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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.

But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.

Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.

Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.

But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.

Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.

Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.

Geno-Five-Two Chiliad as well.

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.

But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.

Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.

Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.

I specified power armoured super soldiers. And neither D99 or the Death Korps have that.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

He is however right that is a rule on this site that politics and religion are banned on this site. That the mods are somehow failing to enforce this lately has been more of the issue.

To be clear, the ban on politics and religion applies to the Off-topic section specifically. Real world politics and religion were always off-topic in the rest of the forum, except where they are part of a topic that specifically concerns wargaming. So long as the focus remains on the wargaming concerns, and the discussion remains civil, there is no reason to not let the discussion continue.

And as always, if you see a thread or post that you feel doesn't belong, the correct response is to report it and leave it to the mods to decide whether or not that is actually the case.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.

But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.

Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.

Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.

I specified power armoured super soldiers. And neither D99 or the Death Korps have that.

And you can't make a sisters order with similar augments?

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.

But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.

Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.

Genetic modification and super soldiers are not exclusive to space marines. The d99 and krigers exist as well. You can create that fantasy and stick to the lore without them being space marines.

I specified power armoured super soldiers. And neither D99 or the Death Korps have that.

And you can't make a sisters order with similar augments?

I thought that would break the lore, to give Sisters hover tanks and such things that are so clearly only for warrior monks .

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.

But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.

Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.

Then you are unfortunately SOL, just like I am with my wish for Death Guard Havocs. But Sisters did just get their own Predator so who knows, maybe the dumb floaty bricks will be available to them in the future as well.

Castozor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
They are not stand ins, but if you want power armored woman those are your go to.

But I don't want power armoured women. I want power armoured super soldier women with the specific aesthetic stylings of Space Marines. I want Repulsors, and Aggressors, and Reivers. I want Intercessors and Tactical Marines, not Battle Sisters and Celestians.

Again - you're reducing Sisters down to "power armoured woman". They're so much more than that.

Then you are unfortunately SOL, just like I am with my wish for Death Guard Havocs.

That's a shame. Death Guard should be able to have Havocs, like how Space Marines should be able to have women.

Maybe we can have both!

I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.

So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?

Tempting as it is to keep going at this full-bore, I gotta get to actually doing my job for a bit, but in case it somehow death spirals while I'm away, I must say it has been a genuine joy to have this - all things considered - quite reasonable exchange. Thank you all!

Hmm, what if the two missing primarchs were women?

I assume they're still missing. I haven't exactly been keeping up with the Horus Heresy books after the number of them went out of control.

 Crimson wrote:
I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.

So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?

The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated. If there were intended to be female space marines they would have had a much bigger presence in both the lore and physical products. The only evidence I've seen is the rogue trader era adventurer sprues, which I think we can all agree is pretty paltry and has been an abjuration more than anything else.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated. If there were intended to be female space marines they would have had a much bigger presence in both the lore and physical products. The only evidence I've seen is the rogue trader era adventurer sprues, which I think we can all agree is pretty paltry and has been an abjuration more than anything else.

But my my point is that the claim 'but the lore says no' actually isn't true. No current lore preventing female space marines exists. So it is just the same situation when in the past there were no female IG soldiers or Knight pilots mentioned. They still could exist. All we can honestly conclude from the current lore is that female space marines might be rather rare, as they're not mentioned.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.

So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?

The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.

Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.

Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.

So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?

The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.

Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.

Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!

And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.

Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs.

That would undermine the lore far more severely. Sisters being normal humans with decent gear, faith and grit is essential to their identity. Being men is not essential to marine identity.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.

Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.

I feel like, given how much most factions in this game have changed over the years, if rigidity of the source material is of such paramount importance to you then maybe 40K is just not the game for you to begin with.

Necrons are completely different to how they started. Sisters went from being the militant arm of the Eclessiarchy, to being the militant arm of the Ordo Hereticus, and then back to the Eclessiarchy again. Remember when Tau didn't use battlesuits bigger than a crisis suit, because they had aircraft to fill the roles bigger suits would fill?

The game background is constantly changing and evolving. And it will continue to do so. Railing against that change is ultimately just nailing jelly to a tree.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.

So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?

The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.

Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.

Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!

And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.

Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.

Lore changes all the time, this just comes off as the only thing sacred is keeping women out.
If it wasn’t a constant over all of Nerd media I think it would come off better, GW itself has had issues and 40k is even more behind than there other games are slowly becoming.

With sisters of battle, you cannot deny they have not been highly fetishised over the years and even as they remove some of that. The faction still holds a lot of that baggage and is not for everyone.
Sisters of silence doesn’t really get support, so that’s a bit of a wash. Sorta left with dark Eldar and small access to craftworld forces.
Space marines also get so much focus, so it adds up that people don’t really see much value in looking in other places.
Necrons themselves would be easy, just focus on names and the way language is used, but we even have to battle for that.
It’s where it’s left itself.

Apple fox wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.

So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?

The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.

Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.

Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!

And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.

Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.

Lore changes all the time, this just comes off as the only thing sacred is keeping women out.
If it wasn’t a constant over all of Nerd media I think it would come off better, GW itself has had issues and 40k is even more behind than there other games are slowly becoming.

With sisters of battle, you cannot deny they have not been highly fetishised over the years and even as they remove some of that. The faction still holds a lot of that baggage and is not for everyone.
Sisters of silence doesn’t really get support, so that’s a bit of a wash. Sorta left with dark Eldar and small access to craftworld forces.
Space marines also get so much focus, so it adds up that people don’t really see much value in looking in other places.
Necrons themselves would be easy, just focus on names and the way language is used, but we even have to battle for that.
It’s where it’s left itself.

I will always argue elevation is the best path for representation. Female space marines feels more like a disservice to the fantasy and the lore rather than something positive.

One of the philosophies I cling to with 40k is that if I don't like it, I don't play it, and that if it isn't in my army I don't need to acknowledge its existence, except for occasionally executing it when I happen to see it on the other side of the battlefield.

If they introduced a unit of battle bros for the sisters of battle, I wouldn't buy them, I wouldn't use them and the preceptories, commanderies and missions represented by my models would not include them in their background.

As such, they would not affect me whatsoever.

Now admittedly, it is sometimes hard to do this. If chasing the meta and being competitive is an important part of how and why you play this game, and the unit you hate is so competitive that you can't play without it, certainly the line is blurrier.

Or if your faction is only in one animation or BL novel and that work happens to include the undesirable content.

Marines, having more than 100 other units to choose from, and being the subject of easily 2/3 of all entertainment arms of the franchise, don't really suffer from either of the conditions which would make tolerating an undesirable unit particularly egregious.

There are players out there, for example, for whom the Primaris just don't exist. They may not be winning the tourney circuit. But they exist.

If female SM where to be introduced, as others have mentioned, I think it's easier to do it with Primaris, and generic models would be the way to do it- that would make it easier for people who didn't like them to exclude them: ie. FSM exist, but not in the Chapter I'm playing.

PenitentJake wrote:
One of the philosophies I cling to with 40k is that if I don't like it, I don't play it, and that if it isn't in my army I don't need to acknowledge its existence, except for occasionally executing it when I happen to see it on the other side of the battlefield.

If they introduced a unit of battle bros for the sisters of battle, I wouldn't buy them, I wouldn't use them and the preceptories, commanderies and missions represented by my models would not include them in their background.

As such, they would not affect me whatsoever.

Now admittedly, it is sometimes hard to do this. If chasing the meta and being competitive is an important part of how and why you play this game, and the unit you hate is so competitive that you can't play without it, certainly the line is blurrier.

Or if your faction is only in one animation or BL novel and that work happens to include the undesirable content.

Marines, having more than 100 other units to choose from, and being the subject of easily 2/3 of all entertainment arms of the franchise, don't really suffer from either of the conditions which would make tolerating an undesirable unit particularly egregious.

There are players out there, for example, for whom the Primaris just don't exist. They may not be winning the tourney circuit. But they exist.

If female SM where to be introduced, as others have mentioned, I think it's easier to do it with Primaris, and generic models would be the way to do it- that would make it easier for people who didn't like them to exclude them: ie. FSM exist, but not in the Chapter I'm playing.

So why are we advocating for adding something that creates this paradigm within the player base? If you have to interact with it in that way, it doesn't sound like it should have been added.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I try to keep the lore discussion in this thread, but in the model thread references were made to '30 years of lore.' Yet as discussed earlier, the text stating that marines must be male has last been in an official publication 19 years ago and has later explicitly been referred by GW as being out of date. And then of course there is whole primaris thing where the whole marine creation process was updated.

So can someone actually prove using lore currently in print that primaris marines cannot be female?

The argument here is essentially "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which works in science, but not in a fantasy world that is intentionally developed and curated.

Fantasy worlds also lack self-affirming truths, and can be changed on a whim, because fantasy worlds are entirely fictional.

Hi Guilliman, on your early morning stroll! I didn't hear you over the sound of those Primaris Marines everywhere!

And as i've already established, changing the rules of how that universe operates for purely deterministic reasons is a terrible way to get people to suspend disbelief and get invested in the world.

Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care, but don't undermine the identity of an entire (more like two) factions to suit your hyper specific needs. 40k absolutely can be more inclusive without breaking the lore.

Lore changes all the time, this just comes off as the only thing sacred is keeping women out.
If it wasn’t a constant over all of Nerd media I think it would come off better, GW itself has had issues and 40k is even more behind than there other games are slowly becoming.

With sisters of battle, you cannot deny they have not been highly fetishised over the years and even as they remove some of that. The faction still holds a lot of that baggage and is not for everyone.
Sisters of silence doesn’t really get support, so that’s a bit of a wash. Sorta left with dark Eldar and small access to craftworld forces.
Space marines also get so much focus, so it adds up that people don’t really see much value in looking in other places.
Necrons themselves would be easy, just focus on names and the way language is used, but we even have to battle for that.
It’s where it’s left itself.

I will always argue elevation is the best path for representation. Female space marines feels more like a disservice to the fantasy and the lore rather than something positive.

From my honest opinion they should expand sisters of silence with some real effort, they could use current models and in the future a few extra. And give them +1 to strength to give them something different.
Like with a lot of these issues, it comes from a place where it’s the same in so much in media. More kick ass women across the board enables outliers to be that with interesting story’s. Right now, it’s just the standard that women are the exception, and all guys tends to be the norm. Thankfully changing.

Make some female Custodes for the super soldier woman. They're less explicitly all male afaik and it wouldn't tread on the well established SM lore.

Plus, lore-wise the Custodes are a more individualized, tailor made upgrade iirc, making cross-gender compatability potentially more in-universe feasable than the Marines which are still more mass produced.

Altima wrote:
Hmm, what if the two missing primarchs were women?

I assume they're still missing. I haven't exactly been keeping up with the Horus Heresy books after the number of them went out of control.

Hey, the first interesting suggestion of how to integrate female space marines in the thread. Kudos to you. This is a genuinely thought-provoking idea. And what if part of the reason they were "missing" is because they were purged from the records by a sexist Imperial organization that wanted to suppress the idea that women could be superhuman, too?

Their return would then presumably create huge fractures in the Imperial orthodoxy as it fundamentally challenged basic ideas of what space marines are, and as other space marines realized the full extent of the degree to which their nature and origins had been hidden from them.

If you're going to do it...this is the way to do it. Make it a big thing, because it is a big thing. Don't just hand-wave it away as "it's always been this way" or "Cawl made it possible and now everybody's ok with it." Let it threaten to bring the whole Imperium down. Maybe even give it a sort of Battletech vibe to it, where the returning primarchs have spent the last 11,000 years beyond the edge of the galaxy creating their own society that is dramatically different from the Imperium (e.g. radically egalitarian with merit being the only basis for advancement, anti-religious, but also fiercely factional and vulnerable to infighting, basically an inverse Imperium). And now they're back, at the head of a massive fleet of warriors, self-proclaimed saviors of humanity...but will they actually only succeed in fracturing human strength and giving Chaos (who they don't properly appreciate the threat of) and the Xenos a chance to exploit humanity's divisions?

It would be a fundamentally new direction for the IP, and I don't for a minute thing GW is brave enough to do it...but it wouldn't be boring.

^The last thing Space Marines need is more releases and cheaty Clan technology, lol.

I don't disagree, it's not something I'd particularly like to see...but if they are actually committed to female space marines, they ought to treat it with the importance it deserves and really explore the fallout that occurs, not just pretend like oh well, it's 2021 in the real world, that means it's 2021 for the imperium too so nobody will care.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Make some female Custodes for the super soldier woman. They're less explicitly all male afaik and it wouldn't tread on the well established SM lore.

Plus, lore-wise the Custodes are a more individualized, tailor made upgrade iirc, making cross-gender compatability potentially more in-universe feasable than the Marines which are still more mass produced.

yeah I'd be fine with female custodes it just feels less like a part of their identity, I mean space marines are always brothers this, brothers that, being a brotherhood is kiiiiiinda a big part of their identity in the lore.

I don't see a need for GW to change that just so I can fake my cred at being open minded. and I certainly don't think that the presence of all male space marines is somehow driving a mysigionistic culture among gamers, mostly because if that was the case it would be a problem isolated to 40k. which it isn't. The more likely explination is that gamers include a larger pecentage then normal of Maladjusted young (and not so young) men, many of whom are on the autistic spectrum, then normal society.

likewise I don't think adding a option for female heads on space marines would make space marines any more appealing to girls. I really do think GW needs to make space marines and Sisters of battle "co-equal" in terms of advertising etc. sisters of battle are obviously female yet clearly bad ass. and this BTW means for 10th edition I think GW should take a break from Marines and let the Sisters be the IoM faction fighting. (if they have to have marines of some type make it sisters vs chaos marines)

I think trying to shoehorn female space marines into the lore is a sign of lack of faith in the stand alone concept of a super human female being successful on its own merits in the same way that making an all female Ghostbusters and Oceans movie was a bust. It feels forced without adding anything of value.

In this case I am against it for the same reasons I am against Primaris. It goes against established lore and weakens it.

Space Marines are singled out because they are the most popular army who happens to be all male, so you want in on the action just to push the envelope and break the glass ceiling. You aren't interested in making Space Marines stronger as a concept, you just don't want to be left out. But maybe Space Marines are popular with young boys because it appeals to their fantasy of wanting to be powerful and masculine at an age where you are anything but. Having a girl in the club kinda changes that dynamic.

Running around yelling "anything you can do, I can do too" and demanding change where none is required isn't going to win people over. It's going to push people away, and we've seen this quite a few times, and not only with the movies I've cited. You can chalk that up to sexism, and some of it definitely is, but I think most people just don't want you changing their beloved stories that they grew up with that adds nothing of value.

There's lots of great stories about women that have yet to be told. Go tell them, don't ride the coattails of something already existing because you don't want to put the effort of starting from scratch or are afraid of its failure.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I think trying to shoehorn female space marines into the lore is a sign of lack of faith in the stand alone concept of a super human female being successful on its own merits in the same way that making an all female Ghostbusters and Oceans movie was a bust. It feels forced without adding anything of value.

In this case I am against it for the same reasons I am against Primaris. It goes against established lore and weakens it.

Space Marines are singled out because they are the most popular army who happens to be all male, so you want in on the action just to push the envelope and break the glass ceiling. You aren't interested in making Space Marines stronger as a concept, you just don't want to be left out. But maybe Space Marines are popular with young boys because it appeals to their fantasy of wanting to be powerful and masculine at an age where you are anything but. Having a girl in the club kinda changes that dynamic.

Running around yelling "anything you can do, I can do too" and demanding change where none is required isn't going to win people over. It's going to push people away, and we've seen this quite a few times, and not only with the movies I've cited. You can chalk that up to sexism, and some of it definitely is, but I think most people just don't want you changing their beloved stories that they grew up with that adds nothing of value.

There's lots of great stories about women that have yet to be told. Go tell them, don't ride the coattails of something already existing because you don't want to put the effort of starting from scratch or are afraid of its failure.

Exactly.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I think trying to shoehorn female space marines into the lore is a sign of lack of faith in the stand alone concept of a super human female being successful on its own merits in the same way that making an all female Ghostbusters and Oceans movie was a bust. It feels forced without adding anything of value.

Huh? Do the exact opposite is doing the same thing? I think you need a better argument then this.