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.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Out of interest, a questions towards everybody, regardless of the side you are taking:

How would you feel if GW acknowledges in general that women are compatible, but for some reason the Imperium won't do it. Leaving open the possibility that your homebrew chapter's Apothecary does take in female initiates? (Or your Chaos warband, if you are on of those weirdos .)

If you're homebrewing your background anyway, GW saying 'yeah fem-Marines are a thing, but we're not going to make any, and all of the canon Chapters are total sausage parties' isn't going to change anything from the current status.
Unless of course those who want the canon to be changed to cater to female Marines are for some reason so concerned by canon that they won't deviate from it at all. Which they're obviously not.

The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.

I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:I like my Salamanders to be obsidian black with red eyes. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having non-obsidian skin colors in that chapter.
I like my Blood Angels to turn their feral aspirants into vampire super models during initiation. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having "normal looking" dudes dorning the red armour.
I like my Sisters to be female only. The decree is an essential and memorable part of the faction identity. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having men at arms fighting for the Imperial church.

So YOUR Salamanders, Blood Angels, and Sisters can be all those things. Making exceptions and alternative options in the setting doesn't stop you doing what you want with your own models. If you want purely male Astartes, you can leave all your Astartes as male only.

You ignored the rest of my argument. Those are merely examples given, as they are some of the most prominent in universe things that come to my mind where the looks of a person are very set in stone. Those are examples of small fluff tidbits that - by themselves - really don't matter all that much in the great scheme of things. But together they form the unique and interesting bits of their respective (sub)factions. This is what makes 40k 40k. After the initial opening of "in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war" people delve deeper into the lore and this is what keeps them interested.

I think you've missed the point of my comment. YOU can keep your stuff how you like it. If you like your Necrons as unknowable inhuman annihilators ruled by C'Tan, you can still do that! If you want your Space Marines to not use aerial superiority fighters, you can! If you want your Space Marines to be recruited from ex-convicts, you can!

What 40k *should* be is a sandbox, where nothing is impossible, and where somewhere, somehow, it's possible to have something different from whatever "normal" is. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be a "this is what normally happens", it's to say that there should always be a "things COULD be like this", and that that's also okay! You can still have the bits of 40k that you like - but you don't need to stop someone else from doing what they want.

If we go all in and would say that every race and every faction can be represented by everyone , 40k would lose a lot of its character.
Male, female and trans Necrons*, Orks, Tyranids, just don't feel right. There are factions where it is very suitable like (Dark) Eldar, AdMech and Guard, among others. Again.. if there is a good story that enhances the lore and implements female Marines into the setting without it feeling forced, be my guest and go ahead. If the main point is inclusivity, no thank you.

*I'm well aware that higher Necrons keep their personality. Mostly talking about the model part here, as robot-boobs would be...weird.

There already ARE male, female and trans Necrons! They don't need new models because they don't look human, and have no identifiable gendered aspects. Space Marines, likewise, if helmeted, would be the same - except that all unhelmeted Astartes are male-coded, and are therefore men. Tyranids aren't gendered, because they aren't humanoid. Orks are gendered, but caricatured so.

And again - how am I supposed to take you seriously with a statement like "inclusivity, no thank you" - what does that say to me, as someone who is feeling increasingly excluded by prevailing attitudes on this site and in 40k overall?

Asherian Command wrote:If you have read history you know for certain nothing is concrete. Nothing in history can be taken for 100% accuracy. Again because history is as flawed as the people who helped write or lived it.

This idea of the 40k universe's lore being biblical in terms of importance or holy text. Is largely just bad, it doesn't help you, or I or anyone in this matter to discuss lore.

Very well put. History isn't even fact. It's reportage of events and contextualising in a way that depends on what sources survive/are allowed to be shared.

a_typical_hero wrote: I'm against a change to the lore if you do it for the sake of inclusivity. If your lore change is making 40k more interesting than before, you have my blessing to include as many groups and minorities as possible.

Great. Adding FSM makes 40k more interesting, as far as I'm concerned. Do I have your blessing? Or do I need your subjective approval?

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
People who want female Marines aren’t fetishists.

Certainly not all, but definitely some small minority. I've seen the images from Deviant Art.

I've also seen the images of other factions too. Shouldn't we then just say that there's a "small minority" of *40k players* who are fetishists? Why are we focusing on the FSM art when we could talk about Eldar art?

I didn't "focus" on fetishistic FSM art. I merely aknowledged it existed. And your misguided projectionism is part of why I have you on ignore. Do better.

You focus on it by failing to aknowledge that there's fetishy art about ALL of 40k, not just the FSM. If you want to claim that FSM is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishistic art, then you are also claiming that 40k AS A WHOLE is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishists across all of 40k.

Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.

Formosa wrote:It is a tricky one, on the one hand its not really needed since the concept has already been filled by sisters of battle, the nuns to the warrior monks theme.

Space Marines aren't all warrior monks - therefore, the concept isn't matched with the SoB. Astartes are transhuman super-soldiers who have a vast array of aesthetic designs to call upon and as many more ways of waging war. Sisters are religious warrior fanatics who draw near exclusively on a single cultural design and style of warfare.

If anything, we should be deleting the Black Templars, if we're worried about them occupying the same concept.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...

It feels like you don't want to understand my point deliberately to make me look like I'm attacking you. Which is weird, as going by this thread, I'm more in the "No, but if done right" camp compared to some others who categorically refuse the idea.

"Inclusivity" is a neutral concept. It is not good or even desirable by itself. It needs other factors for an evaluation. Being inclusive by allowing men, women and trans to become pilots is good. Forcing inclusivity by giving a man the job of a pilot instead of a more skilled trans person because otherwise some quota wouldn't be met is bogus.

And it is the same with this nice little hobby that we all share. Not being represented (for the sake of representation!) by a Space Marine should not make you feel any more insecure / offended / or whatever than not being represented by an Orc, a Tyranid, a Tau, a Demon.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.

I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?

That "flagship army" is also composed of heavily modified, highly exceptional individuals who can barely be considered human anymore. They are, by their very nature, an "exclusive" army. Just like the sisters, whose members can only be women and are drawn from Schola graduates, who, unless I'm mistaken, are also exceptional (yet human) individuals. The Sisters are also an army that's getting quite of exposure these days.
Your efforts would be better spent moving the focus away from them and instead towards the Imperial Guard. You know, ordinary humans who do have men and women in their ranks, and are the ones doing most of the fighting. That would be "inclusive."

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...

It feels like you don't want to understand my point deliberately to make me look like I'm attacking you. Which is weird, as going by this thread, I'm more in the "No, but if done right" camp compared to some others who categorically refuse the idea.

The issue I'm having is with this idea of "done right".

What is "done right"? Who determines it? On what criteria is something "done right"? What's "done right" to one person might not be for someone else.

As I've said - I want you to enjoy what YOU want - your Salamanders being red eyed and with jet-black skin, or so on. Why does someone having something else matter to you?

"Inclusivity" is a neutral concept. It is not good or even desirable by itself. It needs other factors for an evaluation. Being inclusive by allowing men, women and trans to become pilots is good. Forcing inclusivity by giving a man the job of a pilot instead of a more skilled trans person because otherwise some quota wouldn't be met is bogus.

So why do you say "inclusivity, no thank you", when you could instead be saying "I don't want my stuff to be taken away".

You can't blame people for getting their backs up when your actual words ("inclusivity, no thank you") aren't what you mean, and then get mad about it! If you mean something, say that, and not "inclusivity, no thank you" - which is bound to cause a concern.

If you mean "I don't want something I like to be taken away from me in the name of inclusivity" - good news! You don't need to change your army or models if you like them as they are. Let people enjoy the new stuff.

Not being represented (for the sake of representation!) by a Space Marine should not make you feel any more insecure / offended / or whatever than not being represented by an Orc, a Tyranid, a Tau, a Demon.

I don't think I need to take your advice on how representation "should" and "should not" make me feel, and I think you need to understand that. Why is it hard to understand/empathise that someone might find enjoyment in a Space Marine being representative of the other ~50% of the population.

Again - Space Marines aren't aliens. They're made from humans - and as much as we want to call them transhuman, either we lean further into their transhumanity and remove their male-ness, or we make their human origins more fair. Which one should we do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.

I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?

That "flagship army" is also composed of heavily modified, highly exceptional individuals who can barely be considered human anymore.

And yet, they look human, use human gender, and are allegedly still a "boys" club.

Which are they? Genderless weapons of war, or symbolic of hypermasculinity?

Your efforts would be better spent moving the focus away from them and instead towards the Imperial Guard. You know, ordinary humans who do have men and women in their ranks, and are the ones doing most of the fighting. That would be "inclusive."

No, it wouldn't. It would be equitable, not "inclusive".

Furthermore, we all know that GW won't abandon Astartes as their main selling point. That's simply not going to happen, and we all know it. Adding in the possibility of women Astartes? Now that's more likely, and much more brand-friendly.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.

I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?

Presumably these hypothetical bigots would just use something else to be bigoted against others with.

Besides which, what are they actually doing? 'Ha ha these toy soldiers can't be women, so go make me a sandwich Stacy'; 'girls can't be Marines so you totally can't play with these toys'? I've never seen anybody actually advocating that women can't partake in the hobby; and I don't really see how not having female Marines would give anything that they said to that effect any more weight with anyone else?

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.

I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?

Just ignore the bigots! Bigots will keep bigoting regardless of female marines. While using bigots as a reason to have female marines . . . sure seems like the wrong sort of reason.

Arguments about inclusivity pretty much always wind up with one side saying 'Inclusion is good' and another side saying 'Inclusion is unnecessary' over and over again. It seems unlikely that this pattern is going to change here, and I don't think that any amount of explaining the merits of inclusion is going to change anyone's mind.

The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.

The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
People who want female Marines aren’t fetishists.

Certainly not all, but definitely some small minority. I've seen the images from Deviant Art.

I've also seen the images of other factions too. Shouldn't we then just say that there's a "small minority" of *40k players* who are fetishists? Why are we focusing on the FSM art when we could talk about Eldar art?

I didn't "focus" on fetishistic FSM art. I merely aknowledged it existed. And your misguided projectionism is part of why I have you on ignore. Do better.

You focus on it by failing to aknowledge that there's fetishy art about ALL of 40k, not just the FSM. If you want to claim that FSM is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishistic art, then you are also claiming that 40k AS A WHOLE is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishists across all of 40k.

Find where I made that claim.

Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.

I'm just trying to help you be a better poster You should feel honored.

 insaniak wrote:
The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.

There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.

And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.

 insaniak wrote:
The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.

Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).

It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.

 insaniak wrote:
Arguments about inclusivity pretty much always wind up with one side saying 'Inclusion is good' and another side saying 'Inclusion is unnecessary' over and over again. It seems unlikely that this pattern is going to change here, and I don't think that any amount of explaining the merits of inclusion is going to change anyone's mind.

The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.

The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.

I'd argue that's one of the points that makes it meritable. The Imperium doesn't see "pink and blue", sure. But the founder of the Imperium either seemed to think that way, or just went with the shortcut, and it precipitated the biggest calamity ever to happen to the human race, the Horus Heresy. There's a nice thematic tension there.

Also #NotAUtopia

 Insectum7 wrote:

Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.

I'm just trying to help you be a better poster You should feel honored.

None of that is helpful. The fetish argument adds nothing productive to the thread. Move on, both of you.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.

I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?

That "flagship army" is also composed of heavily modified, highly exceptional individuals who can barely be considered human anymore.

And yet, they look human, use human gender, and are allegedly still a "boys" club.

Which are they? Genderless weapons of war, or symbolic of hypermasculinity?

At no point did I refer to them as genderless, unless you mean to tell me that only humans can have a gender.
They are certainly weapons of war though, I'll give you that.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.

There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.

And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.

 insaniak wrote:
The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.

Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).

It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.

The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.

If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
[

Furthermore, we all know that GW won't abandon Astartes as their main selling point. That's simply not going to happen, and we all know it.

Oh, I wonder why. It's almost as if they'll keep pushing Marines because people keep buying them. And then the fanbase wonder why Sororitas was in an oubliette for over a decade and Eldar still have models from 3rd ed.
Yeah no, I'd rather not give GW an excuse to sell even more marines and abandon non-Marine armies even more, especially not when they've just learnt to give non-marine armies some more screen time.

Lammia wrote:
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.

If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.

What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?

 Dysartes wrote:

Lammia wrote:
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.

If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.

What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?

It's not even that anybody makes a decision in-universe to exclude women:

'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.'
'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7

It's just a thing that isn't possible.

 Dysartes wrote:

Lammia wrote:
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.

If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.

What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?

That that is not the reason given.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Lammia wrote:
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.

If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.

What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?

It's not even that anybody makes a decision in-universe to exclude women:

'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.'
'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7

It's just a thing that isn't possible.

I mean, ever heard about transwomen, or just gender hormonal therapy in general?

Male hormones aren't the exclusive domain of men, and it is something that can be further modified with 21th century tech.

I like the fact that the anti-fem space marine debate has so far been people who act like the lore is sacred texts.

When its repeatedly been shown by GW it doesn't care.

And continues to do so with every lore updates. From Primaris, to the return of the Voltann, to the recontextualizing of the Eldar / Aeldari, and the possible return of the Primarchs.

I get it that many people have an identity with this hobby. But that doesn't help with the discussion here. No one is telling anyone here that your hobby changes will effect you completely. When from its history space marine kits will always produced more and make up half of all Gamesworkshop sales. And the idea of expanding that audience to have nerdy women or transwoman or even transman to enjoy the hobby by having something that represents the 40k setting isn't a bad thing. There are issues in over representation but just adding female space marines is not that. When we have in the past ten or twenty years changed the face of space marines to be multicultural, along with most of 40k as well... There is no reason not to be fine with it other than just being toxic on the discussion platform here or anywhere for not wanting it cause 'girls' can't be a space marine.

When we know for certain that a female space marine would be indistinguishable from a male one, in both performance and role.

40k History is not 'sacred' nor is it static, it is constantly changing with each edition. Every edition changes up the setting and the history. We've had so many intrepretations of just the horus heresy, that each one is radically different from the other in presentation.

Gav Thrope wrote:"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."

Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW

And Hoare wrote: "It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)

Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote:"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP."

Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series

Marc Gascogne wrote:"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it."

Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library

Essentially lore 'canon' and history of warhammer is a set series of historical accounts that are deeply flawed. And often times more mythical and legend than actual historical fact. We have to sparse the truth when we read 40k and not accept everything at face value. So there being female space marines would only add to this interpretation by the studio even more.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.

I'm just trying to help you be a better poster You should feel honored.

None of that is helpful. The fetish argument adds nothing productive to the thread. Move on, both of you.

Happily!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Lammia wrote:
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.

If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.

What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?

It's not even that anybody makes a decision in-universe to exclude women:

'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.'
'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7

It's just a thing that isn't possible.

I mean, ever heard about transwomen, or just gender hormonal therapy in general?

Male hormones aren't the exclusive domain of men, and it is something that can be further modified with 21th century tech.

Sure, but even hormonal therapy doesn't change cells from XX to XY, which could be covered under "tissue" in the quote.

Who knows what the future holds? (Robots, most likely) But the in-universe explanation still works, curt as it is.

 Asherian Command wrote:
When its repeatedly been shown by GW it doesn't care.

And that's a problem.

On a personal level I really, really don't care.

On a more meta level, I think GW should avoid it (at least this decade) because of the gakstorm a decent number people would throw over it. And no, it wouldn't all be because of sexism.

I disagree. I think GW wanting to change its lore frequently and completely just adds to the settings. Age of Sigmar is competently written and better written than most of 40k IMO. As its far more character / nation driven than Fantasy was.

So them making it so stormcasts could be female only made sense. When before they only had male models in the beginning of AOS. And now we have some of the most gorgeous models GW has produced have been Stormcast Female Characters from the Vindicators to Greatsword Stormcasts to Yndrasta. They are all stormcasts all that matters is that they fight for sigmar. As the process of becoming a Stormcast is basically the same as a Space Marine. As they are imbued with impossibly large amount of organs that they have to grow into.

Space Marines being female, or male realy doesn't take away from anything. I still don't get how it would take away from the setting when it would only reinforce how far the imperium has fallen and that they don't even remember their historical figures being female. It would only add to that sadness that the Imperium has fallen as much as it had that its Angels of Death rarely seen by outsiders outside of their Power Armor turned out to have some female members or even entire chapters of Female Space Marines.

The idea that female space marines exist only adds to the setting and gives more character to the chapters, and the idea that the horus heresy is largely mythologized. And that many characters being female or male really didn't make a difference to the character because they are just Space Marines.

I think anyone who says "oh there will a gakstorm" will completely forget that Primaris did the same change over and most people accept it now. Most people see that Marines exist in twospheres now even further. And now most people who play marines will have both firstborn and primaris in their lists or their armies. Because it was a huge lore shakeup probably more than the female space marines would cause. And people still stayed over that. Because as much as we like to think this poll is indicative of anything its that people who are terminally online are so deeply disconnected and non-representative of the actual player base. Again many of the anti-crowd do not represent the majority of the population who either don't care or more than willing to agree to see what happens. If a vocal minority is not in favor of it so be it.

The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.

The original piece about male hormones comes from a section in the holly lore of 1st edition that says new chapters can only be made when the emperor says they can and he has examined the test slaves and sanctioned them??? How does he do that??

Also another snippet from that is the test selves them selves, that’s been dropped, no longer do 3 slaves have to live miserable conscious lives as experimental meat sacks knowing fully what is happening to them and suffering immeasurably to make a marine! (I really like that bit of lore but you won’t find it in a book today).

Speaking of not finding lore in books, you won’t find this sacred snippet about having to be all male in any marine codex ever or in print today, it was released in WD some years again but nowhere else since index Astartes.

So I will say it again, the sacred lore that cannot be changed or moved in ANYWAY isn’t in any codex background and isn’t in print at all today. Sounds like GW really like this bit of fluff and are super proud of it.

Now stop being silly and let’s allow people who female marines have them without everyone getting all upset about their “lore” changing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I disagree. I think GW wanting to change its lore frequently and completely just adds to the settings. Age of Sigmar is competently written and better written than most of 40k IMO. As its far more character / nation driven than Fantasy was.

So them making it so stormcasts could be female only made sense. When before they only had male models in the beginning of AOS. And now we have some of the most gorgeous models GW has produced have been Stormcast Female Characters from the Vindicators to Greatsword Stormcasts to Yndrasta. They are all stormcasts all that matters is that they fight for sigmar. As the process of becoming a Stormcast is basically the same as a Space Marine. As they are imbued with impossibly large amount of organs that they have to grow into.

Space Marines being female, or male realy doesn't take away from anything. I still don't get how it would take away from the setting when it would only reinforce how far the imperium has fallen and that they don't even remember their historical figures being female. It would only add to that sadness that the Imperium has fallen as much as it had that its Angels of Death rarely seen by outsiders outside of their Power Armor turned out to have some female members or even entire chapters of Female Space Marines.

The idea that female space marines exist only adds to the setting and gives more character to the chapters, and the idea that the horus heresy is largely mythologized. And that many characters being female or male really didn't make a difference to the character because they are just Space Marines.

I think anyone who says "oh there will a gakstorm" will completely forget that Primaris did the same change over and most people accept it now. Most people see that Marines exist in twospheres now even further. And now most people who play marines will have both firstborn and primaris in their lists or their armies. Because it was a huge lore shakeup probably more than the female space marines would cause. And people still stayed over that. Because as much as we like to think this poll is indicative of anything its that people who are terminally online are so deeply disconnected and non-representative of the actual player base. Again many of the anti-crowd do not represent the majority of the population who either don't care or more than willing to agree to see what happens. If a vocal minority is not in favor of it so be it.

This is vey well said and sums a lot very nicely.

Andykp wrote:
The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.

The original piece about male hormones comes from a section in the holly lore of 1st edition that says new chapters can only be made when the emperor says they can and he has examined the test slaves and sanctioned them??? How does he do that??

Also another snippet from that is the test selves them selves, that’s been dropped, no longer do 3 slaves have to live miserable conscious lives as experimental meat sacks knowing fully what is happening to them and suffering immeasurably to make a marine! (I really like that bit of lore but you won’t find it in a book today).

Speaking of not finding lore in books, you won’t find this sacred snippet about having to be all male in any marine codex ever or in print today, it was released in WD some years again but nowhere else since index Astartes.

Horus Heresy Rulebook. Recent.

Also your entire post is "The lore shouldn't matter and nobody should care" Which is an interesting view but one that is.. quite terrible. We should accept whatever just because? If Space Marines were turned into furry rabbits tomorrow it shouldn't matter?

Just to clarify, if we get femarines, do we also get misters of battle please?

It gets republished in RPG or BL books intermittently, so it does actually need a proper death...

Andykp wrote:
The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.

That's not the argument. Nice strawman though.

Andykp wrote:
Speaking of not finding lore in books, you won’t find this sacred snippet about having to be all male in any marine codex ever or in print today, it was released in WD some years again but nowhere else since index Astartes.

So I will say it again, the sacred lore that cannot be changed or moved in ANYWAY isn’t in any codex background and isn’t in print at all today. Sounds like GW really like this bit of fluff and are super proud of it.

The 'all dudes all the time' was repeated last year in the Horus Heresy rulebook. People were flinging excrement around over it and everything:

'The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation'

Ah, ninja'd.
I bet that Ninja was a dude too. Hrmf!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Also your entire post is "The lore shouldn't matter and nobody should care" Which is an interesting view but one that is.. quite terrible. We should accept whatever just because? If Space Marines were turned into furry rabbits tomorrow it shouldn't matter?

It is interesting that the background seemingly doesn't and shouldn't really matter to anybody; but simultaneously it's very important that the background should be changed...