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.
2023/01/22 07:49:13
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
2023/01/22 08:22:47
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
Lammia wrote: The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
No it's not. The lore says nothing about the gender identity of the people involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lammia wrote: Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
Nah. Let's stop trying to make turbofascism more appealing. The Imperium commits genocide of children born missing limbs, with harelips, etc at birth - that's part of the atrocity that comes with its system.
What do you mean by "that minority?" In my eyes the pro-FSM crowd are a step away from being in line with the people that statement had to be put out about - as soon as space marines are gender integrated they're all aboard the fantasy space fascism/genocide train. It's a failure in morality on their part.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/22 08:58:58
2023/01/22 08:58:51
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
The fluff doesn't stop anyone from playing anything any way. The reason there are two unknown Primarchs is specifically for this reason. You can play whatever female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony models you want on the table as space marines and point to the unknown primarchs as a fluff justification. The only person that stops it is you and maybe in a very, very rare case some douchehat no one will like or agree with.
2023/01/22 09:26:30
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
What do you mean by "that minority?" In my eyes the pro-FSM crowd are a step away from being in line with the people that statement had to be put out about - as soon as space marines are gender integrated they're all aboard the fantasy space fascism/genocide train. It's a failure in morality on their part.
This is absolute nonsense. Stop repeating it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: The fluff doesn't stop anyone from playing anything any way. The reason there are two unknown Primarchs is specifically for this reason. You can play whatever female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony models you want on the table as space marines and point to the unknown primarchs as a fluff justification. The only person that stops it is you and maybe in a very, very rare case some douchehat no one will like or agree with.
Just for what it's worth, the missing Primarchs were never intended specifically for players to fill them in themselves. According to Rick Priestly, they were just thrown in for a bit of mystery.
That doesn't stop people from doing so, of course. It's just not an intended purpose of them.
On a vaguely related note, if people could knock it off with the giant nested quotes, or at the very least spoiler tag them, that would do wonders for the continued legibility of this thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/22 09:28:59
2023/01/22 09:38:17
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
And what's stopping you from putting down a lovely well painted army of female space marines now? Do you need it to be vindicated in the setting officially? Are you incapable of writing up a reason yourself? Or more elikely are you worried about someone having to deal with slabhead A at a group somewhere who is a stickler for the fluff (which is inherently transphone or anything other than a personal preference), or slabhead B who is actively a transphobe/xenophobic?
The only one here that is a real problem is the last one, changing the fluff will not stop them existing or wanting to behave they way they do. Likewise it doesn't stop you having female Marines now if you want to.
Changing the 40k setting as trivial or scientifically inaccurate as it may be, will not change the behaviours of people who have a prejudice. The people who don't want to play female marines because of the fluff, well they may not like the change and may decline after anyway, that's a personal preference for them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/22 09:39:22
Case in point: Despite GW calling them officially Sisters of Battle or Adeptus Sororitas, some people call them "Bolter bitches".
You can bet the same people who give you trouble now if you field a SM model with a female head, would continue to do so even if it would be canon. They want to agitate you. It has nothing to do with what the official fluff is.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/22 09:54:05
2023/01/22 09:57:20
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
Dai wrote: How can people get so worked up about this time after time after time?
Welcome to the Warhammer Community, where the lore as it is written, is seen as immutable and set in stone, where nothing can ever change.
...despite things changing all the time and people either leaving the hobby, learning to deal with it, or they do as most people do, and not really care all that much.
But hey, these thinly disguised political arguments are great at getting people heated.
It's basically a proxy for real-world political debates, but unlike the bigger debates this can actually, at least theoretically, be decisively won, as the possibility exists that some day one side actually forces 'daddy GW' to move and make a statement that says one side is right and the other wrong. In real politics, you can't really force someone to be convinced by your arguments if they don't want to be, but in a setting with an author that is somewhat of an ultimate authority and has a canon, you can force them to rewrite the setting's reality. It's the same with other fictional settings that have debates about these topics, the various controversies about Harry Potter come to mind for a recent example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/22 09:57:50
Reflecting on the 'But that's what SoB are for...' response to requests for FSM, I did have an idea for something that would at least go some way to giving more people what they want...
- Develop more individual identity between SoB orders. Something like the Knight orders in David Eddings' Elenium, where they each have very distinct cultures, outfits and fighting styles, rather than all just being different colours of the same armour. That puts Sisters on a more even playing field with Marines visually, which is one of the stumbling blocks now.
- Have the Ecclesiarchy do a deal with the Mechanicus for a process that absolutely isn't the same process as is used for Astartes (wink, nudge) because that would obviously be Heresy. But the end result is stronger, faster, more deadly Sisters.
- Have the official Imperial party line remain that the Astartes process only works on males, despite it being patently obvious by this point that this is not actually true...
It doesn't really do anything about the fact that the all-male faction is the most visible in the game, but it seems like a step in the right direction for representation and is amusingly absurd enough to sidestep the current 'science' issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/22 10:01:59
2023/01/22 10:07:36
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
Sim-Life wrote: The fluff doesn't stop anyone from playing anything any way. The reason there are two unknown Primarchs is specifically for this reason. You can play whatever female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony models you want on the table as space marines and point to the unknown primarchs as a fluff justification. The only person that stops it is you and maybe in a very, very rare case some douchehat no one will like or agree with.
There are gatekeepers everywhere. And there is lore that specficially rules out female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony Marines that gatekeepers will happily use to bully/limit players out of the hobby.
You don't need to change anything. Just have GW state the given reason is an in universe myth and never republish it.
insaniak wrote: Reflecting on the 'But that's what SoB are for...' response to requests for FSM, I did have an idea for something that would at least go some way to giving more people what they want...
- Develop more individual identity between SoB orders. Something like the Knight orders in David Eddings' Elenium, where they each have very distinct cultures, outfits and fighting styles, rather than all just being different colours of the same armour. That puts Sisters on a more even playing field with Marines visually, which is one of the stumbling blocks now.
- Have the Ecclesiarchy do a deal with the Mechanicus for a process that absolutely isn't the same process as is used for Astartes (wink, nudge) because that would obviously be Heresy. But the end result is stronger, faster, more deadly Sisters.
You can already do the first one if you want and as for the second are you mental? The appeal for a lot of people about the Sisters outside of the aesthetic is that they're unmodified humans. They achieve their goals by being badass without needing to be altered. Now leaving aside the fact that the Sisters would probably view tampering with their genetics as a blasphemy upon the form that the Emperor bestowed upon them, making genetic modified Sisters would be stamping on what sets them apart from Marines. It would be like equipping every Guardsman with a bolter and power armour and writing it off as "oh, Cawl found a way to make it cheaper and easier".
I don't find the lore arguments to be particularly compelling regardless of whether they're for or against femarines.
Lore can be changed if people want to change lore. Even without GW telling you that you can change the lore, 40k is a setting more than rigid immovable history, make your own lore and do whatever the hell you want. You can have Ork Space Marines for all I care.
I personally don't want femarines, but at the same time, if that's your thing, I'm happy for you to want that, and if you go out of your way to convert them, more power to you, I'll happily play against you, I'm not going to say it's something you're not allowed to do.
a_typical_hero wrote: Case in point: Despite GW calling them officially Sisters of Battle or Adeptus Sororitas, some people call them "Bolter bitches".
You can bet the same people who give you trouble now if you field a SM model with a female head, would continue to do so even if it would be canon. They want to agitate you. It has nothing to do with what the official fluff is.
And some people called me a furry for collecting Space Wolves. If I worried about all the things I've been called personally (let alone my toy soldiers) then I'd be a very broken person... instead I'm just bitter and spiteful
2023/01/22 10:17:15
Subject: Re:How Do People Feel About Female Marines?
Dudeface wrote: ... not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire?
The Imperium isn't misogynistic, and calling them "fascist" is reductive.
Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
Sim-Life wrote: You can already do the first one if you want ...
I mean, sure, you can... but the actual model range that you see when you walk into a store is all corsets and boob plate. Which is fine if you want that sort of thing, but off-putting if you want a more practically-armoured force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church..
That's a misrepresentation of the reason Sisters exist, though. They're not allowed because they're viewed as inferior to men. They're allowed because 'men under arms' was a generic way of referring to soldiers, because in the early '90s that was the default for most western nations, and so recruiting women is exploiting a 'funny' loophole.
It worked in the '90s because nobody questioned the inherent bias involved. It works less well now that the Imperium has evolved into something much more egalitarian in every department except the Astartes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/22 10:35:12
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore. Changing the background so, say, a Dark Elf character was actually qualified to be king but just didn't cook long enough would be on the same level. For the record? I was HIGHLY against that one.
Urgh now i remember why i avoid these threads. Not going to win over any hearts or minds on dakka and if i want severe depression from the hate in the world I'll hop onto twitter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/22 10:39:09
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church..
That's a misrepresentation of the reason Sisters exist, though. They're not allowed because they're viewed as inferior to men. They're allowed because 'men under arms' was a generic way of referring to soldiers, because in the early '90s that was the default for most western nations, and so recruiting women is exploiting a 'funny' loophole.
It worked in the '90s because nobody questioned the inherent bias involved. It works less well now that the Imperium has evolved into something much more egalitarian in every department except the Astartes.
I don't think the relative levels of egalitarianism in other areas of the imperium, which in itself I feel is a misrepresentation anyway, affect this.
The imperium doesn't believe people should have an equal opportunity, they simply don't care enough about the individual in the first place for it to matter. It's not coming from a place of equality and kindness but neglect and apathy.
The GW team have been leagues ahead of where they were in terms of inclusive representation in the minis, that I won't dispute, but in the setting of the imperium it's not the same.
The argument for female Marines is that there's no good reason for gender locking super soldiers. It's hypocritical to then say it's fine the church only have female sororitas because early 90's jokes about western military being largely misogynistic are fine to be maintained, it's just as exlusive on a basic level. I don't know my necromunda fluff well but there seem to be a lot of arbitrarily gender locked gangs there too.
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore. Changing the background so, say, a Dark Elf character was actually qualified to be king but just didn't cook long enough would be on the same level. For the record? I was HIGHLY against that one.
I agree, Introducing previously unseen equipment is a much bigger change that what I would propose.
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore. Changing the background so, say, a Dark Elf character was actually qualified to be king but just didn't cook long enough would be on the same level. For the record? I was HIGHLY against that one.
I agree, Introducing previously unseen equipment is a much bigger change that what I would propose.
There isn't an eyeroll emoji strong enough. I don't need official GW validation to have a Lithuanian/Irish descent based Marines chapter if I felt this overwhelming urge to be as self-fellating as some here, you don't need official GW validation to have FSM in your Chapter or a whole FSM chapter.
Dudeface wrote: . It's hypocritical to then say it's fine the church only have female sororitas because early 90's jokes about western military being largely misogynistic are fine to be maintained,.
Not what I was saying, though. The fact that their existence is based on a badly dated joke is one of my least favorite things about SoB.
Dudeface wrote: . It's hypocritical to then say it's fine the church only have female sororitas because early 90's jokes about western military being largely misogynistic are fine to be maintained,.
Not what I was saying, though. The fact that their existence is based on a badly dated joke is one of my least favorite things about SoB.
OK, so to clarify you're more than happy for the fluff to change and rectify both at once? Because most of the pro-femarines voices are oddly fine with sisters staying as they are.
It's kind of funny to me that people are trying to attribute traits to the entire Imperium as if it's a monolithic entity and not a VAST coalition of worlds linked by mainly beurocracy and loosely by religion. It just goes to show how much damage modern GW has done to the setting by making every thing a war torn dystopian hell hole and making the setting feel so much smaller as a result.
Dudeface wrote: Because most of the pro-femarines voices are oddly fine with sisters staying as they are.
Probably because the hyper-fascist theocracy showing misogyny in a secondary/tertiary faction is less of an issue than (perceived) misogyny in the faction that is the face of the game and overwhelmingly dominates the lore, especially the lore that new players/fans first see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore.
No, it is literally re-writing lore. The original lore was that marine chapters were explicitly banned by treaty from having aircraft other than the transports used to ferry them to surface battles and had to rely on supporting Imperial Navy fighter and bomber squadrons for everything else*. Want to have a close escort for your Thunderhawks so they don't all get shot down by enemy fighters? Better hope the senior Navy officer in the region thinks your chapter is sufficiently loyal to deserve a wing of Thunderbolts. This was one of those separation of powers things introduced to prevent a repeat of the Heresy by ensuring that any single rebelling regiment/chapter/etc would lack combined arms support and be unable to fight effectively against the loyalist forces sent to destroy them. A marine chapter building and operating air superiority fighters would be committing open treason on a level very comparable to trying to tinker with their genetic engineering to produce female marines. But oh look, GW wants to sell new space marine aircraft kits and suddenly all that fluff is retconned away with a stroke of the pen and we never hear it again.
*See also the similar situation in BFG, where marine fleets had very limited warship options built primarily for orbital bombardment and troop deployment at the expense of performance in fleet engagements and it was explicit canon that marines were not allowed to have fleet warships. Oh, you want to put a lance battery on your battle barge instead of macro cannons? Instant excommunication and a Navy fleet will be arriving shortly to purge your entire chapter.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/01/22 11:37:24
I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
Classy
We've already got the hyper fascist misogyny and transphobe accusations being thrown around. The classy ship sailed a while ago.
