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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.

The thing is I don't see a reason to not to do it. Ultimately it is very minor change compared to primarchs returning and galaxy being split in twain.

I also think you'd still see hate anyways.

Sure. But then they couldn't hide behind "but my canon!" and I'm sure such attitudes would become less accepted.


I'm not really crusading for this, but I think if done subtly and without making a big deal about it, the change would be a net positive.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Considering what SoB are inspired by and in essence fundamentally even technically space marines before primaris became an entirely unnecessary thing... If that aesthethique is off-putting then it is fair to say that 40k is not for you.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.

So it really does boil down to it must be done in the specific way you want or it can't exist. Gotcha. Still disagree with it.

Uh, what? You're the one claiming that a fictional battle should be granted the same validity as real life ones. You don't see that?

Insectum7 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Twelve dudes made a dude who made 20 dudes in his image without anyone asking 'what if dudette?' is how it started. Things could be different but no one has ever wondered or questioned or self reflected at any point.

Genuinely, I think that's one of the most compelling aspects about it.

Not "because science" but "because backwards".

So why does the Imperium recruit women soldiers, support non-binary and trans- identities, and is institutionally egalitarian?

The Imperium IS backwards, but gender is not one of them, and that's been the case the entire time. For someone who likes to fall back on old lore, I'd have hoped you'd have known this.

Just Tony wrote:The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.

Lizard people aren't real. Space Marines are trans-human, and look humanoid. Not the same thing.

Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.

haha purple hair and pronouns, what a funny joke. /j

Breton wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Marines are a blank slate. They can be anything. Despite the 'crusading warrior monk' schtick, they dont even have to be that - my Raptors say hi, for example. Val the bloody hander slayer of arcturus from the Nordic themed Thor's Hammers chapter of Astartes has as much crossover with Sororitas as an ork.

You're confusing and conflating either their pre-induction lives or someone's fanfic non-canon chapter fluff. Every chapter I've ever read about still has some sort of warrior monk religious aspect inside the chapter even if it may be as different in details as the Ultramarines and the Mortifactors. You're still going to find greco-roman dagger wrestling matches between two Marines in loincloths.

That's simply not true. Space Wolves lack nearly all religious aspects. The Raptors, likewise, are nearly entirely tacticool.

The "religious" nature of Astartes Chapters is not to be conflated with cultural customs. We're looking at ideas of *veneration* or of *spirituality* when it comes to religion. Most Astartes Chapters don't do that, at least, no more so than ANY Imperial culture does.

Just Tony wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

I'm sorry, did you miss where Hec here asked for people to JUSTIFY trans ideology? Why the hell does that need justifying?

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.

Would you say that about Primaris Marines ten years ago? Aircraft? Grav-weapons? Centurions?

Seems a little weird, your fixation on participation trophies. Did you not get one, and all the other kids did?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't really care if lore reasons can be invented to either disallow or allow femarines, I'd simply prefer the astartes to remain big burly dudes rather than big burly women.

Why not both? You can have your Astartes as big burly men, but why not other people have both? I suppose my comment here is less why "I'd simply prefer the Astartes to..." and why not "I'd simply prefer MY Astartes to..." because that's really all I'm asking.

Hecaton wrote:
That's not even the argument, since it's almost entirely men wanting to have female space marines in their armies.

Hi. Not a man. What's your take on that?

Generally, yeah, because people from that discipline often make a butchery of biology as a science.

I'm very left wing but I put my stock in actual science.

Gender isn't science - it's a cultural construct. Please, commit reading. Oh, and also to actual biology too, because you're still vastly outdated.

Just Tony wrote:Oh, and it's "strawperson"...

And case in point on mocking transphobia. Do you get tired of this?

Hecaton wrote:The lore says nothing about the gender identity of the people involved.

The lore calls Astartes he and him and brother. Gendered pronouns, baybee.

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.

Nah buddy, you've made this comment before - and you've still never backed it up. Show us these EXACT comments where the Imperium does these on an INSTITUTIONAL level.

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.

So, you're saying that FSM fans are pro-fascist because they want to see women toy soldiers? Gods, you're genuinely delusional. You're explicitly calling me a fascist. How the hell are are still here?

AllSeeingSkink wrote: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.

Now, I do agree with this, and appreciate your willingness to let people do as they want to - HOWEVER, unfortunately, some people will still use that lore as a cudgel. And, personally, I think if they're incapable of playing nicely in the sandbox, they need their toys taken away. It's not hard - the kids who can play nicely with other kids get to have fun, and those who can't are shown the door. Again - no-one wants to change anyone else's own army. Just giving people choice is enough.

Just Tony wrote: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.

You can have that, but you'll find very few people kicking up a stink if you show up with Lithuanian/Irish inspired models. Meanwhile, we have Breton here in the thread outright saying that they'd be trying to refuse a game against someone who played FSM, and first hand experience from many of us here who have experienced people crying when they see a FSM about how "it doesn't fit with the lore".

This is the kind of stuff we mean by that FSM is apparently a bridge too far. No-one cares when people make their own homebrew chapters, as long as they don't include women - because then, all hell breaks loose.

Tsagualsa wrote:What do people who want female Space Marines want from GW. There are several tiers imaginable:

- Female SM exist, but are visually identical to their male counterparts, so they need no specifically female models on the tabletop; their existence occasionally occurs in background works and in roleplaying campaigns etc.

- Female SM exist and are visually identifiable, but in a restrained way, similar to current AOS Stormcast or Warriors of Chaos; their existence occurs in background works, roleplaying, and via the odd model with a slightly more feminine general shape, a mix of male and female heads and torsos, and so on

Combination of the above. Body shape is indistinguishable, no need for alternate bodies. When helmeted, also no distinction. When unhelmed, due to the fact that we have masculine-presenting heads, we should also have femme-presenting heads too. The other solution is that masc-presenting heads are removed, and replaced with entirely inhuman heads - ie, MASSIVELY scarred and disfigured, full of augmentics, gender-indistinguishable.

Basically, we remove gendered appearance entirely, or allow for non-masculine features to be present in the heads alone.

Breton wrote:I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.

One hell of an assumption. I have FSM, and am non-binary and queer. You think I'd call you that if you were winning?

Crimson wrote:Now if marines were some minor faction, this wouldn't be a big deal, but they're the massively over presented main faction, and that is not going to change.
And a big part of their appeal is that you can personalise them. Vampire marines? Sure! Viking marines? Go ahead! Mongol marines? Not a problem. Amazon marines? Get out of here!

Absolutely this. I don't complain that Custodes are all male, because they're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of GW's marketing. But Space Marines - they're the flagship. That won't change any time soon. They're also the "hey folks, we released a chibi Space Marines advent calendar! Oh, and a Paint-Your-Own Funko Pop! And a paint your own fully articulated mini! See how much customisation you can have with your Space Marines!" On a purely marketing level, why on earth should the flagship faction be so much of an ex-sausage party?

That is but ONE of many reasons, but it's the biggest argument as to why Space Marines, and not any others.

Spoiler:

* With converting female marines finding properly sized heads is the hurdle. Most GW's female heads look way too tiny.

Gods I do love that work.

Insectum7 wrote:Seems to me that an obvious counterpoint is that you didn't need GW to greenlight your cool conversions though. You're already free to personalize away without changing the setting.

It doesn't stop people from saying "COOL BUT THE LORE SAYS..."

If you haven't seen those sorts of comments, you're a lucky person. I've seen Crimson's art/conversions in various places across the interwebs, and they invariably have a comment like that left on them.

a_typical_hero wrote:If somebody wants to be a dick about you or your models, they will find a way. No amount of officiall regulation from GW will change that.

But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?

Disarm them. Remove their veneer of legitimacy. Take away their ability to use the lore as a hammer to smash down people's ideas. They'll get the message.

@Crimson:
Imo the (loyalist) Primarchs returning and the galaxy splitting in two were already pretty awful changes. And I know you know my feelings on Primaris

As for "net positive", I can see why one would think/want that too. But to me it feels like activism in a place/way where I'd rather it isn't.

Female Custodes are much more palatable to me. That's a change I happily advocate for.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.

I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.

I also think you'd still see hate anyways.

Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.

I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.

I also think you'd still see hate anyways.

Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?

Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.

I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.

I also think you'd still see hate anyways.

Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?

Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more) instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Considering what SoB are inspired by and in essence fundamentally even technically space marines before primaris became an entirely unnecessary thing

This simply isn't true.

Astartes:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Genetically enhanced
- Existed as long as the Imperium
- Multitudes of different warfare styles
- Aesthetic and cultural variety
- Entirely independent

Sororitas:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Humans
- Existed for only a portion of the Imperium's history, missing out on the Heresy
- Flame, melta, bolter, and not that many alternative fighting methods (no stealth, aerial insertion, Terminator heavy, etc)
- One showcased aesthetic, that of pseudo-Catholicism
- Subservient to the Ecclesiarchy

... If that aesthethique is off-putting then it is fair to say that 40k is not for you.

Not all aesthetics in 40k are that of the SoB though. Someone can enjoy 40k and not enjoy the RANGE of aesthetics that the different factions have. Tau have a very different aesthetic to the Sisters, who have a different one to the Votann, who have a different one to the Tyranids. However, when the only women army uses a very limited aesthetic range, that's not great, is it?

Compared to Astartes who are encouraged to be varied.

Insectum7 wrote:As for "net positive", I can see why one would think/want that too. But to me it feels like activism in a place/way where I'd rather it isn't.

Including women isn't activism. It's just being reflective in your flagship product of 50% of the population. Being inclusive isn't activism.

Female Custodes are much more palatable to me. That's a change I happily advocate for.

Why Custodes, and not Astartes? Isn't that "activist"?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.

I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.

I also think you'd still see hate anyways.

Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?

Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more) instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.

What is with your obsession with breasts? No one is saying people want that, but people keep bringing it up.

Not Online!!! wrote:Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.

Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?

Just a thought?

EviscerationPlague wrote:Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more)

Yeah, just like how GW has also released more and more and more Space Marines. You want a new JoyToy Marine?

instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.

Who asked for boobplate and makeup? Is that what you're after?

Or can you only imagine women as having breasts and makeup?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?

Because the problem is not the fiction, but the person you are interacting with.

Change the lore and that guy will find the next "flaw" to make a comment about.

Change the person and all the possible lore of past present and future doesn't matter.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?

Because the problem is not the fiction, but the person you are playing with.

Change the lore and that guy will find the next "flaw" to make a comment about about.

Change the person and all the possible lore of past present and future doesn't matter.

Sure - but are we going to accept the idea that we can't do anything about that, or it's not our problem? Don't we want to make the community kinder? Don't we want to show the door to people who are incapable of being at the very least empathetic, or just not throwing a fit over what heads your plastic models use?

It's all well and good to say "well, they're just gonna do it anyways, it doesn't matter what we do" - what's the point in doing anything that way? We wouldn't need errata or balance patches for 40k, because "power gamers will power game", or we wouldn't need to punish cheaters because "cheaters will always cheat".

Don't we want to safeguard our community?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.

I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.

I also think you'd still see hate anyways.

Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?

Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more) instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.

What is with your obsession with breasts? No one is saying people want that, but people keep bringing it up.

You obviously haven't seen a majority of fan art for female Marines or even SoB fan art in general. It's all over IG and Facebook, and that doesn't even count the degenerates on DeviantArt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.

Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?

Just a thought?

EviscerationPlague wrote:Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more)

Yeah, just like how GW has also released more and more and more Space Marines. You want a new JoyToy Marine?

instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.

Who asked for boobplate and makeup? Is that what you're after?

Or can you only imagine women as having breasts and makeup?

They released a SoB JoyToy, so that made your argument incredibly irrelevant.

Also yeah, if you hadn't noticed, fan art for female Marines and SoB in general give more pronounced boobplate and makeup. You can feel free to deny it, but it's not what a majority of that art is: fetishism.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.

Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?

Just a thought?

considering your reaction, no i don't think so, i think bluntly and that sounds way ruder than it is intended, that this is an issue of your selfesteem and or your hobby skills and or hobby group.

Is it against the lore? Yes.
Is that a valid reason to point out or even avoid a match against your army? yes, for people that value the setting and lore that is more than fair enough to decline but that can and will be done against any other army that doesn't fit 40k by some people.


When the only comment is, that it isn't cannon, well yes so what?
if someone loses their gak then you didn't want to play them anyways because chances are they take themselves too serious anyways.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sure - but are we going to accept the idea that we can't do anything about that, or it's not our problem? Don't we want to make the community kinder? Don't we want to show the door to people who are incapable of being at the very least empathetic, or just not throwing a fit over what heads your plastic models use?

It's all well and good to say "well, they're just gonna do it anyways, it doesn't matter what we do" - what's the point in doing anything that way? We wouldn't need errata or balance patches for 40k, because "power gamers will power game", or we wouldn't need to punish cheaters because "cheaters will always cheat".

Don't we want to safeguard our community?

You can (and should) do this already. Do you want to tell me you suffer through a whole game of snarky and disrespectful comments, but if GW writes female Marines into the lore, you would step up in the very same situation? And then you would only do it about comments regarding female Marines, but if they find the next thing, you will endure it again, until something official is done about it?

Dudes*, if some donkey is showing disruptive behaviour in your community, speak up. And if they don't want to correct their behaviour, throw them out of your community. This has nothing to do at all with what the offical story is or not.


*What's the "they" form for dude anyway?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Considering what SoB are inspired by and in essence fundamentally even technically space marines before primaris became an entirely unnecessary thing

This simply isn't true.

Astartes:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Genetically enhanced
- Existed as long as the Imperium
- Multitudes of different warfare styles
- Aesthetic and cultural variety
- Entirely independent

Sororitas:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Humans
- Existed for only a portion of the Imperium's history, missing out on the Heresy
- Flame, melta, bolter, and not that many alternative fighting methods (no stealth, aerial insertion, Terminator heavy, etc)
- One showcased aesthetic, that of pseudo-Catholicism
- Subservient to the Ecclesiarchy

... If that aesthethique is off-putting then it is fair to say that 40k is not for you.

Not all aesthetics in 40k are that of the SoB though. Someone can enjoy 40k and not enjoy the RANGE of aesthetics that the different factions have. Tau have a very different aesthetic to the Sisters, who have a different one to the Votann, who have a different one to the Tyranids. However, when the only women army uses a very limited aesthetic range, that's not great, is it?

Compared to Astartes who are encouraged to be varied.

Yet, we see, priests (chaplains), knightly armour and swords, cross symbology, double headed eagles ala HRE/ Religious symbol on marines all the time....

So no, you are wrong on the list already and secondly, Eldar, Dark Eldar and tau also exist and are esthethiqually quite diverse, especialy if you consider corsairs or the differing subgroups of deldar and if you don't want to field PA then the guard and a whole slew of regiments to your liking exist and may only require slightly more effort to field..

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?

Because the problem is not the fiction, but the person you are interacting with.

^This.

It's essentially the "This is why we can't have nice things" argument. You're letting a couple d***heads ruin it for everybody.

Even if you think all-male Space Marines isn't a "nice" thing, the point remains the same.

Uh, what? You're the one claiming that a fictional battle should be granted the same validity as real life ones. You don't see that?

This is your claim down here.

Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?

Just a thought?

So if a historical donkey cave is insulting your models it's fine because it's a valid battle, but not for fictional ones?

I am interested in if the Astartes are even humans anymore.

If the Sci magic that takes a baseline Human and turns them into Astartes could be used on both Females and Males wouldn't the end result be something that qualifies as something new rather than their previous forms?

Lore states countless times that Astartes are something separate and a step or two removed from the humanity of the Imperium.

I guess my question is what distinction could be made between former Males and Females that have undergone transformation?

Would there be any physical distinction?

I am of the opinion that physiologically Astartes are inhuman monsters (to the baseline) A transformation Including Females would show little variation. (Geneseed and Chapter depending).

So, if there is no outward difference in appearance the 'value' of both Female and Males aspirants for Astartes transformation exists only for in game lore.

If this leaves a change to be made in the current lore does it even matter to have the change in the first place?
Could GW writers be trusted to make such a change impactful and meaningful?


Obviously this just my opinion informed by my own experiences.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm for female marines. Lore is no reason not to do it; lore has been changed and expanded before an it will be again.

Now if marines were some minor faction, this wouldn't be a big deal, but they're the massively over presented main faction, and that is not going to change.
And a big part of their appeal is that you can personalise them. Vampire marines? Sure! Viking marines? Go ahead! Mongol marines? Not a problem. Amazon marines? Get out of here!

I think it would just enrichen the settin to open up this avenue of personalisation too. And It wouldn't require much from GW. Just acknowledge in some throwaway sentence that whilst rare, female marines are possible. And perhaps have some feminine marine heads in some upgrade sprue.* As far as I know, most people who want female marines don't want extensive range redesign with boobplates etc.






* With converting female marines finding properly sized heads is the hurdle. Most GW's female heads look way too tiny.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Except lizard people arent real

That's what they want you to think!

I don't think the issue is whether or not to add an Amazons chapter (I'd be for it), but instead making the brotherhoods co-ed.

Removed

Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.

If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.

However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.

I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.

Personally, I have no real dog in this fight. I play a set of games where male/female/other characters have been baked in an equally represented from day 1. But if people want FSM then they will have to prove that it’s a profitable move overall for the company.

There are no male marines, so there's no reason to have female marines.

Try and remember than Marines aren't even human.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
There are no male marines, so there's no reason to have female marines.

Try and remember than Marines aren't even human.

If that were the case, I’d be fine with it.

But Marines aren’t portrayed as being that inhuman.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


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.

Well, the poster I was replying to said that male and female human bodies were so similar that it was impossible to conceive of a process that would work on male humans but not female humans. That's obviously trivially disprovable and that's what my post was about.

With respect to what you're saying, you haven't really established that it's better to have FSM than not, so you don't have a premise that your conclusion can follow from.

For what it's worth, I agree that Astartes should never have had air superiority fighters.

Sunno wrote:
Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.

If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.

However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.

I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.

I agree with this too. Right now GW has plenty of evidence that many of those who want female Marines will just make them by already buying GWs minis.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sunno wrote:
Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.

If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.

However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.

I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.

I agree with this too. Right now GW has plenty of evidence that many of those who want female Marines will just make them by already buying GWs minis.

They can put out a sprue of accessories then for conversions. Bam! Money made.

This topic always feels like a bait. But we are 13 pages inn and it is not banned yet so that is a good sign.

I would love female space marines. I see no reasons not to have it.

For one I would like them in my space wolves. Every head swap I have looked at does not fit (although I have not tried since Votan came out.)

Second I would really like more gender diversity in my 40k. I love it on my GSC and DE. Adding female space marines would cover a lot of ground.

I would love more gender diversity in my local gaming group. Representation theory tells us that more representation would lover the treshold for playing for unrepresented groups.

Lastly and this is maybe a hot button issue I generally dislike the people I interact with who do not want female space marines. Not because they do not female marines. Call it rather and accidental statistik.

I also think this would be very easy to implement. Just either rewrite the lore. Or just have Caws fix it like he fixed the space wolves. Add some alternative head swaps in new releases. Maiby even a conversion sprue that they sell separately for existing models. Do it in an edition shift

So wait, when did we shift to "But they aren't human!" argument? Because the sisters are basically not human. Show me a base human, or even Astartes, that can weaponize their believe in their god, without turning to Chaos. Seriously. This keeps coming up that the sisters are humans, but I doubt very much that they have the literal exact same DNA as say, the smelt worker down in the base level of the Hive.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So wait, when did we shift to "But they aren't human!" argument? Because the sisters are basically not human. Show me a base human, or even Astartes, that can weaponize their believe in their god, without turning to Chaos. Seriously. This keeps coming up that the sisters are humans, but I doubt very much that they have the literal exact same DNA as say, the smelt worker down in the base level of the Hive.

Well you have random Psykers appearing in the population, maybe this is like that?