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:

Or maybe there is no "DIY faction"

I have one of those unpainted Primaris funko pops right on my deskside. Do you know what it says on the box of that Primaris funko pop?

"DIY".

You sure missed that point by a country mile
Maybe it says "DIY" because it's unpainted, not because it refers to the Space Marine faction?

If you admit that Guard are the most flexible in lore, why is your solution to coopt a less flexible faction just because they're better catered for modelwise, rather than advocating for putting greater focus elsewhere.

Apple fox wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Are they really sexist? or are they critical of certain attempts at influence by a minority or outsiders of the hobby?

We happen to be part of the hobby, it’s entirely that to dismiss and push us out.
It’s that specifically that turn this discussion hostile, using terms like Woke as a negative is used constantly in very specific ways.

So on the other hands people should just deal with the agenda, accept the change and shut their mouths i guess? The demand for what they deem out of an multitude reasons unnecessary or worsening change? And when they articulate that they are called sexists? Mysoginists? And above we have that admitted?

So calling the other side slurs is fine now" BeCaUsE ThEY DiD sO ToO!!!!" From insinuations of insanity to sexism?

And from that point further, theres the status quo of the univers existing as it is with the heavily drawn inspirations as it does right now and you just assume that people accept that change because you tell them too?


F.e. under the guise of the argument that the lore and setting constantly changed and therefore that would be nothing new, and the case of that exemple was the 13th crusade and by virtue of that the characther of abbadon, the single worst exemple beyond maybe magic wand alpha legion in all of chaos and a sever pitfall that to this day cripples the story side of things of chaos?
Was that really a good change? Last i checked Abbadon and his 13th (number what is it now 3? this time we tore the galaxy a new one edition?) was still regarded with contempt for how badly he was written and retconned. Its "disfunctional" lore as in it doesn't jive well with the rest of the story...

Not Online!!! wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Are they really sexist? or are they critical of certain attempts at influence by a minority or outsiders of the hobby?

We happen to be part of the hobby, it’s entirely that to dismiss and push us out.
It’s that specifically that turn this discussion hostile, using terms like Woke as a negative is used constantly in very specific ways.

So on the other hands people should just deal with the agenda, accept the change and shut their mouths i guess? The demand for what they deem out of an multitude reasons unnecessary or worsening change? And when they articulate that they are called sexists? Mysoginists? And above we have that admitted?

So calling the other side slurs is fine now" BeCaUsE ThEY DiD sO ToO!!!!" From insinuations of insanity to sexism?

What agenda? and no, I actually think space marines being all men is fine, in a setting well maintain and well thought out.
But at the same time this discussion is important as 40k has some serious issues,

But it’s funny how you can accuse one side of things when they put those posts up first, there is more to the harm words can do than Slurs. It is a response to that specifically.
It seems it’s fine for some people to do that, but not in response.

 Cybtroll wrote:
I'm talking about unhelmeted head obviously. Does it need specification or were you just muddling the water even more?

(And that's about model anyway, not lore).

And about their supposed monastic life... Did you read the standard day of a Marine? It's much more akin to a special forces training regimen then a monastic life.
Aside from the fact that, of course, that I would say that the biggest part of monks and nuns identities are their detachment for material worries, and the fact that they don't fight. Both flying in the face of Marine.

So, maybe you are confusing your stereotypes of monks with the real deal. Kind of life you're stereotyping people as woke because they think more options is better than less.

We have the DIY faction: let's take it seriously.

why would general female space marine troopers not wear helmets when their counterpart does? Why would they go in to battle as the main force of the army without helmets. The only space marines that dont wear helmets are often those with character keywords to look bad ass. the normal troop choices and what not wear helmets. So why would females not wear helmets just so we can see they are female for your pleasure? that makes even LESS sense than adding helmets that are feminine.

Both cases are rediculous

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Please, could you show me?

When I edit sections from quotes out, I do it to avoid massive blocks of text. Lord knows my text blocks are large enough as is.

Multiple points in the same ballpark of the part you quoted.
Including but not limited to the typical debate style involved centered squarly arround subjective sentiments, with not so much a hint of understanding or attempt at of the opposing side (both ways).

Which is why I've been asking people to unpack their subjective statements, so that I don't misrepresent them. Unfortunately, people don't tend to like doing that, for some reason.

An need to seek validation via company for a (supposedly) needed social political change in an fantastical universe which serves as a ground escapism for reasons of validation again of ones own agenda.

So why, when some people want that escapism, are they told they can't have it, because it would be "non-canon"?

Because there ARE options for GW to increase the diversity without NEEDING to force feed an agenda into Marines OR Sisters for that matter.

I agree. Including women Astartes doesn't need an agenda, other than "because it's cool".

CthuluIsSpy wrote:]Most "generic" chapters still have references to monastics though.

"Generic" Chapters? Examples?

Most "generic" Chapters we know very little about overall, and often when we do get more information about them, we see how much they differ from the standard model of other Chapters.

It's just that some chapters go all in (such as Black Templars and arguably Dark Angels) and others barely touch upon it (such as Space Wolves).

Yes, agreed. So, sure, maybe the Templars don't have women Astartes, but why not the Space Wolves?

Vikings also underwent their own set of religious rituals too, so they arguably were the Norse version of Military Orders anyway.

Yes, they absolutely did - but they didn't have the same rules that the Teutonic orders had, which is why I'm highlighting this point about this supposed "one-size-fits-all" military order and warrior-monk lifestyle. There is no single culture that the Space Marines derive from - so why are we sticking to the cultural practices of one group that not all Astartes draw from?

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Or maybe there is no "DIY faction"

I have one of those unpainted Primaris funko pops right on my deskside. Do you know what it says on the box of that Primaris funko pop?

"DIY".

You sure missed that point by a country mile
Maybe it says "DIY" because it's unpainted, not because it refers to the Space Marine faction?

Notice how they didn't release an unpainted funko pop of another faction?

If you admit that Guard are the most flexible in lore, why is your solution to coopt a less flexible faction just because they're better catered for modelwise, rather than advocating for putting greater focus elsewhere.

Because the Guard are *so* customisable in the lore that GW physically can't represent that accurately.

Space Marines, on the other hand, all use the same core template - a Space Wolf uses the same power armour baseline as an Ultramarine or Dark Angel. Guardsmen don't have that.

Not Online!!! wrote:So on the other hands people should just deal with the agenda, accept the change and shut their mouths i guess?

Again, "agenda"? We just want women Astartes.

What's the agenda here? Why is that a different agenda to "we don't want women Astartes"?

The demand for what they deem out of an multitude reasons unnecessary or worsening change?

And what about the demand for what could also be deemed unnecessary and harmful exclusionism?

And when they articulate that they are called sexists? Mysoginists?

And when we articulate that, we are told we have an agenda, or are SJWs, or "woke"?

Sounds like this applies both ways to me.

Apple fox wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Are they really sexist? or are they critical of certain attempts at influence by a minority or outsiders of the hobby?

We happen to be part of the hobby, it’s entirely that to dismiss and push us out.
It’s that specifically that turn this discussion hostile, using terms like Woke as a negative is used constantly in very specific ways.

So on the other hands people should just deal with the agenda, accept the change and shut their mouths i guess? The demand for what they deem out of an multitude reasons unnecessary or worsening change? And when they articulate that they are called sexists? Mysoginists? And above we have that admitted?

So calling the other side slurs is fine now" BeCaUsE ThEY DiD sO ToO!!!!" From insinuations of insanity to sexism?

What agenda? and no, I actually think space marines being all men is fine, in a setting well maintain and well thought out.
But at the same time this discussion is important as 40k has some serious issues,

But it’s funny how you can accuse one side of things when they put those posts up first, there is more to the harm words can do than Slurs. It is a response to that specifically.
It seems it’s fine for some people to do that, but not in response.

See edit in regards to the storyline.

Also: On the last page we have smudge openly admit that smudge has that agenda.
And its not fine, i highlighted both as issues of this debate.

Insofar as the votes go it speaks a plenty clear picture aswell.

Beardedragon wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
I'm talking about unhelmeted head obviously. Does it need specification or were you just muddling the water even more?

(And that's about model anyway, not lore).

And about their supposed monastic life... Did you read the standard day of a Marine? It's much more akin to a special forces training regimen then a monastic life.
Aside from the fact that, of course, that I would say that the biggest part of monks and nuns identities are their detachment for material worries, and the fact that they don't fight. Both flying in the face of Marine.

So, maybe you are confusing your stereotypes of monks with the real deal. Kind of life you're stereotyping people as woke because they think more options is better than less.

We have the DIY faction: let's take it seriously.

why would general female space marine troopers not wear helmets when their counterpart does?

... you do know that there are plenty of bare-headed Space Marines heads on their sprues, right?

No-one's saying that ONLY unhelmeted Space Marines need to be women, or that women can only be unhelmeted, but that they want the option, like how the option exists for men.

The only space marines that dont wear helmets are often those with character keywords to look bad ass. the normal troop choices and what not wear helmets.

Firstly, what if I want the Space Marines in my army with character keywords to be women?
Secondly, that's flat out incorrect. Look at GW's own models - plenty of rank and file Space Marines are helmetless.

Both cases are rediculous

I agree that they're ridiculous, but that's what happens when you blatantly misrepresent someone's argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also: On the last page we have smudge openly admit that he has that agenda.

Two things:
- Did I? I don't believe I did. And hark at you for saying I was misrepresenting arguments!

- Check my sig.

Seems to me that we need a female heads sprue and some fluff to use female Primaris models as Primaris Adepta Sororita. Make them identical to the male Primaris and then people can choose without compromising the stories of existing SM chapters. If you want female Space Marines then go for it, if not then they are just trans human power armoured Sisters of Battle.

Might work?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Please, could you show me?

When I edit sections from quotes out, I do it to avoid massive blocks of text. Lord knows my text blocks are large enough as is.

Multiple points in the same ballpark of the part you quoted.
Including but not limited to the typical debate style involved centered squarly arround subjective sentiments, with not so much a hint of understanding or attempt at of the opposing side (both ways).

Which is why I've been asking people to unpack their subjective statements, so that I don't misrepresent them. Unfortunately, people don't tend to like doing that, for some reason.

Most gave you a reason, rangeing from integrity of the storyline to just dislike of the idea.

An need to seek validation via company for a (supposedly) needed social political change in an fantastical universe which serves as a ground escapism for reasons of validation again of ones own agenda.

So why, when some people want that escapism, are they told they can't have it, because it would be "non-canon"?

Because there ARE options for GW to increase the diversity without NEEDING to force feed an agenda into Marines OR Sisters for that matter.

I agree. Including women Astartes doesn't need an agenda, other than "because it's cool".

And the majority does disagree with you. Most people seem to think that the homogenised sisters and marines seem to better for it as a story element. And its the status quo on top of it, so the burden actually is on your shoulders not of those that oppose the change.

Not Online!!! wrote:So on the other hands people should just deal with the agenda, accept the change and shut their mouths i guess?

Again, "agenda"? We just want women Astartes.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Are they really sexist? or are they critical of certain attempts at influence by a minority or outsiders of the hobby?

We happen to be part of the hobby, it’s entirely that to dismiss and push us out.
It’s that specifically that turn this discussion hostile, using terms like Woke as a negative is used constantly in very specific ways.

So on the other hands people should just deal with the agenda, accept the change and shut their mouths i guess? The demand for what they deem out of an multitude reasons unnecessary or worsening change? And when they articulate that they are called sexists? Mysoginists? And above we have that admitted?

So calling the other side slurs is fine now" BeCaUsE ThEY DiD sO ToO!!!!" From insinuations of insanity to sexism?

What agenda? and no, I actually think space marines being all men is fine, in a setting well maintain and well thought out.
But at the same time this discussion is important as 40k has some serious issues,

But it’s funny how you can accuse one side of things when they put those posts up first, there is more to the harm words can do than Slurs. It is a response to that specifically.
It seems it’s fine for some people to do that, but not in response.

See edit in regards to the storyline.

Also: On the last page we have smudge openly admit that he has that agenda.
And its not fine, i highlighted both as issues of this debate.

Insofar as the votes go it speaks a plenty clear picture aswell.

I said the agenda comment since everyone here has one, and holds a position.
It’s very targeted wording, with the others used in those posts it paints a really bad look that can’t really be brushed away.
I actually don’t need female marines, I want female representation across the board to break down the issues that 40k really has.
I will go back and read the edit as well. (I actually agree, chaos highlights the big mess that is the 40k setting. Where is the demon lady’s and princess. For me when I started, I loved chaos since it represented that the imperium was possibly just as wrong as the side with the monsters. And that both sides could find equilibrium in a setting that was not 40k. 40k gonna burn slowly down ! And it’s the humans that did, much grim for me at the time )
But I would highlight a issue, in so much media it is already assume male until otherwise noted, 40k space marines are just following a norm set and it’s a real issue that quite often it’s the same thing.
Female representation is the only time people will come out to defend to such a degree, lore and the setting is mostly pushed aside for anything else. It’s even a really evident pattern with GW, with age of sigmar being a welcome change for the company

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Notice how they didn't release an unpainted funko pop of another faction?

Because Space Marines are by far the most popular they know it's profitable to sell multiple different examples that style of Funko Pop.
I'm having trouble bending my head around trying to use Funko Pops to reinforce assertions about the 40k line as a whole.

Again, "agenda"? We just want women Astartes.

Who's we? 2/3 of this community DOESN'T want female astartes.
I'd also say it's pretty clear you want more than just female astartes as well. If that really was all you wanted you could just do it, many others have. What you actually want is GW to validate female astartes for you, why?

[Edit: answering to Zenbadger above]
From my point of view, yes, it may work properly. In the end I'm only interested in not stifling the creativity of modelist.

I don't think it's the best way to do so, but perfection isn't of this world, so I would be ok with it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also: On the last page we have smudge openly admit that he has that agenda.

Two things:
- Did I? I don't believe I did. And hark at you for saying I was misrepresenting arguments!

- Check my sig.

i did explain why it is and or regarded as a political agenda or percieved as an illegitimate demand of change via agenda down there.


Secondary: Mea culpa, ironically one of your posts seemingly has swallowed your sig.

Not Online!!! wrote:Most gave you a reason, rangeing from integrity of the storyline to just dislike of the idea.

And I unpicked "integrity of the storyline" myself, and asked for additional insight on "dislike of the idea". I rarely got responses that unpicked it further.

An need to seek validation via company for a (supposedly) needed social political change in an fantastical universe which serves as a ground escapism for reasons of validation again of ones own agenda.

So why, when some people want that escapism, are they told they can't have it, because it would be "non-canon"?

Because there ARE options for GW to increase the diversity without NEEDING to force feed an agenda into Marines OR Sisters for that matter.

I agree. Including women Astartes doesn't need an agenda, other than "because it's cool".

And the majority does disagree with you.

Games Workshop has about 2.7 billion reasons why the status quo is a good idea.

Every single member of this forum is, or was, a fan of 40k and stands as another reason why the status quo is a good idea.

"Status Quo means nothing" is simply false.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Notice how they didn't release an unpainted funko pop of another faction?

Because Space Marines are by far the most popular they know it's profitable to sell multiple different examples that style of Funko Pop.
I'm having trouble bending my head around trying to use Funko Pops to reinforce assertions about the 40k line as a whole.

Exactly - Space Marines are the most *profitable*, and a lot of that profit comes from their design as a very easily customised and marketable design that tailors well to personalisation.

Again, "agenda"? We just want women Astartes.

Who's we? 2/3 of this community DOESN'T want female astartes.

So don't add them into your army. Simple.

I'd also say it's pretty clear you want more than just female astartes as well.

Oh? What else do I want?

And be careful, I'm sure you'd hate to misrepresent anyone.

If that really was all you wanted you could just do it, many others have. What you actually want is GW to validate female astartes for you, why?

Because I'm sick of people shouting down people's throat that their models are "non-canon" and insulting them because they have the gall to stick a woman's head on their plastic war doll.

If people were *actually* as grown up and mature and welcoming as you imply, this wouldn't be an issue - but it is.

I want GW to validate women Astartes because they're cool, and because people use their illegitimacy in the lore as an excuse to insult real human beings.

Savvy?

Not Online!!! wrote:i did explain why it is and or regarded as a political agenda or percieved as an illegitimate demand of change via agenda down there.

Other people's perception and regardings doesn't make it the case. That *is* misrepresentation.

Secondary: Mea culpa, ironically one of your posts seemingly has swallowed your sig.

Not a problem, in which case, I'll remind that it says They/Them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Games Workshop has about 2.7 billion reasons why the status quo is a good idea.

And a potential several other billion why it might not be.

Every single member of this forum is, or was, a fan of 40k and stands as another reason why the status quo is a good idea.

It really doesn't (especially the "was" a fan part - you don't even know how many people here actively still play 40k!) - status quo is useless if you can't defend it in the first place beyond "it is what it is".

It should be noted, that when you exclude groups. That is the first political choice made, not the response to that.

When GW made marines male only, they made a political statement within the setting. Does it hold up, hmm, I mostly think it’s kinda dumb currently.
In the mystery of the decline of the imperium it’s a plot to work with. As we learn so much, it sorta just reinforces the writers are a bit over there heads.
The emperor being less of the man worshiped is supportive of the idea.
It is a point within the setting, a start to the traditions that the marine chapters are not equipped to change.
And the imperium has no reason to bother.

Apple fox wrote:


I said the agenda comment since everyone here has one, and holds a position.
It’s very targeted wording, with the others used in those posts it paints a really bad look that can’t really be brushed away.
I actually don’t need female marines, I want female representation across the board to break down the issues that 40k really has.
I will go back and read the edit as well. (I actually agree, chaos highlights the big mess that is the 40k setting. Where is the demon lady’s and princess. For me when I started, I loved chaos since it represented that the imperium was possibly just as wrong as the side with the monsters. And that both sides could find equilibrium in a setting that was not 40k. 40k gonna burn slowly down ! And it’s the humans that did, much grim for me at the time )
But I would highlight a issue, in so much media it is already assume male until otherwise noted, 40k space marines are just following a norm set and it’s a real issue that quite often it’s the same thing.
Female representation is the only time people will come out to defend to such a degree, lore and the setting is mostly pushed aside for anything else. It’s even a really evident pattern with GW, with age of sigmar being a welcome change for the company

Maybee use less politically loaded terminology then.

IT can be brushed away though since a lot of the demand of such changes have been uttered from outside hobbies and against the wishes of the actual hobiests, cue mainline comics f.e. Assuming then that the same can happen to this hobby will people make lash out against such sugestions, probably more harshly than they deserve.
Remember: theres a difference between poltily telling someone off and impolitely.....People will defend what they know and that is not wrong.


Further in regards of the lore, i don't agree with that sentiment it get's themathised quite a bit... i f.e. quite despise some of the nu gw sales introdcutions and fiddlying with the lore for sales reasons... especially in regards to chaos... i have quite a whole slew of issues in regards to reresentation there in regards to GW, especially thanks to GW yeeting the board representing capabilites of my main army... and i'd have some very choice words for that aswell.

Recent slaanesh daemons were a good thing though, but storyline wise... the reason failbadon the (h)armless exists in memeform moreso than in his full title is very justified in regards to the attrocities gw pulled in regards to his lore....

And better not get me started on Alpha legion, the word bearers representation or the new "TM"able "TM" naming "TM" conventions ..............or cawl for that matter, albeit cawl has atleast developped a bit outside torwards just badly written plot device away from magic wand for sales purposes....

Contrast that with marine lore being unflinching and unchancheing and having a imperial mirror in regards to the powerfull player the ecclesiarchy and their sisters and the general lack of trust and stagnating internal fighting.. which by extension makes the homogenisation an actually usefull tool to tell the story of the stagnating empire which is internally divided.......

meanwhile abbadon goes on the 13 th (really 17th) black crusade and the mortal turncoats that actually would endanger imperial hegemony and legitimacy have been legended.

But don't fret, we now got female cadian heads... on some of the most meh to bad minis gw has ever designed... Here would you like a marine instead? With or without spikes? Most of the issues in regards to GW and representing their universe on the board are selfinflicted by GW, via a lack of support as highlighted here or just outright company internal politicking or greed...

Not Online!!! wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I said the agenda comment since everyone here has one, and holds a position.
It’s very targeted wording, with the others used in those posts it paints a really bad look that can’t really be brushed away.
I actually don’t need female marines, I want female representation across the board to break down the issues that 40k really has.
I will go back and read the edit as well. (I actually agree, chaos highlights the big mess that is the 40k setting. Where is the demon lady’s and princess. For me when I started, I loved chaos since it represented that the imperium was possibly just as wrong as the side with the monsters. And that both sides could find equilibrium in a setting that was not 40k. 40k gonna burn slowly down ! And it’s the humans that did, much grim for me at the time )
But I would highlight a issue, in so much media it is already assume male until otherwise noted, 40k space marines are just following a norm set and it’s a real issue that quite often it’s the same thing.
Female representation is the only time people will come out to defend to such a degree, lore and the setting is mostly pushed aside for anything else. It’s even a really evident pattern with GW, with age of sigmar being a welcome change for the company

Maybee use less politically loaded terminology then.

IT can be brushed away though since a lot of the demand of such changes have been uttered from outside hobbies and against the wishes of the actual hobiests, cue mainline comics f.e. Assuming then that the same can happen to this hobby will people make lash out against such sugestions, probably more harshly than they deserve.
Remember: theres a difference between poltily telling someone off and impolitely.....People will defend what they know and that is not wrong.


Further in regards of the lore, i don't agree with that sentiment it get's themathised quite a bit... i f.e. quite despise some of the nu gw sales introdcutions and fiddlying with the lore for sales reasons... especially in regards to chaos... i have quite a whole slew of issues in regards to reresentation there in regards to GW, especially thanks to GW yeeting the board representing capabilites of my main army... and i'd have some very choice words for that aswell.

Recent slaanesh daemons were a good thing though, but storyline wise... the reason failbadon the (h)armless exists in memeform moreso than in his full title is very justified in regards to the attrocities gw pulled in regards to his lore....

And better not get me started on Alpha legion, the word bearers representation or the new "TM"able "TM" naming "TM" conventions ..............or cawl for that matter, albeit cawl has atleast developped a bit outside torwards just badly written plot device away from magic wand for sales purposes....

The posts highlighted where extreamly political charged, when having to baby step around others when they do not have to show the same is itself quite charged in the same light.
Comics are there own thing, and often now the ones that are better written are wining out. Some of the most popular and best selling are from the pushed agenda it seems.
My own comics are doing great considering

Also, when I talk of chaos. I don’t mean the marine forces only, but chaos as a whole. Deamons and humans, as I have used my chaos marines with the marine codex for years.
Chaos been pushed into a box, and it sucks that it really has been.
Slaanesh is good, but it’s also a case where feminine side is fetishised and placed into a negative. With demons being manifested they should at least have some feminine traits, and in a oppressive environment almost anyone should be willing to try there hand at demon hood.

My imperium guard army is effect none GW now in its entirety.
A cat hybrid regiment is in the works for kill team

Dear god, its a furry Jokes aside. you did miss half my edits....

Also i stated mainline for a reason. Changes to established charachters against their identity didn't do good, surprsingly /S

As for slaanesh... well.. slaanesh does slaanesh, atleast its fetishising issue is all encompassing and true to its charachter. That is more than we can say about abbadon.. or Nightlords constantly getting portrayed with the one studio helldrake and forgefiend i believe... (espeically in that regards because we have good looking chaos aircraft... )

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dear god, its a furry Jokes aside. you did miss half my edits....

Also i stated mainline for a reason. Changes to established charachters against their identity didn't do good, surprsingly /S

As for slaanesh... well.. slaanesh does slaanesh, atleast his fetishising issue is all encompassing and true to its charachter. That is more than we can say about abbadon.. or Nightlords constantly getting portrayed with the one studio helldrake and forgefiend i believe...

I am on a iPad and typing with a pen in a cast, makes it hard to check edits.
And it’s going to be awesome, sanctioned beastmen. Already have others to go with them.

I actually think the worst offender for lore issues is the Horus heresy, can’t get more mainline than that.
For slaanesh I think it’s great, GW mostly doing it right.
It’s finally pulling demons out of there low effort point, chaos had no love for a long time.

Apple fox wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dear god, its a furry Jokes aside. you did miss half my edits....

Also i stated mainline for a reason. Changes to established charachters against their identity didn't do good, surprsingly /S

As for slaanesh... well.. slaanesh does slaanesh, atleast his fetishising issue is all encompassing and true to its charachter. That is more than we can say about abbadon.. or Nightlords constantly getting portrayed with the one studio helldrake and forgefiend i believe...

I am on a iPad and typing with a pen in a cast, makes it hard to check edits.
And it’s going to be awesome, sanctioned beastmen. Already have others to go with them.

I actually think the worst offender for lore issues is the Horus heresy, can’t get more mainline than that.
For slaanesh I think it’s great, GW mostly doing it right.
It’s finally pulling demons out of there low effort point, chaos had no love for a long time.

Well GW took a 3rd of chaos (arguably the most important by number and lore) behind the shed so to speak..
Atleast daemons getting something out of that is indeed an... improvement.
As for the heresy i am 50 % sure it was their biggest mistake for the lore and 50 % sure that it is also their best idea...
The problem now is, getting a coherent heresy going and the quality of BL is, shall we say all over the place ....
* remembers Goto and shudders

If they really HAVE to do it, then I ‘d prefer Erda having something to do with this, as it’s almost common knowledge now that “Erda screws things up”.
Seriously though, if Erda somehow managed to survive to the current stage, I kind hope someone as irrational and ironically “humane” as she is, would turn out to have created something resembling a “daughter” with genes combined with big E but more on her part (basically a big F You to the man himself). So, boom, the ultra-heresy known as female primarch thus emerges.
Edit: If GW is stupid enough to go for even an ounce of these I mentioned then...lol.

This is a strange topic. In personal fluff, do what you want. On the table top how would you tell the difference?

Marines are 7+ foot tall monsters in armor thats effectively three feet wide. They are genetically modified creations and not truly human. Do what you want.

I agree, but people are strange. Some feel like judging other people's war doll based on some fictional universe inherently incoherent.... Who knows what's in their head.

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

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

No need to apologize, now you know lol.

In all seriousness, when I say the IP “ain’t broken” I’m not making an arbitrary declaration, I’m observing fact.

Some of you are coming at this topic as if GW has hired you to consult them on how to reboot a failing property.

In reality, the property has been and is doing great.

If anything, “I didn’t know you were the arbiter of that” is the proper response to those who say that GW must make female SM.

The results of this poll are interesting and pleasing, I would loved to have seen a majority for change and inclusion but the fact it’s around 1/3 to 2/3 for is better than imagines and just the fact that this poll has gone ahead and not been shot down by the angry mob is progress in of itself.

Andykp wrote:
The results of this poll are interesting and pleasing, I would loved to have seen a majority for change and inclusion but the fact it’s around 1/3 to 2/3 for is better than imagines and just the fact that this poll has gone ahead and not been shot down by the angry mob is progress in of itself.

I also find it interesting that the percentages are different between "lore" and "models".

I mean, these polls aren’t very meaningful. If a different group of people saw (or did not see) these threads, the results could be completely opposite of what they are now.

Rihgu wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The results of this poll are interesting and pleasing, I would loved to have seen a majority for change and inclusion but the fact it’s around 1/3 to 2/3 for is better than imagines and just the fact that this poll has gone ahead and not been shot down by the angry mob is progress in of itself.

I also find it interesting that the percentages are different between "lore" and "models".

Probably because models would imply head swap conversions by individual players.
Which is fine, it's if it becomes official (as in, part of the fluff) that it gets messy.