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.

 Psionara wrote:
I understand that people would like to have factions be more inclusive, which is fine, but a sword cuts both ways.

Female Space Marines? Go right ahead! It's plausible.

What about male Sisters of Battle?

On top of what JNA said, because we need x doesn’t mean we need y, men are not under represented in the hobby, the setting or the model range. It’s a real sausage fest as it is. Adding MORE men doesn’t address any problems. I have no issue with male or masculine sisters of battle at all.

I have a an issue with relying on SoB to be the “female friendly” line, not shared by everyone. It is that they are basically fetishised space nuns in armour akin in to sexualised underwear. Very much made for the classic “male gaze” and not at all good for representation, they may well put off as many women as they appeal to.

Hecaton wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
The process works by uprating genes found in the X chromosome, and is regulated sufficiently that it does not cause double the effect on females (though I admit that females become uber-marines would be a seriously cool route to take... and would add the whole "emperor was afraid that they would be too powerful" to the lore in a way that makes sense... you could even have them make female marines for astartes and then female uber-marines for chaos, where fabius bile didn't limit the dosage to create the same level of marines!).

So they're like... Space Marine Space Marines? Are you sure you don't already work for GW?

I find the idea of females being "uber-marines" to be dumb for several reasons.

I'd be interested to hear them. I'm not "calling you out", I'm just wondering why it would not be cool to introduce unstable more powerful marines, possibly only for Chaos, which are women, whilst simultaneously explaining the reason why the emperor didn't want female marines? We can have Cawl "fix" the "over-marining" issue and introduce female primaris marines to the imperium at the same time. I love the idea of having (effectively) female amazon-marines in a chaos army which are customizable based on their chaos god. I think it would be a cool thing, and open lots of cool fluff up about how they are targets of the inquisition because the imperium is greatly concerned that they are too powerful and so on. It would justify the lack of females up to that point, but smoothly represent them from then on. The story continues as it did, rather than being rewritten.

So, can you elucidate on the "several reasons"?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psionara wrote:
I understand that people would like to have factions be more inclusive, which is fine, but a sword cuts both ways.

Female Space Marines? Go right ahead! It's plausible.

What about male Sisters of Battle?

It's also worth remembering that one of the defining features of sisters, throughout the fluff and history as well as the model range, is that they are women. The same isn't true of marines - there was fluff there to briefly justify it, and it was done for a real-life logistical and business decision, not for the game. Sisters of battle were not missing men because it was too expensive and risky to make them, they are missing them because they are an army that is supposed to be mostly/all female.

Hecaton wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
we have the relic of all astartes being male, but we have no current lore to explain why this is.

I, myself, have no problem using old lore unless it's been superseded.

I have no problem with old lore... if it's actually contributing something positive* to the setting.

Why is arbitrarily excluding women a positive feature?


*I would like to clarify my position on "positive" - I don't mean "happy" or "inclusive" or "wholesome", I mean "creatively inspiring" or "setting-defining". Space Marines not including women actively stifles creativity on the front of people who want women Astartes, and definitely doesn't "define" the setting.

Andykp wrote:
Let’s draw a line under the baby killing aspect of things, it’s in no way relevant to this topic.

It kinda is when I'm talking about how if you believe in irredeemable evil, the Imperium is it.

But that's not the topic, and we're all in agreement here on how evil the Imperium is. But including women Space Marines doesn't make them not-irredeemably evil - therefore, off topic.

Andykp wrote:
No, none of it does. You are try to justify something using pretty shoddy real world science, when the thing yiu are trying to justify is based entirely on made up very shoddy magic sci-fi science. The process of making marines doesn’t specify which chromosomes they are linked to, doesn’t mention any male only hormones (they don’t exist).

I'm not *justfying* something, I'm explaining how something might be the case. There are gene products which are unique to male humans (or rather male mammals), and the process might use those.

*Might*, sure - but why? Why must that arbitrarily be the case? It doesn't have to be that way, and actively going out of the way to make that the case is more than a little strange, no?

It's a sci-fi process, so Astartes could be made from chimpanzees for all I care. But they're stated to be made from young male humans.

But why?

It's a sci-fi process - so why are they only made from human males, and not chimpanzees, or all humans?

 Gert wrote:
In Devastation of Baal, there's a child character who is crippled in body and slightly brain damaged due to an accident during his attempt to become an Astartes. After the battle ends an Apothecary scans him, says apart from minor surgery the child would be perfectly fine for implantation.
If SM can fix brain damage and a ruined body of a child and still turn them into a SM, using female candidates is hardly a stretch.

Maybe it really, *really* needs a male chromosomal arrangement to work.

But why?
Such a requirement is completely arbitrary - why is that the case?

Besides, people can be trans regardless of their chromosomal makeup. But I'm guessing you're looking for cis lady Astartes.

I'm just after Astartes of all kinds - I don't want to exclude any.
I've already actually said that I'd be quite interested in Chapter cultures that actually *did* have rituals that required their aspirants to change their assigned genders - perhaps the Black Templars take women recruits, and turn them into "male" Astartes. Perhaps a different Chapter takes male recruits, and turns them all into "female" Astartes.

I just want to open up the playing field.

And far too many people whose only seeming complaint against totalitarian fascism is that the SS weren't gender-integrated.

I don't think that's what anyone's saying here, don't be absurd.

Space Marines suddenly being gender-neutral doesn't make them "good", or even take away from them being utterly utterly awful. I'm not sure why this is needing to be emphasised?

Psionara wrote:I understand that people would like to have factions be more inclusive, which is fine, but a sword cuts both ways.

Female Space Marines? Go right ahead! It's plausible.

What about male Sisters of Battle?

I believe this was brought up already! For what it's worth, both JNAProductions and some bloke echo my thoughts on the matter very well - that Sisters are not the same as Space Marines, and therefore our reasons for wanting women Space Marines are not applicable to the situation that the Sisters of Battle find themselves in (ie, that Space Marines are the flagship faction, are built on a premise of player freedom and aesthetic customisation, and their core design feature is not based on their gender exclusivity).

By all means, include men in the Sisters of Battle army (oh, hang on, they already are!), but it won't be for the same reasons that we're including women in the Space Marines. So, if you don't mind my asking, why do we want men in the Sisters of Battle?*

*And that's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one - I'm interested to see what the reasoning is!

 Psionara wrote:
I understand that people would like to have factions be more inclusive, which is fine, but a sword cuts both ways.

Female Space Marines? Go right ahead! It's plausible.

What about male Sisters of Battle?

Sure.

It's been brought up several times as a "gotcha" in the thread, but I really don't see how it is one. There's absolutely nothing about the role of 'sister of battle' that requires an aspirant to be female necessarily. They're women as a fig leaf technicality to dodge the letter of a law, and they're wearing full suits of armor that indicate 'this is a woman, No Decree Passiverino'.

I think they should work exactly like Howling Banshees do. Canonically, not all howling banshees are female, just like not all Dire Avengers are male. Their armor is just styled after and they take on the fighting style and personality traits of the original individual who eventually became the pheonix lord of their aspect.

What angry commenters discover basically every time a sisters of battle release comes out is that shrunk down to 28mm miniature scale, unless you give a mini gigantic anime doe eyes and big poufy plastic surgery lips it's pretty difficult to convey definitive gender on a lump of unpainted plastic, you've basically just got hairstyle to work with because it's not like you can sculpt on makeup. And to make matters worse lets say hypothetically you've got a miniature painting studio that's all dudes who don't properly know what makeup actually looks like on a person painting up those sculpts the results can be a little on the androgenous side.

Leave the sisters as female only, I say. If you want guys in the army, that's cool but do it via bringing back the inquisitorial stormtroopers unit type using the old kasrkin models.

Honestly I just want kasrkin back. Best models gw ever did.

If there needs to be a dood-only faction, leave it as the custodes.

Deadnight wrote:
Leave the sisters as female only, I say. If you want guys in the army, that's cool but do it via bringing back the inquisitorial stormtroopers unit type using the old kasrkin models.

Honestly I just want kasrkin back. Best models gw ever did.

If there needs to be a dood-only faction, leave it as the custodes.

At the risk of verging off topic, are Custodes only male? If so, is it explained why in the background?

The Custodes are based on the Companions of Alexander and were the Emperor's first creations, so the best guess is the Emperor CBA trying the Custodes process with women. Honestly, a lot of 40k reasoning comes from the "women don't sell" attitude that isn't really a thing now.

To be honest, the creation of Custodes is one of those "We don't ask" imperial secrets that even the High Lords aren't allowed to know. Cawl doesn't even know. It's not like they couldn't just UP and change the lore, seeing as how it's literally never been shown or revealed.

Custodes being female would be awesome, but they are more "Vat grown" then regular astartes. And by that I mean they lock a young boy into a creation process that lasts decades. It's not like the year that it takes to make a Space Marine.

Does the lore actually say that girls can’t become Custodes or that there aren’t any? Or is it just that none have been mentioned, so it’s an assumption as there is no evidence to the contrary?

Thus far they're all male but the process to create a Custodes is very very vague and is more described as bio-alchemy/magic that only the Emperor and the Custodes can do. It's probably a cultural thing TBH.

Deadnight wrote:If there needs to be a dood-only faction, leave it as the custodes.

I'll echo this - Custodes already have the "warrior fraternity" thing down, if that's a niche that needs filling, are more closely themed on things like the Companions or Theban Sacred Band, and aren't the flagship faction!

They still have an "arbitrary" restriction, but this could be elaborated on and made less artificial by quite literally saying that the Emperor only wanted male companions because he's a misogynist - and that would make more sense than the same for Space Marines, because he has a much stronger hand in how the Custodes are made in comparison to the Space Marines. As he considers each Custodes much more valuable than the Astartes, it makes sense that his "men only" attitude would be more pervasive in the Custodes than the Space Marines.

Aash wrote:At the risk of verging off topic, are Custodes only male? If so, is it explained why in the background?

We've only ever seen male Custodes, and I believe (but can't find a source) that someone *at* GW asked if Custodes could be women, and was essentially told "we don't have any women's heads for them, so no". But I don't know how much of that is false information.

Essentially, the lore doesn't seem to lean either for or against, other than we receive absolutely no indication of the appearance of a non-male Custodes.

However, what is a little more clear is that Custodes do fit more of the stylistic qualities of an "all-male" faction than the Astartes do, so if any faction *should* be the all-male niche, it's them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Deadnight wrote:If there needs to be a dood-only faction, leave it as the custodes.

I'll echo this - Custodes already have the "warrior fraternity" thing down, if that's a niche that needs filling, are more closely themed on things like the Companions or Theban Sacred Band, and aren't the flagship faction!

They still have an "arbitrary" restriction, but this could be elaborated on and made less artificial by quite literally saying that the Emperor only wanted male companions because he's a misogynist - and that would make more sense than the same for Space Marines, because he has a much stronger hand in how the Custodes are made in comparison to the Space Marines. As he considers each Custodes much more valuable than the Astartes, it makes sense that his "men only" attitude would be more pervasive in the Custodes than the Space Marines.

I still find it strange that you support changing one army but leaving the other, both of which have the same arbitrary reasons for being all male, and that your entire reasoning seems to hinge upon the "flagship faction" thing.

I continue to support adding female marines, for a large array of good reasons in-lore and a lack of good reasons not to in-lore, but I feel that having this external influence behind the decision increases the appearance of 40k being interfered with for political* reasons. 40k can naturally grow in this direction without it being externally driven, it doesn't need an ulterior motive based on societies changing view of ethics and inclusivity.

*I use "political" colloquially, as I don't know what word better suits what I'm trying to say. Please don't nitpick it! And if there's a better word, please suggest it! I mean "something which is being done for the purposes of better conforming it to the modern views of society and not for the improvement of the thing itself". Maybe I should use the word "Societal" instead of "Political"?

So changing marines because they are the flagship and don't represent women is societal. Changing them because it is the natural next step of the primaris program and all makes sense in the lore to do so is actually improving the game, with societal side-effects. The moment you let things like "but they are the flagship" influence your decisions, it becomes Societal. And we would return to questions like "what if orks were the flagship product" and so on. Which I still haven't had a reasonable answer for (only "but they aren't"), and I think the reason for that is because purely societal decisions have no place in fictional games. You can't decide to change things just because they are the flagship, but you can decide to change them first if they were going to be changed anyway.

Once again: for female marines for many reasons, against doing so just because marines are the flagship.

You are poisoning the well, with that exact argument.

It's at best a rampant over simplification. We are arguing that BECASUE they are the flag ship faction, it would do the most good to diversify them. It would do piss all if we integrated black females into the GSC or the Eldar. Space Marines make up over 75% of the game. How do you keep missing this?

 some bloke wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Deadnight wrote:If there needs to be a dood-only faction, leave it as the custodes.

I'll echo this - Custodes already have the "warrior fraternity" thing down, if that's a niche that needs filling, are more closely themed on things like the Companions or Theban Sacred Band, and aren't the flagship faction!

They still have an "arbitrary" restriction, but this could be elaborated on and made less artificial by quite literally saying that the Emperor only wanted male companions because he's a misogynist - and that would make more sense than the same for Space Marines, because he has a much stronger hand in how the Custodes are made in comparison to the Space Marines. As he considers each Custodes much more valuable than the Astartes, it makes sense that his "men only" attitude would be more pervasive in the Custodes than the Space Marines.

I continue to support adding female marines, for a large array of good reasons in-lore and a lack of good reasons not to in-lore, but I feel that having this external influence behind the decision increases the appearance of 40k being interfered with for political* reasons. 40k can naturally grow in this direction without it being externally driven, it doesn't need an ulterior motive based on societies changing view of ethics and inclusivity.

As 1980s Thatcherite british austerity politics became more ingrained and accepted as parts of the culture of britain and the Overton window shifted right, the satirical elements of 40k were steadily shifted out in favor of a much more serious present tone, with markedly fewer instances of the imperium being depicted as straightforward villainous bad guys of the setting and far more instances of the imperium and imperial characters being depicted as 'brutal, but the only way to survive' if not just straight up as the heroes of the setting.

Just think about how much has changed since original pieces of artwork featuring sisters of battle - that iconic piece of art where a sister is looking at a camera and crushing a human skull while a fat, bellowing bishop waves a chainsaw in the air versus the new 9th edition trailer video, where a heroic badass girlboss saves some good loyal soldiers of the imperial guard from scary skeleton monsters alongside a heroic space marine.

40k as a setting was designed as an absurdist political commentary. And now that imperial heroes are much more commonly portrayed as "fundamentally good, heroic characters doing the best they can in a broken, crumbling husk of a once-great society driven to the brink of ruin by fear and eternal warfare" then I do not get why it's off-limits to continue to use the setting for what it was originally designed for.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are poisoning the well, with that exact argument.

It's at best a rampant over simplification. We are arguing that BECASUE they are the flag ship faction, it would do the most good to diversify them. It would do piss all if we integrated black females into the GSC or the Eldar. Space Marines make up over 75% of the game. How do you keep missing this?

So are you suggesting that we should not integrate black females into GSC, as they are not the flagship?

I agree that it would be good to diversify them, but using that as the driving force for doing so is a bad way to go about it. By all means set this up as a goal, but frankly if Orks were the flagship and made up 75% of the game, we would be having a different discussion, even though orks are very much all masculine. That's what tells me that the "they are the flagship" argument is a bad one to stand by, because it only holds water if they are the flagship and they have decent fluff reasons for not excluding females. Therefore, the important thing is not that they are the flagship, but that they have no decent reason not to include females. That is the reason why it should be done.

I'm not saying that the intention isn't good here, but it is exactly what prompts people to feel like societal issues are interfering with the game. Saying "We made female marines because they are awesome" and saying "We made female marines because the marines are the flagship and therefore must be changed lest people be offended at their all-male appearance in the shop windows" are two very different things, and both of them result in female marines, but only one of them results in people feeling like societics (a word I'm using instead of "politics") is interfering with the hobby, and will doubtless harbour far more people saying "they ruined the game by trying to make it appeal to girls". That's not my viewpoint, but you have to consider that this is a strong possibility.

some bloke wrote:I still find it strange that you support changing one army but leaving the other, both of which have the same arbitrary reasons for being all male, and that your entire reasoning seems to hinge upon the "flagship faction" thing.

I've never pretended like Space Marines being the flagship faction was never part of my reason. It always has been, paired with how the Space Marine design is more supportive of gender-neutrality than the Custodes.

I continue to support adding female marines, for a large array of good reasons in-lore and a lack of good reasons not to in-lore, but I feel that having this external influence behind the decision increases the appearance of 40k being interfered with for political* reasons.

The problem is that *all* reasons, both for status quo and for change, are influenced by "political" reasons, as you put them.

Putting the lore in front of real people is a "political" stance. Putting people in front of the lore is a "political" stance. There's no two ways about that, if we're going to say that inclusivity itself is "political".

40k can naturally grow in this direction without it being externally driven

It really can't. The setting *cannot* grow, because it is fictional. It has no pre-determined end point, it has no guaranteed outcome, because we do not (and this is a good thing) know all the variables.

We don't know if Guilliman will ever successfully close the Rift, but the story could be written that way. We don't know if Abaddon will reach Terra and lay siege to the Palace again, but the story could be written that way. We don't know if Cawl would even work out how to make women Astartes, but the story could be written that way. Or not, for all of the above.
The point is that the story is guided by the whims of *real* people, in the *real* world - and for a company, those decisions are quite often guided by profit and money. Unfortunately, profit and money are "political", to use the phrase.

My reasons for changing Space Marines are because I want representation in 40k where it ought to be. We have, over the course of this thread, outlined why Space Marines don't need to be male, and why them being all male is not just arbitrary, but *damaging* to the identity of what Space Marines are, according to GW.
With that out of the way, and having ascertained that Space Marines don't need to be male in the first place, we can evaluate why Space Marines ought to be representative - and them being a flagship faction is a major part of that, because, as I've said, representation is nothing without visibility.

Space Marines are the most visible faction. The rest stems from there.

So changing marines because they are the flagship and don't represent women is societal. Changing them because it is the natural next step of the primaris program and all makes sense in the lore to do so is actually improving the game, with societal side-effects.

And I stand for both. Space Marines both have no "natural" reason to be male in the first place, because the lore is inherently "unnatural", and therefore have no reason not to include women. They also just happen to be the flagship, which furthers the reason why they, and not the other all-male faction, should be visibly gender-neutral.

The moment you let things like "but they are the flagship" influence your decisions, it becomes Societal.

Every decision about 40k is Societal, or Political, or however we choose to put it, because the setting isn't real. The setting can't change without external input, but the setting itself cannot have existed without that external input from the real world. The setting doesn't exist spontaneously - it was invented, by people in the real world, to sell real world things.

Even keeping it the same is a Societal or Political stance to take, by that same admission.

And we would return to questions like "what if orks were the flagship product" and so on. Which I still haven't had a reasonable answer for (only "but they aren't")

The reason isn't "because they aren't", the reason is "because they won't ever be".

Space Marines are probably the perfect mascot for GW. They are easily marketable - they're humanoid, for ease of audience surrogacy and familiarity, but sufficiently cartoonish design that they can be interpreted in a variety of both realistic and non-realistic styles, ranging from ultra-gritty and military, to cute Funko pops and cartoon sketches. They're brightly coloured and visually distinct from most other brands. They're one of the most simple factions when it comes to collecting and painting. They're amazing for audiences to imprint on and to develop their own artistic styles and creativity on. They're already well established in wider pop culture.

For GW to not put Space Marines on their flagship pedestal would be marketing suicide for them - and that's why they won't take them down from it. It's a forgone conclusion, because of real world decisions and reality.

As you are the one with the difficulty understanding the arguments put forward, please stop trying to push your misguided understanding of my intent as stated fact.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are poisoning the well, with that exact argument.

It's at best a rampant over simplification. We are arguing that BECASUE they are the flag ship faction, it would do the most good to diversify them. It would do piss all if we integrated black females into the GSC or the Eldar. Space Marines make up over 75% of the game. How do you keep missing this?

^and also the answer in most cases is 'already did.' There are female GSC and GSC come in all colors humans do, because theyre humans. They just...trend towards purple, generally.

"not allowed to be black" is not a problem in 40k generally. Thankfully. The very very few that try to push for that are basically laughed at by the community at large.

There are black elf models in AOS, the only reason there arent black eldar models is that eldar models are basically the same set of studio models they used in 3rd edition rebased and the only recent eldar models are Dark Eldar who are like, pale because theyre vampires.

The flagship faction is one of the arguments, yes but there are others. An important aspect of SM is that they are a blank canvas for a hobbyist to paint their own vision on. A SM can range from a regal Roman-esque warrior to a barbarian covered in furs and talismans or a medieval knight. A SM collector can do anything they want with their models and it would all be OK because each Chapter has its own culture and aesthetics but women are absolutely not allowed. I could model my SM after Greek myths with my Chapter heroes named after the pantheon but I couldn't feature the Amazons or any of the female heroes or members of the pantheon.
Making it "canon" for SM to be female would allow hobbyists more creativity and prevent people from using the background as justification for exclusionary or hateful behavior.
There isn't going to be one explicit reason for the change and honestly it would be up to the individual to decide what that is because GW sure as hell ain't going to say why.

some bloke wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are poisoning the well, with that exact argument.

It's at best a rampant over simplification. We are arguing that BECASUE they are the flag ship faction, it would do the most good to diversify them. It would do piss all if we integrated black females into the GSC or the Eldar. Space Marines make up over 75% of the game. How do you keep missing this?

So are you suggesting that we should not integrate black females into GSC, as they are not the flagship?

Why shouldn't black women be in the Genestealer Cult anyway?

I think the point Fezzik is making is that diversity is nothing without representation. By all means, we *should* be including representation and inclusivity in the setting*, but that's meaningless if all the places to include it are in the fringes and forgotten factions.

*where it is fitting - and yes, Space Marines are fitting, as I've outlined by explaining how the Space Marine identity is more centred now on their player freedoms and customisation.

By all means set this up as a goal, but frankly if Orks were the flagship and made up 75% of the game, we would be having a different discussion, even though orks are very much all masculine.

But Orks aren't human, and aren't the flagship.
You're dealing in a hypothetical, not the reality of the situation.

That's what tells me that the "they are the flagship" argument is a bad one to stand by, because it only holds water if they are the flagship and they have decent fluff reasons for not excluding females. Therefore, the important thing is not that they are the flagship, but that they have no decent reason not to include females. That is the reason why it should be done.

It is both. The flagship has no reason to be all-male, and Space Marines themselves also have no reason to be all male. They're not mutually exclusive to support.

I'm not saying that the intention isn't good here, but it is exactly what prompts people to feel like societal issues are interfering with the game.

The problem is that those same people who cry "politics" at everything also fail to realise that status quo and neutrality are also "political" stances.

Look at the argument like this:

Space Marines are the flagship faction of 40k.
They get the lion's share of marketing/releases.
This means that the majority of factions in the game are some flavour of SM.
Because of this variety in flavour, a core tenant of SM is that the hobbyist can paint/convert/give them whatever background they want and it would still be accepted within the "canon".
However, the freedom of creativity for SM is not allowed if someone makes their SM female.
Why? Because the background says so (sort of).
Why does that background say so? Because GW made rubbish female models back in ye' olden' dayes' and they didn't sell well.
But GW has improved their sculpting talent since then, so why are there no female SM allowed?
Because the background says so.
(At this point the argument against female SM becomes tediously circular and we move on to Real Life problems)
Hold on, hobbyists are doing it anyway. Wait, why are they getting harassed and threatened?
Oh, because they didn't adhere to the background.
But the background has seen extensive change since it was first written over two decades ago and this particular part isn't really focused on nowadays. People are using it as a reason to be exclusionary/hateful, surely we should change this?
No, because that would be "political".
(Here the argument becomes tedious and circular again)

We've agreed that adding female SM would be cool in lore and at the same time might help to reduce unwanted behaviour in the hobby and make it more welcoming. It doesn't particularly matter if you disagree with 3/10 of the arguments presented in this thread, you still agree with the other 7.

 some bloke wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are poisoning the well, with that exact argument.

It's at best a rampant over simplification. We are arguing that BECASUE they are the flag ship faction, it would do the most good to diversify them. It would do piss all if we integrated black females into the GSC or the Eldar. Space Marines make up over 75% of the game. How do you keep missing this?

So are you suggesting that we should not integrate black females into GSC, as they are not the flagship?

I agree that it would be good to diversify them, but using that as the driving force for doing so is a bad way to go about it. By all means set this up as a goal, but frankly if Orks were the flagship and made up 75% of the game, we would be having a different discussion, even though orks are very much all masculine. That's what tells me that the "they are the flagship" argument is a bad one to stand by, because it only holds water if they are the flagship and they have decent fluff reasons for not excluding females. Therefore, the important thing is not that they are the flagship, but that they have no decent reason not to include females. That is the reason why it should be done.

I'm not saying that the intention isn't good here, but it is exactly what prompts people to feel like societal issues are interfering with the game. Saying "We made female marines because they are awesome" and saying "We made female marines because the marines are the flagship and therefore must be changed lest people be offended at their all-male appearance in the shop windows" are two very different things, and both of them result in female marines, but only one of them results in people feeling like societics (a word I'm using instead of "politics") is interfering with the hobby, and will doubtless harbour far more people saying "they ruined the game by trying to make it appeal to girls". That's not my viewpoint, but you have to consider that this is a strong possibility.

Which ever faction represented the majority of the hobby, was the focus of every starter set, on the cover of the rules and plastered in every shop window, be it ORKS or guard or as it is, marines, if that faction had a rule that stated no women were allowed and anyone who tried to include women in it faced abuse and threats. The. Yes that should be changed for that reason. It just so happens that marines are that faction, they are human and relatable, not green fungal gorillas, and they have that rule of no girls allowed rule applied to them. It just so happens as well that it makes sense lore wise and hobby wise. So it’s a triple whammy. You might only approve of two out of the three reasons to change it but that “ain’t bad” as meatloaf said.

As for custodes, I don’t see a need for them to be all male, they are a much smaller and more niche group so don’t worry about it. Like all Callidus assassins being female. It’s a drop in the ocean. Does kind of suggest that the emperor liked the company of men a lot, which I’m sure would drive those anti female marines types bonkers (seen very similar homophobic abuse thrown at people doing pride month models).

Just a side note, not all Callidus are female but the majority are. Apparently Polymorphine works better on females but it can still be used for males.

I'd really like to see all 3 of the militant branch armies redone as more of their Ordos honestly. Rebrand the sisters as the Ordo Hereticus and bring in more of that inquistor/witch hunter theme. It's such a cool and popular style, but there's no place where it really fits given the way GW designs armies. That's how a few outdated male figures fit in the range currently, and something that I'd love to see get represented better in the army in general.

 Gert wrote:
Just a side note, not all Callidus are female but the majority are. Apparently Polymorphine works better on females but it can still be used for males.

Noted. Thanks.

Yes, because what this hobby needs is more MALE representation. Won't anyone think of the DOODS?

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd really like to see all 3 of the militant branch armies redone as more of their Ordos honestly. Rebrand the sisters as the Ordo Hereticus and bring in more of that inquistor/witch hunter theme. It's such a cool and popular style, but there's no place where it really fits given the way GW designs armies. That's how a few outdated male figures fit in the range currently, and something that I'd love to see get represented better in the army in general.

I like the three different chamber militant of the three main Ordos. More should be made of that with sisters, I agree.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd really like to see all 3 of the militant branch armies redone as more of their Ordos honestly. Rebrand the sisters as the Ordo Hereticus and bring in more of that inquistor/witch hunter theme. It's such a cool and popular style, but there's no place where it really fits given the way GW designs armies. That's how a few outdated male figures fit in the range currently, and something that I'd love to see get represented better in the army in general.

to me it seems basically like a 50-50 split, where people either REALLY REALLY WANT all the Ordo Militant factions to be heavily tied in with the inquisition, or the REALLY REALLY HATE all the inquisitorial stuff and just want a pure army of just GK/DW/Sisters.

Mostly, it seems like the people who actually play the factions in question tend to fall in camp b. Personally I fall into camp A and play DW, but in my own personal experience I seem to be an oddity.

I'm in camp A and play all 3

Catulle wrote:

Not just sexism but Other Reasons (tm)! (Dear reader, he will never explain them because GiRlZ NawT AllOwEdeD)

For the same reason I find Primaris tiresome, sure.

Catulle wrote:


You were literally told to knock it off pages ago now. Want to press that point now just to get across how much your conception of the Imperium depends of your... inserting fanon child abuse when the Astartes are literally *right there*?

It's not fanon, it's in the lore. Sorry, your precious Astartes support an irredeemably evil regime. So do the Sororitas.

Catulle wrote:


*snipped a load of terrible bollocks science*

AIS is not "bollocks science."

Catulle wrote:


...hand on a forking second...

You're *blatantly* talking about gatekeeping trans people's identities behind a screen of your own conceptualisation of sex and gender.

No I'm not. You don't even seem to be aware of what you're saying, or I'm saying.

Catulle wrote:


That's what you've been doing all along. By insisting on the performative, you can deny the medical, and by denying the medical you can deny the validity of gender performance,

Dear GOD you people are Boring.

Boring, maybe, right, definitely.

Catulle wrote:

If you need to be told - Women are women, you imbecile. Men are men. Just listen, we're fundamentally the same.

Hey mods, am I allowed to respond in kind, or do the insults only go one way?

Catulle wrote:

*cue the pseudoscients that somehow have managed to dodge the notion of social construction and human psychology* or worse, have but can't apply it to themselves.

Just because something's socially constructed doesn't mean it's arbitrary or doesn't have its roots in human biology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

It's also worth remembering that one of the defining features of sisters, throughout the fluff and history as well as the model range, is that they are women. The same isn't true of marines - there was fluff there to briefly justify it, and it was done for a real-life logistical and business decision, not for the game. Sisters of battle were not missing men because it was too expensive and risky to make them, they are missing them because they are an army that is supposed to be mostly/all female.

Incorrect. It was true of Astartes, as well, just called out less because it's less noticeable to have male soldiers/warriors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=Gert 798058 11161561 Space Marines are the flagship faction of 40k.
They get the lion's share of marketing/releases.
This means that the majority of factions in the game are some flavour of SM.
Because of this variety in flavour, a core tenant of SM is that the hobbyist can paint/convert/give them whatever background they want and it would still be accepted within the "canon".