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.

Anyway.

There was some talk about how female marines could be introduced. With Custodes it was easy to retcon the females in, as there isn't that much Custodes lore to begin with and they're a peripheral faction. Whilst personally I would not mind similar retcon with marines either, I do accept that it would be a bigger deal in this instance. There just is so much more marine lore and explicit (if old and not in codex for many editions) reference to exclusion of females.

So the path of least resistance here probably would be to frame it as new development. Turns out that the primaris geneseed works on females and some chapters are now embracing the opportunity.

Personally I would prefer "there have always been female marines" retcon, so that they could exist in historical eras of the setting as well, but a new development would be fine as well.

For me “they’ve always been there” would be a cop out.

Not a Teddy From The Pram cop out, but a cop out all the same.

I’d prefer it’s a new development of the conversion process. Just feels more, I dunno, crap wording incoming…honest, somehow?

There are no female Astartes because GW has at least so far had enough business sense not to make them. "Once you go woke, you go broke."

Sure, pal.

 Hotzenplotz wrote:
There are no female Astartes because GW has at least so far had enough business sense not to make them. "Once you go woke, you go broke."

Theres quite a gap between the "woke" that made businesses go "broke" and female space marines tbh.

 Hotzenplotz wrote:
There are no female Astartes because GW has at least so far had enough business sense not to make them. "Once you go woke, you go broke."

https://www.ft.com/content/55208539-6010-4a2a-9462-4e795e26b704

Meanwhile, in the real world where GW has been diversifying its offering and representation in model forms, it’s now so successful its recently become one of the 100 most valuable companies in the UK.

I know, I know. We can prove anything with facts

Back under your, aha, arch.

Uhhh... you need to subscribe to unlock that article.

GW are now on the FTSE 100. And have reported another 6 months of above expectation profits.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not a Teddy From The Pram cop out, but a cop out all the same.

I will ask the question for my fellow Yanks... Huh?

I suspect it just says that GW financials are great, which is easy enough to believe. The thing is, it's not really evidence for anything. For example it could also be said that mysogonystic dude-bros are flocking to GWs Marines simply because "AAA gaming has gone woke!" or whatever, and thus GW profits. *(I do not believe this)

GW hasn't "gone woke" by including more representation in model lines that were already narratively inclusive, with maybe the exception of Custodes. Custodes, who are a recent addition as a faction, and don't have anywhere near the history(irl) or breadth of background as Marines. And I think it'd be very a very rare customer who was really turned off by including an additional sprue of heads to Guard infantry, or more female Eldar, since it's long been understood that the miniature lines weren't adequately reflecting their lore.

But also, Marines are GWs cash cow. Anecdotally, they've been the biggest driver in sales since forever. If GWs financials are doing so well, and if they're doing so well partly because of Marines, why mess with a good thing? They did change Marines into Primaris (*spits*), but that was a move driven (I suspect) by the prospect of full-army replacement and to relieve competition from their past selves (since it's easy AF to find old Marine armies secondhand). But I don't think they see that same cynical drive to incorporate female marines. By acting as they have been they get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to show more representation in their model line to try to appeal to their non-primary demographic using non-marine factions (which need new models anyways), but keep the primary cash cow raking in the dough without introducing any risk of outrage.

Like, we can all talk about our ideals about inclusion and treatment of lore etc. all we want, but to GW these days it's mostly just love of money and risk aversion. They are full corporate.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I suspect it just says that GW financials are great, which is easy enough to believe. The thing is, it's not really evidence for anything. For example it could also be said that mysogonystic dude-bros are flocking to GWs Marines simply because "AAA gaming has gone woke!" or whatever, and thus GW profits. *(I do not believe this)

GW hasn't "gone woke" by including more representation in model lines that were already narratively inclusive, with maybe the exception of Custodes. Custodes, who are a recent addition as a faction, and don't have anywhere near the history(irl) or breadth of background as Marines. And I think it'd be very a very rare customer who was really turned off by including an additional sprue of heads to Guard infantry, or more female Eldar, since it's long been understood that the miniature lines weren't adequately reflecting their lore.

But also, Marines are GWs cash cow. Anecdotally, they've been the biggest driver in sales since forever. If GWs financials are doing so well, and if they're doing so well partly because of Marines, why mess with a good thing? They did change Marines into Primaris (*spits*), but that was a move driven (I suspect) by the prospect of full-army replacement and to relieve competition from their past selves (since it's easy AF to find old Marine armies secondhand). But I don't think they see that same cynical drive to incorporate female marines. By acting as they have been they get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to show more representation in their model line to try to appeal to their non-primary demographic using non-marine factions (which need new models anyways), but keep the primary cash cow raking in the dough without introducing any risk of outrage.

Do you think there would be a massive backlash to including a female head or two on the inevitable next iteration of Intercessors? There are still a couple of Firstborn kits in active circulation to replace...

 Insectum7 wrote:

GW hasn't "gone woke" by including more representation in model lines that were already narratively inclusive, with maybe the exception of Custodes. Custodes, who are a recent addition as a faction, and don't have anywhere near the history(irl) or breadth of background as Marines. And I think it'd be very a very rare customer who was really turned off by including an additional sprue of heads to Guard infantry, or more female Eldar, since it's long been understood that the miniature lines weren't adequately reflecting their lore.

This is the thing about the good ol' "Go woke, go broke!" slogan - it tends to be arbitrarily applied depending on how well something is doing, in order to provide circular proof. Something perceived as 'woke' did badly? Yeah, it's because it was woke. Something perceived as 'woke' did well? Weeeellll... it's not that woke...

It's a meaningless nothingburger intended to validate a worldview by selectively moving the goalposts, and it's not borne out by the various multi-billion dollar franchises that seem to be doing just fine.

So if we could avoid dragging it any further into this discussion, that would be great.

Honestly if they take the 'no girls allowed' sign off of the Space Marine's club door, I kind of hope its done with a Heresy model and like no fanfare whatsoever. Just go like "this new Alpha Legion commander led her troops during the [Blank] of [Blank] and did [Blank]" and show a picture of the model. Simple as that and you now have female marines existing for most of the timeline of the setting.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Do you think there would be a massive backlash to including a female head or two on the inevitable next iteration of Intercessors? There are still a couple of Firstborn kits in active circulation to replace...

Considering the amount of outrage we saw over Custodes? Yeah.

@Insaniak: I wouldn't call it a nothingburger, but I'm happy to leave it alone.

The impotent outrage which achieved nothing?

That outrage?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Considering the amount of outrage we saw over Custodes? Yeah.

It was like a couple of weeks, then it dissipated because the rage bait channels found something else to complain about. Female SM I would say might last maybe a month, a month and a half, of nerd rage because in the end there are far more pressing concerns than "Wiminz in my Space Marines" such as "Oh my god I can't pay my massive electric bills and all the food prices went up again".

The irony of people claiming "tourists" are ruining Warhammer is that the channels that do all the rage baiting aren't Warhammer focussed or even feature Warhammer semi-regularly, they're the bog standard "content" channels that scour the internet for something to rile people up about who will never actually pick up a model/book/paintbrush in their entire existence and move on to hating whatever is popular next.
Maybe a Star Wars project with a woman main character will come out at the same time, that'd really get them going.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The impotent outrage which achieved nothing?

That outrage?

Well this is the thing, do you have any data either way? That's my point. It's kinda insaniaks point too. It's really easy to craft a given narrative when the data is as opaque as cooperate earnings can be, since they can reflect all sorts of things. Correlation not being causation and all.

Btw if you actually have data I'd be real interested to see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Considering the amount of outrage we saw over Custodes? Yeah.

It was like a couple of weeks, then it dissipated because the rage . . . .

Need more data.

I don't have the ability to look this up... but how many people on this forum were honestly angry about the possibility of having not dude Space Marines...

3 to 4?

Out of all the people who post here... it's a slim minority.

I'm sure it will be like that elsewhere too.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I don't have the ability to look this up... but how many people on this forum were honestly angry about the possibility of having not dude Space Marines...

3 to 4?

Out of all the people who post here... it's a slim minority.

I'm sure it will be like that elsewhere too.

I wouldn't make the assumption that it's the same elsewhere, filter bubble effect and all. But it's more data that I'd love to know.

Probably GW would love to know too.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well this is the thing, do you have any data either way? .

I would think their continued record profits would be a fairly obvious sign that the 'backlash' against female custodes has not significantly harmed them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The impotent outrage which achieved nothing?

That outrage?

Well this is the thing, do you have any data either way? That's my point. It's kinda insaniaks point too. It's really easy to craft a given narrative when the data is as opaque as cooperate earnings can be, since they can reflect all sorts of things. Correlation not being causation and all.

Btw if you actually have data I'd be real interested to see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Considering the amount of outrage we saw over Custodes? Yeah.

It was like a couple of weeks, then it dissipated because the rage . . . .

Need more data.

After a fashion.

Female Custodes become a thing.

Weird Men On The Internet throw a tantrum

GW reports record profits. Again.

Ergo, the “outrage” over female Custodes had absolutely no discernible impact on GW, and could, not entirely in bad faith, be argued to have helped them with those profits.

Hence, short lived, impotent “outrage”. They went woke, and got even more filthy, stinking rich.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well this is the thing, do you have any data either way? .

I would think their continued record profits would be a fairly obvious sign that the 'backlash' against female custodes has not significantly harmed them.

I would argue that Custodes are not a significant fraction of their business, and thus any potential effect of backlash would be hard to see at the macro level.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The impotent outrage which achieved nothing?

That outrage?

You mean all the people on YouTube who couldn't even pronounce Custodes correctly whilst claiming to really love and cherish the lore and who dropped it as soon as the next right-wing rage farm event came along.

That’s the Badger.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I would argue that Custodes are not a significant fraction of their business, and thus any potential effect of backlash would be hard to see at the macro level.

So your argument against the claim that Custodes backlash was insignificant is to point out that the Custodes backlash was insignificant?

Interesting strategy.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well this is the thing, do you have any data either way? .

I would think their continued record profits would be a fairly obvious sign that the 'backlash' against female custodes has not significantly harmed them.

I would argue that Custodes are not a significant fraction of their business, and thus any potential effect of backlash would be hard to see at the macro level.

How about: I then went and started a Custodes army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Considering the amount of outrage we saw over Custodes? Yeah.

It was like a couple of weeks, then it dissipated because the rage . . . .

Need more data.

The last Dakka thread on the subject lasted less than a month.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s the Badger.

 BorderCountess wrote:


How about: I then went and started a Custodes army.

Finally, you thrown off the shackles of Chaos and come into the Emperor's light.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I would argue that Custodes are not a significant fraction of their business, and thus any potential effect of backlash would be hard to see at the macro level.

So your argument against the claim that Custodes backlash was insignificant is to point out that the Custodes backlash was insignificant?

Interesting strategy.

Well. . .

If GWs profits are being held up as evidence that female Custodes didn't have any effect, but any effect on Custodes sales are obfuscated because they are such a tiny fraction of GWs portfolio. . . Then in the overall context of a discussion of Space Marines (who reportedly make up a significant portion of their sales) the "evidence" of GWs profits as a reaction to female Custodes isn't really there.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s the Badger.

 BorderCountess wrote:


How about: I then went and started a Custodes army.

Finally, you thrown off the shackles of Chaos and come into the Emperor's light.

Nah, I've also been building Blood Ravens - but that's mostly because they're just Loyalist Thousand Sons.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well this is the thing, do you have any data either way? .

I would think their continued record profits would be a fairly obvious sign that the 'backlash' against female custodes has not significantly harmed them.

I would argue that Custodes are not a significant fraction of their business, and thus any potential effect of backlash would be hard to see at the macro level.

How about: I then went and started a Custodes army.

I don't feel like I should need to post this, but an anecdote is not data. I'm on record here as advocating for female Custodes btw, before GW did it I thought it was the right move.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Considering the amount of outrage we saw over Custodes? Yeah.

It was like a couple of weeks, then it dissipated because the rage . . . .

Need more data.

The last Dakka thread on the subject lasted less than a month.

To be completely honest, Dakka ain't what it used to be. It's been pretty dead here. I don't think it's a great measuring stick.