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.

Eh... I have seen people call Space Marine 2 "woke" because it has a black and an asian Ultramarines.

Yeah the stupidity is real.

Forgot to add this to my conclusion.

Whilst nobody can be compelled to partake in your hobby, showing a more diverse offering harms nothing - and people are more interested in joining in when they feel welcomed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You got proof for that, Hero?
Actual scientific proof that women are inherently (and NOT just socially) predisposed towards not liking 40k as much as men?

First of all: No, there is no explicit study that clearly states who plays 40k for what reasons.
Second: Why would you exclude the social factor? Are we talking about some fictional women who never interact with the current human society until it is time for them to pick a hobby or what?
Third: Men and women simply gravitate towards different interests. Things like "military", "action", "gore", "violence", "conflict" are typically more attractive for males. For whatever reason. And all those things are aplenty in Warhammer 40k.

SpaceDenizen wrote:
[spoiler]Ultimately, you may well be correct in your assessment of Warhammer 40,000 as a hobby. As a counterpoint, most of people who write, say, Yu-Gi-Oh TCG fanfiction tend to be women and yet when I was a child going to events for game, I remember there being a distinct lack of women playing the game at these events, despite knowing how much fanficiton women write about the game and it was obvious to me that many of them had intimate knowledge of the lore. Even if women may never outnumber men at Warhammer 40,000 events, I still believe more could be done to encourage female participation.

Isn't it actually more of an additional, anecdotal proof for what I said? Only based on your own assesment, it seems that while both genders enjoyed Yu-Gi-Oh, they were interested in very different aspects of it. Playing 40k might just be like that. I wouldn't be surprised if - speaking about all current, female 40k enthusiasts - more are into collecting / painting than playing. On Youtube there doesn't seem to be shortage of painting channels run by women, compared to channels with battle reports. At least thats what the Youtube algorithm leads me to believe.

 a_typical_hero wrote:
Playing 40k might just be like that. I wouldn't be surprised if - speaking about all current, female 40k enthusiasts - more are into collecting / painting than playing. On Youtube there doesn't seem to be shortage of painting channels run by women, compared to channels with battle reports. At least thats what the Youtube algorithm leads me to believe.

So what? Even if that would be the case, why would it matter to the issue at hand? Like they still buy the models, so if having female marines would make more people to buy models, even if some of them bough them just to paint, then why does it matter?


And as for "it just is a thing women are not interested in," I think it is probably bollocks. People kept saying the same about D&D and other tabletop RPGs, and that turned out not to be true. Turns out if people feel welcome and represented in the game, they will participate.

See my previous comments about showing inclusivity being a net positive.

Are many women of any age gonna be jazzed by 40K? Who knows.

But, if you show your setting includes them, what harm have you done?

And it is a “By Degrees” change. You can’t just say “this is Minsa Lensk, badass Guardswoman” and then expect every woman who sees it to throw money at you. Nothing works that way.

But it will attract some. Usually nerdy women. Who will have nerdy women friends. Who, like nerdy boys who have nerdy boy friends that discover 40K and GW, those other nerdy girls will be encouraged to see what the fuss is about.

Maybe they’ll get into the full hobby. Maybe they’ll just enjoy the artistic sides of it, or the fiction side of it. GW likely doesn’t care, because however limited their involvement is? That’s still fresh revenue in the till.

And over a few years, it will become Just Another Regular Nerd Thing, as TTRPG and even LARP has become.

Then, looking at GW’s financials over the past what, seven or eight years? It may not be directly responsible, but it’s clearly not hurt it any,

And the funniest thing to me? The absolute futility of Weird Internet Men As Self Appointed Gate Keepers. Because it is absolutely futile. Their echo chambers are not the entirety of the hobby, and absolutely no business is gonna refuse service to someone, just because some smelly little nerk says they shouldn’t be made welcome.

 Crimson wrote:

 a_typical_hero wrote:
Playing 40k might just be like that. I wouldn't be surprised if - speaking about all current, female 40k enthusiasts - more are into collecting / painting than playing. On Youtube there doesn't seem to be shortage of painting channels run by women, compared to channels with battle reports. At least thats what the Youtube algorithm leads me to believe.

So what? Even if that would be the case, why would it matter to the issue at hand? Like they still buy the models, so if having female marines would make more people to buy models, even if some of them bough them just to paint, then why does it matter?

Did you actually see that the quoted part was specifically in response to someone else asking why there are only few women shown on pictures from GW? Probably not, since it would answer your question "what it got to do with the topic at hand". Did I say GW should not release FSM because women would only buy them to paint and never play? No, I didn't. Your reply is arguing about something I didn't even write.

 Crimson wrote:

And as for "it just is a thing women are not interested in," I think it is probably bollocks. People kept saying the same about D&D and other tabletop RPGs, and that turned out not to be true. Turns out if people feel welcome and represented in the game, they will participate.

You are welcome to your opinion, though I would challenge you to prove the surge in female D&D players being due to representation rather than general popularity in pop culture. As far as I know, you could create a female hero ever since first edition, after all. Statistics show a 60:40 ratio for male and female players, just fyi.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 a_typical_hero wrote:
Playing 40k might just be like that. I wouldn't be surprised if - speaking about all current, female 40k enthusiasts - more are into collecting / painting than playing. On Youtube there doesn't seem to be shortage of painting channels run by women, compared to channels with battle reports. At least thats what the Youtube algorithm leads me to believe.

So what? Even if that would be the case, why would it matter to the issue at hand? Like they still buy the models, so if having female marines would make more people to buy models, even if some of them bough them just to paint, then why does it matter?

Did you actually see that the quoted part was specifically in response to someone else asking why there are only few women shown on pictures from GW? Probably not, since it would answer your question "what it got to do with the topic at hand". Did I say GW should not release FSM because women would only buy them to paint and never play? No, I didn't. Your reply is arguing about something I didn't even write.

 Crimson wrote:

And as for "it just is a thing women are not interested in," I think it is probably bollocks. People kept saying the same about D&D and other tabletop RPGs, and that turned out not to be true. Turns out if people feel welcome and represented in the game, they will participate.

You are welcome to your opinion, though I would challenge you to proof the surge in female D&D players being due to representation rather than general popularity in pop culture. As far as I know, you could create a female hero ever since first edition, after all. Statistics show a 60:40 ratio for male and female players, just fyi.

Women not participating in these hobby’s could be for a number of factors, from being pushed out or neglected as a market.
But a significant reason could be financial, in a lot of countries women have only had control of their own financial control for a two generations now.
The bank I use here only removed men from women’s accounts in 2011 as software was updated, with software often before then assuming that the men on the account where in control.
It’s similar to gaming, I grow up being told constantly by boys that we don’t play video games, now women and girls are a growing market for video games.
So an expensive and time consuming hobby would probably take a long time to even out naturally.
More men probably pass on there hobby to friends and family, why only now are women able to do that.

For representation it’s both, as women get into the hobby they want to be able to create and use characters as well as see better representation they find interesting.

As for marines, I actually prefer them staying male only. But I think that’s an issue as they are more and more being represented as heroic, rather than tragic and quite a dark creation. To much a power fantasy over the themes I think make 40K interesting. So you end up with a shiny these are the heroes faction, and if you want to play that you got little choice.

This also leads to much of every other faction being difficult to do a similar thing with, and all Female craftworld army is doable. But you ether skip a lot of minis or say some are female,
Tau also, but it’s annoying having to effectively say constantly since people assume your characters are male, as it’s just taken as default.
A lot of factions fall into this, options that should be available are not.
Sisters of battle are hard , or a lot of work to do other themes. Sisters of silence are kinda just in need of some love.

This is why Tyranids are best.

Really I just think it’s that so much of its neglect being reflected in what some people want.

English is tough, but hopefully I got some of my thoughts down well.

If I can add a small personal view, the two things that my wife dislikes about 40K (and she likes fantasy, sci-fi and board gaming in other areas), is that the Space Marines are boys only, and that the female faction are BDSM nuns.

For her, that ruins the whole universe.

SpaceDenizen wrote:
Whilst we are at it, the League of Votann also appear to have no female members, having all male models. .

https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/shop/kill-team-hernkyn-yaegirs-2024 - pictures 1x2, 2x3 and 3x2
https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/shop/lov-hearthkyn-warriors-2022 - Top-left, possibly lower-left
https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/shop/lov-einhyr-hearthguard-2022 - Upper-left, lower centre
Votann are clones anyway, so gender is irrelevant for them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Forgot to add this to my conclusion.

Whilst nobody can be compelled to partake in your hobby, showing a more diverse offering harms nothing - and people are more interested in joining in when they feel welcomed.

What is added though as you already can kitbash female heads on spacemarines, or just buy the (again superior) custodes or sororitas.
Why do existing armies (and lore) need to be changed, what about the people who feel unwelcome or estranged by that?, it looks to me its always one way, like with this thread existing, I make one post and am already called a troll just for my opinion worded respectfully, go figure.

Can you imagine people requesting male sororitas and going ape the moment there is someone stating "but that breaks the lore and I like the lore".. it's the exact same thing.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
If I can add a small personal view, the two things that my wife dislikes about 40K (and she likes fantasy, sci-fi and board gaming in other areas), is that the Space Marines are boys only, and that the female faction are BDSM nuns.

For her, that ruins the whole universe.

Spacemarines are more bdsm than the adeptus sororitas actually, type/copypaste "is it painful to become a spacemarine" into google.

It’s…really not. At all.

As it stands background wise, Astartes and Sororitas are mono-gendered for purely background reasons.

I’ve already explored in this thread that there are various plausible ways to alter it for Astartes. Very brief recap? Loss of Primarchs rendered the Astartes Project a Bodge/Salvage job, which got to “good enough” in time for the warp storms to clear, when it was off to the races.

Therefore, Astartes were never a finished project, or even a particularly intended one. And the whole chromosomal limitation can comfortably be interpreted not as a conscious decision, but one brought about by time constraints.

Cawl has already developed that project further, producing the superior Primaris Astartes.

Given time and resources? It is possible Cawl could address and work around the chromosomal limitation issue, effectively doubling the pool of potential recruits.

Sororitas? Oh no, it’s a fatal semantic error! The Ecclesiarchy, in the wake of Goge Vandire’s nonsense, was subject to the Decree Passive, preventing them having men under arms. That linguistic oversight essentially greenlit the Daughters of the Emperor to become the Chamber Militant of the Ecclesiarchy, albeit one with greater oversight and lesser independence.

Could the Decree Passive be overturned? Sure. Why has no attempt been made? I’m not entirely sure, but I’d wager it’s the balancing act of “if we kick up a stink, it could go either way, we might end up being able to have Men Under Arms, or the linguistic oversight will be clarified and we’ll lose our own standing army”

Either way? I wouldn’t be terribly mad about either change, and it’s not cool to go making arguments just to support your own position.

But in terms of Imperial Politics “oh yeah, the Chapters can now convert young boys and girls into Astartes” is a lot less troubling to others than the risk of the Ecclesiarchy expanding its own not insignificant armed forces, as the Ecclesiarchy has a far greater impact on day to day Imperial lives than the Astartes (a non-political element) ever have.

The conclusion that the current status quo is fine because you can buy 3rd party bits that will make your models unusable in certain GW stores or to simply play another faction, one which currently has no female presenting head options or the faction that wears sexualised armour and has half naked women as a unit option, is hardly discussing in good faith.

The idea that there would be some sort of mass exodus because suddenly women can be Space Marines leads to the implication that most of the people who collect Space Marines only do so because they are a male only faction which is just absurd.

GW made more female models for Astra Militarum, no exodus despite people whinging online. GW made Sororitas look like soldiers with scars and such instead of pinup posters, no exodus despite people whinging online. GW put a black Space Marine on the cover of a novel series, no exodus despite whinging online. GW makes female custodes canon, no exodus despite people whinging online. Non-binary and trans characters are featured in various novels, no exodus despite whinging online.
It's almost like people don't actually care all that much and changes to the background doesn't really effect anything.

Sororitas are also recruited from the Schola Progenium. That is, they’re the children (and not always Orphans) of Imperial commanders and that, brought up from a young age in an institution which promotes loyalty over all.

The Schola also produces recruits for the Administratum, Commisariat, Storm Trooper corps and for a ‘lucky’ few, Inquisitorial agents. All of whom are famed for their loyalty to the throne.

Other all female armed forces?

Callidus Temple. This is because their signature thing, Polymorphine, works better on female physiology. Exactly why isn’t explained, but like a lot of 40K stuff we just have to accept that’s the case. And given the importance of Assassins completing their missions, whilst men can use Polymorphine, it does make sense to ensure your recruits are as adept with it as possible, hence all female.

Sisters of Silence. Now those fascinate me, because they’re all Blanks, and Blanks are stupendously rare. There also doesn’t seem to be a correlation with sex and chance of being a Blank. And given their crucial role? There must be a reason why they’re all female, when their apparent rarity makes such discrimination daft. I’ve long speculated that’s because they’re not naturally born. That there’s something (cloning, cloneskein aka Kin, something akin to a Primarch and Geneseed) involved. And by culture or technological limitation, it’s only women that are brought in/manufactured.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:
Why do existing armies (and lore) need to be changed, what about the people who feel unwelcome or estranged by that?

 Gert wrote:
The idea that there would be some sort of mass exodus because suddenly women can be Space Marines leads to the implication that most of the people who collect Space Marines only do so because they are a male only faction which is just absurd.

And once again, the opinion of someone who is on the "contra" side is grossly misrepresented. For what reason, exactly?

Since it is established background that hasn't been altered for decades, SM being male only is as much part of their identity as Sororitas being female only, Nids being a faceless threat and Orks being green. If you don't put enough effort into changes that feel natural and as improvements to the narrative, you run the risk of alienating your existing fans, undermine the narrative consistency and risk the dilution of themes. Hint: "FSM now exist, go suck it" is not the way to go, but was the initial proposition in the other thread.

Edit:
And I can spin your argument around: Did the inclusion of female Custodes lead to a mass influx of female players into the game? I can tell you that we had 0 new female members for our Warhammer group in the local club ever since the Custodes dex was released. So if it doesn't lead to the desired outcome, why bother?

 Gert wrote:
It's almost like people don't actually care all that much and changes to the background doesn't really effect anything.

This is true until it isn't. While not directly a retcon, just look at what happened to the fanbases of Star Wars and Game of Thrones, when episodes 7-9 and the final season respectively went into story directions that didn't resonate at all with the core audience.

 a_typical_hero wrote:
*snip*

Please, then: enlighten us as to how GW saying, "Cawl was able to figure out how make girl Marines so that Chapters could double their recruiting pool in the face high attrition" would offend you. It's not a retcon like it was with the Custodes.

It's okay - I'll wait.

Well, the Star Wars sequels brought in a cumulative $4,400,000,000 at the box office alone. With who knows how much on home media and merch (with merch long since being the real power behind the Star Wars throne).

So not the disaster many say. Like….at all. By any metric they were very successful and lucrative movies.

Removed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, the Star Wars sequels brought in a cumulative $4,400,000,000 at the box office alone. With who knows how much on home media and merch (with merch long since being the real power behind the Star Wars throne).

So not the disaster many say. Like….at all. By any metric they were very successful and lucrative movies.

It's funny you say merch because it's demonstrated quite strongly that the movie merch sales for the sequels sold very, very poorly in comparison to the toys and other tie-in promotionals that were sold for the original trilogy or prequel trilogy, even for stuff that is released long after the movies were made. Lots of those toys left in the aisle that were quickly marked down given lack of sales and you can't forget the fact that there's so few spin off sequel stuff that they were able to create compared to the abundance of merch that was made for clone wars (especially since the Resistance TV series was so short lived and almost universally dismissed by the larger fandom).

No one cares about having a General Hux or Snoke figure compared to a General Grievous or Maul, and I would say one of the sequel's greatest failures is creating meaningful or distinct villains that didn't harken back to a previous design (Kylo Ren being bargain bin Vader and literally bringing back Palpatine in wheelchair mode for the final movie).

The box office for the sequel trilogy comes from the sheer inertia of the dearth of mainline SW content that drove people to see what the next trilogy was a bout, and given how poorly received recent SW D+ offerings have been despite Disney apologists, it's pretty apparent that if they did release another movie trilogy it would not fare very well now that the cat's been out of the bag, both for the quality of the recent releases and the oversaturation of poor SW content. Otherwise Disney would have already followed through on all the supposed major movie trilogies that were should have come out by now for people like Rian Johnson, Benioff and Weiss, and so many other directors that were told they would get to set up movies.

It's why the main thing that's been able to sell well at all and Disney has been crazy in trying to shoe-horn him into everything is Baby Yoda/Mando, that was the initial sleeper hit that they weren't expecting to sell like gangbusters and because of that they ruined the whole plotline of the 2nd season of Mandalorian just to bring him back for the 3rd season because he's like their main money maker for merch.

Like let's be real, I highly doubt you have multiple merch of Rose Tico and Maz Kanata in your closet.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Please, then: enlighten us as to how GW saying, "Cawl was able to figure out how make girl Marines so that Chapters could double their recruiting pool in the face high attrition" would offend you. It's not a retcon like it was with the Custodes.

It's okay - I'll wait.

It wouldn't. I even proposed this myself as a possible angle to introduce the change. But GW didn't when Primaris and Cawl were revealed. If they now said "btw. we nearly forgot to mention it, but Cawl also fixed the issue that geneseed was only compatible with boys" it would feel cheap to me. Just as the Custodes change feels cheap.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, the Star Wars sequels brought in a cumulative $4,400,000,000 at the box office alone. With who knows how much on home media and merch (with merch long since being the real power behind the Star Wars throne).

So not the disaster many say. Like….at all. By any metric they were very successful and lucrative movies.

I fully expected this reply when I decided to mention Star Wars. Yes, Disney was successful with it, despite producing three very mediocre to bad stories. The numbers for "The Force Awakens" are likely inflated though, since it was the first Star Wars movie after 10 years, while both "The Last Jedi" and "The Rise of Skywalker" made ~50% less at the worldwide box office already, showing a constant negative trend. I bet even Game of Thrones was still lucrative for Sky or whoever produced it. But I have yet to find a person in real life who is happy with how the legacy characters were portrayed, first and foremost Luke. Personal opinion that I can't back up with any statistics: SW lost its magic. It went from "I hope they make another movie someday, SW is so cool" to "they just announced another SW, who cares". <- I feel this borders on being off-topic, so if you want to continue talking about SW, feel free to write me a PM.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As said, if such a change came, I’d want some background to go with it, because I’m a right slag for background. And I reserve the right to be disappointed in such potential background if it’s a bit ropey. But even if it is “oh actually they’ve always taken both sexes as recruits now”? Teddy isn’t gonna be launched from my pram.

Given the whole Primaris thing, I can't imagine the background would be good...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Looking at the Female Custodes as an example...

We had gamer outrage for a month or two... then most everyone has moved on.

I think there is a cultural thing as well. I have had yank friends tell me I can't understand the depth of feeing over woke/trans/feminist/drag/whatever issues in the US. While the last government in the UK did its best to highlight those issues it never took off like it did over there. And most of the efforts in the UK were laughable. I still remember the attempt to import anger about men in drag, only for Paul Grady (a famous entertainer who liked drag and animals) to die and the various media outlets realise they had to pick a different topic to bash people with.

In retrospect, I don't believe I should have put in my thoughts as this issue affects women more than me, we should be seeking their opinions on the material.

And that is an odd one. Yes of course we should - but this is a non essential product. You sell it by making people want it. So if they don't currently want it, you won't get good engagement. How do you make them want it when it is aimed at boys? Are you confident enough salemen to sell it as is (not that much luck), or to sell it if you change it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
What boggles my mind the most about this whole thing is that there are people who absolutely straighfaced seriously tie their enjoyment of marines with the explicit absence of women.

Given they are aimed at adolescent boys, adding in females to a force makes the writing harder, harder to read for some young men and no doubt resulting in things like space marine romances. Now that would undoubtedly sell - hell I am sure same sex space marine romance comics would sell in some countries - but would it detract from core sales and appeal?

In a real world aside for a moment allowing women into the armed forces both changed those services but also changed their relationship with wider society.

 a_typical_hero wrote:
I fully expected this reply when I decided to mention Star Wars. Yes, Disney was successful with it, despite producing three very mediocre to bad stories. The numbers for "The Force Awakens" are likely inflated though, since it was the first Star Wars movie after 10 years, while both "The Last Jedi" and "The Rise of Skywalker" made ~50% less at the worldwide box office already, showing a constant negative trend. I bet even Game of Thrones was still lucrative for Sky or whoever produced it. But I have yet to find a person in real life who is happy with how the legacy characters were portrayed, first and foremost Luke. Personal opinion that I can't back up with any statistics: SW lost its magic. It went from "I hope they make another movie someday, SW is so cool" to "they just announced another SW, who cares". <- I feel this borders on being off-topic, so if you want to continue talking about SW, feel free to write me a PM.

What I find hilarious is that this almost exactly describes the situation and my personal feelings with the prequel trilogy. Yes, the Disney trilogy is bad, but it didn't "ruin Star Wars," Lucas already did that himself. I have literally never been as disappointed with a film than I was with Phantom Menace. At least the dialogue and acting in the Disney trilogy is not actively painful to watch most of the time, even though the plot makes no sense whatsoever.

And to get back to 40K, I think GW already ruined the lore by bringing back the loyalist primarchs. The setting has already been changed in far more fundamental and theme-destroying way than adding female marines ever could. So let's at least change the setting in positive way then!

 a_typical_hero wrote:

Third: Men and women simply gravitate towards different interests. Things like "military", "action", "gore", "violence", "conflict" are typically more attractive for males. For whatever reason. And all those things are aplenty in Warhammer 40k.

I do love to add that in the history of wargaming in the Victorian period it was popular amongst both men and women in the middle classes. Now why people do things in whatever period is interesting, and no doubt here the UK being a militaristic empire played a part. Post WW1 though women wargames disappeared. And has barely recovered. I tried to get my daughter into wargaming (the professional planning/testing/training serial stuff) as companies like Rand will hire women on the spot with the basics (Kings do a wargaming masters for example) already learnt as existing gamers think in very similar ways and that is terrible for design and running serials.

 Crimson wrote:

 a_typical_hero wrote:
I fully expected this reply when I decided to mention Star Wars. Yes, Disney was successful with it, despite producing three very mediocre to bad stories. The numbers for "The Force Awakens" are likely inflated though, since it was the first Star Wars movie after 10 years, while both "The Last Jedi" and "The Rise of Skywalker" made ~50% less at the worldwide box office already, showing a constant negative trend. I bet even Game of Thrones was still lucrative for Sky or whoever produced it. But I have yet to find a person in real life who is happy with how the legacy characters were portrayed, first and foremost Luke. Personal opinion that I can't back up with any statistics: SW lost its magic. It went from "I hope they make another movie someday, SW is so cool" to "they just announced another SW, who cares". <- I feel this borders on being off-topic, so if you want to continue talking about SW, feel free to write me a PM.

What I find hilarious is that this almost exactly describes the situation and my personal feelings with the prequel trilogy. Yes, the Disney trilogy is bad, but it didn't "ruin Star Wars," Lucas already did that himself. I have literally never been as disappointed with a film than I was with Phantom Menace. At least the dialogue and acting in the Disney trilogy is not actively painful to watch most of the time, even though the plot makes no sense whatsoever.

And to get back to 40K, I think GW already ruined the lore by bringing back the loyalist primarchs. The setting has already been changed in far more fundamental and theme-destroying way than adding female marines ever could. So let's at least change the setting in positive way then!

Also, Disney made The Mandalorian and from that Grogu (baby yoda) which is just a license to print money from merchandise.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As said, if such a change came, I’d want some background to go with it, because I’m a right slag for background. And I reserve the right to be disappointed in such potential background if it’s a bit ropey. But even if it is “oh actually they’ve always taken both sexes as recruits now”? Teddy isn’t gonna be launched from my pram.

Given the whole Primaris thing, I can't imagine the background would be good...

Oh no dear reader, an evil chaos fleet just plopped out of a warp rift in segmentum solar and is currently nearing Terra. And while our brave defenders are boltering as hard as they can, they may not be able to bolter hard enough! Oh the humanity!

But wait, what's that? The ground on Venus erupts in a furious warcry, reopening a long-forgotten cave. Forth springs Femisarius Cawl, Belisarius' twin sister thought dead for 10000 years, with a band of heroic Femarines following in her wake...

Leopold Helveine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Forgot to add this to my conclusion.

Whilst nobody can be compelled to partake in your hobby, showing a more diverse offering harms nothing - and people are more interested in joining in when they feel welcomed.

What is added though as you already can kitbash female heads on spacemarines, or just buy the (again superior) custodes or sororitas.

"Buy third party kits and deal with people screaming about how their army is non-canon and heresy, or play a completely different faction which doesn't have what you want?" Not good enough.

Imagine if someone said "You want to play a viking themed guardsmen army? Well, too bad, go play Space Wolves".

Why do existing armies (and lore) need to be changed, what about the people who feel unwelcome or estranged by that?

Lore is constantly changed. Nearly all army ranges have been changed in some way. That doesn't mean *your* models need to be changed in any way, like how someone with 2nd ed squatmarines needs to go out and buy new ones.

I make one post and am already called a troll just for my opinion worded respectfully, go figure.

You weren't called a troll. You were trolling and arguing in bad faith, like your comment below:

Spacemarines are more bdsm than the adeptus sororitas actually, type/copypaste "is it painful to become a spacemarine" into google.

That's... that's not how BDSM works, and entirely misses the very obvious aesthetic leanings that elements of the Sisters have which are completely absent in the Space Marine range.

You were warned already: quit your trolling.

Mlea79 wrote:Removed.

Hi. I'm non-binary, and I think those fumes have gone to your head. At least, I'm going to assume that's why you're making clearly bad faith arguments, and not because you're bigoted.

This is your opportunity to correct yourself and your absurd statement, and engage with respect for other forum members.

Removed.

 XvArcanevX wrote:
Removed.

Please explain this post.
Please explain why you feel like adding women to Marines is the same thing as Slaanesh winning.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You weren't called a troll. You were trolling and arguing in bad faith, like your comment below:

Spacemarines are more bdsm than the adeptus sororitas actually, type/copypaste "is it painful to become a spacemarine" into google.

To be fair, I called him a troll. Because he was trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 XvArcanevX wrote:
Removed.

What in the world does Slaanesh and their role in the narrative have do with female Marines?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
it does make sense to ensure your recruits are as adept with it as possible, hence all female / And by culture or technological limitation, it’s only women that are brought in/manufactured.

That is the current space marine lore, yes.


With the talk of head swaps i'd be curious to see the results of a poll on female representation vs feminine representation. Like the unisex Skitarii there is no particular reason why a female space marine would look any different to a male one beneath the armour and gene-editing.
If GW went down the old dwarf path of 'half of them are already female, beards and all' would that be enough for people, if not why not?

A.T. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
it does make sense to ensure your recruits are as adept with it as possible, hence all female / And by culture or technological limitation, it’s only women that are brought in/manufactured.

That is the current space marine lore, yes.


With the talk of head swaps i'd be curious to see the results of a poll on female representation vs feminine representation. Like the unisex Skitarii there is no particular reason why a female space marine would look any different to a male one beneath the armour and gene-editing.
If GW went down the old dwarf path of 'half of them are already female, beards and all' would that be enough for people, if not why not?

I'd prefer an upgrade sprue of more feminine heads and for future Marine kits to have an equal mix of male and female unhelmeted heads, in addition to the lore change.
Admittedly, I do not know how hard it would be to sculpt and convey that at the Warhammer scale. I assume it's possible, but I'm not super well-versed in that area of the hobby.

Though the bigger thing is the lore change.