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.

 insaniak wrote:

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

Because that's the premise of the thread: If GW were to add female space marines, how best to do it.

As is explained in the very first post, the reasons for and against were fairly heavily hashed out in the previous thread in the Background section. This thread was never intended to start that up again, but was merely supposed to allow for discussion of how best to implement it.

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

No, I agree. We should absolutely strive for things to make sense in a setting where some abhumans are short because they come from high gravity worlds, and some abhumans are tall because they come from... high... grav... er...

Or we could accept that the setting was never intended to be taken particularly seriously. To each his own, I suppose.

I don't think we should be arguing against increased internal consistency.

 insaniak wrote:

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

Because that's the premise of the thread: If GW were to add female space marines, how best to do it.

As is explained in the very first post, the reasons for and against were fairly heavily hashed out in the previous thread in the Background section. This thread was never intended to start that up again, but was merely supposed to allow for discussion of how best to implement it.

And that is an answer in itself. The best way to add female marines is not too. The repeated attempts at pushing it again and again are basically an attempt to constantly push back against that.

You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

The main piece of lore supporting that is, I believe, more than two decades old. It was referenced in a recent article-however, this article said "Not everything presented in the older material is accurate." There's also a singular reference to "Genesons" in the Creation Of Space Marines section of the Marines' Dex.

Marines being male isn't core to their identity. They're superhuman, power-armored soldiers fighting a bloody war for humanity's sake. Some of them are considered nice, for the setting-the Salamanders, somewhat the Ultramarines. Some are cold and callous-Iron Hands, for instance. Some are religious fanatics, like the Black Templars. Others aren't religious, in accordance with the Emperor's wishes. Some are glory-hounds, like Space Wolves; while others are more practical, like Raven Guard. Some dedicate themselves to excel in melee, like Blood Angels, while others spend more time on shooting.

With all those "They can be like this, or like this," which isn't even CLOSE to complete, why is women the line? Why is it fine to have werewolf Marines, or vampire Marines, or knightly Marines, or atheist Marines, or fanatic Marines, or cyborg Marines, or freaking ANYTHING, but NOT women Marines?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

That's a rather subjective claim to make. Imo it can easily be seen as pretty key.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

That's a rather subjective claim to make. Imo it can easily be seen as pretty key.

Then explain why it's key.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

That's a rather subjective claim to make. Imo it can easily be seen as pretty key.

Then explain why it's key.

Besides the fact that there is lore actually supporting it, it's a very weak argument that can change anyone aside from Sisters of Battle and Space Marines.

What piece of background supports your position may I ask?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

The main piece of lore supporting that is, I believe, more than two decades old. It was referenced in a recent article-however, this article said "Not everything presented in the older material is accurate." There's also a singular reference to "Genesons" in the Creation Of Space Marines section of the Marines' Dex.

Marines being male isn't core to their identity. They're superhuman, power-armored soldiers fighting a bloody war for humanity's sake. Some of them are considered nice, for the setting-the Salamanders, somewhat the Ultramarines. Some are cold and callous-Iron Hands, for instance. Some are religious fanatics, like the Black Templars. Others aren't religious, in accordance with the Emperor's wishes. Some are glory-hounds, like Space Wolves; while others are more practical, like Raven Guard. Some dedicate themselves to excel in melee, like Blood Angels, while others spend more time on shooting.

With all those "They can be like this, or like this," which isn't even CLOSE to complete, why is women the line? Why is it fine to have werewolf Marines, or vampire Marines, or knightly Marines, or atheist Marines, or fanatic Marines, or cyborg Marines, or freaking ANYTHING, but NOT women Marines?

Because they are all fundamentally based on the organization and theme of the real world Military Orders, just as Sisters of Battle are based off of nuns. Whether you add wolves, knights, vampires, etc is irrelevant as long as it does not conflict with that core tenant. These are all different military orders that fight CRUSADES for their god with their brothers in arms. Putting a small spin on that core tenant is not tantamount to undermining that by adding in something that goes in direct opposition to it.

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle? It would undermine the whole nun theme.

Representation is important, but don't undermine the established lore and fantasy of the factions to do so. Elevate new characters, factions, etc, to give them the spotlight they DESERVE. You don't have retcon lore and alienate a fanbase in order to do so.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

That's a rather subjective claim to make. Imo it can easily be seen as pretty key.

Then explain why it's key.

Besides the fact that there is lore actually supporting it, it's a very weak argument that can change anyone aside from Sisters of Battle and Space Marines.

There's a several decade old article, specifically called out on WarCom as not fully accurate.
There's a reference to "Genesons" in the Codex.

I'm not saying "The lore, as it currently stands, allows for female Marines." Because that is not accurate.
But what I am saying is that being male is not essential to being an Astartes. It was a decision made decades ago that stuck, but doesn't really have any particular reason to stay stuck.

Edit: Also, as for men in SoB... You can run more men in a pure SoB army than you can women in the ENTIRETY of the rest of the Imperium. So we're already most of the way there.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

That's a rather subjective claim to make. Imo it can easily be seen as pretty key.

Then explain why it's key.

Besides the fact that there is lore actually supporting it, it's a very weak argument that can change anyone aside from Sisters of Battle and Space Marines.

There's a several decade old article, specifically called out on WarCom as not fully accurate.
There's a reference to "Genesons" in the Codex.

I'm not saying "The lore, as it currently stands, allows for female Marines." Because that is not accurate.
But what I am saying is that being male is not essential to being an Astartes. It was a decision made decades ago that stuck, but doesn't really have any particular reason to stay stuck.

Edit: Also, as for men in SoB... You can run more men in a pure SoB army than you can women in the ENTIRETY of the rest of the Imperium. So we're already most of the way there.

But they're not sisters of battle. They're ecclesiarchy.

edit: why can't we just expand sisters of silence?

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle?

My Adepta Sororitas/Sisters of Battle army can actually field almost entirely if not entirely male models between preachers, missionaries, arco-flagellants, crusaders, and penitent engines.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

The main piece of lore supporting that is, I believe, more than two decades old. It was referenced in a recent article-however, this article said "Not everything presented in the older material is accurate." There's also a singular reference to "Genesons" in the Creation Of Space Marines section of the Marines' Dex.

Marines being male isn't core to their identity. They're superhuman, power-armored soldiers fighting a bloody war for humanity's sake. Some of them are considered nice, for the setting-the Salamanders, somewhat the Ultramarines. Some are cold and callous-Iron Hands, for instance. Some are religious fanatics, like the Black Templars. Others aren't religious, in accordance with the Emperor's wishes. Some are glory-hounds, like Space Wolves; while others are more practical, like Raven Guard. Some dedicate themselves to excel in melee, like Blood Angels, while others spend more time on shooting.

With all those "They can be like this, or like this," which isn't even CLOSE to complete, why is women the line? Why is it fine to have werewolf Marines, or vampire Marines, or knightly Marines, or atheist Marines, or fanatic Marines, or cyborg Marines, or freaking ANYTHING, but NOT women Marines?

Because they are all fundamentally based on the organization and theme of the real world Military Orders, just as Sisters of Battle are based off of nuns. Whether you add wolves, knights, vampires, etc is irrelevant as long as it does not conflict with that core tenant. These are all different military orders that fight CRUSADES for their god with their brothers in arms. Putting a small spin on that core tenant is not tantamount to undermining that by adding in something that goes in direct opposition to it.

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle? It would undermine the whole nun theme.

Representation is important, but don't undermine the established lore and fantasy of the factions to do so. Elevate new characters, factions, etc, to give them the spotlight they DESERVE. You don't have retcon lore and alienate a fanbase in order to do so.

What real-world military orders do you say they're based on?

Because if you're talking about Holy Crusade knights... There's a LOT of Marines that don't fit that. At all. Up to being atheists.

Rihgu wrote:

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle?

My Adepta Sororitas/Sisters of Battle army can actually field almost entirely if not entirely male models between preachers, missionaries, arco-flagellants, crusaders, and penitent engines.

They're not sisters though. It's not like men can join the adeptus sororitas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

The main piece of lore supporting that is, I believe, more than two decades old. It was referenced in a recent article-however, this article said "Not everything presented in the older material is accurate." There's also a singular reference to "Genesons" in the Creation Of Space Marines section of the Marines' Dex.

Marines being male isn't core to their identity. They're superhuman, power-armored soldiers fighting a bloody war for humanity's sake. Some of them are considered nice, for the setting-the Salamanders, somewhat the Ultramarines. Some are cold and callous-Iron Hands, for instance. Some are religious fanatics, like the Black Templars. Others aren't religious, in accordance with the Emperor's wishes. Some are glory-hounds, like Space Wolves; while others are more practical, like Raven Guard. Some dedicate themselves to excel in melee, like Blood Angels, while others spend more time on shooting.

With all those "They can be like this, or like this," which isn't even CLOSE to complete, why is women the line? Why is it fine to have werewolf Marines, or vampire Marines, or knightly Marines, or atheist Marines, or fanatic Marines, or cyborg Marines, or freaking ANYTHING, but NOT women Marines?

Because they are all fundamentally based on the organization and theme of the real world Military Orders, just as Sisters of Battle are based off of nuns. Whether you add wolves, knights, vampires, etc is irrelevant as long as it does not conflict with that core tenant. These are all different military orders that fight CRUSADES for their god with their brothers in arms. Putting a small spin on that core tenant is not tantamount to undermining that by adding in something that goes in direct opposition to it.

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle? It would undermine the whole nun theme.

Representation is important, but don't undermine the established lore and fantasy of the factions to do so. Elevate new characters, factions, etc, to give them the spotlight they DESERVE. You don't have retcon lore and alienate a fanbase in order to do so.

What real-world military orders do you say they're based on?

Because if you're talking about Holy Crusade knights... There's a LOT of Marines that don't fit that. At all. Up to being atheists.

You mean like having chapters, grand masters, crusades, brotherhoods, ritualistic practices (even if they claim to be atheistic), wearing armor, celibacy, getting shut down by the inquisition, looking for lost relics, etc.


why do they have to be space marines?

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle?

My Adepta Sororitas/Sisters of Battle army can actually field almost entirely if not entirely male models between preachers, missionaries, arco-flagellants, crusaders, and penitent engines.

They're not sisters though. It's not like men can join the adeptus sororitas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

The main piece of lore supporting that is, I believe, more than two decades old. It was referenced in a recent article-however, this article said "Not everything presented in the older material is accurate." There's also a singular reference to "Genesons" in the Creation Of Space Marines section of the Marines' Dex.

Marines being male isn't core to their identity. They're superhuman, power-armored soldiers fighting a bloody war for humanity's sake. Some of them are considered nice, for the setting-the Salamanders, somewhat the Ultramarines. Some are cold and callous-Iron Hands, for instance. Some are religious fanatics, like the Black Templars. Others aren't religious, in accordance with the Emperor's wishes. Some are glory-hounds, like Space Wolves; while others are more practical, like Raven Guard. Some dedicate themselves to excel in melee, like Blood Angels, while others spend more time on shooting.

With all those "They can be like this, or like this," which isn't even CLOSE to complete, why is women the line? Why is it fine to have werewolf Marines, or vampire Marines, or knightly Marines, or atheist Marines, or fanatic Marines, or cyborg Marines, or freaking ANYTHING, but NOT women Marines?

Because they are all fundamentally based on the organization and theme of the real world Military Orders, just as Sisters of Battle are based off of nuns. Whether you add wolves, knights, vampires, etc is irrelevant as long as it does not conflict with that core tenant. These are all different military orders that fight CRUSADES for their god with their brothers in arms. Putting a small spin on that core tenant is not tantamount to undermining that by adding in something that goes in direct opposition to it.

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle? It would undermine the whole nun theme.

Representation is important, but don't undermine the established lore and fantasy of the factions to do so. Elevate new characters, factions, etc, to give them the spotlight they DESERVE. You don't have retcon lore and alienate a fanbase in order to do so.

What real-world military orders do you say they're based on?

Because if you're talking about Holy Crusade knights... There's a LOT of Marines that don't fit that. At all. Up to being atheists.

You mean like having chapters, grand masters, crusades, brotherhoods, ritualistic practices, wearing armor, celibacy, getting shut down by the inquisition, looking for lost relics, etc.

Chapters is a name.
Grand Masters are a GK thing-not a Marine thing.
Crusades is, again, simply a name for a war or a campaign.
Brotherhoods... I mean, they count as a brotherhood because they're all male, but you can't say "They're all male, therefore they should be all male!" and expect to be taken seriously.
Ritualistic practices-care to detail them? Stuff like the Ad Mech has, for instance? Or the Guard? Or the Sisters of Battle? Or, hell, me-I have morning and evening rituals. I wouldn't call them such, generally, but they count.
Wearing armor... Would you call a US Soldier in body armor a crusading knight, because they wear armor?
Celibacy is more because they're hypno-indoctrinated murderers who've been genetically modified to the extreme. It's not, to my knowledge, a "I have carnal desires, but I ignore them for the greater good!" it's more "I don't have carnal desires, other than to see the ruination of my enemies."
Shut down by the inquisition, like the Space Wolves do, huh? Or, less snarkily, like Ad Mech can be? Or Guard? Or xenos cults? Or chaos cults?
And looking for lost Relics... Like Ad Mech do? And that's more a Salamander and (I think) Blood Raven thing than a universal Marine thing.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure if you asked the average person what the core parts of the knights of the holy crusades were, you'd almost certainly get their religion as a center of it. Not that they had chapters. Or were shut down by the Inquisition.

Edit: Why Marines? Because Marines occupy 50% of the game. As the good Smudge said in the now-locked thread, representation doesn't work without visibility. So a simple upgrade sprue of female heads and future kits having a mix of helmeted, male, and female heads would go a long way towards making 40k (the hobby) more inclusive.

To quote myself from the thread...

The issue is, the lore as it is now DOES give sexists ammo and cover. Real-word sexists, not fictional ones.

That could change-it won’t change the sexist individuals, but it will make it clearer who they are and that it’s not acceptable. Isn’t that something that should be strived for?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle?

My Adepta Sororitas/Sisters of Battle army can actually field almost entirely if not entirely male models between preachers, missionaries, arco-flagellants, crusaders, and penitent engines.

They're not sisters though. It's not like men can join the adeptus sororitas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

The main piece of lore supporting that is, I believe, more than two decades old. It was referenced in a recent article-however, this article said "Not everything presented in the older material is accurate." There's also a singular reference to "Genesons" in the Creation Of Space Marines section of the Marines' Dex.

Marines being male isn't core to their identity. They're superhuman, power-armored soldiers fighting a bloody war for humanity's sake. Some of them are considered nice, for the setting-the Salamanders, somewhat the Ultramarines. Some are cold and callous-Iron Hands, for instance. Some are religious fanatics, like the Black Templars. Others aren't religious, in accordance with the Emperor's wishes. Some are glory-hounds, like Space Wolves; while others are more practical, like Raven Guard. Some dedicate themselves to excel in melee, like Blood Angels, while others spend more time on shooting.

With all those "They can be like this, or like this," which isn't even CLOSE to complete, why is women the line? Why is it fine to have werewolf Marines, or vampire Marines, or knightly Marines, or atheist Marines, or fanatic Marines, or cyborg Marines, or freaking ANYTHING, but NOT women Marines?

Because they are all fundamentally based on the organization and theme of the real world Military Orders, just as Sisters of Battle are based off of nuns. Whether you add wolves, knights, vampires, etc is irrelevant as long as it does not conflict with that core tenant. These are all different military orders that fight CRUSADES for their god with their brothers in arms. Putting a small spin on that core tenant is not tantamount to undermining that by adding in something that goes in direct opposition to it.

Why not men in the Sisters of Battle? It would undermine the whole nun theme.

Representation is important, but don't undermine the established lore and fantasy of the factions to do so. Elevate new characters, factions, etc, to give them the spotlight they DESERVE. You don't have retcon lore and alienate a fanbase in order to do so.

What real-world military orders do you say they're based on?

Because if you're talking about Holy Crusade knights... There's a LOT of Marines that don't fit that. At all. Up to being atheists.

You mean like having chapters, grand masters, crusades, brotherhoods, ritualistic practices, wearing armor, celibacy, getting shut down by the inquisition, looking for lost relics, etc.

Chapters is a name.
Grand Masters are a GK thing-not a Marine thing.
Crusades is, again, simply a name for a war or a campaign.
Brotherhoods... I mean, they count as a brotherhood because they're all male, but you can't say "They're all male, therefore they should be all male!" and expect to be taken seriously.
Ritualistic practices-care to detail them? Stuff like the Ad Mech has, for instance? Or the Guard? Or the Sisters of Battle? Or, hell, me-I have morning and evening rituals. I wouldn't call them such, generally, but they count.
Wearing armor... Would you call a US Soldier in body armor a crusading knight, because they wear armor?
Celibacy is more because they're hypno-indoctrinated murderers who've been genetically modified to the extreme. It's not, to my knowledge, a "I have carnal desires, but I ignore them for the greater good!" it's more "I don't have carnal desires, other than to see the ruination of my enemies."
Shut down by the inquisition, like the Space Wolves do, huh? Or, less snarkily, like Ad Mech can be? Or Guard? Or xenos cults? Or chaos cults?
And looking for lost Relics... Like Ad Mech do? And that's more a Salamander and (I think) Blood Raven thing than a universal Marine thing.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure if you asked the average person what the core parts of the knights of the holy crusades were, you'd almost certainly get their religion as a center of it. Not that they had chapters. Or were shut down by the Inquisition.

Yeah and the imperiums entire culture of war, religion, crusading, general architecture, etc doesn't aesthetically and thematically inform the viewer as to what is going on? Does the vernacular serve no purpose? The space marines are the champions of that very society. To argue against that is baffling. They absolutely are crusading on behalf of such a society.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're arguing for Marines to stay all male, but that's not really essential to their identity.

That's a rather subjective claim to make. Imo it can easily be seen as pretty key.

Then explain why it's key.

Brotherhood of warrior monks? A dark future version of a distant-past organization/s. Pretty plain, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Chapters is a name.
Grand Masters are a GK thing-not a Marine thing.
Crusades is, again, simply a name for a war or a campaign.
Brotherhoods... I mean, they count as a brotherhood because they're all male, but you can't say "They're all male, therefore they should be all male!" and expect to be taken seriously.
Ritualistic practices-care to detail them? Stuff like the Ad Mech has, for instance? Or the Guard? Or the Sisters of Battle? Or, hell, me-I have morning and evening rituals. I wouldn't call them such, generally, but they count.
Wearing armor... Would you call a US Soldier in body armor a crusading knight, because they wear armor?
Celibacy is more because they're hypno-indoctrinated murderers who've been genetically modified to the extreme. It's not, to my knowledge, a "I have carnal desires, but I ignore them for the greater good!" it's more "I don't have carnal desires, other than to see the ruination of my enemies."
Shut down by the inquisition, like the Space Wolves do, huh? Or, less snarkily, like Ad Mech can be? Or Guard? Or xenos cults? Or chaos cults?
And looking for lost Relics... Like Ad Mech do? And that's more a Salamander and (I think) Blood Raven thing than a universal Marine thing.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure if you asked the average person what the core parts of the knights of the holy crusades were, you'd almost certainly get their religion as a center of it. Not that they had chapters. Or were shut down by the Inquisition.

Pretty lousy argument, imo. If the authors intent in using all that terminology is to evoke "old world"/medevil imagery, then it all works in order to do just that. The authors of the setting get to choose how relevant it is. You as the audience are not so free to decide whether the choice of language matters or doesn't. You can attempt to handwave it away, bit it's simply not your choice.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Brotherhood of warrior monks? A dark future version of a distant-past organization/s. Pretty plain, imo..

So why can't a dark future version of that organisation, in a future that otherwise has no particular segregation of genders, include women?

 JNAProductions wrote:
It was a decision made decades ago that stuck, but doesn't really have any particular reason to stay stuck.

There is a particular reason for it to stay stuck, because that's the way it currently is.
Like JK Rowling telling us Herminione is actually black it undermines everything that people understand about the story so far.
Retcons are always bad and should be avoided unless there's genuine improvement to be had beyond "just cuz".

I am going to give my take on the entire matter as someone who has kitbashed a few female marines in my time. If somebody has already covered this my apologies.

I think the reason this is a point that gets brought up from time to time is basically because of how ubiquitous marines are to the entire setting. Not only are they the marketed as the main protagonist, get waves of supplements and chapters, but they are also the faction with the most toys. This means that anyone entering the hobby on the base level is always going to have to endure the bro club marines represent, which is also why a lot of people would be happy - me included - if female marines would be available and represented.

I mean, if you buy the starter for the first time it will always feel like you are entering "Space Marine" the game as everything else just feels like the NPC or villain of the week in comparison. So ubiquitous are marines that they have an entire side game dedicated to them(Horus Heresy). It is also the reason why I have found it easier to get women interested in Age of Sigmar than 40k because Stormcast does not represent the sausage club as much(except for a short period in 0.0).

Now, we've seen GW attempt to address this by giving us more SoB and making them more represented in the fluff and marketing material which to me is all good. It will, however, take a long time for them to get on par with the Marine giant that blots out the game with an endless wave of new toys each edition. It will just be an uphill battle for GW to unwind from and that is assuming they will in the first place.

I fail to see how this would translate into good looking minis. The armour I think should stay the same, otherwise they just look like bigger(?) sisters of battle. That leaves head swaps and that can already be done. I think female guardsmen are way more interesting as it would add some visual variety to those forces. Female marines, I dont really care.

In the lore just say cawl introduced a new geneseed for the ladies. No need for retcons. It would 't be worse than the primaris addition.

I'll need to update my views.

I'd previously said I wasn't a fan of 'just make a headswap sprue as its lazy'.

On an fb primaris group I follow, someone posted up a reiver with a statuesque minis 'tech roider' female head.

It worked. I'd not come across headswaps before that felt right. This changed my mind.

So yeah, a sprue with some heroic scale femme heads can work and can look pretty good.

Considering that a lot of people are ignoring my requests in the opening posts and arguing about this here, which I Explicitly asked them not to...

I just want to thank everyone who voted before these threads are inevitably shut due to people not following the rules.

Seriously, if there were a disappointed emoji, I would be using it right now.

Big thanks to everyone who did follow the rules and just posted their reasons for voting, without feeling the need to pick holes in other peoples reasons!

 some bloke wrote:
Considering that a lot of people are ignoring my requests in the opening posts and arguing about this here, which I Explicitly asked them not to...

You kicked the hornet's nest and are surprised they're stinging even though you asked them nicely not to?

 some bloke wrote:
Considering that a lot of people are ignoring my requests in the opening posts and arguing about this here, which I Explicitly asked them not to...

Quite literally. This is one of the most controversial topics in 40k that constantly pops up with very ardent defenders with very little inbetween. I'm surprised you didn't expect this to happen.

Hmm, if the logic goes that keeping SM as they are means that GW will focus more on SoB then there is just another argument for not changing SM to include females.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

You kicked the hornet's nest and are surprised they're stinging even though you asked them nicely not to?

Not surprised, just disappointed.

Tiberias wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
If you frame things like that is sound a bit absurd... But I swear you is very, very important for some people.

Ok but what if I say it is really, really important to me that GW makes male sisters of battle and male sisters of silence. That does not mean it's a good idea to implement, which female space marines are not imo. I voted not to implement them.

you are right! LETS ADD FEMALE ORKS TOO! BECAUSE WHY DOES FUNGUS HAS TO LOOK MALE?!

RE-DO ALL THE KITS!



Do you know why GW arent going to do this? Because they dont give a damn if a select minority of their users, apparently you included, have gotten woke. They dont care about woke. because if they catered to you woke people, they would need to do a massive overhaul of their kits, and would only please a very small minority. the cost of redoing everything wouldnt be worth it.


And lets not forget, if female variants have to be added to a lot of different kits among different armies, that time spend producing those new kits, is time not spend producing actually relevant kits like new releases. Do you really want female space marine kits so much you are willing to push back every other release? Im not.

And even though this is a female space marine kit we're talking about, we really should also be talking about female chaos space marine kits. Because why would there be female space marines but not female chaos space marines? Are females incapable of being corrupted? Thats just crazy talk

The majority dont give a damn. Because i can assure you, it wouldnt just stop with female space marines. people would start demanding feminine looking orks as well, as well as male 'sisters' (brothers?) of battle and female chaos space marines.


After all, why does fungus have to look male?

GW did release a statement a couple of years ago about how inclusive they are.
They will definitely jump on the woke wagen as much as any company if they think it's in their interest.

 Manchu wrote:
Hmm, if the logic goes that keeping SM as they are means that GW will focus more on SoB then there is just another argument for not changing SM to include females.

The problem with that logic is that GW will never support another faction as well as they support marines. Hell, GW can't even support the rest of the hobby as well as they support the astartes. Most likely the tides will turn at some point and SoB will end up with models five, ten, fifteen years out of date like every other faction--and that's assuming that some he-man woman hating reactionary doesn't get in GW to move the process along. Whereas Space Marines, barring some massive culture shift, will always be the number one priority when it comes to 40k.

Beardedragon wrote:


you are right! LETS ADD FEMALE ORKS TOO! BECAUSE WHY DOES FUNGUS HAS TO LOOK MALE?!

I agree. There actually is no reason that the sex-neutral but clearly masculine orks should all appear as male. Granted, they're meant to be a derogatory satire of hooligans, so it wouldn't necessarily be the most flattering inclusion in the game, especially if GW continues to have the actual human factions decidedly ignore the fact that half the human race is women.

On the other hand, with the newest ork release, GW seems to be moving away from satire for the orks to something properly savage and brutal.

Beardedragon wrote:

Do you know why GW arent going to do this? Because they dont give a damn if a select minority of their users, apparently you included, have gotten woke. They dont care about woke. because if they catered to you woke people, they would need to do a massive overhaul of their kits, and would only please a very small minority. the cost of redoing everything wouldnt be worth it.

They won't do it like they have with AoS, Necromunda, and so on? Really, 40k is the standout to clinging to mono-gender armies, especially their flagship faction.

The real reason GW doesn't expand the option more than likely has to do with their perceived image of how reactionary a sizeable section of their customer base would be at the idea of essentially seeing long hair on marines. 40k players do not have the best reputation among the tabletop community.

Beardedragon wrote:

And lets not forget, if female variants have to be added to a lot of different kits among different armies, that time spend producing those new kits, is time not spend producing actually relevant kits like new releases. Do you really want female space marine kits so much you are willing to push back every other release? Im not.

I find it hard to believe that essentially adding a few additional heads to a sprue will somehow strain GW's resources or delay their kits to a high degree when we can't even get an ork announcement without them sneaking in something for space marines to tide them over.

Beardedragon wrote:

And even though this is a female space marine kit we're talking about, we really should also be talking about female chaos space marine kits. Because why would there be female space marines but not female chaos space marines? Are females incapable of being corrupted? Thats just crazy talk

Sure, why not. Chaos as a whole needs looking at, so I don't think anyone would be too upset at female traitor guard and female dark mechanicum and female demons added along with female renegades. Of course that means there'll be primaris renegades since primaris are the new hotness and GW will never go back to giving firstborn anymore love.

As for females being incapable of being corrupted, well, I mean, I'm not sure on the recent lore, but last I read, only one Sister of Battle had ever deliberately fallen to chaos, but with astartes, you can't walk through a monastery without tripping over some renegades or traitors. So, yeah, as the lore stands, women are more reliable as far as that goes. Weird, huh?

Beardedragon wrote:

The majority dont give a damn. Because i can assure you, it wouldnt just stop with female space marines. people would start demanding feminine looking orks as well, as well as male 'sisters' (brothers?) of battle and female chaos space marines.

The determined argument against this topic indicates that many people do give a damn. By all accounts, the majority shouldn't give a damn since it wouldn't affect people who currently collect marines and would really just make the people who want female representation--or just not to be ridiculed for their conversations--happy. But weirdly enough, some people are oddly passionate about keeping marines boys only. Weird, huh?

I always find it weird when people bring up "But what about x faction!?" as if inclusion was some weird slippery slope and by default a negative. As of right now, including males in the Sisters of Battle is prohibited by the decree passive. So GW would have to change it to either men can join the sororitas but are legally recognized as women or the decree passive would have to be rescinded. Or both! Since the reintroduction of Guilliman, it would be a good time if GW were so inclined to do so. The thing is, the Sisters of Battle *as an army* has always been able to include men--from inquisitorial storm troops and militia from its inception when it was Witch Hunters to even now where you have priests and missionaries and penitents and arco flagellents and so on. So really, it's less of a gotcha than you think and I doubt many SoB would give any gaks. As stated before, SoB can include more men in their line-up than the rest of the Imperium factions can include women combined.

But yes, it could lead to as slippery slope. We might see more female Eldar than the...three-ish options we have now? Maybe we'll see some female IG since there are supposed to be entire regiments of women or mixed gender units. Hell, maybe Necrons, who are also supposed to include both genders but strangely have almost a dozen special characters that are all dudes, will get a character that identifies as female!

Beardedragon wrote:

After all, why does fungus have to look male?

You've convinced me! Let's do it. Let's give everyone girls! But let's start with the Space Marines since they're the most supported faction as well as the flagship face of 40k that most people will see first.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
GW did release a statement a couple of years ago about how inclusive they are.
They will definitely jump on the woke wagen as much as any company if they think it's in their interest.

Look up "lip service".