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.
Ultimately sexism is very much based on motivations. If I hold a door open for someone, I am being polite. That is a fact. .
No it isn't. Like most things, it depends how its handled.
Most people I see holding doors open are _amazingly_ dumb about it. They stand in the door way and block access, basically getting in the way of everyone else trying to get in and out of the building. The actual effect is incredibly inconvenient and rude.
If they're somewhat clever, they step out of the doorway and hold the door open from outside, getting out of the way of other people, but that's incredibly rare in my experience.
Again: painting in broad strokes cover the cracks, but don't paint a portrait.
None is saying that there is a direct cause/effect between sexist attitude, all male Space Marine and Games Workshop. Like any donkey-cave is responsability of GW.
Point is: you cannot prove the opposing neither.
Since it is a reasonable and well proven assumption that SOME relationship (in form of correlation) between the two exist, plus the fact that THERE IS NO DANGER IN HAVING AN EXTRA SPRUE RATHER THAN A SPRUE LESS...
Imagine you're at the restaurant. Another table want to add a plate to the menu. A plate you don't want, don't like and don't care about. But it is a plate you can't accept because... It will distract the chef, I suppose?
Do you go in the kitchen to safe the sanctity of the place before it will be contaminated?
What do you expect the chef to do to you?
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
Ultimately sexism is very much based on motivations. If I hold a door open for someone, I am being polite. That is a fact. .
No it isn't. Like most things, it depends how its handled.
Most people I see holding doors open are _amazingly_ dumb about it. They stand in the door way and block access, basically getting in the way of everyone else trying to get in and out of the building. The actual effect is incredibly inconvenient and rude.
If they're somewhat clever, they step out of the doorway and hold the door open from outside, getting out of the way of other people, but that's incredibly rare in my experience.
An excellent point, and well made. It's about how it's handled.
Saying "marines are girls now so girls can play the game too" is the equivalent of standing in the doorway making things worse despite trying to make things better.
Stepping through and holding the door is just adding female marines because they would be cool to add.
None is saying that there is a direct cause/effect between sexist attitude, all male Space Marine and Games Workshop.
I think that the phrase "Being male is fine. Being the flagship, and being all male is not, and contributes to a sense that "male = default"." is saying exactly that. They are saying "all male space marines is bad because space marines are popular". If space marines weren't popular, then they wouldn't need changing, is the gist of it. That sounds like the reason for the change is the wrong one.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Can we stop trying to make this a political discussion? We've made it 30 pages and some good back and forth, and making it political feels like people are trying to shut down the thread because they don't like what people in it are saying.
Just stop saying it's about politics and make your points.
I feel like if Orks were the flagship, people would say "change the flagship". If Marines are the flagship, people say "Change marines". It seems wrong.
I think the reason for this is: A large number of people pick marines as their chosen faction, because a large number of people when presented with an ensemble-cast sort of faction style game choose "me, but as like a cool, badass hero."
It's just an easy default choice. humans in WoW and DnD and Skyrim and whatever else are usually a pretty common pick, because people are just like 'i'm engaging with this setting because I want to imagine myself, being the cool badass and swinging the big sword and wearing the big armor.'
It's certainly the reason I picked Space Wolves as a blonde kid with a germanic family who'd always thought reading about norse mythology was cool.
It's not what everybody HAS to do, and it's not what everybody DOES do when presented with a setting like 40k, but it's pretty obvious from the massive appeal of marines vs everything else...a lot of people do that.
And yeah, sisters of battle are there, and that does allow someone who wants to do the whole 'just me, but a badass wearing cool armor' thing to do that as a woman.
It's just always been a little bit weird that they're space marines, but weaker. And not in any of the starter boxes. And you need twice as many of them to make an army. And 'theyre sexy' is an OPTIONAL component for space marines, but kind of a required component with SOB. And they can't be evil. And the only evil factions with women in them are the intrinsically sexy ones.
It's like if the only female superhero in the core DC cast was Wonder Woman. Powerful...but superman is way, way more powerful. And 'the girl one' is...kind of a huge defining aspect of who she is, she's from an all-girls society of Girl-landia and a whole lot of her villains are the woman villains, and she wears a skimpier sexier costume than superman and batman.
But hey, Supergirl's right there if you just want superman, but, a lady. So good, there you go.
Again to bring up AOS, I'd like to point out that there IS a faction of all bikini-clad hot murder ladies if that's your jam. But it's not the ONLY faction that has women in it - if you just want to play 'you, but buffer and awesomer and with a giant sword' there's women in the stormcast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: Again: painting in broad strokes cover the cracks, but don't paint a portrait.
None is saying that there is a direct cause/effect between sexist attitude, all male Space Marine and Games Workshop. Like any donkey-cave is responsability of GW.
Point is: you cannot prove the opposing neither.
Since it is a reasonable and well proven assumption that SOME relationship (in form of correlation) between the two exist, plus the fact that THERE IS NO DANGER IN HAVING AN EXTRA SPRUE RATHER THAN A SPRUE LESS...
Imagine you're at the restaurant. Another table want to add a plate to the menu. A plate you don't want, don't like and don't care about. But it is a plate you can't accept because... It will distract the chef, I suppose?
Do you go in the kitchen to safe the sanctity of the place before it will be contaminated?
What do you expect the chef to do to you?
This is a pretty good analogy.
You're at your favorite restaurant, and they've still got all your favorite foods, but now they serve your least favorite food as well, it's on the menu.
Hasn't replaced anything, isn't in the foods you like, you don't have to order it, but it's there.
Why would you complain about this?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 15:34:08
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
If GW were to make a change to their unreliably narrated lore, could they do a good job of it?
What would it take to make a seismic change valid?
Likely not, however the lore has to no more than "Hey PResto, They exist now". Which is exactly what they did with Primaris.
Just make female fluff equal or better to the worst fluff in the history of 40k, and we'll call it a win.
Also, completely missing the point. The main defense against inclusion of women is 13 words from an article over 20 years ago. Now it's just we don't want women in the Marines.
Any time GW changes any part of 40k lore people get mad anyway. Centurion suits, Primaris, the changes to the 13th Black Crusade, Guilliman/Magnus getting involved, and plenty more besides.
Was there an exodus because Primarchs joined in with 40k? What about Primaris, did hobbyists leave 40k en masse? No, they didn't because when it comes down to it people don't really care or simply adapt to change. For most of the people who played WHFB at my local GW, they were disappointed the Old World got blown up but they just moved on and played AoS anyway because new toys.
None is saying that there is a direct cause/effect between sexist attitude, all male Space Marine and Games Workshop. Like any donkey-cave is responsability of GW.
Point is: you cannot prove the opposing neither.
Since it is a reasonable and well proven assumption that SOME relationship (in form of correlation) between the two exist, plus the fact that
First off, "prove the opposite" is literally asking me to prove a negative which is unreasonably laborious as I would have to identify every possible point by which the intersection of Space Marines, GW, and sexism could occur then prove that they were in fact not causal to one another. So no...
Also there is no such thing as a "well proven assumption". Something either has significant recorded evidence by which it is "well proven" or it lacks sufficient evidence by which it is "assumption". And I have yet to see any evidence demonstrating that the described incidents are widespread or are caused by space marines being all male. If the relation is there then you should be able to prove it and then demonstrate why your requested change is the most reasonable path forward.
Imagine you're at the restaurant. Another table want to add a plate to the menu. A plate you don't want, don't like and don't care about. But it is a plate you can't accept because... It will distract the chef, I suppose?
Do you go in the kitchen to safe the sanctity of the place before it will be contaminated?
What do you expect the chef to do to you?
That's not even close to an accurate analogy...
To use your analogical framing,
I'm at a restaurant that I've eaten at for 10+ years. There are occasionally minor changes to the seasoning (and 1-2 unfortunate times dishes on the menu were replaced) but overall the food is consistently enjoyable for me and and many other people.
Most of the dishes say they feature shaved truffle, but had very little or none at all because people never used to ask about it and the chef assumed it was okay to not put very much.
Now people have started noticing that the dishes claiming to have truffle, had almost no truffle in it and they complain to the chef. So the chef starts adding more truffle to try matching the description they promised to customers.
There is however one section of the menu, spiced meats (two if you count the custards), which is unique in that it has no truffle in it because the chef forgot to type it when writing the menu. They then decided that the spiced meats not having truffle was significant and included that in the restaurant's concept. Since then spiced meats have become the most popular group of food on the menu.
Recently however a small number of truffle enthusiasts have started coming in and complaining loudly about how the spiced meats don't have truffle in them and that makes them feel excluded. So they want the chef to add truffle on top of all spiced meats from now on.
You are someone that likes truffle and doesn't mind it in your food, but you also appreciate the spiced meats as they are now. No one can take away your memories of the spiced meat you enjoyed, but as someone who enjoys the truffle-less spiced meat as it is, you don't want it to change or think it needs to change.
The truffle enthusiasts however say that your opinion is invalid, you are causing physical harm to truffle enthusiasts by not supporting them, and that you can just scrape the outer layer off of your spiced meats from now on. Also if for some reason you do that it just proves that you secretly hate truffles and have a unrefined pallette.
If you think that analogy was ridiculous, congratulations you picked it...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 16:22:07
None is proposing to change anything at all in your plate. Truffle wasn't there at all before (meaning non-existent, like a female space marine), and is a side option now (that you can combine with your male space marine).
You can have EXACTLY what you had before without any changes.
But now there is ALSO a different variant.
The truffle example doesn't make sense at all, until you change the word "truffle" with "women". Then it makes a lot of sense, it's kind of an accurate description of the hobby and what is the reasoning behind the dislike towards female marines...
So: thank you very much! I don't know if you did that on purpose, but is an enlightening contribution. It really conveys the horror of the common man that became a stranger in his own safe space due to te invasion of an alien group of people. H.P.Lovercraft would be proud (that can be both an insult and a compliment at the same time, tbh).
By the way, to really argument against the restaurant examples, there were other venues you could have followed: a crunchy or smelly food that is either noisy or smelly and so ruin my experience would at least have made sense...but of course then you should motivate why a female head (or a female marine on White Dwarf) annoys you.
I suppose that the reason why you did great for "they're changing recipe!" knowing that it doesn't applies?
(You're wrong on the first part of course but will derail the thread further. Simply, there are situations like this one where you can't prove neither a positive or a negative. And by the way, you CAN prove a negative, but is impractical in the real world and you can always add accessory negligible conditions that will force you to prove the negative again. If you want to open a thread about logic works I'll participate gladly... sometime is really painful to see how people argument in YMTC and rules threads).
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
None is saying that there is a direct cause/effect between sexist attitude, all male Space Marine and Games Workshop. Like any donkey-cave is responsability of GW.
Point is: you cannot prove the opposing neither.
Since it is a reasonable and well proven assumption that SOME relationship (in form of correlation) between the two exist, plus the fact that
First off, "prove the opposite" is literally asking me to prove a negative which is unreasonably laborious as I would have to identify every possible point by which the intersection of Space Marines, GW, and sexism could occur then prove that they were in fact not causal to one another. So no...
Also there is no such thing as a "well proven assumption". Something either has significant recorded evidence by which it is "well proven" or it lacks sufficient evidence by which it is "assumption". And I have yet to see any evidence demonstrating that the described incidents are widespread or are caused by space marines being all male. If the relation is there then you should be able to prove it and then demonstrate why your requested change is the most reasonable path forward.
Imagine you're at the restaurant. Another table want to add a plate to the menu. A plate you don't want, don't like and don't care about. But it is a plate you can't accept because... It will distract the chef, I suppose?
Do you go in the kitchen to safe the sanctity of the place before it will be contaminated?
What do you expect the chef to do to you?
That's not even close to an accurate analogy...
To use your analogical framing,
I'm at a restaurant that I've eaten at for 10+ years. There are occasionally minor changes to the seasoning (and 1-2 unfortunate times dishes on the menu were replaced) but overall the food is consistently enjoyable for me and and many other people.
Most of the dishes say they feature shaved truffle, but had very little or none at all because people never used to ask about it and the chef assumed it was okay to not put very much.
Now people have started noticing that the dishes claiming to have truffle, had almost no truffle in it and they complain to the chef. So the chef starts adding more truffle to try matching the description they promised to customers.
There is however one section of the menu, spiced meats (two if you count the custards), which is unique in that it has no truffle in it because the chef forgot to type it when writing the menu. They then decided that the spiced meats not having truffle was significant and included that in the restaurant's concept. Since then spiced meats have become the most popular group of food on the menu.
Recently however a small number of truffle enthusiasts have started coming in and complaining loudly about how the spiced meats don't have truffle in them and that makes them feel excluded. So they want the chef to add truffle on top of all spiced meats from now on.
You are someone that likes truffle and doesn't mind it in your food, but you also appreciate the spiced meats as they are now. No one can take away your memories of the spiced meat you enjoyed, but as someone who enjoys the truffle-less spiced meat as it is, you don't want it to change or think it needs to change.
The truffle enthusiasts however say that your opinion is invalid, you are causing physical harm to truffle enthusiasts by not supporting them, and that you can just scrape the outer layer off of your spiced meats from now on. Also if for some reason you do that it just proves that you secretly hate truffles and have a unrefined pallette.
If you think that analogy was ridiculous, congratulations you picked it...
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous when you make an analogy and you choose to insert behaviors that are not in the original thing being discussed, and are also not a thing that makes sense at all in the analogy, either.
You are angry at the idea that an OPTION may be officially sanctioned and supported by the company that produces a canonical work, rather than the current state, where the canonical background of the work explicitly forbids people from taking that option.
YOU PERSONALLY are not being accused of causing harm - I'm going to skip the absurdity of 'physical harm' because...lol, OK - what is being pointed out is the fact that, extremely reliably, people are using the justification of that canonical detail to harass and be gakky towards people.
Nobody comes out of nowhere and bitches and moans about how anti-canonical it is when (and this is just gonna be examples I recall from recent posts on various social media platforms)
-someone converts a Tau genestealer cult army (canon says they can sniff 'em out somehow)
-someone draws a genestealer hybrid space marine
-someone converts or possibly 3d prints a cyborg necron-themed tyranid army
-someone makes underwater chaos space marines in bioshock diver helmets
-someone makes a Stormcast Eternal army using only male models. Or a guard army. Or a Genestealer Cult army. Or an Eldar army. Or a militarum tempestus army. Never ever ever, not once not one single time have I ever seen a post on any 40k related social media commenting 'hey canon says there should be men and women in that army, wheres the women you sexist?'
people JUST use that lore detail as a cudgel when it comes to space marines with female heads.
Your memories of how things were previously are not so sacred that a company must bow to your whim if a larger number of paying customers ask them to provide an option for them within their product. If 15 customers to your favorite restaurant are demanding that an item be AVAILABLE as an OPTION you do not have a right to say that you have been a customer longer and therefore the current state of that option being forbidden must continue indefinitely.
You're just bein' a hobby karen. I'm sorry. Businesses exist to make money, unless more people threaten to leave if the current state of option being unavailable continues than people say they'd join if option was presented, then the option will be added.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 16:49:18
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
People didn't leave 40K when Abaddon burned down half of the Imperium. They didn't leave when all Imperial Fists were killed or when nearly all Blood Angels were killed. They also didn't leave when Cawl came out of nowhere and did what so far only Fabius Bile tried to do - alter most of what makes a Space Marine. They also didn't leave when GW had the great idea to put Space Marines inside of Space Marines, or when Space Marines suddenly took over the navy or when Space Wolves weren't afraid of flying anymore or when they made even better silver Space Marines or even betterer golden nearly-Space Marines.
I don't think they'll leave when the Imperium decides, after having lost so much territory, to open up the recruitment pool for the other half of the populace.
There are squats and halflings and Ogryns in the Imperium, there must be a planet where women have evolved enough muscles to be able to be transformed into Space Marines to calm down the "because of biological reasons" crowd
some bloke wrote: My issue (and it's a big one for me) is the idea that the reason for changing marines isn't because female marines would be cool (which is in the spirit of equality yadda yadda but is ultimately because it would be awesome), but because they are the flagship.
You say that it's ok for them to be all male if they weren't the flagship. That is the most flawed logic I can think of. It's either a problem, or it isn't. It can't be "not a problem because it's not in peoples faces". That's like saying it's ok to be sexist as long as no-one can see.
Well, no - there's no "it's either a problem, or it isn't" about it - because the problem is that the male factions are disproportionately representative, and additionally, for seemingly no reason other than "because made up reason".
Including women in a faction that has no reason not to have women in the first place isn't sexism at all.
Let me try to explain it by switching the target out, for two hypothetical situations. I'll ask you not to say "but that's not how it is", because that won't help this to move anywhere.
What if Orks were the flagship? Let's say Orks become super popular, space marines become less so, and Orks become the flagship product. Orks are on all the banners, Orks are on the website, and in nearly every starter box.
Would you expect them to change the lore (which only exists because it was written, as we've established) so that Orks are no longer asexual mushroom people who reproduce via spores, and instead expect them to produce a 50/50 mix of male and female orks?
If Orks became the flagship faction, this would still be very different as Orks, despite being masculine, are fundamentally not human, or even transhuman. They are unmistakably alien. I still wouldn't turn my nose up at orks that looked more feminine, in the same way that many orcs in media are handled, but as they're not "human" and therefore not a point of representation, they aren't the same as Space Marines.
Space Marines, for all the fluff of them being transhuman, are still noticeably "human" in their appearance - either Space Marines need to be less human by design, or represent a wider range of humans.
Fundamentally this is on the same level. The reason orks all appear masculine is because they do. The reason marines all appear male is because they do. Both armies have an established lore behind why they appear as they do (orks are strong and don't have genders. Marines can only be made male. all this only exists because they wrote it that way.) but it makes no sense to adjust Orks to have female orks. The implication by your claims that it's not acceptable to have an all-male flagship product means to have Orks as a flagship, you would want female Orks. Is that correct?
No, because Orks are not human, or human-appearing. Space Marines are, quite literally, transhuman.
An entirely made up fictional race with no basis in reality is very different from "normal humans upgraded by a fictional super soldier serum which arbitrarily has a gender restriction".
But, for what it's worth, I'm also not complaining about adding female coded Orks, so long as they're treated identically to masculine coded Orks.
Now, let's say that sisters of battle are the flagship. Would you say it's unacceptable to have an all female faction be the flagship as it suggests female = normal?
Yes, I would have an issue with any mono-gender faction as the flagship.
Do you see the flaw in the logic?
No, because you seem to misunderstand my point.
Now apply the different reasoning. "We want female marines because it is a cool idea". That holds water regardless of whether it is done to pander to the people.
I hope you can see what I'm getting at. Saying "they can't all be men because they are at the forefront of the marketing department!" is sexist.
In what way? Awareness of sex and sexual inadequacies in representation isn't sexist.
But, if you think that's sexist, how do you feel about lore that, for no reason, arbitrarily says that women can't be super soldiers? Is that not sexist?
Saying "They shouldn't all be men because it would be cool to have women as well" is not sexist.
It's not sexist, you're right. But neither is "hey, there's no women prominently featured here - can we have some?"
some bloke wrote: Ultimately sexism is very much based on motivations. If I hold a door open for someone, I am being polite. That is a fact.
Not necessarily factual, and additionally, highlighting that women aren't being represented fairly isn't sexist - if anything, surely acknowledging that women aren't being treated evenly is sexist?
The whole point is for equality. Asking for equality isn't sexism.
What I'm largely getting is that the only reason people want female space marines is because they are the flagship product and therefore cannot possibly be all men. That is the wrong reason for making a change.
I never said it's the only reason - my other reasons included that:
- It'd be cool, and provide a whole range of customisation options for a faction defined by their customisation
- There's no good reason for the lore to exclude women in the first place, and arguments that default to status quo fundamentally miss the point of critical reflection and the ephemeral nature of GW's lore
- Further solidifying the presence of women within the hobby, and integrating them from a holistic perspective, instead of feeling like women were relegated to exclusive side factions, as evidenced by the testimony earlier.
some bloke wrote: Secondly, no, not everyone who is advocating for female marines agrees that it wouldn't be necessary if they weren't the flagship product. I would think it a good idea no matter where they sat on the popularity scale. I am against doing it exclusively because they are the flagship. As in "I am against (doing it because they are the flagship)", not "I am against doing it (because they are the flagship)". If you take my drift on where the emphasis is meant to be on those words!
Good, because I'm not doing it for exclusively those reasons either.
If you make space marines female exclusively because they are popular and all men and we can't possibly have popular things that are all men, then that is 100% sexist.
Nothing wrong with Space Marines being popular. The issue is that they're not just popular, they're dominant. They're omnipresent in marketing, synonymous with "Warhammer 40k", absolutely iconic and recognisable. They go beyond popular, and into "cultural icon" status.
Popular? Custodes are quite popular. They're not the flagship by any stretch.
"you can join this community, and can have female models!" "oh cool, which armies?" "battle nuns or the ones we've added just for you, of course, because you couldn't have an army without girls in it could you, girlie?"
No-one implied that women only played factions with women in them. But did you literally miss the testimony earlier where a hobbyist said that she felt driven away because she felt that women were relegated to specific factions?
Including women isn't saying "hey, we know you only like playing with women so here's some women for you to play with", it's saying "hey, we've gotten rid of that stupid exclusionary rule that led to the face of our company being made up solely of men. You might not want to play that faction, but we're not hiding women in obscure sub-factions now!"
some bloke wrote: I still maintain my stance that if they do it for any reason other than because it would be cool to do, it's somewhat sexist.
And likewise, is excluding them for lore reasons also sexist? Because isn't that just the same "we excluded them because it would be cool to do so" logic at play?
Guard never had a reason to be all male.
Neither did Marines. GW just invented one - but there was no forcible reason to.
The addition of women in guard is more of a "hey, we have no female models, let's make some". I don't know, to be honest. I am really on the fence. On one hand, female marines would be a cool thing to have. On the other, it shouldn't be done "so that women can play marines". If the only reason for doing it is because marines are the flagship, then here's a suggestion - why don't they make someone else the flagship?
I've addressed why this isn't feasible, because it ignores the cultural weight Space Marines have amassed over decades and the inherent lead they'd have, and also how promoting another faction to the same tier as Space Marines would cost astronomically more than "a new head sprue and change of 13 words".
Seriously, the problem seems to be "women see GW, they see all male models, so they don't feel like they can play". Change that to "Women see GW, they see male and female guardsmen, so they feel that they can play".
If it was that easy to make Guard the flagship, sure. But it's not.
I feel like if Orks were the flagship, people would say "change the flagship". If Marines are the flagship, people say "Change marines". It seems wrong.
No, I'd say that regardless. The flagship should not be gender-locked. The question is, what is the easier option - change the flagship, or change the faction. In the current case of Space Marines, the ease of changing them to include women, and the massive cultural dominance they possess, changing the faction is easier.
some bloke wrote: An excellent point, and well made. It's about how it's handled.
Saying "marines are girls now so girls can play the game too" is the equivalent of standing in the doorway making things worse despite trying to make things better.
But no-one's saying that.
What they're saying is that "now women can see that they're not relegated to some obscure side faction, and have more options than 'sexualised battle nun'.".
I think that the phrase "Being male is fine. Being the flagship, and being all male is not, and contributes to a sense that "male = default"." is saying exactly that. They are saying "all male space marines is bad because space marines are popular". If space marines weren't popular, then they wouldn't need changing, is the gist of it. That sounds like the reason for the change is the wrong one.
Again, not that they're popular. T'au are popular. Knights are popular. Guard are popular. None of them are the Flagship Faction.
If Space Marines weren't the flagship, this would not be as much of a pressing matter - but as I've already said, there's no good reason for Space Marines to be all men anyway, because the lore excuse is entirely made up and explicitly exclusionary, and being all men contributes nothing to their factional identity (and actually weakens their role as 'customisable faction').
JNAProductions wrote: So, if Custodes stay all men, it can be viewed as an issue-but it’s not nearly the issue that Marines being all men is.
Exactly.
Space Marines being all male is a much larger problem than "waaaa all male factions are bad" (which is a blatant strawman), because Space Marines are such a prominent feature of 40k.
the_scotsman wrote: A large number of people pick marines as their chosen faction, because a large number of people when presented with an ensemble-cast sort of faction style game choose "me, but as like a cool, badass hero."
Spoiler:
It's just an easy default choice. humans in WoW and DnD and Skyrim and whatever else are usually a pretty common pick, because people are just like 'i'm engaging with this setting because I want to imagine myself, being the cool badass and swinging the big sword and wearing the big armor.'
It's certainly the reason I picked Space Wolves as a blonde kid with a germanic family who'd always thought reading about norse mythology was cool.
It's not what everybody HAS to do, and it's not what everybody DOES do when presented with a setting like 40k, but it's pretty obvious from the massive appeal of marines vs everything else...a lot of people do that.
And yeah, sisters of battle are there, and that does allow someone who wants to do the whole 'just me, but a badass wearing cool armor' thing to do that as a woman.
It's just always been a little bit weird that they're space marines, but weaker. And not in any of the starter boxes. And you need twice as many of them to make an army. And 'theyre sexy' is an OPTIONAL component for space marines, but kind of a required component with SOB. And they can't be evil. And the only evil factions with women in them are the intrinsically sexy ones.
It's like if the only female superhero in the core DC cast was Wonder Woman. Powerful...but superman is way, way more powerful. And 'the girl one' is...kind of a huge defining aspect of who she is, she's from an all-girls society of Girl-landia and a whole lot of her villains are the woman villains, and she wears a skimpier sexier costume than superman and batman.
But hey, Supergirl's right there if you just want superman, but, a lady. So good, there you go.
Again to bring up AOS, I'd like to point out that there IS a faction of all bikini-clad hot murder ladies if that's your jam. But it's not the ONLY faction that has women in it - if you just want to play 'you, but buffer and awesomer and with a giant sword' there's women in the stormcast.
[...]
This is a pretty good analogy.
You're at your favorite restaurant, and they've still got all your favorite foods, but now they serve your least favorite food as well, it's on the menu.
Hasn't replaced anything, isn't in the foods you like, you don't have to order it, but it's there.
Why would you complain about this?
Yup, agreed with just.. all this.
@Jack Flask:
Spoiler:
Jack Flask wrote: I can't speak for Argive, but the political part is the idea that a piece of fiction must be changed because it doesn't correlate with the current vogue belief by certain politically active individuals, who claim that anything that doesn't match their perception of an equitable society is harmful and thereby is responsible for driving injustice in the real world.
Having women represented fairly in a faction that has no reason to exclude them isn't political though.
By extension it denies the idea that fiction is divested from reality and therefor Space Marines being all male is the direct root cause of any bad behavior by individuals in the community and is responsible for the low participation of women in the hobby. Therefore by knowing this and refusing to act (or acting to preserve this current state) it is a perpetuating sexism, which mirrors Critical Race Theory's tenets of Institutional Racism and Structural Determinism.
The issue is that this is proven to be somewhat true by the testimonies of women presented in this thread, who very much make it clear that unrepresentative faction design in 40k is antagonistic to women.
Additionally the very idea that we NEED more women in 40k presupposes that the lack of women in 40k is A) a problem and B) the result of some flaw within the community. It completely fails to consider that women not having an equal presence in the hobby can be due to self-determination (lack of interest for example), and attempts to remedy the supposed "problem" without fully understanding why this occurring or if it even truly is a problem.
Yes, the lack of women *is* a problem when those women are explicitly saying "we'd be okay except we're getting a massive 'boy's only' mentality from this whole situation". Again, feel free to read those testimonies.
Yes Space Marines are all male. Yes, there is a lack of female models across many factions in the game that pretty much everyone here on both sides agrees should be addressed. How you can argue with a straight face that women are not acknowledged in the marketing is utterly baffling to me...
It might not be exactly 50/50, but GW has massively improved the level of female representation in it's marketing/media materials.
And it's still not enough. Improvement doesn't mean perfection, or even adequacy.
The Indomitus trailer features 3 guardsmen (1 female, 2 unidentifiable), a large number of Space Marines, and an equally large number of Sisters of Battle. Both the Sisters and the Marines get equal screen time, about equal lengths of dialogue, and are both depicted struggling with Necrons and heroically saving one another.
Wow. One promotional video for a boxed set that... doesn't include women.
It's also *one* video. I don't think that even begins to scratch at the surface of the amount of all-male content that exists.
Can they do more? Sure.
Will they do more? Probably/hopefully
Should they do more? I don't see why not.
But what we have now is a far cry from "barely acknowledging".
It's not close to fair representation though.
First off, it is NOT 5 years ago so that's completely irrelevant.
You're right, it's not.
By that same token, it's not 30 years ago where we had lore that claimed that "male tissue types" prevented women from being Space Marines. So why do we still stick by that lame excuse?
None of that has any relation to Space Marines being exclusively male other than people trying to force the argument that GW will never add more models female or otherwise to other factions (despite them doing exactly that recently) therefore Marines must be changed.
No-one said that GW wouldn't add them to other factions, or that they shouldn't. The issue was that representation only matters when it's visible - and without changing the most visible faction (either by changing who the visible faction is, which would be prohibitively expensive, or just changing a single detail of that faction), it's ultimately not enough.
Third, if you write out a description for any of the factions in 40k they sound terrible. That's part of the point. I also don't remember (it has been a while) Sisters being depicted as anything other than dutiful arbiters of justice or compassionate defenders in most of the Imperial novels they appear in, though I will admit that I haven't had a chance to read the recent ones yet. But I'd hardly call psycho-indoctrinated emotionless shock-assault troops who follow the same Imperial creed of "if it doesn't espouse Imperial propaganda, blow it of the map" as being particularly heartwarming.
And yet, who are the face of GW's marketing? Plus, Space Marines are described pretty commonly now as "heroic defenders of humanity" and "brave heroes and warriors" - not as "psycho-indoctrinated assault troops". I also encourage you to see the much more tame cartoon Space Marines GW use in their marketing, and tell me that they're not somewhat designed to be consumer-friendly?
While we are at it let's address "wanting to start an army that looked like you". Wanting to look like WHO exactly? Is a 5' tall chubby Japanese woman supposed to identify with a >7' tall roided out white woman because they have long hair and were born with the same genitalia? I mean I'm not a woman but I can identify with aspects of all female factions and characters despite not sharing bodily traits with them. I certainly didn't convert female Stormcast or Chaos Cultists because they "looked like me"...
That's yet another misrepresentation of what representation is.
Again, look at the actual testimony from women posted in this thread about the matter.
GW corporate probably doesn't care, but the fans do. Which is why I care so much.
I'm a fan too. Don't imply that "if you were a true fan, you'd never consider changing the lore!"
Also who said anyone defending all-male space marines is/was ok with Necrons, Primaris, ect?
All I'm saying is that if Necrons and Primaris were as bad as they make women Astartes out to be, this setting-destroying blight, they wouldn't be here any more.
Multiple people have claimed that and it is a gak reason every time they do. Making female space marines canon isn't going to stop gakheads from being gakheads, and I can say that with 100% certainty because I've seem plenty of gakheads say crap things to other people both IRL and online with no relation to race or gender involved.
You're right - it won't. But will it remove any sense of legitimacy and highlight just how much of a gakhead they're being? Absolutely.
Going out of their way to complain at someone about how they are breaking the lore because they didn't use the canonical colors for the space marine chapter they are fielding.
Interrupting someone else's game to tell them about a rules violation and then getting mad when the players decided it's fine they'll just ignore it because "you aren't respecting the integrity of the rules".
Implying someone is dumb or has mental condition because they brought a subpar army or made a tactical mistake in game.
Yeah, these are all true - but we can all largely agree that these are entirely unjustified and clearly wrong. But someone saying "but women Space Marines aren't canon!" isn't lying - they can defend their comment by saying that they're just "preserving the lore" or "just reminding people" - even though such a comment is rarely ever just that.
Nobody in this entire thread said they don't want female gamers in the hobby or that they wish harm on anybody
But they're strongly implying it.
Ok, who? Quote it. Because I haven't seen anyone imply it.
Not wanting the lore for space marines to change is not even close to the same thing as refusing to allow women in the hobby or inciting violence against them.
There was actually a user who *did* explicitly say that they endorsed communities acting in toxic ways towards women to keep them out of their hobby earlier in this thread. Thankfully, their comment was deleted by mods who very quickly came down on that, hence why I can't quote it, but it definitely did happen.
It wasn't even an implication, it was very much explicit in that.
The side that claims we are only as good as our skin color, gender, or sexuality and that we are wrong for refusing to agree with them? I think there's a word for that...
No-one's claiming that.
What we're wondering is why women can't be included as Space Marines.
How is not wanting canonical changes to Space Marines, "not treating people as people"? Rather than reducing anyone down to some monolith of their genitalia I simply believe in showing them the fiction and the hobby as it is and letting them determine for themselves if they like it and want to engage in it.
But why is the fiction like that in the first place?
Why didn't Space Marines have women from the start?
I oppose it because it's an arbitrary change to a fictional setting
To an arbitrary reason that women can't exist.
Don't call it an arbitrary change when the real arbitrary factor is why women couldn't be Astartes in the first place.
that I enjoy based on the assumption that somehow said change will make the community more welcoming to a hypothetical untapped segment of fans based on the anecdotal and emotional arguments of a small but vocal segment of the community.
It ain't hypothetical - I'm guessing you *didn't* read any of the testimonies of women hobbyists presented in this thread.
Also, what's wrong with "emotional" arguments? Surely the whole "I enjoy the lore so pwease don't change it" is an emotional argument as well?
Also this change is supposedly so minuscule and unimportant that no one should be bothered by it, but also is somehow the singular thing making some people feel unwelcome.
Not the singular, but definitely important.
The "miniscule and unimportant" part is that it doesn't force anyone to retroactively change their collections. Including women shouldn't be a problem for anyone, should it?
Also this piece of fiction is singularly responsible for the creation/encouragement of bad actors within the community
Yeah, now you're just making comments up, because no-one said that either.
and this change will fix that but without doing any *actual* work to hold people accountable for their bad behavior or trying to build a healthy local community.
Again, that's all made up.
Oh and I also "love" how a small number of bad actors is apparently reflective of a large segment of the community, despite there being no evidence of that.
Large? Not necessarily. Existent to the point where many women come forward about it? Large enough.
Ok, so I want to politely ask you to answer a question for me. When is it acceptable to have a mono-gendered group in a fictional setting?
When it goes out of it's way to specifically criticize the concept as wrong?
When it sufficiently jumps through enough arbitrary hoops to justify why it was absolutely necessary from a literary perspective?
When the fiction is unknown enough to not be visible to most people?
Because judging by the responses in this thread I feel the answer is "never if men, though we'll ignore it if women, but if we get questioned about it then we'll say we think it shouldn't apply anywhere". Which seems ridiculously restrictive about what can be explored in fiction and also seems to deny peoples' ability to hold their real world morals and views separate from that of fiction.
Then you weren't reading the responses.
I explicitly call out Custodes as fine as a mono-gendered concept, because they specifically draw from thematic elements of it, bolstering their factional identity, and are not the flagship faction.
I personally call out Sisters as fine as a mono-gendered concept, because they explicitly draw from thematic elements from it, bolstering their factional identity, are not the flagship faction, and have a compelling in-universe reason that serves to tell us something interesting about the setting, without the use of arbitrary "science" to justify it.
Space Marines do none of the above.
I'd also argue that outside of Necrons and *sort of* Primaris there aren't really any other major changes to the identity of a faction that I can think of off the top of my head. But feel free to point them out.
Tau switching from a faction that eschewed things like Titans in favour of aircraft strikes and were entirely relegated to a small region of space, into a giant mechsuit and entire galactically accessible realm is another large change. However, I'm pretty in favour of it.
Also do you not believe in people's ability to think critically of things, that you think they need a piece of media to shout at them about what values they should hold?
Then I ask why Space Marines are the vector for this, and not, say, the Custodes?
THERE IS NO DANGER IN HAVING AN EXTRA SPRUE RATHER THAN A SPRUE LESS...
People are asking for the Space Marine lore and identity to be altered, that's far more than just a sprue...
Their identity has already been altered. Them being "warrior monks" is a concept long side left by the wayside for nearly all Chapters, save for the Black Templars and Dark Angel variants.
And yes - changing 13 words of the lore. You're welcome.
I'm at a restaurant that I've eaten at for 10+ years. There are occasionally minor changes to the seasoning (and 1-2 unfortunate times dishes on the menu were replaced) but overall the food is consistently enjoyable for me and and many other people.
Most of the dishes say they feature shaved truffle, but had very little or none at all because people never used to ask about it and the chef assumed it was okay to not put very much.
Now people have started noticing that the dishes claiming to have truffle, had almost no truffle in it and they complain to the chef. So the chef starts adding more truffle to try matching the description they promised to customers.
So far, so good.
There is however one section of the menu, spiced meats (two if you count the custards), which is unique in that it has no truffle in it because the chef forgot to type it when writing the menu. They then decided that the spiced meats not having truffle was significant and included that in the restaurant's concept. Since then spiced meats have become the most popular group of food on the menu.
And here's where the analogy falls flat.
The problem is that the spiced meats are disproportionately marketed - they are the signature dish of this restaurant that claims to be truffle-inclusive, yet contain no truffle, because of what you literally frame as a mistake: "the chef forgot to type it". Firstly, this ignores that actually, the chef writing that there was no truffle wasn't a mistake but a deliberate, yet entirely arbitrary reason, one that explicitly states there are no truffles, which is pretty stupid from a restaurant that claims to be truffle-inclusive.
There was no reason for the spiced meats not to contain truffle in the first place. Secondly, even if it was later decided that the lack of truffle was important, such a concept and design philosophy in the preparation of these spiced meats has now long since been neglected, with the whole "there are no truffles in this dish" being forgotten and omitted.
What's perhaps more fitting is to say that the restaurant has a menu which says "all food items have truffle", except the spiced meats *used* to have a sign saying "no truffle here, we're the exception" - but then the spiced meats became the signature dish, heavily featured in all meal deals and promotional servings, and then also stopped making it clear that they didn't include truffles.
As you can see - the initial lack of truffles was the first mistake, but then the others just keep piling on.
Recently however a small number of truffle enthusiasts have started coming in and complaining loudly about how the spiced meats don't have truffle in them and that makes them feel excluded. So they want the chef to add truffle on top of all spiced meats from now on.
You are someone that likes truffle and doesn't mind it in your food, but you also appreciate the spiced meats as they are now. No one can take away your memories of the spiced meat you enjoyed, but as someone who enjoys the truffle-less spiced meat as it is, you don't want it to change or think it needs to change.
Then you can ask the chef not to include the truffle for your own meal.
The truffle enthusiasts however say that your opinion is invalid, you are causing physical harm to truffle enthusiasts by not supporting them, and that you can just scrape the outer layer off of your spiced meats from now on. Also if for some reason you do that it just proves that you secretly hate truffles and have a unrefined pallette.
No-one said it's invalid - only that you shouldn't stop other people from being able to have truffle on their spiced meats. If you don't like it, you can request the chef not to prepare any truffle for your spiced meat, and no-one's going to judge you for that, because you're not harming their enjoyment of their truffle and spiced meat.
If you think that analogy was ridiculous, congratulations you picked it...
It was a fine analogy, until you missed out the core issue that the spiced meats not having truffle was the first problem - either because of a mistake, as you put in your own analogy, or because of deliberate exclusion of truffle for no good reason, in the real world.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can we stop trying to make this a political discussion? We've made it 30 pages and some good back and forth, and making it political feels like people are trying to shut down the thread because they don't like what people in it are saying.
Just stop saying it's about politics and make your points.
Absolutely. If the moderation team felt that this discussion was out of line we would have locked the thread already, the fact that we have not and that at least two moderators have posted in this thread clearly shows that we do not have an issue. I would ask that people please stop trying to close down the discussion by stating "Its political" as some sort of coverall.
Also, thank you to all have been participating in good faith so far as well, its gotten rocky occasionally but I am pretty proud of how most people have been comporting themselves on both sides of the debate. You rock.
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous when you make an analogy and you choose to insert behaviors that are not in the original thing being discussed, and are also not a thing that makes sense at all in the analogy, either.
So in the interest of upping my analogy game what part of it was inaccurate?
You are angry at the idea that an OPTION may be officially sanctioned and supported by the company that produces a canonical work, rather than the current state, where the canonical background of the work explicitly forbids people from taking that option.
It's not really an "option" when Space Marines' very identity is as the inheriting sons of the legacy of the Emperor's 20 geneforged sons. Restricted to being male because apparently said Emperor tied the technology of their creation to the male genetic code. And whose narrative framing is seeped with language and ritual making reference to warrior fraternities and monastic orders.
That's what most people would colloquially refer to as "a change".
Though I keep hearing people say that's all irrelevant or something because it's fiction so no one should care about anything.
OK - what is being pointed out is the fact that, extremely reliably, people are using the justification of that canonical detail to harass and be gakky towards people.
Gakky people use all sorts of things as justification to do gakky things. It has less to do with the cudgel and everything to do with the person wielding it.
I know full well that you're going to try claiming this comparison inaccurate, but it's like saying we should ban knives to prevent stabbings. At some point you have to acknowledge that sudden the increase in bludgeoning violence is because you didn't want to address the much harder issue of mental health.
You can add all the female space marines you want but it's not going to make a bully or someone with severe social issues stop coming up with reasons to abuse someone else.
Nobody comes out of nowhere and bitches and moans about how anti-canonical it is when (and this is just gonna be examples I recall from recent posts on various social media platforms)
-someone converts a Tau genestealer cult army (canon says they can sniff 'em out somehow)
-someone draws a genestealer hybrid space marine
-someone converts or possibly 3d prints a cyborg necron-themed tyranid army
-someone makes underwater chaos space marines in bioshock diver helmets
-someone makes a Stormcast Eternal army using only male models. Or a guard army. Or a Genestealer Cult army. Or an Eldar army. Or a militarum tempestus army. Never ever ever, not once not one single time have I ever seen a post on any 40k related social media commenting 'hey canon says there should be men and women in that army, wheres the women you sexist?'
people JUST use that lore detail as a cudgel when it comes to space marines with female heads.
Because the "it's not canon" is just an excuse for a gakky person to harass someone because they know it provokes a reaction. I've seen people make Chaos Orks and get comments saying "there are no Chaos Orks because all Orks worship Gork and Mork".
Do you know what the reaction from the owner was?
"Yeah, I know. I made them because I thought they were cool and I don't care." That's it.
The vast majority of people I've seen in person didn't care what you did with your own models and we even did have some regular women at our local store. And yes we did have a few known bad actors at our store.
I despise Angry Marines and I hate seeing armies of them, but I wouldn't ever say that to someone who made them. They are their models. The same way I wouldn't care if someone converted female space marines. They are their models...
Does my anecdotal experience trump anyone else's? No. But I'm also not trying to claim a large segment of a community is hateful based on a combination of someone else's anecdotal experiences in person *and* their internet experiences (which should not be used as a guage for anything).
If a larger number of paying customers ask them to provide an option for them within their product. If 15 customers to your favorite restaurant are demanding that an item be AVAILABLE as an OPTION you do not have a right to say that you have been a customer longer and therefore the current state of that option being forbidden must continue indefinitely.
Pray tell, by what evidence do you believe that there are a larger number of paying customers asking for this than ones who are fine with the way things are?
I'm not discounting your assertion offhand, but I assume you have some sort of evidence don't you?
I never claimed my length of engagement with the hobby entitled me to anything. I only mention it because it's the reason I "give a gak" so to speak.
You're just bein' a hobby karen. I'm sorry. Businesses exist to make money, unless more people threaten to leave if the current state of option being unavailable continues than people say they'd join if option was presented, then the option will be added.
I'm sorry, so I should what? Just not say anything when a handful of people attempt to claim they have some sort of false authority and run roughshod over something that has meaning to me because "they might think I'm a Karen"? As if you and your ilk are any more noble?
Also I love how when people were making noise about a lack of racial diversity in Warhammer a few years ago, they would say "GW had a moral imperative to help society". And the gakky counter response was always "GW is a business, they exist to make money lol" because they really didn't have an argument since the Imperium should have been racially diverse from the start per the lore...
Jack flask, we have addressed all you concerns time and time again. We have shown you how “lore” is no reason not to change. We have given examples of the problems that a lack of representation can cause and how fixing it is easy. Even in the same company. The politics have been discussed to death, and the I think most folk agreed that the oppression of poor white boys and left wing conspiracy plot was a non starter.
Yes GWs settings should have been diverse from the beginning, but they weren’t. They are addressing that now. Next step is the female marines.
Aight, to be fair in my post I did waffle between my stance on what GW should do (introduce female astartes) and what they will do (follow the money, whichever way it leads).
There are a number of people, like yourself, who threaten a degree of financial loss to games workshop through standard internet cancel culture if they introduce the option of making female astartes to the players. There is also a theoretical number of people who may join the hobby through seeing themselves represented in the standard, broadly appealing power fantasy human faction in 40k.
I don't have numbers for the financial value of the loss from the first group, or the financial value of the gain from the second group. It's pretty clear, by the way that they introduced primaris but kept firstborn marines around (despite primaris CLEARLY being designed as a replacement) that GW is highly concerned about the value of the first group.
And it's also clear, from the way that they've introduced female models to AOS, that they're curious about the value that may exist within the second group.
All this is my opinion on what GW will do. My opinion on what GW should do, is just based on my own experience. I started the hobby in middle school as a blonde nerdy kid who loved to read about norse mythology, and the fact that there were badass space vikings was a major factor in how I got into 40k.
I think there are some people who get into 40k, see Sisters of Battle, and get into them for the same reason, just like I think there are some people who get into comics and see Wonder Woman and that's their jam.
But I do think the fact that the sisters of battle are "good, but, you know. FAR from the BEST" - one sister being roughly half the value of one of the current primaris space marines - and the fact that they have a very defined theme of being catholic nuns while space marines come in every conceivable flavor and theme imaginable - you've got knights, romans, leather daddies, pet play, call of duty modern warfare, dirty dozen commandos, robed monks, every color and historical inspiration and gay subculture you can come up with, with roughly 1/2 of the model releases, 3/4 of the lore, and 1/2 of the media dedicated to marines, you'd probably get more people in on that angle if marines could also be women.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 19:30:04
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous when you make an analogy and you choose to insert behaviors that are not in the original thing being discussed, and are also not a thing that makes sense at all in the analogy, either.
So in the interest of upping my analogy game what part of it was inaccurate?
I addressed that myself, most notably how even in your example, you state how the spiced meat not including truffles was a mistake.
It's time to fix that mistake.
Secondly, how multiple paying customers wanting truffle on their spiced meat, and not having to buy their own truffle from elsewhere to add to the spiced meat, shouldn't be a problem for you when you can just... not eat the truffle.
It's not really an "option" when Space Marines' very identity is as the inheriting sons of the legacy of the Emperor's 20 geneforged sons. Restricted to being male because apparently said Emperor tied the technology of their creation to the male genetic code. And whose narrative framing is seeped with language and ritual making reference to warrior fraternities and monastic orders.
Except the Space Marines have been moving further and further away from that "narrative framing seeped with language and ritual making reference to warrior fraternities and monastic orders".
Tell me, where's the monastic order in the Space Wolves? The Raven Guard? The Raptors? I'd also like to repeat that the whole "male coded tissue" was the reason for them being all men at first - a restriction that is completely and utterly made up, and is explicitly exclusive - and that it's not even mentioned in later books.
Space Marines are no more framed as this holy order of All Dudes than the Adeptus Mechanicus are, because GW don't see the "warrior fraternity and monastic order" part of Space Marines as their selling point any more. Their selling point now, if current trends are to be believed, is that Space Marines are the "blank canvas" faction, the ones that can be themed like whatever you like, can have any colour scheme that suits you, and are free to explore your themes through. That's why GW so heavily promote the whole "paint your own Primaris funko pop", or "Primaris Marine colour scheme template", or even the "create your own Chapter" rules which I believe first came with Space Marines. They're a blank canvas for creation first and foremost, and excluding women seems like a rejection of that ideal.
That's what most people would colloquially refer to as "a change".
Like when GW changed from Space Marines having women to... not having them?
Though I keep hearing people say that's all irrelevant or something because it's fiction so no one should care about anything.
So why do you have such an opposition to women Space Marines? If someone else cares enough to want it, why do you care so much to stop them?
Gakky people use all sorts of things as justification to do gakky things. It has less to do with the cudgel and everything to do with the person wielding it.
But you still stop them wielding the cudgel.
I know full well that you're going to try claiming this comparison inaccurate, but it's like saying we should ban knives to prevent stabbings. At some point you have to acknowledge that sudden the increase in bludgeoning violence is because you didn't want to address the much harder issue of mental health.
Cool - so, in this analogy, the "mental health" is the promotion of the "boys only" mentality, and by increasing exposure to women in prominent places in the marketing (like, the Space Marines), we tackle that issue of "mental health"?
You can add all the female space marines you want but it's not going to make a bully or someone with severe social issues stop coming up with reasons to abuse someone else.
It won't - but it makes it clear that they have no excuse to be abusing people. It's about delegitimising their excuses to exclude people and spread their hatred.
Does my anecdotal experience trump anyone else's? No. But I'm also not trying to claim a large segment of a community is hateful based on a combination of someone else's anecdotal experiences in person *and* their internet experiences (which should not be used as a guage for anything).
Why shouldn't they?
And again, are you suggesting the right thing to do when many people come forward and open up about feeling and being excluded is to... ignore them?
Your memories of how things were previously are not so sacred that a company must bow to your whim
Ok? Neither is anyone's feelings.
Why does lore come before feelings?
I'm sorry, so I should what? Just not say anything when a handful of people attempt to claim they have some sort of false authority and run roughshod over something that has meaning to me because "they might think I'm a Karen"? As if you and your ilk are any more noble?
There's no "false authority". Just asking why re-including women into Space Marines is such a problem.
Why would adding women Astartes be "running roughshod" over your Astartes? And, more importantly, isn't that just another "my feelings" argument?
Also I love how when people were making noise about a lack of racial diversity in Warhammer a few years ago, they would say "GW had a moral imperative to help society". And the gakky counter response was always "GW is a business, they exist to make money lol" because they really didn't have an argument since the Imperium should have been racially diverse from the start per the lore...
Yeah, pretty much. That's why I don't use the "money = everything" mindset. But, for what it's worth, I believe Scotsman is emphasising that the lore means absolutely nothing when compared with whatever is profitable. And if adding women is profitable...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 19:37:34
I'm sorry, so I should what? Just not say anything when a handful of people attempt to claim they have some sort of false authority and run roughshod over something that has meaning to me because "they might think I'm a Karen"? As if you and your ilk are any more noble?
You have the right to say these things. We have the right to tell you're wrong, as many times as it takes.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
I would pay between 15-20 dollars for an extra spru on top of my box of models, but my models only need 3 heads per box. I would pay a lot to support the move towards inclusivity.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I would pay between 15-20 dollars for an extra spru on top of my box of models, but my models only need 3 heads per box. I would pay a lot to support the move towards inclusivity.
I'm sure GW will be grateful for your $100..
I would like to point out they haven't made a plastic upgrade sprue for Storm guardians or other iconic conversion units (shining spears, noise marines etc.) as well as discontinued a bunch of awesome FW stuff..
Don't shoot, but I wager there is more demand for these than for female heads for marines.. So how exactly does this happen in your view at GWHQ? How do you push this through a board room meeting? When fans have been practically begging for non fail cast models for years and their surveys?
What evidence would you use to justify the price tag and R&D for the sprue?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as we are talking about the economics of the change.
Lets say for whatever reasons GW did think this was a good idea, and decided to include an extra sprue in all of their marine boxes.
In true GW fashion, they put up a price tag of a modest extra £10 per box (because its GW after all). Would that be acceptable to you? As in people who have no interest in the sprue, still having to purchase it and having to bear the financial brunt of the change?
Lots of people already barely able to afford 40k models because I think we can all agree the biggest barrier to entry is the cost, those people are now priced out of the hobby.
With covid redundancies& inflation and the general economic roller coaster of the last couple years, this will only get more common.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:07:26
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Argive wrote: How much are people willing to pay for extra heads?
Considering what the Genestealer Cult upgrade sprues cost, £8 to £9 is standard. However, the Stormcast women heads from FW sell for £13.
As resin goes, the FW version is fine, but I think GW could get away with a nice round £10 for a pack of 10 heads.
Argive wrote: I would like to point out they haven't made a plastic upgrade sprue for Storm guardians or other iconic conversion units (shining spears, noise marines etc.) as well as discontinued a bunch of awesome FW stuff..
Don't shoot, but I wager there is more demand for these than for female heads for marines.
I doubt that, actually. Plus, let's look at it from GW's perspective. They already have upgrade kits for those units. They don't have them for women Space Marines. Ergo, making new ones for existing products isn't filling a new niche, and is requiring them to re-cover ground they already have boots on. Whereas with women Space Marine heads, they don't have them yet - filling that market would be an entirely new revenue source.
And evidently, the "Space Marine upgrade" packs sell pretty damn well, because we've got one for basically every First Founding Chapter. It's almost like Space Marines sell well in general.
So how exactly does this happen in your view at GWHQ?
Just like it happened with the Forge World Stormcast heads, just like it happened with the Space Marine upgrade sprues, and just like it happened with the Genestealer Cult upgrade sprues.
How do you push this through a board room meeting?
"Hey, there's people out there who are happy to buy a whole new set of heads that don't even come in the box!"
When fans have been practically begging for non fail cast models for years and surveys?
Begging so hard that GW didn't release plastic sprues for every First Founding Chapter of Space Marines instead?
I'll be totally honest, I don't think GW cares about anything that's not Space Marines.
What evidence would you use to justify the price tag and R&D for the sprue?
*gestures at Genestealer Cult sprue, the new Cadian upgrade sprue, Space Marine upgrade sprues, Stormcast upgrade heads, and the sheer amount of Space Marine players*.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Lets say for whatever reasons GW did think this was a good idea, and decided to include an extra sprue in all of their marine boxes.
Ah, but that's not what people asked for.
We asked for an *optional* sprue, a la the Genestealer Cults upgrade sprue. You're not forced to buy one of them with Guardsmen kits, are you?
Additionally, if and when it came time to update the Marine kits, I'm sure that we can replace one or two of the obligatory bare headed male heads with female ones instead, for no extra cost, seeing as those are newly updated kits.
In true GW fashion, they put up a price tag of a modest extra £10 per box (because its GW after all). Would that be acceptable to you?
No, because that'd be like saying "in order to justify GW making Iron Hands upgrade sprues, they'd need to put them in every Space Marine box!!"
Sell them separately - that's clearly a model that works, as they're doing that with Genestealer Cultists and all the SM upgrade kits.
As in people who have no interest in the sprue, still having to purchase it and having to bear the financial brunt of the change?
No, because, as I said, they're optional upgrade sprues.
Lots of people already barely able to afford 40k models because I think we can all agree the biggest barrier to entry is the cost, those people are now priced out of the hobby. With covid redundancies& inflation and the general economic roller coaster of the last couple years, this will only get more common.
Remind me - did you have to cover the cost of the Iron Hands upgrade sprue at all? Did the cost of normal SM kits go up at all because of that?
I thought not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:14:51
Argive wrote: How much are people willing to pay for extra heads?
Considering what the Genestealer Cult upgrade sprues cost, £8 to £9 is standard. However, the Stormcast women heads from FW sell for £13.
As resin goes, the FW version is fine, but I think GW could get away with a nice round £10 for a pack of 10 heads.
Argive wrote: I would like to point out they haven't made a plastic upgrade sprue for Storm guardians or other iconic conversion units (shining spears, noise marines etc.) as well as discontinued a bunch of awesome FW stuff..
Don't shoot, but I wager there is more demand for these than for female heads for marines.
I doubt that, actually. Plus, let's look at it from GW's perspective. They already have upgrade kits for those units. They don't have them for women Space Marines. Ergo, making new ones for existing products isn't filling a new niche, and is requiring them to re-cover ground they already have boots on. Whereas with women Space Marine heads, they don't have them yet - filling that market would be an entirely new revenue source.
And evidently, the "Space Marine upgrade" packs sell pretty damn well, because we've got one for basically every First Founding Chapter. It's almost like Space Marines sell well in general.
So how exactly does this happen in your view at GWHQ?
Just like it happened with the Forge World Stormcast heads, just like it happened with the Space Marine upgrade sprues, and just like it happened with the Genestealer Cult upgrade sprues.
How do you push this through a board room meeting?
"Hey, there's people out there who are happy to buy a whole new set of heads that don't even come in the box!"
When fans have been practically begging for non fail cast models for years and surveys?
Begging so hard that GW didn't release plastic sprues for every First Founding Chapter of Space Marines?
I'll be totally honest, I don't think GW cares about anything that's not Space Marines.
What evidence would you use to justify the price tag and R&D for the sprue?
*gestures at Genestealer Cult sprue, the new Cadian upgrade sprue, Space Marine upgrade sprues, Stormcast upgrade heads, and the sheer amount of Space Marine players*.
I was talking about aspects and other junk people love. No more SM please. Thinks that's a pretty universal want.
We agree that SM are over saturated. Therefore wanting more Sm Sprues just seems like contradictory position.
Argive wrote: How much are people willing to pay for extra heads?
Considering what the Genestealer Cult upgrade sprues cost, £8 to £9 is standard. However, the Stormcast women heads from FW sell for £13.
As resin goes, the FW version is fine, but I think GW could get away with a nice round £10 for a pack of 10 heads.
Argive wrote: I would like to point out they haven't made a plastic upgrade sprue for Storm guardians or other iconic conversion units (shining spears, noise marines etc.) as well as discontinued a bunch of awesome FW stuff..
Don't shoot, but I wager there is more demand for these than for female heads for marines.
I doubt that, actually. Plus, let's look at it from GW's perspective. They already have upgrade kits for those units. They don't have them for women Space Marines. Ergo, making new ones for existing products isn't filling a new niche, and is requiring them to re-cover ground they already have boots on. Whereas with women Space Marine heads, they don't have them yet - filling that market would be an entirely new revenue source.
And evidently, the "Space Marine upgrade" packs sell pretty damn well, because we've got one for basically every First Founding Chapter. It's almost like Space Marines sell well in general.
So how exactly does this happen in your view at GWHQ?
Just like it happened with the Forge World Stormcast heads, just like it happened with the Space Marine upgrade sprues, and just like it happened with the Genestealer Cult upgrade sprues.
How do you push this through a board room meeting?
"Hey, there's people out there who are happy to buy a whole new set of heads that don't even come in the box!"
When fans have been practically begging for non fail cast models for years and surveys?
Begging so hard that GW didn't release plastic sprues for every First Founding Chapter of Space Marines?
I'll be totally honest, I don't think GW cares about anything that's not Space Marines.
What evidence would you use to justify the price tag and R&D for the sprue?
*gestures at Genestealer Cult sprue, the new Cadian upgrade sprue, Space Marine upgrade sprues, Stormcast upgrade heads, and the sheer amount of Space Marine players*.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Lets say for whatever reasons GW did think this was a good idea, and decided to include an extra sprue in all of their marine boxes.
Ah, but that's not what people asked for.
We asked for an *optional* sprue, a la the Genestealer Cults upgrade sprue. You're not forced to buy one of them with Guardsmen kits, are you?
Additionally, if and when it came time to update the Marine kits, I'm sure that we can replace one or two of the obligatory bare headed male heads with female ones instead, for no extra cost, seeing as those are newly updated kits.
In true GW fashion, they put up a price tag of a modest extra £10 per box (because its GW after all). Would that be acceptable to you?
No, because that'd be like saying "in order to justify GW making Iron Hands upgrade sprues, they'd need to put them in every Space Marine box!!"
Sell them separately - that's clearly a model that works, as they're doing that with Genestealer Cultists and all the SM upgrade kits.
As in people who have no interest in the sprue, still having to purchase it and having to bear the financial brunt of the change?
No, because, as I said, they're optional upgrade sprues.
Lots of people already barely able to afford 40k models because I think we can all agree the biggest barrier to entry is the cost, those people are now priced out of the hobby.
With covid redundancies& inflation and the general economic roller coaster of the last couple years, this will only get more common.
Remind me - did you have to cover the cost of the Iron Hands upgrade sprue at all?
I thought not.
No smuge.
IH/ DA/ BA or whatever chapter sprue is optional to the chapter...
An inclusive head sprue is relevant to every box and every marine. Not every marine is an IH marine. But every marine will be a nu-fem marine.
How long have you been a consumer of GW, do you think GW will not jump on an opportunity to fleece its customers?
Ultimately if GW did do this(put in extra sprue and charge extra), you would be against it I trust ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:16:48
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Argive wrote: I was talking about aspects and other junk people love. No more SM please. Thinks that's a pretty universal want. We agree that SM are over saturated. Therefore wanting more Sm Sprues just seems like contradictory position.
And yet, GW didn't upgrade Aspect kits. They upgraded the Space Marine ones, despite the "fans practically begging for non-failcast models".
You implied that GW would prioritise Aspect kits because the fans were begging for them to be updated. Considering GW's treatment of those kits, I don't think that's likely at all.
I agree that Space Marines are oversaturated. I also think that it's actually more important to cover the uncovered ground of adding feminine heads to the Astartes range before re-making something that already has models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: IH/ DA/ BA or whatever chapter sprue is optional to the chapter... An inclusive head sprue is relevant to every box and every marine. Not every marine is an IH marine. But every marine will be a nu-fem marine.
Where on earth did you pull that nonsense from?
Adding women Astartes doesn't *force* anyone to make their Astartes women any more so than adding bare heads on a sprue forces you to take unhelmeted Space Marines.
If you don't want to add women Astartes to your army, you don't have to, in the same way that I don't have to add Ultramarine upgrade kits onto my Ultramarines models. Give us the *option* to do so, and the upgrade kit if we want to go that way - just like they did with optional Chapter upgrade sprues.
How long have you been a consumer of GW, do you think GW will not jump on an opportunity to fleece its customers?
I don't know - show me where GW forced me to buy Ultramarine upgrade kits to play Ultramarines.
Ultimately if GW did do this(put in extra sprue and charge extra), you would be against it I trust ?
Yeah, in the same way I'd oppose them putting the existing upgrade sprues in the kits. Leave them optional, because they're evidently a very good business model as is, given the amount of them.
EDIT: That doesn't mean that, if and when GW update the core kits themselves, that they don't put women heads in there. As we all know, Space Marine kits come with with several unhelmed heads - I'd expect that some of these unhelmed heads be feminine, if and when GW update the core kits, not that I'm rushing for that.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:25:02
Argive wrote: I was talking about aspects and other junk people love. No more SM please. Thinks that's a pretty universal want. We agree that SM are over saturated. Therefore wanting more Sm Sprues just seems like contradictory position.
And yet, GW didn't upgrade Aspect kits. They upgraded the Space Marine ones, despite the "fans practically begging for non-failcast models".
You implied that GW would prioritise Aspect kits because the fans were begging for them to be updated. Considering GW's treatment of those kits, I don't think that's likely at all.
I agree that Space Marines are oversaturated. I also think that it's actually more important to cover the uncovered ground of adding feminine heads to the Astartes range before re-making something that already has models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: IH/ DA/ BA or whatever chapter sprue is optional to the chapter... An inclusive head sprue is relevant to every box and every marine. Not every marine is an IH marine. But every marine will be a nu-fem marine.
Where on earth did you pull that nonsense from?
Adding women Astartes doesn't *force* anyone to make their Astartes women any more so than adding bare heads on a sprue forces you to take unhelmeted Space Marines.
If you don't want to add women Astartes to your army, you don't have to, in the same way that I don't have to add Ultramarine upgrade kits onto my Ultramarines models.
How long have you been a consumer of GW, do you think GW will not jump on an opportunity to fleece its customers?
I don't know - show me where GW forced me to buy Ultramarine upgrade kits to play Ultramarines.
Ultimately if GW did do this(put in extra sprue and charge extra), you would be against it I trust ?
Yeah, in the same way I'd oppose them putting the existing upgrade sprues in the kits. Leave them optional, because they're evidently a very good business model as is, given the amount of them.
But smuge, they did make Banshees and jain zar.. I bought a bunch myself. They obviously listened.. And charged us £32.50 for 5 infantry models for the privilege.. of havign a dual head option.. obviously not listened as much as people wanted but still...
Every marine could be a potnetial Fem marine. I mean it makes sense you'd need to do this if you wanted to "normalise" this. Being a male or female will be as integral to a marine as his power armour.. All marines are is a collection of lore bullet points.
Ok, honestly and truthully, you do not think its explicit form of gatekeeping if in order to play female models of marines women will have to pay £10-20 extra for the privelage?
Remeber smuge you are the one asserting that women are not interested in 40k because there are not female marines. Are you telling me those women will be happy that they have to pay extra now to be represented? Essentially, its an inclusion tax... I dont know about you but if I was looking to start a new wargame where the chief faction was all females and I had to pay extra in order to be represented Id feel even more repelled.. (if that was a factor in deciding wether or not I was interested in the game) You seriously see nothing wrong with this picture?
Im not sure its such a leap GW would not want to risk being "called out" for making women pay more to be represented in their lead range. It would only be natural to just put this in every box and charge everyone accordingly.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:40:39
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Smudge, and I are clearly calling for adding female heads to kits when they are next released, a bonus sprue would be nice but really I think the way to approach this is adding heads to kits as they are released, not extra sprues. Not gate keeping, other than what you are doing. Amazed at the lengths you will go to, Argive, to make this an issue where you are the only one who appears to be being reasonable. The desperation to find any hook to hang your objections is frankly amazing. It’s almost like there’s no real basis for them.
First, if someone wants to make their chapter of marines be all female or mixed gender.... Why does anyone other than the player care? Its like getting upset that someone repainted their car from green to blue. You don't drive it or hold the title so why is it anyone's concern other than the owner? Let people have an enjoy things, even if its just headcanon.
Second, diversity in marines would be a great thing. I'd run some female marines for sure, both loyal and traitor. It'd be grand!
Lastly, could you imagine the trailer or vid for a female space marine release? Run it like normal, spess mahreens show up to save the day, pop off the helmet and... is a woman. Heck of a plot twist, and a good one, in my book.
Anyways, two bits given. Off I go, now. The cess pools are perfectly lukewarm - just how I like it!
Andykp wrote: Smudge, and I are clearly calling for adding female heads to kits when they are next released, a bonus sprue would be nice but really I think the way to approach this is adding heads to kits as they are released, not extra sprues. Not gate keeping, other than what you are doing. Amazed at the lengths you will go to, Argive, to make this an issue where you are the only one who appears to be being reasonable. The desperation to find any hook to hang your objections is frankly amazing. It’s almost like there’s no real basis for them.
It reads like like a pretty standard gish gallop, tbh. No real engagement, just volley after volley of conversational chaff.
Argive wrote: But smuge, they did make Banshees and jain zar.. I bought a bunch myself.
And they made nine upgrade sprues for Space Marines.
Every marine could be a potnetial Fem marine.
They could be, if you wanted them to be. In the same way that every Space Marine you collect could be an Ultramarine, or a Salamander, or a White Scar, or a Space Wolf.
Did I have to buy an upgrade pack to make sure each model had the upgrade on them?
I mean it makes sense you'd need to do this if you wanted to "normalise" this.
I said to normalise them in marketing and as an option. I never said to force every player to fill a quota.
Quit making up arguments to fight against.
Ok, honestly and truthully, you do not think its explicit form of gatekeeping if in order to play female models of marines women will have to pay £10-20 extra for the privelage?
No more so than it's gatekeeping to Ultramarines players if they want to have Ultramarine specific details on their armour. No more so than it is gatekeeping against Deathwatch players for not including the Deathwatch shoulder pads in every Intercessor kit.
No, it's not gatekeeping at all. The only time it'll be "economic gatekeeping" is if, when it happens, when Space Marine kits are updated, if they don't include some women heads in lieu of some male heads.
Remeber smuge you are the one asserting that women are not interested in 40k because there are not female marines.
I never said that at all.
Don't make up what I said.
Are you telling me those women will be happy that they have to pay extra now to be represented?
As opposed to no representation at all? I think we can live.
Essentially, its an inclusion tax.
Is it an inclusion tax for Ultramarines too, to have to buy Ultramarine upgrade kits?
I dont know about you but if I was looking to start a new wargame where the chief faction was all females and I had to pay extra in order to be represented Id feel even more repelled.. (if that was a factor in deciding wether or not I was interested in the game)
But you don't *have* to pay extra any more so than a Space Wolf player *has* to pay extra. If you *want* that, then you have the option, and they're not horrifically expensive. You don't even need to make every Space Marine unhelmeted. You could actually very easily have an entirely helmeted force of women Astartes if you so wanted to. The important part is that there's the option at every step.
You seriously see nothing wrong with this picture?
No. The only reason one exists is because of your ridiculous strawmanning.
Eldar- 4436 pts
