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.

Asmodios wrote:

Let's use another famous fantasy setting, you might have heard of it, its called star wars.
Previously SW fans loved their strong female characters like princess leia and the lead in rouge one but all of a sudden the whole SW community is sexist because they dont like Rey.
Do you know why they don't like Rey? it's not because of shes a woman its because she doesn't make any sense (no stating the force doesn't make sense is not a valid argument for her trash character).
People dont like her because with zero training she is the best jedi ever in existence because.... girl power? Yup shortly after ever picking up a lightsaber she wips the current evil bad that's been training his whole life.

Damn, it is inevitable someone always brings this up if gender it mentioned, and imagine that it is a good example. It's called being a main character. Bloody Anakin destroyed a space station while he was toddler. That was way more ludicrous than anything Rey ever did. And Rey is of course much better character. So yes, people who are upset about Rey, are upset because a girl gets to do silly main character gak that is usually reserved for men. And Kylo is an obvious wimp, so beating him is not a huge achievement.

3. Less aggressive
4. More emotional

So which is it? Isn't aggressiveness an emotion? bs anyway, men are a more emotional, they're just culturally conditioned to not show emotions and bottle it up until they explode.

No they're not.

Stop playing ignorant with this trollbait trying to make it out like we're trying to keep girls out of this hobby. Like this topic has never appeared before and you're the first person in the world to ever entertain the idea.

Do you really want Dr Thunder Marines? As that is basically what you want. Slapping a pair of bolt-ons on top of power armour. Because doing that won't bring the ladies in; in fact it'll probably end up doing the opposite.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd be down for female Marines. My personal preference is that they'd look basically the same (just a little difference in the helmetless peeps) because, you know, heavily modified post-humans probably all have the same body type, more or less.

I do agree with the others who are saying "We don't want lady Marines because Marines already have way too damn much focus on them!" I don't agree with those who are saying, effectively, they don't want cooties.

None of this will be an issue once Sisters get their plastic surgery.

Eh... I don't see that.

One can HOPE that Sisters of Battle will be considered the equal to the Marines in the eyes of the fanbase and GW, but one should well-expect that to NOT be the case. GW loves their poster boys too much.

It all stems from model love. Marines are so focused on that we don't get complaints that Necrons dont have breast plates on their Overlords.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd be down for female Marines. My personal preference is that they'd look basically the same (just a little difference in the helmetless peeps) because, you know, heavily modified post-humans probably all have the same body type, more or less.

I do agree with the others who are saying "We don't want lady Marines because Marines already have way too damn much focus on them!" I don't agree with those who are saying, effectively, they don't want cooties.

None of this will be an issue once Sisters get their plastic surgery.

It won’t matter, a certain... demographic shall we say, will never shut up about female marines, we all know who I’m talking about

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd be down for female Marines. My personal preference is that they'd look basically the same (just a little difference in the helmetless peeps) because, you know, heavily modified post-humans probably all have the same body type, more or less.

I do agree with the others who are saying "We don't want lady Marines because Marines already have way too damn much focus on them!" I don't agree with those who are saying, effectively, they don't want cooties.

None of this will be an issue once Sisters get their plastic surgery.

Eh... I don't see that.

One can HOPE that Sisters of Battle will be considered the equal to the Marines in the eyes of the fanbase and GW, but one should well-expect that to NOT be the case. GW loves their poster boys too much.

It all stems from model love. Marines are so focused on that we don't get complaints that Necrons dont have breast plates on their Overlords.

Its the blizzard effect. The only good characters in the warcraft lore are the ones that blizzards forgets about/ does not write about. The less your dudes are talked about the better it is for you in the long run.

 Grimtuff wrote:
No they're not.

Stop playing ignorant with this trollbait trying to make it out like we're trying to keep girls out of this hobby. Like this topic has never appeared before and you're the first person in the world to ever entertain the idea.

Do you really want Dr Thunder Marines? As that is basically what you want. Slapping a pair of bolt-ons on top of power armour. Because doing that won't bring the ladies in; in fact it'll probably end up doing the opposite.

Haha, my partner genuinely thinks the idea is stupid while I actually kinda like the idea of female space marines like the AoS marines. I mean the lore is so mishmashed that there is countless arguments for and against.... but really the answer is do you want or don't want them? The why is normally because you do or don't care/ do or don't find them cool.
But as you say I feel like these topics are made to gather 'evidence' so people can write stories about how boyz are misogynistic and they sit in their basement all day touching themselves to anime girls.
As someone who has spent much of his life trying desperately to show that this dehumanising image is not true - just because a dude does or doesn’t want a plastic women model or a pixel women model does not make him hate a gender as a whole - I get so angry when in recent years when they use this image as an excuse to say people don't deserve a debate. I honestly want female space marines eventually but I'm more than happy to hear from fellow humans why they do not want them.

So... here is the entire topic right now.

Why do we need female space marine?
"Because I want them and I think it would be cool. I do not want them more because I like women more, I do not want them more because I want to fight for equal rights, I want them more because the idea of humans as a whole fighting side by side is super mega tanks armour is cool and i identify with that. I want what i want because I'm human and selfish like all humans." -avarage gamer.

Why do we not need female space marines?
"I don't want to buy the models because I don't think they're cool. I don't hate women, I do not want to ruin other peoples fun or expel people from the game. I just like my dude bros in battle tank mega armour fighting side by side with oil and enemy blood greasing their rusted six packs of glory! I mean would you want your favourite thing to be delayed so someone else could get something they want? No! I'm a human and I am selfish! Like all humans!"
- avarage gamer.

However, everything I just said will be viewed under a light and perspective I couldn't possibly understand and I will be part of the "evidence" for why 40k players are misogynistic. So what do I know...I could debate until the day I die but people have already chosen sides for their own reasons and I respect those reasons. I'm out now.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Let's use another famous fantasy setting, you might have heard of it, its called star wars.
Previously SW fans loved their strong female characters like princess leia and the lead in rouge one but all of a sudden the whole SW community is sexist because they dont like Rey.
Do you know why they don't like Rey? it's not because of shes a woman its because she doesn't make any sense (no stating the force doesn't make sense is not a valid argument for her trash character).
People dont like her because with zero training she is the best jedi ever in existence because.... girl power? Yup shortly after ever picking up a lightsaber she wips the current evil bad that's been training his whole life.

Damn, it is inevitable someone always brings this up if gender it mentioned, and imagine that it is a good example. It's called being a main character. Bloody Anakin destroyed a space station while he was toddler. That was way more ludicrous than anything Rey ever did. And Rey is of course much better character. So yes, people who are upset about Rey, are upset because a girl gets to do silly main character gak that is usually reserved for men. And Kylo is an obvious wimp, so beating him is not a huge achievement.

3. Less aggressive
4. More emotional

So which is it? Isn't aggressiveness an emotion? bs anyway, men are a more emotional, they're just culturally conditioned to not show emotions and bottle it up until they explode.

Aggressiveness is a single emotion that males demonstrate in much larger proportion to females. Females have more empathy, compassion, and emotions that can be generally described as caring. Its why men usually excel in positions where you must be cut off emotionally such as being a soldier while women dominate fields such as child rearing.

Everyone universally agrees the prequels were bad... but you once again deflected without actually analyzing what was said. Diversity for the sake of diversity ends with shallow trash story lines that typically make no sense because they are done simply out of political pressure. Its happened in Star Wars with disastrous consequences and now you have people parroting it for 40k. The fact is once again we already have SOB and SOS that are amazing all female fighting forces. There is no reason to retcon the entire SM fluff with changes that dont make sense just to have a female SM that adds nothing to the lore at all. Instead they should focus on things like
1. More SOB (already in the works)
2. More female IG models (i still have my old female commissar)
There is no need to make the SM fluff actively worse and add more time to a part of the production line that already gets the lion share of the time

Crimson wrote:men are a more emotional, they're just culturally conditioned to not show emotions and bottle it up until they explode.

Don't know about more emotional, but you're absolutely not wrong about bottling up. Anyone who says "women are more emotional/men aren't emotional" is ignoring the elephant in the room that is systemic conditioning of men to shut off their emotional responses. It's not a blanket thing, things rarely are, but it would be remiss of me to say that men are not conditioned to be less emotional.

 Crimson wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
My take on this is pretty simple.

While 40K is first and foremost a tabletop miniatures game, I believe the fluff/lore, etc. has been so well established (in varying degrees of quality) that it is a genuine product in and of itself, a genuine IP. To me, an IP should be beholden to its creators and no one else. It saddens me to see an IP subject to change to either pander to social pressures or to sales demographics.

Obviously this happens all the time, but I do find it sad. An IP should be the domain of its creators regardless of what the IP is. Even if it's offensive, 'unfair', etc. An IP creator should never ever feel required to justify why they created something the way they felt like creating it. An IP should stand on its merits, and the consumers can either take it or leave it - they should never feel entitled to change or impact the IP to suit themselves or their interests.

Sadly we live in the times we live in, where companies will cater to every spare percentage point they can manage to occupy in the market, and that often means diluting a product with unnecessary changes to chase that last sale. We see it in movies, film adaptations of novels, re-makes of classic films, etc. For better or for worse I'm always more interested in the unfiltered exact IP as intended by its original creator.

If you're going to make something fantastic, or something truly awful, I want to see what you wanted to make...not what people wanted you to make.

But what if the IP creators change their minds? Are they not allowed to do that?

Where did I state that? Or are you just asking sarcastically because it's the internet and you want to be cool?

Asmodios wrote:

Aggressiveness is a single emotion that males demonstrate in much larger proportion to females. Females have more empathy, compassion, and emotions that can be generally described as caring. Its why men usually excel in positions where you must be cut off emotionally such as being a soldier while women dominate fields such as child rearing.

Most of this is due cultural conditioning.

Everyone universally agrees the prequels were bad... but you once again deflected without actually analyzing what was said. Diversity for the sake of diversity ends with shallow trash story lines that typically make no sense because they are done simply out of political pressure. Its happened in Star Wars with disastrous consequences and now you have people parroting it for 40k.

So the prequels just happened to be bad movies, but if a movie with a female lead is a bad movie, it is because forced diversity? I smell a double standard here. Not that I agree that the Disney SW films are bad movies, worse than the original trilogy sure, but miles better than Lucas's prequel trash. And of course you're not even with touching distance of reality if you think these films which happen to be some of the most successful films in the history are somehow disastrous.

The fact is once again we already have SOB and SOS that are amazing all female fighting forces. There is no reason to retcon the entire SM fluff with changes that dont make sense just to have a female SM that adds nothing to the lore at all.

Yet Primaris happened...

Instead they should focus on things like
1. More SOB (already in the works)
2. More female IG models (i still have my old female commissar)

I agree that those things should be the priority and are far more important than female marines. But it is not an either-or situation.

There is no need to make the SM fluff actively worse and add more time to a part of the production line that already gets the lion share of the time

That it would make the fluff worse is just you personal opinion. Which is a perfectly fine reason to not want something, but other people have different preferences.

Female Space Marines wouldn't make much sense due to physiology of a geneseed and if implemented into a woman it would physically change them to a degree they would no longer be human or female.

So it wouldn't make sense for the space marines who were female to retain their sexuality.

So no. There wouldn't be a difference and I for one don't think we need that. But maybe a new female / male humongous faction?

 Elbows wrote:

Where did I state that? Or are you just asking sarcastically because it's the internet and you want to be cool?

I am cool. But my point was that if they change something how do you know that it was done in order to appease some group or for financial gain, rather than the content makers just thinking that it was a good change for purely creative reasons?

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Aggressiveness is a single emotion that males demonstrate in much larger proportion to females. Females have more empathy, compassion, and emotions that can be generally described as caring. Its why men usually excel in positions where you must be cut off emotionally such as being a soldier while women dominate fields such as child rearing.

Most of this is due cultural conditioning.

Actually, no. Testosterone plays a considerable part in aggression; high testosterone tends to lead to more frequent displays of aggression in animals.
Its why when you get a pet its advisable to neuter it, especially a large dog, otherwise all that testosterone will make it attack someone someday.

That's why historically soldiers have been men; higher levels of testosterone = more muscle mass = more likely to cave some poor bloke's head in with a rock (and better at it due to the aforementioned muscle mass) if you order him to.
Not everything is due to cultural conditioning.

What I find amusing about these topics is that IF the lore was changed an female marines could be a thing, the only thing it would change would be some names, and that occasionally marines would should SISTER instead of BROTHER.

Marines are harvested as children at ideally prepubescence, Generally traits of brutality and blood thirstiness of character are considered desirable, they are recruited in very large numbers because the survival rate of these children is so low.

During the process they are essentially speed grown to adult + frames, receiving massive amounts of growth inducing drugs and hormones, their bones fuse and they get extra organs.

This produces 7-8 foot tall slabs of muscle which are almost as wide as they are tall, with little to no body fat.

If a girl were to go through this procedure and survive, she would end up looking just like every other marine does, she would be barely recognisable as female, her breasts would be basically none existent (look at the general trend in female body builders/athletes and then multiply this by 20ish), and any small difference in the natural width of her hips would be much less pronounced, due to the masses of testosterone that were pumped through her when she would have been developing said feminine features, and the masses and masses of muscle put on her, and she would inherit many of the facial features of her primarch (don't ask me why, but apparently that tends to happen to marines).


My thoughts on the topic (not that they matter any more than anyone elses) are:

1. Female marines would look and act in almost the exact same way as their male counterparts, so why do people want this so badly?

2. Wanting someone you can relate to, from the archetype of a metahuman killing machine is messed up.

3. People that are against the idea seem to be, against the idea of changing something they like. they like it, and to have it changed, not only endangers their liking of it, but it cheapens their perception of it, because it becomes inherently more mutable, and therefore less reliable. I can understand this feeling, its the same reason why primaris marines existence angers me (it cheapens current marines, by taking part of their established character away from them).

If they ever go back on saying no female space marines I would want more.

I would want them to change more of the fluff at this point. No longer just 1,000 marine chapters, make them 50,000 with 10,000 marines in each one. No more gakky techmarine dual loyalty gak, just put damn Admech Techpriests in the Space Marine ranks. The warp being an all corrupting influence? Yea get rid of that, no thanks I hear enough gak about how Chaos will eventually win too much without having to hear that my fething baloney sandwich mutated into a Slaneeshi monstrosity because my deployment had me next to a guy who knew a guy that saw a daemon.

Tyranids being inumerable? No thanks we already know GW is so bad at numbers 100 million may be inumerable because they can't count that high except if its comes to revenue. The Imperium being on the brink all the time? Just break it up already, who gives a gak it's already written as humanity vs. the Universe anyway just make them all worship the Big E.

You want to rewrite the one bit of fluff for... "reasons"; let us rewrite all the gak that makes no sense at this point.

 Quickjager wrote:
If they ever go back on saying no female space marines I would want more.

I would want them to change more of the fluff at this point. No longer just 1,000 marine chapters, make them 50,000 with 10,000 marines in each one. No more gakky techmarine dual loyalty gak, just put damn Admech Techpriests in the Space Marine ranks. The warp being an all corrupting influence? Yea get rid of that, no thanks I hear enough gak about how Chaos will eventually win too much without having to hear that my fething baloney sandwich mutated into a Slaneeshi monstrosity because my deployment had me next to a guy who knew a guy that saw a daemon.

Tyranids being inumerable? No thanks we already know GW is so bad at numbers 100 million may be inumerable because they can't count that high except if its comes to revenue. The Imperium being on the brink all the time? Just break it up already, who gives a gak it's already written as humanity vs. the Universe anyway just make them all worship the Big E.

You want to rewrite the one bit of fluff for... "reasons"; let us rewrite all the gak that makes no sense at this point.

Actually think about it. it would make sense for space marines to be a larger force, but I do like their dual loyalities for techmarines. But having admech tech priests (like the grey knights have) would be a great idea to help space marines with gear.

But most of this post doesn't seem related to female space marines.

Overall I think we need more sub factions for the imperium. Sorta like the stormcast eternals.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Aggressiveness is a single emotion that males demonstrate in much larger proportion to females. Females have more empathy, compassion, and emotions that can be generally described as caring. Its why men usually excel in positions where you must be cut off emotionally such as being a soldier while women dominate fields such as child rearing.

Most of this is due cultural conditioning.

Actually, no. Testosterone plays a considerable part in aggression; high testosterone tends to lead to more frequent displays of aggression in animals.
Its why when you get a pet its advisable to neuter it, especially a large dog, otherwise all that testosterone will make it attack someone someday.

Sorry, I meant those other emotions mentioned. (Hence 'most'. Hormones certainly play some part.)

I think it might be worthwhile to focus more on chapter serfs. Supposedly they are quite important for a space marine chapter, as they keep everything running whilst the marines pray and fight. So its pretty odd to me that they are hardly mentioned.
Whilst its definitively stated in the background that marines could only be male, there is no such restriction for chapter serfs.

Also, if chapter serfs were allowed to be deployed, that would help explain how such a pitiful number of marines could be effective in a large scale engagement; there's only a few marines, but they are supported by a lot more serfs, who are considerably well armed, being associated with the marines and all.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I think it might be worthwhile to focus more on chapter serfs. Supposedly they are quite important for a space marine chapter, as they keep everything running whilst the marines pray and fight. Whilst its definitively stated in the background that marines could only be male, there is no such restriction for chapter serfs.

Also, if chapter serfs were allowed to be deployed, that would help explain how such a pitiful number of marines could be effective in a large scale engagement; there's only a few marines, but they are supported by a lot more serfs, who are considerably well armed, being associated with the marines and all.

So instead of cultists,, serfs? that'd be cool just a huge amount of military assets for the space marines. It would make sense and then increasing the serf count to hundreds of millions that are loyal to the chapter.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Aggressiveness is a single emotion that males demonstrate in much larger proportion to females. Females have more empathy, compassion, and emotions that can be generally described as caring. Its why men usually excel in positions where you must be cut off emotionally such as being a soldier while women dominate fields such as child rearing.

Most of this is due cultural conditioning.

Everyone universally agrees the prequels were bad... but you once again deflected without actually analyzing what was said. Diversity for the sake of diversity ends with shallow trash story lines that typically make no sense because they are done simply out of political pressure. Its happened in Star Wars with disastrous consequences and now you have people parroting it for 40k.

So the prequels just happened to be bad movies, but if a movie with a female lead is a bad movie, it is because forced diversity? I smell a double standard here. Not that I agree that the Disney SW films are bad movies, worse than the original trilogy sure, but miles better than Lucas's prequel trash. And of course you're not even with touching distance of reality if you think these films which happen to be some of the most successful films in the history are somehow disastrous.

The fact is once again we already have SOB and SOS that are amazing all female fighting forces. There is no reason to retcon the entire SM fluff with changes that dont make sense just to have a female SM that adds nothing to the lore at all.

Yet Primaris happened...

Instead they should focus on things like
1. More SOB (already in the works)
2. More female IG models (i still have my old female commissar)

I agree that those things should be the priority and are far more important than female marines. But it is not an either-or situation.

There is no need to make the SM fluff actively worse and add more time to a part of the production line that already gets the lion share of the time

That it would make the fluff worse is just you personal opinion. Which is a perfectly fine reason to not want something, but other people have different preferences.

1. No its because males have much more testosterone as well as brains developed in a way that make men on average more aggressive and prone to violence. Men are not larger and more agressive because society tells them to grow big and fight
2. No, the prequels were terrible because of awful acting (female and male) and truly bad character development all around. It's hard to nail down exactly what made those movies bad because there is just so much that made them bad. The new movies have 2 very simple and easily identifiable reasons why 1. A complete disregard for physics (arching Laser in space and opening bomb doors to drop bombs) 2. Diversity for the sake of diversity A. Rye defeating the strongest jedi in the galazy with no training B. Leia suddenly being able to superman through space despite never using a force power for the dozens of situations she could have in past movies C. tons of more examples like these two but you get the point
3. Primarus happened to up the scale of marines thats
4. It isnt an "either or" its a "fits and doesn't fit". More female guard makes sense from a fluff and business standpoint. More SOB makes sense from a fluff and business standpoint. Female SM doesn't make sense fluff-wise. It would make it necessary to retcon the entire lore of 40k SM as well as having females in SM for no reason. Without completely overhauling what a SM is a theoretical female SM would look identical to a male SM thus unless you wanted to add over sexualized SM it doesnt even make sense from a buisness standpoint. Which if GW makes over sexualized SM then im going to have to sort through the hundreds of dakka posts every week complaining about boob plates on SM

 Asherian Command wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I think it might be worthwhile to focus more on chapter serfs. Supposedly they are quite important for a space marine chapter, as they keep everything running whilst the marines pray and fight. Whilst its definitively stated in the background that marines could only be male, there is no such restriction for chapter serfs.

Also, if chapter serfs were allowed to be deployed, that would help explain how such a pitiful number of marines could be effective in a large scale engagement; there's only a few marines, but they are supported by a lot more serfs, who are considerably well armed, being associated with the marines and all.

So instead of cultists,, serfs? that'd be cool just a huge amount of military assets for the space marines. It would make sense and then increasing the serf count to hundreds of millions that are loyal to the chapter.

In a way, yes. Serfs would be an interesting counterpart to cultists, as that would play into the concept of traitor marines being the loyalist marines' antithesis. Not sure what they would be equipped with though.
Carapace and boltguns seem like a logical choice fluff wise, but not sure how it would work game wise. Or maybe they would have the same equipment as scions. Definitely not multilasers though.

Honestly wouldnt mind seeing femmarines

though going through the whole processes muscle building constant unending training and hormones and chems used to super size marines, they would probably ended up losing their breasts and growing a beard.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Their lore is a little different.

They are in female power armor with boob armor that gets the exact same 3+ save as power armor. Instead of genetic enhancements they have super faith, they are organized about the same - 5-10 man squads.
They use basically the same vehicals (with some different weapons). Not even all space marine chapters have the same organization or mentality. Some are vampires, some are ware-wolves, sisters are just space marine space nuns.

So, you mean that their fluff is very different, their rules are slightly different, their models are massively different.
Yeah, they are not the same.

 lolman1c wrote:
Honestly, I say this a lot, why would you even want female space marines when Sisters of Battle exist?

Do you want some potential reasons? I got a few potential reasons.
1) You love vikings and wolves and you want female models in your army. So you want female space wolves, not sisters of battle, of course.
2) You love vampires and you want female models in your army. So you want female blood angels, not sisters of battle, of course.
3) You love bionics and you want female models in your army. So you want female iron hands, not sisters of battle, of course.
4) You love Mongols and you want female models in your army. So you want female white scars, not sisters of battle, of course.
I could go on and on about this.
X) You love [themes and lore of chapter X] and you want female models in your army. So you want female [chapter X], not sisters of battle, of course.

That's what I meant when I say marines are a blank canvas faction. Sisters aren't, and can't easily be made into one.

Everyone comparing Sisters of Battle to Space Marines in general is 100% wrong, didn't think this through, and should be comparing them with Dark Angel instead. Let's keep Dark Angels the all-male space monks and Sisters the all-female space nuns, and have mix-gendered armies of viking, vampire and mongols.

Also this should come alongside with more female IG models, not instead of, but that goes without saying.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Their lore is a little different.

They are in female power armor with boob armor that gets the exact same 3+ save as power armor. Instead of genetic enhancements they have super faith, they are organized about the same - 5-10 man squads.
They use basically the same vehicals (with some different weapons). Not even all space marine chapters have the same organization or mentality. Some are vampires, some are ware-wolves, sisters are just space marine space nuns.

So, you mean that their fluff is very different, their rules are slightly different, their models are massively different.
Yeah, they are not the same.

 lolman1c wrote:
Honestly, I say this a lot, why would you even want female space marines when Sisters of Battle exist?

Do you want some potential reasons? I got a few potential reasons.
1) You love vikings and wolves and you want female models in your army. So you want female space wolves, not sisters of battle, of course.
2) You love vampires and you want female models in your army. So you want female blood angels, not sisters of battle, of course.
3) You love bionics and you want female models in your army. So you want female iron hands, not sisters of battle, of course.
4) You love Mongols and you want female models in your army. So you want female white scars, not sisters of battle, of course.
I could go on and on about this.
X) You love [themes and lore of chapter X] and you want female models in your army. So you want female [chapter X], not sisters of battle, of course.

That's what I meant when I say marines are a blank canvas faction. Sisters aren't, and can't easily be made into one.

Everyone comparing Sisters of Battle to Space Marines in general is 100% wrong, didn't think this through, and should be comparing them with Dark Angel instead. Let's keep Dark Angels the all-male space monks and Sisters the all-female space nuns, and have mix-gendered armies of viking, vampire and mongols.

Also this should come alongside with more female IG models, not instead of, but that goes without saying.

1) A female that goes through the process to become a SW is going to look exactly like a SW
2) A Female that goes through the process to be a BA is going to look exactly like a BA
3) A Female that goes through the process to be a WS is going to look exactly like a WS

What you want is over sexualized versions of SM chapters which would not fit the fluff of what a SM is and how it is created. IF you take a pre-pubescent girl, pump her full of testosterone and do bone grafting to make her a 7 foot tall superhuman she is going to look identical to the male SM. FFS their faces even change to resemble their primarchs

Asmodios wrote:

1. No its because males have much more testosterone as well as brains developed in a way that make men on average more aggressive and prone to violence. Men are not larger and more agressive because society tells them to grow big and fight

And I did not suggest anything of the sort. This was about you claiming that women are more emotional, which is bs.

2. No, the prequels were terrible because of awful acting (female and male) and truly bad character development all around. It's hard to nail down exactly what made those movies bad because there is just so much that made them bad. The new movies have 2 very simple and easily identifiable reasons why 1. A complete disregard for physics (arching Laser in space and opening bomb doors to drop bombs)

Sure.

2. Diversity for the sake of diversity A. Rye defeating the strongest jedi in the galazy with no training B.

Said 'strongest jedi' (I mean, I guess it technically counts if you're the only jedi..) newer had any proper lightsabre training either, and was old and out of practice.

Leia suddenly being able to superman through space despite never using a force power for the dozens of situations she could have in past movies C.

In the past movies she didn't even know she was force sensitive. She has obviously learned since then. Also, it is probably relatively easy to fly in zero G, even a minimal amount of power will move you.

tons of more examples like these two but you get the point

Oh, I do get your 'point'... If there are powerful female characters involved, any flaw, real or imaginary, is attributed to that.

3. Primarus happened to up the scale of marines thats

And added several new organs. And fixed some gene flaws. But who's counting.

4. It isnt an "either or" its a "fits and doesn't fit". More female guard makes sense from a fluff and business standpoint. More SOB makes sense from a fluff and business standpoint. Female SM doesn't make sense fluff-wise. It would make it necessary to retcon the entire lore of 40k SM as well as having females in SM for no reason.

Cawl found a way to make the process to work on females. In fact, the plans for it were already in Emperor's notes, but he got stabbed by Horus before he could finidh that part of the work. Done. Certainly way less stupid that many other things that have happened in the fluff recently.

Without completely overhauling what a SM is a theoretical female SM would look identical to a male SM thus unless you wanted to add over sexualized SM it doesnt even make sense from a buisness standpoint. Which if GW makes over sexualized SM then im going to have to sort through the hundreds of dakka posts every week complaining about boob plates on SM

Sure, no boobplate. Merely slightly more feminine heads, that's all.

@Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl

Please learn to qoute me in context.
I said:

"Honestly, I say this a lot, why would you even want female space marines when Sisters of Battle exist? They're seriously awesome... and no joke. When the new models come out I will buy buying them (depending on price) because I love the idea of such strong soldiers who don't need all that marine cheating stuff".

Which was a joke saying that marines are lame steroid abusers with all the flavours of a Saturday morning cartoon character, while sisters are awesome. I wasn't comparing the two by saying they were similar. I was saying one is clearly cooler.

Like orks.. why would you even be any race in 40k if Orks exist? They're perfect!

You then go and ignore everything I say afterwards about how I actually like the idea of female space marines.

But as I say... I couldn't care less if a dying Gretchin last hope was to see a female space marine model.. as long as it doesn't take any time or effort away from Orks getting new models I would happily accept it. But if it does then that Dying Grot can suck it!

 Quickjager wrote:
If they ever go back on saying no female space marines I would want more.

I would want them to change more of the fluff at this point. No longer just 1,000 marine chapters, make them 50,000 with 10,000 marines in each one. No more gakky techmarine dual loyalty gak, just put damn Admech Techpriests in the Space Marine ranks. The warp being an all corrupting influence? Yea get rid of that, no thanks I hear enough gak about how Chaos will eventually win too much without having to hear that my fething baloney sandwich mutated into a Slaneeshi monstrosity because my deployment had me next to a guy who knew a guy that saw a daemon.

Tyranids being inumerable? No thanks we already know GW is so bad at numbers 100 million may be inumerable because they can't count that high except if its comes to revenue. The Imperium being on the brink all the time? Just break it up already, who gives a gak it's already written as humanity vs. the Universe anyway just make them all worship the Big E.

You want to rewrite the one bit of fluff for... "reasons"; let us rewrite all the gak that makes no sense at this point.

Damn straight. Sci fi and fantasy need groundrules, you can't just handwave it and go "well it's fantasy, it's all made up!" If we go down this route then why did the Hobbits walk to Mordor- why didn't Frodo just click his heels 3 times, say "YOLO Swaggins!" and teleport to Mount Doom? It's fantasy! Right? Anything goes!
Why didn't Ned Stark just jump up from the executioner's block and say "Joke's on you. My neck's made of titanium!" Fantasy! Amirite?

So with 40k let's open the floodgates- if not just female marines, why not Ork marines? Eldar marines? Tau marines? Necron marines? Marine marines- oh wait, that last one already exists.

I want them to seriously make Snottlings the creators of Orks. I say screw the Old ones... or the Brian boyz... go back to the orginal plan when Snottlings were smart butwere becoming dumb!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I think it might be worthwhile to focus more on chapter serfs. Supposedly they are quite important for a space marine chapter, as they keep everything running whilst the marines pray and fight. So its pretty odd to me that they are hardly mentioned.
Whilst its definitively stated in the background that marines could only be male, there is no such restriction for chapter serfs.

Also, if chapter serfs were allowed to be deployed, that would help explain how such a pitiful number of marines could be effective in a large scale engagement; there's only a few marines, but they are supported by a lot more serfs, who are considerably well armed, being associated with the marines and all.

I'm pretty sure Space Wolves have female serfs. They certainly deserve more fluff space.

Women are workers and they can be space marines, can be killed in war just like all workers.

Sisters of battle and all-female or integrated guard regiments, on the other hand, are still human, and they’re still subject to the material conditions of the Imperium, so they have to be sex segregated. The wealthy hierarchies in the imperium perpetuate and benefit from sexism, because they can push the cost of maintaining the men they employ onto unpaid domestic work by women, and because by keeping women on the fringes or the market they can suppress wages paid to men, constantly threatening to let women in to compete with the existing workers. In these circumstances all-female units are a corrective to that effect.

 Crimson wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Where did I state that? Or are you just asking sarcastically because it's the internet and you want to be cool?

I am cool. But my point was that if they change something how do you know that it was done in order to appease some group or for financial gain, rather than the content makers just thinking that it was a good change for purely creative reasons?

Crimson is very cool, except that he is has lieutenants. Now lieutenants, that is crappy background and it was nice they got rid of them for six editions.