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.

 alextroy wrote:

 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.

Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and is ultimately self defeating.

Elevate your new diverse characters in new and interesting ways. Simply making the ghost busters female, just like space marines, shows a lack of understanding of the source material, and fails to further your goals of inclusivity and telling a good story.

Making Peter Parker black wouldn't work, because we all know so much about Peter Parker, his identity and his history. Miles Morales is a great inclusion and a good character in his own right, elevating both the characters and the franchise. Characters are so much more than "insert trait here" they can have diverse histories and backgrounds that can allow you to go in entirely new directions rather than just inserting a trait.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and ultimately self defeating.

Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and ultimately self defeating.

Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.

You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap. Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap.

Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.

Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.

Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.


Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.

You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap. Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.

Marines main selling point is their thematic flexibility. We do not understand how giving other people the option in any way invalidates your decisions. This was a quote in the original thread that sums up the position better than I ever could, and I might just make it my forum sig:

 the_scotsman wrote:

"here's this faction that we've turned into a gigantic uber-customizable metagolem of infinite customizability, you can have them in a car on the ground in a plane, in every conceivable playstyle that exists in the game, every single represented aesthetic, ninety-trillion different armor marks and styles, historical inspirations, every color in the rainbow, every race and culture of humanity...

...but you CANT make them ladies. that is the sacred line across which we must throw our bodies and souls! Space Marines can be every conceivable configuration of 'your dudes' imaginable, SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT IMAGINE THEM AS YOUR DUDETTES!

 insaniak wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
You are asking to undermine the thematic, underpinnings of a factions identity for an inclusion that is for all intents and purposes the same as a swap.

Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.

Just as ghost busters didn't care about what anyone else thought about the bad decision making you're not caring about what others are saying as well. Tell a new story, don't undermine what has already been developed.

Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.


Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'

No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so? Why upset "looks at poll" 65% of the playerbase to do so?

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.

Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.

Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'

No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so? Why upset "looks at poll" 65% of the playerbase to do so?

Because the "established lore" was established back in 1980-some, when attitudes were quite different, when GW was a different company. Because that lore was very flimsily established in a few words 19 years ago. Because it has no visible underpinnings in the rest of the setting, as the dystopia presented does not have sexism as an acknowledged evil anywhere else - up to and including allowing for female High Lords of Terra. Because it is a setting that encourages you to invest yourself in it with the creation of your armies, Your Dudes, and it is bizarre that this blank-slate faction lacks a gender select switch. Because it is not a hard piece of canonical absolutism and has never been.

What was that saying? "Everything is canon, not everything is true?" Perhaps it never was true that the Marine process only worked on males - to the extent that anything in the 40K universe can be.

I guarantee you that a significant number of that "65%" just doesn't care, or just want Marine releases to stop, and won't quit outright if marines can suddenly be women. Some of them might have if GW forced their marines to be women, but we're explicitly not suggesting this.

I posit that more people will join up to replace the ones that do.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so?

For me personally, it's simply because I think female marines would be a nice addition, and because I don't see any intrinsic value in them being only male. It's a change that alters a couple of lines of lore that dates back to a period from which most of the lore is long-since-replaced or altered. Including women changes nothing about what Marines are. It doesn't change their organisation. It doesn't change their warrior ethos. It doesn't change their battle tactics. It doesn't change their colour schemes. The sole change would be that some of them would be referred to as 'sister' instead of 'brother'.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Including women is not in any way remotely the same as excluding men.

Feel free to stop bringing up Ghost Busters as if it's relevant any time now. It wasn't a flop because it was a retread (plenty of remakes have outperformed the original movie on which they are based), or because it had a cast of women (plenty of movies with all-women casts have performed well). It was a flop because it was a bad movie. If the original Ghost Busters hadn't existed, the new movie would have been just as bad.

Besides which, you can't have it both ways. You are here railing against change, while at the same time insisting that the people asking for change should instead be asking to change the lore by introducing a whole new faction. Ultimately, that's going to be a far bigger change to the setting overall than having Cawl say 'Oh, hey, by the way - the process works on women now!'

No man, I think you just don't appreciate the actual representation of women in the game as it is and where we can go from there. Why can't the Sisters of Battle, or the Sisters of Silence be a gateway to better representation? Why can't we see a massive army of female blanks pop out of the golden throne, or more recently with the king in yellow? What about them is unsatisfactory, aside from "not being space marines". Why do we have to undermine established lore to do so? Why upset "looks at poll" 65% of the playerbase to do so?

Because the "established lore" was established back in 1980-some, when attitudes were quite different, when GW was a different company. Because that lore was very flimsily established in a few words 19 years ago. Because it has no visible underpinnings in the rest of the setting, as the dystopia presented does not have sexism as an acknowledged evil anywhere else - up to and including allowing for female High Lords of Terra. Because it is a setting that encourages you to invest yourself in it with the creation of your armies, Your Dudes, and it is bizarre that this blank-slate faction lacks a gender select switch. Because it is not a hard piece of canonical absolutism and has never been.

What was that saying? "Everything is canon, not everything is true?" Perhaps it never was true that the Marine process only worked on males - to the extent that anything in the 40K universe can be.

I guarantee you that a significant number of that "65%" just doesn't care, or just want Marine releases to stop, and won't quit outright if marines can suddenly be women. Some of them might have if GW forced their marines to be women, but we're explicitly not suggesting this.

I posit that more people will join up to replace the ones that do.

"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.

No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.

No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.

Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Taking an established franchise / characters / setting/ themes/ and simply gender switching it is not a good way to tell a story, engage with the already established property, and ultimately self defeating.

Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.

ITs entirely irrelevant that not "all " are in the lieu of the faction, stop strawmanning positions.

"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.

Well, to be honest it dosent need to be a good argument if you are able to repeat it endlessly.

Also if you believe really hard that the most small scale change (IE allowing FSM in the lore bia a few pronouns and on models with a FSM head sprue) can have the biggest of postive impacts (IE ending sexism and bad behaviour in the gamming community once and for all) it will surely happen, right?

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.

Let's not start accusing one another of being disingenuous; down that road lies unproductive flame wars, and this has been as civil as I could reasonably ask for so far.

The problem is this:

Why can't there be militant sororities that are genetically enhanced Space Marines?

See, the problem with arguing from that historical accuracy is, first, that this isn't history; second, Marine chapters have been based on religious crusading - the Black Templars run hard with that theme - But then you have people like the Space Wolves, and the White Scars, and those do not follow traditional Western crusader themes. I would go so far as to say that not all of them have to be based on that. I still haven't gotten a rebuttal to ideas like Space Wolf Shieldmaidens - in some ways, it's less true to thematic historical roots to say that women simply can't be Space Marines. You might say it's rarer, but to disallow it completely? That just seems churlish.

I just think it's dissonant, an artifact of a time we should be moving beyond for this not to be a thing. There's a part of GW that certainly thinks so, judging how they did Stormcast Eternals. I do push harder against it than some because, frankly, I find the pushback the idea gets completely baffling; In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures." But it hasn't, and if there's anything the last few years have taught me, it's vital to understand why and to keep having these conversations openly and as honestly as possible, or else you never fix those divides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.

Well, to be honest it dosent need to be a good argument if you are able to repeat it endlessly.

Also if you believe really hard that the most small scale change (IE allowing FSM in the lore bia a few pronouns and on models with a FSM head sprue) can have the biggest of postive impacts (IE ending sexism and bad behaviour in the gamming community once and for all) it will surely happen, right?

Ah, see, here I need to do a spot of disabusing. No. No one thinks it will outright end sexism or make the hobby gender ratio 50/50 or make the clouds dispense gummy bears. Alright? None of that. The sky doesn't fall if GW doesn't make this change tomorrow.

But it is a change that will help, and a change that makes sense. It will invite a larger portion of the population, and remove one of the largest lore-cudgels that those genuinely bigoted elements - and they do exist - use to keep women out of what should by this point be a pretty inclusive hobby. "Warhammer is for Everyone," did they not say as such?

Cultural progress is incremental, bit by bit. It will take years, but welcoming another gender into the largest and most thematically diverse faction in the game strikes me as a move in a positive direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Nobody is asking for Marines to be all women.

ITs entirely irrelevant that not "all " are in the lieu of the faction, stop strawmanning positions.

I'm not sure what that means, but the point is that allowing women to exist as Marines does not mean that your Marines cannot still be all male. And if it doesn't affect Your Dudes, then why object?

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.

No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.

Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.

I would think that those themes have been so muted at this point, both by GW writing and a lot of the community that looking at the setting those are lost.
Marines have kinda just been made into the super cool themed dudes, but not really looking at any of there themes well in depth. There is a reason Boller porn is so common when referring to a lot of the books.

There isn’t really a huge lore reason needed, cowl and gulliman did it should be enough. The emperor being kinda meh as a person, the reason not too is a way better reason than anything else.
One of the reasons fleshing out so much of the setting is we don’t have those myths to work from, so now we need better ideas for things in the modern setting. And I would think most writers are not up to the task when writing for another’s setting.

Rule of cool is basically all GW needs to justify way dumber things, and that’s all so many nerds give to justify other stuff in the setting.

In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures."

So which is it, don’t accuse each other of bad faith or imply people who disagree with you are insane?

The BEST thing about female Custodes would be all the people trying to arguee that It makes no sense for one to be S5/T5 VS S4/T4 of a marine.
And then kill his dudes with her.

 Manchu wrote:

In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures."

So which is it, don’t accuse each other of bad faith or imply people who disagree with you are insane?

Chill. I admit a certain degree of bafflement here; I confess that my expectations and hopes and what I'm seeing are at odds, and I am trying to understand why whilst still advocating for what I believe is right.

It is entirely possible that my expectations and hopes are flawed or unrealistic - I simply have enough belief in them at the moment that I am prepared to continue arguing their case, to advance the conversation in a reasonable fashion.

And I'm quite enjoying doing so. This is probably the best I've felt about a debate in... Ever. Thanks to the last thread - in which I'll admit I let some emotions get the better of me - I now have a firmer grasp of the topic and come away from the thread much more proud of what I've done than last time.

 Galas wrote:
The BEST thing about female Custodes would be all the people trying to arguee that It makes no sense for one to be S5/T5 VS S4/T4 of a marine.
And then kill his dudes with her.

I really like custodies, but I haven’t got any as I just don’t really feel I need another all guy army. Need variety in my life >.< would also be a great way to seperate them from the marines more.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Chill. I admit a certain degree of bafflement here; I confess that my expectations and hopes and what I'm seeing are at odds, and I am trying to understand why whilst still advocating for what I believe is right.

To be fair, I suspect that the biggest part of the pushback against is nothing to do with women specifically, and just the result of people not liking change in the things they like. If, prior to the introduction of Primaris Marines, you had started a poll asking if people wanted a new type of marine models that are bigger and tougher with new rules and weapons and high tech vehicles, you would likely have seen a similar pushback.


But, as I said elsewhere, this is really the wrong game to be invested in if you are seriously opposed to change. Hell, the vast majority of the contents of the Marine codex wasn't there at the start. Rhinos and their variants. Land Raiders. Scouts. Flyers. Centurians. It's all been added later. Even the creation process from which this whole 'boys only' theme comes from was not a part of the original Marine background... it was added after the fact.

I realised some time ago that it was easier (and far less stressful) to accept that change happens and just embrace it, or choose to ignore the bits I was less fond of, rather than rail against it happening at all.

One thing to note is, people who disagree that GW must or should make female SM on the whole seem to have no problem with female Stormcast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures."

So which is it, don’t accuse each other of bad faith or imply people who disagree with you are insane?

Chill.

That’s sorta the point I was trying to make to you.

I wonder why Manchu... Maybee because stormcast were NOT an established faction fleshed out with an identity and inherently started that way?

But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.

Let's not start accusing one another of being disingenuous; down that road lies unproductive flame wars, and this has been as civil as I could reasonably ask for so far.

Coming from the person indirectly acusing others of insanity for not supporting what they "believe as right" that is a mighty high ladder to fall down from so to speak.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
"I don't care about the lore, i just want female space marines", is not a good argument.

No, but "There is no reason the lore is the way it is other than sheer inertia" is a valid reason to change it. Sexism is not a theme of the setting. Gender relations is not a major theme of the setting. If the Imperium's religious dystopia were based on it in any way whatsoever and it was shown as one of the evils they perpetuate along with xenophobia and dogmatism and genocide, then, y'know, there'd be at least some reason to keep those gender divisions. That isn't a thing. Masculinity does not have to be vital to the identity of every Space Marine.

Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting, you just don't really care for it. Obviously your goal isn't for more representation because that can be done much better else where. You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.

You keep citing "fraternal orders," "monastic orders," etc. while skirting the fact that the material conditions in our world which led to the creation and promotion of those orders do not exist in the deep future dystopia of 40K, (and that, therefore, those orders as they appear in the 40K setting are substantiated on style, appearance, referentiality, and PURE VIBES rather than any intricate/consistent worldbuilding).

40K would/could have libido suppressing drugs, contraception and sterilization, no line of male succession, no family units, no competing religions, technological strength & ability augmentation and literally dozens or hundreds of other factors that comprehensively erode the social/civilizational pressures that caused the formation of the orders these fictional versions echo.

I agree, Not Online, nothing about Stormcast had to be rebooted or reworked in order to have female Stormcast.

It’s not the answer that some ITT want but I think the best point of entry for female SM is actually female CSM.

There were limits to the Emperor’s technomagic, apparently including limiting SM to males. But with Chaos, there are no such limitations.

Note, I am only speaking lore-wise. I doubt female CSM would be all that meaningful as a product.

 insaniak wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Chill. I admit a certain degree of bafflement here; I confess that my expectations and hopes and what I'm seeing are at odds, and I am trying to understand why whilst still advocating for what I believe is right.

To be fair, I suspect that the biggest part of the pushback against is nothing to do with women specifically, and just the result of people not liking change in the things they like. If, prior to the introduction of Primaris Marines, you had started a poll asking if people wanted a new type of marine models that are bigger and tougher with new rules and weapons and high tech vehicles, you would likely have seen a similar pushback.

But, as I said elsewhere, this is really the wrong game to be invested in if you are seriously opposed to change. Hell, the vast majority of the contents of the Marine codex wasn't there at the start. Rhinos and their variants. Land Raiders. Scouts. Flyers. Centurians. It's all been added later. Even the creation process from which this whole 'boys only' theme comes from was not a part of the original Marine background... it was added after the fact.

I realised some time ago that it was easier (and far less stressful) to accept that change happens and just embrace it, or choose to ignore the bits I was less fond of, rather than rail against it happening at all.

Pushback against change is plausible. Likely even. I ultimately don't want to - I refuse to - believe that 65% of the people on these boards are just bigoted and that the hobby is in that bad a state. That's too easy, too divisive, too Us and Them and won't get anything done. Sure, there've been a couple who've just heckled the debate, but they're very much in the minority (and tend to get moderated pretty fast.) So there must be something else going on. I very much welcome the otherwise frustratingly rare opportunity to talk about it, and most posters have seemed willing to engage quite reasonably.

Pushback against change was one of the reasons that I was initially pretty attracted to the Because Cawl Said So method of introducing FSM - I was one of the people who really didn't care for Primaris, and was not happy nor quiet about these new marines supplanting my old army - but FSM Primaris would have made, and might still make, me come around on them. N birds with n-1 stones.

What I now hope that the Primaris demonstrates, however, and GW's continued success in the wake of it, is that change needn't be ruinous to the hobby, at least not to its financial stability.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree, Not Online, nothing about Stormcast had to be rebooted or reworked in order to have female Stormcast.

It’s not the answer that some ITT want but I think the best point of entry for female SM is actually female CSM.

There were limits to the Emperor’s technomagic, apparently including limiting SM to males. But with Chaos, there are no such limitations.

Note, I am only speaking lore-wise. I doubt female CSM would be all that meaningful as a product.

Considering how many people want EC... and slaanesh tendency to change things into opposites... i do think actually that "female" csm would sell well.

I would certainly buy some female Noise Marines, as that is a long-time wish list item for me. Gender-bending seems like an appropriate “gift” for those seeking the favor of Slaanesh.

Additionally, the existence of female CSM in and of itself would be an argument against the divinity of the Emperor. They are beyond the power of the Corpse God to “manufacture” — it requires the true omnipotence of the Ruinous Powers.

 Manchu wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

In a perfectly sane world, I feel like this thread should have ended on page two with a bunch of "Yeah, sures."

So which is it, don’t accuse each other of bad faith or imply people who disagree with you are insane?

Chill.

That’s sorta the point I was trying to make to you.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I wonder why Manchu... Maybee because stormcast were NOT an established faction fleshed out with an identity and inherently started that way?

But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM

At no point did I declare that everyone must accept change. I merely pointed out that it's easier on the liver than shouting at clouds.

 insaniak wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I wonder why Manchu... Maybee because stormcast were NOT an established faction fleshed out with an identity and inherently started that way?

But surely that can't be, considering Insaniaks position we all must accept dictated changes and Kasens , since they argue from a position of "right" . /SARCASM

At no point did I declare that everyone must accept change. I merely pointed out that it's easier on the liver than shouting at clouds.

And at no point is it shouting at clouds either.

Kiro had a nice post in the other thread. Change and retcons just because are damaging to the setting, or indeed all settings. He brought up Harry potter and hermione.