Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Except they clearly *do* care - they care enough to ascribe "political" motivations for an unexplained introduction of women into the Space Marines. They aren't "neutral", and they will gladly support an unequal system over an inclusive one - and that's the issue.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The scenario I'm describing is the rewrite of the lore to "shoehorn" women in (horrible choice of words, because simply featuring women isn't "shoehorning". Gender neutrality is the norm, not gender exclusivity), and that's it. No grand political statement, no big speech, no parade. Literally just a section of text featuring Space Marines with female pronouns, and some women-presenting heads. No extra attention drawn to it.

It is worth noting that if GW included marines with fish heads, and offered absolutely no explanation of why there are suddenly marines with fish heads in the lore except for a few token “fish-marine” pronouns in there, people would not be accepting that fish-marines are a thing.
I feel like your grasp on how people accept change is being clouded by the fact that this involves women and sexist connotations.
I know you’ll say “fish people don’t exist, and women do”, but that’s irrelevant to 40k. Chaos spawn, orks, eldar, tyranids etc. don’t exist in the real world, but they are in 40k, because 40k is fictional. Fiction is not restricted to only adding to the real world – it can also remove things as well, because it isn’t real.
So back to the psychological debate we are having – whether or not how the introduction is made will affect its reception – try to take the sexism, representation, morals, and all that out of it and focus solely on the way it will affect people who aren’t affected by the problems we are trying to solve. Do we agree on that – that this should be treated just like any other change in 40k, and that we want it to be as well received as possible?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If the "majority" of people would turn toxic towards women simply because they were included in Space Marines without a lore justification, I don't think this is even a safe hobby for women at that point.

I don't know, maybe I was being optimistic, maybe a little naive, but I genuinely was under the illusion that *most* people wouldn't turn toxic and start being resentful towards women if suddenly little plastic dollies could now have women heads on them without any explanation or political commentary. If I'm wrong on that, and it turns out that people care enough about their little plastic toys needing some made up words to say they can now have women's heads, and if they don't get those made-up words, they'll be toxic towards women, maybe this isn't a safe space for women at all.

I feel that I was perhaps wording it slightly wrong when I said that they would turn toxic – apologies.
I was alluding to the idea that they would make the environment more toxic, rather than being outwardly toxic directly to women. They would make jokes about the change, and suggest – rightly, if no lore explanation justifies their appearance – that they were added solely for political reasons. Have you met the British public, and heard their views on politics? We are at our core a cynical bunch, who will take the mickey out of anything if given the ammunition.
Personally, I feel like women would feel more comfortable amongst a group of people joking about how Cawl can do anything and how any change they want they should just ask Cawl to do it, than a bunch of people who are joking about how space marines have been changed to become more PC by adding women. A woman could easily feel like this vein of joking implies that marines were better before women were added, even if they were only a criticism of how the change were implemented and not a criticism of the change itself.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I have one question to ask: if, as I described, women Space Marines became a thing, with no lore "development", but also no big political statement from GW - you go to sleep, and the next day, women Space Marines are just there - would you be toxic towards women? Resentful? Would you immediately call the inclusion of women a "political" change, and blame women for it?

Or would you just shrug your shoulders, and move on, and enjoy 40k regardless?

What comes first to you: enjoying the hobby and it's inclusivity, or kicking up a fuss because the lore was changed and no-one told you?

If that happened, I would ask someone in the store why there were female marines now.
What answer would you want people to give?
We’ve already discussed before how taking away people’s “but the lore says no” will ostracise them and their extreme views if they choose to keep them up. Why don’t you feel it important to say “but the lore says yes”?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Hopefully, there shouldn't *be* anyone to "bait", as you put it.

But if you're implying that there *are* people with exclusionary views, and they would *still* be sticking around, lurking, having those exclusionary views while I'm simultaneously saying to women "yeah, this is a safe space, you're totally welcome here!", then it's not really a safe space, is it? If there's people with exclusionary views sticking around, then I'm not really fixing the problem, I'm just sweeping the people with exclusionary views under the rug.

You’ve changed tack here.
Originally the concept was to remove the viewpoint. To get rid of the idea that women should be playing sisters of battle because everyone else is either men or aliens. You said yourself that if people in the hobby see female models as normal, they will see women as normal too.
Now you’re suggesting that these same people, who have grown up in a hobby dominated by men and male models, who aren’t personally sexist but have inadvertently been spending their time in a sexist-by-apathy environment (nobody bothered to change it), and who we might find are somewhat skewed in their subconscious beliefs by this (which we have established as a part of the issue, otherwise adding female models wouldn’t help) should all leave because they resent change to their game – not because of the content, but the application. You’ve moved from re-education to purging. I think that’s a bit of an extreme jump.

Let’s just say the change is made, and there are some people who aren’t happy about it. Do you really think that they will just go away?
Now let’s say the change is done badly and there are more people unhappy about it. Some say “the change was political, raar!” and others say “The change was unnecessary, marines should be men, raar!”. These two groups will be joined by the common message of “The change was bad, raar!”, and will find vindication in their views from one another.

We know that the only way people will either fade away or change their views is if they face opposition on them. So why make it so easy for them to find support in the concept that change = bad?
I guarantee you that if they just made female marine models without saying a thing about them anywhere, everyone would ask where female marines came from, and when no lore reason arises, they will look elsewhere. The first place people look for the reason things exist in 40k is in the lore, not in the business meeting notes and political standpoints of the company. Cynics will always find a way to be cynical, but their views will only stand up if there is no opposition to squash them.

Look at it this way – we are expecting 3 types of people to come out of this change – we can disregard the numbers of them for now, as we’re just going back and forth on that one!
The people are for, against, and don’t know how they feel.
The goal is for the people who are for the change to get as many people who haven’t made opinions about it onto their side.
The people who are against it are armed with “This is only political, it’s politics interfering with the hobby, the only reason they added it was for politics and not for the game, space marines have always been male and they’ve only put this in to avoid offending snowflakes” as their argument.

What are the people who are for it armed with for their argument? “Actually it’s a good change”. That’s it. They can’t say “actually Cawl did >loads of stuff here<”, so it’s not political, it’s just the progression of the 40k storyline!” if there’s nothing justifying their existence.

Take any other thing in 40k. Anything. Why are there thousand sons? It’s not to pander to the Egyptian crowd, it’s because >all the lore about T-Sons here<. “Awesome, that’s so cool!” replies the inquisitive newcomer! Why are there chaos spawn? >loads of lore goes here< “Ew, that’s gross!” says the newcomer. Why were heldrakes added? >insert daemon engine lore in here<. Why were primaris marines added? >Insert primaris lore here<. Why were Custodes added? >Insert Custodes lore here<. Knights? Lore. Chaos knights? Lore. Ork buggies? Lore. Death Guard as their own codex? Lore.
Female marines? >complete absence of lore<. Oh, must have been for another reason then.
For all that women are a real thing in real life, woman space marines aren’t a thing right now, and if that is changed without changing the lore, then they will stick out like a sore thumb.
You can say “they should have been there from the start”, but the fact of the matter is that they weren’t, and that is the reality we are having to deal with here. People are used to a universe where marines are all male, and changing that without comment will leave people feeling confused about why.
It comes down to that – people will want to know why, regardless of how we implement this. If we say nothing, they will assume their own things. And we already know how well “make up your own lore” has gone for people making female marines, so they can’t go saying “Cawl dun it”, and they will know enough about the lore to say “it wasn’t always like this”, so they will find the only other option – politics has interfered with the game.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You might be mistaken. GW have made it very clear that they can change things without the lore needing to back it up constantly.

Grav-guns? They exist now.
Centurions? They exist now.
Stormravens? They exist now.
Scions? They exist now.
Celestian Sacresants? They exist now.
Perpetuals? They exist now.

GW can just add things without needing the lore. I don't see why they can't do that with women Space Marines.

And every one of those things is lacking any explanation in the lore? There’s nothing about them in the books, is there? No write-up of what a grav-gun does, no entire-page-of-fluff about every codex entry in the codex?
These things were added and their lore was added at the same time. Perpetuals is entirely a lore thing, they don’t exist on the tabletop! If they didn’t have lore, they wouldn’t exist
My point is that it’s not just a permissive ruleset, it’s a permissive lore. If it’s not written into the lore, then it doesn’t feel like it’s part of the actual 40k universe. If I made fish-marines, they will exist on the tabletop, and will have rules as marines, but as there’s nothing saying fish marines exist then it’s not canonical.
The whole issue people have had is dingbats using “the lore says” as a reason to be highly unpleasant to people making female marines. “female marines aren’t canon” is their argument. Things only become canon by being written into the lore. So if you don’t write female marines into the lore, they aren’t canon, and these idiots still have their ammo to continue being dingbats.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And if they're more invested in the lore than in letting women be a part of the hobby, is that not a pretty messed up set of priorities?

Yes. But a lot of people won’t see how female marines will let women be a part of the hobby. When I joined this thread, I didn’t see how making female marines would let women be a part of the hobby.
So anyone with that mindset will not understand why the little bits of plastic make a damn difference, and will only see them changing the game without changing the lore, and so will feel like the game developers priorities are out of alignment, because they are game developers not politicians. They want the game designers to make the game better. They want every release to be about improving the game, furthering the lore, finding out what happens next and what cool new models they can play. When I pick up a new codex with new models, the first thing I do is skip to the new models pages and read about them to find out all about these cool new things. If there’s nothing to read about, there’s nothing to defend their existence in 40k except external reasons.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Well, not quite true. There *are* lore explanations explaining Marines being all-male, but they're:
- Inconsistent
- Obscure and not put in the focus
- Thematically incongruous
- Utterly arbitrary

It's *because* there is "lore" explaining why women can't be Space Marines that people get ganged up on when they make women Space Marine conversions, and told it's "non-canon".

So why do you seem so opposed to writing in something in the lore which directly and unavoidably removes that ammunition?
If GW start making female marines without lore justification then people will say they are being inconsistent with their own lore and start looking for other reasons why it’s been changed. Most people could be easily appeased and brought on-side by writing about the change in the lore.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No lore reason, because I feel that by admitting "we need to justify this with lore", it is still implying that the lore is more important than the representation of women. We should be making this change because it's a good thing to do, not because the lore lets us.

If I heard that things were being changed to accommodate for me, but only because someone made up some excuse in the lore, and if they hadn't made up that excuse, it wouldn't have happened, I'd still feel equally as devalued. It would still feel as if I wasn't important as a human, and that I was still considered less important than 13 little words.

I find it odd that you seem to view the game and the lore as two entirely separate entities!
Every change in 40k needs to be justified in the lore. And every change has been – some done better and some done worse, but every model on the tabletop has lore backing up its ability to represent the factions in the lore.
Space Marines (or Astartes) are a fictional concept – the models only exist to represent them. If you want to change the models, then you need to change the lore so that the models you are making continue to represent the fictional concept of marines.
The lore says “Marines are a brotherhood of super-soldiers who are divided into monastic-inspired groups and fight in power armour using chain swords and bolters”, but it says it in a lot more words.
This whole thing is about Representation. The issue is perhaps (and I’m just realising this) that there is a step missing in your representation reasoning?
The models represent the fictional race of whatever. The lore says they are humanoid, the models have to be humanoid or they won’t represent the lore any more.
The models not being representative isn’t the issue, it’s the lore not being representative. The lore says “they’s all men and they’s big” and the models are all men and the yare big, so the models are perfectly representing the lore. Nobody can say “space marine models don’t look like space marines”, can they? They used to say they were too short, but primaris has fixed that!
So if you change the models and not the lore, then the models no longer represent the lore and you will get people saying “I’m not using female models as they aren’t in the lore”, which is obviously a bad result!
So you need to change the lore to say “Space marines are people and they are big and fight in power armour and have chainswords and bolters”, and then have the models represent big people with chainswords and bolters, some of which are women, and it all fits together.

Nobody is saying “You have to justify adding women space marines in the lore because they are women!”. They are saying “You have to justify model changes in the lore because the two have to match”.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, what - your solution is to essentially lie and tell them that "we're totally not being political, look, Cawl did it!"?

I don't think I like the idea of lying to hide my motivations.

I'd much rather let people just come up with their own reasons, and if they say "oh, it's political, guess this justifies me going out and being toxic towards women", that's more of an indictment on them, surely?

Is it lying about the motivations to give explanations in the lore as to why female marines are now a thing?
As I’ve said above, the lore and the models have to match. If GW decided to release animal-headed marines without a word of why they did so in the lore, people would be confused about their existence. People making monkey-marines might get flak from others because there is no reason for monkey marines to exist in the lore. Lots of people would direct hatred towards the monkey-marine models, for not matching the world they are supposed to represent.
If there were suddenly female marine models without lore explanation, people would ask why. If there was a lore explanation, the answer wouldn’t be “’cos politics”.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't know. I say this with all respect to you, I really do, and I know that you're pro-women Astartes, which is great - but I do think you're perhaps a little optimistic/naive about how many people would "accept" the Cawl was just able to make women Space Marines without calling that lore development itself "political".

What I see happening is that the same people you describe as looking for "political" motives, if there were no lore explanation, would call the lore explanation "political" as well, and we'd still be stuck with people who were crying politics at us.

I appreciate your disclaimer, I know how hard it can be to not sound like an arse on the internet! I also have respect for you in your views, which I truly hope comes across!
I don’t care overmuch about the people who will find politics no matter what – they are a minority. The vast majority of people will only care about what the lore says. But if the lore says nothing, they will look for their answers elsewhere.
Look at primaris – people got shirty about that, saying it was a money grab and so on, but most people now say it’s a thing Cawl did and yadda yadda. There will be an initial grumble from the community as any change happens, but when it settles down and people ask “where did female marines come from”, there needs to be an answer which doesn’t make it sound like a token gesture.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't see why they would stick out like a sore thumb. T'au have women, with no explicit lore "reason". Eldar have women, with no "lore reason". Dark Eldar have women, with no "lore reason". Guardsmen have women, with no "lore reason". Genestealer Cults have women, with no "lore reason".* Women existing in 40k doesn't need a lore reason, because we don't need a lore reason for men existing.

I'm not sure how they'd stick out at all.

*well, Guardsmen especially should have more women represented, but regardless, they *have* women, and no lore reason other than "of course they have women".

But right now space marines don’t have women, and they have a lore reason why. Without contradicting it, we’ve already seen people pull 20+yr old lore out and say “this says no!”
Obviously natural populations like guard and tau and GSC will have women, it goes without saying. But Space Marines are made, not born, and they currently are all male for lore reasons, and everyone knows they are all male.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, absolutely. And likewise, even with a good lore justification, anyone who wants to hear it was political will believe it to be so as well.

Anyone who wants to hear political reasons will, yes. But what about the vast amount of people who just want a reason? Any reason? Some justification for a change being made to their game, with no ulterior motives behind their curiosity? What happens when the only reason they hear is “because politics”?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Whichever reason people want to give for it. Let people choose for themselves what reason they think GW did it for, because that's what they were going to do anyway.

I mean, look at Primaris. GW gave a reason why Primaris are a thing, but many other people are pretty convinced that it was done for business reasons, to rebrand, to remarket, to get people to "buy all their models all over again" - whatever reason people choose to come up with.
Look at Riptides, Stormsurges and Supremacy Suits. GW gave a reason why Tau scientists were making them and why it diverged from the typical Tau system of "aircraft being used as Titan hunters", but many other people just see it as "GW wanted to sell us big shiny walkers and mech-suits".

No matter what GW choose to say or do, people will make up their own reasons behind it, be it "oh, I guess something happened in the lore", or "I guess they were always around" or "GW are after my money!" or "GW are all political and messing up my hobby".

I just don't want to lie about my intentions, I guess.

Not everyone goes looking for reasons with bias behind them.
Look at Primaris. When they turned up, everyone whinged about them. Now they’re just normal. They had lore to back up their existence, and a lot of people got excited about the lore and bought the models. Lots of people said “they’re just a money grab”, but now more lore has come out explaining their place in 40k, those people are generally barely acknowledged or just told to shut up about it already by the people who are too busy enjoying the lore to look for deeper motives behind it.
Riptides and such were generally more criticised for being overpowered in the rules to sell more models (hence the term “Triptide”) than they were considered a money grab. Most people just thought they were cool models.
People who are inclined to complain about it will complain, I agree, but if they have no opposition, then that will become how people think of the change.
You have suggested implementing it without any comment. How is adding comments about how Cawl dun it lying about your intentions, when you have suggested not saying anything anyway?

Deadnight wrote:

With respect, i think you are being too hyperliteral in your reading of the source material, and too eager to dismiss out of hand,moreso than GW is bad with words.

Monastic, has various meanings (quick google on dictionary.com) and they’re not all tied to ‘religious nature’:

of or relating to monasteries: eg a monastic library.

of, relating to, or characteristic of monks or nuns, their manner of life, or their religious obligations: eg monastic vows.(Note the 'or'. Religious obligations are not necessary to hold to this definition)

of, relating to, or characteristic of a secluded, dedicated, or austere manner of living.

In all three definitions, especially the third one, there is crossover between the typically portrayed 'high level imagery of the Astartes, and the monastic imagery they are often associated with – and again, I point out – its described specifically in the 9th ed. Rulebook, which is pretty damned canon and close to irrefutable (and admittedly, the ‘male aspirants only’ isn’t there). If your argument is that SMs and monasteries have no links because SMs are connected to the wider Imperium, and chapters don’t cut themselves off from planets, id like to point out that monasteries also don’t shut their doors to everyone either. They might close their doors at night, and lock themselves away from the lay folks but they would still have links with them. Monastic orders are quite varied. Often they were the centres for learning and pilgrimage, towns and villages often grew up around them, they were a focal point for defence (research the role/function of round towers etc) were strong economic powerhouses back in the day (the brewing aspect has been discussed before, but they also acted as travel houses and lodges for travellers) and most boasted extensive diplomatic links, often cross continental which connected them to people in every strata of society. The notion of individual monks living in stone beehive huts in the Skellig islands (where luke skywalker hid in the recent star war movies) is also true, but its only one of many interpretations of monastic life. And right now, im thinking specifically in terms of European monastic life – you’ll have a totally different take on far eastern monasteries (inventers of martial arts), buddhist monasteries don’t hold the buddha as a ‘diety’, (and technically, the buddha is living and breathing in the dalai llama according to their tenets) and have a lot of superficial similarities there with Space Marines and how they view the emperor and their Primarch.

Codex: SM 9th Edition
Pg.3 (Paraphrased to get rid of extra fluff) - "Whether you are a hobby veteran, or a neophyte brand new to the Warhammer hobby, you will find something in the Space Marines range that fires your imagination and fills you with inspiration."
"For any hobbyist, this is an incredible opportunity to make their army their own, experimenting with their favourite colours or delving into their imagination to invent epic origin stories and tales of victories for their own warriors."

In any case, the specific religiososity of marines is not necessary for the broad ‘monkish’ and ‘warrior monk’ imagery to fit. Marine ‘spirituality’ can be swapped out with monk religiosity and the imagery is essentially unchanged. And you’re correct – living in a monastery doesn’t make you a monk, but there are all the other ques and acknowledgements, and I think you are a bit guilty of dismissing them out of hand in order to make the other point about female marines. They’re not incompatible.

Thru practice asceticism for a variety of reasons, enlightenment being just one. Lack of indulgence is also related to austerity, disciple, self-discipline frugality and even personal poverty/limited or no personal possessions, all of which are a strong feature of both monks and marines, because Indulgence related to excess and that leads to Slannesh. Any Space Marine shirking their duties, being lazy, acting like a vainglorious peacock or wanting all the bling and all the moneys should swiftly get a bonk on the head from the Chaplains Crozius.

And monks aren’t disciplined then? Yeah, calling you on that my friend. The monastic way of life takes a huge amount of self-discipline and commitment. And with respect, its not just about ‘enlightenment’, its also about cleanimg and purifying one's soul and trying to come closer to 'God', however 'God' may be defined through one's individual practices or beliefs - one could argue 'communion with a primarch' would be a legitimate comparison. tI would argue Space Marines would probably find strong philosophical parallels and approaches between them and our monks in their pursuit of spiritual goals, and purifying their souls by the ascetic lifestyle which is a strong component of why monks 'monk'.
Lets also point out 'marines fight'. So do monks. monks fight. Unquestionably.They had to be warriors too, considering the times. Irish monks were known to throw down (I have no doubt more than one viking met their end by being bonked on the head by a crucifix or bible-brick wielding monk), shaolin monks invented martial arts, and im pretty sure there are strong parallels between crusading brethren of the knightly orders (our very own real life warrior monks) slaying infidels as a prayer to god, and marines purging xenos/mutants/heretics doing the same and please note this isn’t somehow exclusive to just space marines that are based on the ‘crusading templar’ stereotype. 'Prayers as actions' is a pretty strong component of monastic life as well .

Also – ‘SMs are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want outside of battle’. Calling you on that friend. That’s hokey. Space Marine daily rituals give them something like 15 minutes of ‘reflection time’. They’re not netflixing and chilling when they are not purging xenos. Marines absolutely do not have personal freedom to do whatever they want – duty to the chapter is the number one absolute requirement. When they’re not in battle, they’re training for it, or doing any of the humdrum activities required to allow them to battle.

I would point out as well that brewing traditions and drinking traditions are extremely strong in a lot of monastic orders and historically, for example, the monks of St.Augustine abbey drank 2 gallons of beer per day (9 litres). You’ll find this to be pretty standard. Any time I see Friar Tuck in the Robin hood movies and cartoons- the guy is a cheerfully drunken sot. ‘Drunken monk’ is a stereotype for a reason. Hell, the shaolin monks even have a whole fighting style based around being sloshed – drunker master! I would further argue that the parallels and similarities between monks making nice art 'for the glory of God' and the likes of the blood angels and salamanders making their guns and armour look pretty 'for the honour of the chapters' are far stronger than you are casually dismissing, almost like they are in line with a Chapters spiritual and cultural beliefs and synonymous with monks doing their thing 'for the glory of god'. I personally see no difference between a monk working on a beautiful tapestry, or illustrating something like the book of kells, and a Blood Angel making his (or her!) armour more ornate and beautiful or a Salamander doing something similar with his/(or her!) flamer.

I think you’re reaching Gert. See above definitions. They still hold. the specific religiososity of marines is not necessary for the broad ‘monkish’ and ‘warrior monk’ imagery to fit well. What 'God' means is a nebulous term.

The argument that ‘gods are not real in the real world’ therefore Space Marines are not monks is stretching credulity. Its as ridiculous as dismissing the links between the two because space marines have space ships and our monks don't .

It would, indeed. The latter though, is often presented as an exception to the rules. Choice isn’t technically a hard and fast rule, (but lets not go down the road of one exception disproves the whole concept. That kind of hyper literal argument quickly verges on the absurd, and opens you to slannesh and tzeentch simultaneously) but it is often presented as the ‘typical’ approach for most chapters outside of the ones we would refer to as [insert suitably colourful swear words] marines. The fact that so many chapters have recruiting practices and traditions and that in the lore it is typically presented that so many aspirants, for various cultural reasons aspire to join them, I think we can regard this as something of a ‘norm’. Which again, was related to the point you made that people don’t choose to join the Space Marines. They do. They absolutely do. The fact that most don’t succeed and fail the trials doesn’t disprove this either. They want to join.

I disagree. It’s not zero/sum. I think you are too quick to assume it has to be one or the other and one has to be dismissed out of hand regardless to support the other point about female marines. And with respect, you too readily dismiss it out of hand. Space Marines do fit with a lot of the stylings of monks and commonly regarded monk/monastic trappings to a far stronger degree than you present or want to admit, the fact that ‘monastic’ is still a term used to describe them even up to and including the most recent publications lends weight to this. And I argue again that these are no incompatible with the personal creativity associated with making them ‘your dudes’ – I think trying to push this notion that ‘the warrior monk thing is done and gone and isn’t a SM thing any more’ is not value-adding, and its effort spent foolishly and it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Nor is it needed for your other points to stand.

I also think you’re putting the cart before the horse friend. In my opinion, Space Marines are not specifically a ‘your dude’ faction. GW pushes the entire hobby as a ‘your dude’ approach. Space Marines are pushed as the flagship faction, the most recognisable faction and arguably the most beginner friendly faction so I can understand why they are associated with the idea, as there is a strong intersection. If they are a ‘your dude’ faction, and I do not disagree that hobby creativity is encouraged and that its easier to do with marines due to the sheer variety of kits, but I still feel its incidental to their other aspects. There are certain core features of Space Marines that are tied very strongly to their identity – organised by chapters, monastic, angels of death etc etc, and beyond that, absolutely it’s a blank canvas for ‘your dudes’.

I also don’t think its fair to say that it was true historically, but it’s not true now. The monastic element is just as strong as it was and its presentation is in the most recent publications. What I will say though is that the source material and individual identities have been expanded on in various chapters (especially the named/famous ones) so that now while its still often the baseline, and the broad imagery is still held to, its oftnenot the only influence. This is not the same thing as saying its been replaced, is no longer an element or that it no longer holds or has been replaced or lost or ‘isn’t the case now’.

What’s more true and accurate is that there is no ‘one influence’ on the chapters.

Space Wolves, for example are the ‘viking’ faction but I see a lot of nods towards a ‘cartoon jock’ culture in their depiction as well as the frequent ‘wolf’ references. The various tropes associated with monks and monasteries are no incompatible with these.

Dark Angels have a very strong monk aesthetic to them, with the habits and all, and that is still as true now as it was then, but I would also argue these days they also have strong ‘knightly’ and ‘lgbtq’ influences - I personally regard the latter as having been brilliantly conceived and cleverly integrated into the DA identity. The latter two do not distract from the former.

Dark Angels have far stronger LGBTQ links than you realise friend. Its actually when you think about it though it does go to a very dark place.

You’ve spotted the obvious one. Lionel Johnson was a poet whose famous poem ‘dark angel’ was about his own homosexuality. Now look a bit deeper.

A lot of the original references are very crass, and quite objectionable humour (and I don’t mean 80’s ‘Police Academy’ dated humour objectionable, I mean objectionable to the point of bigotry). The more recent references are more subtle, and I think, cleverly done.

The DA models are often associated with wearing habits, and associated with the watchers in the dark and have a very strong monastic ‘look’ to them. When we were younger, I doubt I was the only one who heard the rather crass schoolboy humour about Dark Angels all being cross dressers or liking their altar boys a bit too much – and to be fair, I always took this as more of a satire against catholic clergy than anything else. Unfortunately, the dress wearing 'insult humour’ does point towards a rather negative and offensive slur that was, and is often directed against and at the expense of the gay community, though I’ll be hopeful and say id like to think this was unintentional. That said, on the topic of me saying ‘I see a lot of lgbtq references in the Dark Angels’, I think its fair and honest to mention this too, but also to point out I find it dated and objectionable in the extreme.

The other references are thankfully far less malicious, if somewhat edging towards darkness.

The Dark Angels Fortress Monastery. The Rock. Brings to mind obvious comparisons with Alcatraz. There are a lot of dark, sinister imagery and notoriety associated with the Rock, which I think is perfect for capturing the mood of the dark angels. But ‘The Rock’ has a double meaning and refers to something else. I've heard ‘The Rock’ was also the name of a gay bar down the road from GW HQ. Subtle, but again, if you see it, and are aware of it, its undeniably an LGBTQ reference.

Now beyond that, and the conversation takes a dark turn. The Dark Angels refer to themselves as the ‘Unforgiven’. There is a great, almost palpable pall of shame surrounding the chapter, hints of sins committed, irredeemable acts performed and hidden away lest they come to light to others. The Dark Angels really only hang around with and show solidarity with other ‘unforgiven’, and stay apart from wider society. They do everything they can to protect themselves and stop their secret getting out, as they fear it’ll destroy them. As for wider society, the common trope you see is that there is something… off, something fishy about the Dark Angels. Sure, on the surface, they’re legit and seem to be OK, but no one quite trusts them. Everyone thinks there is something suspicious going on, and they’re really wary about them.

What’s truly sad, is if you take what I just wrote and say it to someone in the LGBTQ community, even today in our more enlightened (or at least less unenlightened, at least in places…) times, its still an experience that will resonate with far too many people – too many gay people struggle internally and externally with coming to terms with this, there is so much ‘loaded baggage’ and ‘shame’ associated with this (and it shouldn’t be!) and society still isn’t good enough – nowhere close! Gay people still need to hide who they are from too many people for their own protection. Now imagine you’re gay in the 80s, or 90s, in post industrial Thatcherite England, and maybe you’re out, or maybe in the closet, and hopefully you're safe, but lets face it, you’re in the middle of Thatcher’s Section 28 which did everything it could to devalue, delegitimise and make gay people invisible, and every week you’re probably losing another friend to the AIDS crisis and no one cares, no one even listens and everyone thinks you’re some irredeemable villain – , and you repeat the lines I wrote above to anyone that lived through those days. You’ll reduce grown men to tears. It will resonate that strongly. That’s how hard hitting and powerful this imagery is, at least to me. It’s a statement. It’s a really powerful commentary. It makes me reflect on all of our peers that have suffered through this. This topic is quite important to me. Even writing this and putting my thoughts to paper on this is upsetting me more than a little bit.To me, GW took the ‘experience’ so many people i care about suffered through during that time and now, and gave it a form and cleverly tied it into their game. Its far cleverer and reflective and tragically poignant than ‘viking space marines’ though far darker. Though arguably I think it needs to be dark since the topic is so serious and unsolved.and so much more still needs to be done.

I think it may have started with elements of satirical, crass humour, but I think the writers are aware, and have been very careful and subtle in crafting this since them. And for me, its actually one of the better, and more powerful imageries and commentaries they’ve put into their game

Deadnight wrote:

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. I'm not saying they can't be 'your dudes'ed. Theyre as much 'your dudes' in principle as any other factions in the game. Theyre easier to 'your dudes' due to the sheer amount of kits and I think it's sold on them stronger since theyre presented as 'everyone's first army' but i think its a feature more of the hobby in general than something specifically and uniquely tied to astartes. We are always encouraged to create our own heroes and villains and back stories , craftworlds, gangs of comoragh etc .

Dark Angels have far stronger LGBTQ links than you realise friend. Its actually when you think about it though it does go to a very dark place.

You’ve spotted the obvious one. Lionel Johnson was a poet whose famous poem ‘dark angel’ was about his own homosexuality. Now look a bit deeper.

A lot of the original references are very crass, and quite objectionable humour (and I don’t mean 80’s ‘Police Academy’ dated humour objectionable, I mean objectionable to the point of bigotry). The more recent references are more subtle, and I think, cleverly done.

The DA models are often associated with wearing habits, and associated with the watchers in the dark and have a very strong monastic ‘look’ to them. When we were younger, I doubt I was the only one who heard the rather crass schoolboy humour about Dark Angels all being cross dressers or liking their altar boys a bit too much – and to be fair, I always took this as more of a satire against catholic clergy than anything else. Unfortunately, the dress wearing 'insult humour’ does point towards a rather negative and offensive slur that was, and is often directed against and at the expense of the gay community, though I’ll be hopeful and say id like to think this was unintentional. That said, on the topic of me saying ‘I see a lot of lgbtq references in the Dark Angels’, I think its fair and honest to mention this too, but also to point out I find it dated and objectionable in the extreme.

The other references are thankfully far less malicious, if somewhat edging towards darkness.

The Dark Angels Fortress Monastery. The Rock. Brings to mind obvious comparisons with Alcatraz. There are a lot of dark, sinister imagery and notoriety associated with the Rock, which I think is perfect for capturing the mood of the dark angels. But ‘The Rock’ has a double meaning and refers to something else. I've heard ‘The Rock’ was also the name of a gay bar down the road from GW HQ. Subtle, but again, if you see it, and are aware of it, its undeniably an LGBTQ reference.

Now beyond that, and the conversation takes a dark turn. The Dark Angels refer to themselves as the ‘Unforgiven’. There is a great, almost palpable pall of shame surrounding the chapter, hints of sins committed, irredeemable acts performed and hidden away lest they come to light to others. The Dark Angels really only hang around with and show solidarity with other ‘unforgiven’, and stay apart from wider society. They do everything they can to protect themselves and stop their secret getting out, as they fear it’ll destroy them. As for wider society, the common trope you see is that there is something… off, something fishy about the Dark Angels. Sure, on the surface, they’re legit and seem to be OK, but no one quite trusts them. Everyone thinks there is something suspicious going on, and they’re really wary about them.

What’s truly sad, is if you take what I just wrote and say it to someone in the LGBTQ community, even today in our more enlightened (or at least less unenlightened, at least in places…) times, its still an experience that will resonate with far too many people – too many gay people struggle internally and externally with coming to terms with this, there is so much ‘loaded baggage’ and ‘shame’ associated with this (and it shouldn’t be!) and society still isn’t good enough – nowhere close! Gay people still need to hide who they are from too many people for their own protection. Now imagine you’re gay in the 80s, or 90s, in post industrial Thatcherite England, and maybe you’re out, or maybe in the closet, and hopefully you're safe, but lets face it, you’re in the middle of Thatcher’s Section 28 which did everything it could to devalue, delegitimise and make gay people invisible, and every week you’re probably losing another friend to the AIDS crisis and no one cares, no one even listens and everyone thinks you’re some irredeemable villain – , and you repeat the lines I wrote above to anyone that lived through those days. You’ll reduce grown men to tears. It will resonate that strongly. That’s how hard hitting and powerful this imagery is, at least to me. It’s a statement. It’s a really powerful commentary. It makes me reflect on all of our peers that have suffered through this. This topic is quite important to me. Even writing this and putting my thoughts to paper on this is upsetting me more than a little bit.To me, GW took the ‘experience’ so many people i care about suffered through during that time and now, and gave it a form and cleverly tied it into their game. Its far cleverer and reflective and tragically poignant than ‘viking space marines’ though far darker. Though arguably I think it needs to be dark since the topic is so serious and unsolved.and so much more still needs to be done.

I think it may have started with elements of satirical, crass humour, but I think the writers are aware, and have been very careful and subtle in crafting this since them. And for me, its actually one of the better, and more powerful imageries and commentaries they’ve put into their game