Mjoellnir said:

It's not a basic rule, it's a defined detail. There's a big difference. I could change defined details all over the place and the setting's major rules (themes if you prefer) remain the same. In WFRP, I could state that dwarfs don't have beards at all and instead have heads of thick braided locks with the braiding patterns denoting clan membership. It's a detail change that doesn't really alter much of anything, and certainly not the core of what WFRP is. The changing of Space Marines from male only to coed is a similar change.

The examples you've given actually detract from your argument since they involve mixing distinctly separate settings and thus dilluting the rules and themes of each. I'm not suggesting doing such - I still enjoy the overall rules and themes of WH40K, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept every defined detail as absolute. It's much like liking the description of the Force in Star Wars but completely eliminating the whole pseudo-scientific midiclorian concept in favor of something mystical - you can change that detail and it doesn't adversely harm the rules of the setting.

Mjoellnir said:

... what's sort of funny is that we have a setting thats a mishmash of a dozen different other settings, and he's complaining that it would be crossing with another setting...

Achem: Space Marine's being male is not even close to being as setting defining as The Force. And, quite honestly, there have been far more ground shaking retcons in the history of 40k then whether or not space marines might have a few women in their ranks. We've retconned a whole army out of existance, eliminated an entire Chaos God, Killed an Emperor, took a reasonably tolerant Imperium and made it a place that the Nazis would be considered liberal humanitarians, retconned several species biology (sometimes more then once), and lost a primarch (Sigmar, supposedly).

So, tell me again how letting girls be space marines would ruin the setting if none of this other stuff did?

(BTW: for Kirk vs 40k psykers, watch Ep 3, Season 1 of Star Trek [Original Series])

Adam France said:

Let me quote the Dark Heresy rulebook for you:

The wartorn 41st Millennium is not always an encouraging place to
be for a female. Few get the opportunities of their male counterparts,
but by the same token they also do not get exposed to the dangers
out there in the wilder parts of the galaxy. Certain Imperial Guard
regiments recruit females to fight alongside men; the Ecclesiarchy
and the Inquisition likewise employ females at all ranks, but again
their numbers are not in proportion to men.

Adam France said:

According to your logic Jedi and Sith aren't important for the Star Wars setting, at least not in the old triology. So why not run a Star Wars campaign where Jedi don't use lightsabers and the force but Bajoran jumja sticks and technomagic? It would still be Star Wars, right?

Adam France said:

Every setting has its rules. And that Space Marines are male is firmly established in the background. Why change it?

HappyDaze said:

Ask a dwarf fan if he would still play beardless dwarf. Dwarves are defined by being small, sturdy and having beards (sometimes even the females) Changing that will affect the setting for those who like it. I for example love elves, but would only play a bearded one if hell freezes over.

HappyDaze said:

Ignoring Midichlorians is just as dumb. Thousand Sons, Sons of Horus, Sons of Orar "The Sons of Russ", "The Sons of Sanguinius". Space Marines are firmly established as being male in current canon. It's part of their identity, you can see it as chauvinisim, or as tragedy, that depends on the personal point of view, but being all male is part of what makes Space Marines Space Marines. And Space Marines are what the Jedi are for Star Wars or Starfleet are for Star Trek.

HappyDaze said:

There is nothing elegant about breaking the setting with a thunder hammer just to preserve the rules. Setting > Rules any day.

HappyDaze said:

Oh, I think a girl reader would like the co-ed version better. And what's your point? I would like Warhammer 40k better if the Emperor were dead and the humans would have formed an alliance with the Eldar. I could write a book about that and somebody who doesn't knew the setting would accept it. Would that be Warhammer 40k?

HappyDaze said:

It's brute force against the setting. As I said, if you want to use the Deathwatch rules make an experimental armor up that gives a female tech adept the same attributes as a Space Marine and use the Tech Marine rules. It doesn't break the setting and it doesn't break the rules. The only problems you could run into is a capture scenario where you want to get them out of their armour.

BaronIveagh said:

How long ago did that happen? The younger a setting, the bigger the retcons. The older and more complex it gets the more unforgiving the fans become.

BaronIveagh said:

Because there comes a point where a setting has to be a bit consistent. There are no female Orks in Warhammer 40k and no female Space Marines. Period.

BaronIveagh said:

Episode 3 of Season 1? Of TOS? There were psykers in "Mudd's Women"?

Mjoellnir,

Your above post makes it clear that you are very obsessed with details, to the point where you confuse them with the themes that are core to what makes a setting function. I don't think we're going to find a middleground when your mindset is so clasped onto preserving every bit of detail regardless of audience enjoyment. In this case, I'm meaning a wider audience, one more open-minded and tolerant.

For the record, I thought that midicholians were a terrible idea and that ignoring them is for the best - and many others I've spoken to were of a similar opinion. I am somewhat of a "dwarf fan" and I have played in a friend's campaign where the dwarfs were beardless (the example I game was one that I have experienced and enjoyed).

As for your more relevant points, regarding the inequality of gender as described in the DH rulebook and all of the male descriptors like "Sons" and "Brothers" - I have no problem with accepting either of these. Within my view, Space Marine Chapters are still likely to be 90% male. They will fall into the same broad classification as the Ecclesiarchy and Inquisition where the numbers of females are disproportionately low, but still present. The female Space Marines are treated no different from the males, including being called "Brother." You stated that being male was a part of the Space Marines' identity, and while it may be, in my eyes it's a very low priority detail compared to the core of being fanatically loyal, highly trained, genetically superhuman warriors of the Imperium.

(Yeah, I did this post without quotes since the board wanted to chop the hell out of everything. I'm really not impressed with the software FFG uses to run these boards.)

Oh, I agree re Midichlorians, were I to play in the SW setting I not only would stick to the mystic view of the Force as seen in the original movies, I also would change most of the stuff that happened in the era of the Prequels as I hate what Lucas did there.

It would still be SW, but it would be SW as I wanted it to be. It's entirely possible, and imo desirable, to change individual details of a setting and maintain the essential feel of a setting. Most people who play in the 40k setting probably do this to some degree or another. For myself, though I stick to the no fem-marine stuff, I don't include Orks. I would imagine you think that means I'm not playing in the 40k setting too? I agree I have changed it in that one regard, however the setting it otherwise indistinguishable from the canonical one.

Being slavish to canon by including everything, even if you might intensely dislike one detail of that canon is pointless. I learnt this over time, having a Saul on the road to Damascus moment while thinking how to improve the wfrp setting - which I love but hated the more old-fashioned and comedic D&D aspects of. If you don't like something change it. Seriously you will enjoy it more.

Adam France said:

Wisely enough I refused to watch them to this day. I also own the "Limited" Edition DVDs with the original, unedited movies.

Keeps my SW experience pretty much untainted (ignoring computer games). :-)

Alex

Mjoellnir said:

Where No Man Has Gone Before was the 3rd Episode aired of the 1st season (not counting pilot). Mudd's Women was the sixth episode.

Well, the Super-Intolerant Imperium came about in 3rd Edition (IIRC), we're on 5th so that's half way through. Malal got axed early on, though his space marines, the Legion of the Damned and the Sons of Malice continue on. Originally Squats were magically destroyed by tyranids, despite the fact that the hive fleets never invaded Segmentum Solar. Something tells me that the Imperium would have a low tolerance for nid hive fleets on the doorstep of Holy Terra. Within the last few years they've now NEVER existed (PARTICULARLY in the Armageddon area, which used to be rife with squat worlds to explain thier heavy presence there in the original fluff. You know, lending Yarrick whole armies to try and retake a few ork held squat worlds, where he lost his baneblade in the original fluff. The Gunheads real mission was to retcon a loose end, not recover the fortress of arrogance.)

This setting is not consistant. I dunno if you've noticed it, but the fluff gets changed every time they switch writers on a codex. They hand out retcons like Marvel Comics. (though not as many as Marvel will hand out when Queseda finally dies/retires/is fired) They do it particularly heavy handedly if the previous writer has fallen out of favor with GW for some reason (I call it the Chambers Effect). Sometimes though it's directed at fans. I remember at one point the fanbase started to think that eldar were the 'good guys' of the setting, so the next time around the authors retconned them to make them bigger assholes.

The real reason that Space Marines have not been female has little to do with setting and everything to do with GW's long running problem with sculpting females. Partially this is due to their odd 'big heads and hands' approach to proportion.

@Alex: KOTOR forever!

I'm not sure why I love this thread, maybe it's the surplus of pages and pure anger and passion in it.

So if no one here has said that FSM's are canon, but have come up with some ideas on how to stretch the setting to allow for it (noting all the complications it would bring to the existing universe), why are we all still so angry? The current fluff says "No," but there are loopholes present for anyone that cares to exploit them, allowing things to exist that are not currently in existence.

Aren't most of the adventures we write and play in breaking canon already? No where was it written that on Aurum in the Jericho Reach there was a small conclave of Eldar planning on digging up an artifact that could help seal the Hadex Anomoly. If I ran an adventure like that what would you yell at me for? That there are no Eldar in the reach? That there were no artifacts on Aurum, especially of Eldar origin? Or that there was nothing in the fluff supporting that an anomoly could be sealed? What if a supplement came out that suported one or more of my ideas? What if I created a new race of xenos- is that breaking fluff? It's not currently documented, so could it even exist? Say I created a new threat to the Empire because I wanted my players to have a very grand impact on saving not just a planet or sector but the whole of the Empire, so that they're more important than nomral, is that bad? Where does the 'what is 40k' and 'what is in the fluff' start and where does it end?

And as for the 'maturity' of gaming groups, how does not being comfortable with or not wanting to play someone of the other gender make you more or less mature? Maybe it prevents a lot of 'har har you have teh boobzorz!111!!' but what else does maturity mean? I don't think I could convincingly play a female anymore than I could convincingly or appropriately play a minority. I respect those that give it the old college try, but I have no blame or angst against people that just don't feel right doing so. I would challenge you to try and have some empathy, and to put yourself in their position.

Charmander said:

I agree with you 100% here Charmander.

ak-73 said:

I really admire you hold-outs - I wish I had your willpower. I watched all the Prequels and hated them all. I haven't watched the cartoon movie with a baby-hutt I see they released as a final nail in the coffin of the series recently though.

I have a friend who hasn't seen them on principle (except the first one which we saw in the States together when it came out). He has almost forgotten the Prequels even exist at this point. Lucky bugger.

I've seen them all, God Emperor help me. (And, sadly, Clone Wars was actually LESS offensive to me then Revenge of the Sith, and had fewer plot holes)

I think that the reason that there is so much greif over this is that

A) wargamers tend to be more conservative (in thinking rather then ideology) then other gamers. They don't like the games they play to change. I've seen it in the ongoing excrement storm that is the BFG rules overhaul, with people horrified that the fleets they've been playing for the last decade might not be as good anymore, despite the fact that, unlike GW's typical rules updates/new codecies, these are being tested in a real gaming environment. We see this in 40k every time that a new codex comes out and X group of people moan that they've ruined thier fav army.

B) the marginal majority of wargamers are male, and a large number of them like to use space marines as a form of wish fulfillment (much like many RPGers like to play the fighter who's a mountain of rippling beefcake and makes wild passionate love with every barmaid, princess, and villain's daughter between here and Aquillonia). They like that the only women they meet are likely their inferiors, since there are likely one or more strong willed women dominating their 'real life' and they feel helpless against this. It's one of the reasons that James Bond films are so popular in the mainstream, as Bond rarely ever meets his equal in the fairer sex, and if he does, they're killed, work for another government opposed to his, or are flat out villains.

The problem with perpetuating this is that tabletop culture (and gaming culture in general) has changed since we grognards first sat down, swilled mead and rolled dice while pushing little metal people around a sand table. The RPG market in particular has been slowly moving toward being an equal opportunity time sink and more women are taking up traditionally male hobbies, such as video games, sports, and war.

Personally, i would prefer to see 40k adapt, and thus,survive, rather then perish, which GW's stock price rollercoaster suggests might not be too far in our future if they don't start adapting to situations rather then try and force solutions on the gaming public.

BaronIveagh said:

Yeah, I dont see making female space marines as the pivotal point on the survival of GW as a company or that by not making them that they would fail.

I see it more as, perhaps, charging less, giving group discounts (believe it or not, even though I am not a huge fan of D20 games, Castles and Crusades for the longest time had a 25% off military discount, which at least made me interested enough to try a book or two, but also student discounts, "club membership" discounts, and so forth) making the Forge World stuff fully legit and telling the annoying redshirts that "No, in fact I dont need any help, Ive been in this store a hundred times and I have no interest in your opinion on the armies or discussing my purchases with you!"

I'm not saying it's just the FSM issue. It's a symptom, not a cause. GW, rather then trying to broaden it's ventures to make itself more resiliant to changing spending habits, is contracting in on itself, trying to maintain profit margins at the expense of long term growth potential. While they are pumping out new minis for existing armies, they do not seem to be expanding much on existing lines. Many of them, the molds had worn out anyway and required recasting regardless of issuing a new codex. The codex was just a way to hype them a bit and try to force older player to buy the new minis.

I have no idea why the plastic minis continue to be so expensive. GW has thrown out a lot of silly excuses, but again, it comes down to a shrinking fan base and trying to maintain a higher profit margin. I would not be surprised to find out that GW granted FFG the license with half an eye on potentially increasing minis sales through the RPG section of the TT market.

I've also been told, and do not know if I should belive them of not, but GW is not allowed, by law, to have sales below RMSP. Something to do with England's anti-monopoly laws.

BaronIveagh said:

They're expensive because they're from Europe, and everything from Europe is worth more money, right? I'm going to run out and buy some StoneDine cookwear tonight because the guy on TV said that people in Europe cook on it all the time. There has to be something to my conspiracy theory, else the late night airwaves over here wouldn't all be voiced by people with British accents. Grass is greener, and smarter, right?

Charmander said:

Depends...

that made me look for the prices of a Space Marine Landspeeder on GW's site:

- price in England is 18£ (which is 28$, or 20€)
- price in the USA is 30$ (7,14% increase)
- price in France is 25€ (25% increase)

who gets ******* the worst ?

Exarkfr said:

who gets ******* the worst ?

Australia.

Land Speeder = AUD$50 = 41% increase (give or take, depending on exchange rates).

BYE

GW are no where near the power house of mini-figs they once were. Many many companines now make figs and vehicles, some even painted at half the price of GW.

The closed BI (who wrote DH and planned RT and DW) because of profits, and DH sold out within 12 hours of release the rumour was.

HappyDaze said:

But we don't care about the rules and mechanics of it in this case, focusing on that just goes to show how much you have misunderstood in this whole debate. Its not about how to get the girls to the table the easiest, its about how to get them there in the best, most interesting way that keeps them there without breaking the SETTING. You know what a setting is right, that thing that has nothing to do with the dice, no rules just all that pesky fluff that keeps getting in your munchkin way. Your version of a "scalpel" comes off as a chainsaw because it required no intellectual excercise what so ever eyond going "oh there are fsm's" there I'v solved the problem.

There wasn't even a problem to begin with I mean what is so horrible about having the girls in your group portray male characters, are they that bad role-players in your group? Is the reason that you just can't get your head around the females you play with not being pretty dolls? What is it that makes it so important to you that you have to behave like a hurt fanboy and sling insults at everyone who don't agree with you if that is what counters for elegance where your from then sure, by all means go a head.

UncleArkie said:

I'm not sure who your "we" is - there are a lot of people here that seem interested in using the Deathwatch mechanics and would like to do so for players desiring to play female characters too. As to breaking the setting, you should go back and reread the last few posts prior to the pricing discussions where I and others explained our views differentiating core setting themes (rules, if you like) from defined details, and how certain defined details can be altered without major impact upon the setting's themes. Opening up the AAs to females is one such detail change, and that's why I consider it the most elegant solution fully in keeping with the KISS line of thinking.

As to your second paragraph, I had thought you requested a debate over slinging more insults, and that's the approach I've corrected myself to follow. Which is it to be, Arkie?

UncleArkie said:

Arkie: I might pose the question that, did it ever occur to you that some of the FSM requests don't spring up full formed from the GM's head? Out of the six people in my group, three are female, and all three are not interested in playing men (I did offer to waive the usual rule), but want to play Deathwatch. We've tried finangling DH characters into the game, and it does not work very well. DW is much more combat oriented then DH.

So, Arkie, how do we deal with the female player who doesn't want to play a man, and does want to play a Space Marine (particularly when the player in question has about an entire chapter of FSMs sculpted and painted)?

For some reason, I have a hard time picturing telling them to 'Butch Up, Buttercup!"

BaronIveagh said:

So do I, but my issue was never with the idea of the FSM, but with the shoohorning of it into the canon that some people just needed to feel validated. I have 2 girls in my group (it becomes even more interesting here as one of them is actually transgender) and I can't see either of them butching up, what we did do was come up with the idea of the imperial living saint. Twin girls born with the mark of the aquila, whole story line thing. The deathwatch are sent to protect them by the inqusition as they rally the imperial troops under siege by the hive leading to final sanction, the game was 2 parted for a little while as som action took place with the marines fighting their way to the sisters while they were organizing defences and keeping the troops going, they then pretty much ran the rest of the senario as one group. For character generation we had them use the 2d10+30 just like a marine, same amount of wounds and fate points, but we replaced all of the special marine abilities with the faith abilities from InqHB and let them retain their unnatural strenght and toughness (religious fevour, faith or the blessings of the emperor who knows).

Now that the saints have been located and brought into the fold they are equipped with armour and weapons befitting their station and the squad assianged to keep them safe. Unfortunatly the girls are a little bit head strong leading us to oblivions edge which we ran perfectly as well. 2 warrior saints full of fire and brimstone. Other options that have been discussed elsewhere are the Skitarrii who if you have read the Horus Heresy can give a marine a run for his money any day. Ad Mech knights might be an option as well, but that puts them en-par with a dreadnought so that might be a little overkill.

UncleArkie said:

I think sometimes your arguments and positions, for whatever reason, are easy to misinterperet. From your previous posting, I'd not have expected your setting to have contained any of the above. That being said, I really like what you've done here- take the base stats and work out alternate reasons for them to have said abilities, and work out in the story a reason for them to be there and a reason for us to care.

Re: Dreadnought: maybe we'll see rules for those guys in rites of battle, so maybe not overkill in the end!

Knights are somewhat more powerful than a dreadnought. They occupy a midpoint between a dreadnought and a Warhound Titan (the same area as an Ork Stompa). It's a pity that Knights have almost been "Squat-ed" over the last decade+ of the game. I know a bit is written on them in Mechanicum, but otherwise not too much.

BaronIveagh said:

Sounds to me like she doesnt want to play Deathwatch, but play her own version of it. DO it.

Can we all just move on. You dont need my approval and I dont need yours.

Go roll some ten sided dice.

Just dipped in to see what on earth could possibly need 32 pages of discussion. Oh.

How do you chem geld a laydee in 40k? Does anyone care?