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.

 Manchu wrote:
You responded before my edit but I think it bears clarifying again.

I have no problem with the idea that in the vastness of the galaxy depicted by 40k, and not just vastness in terms of space and time but also the sheer amount of potential for strange things to happen, that somewhere there could be female Space Marines.

That specific “somewhere” in terms of the real world is, in the creative hands of the hobbyists who want to play that specific possibility.

It’s not that female SM strictly have no place in 40k; rather, the place for that is still today what it has always been: as a personal project.

Can't you see the optics on this though? Of ALL the what if scenarios and options in 40k, you've decided that this one thing of all of them shouldn't be legitimised but left in the same realm as the hobby equivalent of fan fiction?

And your sitting on the appeal to tradition fallacy to justify it?

Heads, heads are all that's needed. It is disingenuous to think differently. If you think a Centurion armour need changes to accommodate a female... I really think there's nothing to add here rather than suggesting to look more carefully.

And yes, ALSO some new kits would be AWESOME, specifically for Chaos.
Emperor's Children and World Eaters would be a fantastic place to start introducing new kits with more options for different genders (EC because... Well, just because) and World Eaters because as far as I'm aware if you're angry enough you're good for Khorne (and they have the non secondary impact of recognizing that violence and anger isn't a male prerogative).

I can get behind potential supply chain issue, another overloading of Marines releases etc etc. But those are GW's problems, not us. And you can shout down anything, including inventing fire, if you focus on possible bad effects (everything has those, at least potentially, even the smallest changes).


Tell me how an additional sprue of female head and the official legitimation to make Female Marine hurts your hobby, because I'm see derailing and obfuscation, but not an answer to that.
It's exactly the same that that we already have in terms of additional sprue to create a specific Chapter like DA or SW.

And, I won't to reiterate again: I'm one of those who don't aknowledge Primaris, don't collect them, and I stay true to my Firstborns. There's a very high chance I won't even purchase female marine if available: but I'm not a egocentric maniac: why should my personal indifference come at the expenses of other which instead may want such option? It's an extra option, not a gender-swap.

Fun fact: I never realized, but there's a pretty good alternate Sammael for DA by Wargame Exclusive that is a female. Love the bike (much better than the original) but never thought about buying it because converting the rider would be an hassle.
If Female Marine would have been a thing, I've probably bought it without thinking twice.
So, even when you think something doesn't involve you, you really can never know.

If 40k was invented now, it wouldn't even be a discussion - there'd be female sculpts. Just like stormcast.

If 40k was invented now it would be unrecognisable besides perhaps having mix gender space marines.

For what it's worth, the original rogue trader marines were also referred to as 'battle-kin'. The battle brother stuff was a reference to them being monks as much as anything else, they were a much more religious organisation back then.

 Cybtroll wrote:
It's because we (has a species) don't care about what happens outside our nose and outside our view (for prove see: history).

Perhaps it was brought up in the 70 page megathread, but a frequent element of these two new threads is 'make girl marines for girls, because girls aren't represented by boy marines'
At the end of the day is it really inclusiveness to demand a game represent us personally, or are we being tribal about splitting the toy factions into 'like us' and 'not like us' ?

Deadnight wrote:
If 40k was invented now, it wouldn't even be a discussion - there'd be female sculpts. Just like stormcast.

Totally agree, but it wasn't invented now so we need to consider the immense body of established lore.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
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

I will apologize for inadvertently implying insanity. I like to believe I'm coming from a position of 'reasonable,' and I'm excited to see if it works.

It feels better, at least. I've tried yelling. It's not fun past the short term, and unless you own a significant social media account or news site, only so effective.

its not so much yelling or telling.

It's the attitude and, pardon this, incessant nagging ontop of what looks to a lot of people, including me, more often a morale high horse with broken legs, (because dare bring up that the IP has its draw because it is as it is, and watch getting branded various nices things from outside or inside the hobby, the other thread was full of that gak from both sides), rather than an actual debate. Its simply put: Why would the IP you like not be better if we change it so i like it better, proof that or you are wrong and as proof only my meassurements are accurate and yours are not. and its counter argument: Proof that it needs to be changed! and only my meassuremt is important! When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!

IF people really want inclusivity then force GW to actually diversify the ranges that allow for that or should be that... Especially guard and humanoid xenos factions, but don't attempt to force down change in either sisters of battle or Marines because these factions happen to be popular and you need to make a statement. And as much as that might hurt, that is not a reasonable position, thats validation seeking not change.

Its the incessant need to have ones views on necessary "change" (really just statements not change) validated by, OUT OF ALL THINGS* a fething corporation and at large by a community of Hobbiests that are there to relax and escape reality for some hours a day, that want to imerse themselves in a far flung fantastical universe that has nothing to do with our reality and by virtue of that doesn't NEED to care about our realties politics. (Need is highlighted because 40k was satire, it can care about our politics but it doesn't have to. as does any fictional universe.)

Its the same strain of argument that makes people applaude gw for taking a "stance" in regards to BLM, at a time where that was neither a theme localy where GW is nor has GW as a coporation done anything really, contrary GW has been damaging the TG scene with its predominance quite heavily over the years. It is in most cases internet brownie pts collection and fake change, PR something gw learnt after kirby left but nothing more beyond viedogame style monetisation, since nothing happened and will, nvm that the actually disadvantaged never will be able to enjoy this hobby period due to price alone. Gw still also pays only a pittance to their staff so even fails at providing in its baseline social responsibility that it actually HAS and yet somehow we applaud them for some letters arranged in a sentence about people that don't care about 40k by and large?!?


* i am not a socialist, far from it infact, but jesus chriest a fething company, a corporation even traded in the stockmarket? Why not actually do something and engage locally in politics , attempt to actually make things better for once instead of just berating others and attempting to force them to feel miserable because you need some brownie pts?


And yes i realise this is harsh. But considering Hellebores comment there...

 Cybtroll wrote:


Tell me how an additional sprue of female head and the official legitimation to make Female Marine hurts your hobby, because I'm see derailing and obfuscation, but not an answer to that.

It has been answered, you've just ignored the answer.
It retcons the lore. That alone is harmful.

Why should the desire of 1/3 of this community trump the desire of the remaining 2/3?

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:


Tell me how an additional sprue of female head and the official legitimation to make Female Marine hurts your hobby, because I'm see derailing and obfuscation, but not an answer to that.

It has been answered, you've just ignored the answer.
It retcons the lore. That alone is harmful.

Why should the desire of 1/3 of this community trump the desire of the remaining 2/3?

I'd like to point out that GW retcons the lore all the time. There used to be a time where it was taboo to have any conflict past the 13th Black Crusade. There used to be a time where anti grave technology was just flat out non existent except for one Raven Guard character.

The fact of the matter is, GW doesn't particularly respect its lore except as a way to leverage their IP and increase its value, whether that's through the hobby or licensing deals.

However, with the Primaris shenanigans, we're in an interesting place where there is now an excuse to include female marines that doesn't retcon six or seven words from forty years ago during a time that many of us should find fairly horrific in its treatment of minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, and that GW was a fraction of the size it is now and whose target base was 16-24 year old white males whose buying power has drastically declined since then. We don't have to retcon old lore--we can, in fact, add new lore.

GW could come out tomorrow and say "Including all the random nonsense we threw out there to legitimize primaris since we were too afraid to properly squat the firstborn because of how you grognards reacted to WHFB and AOS, Crawl also made the process work on women, mazel tov!"

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

Shame, because 40k's been doing that for years.

Give sisters genetic alterations for all I care

b-b-but that's breaking the lore!!

Sledgehammer wrote: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.

So Space Marine Bikes shouldn't have been added, because I don't like them? I don't particularly like Dark Eldar, should they not exist?
If I have to "interact" with them that way, why were they added? Maybe, just maybe, it's because there's people who *would* like it.

Apple fox wrote:Right now, it’s just the standard that women are the exception, and all guys tends to be the norm. Thankfully changing.

Quite true. The amount of times I've heard "if you want women, just play Sisters", as if Sisters are only special because they're women - which is a massive underselling of what the Sororitas are.

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.

Custodes have also never been "established" as having women, and are just as explicitly male as the Space Marines are by virtue of also only using male pronouns. Sorry, but Custodes are just as "male" as Space Marines, using all the same arguments that people have used in support of Space Marines being all-male.

Unless you're telling me that maybe we *can* handwave "well established 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.

And, lore-wise, the Emperor seems to have been a massive sexist, making it MORE LIKELY that the Custodes would be all male, and less likely that the Emperor would particularly care to make the Astartes all-male.

You said yourself - Space Marines are mass-produced. In the Imperium, mass-produced things tend to have less things restricting their recruitment: Guardsmen, for example, being mixed gender.

yukishiro1 wrote: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.

You touch on a great point - it's the 41st millenium. Why would the Imperium care about sex or gender? It's not the real world, it's not 2021 in the Imperium, so they should just not care about sex at all!

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 is ultimately self defeating.

Including women Astartes isn't gender-switching. It's gender inclusivity.

Elevate your new diverse characters in new and interesting ways.

But I thought that you were all about preserving the "well established" setting - adding "new diverse characters" would be counter to that.

That's the problem with the whole "we need to preserve the good ol' status quo" argument - you can't then advocate for other change in it without sounding hypocritical.

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.

Again with that old chestnut? The Ghostbusters remake wasn't bad because "women", it was bad because it was a bad film.
But you mention a lack of understanding of the source material - like the lack of understanding that Space Marines are more defined by their factional customisation than their warrior-monk theme (which not all Chapters even follow).

And look, I get it. You like your Black Templars, or your Dark Angels, or your (insert Knightly Chapter here). That's fine. But for every knightly-looking Chapter, there's a White Scars, or Space Wolves, or Emperor's Spears, or Raptors.

Characters are so much more than "insert trait here"

Like how Sisters of Battle are so much more than "women in power armour", and therefore not a suitable substitute for women Astartes?

Sledgehammer wrote:Fraternal orders and militant sororities based on religious crusading is absolutely ingrained in the setting

In... two, three factions? And in one of those factions, was only last mentioned explicitly in a republished web lore document years ago? Wow. Very ingrained.

You know what's also ingrained into the setting? The Imperium being utterly dehumanising and not caring which gender gets thrown into the trenches on the front lines.

But sure - you want to keep a fraternal order around? Why not keep the Custodes?

You'd rather throw out what other people enjoy to get what you want.

Isn't that literally what you're doing with preventing making women Astartes canon? You're throwing out their chances of being recognised and validated, all because you can't bring yourself to share a design space with them? You're throwing out what they enjoy to get what you want?

Manchu wrote: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.

Hey, you do know that the first comment on the "women Stormcast" thread had to be removed because they had more than a little problem with women Stormcast, right? As a mod, I would have expected you to perhaps be aware of the moderation on this site.

Manchu wrote:

I think for many it's less about corporate validation directly, and more about the fact that corporate validation would result in them receiving less abuse online for those conversions.

Strong disagree.

First, people aren’t going out of their way to care about conversions unless they are either notably cool or notably lame.

I'm going to stop you right there, and say that's utter baloney.

In the sister thread to this, Crimson posted a picture of their own woman Astartes. I had the pleasure of seeing that same picture on a facebook group, which is actually where I first saw it. Last I saw, there were three comments on it, going out of their way to denigrate the gender, or the non-canonicity of the model.

Tell me, what was lame about that model that deserved those responses?

kirotheavenger wrote:English doesn't handle genderless too well though, and typically defaults to the male when in doubt.

Look at my sig.

English handles genderless just fine.

Manchu wrote:Again: it isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing.

Sorry, I didn't know you were the arbiter on that.

kirotheavenger wrote:Totally agree, but it wasn't invented now so we need to consider the immense body of established lore.

Were Primaris around 30 years ago?

(edit: I'm talking about the argument that it breaks the lore)
No it doesn't.
Cawl says hello. His friend Unreliable Narrator join to salute. And the homebrew chapter all around the world plus GW itself are currently and constantly gaking all over your precious lore...

Lore in 40k is explicitly and purposely built to be impossible to broke, it's always a misunderstanding of the previous accounts when it happens.
It's pretty easy to notice: I'm baffled you haven't.

You know what happened to Imperial Knight? They were advanced unknowable multi-purpose machines during the DAoT that was disfigured by the war attitude of the Imperium... Until they became war-machine to defend the DAoT colonies and we're always exact of this shape with a chivalrous attitude.
So, retconning? Betraying a faction identity? Cry me a river.
Anyway, I think this shows the necessity for change: people need the official stigmata, like an Imperial Citizen need a permit to add a spoon to their knife.

(BTW, if the reason is the lore, the topic is the other one: I get that you don't have any issue model-wise with female space marine).

Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.

I did mention earlier than "Cawl waved his wand" is the best way for GW to implement female marines.

That doesn't mean I think that's a good way to do it. It's a cheap excuse and honestly that ship sailed two years ago anyway.

The fact that GW has made other, arguably worse, retcons in the past doesn't mean retcons aren't a bad thing.
I totally agree GW could make that retcon, and even that they will make that retcon if they think it's in their interest.
But this topic is about what we think, so I'm sharing what I think so that's really not all that important.

Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!

Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?

And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.

Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.

I did mention earlier than "Cawl waved his wand" is the best way for GW to implement female marines.

That doesn't mean I think that's a good way to do it. It's a cheap excuse and honestly that ship sailed two years ago anyway.

The fact that GW has made other, arguably worse, retcons in the past doesn't mean retcons aren't a bad thing.
I totally agree GW could make that retcon, and even that they will make that retcon if they think it's in their interest.
But this topic is about what we think, so I'm sharing what I think so that's really not all that important.

Cawl making it happen isn’t a retcon, it’s a setting making progress.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.

Oh, I agree. I've never had an issue with hover tanks or Primaris.

But also, women Space Marines have existed before, back in Rogue Trader. So, it's hardly like they've also been "non-existent" either.

It's a gross mischaracterisation to suggest anyone is saying the 40k universe is predicated on the denial of women in Space Marines.

Similarly, appeals to previous retcons are stupid.
I hate the Primaris retcon with a burning passion, to name just one example.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Anti-grav tech has never been non-existent. I don't even know where people go that notion from given Landspeeders have been a Space Marine staple for forever, and Servoskulls are everywhere.

I did mention earlier than "Cawl waved his wand" is the best way for GW to implement female marines.

That doesn't mean I think that's a good way to do it. It's a cheap excuse and honestly that ship sailed two years ago anyway.

The fact that GW has made other, arguably worse, retcons in the past doesn't mean retcons aren't a bad thing.
I totally agree GW could make that retcon, and even that they will make that retcon if they think it's in their interest.
But this topic is about what we think, so I'm sharing what I think so that's really not all that important.

So what you're saying is, there is no situation in which you would accept female space marines and be happy or even neutral about it? Because it would retcon the existing lore? And adding new lore around this particular subject would be 'bad'?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's a gross mischaracterisation to suggest anyone is saying the 40k universe is predicated on the denial of women in Space Marines.

So why are people saying that it was be ruinous to the setting?

It certainly sounds like that if Space Marines were allowed to have women, the setting would be "ruined", and 40k would become this "generic" piece of sci-fantasy, and everything that people love would evaporate.
And I'm purely going on what people have said in this thread.

Similarly, appeals to previous retcons are stupid.

And similarly, appeals to the sanctity of the lore and how it's all "well established" are stupid too by the same logic!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!

Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?

And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.

Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.

The necron rewrite I think is a big look at how the setting treats women, they gained far more personality and went from a genderless malevolent beings. To male, the only necrons with any feminine traits where killed off in a book they where introduced in years after the change.
Unless the newer book has changed that it shows that at least in the passed that GW was a issue in that treatment itself.
Nerdy media has a big issue with this and it’s only though significant push that we even get the chance at representation without objectification.
Until that evens I think the desire for female marines will stay quite hot, as to gain equal support in this GW part of the hobby it’s really the only way at current.

Retcon as usually intended can't happens in 40k because the setting isn't wrote like that.

We know those are retcon, GW knows that, but they're not. Their lore is ineffable, so it can't contradict itself. There's always a way, and I find depressing that player of a supposed creative game don't get it.

If tomorrow GW presented an all female Chapter emerged from the depths of space because none ever told them that Marine were male only and their planetary culture is similar to Amazon with female warrior and male caring houses and children...
That would be fine and 100% coherent with the lore: space is big, and the Imperium itself (but I dare to say: the Emperor himself) don't know the finessesa
and intricacies of the process: what we have is only a crude (unreliable) account of a process designed 10k year ago.
That was a "retcon" by the way: rather than the genius Emperor's work Space Marine are created by his scientist. Do you have any idea how much of the older lore this contradicts?

There were female Space Marines early on: Both models and the Sister Sin purging a Rainbow Warrior artwork from the Rogue Trader era.

Then GW did it right and instead made Sisters of Battle into their very own cool thing. Do not dilute this improvement of 40k worldbuilding: Monk and nun elite warrior orders shall not be mixed. Pluck archaic strings, and know your instrument.

There is fundamentally no other reason than this: It isn't about space tech, popular palatability or anything else. Sometime in the 1990s, GW saw that they played better to the spirit of their own setting by making elite warrior monks and elite warrior nuns into their own separate orders. The plebeian Imperial Guard is not the arena for this, and neither is the eclectic Inquisition or the Mechanicus and Titanicus with their contempt for matters of the flesh. No, the Astartes, Sororitas, Custodes and Sisters of Silence are the relevant arenas for religious warrior orders. Monks and nuns of war.

This is the crux of the matter, and the final say for those with the holistic vision to see the setting as a whole.

Just turn the steak around: How bland and un-archaic wouldn't the concept of male Sisters of Battle be?

Kudos to Games Workshop for sticking to their guns where so many others would have folded.

That is creative integrity.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!

Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?

And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.

Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.

These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.

you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.
You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.

Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.

But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.
Sisters of silence have as well if I rember reading back, also super neglected.

Also can large pictures be spoilered. Makes the entire page effectively unreadable on my tablet.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!

Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?

And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.

Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.

Spoiler:

These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.

you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.
You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.

Yeah, the whole idea that people aren't interested in the hobby because there aren't enough X models is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the game is a niche hobby with an expensive price tag that also happens to have some maladjusted individuals.
A smokescreen that works in GW's favor, because whilst everyone is arguing over that they are just going to keep ramping up the price.

It's backwards thinking, there are more complex factors at play here than "not enough girly marines"

Well, praising GW for creative integrity I think it's more than enough to put into a precise context all the rest of your consideration.

Also, put image in spoiler please: I get that you don't evaluate much others in your consideration, but you are making this page unreadable by phone browser.

Apple fox wrote:
Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.

But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.

And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art"
If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!

Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?

And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.

Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.

Did it ever ocur to you, that a lot of people are disagreeing with you because you are willfully missrepresenting them and by virtue of that start to become hostile to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.

But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.

And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art"
If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.

Rule 34 you mean. Not just the fanbase. If it exists theres porn is about the only universal rule for Mankind.

Karak Norn Clansman wrote:Monk and nun elite warrior orders shall not be mixed. Pluck archaic strings, and know your instrument.

But werewolves, vampires, and tacticool spec ops? Those are all fine tunes to be plucked on archaic strings?

Sounds like those strings are a little bit dissonant, if you ask me.

No, the Astartes, Sororitas, Custodes and Sisters of Silence are the relevant arenas for religious warrior orders. Monks and nuns of war.

Are Space Marines also the relevant arena for werewolves? Wolf driven hover sleds?

This is the crux of the matter, and the final say for those with the holistic vision to see the setting as a whole.

I *think* I just about heard that dogwhistle there. Nearly went over my head.

Just turn the steak around: How bland and un-archaic wouldn't the concept of male Sisters of Battle be?

I'd be pretty fine with it. After all, Sisters of Battle are much more than just their gender, aren't they?

Kudos to Games Workshop for sticking to their guns where so many others would have folded.

That is creative integrity.

On the other hand, sticking to firing guns that have no target is also a waste of ammunition. Just to keep the metaphor.

BrianDavion wrote:These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.

And my gender is none of your concern, but I collect armies from across the gender spectrum. I don't need to match genitals with my plastic war dolls (also, gender isn't the same as sex or genitals. Just to correct on that) - but I do want to see a good range of stuff, and I want to see it visibly.

you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.

I never said it was the only way. Don't put words in my mouth.

Also, you claim that wanting to have models that represent you is "sexist"? Gee, I think you might just be calling some of the people who are anti-women Astartes in this thread here sexist!

You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.

And I've spoken to my friends (women, I figured I should specify), and they've said that how women are relegated to sexualised factions, and the fervour that people will go to in order to fight back against women Astartes is what puts them off, and contributes to that "maladjusted basement dwelling" attitude.

BrianDavion wrote:


These are my sisters of battle. I am a Hetrosexual white male (and I identify as male), And I collect sisters of battle, for some reason the issue of my plastic minis need to match my dangly bits never occured to me.

This is not really up for debate. It's well established in marketing is that you market to an audience. Do you think it's a coincidence that media movies aimed for the 18-34 white male demographic has male leads all in that range or slightly older?

And if someone walks into a Games Workshop and all they see are hyper masculine space marines in all the advertising, they're going to be less inclined to join the hobby. In fact, realistically, their only options are hyper religious, sexualized zealots or evil hellraiser space elves because every other army has gak representation. Versus the astartes, which make up over half the hobby and are the lowest common denominator as far as flexibility. Except only as long as they're dudes.

BrianDavion wrote:

you keep insisting that female marines is the only way to "grow the Hobby" but I reject that premise, I reject the idea that people are so sexist they won't play mini's that have a differant gender then them.

Uhm. People in this very thread are basically saying that adding women to space marines will ruin the hobby forever, even though it actually won't affect their models and the only difference being they can't denigrate anyone for having custom female marines. Oh, and I guess they might occasionally see a space marine with long hair?

Granted, that's not everyone. Pretty much any currently 40k playing female will have to play with models that are a different gender than them unless they lean heavily into dark eldar, Tau, or SoB. But how many new players could be attracted to the hobby if women were better represented? We'll probably never know because people continually lose their gak whenever the subject is brought up.

At the end of the day, it's a subject that keeps getting brought up, so there is clearly a portion of the community that does in fact want female space marines, for whatever reason. So are you going to tell them to suck it up because you play SoB but have the option of playing every other army as male or gender neutral only that they shouldn't even have the option?

BrianDavion wrote:

You keep talking abouty how women don't feel welcome in the Hobby. I just don't think space marines are what drives that. I've talked to female gamers and they've told me WHY. it's not the "guys in power armr" that turns em off. it's the maladjusted basement dwellers creeping on them when they enter the store that does it.

And you don't think that the flagship face of the hobby being a hyper masculine boys only club isn't sending a specific kind of message on what this space is and might in some way be contributing to that unwelcoming culture?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Sisters of battle have been highly Fetishised over the years, they are great within the setting for what they are, and getting way better.

But they are not a great counter point to the desire for better representation.

And female space marines haven't? You need to look at some more "fan art"
If FSM becomes a thing they'll get fetishized too with "dommy marine mommy" nonsense. Because that's how the fanbase works.

I will say, the same has already been done with *male* Space Marines too.

I'm sure that's not what you're arguing, but the "we can't make that canon, they'll make NSFW material of it!" argument has already faltered by now.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:When the argument should be : HOW CAN WE REPRESENT THE fething UNIVERSE BETTER ON THE fething TABLE AND HOW CAN WE GROW OUR GAMING COMMUNITIES!

Why isn't the argument "Why is the universe so predicated on the denial of women in this one particular faction?" Why is the absence of women such a critical feature that we can add hover tanks, we can revive Primarchs, we can rewrite Necrons, and we can bring dead characters to life, but we can't have a headswap on our plastic war dolls?

And what if "growing our gaming communities" comes at the cost of "representing the ****ing universe on the ****ing table"? Which do you prioritise? Because it sure seems that people would rather have the latter than the former - so, perhaps don't mention them in the same breath.

Also, the swear filter's doing wonders for you, but when I quote it, I can see every word. Swearing doesn't make your argument look any better, especially as gratuitously as that.

Did it ever ocur to you, that a lot of people are disagreeing with you because you are willfully missrepresenting them and by virtue of that start to become hostile to you?

What part am I wilfully misrepresenting?

And bold to claim that the same isn't being done back to me. I've already had to point out how I never claimed that "women Space Marines will fix everything and this is the only problem with 40k's blatant faults of representation!"

So please, if I'm misrepresenting, I'd love to see where. Perhaps you can elaborate on what I'm missing.