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!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why can't you have Viking SoB?

 LunarSol wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why can't you have Viking SoB?

For the same reason GW doesn't currently sell you models to make an all-female Attilan army, or even any Attilan model.
(Which are Huns not Mongols but whatever).
And that is: because GW doesn't have the means or the will to create models and rules for that many different “historical” armies, so they just use space marines because it allows to share most of the models between all the historical factions.

 Asherian Command wrote:
[I am defined by my sexuality

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

Asmodios wrote:
So you want an expanded sisters range with more "chapters"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My apologies on the Hun/Mongol mixup.

And yes, I agree that GW is at fault for not making these more varied armies. There should absolutely be the exposure, encouragement and availability for hobbyists to explore the various potential of factions. However, we have different methods of what to do about this. Yours is "change the lore". Mine is "allow for the existing lore to be better represented".

Also, you could easily do a Mongol themed SOB army (when they get more affordable and convertible sculpts!) Nothing is stopping you from creating your homebrew Order Minoris of Mongol Sisters, or Viking Sisters. In fact, you don't even need GW to directly support it, not when conversion is an option.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
For me, the singular reason against was that it would break canon. You would need to rewrite the Horus Heresy and almost all of the lore to explain this. However, this is based on the universes rule that the Emperors creation was perfect and could not be improved upon. If anything, it’s implied that the marines weakened over time. But once Cawl made the Primaris this assumption goes away. It means that the technology can be improved upon and changed. It’s not something written in stone. If anything, the Primaris are a far greater change to the lore of 40k (turning the Imperium from a regressive society into one that improves upon the Emperors work) than any theoretical change to the old lore that “oh the glands always worked on women.” or “oh the Emperor actually made female Primarches”. Those are really superficial changes by comparison. What Cawl did and what he represents is a lot more fundamental.

The main reason you would want to add female space marines is simple. Generally speaking, there’s a noted preference for seeing romanticised depictions of powerful warrior women in fiction. Because marines are 40k: they have the most factions, the bulk of the lore is about them and the core narrative centers almost exclusively on the a civil war between space marines. So if you wanted to include them then it makes sense to do it in the most popular armies.

Now there’s two arguments against this:

1) It would change the character of marines

2) You already have Sisters of Battle.

Now, there’s basically one answer to both of these questions. Each chapter or legion has its own distinct character and that is what is a large part of the appeal of Space Marines. This means that a female marine would be distinct from a Sister of Battle. For example, Marines are secular whereas the Sisters are not. The Sisters are explicitly an all female order whereas female marine would be part of a mixed force. So a female Black Templar might be pretty similar to a Sister. Although even here the Templars have a much greater Knightly/Crusader character than the Sisters do. It wouldn’t invalidate the Sisters reason to exist if you had female marines because they are a distinct army.

I’ll take one example. Space Wolves. Think about how popular Vikings is right now. People love their Norse mythology and that is absolutely what the appeal of the Wolves is. Part of Vikings appeal is that people quite like Lagatha and the other warrior maidens on that show. So, how would adding that into the Space Wolves undermine the core Viking character of the faction when its broadly an okay thing in something like Vikings? It’s also quite distinct from Sisters of Battle who are all about religious fantaticism. Just because it’s a warrior woman doesn’t mean it’s the same. Like wise, it wouldn’t change the essential character of the Space Wolves if they did this. They’re still Space Vikings regardless of if some of them are women.

You can basically apply this rationale to any other army be it Blood Angels or Ultramarines. The character of a chapter is distinct enough that you can apply it to any female warrior and they would still be distinct from Sisters of Battle.

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

pismakron wrote:
Space Marines does not come with a gender, they are miniatures made of styrene plastic. If you want them to be female, then they are female. If you want them to be shemale then that is what they are. Its not like you can inspect their styrene genitals anyway.

 Formosa wrote:
I sincerely believe that people who support Fem40k and thier ilk are idiots of the highest order, quite how anyone can support accusing the 40k fan base of being rapists, racists and sexists is truelly beyond me.

 Formosa wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

Oh well, then yes I suppose it would cover you, I sincerely believe that people who support Fem40k and thier ilk are idiots of the highest order, quite how anyone can support accusing the 40k fan base of being rapists, racists and sexists is truelly beyond me.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I sincerely believe that people who support Fem40k and thier ilk are idiots of the highest order, quite how anyone can support accusing the 40k fan base of being rapists, racists and sexists is truelly beyond me.

To be very clear, originally the group of people you were disparaging as “idiots“ was “those that spouted the same nonsense as Andykp” (which, therefore, is likely to include the specific poster Andykp), namely :

Spoiler:

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.

There was no reference to Fem40K, and nothing about 40k fan base being rapists.
I do say things relatively similar to Andykp so I felt included, and Andykp is explicitly included. That's a clear violation of Rule #1. Sincerity doesn't prevent Rule #1 from applying, else I would still be allowed to post in Off Topic.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
[I am defined by my sexuality

Oh, you are?
Interesting tidbits about you.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

But… no, the fact that Space Marines got expanded outward into dozens of different forms is exactly why you shouldn't treat them as one. For all practical purposes they are a group of factions that have similarities, not just one faction.

Asmodios wrote:
So you want an expanded sisters range with more "chapters"

But no, I don't want that, I want an expanded Sisters range but just as one faction. We don't need to have the viking faction come in double and you pick one or the other depending on if you want female or male models. We need to have a viking faction and then you choose if you want the all-male company, the all-female company, or the mixed gender company, it's way way more efficient that way. No need to pointlessly duplicate efforts. And we'll still have the faction of space monks (dark angels) and space nuns (sisters of battle), that are very different from each others, and mono-gendered. That's the efficient and elegant way to do it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My apologies on the Hun/Mongol mixup.

And yes, I agree that GW is at fault for not making these more varied armies. There should absolutely be the exposure, encouragement and availability for hobbyists to explore the various potential of factions. However, we have different methods of what to do about this. Yours is "change the lore". Mine is "allow for the existing lore to be better represented".

Also, you could easily do a Mongol themed SOB army (when they get more affordable and convertible sculpts!) Nothing is stopping you from creating your homebrew Order Minoris of Mongol Sisters, or Viking Sisters. In fact, you don't even need GW to directly support it, not when conversion is an option.

No worries, it was more of me being a bit pedantic, it's a very very common mixup .
The problem is that I could do that, but GW couldn't. There wouldn't be Black Library fiction written for those Sisters order, all my models would need to be conversion, and it would still prevent mixed-gender armies. So I think in this specific situation, a small evolution of the lore (it doesn't have to be a retcon anymore, it can just be something new made by Cawl) would be fine, especially with regard to the fact there was already some HUGE lore change.

 LunarSol wrote:
In a game world where half the appeal is designing your own characters for wish fulfillment power fantasy, we're egregiously past the point where there's any real justification for power armored super humans being a boys only club. Half the established power armored super humans are basically a result of talented hobbists inserting their self image on the original blank canvas that is marines. Saying that its okay for marines to be wolves, or vampires, or whatever but not girls is just a decades old mindset at this point.

Oh, you are?
Interesting tidbits about you.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
For me, the singular reason against was that it would break canon. You would need to rewrite the Horus Heresy and almost all of the lore to explain this. However, this is based on the universes rule that the Emperors creation was perfect and could not be improved upon. If anything, it’s implied that the marines weakened over time. But once Cawl made the Primaris this assumption goes away. It means that the technology can be improved upon and changed. It’s not something written in stone. If anything, the Primaris are a far greater change to the lore of 40k (turning the Imperium from a regressive society into one that improves upon the Emperors work) than any theoretical change to the old lore that “oh the glands always worked on women.” or “oh the Emperor actually made female Primarches”. Those are really superficial changes by comparison. What Cawl did and what he represents is a lot more fundamental.

The main reason you would want to add female space marines is simple. Generally speaking, there’s a noted preference for seeing romanticised depictions of powerful warrior women in fiction. Because marines are 40k: they have the most factions, the bulk of the lore is about them and the core narrative centers almost exclusively on the a civil war between space marines. So if you wanted to include them then it makes sense to do it in the most popular armies.

Now there’s two arguments against this:

1) It would change the character of marines

2) You already have Sisters of Battle.

Now, there’s basically one answer to both of these questions. Each chapter or legion has its own distinct character and that is what is a large part of the appeal of Space Marines. This means that a female marine would be distinct from a Sister of Battle. For example, Marines are secular whereas the Sisters are not. The Sisters are explicitly an all female order whereas female marine would be part of a mixed force. So a female Black Templar might be pretty similar to a Sister. Although even here the Templars have a much greater Knightly/Crusader character than the Sisters do. It wouldn’t invalidate the Sisters reason to exist if you had female marines because they are a distinct army.

I’ll take one example. Space Wolves. Think about how popular Vikings is right now. People love their Norse mythology and that is absolutely what the appeal of the Wolves is. Part of Vikings appeal is that people quite like Lagatha and the other warrior maidens on that show. So, how would adding that into the Space Wolves undermine the core Viking character of the faction when its broadly an okay thing in something like Vikings? It’s also quite distinct from Sisters of Battle who are all about religious fantaticism. Just because it’s a warrior woman doesn’t mean it’s the same. Like wise, it wouldn’t change the essential character of the Space Wolves if they did this. They’re still Space Vikings regardless of if some of them are women.

You can basically apply this rationale to any other army be it Blood Angels or Ultramarines. The character of a chapter is distinct enough that you can apply it to any female warrior and they would still be distinct from Sisters of Battle.

I collect Sisters of battle so I'm not some misogynist person saying 'no girls aloud' could there be a valid reason, probably but the point is I collected the Astartes and like them because of what they are the same with sisters, I would not want men to be introduced to the Sororitas. So I'm against it whether it makes sense in a 're-making of geneseed'. But there is no logical reason for it, Astartes are supposed to be the best warriors in the Imperium, women are physically weaker, they have less muscle mass and bone density and they have less reaction time etc. Marines are not created on a genetic level, they are altered humans so a female Astartes will never be as strong as a male Astartes. That's why they choose the strongest specimens for induction. So why would they use females, especially when astartes are such a small resource in the Imperium? I would rather have the Ministorum get the genetech and make their own super Sororitas than make astarted female.

Asmodios wrote:

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

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

But… no, the fact that Space Marines got expanded outward into dozens of different forms is exactly why you shouldn't treat them as one. For all practical purposes they are a group of factions that have similarities, not just one faction.

Asmodios wrote:
So you want an expanded sisters range with more "chapters"

But no, I don't want that, I want an expanded Sisters range but just as one faction. We don't need to have the viking faction come in double and you pick one or the other depending on if you want female or male models. We need to have a viking faction and then you choose if you want the all-male company, the all-female company, or the mixed gender company, it's way way more efficient that way. No need to pointlessly duplicate efforts. And we'll still have the faction of space monks (dark angels) and space nuns (sisters of battle), that are very different from each others, and mono-gendered. That's the efficient and elegant way to do it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My apologies on the Hun/Mongol mixup.

And yes, I agree that GW is at fault for not making these more varied armies. There should absolutely be the exposure, encouragement and availability for hobbyists to explore the various potential of factions. However, we have different methods of what to do about this. Yours is "change the lore". Mine is "allow for the existing lore to be better represented".

Also, you could easily do a Mongol themed SOB army (when they get more affordable and convertible sculpts!) Nothing is stopping you from creating your homebrew Order Minoris of Mongol Sisters, or Viking Sisters. In fact, you don't even need GW to directly support it, not when conversion is an option.

No worries, it was more of me being a bit pedantic, it's a very very common mixup .
The problem is that I could do that, but GW couldn't. There wouldn't be Black Library fiction written for those Sisters order, all my models would need to be conversion, and it would still prevent mixed-gender armies. So I think in this specific situation, a small evolution of the lore (it doesn't have to be a retcon anymore, it can just be something new made by Cawl) would be fine, especially with regard to the fact there was already some HUGE lore change.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

You shouldn't. The factions get exposure based on sales. If SoB were to outsell SMs, they'd have gotten plastic kits with viking and vampire and muumuu dresses by now. But they don't, so they didn't.

Chaos Sister Marines of Slannesh should be a thing, though.

Blndmage wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Space Marines does not come with a gender, they are miniatures made of styrene plastic. If you want them to be female, then they are female. If you want them to be shemale then that is what they are. Its not like you can inspect their styrene genitals anyway.

Don't use the word sh***le.
It's incredibly insulting, offensive, and hate filled.

So is there a reason that SoS are all women?

Custodes are created by magic like SM so I see no problem with. Also is there anything that states they can be only men?

I brought this up like 4 pages ago. Get ready to just get told to not apply logic to 40k because the lore "doesnt make sense"

 Formosa wrote:
Oh well, then yes I suppose it would cover you, I sincerely believe that people who support Fem40k and thier ilk are idiots of the highest order, quite how anyone can support accusing the 40k fan base of being rapists, racists and sexists is truelly beyond me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

You shouldn't. The factions get exposure based on sales. If SoB were to outsell SMs, they'd have gotten plastic kits with viking and vampire and muumuu dresses by now. But they don't, so they didn't.

Chaos Sister Marines of Slannesh should be a thing, though.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 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.

Absolutely, but when those "powers" can come from a massive variety of sources, you don't need to make Green Lantern female when you could take an existing group in the setting with that potential, and give them powers/exposure.

(My DC knowledge isn't great, so my metaphor may be flawed in places. But I trust you know what I mean, and I am aware that there are undoubtedly women in the Green Lantern Corps, and that there probably is a female Green Lantern - I'm just not a DC fan overall!)

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

You shouldn't. The factions get exposure based on sales. If SoB were to outsell SMs, they'd have gotten plastic kits with viking and vampire and muumuu dresses by now. But they don't, so they didn't.

Chaos Sister Marines of Slannesh should be a thing, though.

Well...

* SoB are a catch 22, no one wants old models or metal so no one buys
* female models DO sell and have been selling for some time now, we even have a full female gang now, Celestine sold like mad, we also have/had female models for 20yrs +, we have newer female models (give or take the past 10yrs) via DE/CWE/Quins/Chaos, etc...

 Asherian Command wrote:

So is there a reason that SoS are all women?

They are meant to be the left hand of the Emperor (Representing Females)

And the right Hand is the Custodes (Representing Males)

The paradigm of men and women working together in different but equal capacities.

The Sisters work with the Custodes, and the Custodes work with Sisters. It is that paradigm that is so obvious about them as a culture (Essentially men and women must work together to exact a goal).

I brought this up like 4 pages ago. Get ready to just get told to not apply logic to 40k because the lore "doesnt make sense"

Logic has everything to do with world building to be inconsistent world building is to ruin the setting AKA Star Wars (With violating world building laws that exist in that universe for the purpose of story telling).

You can't have a psychic blank magically use psychic powers. Nor can you have the tau all of sudden being the most powerful psykers in the galaxy cause someone said so.

Though I do have to admit it is kind of sexist of an argument to say men and women cannot have similar bone structure or physiological similarities. But their mentalities and physical qualities will be completely different.

 Asherian Command wrote:

So is there a reason that SoS are all women?

They are meant to be the left hand of the Emperor (Representing Females)

And the right Hand is the Custodes (Representing Males)

The paradigm of men and women working together in different but equal capacities.

The Sisters work with the Custodes, and the Custodes work with Sisters. It is that paradigm that is so obvious about them as a culture (Essentially men and women must work together to exact a goal).

Custodes are created by magic like SM so I see no problem with. Also is there anything that states they can be only men?

Yes they are his literal sons. And sisters of silence are his Daughters. That is the point of their existence. They represent Ying and Yang at the top levels of the Imperium.

I brought this up like 4 pages ago. Get ready to just get told to not apply logic to 40k because the lore "doesnt make sense"

Logic has everything to do with world building to be inconsistent world building is to ruin the setting AKA Star Wars (With violating world building laws that exist in that universe for the purpose of story telling).

You can't have a psychic blank magically use psychic powers. Nor can you have the tau all of sudden being the most powerful psykers in the galaxy cause someone said so.

Though I do have to admit it is kind of sexist of an argument to say men and women cannot have similar bone structure or physiological similarities. But their mentalities and physical qualities will be completely different.

Asmodios wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
For me, the singular reason against was that it would break canon. You would need to rewrite the Horus Heresy and almost all of the lore to explain this. However, this is based on the universes rule that the Emperors creation was perfect and could not be improved upon. If anything, it’s implied that the marines weakened over time. But once Cawl made the Primaris this assumption goes away. It means that the technology can be improved upon and changed. It’s not something written in stone. If anything, the Primaris are a far greater change to the lore of 40k (turning the Imperium from a regressive society into one that improves upon the Emperors work) than any theoretical change to the old lore that “oh the glands always worked on women.” or “oh the Emperor actually made female Primarches”. Those are really superficial changes by comparison. What Cawl did and what he represents is a lot more fundamental.

The main reason you would want to add female space marines is simple. Generally speaking, there’s a noted preference for seeing romanticised depictions of powerful warrior women in fiction. Because marines are 40k: they have the most factions, the bulk of the lore is about them and the core narrative centers almost exclusively on the a civil war between space marines. So if you wanted to include them then it makes sense to do it in the most popular armies.

Now there’s two arguments against this:

1) It would change the character of marines

2) You already have Sisters of Battle.

Now, there’s basically one answer to both of these questions. Each chapter or legion has its own distinct character and that is what is a large part of the appeal of Space Marines. This means that a female marine would be distinct from a Sister of Battle. For example, Marines are secular whereas the Sisters are not. The Sisters are explicitly an all female order whereas female marine would be part of a mixed force. So a female Black Templar might be pretty similar to a Sister. Although even here the Templars have a much greater Knightly/Crusader character than the Sisters do. It wouldn’t invalidate the Sisters reason to exist if you had female marines because they are a distinct army.

I’ll take one example. Space Wolves. Think about how popular Vikings is right now. People love their Norse mythology and that is absolutely what the appeal of the Wolves is. Part of Vikings appeal is that people quite like Lagatha and the other warrior maidens on that show. So, how would adding that into the Space Wolves undermine the core Viking character of the faction when its broadly an okay thing in something like Vikings? It’s also quite distinct from Sisters of Battle who are all about religious fantaticism. Just because it’s a warrior woman doesn’t mean it’s the same. Like wise, it wouldn’t change the essential character of the Space Wolves if they did this. They’re still Space Vikings regardless of if some of them are women.

You can basically apply this rationale to any other army be it Blood Angels or Ultramarines. The character of a chapter is distinct enough that you can apply it to any female warrior and they would still be distinct from Sisters of Battle.

I collect Sisters of battle so I'm not some misogynist person saying 'no girls aloud' could there be a valid reason, probably but the point is I collected the Astartes and like them because of what they are the same with sisters, I would not want men to be introduced to the Sororitas. So I'm against it whether it makes sense in a 're-making of geneseed'. But there is no logical reason for it, Astartes are supposed to be the best warriors in the Imperium, women are physically weaker, they have less muscle mass and bone density and they have less reaction time etc. Marines are not created on a genetic level, they are altered humans so a female Astartes will never be as strong as a male Astartes. That's why they choose the strongest specimens for induction. So why would they use females, especially when astartes are such a small resource in the Imperium? I would rather have the Ministorum get the genetech and make their own super Sororitas than make astarted female.

I brought this up like 4 pages ago. Get ready to just get told to not apply logic to 40k because the lore "doesnt make sense"

 Backspacehacker wrote:


I have to comment to correct this, there is actually a reason the SoB are all women. The eclesiarcy were told they cant have an army, specifically "Men at arms" so they found the loop hole of well they are not MEN at arms.

No its not sexist its actual science
Men have a different and larger bone structure than a woman
Men have the hormones in place to grow mass amounts of muscle much easier than women
Men are biologically more prone to violence
and the list goes on and on and on
Could you make a female SM... Yes
Would any sane galactic empire ever do it.... No
You would simply be making smaller, slower and less durable SM on average. It's established lore that the Imperium has no shortage of people so there would be zero reasons to ever draw recruits from the female population.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

You shouldn't. The factions get exposure based on sales. If SoB were to outsell SMs, they'd have gotten plastic kits with viking and vampire and muumuu dresses by now. But they don't, so they didn't.

Chaos Sister Marines of Slannesh should be a thing, though.

Well...

* SoB are a catch 22, no one wants old models or metal so no one buys
* female models DO sell and have been selling for some time now, we even have a full female gang now, Celestine sold like mad, we also have/had female models for 20yrs +, we have newer female models (give or take the past 10yrs) via DE/CWE/Quins/Chaos, etc...

Sisters had the same full range and support at the time of their release as any other army. Same strength of support and breadth as when Necrons and Dark Eldars were released. Same as when Tau were released. They're just not a popular faction, so it's kinda foolish for GW to support them. But GW does. Still ticking...

Futa Marines of Slaaneseh and Sisters of Slaanesh - that's what 40k needs. Pink, with massive purple helmets!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I am aware that there are undoubtedly women in the Green Lantern Corps, and that there probably is a female Green Lantern - I'm just not a DC fan overall!)