BrianDavion wrote:
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.)

BrianDavion wrote:
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

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, GW did it right here.
The solution isn't and shouldn't be "more marines", it should be "let the other factions shine for once."
Sisters of Battle and the Imperial Guard (of which we briefly saw a female member of in the trailer) should get more of the spotlight, not marines once again.

Crimson wrote:
I did this recently. Statuesque Techno Roider head. I think it looks good.



I don't need female marines to look any more feminine than this.

Tiberias wrote:Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Crimson wrote:
I did this recently. Statuesque Techno Roider head. I think it looks good.



I don't need female marines to look any more feminine than this.

Ah, I'd literally just seen her on my feed just a minute ago! Very well done, and I agree, the Statuesque heads are perfect for my own Primaris. That's all I'd want from GW on this - literally just something like those heads, in plastic.

If we can get visibly different male features, then we can get more feminine ones too.

Tiberias wrote:Ok, but what's wrong with us basement dwelling guys having a male faction just for us?

I mean, you can have the Custodes if a faction needing to be all male is so critical? Or you can just have your own Space Marines be all male. I can't dictate how you enjoy your hobby, if you want only dudes in your army, you go for it! No-one's stopping you.

Sledgehammer wrote:You absolutely are dictating how people engage with the hobby and the lore by advocating to change it to fit your preferences.

If it didn't you wouldn't be advocating for it officially and would be content with custom kitbashes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:You absolutely are dictating how people engage with the hobby and the lore by advocating to change it to fit your preferences.

And that advocating it to stay the same isn't also "dictating how people engage with the hobby"?

If simply advocating for things is "dictation", then this dictation applies both ways.

If it didn't you wouldn't be advocating for it officially and would be content with custom kitbashes.

Unfortunately, as I'm sure other people have addressed, some people do like "dictating how people engage with the hobby" - such as unfairly harassing and targeting people who do make those lovely custom kitbashes.

Why should people be content with being insulted and excluded because they put a different plastic head on their war doll?

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:You absolutely are dictating how people engage with the hobby and the lore by advocating to change it to fit your preferences.

And that advocating it to stay the same isn't also "dictating how people engage with the hobby"?

If simply advocating for things is "dictation", then this dictation applies both ways.

If it didn't you wouldn't be advocating for it officially and would be content with custom kitbashes.

Unfortunately, as I'm sure other people have addressed, some people do like "dictating how people engage with the hobby" - such as unfairly harassing and targeting people who do make those lovely custom kitbashes.

Why should people be content with being insulted and excluded because they put a different plastic head on their war doll?

Kitbashes are fine.

Advocating for the changing of 30 years of lore that has impact how others interact with it is absolutely a dictation.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Kitbashes are fine. Advocating for the changing of 30 years of lore that has impact how others interact with it is absolutely a dictation. You can make whatever you want, but trying to change the basic lore of the game does affect people negatively.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Kitbashes are fine. Advocating for the changing of 30 years of lore that has impact how others interact with it is absolutely a dictation. You can make whatever you want, but trying to change the basic lore of the game does affect people negatively.

But you don't have to have female marines yourself. We're not asking you to replace heads and pronouns in Your Dudes. In fact, it makes the choice meaningful if you are in fact using a more historical/medieval/traditionalistic slant for your Chapter, or, alternately, are doing a Pride thing. But the lore as it seems to stand is telling us that we cannot make that choice.

"You can't have your Dudettes" is more dictating than "You have the option of making your Dudes either Dudes or Dudettes."

We're just asking for some people to have it allowed for Their Dudes to be Their Dudettes, and I just can't see why that's in any way wrong to allow.

Sledgehammer wrote:The lore at its core absolutely changes the way you interact with the game and your army as a whole even if you try to build around it.

And no, 40k isn't history, but it has it's own history and themes. When those themes and that history have not and do not current support something I'm going to argue against it because it does not fit.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The lore at its core absolutely changes the way you interact with the game and your army as a whole even if you try to build around it. For instance I made a veteran guard force that was intended to a light infantry regiment supported by aircraft, and light vehicles intended for long rang reconnaissance. They were designed to advance with small arms and take out enemy infantry, then get support where needed via rapid response vehicles. Everyone thinks, and jokes that guard are just meant to be meat fodder and die. Trying to run a guard regiment like that has led me to stop playing the game. The official lore absolutely creates a picture of what your force should be overall and informs how others interact with it.

And no, 40k isn't history, but it has it's own history and themes. When those themes and that history have not and do not current support something I'm going to argue against it because it does not fit.

CEO Kasen wrote:Surely it would've been better if you had the option between using well-trained well-equipped strike forces of Guard and using human wave tactics than if you didn't?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:The lore at its core absolutely changes the way you interact with the game and your army as a whole even if you try to build around it.

Again, how would having women Space Marines change how Space Marines play for you? How would having the option of a female-presenting head affect what you do with your presumably male-presenting Astartes?

And no, 40k isn't history, but it has it's own history and themes. When those themes and that history have not and do not current support something I'm going to argue against it because it does not fit.

But 40k's history and themes *do* change. Arguing against change is pointless when I don't know why things need to stay the same.

Change happens - Primaris and Guilliman are evidence of that. I'm just asking why this shouldn't also.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:The lore at its core absolutely changes the way you interact with the game and your army as a whole even if you try to build around it.

Again, how would having women Space Marines change how Space Marines play for you? How would having the option of a female-presenting head affect what you do with your presumably male-presenting Astartes?

I'm arguing against a specific lore change that goes against 30 years of established canon and thematic story telling that also happens to change how one views and interacts with their own army

 Sledgehammer wrote:
40k is all about crusades, the decay of an empire, decadence, hubris and the death of progress. I was and still am against the lore of the primaris.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:The lore at its core absolutely changes the way you interact with the game and your army as a whole even if you try to build around it.

Again, how would having women Space Marines change how Space Marines play for you? How would having the option of a female-presenting head affect what you do with your presumably male-presenting Astartes?

I'm arguing against a specific lore change that goes against 30 years of established canon and thematic story telling that also happens to change how one views and interacts with their own army

I've already asked just above, but can you elaborate on this specifically? Why does having the option for women Astartes change how you interact with your own models?

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'm arguing against a specific lore change that goes against 30 years of established canon and thematic story telling that also happens to change how one views and interacts with their own army

I've already asked just above, but can you elaborate on this specifically? Why does having the option for women Astartes change how you interact with your own models?

Theme and established canon are fundamental to ones view of his or own faction. It establishes how you and your army fit into the greater universe as a whole and how you will react to what is going on in it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'm arguing against a specific lore change that goes against 30 years of established canon and thematic story telling that also happens to change how one views and interacts with their own army

I've already asked just above, but can you elaborate on this specifically? Why does having the option for women Astartes change how you interact with your own models?

Theme and established canon are fundamental to ones view of his or own faction. It establishes how you and your army fit into the greater universe as a whole and how you will react to what is going on in it.

Right, but that's still not answering my question.

You make mention of "interacts" with their own faction and models. Can you elaborate on this?

 Sledgehammer wrote:
What if I was an ultramarines player that loved all the battle brothers memes and banter, and culture of the chapter, and then GW added females to the chapter? It would kill that players perception of their faction.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
What if I was an ultramarines player that loved all the battle brothers memes and banter, and culture of the chapter, and then GW added females to the chapter? It would kill that players perception of their faction.

You can still have that in your own army though. You don't need to have any women in your own force, if you still want that "battle brothers banter".
As I've said, why does the option for something else prevent you from enjoying what you already have, and what no-one else can dictate to you?
The only thing asking to be changed is something that we must all share - not what you already have. Your own stuff is yours. I encourage you to enjoy what brings you joy. But perhaps just let the rest of us find some of that joy as well.

You mention the culture of the Chapter, but as an Ultramarines player, I've never gotten a particularly strong necessity for the Ultramarines in particular being all men. If anything, I imagine them to be one of the most flexible.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The point is that offical lore changes and informs how people view, and interact with their army, because duh. If you advocate for official lore changes, you're also advocating for potentially negatively changing how people view their own faction. This suggestion is absolutely not benign. It affects everyone.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
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.)

Yeah, GW did it right here.
The solution isn't and shouldn't be "more marines", it should be "let the other factions shine for once."
Sisters of Battle and the Imperial Guard (of which we briefly saw a female member of in the trailer) should get more of the spotlight, not marines once again.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The point is that offical lore changes and informs how people view, and interact with their army, because duh. If you advocate for official lore changes, you're also advocating for potentially negatively changing how people view their own faction. This suggestion is absolutely not benign. It affects everyone.

And why does the possibility of including women negatively affect people?

Again, you come back to this "interacts with their army", but the existence of units I didn't like never stopped me interacting with my armies. I just... didn't include the bits I didn't like. There's nothing wrong with doing that here too.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The point is that offical lore changes and informs how people view, and interact with their army, because duh. If you advocate for official lore changes, you're also advocating for potentially negatively changing how people view their own faction. This suggestion is absolutely not benign. It affects everyone.

And why does the possibility of including women negatively affect people?

Again, you come back to this "interacts with their army", but the existence of units I didn't like never stopped me interacting with my armies. I just... didn't include the bits I didn't like. There's nothing wrong with doing that here too.

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The point is that offical lore changes and informs how people view, and interact with their army, because duh. If you advocate for official lore changes, you're also advocating for potentially negatively changing how people view their own faction. This suggestion is absolutely not benign. It affects everyone.

And why does the possibility of including women negatively affect people?

Again, you come back to this "interacts with their army", but the existence of units I didn't like never stopped me interacting with my armies. I just... didn't include the bits I didn't like. There's nothing wrong with doing that here too.

It affects the identity of Space Marines, and individual chapters as a whole, where they function in universe, and how they interact both within the chapter and outside of it. Gone would be the days of battle brothers, monastic themes, and space crusaders.

Asking people to ignore it and just make only male armies is failing to understand the fundamental problem. Your army isn't real or canon anymore and doesn't exist in the universe.

Your space marines are no longer what you thought they were.

Your faction is dead, and all your time and money gone into investing in it is as well.

Sure your kitbashed FSM aren't canon either, but they also aren't shattering the themes and lore that has existed (and been invested into) for 30 years. You knew what you were getting into.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And why does the possibility of including women negatively affect people?

because it would require a massive retcon of the lore?

a big part of the identity of space marines is they are fraternal brotherhoods, with all the pros and cons that come of it.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Sure your kitbashed FSM aren't canon either, but they also aren't shattering the themes and lore that has existed (and been invested into) for 30 years. You knew what you were getting into.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The point is that offical lore changes and informs how people view, and interact with their army, because duh. If you advocate for official lore changes, you're also advocating for potentially negatively changing how people view their own faction. This suggestion is absolutely not benign. It affects everyone.

And why does the possibility of including women negatively affect people?

Again, you come back to this "interacts with their army", but the existence of units I didn't like never stopped me interacting with my armies. I just... didn't include the bits I didn't like. There's nothing wrong with doing that here too.

It affects the identity of Space Marines, and individual chapters as a whole, where they function in universe, and how they interact both within the chapter and outside of it. Gone would be the days of battle brothers, monastic themes, and space crusaders.

That's not what I'm asking or referring to. You said about people interacting with their own armies - could you expand on that? If there were things in the lore about my faction that I wasn't keen on, I just didn't interact with it. I don't like Space Marine bikes - they've just never appealed to me - so I just don't include them.

And no, the days of "battle brothers, monastic themes and space crusaders" aren't gone at all.
You want Battle Brothers? Just don't take any women in your army.
You want monastic themes? Good news! Not all monastic orders are all male!
You want Space Crusaders? I don't see why you can't have women crusaders, if you're going to have all those tanks and aircraft that the real world crusaders didn't have.

Asking people to ignore it and just make only male armies is failing to understand the fundamental problem. Your army isn't real or canon anymore and doesn't exist in the universe.

Uh, yes it does. Or, rather, no less than it already did/didn't. Unless you collect the entire Chapter, down to the last accurate armour piece, named model, and exact wargear inventory at the most modern point in 40k lore, no-one's army is entirely representative of anything in 40k.

It's just a sandbox for you to do what you want with your own models. If you have an all male Space Marine force, who cares if apparently women are a thing now? I have an Ultramarine army with no bikes in, does that mean that it's not "real" because I didn't include any?

Your space marines are no longer what you thought they were.

No, *your* Space Marines can be whatever you want them to be. *My* Space Marines can now also be what I want them to be.

Having the option of women doesn't take away your choice not to have them.

Your faction is dead, and all your time and money gone into investing in it is as well.

Please, the hyperbole isn't helping.

Including the option for women doesn't invalidate your own collection. You aren't defined by what options other people have.

Sure your kitbashed FSM aren't canon either, but they also aren't shattering the themes and lore that has existed (and been invested into) for 30 years. You knew what you were getting into.

I've emphasised this point because you touch on exactly why women Astartes are important - because there's people looking in at 40k, and seeing that women aren't welcomed in, in favour of lore.

Again, I don't want to get further into why the "themes" and "lore" you describe aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but you can go read my arguments on it in the locked thread. Suffice to say, I don't put faith in the sanctity of the lore, for such reasons as Primaris.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And why does the possibility of including women negatively affect people?

because it would require a massive retcon of the lore?

Would it? It's smaller than adding all the stuff we have with Primaris

a big part of the identity of space marines is they are fraternal brotherhoods, with all the pros and cons that come of it.

A big part of their identity is also their player customisation.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Do you just want me to ignore cadia happened? Should I just put my head in the sand and say nah nah nah, this isn't happening? That isn't an argument.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Do you just want me to ignore cadia happened? Should I just put my head in the sand and say nah nah nah, this isn't happening? That isn't an argument.

If you want to build an army that represents a Cadian force from the time before Cadia was broken, what exactly is stopping you?

40K has, over its history, included a whole bunch of special characters who were dead by the 'current' timeline. Were players somehow breaking the lore by using those characters in their armies?

I'm not a fan of Primaris marines. They're pretty and all, but I don't like the scale creep, and I wasn't a fan of the way they were introduced to the setting. Instead of burning all of my marines, I dealt with it by just not adding any Primaris marines to my armies.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Why are we advocating for a position then that has a 60% disapproval rating?

It's a hill people want to die on because they want it, not because it makes any sense.