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.

Beardedragon wrote: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?

Because many of those billions of worlds aren't Astartes homeworlds or recruitment centres. Most worlds aren't, in fact.

Space Marines typically recruit from one system, maybe a small fiefdom if they're lucky or influential. Of that significantly smaller proportion, they're recruiting from usually lower populations than the rest of the Imperium (many Astartes recruitment bases are from low population worlds - feudal and death worlds are more common recruitment locations than hive worlds). Then of that population, you're only recruiting from the adolescent age bracket, and then whatever trials you have in store (and, side note, many of these trials aren't based on physical ability alone - most of them seem more about mental fortitude and resilience than anything physical). From what I understand, these trials are difficult enough to weed out a lot of the potential aspirants, and complications in the actual surgeries could kill off more recruits.

So why on earth does the Imperium want to cut that recruitment pool in half? Aren't they about trying to be winning this war?

Plus, if the Imperium were so adept at filling up their Chapters, why are we nearly always told how there's never enough Space Marines, and that the Imperium is constantly on the back foot?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

Continuing our discussion on mischaracterising positions from the other thread, are you trying to make my point for me?
You've literally included the quote that contradicts the argument you're trying to imply I'm making.

 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.

"Ohoho! I bet you didn't expect me to cut off my nose to spite my face. That THAT!"

You know, as an aside, this conversation always strikes me as a little odd.

It seems to boil down to "Why does this paranoid, fascist, theocratic society with no regard for human life not have progressive values when it comes to gender-equality?"

Again, I have no particular horse in this race (beyond not wanting to see yet another wave of Marine releases ). I don't play Marines and haven't cared about their fluff since 3rd, so I don't particularly care if female Marines are made canon or not.

It just strikes me as a request that seems a little incongruent with what the Imperium is portrayed as.

Tiberias wrote:

 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?

Intellectually dishonest? I thought you said a second ago that you respected that I was fair in my treatment of Astartes and Sororitas?

Which one is it? Surely I'd only be being dishonest if I claimed that Sisters lore was inviolate, but Space Marines wasn't?

Saying there are males in a sisters army is like me saying there are female chapter serfs and servitors in a space marine army.

Servitors don't have a gender, and there *are* no Chapter serf models. Unless you can point to me where I can take Chapter serfs in my army?

So yeah - there *aren't* Chapter serfs available to me. And remember - this is the "models" topic.

Also your argument that primaris were a lore change and lore changes be bad is dishonest also.

No, what's dishonest is saying you care so much about the lore, but are so happy to disavow whatever you don't like.

Admit it - this isn't about "preserving the lore", because Primaris are evidence that you don't care about preserving things "because that's what they are". This is about preserving what you want the lore to be, what you think is the One True Lore.

If you truly thought that "the lore should stay like it is, because it is", then you wouldn't be complaining about Primaris, because *they're the lore now*.

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 what happens when Primaris become established lore? How long do I need to wait until they're "established lore"? 10 years? 5 years? 20 years? When the lore was "established", as you put it, when did it become immune to change?

Established lore is constantly changing. It's why I can't take any lore argument seriously that also includes something along the lines of "but Primaris aren't established lore".
That, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty.

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.

Don't see a problem with adding male-bodied individuals to those organizations. Although on a funny note Codex Sisters of Battle has more men than Codex Space Marines has women currently(as well as historically). Codex SoB even have xenos now.

male howling banshees

The lore really doesn't speak against male Aeldari from being Howling Banshees. The problem is more that GW loves their boobplates.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

Continuing our discussion on mischaracterising positions from the other thread, are you trying to make my point for me?
You've literally included the quote that contradicts the argument you're trying to imply I'm making.

It doesn't contradict anything.

You're making this claim that the lore is sacred and important. Primaris are the lore now.

The fact that you scream about them being retcons, and therefore invalid, is just showing me how selective you're being with what you consider sacred lore.

How can I take a lore-based argument seriously when it isn't consistent?

Sim-Life wrote:

 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.

"Ohoho! I bet you didn't expect me to cut off my nose to spite my face. That THAT!"

I don't see that I'm losing anything. I rather see it as "you didn't expect that I'd pull out that annoying splinter?"

vipoid wrote:You know, as an aside, this conversation always strikes me as a little odd.

It seems to boil down to "Why does this paranoid, fascist, theocratic society with no regard for human life not have progressive values when it comes to gender-equality?"

Because we've never seen them act institutionally sexist?

If GW wanted to, they could *totally* have made the Imperium institutionally sexist, but they didn't. We have women High Lords, we have mixed gender Guardsmen, we have Imperial governors who are women, we have women in the Admech and Knight Houses, we have women Inquisitors, Assassins, and lowlifes alike.

So, from a "lore" and "canon" perspective, it's "well established lore" that the Imperium isn't institutionally sexist. Just to mention that.

Again, I have no particular horse in this race (beyond not wanting to see yet another wave of Marine releases ). I don't play Marines and haven't cared about their fluff since 3rd, so I don't particularly care if female Marines are made canon or not.

Now, I'm actually entirely agreed on that. I don't want another wave of Space Marine releases either. A single headswap sprue, like the existing upgrade kits, would be enough for me as is.

It just strikes me as a request that seems a little incongruent with what the Imperium is portrayed as.

Again, purely from what the Imperium is *actually* portrayed as, it's not incongruent at all.

I was thinking about this more. Were I in charge of GW, wanted to introduce female Astartes whilst trying to minimise pushback, how would I do it?

Make a new minor chapter or 'elevate' an existing known minor chapter to a status of supported chapter. I.e. to non-first founding chapter with their own rules and some fluff like Black Templars, Crimson Fists, Flesh Tearers etc. You don't need a full supplement book, you can just dedicate couple of pages to them in some campaign book. Let the 'quirk' of that chapter to be that they have female marines (though not as their only defining feature.) So for example, Shields of Helios, a Greek-inspired Ultramarine successor chapter who happen, for some historical reason, have female marines. And have some vague sentence implying that whilst this is rare, they're not literally the only chapter doing this. Make an upgrade sprue for that chapter with some female heads, similar to the existing primaris upgrade sprues.

That's it at this point, don't make a big deal about this. Then people can play that chapter or have their own custom chapter with official fluff support and official GW bits. And I think over time people simply get used to the idea that female marines can be a thing, and the opposition will lessen and then perhaps you can expand it to other canon chapters. But that step really isn't that important.

 Crimson wrote:
I was thinking about this more. Were I in charge of GW, wanted to introduce female Astartes whilst trying to minimise pushback, how would I do it?

Make a new minor chapter or 'elevate' an existing known minor chapter to a status of supported chapter. I.e. to non-first founding chapter with their own rules and some fluff like Black Templars, Crimson Fists, Flesh Tearers etc. You don't need a full supplement book, you can just dedicate couple of pages to them in some campaign book. Let the 'quirk' of that chapter to be that they have female marines (though not as their only defining feature.) So for example, Shields of Helios, a Greek-inspired Ultramarine successor chapter who happen, for some historical reason, have female marines. And have some vague sentence implying that whilst this is rare, they're not literally the only chapter doing this. Make an upgrade sprue for that chapter with some female heads, similar to the existing primaris upgrade sprues.

That's it at this point, don't make a big deal about this. Then people can play that chapter or have their own custom chapter with official fluff support and official GW bits. And I think over time people simply get used to the idea that female marines can be a thing, and the opposition will lessen and then perhaps you can expand it to other canon chapters. But that step really isn't that important.

Probably a good approach. Basically not touch upon the established chapters(for now) that would enrage the fanboys and leave it to a new chapter to make its mark.

 vipoid wrote:
You know, as an aside, this conversation always strikes me as a little odd.

It seems to boil down to "Why does this paranoid, fascist, theocratic society with no regard for human life not have progressive values when it comes to gender-equality?"

Again, I have no particular horse in this race (beyond not wanting to see yet another wave of Marine releases ). I don't play Marines and haven't cared about their fluff since 3rd, so I don't particularly care if female Marines are made canon or not.

It just strikes me as a request that seems a little incongruent with what the Imperium is portrayed as.

GW has kinda been toning that all down, some of the reason may be that there are lots of people that don’t get that the imperium is as much the bad of the setting as others.
GW does have a bit in written form, but they often miss the mark and I am not sure they really are ready to write that. There target is still primary teenage boys I suspect, who are probably the worst demographic for those themes.
It’s probably why marines are leaning so much into more power fantasy than the horrors that really would be a marine.
Doing it is easy, doing it well is hard!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 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?

Intellectually dishonest? I thought you said a second ago that you respected that I was fair in my treatment of Astartes and Sororitas?

Which one is it? Surely I'd only be being dishonest if I claimed that Sisters lore was inviolate, but Space Marines wasn't?

Saying there are males in a sisters army is like me saying there are female chapter serfs and servitors in a space marine army.

Servitors don't have a gender, and there *are* no Chapter serf models. Unless you can point to me where I can take Chapter serfs in my army?

So yeah - there *aren't* Chapter serfs available to me. And remember - this is the "models" topic.

Also your argument that primaris were a lore change and lore changes be bad is dishonest also.

No, what's dishonest is saying you care so much about the lore, but are so happy to disavow whatever you don't like.

Admit it - this isn't about "preserving the lore", because Primaris are evidence that you don't care about preserving things "because that's what they are". This is about preserving what you want the lore to be, what you think is the One True Lore.

If you truly thought that "the lore should stay like it is, because it is", then you wouldn't be complaining about Primaris, because *they're the lore now*.

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 what happens when Primaris become established lore? How long do I need to wait until they're "established lore"? 10 years? 5 years? 20 years? When the lore was "established", as you put it, when did it become immune to change?

Established lore is constantly changing. It's why I can't take any lore argument seriously that also includes something along the lines of "but Primaris aren't established lore".
That, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty.

Oh boy the irony. First off I respected your position that you don't care about lore consistency and continuity, not that you apply double standards in your arguments. So let me get this straight: arguing for sisters of battle to be also male is something different because in that army you can play male priests of the ecclesiarchy? But for female space marines it is a different story because there is no model for a female fleet admiral or chapter serf? Are you actually kidding me? And you are accusing me of being intellectually dishonest in this conversation? You can not be serious.

The issue with primaris lore is not when something becomes "established" lore, but how abruptly and for what reason it was changed and how big of an impact it is. Games Workshop wanted to up scale marines and sell new models, hence why hey pulled cawl and his magic wand out of their butts. Suddenly there was technological advancement in the imperium because GW wanted to sell shiny new toys, which contradicted decades of lore that depicted the imperium as technologically regressive, which in turn was arguably a big part of the "grimdark" setting. That is what many people had a problem with.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


The fact that you scream about them being retcons, and therefore invalid, is just showing me how selective you're being with what you consider sacred lore.

When did I say Primaris were invalid? I don't know if you're subconsciously filling in blanks in your mind or you're being deliberately disingenous (I suspect the former), but either way you need to stop.

I said I didn't like the retcon that Primaris represented.
But I understand that they're now official lore, and I would dislike GW further retconning them. A retcon like "oh btw they've been girls for the past 3 years you need to use Battle Sister half the time".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Because we've never seen them act institutionally sexist?

Sure we have.

- Sisters of Battle
-Space Marines
- Referances in various source suggest Guard regiments are often segregated
-IIRC there are referances to the Ecclisiarchy outside sisters of battle being fairly patriarchal
- initally Imperial Knights (GW changed course IMHO in response to blow back)

we don't see it often but we do see that some things are indeed that way.

Tiberias wrote:Oh boy the irony. First off I respected your position that you don't care about lore consistency and continuity, not that you apply double standards in your arguments.

So when I then emphasise my argument isn't based on continuity, you call me intellectually dishonest? Which one is it?

So let me get this straight: arguing for sisters of battle to be also male is something different because in that army you can play male priests of the ecclesiarchy? But for female space marines it is a different story because there is no model for a female fleet admiral or chapter serf?

When did I say that?

I said that Sisters of Battle already have male members, but that I'm fine adding more. However, I was pointing out that your claim that Space Marines have women already in them is disingenuous, because Chapter serfs don't exist on the tabletop, let alone women ones.
Making both Space Marines and Sororitas mixed gender is fine. But pretending like they're both mixed gender already is a blatant lie.

The issue with primaris lore is not when something becomes "established" lore, but how abruptly and for what reason it was changed and how big of an impact it is.

But now it *is* lore. It shouldn't matter how abrupt it is, the moment it's lore, is it not "lore"?

Suddenly there was technological advancement in the imperium because GW wanted to sell shiny new toys, which contradicted decades of lore that depicted the imperium as technologically regressive, which in turn was arguably a big part of the "grimdark" setting. That is what many people had a problem with.

But that was lore. The moment it was printed, it had become "established lore". That's how lore works - it changes on GW's whims.

All I'm saying is that if the lore is so sacred, and that GW's lore and canon shouldn't be criticised because "it is, so it is" (which has been an overwhelming defence of the exclusion of women Astartes), then surely the moment Primaris were announced as "canon", people should just have accept that as "established lore".

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


The fact that you scream about them being retcons, and therefore invalid, is just showing me how selective you're being with what you consider sacred lore.

When did I say Primaris were invalid?

Perhaps not in as many words, but you evidently don't fully accept them. You outright admit that you don't like them and what they represent, both as a retcon, and within the setting.

If the lore was so inviolate, this wouldn't be an issue.

A retcon like "oh btw they've been girls for the past 3 years you need to use Battle Sister half the time".

Why would you need to use Battle Sisters? I thought Battle Sisters had a strong faction identity without being related to Space Marines?

Wouldn't it be better then to just add Chapter Serfs to Space Marines, instead of reinventing the wheel and causing a fuss?
FSM seems like a really inelegant solution when there are more effective ways of going about it.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Because we've never seen them act institutionally sexist?

Sure we have.

- Sisters of Battle

Not institutionally sexist. The Sisters are only all-women because of a legal loophole, not because someone thought that only women should be able to be the servants of the Church.

-Space Marines

Entirely unclear, from your own "side" of the argument. Are Space Marines all male because of biology? Are they all male because the Emperor alone (who never actually made the Space Marines, but sure) was sexist? Are they all male because "tradition"? Are they all male because they all just look like men and use masculine pronouns?

We don't know, but it certainly doesn't seem to be institutional.

- Referances in various source suggest Guard regiments are often segregated

Then reference them.

-IIRC there are referances to the Ecclisiarchy outside sisters of battle being fairly patriarchal

Reference?

- initally Imperial Knights (GW changed course IMHO in response to blow back)

So, not institutionally sexist then.

we don't see it often

So, not really institutionally sexist then, are they?

but we do see that some things are indeed that way.

Of the 5 you listed, two of them are outright wrong, one is entirely unclear, and the other two you ought to provide modern sources for.

Yeah, I don't think things are "that way" at all.

/shrug

With all the Sisters plastic kits out there, it'd be a reasonably easy hobby project to make a women Marine chapter, even without using any third party bits.

Not sure what the fuss is.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better then to just add Chapter Serfs to Space Marines, instead of reinventing the wheel and causing a fuss?
FSM seems like a really inelegant solution when there are more effective ways of going about it.

Wouldn't Chapter serfs be even more like "reinventing the wheel"? After all, that's a whole load of new models you need to make, new units, new designs, new rules. Actually, I suppose it's not "reinventing the wheel", it's more like "inventing a hand glider".

As opposed to a headswap and "Cawl invented a new way to make women using the Sangprimus Portum"? That one seems so much simpler and effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
/shrug

With all the Sisters plastic kits out there, it'd be a reasonably easy hobby project to make a women Marine chapter, even without using any third party bits.

Not sure what the fuss is.

Honestly, the Sisters heads fit really nicely on Primaris bodies! The only issue is making that canon, really, and that it would kinda suck if you didn't happen to collect Sisters too.

Oh so you were deliberately twisting what I've said, gotcha. Please stop.

Battle Sister as in the female equivalent to Battle Brother.
The fact that that's already a thing is just further reason we don't need to add it!

EDIT: Christ, this chat is moving so quick by the time I've typed a message I'm like 4 posts behind.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better then to just add Chapter Serfs to Space Marines, instead of reinventing the wheel and causing a fuss?
FSM seems like a really inelegant solution when there are more effective ways of going about it.

Wouldn't Chapter serfs be even more like "reinventing the wheel"? After all, that's a whole load of new models you need to make, new units, new designs, new rules. Actually, I suppose it's not "reinventing the wheel", it's more like "inventing a hand glider".

As opposed to a headswap and "Cawl invented a new way to make women using the Sangprimus Portum"? That one seems so much simpler and effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
/shrug

With all the Sisters plastic kits out there, it'd be a reasonably easy hobby project to make a women Marine chapter, even without using any third party bits.

Not sure what the fuss is.

Honestly, the Sisters heads fit really nicely on Primaris bodies! The only issue is making that canon, really, and that it would kinda suck if you didn't happen to collect Sisters too.

It's reinventing the wheel because you have to fiddle with the fluff even more and risk the same level of uproar (perhaps even greater) as the Primaris release. People are still aggravated over that, and it's been, what, 2 years?
Chapter Serfs already exist in the fluff. I would much rather an existing element of the fluff gets developed and receive models than have yet another messy retcon that makes Cawl into an even greater Deus Ex Machina who can do anything the Emperor can but better.

Not only would such a retcon and headswap be messy but also really lazy and will reek of a cash grab. It's the sort of nonsense an amateur would to pull. As I said, it's an inelegant solution to a problem when there are better and less messy alternatives.

kirotheavenger wrote:Oh so you were deliberately twisting what I've said, gotcha.

Which bit?

Battle Sister as in the female equivalent to Battle Brother.

But it's not, no more so than GuardMAN is the equivalent of Battle Sister.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better then to just add Chapter Serfs to Space Marines, instead of reinventing the wheel and causing a fuss?
FSM seems like a really inelegant solution when there are more effective ways of going about it.

Wouldn't Chapter serfs be even more like "reinventing the wheel"? After all, that's a whole load of new models you need to make, new units, new designs, new rules. Actually, I suppose it's not "reinventing the wheel", it's more like "inventing a hand glider".

As opposed to a headswap and "Cawl invented a new way to make women using the Sangprimus Portum"? That one seems so much simpler and effective.

It's reinventing the wheel because you have to fiddle with the fluff even more and risk the same level of uproar (perhaps even greater) as the Primaris release. People are still aggravated over that, and it's been, what, 2 years?

Aggravated? But usually the people who are aggravated are the same people who say that the lore "is because it is"?

I apologise if I'm using your point to make another one, but you're emphasising just how utterly arbitrary this worship of the lore is for some people. Sometimes, the lore is sacred and perfect and right, and other times, it's a source of "aggravation"?

Chapter Serfs already exist in the fluff. I would much rather an existing element of the fluff gets developed and receive models than have yet another messy retcon that makes Cawl into an even greater Deus Ex Machina who can do anything the Emperor can but better.

Well, the Emperor didn't do it in the first place, for a start. Second, as we've addressed, the fluff isn't exactly rigid.

Not only would such a retcon and headswap be messy but also really lazy and will reek of a cash grab.

And any Space Marine update wouldn't?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Beardedragon wrote: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?

Because many of those billions of worlds aren't Astartes homeworlds or recruitment centres. Most worlds aren't, in fact.

Space Marines typically recruit from one system, maybe a small fiefdom if they're lucky or influential. Of that significantly smaller proportion, they're recruiting from usually lower populations than the rest of the Imperium (many Astartes recruitment bases are from low population worlds - feudal and death worlds are more common recruitment locations than hive worlds). Then of that population, you're only recruiting from the adolescent age bracket, and then whatever trials you have in store (and, side note, many of these trials aren't based on physical ability alone - most of them seem more about mental fortitude and resilience than anything physical). From what I understand, these trials are difficult enough to weed out a lot of the potential aspirants, and complications in the actual surgeries could kill off more recruits.

So why on earth does the Imperium want to cut that recruitment pool in half? Aren't they about trying to be winning this war?

Plus, if the Imperium were so adept at filling up their Chapters, why are we nearly always told how there's never enough Space Marines, and that the Imperium is constantly on the back foot?

Actually the scenario you have descrided goes against the introduction of FSM... If the recruitment grounds for Astartes were so limited, sacrificing 20 young fertile female teens to get a single Astarte will quickly deplete the recruitment population.

 the_scotsman wrote:
There are, canonically, male
-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)

I really like this particular item. It speaks to me that the Imperium would be regressive and sexist in their operations. Stagnant and unwilling to change or even perceive the need to change. (I think the Imperium is at their best when they are at their worst).

And that Chaos Legions and Warbands are the ones that can be inclusive. They're the ones that see the utility in not hamstringing themselves to half the population.

Vatsetis wrote:Actually the scenario you have descrided goes against the introduction of FSM... If the recruitment grounds for Astartes were so limited, sacrificing 20 young fertile female teens to get a single Astarte will quickly deplete the recruitment population.

But they're not fertile. They're adolescents. Children.

Also, if we're complaining about "sacrificing fertile teens" (which just sounds gross), why aren't you complaining about the Imperial Guard?

It may be critized for including female only in the self-indulgent, villain of the week faction...

But will be better than the current status and for sure can create an interesting narrative with the non-secondary advantage of showing the Imperium as worse than Chaos and shift attention away from Marine to Chaos Marine anyway so I would be all for it.

pothocboots wrote:
It speaks to me that the Imperium would be regressive and sexist in their operations.

But they're not. They are decidedly and demonstrably not.

The Imperium doesn't care about what's between your legs (with the exception of two specific institutions - Marines and Sisters) nor the colour of your skin. Beyond that they only care that you are human, not a mutant, not a psyker, and not a traitor.

The Imperium aren't male supremacists. They're human supremacists.

 the_scotsman wrote:
and what has no reason to not exist canonically:

No reason hey? If there were no reasons, then this wouldn't be a discussion. Something tells me you know this already.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:Oh boy the irony. First off I respected your position that you don't care about lore consistency and continuity, not that you apply double standards in your arguments.

So when I then emphasise my argument isn't based on continuity, you call me intellectually dishonest? Which one is it?

So let me get this straight: arguing for sisters of battle to be also male is something different because in that army you can play male priests of the ecclesiarchy? But for female space marines it is a different story because there is no model for a female fleet admiral or chapter serf?

When did I say that?

I said that Sisters of Battle already have male members, but that I'm fine adding more. However, I was pointing out that your claim that Space Marines have women already in them is disingenuous, because Chapter serfs don't exist on the tabletop, let alone women ones.
Making both Space Marines and Sororitas mixed gender is fine. But pretending like they're both mixed gender already is a blatant lie.

The issue with primaris lore is not when something becomes "established" lore, but how abruptly and for what reason it was changed and how big of an impact it is.

But now it *is* lore. It shouldn't matter how abrupt it is, the moment it's lore, is it not "lore"?

Suddenly there was technological advancement in the imperium because GW wanted to sell shiny new toys, which contradicted decades of lore that depicted the imperium as technologically regressive, which in turn was arguably a big part of the "grimdark" setting. That is what many people had a problem with.

But that was lore. The moment it was printed, it had become "established lore". That's how lore works - it changes on GW's whims.

All I'm saying is that if the lore is so sacred, and that GW's lore and canon shouldn't be criticised because "it is, so it is" (which has been an overwhelming defence of the exclusion of women Astartes), then surely the moment Primaris were announced as "canon", people should just have accept that as "established lore".

Boy do you like misrepresenting other peoples posts, don't you? The point is not that it's not established lore, but that it's not good lore based on the context of the already existing setting/lore. If GW suddenly introduced pokemon into 40k, it would also be established lore as soon as they publish it....it would also be rubbish.
And I call you intellectually dishonest because when I asked why not advocate for male sisters of battle, you said that's different because there are already males in a sisters army (i assume you mean ecclesiarchy priests and such). Which is entirely besides the point, since there can also be human female auxillary warriors/soldiers in a space marine force.

I also still haven't gotten a clear answer as to what problem exactly we are adressing when introducing female marines.

It'd be nice to see some women in the villains rather than only ever the dashing hero[in]es.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It'd be nice to see some women in the villains rather than only ever the dashing hero[in]es.

Huh? There are no heroes/heroines in 40k, just varying levels of evil. The marines a psychoindoctrinated child soldiers used as terror units. The sisters are religious fanatics who burn guilty and innocent alike. Individuals within those factions can be heroic or perfom heroic actions, but there are not good guys in 40k. One can argue that chaos is even worse than the imperium...some might even argue it's the other way around and both positions would be tenable.

Dark eldar probably have the most equality between the sexes in 40k, everyone who is ambitious enough can become extremely powerful...they are also arguably the most evil faction in 40k, so look no further than them. Heck, even the sisters can be considered evil based on their preference to burn innocents and heretics alike without consideration.

Recently 40k very much has good guys and bad guys.
Girlyman is definitely marketed as the good guy, Ultramarines vs Deathguard or whatever is definitely marketed as good vs evil.

Although that's kinda besides the point. My comment was more in regards to the world in general. Evil faceless mooks slaughtered by the dozens in Hollywood movies are always male. But no one minds that, we just need female leads that beat everyone else up.