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.

Tittle says it all.

A few weeks ago we have an interesting and long debate about the introduction of female space marines into 40K. Unfortunatly no consensus was reached.

It was certainly a polemic topic, but if everybody keeps civic perhaps we could reach a satisfactory conclusion about this controversial issue.

They have them, they are called sisters of battle. stop trying to destroy 40K lore, GW hates competition.

I have nothing to say on this topic beyond what ArbitorIan said yesterday.

 aphyon wrote:
They have them, they are called sisters of battle. stop trying to destroy 40K lore, GW hates competition.

The answer to this thread's question title is, of course, "No." Kool-aid manning into the thread to hyperbolize about 'destroying the lore' 'destroying the hobby' 'destroying muh immersion' etc is basically just how opposition to the topic works. Repeat until thread closure occurs.

Sisters of Battle exist, there are women in power armor, they just happen to lack the primary feature that draws people to space marines in the first place, the available variety of themes, models, massive amounts of background material, and the eliteness that makes them easy to collect (A sisters of battle army will cost you roundabout 3x a primaris space marine army in terms of $$$).

When I got into the hobby, I wasn't a huge fan of the stuffy, blinged-up ostentatious look of the space marine captain that came in the starter box, and after a minute looking around I found out that Space Wolves existed and there were scruffy, rowdy space vikings that I could paint my starter box models as and like them way better.

If they'd been sisters of battle, where no such option exists, and I would only have 1/2 the points value I got with my space marines, I'd be much less likely to have been initially compelled by 40k and continued to collect.

 Duskweaver wrote:
I have nothing to say on this topic beyond what ArbitorIan said yesterday.

Pretty much sums it up. Took 60 odd pages to try and get that across last time and it was met with some unpleasant-ness.

Sisters of Battle exist, there are women in power armor, they just happen to lack the primary feature that draws people to space marines in the first place, the available variety of themes, models, massive amounts of background material, and the eliteness that makes them easy to collect (A sisters of battle army will cost you roundabout 3x a primaris space marine army in terms of $$$).

You can't be serious considering the huge release they just got. they are not a niche all metal army anymore(i used to have it i know how much it costs and it's limitations)

I will always gate keep on this one. female space marines do not exist, cannot exist because of the lore. but the imperium has many female warriors in the guard (if you can carry a las gun the emperor doesn't care whats in your pants. i knew a guy back in 5th ed who used 3rd party models to make an entire female catachan regiment) and in the ordos, and the game in general has them all over the place. entire aspects of the eldar warrior casts are female, demonettes, dark eldar witches etc....

sigmarxism and other agitators bring this topic up every few months, the answer is still the same-NO


Also ArbitorIan is completely wrong, that one white dwarf article is not the only place where the lore is very specific. it is repeated consistently in relation to the horus heresy and the primarchs and the way becoming a space marine works. Additionally the moment he went woke and started mentioning stupid things like "the patriarchy" i realized he had no argument.

Do you have pictures of that female catachan regiment?

Must be awesome.

 aphyon wrote:

Sisters of Battle exist, there are women in power armor, they just happen to lack the primary feature that draws people to space marines in the first place, the available variety of themes, models, massive amounts of background material, and the eliteness that makes them easy to collect (A sisters of battle army will cost you roundabout 3x a primaris space marine army in terms of $$$).

You can't be serious considering the huge release they just got. they are not a niche all metal army anymore(i used to have it i know how much it costs and it's limitations)

I dont think theres ever a thing I've ever wanted to know about less in my entire life than what 'sigmarxism' is. I need a version of the frodo meme that is 'please god, keep your secrets.'

I am 100% serious, even considering the number of releases theyve got. if you buy sisters of battle, they HAVE to be one aesthetic. Black Templars exist for loyalist space marines, but so do nordic space wolves, greek ultramarines, mongolian white scars, special forces deathwatch, hooded monk dark angels, renaissance statue blood angels, tacticool raven guard, dragon-themed salamanders, cyborg iron hands, etc.

And sisters of battle absolutely are going to run you just about three times what a SM army is going to cost a new player. They pay top dollar for their kits, only have one single bundle box available (vs every starter kit the game has, start collecting phobos, and the primaris combat patrol) and the two playstyles they have available are both the most expensive that you can build for an army, either a chaff horde with a ton of buff characters or a mechanized force with tons of less than 1$-per-point transports.

Funny i just got told on this forum how much better sisters are in 9th exactly because you could play the different orders separate from each other(as opposed to them just explaining the different orders in the old codexes with a painting guide) and they all had different play styles...like running a different chapter of marines.

Do you have pictures of that female catachan regiment?

Must be awesome.

I really should have, but it was over 10 years ago and i didn't think about it at the time. they guy also played sisters, there might be pictures of it floating about on the net somewhere.

aphyon wrote:They have them, they are called sisters of battle.

Sisters of Battle are genetically engineered nearly-autonomous warrior collectives with their own unique subcultures, fiefdoms, wide range of combat doctrines, and aesthetic that ranges from tacticool and sleek to ornate and archaic, and everything in between?

No? I thought not.

Sisters are Space Marines in the same way that Custodes are Space Marines. And if you want to keep Space Marines all-male, then why don't you play Custodes instead?

the_scotsman wrote:I am 100% serious, even considering the number of releases theyve got. if you buy sisters of battle, they HAVE to be one aesthetic. Black Templars exist for loyalist space marines, but so do nordic space wolves, greek ultramarines, mongolian white scars, special forces deathwatch, hooded monk dark angels, renaissance statue blood angels, tacticool raven guard, dragon-themed salamanders, cyborg iron hands, etc.

Absolutely, this is a massive reason, yes. It's also one which I struggled to get around when I used to believe that 'if you want women Astartes, play Sisters', because it's absolutely true that Sisters are locked into a very specific aesthetic design, and Space Marines are not: and that's fine! Sisters being a more centralised, organised and homogenous entity more defined by slight cultural differences and methods of veneration makes complete sense, given how their organisation *is* much more influenced by central figures of authority and influence. They aren't mostly-autonomous collectives like how Space Marines are, and in that way, it makes total sense that Space Marines would be much more varied in their design and subculture.

Space Marines are as varied as your imagination lets you get - any type of historical culture, or style of warfare, or theme you want to embody with your Marines is not only allowed, but *encouraged* - except when that culture or theme involves including women? Seems like a rather pointless restriction.

scotsman nails it on the head.

aphyon wrote:Funny i just got told on this forum how much better sisters are in 9th exactly because you could play the different orders separate from each other(as opposed to them just explaining the different orders in the old codexes with a painting guide) and they all had different play styles...like running a different chapter of marines.

Only in some mechanics, and even then, their different playstyles are limited by their general codex design, which favours only certain builds. Compare and contrast to Astartes, who have both aesthetic and narrative designs out the wazoo, enough units and variety in units to create a massive range of playstyles and thematic builds, and the economic viability to run those kinds of armies without breaking the bank. The only real niche Space Marines don't fill is light/horde infantry, because they're "elite".

Sisters aren't Space Marines, and until that fallacy can be broken, this discussion cannot progress.

Oh dear. This chestnut again, eh?