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.
PenitentJake wrote: While this is technically true, I think it may also be a tad disingenuous. I don't think anyone would argue that those models were good, and I don't think those models were ever given the same chance to catch on. They weren't good; they weren't promoted. There was one blister pack of them- they were never released as a squad, or part of a squad.
It was explicitly addressed by Rick Priestley that the decision not to make female models by citadel was based on sales (or rather lack thereof) of models from their pre-rogue trader lines.
Jayne and Gabs weren't part of the original decision, but I suppose relevant to this conversation in that they didn't sell well enough to change it either.
You get FSMs one of three ways -
1) other female models are so popular that GW takes the risk
2) Some other company rakes it in making female space marines
3) GW takes a massive punt with its principle money maker
So far it seems like I personally have more sisters of battle/silence than this whole thread combined which speaks poorly for their sales and I can't think of any competitors raking it in with FSMs so that leaves 3 - GW taking a punt with their single most important property based on vocal desire not backed by anything in their financial columns.
My guess would be that had the new sisters line run red hot that we would have had FSMs by now. I suspect that they may even try female custodes to test the waters again in the next few years. And customers will vote with their wallets, or not. Ultimately GW will take the path of greatest profit.
CynosureEldar wrote: Kinda feels insincere when half ya'll keep trying to pick the faction of BDSM skimp-dressed nuns that are used as TP for SM as your fascinating exploration of women.
Take your fascinating exploration of straw men elsewhere.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In this situation, I believe that non-male Astartes *does* improve the product/story/universe, because there is no benefit to things remaining as they are (for the aforementioned reasons of it being incongruous to the wider Imperium, being based in outdated views which are presented uncritically, and actively going against the primary hobby niche of what Space Marines are, which is as a blank slate faction which caters to newcomers).
Because Space Marines, at present, could be improved to better fulfil what their creative niche is, I believe they should change.
For me it depends on how FSM would be introduced. A simple retcon à la Custodes gets a big, fat thumbs down. This is not a natural development of the story but rather a cheap (albeit easy) shortcut to a desired outcome. It would lessen my investment in the setting to see that long standing lore gets changed on a whim like that without the proper attention it would deserve.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).
However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
Is there a big difference between starting 40k from scratch and introducing FSM right now? All the existing material wouldn't change their male protagonists, male heroes and unhelmeted models. We have to start at 0 anyway to get all these things on the table. Since the effort has to be made either way, we might as well put it into other factions were the overall benefit would be better for the hobby as a whole.
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
¹ Again, depending on how it is done. And I'm beating this horse again and again, because we have the precedent of how female Custodes were introduced: If FSM just get retconned in, we further lose setting consistency and people's investment in it.
² There is nobody stopping you from your own headcanon. Playing with any custom chapter is not more or less an issue than you putting official female heads from other sets on your Marines. I was under the impression that official Warhammer stores allow even non-official bits as long as you "created them yourself", which of course you did wink wink.
³ Inclusion/Exclusion does not carry an automatic value by itself. Neither does lore consistency, for that matter. It is hard to compare these abstract concepts with each other. But there is a solution how to achieve representation without changing the existing lore and that is why I prefer to put the focus on other factions and model ranges.
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
Why? What is the connection to it being world-wide? I think the phrase is perfectly fitting for someone who positions herself as a defender of inclusion in one post and dismissing the complete other half of the discussion as just being sexist rambling in order to strawman the own position towards victory in another.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
There have been several people giving their explanation why they take issue with the change for various reasons. You don't have to agree that their position is a better argument than yours, but surely you can emphasise enough to understand what they are saying? I understand your argument for representation, I simply do not see it as a better one than mine.
JNAProductions wrote: B-You can field an all-male Marine force. Adding women to Marines won't change that.
And if your fantasy is built on excluding others, then I don't think it's a very healthy fantasy to have.
If you want to pretend to be a big, badass warrior, protecting the people he loves from vile threats (whether you see that in Space Marines or you're playing a D&D or a videogame or anything) that's fine. That's healthy.
If your fantasy is, instead, predicated on denying others joy... That doesn't seem like a very good stance to have.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
insaniak wrote: ¹ I feel like branding this as things that people 'can' and 'can't have is missing the point. Most western fantasy is already exclusionary fantasy for white men.
² People who are under-represented in fantasy want to see more of themselves in fantasy. Because western fantasy has traditionally skewed towards white men, the way to tip the scales back towards the other direction is to create more focused fantasy that caters specifically to those under-represented groups. But that sort of thing is still very much a minority, and vastly overwhelmed by the volume of white male centric fantasy that still saturates the market, in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.
When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. ³ But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
¹ ...and most love novels are written for women, and most Manga protagonists are based on Asian people, and most Bollywood actors are Indian. What is the point/issue here? People put their own experience into the art they create and towards the audience they want to target. You can like Bollywood or not, but I think it's silly to demand them to include more Europeans, Africans and Asians into their movies to not feel left out.
² Why do the scales have to be forcefully tipped, though? Last time I checked, there is no law forbidding anybody from coming up with their own fantasy stories or superheroes. Maybe there is either nobody wanting to create art where that group is taking center stage, or there is no demand for it. I don't think you mean to blame the existing customers for not buying things they are not interested in when you say "in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.", but what do you mean? How is the market preventing me from creating a product, that is aimed at a specific group, from having success?
³ I haven't noticed someone posting in this thread to gatekeep women from 40k in general. So I don't see how anybody is supposed to accept space for other representation. People simply say that this specific spot is not suitable for various, personal reasons. There is plenty of space, however, everywhere else in 40k.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 14:34:40
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)
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
³ Inclusion/Exclusion does not carry an automatic value by itself. Neither does lore consistency, for that matter. It is hard to compare these abstract concepts with each other. But there is a solution how to achieve representation without changing the existing lore and that is why I prefer to put the focus on other factions and model ranges.
I'm not sure what you are on about with "automatic value" and "abstract concepts."
Inclusive has a very specific meaning, as does exclusive, and neither are very abstract. If you are confused about how the inclusion of female space marines in the lore facilitates and legitimizes the use of female space marine models in a game, and how the exclusion of female space marines from the lore prevents or inhibits the use of female space marine models in the game, I'm not sure we can have a discussion in good faith, because these things feel pretty obvious.
But I will respectfully acknowledge some of the arguments on the other side as I do understand some of the feelings and potential fears around this. As people have said, HOW this was done would be important: even many of the folks advocating for the inclusion of FSM in the lore would not be satisfied if it was done poorly. The lost chapters are one way, Cawl's ongoing work is another. But simply retconning it, I think, would severely disappoint most people on both sides.
Second, I understand people's slippery slope fear. So if a WD article talks about Cawl making the first FSM, and planning to make more, that's going to be enough for some of the folks on the FSM side of the debate, because it creates a lore consistent way for someone to put an FSM model on the table without an opponent screaming at them that such a thing is not possible. Some people on team FSM may want more than that, but others would be okay with it, and it's certainly more inclusive than what we've got now.
But the little "what if" engine in the back of everyone else's head is whispering: "Yeah, but what if it doesn't stop there."
And I think this is where the other team might have some legitimate arguments to make. So lets say GW makes a 5-woman Primaris unit. What I'd do as the designer is suggest that this kit can be used in two ways: you can use it as a a coherent unit, or you could swap those models into other male-but-otherwise-identical units to include co-ed units. While that is likely to be a bridge too far for some people on the no-FSM side, others might be okay with it at that level- they don't have to buy it, and if they play against it, it won't be a whole lot different.
But then... What if it sells? What if high quality sculpts in plastic reveal that it wasn't a lack of interest that prevented people from buying those original power armoured women decades ago, but rather, the fact that they were some of the worst scupts to ever be produced by GW (or any other studio, for that matter)? Because if it sold well, GW wouldn't LET it end there.
Next would be characters. An FSM Apothecary, for example, fits the nurse trope/stereotype, and might be more accepted by the no-FSM camp. But then what? A librarian? A lieutenant?
And eventually, a named character. And then, would GW decide to make an entirely FSM chapter?
And then, would video games and books have to feature FSM?
I think every player, no matter which camp they're in, has an ideal inclusion threshold. And that's the squishy issue- where those thresholds collide. Because a signature piece of my support for FSM includes the ability for people who don't like them to be able to not use them. If I've always played Blood Angels, that WD Article about Cawl inventing the first FSM doesn't prevent me from continuing to play my all male BA, just as I always have. And it doesn't have to infect my conception of them as a "Brotherhood of warrior Monks (TM)"
But if GW goes and creates a BA FSM character with rules that make it a must-have for a competitive player... Well yeah, as much as I support FSM, I do see how that might actually harm the BA player's appreciation for their army that they've been building, collecting and playing since 1992.
I think that it's hard to know which level of inclusion people are advocating or objecting to when we get into these debates. If your fear is that the inclusion of FSM will lead to a completely different looking faction with as many FSM models as male in all of the canon subfactions, and you're arguing against someone who just wants a WD article that says Cawl figured out how to make FSM work... Well obviously each side is going to think the other is unreasonable... Because you aren't arguing about the same thing.
And for the record, your idea about de-emphasizing SM IS a good idea, because it makes progress toward solving two problems instead of one. Even if we got our FSM lore, marines would STILL be a disproportionally represented faction, and that problem would still eventually need to be solved. I hope we get some Fem-Krieg, and I think the Warp Spider PL is female. I could stand not hearing about marines at all for at least Q1 of 2025.
But I think that WD article would still be good for the hobby. I think even the 5 woman box would be good for the hobby. There's no reason GW can't do both.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
Non-representation and exclusion aren't equal, but non-representation is one of the ways exclusion is achieved. The flu and sickness aren't equal either, but the flu is one form sickness can take. And I think that the examples are somewhat flawed- both Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider are vehicles that were designed specifically to provide female representation in male dominated media. Sailor Moon and Lara Croft ARE the FSM of hero Anime and adventure videogames.
But also: the existence of Lara Croft, and the lore behind her in no way implies that a man could not be a kickass archaeologist. I don't know sailor moon very well, but if this Tuxedo Mask character is a hero, whether minor or not, that's already more inclusive than Marines.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: Why do the scales have to be forcefully tipped? Because they aren't going to balance themselves without a helping hand.
Why is a balanced scale desireable in <fantasy>, if it does not occur naturally? Keep in mind my previous post about either people not creating things, or people not buying things that would help even out representation in this area.
Are we going to force artists to change what fantasy they wanted to create, if it is deemed too one sided in representation? Are we going to force people to buy things that don't appeal to them until the sales numbers with non-representative <fantasy> are equal?
Globally speaking, I'm quite the minority. Are we going to ask Chinese and Indians to represent me more in their <fantasy>? Japanese seem to have a kink for German words already, but I wouldn't mind showing up more often as an actual protagonist.
I'm not sure what you are on about with "automatic value" and "abstract concepts."
Inclusive has a very specific meaning, as does exclusive, and neither are very abstract. If you are confused about how the inclusion of female space marines in the lore facilitates and legitimizes the use of female space marine models in a game, and how the exclusion of female space marines from the lore prevents or inhibits the use of female space marine models in the game, I'm not sure we can have a discussion in good faith, because these things feel pretty obvious.
What I mean is that "Inclusion" is not automatically the "right" choice and "exclusion" is not automatically the "wrong" choice. Doing sports and eating vegetables is "healthy" and there is no room for debate. On the other side we can objectively say that sitting on the couch all day and eating ultra processed food will do you no good. The benefits of the proposed change stand against its drawbacks and I haven't found a way yet to qualify them for myself to see which one would come out on top. I hope I get my train of thought across.
PenitentJake wrote: I think that it's hard to know which level of inclusion people are advocating or objecting to when we get into these debates. If your fear is that the inclusion of FSM will lead to a completely different looking faction with as many FSM models as male in all of the canon subfactions, and you're arguing against someone who just wants a WD article that says Cawl figured out how to make FSM work... Well obviously each side is going to think the other is unreasonable... Because you aren't arguing about the same thing.
I think this is a very important part of the debate that has been left out mostly so far. My own headcanon / expectation how FSM fit into the faction would be complete parity in capabilities, no segregation in unit assignment. So any Marine, regardless of unit or position, would be just as likely to be female as being male. Model-wise I'd see every new unit having 1-2 heads without helmets extra that are more feminine than now, but a far shot from being... uh refined? for lack of a better word. So kinda brutish and bulky, similar to the existing male heads.
PenitentJake wrote: And I think that the examples are somewhat flawed- both Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider are vehicles that were designed specifically to provide female representation in male dominated media. Sailor Moon and Lara Croft ARE the FSM of hero Anime and adventure videogames.
But also: the existence of Lara Croft, and the lore behind her in no way implies that a man could not be a kickass archaeologist. I don't know sailor moon very well, but if this Tuxedo Mask character is a hero, whether minor or not, that's already more inclusive than Marines.
I would assume that Rick Priestley did not have 40yo housewifes in mind as his target audience either, when he created Warhammer in the 80s. So I don't agree on the point about Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider being designed specifically for another audience making it a flawed example. The thing is that both stand on their own. We didn't bother George Lucas to release a version of "Fate of Atlantis" where we could swap the character to play "Diana Jones". We didn't push Goku aside to make room for Videl or ChiChi in Dragon Ball. They have their own stories and are cool in their own ways. We can give women a better representation in 40k without compromising on either side, that's all I'm saying.
Tuxedo Mask is this guy here. The meme should tell you everything you need to know about him :
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 16:21:32
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)
Sledgehammer wrote:That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
You mention "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic", but you've STILL not explained how those are incapable of existing if women are present in them.
Why would women being part of the Space Marines change their "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic" of barely human steroid infused hypnoconditioned child soldiers?
You keep making all these claims about what Space Marines are, but you're incapable of defining them! And then you have the gall to say "I don't need to prove that": actually, the burden is on you, the claimant, to defend those claims.
I'll repost those questions, just so everyone else can see what you're too afraid to answer: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
But I am really tired of people coming in and saying "Female space marines or bust, and if you disagree with me you're sexist".
And I'm really tired of your refusal to answer simple questions to elucidate your point.
Sledgehammer wrote: That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
That's fair, I suppose. Adding women to a group modelled off the monastic orders of old would be like, say, making them genetically enhanced warriors in high tech armour who spit acid, absorb the knowledge of their enemies by eating their brains and put themselves into suspended animation at will... That would totally destroy my immersion in the faction.
The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
The Teutonic order, also known for their vampires, wolf riding vikings, greco-roman designs, worship of fire and machinery, stealth based warfare, African naming conventions, druids, Mongolian facial hair, and emo haircuts.
Newsflash: not all Space Marines are based on catholic iconography - in fact, it's a minority that are (Black Templars, Dark Angels). You know who IS based on Catholic iconography? The Sisters of Battle... who aren't men!
It's almost like something can be themed on elements of something, without having to copy every single aspect of it! For the last time, no matter how many times you pretend it is, not all Space Marines are based entirely on the Catholic Church!
People are tired of being brow beaten by sanctimonious arguments that continually bring their real world politics into a fantasy game.
Women existing isn't political. Women existing in the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Little Timmy Faction shouldn't be political either.
Sledgehammer wrote: The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Were they famous for their Vikings? Vampires? Werewolves? Mutants wreathed in otherworldly flames? Dressing up in vaguely roman style armour and ruling relatively benevolently while the rest of the galaxy went to pot?
I do know that half of the Teutonic Order famously went renegade and turned into freakish mutants who live in a portal to another dimension, but I wasn't so sure about those other things.
Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
And did these Vikings also ride wolves into battle? Did they worship their native land spirits which granted them their strength? Because that doesn't sound very Catholic to me (also, not at all similar to the Teutonic Order you mentioned earlier).
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes.
hahahahahahahaha lol no
Part of my degree was literally on this matter, and you're horribly misinformed. Vampires are famously *sexual and transgressive* in their themes - either as a criticism of sexual liberation, or an endorsement of it. Vampires in Western literary canon (aka, the ones that GW are most influenced by) have more association with Victorian prudishness and xenophobia than they do with religion. The religious aspects are nearly always a later addition, mostly with religion being used as the element that vampires *transgress* against.
Stop making things up.
Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality.
Vlad Tepes was a real man. "Selling his soul to the devil" isn't exclusive to Catholicism, and more importantly, is a later addition to the initial vampire mythos.
In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
The cross as an anti-vampire symbol is not present in the first stories about vampires, and is hardly the only thing which does ward them off in folklore - vampires aren't an exclusively Catholic myth.
Sledgehammer wrote:The Imperium is backwards and old fashioned and space marines help to emphasize that.
Except for all the women serving in the Imperial Guard, and the current Lord Castellan of Cadia being a woman, and multiple HLOT being women, and the Sisters of Silence being the left hand of the Emperor, and the Imperium being institutionally gender-blind.
The Space Marines are the ONLY Imperial institution which has no women, in fact. That doesn't really back up your claim that "the Imperium is backwards and old fashioned" when it comes to gender. Yes, the Imperium *is* backwards and fascistic and absurd, but in gender? No way.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
a_typical_hero wrote:For me it depends on how FSM would be introduced. A simple retcon à la Custodes gets a big, fat thumbs down. This is not a natural development of the story but rather a cheap (albeit easy) shortcut to a desired outcome. It would lessen my investment in the setting to see that long standing lore gets changed on a whim like that without the proper attention it would deserve.
Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).
However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
Is there a big difference between starting 40k from scratch and introducing FSM right now?
Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything. ²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
¹ Again, depending on how it is done. And I'm beating this horse again and again, because we have the precedent of how female Custodes were introduced: If FSM just get retconned in, we further lose setting consistency and people's investment in it.
I wouldn't lose investment. Hell, if anything, I'd *gain* investment in 40k for it.
For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
Why? What is the connection to it being world-wide? I think the phrase is perfectly fitting for someone who positions herself as a defender of inclusion in one post and dismissing the complete other half of the discussion as just being sexist rambling in order to strawman the own position towards victory in another.
Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 18:55:37
RaptorusRex wrote: Y’know, how come Aspect Warriors can have the monastic elements with both women and men, hmm?
Not well represented in the model range though. No aspects outside of Banshees have boob plate to denote a female. Some have argued that heavy aspect armor is enough to mask meager eldar bosoms so some of the Scorpions, Reapers, and Dragons could be considered to be female, but I think GW has made it clear that eldar females are denoted by boob plate as seen on the Guardians and latest Autarch.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
Sledgehammer wrote:That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
You mention "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic", but you've STILL not explained how those are incapable of existing if women are present in them.
Why would women being part of the Space Marines change their "current culture" and "interpersonal dynamic" of barely human steroid infused hypnoconditioned child soldiers?
You keep making all these claims about what Space Marines are, but you're incapable of defining them! And then you have the gall to say "I don't need to prove that": actually, the burden is on you, the claimant, to defend those claims.
I'll repost those questions, just so everyone else can see what you're too afraid to answer:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
But I am really tired of people coming in and saying "Female space marines or bust, and if you disagree with me you're sexist".
And I'm really tired of your refusal to answer simple questions to elucidate your point.
Sledgehammer wrote: That's probably the best way of integrating "female space marines" without impacting the current culture, interpersonal dynamic, and call back to the monastic orders of old that make space marines what they are.
That's fair, I suppose. Adding women to a group modelled off the monastic orders of old would be like, say, making them genetically enhanced warriors in high tech armour who spit acid, absorb the knowledge of their enemies by eating their brains and put themselves into suspended animation at will... That would totally destroy my immersion in the faction.
The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
The Teutonic order, also known for their vampires, wolf riding vikings, greco-roman designs, worship of fire and machinery, stealth based warfare, African naming conventions, druids, Mongolian facial hair, and emo haircuts.
Newsflash: not all Space Marines are based on catholic iconography - in fact, it's a minority that are (Black Templars, Dark Angels). You know who IS based on Catholic iconography? The Sisters of Battle... who aren't men!
It's almost like something can be themed on elements of something, without having to copy every single aspect of it! For the last time, no matter how many times you pretend it is, not all Space Marines are based entirely on the Catholic Church!
People are tired of being brow beaten by sanctimonious arguments that continually bring their real world politics into a fantasy game.
Women existing isn't political. Women existing in the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Little Timmy Faction shouldn't be political either.
Sledgehammer wrote: The Teutonic order, and the broader catholic church, were famous for their gender inclusivity, you're 100% correct. Removing that inclusivity would completely destroy the theme of a faction based on that history and their broader hierarchy.
Were they famous for their Vikings? Vampires? Werewolves? Mutants wreathed in otherworldly flames? Dressing up in vaguely roman style armour and ruling relatively benevolently while the rest of the galaxy went to pot?
I do know that half of the Teutonic Order famously went renegade and turned into freakish mutants who live in a portal to another dimension, but I wasn't so sure about those other things.
Well vikings absolutely did exist within the context of the catholic world. Cnute the great was famously Catholic as was Harald Hadrada. Many of the Varangian guard in Constantinople converted leading to the greater conversion of the Kievian Rus.
And did these Vikings also ride wolves into battle? Did they worship their native land spirits which granted them their strength? Because that doesn't sound very Catholic to me (also, not at all similar to the Teutonic Order you mentioned earlier).
Vampires are famously catholic in their themes.
hahahahahahahaha lol no
Part of my degree was literally on this matter, and you're horribly misinformed. Vampires are famously *sexual and transgressive* in their themes - either as a criticism of sexual liberation, or an endorsement of it. Vampires in Western literary canon (aka, the ones that GW are most influenced by) have more association with Victorian prudishness and xenophobia than they do with religion. The religious aspects are nearly always a later addition, mostly with religion being used as the element that vampires *transgress* against.
Stop making things up.
Vlad Tepesh himself is said to have sold his soul to the devil in an attempt to to gain immortality.
Vlad Tepes was a real man. "Selling his soul to the devil" isn't exclusive to Catholicism, and more importantly, is a later addition to the initial vampire mythos.
In fact Dracul means devil in Romanian and the cross is almost always associated with helping to ward off vampires.
The cross as an anti-vampire symbol is not present in the first stories about vampires, and is hardly the only thing which does ward them off in folklore - vampires aren't an exclusively Catholic myth.
Sledgehammer wrote:The Imperium is backwards and old fashioned and space marines help to emphasize that.
Except for all the women serving in the Imperial Guard, and the current Lord Castellan of Cadia being a woman, and multiple HLOT being women, and the Sisters of Silence being the left hand of the Emperor, and the Imperium being institutionally gender-blind.
The Space Marines are the ONLY Imperial institution which has no women, in fact. That doesn't really back up your claim that "the Imperium is backwards and old fashioned" when it comes to gender. Yes, the Imperium *is* backwards and fascistic and absurd, but in gender? No way.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
a_typical_hero wrote:For me it depends on how FSM would be introduced. A simple retcon à la Custodes gets a big, fat thumbs down. This is not a natural development of the story but rather a cheap (albeit easy) shortcut to a desired outcome. It would lessen my investment in the setting to see that long standing lore gets changed on a whim like that without the proper attention it would deserve.
Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).
However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
Is there a big difference between starting 40k from scratch and introducing FSM right now?
Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
¹If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
²If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
³So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
Emphasis mine.
¹ Again, depending on how it is done. And I'm beating this horse again and again, because we have the precedent of how female Custodes were introduced: If FSM just get retconned in, we further lose setting consistency and people's investment in it.
I wouldn't lose investment. Hell, if anything, I'd *gain* investment in 40k for it.
For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
Why? What is the connection to it being world-wide? I think the phrase is perfectly fitting for someone who positions herself as a defender of inclusion in one post and dismissing the complete other half of the discussion as just being sexist rambling in order to strawman the own position towards victory in another.
Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
Non-representation is not the same as exclusion. I'm not excluded from Sailor Moon because Tuxedo Mask is a side character with a much lamer outfit than the MC. I'm not excluded from Tomb Raider because I can't play Larry Croft. Why is the joy of one person more valuable than that of another? Why is it okay for you to lessen my joy, but it is wrong for me to lessen yours?
The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
Fundamentally what makes your opinion and desire for a faction to represent exactly what you want, when it is at the expense of something that I happen to like, more valid? Ultimately I don't need to tell you why I enjoy something the way it is, or why I feel that way. Your opinion isn't morally or ethically superior. I like space marines as they are and you do not. Your suggestions happen to be in direct contention with what I like and I have every right to argue against a position that I feel hurts my attachment to a franchise.
I really don't care about the same things you do, and I really don't want those things in something that I happen to enjoy. Especially when many of them exist within the setting already and can be expanded upon without being detractive. I'm a demographic that deserves to be pandered to as well and there is nothing wrong with that.
I daily work with people from literally any, every, and all shades and sexualities. That is no factor to me at all. However I do happen to like my exclusive brotherhood of reclusive space monks.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:24:27
I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
Yeah, I agree. I was just looking some of the new aspect models they announced and wondering how hard it would be to convert a guardian chest piece on them. I'm not really a big fan of gendered armour, but at least eldar armour is rather form fitting so it makes some sense. But once it has been established that gendered armour exist in the faction, then the lack of the female type for the aspects makes it seem they're all male.
Sledgehammer wrote:Fundamentally what makes your opinion and desire for a faction to represent exactly what you want, when it is at the expense of something that I happen to like, more valid?
The fact I'm willing to actually discuss it, and you're not.
Ultimately I don't need to tell you why I enjoy something the way it is, or why I feel that way.
You're right, you don't. But if you're going to come in and start making all these (incorrect) claims, or start going on about how "Space Marines represent muh brutherhood", and then not explain what you're even referring to when making those claims, then you can't expect anyone to actually take anything you have to say seriously, and you may as well just not bother commenting.
Also, reposting the questions I *have* asked, just so everyone can see what you're still avoiding: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Your opinion isn't morally or ethically superior.
Agreed. But at least I'm actually discussing mine.
I like space marines as they are and you do not. Your suggestions happen to be in direct contention with what I like and I have every right to argue against a position that I feel hurts my attachment to a franchise.
Except you're not arguing. You're avoiding discussion, and running away from actually discussing what it even is that you like.
I really don't care about the same things you do, and I really don't want those things in something that I happen to enjoy. Especially when many of them exist within the setting already and can be expanded upon without being detractive. I'm a demographic that deserves to be pandered to as well and there is nothing wrong with that.
So tell me - why do you NEED women to not be in your media in order for you be pandered to? What is your demographic that requires women to be totally absent in it for you to feel pandered to? It's not even like you want representation: you ACTIVELY want other people not to be represented! I don't particularly enjoy Dark Angels, but you don't see me saying that they should be written out of the setting just because I don't like them.
Why does pandering to you mean that no-one else can have their slice of the pie? Adding women Astartes just means they're more flavours of pie going around - whereas you seem to believe that if another flavour exists, you can't enjoy your own slice. And I've invited you MULTIPLE TIMES to elaborate on this, and yet you refuse.
I can only assume from that that you aren't being wholly sincere about your perspective, and have an opinion that you're not willing to discuss, because it would make you look bad.
At the end of the day this is all made up nonsense that doesn't matter
So stop commenting, and save it for people who *are* willing to discuss it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 20:51:02
kurhanik wrote: I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 20:51:25
Sledgehammer wrote: [Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
And you've then refused to elaborate when people ask for more details on that. You can't keep saying "I'm just sharing my opinion" when you're actively refusing to when people ask for it.
There's no "gotcha" to be had if you actually just answer the questions properly.
Sledgehammer wrote: All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
Yes, you're absolutely right! Having women in Space Marines should not be harming the way you happen to enjoy your own Space Marines! The fact that it does is your problem, not anyone else's.
You have been invited to discuss in more depth about what part of Space Marine identity would hurt your enjoyment, but, for several pages now, you are refusing to discuss that. That is also on you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 20:56:52
So tell me - why do you NEED women to not be in your media in order for you be pandered to? It's not even like you want representation: you ACTIVELY want other people not to be represented! I don't particularly enjoy Dark Angels, but you don't see me saying that they should be written out of the setting just because I don't like them.
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
This is like protesting outside a well regarded burger joint because, after many, many years it’s decided to widen its market appeal by also offering meat alternative Burgers, and the option of a Gluten Free bun, so as to cater to as many dietary preferences/requirements as possible.
Nothing there is removing their famous burger from the menu. Or forcing you to go vegan and/or gluten free.
And if, in this scenario, seeing the next person tucking into a soy based burger drives you to apoplexy? That’s entirely on you.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
That's your choice. But in my view you're essentially making the "violence in video games causes violence in real life." argument, which I believe has been well disproven by this point. Innoculation of society against harmful ideologies is the answer, not book banning, Imo.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
Interestingly, the old RT era box of metal Guardians was similar. It was a box of 20 and like 8 or 9 were female.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/04 21:07:57
Sledgehammer wrote:Fundamentally what makes your opinion and desire for a faction to represent exactly what you want, when it is at the expense of something that I happen to like, more valid?
The fact I'm willing to actually discuss it, and you're not.
Ultimately I don't need to tell you why I enjoy something the way it is, or why I feel that way.
You're right, you don't. But if you're going to come in and start making all these (incorrect) claims, or start going on about how "Space Marines represent muh brutherhood", and then not explain what you're even referring to when making those claims, then you can't expect anyone to actually take anything you have to say seriously, and you may as well just not bother commenting.
Also, reposting the questions I *have* asked, just so everyone can see what you're still avoiding: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
Your opinion isn't morally or ethically superior.
Agreed. But at least I'm actually discussing mine.
I like space marines as they are and you do not. Your suggestions happen to be in direct contention with what I like and I have every right to argue against a position that I feel hurts my attachment to a franchise.
Except you're not arguing. You're avoiding discussion, and running away from actually discussing what it even is that you like.
I really don't care about the same things you do, and I really don't want those things in something that I happen to enjoy. Especially when many of them exist within the setting already and can be expanded upon without being detractive. I'm a demographic that deserves to be pandered to as well and there is nothing wrong with that.
So tell me - why do you NEED women to not be in your media in order for you be pandered to? What is your demographic that requires women to be totally absent in it for you to feel pandered to? It's not even like you want representation: you ACTIVELY want other people not to be represented! I don't particularly enjoy Dark Angels, but you don't see me saying that they should be written out of the setting just because I don't like them.
Why does pandering to you mean that no-one else can have their slice of the pie? Adding women Astartes just means they're more flavours of pie going around - whereas you seem to believe that if another flavour exists, you can't enjoy your own slice. And I've invited you MULTIPLE TIMES to elaborate on this, and yet you refuse.
I can only assume from that that you aren't being wholly sincere about your perspective, and have an opinion that you're not willing to discuss, because it would make you look bad.
At the end of the day this is all made up nonsense that doesn't matter
So stop commenting, and save it for people who *are* willing to discuss it.
No, I happen to work 60 to 70 hour weeks and most people don't have the energy to post over 8,000 times over an 11 year period and debate this. That doesn't mean that that opinion doesn't exist or isn't valid. The vast majority of people simply do not want to engage with you or the subject matter due to the name calling and insinuations on their moral standing.
Wanting all male space marines is not to the exclusion of having women feel represented in the hobby or the setting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:28:59
kurhanik wrote: I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
When GW introduced plastic Death Guard in 8th they pretty much changed huge parts of their identity, characters and appearance. I had been collecting DG since 5th edition and was quite underwhelmed how they were presented in their first own Codex in 8th. Guess what, I even bought the new models but the fluff for my DG warband simply stayed the same. They didn’t suddenly embrace the sickness and tentacles and became silly laughing freaks like GWs variant did. So far no GW Agent has knocked on my door and the fluff leaves enough room for my interpretation of nurgle marines, even though the 9th edition codex didn’t change the picture that much (though it had much better gritty artworks, fitting what I like about DG).
So, GWs fluff changes don’t need to bother you. If you swallowed Primaris Marines already, FSM should be a much smaller problem.
kurhanik wrote: I mean, GW saying Space Marines can be *gasp* girls, doesn't change anything if you don't want girls in your army. All it does is let people who *do* want them in their army have more options to do so without being told they are doing their models wrong. Its kind of a win-win as its nothing lost at all for one side and something gained for the other.
Again I've said it changes how I identify and interact with my army. Why does my connection to my army (for whatever reason that may be) need to change and why do your interests trump mine? I've told you that FMS detract from my interest and immersion and ya'll either don't want to accept that, or think that your interests somehow trump mine.
All I'm saying is that you can advocate for and create something that you can enjoy without needing to harm the way that I happen to enjoy something.
When GW introduced plastic Death Guard in 8th they pretty much changed huge parts of their identity, characters and appearance. I had been collecting DG since 5th edition and was quite underwhelmed how they were presented in their first own Codex in 8th. Guess what, I even bought the new models but the fluff for my DG warband simply stayed the same. They didn’t suddenly embrace the sickness and tentacles and became silly laughing freaks like GWs variant did. So far no GW Agent has knocked on my door and the fluff leaves enough room for my interpretation of nurgle marines, even though the 9th edition codex didn’t change the picture that much (though it had much better gritty artworks, fitting what I like about DG). So, GWs fluff changes don’t need to bother you. If you swallowed Primaris Marines already, FSM should be a much smaller problem.
We disagree in principle, as well as in the volume of the impact that such a change makes.
You're making an argument that changes in lore don't matter because it doesn't change your personal interpretation of your army. That's fine in a solipsistic sense, but it sounds like with that same argument you are free to make your own interpretation of your army with whatever you want, including female space marines. I happen to believe the official lore matters as the perception and collective vision of a faction is what makes it "real".
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 21:30:22
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
Right,
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Sledgehammer wrote:[I happen to work 60 to 70 hour weeks and most people don't have the energy to post over 8,000 times over an 11 year period and debate this.
But you *are* willing to keep posting, completely bypassing certain questions and yet answering and responding to others, and then post even more defending why you "don't have time" to post a response?
If you're going to keep posting responses and rebuttals and other things, then you clearly have time to answer some questions (or admit that you don't actually have answers for them and undermine your argument).
You could've avoided all this pages ago, by just answering the questions.
The vast majority of people
Got a source for that? Or is this a nebulously convenient silent majority?
simply do not want to engage with you or the subject matter due to the name calling and insinuations on their moral standing.
Where have I name-called you? And you'll notice I've only questioned your moral standing *because you're actively refusing to answer certain questions*, which has been more than a little suspicious, as many users have highlighted.
Wanting all male space marines is not to the exclusion of having women feel represented in the hobby or the setting.
Except, for you, it *is* about representation, because you seem to think you can only be represented in a faction if women are excluded from it.
We've repeatedly said that having women Space Marines shouldn't affect your enjoyment of your own all-male collection. You, on the other hand, have argued that your enjoyment of Space Marines is predicated on women being excluded from their presentation. Why? I've asked you repeatedly, but you refuse to answer it.
See - right here, at the bottom: - What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships? - Where do queer people fit in with these definitions? - How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium? - If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women? - What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men? - Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/04 21:39:19
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
That's your choice. But in my view you're essentially making the "violence in video games causes violence in real life." argument, which I believe has been well disproven by this point. Innoculation of society against harmful ideologies is the answer, not book banning, Imo.
Wait wait wait wait a second . . . I just had another thought. . .
If you're so afraid of dangerous ideologies, you do know you're arguing for inclusion in an highly oppressive, facist dictatorship right? Right?
I'm 19 pages late to the discussion, so I'll just toss out the usual bullet points:
* Having the most visible, most supported flagship faction of the franchise be a boys-only club is unfortunate. Representation does matter. While I doubt it's turning away potential players in droves, it's still kind of a bummer.
* There's really no good reason for there to not be FSM. The in-universe reasons mostly amount to, "Because the Emperor thought they'd have cooties."
* That said, it *is* sort of awkward to update it now because we've had decades worth of content hammering home that there are no FSM, and the most natural place to finally change that would have been with the introduction of the primaris.
* You could probably still just roll out an update where Cawl goes, "Check it out, I doubled your recruitment pool." It certainly seems like that would be a better improvement to the marine making process than just turning marines into bigger targets that struggle to enter small spaces.
* I'm still more in favor of introducing FSM than against. Marines being a boys only club doesn't really add much to their appeal to me, and see the first bullet point about making your flagship a sausage fest being kind of unfortunate. There's probably no way for the rollout to not feel awkward.
* The worst thing about FSM is realizing how ugly a lot of people get when trying to come up with an excuse for not adding them.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
So I don't agree on the point about Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider being designed specifically for another audience making it a flawed example. The thing is that both stand on their own. We didn't bother George Lucas to release a version of "Fate of Atlantis" where we could swap the character to play "Diana Jones". We didn't push Goku aside to make room for Videl or ChiChi in Dragon Ball. They have their own stories and are cool in their own ways. We can give women a better representation in 
