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.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 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".

They've included a shedoad more female models in the last 5 years than over the previous 30, and started painting (and sculpting) models in skintones other than Pale British, so not really.

BECAUSE WHY DOES FUNGUS HAS TO LOOK MALE?!

I don't know, why does it?

 insaniak wrote:

 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?

It could, but it doesn't. Imo the fact that it doesn't lends a certain texture and resonance.

Plus the Sisters are a pretty clear segregation. Arguably moreso since their segregation is by decree rather than through the limitations of their science/method. In universe one organization is "won't" be diverse while the other is "can't".

 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.

oh i have no doubt they eventually will, but right now, the space marine army is their most selling army and their poster boy. I dont think they "have" to be woke with the space marines as they already sell like wild fire.

Theres a big difference between selling new kits with female parts in it, which isw what they did with age of sigmar, and then redoing already done kits for the sake of it. that last part is what we're talking about, redoing the space marine parts with female parts. THAT i dont think they will be doing any time soon. but they probably will release new sculpts that adds more female parts

I feel like a lot of "woke" arguments its all a bit artificial. I'm not convinced the cause of social justice is advanced at all if GW sell you a range of vaguely female looking potato heads to go with the vaguely male looking potato heads. Beneath the far superior helmets, no one knows what you look like.

Equally however I can vaguely imagine there are female players of the game who wish they could have female Space Marines on the table and in the fluff - and so live out the same power fantasy the boys do. By degrees I don't think throwing 30 years of fluff in the bin is good - but equally I'm not sure I'd care in a few years if they did.

Cue "nooo, you can't upgrade the Emperor's perfect design."/"haha, Primaris go brrr" memes.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 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".

In spite that a few people think otherwise "Lip service" will be the most probable result of introducing FSM in a discrete manner bia head sprues and pronouns.

The intended target of such representation endevaour will surely not notice this chirurgical change.

Nevertheless such a change will alianate to various degrees quite a few people as the results of the polls clearly show.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Plus the Sisters are a pretty clear segregation. Arguably moreso since their segregation is by decree rather than through the limitations of their science/method. In universe one organization is "won't" be diverse while the other is "can't".

The Sisters' existence relies on a piece of wordplay that made some small amount of sense when it was introduced as a bit of a 'hur hur, see what we did there?' moment in the '90s, but makes much less since with the way the background for the Imperium has developed in the years since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Nevertheless such a change will alianate to various degrees quite a few people as the results of the polls clearly show.

And like every other change over the history of the game, over time those who left because they hated it will be replaced by new players for whom that's just the way the game is.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 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".

To be fair, the statement was in...2018, I think. And since then, GW has gotten significantly better about including women, beyond just acknowledging that they exist. AoS includes female models in pretty much every kit now as well as special characters (even putting said characters front and center as the showcase piece in the armies). They've expanded 40k lore to include more female points of view among the 'Guard in the Black Library. Heck, they even released the entire new SoB during that time and put female heads on the hideously outdated guard sprue. Even Necromunda is fairly gender diverse at this point.

So it's clearly a little more than lip service. Is it enough? Not really--I'll save my final judgment for when we start seeing factions that really need updating like Eldar and IG, but GW is at least making somewhat of an effort. 40k just has a lot of baggage to unpack.

Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

Tiberias wrote:
Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

I totally agree, I've met very few people who actually like Primaris lore, it's always the new models that they like, and accept the new lore giving that to them.

Tiberias wrote:
Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

In fairness primaris began to work as they slowly fleshed it in but having Cawl once again "wave his magic wand" would likely destroy that goodwill they've built up. partiuclarly because a lot of that goodwill has been GW slowly showing us how little Cawl actually did

Because it's lore than don't add anything to the setting. There is no conflict, no tension, no narrative attached to it. It only reduce the modelling opportunities, flies in the face of Marine as "DIY" faction, and doesn't even make sense from a realistic point of view considering how small (genetically speaking) we have find out difference between male and female are.
That's the on issue with Primaris by the way: for a short time I expected something like a purge or a civil war between the two brand of Marines (and it would be glorious), but GW chickened out, and I still think Primaris (lore wise) are atrocious.

But maybe there's some value in the lore here that I don't see: I would be curious to know (we have another topic to discuss the lore BTW, even if they are bleeding one into another).

From a model perspective, and additional set of head Primaris-size (I'm not naive, I know Firstborns won't get attention anymore) and the legitimate option to build them it's enough.
Then, if/when make sense commercially,start updating the range. I see the Emperor Children (note: not "sons") and the World Eaters as the best place to start, Marine-wise.
But if we want or be realistic, probably Space Wolves would be a more profitable choices.

There is absolutely stuff attached to this lore.
The whole "Battle Brothers" thing is pretty central to Astartes identity. Almost every time Astartes refer to their brothers individually or collectively it's by the name "Brother".

"I personally don't care that much" is a really weaksauce argument when you see that 2/3 of this community obviously cares enough to say they don't female marines.

Answering to insaniak:

If new players will arrive no matter how the lore is changed and therefore the current players are irrelevant. I dont understand why on earth this issue is being debated in a forum through a poll.

Those engaged in the FSM crusade should start buying GW shares... Eventually they might actually achieve a majority and can rewrite the setting to their liking.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Because it's lore than don't add anything to the setting. There is no conflict, no tension, no narrative attached to it. It only reduce the modelling opportunities, flies in the face of Marine as "DIY" faction, and doesn't even make sense from a realistic point of view considering how small (genetically speaking) we have find out difference between male and female are.
That's the on issue with Primaris by the way: for a short time I expected something like a purge or a civil war between the two brand of Marines (and it would be glorious), but GW chickened out, and I still think Primaris (lore wise) are atrocious.

But maybe there's some value in the lore here that I don't see: I would be curious to know (we have another topic to discuss the lore BTW, even if they are bleeding one into another).

From a model perspective, and additional set of head Primaris-size (I'm not naive, I know Firstborns won't get attention anymore) and the legitimate option to build them it's enough.
Then, if/when make sense commercially,start updating the range. I see the Emperor Children (note: not "sons") and the World Eaters as the best place to start, Marine-wise.
But if we want or be realistic, probably Space Wolves would be a more profitable choices.

I'm sorry but that is a very weak argument. By that logic it would be perfectly fine to change Gandalf from Lotr to an asian woman. Note that my point of contention in this case would not be that he's depicted as a woman, but that this is not what Tolkien originally intended and that matters. It doesn't add anything to the setting that he is depicted as a white male with flowing beard.

On another note what does it add to the setting that sisters of battle are all female? Just because it's in the name? Names can be changed, after all it's just lore. Same with sisters of silence.

Tiberias wrote:
Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

It's as OK as it's ever been.

Gw have been throwing lore continuity out the window since they wrote the game. Remember when tigurius was half eldar, Space Wolves were based on lucan, leman russ was an 'imperial commander' and Space Marines were t3? Amongst many classic examples.

Gw will rip up their own lore and feed it to a grox if it suits their purposes. They always have. It's not a sacred cow.

Deadnight wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

It's as OK as it's ever been.

Gw have been throwing lore continuity out the window since they wrote the game. Remember when tigurius was half eldar, Space Wolves were based on lucan, leman russ was an 'imperial commander' and Space Marines were t3? Amongst many classic examples.

Gw will rip up their own lore and feed it to a grox if it suits their purposes. They always have. It's not a sacred cow.

for feth's sake can people stop trotting out changes from 2nd edition as if that was yesterday and not something from the early days of 40k before the setting was eistablished?

It's intellectually dishonest and I think everyone knows it

Deadnight wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

It's as OK as it's ever been.

Gw have been throwing lore continuity out the window since they wrote the game. Remember when tigurius was half eldar, Space Wolves were based on lucan, leman russ was an 'imperial commander' and Space Marines were t3? Amongst many classic examples.

Gw will rip up their own lore and feed it to a grox if it suits their purposes. They always have. It's not a sacred cow.

Yes, yes GW have changed their lore over the years, but saying that nothing has continuity in 40k is just being dishonest. Rogue trader years were wild regarding the lore, we all know that, but since the 2nd edition things have been actually rather stable regarding the lore.

Lore doesn't have to be revered as a sacred cow no, but it sould be treated carefully and lore consistency and continuity matters, in any setting.

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

Why should it?

[and here again we go talking about the lore]
Gandalf as an Asian woman? Tell me what it improves in the setting, and I'll tell you if make sense.
Build something about the fact that they come from East, or about the fact that Istari aren't really male or female and "Wizard appears exactly like they want, and not differently" and it would be fine. Make Saruman have a joke on the fact that Gandalf like to partnership with the losers (because LOTR is pretty sexist since it's more historically grounded).

I am continuously baffled by people throwing around those poor argument... The simple truth is that in any creating topic it is NEVER the argument what should be debated, but always the implementation.

There's nothing sacred, nothing forbidden, and nothing impossible. There are good and bad implementation. Imperial Knight changes were good (albeit a little juvenile). Primaris were bad.
You positioning to shot down an idea (not some of its implementation) speak more than anything else about your lack of creativity and vision, not about the idea itself that is, as any idea, essentially neutral.

Sledgehammer wrote:You obviously don't think official lore has any bearing on how a player views, connects, with or influences a player and his or her army. This changes space marines as an entity, and on a fundamental level.

Does it? Howso? On a fundamental level, you say? Please, explain.

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

So, you're entirely on board with Primaris, because you shouldn't put your head in the sand?

How about my Cadians? Cadia was destroyed, do I need to destroy all my Cadians because of that?

Cato Sicarius went missing in the lore for a bit. Do I need to bin my model of him?

The official lore is the setting of the game, and you're advocating to change that for what amounts to very little gain, and a lot of groaning and dissatisfaction as evidenced by 60% polling negatively.

60% of a sliver of the 40k population isn't the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, it's pretty inconclusive, in terms of a widespread judgement.

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.

And likewise, *that's* a subjective claim. So, perhaps the whole "THEM BEING ALL MALE IS KEY!!" argument shouldn't be being made, because clearly it's a subjective claim.

Sledgehammer wrote:Because they are all fundamentally based on the organization and theme of the real world Military Orders

Really? Fundamentally? I don't see that fundamental aspect in the Space Wolves.

Whether you add wolves, knights, vampires, etc is irrelevant as long as it does not conflict with that core tenant.

And why does including women break that core tenet, but making them werewolves, or steppe raiders, or Celts, or vampires, or Romans, or Egyptians, or Maori doesn't?

Again, it just seems awfully selective.

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.

Exactly. I don't think that making some of them women is a direct opposition in any way.
Why do you?

kirotheavenger wrote:There is a particular reason for it to stay stuck, because that's the way it currently is.

... that's literally not an argument at all.

"It is, so it is" is the weakest possible argument to give. In the words of the Backstreet Boys, "tell me why".

Like JK Rowling telling us Herminione is actually black it undermines everything that people understand about the story so far.

It doesn't undermine anything about Hermione as a character.

If you're going to complain about that issue, you should know why it was a problem. Not because Hermione's race was changed for casting reasons, but because TERF-in-chief pretended like she'd always been racially ambiguous, which was an outright lie. If she'd retconned Hermione, that wouldn't have been an issue - the issue is that she serially lies about her work in order to make herself look better, instead of admitting to how she's not as saintly as she claims.

Retcons are always bad and should be avoided unless there's genuine improvement to be had beyond "just cuz".

So, you mind that Russ is a Primarch, and not a regular Imperial Army general? You don't like that the Ultramarines are a first founding Chapter, and don't have a half-Eldar Astropath?

Insectum7 wrote: In universe one organization is "won't" be diverse while the other is "can't".

Eh, I see one of those as a "can't", and the other as an "isn't" - and "isn't" definitely sums up how arbitrary I find it.

BrianDavion wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
It's as OK as it's ever been.

Gw have been throwing lore continuity out the window since they wrote the game. Remember when tigurius was half eldar, Space Wolves were based on lucan, leman russ was an 'imperial commander' and Space Marines were t3? Amongst many classic examples.

Gw will rip up their own lore and feed it to a grox if it suits their purposes. They always have. It's not a sacred cow.

for feth's sake can people stop trotting out changes from 2nd edition as if that was yesterday and not something from the early days of 40k before the setting was eistablished?

It's intellectually dishonest and I think everyone knows it

B-b-b-but I thought that all retcons were evil??

When was the setting "established"? 2015? 2003? 1990? Or, maybe, the setting has always been changing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Why should it?

Why shouldn't it?

I hate to break it to you, but women are... well, naturally occurring. Saying "why should the setting include women" is as ridiculous as saying "why should the setting include men".

 Cybtroll wrote:
[and here again we go talking about the lore]
Gandalf as an Asian woman? Tell me what it improves in the setting, and I'll tell you if make sense.
Build something about the fact that they come from East, or about the fact that Istari aren't really male or female and "Wizard appears exactly like they want, and not differently" and it would be fine. Make Saruman have a joke on the fact that Gandalf like to partnership with the losers (because LOTR is pretty sexist since it's more historically grounded).

I am continuously baffled by people throwing around those poor argument... The simple truth is that in any creating topic it is NEVER the argument what should be debated, but always the implementation.

There's nothing sacred, nothing forbidden, and nothing impossible. There are good and bad implementation. Imperial Knight changes were good (albeit a little juvenile). Primaris were bad.
You positioning to shot down an idea (not some of its implementation) speak more than anything else about your lack of creativity and vision, not about the idea itself that is, as any idea, essentially neutral.

Yeah, so about those male sisters of battle and sisters of silence. How about we go about implementing those, since lore consitency and continuity apparently does not matter in any way shape or form. Also nobody ever argued that anthing about this is not possible or forbidden, just that it would be a bad idea to implement.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Retcons are always bad and should be avoided unless there's genuine improvement to be had beyond "just cuz".

So, you mind that Russ is a Primarch, and not a regular Imperial Army general? You don't like that the Ultramarines are a first founding Chapter, and don't have a half-Eldar Astropath?

That time was decades ago, I was scarcely even borne then and 40k was barely the same game.
40k has become well established for a long time since. You're being disengenuous to claim those retcons have a significant bearing at the moment.

If you want to talk about relevant retcons, such as Primaris.
No, I don't like those retcons. I wish those retcons had never occurred.

Do not confuse my opinion of what I want to happen with my opinion of what I think GW might do.
Of course GW could retcon in female marines. I'm saying I don't want them to.

Tiberias wrote:Yeah, so about those male sisters of battle and sisters of silence. How about we go about implementing those, since lore consitency and continuity apparently does not matter in any way shape or form.

Sure, yeah. I'm not complaining, if that gets women Astartes.

That's not quite the answer you expected, I imagine.

Also nobody ever argued that anthing about this is not possible or forbidden, just that it would be a bad idea to implement.

And why would that be the case?

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Retcons are always bad and should be avoided unless there's genuine improvement to be had beyond "just cuz".

So, you mind that Russ is a Primarch, and not a regular Imperial Army general? You don't like that the Ultramarines are a first founding Chapter, and don't have a half-Eldar Astropath?

That time was decades ago, I was scarcely even borne then and 40k was barely the same game.

But what about all those people who *were* around then, and have had their beloved setting retconned and the "established lore" broken apart?

40k has become well established for a long time since.

I don't remember Primaris being established years ago. Necrons were ten years ago? And the Black Crusade retcons?

I'm just asking for when it was a "well established" setting, is all.

If you want to talk about relevant retcons, such as Primaris.
No, I don't like those retcons. I wish those retcons had never occurred.

But I thought that they were lore, and that lore and canon were important?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:Yeah, so about those male sisters of battle and sisters of silence. How about we go about implementing those, since lore consitency and continuity apparently does not matter in any way shape or form.

Sure, yeah. I'm not complaining, if that gets women Astartes.

That's not quite the answer you expected, I imagine.

Also nobody ever argued that anthing about this is not possible or forbidden, just that it would be a bad idea to implement.

And why would that be the case?

You just demonstrated that you don't care about lore consistency and continuity. That is a fair position to take, I am just of the opinion that ignoring these principles hurts any setting in the long run, especially when you try to force change because of quotas and identity politics.

I am on bord with female astartes the same day we get male sisters of battle/silence, female represented orks, male howling banshees etc.
Imo it wouldn't be 40k anymore, but hey if that is what the majority wants, at least be consistent and go all the way.

Tiberias wrote:
You just demonstrated that you don't care about lore consistency and continuity.

Oh, I like my lore, don't get me wrong - but only when I can justify why it is, and what it brings to the setting. I don't like this "it is, because it is" kind of things I'm seeing. Even when I was against women Astartes in the past, I always found that to be particularly weak argument.

That is a fair position to take, I am just of the opinion that ignoring these principles hurts any setting in the long run, especially when you try to force change because of quotas and identity politics.

I'm not doing it to meet a quota though. I'm doing it because I want to have women in my Space Marines, and many others like me also want that. What's wrong with wanting something because it's cool?

I am on bord with female astartes the same day we get male sisters of battle/silence, female represented orks, male howling banshees etc.
Imo it wouldn't be 40k anymore, but hey if that is what the majority wants, at least be consistent and go all the way.

I mean, there's already men in the Sororitas army anyway, Orks are funguses, but I don't mind deviations from what we already have, and I don't understand why Howling Banshees are all-women anyway, if they even are.

Evidently, I don't think 40k is tied to gender.

Im a little curious, why would they want to add female space marines, lore wise?

Each chapter as far as i recall is made up by like 1000 space marines. Given how small chapters are, and the fact there are millions if not billions of world under imperial rule, why the living feth would you need to research how to make females to fill your ranks with females when the losses you take should easily be filled with men alone?

Like, if the idea is, that the empire of man should do extensive research in to genes and trying to make females work, why would they, lorewise do that, when theres no NEED for them fill the slots with females? Its reseach thats not needed and is a waste of resources.

I could get it if men (which works already in their universe) were in short demand or they removed the rule of only 1000 space marines in each chapter. but they havent. So why go through all the research of trying to find out how to make female space marines if theres no bloody need?

Lorewise, thats an inconsistency.

Tiberias wrote:
Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

Yeah because it's literally always been like this.

The only time people have actually held up 'the lore' as sacred is in this new modern 'everything said in a show ever goes into a wiki article and is forever remembered.'

Used to be in a given setting, you'd have an episode of star trek where scotty gets a mind-virus that makes him unable to stop stabbing hookers on the planet of Seedy Barvania VII, it'd turn out to be the voice of Piglet from the old Winnie the Pooh cartoons who they cast as the ghost of Jack the Ripper, theyd wrap it all up in forty-five minutes and the show would go "the existence of ghosts? Murder charges? Female crew members no longer being able to trust Chief Engineer Triple Homicide? NAH, resolving that thread sounds boring, next we're going to the Planet of Ancient Rome where the final twist at the end of the episode is going to briefly imply that everyone in the star trek universe is a christian and then NEEEEEEEEEEEVER bring it up again!"

 the_scotsman wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Forget all the inclusion, sexism argument etc for a seconds. What I find curious is that it's seemingly OK nowadays to just throw lore continuity out the window by just giving handwavy reasons like "lore can always be changed" and "they've done it with primaris before".
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea and virtually nobody liked primaris from a lore perspective. The models were what has been well recieved, not the lore about cawl waving his magic wand.

Yeah because it's literally always been like this.

The only time people have actually held up 'the lore' as sacred is in this new modern 'everything said in a show ever goes into a wiki article and is forever remembered.'

Used to be in a given setting, you'd have an episode of star trek where scotty gets a mind-virus that makes him unable to stop stabbing hookers on the planet of Seedy Barvania VII, it'd turn out to be the voice of Piglet from the old Winnie the Pooh cartoons who they cast as the ghost of Jack the Ripper, theyd wrap it all up in forty-five minutes and the show would go "the existence of ghosts? Murder charges? Female crew members no longer being able to trust Chief Engineer Triple Homicide? NAH, resolving that thread sounds boring, next we're going to the Planet of Ancient Rome where the final twist at the end of the episode is going to briefly imply that everyone in the star trek universe is a christian and then NEEEEEEEEEEEVER bring it up again!"

people argued about that stuff long before the internet dude.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
You just demonstrated that you don't care about lore consistency and continuity.

Oh, I like my lore, don't get me wrong - but only when I can justify why it is, and what it brings to the setting. I don't like this "it is, because it is" kind of things I'm seeing. Even when I was against women Astartes in the past, I always found that to be particularly weak argument.

That is a fair position to take, I am just of the opinion that ignoring these principles hurts any setting in the long run, especially when you try to force change because of quotas and identity politics.

I'm not doing it to meet a quota though. I'm doing it because I want to have women in my Space Marines, and many others like me also want that. What's wrong with wanting something because it's cool?

I am on bord with female astartes the same day we get male sisters of battle/silence, female represented orks, male howling banshees etc.
Imo it wouldn't be 40k anymore, but hey if that is what the majority wants, at least be consistent and go all the way.

I mean, there's already men in the Sororitas army anyway, Orks are funguses, but I don't mind deviations from what we already have, and I don't understand why Howling Banshees are all-women anyway, if they even are.

Evidently, I don't think 40k is tied to gender.

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and expect to be taken seriously? Saying there are males in a sisters army is like me saying there are female chapter serfs and servitors in a space marine army.

Also your argument that primaris were a lore change and lore changes be bad is dishonest also. People didn't like primaris lore because gw pulled it out of their asses. It didn't fit within the 20+year lore already established and this is the same reason people wouldn't like female marines.

There are, canonically, male howling banshees and female aspect warriors of all the various aspects. The armor is just designed as an homage to the original warrior that created the Aspect.

I'm fairly sure there are even helmetless male howling banshee heads in the box.

Just for a real quick reminder of what *should* exist canonically:

-Male howling banshees and Female every other aspect+incubi
-Female guardsmen (have models now as of the new head sprue)
-Female Scions (this one was actually news to me, I thought all the female recruits from 40k Hogwarts went into the sororitas but apparently not I dont follow that lore too closely)
-Female Tau (have models)
-Female GSC (have models in the new biker/HQ kits they did for wave 2)
-Female necrons (exist in lore, in game they all look like skellingtons and all the named characters in the codex just happen to be male)
-Female Imperial Knights

and what has no reason to not exist canonically:

-Female Custodes
-Female Chaos Space Marines (even if they have to adhere to the same bs fake science 'cant survive the initiation process' or whatever, chaos adds horns and tentacles and bat wings and turns space marines into big blobs of gibbering goop, you bet your ass there are female chaos space marines)