I've had two female players. One liked DH, the other was neutral towards it. The opposite positions with RT - one players likes crawling through the muck while the other prefers high and mighty play. Both really liked BC. Neither was willing to try Deathwatch, and only one (the one that liked DH) was willing to try OW, but we didn't play it.

Conclusion: From a sample size of two, females prefer being Heretics!

DH and RT should be one of the easiest of the 40k rpgs to pitch to female gamers. There are plenty of female inquisitors and i guess- quite a few shipmistressess in rogue trader.

Actualy the in-setting explanation why marines are male is that the geneseed and some other implant organs are keyed to the Y-chromosone. So go blame the Emperor- he did it!

Also according to HH novel "scars" malcador the Sigilite adviced the Emperor to make the Primarchs female..

Nobody has a problem with the fluff. Im only relating how the game system alienates female players. While this may or may not be an issue for ffg, it is for some of the female audience.

WH40k itself targets a male group. I wouldnt want this to change, as I prefer 40k as it currently is. No need for pink ponies. ;D

If you want something with a setting that is less male-oriented, maybe pathfinder is suited better.

Or Star Wars, newer RP system and also futuristic. As a bonus, less grim dark.

Let's not get another thread locked by devolving this way.

If you want female space marines let them be, but the argument that the setting is male dominated is a bit debatable.

Females can hold just as much political and religious power as a male in the setting.

They don't get turned into metahumans that don't have the lack of a capability of reproducing sexually.

They have an exclusive faction that is their gender all their own.

The Grimdark thing is all interpretation as well. I find Abnett's 40k to be downright a littlebit hopeful, Whoever made Commissar Cain is actually pretty funny and fairly normal scifi as well.

Warhammer Fantasy is by far more dark in my opinion.

I have two girls in my usual group - my girlfriend and my friend's girlfriend. They both like 40k a lot and my friend's GF actually likes playing Deathwatch more than anything else (also, probably more than anyone else in the group, as most of us lean more towards the intrigue and mystery of Dark Heresy). My GF, on the other hand, loves playing zealous, fanatical women, be they Battle Sisters, clerics or Arbites. Whomever runs 40k at the moment can be sure these two will pester him incessantly to run 40k more often (we have a hectic schedule, which often means long IRL downtimes between play sessions of one campaign).

My fiance is the only female in my group and plays a Hospitaller Sororitas. I like having females in the group for their unique perspective and to also balance out the extreme amout of testosterone that the other male players like to flaunt.

They still don't hold a candle to a Space Marine though. They are not equals.

"As the Chamber Militant of the galaxy-spanning Ecclesiarchy, the Sisters of Battle are fierce warriors that are equals to their brother Space Marines . What the Sisters lack in genetic enhancement they make up for in faith and devotion."

- Games Workshop

It's entirely up to FFG. They could have easily given them the same sort of gear, for example, like it says in codex fluff and the Inquisitor RPG. They chose not to.

I don't believe this decision was based on gender politics, though. I think they just have a different idea of the SoB and prefer them as millions upon millions of "Guardsmen+1" instead of elite and superbly equipped holy warriors hand-picked and trained from infancy, whose numbers are even fewer than those of the Astartes due to the insane recruitment requirements. Possibly because they just like Astartes a lot and think of the Sisters in their original form as being "too close" to them, for their own preferences.

Just look at the differences in faction description between FFG's books and GW's: in one, they manage to take on Orks and Renegade IG. In the other, they hunt down and exterminate rogue Marine Chapters.

Both interpretations are equally right and both have their number of fans. It comes down to what you prefer: following a (likely novel-inspired) image of Marines as the ultimate incarnation of the perfect warrior who are so far removed from humanity that they are like gods to them (notice how FFG books really, really like to differentiate between humans and Astartes by using the term "mortal"), or if you'd rather have a more nuanced and gritty portrayal with a smaller gap that, as a side-effect, also allows for mixed groups with less balancing issues.

Space marine combat superiority is a myth based on one on one engagements that are very much atypical. Sure, one on one, sororitas or guardsman will die most of the time, simply because their standard kit does not include weaponry that can reliably one-shot a space marine, but neither space marines nor guardsmen are, usually, flying solo, which puts one in a multitude of combat situations that can't be reliably predicted one way or the other.

It makes me really happy every time I see Tim Huckelbery as one of the active viewers in this thread. Any thoughts on the subject, Tim? Is there just no pleasing us?

Based on past discussions he probably has an alert set up for any time the word "women" appears in this forum.

Let's not get another thread locked by devolving this way.

If you want female space marines let them be, but the argument that the setting is male dominated is a bit debatable.

Females can hold just as much political and religious power as a male in the setting.

They don't get turned into metahumans that don't have the lack of a capability of reproducing sexually.

They have an exclusive faction that is their gender all their own.

The Grimdark thing is all interpretation as well. I find Abnett's 40k to be downright a littlebit hopeful, Whoever made Commissar Cain is actually pretty funny and fairly normal scifi as well.

Warhammer Fantasy is by far more dark in my opinion.

Abnetts novels hopefull ? Maybe we read 2 different versions of it.

Both Gaunts Ghosts and Eisenhorn/Ravenor are very dark and hopeless in the message they deliver.

The first shows how much an individuum counts (not much) and how cruel and merciless war in the 41st millenium is.

The second one is quite dramatic and shows how subtle damnation can drag down even good men step by step.

I didnt read Cain, but as far as I know, it is rather not very typical for 40k and shouldnt be taken as a typical example therefore.

Therefore, I wouldnt say the grimdark is a question of interpretation. It is the way the setting is portayed now, and imo that is stated quite clearly through the tabletop/RPG/video game lines/card games that are related to it.

If you interpret this differently, than it is not really an interpretation, but more a self-developed parallel setting.

Maybe I just see hope in the fact that humans are actually bothering to fight and have the capability of winning against these insane odds.

The inquisitor novels are admittedly darker than I remember in retrospect, but the Gaunt's Ghosts novels aren't that bad.

However just because Cain isn't typical doesn't mean it isn't valid. 40K has no established cannon to be fair, who's to say the Imperium's heroes aren't just cowards surviving by the edge of their teeth in the end?

I didnt read Cain, but as far as I know, it is rather not very typical for 40k and shouldnt be taken as a typical example therefore.

Therefore, I wouldnt say the grimdark is a question of interpretation. It is the way the setting is portayed now, and imo that is stated quite clearly through the tabletop/RPG/video game lines/card games that are related to it.

If you interpret this differently, than it is not really an interpretation, but more a self-developed parallel setting.

So first you say that you like 40k as a boys club and don't want any pink ponies. ...okay. It communicates a lot about what kind of person you are, but that's your bag, man. You hold it high. Then you say that people who have different interpretations over decades of convoluted and contradictory works are wrong? What's your day job, theologian? I sentence you to read Matt Ward Codexes and C. S. Goto BL books until you loosen up.

They still don't hold a candle to a Space Marine though. They are not equals.

"As the Chamber Militant of the galaxy-spanning Ecclesiarchy, the Sisters of Battle are fierce warriors that are equals to their brother Space Marines . What the Sisters lack in genetic enhancement they make up for in faith and devotion."

- Games Workshop

It's entirely up to FFG. They could have easily given them the same sort of gear, for example, like it says in codex fluff and the Inquisitor RPG. They chose not to.

I don't believe this decision was based on gender politics, though. I think they just have a different idea of the SoB and prefer them as millions upon millions of "Guardsmen+1" instead of elite and superbly equipped holy warriors hand-picked and trained from infancy, whose numbers are even fewer than those of the Astartes due to the insane recruitment requirements. Possibly because they just like Astartes a lot and think of the Sisters in their original form as being "too close" to them, for their own preferences.

Just look at the differences in faction description between FFG's books and GW's: in one, they manage to take on Orks and Renegade IG. In the other, they hunt down and exterminate rogue Marine Chapters.

Both interpretations are equally right and both have their number of fans. It comes down to what you prefer: following a (likely novel-inspired) image of Marines as the ultimate incarnation of the perfect warrior who are so far removed from humanity that they are like gods to them (notice how FFG books really, really like to differentiate between humans and Astartes by using the term "mortal"), or if you'd rather have a more nuanced and gritty portrayal with a smaller gap that, as a side-effect, also allows for mixed groups with less balancing issues.

Lynata, though I am biased toward a fellow Sisters fan, you seem to have a pretty valid and evenhanded view of the 40k verse. I am alright with FFG 40k and Abnett 40k as much as I love TT 40k as well.

My point was not that the source material was misogynistic, though I respect anyone of that opinion and would certainly hear them out. But that the rules are a boundary for anyone who does not have a strong desire to game in the 40k universe. How many ladies roll their own characters in 40k RPGs? Are there even any female forum members to weigh in on this? If the rules are a barrier to play, which about half of the active members of this forum seem to agree with, how many people took one look at a pirated or borrowed pdf and never bought a copy because they saw the obstacle to play? I am never spending money on your 2e products, because I bought them already in 1st edition.

I honestly hope 3e is a step forward and not more 30 year old sawdust.

I made the Caiphas Cain books a fictional account which the imperium distributes for propaganda purposes. Caiphas Cain is actually an administratum scribe and has never left his office. Parallels to Karl May very much intentional.

stuff

Hey guy, I like the cut of your jib.

There are people on this forum who have literally said they don't want the 40k gaming scene (or gaming in general) made more inclusive. Like you say, it says a lot about them as a person.

I think 40k's boys-club image has a lot to do with how most people first see it - GW stores in the mall. You can play an army of bald, screaming guy super soldiers, or an army of Arnold as seen in Predator, or an army of the bad guy from Terminator (also Arnold), or an army of anime mech dudes... you get the idea. Sure, you can play an army of lady-soldiers (complete with boob-plate), but it will cost you a king's ransom since they're metal-only. GW's business model is explicitly to cater to the 12-16 male demographic, so they've never even made any attempt at making it inclusive.

I don't have problems with diffrent versions of 40k fluff (mat ward grey knights excluded, and in don't really like newcrons but i understand why GW did it) But female space marines is where i draw the line. Adepta sororitas? no problem. Homebrew group of warrior women with special organ implants* and combat drugs in power armor with astartes weapons? no problem!

Emperors children with boob armor? No problem! But female space marines? nah.

* provided they don't have black carapace/genseed as that would make them space marines

.GW's business model is explicitly to cater to the 12-16 male demographic, so they've never even made any attempt at making it inclusive.

You'd think they'd include more fanservice... Well except for the daemonettes ofcourse.

But yeah i gotta agree, there could be a lot more female miniatures/armies, etc. (And not just as fanservice)

Both Gaunts Ghosts and Eisenhorn/Ravenor are very dark and hopeless in the message they deliver.

Yeah. That evil corn field in Traitor General was as grim derp dark as it could get .

Both Gaunts Ghosts and Eisenhorn/Ravenor are very dark and hopeless in the message they deliver.

Yeah. That evil corn field in Traitor General was as grim derp dark as it could get .

space marines of the corn

I made the Caiphas Cain books a fictional account which the imperium distributes for propaganda purposes. Caiphas Cain is actually an administratum scribe and has never left his office. Parallels to Karl May very much intentional.

I have a somewhat similar interpretation in that Cain isn't actually a real Commissar, but rather a guy who just happened to come across one's uniform, and who has donned it to escape a warzone - but instead got swept up by the war effort and saw himself pushed into all sorts of perilous situations. Once this was discovered, the Imperium was way too embarassed to deny the tales of his supposed heroics.

This is sort of inspired by the real life Captain of Köpenick . My main problem with the Cain books isn't actually the plot armour (which doesn't seem to be any worse than in other BL books), but rather the notably different portrayal of the Schola and Commissar attitude, as I remain firm in my belief that someone like Cain would've never become a "real" Commissar in the first place. So the above allows me to bring it back in line without discarding the entire product.

I don't havy problems with diffrent versions of 40k fluff (mat ward grey knights excluded, and in don't really like newcrons but i understand why GW did it) But female space marines is where i draw the line. Adepta sororitas? no problem. Homebrew group of warrior women with special organ implants* and combat drugs in power armor with astartes weapons? no problem!

Emperors children with boob armor? No problem! But female space marines? nah.

* provided they don't have black carapace/genseed as that would make them space marines

My personal opinion is that it would be possible, and maybe some rogue AdMech or Inquisitor would experiment with it, or maybe the Warp did it, or it's a genderbend-virus, etc pp ...

... but the Imperium itself officially doesn't do it, because (1) it's unnecessary, (2) it's untraditional, (3) they can't even do proper male Marines anymore, much less start experimenting with others, and (4) maybe the Emperor had a reason there, such as deliberately suppressing reproductive capabilities, as discussed in another thread.

From an out-of-universe PoV, female Space Marines would just dilute the unique "specialisation" we have now with male Astartes and female Sororitas, just like male SoB would do. The only thing the setting could do with here would be a somewhat more heroic portrayal of the SoB so that they'd get mentioned in the same breath more often. The problem here is that the only source that did this in the past doesn't write a lot about them in general, so we only get the "watered down" portrayals from third parties (where, in the case of Black Library, they are often used as opponents or even damsels in distress, and thus do not benefit from the protagonist's plot armour).

Stuff like the Xenonian Free Companies or the Dneipr Panzer Corps certainly open up possibilities, just like House Escher from Necromunda. They certainly had the ideas. On the other hand, the female Catachan mini was removed from the box when they converted from metal into plastics ... stuff like that really makes it hard to believe that it's all just coincidence.

Reading through the new Imperial Armour, it notes that guardsman regiments, such as the elysian drop troops, receive genetic augmentation as well. It's no longer a space marine-only thing.

Reading through the new Imperial Armour, it notes that guardsman regiments, such as the elysian drop troops, receive genetic augmentation as well. It's no longer a space marine-only thing.

Oh yeah it happens all over the place. The original Inquisition game mentioned "gland-warriors" imagine a deathworld veteran implanted with muscle grafts, combat stim producing organs etc.

And Eversors assassins of course: they even have two hearts like space marines!

You'd think they'd include more fanservice... Well except for the daemonettes ofcourse.

But yeah i gotta agree, there could be a lot more female miniatures/armies, etc. (And not just as fanservice)

Stuff like the Xenonian Free Companies or the Dneipr Panzer Corps certainly open up possibilities, just like House Escher from Necromunda. They certainly had the ideas. On the other hand, the female Catachan mini was removed from the box when they converted from metal into plastics ... stuff like that really makes it hard to believe that it's all just coincidence.

GW doesn't like two things: females and space dwarves! Altough you do get the occasional equal oportunity employment with the eldar. This however does lead to male eldar dressed as female screaming banshee's. But that's ok, i grew up watching Saint Seyia/ Knights of the zodiac, and that anime had a dude in pink boob armor (adromeda conselation).

This detailed debate about sexual politics in 40K probably deserves it's own separate thread, rather than being shoe-horned into a thread focused on game mechanics. Back on topic:

Well, here are some basic issues:

Failure in this system is inherently boring, as well as occurring with a high amount of frequency.

The d100 system has always scaled poorly among different skill levels and especially for non-humans or monsters.

The system encourages finding lots of modifiers in order to succeed, which in turn slows down play and punishes newer players

The combat system has never really bridged the gap between the fluff and playability (survivability vs. weapon performance, etc.)

The system,in it's "evolution" has constantly been adding on new rules that don't integrate well with existing ones, create unintuitive or broken interactions, or increase complexity without increasing depth

There is a very complex combat system with little guidance on actually using it or balancing encounters, due to the fact that the system is not actually possible to balance

The core system does not serve to emphasize much beyond getting into combat, with everything else being one-and-done skill rolls.

I agree with most of those complaints about the core system, and can add more:

• Weapon power levels make them either nearly useless, or instant kill- both of which are boring results- with very few weapons forming any kind of 'happy medium'. This has the effect of forcing min/maxing rather than encouraging characters to use 'characterful' weapons, such as Kal Jericho's signature twin laspistols- joke weapons in WH40KRP .
• Psychic powers are so broken as to reduce the Career choices to 'Psykers' and 'Everyone Else'.

There are probably more systemic problems, but I'm at work right now and can't really ponder at length...

[ Nimsim said: ...This isn't "change for the sake of change," it's "change because times have changed."]

But here's the thing: fans of Beta1 decried the common accusation that it was just "change for the sake of change," but the fact is that Beta1 addressed none of these systemic problems. It copied over most of the negatives of the core WH40KRP system, with a few 'bells and whistles' added that tricked some people into thinking that it was a 'modernized' system. In fact, the core problems were either unchanged or made worse,such as 'narative damage' slowing combat down even further.

The general thought was that GW mandated certain standard elements, such as a percentile base, which prevented FFG from attempting something tru ly innovative, like they did with their Star Wars rpg. So, within those strictures, what could FFG have done to 'modernize' the system in DH2 ? I've always said that they threw the baby out with the bathwater with Action Points; and even D&D has switched over from 'rolling up' stats to a point buy system. What other changes within the GW mandates could have modernized the system?