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.

 Cybtroll wrote:

Excluding juvenile argument like "any changes to the lore is bad by principle"

Why is this a juvenile argument? Just because you personally don't care about established lore?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
this point cannot be changed or questioned or the setting is 'ruined'

Please refrain from such hyperbole, especially when you present this as actually quoting someone.
No one has claimed that female space marines will ruin the setting.
I find Primaris in general to be a far more jarring addition to the fluff, to empthasis the context for all of this.

The reason vampires and vikings are okay is because those are an established part of the fluff. Similarly, no female space marines is also an established part of the fluff.

[EDIT]: Screw it. I'm done with this thread. Shouldn't've got involved in the first place. I regret clicking on the link. That's on me.

No honest argument can be made here. Every attempt will be met with "you're an ist" of some sort, or "but you can change the fluff", all of which avoid the actual discussion in favour of just making the opposite side look like bad people.

Case in point:

Vatsetis wrote:
How sad that 2/3 of the voters lack such a basic level of empathy.

That's not an argument. That's not a debate. So forget it...

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:

Excluding juvenile argument like "any changes to the lore is bad by principle"

Why is this a juvenile argument? Just because you personally don't care about established lore?

Because the lore has always changed. Always.

And if you say 'but other changes were bad too', then at what point you think the lore was 'perfected'? When is the date after which no changes should have been made? And even if you were to able to pick such a date, certainly that is utterly subjective and arbitrary?

Like I get it, I dislike many of the lore changes too. But then again, I like some of them. So I really don't think 'any change is bad in itself' is a particularly tenable position.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:

Excluding juvenile argument like "any changes to the lore is bad by principle"

Why is this a juvenile argument? Just because you personally don't care about established lore?

Because you put naive things as your enjoyment of your hobby over harrasment of fellow community members which wont be possible if FSM were canon.

How sad that 2/3 of the voters lack such a basic level of empathy.

Just because the lore has changed doesn't mean lore changing is a good thing.

Bad things happen all the time, that's no reason to embrace anarchy, that's reason to be more vigilant and robust!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Yes because some of us have offered ideas to boost the female representation in factions where it makes sense rather then the most popular one we are now just all offended by all things female. All because one faction we refuse based on lore. Yes that makes sense.

Poorly written lore from decades ago that hasn't really been mentioned officially for almost a decade, and here's the opportunity to expand the lore to remove this piece of lore. To add new lore, that doesn't conflict with any existing lore.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure if the argument was "Do we change Eldar to having only male models only because the lore doesn't have their gender as an identity issue" there would be a major tune change here.

1) it wouldn't make that much of a difference since the Eldar have only four-ish distinctly female models--gender representation across the hobby is atrocious with only SoB and Dark Eldar (and maybe Tau) being anywhere close to equal

2) Eldar gender/identity is already addressed, at least as far as the aspect warriors

3) And because of the above lore, no one would bat at eye at someone kitbashing male elf heads on a howling banshee body or female heads onto striking scorpions. Well, I mean, they might because of the helmet thing but it wouldn't be because of a gender thing.

 Crimson wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:

Excluding juvenile argument like "any changes to the lore is bad by principle"

Why is this a juvenile argument? Just because you personally don't care about established lore?

Because the lore has always changed. Always.

And if you say 'but other changes were bad too', then at what point you think the lore was 'perfected'? When is the date after which no changes should have been made? And even if you were to able to pick such a date, certainly that is utterly subjective and arbitrary?

Like I get it, I dislike many of the lore changes too. But then again, I like some of them. So I really don't think 'any change is bad in itself' is a particularly tenable position.

Space Marine lore was fine before Primaris and worse afterwards. The Lore isn't a monolithic entity where changing one thing effects the whole setting (though arguably the Dark Imperium introduction of Primaris and Guilliman have been single biggest undermining of the setting so far) generally but specific army themes, roles etc can be easily changed for the worse and you can pinpoint when things changed from good to bad.

I would rather Space Marines played almost no role in the lore at all but they do and I would havepreferred they had remained as they were pre-8th because their existence fulfills a specific role and theme in the setting whether I like it or not.

You make me laugh when you say that Sisters of Battle have close to equal gender representation.

Vatsetis wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:

Excluding juvenile argument like "any changes to the lore is bad by principle"

Why is this a juvenile argument? Just because you personally don't care about established lore?

Because you put naive things as your enjoyment of your hobby over harrasment of fellow community members which wont be possible if FSM were canon.

How sad that 2/3 of the voters lack such a basic level of empathy.

Another "you don't agree with X so you're just a bad person" argument.

We get Kiro, you're ideologically against change. Guess what? That's irrelevant, since your ideology is not an argument (differently from what you seem to believe).

Change is neutral, not bad. Specific implementation are good or bad. But since you're entrenched within an ideological position, there's another approach possible rather than parrot-repeating itself without any significative point added in the discussion.


Am I misunderstanding or do you agree that GW should give visibility to female space marine project and push them as legit way to build their war dolls without changing the lore?

Because that's not an ideological stance, but a pragmatical one. I don't care if the lore says "Marine are male" when people building those as female can point at a White Dwarf article that show off a mixed gender or entirely female Marine army.

Are you fine with that? Because I am.
See: compromise, not ideology. I disagree with your stance on the lore, but I don't care about ideological position rather than practical effect.

To summarize: GW should explicitly make clear that female marine are a legit and welcomed way to build their miniature, even if the don't update the lore (so, the Imperium at large will still be tragically ignorant and the lore is saved and expanded).

Edit: Sim-life it isn't a good look ok you to point out (correctly) faulty argumentation from other, and them apply the same rhetorical tricks in the same post.
We know, people are bad at discussing, I don't think we need you to point out the obvious.

Is this not just 19 pages of the exact same arguments from the 70 page thread?

@ Olthannon: no, there's quite a few differences. The 70 pages long was more about general definition and framing the issue. This one is quite more practical.

There's overlapping of course

If you can dismiss my "ideology" can I dismiss yours?
I'm going to choose to define wanting female representation as an "ideology".

I don't agree that GW should give visibility to female marine projects. GW should maintain a consistent front on what is and isn't official canon, that includes White Dwarf.
Unless I supposed they did a column that was explicitly non-official but White Dwarf has long since moved away from being so hobby oriented.

What's the relevance of this anyway? You don't need official recognition or example in White Dwarf to build an army the way you want.

It may not seem like it, but this one is much friendlier.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Reality is just black and white you either aspire for heaven or you help hell."
I am now no longer neutral to the issue. Don't change the lore. Holy hell that is a stupid phrase.

I'm pretty sure he was taking the piss. Or at least I hope he was.

If he was, I retract my statement, and congratulate him for the amazing bait, mate.

Dont retract the statement. It was really an stupid phrase

But some people are so hellbent on introducing FSM even if they are so unpopular amongst the current player base, and GW have shown no sign to move on that direction but rather towards expanding the SOB... That you could take it as a legitimate statement from those crusading for FSM.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you can dismiss my "ideology" can I dismiss yours?
I'm going to choose to define wanting female representation as an "ideology".

I don't agree that GW should give visibility to female marine projects. GW should maintain a consistent front on what is and isn't official canon, that includes White Dwarf.
Unless I supposed they did a column that was explicitly non-official but White Dwarf has long since moved away from being so hobby oriented.

What's the relevance of this anyway? You don't need official recognition or example in White Dwarf to build an army the way you want.

Yeah, you're already allowed to make conversions. You don't need GW's explicit approval.
If people don't like it, so what? People get hostile over official armies and paint schemes too, so to hell with them.

 Olthannon wrote:
Is this not just 19 pages of the exact same arguments from the 70 page thread?

More or less.

Put "perhaps" we need another 50 pages of circular arguments and a new poll to settle the issue.

Dont call it insanity, call it double checking.

Crimson wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I am sorry, but I still do not buy into the idea that female marines are needed to make women feel welcome in the hobby. As I said, decent people are needed.
There is no denying that there are some douchebags in this our hobby, but I am not convinced that this is a widespread epidemic of sexism in the 40k hobby that warrants immediate action. There are the occasional asshats in absolutely every hobby.

Visible representation certainly matters for engagement. It's not a magic bullet, but its not insignificant either. Though I'd wager that what a potential gamer woman would find far more off putting than the lack of female marines is the reaction when someone dares to suggest that there perhaps could or even should. I'm not a woman but discussions on this topic over the years have been pretty eye opening about the attitudes in the community and not in the good way.

I would like to propose another question though: is it permissible in this day and age to have a setting like 40k where there are male only subfactions like space marines and custodes for example. Is the current zeitgeist truly that to combat real life sexism, we need close to 50/50 representation in every aspect of every fictional setting? I know that space marines are the most prominent faction in 40k, but the point still stands: can there be male only things left? I am genuinely asking, because if the answer is no, then I find that position a bit dogmatic and if the answer is yes, then why can't it be space marines in 40k?

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

I agree that Space Marines are a big part of the lore, but if that is the main issue...the issue of visibility, then I would argue and be totally for giving eldar, and badass female eldar more spots in the limelight. They have been neglected far too long anyway.

Altima wrote:

Tiberias wrote:


How does this always come back to implying that people are offended by anything female.

Because we're discussing including female representation to the most popular faction which has previously catered purely and consistently to a male-focused power fantasy that represents over half the hobby, in terms of model count, lore, and marketing.

Tiberias wrote:
in a vacuum I couldn't care less about the inclusion of female space marines, but it matters how, when and to what extend you change the lore because as I said about a hundred times already: lore consistency and continuity matters, in any setting.....otherwhise stuff like the WHFB end times or ending up with just genderless tyranids as the sole faction to combat sexism is just as valid a proposition.

Out of curiosity, how would you implement female space marines?

Because the answer others have provided is usually "I wouldn't." Rather, that in under no circumstance would they ever support implementing female space marines. Even if the lore was consistently updated, if the foundation had been lain with years and years of writing, if every box were checked, they would still be against it.

And that's a problem when they're essentially saying that their enjoyment of the game hinges on space marines being dudes only if it's used to deprive others of the opportunity to enjoy the hobby. And it wouldn't even be that big of an issue if that every time someone put up female space marines if there wasn't that one guy doing that one guy thing.

As for the sanctity of the lore, well, a former GW employee had this to say on the subject: "The reason there aren't female Space Marines has nothing to do with lore, or background or character of Marines." That's a quote from Alan Merritt who according to a Dan Abnett interview from a few years ago, was basically in charge of the lore at GW.

To your first point: what's wrong with space marines being a male power fantasty. I've asked this before, but is it wrong to have an all male faction as a power fantasy for males, just as a general proposition? If not, why can't it be space marines. And if it's the issue of visibility and being in the limelight: I already said I am very much in favor of shifting the focus away from space marines to eldar for example.

As to your question of how I would implement female space marines: I wouldn't do it if it meant to just slap them into the lore like they always were there or something like cawl waved his magic wand again. If it was my job to implement them within the continuity of the existing lore I'd try to start small: I'd create a small short story in the space marine codex where a second founding chapter is struck by calamity and is now extremely short on aspirants. In their desperation they resort to implanting the gene seed of their primarch also into female aspirants, which goes horribly wrong for most. The lethality rate of female aspirants is higher than of male aspirants because the chance of rejecting the implants is a bit higher, a small very percentage of them survive though. This way the chapter can slowly start growing their numbers again. Other chapters and also the inquisition look curiously upon the successes of the chapter including female aspirants into their ranks.

Basically I'd start teasing it with shortstories sprinkled throughout multiple space marine codices and codex supplements. This is just from a storytelling perspective and just my personal opinion and I don't claim to be a good writer or storyteller. The main thing is, this takes time to set up. So far for the lore part.

So if you have set this up with multiple short stories over time, let's say we introduce models for female space marines: they are then of course created with the same process, so they have the same organs and stimulants pumped into them so they become hulking fighting machines, which would make sense. How do you translate that into models on a 28mm scale? If a female aspriant goes through the same process as her male counterparts, she is then also a hulking mountain of muscle. Would you even see a proper difference within their faces if their got pumped up by the same copious amounts of space steriods? Because changing the armor to be more traditionally feminine to clearly be able to differentiate them would not make much sense right? Both male and female aspirants who were able to survive would be hulking mountains of muscle pumped full of space steroids, you wouldn't even have a semblance of a female chest left because of the necessitiy of the black carapace, which is artificial.

So we've set it up over a period of time, hinting at small successes of also incoorporating female aspirants, but since they would go through the same process as the male counterparts, it would be difficult to represent the difference of male and female space marine on a 28mm scale because again, both would be hulking mountains of muscle pumped full of space steroids and extra organs.

Removed - Rule #1

Altima wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Have i stated it does?

I believe your comments in this thread have made your feelings quite clear on the subject.

Not Online!!! wrote:

When you are done working with the straw, i live next to a farmer that would like some, considering it has been raining since 2 weeks nonstop here...

Riiiiiiiiiight. Are you going to call everyone who disagrees with you a strawman?

Because there have been a whole slew of em.

Not Online!!! wrote:

After that, i pretty surely exclaimed why it does not necessarily put your position into " good" realm and mine into "bad" because these moral quanitfiers from which you derive your right that you can just overthrow the established lore, have no bearing on it since it is A: a fantastical universe B: Was already long established beforehand. C: has been popular because of that.

Sure, we can't overthrow established lore, let's just expand the existing lore since it's A) a fantastical universe and the only rules are the ones GW literally makes up (or players agree to). B) Can be brand new lore so it doesn't tread on anything anyone would consider traditional. and C) potentially increases the broad appeal of the IP so it can be more successful, the way AoS has increased their appeal. Done! Glad we could come to an agreement that satisfies everyone like adults.

It is arguable that it increased appeal indeed, especially since AoS locally has less players than WHFB still has.
B: is problamtic since it automatically goes against A aswell in this case, else this debate wouldn't be had.

Not Online!!! wrote:

You insisting on calling me a bigot because you derive a right to that from a "moral high horse, with broken legs" i dubbed it earlier in this thread still holds true, especially since you know pretty much crap about me and yet still imply anyone disagreeing with you is somehow a bigot or a sexist and for that reason alone opposition to such a suggested change is illegitimate.

Never called you a bigot nor did I ever intend to imply that you (or anyone else) were. I even went out of my way to specifically say that it was not the case that everyone who were against female space marines were bigoted.

Altima wrote:


Not everyone against female space marines is bigoted, sexist, and/or misogynist.

But I certainly know which side of the argument those who are bigoted, sexist, and/or misogynist fall on 100% of the time. If this were real life and a subject more important than toy soldiers, if I found myself on the same side as the above on a social issue, I would definitely take a hard look at my position as I hope anyone would.

This is the type of Delgitimising the position of an opponent that i mean that is so problematic in this discussion.
Maybee indeed you didn't intend it consciously but some here do, going sofar as proclaiming opposition to such change to be "juvenile" and "ideological".

Answering the latest Tiberias post:

They could write "Im a Woman" or "My name is Claudia" on their shoulderpads??

Its no about making sense in universe, its about making a point.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Thank you Kiro: with enemies like you on the discussion, one doesn't need friends.
And please feel free to quote where I expressed any ideological position. Because if I had, I wouldn't be able to propose you an acceptable compromise. Guess who can't?


That said, I'm sorry for all those others that may oppose to the idea who found themselves conflated into Kiro's untenable ideological position (which probably misrepresent them) so I'll try to not double down on this point (would be easy - yet not very useful) and I'll try to focus on other interesting points that may be lost in the discussion.

So far the only thing you have shown is that you just denounce people as juvenile or ideological in an cheap attempt to delegitimise opposition and get your way.

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering the latest Tiberias post:

They could write "Im a Woman" or "My name is Claudia" on their shoulderpads??

Its no about making sense in universe, its about making a point.

But there are already models to make that point? You know Marines aren't the only range in the hobby, and that GW has been making an effort to give Guardswomen and Sisters of Battle more of the spotlight?

 Cybtroll wrote:

And please feel free to quote where I expressed any ideological position.

I think you've rather missed the point.
Since you so baselessly characterised my argument as "ideological" I flipped it and equally baselessly characterised your argument as "ideological".

I say baselessly, ideology is defined as

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

So one could easily suggest that really any position is an ideology. But then there's no reason to dismiss something simply for being an ideology so we're back to square one.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering the latest Tiberias post:

They could write "Im a Woman" or "My name is Claudia" on their shoulderpads??

Its no about making sense in universe, its about making a point.

But there are already models to make that point? You know Marines aren't the only range in the hobby, and that GW has been making an effort to give Guardswomen and Sisters of Battle more of the spotlight?

They don't get the same support, ergo they don't get the same spotlight , ergo not good enough...

like i said, half the issues with representation are GW's blatant favouritism and the other half GW's greed.

That's supposedly not good enough though and we MUST exchange one of the most constant parts of the lore, despite knowing that GW doesn't do lore very well recently...

 kirotheavenger wrote:
You make me laugh when you say that Sisters of Battle have close to equal gender representation.

Out of all the factions 24 of them don't have distinctly mixed gendered models, depending on how you count some of the smaller factions like custodes and sisters of silence.

Leaving out Chaos Daemons because I don't want to get into Slaanesh, that leaves: SoB, Tau, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Genestealer Cults, and Tau.

Eldar have like...three distinctly female models out of a range of about 50 but primarily male. Tau include female heads on their sprues and have a female special character. Dark Eldar are pretty even except with the haemonculus coven being predominantly male. GSC's have three--two of which are non-named characters. Apart from Eldar (sorta), canonically, all units in these armies can be of either gender (or none or fluid if so inclined).

Adepta Sororitas have 6 male options in a range of about 30 (3-4 of which came out fairly recently and several of their units pull double duty, such as your basic battle sister basically also being a retributor or dominion). So yes, that makes them one of the more equal gender represented armies on the tabletop and certainly out of the human factions. Even though they shouldn't be.

But female representation of the rest of the hobby is a different discussion. One that I hope GW addresses because I want to start an IG army. NOTE: GW would have to address other aspects of IG before I'd start them as an army.

No, I denounce people's idea as juvenile and ideological. Because they are, as I motivated.
And I also admit that it's better to move to other topic, otherwise other people may be sucked into Kiro's bad train of thought.

Just to clarify: I can't care less for what people are: I don't know you, you don't know me, and chances are we will never play together (and if we do, probably we won't be able to connect our faces to the avatars here - even if my own is a good approximation)... I only know what you write, and that's what I judge, providing my reasoning for other people to freely determine if to agree or disagree with me.

You think discussion is an enunciation of what you think? Do you really underestimate so much your and other's people time?
Because those kind of juvenile and useless posts have the same argumentative consistency of a brain fart.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering the latest Tiberias post:

They could write "Im a Woman" or "My name is Claudia" on their shoulderpads??

Its no about making sense in universe, its about making a point.

But there are already models to make that point? You know Marines aren't the only range in the hobby, and that GW has been making an effort to give Guardswomen and Sisters of Battle more of the spotlight?

Because Marines are the poster child, so other factions don't matter. Get out of here with your huge Sisters revamp or female Guardsperson heads. They don't count because they aren't in the flagship faction. Just because that faction happens to be the blandest and least interesting faction in the game (and making some of them women won't change that) and other factions are far more exciting and thematically rich also doesn't matter.

 Cybtroll wrote:
No, I denounce people's idea as juvenile and ideological. Because they are, as I motivated.
And I also admit that it's better to move to other topic, otherwise other people may be sucked into Kiro's bad train of thought.

What are you even attemting to state. And quite frankly your argument has been Kiro has ideology and therefore Kiro argument bad. And nothing else.

Just to clarify: Ican't care less for what people are: I don't know you, you don't know me, and chances are we will never play together (and of we do, probably we won't be able to connect our faces to the bane here - even if my avatar is a good approximation)... I only know what you worite, and that's what I judge, providing my reasoning for other people to agree or disagree with me.

What reasoning?

You think discussion is an enunciation of what you think: do you really underestimate so much your and other's people time?
Because those kind of juvenile and useless posts have the same argumentative consistency of a brain fart.

And now we enter ad hominem.

Good job

Altima wrote:

Adepta Sororitas have 6 male options in a range of about 30 (3-4 of which came out fairly recently and several of their units pull double duty, such as your basic battle sister basically also being a retributor or dominion). So yes, that makes them one of the more equal gender represented armies on the tabletop and certainly out of the human factions. Even though they shouldn't be.

That's 80% female.
Not to mention SoB are explictly advertised as the "women and friends" faction, so those male models are explicitly "other".. They're just as gender slanted as Space Marines but in the opposite direction.
The fact that you are elevating these as in some way a "balanced" faction suggests you're using "equal" to mean something entirely different to what the rest of us would understand it to be.