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.
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.
Hang on Andykp. Do I need to go back in this thread and dig out every isntance in which smuge or somebody esle have said something along the line of:
"We only want an upgrade sprue and change 13 words in the lore" "we dont want to force this on people that are not interested" " we dont want new SM
I believe those were maybe even your exact words. You now state in no uncertain terms that actually you would need to update marine kits to contain new heads and that is how this is going to be implemented...
Dear Andy, the reason it seems like I have many hooks etc because there are simply many many maaany holes in this proposed change. This whole thing is a farcical nonsensical argument that is solved by buying Storm casts heads for £13...
How exactly am I gatekeeping by trying to point out an issue with the economic aspect of this thing? You're the ones asking for an upgrade sprue. I merely point out potential issues with implementing it.
Is GW going to give out inclusive sprues away for free?
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.
Smuge - You can just paint your marines blue.. you dotn need an upgrade sprue to be an ultra marine.. Anybody can be an IH if they paint their marines correctly to reflect the correct chapter they want to be. Can you paint your marines to show they are female?
Smuge, remind me again why do you want female marines?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:57:36
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 ? "
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.
Hang on Andykp. Do I need to go back in this thread and dig out every isntance in which smuge or somebody esle have said something along the line of:
"We only want an upgrade sprue and change 13 words in the lore" "we dont want to force this on people that are not interested" " we dont want new SM
I believe those were maybe even your exact words. You now state in no uncertain terms that actually you would need to update marine kits to contain new heads and that is how this is going to be implemented...
Uh, no. That's not what they said at all.
They said that when new kits are made, and you're a fool if you don't think that GW will never update a Space Marine kit again, they should include some women's heads too.
Quit making up arguments to fight against.
How exactly am I gatekeeping by trying to point out an issue with the economic aspect of this thing? You're the ones asking for an upgrade sprue. I merely point out potential issues with implementing it.
Are the Chapter upgrade sprues gatekeeping as well? The Cadian upgrade sprues?
So you think GW will jsut give inclusive sprues away for free?
No. I'm saying that *when* they upgrade the existing kits, and believe me, they will, they should include some women's heads in place of the multiple male ones we already get.
Smuge - You can just paint your marines blue.. you dotn need an upgrade sprue to be an ultra marine.. Anybody can be an IH if they paint their marines correctly to reflect the correct chapter they want to be. Can you paint your marines to show they are female?
I don't know if you've heard of it, but... a helmet?
When a Marine wears their helmet, they *could* be anything. As long as the option for them being a woman under the helmet is there, then it's just as likely to be a woman or a man.
Smuge, remind me again why do you want female marines?
Read the thread. Now remind me again why you oppose them?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:59:05
Adding bits or even a sprue doesn’t force anyone to do anything. There is a space wolves upgrade sprue yet I manage to build my marines not as space marines somehow.
An upgrade sprue would be a decent stop gap until they get around to renew the Marine kits or release new ones. Then just add the option. Literally in the post above yours smudge stated he would prefer just a few heads on new kits.
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.
Almost like I’m fed up of knocking back the same baseless objections again and again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 23:59:41
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.
Hang on Andykp.
Do I need to go back in this thread and dig out every isntance in which smuge or somebody esle have said something along the line of:
"We only want an upgrade sprue and change 13 words in the lore"
"we dont want to force this on people that are not interested"
" we dont want new SM
I believe those were maybe even your exact words.
You now state in no uncertain terms that actually you would need to update marine kits to contain new heads and that is how this is going to be implemented...
Uh, no. That's not what they said at all.
They said that when new kits are made, and you're a fool if you don't think that GW will never update a Space Marine kit again, they should include some women's heads too.
Quit making up arguments to fight against.
How exactly am I gatekeeping by trying to point out an issue with the economic aspect of this thing? You're the ones asking for an upgrade sprue.
I merely point out potential issues with implementing it.
Are the Chapter upgrade sprues gatekeeping as well? The Cadian upgrade sprues?
So you think GW will jsut give inclusive sprues away for free?
No. I'm saying that *when* they upgrade the existing kits, and believe me, they will, they should include some women's heads in place of the multiple male ones we already get.
Smuge, remind me again why do you want female marines?
Read the thread. Now remind me again why you oppose them?
Now now smuge thats Im not the one asking for anything.. I'm quite happy with things how they are
But I'm very glad we agree. That 40k no female SM do not prevent women from entering the hobby and is not an issue of any relevance. That's a fantastic concession. Could have sworn you have said that at some point during this long arduous thread but I admit I might have misremembered. I apologise.
As 40k Male SM are not stopping women from playing or wanting to play 40k then I see zero value in creating more SM releases in an SM oversaturated 40k...
The problem is already being solved by a AOS storm cast bit buy from ebay for those that want it for assthetic reaosns. And we dont even need to change the lore and make more books about marines. Wonderful.
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 explicitly call out Custodes...
I personally call out Sisters...
Space Marines do none of the above.
So, the fact that the entire genesis of the 41st Millennium is a civil war of brother versus brother and father versus son is not thematic? A story born out of and made possible by the fact that space marines are all male. (And the weapon that might be able to finally kill the Emperor just so happens to be a demon created when Cain slew Abel, which acts, how shall we say, as a thematic intensifier).
..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.
You keep reiterating this idea of 'no good reason' but, using the analogy, the chef can determine the composition of their dishes however they please, that is their perogative as the chef. Having created a specific menu item that does not include truffle, which then becomes the most popular item on the menu is entirely fine, there is no problem and whether it was made for a bad reason, or a good reason or no reason at all, just an idea "plucked from the cher's ass" if you will, is neither here nor there.
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.
The truffle aficionados could just patronise another restaurant that already includes truffle with the spiced meat could they not? By what obligation must they patronise this restaurant and no other? Does this particular restaurant have some kind of institutional power within society meaning that their consumer rights will be affected if they patronsie another restaurant or make their own spiced meat with truffle at home?
If the spiced meat from this particular restaurant however, is so amazing, that all other restaurants offerings of spiced meats pale by comparison then they could transfer truffle from those dishes that do include truffle and add that to the spiced meat, the chef is not going to bar them from the restaurant for doing so. Sure, they can ask the chef to add truffle to their selection of spiced meat, and maybe the chef might do so, but if that request to the chef also necessitates a change to the menu, which then makes all future productions of the spiced meat contain truffle, then those customers who don't want truffle with their spiced meat are absolutely okay to say that they don't want the menu changed, especially when the rest of the menu includes items with truffle because their is no moral imperative for the inclusion of truffle with the spiced meat.
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.
I couldn't agree with your more Fezzik, if only people weren't saying things like this:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: it's been far too cozy with the extreme right wing political spectrum for the last 20 years.
Cronch wrote: Having marines be only male is already a political statement.
Yeah, I've made this point and I'm not seeing it addressed anywhere.
It seems to me that the fundamental issue is about whether or not you perceive Games Workshop as a moral agent within society (which obliges the company to perform certain actions) or as just a company that makes toy soldiers. I don't really see how the two sides can be reconciled to each other's viewpoint, especially when one side is coming out with cryptic replies like this:
CEO Kasen wrote: We have the right to tell you're wrong, as many times as it takes.
As many times as it takes until what exactly? Sure enough, you can call someone "wrong", but it doesn't make it so.
Again, look at the actual testimony from women posted in this thread about the matter.
And I posted a quote from a woman who said the complete opposite, that she felt that those people calling for "representation" for women were, and I quote again, "...the type of person that pushed me away from this game for so long." I even recall seeing a woman attacked on Twitter by prominent women hobbyists for saying that she didn't want female space marines, they used patronising language like "oh honey" to tell this woman she had internalised mysogyny and was "sucking up" to neckbeards who would never accept her (they actually used sexualised language which I thought was well out of order but, y'know, what exactly can be done about it). I raise this point to say, what exactly do these testimonials really achieve other than to highlight that women hobbyists have pretty much the same spread of opinions and outlooks as the majority male population of hobbyists; some will see the lack of female marines as an issue, and others won't.
Be Pure!
Be Vigilant!
BEHAVE!
Show me your god and I'll send you a warhead because my god's bigger than your god.
Adding bits or even a sprue doesn’t force anyone to do anything. There is a space wolves upgrade sprue yet I manage to build my marines not as space marines somehow.
An upgrade sprue would be a decent stop gap until they get around to renew the Marine kits or release new ones. Then just add the option. Literally in the post above yours smudge stated he would prefer just a few heads on new kits.
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.
Almost like I’m fed up of knocking back the same baseless objections again and again.
I jus find it fascinating how everyone keeps changing their position when called out on BS.
I have been pretty consistent in why I think this is a pointless endeavour that achieves nothing and fixes a problem that's not there..
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: Now now smuge thats Im not the one asking for anything.
No, you very much are. Your active involvement in this thread is telling that you are *actively* after something - even if that is to preserve the status quo.
Remember - fighting to preserve the status quo is still fighting for something.
But I'm very glad we agree. That 40k no female SM do not prevent women from entering the hobby and is not an issue of any relevance.
Uh, no, that's not what I said at all.
If you need refreshing, please scroll through my arguments, instead of cherrypicking from individual misquoted responses to individual questions. You know exactly how intellectually dishonest you're being.
Could have sworn you have said that at some point during this long arduous thread but I admit I might have misremembered.
No, I think it's more likely you ignored my *actual* comments.
Feel free to go look for them.
As 40k Male SM are not stopping women from playing or wanting to play 40k
Ah, now that's where you're mixing up what I said.
The presence of women Astartes won't make women suddenly play. Breaking the illusion of male hegemony will.
then I see zero value in creating more SM releases in an SM oversaturated 40k...
Aw, did a single sprue and 13 words of lore cause that much damage?
The problem is already being solved by a AOS storm cast bit buy from ebay for those that want it for assthetic reaosns. And we dont even need to change the lore and make more books about marines. Wonderful.
Actually, that doesn't work. The Stormcast heads, while they can be modified to, don't fit Space Marine heads perfectly. Additionally, unless GW explicitly change the lore and marketing, representation has still not been achieved, which has always been my primary concern, regardless if you could use a third party product to swap the head out.
It needs to be official - and that means changing the lore, marketing, and providing options to do so.
I'm glad we can agree here finally.
No, we can't. Nice try, but misrepresenting an argument won't win it for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I jus find it fascinating how everyone keeps changing their position when called out on BS.
No-one has changed their argument. You've either just not been reading those arguments, or you've been deliberately misrepresenting them.
But nice try, bud.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 00:33:38
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.
Hang on Andykp.
Do I need to go back in this thread and dig out every isntance in which smuge or somebody esle have said something along the line of:
"We only want an upgrade sprue and change 13 words in the lore"
"we dont want to force this on people that are not interested"
" we dont want new SM
I believe those were maybe even your exact words.
You now state in no uncertain terms that actually you would need to update marine kits to contain new heads and that is how this is going to be implemented...
Uh, no. That's not what they said at all.
They said that when new kits are made, and you're a fool if you don't think that GW will never update a Space Marine kit again, they should include some women's heads too.
Quit making up arguments to fight against.
How exactly am I gatekeeping by trying to point out an issue with the economic aspect of this thing? You're the ones asking for an upgrade sprue.
I merely point out potential issues with implementing it.
Are the Chapter upgrade sprues gatekeeping as well? The Cadian upgrade sprues?
So you think GW will jsut give inclusive sprues away for free?
No. I'm saying that *when* they upgrade the existing kits, and believe me, they will, they should include some women's heads in place of the multiple male ones we already get.
Smuge - You can just paint your marines blue.. you dotn need an upgrade sprue to be an ultra marine.. Anybody can be an IH if they paint their marines correctly to reflect the correct chapter they want to be. Can you paint your marines to show they are female?
I don't know if you've heard of it, but... a helmet?
When a Marine wears their helmet, they *could* be anything. As long as the option for them being a woman under the helmet is there, then it's just as likely to be a woman or a man.
Smuge, remind me again why do you want female marines?
Read the thread. Now remind me again why you oppose them?
SMuge why would GW add female heads if a helmet already represents a woman?
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 ? "
Gogsnik wrote: So, the fact that the entire genesis of the 41st Millennium is a civil war of brother versus brother and father versus son is not thematic?
Why can't brother fight sister, and daughter fight father? Why the male-centric viewpoint?
A story born out of and made possible by the fact that space marines are all male.
Why do the siblings all need to be male for that to happen?
(And the weapon that might be able to finally kill the Emperor just so happens to be a demon created when Cain slew Abel, which acts, how shall we say, as a thematic intensifier).
Uh, what? Sounds like that's just pure speculation right there, because we don't know how that plot thread ends.
..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.
You keep reiterating this idea of 'no good reason' but, using the analogy, the chef can determine the composition of their dishes however they please, that is their perogative as the chef. Having created a specific menu item that does not include truffle, which then becomes the most popular item on the menu is entirely fine, there is no problem and whether it was made for a bad reason, or a good reason or no reason at all, just an idea "plucked from the cher's ass" if you will, is neither here nor there.
You clearly didn't read the original analogy - the anti-women Space Marine poster themselves said that omitting truffle from the spiced meat was an error, an oversight, a mistake.
And again - if Space Marines being all male was the intention (which is categorically untrue, considering that we literally have it from Alan Merritt that the whole "only men" thing was only invented to cover up that their women Space Marines didn't sell well at the time - and they were truly awful models too, who can blame people for not buying them?), then it's an intentional design choice that GW themselves have long since abandoned, because any thematic qualities that the whole "warrior monk" thing had doesn't exist for the whole faction any more. The Black Templars and Dark Angels? Sure, they've still got those vibes, but the Space Wolves? The Raven Guard? The White Scars? They're nowhere near that same design philosophy.
But again - this literally doesn't matter, because we have it from the good Mr Merritt that it was all just covering their ass.
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.
The truffle aficionados could just patronise another restaurant that already includes truffle with the spiced meat could they not?
The spiced meat aficionados could patronise another restaurant if they don't like the truffles.
By what obligation must they patronise this restaurant and no other?
By what obligation do the restaurant have to standing by a clear mistake in their menu?
Does this particular restaurant have some kind of institutional power within society meaning that their consumer rights will be affected if they patronsie another restaurant or make their own spiced meat with truffle at home?
Actually - kinda. GW as a large figure within the hobby industry do get a degree of implicit market control and trending over the miniature wargaming hobby.
When GW do things, many other companies follow similar trends. And, more importantly, their fanbase is the largest, and most likely to be representative of the wider wargaming culture.
If the spiced meat from this particular restaurant however, is so amazing, that all other restaurants offerings of spiced meats pale by comparison then they could transfer truffle from those dishes that do include truffle and add that to the spiced meat, the chef is not going to bar them from the restaurant for doing so.
Except that the chef doesn't endorse it, and while many patrons might turn a blind eye, many others will express their dislike of those who have "tainted" the chef's work.
Sure, they can ask the chef to add truffle to their selection of spiced meat, and maybe the chef might do so, but if that request to the chef also necessitates a change to the menu, which then makes all future productions of the spiced meat contain truffle, then those customers who don't want truffle with their spiced meat are absolutely okay to say that they don't want the menu changed, especially when the rest of the menu includes items with truffle because their is no moral imperative for the inclusion of truffle with the spiced meat.
Yeah - as long as having truffle on the spiced meat is an option provided by the chef, then there's no issue. But the chef has to provide for it, because otherwise, the restaurant is not offering that service, despite it being something they really *should*, as a restaurant that so heavily features truffle..
The menu changing doesn't stop people from eating their meal without truffle. All they're doing is preventing other people having a dish that they should always have been able to have, except, as highlighted by someone on your own side of the argument, it was removed by mistake.
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.
I couldn't agree with your more Fezzik, if only people weren't saying things like this:
Take it up with the mods - they don't say it's political, and I'm inclined to agree.
And I posted a quote from a woman who said the complete opposite, that she felt that those people calling for "representation" for women were, and I quote again, "...the type of person that pushed me away from this game for so long." I even recall seeing a woman attacked on Twitter by prominent women hobbyists for saying that she didn't want female space marines, they used patronising language like "oh honey" to tell this woman she had internalised mysogyny and was "sucking up" to neckbeards who would never accept her (they actually used sexualised language which I thought was well out of order but, y'know, what exactly can be done about it). I raise this point to say, what exactly do these testimonials really achieve other than to highlight that women hobbyists have pretty much the same spread of opinions and outlooks as the majority male population of hobbyists; some will see the lack of female marines as an issue, and others won't.
And they're entitled to not wanting their own women Space Marines.
But the majority of women wargamers I've spoken to, and as evidenced, there's a lot more than just the one you're using as your sole example, have asked for women Space Marines. So, yeah - there is a spread of opinions. But there's only one group of opinions that are rooted in preventing other people having options.
Also, you speak of "people having the same spread of opinions", but you really don't seem to like hearing people talking about how they don't feel represented. Almost like their opinions don't matter much?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: SMuge why would GW add female heads if a helmet already represents a woman?
Because the option should exist, for people who want an exposed head. If bare male heads exist, then bare women ones should too. Again - the helmet does not "represent a woman". The helmet represents anything. There could be a man or woman under that helmet - that's the beauty of it. But if that becomes the *only* way to represent women, you're not representing women, because representation requires visibility.
But, more importantly, the lore needs to change to allow for the Marine under the helmet to be a woman - yes?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 01:01:11
Couldn't, Did. It is how the story is, how it might have been had the story been written, if it ever did get written, or otherwise is immaterial.
Uh, what? Sounds like that's just pure speculation right there, because we don't know how that plot thread ends.
There's nothing speculative about it, the daemon was created by the act of the first murder. This daemon is seen as the weapon that could kill the Emperor.
categorically untrue
What Alan Merrett said (allegedly, since the Facebook conversation in which these comments were made apparently no-longer exists, but we'll just accept it for the sake of argument) was that "early citadel ranges" contained female versions of miniatures that customers did not want to purchase and that by the time of Rogue Trader they did not include female versions in blisters as per customer wishes and that by the time of the RTB01 box it didn't even occur to them to make any.
And Alan claims that this was why they included a line in the Space Marine lore but not for any other product range? Do you accept that? So, if he's correct, the customers in the early 80's that said, "no women models for us please" had to be appeased with actual lore but only for the space marines and not for anything else?
He also claimes it would have been impossible to include female bits in the box. Seriously? So, they could put a bare male head in but not a female one too? The only female space marine miniature produced by Games Workshop was sculpted by Kev White and was unreleased, sitting forgotten in Bryan Ansell's personal collection for ever twenty years so, literally no customer ever saw a female space marine model to object too. I'm no saying he's not remembering the events exactly as they occured but, as an explanation, it doesn't really hang together very well does it?
long since abandoned, because any thematic qualities that the whole "warrior monk" thing had doesn't exist for the whole faction any more.
And yet the current rulebook describes them as having a "monastic culture" page 28.
an oversight, a mistake.
Well good for that poster I guess, but that doesn't make me beholden.
Actually - kinda. GW as a large figure within the hobby industry do get a degree of implicit market control and trending over the miniature wargaming hobby.
All the more reason to give your money to another company if you don't like how Games Workshop do things.
But the chef has to provide for it, because otherwise, the restaurant is not offering that service, despite it being something they really *should*
WIthout mincing words, Games Workshop make heads that can be put on space marines, maybe not specific marine heads, maybe not in a marine box, but they make heads that can be kitbashed. *shrug* I understand your point of view and I just don't agree because we're talking about toy soldiers, not housing or healthcare or education or, y'know, real things, that women absolutely have a right to equal access to and absolutely need representation for/in, we're talking about toy soldiers, and if one product line is all male, and even if that product line has proven to be the most popular, then that's fine.
there's a lot more than just the one you're using as your sole example
Yeah, okay bud, you've got more friends than me and your Dad could totally beat up my Dad...
But there's only one group of opinions that are rooted in preventing other people having options.
Unless they want what they've already got, in which case there's only one group trying to end it. I can play this game too.
Also, you speak of "people having the same spread of opinions", but you really don't seem to like hearing people talking about how they don't feel represented. Almost like their opinions don't matter much?
Don't presume to know my feelings, or put words in my mouth. People keep telling you that you perceive a problem that they perceive doesn't exist but you don't seem to like hearing it, almost like their opinions don't matter much?
If you truly think that playing with toy soldiers is some kind of human rights issue and that's why the most popular toy soldiers absolutely cannot be described as all male then, all I can tell you is that that line of "logic", if you could charitably call it that, sounds completely demented.
Be Pure!
Be Vigilant!
BEHAVE!
Show me your god and I'll send you a warhead because my god's bigger than your god.
If you need refreshing, please scroll through my arguments, instead of cherrypicking from individual misquoted responses to individual questions. You know exactly how intellectually dishonest you're being.
Could have sworn you have said that at some point during this long arduous thread but I admit I might have misremembered.
No, I think it's more likely you ignored my *actual* comments.
.
You Know what.. i did just that. Because I was bored. I am not being "intelectualy" dishonest. I certainly might have said some brash things thta upset people. Genuinely not happy about it. I am here demonstrating how you say one thing but then flat out denying things you have said...
How can anyone argue with your position, if your position keeps changing or you just say "youre wrong about my position"
Spoiler:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Space Marines have that dominant position in culture, it doesn't matter if every other faction is mixed or all-women, because the flagship faction puts a very "boys only" message front and centre.
Animus wrote:Most people are just fine at empathising with others, those who can't do it or won't do it will not magically be corrected by female space marines.
But their arguments will be reduced to what I suspect it's always been - disliking women in their territory. They won't have lore to support their behaviour, won't have "but muh canon" - it will be reduced solely to "I just don't want women in my boys club".
And frankly, I don't think that's defensible.
You seem to think "boys only" message is an issue. Or that wanting to preserve the convention is parmount to "I dont want girls in my hobby" Rememeber you earlier quote when i said that you believe Male only SM in 40k gatekeeps women out of 40k" and you JUST said that is not your position. HERE:
Blinkfox wrote:One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life.
The game is played by people in real life. The game of toy soldiers we play is played by real life people, with real life concerns, and real life people gatekeeping their entry into the community. Sorry, but that's something you can't ignore.
Spoiler:
It's explicit that some people in this thread have made it clear that they only care about representation of females in SM because they're the most popular.
No, that's not the *only* reason. But it is the main reason as to "why Space Marines", because just adding random women faction into the game to have them immediately forgotten about *would* be false activism and false representation, and the biggest reason as to "why at all" is "why not". So far, the only reasons given for "why not" are "because that's the way it is", which is the weakest possible argument you could give.
Defend its validity from the ground up, not because it simply *is*. Justify its existence with more depth than the paper it's printed on. Tell me why some words mean that women should be excluded from the most iconic 40k faction, and why that's apparently fine.
Argive wrote: Bit like male only space mahrines are a sign of oppression that make women feel unwelcome nail?
I don't believe I mentioned oppression?
I said that they represent and justify exclusionary views, but "oppression"? When did I say that?
here you state in no uncertain terms There is gate Keeping (refering to Male SM) which is apprently making women not play 40k. Or that male only SM justify exclusionary views. But I dont see a shred of evidence..
3. Another aspect is the 'apparent' responsibility of GW to somehow police the behavior of their players. "There has to be female Space Marines because some players are donkey-caves to group X". I can't really get on board with this one. I see it as roughly the same "enabling/emboldening" issue with people showing up with "full-redband-swastika-IG armies" because the "Imperium is fascist, yo". Or for that matter, the accusations of video game violence causing real-world violence. It's a fictional setting, and people should understand it/treat as such. If people can't do that, that's more a problem with the individual player or local community than the game/setting itself.
Sorry, but no. If I produce something, and a considerable amount of people taking my products are using them to enact or support harmful ideals, I need to question why they're using *my* product to do so, and if I oppose those ideals (which I would hope everyone here does), is it not my responsibility to deny them that?
Please explain exactly what "harmful ideas" do Male Only SM do that are not "gatekeeping women out of the hobby"
This is what I mean by your defensiveness - no-one's stopping you from carrying on with *your* stuff. You won't be threatened, you won't have people enforcing diversity quotas on *your* models. You can have the sausage fest you've always dreamed of in your Space Marine collection - but what's so bad about literally just *allowing* women?
People know who these characters are for a reason, and trying to change that core aspect for the sake of diversity is effectively demonstrating a lack of respect for the core material.
Now, I'm very much of the opinion that *everything* is political, even neutrality, but going by your own standards that you can apparently have apolitical things, wanting representation isn't even political.
but that does not mean you get to force your views on others like some sort of by in ticket system
Wanting women Astartes isn't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like women Astartes, don't take them. No-one's forcing you.
Again - adding women doesn't stop people from rolling dice or collecting their own all-male armies. I don't see the panic.
How exactly does creating a whole new inclusive and diverse SM range NOT force people from havign a Sausage fest if they want to. Surely you will need a "quota" in order to ensure you have an all male or all female line up. If you change sprues and you cant have all female or all male build then you have actively taken that chocie away from people. But you claim you dotn want to control what peeople cant and cant do?
You STATE quite clearly "no thanks" to an all new line of SM in order to satisfy representation and want an upgrade sprue.
We now FINALY have found out that actualy you do want a whole new marine line upgraded. Inconsitent positions like this is why I say you keep gaslighting people and changign your positon.. It is impossibel to have both full male and full female SM units / chaarcters without having the quotas in the design to do so.
Sisters don't have the same marketability or customisability that Space Marines have though.
If an all-female faction can exist then an all male faction can exist. The issue becomes representation-of-faction in that case. Space Marines are the poster-child, but if they weren't . . . there would be less of an issue.
Absolutely, but I think it's a hell of a lot easier right now to just... let women be Space Marines. (Also, Space Marines do offer unique features that neither Sisters or many other factions offer - namely, the actual Astartes aesthetic, the customisation of Space Marines, the playstyle on tabletop, or the legacy/background of what Space Marines are.)
Because really, why *shouldn't* women be allowed to be Space Marines? Is it *only* the lore?
In no uncertain terms you think that shifting marketing to sisters and guard and making them more "prmotion" friendly is harder than re-releasing AND remarketing Fem marines?
We already established we cant just have an upgrade sprue. It needs to be new marines. So when people said this as acounter argument it was dismissed as "ohh no we dont want that" Well now we have established you do want that... Aren't you being a bit dishonest about what the end goal and initial objective is here?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 03:23:25
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 like how this has gone from "I like/want girl space marines and here's why" and "I don't like/want girl space marines and here's why" to "I'm gonna pick apart your arguments and points, find all the bits and pieces that contradict even when its a stretch, and throw it back at you because you're not agreeing with me at all/enough".
Can we, like... iunno, just sit back and realize its toy soldiers? Like, legit, expensive Army Guys? What we say here has no bearing on anything a Big Ole Corporation is doing, has done, or will do no matter how much we whine or argue in any direction?
We're literally grown ass men and women (or mostly grown ass men and women in teenagers' cases) arguing over plastic Toy Soldiers.
PappyNurgle wrote: We're literally grown ass men and women (or mostly grown ass men and women in teenagers' cases) arguing over plastic Toy Soldiers.
Oh, yeah, it's totally arguments over dress up with little plastic space soldiers, but you push for equality and do what good you can where you can. Most of us probably aren't in positions where big corporations or anyone in charge of landmark legislation will listen to us, but we're in the position where we can discuss this sort of thing with each other - and if we can change some of those attitudes in little ways, advance the conversation just a little, or at least give some lurkers a better basis for understanding, that's got to be at least as worthwhile as any other discussion on Dakka.
"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.'"
Adding bits or even a sprue doesn’t force anyone to do anything. There is a space wolves upgrade sprue yet I manage to build my marines not as space marines somehow.
An upgrade sprue would be a decent stop gap until they get around to renew the Marine kits or release new ones. Then just add the option. Literally in the post above yours smudge stated he would prefer just a few heads on new kits.
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.
Almost like I’m fed up of knocking back the same baseless objections again and again.
I jus find it fascinating how everyone keeps changing their position when called out on BS.
I have been pretty consistent in why I think this is a pointless endeavour that achieves nothing and fixes a problem that's not there..
So you see the OR in my original list. OR. It’s important. It doesn’t go against what I just said. I would prefer no up grade sprue but one would be nice. Either OR.
it’s not a big change to put female marines in, it won’t change the world but it’s a little step towards a better place, especially in the 40K hobby. It addresses a real problem that exists. As much as some on here want to claim I doesn’t. Saying “go play something else because we don’t want girls” is a pretty crappy response to a problem and doesn’t make you come off very well (this is in response to the truffle analogy saying we should patronise another restaurant. That’s explicitly exclusionary not inclusive. So no, I won’t go eat else where because you want to keep this space just for boys.
And as for the heresey been based on the fact they were all men. Change brother to sister, father to mother? Same story. The original heresy story they were just comrades and friends even. Still worked. Plenty of Greek epics arc that are brother and sister screwing each other over. So sorry that won’t wash as a reason to keep excluding women from the hobby. Move on.
Papa nurgle, we are mostly grown ass men arguing, very few women.
About the Heresy: almost universally we're advocating for Primaris to be female, not for Firstborn, especially to neutralize those objections, and avoid unnecessary retconning.
Later down the line, the two missing Primarchs can become women, if needed. It will also play nicely adding an additional layer of sexism of the Emperor, and the more the old donkey-cave come out as unplesant, the better the background will be for that Remember that the Emperor is almost a literal caveman (he was born... 1000 BC?).
I won't be surprised if, even a few thousand years in the future, he'd kept alive some prejudice from a couple of thousand years ago.
So, lore can even change for the better with this addition of female marines, becoming even more grindark.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 07:16:18
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.
Cybtroll wrote: About the Heresy: almost universally we're advocating for Primaris to be female, not for Firstborn, especially to neutralize those objections, and avoid unnecessary retconning.
Later down the line, the two missing Primarchs can become women, if needed. It will also play nicely adding an additional layer of sexism of the Emperor, and the more the old donkey-cave come out as unplesant, the better the background will be for that Remember that the Emperor is almost a literal caveman (he was born... 1000 BC?).
I won't be surprised if, even a few thousand years in the future, he'd kept alive some prejudice from a couple of thousand years ago.
So, lore can even change for the better with this addition of female marines, becoming even more grindark.
Daaaaaaaamn. The missing Primarchs. Love it.
"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.'"
I know a lot's happened since the restaurant analogy but I feel it needs revisiting.
This is based on the fact that:
1: Female kits are being introduced for every army that it makes sense for. This is represented by the rest of the menu.
2: People are saying marines are the flagship so they should be changed from what they are into something else just so they can have female models.
The restaurant analogy returns:
There's a restaurant called "Big Fred's Feasts".
The menu is diverse and full of different flavours (all the factions). In almost every section, there are vegetarian options (female models). But then, there is this one section called "Big Fred's Meat Feasts". This features dishes that all have meat in them, and are not just meaty versions of the other stuff, they are their own thing. This represents marines. The reason it is all meat dishes is because of an arbitrary rule he imposed when he wrote the one word "Meat" in, instead of, say, "Special". A decision was made that they would be meat dishes, and this has stuck.
Big Fred's becomes hugely popular because of his Meat Feasts. everyone refers to Fred's as "The place with the meat feasts". Lots of people go there to eat his other food, but the Meat Feasts is definitely the most popular section. He uses it for advertising, because it's so popular.
Then one day someone comes along and tells him "Hey, I know you have this thing where you have these dishes with meat in them? I know you have other vegetarian dishes in your restaurant, but can you just change the "Meat Feasts" so that some of them are vegetarian?"
Their reasoning is that, despite Fred having a vegetarian menu (SOB), and vegetarian options in most other sections of the menu (All those female model additions the_scotsman pointed out sarcastically which I hadn't realised were there), they feel like "Big Fred's Meat Feasts" is the flagship of his business and therefore has to be changed to feel inclusive to vegetarians. Any vegetarian who looked at the menu would see a selection of vegetarian dishes, but they want the flagship to include vegetarians too, even if it means changing the very definition of the flagship.
The only reason "Big Fred's Meat Feasts" is the way it is was because he decided, once upon a time, to make it that way. Now people are telling him to change it because it is the flagship of his business. Vegetarians could have almost any of his other dishes, and he does cater for them, but people have become fixated that because his Meat Feasts are what people see, they need to be changed to include vegetarian options. At which point they cease to be "Meat Feasts" any more, and become something else.
Does this make more sense? I think this is a far better comparison to SM.
Honestly? I'm starting to feel (having thought about it quite a bit) that adding female marines would detract from space marines. They are supposed to be superhuman fighting machines, not a balanced ratio of people representative of the population. They are supposed to give off a "these aren't just people" vibe. Regardless of whether the lore is adjusted to make it feasible for marines to be made from girl stock (as they start as children), they are supposed to feel artificial, to some extent. These are not organic creations representative of a natural population.
Flagship or not, adding female marines will make marines feel more human. They aren't supposed to feel human.
So, I am much more in favour of making them seem less human to emphasize their inhumanity than adding female models to emphasize that marines are an all-inclusive non discriminatory bunch of heretic-burning witch-hunting mutant-crushing fanatical supersoldiers bound to serve a corpse on a throne.
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!
Well I think that you're biased (I mean, it's not an accusation, more of a statement. Everyone is biased until realizing it and try to remedy).
Also, forgive me if I skip the restaurant metaphor: metaphor are ok to exit from a stalemate, but aren't worth the fuss to perfectly reenact some dynamics.
Shortly: you're still thinking under your perspective: more inclusive marine, means more kind, gentle and humanized faction.
Wrong. woman can be extreme donkey-cave too.
Also: Marine ARE supposed to be representative of the organic population (at the last in the product): all the flavour of Marine available proves EXACTLY that. There's both a Marine for any world (in the lore) and a Marine for any customer (in real world).
Finally, "emphasize that they are inclusive" should deter their status?
It does ONLY if you conflate "inclusive" with a bunch of other stereotypes (many of them we've seen in this topic: snowflakes, left wing activist, if you're inclusive you're obsessed with not hurting anyone etc).
That is a reactionary skew view that is essentially moderns (and mostly derives from US cultural influence).
You know who was REALLY (at least in the surface) inclusive of gender? The communist USSR. Do you think it was less menacing for the West because of that, or more menacing?
Last (but not least): again I think it speaks volume that you would prefer to have genderless marine (just for curiosity: would be ok for you if, being genderless, they would call themselves "Sisters" rather than "Brothers"?) rather than female one.
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.
Cybtroll wrote: Well I think that you're biased (I mean, it's not an accusation, more of a statement. Everyone is biased until realizing it and try to remedy).
Also, forgive me if I skip the restaurant metaphor: metaphor are ok to exit from a stalemate, but aren't worth the fuss to perfectly reenact some dynamics.
Shortly: you're still thinking under your perspective: more inclusive marine, means more kind, gentle and humanized faction.
Wrong. woman can be extreme donkey-cave too.
Also: Marine ARE supposed to be representative of the organic population (at the last in the product): all the flavour of Marine available proves EXACTLY that. There's both a Marine for any world (in the lore) and a Marine for any customer (in real world).
Finally, "emphasize that they are inclusive" should deter their status?
It does ONLY if you conflate "inclusive" with a bunch of other stereotypes (many of them we've seen in this topic: snowflakes, left wing activist, if you're inclusive you're obsessed with not hurting anyone etc).
That is a reactionary skew view that is essentially moderns (and mostly derives from US cultural influence).
You know who was REALLY (at least in the surface) inclusive of gender? The communist USSR. Do you think it was less menacing for the West because of that, or more menacing?
Last (but not least): again I think it speaks volume that you would prefer to have genderless marine (just for curiosity: would be ok for you if, being genderless, they would call themselves "Sisters" rather than "Brothers"?) rather than female one.
I do indeed think that making marines more representative of humans would make them seem more human. And that this is a bad thing, because they aren't there to represent humans, they're there to defend them. Whilst women have the same capacity for being unpleasant as men, this is irrelevant. Marines aren't there to be unpleasant, they are there to get the job done.
Gender is so far detached from what a marine does that it shouldn't factor into them at all. It's like if you make a robot that does the job perfectly and runs on tracks. You could make another that runs on wheels, but the one with tracks does the job just fine already. Wheels would work just as well, but there's no reason to make it when tracks is working fine. (this is all lore-related, because I think this is the only reason to change these things). Lore wise, making female marines would be extra work for no gain. They haven't got time to be perfecting it for both. I would be saying the same thing if marines were all women, lore-wise.
Now, what I could see working would be to create a lost chapter which rebuilt itself from women, perhaps on a world where males were extremely rare due to scifi reasons. They might be seen as heretics, but will fight for the emperor and the imperium, regardless of whether other marines declare them as the enemy. This would be a cool-as-hell addition to the game, another "good" faction but not integrated to the imperium, and not sexualized battle-nuns. All as long as the reason for the addition was to make a cool AF army with extra options, their own heroes, their own tactics, and all that jazz. It would be awesome. And as soon as someone says "and it'll be for women!", fire them. They would still be space marines, so can merge with the flagship representation, but they will also add to the game.
Marines are definitely not meant to be representative of the organic population. They have different flavours & marketing strategies, but they are very much not normal humans. That's half the appeal of them, I think. Just people in power armour < superhumans in power armour.
Trying to make marines, lore-wise, into an inclusive faction is like trying to make nazis, lore-wise, into the good guys. Their whole shindig is "kill heretics, witches and mutants". In their mind a Heretic is anyone living on a planet where there is at least one person who doesn't give praise to the emperor. They aren't nice guys. There's lore out there of marines telling the guard t ostand down, the guard saying that if they do the population will die, and then the marines killing the guard as heretics for not obeying their order (I don't know where that is from though). They definitely aren't an inclusive bunch.
As for your question about genderless marines, I would find it an odd choice to call each other sister when they are so masculine, and because the Sisters of Battle use that term, but I wouldn't be outspokenly against it. It would be like when people put gerkhins on burgers or mayonnaise on chips - they can if the ywant, but I sure as heck ain't going to!
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!
Trying to make marines, lore-wise, into an inclusive faction is like trying to make nazis, lore-wise, into the good guys. Their whole shindig is "kill heretics, witches and mutants". In their mind a Heretic is anyone living on a planet where there is at least one person who doesn't give praise to the emperor. They aren't nice guys. There's lore out there of marines telling the guard t ostand down, the guard saying that if they do the population will die, and then the marines killing the guard as heretics for not obeying their order (I don't know where that is from though). They definitely aren't an inclusive bunch.
As for your question about genderless marines, I would find it an odd choice to call each other sister when they are so masculine, and because the Sisters of Battle use that term, but I wouldn't be outspokenly against it. It would be like when people put gerkhins on burgers or mayonnaise on chips - they can if the ywant, but I sure as heck ain't going to!
So now including women is being compared to including Nazis. Awesome.
Bolded for emphasis.
Also, the Minotaurs are not that. They were literally created to hunt other Astartes. Which is why they have the best relics, weapons, and armor. Not all Astartes were created to hunt and kill heretics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 11:57:40
Trying to make marines, lore-wise, into an inclusive faction is like trying to make nazis, lore-wise, into the good guys. Their whole shindig is "kill heretics, witches and mutants". In their mind a Heretic is anyone living on a planet where there is at least one person who doesn't give praise to the emperor. They aren't nice guys. There's lore out there of marines telling the guard t ostand down, the guard saying that if they do the population will die, and then the marines killing the guard as heretics for not obeying their order (I don't know where that is from though). They definitely aren't an inclusive bunch.
As for your question about genderless marines, I would find it an odd choice to call each other sister when they are so masculine, and because the Sisters of Battle use that term, but I wouldn't be outspokenly against it. It would be like when people put gerkhins on burgers or mayonnaise on chips - they can if the ywant, but I sure as heck ain't going to!
So now including women is being compared to including Nazis. Awesome.
Bolded for emphasis.
Also, the Minotaurs are not that. They were literally created to hunt other Astartes. Which is why they have the best relics, weapons, and armor. Not all Astartes were created to hunt and kill heretics.
10/10 would misread again. You did notice he meant that it would be like trying to make a Nazi faction inclusive? The SM are the effective Nazis not women. Especially since SM are basically the ubermensch that the Nazi eugenic ideology believed in creating. I would say that a good comparison is the Helghast from the Killzone series. They're literal space nazis and I'm pretty sure barring the exception of Echo from KS Shadowfall (which I feel is only there because she's half-Vektan/Helghast, and the granddaughter of Visari) pretty all of the Helghan army and their military are shown to be exclusively male, as even in MP and single player you only ever hear the male voice actor for them when they get shot or die. They're also the poster child of the series and the Helghast are everywhere in their covers and marketing, despite being the antagonists. I never saw any pushes for female representation there and I feel that's what Some Bloke was pointing towards.
So 40k is political now because the Imperium is fascist and SM are Nazi-fantasy ubermensch? I thought 40k couldn't be political and adding women to the flagship faction was injecting politics into the game? Y'know people really need to make up their minds about this sort of thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 12:15:53
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.
...you don't add them to existing kits ala the guardsman box, you add them to the new kits you were going to put out anyway (which self-evidently have more demand for them than Storm Guardians etc else we would not be on Primaris Wave 9 or whatever) to fill the still-existing holes in the primaris lineup of soft-replacements for existing marine units.
We still have no Primaris units with Thunder Hammers, no jump pack assault primaris, no missile launcher unit, no whirlwind or vindicator.
And then maybe you sell a separate upgrade sprue. I'd bet you a shiny nickel there'd be more demand for a chapter-nonspecific primaris female head upgrade sprue than, for example, the Imperial Fists Upgrade Sprue GW currently sells to ONLY imperial fist chapter players...
"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!"
Gert wrote: So 40k is political now because the Imperium is fascist and SM are Nazi-fantasy ubermensch? I thought 40k couldn't be political and adding women to the flagship faction was injecting politics into the game? Y'know people really need to make up their minds about this sort of thing.
I think the problem is that various people are arguing different things, so you're getting everyone else's opinions mixed up into a nonsensical one.
My point of view is that the marines are written as they are, and that makes them what they are. Rewriting the lore that makes them what they are will make them different to what they are.
Perhaps a better comparison is when the companies like Lucozade decided that people wanted sweeteners in their drinks, and changed it. Suddenly lucozade tastes like chemical dirt. They did it because they thought it would appeal to more people. They did not do it because they thought it would make their drink nicer.
Perhaps the fact that, for over decade, marines have been of such high popularity as to become iconic is in part because of the lore that makes them what they are? "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only equal opportunities employment" doesn't quite roll off the tongue so well.
Also, thanks Grimskul for responding to that one, quite how it got changed from "making marines nice is like making nazis nice" to "adding women is like adding nazis" is beyond me!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 12:38:53
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!
Trying to make marines, lore-wise, into an inclusive faction is like trying to make nazis, lore-wise, into the good guys. Their whole shindig is "kill heretics, witches and mutants". In their mind a Heretic is anyone living on a planet where there is at least one person who doesn't give praise to the emperor. They aren't nice guys. There's lore out there of marines telling the guard t ostand down, the guard saying that if they do the population will die, and then the marines killing the guard as heretics for not obeying their order (I don't know where that is from though). They definitely aren't an inclusive bunch.
Here's the issue with this take:
GW, BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO SHOVE REAL-WORLD POLITICS INTO THEIR SETTING, has historically AVOIDED depicting the imperium, or any alien race, doing things like:
-being racist to real-world political groups
-oppressing real-world religious groups
-being sexist and specifically excluding women from positions of power specifically Because Youre a Woman
Yes, the imperium is depicted as a fascist hellscape state, but the reason GW doesn't depict things like, hive cities rounding up the female population and using them as a breeding farm, or declaring that a sub-set of people are mutants because of their brown skin tone and eradicating them, or showing the great crusade in the HH series encountering a group of pre-DAOT humans who are Hindu and describing space marines shooting bolters at statues of vishnu and stomping gurus into the dirt is because GW uses things like 'mutants' and 'heretics' and 'alien/warp corruption' to sand the serial numbers off of real-world political issues. It's part of the reason why the series is depicted 40,000 years in the future - alllllllllllllllllllll the political problems from 38,000 years ago are safely and securely resolved and have been for 20,000 years or more, clap the dust off your hands and lets have a fun ride in the grimdark future.
So the whole 'even if they could make female marines they wouldn't because the imperium is sexist' is bs. The imperium has never been depicted as sexist, and EVERY TIME someone tries to sneakily exclude women from some role by making that claim, gw goes ahead and makes it canonical that women are included in that role and they just hadn't put them in explicitly because gw tends to just depict everyone as male by default and female as an "attribute."
Imperial knight pilots, ship captains, inquisitors, generals, imperial guard soldiers, and now HIGH LORDS OF TERRA can be female in the 40k setting. If there's a glass ceiling present in the imperium, it stops at the foot of the emperor's chair.
...............except for space marines and custodes.
"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!"
Couldn't, Did. It is how the story is, how it might have been had the story been written, if it ever did get written, or otherwise is immaterial.
Uh, no, that's not the case, and it's an utterly abysmal excuse of an argument.
Just because something happened doesn't excuse it, and if you can't justify the lore beyond "durr, because it is", then that lore doesn't deserve justification. Sorry, but that's probably the absolute weakest argument you could possibly give right there. I hope you aren't relying on that one.
Uh, what? Sounds like that's just pure speculation right there, because we don't know how that plot thread ends.
There's nothing speculative about it, the daemon was created by the act of the first murder. This daemon is seen as the weapon that could kill the Emperor.
Many things *could* kill the Emperor. The Talon of Horus could kill him. The Lion Sword could kill him. Drach'nyen killing the Emperor is a plot hook that might lead to nothing. Treating it as this holy grail of fraternal symbolism in 40k is basically fanon, because we don't even know if it'll ever be used in that context.
What Alan Merrett said (allegedly, since the Facebook conversation in which these comments were made apparently no-longer exists, but we'll just accept it for the sake of argument)
It's not hard to find screenshots of it.
was that "early citadel ranges" contained female versions of miniatures that customers did not want to purchase and that by the time of Rogue Trader they did not include female versions in blisters as per customer wishes and that by the time of the RTB01 box it didn't even occur to them to make any.
Yeah - women Astartes sold absolutely awfully, so they didn't include them, didn't think to include them later down the line, and made up lore retroactively explaining why they didn't.
Women Space Marines existed prior to the lore which, in a particularly hamfisted and arbitrary line, excluded them. And these folks talk about hamfistedly adding women in like it's a bad thing, ignoring that the lore excluding them is equally bacon-handed.
And Alan claims that this was why they included a line in the Space Marine lore but not for any other product range? Do you accept that? So, if he's correct, the customers in the early 80's that said, "no women models for us please" had to be appeased with actual lore but only for the space marines and not for anything else?
Are we in the early 80's now? I thought not. So why are we still acting like exclusionary lore from the 80's is relevant to consumer interests now?
He also claimes it would have been impossible to include female bits in the box. Seriously? So, they could put a bare male head in but not a female one too? The only female space marine miniature produced by Games Workshop was sculpted by Kev White and was unreleased, sitting forgotten in Bryan Ansell's personal collection for ever twenty years so, literally no customer ever saw a female space marine model to object too.
Did you miss the model catalogues featuring said pair of women Space Marines?
I'm no saying he's not remembering the events exactly as they occured but, as an explanation, it doesn't really hang together very well does it?
I think it stems from a very overt "all boys club" culture prevalent in wargaming at the time - they simply didn't think to consider women. I think that is the most likely, and logical, reason.
But we're not in the early 80's any more, are we?
long since abandoned, because any thematic qualities that the whole "warrior monk" thing had doesn't exist for the whole faction any more.
And yet the current rulebook describes them as having a "monastic culture" page 28.
Where do the Space Wolves have a monastic culture? The Raven Guard? The Raptors? The Carcharadons? The Marines Malevolent?
Monastic culture doesn't mean they even follow all tenets of typical monk behaviour. I mean, how many monks do you know who don suits of power armour and go fight alien baddies?
All I'm saying is that in how Space Marines are now currently portrayed, they are defined by much larger stylistic qualities than "monks in space" - most notably, their customisation and different Chapter cultures.
an oversight, a mistake.
Well good for that poster I guess, but that doesn't make me beholden.
Still a mistake though.
Actually - kinda. GW as a large figure within the hobby industry do get a degree of implicit market control and trending over the miniature wargaming hobby.
All the more reason to give your money to another company if you don't like how Games Workshop do things.
Your solution to a problem is to run away and do something else? Hardly a very productive ideal.
But the chef has to provide for it, because otherwise, the restaurant is not offering that service, despite it being something they really *should*
WIthout mincing words, Games Workshop make heads that can be put on space marines, maybe not specific marine heads, maybe not in a marine box, but they make heads that can be kitbashed.
Yes, they can. But I'm talking about *lore*. Anyone can kitbash a women's head onto a Space Marine, but that's meaningless without GW removing their arbitrary limitation on women not being able to be Space Marines.
As I said - it needs endorsement.
*shrug* I understand your point of view and I just don't agree because we're talking about toy soldiers, not housing or healthcare or education or, y'know, real things, that women absolutely have a right to equal access to and absolutely need representation for/in, we're talking about toy soldiers, and if one product line is all male, and even if that product line has proven to be the most popular, then that's fine.
On the other hand, we're talking about toy soldiers. Why shouldn't women be allowed to be Space Marines? If you like the "monastic culture" part of Space Marines, don't include women in yours.
Why does there need to be explicit lore saying that my toy soldiers can't be women?
there's a lot more than just the one you're using as your sole example
Yeah, okay bud, you've got more friends than me and your Dad could totally beat up my Dad...
Cute, but showing that you really don't care for opinion if it differs from yours.
But there's only one group of opinions that are rooted in preventing other people having options.
Unless they want what they've already got, in which case there's only one group trying to end it. I can play this game too.
Ah, but this is a good one! Why would me, and so many like me, getting to have women Space Marines stop you from having what you've already got?
Why is "what you've already got" so rooted in preventing me from having my own? It's not about defending your own stuff, because no-one's trying to take that from you.
We want the canon option to have women Space Marines, and for those to be represented visibly. You can still keep your own models. Why is that a problem?
Also, you speak of "people having the same spread of opinions", but you really don't seem to like hearing people talking about how they don't feel represented. Almost like their opinions don't matter much?
Don't presume to know my feelings, or put words in my mouth. People keep telling you that you perceive a problem that they perceive doesn't exist but you don't seem to like hearing it, almost like their opinions don't matter much?
Except that when the problem they're failing to perceive is literally "hey, I don't feel welcome here because of a pervasive all-boys attitude", that's the kind of thing you really should be showing empathy and awareness of.
If you truly think that playing with toy soldiers is some kind of human rights issue and that's why the most popular toy soldiers absolutely cannot be described as all male then, all I can tell you is that that line of "logic", if you could charitably call it that, sounds completely demented.
Well, it's a good thing I never said that.
What I *said*, if you're done with "putting words in my mouth" (which you so vehemently commented just above), was that there is absolutely no reason to exclude women from the forefront of 40k, and that many women feel this is a failure of representation. Women existing is not a human rights issue - it is simply fairness.
What I would actually call demented is this idea that some made up fiction about some toy soldiers matters more to people than those women's feelings of exclusion and rejection, and that somehow, both are "equally valid".
Fiction isn't more important than people, I'm afraid.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, I think it's more likely you ignored my *actual* comments.
.
You Know what.. i did just that. Because I was bored.
Well until you can actually bother to read people's arguments, why should anyone read yours?
I am not being "intelectualy" dishonest.
You literally just said that you weren't even reading people's comments.
That's the textbook example of being intellectually dishonest. Like, it's the perfect example.
I am here demonstrating how you say one thing but then flat out denying things you have said...
How can anyone argue with your position, if your position keeps changing or you just say "youre wrong about my position"
Because my position isn't changing. You'd know this if you weren't "bored" and were actually reading my comments.
The reason I'm saying "you're wrong about my position" is because you're wrong about my position, probably because you're self-admittedly bored, and ignoring my comments.
You've done a masterful job of burying yourself in this one.
Now, as for the mess of a formatting that makes up the rest of your comment, I fully admit that I don't care enough to unpick all of it. You know, perhaps because "I'm bored". So, for the few bits I can actually see that don't make me want to try and create a flow chart to see how this thing is formatted, I'll actually address. If you can format this in a way I can read next time, and if I think you're being intellectually honest with me, maybe I'll address the rest too.
How exactly does creating a whole new inclusive and diverse SM range NOT force people from havign a Sausage fest if they want to.
Because they're your models, in the same way that GW releasing Primaris Marines doesn't mean you need to start a Primaris army, or that GW releasing Ultramarine upgrade sprues means I need to rip of fthe shoulder pads from my models and give them fancy new Ultramarine ones.
Your Space Marines can be whatever you want them to be, because there's more than enough heads and helmets around that you don't need to worry about a thing.
Surely you will need a "quota" in order to ensure you have an all male or all female line up.
No, you don't - no more than there's a quota to make sure that when a new player buys a box of Space Marines that they have an equal quota of Ultramarines, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels.
Marketing? There doesn't even need to be a "quota", just feature women and men. The exact ratio isn't important. If you feel like it, put it down to random chance. But marketing doesn't control what you do with your own models.
If you change sprues and you cant have all female or all male build then you have actively taken that chocie away from people. But you claim you dotn want to control what peeople cant and cant do?
Tell me, do you use every head on your Space Marine sprues? Do you have Space Marines running around with two heads? Because that's the only way what you can describe would happen.
There's more heads in a box of Space Marines than there are bodies. If you want all-helmeted Space Marines, you can have that. If you want your Space Marines to be all male, just use all the male-coded heads in the box, and then if you don't have enough, give the rest helmets - like you already have to do. Likewise, if you want all women, use all the female-coded heads in the box, and if you don't have enough, give the rest helmets. If you want mixed gender, then use whatever heads and helmets you like.
This is a complete non-issue, because there's always more than enough spare heads in the box.
You STATE quite clearly "no thanks" to an all new line of SM in order to satisfy representation and want an upgrade sprue.
We now FINALY have found out that actualy you do want a whole new marine line upgraded.
When did I say that?
What I said, if you weren't "bored" and were actually paying attention, was that the upgrade sprue is enough for the moment. When Space Marines get upgraded, because they will, then they should have multiple in-kit head options.
Pick up your glasses, and read.
Inconsitent positions like this is why I say you keep gaslighting people and changign your positon..
My position isn't inconsistent. You're just not reading it.
Seriously, don't blame me for your own self-admitted boredom and lack of attention. Learn to read, pay attention to what's being said, and maybe you might actually be able to avoid misrepresenting me.
It is impossibel to have both full male and full female SM units / chaarcters without having the quotas in the design to do so.
No, it's entirely possible. There's enough spare heads in every Space Marine kit that you could easily have no female-coded heads anywhere on your own models, in the same way that I'm not "forced" to have a quota of unhelmeted ones.
Next time you pick up a modern multipart Space Marine kit, tell me how many heads are in it. I'll wait.
In no uncertain terms you think that shifting marketing to sisters and guard and making them more "prmotion" friendly is harder than re-releasing AND remarketing Fem marines?
Yes. You'd need to release new kits for both factions (and entirely from the ground up for Guardsmen, who would need to be made entirely gender-neutral) to get anywhere near the saturation of Marine kits, scrap existing marketing, remake new marketing materials, all your third party merchandise and video games and media, try to play catchup with the massive media legacy Space Marines left behind, write two new Horus Heresy length novel series, as well as all the other assorted Space Marine media, and remake every starter set to include those factions.
Just a little bit harder, I think.
We already established we cant just have an upgrade sprue.
No, we didn't. That's something you made up.
An upgrade sprue is enough for now, coupled with future media including women Astartes. No need to retroactively edit anything.
It needs to be new marines.
When new Marines come out, you mean. Because no-one was pushing for a new Marine wave - only saying that when it inevitably comes out, that it should feature women Astartes.
So when people said this as acounter argument it was dismissed as "ohh no we dont want that" Well now we have established you do want that...
No, we haven't.
I have to ask, are you a seamstress? Because you're doing an excellent job fabricating stuff.
Aren't you being a bit dishonest about what the end goal and initial objective is here?
No, I'm not. My goal is what it's always been - which I've laid out, if you weren't too bored to read my comments.
But you, self-admitting to not reading people's posts and misrepresenting them? That's a whole different story.
@some bloke:
Spoiler:
some bloke wrote: I know a lot's happened since the restaurant analogy but I feel it needs revisiting.
This is based on the fact that:
1: Female kits are being introduced for every army that it makes sense for. This is represented by the rest of the menu.
2: People are saying marines are the flagship so they should be changed from what they are into something else just so they can have female models.
The issue is that:
1. Why doesn't it make sense for women to be Space Marines? The reasons given are that "it's explained by the lore", and that "they're representative of monastic orders and warrior fraternities".
Firstly, the lore is made up, and is a completely arbitrary reason in itself - it's not a justification alone. Why is the lore the way that it is?
Secondly, Space Marines being "representative of brotherhood and warrior fraternities" doesn't work with the vast range of Space Marine Chapters out there. The Space Wolves aren't a monastic order. The Raven Guard aren't a monastic order. The Carcharadons aren't a monastic order. The faction that actually *does* embody those traits of being a fraternal warrior culture and monastic/ascetic lifestyle are the Custodes, which I've explicitly said I don't mind being all-male, because it actually fits their design philosophy.
Space Marines are now more defined by their customisation and Chapter culture which the hobbyist can play around with - and deliberately saying "you can't do that" flies in the face of that philosphy.
2. Because they're the flagship, yes. Either Space Marines shouldn't be the flagship (which is simply unrealistic, from an economic point of view), or we need to evaluate what message an all-boys flagship is sending. And again, you say "into something else" - remember, Space Marines used to have women, and it was an entirely arbitrary reason that they now don't.
The restaurant analogy returns:
There's a restaurant called "Big Fred's Feasts".
The menu is diverse and full of different flavours (all the factions). In almost every section, there are vegetarian options (female models). But then, there is this one section called "Big Fred's Meat Feasts". This features dishes that all have meat in them, and are not just meaty versions of the other stuff, they are their own thing. This represents marines. The reason it is all meat dishes is because of an arbitrary rule he imposed when he wrote the one word "Meat" in, instead of, say, "Special". A decision was made that they would be meat dishes, and this has stuck.
So outright, there was a mistake made by writing "meat" instead of "special". Not off to a great start.
Secondly, why can't Big Fred's Meat Feasts have dishes that include both meat and veg? No onion rings, no chips, no potato, no salad to go along with the meat? Why can't I ask the chef to plate my greens on the same dish as my Meat Feasts, and why will they refuse? Because of an arbitrary mistake, and holding fast to that mistake even when the original owner has since left?
Big Fred's becomes hugely popular because of his Meat Feasts. everyone refers to Fred's as "The place with the meat feasts". Lots of people go there to eat his other food, but the Meat Feasts is definitely the most popular section. He uses it for advertising, because it's so popular.
This implies that Space Marines are only popular because they're all men though.
Do you believe this to be the case?
Then one day someone comes along and tells him "Hey, I know you have this thing where you have these dishes with meat in them? I know you have other vegetarian dishes in your restaurant, but can you just change the "Meat Feasts" so that some of them are vegetarian?"
But we're not trying to change them to be vegetarian. We're trying to change it so that I can have some mashed potato along with my steak, because that sounds like a pretty good thing to have with steak.
Their reasoning is that, despite Fred having a vegetarian menu (SOB), and vegetarian options in most other sections of the menu (All those female model additions the_scotsman pointed out sarcastically which I hadn't realised were there), they feel like "Big Fred's Meat Feasts" is the flagship of his business and therefore has to be changed to feel inclusive to vegetarians. Any vegetarian who looked at the menu would see a selection of vegetarian dishes, but they want the flagship to include vegetarians too, even if it means changing the very definition of the flagship.
However, when all the voucher deals are only applicable to "Big Fred's Meat Feasts", and all the other food options are either expensive, hidden in a scrappy side-menu, or just served out of a rusty bucket, can you see why either Big Fred's Meat Feasts needs to change, either to bring everything else up to parity (extremely expensive in this scenario), or Big Fred can learn to put a little bit of potato on their Meaty Feasts.
I'd like to mention again that Big Fred's Meat Feasts was an entirely arbitrary exclusion of non-meat products, and that, at this current point in time, they don't make a big deal of how they're deliberately only meat. Just so we're being honest with this analogy.
I also emphasis as well that every other patron of Big Fred's can still order the same thing they've always had. Adding veg options wouldn't change a damn thing for them.
The only reason "Big Fred's Meat Feasts" is the way it is was because he decided, once upon a time, to make it that way.
And maybe that would have flown decades ago, but the market has changed. There's more vegetarian diners now, and they're not happy with the meagre veg options that Big Fred's offers, because they don't apply for any meal deals, and Big Fred's marketing has been akin to putting up a big flashing sign saying "VEGETARIANS AREN'T WELCOME".
Now people are telling him to change it because it is the flagship of his business. Vegetarians could have almost any of his other dishes, and he does cater for them, but people have become fixated that because his Meat Feasts are what people see, they need to be changed to include vegetarian options. At which point they cease to be "Meat Feasts" any more, and become something else.
Vegetarians *could* have the other dishes, but the other dishes are perhaps cooked in a sauce they don't want, or are served in a rusty bucket, or are prohibitively expensive, or don't qualify for meal deals, or any other reason.
The thing you're getting stuck on too is that it's not just "meat versus veg" - it's people wanting meat *and* veg. Big Fred's Meat Feasts are only made up of meat, with no non-meat products. Why? What's so harmful about slapping a potato on there? If you don't want a potato, just don't have one.
Does this make more sense? I think this is a far better comparison to SM.
And I think it still misses the fundamental issue that the decision to not include women was entirely arbitrary, and serves no creative purpose going forward.
Why shouldn't women be allowed?
Honestly? I'm starting to feel (having thought about it quite a bit) that adding female marines would detract from space marines. They are supposed to be superhuman fighting machines, not a balanced ratio of people representative of the population.
Cool. So we make them all women then? Or we eradicate gender from them entirely? So why do they look like men, and use male pronouns if they're only meant to be superhuman fighting machines?
What part about being "superhuman fighting machines" mean they need to be all male?
They are supposed to give off a "these aren't just people" vibe.
So why do they use masculine pronouns and are male coded if we're trying to dehumanise them?
Regardless of whether the lore is adjusted to make it feasible for marines to be made from girl stock (as they start as children), they are supposed to feel artificial, to some extent. These are not organic creations representative of a natural population.
So why are they male-coded, and clearly not artificial?
Flagship or not, adding female marines will make marines feel more human. They aren't supposed to feel human.
If you don't want them to feel human, that's okay. In which case, why are you okay with them using masculine pronouns and having a male-coded appearance?
As I've said, there's two ways about this: make Space Marines entirely inhuman (which would require rebranding and redesigning models), or we realise that them excluding women but not men is a mistake, and we fix that.
some bloke wrote:So, I am much more in favour of making them seem less human to emphasize their inhumanity than adding female models to emphasize that marines are an all-inclusive non discriminatory bunch of heretic-burning witch-hunting mutant-crushing fanatical supersoldiers bound to serve a corpse on a throne.
And that's okay. But that's still going to require a change to what Space Marines currently are, and would actually require more resources to do, as opposed to changing 13 words of lore and adding a new sprue.
Hey, Argive! Which one do you prefer? Remaking all Space Marines to make them more inhuman, or adding a single sprue and changing 13 words of lore? Because I'm easy either way, but I know which is vastly cheaper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimskul wrote: The SM are the effective Nazis not women. Especially since SM are basically the ubermensch that the Nazi eugenic ideology believed in creating.
Just to check, 40k ain't political, right?
Just making sure we're all agreed it's not...
Nevertheless, the problem with the whole "BUT THE SPACE MARINES ARE NAZIS WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY NAZIS" idea is that GW don't portray them like that.
Have any of y'all read the comics on WarCom? I'm mostly referring to Big Brothers, a comic where a squad of Space Marines from different Chapters are babysitting a young girl. It's cute. I like it. And even the Black Templar of the group isn't portrayed like a Nazi. Because GW are very aware that Space Marines are really goddamn marketable - and that they're more marketable when they're not being overt Nazis, and when they're behaving like squabbling siblings with very cute marketable traits and cartoonified facial expressions, and nice Funko Pop/chibi designs.
And I'll be honest, I like those designs too. They're cute. But I think they stand as perfect proof that "Space Marines = evil Nazis, so you shouldn't want to be represented by them" is not exactly an accurate viewpoint.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
some bloke wrote: My point of view is that the marines are written as they are, and that makes them what they are. Rewriting the lore that makes them what they are will make them different to what they are.
They've already been written to move away from their "holy order of monks" origins. They're written now far more as "customisable heroic soldiers with cool equipment and cultures that you, yes you!, can feel free to go wild with creativity over!"
Clinging to "but they're an evil brotherhood of monks" is ignoring that the lore *has* made them different to what they were. And that it still never excuses writing out women over such a ridiculous line as "male tissue types".
Perhaps a better comparison is when the companies like Lucozade decided that people wanted sweeteners in their drinks, and changed it. Suddenly lucozade tastes like chemical dirt. They did it because they thought it would appeal to more people. They did not do it because they thought it would make their drink nicer.
But that implies that people couldn't still drink old Lucozade/Space Marines. They still can, if they want to.
Perhaps the fact that, for over decade, marines have been of such high popularity as to become iconic is in part because of the lore that makes them what they are? "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only equal opportunities employment" doesn't quite roll off the tongue so well.
So why are the Imperial Guard mixed gender?
And again, are you implying Space Marines are only popular because of them being all men? Space Marine players in this thread, care to corroborate that? Because I certainly don't.
Also, thanks Grimskul for responding to that one, quite how it got changed from "making marines nice is like making nazis nice" to "adding women is like adding nazis" is beyond me!
Yes, it was a case of something being lost in translation there, but as I've addressed on that point, Space Marines are already being portrayed as nice and wholesome by GW themselves.
The ship has already sailed on that one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Imperial knight pilots, ship captains, inquisitors, generals, imperial guard soldiers, and now HIGH LORDS OF TERRA can be female in the 40k setting. If there's a glass ceiling present in the imperium, it stops at the foot of the emperor's chair.
...............except for space marines and custodes.
Exactly. For everyone saying "but the Imperium's the bad guys, why would they have gender representation" - they *do*. The only reason that they apparently don't for Space Marines isn't because Space Marines are an exclusive bunch, or that they hate women. It's because of a made up biological reason that only exists because an author made it up.
And hell, if you really want to get into it, when asked by a Fenrisian native why women weren't Space Marines, the Space Wolf she was talking to outright says something along the lines of "you know what, I don't know - maybe we need to look into that".
Just so y'all are on the same page.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 12:59:51
the_scotsman wrote: The imperium has never been depicted as sexist, and EVERY TIME someone tries to sneakily exclude women from some role by making that claim, gw goes ahead and makes it canonical that women are included in that role and they just hadn't put them in explicitly because gw tends to just depict everyone as male by default and female as an "attribute."
Only because most of the 40k player base is male. I don't think GW would have an issue or any hesitation in adding female space marines if they have strong reasons to believe it would expand their fans/player base and customers to a noticeable extent. Its like that G.I. Joe and Barbie documentary on Netflix. There's a reason why there are two separate toy lines. Most girls were not interested in G.I. Joe dolls, and so Barbie was invented, and most boys were not interested in Barbie, and so most of the marketing and predecessing toys in that line never bothered to cater to boys.
That being said; again, I'd be very interested in adding female Astartes to my collection.
I will forever remain humble because I know I could have less.
I will always be grateful because I remember I've had less.
LumenPraebeo wrote: I don't think GW would have an issue or any hesitation in adding female space marines if they have strong reasons to believe it would expand their fans/player base and customers to a noticeable extent.
I think the problem is that various people are arguing different things, so you're getting everyone else's opinions mixed up into a nonsensical one.
My point of view is that the marines are written as they are, and that makes them what they are. Rewriting the lore that makes them what they are will make them different to what they are.
Perhaps a better comparison is when the companies like Lucozade decided that people wanted sweeteners in their drinks, and changed it. Suddenly lucozade tastes like chemical dirt. They did it because they thought it would appeal to more people. They did not do it because they thought it would make their drink nicer.
Perhaps the fact that, for over decade, marines have been of such high popularity as to become iconic is in part because of the lore that makes them what they are? "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only equal opportunities employment" doesn't quite roll off the tongue so well.
Also, thanks Grimskul for responding to that one, quite how it got changed from "making marines nice is like making nazis nice" to "adding women is like adding nazis" is beyond me!
The thing is that the Imperium is never really portrayed in the light it should be, nor are SM. The Imperium is bad, objectively. SM are the enforcers and propaganda of the regime, therefore they are also bad. But GW does not portray either as the "baddies" because that doesn't sell. SM are marketed as the saviours of mankind to real-world people as well as the people in-universe. Part of the Imperium being an awful place is that it is, as you put it, an "equal opportunity employer" at least to some degree if we ignore in-universe social class and politics. Women are just as equal as men because they are human, which is the baseline of the Imperium's dogma. So why not reflect that horrible state of affairs in the flagship faction?
Also;
My point of view is that the marines are written as they are, and that makes them what they are. Rewriting the lore that makes them what they are will make them different to what they are
Yeah? That's how things work. But what takes away from SM being the saviours of humanity that are super-soldiers if they aren't all guys?
The only bit in the current SM codex that makes any assertations that SM are exclusively male is when it talks about the Primarchs and their Gene-sons, which doesn't actually preclude a horrific possibility of gene-seed forcefully changing an individuals sex. All GW would have to change is "sons" to "children" and there isn't anything in the current codex IIRC that would be an issue.
Eldar- 4436 pts
Unless they want what they've already got, in which case there's only one group trying to end it. I can play this game too.
