Why Female Space Marines are a good idea

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.

**BrianDavion**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Crimson wrote:
pm713 wrote:
The only thing that bugged me in the new Star Wars was Leia flying in space.

I really don't get how that can be an issue. She has had decades to refine some rudimentary force powers, (we know she was force sensitive), and moving things in zero G requires very minimal amount of... eh... force.

She was frozen though. Pretty sure getting blown out into space by an explosion is really bad for your health. It was a bit of an ass pull, really.

anymore then the countless other stuff that happens. Look applying realism to star wars is idiotic, if you don't enjoy the movie thats fine, just say so and move on, but don't make an idiot of yourself by ranting about how the movie was unrealistic

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Asmodios wrote:
You can create artificial gravity in space.... we already do it.

Well, that explains everything. They created artificial gravity in space, and the bomb fell because of the artificial gravity.

Asmodios wrote:
A beam of light not only never archs it simply dissipates over time....

Woah how do laser work please? I tried one, you pointed it in some direction and there was a red dot at the end. It wasn't like a laser sword

.

Asmodios wrote:
"yeah just do you best fanatic fans will ignore simple stuff we could have fixed in 5min and any 10-year old that's taken a science class could tell us is wrong"

Can't blame them, it's what happened with the original trilogy, and you loved it, so…

**LunarSol**

Crimson wrote:
pm713 wrote:
The only thing that bugged me in the new Star Wars was Leia flying in space.

I really don't get how that can be an issue. She has had decades to refine some rudimentary force powers, (we know she was force sensitive), and moving things in zero G requires very minimal amount of... eh... force.

I liked this scene a lot better when I watched it the second time. The first time you see it it feels like she's unconscious and comes to to suddenly comes to in the vacuum and decides she'd better get back to the ship. Watching it the second time, its more obvious she preps herself prior to the explosion and when you know she's not dead, its easier to read the expression on her face in the close up as concentration instead of sleep.

**Formosa**

Andykp wrote:
I started a thread just like this last week after reading the article on bols and being appalled by its responses. I was equally appalled after my thread was closed down within hours opening because of “a dozen or more” complaints. There is a problem in this hobby. I can on,y talk about 40k as I dont play other games really.

Having female marines is important. And I’m going to say it, it’s important because of diversity. Because of equality. We don’t have equality, all things are not equal. Women are underrepresented in all walks of life. They need to represented more. We have to actively do this. There are lots of ways of doing it.

I think it matters in 40k because it is a chunk of life that is very under represented. I don’t think having female marines would see a surge of women start playing, but when I got my daughter, who was interested in her dads hobby, the 40k starter set, there were no female characters in it all. No female models.

In the last thread I was literally told it was ok because of greyfax, Celestine, sisters of battle and a drawing in the guard codex. But that’s a joke. Two characters and a heavily stereotypical female trope based army that hasn’t been touched in 6 editions. We need female marines because they are the poster “boys” of 40k. That’s where we need the strong female characters. They are needed elsewhere too. Female admech models, lots in the fluff, non in plastic. Female guard models. Nids and necrons are exempt by being asexual.

Worst of all though is the anger this topic openned up. And that the anger got the conversation closed down. The anger and the scale of response shows there is an issue in the community. Sexism is its name. And the angry minority I hope it’s a minority’s but ain’t sure) shouting and crying in the internet stops us being able to discuss that, so the problem isn’t going to go away.

All the usual complaints are here, it’d break the fluff, “they’ve” got sisters, why no male sisters of battle, pseudo science and psychology about hormones and male behavioural traits. It’s the same patriarchal rubbish we have heard about any gender dispute.

I think the better way to phrase the question is, what harm would having females in the principle faction in 40k do?

I was told not to reopen my thread or leave it a while and expect the same response. People had accused me of trolling. I’m not. I have a genuine concern. I’m not going to take to the streets and protest. But I am going to keep talking about how to make our hobby more inclusive.

FYI I am a white middle class straight man. But I’m also the single father to a daughter growing up in an uneven world where she will face hardships she would have if she had been a boy. Any small step to balance that world out helps. Other fathers of daughters on here have messaged me saying the same thing. Video games, films, books all figured this out a while ago and stormcast show that Gw has too. It’s just too scared to pull the trigger in 40k. What’s best about the stormcast females is that they aren’t a big deal. They aren’t a whole separate section in boob armour. They are just there. The same as the men, no explanation needed. That’s a good example.

No, the anger is against the usual idiots using the same nonsense you just spouted, social justice warrior be thy name.

If you want to play the game the way you want, crack on, pay your money and paint your models how you like, no one cares, try and force your gender politics nonsense on us and guess what.... your suddenly not welcome and it’s cos “sexism” boo hoo.

Also the fact that you would support the sexist, racist and disgusting lies that is the BOLS article tells me all I need to know about you in this regard.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then they can make Viking Sisters of Battle and have an easier time thanks to plastic coming out.

We aren't going to get Viking-themed Sisters of Battle models, we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle rules, and we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle fluff.
If we get female space wolves, they will have models (the same, with a head swap for those that don't have helmet, and literally the same for those with helmet), rules (in codex: space wolves) and fluff (all the millions of lines written about space wolves).
Can't really put those on the same level, can we?

**Asmodios**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
No while things like "pew sound" ignore physics in all movies those are clearly added so your not watching a silent film and thinks like lightsabers are there for the rule of cool. Things, like arching laser beams and using open bomb doors and gravity in space, is a bridge too far. Suspension of reality is necessary for any sci-fi film there's a difference between that and just.... well what the most recent star wars was.

Arching laser beams are there for the rule of cool and gravity in space is fine as long as it's only inside the ships but not fine when it's also out of the ship?

You can create artificial gravity in space.... we already do it.

Citation needed? Pretty sure we still haven't worked out a functional artificial gravity mechanism, at least one that's practical to implement.

We haven't created a mechanism but we have plenty of different theoretical ways to do it once we actually make a space station the size it would need to be. Similar to how we can make small lasers and even some now for war application and theoretically know how you would design ones similar in function to those you read about in sci-fi. What there isn't is some way to make gravity magically apply sometime in the void of space for unknown reasons. This is also just one of many super confusing things they did. I mean the entire "chase" that the film was based around didn't make sense. They couldn't go any faster to catch the ships but somehow smaller fighters are constantly docking with the ships showing that they could easily go faster. I'm not even a big star wars fan but I truly felt bad for my friends that are. Id rather never get a 40k movie then get something like the last SW

**BrianDavion**

I'm gonna note the lasers in SW don't behave at ALL like lasers. (to the point I suspect the term laser is a hold over term, and they're not lasers)

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Formosa wrote:
No, the anger is against the usual idiots using the same nonsense you just spouted, social justice warrior be thy name.

Calling people idiots is a gross violation of rule #1

.
If I said so I'd be banned lol.

**CthuluIsSpy**

BrianDavion wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Crimson wrote:
pm713 wrote:
The only thing that bugged me in the new Star Wars was Leia flying in space.

I really don't get how that can be an issue. She has had decades to refine some rudimentary force powers, (we know she was force sensitive), and moving things in zero G requires very minimal amount of... eh... force.

She was frozen though. Pretty sure getting blown out into space by an explosion is really bad for your health. It was a bit of an ass pull, really.

anymore then the countless other stuff that happens. Look applying realism to star wars is idiotic, if you don't enjoy the movie thats fine, just say so and move on, but don't make an idiot of yourself by ranting about how the movie was unrealistic

Eh, fair enough. It was pretty dumb, but its not as bad as the sheer military incompetence from anyone who really should have known better. How am I supposed to recognize the First Order as the antagonists if they are so...dumb.

**Skaorn**

BrianDavion wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Crimson wrote:
pm713 wrote:
The only thing that bugged me in the new Star Wars was Leia flying in space.

I really don't get how that can be an issue. She has had decades to refine some rudimentary force powers, (we know she was force sensitive), and moving things in zero G requires very minimal amount of... eh... force.

She was frozen though. Pretty sure getting blown out into space by an explosion is really bad for your health. It was a bit of an ass pull, really.

anymore then the countless other stuff that happens. Look applying realism to star wars is idiotic, if you don't enjoy the movie thats fine, just say so and move on, but don't make an idiot of yourself by ranting about how the movie was unrealistic

Han Solo got turned to stone, for instance.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm gonna note the lasers in SW don't behave at ALL like lasers. (to the point I suspect the term laser is a hold over term, and they're not lasers)

Their beam of light wasn't a beam of light, that's why it didn't behave like a beam of light. It's just a hold over term.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Skaorn wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Crimson wrote:
pm713 wrote:
The only thing that bugged me in the new Star Wars was Leia flying in space.

I really don't get how that can be an issue. She has had decades to refine some rudimentary force powers, (we know she was force sensitive), and moving things in zero G requires very minimal amount of... eh... force.

She was frozen though. Pretty sure getting blown out into space by an explosion is really bad for your health. It was a bit of an ass pull, really.

anymore then the countless other stuff that happens. Look applying realism to star wars is idiotic, if you don't enjoy the movie thats fine, just say so and move on, but don't make an idiot of yourself by ranting about how the movie was unrealistic

Han Solo got turned to stone, for instance.

Was he turned to stone? I thought they just covered him up in a layer of carbon or something.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

If I go on people are going to think I love the new Star Wars but the reality is just that I don't like Star Wars, so I am just not blinding myself to the fact that the old ones where just as bad, lol.

**Formosa**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Formosa wrote:
No, the anger is against the usual idiots using the same nonsense you just spouted, social justice warrior be thy name.

Calling people idiots is a gross violation of rule #1 .
If I said so I'd be banned lol.

Are you one of those idiots?

Just kidding dude, it wasnt aimed at anyone in particular though, more the general people that seem to buy that kind of thing.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Formosa wrote:
Are you one of those idiots?

Yes.

Formosa wrote:
Just kidding dude, it wasnt aimed at anyone in particular though, more the general people that seem to buy that kind of thing.

Since I “buy that kind of things”, it was aimed at me as part of a group rather than aimed at me in particular. Not sure that makes it Rule #1-compliant.

**ZebioLizard2**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then they can make Viking Sisters of Battle and have an easier time thanks to plastic coming out.

We aren't going to get Viking-themed Sisters of Battle models, we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle rules, and we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle fluff.
If we get female space wolves, they will have models (the same, with a head swap for those that don't have helmet, and literally the same for those with helmet), rules (in codex: space wolves) and fluff (all the millions of lines written about space wolves).
Can't really put those on the same level, can we?

So basically. "It's a more popular faction, shoehorn this in because GW will certainly pay attention to it". Which is kind of why we only seem to get threads desiring this done to Space Marines, and not say.. Orks.

**DudleyGrim**

Ok here is my $.02 on the topic of female space marines.

I don't like it, I enjoy the original lore where all Marines are basically watered down clones(or conversions) of the Emperor, and that all Marines are men because of it. We have an all female army already (who I can't wait to play when the new plastics and rules come out) as well as plenty of diverse armies that have male AND female models (I DO approve of updating IG troops though to include more female bits).

I don't hear a single person complaining that the Sororitas or Sisters of Silence have no male models, so I don't understand what the big hub bub is with Marines. They sell well because people like the looks and lore of the army.

Arguing about female space marines is frankly silly and just cherry picking an already AMAZINGLY diverse universe. We have all kinds of different ethnicities and genders amongst many of the factions. Every argument for female marines is just arguing change for the sake of change, just hiding behind the excuse of feminism.

**Skaorn**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Skaorn wrote:

Han Solo got turned to stone, for instance.

Was he turned to stone? I thought they just covered him up in a layer of carbon or something.

If he was then he would have just suffocated or starved.

**LunarSol**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

So basically. "It's a more popular faction, shoehorn this in because GW will certainly pay attention to it". Which is kind of why we only seem to get threads desiring this done to Space Marines, and not say.. Orks.

The lack of female Orks bothers me as well and honestly the fluff justification for it irks me to a similar level. In some ways more because it feels like a more obvious reaction to the lack of female models in the existing line than something that actually needs to be there.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Zebio, if what you mean is “There are more thread about female Space Marines than about female Orks because more people want female Space Marines”, then the answer is yes!
If you are wondering why more people want female space marines than female orks, it's for two reasons:
- Marines are more popular than orks, so even if the population that wanted female model in their armies was spread equivalently, there would be more people wanting female space marines.
- Space marines are a more interesting faction to include female models because they are way closer to humans.

**Asmodios**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then they can make Viking Sisters of Battle and have an easier time thanks to plastic coming out.

We aren't going to get Viking-themed Sisters of Battle models, we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle rules, and we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle fluff.
If we get female space wolves, they will have models (the same, with a head swap for those that don't have helmet, and literally the same for those with helmet), rules (in codex: space wolves) and fluff (all the millions of lines written about space wolves).
Can't really put those on the same level, can we?

So basically. "It's a more popular faction, shoehorn this in because GW will certainly pay attention to it". Which is kind of why we only seem to get threads desiring this done to Space Marines, and not say.. Orks.

Orks are non-binary otherkin.... they are the favorite race of the SJW.

Seriously though we have the All female SOB and SOS
All male SM and Custodes

I'm just not seeing the inequality

**LunarSol**

DudleyGrim wrote:

I don't like it, I enjoy the original lore where all Marines are basically watered down clones(or conversions) of the Emperor, and that all Marines are men because of it. We have an all female army already (who I can't wait to play when the new plastics and rules come out) as well as plenty of diverse armies that have male AND female models (I DO approve of updating IG troops though to include more female bits).

I'd rather not have an all female army either. I'd rather just have a female marine captain or random squadmate in the unit.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Asmodios wrote:
Seriously though we have the All female SOB and SOS
All male SM and Custodes

I'm just not seeing the inequality

Seriously though we have the All female SOB and SOS
All male Space Wolves and Blood Angels and Dark Angels and White Scars and Grey Knights and Iron Hands and Black Legion and Exorcists and Thousand Sons and World Eater and Black Dragon and… and Custodes
I'm just not seeing the equality.

If we had the All female SOB and SOS
All male Dark Angels and Custodes
Then I'll see the equality big time!

**Sgt_Smudge**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Like I said, it's literally just because Sisters get no attention. Now by next year this won't be an issue and I suspect these threads will die down by 75%.

And like I said, how will Sisters going out change anything for people who are found of viking and want some female space wolves? How will it change things for people who are found of Mongols and want some female White Scars? And so on. Generally, how will it make things better for people who want female space marines as opposed to “any models as long as it's women”?

Hybrid, I believe I've already discussed this with you before.

There is no reason that "X Historical Theme" could not already be represented by a female 40k army already. Thinking that in order to have a certain historical theme, you must be a Space Marine is quite reductive of the potential of 40k's lore.

As I've stated before, 40K's inherent canon doesn't have to be altered at all to accomodate for this - only expanded upon. Hell, we already have all-female Mongols. Ask the Attilans (who undoubtedly have female regiments, just like they probably have a siege infantry regiment).

Whilst there IS a niche that only Space Marines can provide (that being fanatically loyal servants of the Imperium, enhanced to godlike levels of power and clad in power armour carrying boltguns), the examples you've given in this thread and beyond (Mongol women, Valkyries, Amazons etc etc) can already be done.

Andykp wrote:Having female marines is important. And I’m going to say it, it’s important because of diversity. Because of equality. We don’t have equality, all things are not equal. Women are underrepresented in all walks of life. They need to represented more. We have to actively do this. There are lots of ways of doing it.

There are lots of ways of doing it. What I feel that you're missing is that diversity does not have to be achieved via magically making Space Marines female. That won't change anything.

Even if you subscribe to the belief (as do I) that a female Space Marine would look no different from a male recruit (and at that point, the argument for "diversity" falls apart*), that doesn't fix much, because there's still the massive imbalances within the other aspects of the hobby. Very few female guardsmen, no female cultists, no female GSC, etc etc, all factions which should have a far higher proportion of female presence.

However, I haven't seen you advocating for equality in these areas (well, not before this post). No, you jump straight on the bandwagon, the poster boy faction - and THAT'S the issue here. The fact that Space Marines are disproportionately placed in the limelight.

Put other factions nearer their pedestal, give them more female features, give Sisters a facelift (2019 here we come!), but the Marines themselves don't need to change.
Of course, if in your headcanon you want to, go ahead!

In the last thread I was literally told it was ok because of greyfax, Celestine, sisters of battle and a drawing in the guard codex. But that’s a joke. Two characters and a heavily stereotypical female trope based army that hasn’t been touched in 6 editions. We need female marines because they are the poster “boys” of 40k. That’s where we need the strong female characters. They are needed elsewhere too. Female admech models, lots in the fluff, non in plastic. Female guard models. Nids and necrons are exempt by being asexual.

Agreed. We need more female characters where female characters should exist. Also, Necron females are absolutely a thing, but wouldn't require any "feminising" of the models. Purely in lore (which we already have!)

If you're also implying that the only way for a character to be "strong" is to be a Space Marine, I think you might be missing the point of "strength". Unless you're implying that guardsmen aren't strong characters.

Worst of all though is the anger this topic openned up. And that the anger got the conversation closed down. The anger and the scale of response shows there is an issue in the community. Sexism is its name. And the angry minority I hope it’s a minority’s but ain’t sure) shouting and crying in the internet stops us being able to discuss that, so the problem isn’t going to go away.

The same exists on other sides too. I know you say "it's a minority", but it feels a lot like you almost have contempt for the entire opposing argument. I'm sure that isn't the case, but there being a minority doesn't mean that everyone who opposes your view is tarnished by the same brush.

All the usual complaints are here, it’d break the fluff, “they’ve” got sisters, why no male sisters of battle, pseudo science and psychology about hormones and male behavioural traits. It’s the same patriarchal rubbish we have heard about any gender dispute.

And then other arguments, like ones I've made. I agree, the psuedoscience about men being X% stronger aren't really sound points, but other points can merit.

I think the better way to phrase the question is, what harm would having females in the principle faction in 40k do?

At the same time, what harm does leaving Space Marines as is, and increasing exposure of other factions do?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then they can make Viking Sisters of Battle and have an easier time thanks to plastic coming out.

We aren't going to get Viking-themed Sisters of Battle models, we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle rules, and we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle fluff.
If we get female space wolves, they will have models (the same, with a head swap for those that don't have helmet, and literally the same for those with helmet), rules (in codex: space wolves) and fluff (all the millions of lines written about space wolves).
Can't really put those on the same level, can we?

Why can't you have Viking SoB? Why can't you make your own? They can exist in the lore.

Plus, you mention rules - the rules haven't been 100% accurate to lore for a long time.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Asmodios wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then they can make Viking Sisters of Battle and have an easier time thanks to plastic coming out.

We aren't going to get Viking-themed Sisters of Battle models, we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle rules, and we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle fluff.
If we get female space wolves, they will have models (the same, with a head swap for those that don't have helmet, and literally the same for those with helmet), rules (in codex: space wolves) and fluff (all the millions of lines written about space wolves).
Can't really put those on the same level, can we?

So basically. "It's a more popular faction, shoehorn this in because GW will certainly pay attention to it". Which is kind of why we only seem to get threads desiring this done to Space Marines, and not say.. Orks.

Orks are non-binary otherkin.... they are the favorite race of the SJW.

Seriously though we have the All female SOB and SOS
All male SM and Custodes

I'm just not seeing the inequality

It's only inequality because only one of those factions is popular.

**NoiseMarine with Tinnitus**

Appreciative of the fact people have views on this topic but this has been covered ad nauseum previously.

Please just put it to bed and wait for the joy of updated SoB / expanded range of SoS.

Cheers

**Slayer-Fan123**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then they can make Viking Sisters of Battle and have an easier time thanks to plastic coming out.

We aren't going to get Viking-themed Sisters of Battle models, we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle rules, and we aren't going to get viking-themed Sisters of Battle fluff.
If we get female space wolves, they will have models (the same, with a head swap for those that don't have helmet, and literally the same for those with helmet), rules (in codex: space wolves) and fluff (all the millions of lines written about space wolves).
Can't really put those on the same level, can we?

We also aren't getting Aztec themed Space Marines with dinosaurs officially either. Instead of complaining, some people get to work on their conversions.

**Asherian Command**

DudleyGrim wrote:
Ok here is my $.02 on the topic of female space marines.

I don't like it, I enjoy the original lore where all Marines are basically watered down clones(or conversions) of the Emperor, and that all Marines are men because of it. We have an all female army already (who I can't wait to play when the new plastics and rules come out) as well as plenty of diverse armies that have male AND female models (I DO approve of updating IG troops though to include more female bits).

I don't hear a single person complaining that the Sororitas or Sisters of Silence have no male models, so I don't understand what the big hub bub is with Marines. They sell well because people like the looks and lore of the army.

Arguing about female space marines is frankly silly and just cherry picking an already AMAZINGLY diverse universe. We have all kinds of different ethnicities and genders amongst many of the factions. Every argument for female marines is just arguing change for the sake of change, just hiding behind the excuse of feminism.

More like half dollar feminism. This isn't feminism this Authortarianism at its finest. "I WANT IT THIS BECAUSE MY MORALS AND I SAID SO!"

Its frankly wrong and I could see it being wrong in so many wrongs due to how the world actually works and where the fluff is based on.

We don't have a female genghis khan, because genghis khan wasn't female. To turn him into a female just because nullifies the character because everyone is defined by his/her/their gender.

I am defined by my sexuality, a space marine defined by their masculinity, a guardsmen is defined by who they are. Its a deep connection and to say that male and female is the same is to downplay that role in history. I am as egalitarian as it gets, but those differences create opinions and make us whole. I am nothing without my gender, or my race. I am nothing without my culture, I am defined by my peoples past. To switch it just because changes me entirely. My life would be different if I was female.

Everyones life would be different. There is a difference between creating a well rounded character and just shoehorning.

For example from my favorite tv series : Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy is defined by being female, she is the Slayer, which is only females. Because they wanted to prove that women can be just as capable went fighting a bad monster. Angel is a brooding male with all the maleisms attached with that. The two shows while extremely progressive are defined by their sexualities. Both series deal with different issues, one is about growning up, one is just about being an adult to change their gender would be to change who they were or what they did. They would not be the same person, because that assumes that being any gender has no meaning.

Because of this I do not think that argument has merit in reality, or moral justification.

That is the argument here. Not feminism, or social justice warriors, but does sexuality define someone? The short of it is socialogically, historically, and psychologically yes, yes it does.

**LunarSol**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Agreed. We need more female characters where female characters should exist. Also, Necron females are absolutely a thing, but wouldn't require any "feminising" of the models. Purely in lore (which we already have!)

If you're also implying that the only way for a character to be "strong" is to be a Space Marine, I think you might be missing the point of "strength". Unless you're implying that guardsmen aren't strong characters.

I don't think the existence of Lois Lane removes the need for comic characters with powers.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Seriously though we have the All female SOB and SOS
All male SM and Custodes

I'm just not seeing the inequality

Seriously though we have the All female SOB and SOS
All male Space Wolves and Blood Angels and Dark Angels and White Scars and Grey Knights and Iron Hands and Black Legion and Exorcists and Thousand Sons and World Eater and Black Dragon and… and Custodes
I'm just not seeing the equality.

If we had the All female SOB and SOS
All male Dark Angels and Custodes
Then I'll see the equality big time!

The issue is that Space Marines got expanded outwards into dozens of different forms. In fact, in some of these forms (CSM), they can actually BE female already. So, realistically, Space Marines should be treated as one. Which is what I'm going to do.

Then, my personal views on Custodes is that, due to their more personalised method of selection and enhancement, they should have female representation too.

So, that leaves us with Space Marines (in various flavours, but should still fundamentally be Space Marines - like how Kill Team did it) and Grey Knights (which are different enough to justify being a separate group, unlike Deathwatch), compared to Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence (the Grey Knight equivalent, which should DEFINITELY receive more units and exposure).

Equal. What ISN'T equal is the exposure the factions get. Which is what I complain about.