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.

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly never implied that bigots and bullies were any sort of majority. Though they definitely do exist in larger numbers than I would prefer. But yeah, most of the people in the hobby are perfectly nice.

Do you have any documentation on this? By the way, am I being bigoted or am I bullying if I table an opponent with my Crimson Fists and exclaim 'You just got fisted!"

TinyLegions wrote:
By the way, am I being bigoted or am I bullying if I table an opponent with my Crimson Fists and exclaim 'You just got fisted!"

That's down to context and your read on your social situation. If you did it, someone genuinely asked you to stop, and you kept doing it, that'd be douchey.

 skchsan wrote:

Notions such as 'girly girl' are ideas and ideals we conjured up as a patriarchal society. We as society told women what they can be and what they can't be, and if you think adding boobs, making waist more slender, give more pretty faces to PLASTIC FIGURINES as a means of reparation or attracting more female players, you're just straight up buying into that old notion that really needs to be thrown out.

Your post was a bit weird, but actually I somewhat agree. I don't want GIRL MARINES, I want marines that happen to be women. Official recognition that this is canonically possible, and perhaps some femaleish looking bare heads is all I want. Model-wise the recent Cadian upgrade sprue is a perfect example of what to do. You can just have 'Space Marine Heroes Upgrade Sprue' it can have a bunch of characterful heads, some that look a bit more feminine, and perhaps add some fancy weapons you can use to represent various relics while you're at it. It doesn't need to be an explicit 'female marine conversion sprue.'

 Crimson wrote:

I used to think that this was enough, but now I just want GW to make it official. The reason is the bizarre amount of hostility topic receives. Like I literally cannot post that I posted in this thread into one of the biggest marine groups on FB, because it would get swarmed by hate and then mods would delete it. Having GW to say, 'yeah, you can canonically do that' would help.

Would it be reasonable, then, to say that this is more a lore issue than a model one?

As in, the central point is that you want GW to validate the existence of SMs for those who want to use them? So that they're not inherently heretical (like Furry Marines, which I've also seen ).

Vatsetis wrote:
The flagship faction of psicoindoctrinated supersoldiers at the service of a dogmatic theocracy should be able to represent anyone and therefore be mixed gender.

Why can't a toy line of all-male supersoldiers represent a female player?
I myself have played sisters for years, am I doing it wrong?

Players wanting female marine models I get, but gendering armies seems somehow... backwards as a solution to anything. These are toys not role models.

 vipoid wrote:
So that they're not inherently heretical (like Furry Marines, which I've also seen ).

And the dreaded Hello Kitty marines

 vipoid wrote:


As in, the central point is that you want GW to validate the existence of SMs for those who want to use them? So that they're not inherently heretical (like Furry Marines, which I've also seen ).

I made Furry Marines, I just made them as worshippers of Slaanesh, which felt like a more natural fit.

Watch out for the Sub Woofers; their bark is catastrophically worse than their bite.

A.T. wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
The flagship faction of psicoindoctrinated supersoldiers at the service of a dogmatic theocracy should be able to represent anyone and therefore be mixed gender.

Why can't a toy line of all-male supersoldiers represent a female player?
I myself have played sisters for years, am I doing it wrong?

Players wanting female marine models I get, but gendering armies seems somehow... backwards as a solution to anything. These are toys not role models.

Gender != Sex.

I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Representation is important, but you do that by building on what you have, not by destroying the themes and lore you have already established.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Representation is important, but you do that by building on what you have, not by destroying it.

Really? Sure, some people would get mad and storm off - but if they haven't stormed off already based on every unequivocally boneheaded and greedy thing GW has done over the last two decades, I don't think a different haircut and some facial features on some Marines is going to be the final straw, and ultimately it'd draw in more people to replace those who decided to make FSM their bizarre line in the sand.

 skchsan wrote:
Gender != Sex.

True, nothing in the lore states that marines can't be female gendered.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Why would you think that inclusion of female space marines would deter those currently outside the hobby entering it? I mean if they heard that people already in the hobby had a fit about it, then that might...

The litmus test here is very easy: do you speak up to defend people when they are harassed online when they publish female space marine model?

If no: that's all justification needed for the change already here, it's a remedy for your cowardice.
"Everyone can do whatever they want" make sense if people really can. Until converting a female marine is perceived as fine, advocating that things are already fine is more hypocritical than Vatsetsis speaking for those who have opposite ideas.

Being more inclusive is a welcome by-product. The main goal is to reduce problems caused by donkey-caves that pretend to tell other how to play with their toys, to make the lore more believable, add some interesting narrative, give Primaris at least a reason to exist AND LET THOSE WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR MARINE MALE ONLY TO DO SO.

You can have A and B, but you rather keep only A because something may be ruined. You should have been those caveman shocked and disgusted when the first steak was thrown on a fire rather than eaten raw.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Why would you think that inclusion of female space marines would deter those currently outside the hobby entering it? I mean if they heard that people already in the hobby had a fit about it, then that might...

Hell, it might get more. If I heard about a new game due to a bunch of people throwing a fit because they changed a longrunning faction to be more inclusive? I'd check out that game in a heartbeat.

Fat fingers punched the wrong result. Poll is broken. Results no longer reliable. My vote is for do not add.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Why would you think that inclusion of female space marines would deter those currently outside the hobby entering it? I mean if they heard that people already in the hobby had a fit about it, then that might...

Hell, it might get more. If I heard about a new game due to a bunch of people throwing a fit because they changed a longrunning faction to be more inclusive? I'd check out that game in a heartbeat.

And then you'll see the price and immediately forget about it
If GW truly wanted more people in the hobby, they should start with the price.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Why would you think that inclusion of female space marines would deter those currently outside the hobby entering it? I mean if they heard that people already in the hobby had a fit about it, then that might...

The ensuing, eventual, drama and articles being written.


If you're looking to increase representation within 40k and bring in new members shoehorning female space marines is the least elegant way of doing so.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

If GW truly wanted more people in the hobby, they should start with the price.

Yes, but let's try to keep our expectations reasonable!

 Cybtroll wrote:
The litmus test here is very easy: do you speak up to defend people when they are harassed online when they publish female space marine model?

If no: that's all justification needed for the change already here, it's a remedy for your cowardice.
"Everyone can do whatever they want" make sense if people really can. Until converting a female marine is perceived as fine, advocating that things are already fine is more hypocritical than Vatsetsis speaking for those who have opposite ideas.

Being more inclusive is a welcome by-product. The main goal is to reduce problems caused by donkey-caves that pretend to tell other how to play with their toys, to make the lore more believable, add some interesting narrative, give Primaris at least a reason to exist AND LET THOSE WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR MARINE MALE ONLY TO DO SO.

You can have A and B, but you rather keep only A because something may be ruined. You should have been those caveman shocked and disgusted when the first steak was thrown on a fire rather than eaten raw.

What? I don't understand what you are getting at. Who ever said that converting a female space marine is not fine? Nobody cares what you personally do with the models you bought for yourself.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Hell, it might get more. If I heard about a new game due to a bunch of people throwing a fit because they changed a longrunning faction to be more inclusive? I'd check out that game in a heartbeat.

And then you'll see the price and immediately forget about it
If GW truly wanted more people in the hobby, they should start with the price.

Absolutely and without question a totally accurate statement I think we can all agree on, but that's a different discussion.

 Cybtroll wrote:
The litmus test here is very easy: do you speak up to defend people when they are harassed online when they publish female space marine model?

If no: that's all justification needed for the change already here, it's a remedy for your cowardice.
"Everyone can do whatever they want" make sense if people really can. Until converting a female marine is perceived as fine, advocating that things are already fine is more hypocritical than Vatsetsis speaking for those who have opposite ideas.

Being more inclusive is a welcome by-product. The main goal is to reduce problems caused by donkey-caves that pretend to tell other how to play with their toys, to make the lore more believable, add some interesting narrative, give Primaris at least a reason to exist AND LET THOSE WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR MARINE MALE ONLY TO DO SO.

You can have A and B, but you rather keep only A because something may be ruined. You should have been those caveman shocked and disgusted when the first steak was thrown on a fire rather than eaten raw.

The problem is that all the "solutions" presented here are how MEN PERCEIVE WOMEN, or how men would like women to be depicted to their preferences.

Here's a real, cold, hard, mean fact - large portion of American nationals participating in here are probably beer bellied, unkempt, and furthest away from what would be perceived as 'optimal male figure.'

Men come in all sizes and shapes, just as women come in all sizes and shapes. Not all women come with the facial shape you consider 'feminine'.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Why would you think that inclusion of female space marines would deter those currently outside the hobby entering it? I mean if they heard that people already in the hobby had a fit about it, then that might...

The ensuing, eventual, drama and articles being written.

So is your argument that they cannot add female space marines as that would lead to bigots throwing a fit, which would learn the general populace learning that non-insignificant section of 40K players are bigots, thus disinclining them to start playing 40K as they don't want to associate with such bigots?

That certainly makes certain sort of terrible sense, but I don't think it works that way in reality. Attempts to make things more inclusive are generally seen positively, even though vocal minority would oppose them.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I think a lot of people here advocating for female space marines are also not thinking about the reaction that their inclusion would lead to. Even if the criticism is lore based, those outside of the hobby would see the articles and immediately be turned off by the hobby.

Why would you think that inclusion of female space marines would deter those currently outside the hobby entering it? I mean if they heard that people already in the hobby had a fit about it, then that might...

The ensuing, eventual, drama and articles being written.

So is your argument that they cannot add female space marines as that would lead to bigots throwing a fit, which would learn the general populace learning that non-insignificant section of 40K players are bigots, thus disinclining them to start playing 40K as they don't want to associate with such bigots?

That certainly makes certain sort of terrible sense, but I don't think it works that way in reality. Attempts to make things more inclusive are generally seen positively, even though vocal minority would oppose them.

It is an argument against inelegant implementation of the specific goal of increasing representation, and how the general public outside of the bubble would react to it.

If 40k needs more representation is does not have to be through space marines.

Ignoring the issue of if there should be female space marines, I think the obvious way to include them is with feminine heads. The space marine power armor is asexual. It only conforms to the human body in the most basic sense of head, limbs, and torsos. Even the slimmer Phobos armor so completely covers the human form that you'd never be able to tell if the gene-wrought warrior inside was male or female, assuming the effects of the conversion process left very much difference between a male and female space marine. It's not like the process of turning a human into a transhuman warrior requires keeping male or female reproductive organs.

Therefore, all you need to differentiate them is heads for helmet-less models that are obviously female while also obviously space marines.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
It is an argument against inelegant implementation of the specific goal of increasing representation,

Ah, see, now this is one of the more understandable reasons people might be leery of the concept without necessarily being bigoted - Assuming GW will feth it up and either make them into bikini models or make a cringey "GRRRL POWER" thing out of it or something. Now, I don't precisely agree with this; I don't think it's likely that they'll screw it up that catastrophically, and I don't think that it's reasonable to evaluate all possible changes to the hobby or its setting based on their worst possible implementation, but I get it; you've probably sat through some uncomfortable gak based on clumsy efforts in this regard, and GW could always GW. To me that's not a good enough reason not to push for it, but I get it.

TinyLegions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly never implied that bigots and bullies were any sort of majority. Though they definitely do exist in larger numbers than I would prefer. But yeah, most of the people in the hobby are perfectly nice.

Do you have any documentation on this? By the way, am I being bigoted or am I bullying if I table an opponent with my Crimson Fists and exclaim 'You just got fisted!"

Hilarious!

Whoops double post

I would eave them the same. At the end of the creation process, all the SM has the same aspect regardless of the kind of human being that they were before.

TinyLegions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I certainly never implied that bigots and bullies were any sort of majority. Though they definitely do exist in larger numbers than I would prefer. But yeah, most of the people in the hobby are perfectly nice.

Do you have any documentation on this? By the way, am I being bigoted or am I bullying if I table an opponent with my Crimson Fists and exclaim 'You just got fisted!"

I've seen plenty of it happen to my wife first hand in various locations. While most people are very kind, the routine edge lord does slither into the shops often enough and pipes up something mighty stupid. Especially if they don't know I'm with her because I'm at a nearby table. If my experience just witnessing it is somewhere around the expected norm, I'd argue it's a real enough annoyance.

In regards to the whole female space marines topic, I chalk it up to online problems that have no baring in the real world. I'm all for inclusion or what have you but clearly no one is even asking the (cis) girls actually interested or involved in the hobby what they think. Almost none of them want female marines because they find loyalists boring. Always xenos or chaos. Heck most girls I know in the hobby are already annoyed with the new sisters aesthetics looking "manlier" then before. And people think they want even more of that? Nah.

 Cybtroll wrote:


Being more inclusive is a welcome by-product..

I would agree if companies of late haven't had an overwheling tendency to blow it out of proportions. I think there's a healthy balance to this but heck if any of my hobbies (mtg, dc) can manage implementing it properly without sacrificing integral parts of their product. I'd say the last few years have made me jaded and skeptical of the word "inclusive" unforutently.

Also, I just want to thank very nearly all of you on either side for remaining quite civil on this topic - This is actually pretty enjoyable so far.

Maybe it's because I have a better grasp of the topic than the last time around, but I'm quite liking these threads and generally how they're turning out. Makes me hopeful that it won't just be a taboo firestarter topic that nothing ever gets done about because no one can ever discuss it on neutral ground.

look all those claiming that "we need the poster boys to have gender rep!" are honestly missing GW's solution..




This is GW's approuch, rather then retconning 30 years of lore and pissing off fans who actually like the lore. They're bringing sisters up to a similer level. and basicly presenting them as damn near co-equals. in that video both have moments of bad ass, and the marine saves the sister and the sister saves the Marines (TBH IMHO the sister comes off as more of a complete bad ass in that video.)


As for why not female space marines, the lore has space marines as brotherhoods, bringing women into it would reduce that, and space marines would lose something in the process. (much like sisters of battle would lose something if they where turned into a mixed gender army) I'd rather have GW show representation by expanded focus, way I see it, if they turn sisters of battle into co-equal poster boys to Marines, it's a win for everyone.
especially sisters fans who suddenly are gonna start seeing a lot more love thrown their way.
Now I admit as someone with a sisters army my view that way is proably a little biased

but yeah, I find the idea that the majority of 40k fans are a buncha guys who are all "eww girl cooties" to be questionable. when GW put out a survey an overwhelming majority of the community ASKED FOR SISTERS OF BATTLE.
GW assumed no one was intreasted in sisters, it turned out they where wrong and there was overwhelming demand for them. and sisters are now reportedly one of GW's top selling model lines for 40k