sisters of battle... that don't make sense gaji

“My solution” is to release new Imperial Guard kits, new plastic Sisters of Battle kits, but also when GW release some marines kit, to add some female head, and when GW writes marines stories, add some female characters.
You can literally combined this to have less space marine focus AND female space marines.

 Formosa wrote:
So ash would like female marines, cool, he can make them then and leave everyone else as is, it's his hobby after all, stop trying to force your views on the rest of us then, live and let live.

She.
Using “Live and let live” to explain to me why I shouldn't support the release of female space marines is… weird. I feel it's you not letting me live here.

So your advocating a change, a change many more than your minority don't want, you want to change the status qou, and it's me that won't live and let live


I am no longer going to be polite about this.

You want female marines, shut the hell up and do it, it's your hobby, buy the heads you want from 3rd party places like I have to do to get good dark angels robes, you want to force a change in the fluff to suit your political (because that what it really is) views, take it somewhere else, I think the 40k community has solidly shown we don't want this "SJW" movement infecting our hobby.

The worst thing is this, your argument is so shallow and boils down to "I want my snowflake marines wa wa!", you don't like that all marines are male, tough, don't play them, I don't like the direction space wolves have taken, tough, I want play them then, good thing I have plenty of alternatives from both GW and other places, if I want good sisters, guess what, good 3rd party sellers out there, I want female heads for marines, 3rd party, I don't come on here and whine week after week because my flavour of special snowflake isn't in the game.

Hey guys!

Let's all keep our cool.

It's only a game of toy soldiers!

 Dark wrote:

Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.

Thing is, even when people do just that, just making their personal fluff and/or models, with no demands for GW to change things, they still get piled on and told how they're doing it wrong. I've seen it many times, even here.

 Crimson wrote:

 Dark wrote:

Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.

Thing is, even when people do just that, just making their personal fluff and/or models, with no demands for GW to change things, they still get piled on and told how they're doing it wrong. I've seen it many times, even here.

Yeah, and that's also not right. What I said would go in line with someone that also painted his orks in, dunno, purple... as long as nothing in the minis go against "gameplay rules" it's a "my miniatures, thus I mod/paint them howere the feth I want", and that's valid for me, you and everyone else. That doesn't means fluff should accomodate purple orks, but I'm not going to bash them and all questions I could make to the player would come out of friendly curiosity.

I don't think "representation" is much of an issue in the game. Most armies don't at all represent the players. Besides, I only see men calling for female space marines. and I don't hear many men calling for male sisters of battle because they'd love to start an army of them but just can't identify with the army because they are all female.

Women do seem to be drawn to armies like sisters of battle and dark aelves. But I think that is somewhat for thematic reasons. If GW suddenly said "Yes, now they can make space marines out of little girls!" I don't think it would at all increase the army's popularity with women. It's still the same army that would still appeal to the same kind of people.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:


Women do seem to be drawn to armies like sisters of battle and dark aelves. But I think that is somewhat for thematic reasons.

So you don't think that women being drawn to these armies is at all related to these armies containing high proportion of female miniatures?

 Crimson wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:


Women do seem to be drawn to armies like sisters of battle and dark aelves. But I think that is somewhat for thematic reasons.

So you don't think that women being drawn to these armies is at all related to these armies containing high proportion of female miniatures?

There's also a large number of women drawn to Tyranids from what I see surprisingly often.

Thing is, even when people do just that, just making their personal fluff and/or models, with no demands for GW to change things, they still get piled on and told how they're doing it wrong. I've seen it many times, even here.

People who are really into the lore don't enjoy seeing people just go ham on the lore. Not too surprising.

 Crimson wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:


Women do seem to be drawn to armies like sisters of battle and dark aelves. But I think that is somewhat for thematic reasons.

So you don't think that women being drawn to these armies is at all related to these armies containing high proportion of female miniatures?

Well, that is part of their theme, isn't it? And in those armies it fits with the theme very well. But having some space marines be technically female isn't going to draw women to playing the army. Even if there were an entire space marine chapter that in the background was suddenly said to be made of all women, I doubt it would be any more popular with women than space marines are now. They're still space marines.

After reading 'Ashes of Prospero', I'm more interested in the Wolves' human thralls and Navigator Navis guard becoming playable sub-factions.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
People who are really into the lore don't enjoy seeing people just go ham on the lore. Not too surprising.

Sure. That's why I don't read Black Library books.

But people should be free to concoct whatever lore they want for their personal armies. The official lore has totally gone to hell in a handbasket since the Gathering Storm anyway, so it is just better to make your own.

 Formosa wrote:
So your advocating a change, a change many more than your minority don't want, you want to change the status qou, and it's me that won't live and let live

Advocating for a change isn't imposing a change. It's not insulting you, it's not attacking you, it's just me presenting my point of view.
You are still free to ignore me, and GW will likely just ignore me too.
Even if GW did release female Marines, well, you would have to complain to them, not to me, they would be the one that forced the change. Hey, GW forced canon changes that I disliked too, so it's pretty clear they are making the decisions, not me.


Honestly I think the core issue here is that you hate "my politics", much more so than anything having to do with "Live and let live". Therefore you want anything in favor of "my politics" censored, at least in the place you read.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Most armies don't at all represent the players.

It's true, that's why I mentioned it's not about wanting to see people like you, but rather about noticing how the settings doesn't include any characters that share some specific trait with you.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/300/751551.page#9865682

It's like those left-handed people converting some models to be left-handed rather than right-handed. They don't identify as a space marine or whatever, they just wonder "Why do none of my models share this trait with me?"

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
and I don't hear many men calling for female sisters of battle because they'd love to start an army of them but just can't identify with the army because they are all female.

I assume you meant "men calling for male sisters of battle".
Well as I said above, when talking about representation, I think it's more about the setting having no or very few female characters rather than one faction having few or very few female characters. You could perfectly well obtain good representation without female marines if you had less focus on the marines. I already explained why I liked the female marines version better, but the solution without female marines works too!

 Crimson wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
People who are really into the lore don't enjoy seeing people just go ham on the lore. Not too surprising.

Sure. That's why I don't read Black Library books.

But people should be free to concoct whatever lore they want for their personal armies. The official lore has totally gone to hell in a handbasket since the Gathering Storm anyway, so it is just better to make your own.

You don't read black library book, that explains an awful lot really (not insult), you are not as invested in the background as others.

 Formosa wrote:

You don't read black library book, that explains an awful lot really (not insult), you are not as invested in the background as others.

I'm invested in the lore, but BL books are mostly terrible. I've read some, but if I want to read a book, I rather read a good one. Most of their authors have restraint and subtlety of Michael Bay on crack. Most of the pre Gathering Storm terrible fluff is from BL books. And I the mess that is the current 40K fluff with ludicrous giant primarchs running around is probably due the BL feeding people's primarch fetish and the studio finally caving in and turning 40K into copy of HH.

beast_gts wrote:
After reading 'Ashes of Prospero', I'm more interested in the Wolves' human thralls and Navigator Navis guard becoming playable sub-factions.

I'd LOOOOVE to see "Codex Chapter serfs"

BrianDavion wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
After reading 'Ashes of Prospero', I'm more interested in the Wolves' human thralls and Navigator Navis guard becoming playable sub-factions.

I'd LOOOOVE to see "Codex Chapter serfs"

Ditto. For something that's so important to a marine chapter (as in, needed for the chapter to actually function), serfs aren't really expanded upon.
Having serfs on the battlefield would also solve the in game disconnect of marines being cannon fodder on the table but gods in the fluff, as you'd have serfs to fulfil that role.
Think of them as being better equipped cultists.

I always liked that about Warriors of Chaos. You have your small units of Chaos Warriors supported by large formations of marauders. It was a cool idea.
In addition, to my knowledge there has not been any explicit statement that women cannot be chapter serfs, so that could be a fluffy way of incorporating women in a space marine army.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
After reading 'Ashes of Prospero', I'm more interested in the Wolves' human thralls and Navigator Navis guard becoming playable sub-factions.

I'd LOOOOVE to see "Codex Chapter serfs"

Ditto. For something that's so important to a marine chapter (as in, needed for the chapter to actually function), serfs aren't really expanded upon.
Having serfs on the battlefield would also solve the in game disconnect of marines being cannon fodder on the table but gods in the fluff, as you'd have serfs to fulfil that role.
I always liked that about Warriors of Chaos. You have your small units of Chaos Warriors supported by large formations of marauders. It was a cool idea.
In addition, to my knowledge there has not been any explicit statement that women cannot be chapter serfs, so that could be a fluffy way of incorporating women in a space marine army.

agreed. I'd envision them as being a little guardlike in most respects. maybe using boltguns and carapeice armor.

Think that's an idea we can all get behind

 Irbis wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I take offence when not wanting GW to waste time re-doing space marine moulds _again_ when Sisters, when my Eldar Avatar, when half the Inquisition models, etc, are all in dire, dire, dire need of a reprint, means I'm somehow sexist.

You'd maybe have a point if GW didn't already redo these moulds for Green, Red, and Blue marines. Which don't even play differently and are just cosmetic change on Marines-marines. A change that is frankly not needed, a tiny upgrade sprue would be more than enough.

Gee, why people might want a change that actually matters when they already see GW can make all these pointless, cosmetic ones?

Also, funnily enough, how do you call 'not wanting GW to waste time' that miraculously only appears (or at best is 'just' ten times louder) when people debate potential female models? Because, sometimes a cigar is precisely that, a cigar. Just food for thought.

Or when I don't want someone changing the setting, in any way, because 'Well I think it would be nicer to the real world.' It's _Fiction_. The Imperium is allowed to be sexist, without me being sexist. Space Wizardy is allowed to only make male space marines without it suddenly meaning _anything_ about my personal views on women, least of all because I didn't even design the blooming thing.

Translation - "I got mine, frak everyone who is not aboard". It's not 70s anymore, the setting saw so many retcons one making it actually palatable to modern people losing medieval sensitivities and bigotry that were backwards even in times of Rogue Trader would be among most justified of them.

Also, I like how you project your own views and prejudices on setting. The Imperium is not sexist. A state where 1/4 of soldiers on the front line were women, where women could become cardinals or even pope, where woman could take virtually any rank or position would be called insanely egalitarian today. No one, not even Israel or Soviet Union, with their forced equalization polices, comes anywhere close to that. Perhaps you should examine your own views, only you know, objectively, if you want to push sexism where there is none to begin with?

What Imperium really is is being oppressive and backwards. And frankly, it doesn't matter one bit who does the oppressing for it to exist, man or woman, and denial of that says a lot, sorry.

If you've followed my posts even remotely in this forum, you'll know I am, and have been, passionately against 'Pointless' marine releases, like the new Primaris release, to the extent of boycotting even second hand Primaris. I also tirelessly advocate that marines are remerged into one comprehensive codex, and dislike the additional 'Red, Blue, Green and Wolfy' obession. But you know, way to assume there bro.

I don't think I said the Imperium is sexist, at all. Actually, I specifically said the Imperium is allowed to be sexist [and you can replace the word sexist with any other word] without _me_ being sexist. My enjoyment of the Imperium of man does not reflect my real world views. The Imperium can ban women from the Imperial Guard, and abolish the sisters of Battle, and it wouldn't affect my real world views on women in the slightest. No Female Space Marines, [The 'Sexism' to which I was alluding'] and my cheerful acceptance of that status quo, does not somehow imply anything about my real world views of women.


As far as I can tell your retort appears to be two personal attacks against me. Thanks.

I don't think the imperium is sexist, I think they are dogmatic to a ludicrous degree in following the instructions on the box. No man-at-arms? SoB. The Codex Astartes? Guilliman faceplam. No computers? Human organic mind-shackled spirits.

Primaris were poorly handled in model scale transitioning fluff. It is partly why I don't like them. Making female marines would be handled similarly. So I already know I wouldn't like them.

Assuming 1 in a 10000 can become a marine, the Earth itself has enough people IN REAL LIFE to support a chapter all by itself. MULTIPLE chapters at sustainable numbers. In 40k there are 32,380 KNOWN Hive Worlds with hundreds of billions of people on a Hive World. There are literally enough people in the 40k Universe on JUST the Hive Worlds to sustain millions of chapters rather than the 1000 we have now. So when people bring up the largest argument of Female Marines, "Why limit yourself on the stock?" the answer is because the .00000000000000001% of the stock they do use is NEVER GOING TO RUN OUT.

I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question. Why do we need diversity in WH40k? I accept some players have a need to identify with toy soldiers, that is fine. But the fact is that we already have female representation in the form of SoB,. If you want to argue for a release for sisters in plastic I am right there with you. But there is no need to include female marines in this game outside of SJW inclusion politics. Which most of the player base does not want. I would not even care if there were fem marines except for the fact that it would be a change based on politics and you can keep that to yourself, thank you.

If you want the marine rules but NEED them to be female then you have options in third party bits. No tournament is going to ban your army for a few head swaps and possible torso swaps. If you NEED to have fem marines because GW and its sexist fanbase need to be woke, then move along with your poison.

There is nothing wrong with having a fraternal fighting order, history is filled with them. Saying it is a problem does nothing more than show that it is you who are the sexist. And with this I am done. No need to fuel this dumpster fire.