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.

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

And? Why make it easier on them?

Insectum7 wrote:Just ignore the bigots! Bigots will keep bigoting regardless of female marines.

But why give them the ammunition to do so? Sure, they *might* find another thing to latch onto - but by removing that one, GW is at least saying "yeah nah, we don't support your kind of bigotry, take a hike". Delegitimising bigots is cool.

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.

Well, yeah. Maybe it's like the entire thing is made up, and what matters is that we can push around our little war dolls and play games with them.

Marines DON'T exist. The only things that exist are pieces of resin, plastic, and metal that we push around on tables, and words on pages. Space Marines don't exist.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.

Yes, I do. Gender is not the same as sex, and gender is explicitly a human/anthropomorphic construct. If you make Space Marines inhuman, you make them agender, but because Space Marines are still identifiably human, they have identifiable gender.

They are certainly weapons of war though, I'll give you that.

That's because that's what they are. The question is, do we lean harder into "Space Marines are biological weapons of war with no other purpose", in which case we need to make them less "male" and more "inhuman" looking, or we lean into the "these are super-humans" and have a range of "humans" shown?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.

Take that up with GW, but you KNOW as well as I do that they won't be taking Marines off the pedestal any time soon - if we're talking about feasible realities here, GW is more likely to change a few lines of fluff and release some heads than they are to completely restructure how 40k is marketed.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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.

What is the arguement then?

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

I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.

 Asherian Command wrote:


This is largely incorrect. Anyone can be a stormcast does that mean that they have removed everything or diminished the setting? No. Cause Stormcasts lose their personalities, and they become servants of Sigmar and are chosen because of being a hero. From a hospice worker defending children, to a accountant picking up their blade to protect their family, to a woman protecting her child from a chaos warrior. They become part of Sigmar's armies of Stormcasts. Does that diminish them or make them more interesting? It makes super interesting. The best character in the stormcasts, is the hospice worker, the guy who not only died protecting children but has largely stayed the same even through his reforgings.

Space marines are not stormcast eternals, and storm cast eternals are not space marines. If lets say Marvel decides to change the way magic works in their comic or movie universe, the argument against it, can not be made with the proposition that DC does it different. Also space marines and w40k are an established brands. They already existed for decades. GW is making up stormcast and AoS lore as they go. But I am sure that if suddenly GW decided to say that Nagash was an Ork all along, people would not like it.

A space Marine being male or female does not matter. It has never mattered because Marines by all accounts are just one thing, Angels of Death. Them being female doesn't change their chemistry or how they would act. Both Genders having the potential to be a space marine would add to the setting. And this stealing of children narrative that Space Marines actively engaged in.

A female can not be an "angel of death" aka space marine. If GW decided it was possible, then why not make abhuman space marines too, or even xeno space marines.

Peaceful Pro Humans Xenos existed for ages. The Imperium largely spoiled this with the great crusade. The Interex Exist my friend. Non Animal Tyranids, already Exist Hive Tyrants. Chaos Gods can be good and BECAUSE THEY ARE CHAOS, they don't have an alliegance to evil, just like the imperium is not good. There is no good or evil in warhammer, because everyone is shades of grey.

One thing is not human and tries to kill humans. Other thing tries to stop the other things from killing all humans. One thing is there for good and the other thing is bad.

40k has always been about chaos it always been a setting where any story can happen. From a simple tale about a daughter and father escaping a war, to a character have philisophical debate with a pastor about the nature of religion. Again this 40k, this a setting not a story. The setting changes almost every edition and is recontextualized as GW continuely updates its lore or gives it new meaning. the Badab for ages was nothing but a simple short story. Then it was expanded upon in the Black Books by forgeworld and they are wonderfully detailed. Where people before said there is no way there could be space marine chapters who could only do this. We had a space marine chapter that get possessed by demons and are able to resist the taint of chaos and become expert demon hunters. Then we have a space marine faction, that is largely regenade that works for hte imperium and has the coolest aesthetic out of most space marine chapters and is based largely on Māori Myth and Pacific Islanders but have the skin color of sharks

What does this have to do with four decades of space marine lore? There were no female space marines, and there should be no female space marines. Changing in setting things, on basis of some outside of the setting paradigmas, which do not enhance, but dimnish the setting is not the way to go. If female space marines were to exist, then SoS and SoB make no sense to be in the setting or they should go the way of the primaris and made in to space marines ASAP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.

By virtue of that there are also females in the space marines, because there are female serfs and slaves and crew members on space marines home worlds and in the ships of their fleets.

The fact that the church has merc companies on permanent hire, and entire fleets of ships of rogue traders helping them ferry their dignitaries does not make any of those SoB. Because there can not be any male SoB, the imperial charter clearly says it "no man under arms".

Lammia wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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.

What is the arguement then?

It's almost like I've addressed this already

 Lord Damocles wrote:
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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.

Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.

Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).

The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.

Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.

What does this have to do with four decades of space marine lore? There were no female space marines, and there should be no female space marines. Changing in setting things, on basis of some outside of the setting paradigmas, which do not enhance, but dimnish the setting is not the way to go. If female space marines were to exist, then SoS and SoB make no sense to be in the setting or they should go the way of the primaris and made in to space marines ASAP.

Ah I see you missed the point which I have repeatedly said : Lore is not static, Lore is not sacred, lore changes all the time under GW's purview. And because of that it only adds to the setting. You are using a lot of conjecture when we know why SoS are not space marines, and neither are the SoB. As they occupy very different opus operandi. And because of this they are not similar at all to one another. SoB are protectors of temples and holders of shrineworlds, SoS hunt down rogue psykers and bring them on blackships. They occupy no similarities to space marines other than having power armor.

So this comparision falls flat if you know anything about the imperium and its factions. A Space Marine happening to be male or female doesn't take away from anything as much as you have tried to make a point of. I have seen no evidence to suggest they would be different from one another. And seeing a gross simplification of imperial factions is par of the course for many in this discussion so far.

Marines DON'T exist. The only things that exist are pieces of resin, plastic, and metal that we push around on tables, and words on pages. Space Marines don't exist.

The lore exists, and it is more real, then then some claims that being male is a construct. If we were to go that road, then nothing is real, nothing exist, all argument is futile, and then only one thing matters. Who can force he others to do what you want. And then the gloves are off, and in case of of w40k. The chance that there is a large number of buyers, a crucial element to why GW does things, who want marines to be men is more probable. But I don't think people want to enter the world where what decides things is brute power and forcing others to do what the minority wants. We had that in the past, a few times, and it was never good.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.

Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.

Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).

The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.

Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.

Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.

It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.

By virtue of that there are also females in the space marines, because there are female serfs and slaves and crew members on space marines home worlds and in the ships of their fleets.

Codex. I said Codex. Where are these serfs in the codex?

The fact that the church has merc companies on permanent hire, and entire fleets of ships of rogue traders helping them ferry their dignitaries does not make any of those SoB. Because there can not be any male SoB, the imperial charter clearly says it "no man under arms".

So, priests, arco-flagellants, Crusaders, and other such models don't exist?

Men are in the SoB Codex. The same doesn't apply to Astartes.

Asherian Command wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.

Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.

Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).

The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.

Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.

Absolutely so. And yet, just because Sisters wear power armour (not even the only faction to do so!), they're considered the same as Astartes. It's genuinely laughable how much of a reductive take it is.

What next? Space Wolves and Votann being considered the same because they have Norse theming?

Absolute worst case scenario should the lore be shifted to allow for female Marines?

The hobby will lose a bunch of weird internet man babies and nobody else will care.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
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.

Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.

Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).

The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.

Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.

Crusaders are not SoB. They do not count as military, the same way police in our world doesn't count as one. Power armour, or weapons do not make you a SoB or a marine. Neither is it, being bio modified. Goliaths in necromunda are more or less redesigned thunder warriors. Assasins can and are more gene moded then marines. They can also run around in power armour. What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers. That is why the primaris were such a big problem for some chapters. Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.

It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.

Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.

It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.

Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.

Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.

It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.

Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.

Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.

And servitors.

Karol wrote:
What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers.

Sorry, what sort of weird nonsense is this? You need to be respected to be considered a Space Marine?

Sweet lordy that's a new one.

Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.

Yeah - and the Flesh Tearers were stupid. No-one looks at the Flesh Tearers and says "oh yes, what a reasonable and enlightened Chapter" - they're known even within the Blood Angels successors to be a bit loopy and backwards. The Flesh Tearers are an awful example of what Astartes consider to be reasonable or standard.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.

It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.

Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.

Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.

And have them as a HQ choice.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.

Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?

All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers.

Sorry, what sort of weird nonsense is this? You need to be respected to be considered a Space Marine?

Sweet lordy that's a new one.

Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.

Yeah - and the Flesh Tearers were stupid. No-one looks at the Flesh Tearers and says "oh yes, what a reasonable and enlightened Chapter" - they're known even within the Blood Angels successors to be a bit loopy and backwards. The Flesh Tearers are an awful example of what Astartes consider to be reasonable or standard.

Yes. Other space marines have to accept you to be a space marine for you to be one. It always works like that in w40k and in real life.
What does backwards mean in this situation? Because I don't understand the argument.

Karol wrote:

A female can not be an "angel of death" aka space marine. If GW decided it was possible, then why not make abhuman space marines too, or even xeno space marines.

I mean, there used to be a half-Eldar Librarian...

If female space marines were to exist, then SoS and SoB make no sense to be in the setting or they should go the way of the primaris and made in to space marines ASAP.

This is like saying that Guard make no sense in the setting because Marines exist. They're different military organisations entirely. The existence of one has no bearing on the validity of the other.

Karol wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.

Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).

The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.

Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.

Crusaders are not SoB. They do not count as military, the same way police in our world doesn't count as one. Power armour, or weapons do not make you a SoB or a marine. Neither is it, being bio modified. Goliaths in necromunda are more or less redesigned thunder warriors. Assasins can and are more gene moded then marines. They can also run around in power armour. What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers. That is why the primaris were such a big problem for some chapters. Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.

I am sorry did I say Crusaders were SoB or is everyone around me putting words in my mouth? Where did I claim that?

Taking the flesh tearers one of the most insane and out of whack chapters of the blood angels and their opinions is Ludicrous. Maybe the flesh tearers are not the ones we should listen to for stately advice. Especially when we know most chapters were quite accepting... Including the Dark Angels.

So again the idea is that there is no difference at that level of gene editting marines had that your hormones would make any difference.Hormones are just chemicals so saying that a chemical is somehow overriding all of the gene editting you get is crazy. Would it be painful, it already is. Most aspirants don't survive. So one happening to be a female wouldn't make much of a difference other than increasing the number who survive.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
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.

Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.

Yeah the designers can say what they like, but having canon changing on a whim is bad - for the reasons I stated.

'Oh you modelled your female Ultramarines to represent those who took part in the battle of Ursis VI? That's cool. But we've changed the background so that the Ultramarines weren't on Ursis VI anymore. Also Calgar is a bear now. Deal with it'.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.

Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?

All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?

Oh that's mostly because I refuse your actual FSM idea's completely. Adding additional content that is close to fulfilling things is alright, but the whole "Lore is completely meaningless but I need this specific bit forced in" I also refuse.

Karol wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.

I went to a sports high school. I am not in my first year of sports collage. My major is wrestling. Do you want to hear what happened to some team tournaments, student exchanges etc, when some countries decided to go very fluid on the term what is considered to be a male and female wrestler? Because those things are 100% real, with 100% application to life of someone doing professional and school sports. Such changes always come slow, and everyone says that they are not going to hurt anyone and that they are made to be inclusive. And then when they happen and you speak against them, suddenly the world isn't inclusive and you are being told that the new is the norm, to be follow without and exeptions or diviation.

I've known female military members who can outrun and deal with pain better than most men. So again. this comparision falls flat on its face. Yet milage may vary based real life experiences so again, no barring on this discusion there mate. There really is only hormone differences but other than that, this arguments falls apart when you remember "space marines are gene editted and are pumped full of so many different organs they are no longer human."

How many times are Marines referred to as Human? Trick question most times they aren't! They are transhuman. They no longer have gender or really any identity other than being a battle brother or a space marine. Thats what they are. So comparing real life situations to a fantasy situation where a girl can be editted and pumped full of so many organs they are no longer human by all accounts. So their gender identity and hormones stop really mattering at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
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.

Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.

Yeah the designers can say what they like, but having canon changing on a whim is bad - for the reasons I stated.

'Oh you modelled your female Ultramarines to represent those who took part in the battle of Ursis VI? That's cool. But we've changed the background so that the Ultramarines weren't on Ursis VI anymore. Also Calgar is a bear now. Deal with it'.

Okay so your discounting everyones opinion, including sources of authority because your more right than them? How can we take any discussion or any opinion you espouse seriously if you don't want to hear them.

I've never seen someone so easily and effortlessly just shoot their opinions in the foot by saying "I don't acknowledge other people opinions exist and my opinion matters more."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.

Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?

All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?

What is the flagship faction of four decades suppose to change in its in setting lore, to represent some outside of the setting aspects of life. And if the argument is used to force female marines in to space marines, why wouldn't it be used to also force males or xeno in to something else. Why can't there be orc space marines ? I mean if anything goes, then anything goes. But somehow the thing that has to change is always the space with males in them. They have to become inclusive. GW is high scifi. Stuff like implants, gene therapies are a common things on anything, but the most back world planets. Even if humanity dropped from the tech level of the golden age, one could expect any irregularities to be fixed probably even pre birth.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Lammia wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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.

What is the arguement then?

It's almost like I've addressed this already

 Lord Damocles wrote:
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.

But lore changes with every codex release anyway. Dropping a throw away point from 40 years ago that has the bad luck of being republished when someone cares enough to remind us that it existed isn't going to ruin someones enjoyment of 40k. It might just add to a few people's fun.

Karol wrote:
And if the argument is used to force female marines in to space marines, why wouldn't it be used to also force males or xeno in to something else. Why can't there be orc space marines ?.

To paraphase some comedian or other - Remember when we gave women the vote... and then we couldn't stop ourselves, and gave the vote to dogs, and cows, and lawnmowers?

Making a change doesn't automatically mean that nothing matters and everything else should also change.



Having said that, a chapter of experimental Marines bred from Orks sounds like a fantastic story hook, to be honest.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

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.

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?

"Done right" is subjective, but I expect a fitting way to introduce female Marines. I gave some examples myself in this thread. Others did likewise. If they want to introduce this concept, it is GW's responsibility to get it right. Just as an example for my personal preference: I expect more than a "Cawl did it" or "the original lore was written in a different age and time. In order to better represent the world of today we reactively retcon every mentioning of this and it was always possible.".

"inclusivity, no thank you" does not stand in my other post by itself. It is accompanied by several lines and posts of explanation to put it into context.

If you want to argue with "it does not hurt you to have it changed" then I throw the ball back at you and tell you it doesn't hurt you if female Marines only exist in your headcannon. You can kitbash your Marines as much as you want, GW is not policing wether you put female heads on your miniatures and even the anti-fem posters here stated several times that they would play with you. I find this a silly way of arguing. And on an abstract level: Yes I do lose something. The setting loses something. What does the Galactic Empire in Star Wars lose from being open to Xenos (apart from that one Admiral)? What does a medieval fantasy setting based on Africa lose from having the majority of its characters being caucasian and asian? What do Japanese studios lose from including a western exchange student in every anime so I can better relate and identify with them?

I even wrote something about Space Marines being less "humanised" and relatable, less heroic individuals in the setting as an angle to introduce female bodies into the meatgrinder in an earlier post. If I have to choose: Make them less human.

 Asherian Command wrote:
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.

1. Misrepresenting the other side in an argument does not help your argument, like.. at all.
2. Neither does "everybody who is against my opinion is toxic".
3. "GW doesn't care so why should you as a fan" isn't as strong as an argument as you think it is.

Andykp wrote:
...

Same goes for you and the part about it not being mentioned anywhere recently is wrong. A Horus Heresy book had it printed in it. Release: Last year. GW not mentioning something in a book every now and then is not a proper way how to distinguish between "lore that is still valid" and otherwise.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
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.

Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.

Yeah the designers can say what they like, but having canon changing on a whim is bad - for the reasons I stated.

'Oh you modelled your female Ultramarines to represent those who took part in the battle of Ursis VI? That's cool. But we've changed the background so that the Ultramarines weren't on Ursis VI anymore. Also Calgar is a bear now. Deal with it'.

Okay so your discounting everyones opinion, including sources of authority because your more right than them? How can we take any discussion or any opinion you espouse seriously if you don't want to hear them.

I've never seen someone so easily and effortlessly just shoot their opinions in the foot by saying "I don't acknowledge other people opinions exist and my opinion matters more."

I acknowledge that their opinions exist. They're just bad arguments for changing canon.

You making an argument from authority is a bad argument.
The supposed authorities (I'm guessing we wouldn't be taking Goto's word on anything?) [supposedly] saying that lore is fluid is a bad argument in support of changing things.

 Asherian Command wrote:


I've known female military members who can outrun and deal with pain better than most men. So again. this comparision falls flat on its face. Because there is hormone differences but other than that, this arguments falls apart when you remember "space marines are gene editted and are pumped full of so many different organs they are no longer human."

I spent all my life in sports schools. I am now at a sports collage now. There is no woman in the world, that could win majority of 10 bouts with me in my age and weight class. The arguments doesn't come apart, because space marines do not take the avarge men. They don't take all men. They take the best of the best BOYS, and most of those fail. If you took the 10 best wreslers , which is my major, 2 from each weight class and made them fight 10 best wrestlers from same weight classes that were women. All women would lose. And in higher weight classes it would be actualy life threatning considering the difference in power.

How many times are Marines referred to as Human? Trick question most times they aren't! They are transhuman. They no longer have gender or really any identity other than being a battle brother or a space marine. Thats what they are. So comparing real life situations to a fantasy situation where a girl can be editted and pumped full of so many organs they are no longer human by all accounts. So their gender identity and hormones stop really mattering at all.

You don't have to mention the fact that a dog is an animal in every second sentance about a book or movie about dogs. Everyone knows that dogs are humans. Space marines are made out of boys, this makes them human.

Also, I see you don't know much about hormon and steroids, if you tried to pump women with the amounts of steroids men can and are willing to take, they die. Their body can't survive the stress. You don't go If I pump X amount of Y in to a woman I will get a female the size of Ronnie Coleman. That is a biological reality. In the w40k world, this means that if a space marine chapters has a 100 to 1 aspirant survival rate, and some chapters like the GK have much lower, a female aspirant, assuming they would somehow survive the implantation and gene theraphy would have to be a litteral mutant to survive or achive it through divine intervention. And there is already a faction for females in w40k who do divine interventions. Those are the Sisters of Battle.