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.

 Tyran wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

My point isn't that the IoM is sexist.

My point is that the Emperor was sexist. The non-sexist nature of the IoM is a happy accident, just like how its theocratic nature is a blatant deviation from the Emperor's blatant radical and violent atheism.

Expanding on the above, the core lore reason is that FSM cannot exist is because the geneseed doesn't work on women for "reasons". Those reasons aren't technological limitations, as all other trans-human augmentations work on women just fine. FSM doesn't exist because the Emperor didn't want FSM to exist.

And the Emperor does have a documented preference of men over women, I mean all the Primarchs, who were literally custom built down to their genetic level if not even deeper, are male.

I've always been under the impression that they (the Primarchs) are his (The Emperor's) genetic "sons" He engineered them from his own source material with each son focused into one of his personality aspects and genderflipping them female would have been unnecessary complications. i.e. Primarchs are male because they're made from Big E, and Big E is male. (Also this fiction was set 30+ years ago long before women were serving in combat roles, outside of named heros like Joan of Arc which I'm assuming people can see in the Sisters of Battle) Yeah they probably played fast and loose with the science, and its fiction so anything can be done with a little hand waving. But there was no reason to do so.

What Breton said.

Either gender could serve within the wider Imperial armed forces, with seemingly little if any restrictions on roles or progression/promotion.

Ergo, we can’t really say The Emperor was sexist

If you go with the primarchs as aspects of the Emperor’s personality, it does open the door to the missing two were his feminine side. He didn’t like seeing that once it was out of his mind in the real world, and had them wiped out...

Mod edit - removed.

GW is dead here, in this part of Canada, and no one has any interest in renewing the meta that was here. Stock sits on shelves and the only game being played on tables is Heroclicks.

Saying that there has been no change in sales after the twisting of the lore for the minority, is interesting to me. 9th died and 10th is no where to be seen. There is no meta for 11th edition when it hits. No one here cares.

All this activism for female Marines and gender refocusing is going to keep it off tables as regular people aren't interested in the message above story or game play.

GW has aligned themselves with hollyweird and cultural Marxists and people have noticed.

Only those trapped in the echo chamber have not noticed, or continue to scream about how the change is good and needs to be pushed farther.

The most vocal, aren't the majority.

Then…..how do you explain another record breaking six months? With not all of that being an increase in Licensing Revenue?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Then…..how do you explain another record breaking six months? With not all of that being an increase in Licensing Revenue?

Maybe Sigmar's selling gangbusters. GW has a lot of revenue streams. Any data beyond only the highest level/s would be most welcome.

Maybe 30k is where it's at, and 30k's an even bigger sausagefest.

I’d rather the gent in question respond, thanks

His claim, and it’s for him to present contrasting evidence to support his claim.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d rather the gent in question respond, thanks

His claim, and it’s for him to present contrasting evidence to support his claim.

Cop out extraordinaire.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d rather the gent in question respond, thanks

His claim, and it’s for him to present contrasting evidence to support his claim.

Cop out extraordinaire.

Not really.
Especially since that poster said in the post that Warhammer has been dead since 9th Edition. That's a pretty significant period before Custodes got ladies.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Then…..how do you explain another record breaking six months? With not all of that being an increase in Licensing Revenue?

Maybe Sigmar's selling gangbusters. GW has a lot of revenue streams. Any data beyond only the highest level/s would be most welcome.

Maybe 30k is where it's at, and 30k's an even bigger sausagefest.

Isn’t AOS famously the more “woke” GW game? It’s selling better than WHFB for sure, but selling gangbusters isn’t going broke.

I mean, I want to see GW fail for a whole host of reasons, but it definitely isn’t failing.

Besides, his claim is that *bunch of meaningless buzzwords*, therefore sales are down, using solely anecdote instead of evidence.

Whereas, in the real world, GW have once again posted record results, not solely down to Licensing increases, to the point they’re now part of the FTSE 100.

Hence I’m very interested to found out what the other evidence I’m clearly not aware of might be.

steelhead177th wrote:


GW is dead here, in this part of Canada, and no one has any interest in renewing the meta that was here. Stock sits on shelves and the only game being played on tables is Heroclicks.

Saying that there has been no change in sales after the twisting of the lore for the minority, is interesting to me. 9th died and 10th is no where to be seen. There is no meta for 11th edition when it hits. No one here cares.

All this activism for female Marines and gender refocusing is going to keep it off tables as regular people aren't interested in the message above story or game play.

I've been in many places where GW has been and died off and where its come around again and where it hasn't. There are LOADS of factors that lean into this, but to lay all the blame on something that hasn't actually happened (female marines are not a thing and the closest its come to being a thing is 1 video on Warhammer + with a Custodes and that was very recently - so nothing at all that would influence 9-10-early11 editions).

Chances are its dead in your area for a whole host of other reasons. Perhaps the regulars just got older; got kids and married and moved on as life threw other things at them and there were no/few younger people to pick it up and keep the active groups going. Perhaps there was a local fallout between fans over social elements and they disbanded; perhaps all the games moved 1 city over and you're in a "deadzone" between a couple of active playergroups that are just outside of your region; perhaps people got tired of GW's style of balance and reached out into other games; perhaps the local stores stopped promoting it in favour of MTG or RPG games or Boardgames and thus recruitment fell off as people were coaxed into other things.

There are SO many potential what-ifs and chances are the real reasons for your specific situation could be more than one single element. Indeed its very rare for it to just be 1 thing. Often its a combination that add up.

Two people leave the club because they have kids and don't have time; another gets promoted and moves away; another marries and moves overseas; the guy organising gets bored with the GW rules system and goes off to promote and play Heroclicks; the 3 remaining people don't really know how to market and they are all in their 30s which makes it harder to get the teens involved; etc...

Hmmm.....interesting. I'm, personally, amazed how this discussion seems to be more about GW'S bottom line than actual social justice or the consistency of the lore. Capitalism at its finest. /s

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmmm.....interesting. I'm, personally, amazed how this discussion seems to be more about GW'S bottom line than actual social justice or the consistency of the lore. Capitalism at its finest. /s

its 20pages long - most threads that get that long change their focus. Unless there's an event that pushes it back onto the original topic.

Eg rumour threads can and will wander all over the place until a new rumour comes out or a release/news and then it nudges back on topic.

All part and parcel.

As with pretty much any Limited Company, GW’s main interest is its bottom line, as it has responsibilities to its shareholders, such as maximising profits.

And part of the argument against hypothetical Female Astartes is that it would tank sales. And just above? We’ve an anecdotal tale of how it was Female Custards that killed 40K in the poster’s area.

Yet, when we look at verifiable information? GW is going really really well. Which suggests the summarised by me right now “go woke go broke” is simply wishful thinking nonsense in this specific area, as whilst I deliberately stop short of claiming Female Custards are responsible for GW’s gains, the verifiable evidence shows that, at absolute worst, it didn’t hurt them any.

EDIT: I had second thoughts... my post didn't really fit.


For some reason I can't type today.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And part of the argument against hypothetical Female Astartes is that it would tank sales. And just above? We’ve an anecdotal tale of how it was Female Custards that killed 40K in the poster’s area.

If 40k died in the area during 9th, then female Custodes had nothing to do with it. At worst they're a factor in 40k not coming back, but I would also wager there are a whole host of other more impactful reasons why.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe 30k is where it's at, and 30k's an even bigger sausagefest.

I have yet to meet the hypothetical 30k gamer in real life.

Starting to believe it is only smoke and mirrors pushed by Dakkadakka.

Overread wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmmm.....interesting. I'm, personally, amazed how this discussion seems to be more about GW'S bottom line than actual social justice or the consistency of the lore. Capitalism at its finest. /s

its 20pages long - most threads that get that long change their focus. Unless there's an event that pushes it back onto the original topic.

Eg rumour threads can and will wander all over the place until a new rumour comes out or a release/news and then it nudges back on topic.

Point. I'm going to eventually read the entire thread. Personally interested in the absence of interested parties in the late discussion. Where's Sgt_Smudge? Where's Not Online? Bans, perhaps?

Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe 30k is where it's at, and 30k's an even bigger sausagefest.

I have yet to meet the hypothetical 30k gamer in real life.

Starting to believe it is only smoke and mirrors pushed by Dakkadakka.

Hi. 30k player here. We exist. Nothing to do with the topics being currently discussed in this thread, however. At least, not in my personal experience.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Overread wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmmm.....interesting. I'm, personally, amazed how this discussion seems to be more about GW'S bottom line than actual social justice or the consistency of the lore. Capitalism at its finest. /s

its 20pages long - most threads that get that long change their focus. Unless there's an event that pushes it back onto the original topic.

Eg rumour threads can and will wander all over the place until a new rumour comes out or a release/news and then it nudges back on topic.

Point. I'm going to eventually read the entire thread. Personally interested in the absence of interested parties in the late discussion. Where's Sgt_Smudge? Where's Not Online? Bans, perhaps?

Eh I mostly avoided the thread because I've not much to contribute to the core topic.

I think for the most part its a discussion that goes nowhere because everyone brings their own impression of what it should be and there isn't really a point where the middle ground is found. Everyone argues their own corner until someone starts slinging insults and then its an ego fight until the mods step in. It's been done to death as well; rearing its head every so often recently. So in a sense this thread is nothing new and for some its clear it won't go anywhere positive or progressive. It will also have zero impact on GW/the community at large.

Also as it can get hostile/insulting very quickly it can just be one of those topics people avoid because it ends up being a negative experience

 Overread wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Overread wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmmm.....interesting. I'm, personally, amazed how this discussion seems to be more about GW'S bottom line than actual social justice or the consistency of the lore. Capitalism at its finest. /s

its 20pages long - most threads that get that long change their focus. Unless there's an event that pushes it back onto the original topic.

Eg rumour threads can and will wander all over the place until a new rumour comes out or a release/news and then it nudges back on topic.

Point. I'm going to eventually read the entire thread. Personally interested in the absence of interested parties in the late discussion. Where's Sgt_Smudge? Where's Not Online? Bans, perhaps?

Eh I mostly avoided the thread because I've not much to contribute to the core topic.

I think for the most part its a discussion that goes nowhere because everyone brings their own impression of what it should be and there isn't really a point where the middle ground is found. Everyone argues their own corner until someone starts slinging insults and then its an ego fight until the mods step in. It's been done to death as well; rearing its head every so often recently. So in a sense this thread is nothing new and for some its clear it won't go anywhere positive or progressive. It will also have zero impact on GW/the community at large.

Also as it can get hostile/insulting very quickly it can just be one of those topics people avoid because it ends up being a negative experience

I agree . But it's here, and people are fighting about it, so it's hard to ignore. The damnation of the public.

People who don't actually know what Marxism is shouldn't be allowed to use the word.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d rather the gent in question respond, thanks

His claim, and it’s for him to present contrasting evidence to support his claim.

Cop out extraordinaire.

Not really.
Especially since that poster said in the post that Warhammer has been dead since 9th Edition. That's a pretty significant period before Custodes got ladies.

Disagree, GW might be doing great financially even if players are leaving certain product lines. The macro view of GW profit doesn't say anything about the topic. There's so much potential wiggle room in the numbers that a dip in sales or participation in a given area or faction could easily be lost.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe 30k is where it's at, and 30k's an even bigger sausagefest.

I have yet to meet the hypothetical 30k gamer in real life.

Starting to believe it is only smoke and mirrors pushed by Dakkadakka.

I don't frequent our FLGS much, but I think I've seen more Heresy and Necromunda being played than 40k, which was surprising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:
People who don't actually know what Marxism is shouldn't be allowed to use the word.

Lol, so true!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Then…..how do you explain another record breaking six months? With not all of that being an increase in Licensing Revenue?

Maybe Sigmar's selling gangbusters. GW has a lot of revenue streams. Any data beyond only the highest level/s would be most welcome.

Maybe 30k is where it's at, and 30k's an even bigger sausagefest.

Isn’t AOS famously the more “woke” GW game? It’s selling better than WHFB for sure, but selling gangbusters isn’t going broke.

I mean, I want to see GW fail for a whole host of reasons, but it definitely isn’t failing.

If you consider it having women in it as "woke". Whatever that nonsense word even means.

 PenitentJake wrote:
People who don't actually know what Marxism is shouldn't be allowed to use the word.

I agree, but, Ummmm,.....when was Marxism mentioned? I apparently missed it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:
People who don't actually know what Marxism is shouldn't be allowed to use the word.

I agree, but, Ummmm,.....when was Marxism mentioned? I apparently missed it.

Steelhead, towards the top of this page, mentioned cultural Marxism. Their whole post was basically utterly divorced from reality, though, so you'd probably already switched off by the time you got to that part.

Correct me if I am wrong, but here's what I've learned from this thread...

1. Most people would be fine with female space marines as long as there was a in-continuity reason that didn't feel like a shore-horned reason (See. Adeptus Custodes) for their existence.

2. Some consider the inclusion of female space marines to be part of a liberal/woke agenda that they feel personally affects their future enjoyment of the game.

3. Very few like the idea of female Chaos Space Marines appearing first, before loyalist Marines.

4. This is a sensitive subject that can quickly spiral into wars, and we owe a "thank you" to the friendly neighborhood moderators, for keeping us civil.

I think that's what I've picked up...

Did I miss anything?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
1. Most people would be fine with female space marines as long as there was a in-continuity reason that didn't feel like a shore-horned reason (See. Adeptus Custodes) for their existence.?

It's possibly also worth pointing out, though, that Imperial Knights received exactly the same treatment as Custodes did (originally described as recruiting from 'noble sons', but then it turns out that's just out-dated shorthand for 'rich people' and some Knight households have some (or exclusively) women pilots as well, and always have) without all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

GW have been 'shoe-horning' things into the background for as long as the game has been around. In every other instance, people grumbled, and then got on with their lives. It was only an issue for Custodes because culture warriors online (many of whom don't even play the game) blew it all out of proportion in an effort to turn it into a bigger deal than it actually is.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
1. Most people would be fine with female space marines as long as there was a in-continuity reason that didn't feel like a shore-horned reason (See. Adeptus Custodes) for their existence.?

It's possibly also worth pointing out, though, that Imperial Knights received exactly the same treatment as Custodes did (originally described as recruiting from 'noble sons', but then it turns out that's just out-dated shorthand for 'rich people' and some Knight households have some (or exclusively) women pilots as well, and always have) without all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

GW have been 'shoe-horning' things into the background for as long as the game has been around. In every other instance, people grumbled, and then got on with their lives. It was only an issue for Custodes because culture warriors online (many of whom don't even play the game) blew it all out of proportion in an effort to turn it into a bigger deal than it actually is.

Also the people that don't like this just don't like it. No 'reasonable in continuity' reason will be good enough. It's a no true scotsman fallacy - there will never be an in universe reason that satisfies them, it will always be for 'woke' reasons, no matter how they do it and therefore no reason will be acceptable.