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.

Hi Table, are using a some buzz words there, that is fine. But if you are asking I would like to point out that for me at least I do not find the game is sexist. Mind you, I feel there are several opinions on this. I need to define what I am thinking about. What you are picturing when you say females marines might not be what I think about when I say SM can be based upon females.

For me, if they could base space marines on females in the setting the change would be relativaly minor. It would mostly just be a re-writing in the little bit part of the fluff that it is only competebal with males. There would need to be no change to the current armour. Just the ocational head swap on some of the spruces. I would expect the head swaps to mostly have short hair to accomedate the helmets (in game.) But it could be some cool heads on the models. In particular space wolf hair styles, and blood angel hair styles. Chaos heads could also be cool. And GW does the best models. I have yet to see any good 3rd party female heads that fit on a SM. Most SM have very big guns and big heads (heoric scale) and other 3rd party heads I have seen are often to small.

Also note that if you go into the spesifics of it I do not know if space marines strictly speaking stil are their old sex by the time they become marines. They can not reproduce in the traditional sence, they pick seeds out of their dead bretheren and inplant them into new potensial recruits. When we say 'male' SM it is mostly because they used to be male and they stil retain their original name. As far as I know they are not only sexually active, but they have no sexual impulses, and they are not sexually compatabel. (While a bit yukki, do you not think SM black market sperm would be atractive when nobles try to get artificial insimenated?) And while the ultra marines have the roman theme, and the minotaurs have the greek theme, no space marines have any of the gay bonding that can be assosiated with those cultures. Yeah, SM are very sexless. None of this would be any different for marines that can been crafted from females as far as I can see. So to summerice, a small change in the fluff, the ocational head on the spruces. Anyway, that was to clearify my thoughts as to how to do it. It would probably be best implemented in the jump to 9th edition, just written in there. Or Cawl could change it on an event after this summer after every one has gotten their codex.

To awnser why. I do not think it is anything more then I would prefer it. It seems more natural to me. In Norway we have a lot of female combatans. About 1/3 of the new recruits. We generally differ very little on the genders. I have a friend form Israel, she spent 3 years in the mandatory army over there, witch is 3 years more then me. I also know some career female militarans. I just think it is very odd that SM can not be based upon females.

So yeah, GW, give us some cool BA and SW heads please. :-)

 Niiai wrote:
Hi Table, are using a some buzz words there, that is fine. But if you are asking I would like to point out that for me at least I do not find the game is sexist.

Mind you, I feel there are several opinions on this. For me, if they could base space marines ion females in the setting the change would be relativaly minor. it would mostly just be a re-writing in the little bit part of the fluff that it is only competebal with males. There would need to be no change to the current armour. Just the ocational head swap on some of the spruces. I would expect them to mostly have short hair to accomedate the helmet. But it could be some cool heads on the models. In particular space wolf hair styles, and blood angel hair styles. Chaos heads could also be cool. And GW does the best models, I have yet to see any good 3rd party female heads that fit on a SM. Most SM have very big guns and big heads, and other 3rd party heads I have seen are often to small. Also note that if you go into the spesifics of it I do not know if space marines strictly speaking stil are their old sex by the time they become marines. They can not reproduce in the traditional sence, they pick seeds out of their dead bretheren and inplant them into new potensial recruits. When we say 'male' SM now it is mostly because they used to be male and they stil retain their name. As far as I know they are not only sexually active, but they have no sexual impulses, and they are not sexually compatabel. (While a bit yukki, do you not think SM black market sperm would be atractive when nobles try to get artificial insimenated?) And while the ultra marines have the roman theme, and the minotaurs have the greek theme no space marines have any of the gay bonding that can be assosiated with those cultures. Yeah, SM are very sexless. None of this would be any different for marines that can been crafted from females as far as I can see. So to summerice, a small change in the fluff, the ocational head. Anyway, that was to clearify my thoughts as to how.

To awnser why. I do not think it is anything more then I would prefer it. It seems more natural to me. In Norway we have a lot of female combatans. About 1/3 of the new recruits. We generally differ very little on the genders. I have a friend form Israel, she spent 3 years in the mandatory army over there, witch is 3 years more then me. I also know some career female militarans. I just think it is very odd that SM can not be based upon females.

So yeah, GW, give us some cool Ba and SW heads please. :-)

First its not a small change in the fluff, its a major one with far reaching implications that you have chosen to ignore.

Second, if you want to make female marines go ahead, there are plenty of female parts for you to use, again, if you choose not to use them, thats your hang up, this doesnt give you the right to try to impose female marines on the rest of us.

third, so some woman serve in the military, thats nice, dont see how it has any bearing on this discussion, although I did recently take a pic of a female soldier I was working with to prove a point to some other people that woman in full PPE look exactly like men, but shorter.

Lastly, so GW dont give us female BA and SW heads, give them to guard and bloody sort out the Sisters (both kinds) rather than waste resources on yet another marine army we dont need and dont want.

I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!

1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.

Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.

But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!

1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.

Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.

But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?

Thank you.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!

1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.

Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.

But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?

Yep, this!

It is not sexist, or at least I do not think it is sexist? Do you think it is sexist? People who are very against marines based upon females keep bringing up the word sexist. And the people who would like to see female marines do not seem to use the word sexist that often.

I like the humour of the 40K setting. It is pulpy and funny. When it tryes to be tolitarian it can be spott on why fachismn is so bad, as in the film Star Ship Troopers by Paul Verhoeven. It is fun in every way the book is not. (Do not read the book at that author actually tryed to glorfy fashismn.) But the lack of marines based upon females just feels very odd. It is like I am stuck in a Stanislaw Lem book where I can not identefy with the aliens in his books. It is not that I do not like it, it is that I do not get it.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!

1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.

Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.

But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?

I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.

(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)

 Niiai wrote:
Hi Table, are using a some buzz words there, that is fine. But if you are asking I would like to point out that for me at least I do not find the game is sexist. Mind you, I feel there are several opinions on this. I need to define what I am thinking about. What you are picturing when you say females marines might not be what I think about when I say SM can be based upon females.

For me, if they could base space marines on females in the setting the change would be relativaly minor. It would mostly just be a re-writing in the little bit part of the fluff that it is only competebal with males. There would need to be no change to the current armour. Just the ocational head swap on some of the spruces. I would expect the head swaps to mostly have short hair to accomedate the helmets (in game.) But it could be some cool heads on the models. In particular space wolf hair styles, and blood angel hair styles. Chaos heads could also be cool. And GW does the best models. I have yet to see any good 3rd party female heads that fit on a SM. Most SM have very big guns and big heads (heoric scale) and other 3rd party heads I have seen are often to small.

Also note that if you go into the spesifics of it I do not know if space marines strictly speaking stil are their old sex by the time they become marines. They can not reproduce in the traditional sence, they pick seeds out of their dead bretheren and inplant them into new potensial recruits. When we say 'male' SM it is mostly because they used to be male and they stil retain their original name. As far as I know they are not only sexually active, but they have no sexual impulses, and they are not sexually compatabel. (While a bit yukki, do you not think SM black market sperm would be atractive when nobles try to get artificial insimenated?) And while the ultra marines have the roman theme, and the minotaurs have the greek theme, no space marines have any of the gay bonding that can be assosiated with those cultures. Yeah, SM are very sexless. None of this would be any different for marines that can been crafted from females as far as I can see. So to summerice, a small change in the fluff, the ocational head on the spruces. Anyway, that was to clearify my thoughts as to how to do it. It would probably be best implemented in the jump to 9th edition, just written in there. Or Cawl could change it on an event after this summer after every one has gotten their codex.

To awnser why. I do not think it is anything more then I would prefer it. It seems more natural to me. In Norway we have a lot of female combatans. About 1/3 of the new recruits. We generally differ very little on the genders. I have a friend form Israel, she spent 3 years in the mandatory army over there, witch is 3 years more then me. I also know some career female militarans. I just think it is very odd that SM can not be based upon females.

So yeah, GW, give us some cool BA and SW heads please. :-)

Hello over there in Norway (it is where my family is from and I hope to visit it someday)! I am sorry for using buzz words, I really should try to steer clear of that. But my stance remains the same. Why does the fluff that so many people enjoy need to be changed to please a very small player base? If you had no other options and sisters were not a thing you would have a leg to stand on. But sisters are a faction. I myself cant find a logical reason why people would advocate for such a major change outside of the following reasons.

A) the need to identify with your toys. I think it is silly myself as I do not identify with my thousand sons or nightlords. But to each their own.
B) wanting the level of attention from GW that marines get.
C) wanting to woke the sexists and (sorry for the buzz word but it is the word for this) virtue signal.
D) Trolling.

And here are my answers to each.

A) You have sisters. You have sprue swaps. It does not matter if its a GW or third party sprue swap. No one is going to stop you from playing with it. The options are present, so this reason is really not valid.
B) Tough. I wish CSM and 1ksons got the same level of releases that SM's get. It isnt going to happen. GW will pay the most attention to their best selling ranges. And I promise you, if this change were to be made marines would no longer be best sellers, for right or wrong. So I guess I should be on your side? Except I do not like to squash others fun for my own.
C) Go Away. This is a fantasy hobby, We do not need or want politics.
D) Yeah....

This is not directed at you persay. I am just talking about the subject as a whole. I have read your post and understand your reasoning but I still find myself at the same spot I started. WHY do we need fem marines. Your personal likes or reasoning does not qualify as a answer since you are one very small member of a much larger community. What does the community gain from fem marines. I cant see any gain and only division. Like I have said, if options were not available then I would be more open minded. But this is not the case.

I am still waiting for a answer.

 Crimson wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!

1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.

Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.

But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?

I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.

(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)

Seeing how the Emprah seems more and more incompetent in the novels, now I can see him going "Okay, now I can make this new gene-soldiers from males, now let's adapt this to work on females as well... nah, feth it, enough males already".

 Dark wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!

1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.

Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.

But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?

I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.

(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)

Seeing how the Emprah seems more and more incompetent in the novels, now I can see him going "Okay, now I can make this new gene-soldiers from males, now let's adapt this to work on females as well... nah, feth it, enough males already".[/quote


As I said before, with in universe examples, the merest hint at a possibility of self replicating marines would be a big no no, as we have been shown the emperors ultimate plan was to wipe out the marines, not have them replace humanity or rule them, fem marines could lead to that very unlikely possibility.

 Crimson wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!

1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.

Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.

But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?

I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.

(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)

Why do someones feelings matter? What about the feelings of the current fanbase who clearly does not want this change? What about the alternatives you have been provided? I hate to break it you but the world as whole outside of SJW pandering does not care if your feelings are hurt nor should they. Peoples skin is paper thin these days and it is doing no one any good.

If you cant find something you like, go to another venue. If you feel the need for a existing venue to change then you are problem not the venue. Once more, there is nothing wrong with space marines being male only. Not only does it reflect on the vast majority of history it is how the story is written. Think 40 isnt woke enough? Go write your own setting.

40k, by your admission is not sexist. Problem solved.

Table can I just thank you for the civil tone. (No. No sarcasemn, the yone seems to get quite heated in this argument.)

I do not agree with you that one can not have strong opinions on culture. And game is culture just like anything else. We have arts, books and movie critique, why not games? I studied all four of them to some degree at universaty. (Read critique not nesaseraly as critesimn.)

How big do I rate this on the 'things that matter scale in the world' it rates very low. But when we are talking about the actual game I feel quite strong about it.

Now from a practical point of view, if you are thinking production pipelines, it is very easy to implement. Change some of the fluff the next time they print it. And then you need to craft the head spruces. Either make new spruces as they are want to do. But more easaly make some upgrade spruces like they have done for GSC. Some packaging for the upgrade spruces and that is it. It is a very easaly implementation.

If you compare this to sisters of battle for instance they woudl need to design all of the boxes. I do not know if the molds are compatable with plastic. You would need to do a codex, and that includes hiering authors etc. It is much more work, and a bigger financial risiko. What if sisters do not sell? Who is sisters main audience? Is it ment for women in the 'representation argument' for instance? That is a tangent with a lot of speculation.

But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle. Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word. I do not like them. And it also feels like playing 'at the kids table'. I like that SM lends themself to so much. I have a SM army, I was very close to having a GK and BA army, I have some of their models. I also really like the minotars and the cha-charadons in the badab war. SM is the icon on 40K, there is no way sisters of battle would ever grow to that status, they are not iconic enough. And I think itw ould be folly for GW to invest a lot of money into it when SM are so iconic.

I also really dislike that sisters are T3 and S3. They might have rhinoes and that 3+ save, but form a rules perspective SM they are not. Having T4 is like a very confertable blanket.

So for me, sisters no, SM yes, SM based on both genders, yes please.

Edit: Just read the above comment. I think perhaps I can try to bridge it with a methaphore. If the 40K was a joke being told, I think the joke would flow a lot better if females SM where part of the setting instead of this artificial conveluted thing it is now.

Table wrote:

Why do someones feelings matter?

Basic empathy.

What about the feelings of the current fanbase who clearly does not want this change?

That is a baseless assertion. People here wanting the change are part of the current fanbase.

People are free to express how they'd wish the game and the setting they're invested in to be developed. Then the company will judge whether there are enough people wanting something to be changed for it to be worth doing. Hey, I didn't want the timeline to progress, and I most definitely didn't want a loyalist Primarch back, but people kept whining for such things, and here we are. And perhaps some day GW will decide, that there are enough people wanting female marines that it is worth doing. Who knows.

And if that happens, and you don't like it... well, you said it yourself:

I hate to break it you but the world as whole outside of SJW pandering does not care if your feelings are hurt nor should they. Peoples skin is paper thin these days and it is doing no one any good.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Niiai wrote:

But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle. Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word.

But that's the cool part!

That, and that they're unaugmented. They don't need some artificial enhancements to kick ass!



But it is Ok to not like sisters (though weird.) It is even OK to like sisters and still want female marines.

Sisters are nice, it is a great thing that they are in the setting. Fanatic can be cool. I would like to say that chaos cultists are fanatic. And GSC are fanatics, at least on 'ascention day' where they metaphoricly butter and season themselves up. Like rats pooring ouf of the tunnels. There is a great picture of a GSC 2nd generation that is trying toi stab a howling griffin with a knife. Good luck with that. ^_^

But the sisters. I mean nuns are a bit booring. 'Killing for the emperor' or being 'married to-' or being 'virgins for the emperor'. All of that is very uncreative, there is only so much you can do with it. Bolters and flamers and meltas, it is not so cool. I also do not like the aethstics of the models. As a whole, they are not for me.

If you compare it to the 'blank slate' SM you can get the dualaty angel/vampier that blood angels have. SW rock the wolf/viking/celtic. They are also 'good guys' or looking out for the little man, even when it makes you enemies. They have so many enemies internally in the empire. If you can come up with a consept, you can make a SM army out of it. The SM chassise is super flexible. :-)

Ok, Marines definitely are not 'good guys'! They're trained psychopaths!

Though I guess I can see why one could feel they're 'good guys', so much of the fiction presents them in heroic light... I miss Rogue Trader marines...

No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.

But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.

Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.

 Crimson wrote:

Table wrote:

Why do someones feelings matter?

Basic empathy.

What about the feelings of the current fanbase who clearly does not want this change?

That is a baseless assertion. People here wanting the change are part of the current fanbase.

People are free to express how they'd wish the game and the setting they're invested in to be developed. Then the company will judge whether there are enough people wanting something to be changed for it to be worth doing. Hey, I didn't want the timeline to progress, and I most definitely didn't want a loyalist Primarch back, but people kept whining for such things, and here we are. And perhaps some day GW will decide, that there are enough people wanting female marines that it is worth doing. Who knows.

And if that happens, and you don't like it... well, you said it yourself:

I hate to break it you but the world as whole outside of SJW pandering does not care if your feelings are hurt nor should they. Peoples skin is paper thin these days and it is doing no one any good.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Niiai wrote:

But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle. Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word.

But that's the cool part!

That, and that they're unaugmented. They don't need some artificial enhancements to kick ass!



But it is Ok to not like sisters (though weird.) It is even OK to like sisters and still want female marines.

I identify with and as a Orc Boy. The fact we are always being killed in the setting is uncalled for! I want Orc Marines!

It is not a matter of empathy at this point. The whole subject is just as ridiculous as what I have typed above.
The world does not need to cater or pander to your culture.

And as for the amount of people in either camp, well we do not have a poll on the issue and If one was made it would be closed. But id wager the fem marines are in the minority. But I have no concrete proof of this other than casual observation so ill stand down from that statement until I have proof, if ever.

Regardless, GW is welcome to pander to the SJW's. Not my problem. But I am very sure the same exact thing will happen to them as happened to marvel comics. There are a lot of people on both sides of politics that are getting sick of this.

Still, no one has answered my question so I will present it once more.

What does the game and community have to gain from making a major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades? It is a very simple question (i am trying not to be snarky here).
I look forward to your answer.

 Niiai wrote:
No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.

But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.

Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.

As a SW fan I'd wager that the Salamanders are more akin to being the most similar thing to "good guys" the Empire has to offer. Late 40K era Wolves may come in second place if you like.

This whole thread reminds me in a way of that letter GW got from PETA, "your use of animal furs on models is wrong! Change it!" LOL

I don't get why this is such a big deal, really. Space Marines are non-reproducing genderless barely human hulks, to be referred to as not he (or she) but it. The gender of the human child used to make one is only relevant until the transformation process. Allowing female stock to be used wouldn't change anything. So a Dante would still be Dante, as he currently isn't male (anymore) anyway.

You would have to give them a new term to use instead of (battle-)brothers. Brothers implies gender, which again they don't have. I'd suggest "Floopaloops".

 Niiai wrote:
When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.

What? Did you even read the SW fluff? The werewolf thing is due to a flaw in their geneseed that turns them savage monsters. It has nothing to do with chaos.

Even when they haven't gone wolfman, they are still known to be highly aggressive to the point of insubordination. Which makes them terrible soldiers. I don't know about you, but I prefer my genetically engineered killing machines to be disciplined and not run off and do their own thing because they felt like it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Ok, Marines definitely are not 'good guys'! They're trained psychopaths!

Though I guess I can see why one could feel they're 'good guys', so much of the fiction presents them in heroic light... I miss Rogue Trader marines...

At least we still have Black Templars. Those are "proper" marines. And they are still more obedient than wolves.

 Niiai wrote:
It is not sexist, or at least I do not think it is sexist? Do you think it is sexist? People who are very against marines based upon females keep bringing up the word sexist. And the people who would like to see female marines do not seem to use the word sexist that often.

I like the humour of the 40K setting. It is pulpy and funny. When it tryes to be tolitarian it can be spott on why fachismn is so bad, as in the film Star Ship Troopers by Paul Verhoeven. It is fun in every way the book is not. (Do not read the book at that author actually tryed to glorfy fashismn.) But the lack of marines based upon females just feels very odd. It is like I am stuck in a Stanislaw Lem book where I can not identefy with the aliens in his books. It is not that I do not like it, it is that I do not get it.

... you object to star ship troopers on the grounds Robert Heilein by depicting the society he did glrofies facism, but you play warhammer 40k? I'm sorry but do you not see the contridiction here?

Starship Troopers doesn't even glorify fascism. That's a misconception by people who misunderstood or didn't even read the book.

Table wrote:
I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question. Why do we need diversity in WH40k?

I think you mean "I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question and convince me that my previous opinion was wrong", because many have answered it, even in this thread. You were not convinced by the answer, fine, but don't pretend they didn't answer.

Table wrote:
I accept some players have a need to identify with toy soldiers, that is fine.

As I mentioned before, it's not as much having the need to identify (which would be "This toy soldier is just like me"), it's more about not feeling like one of your characteristic is excluded from the setting ("Why are they no/very few [women/blacks/left-handed/whatever]"), that I'll call "representation" for short from now on. Having a token faction that gets very very few attention falls into the "very few" part. So, to get some representation, we would have to either have less focus on marine and get female IG, more focus on Sisters, etc, etc, or we need to have female marines. I personally like the "Less focus on marine" thing because I'm not too fan of marines. However, I still think female space marines would be nice to have because it helps with marines "blank canvas" statute that I developed on earlier in the conversation.

Table wrote:
Still, no one has answered my question so I will present it once more.

What does the game and community have to gain from making a major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades? It is a very simple question (i am trying not to be snarky here).
I look forward to your answer.

I'm calling you out. It's not the same question!
While the bulk of my answer for what the gain is for this particular change (because the bring loyalist primarch back, create primaris marines, destroy cadia, timeline advancement major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades, I am not going to defend it, I hate it!) is the same as what I wrote just above, I am also going to mention that I am right now trying to make the change less divisive through discussion, and that, as I mention below, I don't think it would be a major change in term of story, but rather a very minor one. Certainly way less minor than bringing Guilliman back.

Table wrote:
Regardless, GW is welcome to pander to the SJW's. Not my problem. But I am very sure the same exact thing will happen to them as happened to marvel comics.

40k cinematic universe !!!!

 Formosa wrote:
First its not a small change in the fluff, its a major one with far reaching implications that you have chosen to ignore.

It could be written as a major one with far reaching implications. It could be written as a small one with barely any implication. It's all up to the writers.
As far as I can tell, the "major implication" you are talking about is all about reproduction. Currently Marines can already reproduce, that's how they get new Marines. It's not sexual reproduction, but it's reproduction nonetheless. If you had female marines and mention that all marines (male and female) are rendered infertile by the marinification process. Then you arrive to a position where Marines can reproduce relatively easily using the already existing means, or could spend a potentially enormous amount of effort to be able to reproduce in another, less efficient way. How would this change anything? It's an option that would never be explored because it's extremely useless for anyone. We are more likely to see a space marine create small genestomarines after having been infested by a genestealer (they do changes to your reproductive system) than female marines having babies.

Starship troopers views on fascism are widely debated. It's hardly as clear cut as you make out. I'd strongly recommend the book, it's widely acclaimed as one of the best pieces of science fiction ever written.

I think we may see the problem here though. If you don't personally agree with the views of the fictional characters in the setting, then you don't like the setting and wish it to change, yes? If you were reading a book, you'd understand the book is written as presented, and the setting can't change, and like Starship troopers, you'd put it down and not read it again.

Given Warhammer's lore is also written down in solid text on paper, why can't you respect it, and if you don't like the setting, put it down and find one you _do_ like?

shortymcnostrill wrote:
I don't get why this is such a big deal, really. Space Marines are non-reproducing genderless barely human hulks, to be referred to as not he (or she) but it. The gender of the human child used to make one is only relevant until the transformation process. Allowing female stock to be used wouldn't change anything. So a Dante would still be Dante, as he currently isn't male (anymore) anyway.

You would have to give them a new term to use instead of (battle-)brothers. Brothers implies gender, which again they don't have. I'd suggest "Floopaloops".

Mostly this.

I don't think female SM are a good idea in given how hostile some parts of the fanbase are to it. However I'd like to see it in some other areas. The Aeldari lines, IG, sisters of silence, inquistion, etc.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Starship Troopers doesn't even glorify fascism.

Not sure about fascism, but it definitely glorify soldiers, and promotes some militaristic ideas.

BrianDavion wrote:
... you object to star ship troopers on the grounds Robert Heilein by depicting the society he did glrofies facism, but you play warhammer 40k? I'm sorry but do you not see the contridiction here?

Come on, he explained the difference between the two. You can disagree with the difference he did, but at least address it rather than ignore it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Table wrote:
I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question. Why do we need diversity in WH40k?

I think you mean "I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question and convince me that my previous opinion was wrong", because many have answered it, even in this thread. You were not convinced by the answer, fine, but don't pretend they didn't answer.

Table wrote:
I accept some players have a need to identify with toy soldiers, that is fine.

As I mentioned before, it's not as much having the need to identify (which would be "This toy soldier is just like me"), it's more about not feeling like one of your characteristic is excluded from the setting ("Why are they no/very few [women/blacks/left-handed/whatever]"), that I'll call "representation" for short from now on. Having a token faction that gets very very few attention falls into the "very few" part. So, to get some representation, we would have to either have less focus on marine and get female IG, more focus on Sisters, etc, etc, or we need to have female marines. I personally like the "Less focus on marine" thing because I'm not too fan of marines. However, I still think female space marines would be nice to have because it helps with marines "blank canvas" statute that I developed on earlier in the conversation.

Table wrote:
Still, no one has answered my question so I will present it once more.

What does the game and community have to gain from making a major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades? It is a very simple question (i am trying not to be snarky here).
I look forward to your answer.

I'm calling you out. It's not the same question!
While the bulk of my answer for what the gain is for this particular change (because the bring loyalist primarch back, create primaris marines, destroy cadia, timeline advancement major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades, I am not going to defend it, I hate it!) is the same as what I wrote just above, I am also going to mention that I am right now trying to make the change less divisive through discussion, and that, as I mention below, I don't think it would be a major change in term of story, but rather a very minor one. Certainly way less minor than bringing Guilliman back.

Table wrote:
Regardless, GW is welcome to pander to the SJW's. Not my problem. But I am very sure the same exact thing will happen to them as happened to marvel comics.

40k cinematic universe !!!!

 Formosa wrote:
First its not a small change in the fluff, its a major one with far reaching implications that you have chosen to ignore.

It could be written as a major one with far reaching implications. It could be written as a small one with barely any implication. It's all up to the writers.
As far as I can tell, the "major implication" you are talking about is all about reproduction. Currently Marines can already reproduce, that's how they get new Marines. It's not sexual reproduction, but it's reproduction nonetheless. If you had female marines and mention that all marines (male and female) are rendered infertile by the marinification process. Then you arrive to a position where Marines can reproduce relatively easily using the already existing means, or could spend a potentially enormous amount of effort to be able to reproduce in another, less efficient way. How would this change anything? It's an option that would never be explored because it's extremely useless for anyone. We are more likely to see a space marine create small genestomarines after having been infested by a genestealer (they do changes to your reproductive system) than female marines having babies.

You have been provided in universe fluff examples of chaos doing just that, monkeying with genetics to enhance marines etc. As I said before
Very large implications that you are choosing to ignore, it's a valid reason why fem marines don't exist in fluff, you can disagree, but your wrong.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Starship Troopers doesn't even glorify fascism.

Not sure about fascism, but it definitely glorify soldiers, and promotes some militaristic ideas.

Yeah, one has a better case that the society in Starship Troopers is militaristic and strongly favors the army.
Still not fascist though.

Formosa, please cut the bit you are referring to in big quotes like this .

I don't understand what you are saying. I said that there are already relatively easy ways for marines to reproduce, so adding a potential, very very hard way for them to reproduce is no big deal. How is the fact you already mentioned some easy way for marines to reproduce contradict my affirmation that there are already easier way for marines to reproduce?