Well that took even less time than I expected. Before the first day was out there was already a social media storm brewing for the new Horus Heresy rule book. I caught sight of the first post around 11am yesterday and thought is it something new? A piece of lore that has never been seen before and is provoking frenzied debate. No. It’s the below and the old fight over female space marines in the game. It’s also worth pointing how disappointing the massive tide of negativity on some of the larger social media groups from existing 30k players for people getting into and enjoying the new game. I mean how dare people have fun.
So cards on the table from the outset. Inclusivity is important in the hobby and more work is needed to get it where we want to go but I have absolutely zero interest in taking a side on this one; if you want to field marines as all men or all women then go nuts; if you turn up at a gaming centre and have an army with aftermarket female heads then I am more than happy to play against them. I may ask to inspect them more closely to see the sculpt quality and ask questions on the paint job but so long as the unit matches the datasheet in terms of weapons, base and stats then all is well with me. There are three reasons for my stance. The first is that I actually personally consider marines to be an androgynous parody of humanity rather than a poster for humanity; I do however think that the Imperial Guard kits should all be mixed gender.
The second is that I usually treat the lore as setting and therefore disregard the bits of it that are not relevant if I am running a themed army; my hobby my rules (though in this case I do think that the safer course of option would have been to leave the entire sentence out). The third is the fact that I am more interested in the person I am playing against and chatting with them than the makeup of their army. The social aspect of the game and the actions of the person I am playing matter more than whether or not the marines they are fielding have female heads or not. That does not mean I don’t care how they make the minis; rock up with some sexually stylised marine conversion to mock or endorse your own kinks and I sure as hell won’t be playing you. Sorry to those with strong views on either side but I just cannot find myself to muster the outrage that many of the people I follow seem to; sorry but I have to much going on in my own life dealing with my father’s passing to get into a row over the gender of toy soldiers.
The female marines argument has rumbled for the last few years and the battle lines are well entrenched. Advocates for them point out the need for inclusivity and also point out that the new rulebook will be used against the trans community in the hobby. Advocates for the other side point out that this is lore which has been long established, there is nothing to stop you fielding them in casual play and that there are all female forces in the game. What usually follows is usually a circular argument with neither side giving ground and when I see it I usually mute the post. I do though want to take a look at each side of the argument in a bit more detail and say that in my views both sides’ arguments have flaws.
Inclusivity
This is a big thing and GW have, rightly in my view, made much noise about trying to include all people in the hobby. The statement about warhammer being for all was not in my view particularly well drafted (that’s with my legally trained hat on) as it gave the incel elements of the hobby ammunition; but the intention and spirit was good and the increase in variation of skin tones and a greater number of female characters is to be lauded. The game should be for all who want to play it and I can see why people will consider the wording in the new book a somewhat hypocritical line to take in light of earlier statements. People are right to point out that there will be people who pick up on this and use it; though I would point out that this is a hobby where a person can rock up at a tournament thinking that an army with totenkopf markings and colours is suitable. Am pretty sure that no where in the warhammer lore do we see endorsement for that.
For me the sad truth is that GW could completely back the female marines and it would not stop the dark underbelly of the game; if anything it would probably inflame them more and give them greater ammunition with the tedious “go woke go broke” line. Yes, it may exclude them from some tournaments but I guarantee it will not remove them fully or even to a large degree because they are using the game as an expression of their own thoughts and feelings. Make female marines and I guarantee there will be grotesque parodies and horrendous conversions to make a point/express their view within the day. Those ‘creations’ will be plastered around the usual reddits, facebook, discord and twitter groups as a badge of honour. I don’t like the fact that these people exist and anyone who I even get a whiff of being like that I block or refuse to play against (I would happily throw a game against scum like that).
Inclusivity is to be encouraged but I am not sure that making marines female as well does it. Especially when you have the somewhat sexualised sisters of battle (boob armour) running round the game; I mean I get that this is a make believe world but but that armour is just playing to a crowd for me. I would much prefer GW to openly say that the lore is just there for theme and if you want to modify gender you can; whilst at the same time seeing tournament rules and gaming centres banning customers who are not meeting a code of conduct (and that includes banning them from there stores). It won’t remove them because you cannot remove them from society but it does help. Sadly nothing seems to remove these elements and even driving them underground does not work; one only needs to look at the likes of the National Front. It’s banned, ostracised and derided but it still exists because sadly there will always be people with abhorrent views and if someone wants to find an echo chamber or confirmation bias then they will.
Aiding the anti-LBTGQ+ people
This is a hard one for me because it seems to rely on a absolutist view and I don’t ever like that. I think that in particular the transgender debate is one which has become extremely inflamed by hard line zealots with a win at all costs mentality and that does annoy a lot of people who point out that just as gender is not necessarily a black and white issue neither is the argument about transgender rights. There are nuances and ramifications (especially in relation to women’s sport). I have no issue with any persons orientation or gender; I judge on actions nothing more, but I do see why a lot of people are made uncomfortable with the encroachment into women’s rights and the absolute dog piling that seems to happen in this area. I don’t have an answer to the argument, I doubt anyone does; but the absence of sensible and rational debate undermines, for me, the valid points that more sensible and rationale campaigners do have.
It is indisputable that the line in the rulebook will be used in a negative way by some but then any line in the rule book would be used if it did not meet a person’s objective. Saying that women can be space marines would trigger the comment that trans women are not ‘true’ women from the usual crowd. Say that any human can be a space marine and they will twist that as well. These are people who want to have their own male centric view and will have it any way they can get it. There is nothing that GW can say to stop them, and whilst that does not mean they should not try, it equally means that there needs to be recognition that they will never be able to word it in a way which does not annoy someone. Personally in this case I do think it would have been better to remove the whole section (though no doubt the absence of it would then have caused another row about ‘missed opportunity’, ‘going woke’ etc).
The lore
“The lore says…” Ah the argument of someone who does not actually have a cogent argument and is simply falling back on what someone else has said or written. Used by gatekeepers across every fandom going for me this is the very definition of confirmation bias and is a logical fallacy. For me the fluff in a warhammer rule book is to create a theme, an idea and then I extrapolate it out. Take the arming ceremony for marines or the prayers tech priests use. I don’t have a phase in a game where I have to chant something before my techpriest tries to repair a tank. It’s a theme that tech is venerated and needs to be treated as alive; it is a theme which you can choose to ignore or not and is just there for immersion. It is not holy writ as it can and has been changed. Squats being gone was lore for decades but hey they are back because commercially it makes sense for GW to bring them back; just like making marines male in the early days made commercial sense.
GW write the lore and can change it any time they want (you only need to look at necrons to see that) but it has to make commercial sense for them to do it. I would be very interested in seeing what would be the result in an in store poll (not online as that would become an echo chamber) where you were shown a sculpt of a male and female space marine (not stylised with boob armour but basically a female head swap and maybe a little smaller) and told to vote on which they would buy or a ‘either’. I am pretty sure that either would be the winner because most people are genuinely inclusive in the hobby and would not have an issue either way with female marines. Why? Because they are not treating the lore as holy writ and instead view it as what it is. A thematic setting in a parody and made believe world using toy soldiers. Relying on the lore of a made up world in a commercial product which has editions (which by definition change) is inevitably going to see you defending a position which has changed or become redundant.
All female factions
This usually gets trotted out alongside the ‘does that mean men can be in the sisters of battle’ and is a circular argument. The lore (which they so venerate) explains why they are all female and the lore being holy write usually gets trotted out alongside this argument; conveniently forgetting that the lore is a method to garner interest in a commercial product. Now personally I dislike the sisters of battle range for a few reasons. One is the level of religious iconography; it makes me a little uncomfortable if I am honest and is also a faff to paint when you are a shit painter like me. Second is that it feels a tokenistic force. Marines are men so sisters are women and I dislike that kind of absolutist thinking; coupled with the stylised look on the armour they are a faction which feel a bit off for me.
I have no problem with an all female force in the game but think that the design of the sisters is aimed more at the male fantasy than actually women playing the game; it always put me in mind of the Red Sonja film from the eighties. The newer sculpts are better but there is still a way to go there. I have no problem with a stylised image of men and women but such an image is not all that inclusive and usually gives rise to personal comments comparing people who want change with the image. The female guard sculpts so far have, for me, been far more successful in portraying women in an inclusive manner than the sisters but there is also a limelight argument. Advocates for equality rightly point out that the sisters get comparatively little coverage, though it has to be said they’ve had more love recently than some, and are not the poster army for the game. That’s certainly a fair point and there could be a change made there but you would end up back in the arguments I have listed above.
Conclusion
This argument will run and run frankly. If GW come down on either side then it will make the whole thing worse than it already is as one side will think they have ‘won’ and the other will form a ‘resistance’. Things will become even more toxic than they already are. I have to say I rather suspect that the inclusion of the line was an honest oversight and it was just lifted whole as a text file from the previous edition. It would have been better to omit it entirely (though that would have not stopped the debate over heresy as the whole ‘beakies’ thing has shown) and just ignore any questions on the subject. They didn’t and this does perhaps call into question the editing/reviewing process undertaken but as GW keep things like that secret so as to avoid a Matt Ward situation we do not know what happened there. Some suggestions of having more women involved in the reviewing are only fine if there are not already women involved in the process but it does open up a minefield of where you draw the line. Who else do you include as the more you include and send out the greater the risk of leaks, revision on revision and nothing ever making it out there. The reality is that the line is out there now so social media will become even more toxic for a bit.
Personally I would like GW to include mixed gender and race in the upcoming guard refresh and the signs are promising with the new Creed model (though not that bloody helmet). Equally I would like to see the sisters’ armour design take more of the approach that Rings of Power seems to have taken and move away from the over-stylised boob armour. If you are going to make an all women faction then make it an all women faction and not just fetish warrior nuns. I think it is also important that hobby and gaming centres do all they can to ensure that tournaments are not giving people platforms and are genuinely inclusive; many do but not all and that does need to change; though I accept it is not necessarily an easy thing to do though I do think having photos of the army being used be submitted before the tournament has merit. If nothing else it mitigates the risk of the totenkopf incident happening again.
I have no doubt there will be plenty who disagree with me over my views and that’s fine. I don’t mind disagreement but please can we remember that these are toy soldiers being sold by a company interested in money. Judge people by what they say and do and not whether or not there marines have a man or woman strapped inside the suit.
Roll 3's to hit 