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.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Because I am a glutton for punishment I went to my Chatgpt buddy, the Omnissiah, and asked him for a female marine, and I got this:

The AI obviously scraped pictures of Commander Shepard from Mass Effect to make this. The neck and waist armour is identical to a lot of the N7 armour.

God AI slop is awful.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I love that over the years we have persisted with these threads and each time it gets less toxic and more progressive.

I know this post is a few days old, but I wanted to leave a quick comment.

I had one person reach out to me directly to express their support for some of my posts in this thread. They also explained that they and someone they know are not participating on purpose because they're afraid of reprisals against their account. I've seen at least two other users have their (not pro-FSM) text removed within a day of posting. Meanwhile, repeated summaries of the anti-FSM side as being misogynistic and sexist, or even the outright call for their exclusion (in the other thread), didn't even result in a "keep it down, folks" post from a moderator.

If this thread is anything to go by how previous discussions about the topic were handled, then your impression for it becoming "less toxic and more progressive" stems not from changing the hearts and minds of people, but from intimidation and forced exclusion (=bans). I hope the irony of the situation is not lost on you.

I suggest you revisit the old threads, they were very nasty places and only one side was being abusive I assure you. If people are too afraid to come and spout hateful and toxic garbage then it’s getting a bit nicer here. If you are unhappy with how the mods are dealing with this topic take it up with them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Considering that one of those users was attempting a transphobic dogwhistle, I think that's for good reason. Blatant transphobia (and yes, I'm not just talking "ooh, they disagree with me", I'm referring to Actually Transphobic Comments) have no place here or anywhere else.

Can't speak for the other, mostly because I don't remember it, but I'm going to assume it wasn't because they were opposed to women Astartes.

Could I just have confirmation that you agree that transphobic comments (Actually Transphobic Comments and rhetoric, not just "you disagree with me", just to clarify) are abhorrent?

Including transphobic comments, nobody should be subjected to online abuse. Which is why I have an issue with - and call out - the seemingly one-sided moderation. As made apparent in this thread (and the other one that started it), the following things do not break rule #1 on Dakka:

- Accusing others of holding sexist views.
- Accusing others of holding misogynist views.
- Accusing others of lying.
- Calling for the exclusion of people.
- Gaslighting people.


I can't speak for or against the two deleted posts, as I haven't screenshotted them. One was about something with Orks, the other about making unisex models, iirc.
Examples for the list above are still present in this thread, however.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Considering that one of those users was attempting a transphobic dogwhistle, I think that's for good reason. Blatant transphobia (and yes, I'm not just talking "ooh, they disagree with me", I'm referring to Actually Transphobic Comments) have no place here or anywhere else.

Can't speak for the other, mostly because I don't remember it, but I'm going to assume it wasn't because they were opposed to women Astartes.

Could I just have confirmation that you agree that transphobic comments (Actually Transphobic Comments and rhetoric, not just "you disagree with me", just to clarify) are abhorrent?

Including transphobic comments, nobody should be subjected to online abuse. Which is why I have an issue with - and call out - the seemingly one-sided moderation. As made apparent in this thread (and the other one that started it), the following things do not break rule #1 on Dakka:

- Accusing others of holding sexist views.
- Accusing others of holding misogynist views.
- Accusing others of lying.
- Calling for the exclusion of people.
- Gaslighting people.


I can't speak for or against the two deleted posts, as I haven't screenshotted them. One was about something with Orks, the other about making unisex models, iirc.
Examples for the list above are still present in this thread, however.

I don't have the full context, but the picture this paints is that people were saying sexist, misogynistic lies and that others called them out for it. And that when those people continued to be toxic, the rest of the posters got sick of it and wanted to stop wasting energy listening to the toxic slop.

If that scenario is at all accurate, I don't see a problem with the consequences being one-sided. It sounds like one side was saying some gross stuff and got called out on it. Calling people out when they're being gakky isn't something that should get you punished.

Well there's stuff like this:

Andykp wrote:

The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
. . .
It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Breton wrote:
How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo. . .

1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

From this exchange it seems like the idea that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is a MOD supported view.

So a "lore conservative" like myself is just gonna catch that labeling, I guess?

Obviously I haven't seen every post in every thread on this topic, so it's possible I've missed something. But I have seen plenty of people including myself point out reasons why adding FSM would potentially be awkward/cringe without then getting accused of toxicity.

The only times I've seen people get called sexist/misogynist/etc. in here is when they start trying to use some sketchy real-world reasoning into the space fantasy discussion. Your, "Girls can't be marines because they're bad at bench presses," type arguments.

While I haven't read every post of every thread, I have read a lot of posts in this sort of thread. And so far, I haven't seen a compelling reason to *not* have marines other than the fact that it would be sort of awkward to introduce them out of the blue. Which *would be* an awkward retcon, but I'd argue having your franchise's flagship faction be a sausage fest is also kind of cringe. And Cawl and his primaris tweaks are right there to offer an in-universe justification for introducing FSM goign forward.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Obviously I haven't seen every post in every thread on this topic, so it's possible I've missed something. But I have seen plenty of people including myself point out reasons why adding FSM would potentially be awkward/cringe without then getting accused of toxicity.

The only times I've seen people get called sexist/misogynist/etc. in here is when they start trying to use some sketchy real-world reasoning into the space fantasy discussion. Your, "Girls can't be marines because they're bad at bench presses," type arguments.

While I haven't read every post of every thread, I have read a lot of posts in this sort of thread. And so far, I haven't seen a compelling reason to *not* have marines other than the fact that it would be sort of awkward to introduce them out of the blue. Which *would be* an awkward retcon, but I'd argue having your franchise's flagship faction be a sausage fest is also kind of cringe. And Cawl and his primaris tweaks are right there to offer an in-universe justification for introducing FSM goign forward.

I don't think people appreciate that female Marines wouldn't be stereotypically female in any sense. At best, they would resemble SF6's Marisa.

I don't get it. We have a real world example of men on excessive PEDs in strongmen and bodybuilders. The women that compete in the open class of those end up looking like men because they're pumping insane amounts of test and HGH on top over other PEDs.

I don't see anything wrong with women being Space Marines, but I don't think people understand that they're not going to cutesy anime waifus, let alone remotely feminine. They're going to be juiced and modifed to the gills. Literally, to the point where you'd have to see them nude to tell the difference. How are you going to tell the models apart?

Space Marines are currently technically male, but to me, they're technically sexless. Their sex is largely irrelevant to what they do and adding females to their numbers will change nothing.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Obviously I haven't seen every post in every thread on this topic, so it's possible I've missed something. But I have seen plenty of people including myself point out reasons why adding FSM would potentially be awkward/cringe without then getting accused of toxicity.

The only times I've seen people get called sexist/misogynist/etc. in here is when they start trying to use some sketchy real-world reasoning into the space fantasy discussion. Your, "Girls can't be marines because they're bad at bench presses," type arguments.

While I haven't read every post of every thread, I have read a lot of posts in this sort of thread. And so far, I haven't seen a compelling reason to *not* have marines other than the fact that it would be sort of awkward to introduce them out of the blue. Which *would be* an awkward retcon, but I'd argue having your franchise's flagship faction be a sausage fest is also kind of cringe. And Cawl and his primaris tweaks are right there to offer an in-universe justification for introducing FSM goign forward.

I don't think people appreciate that female Marines wouldn't be stereotypically female in any sense. At best, they would resemble SF6's Marisa.

I don't get it. We have a real world example of men on excessive PEDs in strongmen and bodybuilders. The women that compete in the open class of those end up looking like men because they're pumping insane amounts of test and HGH on top over other PEDs.

I don't see anything wrong with women being Space Marines, but I don't think people understand that they're not going to cutesy anime waifus, let alone remotely feminine. They're going to be juiced and modifed to the gills. Literally, to the point where you'd have to see them nude to tell the difference. How are you going to tell the models apart?

Space Marines are currently technically male, but to me, they're technically sexless. Their sex is largely irrelevant to what they do and adding females to their numbers will change nothing.

There's a reason most people have been asking for an upgrade sprue of heads and for future kits to include a similar amount of male and female unhelmeted heads.
We don't WANT anime waifu Marines. We want the lore to change to be more inclusive for the real world.

As for your last bit, Marines aren't really presented that way. They're consistently presented as male. If they were presented as agender, that'd be a different story, but they're not.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Considering that one of those users was attempting a transphobic dogwhistle, I think that's for good reason. Blatant transphobia (and yes, I'm not just talking "ooh, they disagree with me", I'm referring to Actually Transphobic Comments) have no place here or anywhere else.

Can't speak for the other, mostly because I don't remember it, but I'm going to assume it wasn't because they were opposed to women Astartes.

Could I just have confirmation that you agree that transphobic comments (Actually Transphobic Comments and rhetoric, not just "you disagree with me", just to clarify) are abhorrent?

Including transphobic comments, nobody should be subjected to online abuse. Which is why I have an issue with - and call out - the seemingly one-sided moderation. As made apparent in this thread (and the other one that started it), the following things do not break rule #1 on Dakka:

- Accusing others of holding sexist views.
- Accusing others of holding misogynist views.
- Accusing others of lying.
- Calling for the exclusion of people.
- Gaslighting people.


I can't speak for or against the two deleted posts, as I haven't screenshotted them. One was about something with Orks, the other about making unisex models, iirc.
Examples for the list above are still present in this thread, however.

I think I'd need to actually see what these posts are responding to.

In my experience when people say these things on dakka the person they're responding to isn't actually doing some innocent difference of opinion based on pure lore-reverence and apolitical views. You only have to scratch the surface and you start getting stuff about cultural-marxism and reactionary buzzwords that make the alarm bells start going AWOOGA AWOOGA AWOOGA.

Of course I'm not saying that applies to you, idk what your views are. But I will say if someone is an intolerant bigot I do absolutely want them excluded from the hobby until they change those views. I don't see how that's so wrong or something to be criticised.

But y'know, this forum has a long held reputation for harbouring really horrible bigoted views amongst its userbase. This is one of the reasons so much discussion has dried up over the years. It's certainly a lot better than it used to be, as are most 40k communities, but the reputation remains and isn't something that was just made up, it has very real history to it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well there's stuff like this:

Andykp wrote:

The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
. . .
It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Breton wrote:
How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo. . .

1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

From this exchange it seems like the idea that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is a MOD supported view.

So a "lore conservative" like myself is just gonna catch that labeling, I guess?

Read carefully what I wrote in your quote there.

I clearly said there was room for well meaning politics as well as toxic, it is you attaching the word toxic to every use of the word politics, I accept that some people will have genuine beliefs that are well intentioned and not harmful that mean they would prefer to keep gender politics out of 40K. You quotation that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is entirely your own creation and not anything I said.

And if someone feels so strongly that females should not be represented in the hobby that they leave when it’s attempted then that’s an attitude I’m happy to see leave.

My point about there being no debate beyond that is that there is no point rehashing the same lore arguments over and over because they have been shown to be completely baseless. Yourself as a “lore conservative”, you must have some tolerance for lore changes or you wouldn’t have stayed with 40K over all the sweeping lore changes that have been across the decades of its existence. Or do you not acknowledge tau, dark eldar, leagues of votan, every spacemarine tank that isn’t a landraider, rhino or predator all the new and wonderful marine units added over the years??? Where your red line lore wise, just female marines? I suspect, because the lore arguments don’t add up that there are other reasons, but I have no idea how toxic or wholesome they are.

The reason that the lore as is creates a toxic environment is because it enables those that do hold toxic beliefs and gives them authority to enforce those. And THAT needs challenging to create an environment where abuse and exclusion are not tolerated and have no support. And a faction of the community claiming to be the victims whilst attempting to exclude people from the hobby does nothing but reinforce the toxic culture. The only people I want to see out of the hobby are those that will abuse and exclude others, and I’m pretty sure most would agree with that stance.

I was wondering why GW didn't introduce Femarines when they introduced Primaris. It did seem to be the perfect time*. 'True-scale marine' projects were really popular at the time, so I don't think GW expected a backlash against Primaris.

So 'changing too much at once'...I'm not sure that was on their radar.

This is purely speculation - and I stress that I'm not advocating the argument - but are they afraid of hurting the golden goose? Marines still seem to be their biggest seller, hands down. The USA is their largest market, I think.

From what I understand from a couple of statistics podcasts, the actual changes to sales figures seem to be very brief blips whether up or down, despite the 'go woke, go broke' crowd telling us otherwise. However, particularly with...er...policital trends in the USA I'm wondering if GW were worried about how their largest market might react. In this still very male-dominated niche, might they lose more customers to third party solutions than they gain?

Yes, folks would easily be able to trade their unwanted male or female models but I'm sure there would be an outsize wailing and gnashing of teeth. No, it isn't cool if GW is bowing to that kind of pressure.

The obvious counter question: are they losing enough money to third party folks that are supplying Femarines? If they saw that as a big enough market, they'd be crazy not to go after it.

Maybe GW aren't sure what folks want as a kit. I've only gone back about six pages but some folks just want female heads, others want that as a minimum but seem hazy as to what they would want . The comments I've seen seem to dismiss both Sisters and female Stormcast as too feminine for the Marine look.

Personally, I'd make dedicated female marine models the same scale as modern Chaos Marines (which IIRC are a tad smaller than Primaris.) Not other difference to the armour. Then add in suitably scaled female heads. It's an interesting bit of variation to the unit without adding Boob Plate or Lady Ankles.


*They could have made one of the Necron character models female, too. I don't mean with giving her Roboboobs but an optional head with a long metallic hair piece or something.

the challenge for anyone who is anti FSM is basically to find a way to hold that view without it coming across as bad in any one of the myriad ways many other people have held it.

Because, pretty much any argument made that's not pro sex/exclusion related, has a counter. Now you may not agree with that counter but it's still there.

Examples:

The lore is sacred and shouldn't be changed - counter - it has and will continue to be changed and the particular version of the lore you happen to think is the one true lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other.

It's just genetics - counter genetics don't work that way.

And so on.


I'm totally open to someone coming through with an argument that manages to avoid the more gross end of the manosphere's opinions, which ARE there and ARE pushed.

I am also sympathetic to the idea of being 'tarred' with the same brush just because you hold a view that happens to align with someone else's when they have different reasoning, where the reasoning is the problem and not the view itself.


But I struggle to see anything like that when the arguments boil down to

'I personally don't like it and refuse to examine my reasoning further'

or 'i have a view of how sacrosanct GW SHOULD treat lore based on a particular version that was produced between specific time periods and I will act as though that is true, rather than accept that GW changes the lore and evolves and adapts it continuously and my version is just one adapted and changed version that invalidated a previous one'.




As to the gender politics angle - that concept is a creation of people trying to shut down minorities attempting any real demand for equality and equity.

No one wakes up in the morning and says 'gee whiz I'm glad the colour of my skin, genitals or identity are political and used as a football by bigots!' No one TRIED to make those things political.

When you are a minority and suffer at the hands of society, SOCIETY makes your existence political when you dare speak up and society uses said label to try and shut down your self advocacy. Because politics is something you don't HAVE to talk about, so 'no political talk here please' sounds reasonable, until society conflates someone's very existence with politics and suddenly youre literally shutting down someone's ability to talk about themselves, because someone else labeled them political.

We’ll never know if it was ever on the cards.

What might be worth keeping in mind is that, up until Primaris happened? Marines had barely changed since 2nd Ed, and the wider array of Chapter specific rules.

Yes, they got new units added every edition. But for the most part, their core structure remained pretty much as it was. Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Veteran, Terminator.

And folks seemed pretty happy with that, probably because they kept getting lots of new toys. Mostly tanks, but oddities like the Centurions.

Then came Primaris. Whole new squad types with different strategic roles. And it upset some folk. Why? Ask them. I’m not here to make, champion or decry the next person’s opinion on Primaris.

But from my perspective (and I’ve been around a long, long time), the desire for female Marines has gathered pace only post-Primaris.

It could be that Primaris were such a change to Marines, it was seen as the next logical progression, or a sign that the background was more mutable going forward.

Certainly I’m one to endorse the addition of female Space Marines as being an in-universe development of the overall process, rather than “and they were there all along” thing.

The latter worked for Custards, because Custards are still a relatively new army and prior to that hadn’t received a huge amount of background. Certainly not compared to Marines.

We’ve also since 2017 had the new House Goliath background. Where before they were just Meathead Beefcake, and not a little sexist toward House Escher, they’re now, in essence, a genetic experiment to create a resilient, if purposefully short lived, slave caste which could do all the really incredibly nasty jobs.

For those not familiar? The Goliaths aren’t a natural development, but a co-production between Houses Escher and Van Saar. They started off all male, and importantly all sterile, as a means of control.

Time progressed and life, uh, found a way. And it’s now comprised of Vat Born (not clones, but brought into being by science including rapid maturation, and data slugs to teach them their given role), Nat Born (fairly rare still, but born the old fashioned way. This is where female Goliaths first came about, and were, presumably, originally “hybrids”, as the first mother to a Goliath female couldn’t, by definition, be Goliath) and Unborn.

Unborn are particularly interesting, as there they’re regular humans enhanced to the Goliath standard, including new muscle being physically added. A dangerous process, but as they can help increase the number of Natborn, and introduce greater genetic variety, an important part of House Goliath.

And Unborn can be from any gender, the process isn’t limited to males.

Which, whilst a poor shadow of the Astartes process, suggests with sufficient research and development, the Astartes process could be extended to female recruits.

Cawl is the likely father of such a development, being the one with the keys to that part of the Emperor’s overall toybox.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for tarring others with the same brush? I for one have been very studious in only addressing points raised. I’ve not tried to put words in other’s mouths. I’ve not tried to draw conclusions about a person’s motivations and rationales.

There are a couple of people I’ll admit I’m a bit suspicious of. But I keep those suspicions to myself.

Others have been pretty blatant though, including at least one outright playing the “go woke go broke” card, which I countered with a link to GW’s further record profits and joining of the FTSE 100, which according to some, uh, “sources” shouldn’t have happened because Female Custards were meant to destroy GW’s profits, not join them.

And of course there’s the poster who makes odd claims, and point blank refuses to explain them, despite multiple people asking for clarification, every single time the claim in question is made.

Now that last one? I still don’t draw a conclusion about their motivation or rationale there. I mean, it could be they’ve just genuinely not thought it through that well. And for sake of not poisoning the well, that’s my working assumption, though other assumptions are available.

 Hellebore wrote:
The lore is sacred and shouldn't be changed - counter - it has and will continue to be changed and the particular version of the lore you happen to think is the one true lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other.

After cash and press this is probably next in GWs list of actual reasons.

They make money selling models but they retain custom as much through investment in the world as hobbycraft and gaming. Sure they can and do change the lore but people get invested in it - GW wants them to get invested in it. Each change can cost that as you are telling your customers that they were always at war with eastasia.


And GW do not promote 'all lores are equally valid' - the old necron lore died on arrive of the new necron lore for example. Female space marines are no different as if/when GW decide to push them they will exist, will have always existed, and anyone who suggests otherwise will be officially, retroactively, wrong. As per female custodes.

A.T. wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The lore is sacred and shouldn't be changed - counter - it has and will continue to be changed and the particular version of the lore you happen to think is the one true lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other.

After cash and press this is probably next in GWs list of actual reasons.

They make money selling models but they retain custom as much through investment in the world as hobbycraft and gaming. Sure they can and do change the lore but people get invested in it - GW wants them to get invested in it. Each change can cost that as you are telling your customers that they were always at war with eastasia.


And GW do not promote 'all lores are equally valid' - the old necron lore died on arrive of the new necron lore for example. Female space marines are no different as if/when GW decide to push them they will exist, will have always existed, and anyone who suggests otherwise will be officially, retroactively, wrong. As per female custodes.

And yet they announced female custodes and their stock price continued to climb. So I don't think they are that scared of backlash.

But yeah, they promote 'the current lore is the one we support with products' approach. So if and when female marines appear, they will be part of the current lore paradigm supported with products.

(Replying to A.T.) Yeah. Except….no.

Custodes aren’t Astartes. And have a different conversion process. One tailored to the individual. How tailored remains a mystery, as we don’t really know what makes a Custodes what they are in the way we do for Astartes.

And so, it’s entirely possible no two Custodes are quite alike on the inside, with it instead being a catch-all title for incredibly high level, bleeding edge of the science, biomancy and genhancement.

Astartes? They’re production line. A process designed to be one size fits some, so the numbers needed for the Crusade were possible. And remember, Legions didn’t just number into the tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands, but could sustain that level through ongoing recruitment.

Now, in 40K the Chapters are incredibly sniffy and choosy about candidates. But I argue that is a direct result of the changes Guilliman put forward, and a strict cap on how many Astartes you can have.

So, Legions were “we’ll take as many as we can convert, arm, equip and supply”. Chapters? “Well, we only have 16 spots open this year, so we might as well be incredibly rigorous, because our recruitment pool is vast compared to how many we need”.

Though ongoing degradation of Geneseed (which Cawl has helped reverse/slow somewhat) is likely another factor compared to Legions.

After all, when your Primarch is still alive, entirely new Geneseed can be cultured from them. So even a “number out my arse for demonstration only” conversion failure rate of 1 in 10 is no big thing. But when you don’t have that failsafe, and your conversion failure rate has increased to another “number out my arse for demonstration only” of 1 in 5? Carefully screening the candidates can help mitigate that risk of failure.

Anyways, sorry for the wibble.

But, with Cawl actively progressing the Astartes project? There’s a more solid route to “and now we can convert female Candidates into full Astartes”. So there’s no need to make it a retcon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, would be a cracking opportunity to address GW’s Very Silly Numbers problem.

After all, as stupid hard as they are, 1,000 Marines is the merest drop in an ocean of staggering proportion.

With Primaris, thus far, showing now signs of turning traitor, could be time to revise that and allow Chapters to enlarge their numbers. Still have a specific cap (say, 5,000), because then they’re all self-enforcing, as any given Chapter will have fewer warriors under its command than any two Chapters sent to bring them to heel/do a Prospero at them.

A.T. wrote:
Female space marines are no different as if/when GW decide to push them they will exist, will have always existed, and anyone who suggests otherwise will be officially, retroactively, wrong. As per female custodes.

I think you're making a rather large assumption, here. And even if they did, so what? I have little faith that it would have a negative impact on the share price, and anyone who decides to light their models on fire in response will just be that one Dark Elf player we all roundly mocked after the End Times.

 Hellebore wrote:
And yet they announced female custodes and their stock price continued to climb. So I don't think they are that scared of backlash

The popularity of marines is the make or break of the companies bottom line, particularly in other media. Of course they are scared of any backlash that might put that at risk.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
(Replying to A.T.) Yeah. Except….no.
Custodes aren’t Astartes. And ---(extended lore post)----

I do not know which part of my post you are replying to - that GW has a vested interest in people being invested in their lore?

 BorderCountess wrote:
I think you're making a rather large assumption, here

Examples were provided.

A.T. wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:
I think you're making a rather large assumption, here

Examples were provided.

That doesn't change the fact that you're making an assumption. You're assuming that just because they did it with Custodes* they would do the same thing with Astartes. I, personally, think they would go with, "Cawl did it" since that would be the path of least resistance.

*We can debate until the cows come home as to whether this was a clarification or a full-on retcon, and frankly I lean toward the latter. I, personally, would NOT retcon in female Astartes, since there is a much larger body of background for the creation of Astartes as opposed to Custodes.

 BorderCountess wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that you're making an assumption

Perhaps just crossed wires here. I don't believe that GW will support a 'this lore is just one version among many and no more true or correct than any other' position, that's all.

They will put out new lore / retcon / whatever and that will be gospel. Until they change it again.

@MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.

No, forget Cawl. Actually let the Chaos Marines be the inventive, rule-breaking ones for once.

Have Fabius Bile crack the Femarines ‘problem’. Imagine how smug he could be having cracked the ‘unsolvable’ barriers, double the CSM recruitment pool and wind up any legionnaires that think only boys can be marines.


Start adding in Chaos Femarine options.

Briefly show the Imperium as the tradition-bound facistisy twonks they are before Cawl is ordered to get loyalist Marines on par.

Give everyone the option.

At the very least it’s telling a story, rather than just a dull retcon.

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well there's stuff like this:

Andykp wrote:

The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
. . .
It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Breton wrote:
How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo. . .

1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

From this exchange it seems like the idea that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is a MOD supported view.

So a "lore conservative" like myself is just gonna catch that labeling, I guess?

Read carefully what I wrote in your quote there.

I clearly said there was room for well meaning politics as well as toxic, it is you attaching the word toxic to every use of the word politics, I accept that some people will have genuine beliefs that are well intentioned and not harmful that mean they would prefer to keep gender politics out of 40K. You quotation that "the only reason to oppose FSM is toxic politics" is entirely your own creation and not anything I said.

Fair call, I misread that. My bad. There was something more blatant earlier in the thread, but that wasn't you.

Andykp wrote:

My point about there being no debate beyond that is that there is no point rehashing the same lore arguments over and over because they have been shown to be completely baseless. Yourself as a “lore conservative”, you must have some tolerance for lore changes or you wouldn’t have stayed with 40K over all the sweeping lore changes that have been across the decades of its existence. Or do you not acknowledge tau, dark eldar, leagues of votan, every spacemarine tank that isn’t a landraider, rhino or predator all the new and wonderful marine units added over the years??? Where your red line lore wise, just female marines? I suspect, because the lore arguments don’t add up that there are other reasons, but I have no idea how toxic or wholesome they are.

Hehe. I have to say it's you who are making assumptions here though. I've been vocal about many, many changes over the years. Primaris, Centurions, the addition of SM flyers to the army. The changes making Necrons into "Newcrons", degradations or shifts in statlines changing factional balances etc. and I disliked it when the Salamanders went from being "black" to "coal-black-mutation". I dislike generally moving the story forward, The Great Rift, the returning of the Primarchs, and to be fair, I'm not too keen on anything that isn't the classic Land Raider loadout either, although it's easier to waive that one because it HAS been 10,000 years and chassis-weapon-variants has some history. If you want to get nitty gritty, I didn't mind things like Tau and Dark Eldar because they didn't actually change any pre-existing lore or themes that I'm aware of, they just added to the 40K tapestry.

And my money has already gone where my mouth is. I don't give any money to GW anymore. My collection is extensive and I've got what I want, and if I really want anything else I get it secondhand. When I field my Space Marines they'll look quite a bit like an army that could have been fielded in 2nd edition. And when I field my Eldar infantry, they'll be all metal.

Mind you, I'm vocal about the FSM not because I'm particularly passionate about it, but more because the topic is interesting. Can there be products or stories aimed primarily at young men? I think so. Are Space Marines one of those products? I think so. Does a fictional universe have a right to impose restrictions or sensibilities some find problematic? Spicy, but yeah they have that right. Where's the cutoff? Oooh, I dunno.

Andykp wrote:
The reason that the lore as is creates a toxic environment is because it enables those that do hold toxic beliefs and gives them authority to enforce those. And THAT needs challenging to create an environment where abuse and exclusion are not tolerated and have no support. And a faction of the community claiming to be the victims whilst attempting to exclude people from the hobby does nothing but reinforce the toxic culture. The only people I want to see out of the hobby are those that will abuse and exclude others, and I’m pretty sure most would agree with that stance.

I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.

More/better female representation can be had in 40K without resorting to lore changes. It's already happening and I'm all for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
@MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.

I actually don't know where progression was described prior to the Ward 5th edition book, or what it was.

If Primaris is a thing, surely there's enough leeway in the lore to adjust previous geneseed adaptations to allow for non-male implementations. Even if FSM were not possible before, could Primaris not make this viable?

Also, more representation in models surely leads to more non-male players joining in.

After 32 pages of comments, some of which I have not managed to read, I'd hope these have been mentioned already.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
@MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.

I was referring to the army structure. Bits of the background have been changed/clarified, but the squad types remained the same until Primaris.

 Insectum7 wrote:

More/better female representation can be had in 40K without resorting to lore changes. It's already happening and I'm all for it.

I think the only problem with that is that GWs attention across the 40K range is so uneven, to the point that it basically feels like you're just the NPC baddies if you don't play Space Marines. Space Marines seemingly get new releases every couple of months, whereas the female faction that is largely pointed to as providing representation literally went untouched for, what, 20+ years...

 Insectum7 wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.

With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.

 catbarf wrote:

With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.

I think it is far easier to do if the bigotry being depicted is "allegorical fantasy bigotry" rather than discrimination of the same groups that face discrimination in the real life.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think the "enabling" argument is somewhat flawed because you could make a similar "enabling" argument about the fascist underpinnings of the Imperium ("40K is the gateway drug to fascism!"), and I certainly wouldn't want the Imperium to be changed for the sake of political correctness. I see it as part of the "edge" or flavor of the 40K universe. I think the universe is more interesting when it has these ideological tensions within it, and I don't think the reasoning of "some people might use it to be a jerk!" is a good enough one to change it. I imagine those that do are going to be obnoxious anyhow.

With 40K becoming more mainstream and less satirical over time, there's a bigger discussion to be had about whether GW can still depict the Imperium as having negative beliefs without being perceived as endorsing those beliefs, or providing cover for those who share them.

Broadly speaking most people understand that the people behind Warhammer don't actually support child soldiers, slavery, forced sterilization, genocide, regulated breeding, no holidays for workers, etc...
The factories at GW HQ are also not a Necromunda factory - GW has health and safety; they don't spill pollution everywhere; they aren't killing their staff with unsafe work practice and deadly chemicals


Basically if you believe GW supports the values and ideals of the Imperium of Man chances are that's more a reflection on the person than it is on GW. Everyone else has the maturity to separate fiction from reality.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
@MDG, You say marines never had any fundamental changes since 2nd, but didn’t they undergo a massive change to their progression path in 5th? From scout->tactical->specialist, wasn’t it changed to scout->specialist->other specialist->tactical marine? It was something that changed the lore in a pretty big way for people reading BL books, playing Dark Heresy etc., or keeping track of their individual marines.

I was referring to the army structure. Bits of the background have been changed/clarified, but the squad types remained the same until Primaris.

FSM won’t change the squad types, either, though. I’m not sure why you’re singling out that one kind of change.

It was a pretty big deal at the time when basic marines went from the raw hopefuls to the seasoned old hands. People who like to model their units befitting their character, or who write chapter lore and name their dudes, were thrown for a loop. It may not have been as big as Primaris or Newcrons, but it was the first big break n SM lore I can remember causing a backlash.