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.

Karol wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider 813538 11662432 wrote:

That’s redundant since priests lead groups.

But not of sisters. Or at least not automaticly. Even if a cardinal calls out for a war of faith, he still has to ask from the convents. It is the same as inqusitors ridding around in Land Raiders. The Land Raiders are not his or inquisitorial, because the imperial edict makes it impossible to be a thing.
The church has multiple branches which have an autonomy or are outright independent. A planetary cardinal can not order a priest who is part of the Navies Curates of the Flag. Same way he can not order a SoB order to act in specific way. In fact one of the jobs SoB have is to check clergy for signs of impurity.

Not my point. Perhaps I should have said “accompanied”? Priests provide spiritual and religious indoctrination to groups of people, in this case sisters. It would make no sense to have a priest for every sisters model.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How many women can you take from the Marines’ Codex?
How many men can you take from the Sisters’ Index?

Zero in both cases. There are zero female marines and there are zero male SoB.

Please reread the question.

It is a disingenuous question. Because it tries to merge GW policy of no model/no rules with lore. Space marines have serfs/thralls etc. That does not mean those are space marines. In the past SoB had access to fratris militia, having those also did not make those part of the sisterhood. The past GK codex had inqusitorial units, but that neither ment GK are inquisition, nor that inquisitorial storm troopers are space marines.

So the anwser is and stands. There is 0 space marine females and there is 0 male SoB. The overlap between priests and SoB is the same as that of imperial navy bomber pilots and IG officers calling them in to do a bombing run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathKorp_Rider 813538 11662440 wrote:

Not my point. Perhaps I should have said “accompanied”? Priests provide spiritual and religious indoctrination to groups of people, in this case sisters. It would make no sense to have a priest for every sisters model.

The very idea that the sisterhood would requier more spiritual and religious indoctrination is an odd one. They are very much able to do it by themselfs.
Again I think that people mix up stuff like GW leaving model lines in a codex and giving them rules, with lore. Do sisters fight alongside the faithful ? Yes. Are those often led by priests or missionaries? yes. Do SoB sometimes get delegated to join a missionary on a mission? True too. But non of those things make priests members of the sisterhood. They are also not needed for rites and rituals. For that the sister have their own officers. Starting with those responsible in dealing with the SoB novices, to those working with the "rank and file" sisters, to penance officers. And if they REALLY need someone to do sermons etc they draw on to the members of the The Order Famulous&Dialogus members. The sistershood are very closed of in their dealings with the outside.
In one of the Calpurania books, there is even an example of a niece of a Rogue Trader joining the novitiate, and no amount of RT immunity or preasure from the Cardinal could convince the Hydraphur cannoness to let the girl go "free". And the attempt from the RT to use skimers to extract her, was delt with use of force.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How many women can you take from the Marines’ Codex?
How many men can you take from the Sisters’ Index?

Zero in both cases. There are zero female marines and there are zero male SoB.

Please reread the question.

It is a disingenuous question. Because it tries to merge GW policy of no model/no rules with lore. Space marines have serfs/thralls etc. That does not mean those are space marines. In the past SoB had access to fratris militia, having those also did not make those part of the sisterhood. The past GK codex had inqusitorial units, but that neither ment GK are inquisition, nor that inquisitorial storm troopers are space marines.

So the anwser is and stands. There is 0 space marine females and there is 0 male SoB.

You are correct. There are no male Sisters.
But you've still answered the question incorrectly because that wasn't what was asked.
Tell us the # of male models found within the Adepta Sororitas index. (you might haver to look up the actual kits if you're unsure)

 JNAProductions wrote:
How many women can you take from the Marines’ Codex?
How many men can you take from the Sisters’ Index?

Since most everyone seems to be splitting hairs and going 'um technically...." in order to avoid answering the question, the answer is 0 women in Marines, and quite a few men in Sisters. Off the top of my head priests, crusaders, arco-flaggelants, and the penitent engine all have male models or male option models.

There's a lot of folks lipping off about sisters who haven't read the Index.

10th makes Missionaries, Preachers, Crusaders and mixed units like Arcos and Pennies closer to actual sisters than they've ever been, because currently every unit in the index has the Adeptus Sororitas Keyword. Every single unit can now use AoF.

Personally, I don't care for that change, but I realize that even though GW says lowly Arcos can perform AoF, mine don't have to if I don't want them to because I am in control of which units appear in my army, which models I use to represent them and how they behave.

Kinda like the way people upset about femmestodes don't have to include include them in their armies (there aren't even models for them). This is why it bothers me when they claim they've lost something- they haven't. If anything, "Their dudes" are even moar "Their dudes" because being dudes is a choice now, not an automatic assumption.

The folks that they want to prevent from using "Their femmes" are the ones who have been losing out.

I'd expect Agents of the Imperium to remedy that particular imbalance to some degree at least. That being said, I just realized there is no female member in the exaction squad KT, which is proposterous. If arco flagellants get damien, why don't arbites get Barbaretta?

Karol wrote:

Still I stand on the stand point that the number of people who go "I picked Crimson Fists, because they are so cool, but give me female marines and they would be perfect" is much smaller, then the number of dudes who picked the same army and expected it to be 100% made out of super dudes. Both groups could be a minority, to how much of a degree we can arguee till the end of time, but one of those two groups will be smaller then the other.

As has already been pointed out, the latter group wouldn't lose anything and could still have 100% male armies. I can't believe there is anyone fragile enough that they would stop playing a faction just because others have a option to build an army with units they don't want.

People selectively forgetting that Vandire's reign of blood was heavily supported by the daughters of the emperor, because they answered to him directly.

Unlike marines, sisters are the militant wing of an organisation and are thus nestled within the ecclesiarchy's command structure.

The church commands them which is why representatives of the church are found in their army list.

Men and women can both be imperial priests, but let's not pretend the miniatures representing them aren't all men.

The meltdowns we'd see if they drew on the old RT sisters background that had them as purity enforcers on all branches of the imperium, including the marines and allowed you have sisters in charge of marine armies, tracking their purity.

 Hellebore wrote:


The meltdowns we'd see if they drew on the old RT sisters background that had them as purity enforcers on all branches of the imperium, including the marines and allowed you have sisters in charge of marine armies, tracking their purity.

Not gonna lie, I'd love that. If you can have Ordo Hereticus Inquisitors in charge, why not a particularly fierce canoness? The difference is marginal.

PenitentJake wrote:
There's a lot of folks lipping off about sisters who haven't read the Index.

10th makes Missionaries, Preachers, Crusaders and mixed units like Arcos and Pennies closer to actual sisters than they've ever been, because currently every unit in the index has the Adeptus Sororitas Keyword. Every single unit can now use AoF.

Personally, I don't care for that change, but I realize that even though GW says lowly Arcos can perform AoF, mine don't have to if I don't want them to because I am in control of which units appear in my army, which models I use to represent them and how they behave.

Kinda like the way people upset about femmestodes don't have to include include them in their armies (there aren't even models for them). This is why it bothers me when they claim they've lost something- they haven't. If anything, "Their dudes" are even moar "Their dudes" because being dudes is a choice now, not an automatic assumption.

The folks that they want to prevent from using "Their femmes" are the ones who have been losing out.

a lot of people on this forum love to complain about the current edition of the game while having takes that make it clear they know nothing about the current edition of the game

and yeah, this issue is a lot of men complaining that their game is less exclusively men. all this arguing, all this back and forth about the specifics of lore or army composition are just a smokescreen for the seething hatred of women on display. women keep trying to speak up on this issue and tell our part, and we're ignored, talked down, or harassed the whole way through

There's a lot of a cognitive dissonance on display - people who consider themselves reasonable and nice, clinging to perspectives that are not and trying very hard to convince everyone they are.

Yeah, it'd be great if people could just be more upfront and stop beating around the bush. Just say you don't want your Space Marines to be female, that's fine. I certainly don't want my Sisters to be male.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
and yeah, this issue is a lot of men complaining that their game is less exclusively men. all this arguing, all this back and forth about the specifics of lore or army composition are just a smokescreen for the seething hatred of women on display. women keep trying to speak up on this issue and tell our part, and we're ignored, talked down, or harassed the whole way through

THIS, SO MUCH.

Its a tale as old as time.

John Cleese on extremism puts it in a more eloquent way that I ever could.



Just remember people people that you are called isms and phobes because they have no real argument against you wanting to be left alone and not have your hobbies injected with extremism, we are the moderates Cleese is referencing.

be nice to each other, we will outlast them when they eventually move on to the new thing.

Women existing is not political or extremism.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Women existing is not political or extremism.

did you watch the video, this is your justification of their position not their own, you are characterising it this way to make yourself feel good and its not a true representation of what multiple people have said multiple times.

 Hellebore wrote:
People selectively forgetting that Vandire's reign of blood was heavily supported by the daughters of the emperor, because they answered to him directly.

Unlike marines, sisters are the militant wing of an organisation and are thus nestled within the ecclesiarchy's command structure.

The church commands them which is why representatives of the church are found in their army list.

Men and women can both be imperial priests, but let's not pretend the miniatures representing them aren't all men.

The meltdowns we'd see if they drew on the old RT sisters background that had them as purity enforcers on all branches of the imperium, including the marines and allowed you have sisters in charge of marine armies, tracking their purity.

Interestingly enough, Sisters actually do double duty, because they are also still the Chamber Militant of the Hereticus IN ADDITION to being the fighting force of the Ecclesiarchy- this is by design; Thor wanted Sisters to fight FOR the Ecclesiarchy, but also be able to check their power in the event of another Vandire (or Buchariss). It is precisely because they are the fighting force of the Ecclesiarcy that they are the best equipped to report on possible corruption within.

The organization of the Daughters/Brides did change when they became the Sororitas, but little has been written about the exact details, so it's hard to say how much, though I would guess that by the time they became sisters, they knew what a conversion field was. We also know that in the Era immediately following the reign, we know only four militant orders of Sororitas existed- the Roses (be they Sacred or Bloody) came later, and their Matron Saints never were Daughters or Brides.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
and yeah, this issue is a lot of men complaining that their game is less exclusively men. all this arguing, all this back and forth about the specifics of lore or army composition are just a smokescreen for the seething hatred of women on display. women keep trying to speak up on this issue and tell our part, and we're ignored, talked down, or harassed the whole way through

THIS, SO MUCH.

Projection much?

This whole "I don't want female Marines because I hate women" thing is such tiresome BS.

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Women existing is not political or extremism.

I will take this as the intention rather than words as written - women existing SHOULDN'T be political or extremism.

The reality of society, is that yes, in virtually every culture on the planet, being a woman is inherently political.

Political in terms of law and policy and political in terms of cultural policing.

From reproductive freedom, clothing choice, unpaid labour, emotional labour, victim blaming and until very recently the inability to vote or (just before I was born!) the ability to control your own finances. The ability for spousal abuse and rape to be even recognised as crimes is also shockingly recent in the west.


This is a distinction that privileged demographics fail to appreciate - no woman, LGBTQIA+ person or person of colour WANTS to be inherently political. Society simply makes them political, and turns any conversation about their existence into a political one.

It's a very effective tool of bigots to shut down social discourse by dismissing any discussion as political, thereby de-legitimising it and stymieing already stifled voices.

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.

This is the correct position of the majority of people talking on this subject.

the sheer amount of misrepresentation going on is ridiculous and at this point should warrant a mod stepping in to caution those who repeatedly do it.

 Formosa wrote:

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.

This is the correct position of the majority of people talking on this subject.

the sheer amount of misrepresentation going on is ridiculous and at this point should warrant a mod stepping in to caution those who repeatedly do it.

Where is the line between creative freedom and bigotry hidden by entertainment?

And why is it sex segregation that seems to be the one aspect of cultural intolerance we use in fiction unmodified, as some kind of key thematic quality?

I can't see many people supporting this position also supporting a scifi universe that specifically treats say jewish people as second class citizens, denying them rights. No matter how justified in universe it seems or how thematic or retaining of integrity it is. You would look askance at someone that enjoyed that setting and vociferously defended any change to that integral component of the setting's identity. Where it was vitally important all the main characters maintain anti-Semitic beliefs and enforced them in society. Because the setting showed that the genetics of jewish people prevented them from living in space as well as non jewish people, so they were just worse at it and therefore it's ok.


What i don't get is why sex segregation/isms has this free pass in fiction in the first place, not only as an ephemeral theme that is integral to maintaining a setting's identity, but literally translated from reality with no fictional veneer. But other intolerances and exclusions like by realworld race or religion, do not.

 Formosa wrote:

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.

This is the correct position of the majority of people talking on this subject.

the sheer amount of misrepresentation going on is ridiculous and at this point should warrant a mod stepping in to caution those who repeatedly do it.

Okay, but this doesn’t change the fact that many players still want it and that it’s not hard to explain away as a recent development. Imperial technology is always improving, as shown by the emergence of the process to create primaris marines, so why can’t they simply say a way has been discovered that would allow the process to work on women?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.

This is the correct position of the majority of people talking on this subject.

the sheer amount of misrepresentation going on is ridiculous and at this point should warrant a mod stepping in to caution those who repeatedly do it.

Where is the line between creative freedom and bigotry hidden by entertainment?

And why is it sex segregation that seems to be the one aspect of cultural intolerance we use in fiction unmodified, as some kind of key thematic quality?

I can't see many people supporting this position also supporting a scifi universe that specifically treats say jewish people as second class citizens, denying them rights. No matter how justified in universe it seems or how thematic or retaining of integrity it is. You would look askance at someone that enjoyed that setting and vociferously defended any change to that integral component of the setting's identity. Where it was vitally important all the main characters maintain anti-Semitic beliefs and enforced them in society. Because the setting showed that the genetics of jewish people prevented them from living in space as well as non jewish people, so they were just worse at it and therefore it's ok.


What i don't get is why sex segregation/isms has this free pass in fiction in the first place, not only as an ephemeral theme that is integral to maintaining a setting's identity, but literally translated from reality with no fictional veneer. But other intolerances and exclusions like by realworld race or religion, do not.

Why the hell are you bringing up Judaism? That’s is completely irrelevant

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

Why the hell are you bringing up Judaism? That’s is completely irrelevant

your inability to see parallels between various forms of bigotry does not make something irrelevant.

And your claim that it is irrelevant, supports my point that sexist content gets a pass and is apparently invisible, while religious or racial intolerance gets jumped on immediately.

So, thanks.


All of this discourse highlights the very real fact that sex discrimination is not actually seen for the bigotry it is, ignored and marginalised.

It should not be a thematic football to kick around, just as racism or anti-semitism shouldn't be thematic footballs.

Yet here we are, in a thread that has treated it like its own class of lesser bigotry.

If you can articulate why, then I'd love to hear it.


EDIT: If you can empathise with why a jewish person would find trying to engage with and enjoy an entertainment property built on jewish exclusion problematic, then you should be able to empathise with women trying to do the same in entertainment properties with built in female exclusion.

It's not that difficult. Walk a mile in the shoes and all that.

There are literally women in this thread that have tried to provide their experience for you to empathise with. Yet we keep seeing the 'but but buts' come out.

Where is the line between creative freedom and bigotry hidden by entertainment?

Where is the line for whom, for one side there is no such thing as a line, for the other it varies, I just spoke on misrepresentation so why would I wish to misrepresent when the individual person can speak for what they want and why.

I can speak on what perhaps influenced that choice maybe?

And why is it sex segregation that seems to be the one aspect of cultural intolerance we use in fiction unmodified, as some kind of key thematic quality?

its not as this entire thread has shown, there are many examples people have given of things in the lore that were expanded, changed or retconned, this is just the topic we are on currently, hell Primaris were what? 6 years ago? people still do not like that and its nothing to do with "sex segregation"

I can't see many people supporting this position also supporting a scifi universe that specifically treats say jewish people as second class citizens, denying them rights. No matter how justified in universe it seems or how thematic or retaining of integrity it is. You would look askance at someone that enjoyed that setting and vociferously defended any change to that integral component of the setting's identity. Where it was vitally important all the main characters maintain anti-Semitic beliefs and enforced them in society. Because the setting showed that the genetics of jewish people prevented them from living in space as well as non jewish people, so they were just worse at it and therefore it's ok.

.... what are you even on about here, what has this got to do with Judaism, thats another example of zero to a hundred in the opposite direction, stick to the topic mate.

What i don't get is why sex segregation/isms has this free pass in fiction in the first place, not only as an ephemeral theme that is integral to maintaining a setting's identity, but literally translated from reality with no fictional veneer. But other intolerances and exclusions like by realworld race or religion, do not.

It does not, its contextual depending on writer and their artistic vision, some have it, some do not depending on series, universe etc.

Dune for example in, my opinion, the bene gesserit are the central driving force in the setting, not Paul, not Leto II, they are effects to the bene gesserits cause.

there is likely real world influence when we are talking about military matters though, front line soldiers are near universally male depending on nation, so this naturally crops up in books, with Astartes specifically they are a mix of the Warrior, the Monastic monk and the brotherhood of soldiers so naturally when they developed this story and theme they leaned into it and it proved extremely popular.

As a mirror to this we get female warrior monks, nuns, with guns and guess what, they also proved very popular, one played off the other.

then we got Custodes which were somewhat based on the above archetypes but developed in another direction to be more akin to spec ops, the people in the background overseeing the empire and protecting the principle, not a brotherhood or sisterhood but a taskforce of singular individuals working in concert rather than an army, so this new retcon is fine to me, it fits their theme.

 Formosa wrote:

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.

This is the correct position of the majority of people talking on this subject.

the sheer amount of misrepresentation going on is ridiculous and at this point should warrant a mod stepping in to caution those who repeatedly do it.

While I personally don't mind the more inclusive version, I do understand your position. Back somewhere around page 10 I remember someone writing that the problem isn't a male only faction- that's fine. It's that the posterboys of game are all male; the poster suggested that things like normalizing mixed Marine/ Sister armies for example by providing a mixed detachment and including units from both factions in Launch and Starter boxes.

That still isn't as inclusive as just opening up the faction, but it is an interesting compromise which may actually go further toward changing the culture by baby-stepping us into change rather than shocking the monkey. Others have suggested that providing a lore hook for the change might have made it more palatable to people- and it's painfully easy- someone had suggested that the Custodes involvement in Indomitus would require some recruitment to maintain the force on Terra and replace losses in the Crusade.

 Hellebore wrote:

What i don't get is why sex segregation/isms has this free pass in fiction in the first place, not only as an ephemeral theme that is integral to maintaining a setting's identity, but literally translated from reality with no fictional veneer. But other intolerances and exclusions like by realworld race or religion, do not.

All things that are not legally constrained get a free pass in fiction, and that is the dividing line you were talking about earlier. You can be sure that, if GW were to ever depict sexual violence done to minors, they'd never recover from it. Sexual segregation isn't even particularly ubiquitous in overall fiction, race and religion are much more prevalent.

Just out of interest, because I couldn't find an example off the top of my head: What would a fictional veneer for segregation of human sexes look like? How can you do it in such a way that it does meet your requirements for tolerable fiction?

PenitentJake wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.

This is the correct position of the majority of people talking on this subject.

the sheer amount of misrepresentation going on is ridiculous and at this point should warrant a mod stepping in to caution those who repeatedly do it.

While I personally don't mind the more inclusive version, I do understand your position. Back somewhere around page 10 I remember someone writing that the problem isn't a male only faction- that's fine. It's that the posterboys of game are all male; the poster suggested that things like normalizing mixed Marine/ Sister armies for example by providing a mixed detachment and including units from both factions in Launch and Starter boxes.

That still isn't as inclusive as just opening up the faction, but it is an interesting compromise which may actually go further toward changing the culture by baby-stepping us into change rather than shocking the monkey. Others have suggested that providing a lore hook for the change might have made it more palatable to people- and it's painfully easy- someone had suggested that the Custodes involvement in Indomitus would require some recruitment to maintain the force on Terra and replace losses in the Crusade.

Yeah I get where you are coming from too, as I said I think in the other thread marines are a male representation, the only exclusively male representation in the setting at the moment, as such they should keep that.

so how to solve this as a compromise, change the poster boy to include females or change the poster boy faction to include females, for every marine, show a sister, push that these are factions that work in concert, they are a mirror of each other and cover each others gaps and weaknesses, men and woman working in concert expressing their strengths in different ways, the marines are the shield, the bulwark against the physical threat, the sisters are the bulwark and shield against the spiritual one.

Basically what they failed to do with Custodes and sisters of silence due to lack of support for sisters not lack of interest..... which brings me to another point though it is a tangent.... can they bloody well hurry up and get the sisters of silence range out because looking at the heresy unit entries there is so much missing that sounds really really interesting...

 Formosa wrote:

so how to solve this as a compromise, change the poster boy to include females or change the poster boy faction to include females, for every marine, show a sister, push that these are factions that work in concert, they are a mirror of each other and cover each others gaps and weaknesses, men and woman working in concert expressing their strengths in different ways, the marines are the shield, the bulwark against the physical threat, the sisters are the bulwark and shield against the spiritual one.

I rather think that GW should simply release more women in roles that aren't inherently gendered in the lore. I think that'd be a really good way to go overall.

But I think there's still a major issue with 40k representation that isn't easily addressed by this, because Space Marines are the flagship of Games Workshop by a mile, and they WILL be the thing that potential wargamer young girls see first.


I don't know if the number holds true still, but it used to be that HALF of Games Workshop sales were Space Marines (the other half includes all of GW's non 40k games as well as Chaos Space Marines). Which is why, over the years, they've made so many Space Marine codecies for the various different types of Space Marines- they lean into this paradigm and then we see it reflected with the new players as the cycle continues.

When someone considers getting into the hobby and asks what force they should play, someone WILL tell them to play Space Marines (easy to paint, easy to play, etc). GW leans into the idea that marines are a great place to start by putting various flavors of them in starter boxes.

(Sisters of Battle are barely in the running with Space Marines- sometimes they go ages without a codex update while four new flavors of Space Marine get their books).

If Games Workshop wants girls to see the game and not see something that screams "not for girls" they probably need to start encouraging people toward a non-marine entry point (that is, if they don't change Space Marines into a less discriminatory faction with lore changes at least as big as the introduction of Primaris).

- One way to do this might be to try to make the Custodes into the poster boy faction. That seems difficult, but I think it could be doable

 BertBert wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

so how to solve this as a compromise, change the poster boy to include females or change the poster boy faction to include females, for every marine, show a sister, push that these are factions that work in concert, they are a mirror of each other and cover each others gaps and weaknesses, men and woman working in concert expressing their strengths in different ways, the marines are the shield, the bulwark against the physical threat, the sisters are the bulwark and shield against the spiritual one.

Spoiler:

Exactly but put this EVERYWHERE, see a cardboard cut out of a marine, you also get a sister, see a poster of a marine, there is a sister in there too just as prominent.