I suppose it boils down the the question: Are Space Marines what makes 40k? or are they irrelivent to what makes 40k, 40k?

And frankly, if you ask any two space marine players what they thing space marines are like, you'll get three answers each more stupifying then the last. Except smurfs. Every time I go to something like Gamesday, I see more Ultramarines then there are Space Marines in all of 40k at any one time. Millions of identical Rhinos and land raiders. Enough Calgar's to make a Chpater of thier own, which would be dubbed the Sons of Norris.

Personally, I find space marines to be irrelivent in 40k. Other then as things to explode like melons when hit with a Basilisk. Politically speaking, in all honesty, if the the SM and CSM had annihilated each other at Terra, another body would have risin to take thier place in the galactic power vaccum. (Probably the Adranti or the Diasporax, both of which being advanced starfareing organisations.) with probably broadly similar results. (Though the humans might not be on such rough terms with xenos. Or, in other words, the changes of 2nd and 3rd ed fluff might not have happened.)

I feel like a lot of posters in this thread are discounting out of hand the idea that it's perfectly valid to role-play across gender lines. I don't do it myself, and I know some groups disallow it (for whatever reasons), but you don't have to play a female space marine if you're a female player. If there was a game I really wanted to play in with an all-female cast of player characters, well, I'd play a female character.

On the other hand... I don't really worry that the integrity of the setting will be compromised by what goes on in the Deathwatch games people run. Heck, I know people who've been playing Space Marines and Inquisitors since before Rogue Trader came out, making up new Chapters all the while. From what I hear, they had a really fun time with those games, so they were doing it right.

It's a game, so the only way to measure if you're doing it right is to check and see if you're having fun. Different people have fun in different ways, so what works for one group may not work for another. But the only way you can play it wrong is to have a horrible time.

Baron Throatpunch said:

As you say, it varies from group to group. I've never seen a male pulling off a successful female, or vice versa. It all smacks way too much of cliche most of the time.

Oh god, I've just thought of a line from the Sharpe TV show about fighting "for a *** on a ****." Widely inappropriate and at the same wildly appropriate for this thread, at least some of the time.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Well, to be fair, much of the time role-playing is cliche-laden. That's because much of the time it is pulp fiction, trash, guilty entertainment.

I just have to reject the people who claim that one can't mess with the official, canonical setting. While in my 40K world there are no female marines, I take the liberty to change the setting anyway I like, if I care to. Naturally any change will attract literalists to point at re-interpretations of the world with disdain and exclaim "That's no longer 40K". But such has to be borne and will be. :-)

Alex

ak-73 said:

I'll be blunt, then: It was just poor roleplaying. YMMV, but that is just my experience.

As to the point about disdain? You're right, that is 40k and these forums.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Lol, I have experienced similar Canon debates on the Rifts forum. Any religious book brings out literalist and interpretative or Puritan and Radical factions.

I am, in general, of Radical inclination. Fortunately I don't take the role-playing hobby all that seriously, nor the disdain by some overly zealous enthusiasts. They see things the way do, they'll have to live with me trotting along my own path though unless they manage to convince me of their viewpoint (no small feat, in general).

Alex

.

Roleplaying accross gender-lines is not only possible but actually pretty common in my groups. I do it all the time. I run it as GM all the time. Still, I have players who are not confident about their ability to play the other gender so when I GM, I like to provide them with the opportunity to play the gender they want.

As for Space Marines beings stars... Well, that is a big maybe. There are some people (especially new table top players) who think Warhammer 40 000 world is about Space Marines, Space Marines and Space Marines. Nothing else. However, most of those people have very poor grasp of the fluff to start with and already have wide variety of misconseptions about what Space Marines are to start with. So their "stars" are often just figments of imagination they've conjured up for themselves and have little or no support in fluff. Luckily I have none of these as players.

Then there are people who love the 40K world and just happen to like a Space Marines more than anything else. They are usually very acquainted with fluff so they know that Space Marines are iconic figures but not the whole of 40K. These are also the guys who would look pretty confused if I started to introduce female marines. Hell, I would be confused if I tried to do something like that. Its not like I let people play female catholic monks in 16th century setting either.

I've never been Space Marine fanboy myself. I like the concept, yeah, but I also like the concept of Sisters of Battle, Adeptus Mechanicus, Officio Assassinorum and Inquisition. In my games the stars are exceptional individuals who have the willpower and tenacity to risk it all, sacrifice all and go that extra mile for humanity. Some of them are Space Marines, but its not astartes-exclusive club.

In my group, I'll say that it turns a bit silly when the girls try to play guys (and vice versa). It's one of the reasons that I generally don't allow cross gender as GM.

The problems I've run into so far are primarilly that if they play Inq non-psykers, the SM end up dominating the game. If they play as psykers, they end up dominating the game. Space Marines are not really balanced against DH, even if you're using Acension.

I hate to say it, but it's not as good a game, at least for my group, as RT was and is. There's not enough 'not shooting' and too much 'shooting' for most of us to really get into it. The RT game we can go two or three sessions without any combat at all, and the players really don't seem to be into it if it's not a level playing field for all of them.

First, its not sexist that there are no female space marines and players cannot play female space marines.

Second, it would be sexist if we said "girls cant play this game!"

Third, if the issue is a female player wont play the game cause she has to play a smelly man or such, then let them play a female character. Use RT or DH at the proper levels, but let them use RT characteristic generation rules. Make up for their lack of Super Strength and Super Toughness by giving them extra talents, skills, even paragon talents or mastered skills.

In the end, if you let the female character have a 30+2D10 BS (+more) and she has a Bolter, then she should be dishing out the same shooting damage.

Then they can have stats/talents that play to their strength (fellowship skills/talents, willpower, agility).

After all Unnatural Toughness may be nice, but so would be Dodge +20 with Side Step.

The end point is, the only disbalance would be in Unnatural Strength and Unnatural Toughness.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Ouch. I got flamed the hard way for saying sth like that a few weeks ago.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Well I meant their strengths, being other stats that the space marines dont necessarily focus on. The biggest issue is Unnatural Strength and Unnatural Toughness. Many space marine players are going to focus on those, getting combat monster syndrome going on. Which opens oportunity for characters who are not space marines to fill those gaps.

It goes for any non-Astartes PC. I wouldnt want to play a Space Marine if I had the option to play a 13K Commissar type character. Even as a male Commissar he woudl still need to play to his strength, which wouldnt be Strength and Toughness, but Fellowship, Weapon Skill, Agility, Willpower, Perception and such. Leadership skills, knowledge skills, talents that "remove him" from the way of harm.

This MALE COMMISSAR would not stack up straight face to face with a Astartes. However, if he were designed the other way, with Strength, WS and Toughness as focus, a few talents and gear and he could be swinging a Eviscerator at a Space Marine which could hurt a Space Marine quite handedly.

Polaria said:

Best post ever concerning this and other issues.

ak-73 said:

No there are those who are interested in playing a game set in the 40k universe, and those who apparently want to play a game set in a universe influenced by 40k.

Everybody keeps saying that a GM can make female marines if they want, but many players are going to scoff at such a move. Some might simply out of game where a GM makes such a drastic change to a beloved setting for no reason other than to placate a female player or their own idiotic notions. I certainly would.

My wife, Dawn (I just love typing that...it's been less than two months) had the solution to this. She plays an Ascended Scum. Call her an "Inquistional Envoy" if you will. She's a lot more fragile than the boys, but she's enjoying herself and doesn't have to play Dolph Lundgren in ceramite underwear...

Atheosis said:

It's irrelevant though because their scoffing at it won't change a thing, I guess.

Atheosis said:

And that's your choice. As a GM, I interpret the game I want to and fortunately I don't have any die-hard gamers on any games I run, nor am I a die-harder.

Puritans will call a different interpretation a drastic change and that it's a different game and no longer the 40K universe but to my ear it's irrelevant. Some people are more literalist while other people don't like particular aspects of a given setting and put their spin onto it. In general I am more of the latter type, considering Canon a suggestion and not a beloved setting to adhere to as faithfully as possible.

That said, I am personally opposed to female marines in my 40K interpretation. It would be a huge favour from me to a girl to allow that. I won't say never but...

Alex

Atheosis said:

Atheosis said:

I wanna be a cloned wookie storm trooper!

I wanna be a Hutt Jedi, named Jedi the Hutt!

I want to be a Coalition Dragon!

I want to be an untouchable psyker!

I want to be a Dark Eldar Commissar!

Peacekeeper_b said:

Which means that they only imbalance is their ability to take and deal damage. In a game as combat centric as this, I wonder if that's a serious problem?

The higher BS yeilds the same numer of hits, but a normal human bolter (RT/DH) does not deal the same damage as an astartes bolter (DW). Astartes power armor and astartes abilities blow most of the stuff in acension out of the water. Any time that they end up in melee combat, the nonpsykers have ended up dead. Astates power armor + unnatural toughness yields vastly superior protection to dodge (though not to Flameshroud+ Molten Man with Unnatural Willpowerx3). In any single catagory, yes, you can ramp them up higher, however, they do not end up being the same.

@Atheosis -

" No there are those who are interested in playing a game set in the 40k universe, and those who apparently want to play a game set in a universe influenced by 40k.

Everybody keeps saying that a GM can make female marines if they want, but many players are going to scoff at such a move. Some might simply out of game where a GM makes such a drastic change to a beloved setting for no reason other than to placate a female player or their own idiotic notions. I certainly would."

Fortunetly, my players have already accepted female space marines, since one of the females in question happens to have tremendous skill with painting and greenstuff.

And, frankly, many more players of RPGs who really don't know much about 40k but want to try something besides D&D might scoff at not being able to play as women. There is that small majority of players who've never played 40k but are interested in a sci-fi rpg besides GURPS and Shadowrun. About 1/3rd of my gaming group do not play 40k.

Further, as GM, I tend to view the current fluff as an 'idiotic notion' 'set in an universe influenced by 40k." as the space marine players are all cons who've been altered into space marines.

Remember, folks, if you've ever asked GW what is canon, their response is that there IS NO CANON. None. Zip. Zero. You want fem marines? Go for it.

ak-73 said:

You don't need to be "hardcore" or a "puritan" or whatever you want to call it. You simply need to have a familiarity with the setting and an appreciation and respect for it. You say your group won't care. Great. Do whatever you want, but when you make fundamental changes to the setting realize that you aren't playing a 40k RPG, you're playing a homebrew setting influenced by 40k. It's really that simple. If you and you're group are cool with it great, just don't expect the people here to accept your ideas as legitimate within the context of the 40k universe.

Bottom line is that every setting has certain things that really shouldn't be changed if you want to be loyal to the setting, while other things are open to interpretation. Beyond that, your notion that players scoffing at the liberties you choose to take with an established setting is absurd. It's hard to be a GM with players that don't buy into your game or who simply out altogether. It might not effect you and your group, as they apparently aren't that into the 40k background, every group is going to be different, but many GMs are going to have problems when they unilaterally make fundamental changes to such a beloved game universe.

Bottom line is that yes a GM and his/her group can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't expect other to agree with or accept it on a larger stage.

BaronIveagh said:

This is what gets on my nerves with this debate. It's not that people make changes, but that they seem to think that with such changes they are still playing a 40k roleplaying game. Like I said, it's a game influenced by 40k, not a genuine 40k game. There's nothing wrong with that, but please don't expect the rest of us to accept it as a genuine 40k game.

There is official canon by the way (I'm not sure what you are talking about), and it includes pretty much anything GW has ever printed which means that there's a lot of contradictions and grey areas to be dealt with by a GM. Female marines aren't one of those grey areas.

Atheosis said:

Frankly? I don't care. No offense intended.

Alex

Atheosis said:

Ask a GW employee what is canon sometime. The offical line out of GW every time this is asked (by players, not sure what they say to 3rd parties behind closed doors) is that there is no canon.

Why do you think that the number one thread in 40k is 'What is canon?" (Eclipsing fem marines, broken codecies, and assasin/farseer shipping) Since the 'canon' stance is that there is no canon, players are largely left to invent thier own in the canon vacuum. What is broadly accepted among the players is that the canon sources are, in order of accuracy: Codecies, WD, BL, 'other' official GW products, and then fanwank. (For example, drinking, smoking, and screwing sisters of battle moved up from the 'fanwank' level to the BL level when Cain's Last Stand was published. It is this mobility that drives players to distraction.)

Page 28 of the DW Core Rulebook makes this entire topic moot.

There are no female Marines, just as there have never been.

BYE

ak-73 said:

I'm not offended. You don't need to care. I'm just trying to explain the reason others may not be down with your version of things.

BaronIveagh said:

Not really. GW has been pretty clear about it. There's official material and then whatever people make up. The first is universal, the second is limited to individual playgroups (wargaming or rping). If someone decides to build a female marine army they are free to play with it with their friends, but it isn't in any way an official part of the 40k universe.

In other words there is canon. The debate tends to be whether or not Black Library books are canon or just the codexes, not whether or not somebody's female marines are canon. That's pretty firmly established as a no.

Atheosis said:

Yes, yes and yes.

Totally agree.

These people who not only want to change canon but can't stand the idea of a gender specific game need to get a clue or play a different game.

Seems like many of these people might be happier playing in some lefty White Wolf game.

Kage2020 +1