Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's assuming there is a need to have so many Codices. I'm all for consolidating the Angels chapters into the main codex for example.
Yes, you are right. I would still be a bit worried about reaching some saturation, if not in codices, at least in terms of number of official factions. But maybe that's just me?
Formosa wrote: Would it impair our enjoyment of the fluff, well that really does depend on how they are implemented, because this is how I see the female marine crowds expectations.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but I'd be pretty happy with female Marines being indiscernible from male marines while in armor, and I've never seen a marine without armor.
AegisGrimm wrote: Honestly, after multiple threadstorms on the subject, by now there's a pretty snarky part of me that thinks the majority of people who want female space marines just like the arguments it produces, rather than a burning need for it to be an inclusion in the fiction.
Well, I do enjoy the discussion with Sgt_Smudge, that is becoming less heated and more like a good exchange of opinions, yes, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't genuinely enjoy female marines being part of the lore.
I'm a bit lost on the whole “Marines being able to reproduce” thing. Explain me if I'm wrong. The basic idea is that in the fluff, marines aren't able to reproduce, but if there was female marines, then they could maybe reproduce? I guess that's easily solve by changing the fluff from “Only men can become marines and they cannot reproduce” into “Men and women can become marines but they still cannot reproduce”. Seems easy to me, am I missing something? What's the big deal?
I'm a bit lost on the whole “Marines being able to reproduce” thing. Explain me if I'm wrong. The basic idea is that in the fluff, marines aren't able to reproduce, but if there was female marines, then they could maybe reproduce? I guess that's easily solve by changing the fluff from “Only men can become marines and they cannot reproduce” into “Men and women can become marines but they still cannot reproduce”. Seems easy to me, am I missing something? What's the big deal?
I was just using it as an easy example in an argument for why;
"Its in the lore!" = Not a good argument, yet "Its in the lore!" = A good argument.
Alpharius wrote: Seems to be at the circular point here, and if it continues in this vein, a thread lock is imminent.
Because until such a time when GW says Space Marines can indeed be female, they've already said that they cannot be female.
I told Alpharius as well, but I am pulling out form this conversation. We are like a broken record here, and I seem to be a big part of the polarisation of the discourse, Hopefully we will have some nice viewpoints yet to come. :-)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's assuming there is a need to have so many Codices. I'm all for consolidating the Angels chapters into the main codex for example.
Yes, you are right. I would still be a bit worried about reaching some saturation, if not in codices, at least in terms of number of official factions. But maybe that's just me?
Formosa wrote: Would it impair our enjoyment of the fluff, well that really does depend on how they are implemented, because this is how I see the female marine crowds expectations.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but I'd be pretty happy with female Marines being indiscernible from male marines while in armor, and I've never seen a marine without armor.
Not willing to add fuel to this bonfire, but here's a marine without armour, form the Blood Quest comic series.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's assuming there is a need to have so many Codices. I'm all for consolidating the Angels chapters into the main codex for example.
Yes, you are right. I would still be a bit worried about reaching some saturation, if not in codices, at least in terms of number of official factions. But maybe that's just me?
Formosa wrote: Would it impair our enjoyment of the fluff, well that really does depend on how they are implemented, because this is how I see the female marine crowds expectations.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but I'd be pretty happy with female Marines being indiscernible from male marines while in armor, and I've never seen a marine without armor.
Not willing to add fuel to this bonfire, but here's a marine without armour, form the Blood Quest comic series.
My picture was just to poke fun not to be taken too seriously really
Some apolagetics are better then others. For instance 'It is not currently in the setting' is the best argument against space marines based upon females. In my opponion it is not a good argument as we have seen several revisions of the setting form GW to the setting so far, but it is by far the strongest argument.
We have also learned that somebody has problems to seperate the idea that space marines can be based upon females, and the fact that space marines can not make babies. I am learning so much in this thread, and it tells me so much of the sosioculture background of my fellow players. Some studies in psycology point to peoole asume fellow players share the same opinion that they hold. Clearly this is not the case here.
This is where you lose me, you complain about wanting something not in the setting but then complain more when someone points out something that would then happen because it isn't in the current setting.
(Yes I am very late to this)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's assuming there is a need to have so many Codices. I'm all for consolidating the Angels chapters into the main codex for example.
Yes, you are right. I would still be a bit worried about reaching some saturation, if not in codices, at least in terms of number of official factions. But maybe that's just me?
Formosa wrote: Would it impair our enjoyment of the fluff, well that really does depend on how they are implemented, because this is how I see the female marine crowds expectations.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but I'd be pretty happy with female Marines being indiscernible from male marines while in armor, and I've never seen a marine without armor.
Not willing to add fuel to this bonfire, but here's a marine without armour, form the Blood Quest comic series.
My picture was just to poke fun not to be taken too seriously really
Aye, I know xD But he said he never saw a Space Marine without armour, and I remembered seeing this. Why not show it?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's assuming there is a need to have so many Codices. I'm all for consolidating the Angels chapters into the main codex for example.
Yes, you are right. I would still be a bit worried about reaching some saturation, if not in codices, at least in terms of number of official factions. But maybe that's just me?
Formosa wrote: Would it impair our enjoyment of the fluff, well that really does depend on how they are implemented, because this is how I see the female marine crowds expectations.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but I'd be pretty happy with female Marines being indiscernible from male marines while in armor, and I've never seen a marine without armor.
Not willing to add fuel to this bonfire, but here's a marine without armour, form the Blood Quest comic series.
My picture was just to poke fun not to be taken too seriously really
Aye, I know xD But he said he never saw a Space Marine without armour, and I remembered seeing this. Why not show it?
It was a good graphic, hands up who remembers that full they were making of it?
Dark wrote: Not willing to add fuel to this bonfire, but here's a marine without armour, form the Blood Quest comic series.
That's not fuel, it's pretty nice to contribute with extra information . But yeah, I remember seeing a few illustrations of marines without armor (very very few though), just never any model. I should have been clearer on this.
See, I wouldn't have much of a problem with Space Wolf Valkyries (even if they are more likely to be comparable to special Scions rather than full Astartes). I just don't see an urgent, burning need. And this is from a guy who has had a Sisters army since their original release, and I also love the two female Stormcast models in AoS (my force is actually led by Neave Blacktalon converted to be my Lord Celestant) and I'm eager to see more.
But I simply don't see a need for a retcon to introduce female Astartes any more than I see a need to retcon the Orkoid fungus to produce female Orks just for appearances sake. To me, the transformation of violent young men is as much a part of what makes them as unique as the reason Sisters of Battle have no male members.
At least when it comes to situations on the tabletop, I would rather see GW first spend some effort on making more quality female figures for armies that don't even need a fluff retcon to exist, like Imperial Guard and Stormcast, where women make up a quite substantial portion.
AegisGrimm wrote: See, I wouldn't have much of a problem with Space Wolf Valkyries (even if they are more likely to be comparable to special Scions rather than full Astartes). I just don't see an urgent, burning need. And this is from a guy who has had a Sisters army since their original release, and I also love the two female Stormcast models in AoS (my force is actually led by Neave Blacktalon converted to be my Lord Celestant) and I'm eager to see more.
But I simply don't see a need for a retcon to introduce female Astartes any more than I see a need to retcon the Orkoid fungus to produce female Orks just for appearances sake. To me, the transformation of violent young men is as much a part of what makes them as unique as the reason Sisters of Battle have no male members.
At least when it comes to situations on the tabletop, I would rather see GW first spend some effort on making more quality female figures for armies that don't even need a fluff retcon to exist, like Imperial Guard and Stormcast, where women make up a quite substantial portion.
Technically the whole Ork-fungus thing is itself a retcon but agree with the rest.
for the record. Let's call a spade a spade regarding the "representation" arguement. That ENTIRE ARGUMENT is build on the presupposition that a majority of people are both sexist and racist. a presupposition I for one reject.
BrianDavion wrote: for the record. Let's call a spade a spade regarding the "representation" arguement. That ENTIRE ARGUMENT is build on the presupposition that a majority of people are both sexist and racist. a presupposition I for one reject.
BrianDavion wrote: for the record. Let's call a spade a spade regarding the "representation" arguement. That ENTIRE ARGUMENT is build on the presupposition that a majority of people are both sexist and racist. a presupposition I for one reject.
BrianDavion wrote: for the record. Let's call a spade a spade regarding the "representation" arguement. That ENTIRE ARGUMENT is build on the presupposition that a majority of people are both sexist and racist. a presupposition I for one reject.
Well that's a complete non sequitur.
Yeah kinda came out of nowhere and isnt whats happening here??
BrianDavion wrote: for the record. Let's call a spade a spade regarding the "representation" arguement. That ENTIRE ARGUMENT is build on the presupposition that a majority of people are both sexist and racist. a presupposition I for one reject.
Well that's a complete non sequitur.
Yeah kinda came out of nowhere and isnt whats happening here??
wat happened is I left dakka dakka up for an hour and the last thing I read was someone mentioning something about the reperesentation aspect of arguing female space marines.
I've just always felt it was a weak arguement myself
Wanting representation isn't racism or sexism though. It's noticing racist or sexist bias.
It feels like the old “I don't see color” argument. If that means you treat everyone the same, great. If that means you don't notice when the police officer in front of you treat blacks differently, yeah, you don't “see colors”, but it just means that you don't see racism when it happens. Seems pretty similar here.
I take offence when not wanting GW to waste time re-doing space marine moulds _again_ when Sisters, when my Eldar Avatar, when half the Inquisition models, etc, are all in dire, dire, dire need of a reprint, means I'm somehow sexist.
Or when I don't want someone changing the setting, in any way, because 'Well I think it would be nicer to the real world.' It's _Fiction_. The Imperium is allowed to be sexist, without me being sexist. Space Wizardy is allowed to only make male space marines without it suddenly meaning _anything_ about my personal views on women, least of all because I didn't even design the blooming thing.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I take offence when not wanting GW to waste time re-doing space marine moulds _again_ when Sisters, when my Eldar Avatar, when half the Inquisition models, etc, are all in dire, dire, dire need of a reprint, means I'm somehow sexist.
Or when I don't want someone changing the setting, in any way, because 'Well I think it would be nicer to the real world.' It's _Fiction_. The Imperium is allowed to be sexist, without me being sexist. Space Wizardy is allowed to only make male space marines without it suddenly meaning _anything_ about my personal views on women, least of all because I didn't even design the blooming thing.
40k is not real life.
That last bit there, is exactly why I think seeking representation in the game is dumb. I've said it before in here. I doubt anyone here is a Space Wizard, Transhuman Super Soldier or a Space Catholic Nazi woman in power armor who can preform literal acts of god.
I think you are just misunderstanding what people want and why they want it if you think not being a space wizard transhuman super soldier matters.
It's not about specifically wanting someone that is like you. It's about noticing that people that share one of your trait are excluded.
I'm pretty convinced that if 40k had half of the gendered models being female, most women wouldn't care to have female models. Even those that do now.
If its just the lack of female bodies, which I mean there are still alot of females but admittedly not enough, why the need for Female Space Marines?
If you dont like Space Marines (for example) because of lore or what have you, why would you suddenly like them because they have females? You already establish you dont like them.
There are also no short space marines.
There are also no gay space marines.
Black space marines are very under represented.
There are no asian space marines. [Last I checked.]
There are no ginger space marines.
There are no trans space marines.
Need I go on?
Sometimes it's okay not to be represented. Why you would crave to be represented admist a bunch of brainwashed, dubious morals, butched and biologically enchanced 1 dimensional super soldiers is beyond me. What's worse is most of the people arguing for it, arn't even of the gender that's not being represented! So it's not like _You_ feel excluded, more like you assume someone else might feel excluded and have decided to speak for them regardless of how they might actually feel.
I'm sure there are loads of gay space marines considering that they live in all male environments with very little contact to other people.
Black space marines are very under represented.
True. But they exist.
There are no asian space marines. [Last I checked.]
Ever heard of White Scars?
There are no ginger space marines.
Many Space Wolves are ginger.
There are no trans space marines.
True. But there could
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If its just the lack of female bodies, which I mean there are still alot of females but admittedly not enough, why the need for Female Space Marines?
I think it is mostly the symptom of the game and the lore being so focused on Space Marines. 40K is basically about Space Marines, some other factions may occasionally appear.
I'm sure there are loads of gay space marines considering that they live in all male environments with very little contact to other people.
Black space marines are very under represented.
True. But they exist.
There are no asian space marines. [Last I checked.]
Ever heard of White Scars?
There are no ginger space marines.
Many Space Wolves are ginger.
There are no trans space marines.
True. But there could
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If its just the lack of female bodies, which I mean there are still alot of females but admittedly not enough, why the need for Female Space Marines?
I think it is mostly the symptom of the game and the lore being so focused on Space Marines. 40K is basically about Space Marines, some other factions may occasionally appear.
All marines are taller than humans.
There are no gay marines, lots of homo erotic moments though lol
All marines can be black, the melanchromic organ regulates skin tone and darkens it to resist multiple forms of radiation, doesn't work on raven guard, night lords and salamanders.
White scars and many others I'm sure, lots of chapters out there
There are no ginger loyalist space marines, only chaos marines, something to do with souls
There are no trans marines, they don't even identify as male, let alone anything else, unless slaanesh... cos slaanesh.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If its just the lack of female bodies, which I mean there are still alot of females but admittedly not enough, why the need for Female Space Marines?
Because marines are half of the codex and 80% of the focus of the game.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If you dont like Space Marines (for example) because of lore or what have you, why would you suddenly like them because they have females? You already establish you dont like them.
Who is you?
Ashiraya for instance like marines but would like them even more if there were female marines.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If its just the lack of female bodies, which I mean there are still alot of females but admittedly not enough, why the need for Female Space Marines?
Because marines are half of the codex and 80% of the focus of the game.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If you dont like Space Marines (for example) because of lore or what have you, why would you suddenly like them because they have females? You already establish you dont like them.
Who is you?
Ashiraya for instance like marines but would like them even more if there were female marines.
You say this like it's just something that happens “sometimes”, to anyone equivalently. It's like the whole “color-blindness” thing I spoke about…
Wait whut.... so your solution is to shift MORE focus to marines? Rather than away from marines with expanded sisters of silence or sisters of battle... that don't make sense gaji
So ash would like female marines, cool, he can make them then and leave everyone else as is, it's his hobby after all, stop trying to force your views on the rest of us then, live and let live.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If its just the lack of female bodies, which I mean there are still alot of females but admittedly not enough, why the need for Female Space Marines?
Because marines are half of the codex and 80% of the focus of the game.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: If you dont like Space Marines (for example) because of lore or what have you, why would you suddenly like them because they have females? You already establish you dont like them.
Who is you?
Ashiraya for instance like marines but would like them even more if there were female marines.
You is a hypothetical.
Ashiraya might like Marines more because there would be females, some others would too I'd wager. I'd also wager that many more wouldn't. Should we pander to the minority of players?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I take offence when not wanting GW to waste time re-doing space marine moulds _again_ when Sisters, when my Eldar Avatar, when half the Inquisition models, etc, are all in dire, dire, dire need of a reprint, means I'm somehow sexist.
You'd maybe have a point if GW didn't already redo these moulds for Green, Red, and Blue marines. Which don't even play differently and are just cosmetic change on Marines-marines. A change that is frankly not needed, a tiny upgrade sprue would be more than enough.
Gee, why people might want a change that actually matters when they already see GW can make all these pointless, cosmetic ones?
Also, funnily enough, how do you call 'not wanting GW to waste time' that miraculously only appears (or at best is 'just' ten times louder) when people debate potential female models? Because, sometimes a cigar is precisely that, a cigar. Just food for thought.
Or when I don't want someone changing the setting, in any way, because 'Well I think it would be nicer to the real world.' It's _Fiction_. The Imperium is allowed to be sexist, without me being sexist. Space Wizardy is allowed to only make male space marines without it suddenly meaning _anything_ about my personal views on women, least of all because I didn't even design the blooming thing.
Translation - "I got mine, frak everyone who is not aboard". It's not 70s anymore, the setting saw so many retcons one making it actually palatable to modern people losing medieval sensitivities and bigotry that were backwards even in times of Rogue Trader would be among most justified of them.
Also, I like how you project your own views and prejudices on setting. The Imperium is not sexist. A state where 1/4 of soldiers on the front line were women, where women could become cardinals or even pope, where woman could take virtually any rank or position would be called insanely egalitarian today. No one, not even Israel or Soviet Union, with their forced equalization polices, comes anywhere close to that. Perhaps you should examine your own views, only you know, objectively, if you want to push sexism where there is none to begin with?
What Imperium really is is being oppressive and backwards. And frankly, it doesn't matter one bit who does the oppressing for it to exist, man or woman, and denial of that says a lot, sorry.
I think that, in the end, lore could stay as is, but GW could profit a lot from selling sprues with helmeted and unhelmeted female heads that one could fir onto guardsmen, cultist and marine bodies so those who want to have 'em in their headcanon could do so.
Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.
Dark wrote: I think that, in the end, lore could stay as is, but GW could profit a lot from selling sprues with helmeted and unhelmeted female heads that one could fir onto guardsmen, cultist and marine bodies so those who want to have 'em in their headcanon could do so.
Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.
and plenty of third party manafacturers allow you to do just that. People who are happy with the fluff remaining as it is and modeling for their personal preferance being otherwise, already are
The debate we are having now would be every time you brough space marines with female sergants. I just wanne play the game when I show up with models, not hash it out with everyone who has an opinion on it in the room. Bringing it to a tournament would mean spending energy on focusing on the play.
...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?
No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?
Quickjager wrote: ...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?
No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?
People just want to get their licks in on both sides of this hotly debated... debate. If you could call it that.
Quickjager wrote: ...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?
No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?
or maybe he's simply not have anything to say but thought a novel suggesting female marines in the future WAS worth breaking silence over.
Quickjager wrote: ...Is no one going to mention the fething OP made their account in June of 2017? And never posted before LITERALLY today?
No one is seeing the person stirring a pot for the gak of it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Niiai you said you were leaving this conversation? Yet you still are here bringing up the same point the mods keep warning us about?
or maybe he's simply not have anything to say but thought a novel suggesting female marines in the future WAS worth breaking silence over.
I have suspicions on the... ah... let us say integrity of people who make topics on female space marines who have no previous post history and never engage in the discussion again. Especially when they are supposedly long time members of the community so they know what a friendly topic this is.
Why make an account so long ago if you aren't going to post? There are no functions outside of subscribing to a thread that can't be used as a visitor. If you say subscribing... you can look at people's subscriptions and he has none.
Formosa wrote: Wait whut.... so your solution is to shift MORE focus to marines? Rather than away from marines with expanded sisters of silence or sisters of battle... that don't make sense gaji
“My solution” is to release new Imperial Guard kits, new plastic Sisters of Battle kits, but also when GW release some marines kit, to add some female head, and when GW writes marines stories, add some female characters.
You can literally combined this to have less space marine focus AND female space marines.
Formosa wrote: So ash would like female marines, cool, he can make them then and leave everyone else as is, it's his hobby after all, stop trying to force your views on the rest of us then, live and let live.
She.
Using “Live and let live” to explain to me why I shouldn't support the release of female space marines is… weird. I feel it's you not letting me live here.
Formosa wrote: Wait whut.... so your solution is to shift MORE focus to marines? Rather than away from marines with expanded sisters of silence or sisters of battle... that don't make sense gaji
“My solution” is to release new Imperial Guard kits, new plastic Sisters of Battle kits, but also when GW release some marines kit, to add some female head, and when GW writes marines stories, add some female characters.
You can literally combined this to have less space marine focus AND female space marines.
Formosa wrote: So ash would like female marines, cool, he can make them then and leave everyone else as is, it's his hobby after all, stop trying to force your views on the rest of us then, live and let live.
She.
Using “Live and let live” to explain to me why I shouldn't support the release of female space marines is… weird. I feel it's you not letting me live here.
So your advocating a change, a change many more than your minority don't want, you want to change the status qou, and it's me that won't live and let live
I am no longer going to be polite about this.
You want female marines, shut the hell up and do it, it's your hobby, buy the heads you want from 3rd party places like I have to do to get good dark angels robes, you want to force a change in the fluff to suit your political (because that what it really is) views, take it somewhere else, I think the 40k community has solidly shown we don't want this "SJW" movement infecting our hobby.
The worst thing is this, your argument is so shallow and boils down to "I want my snowflake marines wa wa!", you don't like that all marines are male, tough, don't play them, I don't like the direction space wolves have taken, tough, I want play them then, good thing I have plenty of alternatives from both GW and other places, if I want good sisters, guess what, good 3rd party sellers out there, I want female heads for marines, 3rd party, I don't come on here and whine week after week because my flavour of special snowflake isn't in the game.
Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.
Thing is, even when people do just that, just making their personal fluff and/or models, with no demands for GW to change things, they still get piled on and told how they're doing it wrong. I've seen it many times, even here.
Personally, I'm not a fan of c hanging the setting there, but if I have to face someone who's happier int he hobby saying "my chapter found a way with <insert here a plausible cause> for indictung females" and I'd be 100% okay with that.
Thing is, even when people do just that, just making their personal fluff and/or models, with no demands for GW to change things, they still get piled on and told how they're doing it wrong. I've seen it many times, even here.
Yeah, and that's also not right. What I said would go in line with someone that also painted his orks in, dunno, purple... as long as nothing in the minis go against "gameplay rules" it's a "my miniatures, thus I mod/paint them howere the feth I want", and that's valid for me, you and everyone else. That doesn't means fluff should accomodate purple orks, but I'm not going to bash them and all questions I could make to the player would come out of friendly curiosity.
I don't think "representation" is much of an issue in the game. Most armies don't at all represent the players. Besides, I only see men calling for female space marines. and I don't hear many men calling for male sisters of battle because they'd love to start an army of them but just can't identify with the army because they are all female.
Women do seem to be drawn to armies like sisters of battle and dark aelves. But I think that is somewhat for thematic reasons. If GW suddenly said "Yes, now they can make space marines out of little girls!" I don't think it would at all increase the army's popularity with women. It's still the same army that would still appeal to the same kind of people.
Women do seem to be drawn to armies like sisters of battle and dark aelves. But I think that is somewhat for thematic reasons.
So you don't think that women being drawn to these armies is at all related to these armies containing high proportion of female miniatures?
There's also a large number of women drawn to Tyranids from what I see surprisingly often.
Thing is, even when people do just that, just making their personal fluff and/or models, with no demands for GW to change things, they still get piled on and told how they're doing it wrong. I've seen it many times, even here.
People who are really into the lore don't enjoy seeing people just go ham on the lore. Not too surprising.
Women do seem to be drawn to armies like sisters of battle and dark aelves. But I think that is somewhat for thematic reasons.
So you don't think that women being drawn to these armies is at all related to these armies containing high proportion of female miniatures?
Well, that is part of their theme, isn't it? And in those armies it fits with the theme very well. But having some space marines be technically female isn't going to draw women to playing the army. Even if there were an entire space marine chapter that in the background was suddenly said to be made of all women, I doubt it would be any more popular with women than space marines are now. They're still space marines.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: People who are really into the lore don't enjoy seeing people just go ham on the lore. Not too surprising.
Sure. That's why I don't read Black Library books.
But people should be free to concoct whatever lore they want for their personal armies. The official lore has totally gone to hell in a handbasket since the Gathering Storm anyway, so it is just better to make your own.
Formosa wrote: So your advocating a change, a change many more than your minority don't want, you want to change the status qou, and it's me that won't live and let live
Advocating for a change isn't imposing a change. It's not insulting you, it's not attacking you, it's just me presenting my point of view.
You are still free to ignore me, and GW will likely just ignore me too.
Even if GW did release female Marines, well, you would have to complain to them, not to me, they would be the one that forced the change. Hey, GW forced canon changes that I disliked too, so it's pretty clear they are making the decisions, not me.
Honestly I think the core issue here is that you hate "my politics", much more so than anything having to do with "Live and let live". Therefore you want anything in favor of "my politics" censored, at least in the place you read.
It's like those left-handed people converting some models to be left-handed rather than right-handed. They don't identify as a space marine or whatever, they just wonder "Why do none of my models share this trait with me?"
Albino Squirrel wrote: and I don't hear many men calling for female sisters of battle because they'd love to start an army of them but just can't identify with the army because they are all female.
I assume you meant "men calling for male sisters of battle".
Well as I said above, when talking about representation, I think it's more about the setting having no or very few female characters rather than one faction having few or very few female characters. You could perfectly well obtain good representation without female marines if you had less focus on the marines. I already explained why I liked the female marines version better, but the solution without female marines works too!
ZebioLizard2 wrote: People who are really into the lore don't enjoy seeing people just go ham on the lore. Not too surprising.
Sure. That's why I don't read Black Library books.
But people should be free to concoct whatever lore they want for their personal armies. The official lore has totally gone to hell in a handbasket since the Gathering Storm anyway, so it is just better to make your own.
You don't read black library book, that explains an awful lot really (not insult), you are not as invested in the background as others.
You don't read black library book, that explains an awful lot really (not insult), you are not as invested in the background as others.
I'm invested in the lore, but BL books are mostly terrible. I've read some, but if I want to read a book, I rather read a good one. Most of their authors have restraint and subtlety of Michael Bay on crack. Most of the pre Gathering Storm terrible fluff is from BL books. And I the mess that is the current 40K fluff with ludicrous giant primarchs running around is probably due the BL feeding people's primarch fetish and the studio finally caving in and turning 40K into copy of HH.
beast_gts wrote: After reading 'Ashes of Prospero', I'm more interested in the Wolves' human thralls and Navigator Navis guard becoming playable sub-factions.
beast_gts wrote: After reading 'Ashes of Prospero', I'm more interested in the Wolves' human thralls and Navigator Navis guard becoming playable sub-factions.
I'd LOOOOVE to see "Codex Chapter serfs"
Ditto. For something that's so important to a marine chapter (as in, needed for the chapter to actually function), serfs aren't really expanded upon. Having serfs on the battlefield would also solve the in game disconnect of marines being cannon fodder on the table but gods in the fluff, as you'd have serfs to fulfil that role. Think of them as being better equipped cultists.
I always liked that about Warriors of Chaos. You have your small units of Chaos Warriors supported by large formations of marauders. It was a cool idea. In addition, to my knowledge there has not been any explicit statement that women cannot be chapter serfs, so that could be a fluffy way of incorporating women in a space marine army.
beast_gts wrote: After reading 'Ashes of Prospero', I'm more interested in the Wolves' human thralls and Navigator Navis guard becoming playable sub-factions.
I'd LOOOOVE to see "Codex Chapter serfs"
Ditto. For something that's so important to a marine chapter (as in, needed for the chapter to actually function), serfs aren't really expanded upon.
Having serfs on the battlefield would also solve the in game disconnect of marines being cannon fodder on the table but gods in the fluff, as you'd have serfs to fulfil that role.
I always liked that about Warriors of Chaos. You have your small units of Chaos Warriors supported by large formations of marauders. It was a cool idea.
In addition, to my knowledge there has not been any explicit statement that women cannot be chapter serfs, so that could be a fluffy way of incorporating women in a space marine army.
agreed. I'd envision them as being a little guardlike in most respects. maybe using boltguns and carapeice armor.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I take offence when not wanting GW to waste time re-doing space marine moulds _again_ when Sisters, when my Eldar Avatar, when half the Inquisition models, etc, are all in dire, dire, dire need of a reprint, means I'm somehow sexist.
You'd maybe have a point if GW didn't already redo these moulds for Green, Red, and Blue marines. Which don't even play differently and are just cosmetic change on Marines-marines. A change that is frankly not needed, a tiny upgrade sprue would be more than enough.
Gee, why people might want a change that actually matters when they already see GW can make all these pointless, cosmetic ones?
Also, funnily enough, how do you call 'not wanting GW to waste time' that miraculously only appears (or at best is 'just' ten times louder) when people debate potential female models? Because, sometimes a cigar is precisely that, a cigar. Just food for thought.
Or when I don't want someone changing the setting, in any way, because 'Well I think it would be nicer to the real world.' It's _Fiction_. The Imperium is allowed to be sexist, without me being sexist. Space Wizardy is allowed to only make male space marines without it suddenly meaning _anything_ about my personal views on women, least of all because I didn't even design the blooming thing.
Translation - "I got mine, frak everyone who is not aboard". It's not 70s anymore, the setting saw so many retcons one making it actually palatable to modern people losing medieval sensitivities and bigotry that were backwards even in times of Rogue Trader would be among most justified of them.
Also, I like how you project your own views and prejudices on setting. The Imperium is not sexist. A state where 1/4 of soldiers on the front line were women, where women could become cardinals or even pope, where woman could take virtually any rank or position would be called insanely egalitarian today. No one, not even Israel or Soviet Union, with their forced equalization polices, comes anywhere close to that. Perhaps you should examine your own views, only you know, objectively, if you want to push sexism where there is none to begin with?
What Imperium really is is being oppressive and backwards. And frankly, it doesn't matter one bit who does the oppressing for it to exist, man or woman, and denial of that says a lot, sorry.
If you've followed my posts even remotely in this forum, you'll know I am, and have been, passionately against 'Pointless' marine releases, like the new Primaris release, to the extent of boycotting even second hand Primaris. I also tirelessly advocate that marines are remerged into one comprehensive codex, and dislike the additional 'Red, Blue, Green and Wolfy' obession. But you know, way to assume there bro.
I don't think I said the Imperium is sexist, at all. Actually, I specifically said the Imperium is allowed to be sexist [and you can replace the word sexist with any other word] without _me_ being sexist. My enjoyment of the Imperium of man does not reflect my real world views. The Imperium can ban women from the Imperial Guard, and abolish the sisters of Battle, and it wouldn't affect my real world views on women in the slightest. No Female Space Marines, [The 'Sexism' to which I was alluding'] and my cheerful acceptance of that status quo, does not somehow imply anything about my real world views of women.
As far as I can tell your retort appears to be two personal attacks against me. Thanks.
I don't think the imperium is sexist, I think they are dogmatic to a ludicrous degree in following the instructions on the box. No man-at-arms? SoB. The Codex Astartes? Guilliman faceplam. No computers? Human organic mind-shackled spirits.
Primaris were poorly handled in model scale transitioning fluff. It is partly why I don't like them. Making female marines would be handled similarly. So I already know I wouldn't like them.
Assuming 1 in a 10000 can become a marine, the Earth itself has enough people IN REAL LIFE to support a chapter all by itself. MULTIPLE chapters at sustainable numbers. In 40k there are 32,380 KNOWN Hive Worlds with hundreds of billions of people on a Hive World. There are literally enough people in the 40k Universe on JUST the Hive Worlds to sustain millions of chapters rather than the 1000 we have now. So when people bring up the largest argument of Female Marines, "Why limit yourself on the stock?" the answer is because the .00000000000000001% of the stock they do use is NEVER GOING TO RUN OUT.
I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question. Why do we need diversity in WH40k? I accept some players have a need to identify with toy soldiers, that is fine. But the fact is that we already have female representation in the form of SoB,. If you want to argue for a release for sisters in plastic I am right there with you. But there is no need to include female marines in this game outside of SJW inclusion politics. Which most of the player base does not want. I would not even care if there were fem marines except for the fact that it would be a change based on politics and you can keep that to yourself, thank you.
If you want the marine rules but NEED them to be female then you have options in third party bits. No tournament is going to ban your army for a few head swaps and possible torso swaps. If you NEED to have fem marines because GW and its sexist fanbase need to be woke, then move along with your poison.
There is nothing wrong with having a fraternal fighting order, history is filled with them. Saying it is a problem does nothing more than show that it is you who are the sexist. And with this I am done. No need to fuel this dumpster fire.
Hi Table, are using a some buzz words there, that is fine. But if you are asking I would like to point out that for me at least I do not find the game is sexist. Mind you, I feel there are several opinions on this. I need to define what I am thinking about. What you are picturing when you say females marines might not be what I think about when I say SM can be based upon females.
For me, if they could base space marines on females in the setting the change would be relativaly minor. It would mostly just be a re-writing in the little bit part of the fluff that it is only competebal with males. There would need to be no change to the current armour. Just the ocational head swap on some of the spruces. I would expect the head swaps to mostly have short hair to accomedate the helmets (in game.) But it could be some cool heads on the models. In particular space wolf hair styles, and blood angel hair styles. Chaos heads could also be cool. And GW does the best models. I have yet to see any good 3rd party female heads that fit on a SM. Most SM have very big guns and big heads (heoric scale) and other 3rd party heads I have seen are often to small.
Also note that if you go into the spesifics of it I do not know if space marines strictly speaking stil are their old sex by the time they become marines. They can not reproduce in the traditional sence, they pick seeds out of their dead bretheren and inplant them into new potensial recruits. When we say 'male' SM it is mostly because they used to be male and they stil retain their original name. As far as I know they are not only sexually active, but they have no sexual impulses, and they are not sexually compatabel. (While a bit yukki, do you not think SM black market sperm would be atractive when nobles try to get artificial insimenated?) And while the ultra marines have the roman theme, and the minotaurs have the greek theme, no space marines have any of the gay bonding that can be assosiated with those cultures. Yeah, SM are very sexless. None of this would be any different for marines that can been crafted from females as far as I can see. So to summerice, a small change in the fluff, the ocational head on the spruces. Anyway, that was to clearify my thoughts as to how to do it. It would probably be best implemented in the jump to 9th edition, just written in there. Or Cawl could change it on an event after this summer after every one has gotten their codex.
To awnser why. I do not think it is anything more then I would prefer it. It seems more natural to me. In Norway we have a lot of female combatans. About 1/3 of the new recruits. We generally differ very little on the genders. I have a friend form Israel, she spent 3 years in the mandatory army over there, witch is 3 years more then me. I also know some career female militarans. I just think it is very odd that SM can not be based upon females.
So yeah, GW, give us some cool BA and SW heads please. :-)
Niiai wrote: Hi Table, are using a some buzz words there, that is fine. But if you are asking I would like to point out that for me at least I do not find the game is sexist.
Mind you, I feel there are several opinions on this. For me, if they could base space marines ion females in the setting the change would be relativaly minor. it would mostly just be a re-writing in the little bit part of the fluff that it is only competebal with males. There would need to be no change to the current armour. Just the ocational head swap on some of the spruces. I would expect them to mostly have short hair to accomedate the helmet. But it could be some cool heads on the models. In particular space wolf hair styles, and blood angel hair styles. Chaos heads could also be cool. And GW does the best models, I have yet to see any good 3rd party female heads that fit on a SM. Most SM have very big guns and big heads, and other 3rd party heads I have seen are often to small. Also note that if you go into the spesifics of it I do not know if space marines strictly speaking stil are their old sex by the time they become marines. They can not reproduce in the traditional sence, they pick seeds out of their dead bretheren and inplant them into new potensial recruits. When we say 'male' SM now it is mostly because they used to be male and they stil retain their name. As far as I know they are not only sexually active, but they have no sexual impulses, and they are not sexually compatabel. (While a bit yukki, do you not think SM black market sperm would be atractive when nobles try to get artificial insimenated?) And while the ultra marines have the roman theme, and the minotaurs have the greek theme no space marines have any of the gay bonding that can be assosiated with those cultures. Yeah, SM are very sexless. None of this would be any different for marines that can been crafted from females as far as I can see. So to summerice, a small change in the fluff, the ocational head. Anyway, that was to clearify my thoughts as to how.
To awnser why. I do not think it is anything more then I would prefer it. It seems more natural to me. In Norway we have a lot of female combatans. About 1/3 of the new recruits. We generally differ very little on the genders. I have a friend form Israel, she spent 3 years in the mandatory army over there, witch is 3 years more then me. I also know some career female militarans. I just think it is very odd that SM can not be based upon females.
So yeah, GW, give us some cool Ba and SW heads please. :-)
First its not a small change in the fluff, its a major one with far reaching implications that you have chosen to ignore.
Second, if you want to make female marines go ahead, there are plenty of female parts for you to use, again, if you choose not to use them, thats your hang up, this doesnt give you the right to try to impose female marines on the rest of us.
third, so some woman serve in the military, thats nice, dont see how it has any bearing on this discussion, although I did recently take a pic of a female soldier I was working with to prove a point to some other people that woman in full PPE look exactly like men, but shorter.
Lastly, so GW dont give us female BA and SW heads, give them to guard and bloody sort out the Sisters (both kinds) rather than waste resources on yet another marine army we dont need and dont want.
I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!
1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.
Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.
But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?
AegisGrimm wrote: I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!
1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.
Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.
But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?
AegisGrimm wrote: I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!
1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.
Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.
But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?
It is not sexist, or at least I do not think it is sexist? Do you think it is sexist? People who are very against marines based upon females keep bringing up the word sexist. And the people who would like to see female marines do not seem to use the word sexist that often.
I like the humour of the 40K setting. It is pulpy and funny. When it tryes to be tolitarian it can be spott on why fachismn is so bad, as in the film Star Ship Troopers by Paul Verhoeven. It is fun in every way the book is not. (Do not read the book at that author actually tryed to glorfy fashismn.) But the lack of marines based upon females just feels very odd. It is like I am stuck in a Stanislaw Lem book where I can not identefy with the aliens in his books. It is not that I do not like it, it is that I do not get it.
AegisGrimm wrote: I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!
1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.
Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.
But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?
I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.
(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)
Niiai wrote: Hi Table, are using a some buzz words there, that is fine. But if you are asking I would like to point out that for me at least I do not find the game is sexist. Mind you, I feel there are several opinions on this. I need to define what I am thinking about. What you are picturing when you say females marines might not be what I think about when I say SM can be based upon females.
For me, if they could base space marines on females in the setting the change would be relativaly minor. It would mostly just be a re-writing in the little bit part of the fluff that it is only competebal with males. There would need to be no change to the current armour. Just the ocational head swap on some of the spruces. I would expect the head swaps to mostly have short hair to accomedate the helmets (in game.) But it could be some cool heads on the models. In particular space wolf hair styles, and blood angel hair styles. Chaos heads could also be cool. And GW does the best models. I have yet to see any good 3rd party female heads that fit on a SM. Most SM have very big guns and big heads (heoric scale) and other 3rd party heads I have seen are often to small.
Also note that if you go into the spesifics of it I do not know if space marines strictly speaking stil are their old sex by the time they become marines. They can not reproduce in the traditional sence, they pick seeds out of their dead bretheren and inplant them into new potensial recruits. When we say 'male' SM it is mostly because they used to be male and they stil retain their original name. As far as I know they are not only sexually active, but they have no sexual impulses, and they are not sexually compatabel. (While a bit yukki, do you not think SM black market sperm would be atractive when nobles try to get artificial insimenated?) And while the ultra marines have the roman theme, and the minotaurs have the greek theme, no space marines have any of the gay bonding that can be assosiated with those cultures. Yeah, SM are very sexless. None of this would be any different for marines that can been crafted from females as far as I can see. So to summerice, a small change in the fluff, the ocational head on the spruces. Anyway, that was to clearify my thoughts as to how to do it. It would probably be best implemented in the jump to 9th edition, just written in there. Or Cawl could change it on an event after this summer after every one has gotten their codex.
To awnser why. I do not think it is anything more then I would prefer it. It seems more natural to me. In Norway we have a lot of female combatans. About 1/3 of the new recruits. We generally differ very little on the genders. I have a friend form Israel, she spent 3 years in the mandatory army over there, witch is 3 years more then me. I also know some career female militarans. I just think it is very odd that SM can not be based upon females.
So yeah, GW, give us some cool BA and SW heads please. :-)
Hello over there in Norway (it is where my family is from and I hope to visit it someday)! I am sorry for using buzz words, I really should try to steer clear of that. But my stance remains the same. Why does the fluff that so many people enjoy need to be changed to please a very small player base? If you had no other options and sisters were not a thing you would have a leg to stand on. But sisters are a faction. I myself cant find a logical reason why people would advocate for such a major change outside of the following reasons.
A) the need to identify with your toys. I think it is silly myself as I do not identify with my thousand sons or nightlords. But to each their own.
B) wanting the level of attention from GW that marines get.
C) wanting to woke the sexists and (sorry for the buzz word but it is the word for this) virtue signal.
D) Trolling.
And here are my answers to each.
A) You have sisters. You have sprue swaps. It does not matter if its a GW or third party sprue swap. No one is going to stop you from playing with it. The options are present, so this reason is really not valid.
B) Tough. I wish CSM and 1ksons got the same level of releases that SM's get. It isnt going to happen. GW will pay the most attention to their best selling ranges. And I promise you, if this change were to be made marines would no longer be best sellers, for right or wrong. So I guess I should be on your side? Except I do not like to squash others fun for my own.
C) Go Away. This is a fantasy hobby, We do not need or want politics.
D) Yeah....
This is not directed at you persay. I am just talking about the subject as a whole. I have read your post and understand your reasoning but I still find myself at the same spot I started. WHY do we need fem marines. Your personal likes or reasoning does not qualify as a answer since you are one very small member of a much larger community. What does the community gain from fem marines. I cant see any gain and only division. Like I have said, if options were not available then I would be more open minded. But this is not the case.
AegisGrimm wrote: I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!
1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.
Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.
But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?
I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.
(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)
Seeing how the Emprah seems more and more incompetent in the novels, now I can see him going "Okay, now I can make this new gene-soldiers from males, now let's adapt this to work on females as well... nah, feth it, enough males already".
AegisGrimm wrote: I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!
1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.
Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.
But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?
I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.
(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)
Seeing how the Emprah seems more and more incompetent in the novels, now I can see him going "Okay, now I can make this new gene-soldiers from males, now let's adapt this to work on females as well... nah, feth it, enough males already".[/quote
As I said before, with in universe examples, the merest hint at a possibility of self replicating marines would be a big no no, as we have been shown the emperors ultimate plan was to wipe out the marines, not have them replace humanity or rule them, fem marines could lead to that very unlikely possibility.
AegisGrimm wrote: I always wondered why a game's fiction has to conform to current real world beliefs. So the Imperium is sexist and only makes male Astartes. Big deal. A large portion of hive worlders live on corpse-starch. You know...soylent green. It's people!
1,000 people a day die to keep the Emperor half-alive, only because they aren't the ones getting their eyes seared out after a trip to Terra on dank dungeon-ships.
Completely innocent people are burned as witches, and that's only if they get off easy.
But the Astartes fluff is too sexist and desperately needs to be changed?
I don't think Astartes being all male makes either GW or Imperium sexist. However, if Imperium was indeed depicted as sexist*, it would be different sort of dystopia, like if they were shown to be bigoted towards real ethnic minorities would be different than being bigoted towards space aliens or rogue psykers. I'm sure women have to deal with enough sexism in real life, that many might prefer it to be absent in their fantasy fiction meant for entertainment.
(* That is, if the reasoning was the Emperor thinking that women sucked, rather than making the Astartes process working only on males just being technically more convenient.)
Why do someones feelings matter? What about the feelings of the current fanbase who clearly does not want this change? What about the alternatives you have been provided? I hate to break it you but the world as whole outside of SJW pandering does not care if your feelings are hurt nor should they. Peoples skin is paper thin these days and it is doing no one any good.
If you cant find something you like, go to another venue. If you feel the need for a existing venue to change then you are problem not the venue. Once more, there is nothing wrong with space marines being male only. Not only does it reflect on the vast majority of history it is how the story is written. Think 40 isnt woke enough? Go write your own setting.
40k, by your admission is not sexist. Problem solved.
Table can I just thank you for the civil tone. (No. No sarcasemn, the yone seems to get quite heated in this argument.)
I do not agree with you that one can not have strong opinions on culture. And game is culture just like anything else. We have arts, books and movie critique, why not games? I studied all four of them to some degree at universaty. (Read critique not nesaseraly as critesimn.)
How big do I rate this on the 'things that matter scale in the world' it rates very low. But when we are talking about the actual game I feel quite strong about it.
Now from a practical point of view, if you are thinking production pipelines, it is very easy to implement. Change some of the fluff the next time they print it. And then you need to craft the head spruces. Either make new spruces as they are want to do. But more easaly make some upgrade spruces like they have done for GSC. Some packaging for the upgrade spruces and that is it. It is a very easaly implementation.
If you compare this to sisters of battle for instance they woudl need to design all of the boxes. I do not know if the molds are compatable with plastic. You would need to do a codex, and that includes hiering authors etc. It is much more work, and a bigger financial risiko. What if sisters do not sell? Who is sisters main audience? Is it ment for women in the 'representation argument' for instance? That is a tangent with a lot of speculation.
But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle. Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word. I do not like them. And it also feels like playing 'at the kids table'. I like that SM lends themself to so much. I have a SM army, I was very close to having a GK and BA army, I have some of their models. I also really like the minotars and the cha-charadons in the badab war. SM is the icon on 40K, there is no way sisters of battle would ever grow to that status, they are not iconic enough. And I think itw ould be folly for GW to invest a lot of money into it when SM are so iconic.
I also really dislike that sisters are T3 and S3. They might have rhinoes and that 3+ save, but form a rules perspective SM they are not. Having T4 is like a very confertable blanket.
So for me, sisters no, SM yes, SM based on both genders, yes please.
Edit: Just read the above comment. I think perhaps I can try to bridge it with a methaphore. If the 40K was a joke being told, I think the joke would flow a lot better if females SM where part of the setting instead of this artificial conveluted thing it is now.
What about the feelings of the current fanbase who clearly does not want this change?
That is a baseless assertion. People here wanting the change are part of the current fanbase.
People are free to express how they'd wish the game and the setting they're invested in to be developed. Then the company will judge whether there are enough people wanting something to be changed for it to be worth doing. Hey, I didn't want the timeline to progress, and I most definitely didn't want a loyalist Primarch back, but people kept whining for such things, and here we are. And perhaps some day GW will decide, that there are enough people wanting female marines that it is worth doing. Who knows.
And if that happens, and you don't like it... well, you said it yourself:
I hate to break it you but the world as whole outside of SJW pandering does not care if your feelings are hurt nor should they. Peoples skin is paper thin these days and it is doing no one any good.
But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle. Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word.
But that's the cool part!
That, and that they're unaugmented. They don't need some artificial enhancements to kick ass!
But it is Ok to not like sisters (though weird.) It is even OK to like sisters and still want female marines.
Sisters are nice, it is a great thing that they are in the setting. Fanatic can be cool. I would like to say that chaos cultists are fanatic. And GSC are fanatics, at least on 'ascention day' where they metaphoricly butter and season themselves up. Like rats pooring ouf of the tunnels. There is a great picture of a GSC 2nd generation that is trying toi stab a howling griffin with a knife. Good luck with that. ^_^
But the sisters. I mean nuns are a bit booring. 'Killing for the emperor' or being 'married to-' or being 'virgins for the emperor'. All of that is very uncreative, there is only so much you can do with it. Bolters and flamers and meltas, it is not so cool. I also do not like the aethstics of the models. As a whole, they are not for me.
If you compare it to the 'blank slate' SM you can get the dualaty angel/vampier that blood angels have. SW rock the wolf/viking/celtic. They are also 'good guys' or looking out for the little man, even when it makes you enemies. They have so many enemies internally in the empire. If you can come up with a consept, you can make a SM army out of it. The SM chassise is super flexible. :-)
Ok, Marines definitely are not 'good guys'! They're trained psychopaths!
Though I guess I can see why one could feel they're 'good guys', so much of the fiction presents them in heroic light... I miss Rogue Trader marines...
No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.
But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.
Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.
What about the feelings of the current fanbase who clearly does not want this change?
That is a baseless assertion. People here wanting the change are part of the current fanbase.
People are free to express how they'd wish the game and the setting they're invested in to be developed. Then the company will judge whether there are enough people wanting something to be changed for it to be worth doing. Hey, I didn't want the timeline to progress, and I most definitely didn't want a loyalist Primarch back, but people kept whining for such things, and here we are. And perhaps some day GW will decide, that there are enough people wanting female marines that it is worth doing. Who knows.
And if that happens, and you don't like it... well, you said it yourself:
I hate to break it you but the world as whole outside of SJW pandering does not care if your feelings are hurt nor should they. Peoples skin is paper thin these days and it is doing no one any good.
But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle. Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word.
But that's the cool part!
That, and that they're unaugmented. They don't need some artificial enhancements to kick ass!
But it is Ok to not like sisters (though weird.) It is even OK to like sisters and still want female marines.
I identify with and as a Orc Boy. The fact we are always being killed in the setting is uncalled for! I want Orc Marines!
It is not a matter of empathy at this point. The whole subject is just as ridiculous as what I have typed above.
The world does not need to cater or pander to your culture.
And as for the amount of people in either camp, well we do not have a poll on the issue and If one was made it would be closed. But id wager the fem marines are in the minority. But I have no concrete proof of this other than casual observation so ill stand down from that statement until I have proof, if ever.
Regardless, GW is welcome to pander to the SJW's. Not my problem. But I am very sure the same exact thing will happen to them as happened to marvel comics. There are a lot of people on both sides of politics that are getting sick of this.
Still, no one has answered my question so I will present it once more.
What does the game and community have to gain from making a major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades? It is a very simple question (i am trying not to be snarky here).
I look forward to your answer.
Niiai wrote: No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.
But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.
Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.
As a SW fan I'd wager that the Salamanders are more akin to being the most similar thing to "good guys" the Empire has to offer. Late 40K era Wolves may come in second place if you like.
I don't get why this is such a big deal, really. Space Marines are non-reproducing genderless barely human hulks, to be referred to as not he (or she) but it. The gender of the human child used to make one is only relevant until the transformation process. Allowing female stock to be used wouldn't change anything. So a Dante would still be Dante, as he currently isn't male (anymore) anyway.
You would have to give them a new term to use instead of (battle-)brothers. Brothers implies gender, which again they don't have. I'd suggest "Floopaloops".
Niiai wrote: When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.
What? Did you even read the SW fluff? The werewolf thing is due to a flaw in their geneseed that turns them savage monsters. It has nothing to do with chaos.
Even when they haven't gone wolfman, they are still known to be highly aggressive to the point of insubordination. Which makes them terrible soldiers. I don't know about you, but I prefer my genetically engineered killing machines to be disciplined and not run off and do their own thing because they felt like it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Ok, Marines definitely are not 'good guys'! They're trained psychopaths!
Though I guess I can see why one could feel they're 'good guys', so much of the fiction presents them in heroic light... I miss Rogue Trader marines...
At least we still have Black Templars. Those are "proper" marines. And they are still more obedient than wolves.
Niiai wrote: It is not sexist, or at least I do not think it is sexist? Do you think it is sexist? People who are very against marines based upon females keep bringing up the word sexist. And the people who would like to see female marines do not seem to use the word sexist that often.
I like the humour of the 40K setting. It is pulpy and funny. When it tryes to be tolitarian it can be spott on why fachismn is so bad, as in the film Star Ship Troopers by Paul Verhoeven. It is fun in every way the book is not. (Do not read the book at that author actually tryed to glorfy fashismn.) But the lack of marines based upon females just feels very odd. It is like I am stuck in a Stanislaw Lem book where I can not identefy with the aliens in his books. It is not that I do not like it, it is that I do not get it.
... you object to star ship troopers on the grounds Robert Heilein by depicting the society he did glrofies facism, but you play warhammer 40k? I'm sorry but do you not see the contridiction here?
Table wrote: I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question. Why do we need diversity in WH40k?
I think you mean "I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question and convince me that my previous opinion was wrong", because many have answered it, even in this thread. You were not convinced by the answer, fine, but don't pretend they didn't answer.
Table wrote: I accept some players have a need to identify with toy soldiers, that is fine.
As I mentioned before, it's not as much having the need to identify (which would be "This toy soldier is just like me"), it's more about not feeling like one of your characteristic is excluded from the setting ("Why are they no/very few [women/blacks/left-handed/whatever]"), that I'll call "representation" for short from now on. Having a token faction that gets very very few attention falls into the "very few" part. So, to get some representation, we would have to either have less focus on marine and get female IG, more focus on Sisters, etc, etc, or we need to have female marines. I personally like the "Less focus on marine" thing because I'm not too fan of marines. However, I still think female space marines would be nice to have because it helps with marines "blank canvas" statute that I developed on earlier in the conversation.
Table wrote: Still, no one has answered my question so I will present it once more.
What does the game and community have to gain from making a major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades? It is a very simple question (i am trying not to be snarky here).
I look forward to your answer.
I'm calling you out. It's not the same question!
While the bulk of my answer for what the gain is for this particular change (because the bring loyalist primarch back, create primaris marines, destroy cadia, timeline advancement major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades, I am not going to defend it, I hate it!) is the same as what I wrote just above, I am also going to mention that I am right now trying to make the change less divisive through discussion, and that, as I mention below, I don't think it would be a major change in term of story, but rather a very minor one. Certainly way less minor than bringing Guilliman back.
Table wrote: Regardless, GW is welcome to pander to the SJW's. Not my problem. But I am very sure the same exact thing will happen to them as happened to marvel comics.
40k cinematic universe !!!!
Formosa wrote: First its not a small change in the fluff, its a major one with far reaching implications that you have chosen to ignore.
It could be written as a major one with far reaching implications. It could be written as a small one with barely any implication. It's all up to the writers.
As far as I can tell, the "major implication" you are talking about is all about reproduction. Currently Marines can already reproduce, that's how they get new Marines. It's not sexual reproduction, but it's reproduction nonetheless. If you had female marines and mention that all marines (male and female) are rendered infertile by the marinification process. Then you arrive to a position where Marines can reproduce relatively easily using the already existing means, or could spend a potentially enormous amount of effort to be able to reproduce in another, less efficient way. How would this change anything? It's an option that would never be explored because it's extremely useless for anyone. We are more likely to see a space marine create small genestomarines after having been infested by a genestealer (they do changes to your reproductive system) than female marines having babies.
Starship troopers views on fascism are widely debated. It's hardly as clear cut as you make out. I'd strongly recommend the book, it's widely acclaimed as one of the best pieces of science fiction ever written.
I think we may see the problem here though. If you don't personally agree with the views of the fictional characters in the setting, then you don't like the setting and wish it to change, yes? If you were reading a book, you'd understand the book is written as presented, and the setting can't change, and like Starship troopers, you'd put it down and not read it again.
Given Warhammer's lore is also written down in solid text on paper, why can't you respect it, and if you don't like the setting, put it down and find one you _do_ like?
shortymcnostrill wrote: I don't get why this is such a big deal, really. Space Marines are non-reproducing genderless barely human hulks, to be referred to as not he (or she) but it. The gender of the human child used to make one is only relevant until the transformation process. Allowing female stock to be used wouldn't change anything. So a Dante would still be Dante, as he currently isn't male (anymore) anyway.
You would have to give them a new term to use instead of (battle-)brothers. Brothers implies gender, which again they don't have. I'd suggest "Floopaloops".
Mostly this.
I don't think female SM are a good idea in given how hostile some parts of the fanbase are to it. However I'd like to see it in some other areas. The Aeldari lines, IG, sisters of silence, inquistion, etc.
Not sure about fascism, but it definitely glorify soldiers, and promotes some militaristic ideas.
BrianDavion wrote: ... you object to star ship troopers on the grounds Robert Heilein by depicting the society he did glrofies facism, but you play warhammer 40k? I'm sorry but do you not see the contridiction here?
Come on, he explained the difference between the two. You can disagree with the difference he did, but at least address it rather than ignore it.
Table wrote: I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question. Why do we need diversity in WH40k?
I think you mean "I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question and convince me that my previous opinion was wrong", because many have answered it, even in this thread. You were not convinced by the answer, fine, but don't pretend they didn't answer.
Table wrote: I accept some players have a need to identify with toy soldiers, that is fine.
As I mentioned before, it's not as much having the need to identify (which would be "This toy soldier is just like me"), it's more about not feeling like one of your characteristic is excluded from the setting ("Why are they no/very few [women/blacks/left-handed/whatever]"), that I'll call "representation" for short from now on. Having a token faction that gets very very few attention falls into the "very few" part. So, to get some representation, we would have to either have less focus on marine and get female IG, more focus on Sisters, etc, etc, or we need to have female marines. I personally like the "Less focus on marine" thing because I'm not too fan of marines. However, I still think female space marines would be nice to have because it helps with marines "blank canvas" statute that I developed on earlier in the conversation.
Table wrote: Still, no one has answered my question so I will present it once more.
What does the game and community have to gain from making a major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades? It is a very simple question (i am trying not to be snarky here).
I look forward to your answer.
I'm calling you out. It's not the same question!
While the bulk of my answer for what the gain is for this particular change (because the bring loyalist primarch back, create primaris marines, destroy cadia, timeline advancement major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades, I am not going to defend it, I hate it!) is the same as what I wrote just above, I am also going to mention that I am right now trying to make the change less divisive through discussion, and that, as I mention below, I don't think it would be a major change in term of story, but rather a very minor one. Certainly way less minor than bringing Guilliman back.
Table wrote: Regardless, GW is welcome to pander to the SJW's. Not my problem. But I am very sure the same exact thing will happen to them as happened to marvel comics.
40k cinematic universe !!!!
Formosa wrote: First its not a small change in the fluff, its a major one with far reaching implications that you have chosen to ignore.
It could be written as a major one with far reaching implications. It could be written as a small one with barely any implication. It's all up to the writers.
As far as I can tell, the "major implication" you are talking about is all about reproduction. Currently Marines can already reproduce, that's how they get new Marines. It's not sexual reproduction, but it's reproduction nonetheless. If you had female marines and mention that all marines (male and female) are rendered infertile by the marinification process. Then you arrive to a position where Marines can reproduce relatively easily using the already existing means, or could spend a potentially enormous amount of effort to be able to reproduce in another, less efficient way. How would this change anything? It's an option that would never be explored because it's extremely useless for anyone. We are more likely to see a space marine create small genestomarines after having been infested by a genestealer (they do changes to your reproductive system) than female marines having babies.
You have been provided in universe fluff examples of chaos doing just that, monkeying with genetics to enhance marines etc. As I said before
Very large implications that you are choosing to ignore, it's a valid reason why fem marines don't exist in fluff, you can disagree, but your wrong.
Formosa, please cut the bit you are referring to in big quotes like this .
I don't understand what you are saying. I said that there are already relatively easy ways for marines to reproduce, so adding a potential, very very hard way for them to reproduce is no big deal. How is the fact you already mentioned some easy way for marines to reproduce contradict my affirmation that there are already easier way for marines to reproduce?
I don't understand what you are saying. I said that there are already relatively easy ways for marines to reproduce, so adding a potential, very very hard way for them to reproduce is no big deal. How is the fact you already mentioned some easy way for marines to reproduce contradict my affirmation that there are already easier way for marines to reproduce?
Sorry dude, your right
My personal feeling on it is that marines cannot reproduce, but the argument that the possibility of marines reproducing is something that would have to be considered, given that chaos (and imperial) apothecaries, magos and dark mech have shown not only the willingness, but the ability to screw with astartes genetics and succeeded.
Astartes recruitment as is not easier that the possibility to have self replicating marines, a baby that has all the organs naturally grown within the body, born with its abilities, is much more efficient that finding a recruitment world, finding a child that passes a trial, taking the child and training it, implanting the organs over the space of 15 years, possible rejection and mutation and further training, and then put into the scout company.
All it would take is someone to succeed once, Cawl, Bile, Dark Mech have all shown the ability to make this kind of thing happen, especially Bile, we also know that its possible to produce marines with all the organs needed through cloning, Demonculaba and the Primarchs themselves (they have all the organs naturally grown in their bodies).
So in universe, were I the emprah, I would consider this (and we know that he and Malcador discussed female marines), and stop it from happening, I dont want my fodder finding a way to replace the species they are supposed to be protecting.
Niiai wrote:I do not agree with you that one can not have strong opinions on culture. And game is culture just like anything else. We have arts, books and movie critique, why not games? I studied all four of them to some degree at universaty. (Read critique not nesaseraly as critesimn.)
No-one's saying that games aren't culture. However, how does adding Female Marines add to that culture? We don't want all cultures to be the same - having an all male and an all female society in a fictional culture is still culture.
How big do I rate this on the 'things that matter scale in the world' it rates very low. But when we are talking about the actual game I feel quite strong about it.
As do we all. I wouldn't go on a march for this in real life, but internet talk is free and easy - hence why I can wax lyrical about it.
Now from a practical point of view, if you are thinking production pipelines, it is very easy to implement. Change some of the fluff the next time they print it. And then you need to craft the head spruces. Either make new spruces as they are want to do. But more easaly make some upgrade spruces like they have done for GSC. Some packaging for the upgrade spruces and that is it. It is a very easaly implementation.
If you compare this to sisters of battle for instance they woudl need to design all of the boxes. I do not know if the molds are compatable with plastic. You would need to do a codex, and that includes hiering authors etc. It is much more work, and a bigger financial risiko. What if sisters do not sell? Who is sisters main audience? Is it ment for women in the 'representation argument' for instance? That is a tangent with a lot of speculation.
See, I think this is the issue you're having.
You simply don't care about Sisters, the existing all female army. You admit it in the paragraph below. And that's why, from what I see, you want to reinvent the wheel, as it were.
We ALREADY have female supersoldiers in the lore. They're called the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence - and there's only one gap I see female Marines filling that the SoB/SoS can't (that being genetically modified).
As I put in a previous post (which you still haven't replied to), Sisters and Space Marines are very similar, differing in tiny ways.
You say that the problem with Sisters is that you'd need to do them in plastic. Why SHOULDN'T they be in plastic? Plastic Sisters should have been a thing years ago, supporting an actual existing army rather than having to redesign Space Marines for the umpteen time. With your Space Marine one, they need to make upgrade sprues - with Sisters, they're supporting an army that's been in the game longer than most players, and still hasn't been updated.
To have Female Space Marines, you need to change what currently exists. With Sisters, you just need to give plastic models to a faction.
Are you actually against plastic sisters, is what I'm saying? Because for saying you're trying to "support female issues", not supporting the actual female army is baffling.
Do you want to SQUAT the Sisters?
And the audience argument? That's been terrible used against Female Marines, and now it's being used to squat Sisters? Not just women play Sisters. Sister's main audience is people who want female models, church models, like the aesthetic, like the gameplay, or really, ANY of the reasons people like ANY of the other armies.
But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle.
And herein lies the root of the problem. You ignore the easiest answer to the problem because you don't like it.
Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word. I do not like them. And it also feels like playing 'at the kids table'. I like that SM lends themself to so much. I have a SM army, I was very close to having a GK and BA army, I have some of their models. I also really like the minotars and the cha-charadons in the badab war. SM is the icon on 40K, there is no way sisters of battle would ever grow to that status, they are not iconic enough. And I think itw ould be folly for GW to invest a lot of money into it when SM are so iconic.
IOW Let's squat everyone from the game because they're not Space Marines.
Nope. Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. Sisters fulfil the craving for Female Supersoldiers, and if they were updated, then there could be a vast influx of players, a new lease of life for their lore and representation, and could be JUST a diverse as Space Marines. Space Marines and Sister have JUST as much opportunity to be diverse and varied as eachother - if we gave Sisters a chance.
You're saying "Sisters aren't iconic because they're not iconic" - WHY? It's because GW hasn't given them any actual care beyond existing. Not because there's a fundamental flaw with their concept.
I also really dislike that sisters are T3 and S3. They might have rhinoes and that 3+ save, but form a rules perspective SM they are not. Having T4 is like a very confertable blanket.
So for me, sisters no, SM yes, SM based on both genders, yes please.
That's a gameplay issue. We're in the background section. If you don't like that Sisters are T3, then don't play them, and don't complain that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want female models? Play Sisters. Don't like T3? Don't play them.
Same as if someone came up to me and said "I love Orks, but I wish they had a 3+ save". Does that mean we should give Orks power armour now, or should the player just deal with it and choose which one they want? Or, even better - they can use the Sisters models, and Space Marine rules! No lore changes, no need to make Female Marines at all.
We have two monogender factions. We don't need to change Space Marines when something else fits what we want.
Edit: Just read the above comment. I think perhaps I can try to bridge it with a methaphore. If the 40K was a joke being told, I think the joke would flow a lot better if females SM where part of the setting instead of this artificial conveluted thing it is now.
I disagree. And that's all that needs to be said about it.
Niiai wrote:No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.
But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.
So you really don't know that much about SW then.
Salamanders are more protective of civilians, and Ultramarines and Lamenters are close too.
Space Wolves don't turn into Wulfen when exposed to the Warp - that's geneseed degradation.
Other factions have standoffs with the Inquisition. However, unlike the Space Wolves who have A-Grade plot armour, they don't get away with irritating one of the most powerful single bodies in the Imperium - see Celestial Lions.
Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.
Tell me, why can't that apply to Sisters?
Why aren't they as diverse as SM? Answer - they ARE just as diverse, if only GW would embrace the narrative potential of it.
I shall repeat my question for the third time, seeing as you still have yet to answer it:
What role can Sisters not fill that Space Marines can, barring popularity, which is subjective, and something which my proposal aims to solve?
To be fair The Canis Helix Does turn Space Wolves into Wulfen as a result of warp exposure, its a defence mechanism is was theorised, thats not solid fact, but the warp turning wolves into wulfen is, it was in white dwarf way back in 13th black crusade.
Formosa wrote: To be fair The Canis Helix Does turn Space Wolves into Wulfen as a result of warp exposure, its a defence mechanism is was theorised, thats not solid fact, but the warp turning wolves into wulfen is, it was in white dwarf way back in 13th black crusade.
Again, theorised, and I don't know how canon the WD article is now - especially with the existence of Skyrar's Dark Wolves.
Formosa wrote: To be fair The Canis Helix Does turn Space Wolves into Wulfen as a result of warp exposure, its a defence mechanism is was theorised, thats not solid fact, but the warp turning wolves into wulfen is, it was in white dwarf way back in 13th black crusade.
Again, theorised, and I don't know how canon the WD article is now - especially with the existence of Skyrar's Dark Wolves.
Yeah its theorised, a theory that Ragnar Blackmane thinks could be true, but we will never know
Formosa wrote: Astartes recruitment as is not easier that the possibility to have self replicating marines, a baby that has all the organs naturally grown within the body, born with its abilities, is much more efficient that finding a recruitment world, finding a child that passes a trial, taking the child and training it, implanting the organs over the space of 15 years, possible rejection and mutation and further training, and then put into the scout company.
I don't want to go all science-y in a 40k thread, but normally if you implant a bunch of organs but don't change the genetic code in the gametes, you'd get normal human babies from those gametes, not babies with the astartes organs naturally grown into them. Similarly, if you modify the genetic code of a normal human, and only that, you can make them birth weird creatures. That doesn't mean that it should have to work like this in space fantasy 40k, but that is just an argument to say it could be written like this.
Out of curiosity, what are the resource needed that stopped Chaos from spamming marines through cloning or the Demonculaba?
Formosa wrote: So in universe, were I the emprah, I would consider this (and we know that he and Malcador discussed female marines), and stop it from happening, I dont want my fodder finding a way to replace the species they are supposed to be protecting.
That make sense from a head-canon point of view, but that's not official canon though. I mean, it works great as filling a hole in the lore, but if GW decided to write female marines in, and to make it so that there are reasons for which they could never be used to produce new marines, then introducing female marines would still be a minor rather than major change in the setting
Formosa wrote: Astartes recruitment as is not easier that the possibility to have self replicating marines, a baby that has all the organs naturally grown within the body, born with its abilities, is much more efficient that finding a recruitment world, finding a child that passes a trial, taking the child and training it, implanting the organs over the space of 15 years, possible rejection and mutation and further training, and then put into the scout company.
I don't want to go all science-y in a 40k thread, but normally if you implant a bunch of organs but don't change the genetic code in the gametes, you'd get normal human babies from those gametes, not babies with the astartes organs naturally grown into them. Similarly, if you modify the genetic code of a normal human, and only that, you can make them birth weird creatures. That doesn't mean that it should have to work like this in space fantasy 40k, but that is just an argument to say it could be written like this.
Out of curiosity, what are the resource needed that stopped Chaos from spamming marines through cloning or the Demonculaba?
Formosa wrote: So in universe, were I the emprah, I would consider this (and we know that he and Malcador discussed female marines), and stop it from happening, I dont want my fodder finding a way to replace the species they are supposed to be protecting.
That make sense from a head-canon point of view, but that's not official canon though. I mean, it works great as filling a hole in the lore, but if GW decided to write female marines in, and to make it so that there are reasons for which they could never be used to produce new marines, then introducing female marines would still be a minor rather than major change in the setting
The Demonculaba was destroyed and the adepts that knew how to make it were killed, the book indicates it was a pretty new thing that used gene seed captured from hydra cordatis to implant the woman, they used warp dickery to enhance the size of the woman and more warp dickery to force a bonding of gene seed to them, the result was a mutated hulk that produced fully grown astartes, or mutants.
Thus far we dont know if they made more Demonculaba, but we do know they use clones, to what extent it unknown, it may be a time consuming process or some such, we just dont know.
We do know that The Emprah considered female marines, he and Malcador discussed it "why not make them sisters", so that part is not head-cannon, the rest of what I said is conjecture of course. It would be a major change as you would have a self replicating species... and actual species, crack on a few centuries and now you have millions of potential marines running around, it completely changes the setting and direction, this is enought reason not to introduce them, and a damn site better than the "I want them wa wa" reasons that others have used on here.
Hybrid I tried that argument. The clasic example with cutting of the rat tails of the parrents will not make a rat child without rat tails. The argument about how genetics work and post humanistic definitions was not absorbed then either.
Likewice if demonculaba already is in the setting I do not see how having SM based upon females changes anything. Particurarly when the cannon so far show reproductive organs survive the SM proces. (SM sperm has yet to be illegaly obtained on the black marked in the setting.)
Formosa wrote: It would be a major change as you would have a self replicating species...
Again, if they cannot reproduce, or cannot reproduce without very intensive manipulation to alter either the male marine, the female marine, or to allow one to impregnate the other, then we wouldn't have a self-replicating species.
You don't seem to believe it would be possible to introduce female marines while making it clear that marine cannot produce marines.
Is there any particular reason why you find implausible the fact that, for instance, not only any possible fetus is treated by the female marines immune system as a parasite and instantly killed, but even when doing in vitro fecondation, you would just have a normal human being born?
If it was so, then the difference between making a demonculaba from a female space marine instead of a female human, would be that there would a another step needed to prevent the host body from killing it's "babies" (female space marines would be bigger than normal women, but not big enough to birth FULLY GROWN space marines).
I guess the solution to have a self-replicating species would require to have demonculaba that can give birth to other demonculaba.
Formosa wrote: and a damn site better than the "I want them wa wa" reasons that others have used on here.
I have not been disrespectful of your opinions, have I? Can I expect similar courtesy?
Niiai wrote: Hybrid I tried that argument. The clasic example with cutting of the rat tails of the parrents will not make a rat child without rat tails. The argument about how genetics work and post humanistic definitions was not absorbed then either.
Likewice if demonculaba already is in the setting I do not see how having SM based upon females changes anything. Particurarly when the cannon so far show reproductive organs survive the SM proces. (SM sperm has yet to be illegaly obtained on the black marked in the setting.)
And I debunked your rebuttle with in universe examples, you were wrong pure and simple, it may not be how it works in real life, but that how it works in universe, we have had clear examples of the DNA, Organs and other dickery done to Astartes that would be HARDER to get to work than making a female marine produce astartes children, but again, just for you.
Alien Organs implanted into marines, that a totally different kind of evolutionary chain that has been made to work with marines, thats beyond science magic, we cant even get organs from similar organs to work with humans in most cases.
Cawl created a whole new type of marine by creating new organs to allow them to be enhanced, its also backwards compatible, also "impossible" prior to it happening.
Demonculaba had Gene seed implanted into human woman, warp magic enhanced the size of them, produced fully grown astartes with all the organs, from children planted inside the womb.
Fabious bile has cloned primarchs, essentially "natural" marines that have all the organs (and more) and grew naturally (but at a faster rate)
Its possible within the setting, like it or lump it, its still possible, however unlikely.
Formosa wrote: It would be a major change as you would have a self replicating species...
Again, if they cannot reproduce, or cannot reproduce without very intensive manipulation to alter either the male marine, the female marine, or to allow one to impregnate the other, then we wouldn't have a self-replicating species.
You don't seem to believe it would be possible to introduce female marines while making it clear that marine cannot produce marines.
Is there any particular reason why you find implausible the fact that, for instance, not only any possible fetus is treated by the female marines immune system as a parasite and instantly killed, but even when doing in vitro fecondation, you would just have a normal human being born?
If it was so, then the difference between making a demonculaba from a female space marine instead of a female human, would be that there would a another step needed to prevent the host body from killing it's "babies" (female space marines would be bigger than normal women, but not big enough to birth FULLY GROWN space marines).
I guess the solution to have a self-replicating species would require to have demonculaba that can give birth to other demonculaba.
Formosa wrote: and a damn site better than the "I want them wa wa" reasons that others have used on here.
I have not been disrespectful of your opinions, have I? Can I expect similar courtesy?
I have covered what you are saying in previous posts, yes it would take a lot of work to get females to produce astartes babies, but hey! who cares, there are plenty of people in 40k who WOULD try, and thats the point.
I have never stated that female marines would produce fully grown marines, that is what the Demonculaba did, the size would be proportionate to the female marine.
"reasons that others"
Clues in the quote, so "I have not been disrespectful of your opinions, have I? Can I expect similar courtesy" is just a reading error on your part.
Formosa wrote: I have covered what you are saying in previous posts, yes it would take a lot of work to get females to produce astartes babies, but hey! who cares, there are plenty of people in 40k who WOULD try, and thats the point.
You seem to think it would be easier to have male astartes reproduce with female astartes than to have male astartes reproduce with female humans. Why so?
In universe people have tried the latter too. And almost succeeded with the demonculaba. If it's even harder when you start from a female astartes than when you start from a female human, then since in the settings no one has succeeded with a human females, no one will succeed from a female space marine, no?
Formosa wrote: Clues in the quote, so "I have not been disrespectful of your opinions, have I? Can I expect similar courtesy" is just a reading error on your part.
Okay, my bad. Maybe then don't be disrespectful of their opinions either, it doesn't foster an productive environment .
Niiai wrote: Hybrid I tried that argument. The clasic example with cutting of the rat tails of the parrents will not make a rat child without rat tails. The argument about how genetics work and post humanistic definitions was not absorbed then either.
Likewice if demonculaba already is in the setting I do not see how having SM based upon females changes anything. Particurarly when the cannon so far show reproductive organs survive the SM proces. (SM sperm has yet to be illegaly obtained on the black marked in the setting.)
And I debunked your rebuttle with in universe examples, you were wrong pure and simple, it may not be how it works in real life, but that how it works in universe, we have had clear examples of the DNA, Organs and other dickery done to Astartes that would be HARDER to get to work than making a female marine produce astartes children, but again, just for you.
I do not think you debunked them. You made some arguments but they where not very valid arguments awnsering the problems you where debating.
Alien Organs implanted into marines, that a totally different kind of evolutionary chain that has been made to work with marines, thats beyond science magic, we cant even get organs from similar organs to work with humans in most cases.
I do not think they are beyond 'science magic'. Warhammer is a science fiction setting. It is a not a hard science fiction setting (hard science fiction meaning only scientific theories that are plausible.) Warhammer has magic parts as well, especially when it comes to psyckers and the warp. Argumenting humans into post humans are stil firmly in the aria of science fiction, but not hard science fiction. The explanation for how they make space marines, although fictional, is stil explained in game by science. Not by magic. You can stil apply scientific theory to the process where aplicably.
Cawl created a whole new type of marine by creating new organs to allow them to be enhanced, its also backwards compatible, also "impossible" prior to it happening.
What does this have to do with any argument about basing SM on females? Do they have another in game opetunaty to change marines? Yes. But you are stating a fact, not making ar argument because this fact does not have any relevance to the argument it is trying to support. At least not in the current context.
Demonculaba had Gene seed implanted into human woman, warp magic enhanced the size of them, produced fully grown astartes with all the organs, from children planted inside the womb.
Yes this is already established in the setting. Again, this is a statement of fact, but it lacks any relevans to what you are trying to argue against. What about this stops SM from being based upon females?
Its possible within the setting, like it or lump it, its still possible, however unlikely.
Yes, the statements you made above are possible within the setting. How are they relevant? Please provide a bridge to why this is a problem with basing SM upon females. For the most parts you are trying to poisen the well by talking about other things instead of focusing on the topic at hand. And then you claim you explain something. I do not even know what it is you are trying to explain, or how you are explaing what ever point you are trying to make.
Formosa wrote: It would be a major change as you would have a self replicating species...
Again, if they cannot reproduce, or cannot reproduce without very intensive manipulation to alter either the male marine, the female marine, or to allow one to impregnate the other, then we wouldn't have a self-replicating species.
You don't seem to believe it would be possible to introduce female marines while making it clear that marine cannot produce marines.
Is there any particular reason why you find implausible the fact that, for instance, not only any possible fetus is treated by the female marines immune system as a parasite and instantly killed, but even when doing in vitro fecondation, you would just have a normal human being born?
If it was so, then the difference between making a demonculaba from a female space marine instead of a female human, would be that there would a another step needed to prevent the host body from killing it's "babies" (female space marines would be bigger than normal women, but not big enough to birth FULLY GROWN space marines).
I guess the solution to have a self-replicating species would require to have demonculaba that can give birth to other demonculaba.
Formosa wrote: and a damn site better than the "I want them wa wa" reasons that others have used on here.
I have not been disrespectful of your opinions, have I? Can I expect similar courtesy?
I have covered what you are saying in previous posts, yes it would take a lot of work to get females to produce astartes babies, but hey! who cares, there are plenty of people in 40k who WOULD try, and thats the point.
I have never stated that female marines would produce fully grown marines, that is what the Demonculaba did, the size would be proportionate to the female marine.
"reasons that others"
Clues in the quote, so "I have not been disrespectful of your opinions, have I? Can I expect similar courtesy" is just a reading error on your part.
I can not follow your reasoning at all here, yet you seem to scold Hybrid Son of Oxayoyl for not understand the way you express yourself.
It seems to me that your argument is 'there are currently people trying to make new marines in the setting". And that somehow prevents something outside of the setting like GW to change weather females are compatable with the SM process. There is nothing about the 'there are currently people trying to make new marines in the setting" that prevents that from happening. And there is nothing about 'there are currently people trying to make new marines in the setting" that would change if females where compatable with SM.
It seems like you make a claim that has no connection to the thing being discussed, and then you expect people to be swayed for that claim. It would be like me saying A: 'Clouds distribution of water is an essential part of the water distribution cycle on earth' and B: therefore SM can not be based upon females. This is what we in Norwegian logic theory call the 'rellevance argument' the thing that conects fact A with claim B, and it seems to be missing.
Formosa wrote: Alien Organs implanted into marines, that a totally different kind of evolutionary chain that has been made to work with marines, thats beyond science magic, we cant even get organs from similar organs to work with humans in most cases.
I don't like bringing too much science into 40k because space marines can get the memories of a creature if they eat it shortly after killing it, and that is way beyond all the space magic required for implanting alien organs into humans and having those being transferred to their offspring (which is pretty similar to what happens with genestealer cults imo).
Formosa wrote: Alien Organs implanted into marines, that a totally different kind of evolutionary chain that has been made to work with marines, thats beyond science magic, we cant even get organs from similar organs to work with humans in most cases.
I don't like bringing too much science into 40k because space marines can get the memories of a creature if they eat it shortly after killing it, and that is way beyond all the space magic required for implanting alien organs into humans and having those being transferred to their offspring (which is pretty similar to what happens with genestealer cults imo).
Yep its pretty crazy all told
To Nihai
"I do not think you debunked them. You made some arguments but they where not very valid arguments awnsering the problems you where debating."
Yep you were debunked, you then claimed strawman, and are now claiming that the argument is not valid, you claim female marines are possible, yet claim marine babies are not, in spite of there being evidence that it could infact be possible, albeit rather unlikely.
"I do not think they are beyond 'science magic'. Warhammer is a science fiction setting. It is a not a hard science fiction setting (hard science fiction meaning only scientific theories that are plausible.) Warhammer has magic parts as well, especially when it comes to psyckers and the warp. Argumenting humans into post humans are stil firmly in the aria of science fiction, but not hard science fiction. The explanation for how they make space marines, although fictional, is stil explained in game by science. Not by magic. You can stil apply scientific theory to the process where aplicably."
Warhammer 40k is a Science FANTASY setting, you cannot apply any meaningful scientific theory in a universe where such things dont matter, so moving on.
"What does this have to do with any argument about basing SM on females? Do they have another in game opetunaty to change marines? Yes. But you are stating a fact, not making ar argument because this fact does not have any relevance to the argument it is trying to support. At least not in the current context."
It sets a precedence of people monkeying with how marines works, this is a fact, that is why I have phrased it as one, its relevant for that reason.
"Yes this is already established in the setting. Again, this is a statement of fact, but it lacks any relevans to what you are trying to argue against. What about this stops SM from being based upon females? "
Again I am stating this as a fact as it is a fact, and again it shows precedence.
"Yes, fabius bile has done these things. Why is this relevant to the argument of SM based upon females. You need to say why this is a problem. "
Aaaaaand yet again, sets precedence, starting to think you didnt even bother reading the context of these examples.
"Yes, the statements you made above are possible within the setting. How are they relevant? Please provide a bridge to why this is a problem with basing SM upon females. For the most parts you are trying to poisen the well by talking about other things instead of focusing on the topic at hand. And then you claim you explain something. I do not even know what it is you are trying to explain, or how you are explaing what ever point you are trying to make."
Precedence, this statement cements that you havent bothered reading what I have been discussing for several pages, I have maintained throughout that I do not have any particular issue with female marines, however the implications need to be considered properly, you decided as "the gatekeeper" that these can be ignored and from your replies here, you did, but again you are wrong, the precedence shows that many people have the knowledge and will to try to create a self replicating Astartes were they female, I have even said the results would be up for debate, but again, you ignored that to push your political beliefs.
"It seems to me that your argument is 'there are currently people trying to make new marines in the setting". And that somehow prevents something outside of the setting like GW to change weather females are compatable with the SM process. There is nothing about the 'there are currently people trying to make new marines in the setting" that prevents that from happening. And there is nothing about 'there are currently people trying to make new marines in the setting" that would change if females where compatable with SM.
It seems like you make a claim that has no connection to the thing being discussed, and then you expect people to be swayed for that claim. It would be like me saying A: 'Clouds distribution of water is an essential part of the water distribution cycle on earth' and B: therefore SM can not be based upon females. This is what we in Norwegian logic theory call the 'rellevance argument' the thing that conects fact A with claim B, and it seems to be missing"
Had you bothered to read all of my previous replies to you, then you would know that I have continued to raise the very valid in universe reason to as why the Emperor would have not wanted female marines, you keep injecting your political beliefs into this discussion, I have not tried to sway you, I have asked you to consider the large ramifications of adding female marines to the setting, but because it doesnt fit your personal narrative, you have dismissed it, I did not scold Hybrid, I just informed him he made a mistake, I just didnt sugar coat it, no safe spaces here buddy.
Table wrote: I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question. Why do we need diversity in WH40k?
I think you mean "I have yet to have a fem marine advocate answer one simple question and convince me that my previous opinion was wrong", because many have answered it, even in this thread. You were not convinced by the answer, fine, but don't pretend they didn't answer.
Table wrote: I accept some players have a need to identify with toy soldiers, that is fine.
As I mentioned before, it's not as much having the need to identify (which would be "This toy soldier is just like me"), it's more about not feeling like one of your characteristic is excluded from the setting ("Why are they no/very few [women/blacks/left-handed/whatever]"), that I'll call "representation" for short from now on. Having a token faction that gets very very few attention falls into the "very few" part. So, to get some representation, we would have to either have less focus on marine and get female IG, more focus on Sisters, etc, etc, or we need to have female marines. I personally like the "Less focus on marine" thing because I'm not too fan of marines. However, I still think female space marines would be nice to have because it helps with marines "blank canvas" statute that I developed on earlier in the conversation.
Table wrote: Still, no one has answered my question so I will present it once more.
What does the game and community have to gain from making a major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades? It is a very simple question (i am trying not to be snarky here).
I look forward to your answer.
I'm calling you out. It's not the same question!
While the bulk of my answer for what the gain is for this particular change (because the bring loyalist primarch back, create primaris marines, destroy cadia, timeline advancement major and divisive change to established lore spanning over two decades, I am not going to defend it, I hate it!) is the same as what I wrote just above, I am also going to mention that I am right now trying to make the change less divisive through discussion, and that, as I mention below, I don't think it would be a major change in term of story, but rather a very minor one. Certainly way less minor than bringing Guilliman back.
Table wrote: Regardless, GW is welcome to pander to the SJW's. Not my problem. But I am very sure the same exact thing will happen to them as happened to marvel comics.
40k cinematic universe !!!!
Formosa wrote: First its not a small change in the fluff, its a major one with far reaching implications that you have chosen to ignore.
It could be written as a major one with far reaching implications. It could be written as a small one with barely any implication. It's all up to the writers.
As far as I can tell, the "major implication" you are talking about is all about reproduction. Currently Marines can already reproduce, that's how they get new Marines. It's not sexual reproduction, but it's reproduction nonetheless. If you had female marines and mention that all marines (male and female) are rendered infertile by the marinification process. Then you arrive to a position where Marines can reproduce relatively easily using the already existing means, or could spend a potentially enormous amount of effort to be able to reproduce in another, less efficient way. How would this change anything? It's an option that would never be explored because it's extremely useless for anyone. We are more likely to see a space marine create small genestomarines after having been infested by a genestealer (they do changes to your reproductive system) than female marines having babies.
Yes others have answered but I find the answer lacking. Personal preference does not equate to helping the community as a whole. You as a player have options to make female miniatures. You should use them before asking to change someone elses toys. Ill agree in retrospect that others have answered me, I just find those answers to be lacking.
You are using double speak. There is no difference between what you have said and needing to identify. If you did not need to identify then it would not matter if your own physical features are not present. So I think your line of logic is invalid IF I am understanding you correctly. Now, also by your admittance you want the attention given to space marines for your own preferences. I have always felt that this is why many fem marine supporters want fem marines. Well, tough beans. I want that level of attention for my Thousand Sons but it wont happen until the 1ksons start selling how marines sell. Not everyones tastes should and or needs to be represented equally.
And while I appreciate a bit of humor and snark in this banter I have to point out something. Marvel Comics has pushed a "SJW" agenda in their comics. Marvel Comics as a company and subsidiary of Disney has lost huge amounts of market share since the forced inclusion of "diversity" into existing titles. They have resorted to tactics such a double shipping product just to not see even higher market loss's. The Marvel Cinematic universe is another entity and one that has not had the same level of diversity pushed into it. Since marvels forced political changes to their titles many many stores have had to close due to lack of sales. The number one complaint that these shop owners heard is why the comics are nothing like the movies. How they enter the shop looking for tony stark but can only find a black lesbian iron man. So equating marvel comics of today to the cinematic universe is not possible as many of the cinematic universes personalities no longer exist in the printed medium. This is all very verifiable and if you need any links to explain what I have typed then I will post them.
As I have said before, I have no skin in this fight on a personal level. There is not even a space marine army in my play group. But I disagree with identity politics and "SJW" values on many levels. And my dislike of this topic is related to that fact. And one of my biggest beefs is replacement politics. If you were to push for a wider sisters release and support OR a new faction I would be right there with you. But to tell others their toys need to be changed because you feel that you need to identify with them is a bad thing. Let marines be what they are. Create something new. And this loops back to my original question and why I do not accept the answers given.
Fem Marines are di·vi·sive by nature. Because there is no middle ground in the subject matter. You have them or you do not. And at least half of the player base on dakka has stated that this would be a bad change for them. Once more, push for options, do not push to replace.
Formosa wrote: I did not scold Hybrid, I just informed him he made a mistake, I just didnt sugar coat it, no safe spaces here buddy.
That's not what "safe space" means. Here, "sugar coating" is more about being civil than making a "safe space".
"Sugar coating" allows the discussion to progress with each side hearing each other out, rather than it devolving into a shouting match and the thread being closed, so I'm all for sugar-coating the discussion. I mean, it's way more pleasant when others "sugar-coat" it when they talk to me, and I'm very willing to extend the courtesy at the moment.
Formosa wrote: I did not scold Hybrid, I just informed him he made a mistake, I just didnt sugar coat it, no safe spaces here buddy.
That's not what "safe space" means. Here, "sugar coating" is more about being civil than making a "safe space".
"Sugar coating" allows the discussion to progress with each side hearing each other out, rather than it devolving into a shouting match and the thread being closed, so I'm all for sugar-coating the discussion. I mean, it's way more pleasant when others "sugar-coat" it when they talk to me, and I'm very willing to extend the courtesy at the moment.
Not refering to you in this context Hybrid, you made a mistake previously and thought I was refering to you with the "I want female marines Wa Wa" comment, I dont get that impression of you, I am refering to not sugar coating in general and stopped a few pages back as Nihai keeps ignoring my and other peoples points, and "safe space" is a dig at his "SJW" political beliefs.
If we can stop using terms like SJW as buzzwords, that might help improve the tone of this thread.
Niiai, I don't mean to sound harsh here, but you've not addressed my point several times now, but are happy to repeatedly reply to Formosa. If you concede the point, that's fair enough, but I'm afraid understanding your argument is more difficult when you don't answer my questions.
Again, and of course, in your own time, please.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If we can stop using terms like SJW as buzzwords, that might help improve the tone of this thread.
Niiai, I don't mean to sound harsh here, but you've not addressed my point several times now, but are happy to repeatedly reply to Formosa. If you concede the point, that's fair enough, but I'm afraid understanding your argument is more difficult when you don't answer my questions.
Again, and of course, in your own time, please.
Its kind of hard not to use the buzzwords. If someone can tell me a polite way to say social justice warrior, forced diversity and virtue signaling then I would gladly replace all instances of buz word usage. Sadly I am not that creative with language so I tend to ape what others have used. Just know it is not my intention to over use these words, I just lack a better vocabulary.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If we can stop using terms like SJW as buzzwords, that might help improve the tone of this thread.
Niiai, I don't mean to sound harsh here, but you've not addressed my point several times now, but are happy to repeatedly reply to Formosa. If you concede the point, that's fair enough, but I'm afraid understanding your argument is more difficult when you don't answer my questions.
Again, and of course, in your own time, please.
There are a lot of things being said. And I have a hard time understanding when someone is responding to someone else, to something I said, or if it is anything I should take an apinion on.
I am also certain you have asked many questions. Please ask your question and provide a contest. (And please do not ask about how SM have babies.)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If we can stop using terms like SJW as buzzwords, that might help improve the tone of this thread.
Niiai, I don't mean to sound harsh here, but you've not addressed my point several times now, but are happy to repeatedly reply to Formosa. If you concede the point, that's fair enough, but I'm afraid understanding your argument is more difficult when you don't answer my questions.
Again, and of course, in your own time, please.
Its kind of hard not to use the buzzwords. If someone can tell me a polite way to say social justice warrior, forced diversity and virtue signaling then I would gladly replace all instances of buz word usage. Sadly I am not that creative with language so I tend to ape what others have used. Just know it is not my intention to over use these words, I just lack a better vocabulary.
When you use words like SJW you are drawing up two boxes. The constructed box labeled SJW. From my experience very few of those people have aplied that lable to themselves. And that means some one that are not them are allowed to construct what the alegedly SJW are all about. While I think I could very well be a person others would qualefy as an SJW, my want for female based SM are based on the fact that I just find it very weard that there are no female based SM. This might be that I am from Norway and we are very progressive on things like that, so this unatural divide just fells odd.
Also, when you label someone as SJW you are labeling yourself as someone who use the SJW term. And while you are an induvisual the people who use that term are steriotypicaly presented in a way that you might not be. So you are painting both sides of the argument into pre-percieved corners.
Every time I make a reasonable post or ask someone a question about 'Why female marines?' or 'What Female marines?' or even 'Do you want female marines in the fluff, or marine plastics?' I get ignored.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Every time I make a reasonable post or ask someone a question about 1 'Why female marines?' or 2 'What Female marines?' or even 3 'Do you want female marines in the fluff, or marine plastics?' I get ignored.
I think I should start using more "Buzzwords..."
I feel like those questions get awnsered but in the following order. Although I do not want female marines, I want marines being able to be female compatable. This is a bit of a distinction, because I do not think SM are currently male. They are some post human I have a hard time qualefying. They plant seeds into other candidates to reproduse, the term male and female has lost a bit of its meaning by then. But we keep the words because it is easy, and because the retain their male names.
But question:
1. I want them.
2. Just that your arveradge marine can happen to be based on a female.
3. I want them in the fluff. I do not consider this a big change, just change on sentence and slowly introduce female marines later on. I also want them in plastic. Mind you by the time your muschelmass has doubled, you have grown a meter and you are wearing a power armour they do not look diferent except when they take of their helmets. Particularly BA, SW and chaos heads could be cool. It would alså be easy to and cheap to implement with a conversion spruce.
The only problem I have with these threads is that they are akin to having multiple threads about how the Ork fluff should be re-written (for the sake of argument let's ignore that it was actually rewritten once already) to have female Orks, because that race should have females represented. Or that so e other element of the 40k fiction should be altered substantially.
Sometimes fiction should just be enjoyed as it exists. Especially in how it differs from other fiction or conceptions.
AegisGrimm wrote: The only problem I have with these threads is that they are akin to having multiple threads about how the Ork fluff should be re-written (for the sake of argument let's ignore that it was actually rewritten once already) to have female Orks, because that race should have females represented. Or that so e other element of the 40k fiction should be altered substantially.
Sometimes fiction should just be enjoyed as it exists. Especially in how it differs from other fiction or conceptions.
Totally agree, it's one of the reasons I love 40k fiction, it's dark, gritty and has a sense of humour, if I want to see everyone getting along in a semi utopian society, I watch Star Trek, which is also why I love that, people being good to each other "just because" and not having a motive... except when dealing with non federation Xenos scum
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If we can stop using terms like SJW as buzzwords, that might help improve the tone of this thread.
Niiai, I don't mean to sound harsh here, but you've not addressed my point several times now, but are happy to repeatedly reply to Formosa. If you concede the point, that's fair enough, but I'm afraid understanding your argument is more difficult when you don't answer my questions.
Again, and of course, in your own time, please.
There are a lot of things being said. And I have a hard time understanding when someone is responding to someone else, to something I said, or if it is anything I should take an apinion on.
I am also certain you have asked many questions. Please ask your question and provide a contest. (And please do not ask about how SM have babies.)
Of course not about the babies - I don't have any stake in that argument, beyond the "if X is lore supported, why isn't Y", but that's another thing I addressed earlier.
The question is "Why specifically must females be in the form of Space Marines and not Sisters of Battle, without mentioning Space Marine popularity? "
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If we can stop using terms like SJW as buzzwords, that might help improve the tone of this thread.
Niiai, I don't mean to sound harsh here, but you've not addressed my point several times now, but are happy to repeatedly reply to Formosa. If you concede the point, that's fair enough, but I'm afraid understanding your argument is more difficult when you don't answer my questions.
Again, and of course, in your own time, please.
There are a lot of things being said. And I have a hard time understanding when someone is responding to someone else, to something I said, or if it is anything I should take an apinion on.
I am also certain you have asked many questions. Please ask your question and provide a contest. (And please do not ask about how SM have babies.)
Of course not about the babies - I don't have any stake in that argument, beyond the "if X is lore supported, why isn't Y", but that's another thing I addressed earlier.
The question is "Why specifically must females be in the form of Space Marines and not Sisters of Battle, without mentioning Space Marine popularity? "
I do not understand what sisters of battle has to do with anything, or why it gets mentioned. The only thing they have in common with SM is that they happen to have that 3- save. I agree that if you like SM it is bad that they are not more in the setting. The same could be said for Squats. And GSC, and they brought GSC back.
I have no idea why SM can not be based on females. It seems very contrived that they can not be made from females. From an aethsetics perspective I would like to see females among the space marines.
Now if you want to contrast SM with sisters of battle, and I do not like to do that, I find them very different, but if you want to contrast it SM lends themselves much more to different cultures. Actual human cuktures like Roman (Ultra) Greek (Minotaur) Angel/Vampire (BA) Norse/Celtik/Where wolves (SW) Orderly Munks (DA). You can even do animal themes like Salamanders (Salamanders) Sharks (Cha-charadons). You can theme them to ideals like covert ops (Alpha Legion) worship (word legion) pleasure (slanesh). The list can go on. I might know less about sisters, but are they not more culturarly locked? It seems dull. From a ludosistisk perspective they also play very differently.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:The question is "Why specifically must females be in the form of Space Marines and not Sisters of Battle, without mentioning Space Marine popularity? "
I do not understand what sisters of battle has to do with anything, or why it gets mentioned. The only thing they have in common with SM is that they happen to have that 3- save. I agree that if you like SM it is bad that they are not more in the setting. The same could be said for Squats. And GSC, and they brought GSC back.
I have no idea what the second half of this comment is on. However, Sisters are different to Squats and GSC in that they've never been removed from the game at all since their inception, and have been largely supported with Codexes since - however, these Codexes are inferior (in production quality, not rules) to others, and they STILL HAVE NO PLASTICS. Newly created armies (see Deathwatch and Skittari, who didn't have much, as far as I'm aware, in the way of fully formed armies) are getting plastic kits before armies that have been in the game longer than them - this isn't about liking Sisters. This is about supporting a proper army which has been abused for decades.
Sisters are mentioned because, as I wrote earlier, they are INCREDIBLY similar to the Astartes. I shall write down as much as I can remember:
Space Marines: Power Armour Bolters Elite Military and Prestige Monogender Potential for Diverse Range of Stylistic Qualities Fanatical Devotion to the Imperium (though not necessarily the Emperor) Genetically Enhanced
Sisters of Battle: Power Armour Bolters Elite Military and Prestige Monogender Potential for Diverse Range of Stylistic Qualities Fanatical Devotion to the Imperium (via worship of the Emperor) Holy Powers
As this shows, the ONLY difference discernibly is that Space Marines are genetically enhanced, giving the source of their strength, and Sisters are given strength through their piety. If there was ANY other faction which isn't an Astartes to be classed as MEQ, it would be Sisters, and as my list goes above, they are incredibly similar. Why shouldn't they be considered together?
I have no idea why SM can not be based on females. It seems very contrived that they can not be made from females. From an aethsetics perspective I would like to see females among the space marines.
The lore explains why not. Same as the lore saying that Space Marines are infertile. Someone might think that's also contrived. But the Space Magic That Be has told us that the geneseed is incompatible with females. That's the lore - the same lore which tells us that the Warp exists (which could be seen as a contrivance) and that humanity hasn't changed much in 10,000 years - again, contrivance.
You follow this up with an opinion. I ask WHY. Why Space Marines? Why not Sisters? What is it about Space Marines that Sisters wouldn't fill?
Now if you want to contrast SM with sisters of battle, and I do not like to do that, I find them very different, but if you want to contrast it SM lends themselves much more to different cultures. Actual human cuktures like Roman (Ultra) Greek (Minotaur) Angel/Vampire (BA) Norse/Celtik/Where wolves (SW) Orderly Munks (DA). You can even do animal themes like Salamanders (Salamanders) Sharks (Cha-charadons). You can theme them to ideals like covert ops (Alpha Legion) worship (word legion) pleasure (slanesh). The list can go on. I might know less about sisters, but are they not more culturarly locked? It seems dull. From a ludosistisk perspective they also play very differently.
So really, your whole motivation for having female marines, from what I can gather, is that you don't like Sisters, and that's why you're okay ignoring the female soldier role they offer?
Clearly, as my above list shows, Space Marines and Sisters are incredibly closely linked. So, onto the different cultures argument. You say that ONLY Space Marines could lend themselves to the variety of cultures we see. Why can't Sisters? Truth is, they can. There is NOTHING, nothing beyond their loyalty to the Ministorum that prevents this. Sisters are culturally locked in that they're female and religious. Oh, and might be obliged to wear the Fleur-de-Lys - but Space Marines are obliged to wear the Aquila or various skull motifs, and are culturally locked as males and zealous.
Why can't we have Roman-inspired Sisters? Greek Sisters? Angelic themed (even though Celestine is a prime example) Viking themed? Monk/Nuns (most Sisters in general, although a robed order is completely possible) Animal themed? Style of warfare? Nothing about the Sisters' lore hamstrings this. So long as they worship the Emperor, they are culturally free to do as they want.
I don't understand what you mean by ludosistisk perspective in playing, but if you're referring to gameplay - that's not important. We're in 40k BACKGROUND. Plus, I'll repeat my Ork analogy - if I love Ork lore, but I hate the fact that they have 6+ armour, am I then justified to rewrite the Ork lore to give them all power armour, despite the fact I could choose to play a power armoured army instead and compromise between the lore and gameplay?
So no, I'm afraid you haven't really answered my question. All you've shown is that you dislike Sisters, and because you're unwilling to accept the viable solution to the Female Supersoldier problem, you want to change something which many people want to see unchanged, and acting as some kind of lore gatekeeper in doing so.
Sisters of battle differ a lot form SM though do they not?
- S3T3 vs S4T4
- Sisters exclusivly use bolters or melta based ranged weapons. Space Marine has a wider repotar including lascannons, plasma, autocannons etc. (This might be from the old days when 4th edition codexes where very narrowly focused and could be changed)
- Sisters ingame are justefied by a literal interpretation that so and such should have no armies of menn, and then make an armie out of wimen. SM are mass produced warriors.
- Sisters use faith magic. SM do not.
- Sisters are recruited from a young age and are brainwashed in a convent. SM are recruited from a young age and are geneticly re-enginered,
Now you can look at the similareties that you point out and say they are similar. You can look at what I point out and you can see they are different. Just because they overlap in some parts does not mean they are the same. When people say MEQ on these forums, that usualy means general strategies against power armour and rhinoes. As opposed to 5+ saves and russes, or shuriken weapons and grav tanks. MEQ is an abriviated shorthand that strategies against power armour and rhinoes, but it does not meen they are similar. Even between marine armies, like chaos berserker lists vary a lot as opposed to guliman gunlines. I do not find sisters similar to marines.
Ludoistsisk means gameplay yes. And ludoistsisk sisters play very differently them SM. You can not call them the same. I also have zero experience with sisters from a ludoistisk perspektive, but know SM quite a lot. That means that from my perspective sisters might not as well exist for the argument that sisters already performs this function. Gw could change this probably, but no, I have no experience with sisters. The eralier comment about GSC is that it is much easier to collect GSC then sisters. Sisters just clung to their 4th edition codex, into a white wolf update in 5th edition, and then got an index in 8th edition. GSC has been out of the setting and back again and are in much better shape then sisters. My only relationship to sisters was from a computergame in 2008.
And you are right, you can probably retcon sisters of battle to be compatable with several cultures. That would involve much more work from GW, making models, rules etc, As opposed to just make a head swap spruce. It would also involve actually releasing sisters.
But I stil do not see what sisters existence or non-existence in the setting has anything to do with why we can not have female based SM. I think we are mostly will have to end up agreeing that I do not understand you and you do not understand me.
Can I ask you how big of a change it would be to have SM compatable with females on a scale of one to ten?
Just to make some points on the scale.
1. -Writing some backstory in a codex.
2. - introducing a new unit and retconning to always have been there (think all new monsters in the nud codex since 4th edition)
7. - Major change to one race in the setting. 5th edition necrons or introducing a new race into the setting.
8. - Major change in the setting, like the 100 year jump to 8th edition.
10. - A total rewamp of the setting, like they do in Age of Sigmar
So on that scale, for me, having SM being combatable with females would be a 1 or 2 on the scale. Would you rate it hiegher? Is it like a 7 in your eyes?
Your points of them being different are weak and half of them are gameplay based. You offer nothing in terms of why they SHOULD exist beyond you want them, so I reply I don't.
My arguments are weak? Let me phone my agent and get my think thank on the case. :p I do not chose my prefference, it is my prefference. As the word indicates I prefer it.
Then continuing this is beyond merit as much as me wanting Tau to be squats. No reason to continue this thread if it's opinions and that is reserved to the off topic board
Quickjager wrote: Then continuing this is beyond merit as much as me wanting Tau to be squats. No reason to continue this thread if it's opinions and that is reserved to the off topic board
If we have to have female MEQs.......
There is a RPG called eclipse phase that has something useful here. In EP there was a super soldier project that produced a series of upgrades meant to make a 'super soldier '. The good news: it indeed turned men into super soldiers! Tougher! Stronger! Faster! Meaner! The bad news: it made men uncontrollable psycho berzerkers.
Now after decades of R&D and a bazillion dollars the people behind the SS project weren't to happy to see it going up in smoke. Someone had a little brainstorm: Apply the upgrade to women! After some test cases it was proven the SS treatment made women superior fighters without turning them into khorne cultists in training.
So the project went ahead and the resultant super soldiers we're called 'Furies'.
OK suppose cawl had a few relatives he saw some potential in and put to good use. Say a particularly bright niece of his was recruited to help uncle belly out.
Now while exploring the galaxy looking for Useful Things she came across a planet that had been settled by humans who had suffered a calamity early on and lost their technology. The females were all exceptionally large, strong, smart and tough, the males became mindless beastial animals after puberty. Studying this fascinating little world little Cawlette found out a very sophisticated little symbiot lived on it. This symbiot lived inside larger organisms and had the interesting ability of analyzing their hosts and releasing biochem compounds that made the host a better survivor.
Unfortunately it made men too aggressive and violent to function as members of society. Women became more aggressive but not incapable of reason. The symbiot also released countless tiny, Hydra like organisms that worked to heal and maintain the host, giving the hosts rapid healing abilities.
Well, after studying this situation for a couple decades l'il Cawlette finally ran home yelling "Uncly Belly! Look it what I found!"
Patting his niece on her shiny gold plated head uncle belly told her to go study this for a while and come up with uses for it. After several centuries of study and a few bad love affairs l'il Cawlette seeded a few carefully selected feral worlds with the symbiots and observed the results. In each case the male populace degenerated into raving savages after puberty, the females grew larger , stronger, faster , tougher, more aggressive, more intelligent and cunning.
The potential for a new warrior type was quickly realized and developed. Recruiting the females at initial puberty allowed a series of treatments and implants to augment them eger further with. Minimal risk and effort. Their superior minds we're able to accept intense training and conditioning. Armor and weapons we're developed for them by a n AM forgeworld under L'Il Cawlette's control.. Vast numbers of them we're created, trained, equipped and out in deep. Stasis to await the imperium's hour of deepest need.
I think I would make them in several types. None would have a full marine statline but their cod be assault types who have s4, t4 and good CC stats. Another type would be shooting troops with lower S and T but damn good shots.
All could have a special ability similar to plague marines disgusting resilience or necron resurrection called 'symbiotic healing" that let's them try to recover before being removed.
Call them the Emperor's Furies and you've got yourselves a badass all female imperial elite force. Arm them with some new AM weapons like, say, rail rifles and fractal talons.
Quickjager wrote: Then continuing this is beyond merit as much as me wanting Tau to be squats. No reason to continue this thread if it's opinions and that is reserved to the off topic board
If we have to have female MEQs.......
There is a RPG called eclipse phase that has something useful here. In EP there was a super soldier project that produced a series of upgrades meant to make a 'super soldier '. The good news: it indeed turned men into super soldiers! Tougher! Stronger! Faster! Meaner! The bad news: it made men uncontrollable psycho berzerkers.
Now after decades of R&D and a bazillion dollars the people behind the SS project weren't to happy to see it going up in smoke. Someone had a little brainstorm: Apply the upgrade to women! After some test cases it was proven the SS treatment made women superior fighters without turning them into khorne cultists in training.
So the project went ahead and the resultant super soldiers we're called 'Furies'.
OK suppose cawl had a few relatives he saw some potential in and put to good use. Say a particularly bright niece of his was recruited to help uncle belly out.
Now while exploring the galaxy looking for Useful Things she came across a planet that had been settled by humans who had suffered a calamity early on and lost their technology. The females were all exceptionally large, strong, smart and tough, the males became mindless beastial animals after puberty. Studying this fascinating little world little Cawlette found out a very sophisticated little symbiot lived on it. This symbiot lived inside larger organisms and had the interesting ability of analyzing their hosts and releasing biochem compounds that made the host a better survivor.
Unfortunately it made men too aggressive and violent to function as members of society. Women became more aggressive but not incapable of reason. The symbiot also released countless tiny, Hydra like organisms that worked to heal and maintain the host, giving the hosts rapid healing abilities.
Well, after studying this situation for a couple decades l'il Cawlette finally ran home yelling "Uncly Belly! Look it what I found!"
Patting his niece on her shiny gold plated head uncle belly told her to go study this for a while and come up with uses for it. After several centuries of study and a few bad love affairs l'il Cawlette seeded a few carefully selected feral worlds with the symbiots and observed the results. In each case the male populace degenerated into raving savages after puberty, the females grew larger , stronger, faster , tougher, more aggressive, more intelligent and cunning.
The potential for a new warrior type was quickly realized and developed. Recruiting the females at initial puberty allowed a series of treatments and implants to augment them eger further with. Minimal risk and effort. Their superior minds we're able to accept intense training and conditioning. Armor and weapons we're developed for them by a n AM forgeworld under L'Il Cawlette's control.. Vast numbers of them we're created, trained, equipped and out in deep. Stasis to await the imperium's hour of deepest need.
I think I would make them in several types. None would have a full marine statline but their cod be assault types who have s4, t4 and good CC stats. Another type would be shooting troops with lower S and T but damn good shots.
All could have a special ability similar to plague marines disgusting resilience or necron resurrection called 'symbiotic healing" that let's them try to recover before being removed.
Call them the Emperor's Furies and you've got yourselves a badass all female imperial elite force. Arm them with some new AM weapons like, say, rail rifles and fractal talons.
or they could just release sisters of battle and give sisters of silence a full codex.
That wouldn't. Satisfy some. People. Also the sisters are supposed to be fairly low in numbers. I once heard that are like far less than a million in the imeprium since each once by tradition has to go to terra to take their vows. Before the emperor.
Techpriestsupport wrote: That wouldn't. Satisfy some. People. Also the sisters are supposed to be fairly low in numbers. I once heard that are like far less than a million in the imeprium since each once by tradition has to go to terra to take their vows. Before the emperor.
And how numerous as the SoS?
sisters of battle have waved between "millions and billions" depending on edition. IIRC we're back to Billions
Techpriestsupport wrote: That wouldn't. Satisfy some. People. Also the sisters are supposed to be fairly low in numbers. I once heard that are like far less than a million in the imeprium since each once by tradition has to go to terra to take their vows. Before the emperor.
And how numerous as the SoS?
The numbers reason is a pretty bad one IMO. Grey Knights are only about 1000 marines in size for the whole Imperium but you have an entire codex dedicated to them.
Techpriestsupport wrote: That wouldn't. Satisfy some. People. Also the sisters are supposed to be fairly low in numbers. I once heard that are like far less than a million in the imeprium since each once by tradition has to go to terra to take their vows. Before the emperor.
And how numerous as the SoS?
The numbers reason is a pretty bad one IMO. Grey Knights are only about 1000 marines in size for the whole Imperium but you have an entire codex dedicated to them.
See also any named Chapter of Space Marines, with the exception of the Black Templars (assuming that bit of background about the Templars hasn't been retconned).
Niiai wrote:Sisters of battle differ a lot form SM though do they not?
- S3T3 vs S4T4 Gameplay mechanic, and I also addressed this as "Space Marines being gene-forged and Sisters getting holy power". I'm aware of this, but the point was that they got their superhuman powers from difference sources, but still had that power.
- Sisters exclusivly use bolters or melta based ranged weapons. Space Marine has a wider repotar including lascannons, plasma, autocannons etc. (This might be from the old days when 4th edition codexes where very narrowly focused and could be changed) Have you considered that Sister have so little in the way of equipment because they have hardly any models? This is something that I'd want to change when I gave Sisters their updated army - which would fix this "problem".
- Sisters ingame are justefied by a literal interpretation that so and such should have no armies of menn, and then make an armie out of wimen. SM are mass produced warriors. So you're saying that there's a lore reason why men can't be Sororitas, but none as to why women can't be Space Marines?
The fluff "contrivances" as you put it, are equally contrived. However, I take umbrage at Space Marines being "mass produced warriors" when there are more Sisters than Astartes, and the reason why women can't be Astartes is because they're clearly NOT mass produced.
- Sisters use faith magic. SM do not. Again, I addressed this - Sisters use faith, Astartes use genetic engineering. The point was that they both have superhuman power, obtained in different means.
- Sisters are recruited from a young age and are brainwashed in a convent. SM are recruited from a young age and are geneticly re-enginered, Space Marines are also brainwashed. Sisters are taught to call upon the power of the Emperor.
So yeah - they're exactly the same. Let's compare:
Recruited at a young age, brainwashed/indoctrinated, and given the source of their superhuman power.
Recruited at a young age, brainwashed/indoctrinated, and given the source of their superhuman power.
Which is which? Oh yeah - they're the same.
Now you can look at the similareties that you point out and say they are similar. You can look at what I point out and you can see they are different. Just because they overlap in some parts does not mean they are the same. When people say MEQ on these forums, that usualy means general strategies against power armour and rhinoes. As opposed to 5+ saves and russes, or shuriken weapons and grav tanks. MEQ is an abriviated shorthand that strategies against power armour and rhinoes, but it does not meen they are similar. Even between marine armies, like chaos berserker lists vary a lot as opposed to guliman gunlines. I do not find sisters similar to marines.
Did you actually look at any of my points?
Still, allow me to reply to yours, in red.
As I prove, the differences are far smaller than the similarities.
As for MEQ - which non-Astartes faction in the game comes closest to being counted as an MEQ? Seriously, who else? Sisters have the same armour, similar weapons toolbox, similar statlines, except a few outliers (which, I might add, Primaris Marines ALSO have statline differences to normal Space Marines. Does that make Primaris not Space Marines?) and a similar aesthetic and vehicle pool.
So, Sisters are probably the closest to Space Marines you'll get without actual Space Marines.
Ludoistsisk means gameplay yes. And ludoistsisk sisters play very differently them SM. You can not call them the same. I also have zero experience with sisters from a ludoistisk perspektive, but know SM quite a lot. That means that from my perspective sisters might not as well exist for the argument that sisters already performs this function. Gw could change this probably, but no, I have no experience with sisters. The eralier comment about GSC is that it is much easier to collect GSC then sisters. Sisters just clung to their 4th edition codex, into a white wolf update in 5th edition, and then got an index in 8th edition. GSC has been out of the setting and back again and are in much better shape then sisters. My only relationship to sisters was from a computergame in 2008.
So your ENTIRE point hinges on this - that you know absolutely nothing about Sisters, refuse to learn or accept them in any way, despite them filling the exact role, barring the genetic modification, that you want.
Of COURSE GSC will be much easier to collect than Sisters - GW haven't given Sister plastic models or a proper codex in decades! That's like me saying "This new car is much easier to drive than this one which has been rusting for twenty years" - because the other one has been rusting away!
You're complaining that Sisters are hard to collect because they don't have anything - that's exactly the problem I'm proposing we fix!
And you are right, you can probably retcon sisters of battle to be compatable with several cultures. That would involve much more work from GW, making models, rules etc, As opposed to just make a head swap spruce. It would also involve actually releasing sisters.
It wouldn't take ANY work.
Firstly, no retconning is needed. Sisters fit other cultures just fine already. Nothing prevents it, unlike females being Space Marines.
Making models is what they should be doing ANYWAY, not even to solve this. Plastic Sisters should be on their to-do list regardless - why not kill two birds with one stone?
Rules don't factor into this at all - seeing as everyone is getting Chapter Tactics equivalents, Sisters would be getting this anyway. So no extra effort there.
You're making it sound like Sisters shouldn't be updated at all, like THAT'S the default. Whereas most people would agree that Sisters getting an update is LONG overdue.
But I stil do not see what sisters existence or non-existence in the setting has anything to do with why we can not have female based SM. I think we are mostly will have to end up agreeing that I do not understand you and you do not understand me.
Because Sisters already fill the gap you want to fill with the Female Space Marines!
If Sisters DIDN'T exist, then I'd support you, but considering that they fully exist in the lore, and fulfil exactly the same, barring the mutations, that a Space Marine does, they why shouldn't be be using existing resources?
It would be like having a hole in a wall, and a brick that fits it, and one that doesn't. What you're proposing is taking the brick that doesn't fit, and changing it so it does, instead of taking the existing brick that fits and using that instead.
It's a sheer neglect of Sisters that seems to be your issue.
Can I ask you how big of a change it would be to have SM compatable with females on a scale of one to ten?
Just to make some points on the scale.
1. -Writing some backstory in a codex.
2. - introducing a new unit and retconning to always have been there (think all new monsters in the nud codex since 4th edition)
7. - Major change to one race in the setting. 5th edition necrons or introducing a new race into the setting.
8. - Major change in the setting, like the 100 year jump to 8th edition.
10. - A total rewamp of the setting, like they do in Age of Sigmar
So on that scale, for me, having SM being combatable with females would be a 1 or 2 on the scale. Would you rate it hiegher? Is it like a 7 in your eyes?
This isn't about how easy it is.
It's about which one solves the most problems without causing more.
Giving Sisters plastic models is something that people have wanted for decades, and has long been overdue. From what I gather, very few people will be offended if Sisters are given models, and more will want it.
On the other hand, retconning Marines is firstly, a retcon, which annoys many people, secondly, creates an inconsistency with legacy armies (for example, adding Centurions into Space Marine armeis meant that any previously "complete" Battle Company or Assault or Devastator Company now would be lacking a unit that they should probably have access to for no reason. If this were female marines, and assuming that females would be recognizably so, then any bare-headed Marine would be suspiciously all male.) Thirdly, there is a push against female marines, but very few people push back against updating an existing army.
Therefore, from a lore perspective, updating Sisters is a 1. Updating Space Marines is a 7, maybe an 8, depending on how implemented.
From a meta perspective, Space Marines is lower, due to only adding an upgrade sprue. However, Sisters, whilst higher up, is more worth it, because you're updating a model line that has been clamoured for and wanted for several decades, and will undoubtedly create a surge of popularity for them.
If this was a case of redoing the entire Space Marine line vs redoing the entire Sisters line, Sisters would be preferably every time, due to the fact Space Marines have very recently had new kits.
Techpriestsupport wrote:That wouldn't. Satisfy some. People. Also the sisters are supposed to be fairly low in numbers. I once heard that are like far less than a million in the imeprium since each once by tradition has to go to terra to take their vows. Before the emperor.
And how numerous as the SoS?
There are more Sisters in one large Order than there are Space Marines in the galaxy. And yet we have entire Codexes dedicated to Chapters that are below 1000 men.
So yeah, plenty of Sisters to go around.
SoS are, however, very few - I believe there's more Grey Knights than Sisters of Silence.
So, if you have answered my question as to "Why are Space Marines better at filling the "female super soldier" role than Sisters of Battle, without mentioning popularity", it seems to be:
"Because I don't actually care about Sisters of Battle."
Which I think is a frankly close-minded point of view to have.
Niiai wrote: Yeah, we are not seing eye to eye on this.
Hey, keep in mind you were the one who said you were going to leave the conversation and then came back to start it again. Without properly addressing the previous (and now current) valid points mind you.
It is wrong to admit that when you are not wrong though. We have a point of view sared by some, and one point of view shared by others. Engaging in dialog and understanding the other part is a good way to deal with different opinions. As long as we are sharing this particular culture having a better understanding of others opinion on it will help us co-exist.
Or are you under the opinion that there is only one right awnser to this subject? That's a bit odd. "[... Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
Albino Squirrel wrote: Niiai has now accepted that we're taking about opinions? That is progress.
I stil think you can have an objective qualiy assessement as long as you agree on a basis premisse. Including an examination of apolegetics for not having SM based on females.
It is wrong to admit that when you are not wrong though. We have a point of view sared by some, and one point of view shared by others. Engaging in dialog and understanding the other part is a good way to deal with different opinions. As long as we are sharing this particular culture having a better understanding of others opinion on it will help us co-exist.
And ludoistsisk sisters play very differently them SM. You can not call them the same.
Yeah, I am not convinced by that argument as good
I find the given reson quite bad.
I do not think you debunked them. You made some arguments but they where not very valid arguments awnsering the problems you where debating.
Buttom line is there are many bad arguments for not having space marines based on females, but not any good once.
the side I am on is the default postion.
Well I will grant you the argument 'because there are currently no female space marines' is the current best argument for why there can be no female space marines, but it is not a good argument.
All I want is one good argument... so far none has been presented.
If you claim sisters of battle are just as diverse as space marines, or as well represented in the setting you are just lying.
And all of these are you "understanding" other people's opinions?
I mean, calling other people's opinions and reasons "bad" - am I allowed to say that to you?
After all, you seem to be just fine with saying that all the other reasons are "bad". Am I allowed to call your answer to my question bad? Because I must admit, I find it very unsatisfying that the only reason you don't agree with my idea is because you haven't considered Sisters of Battle at all.
I can't say you're wrong, but you seem happy to say that to others.
In fairness, some of this may be a language barrier thing, and not being able to use quite the right word to express what he's thinking.
Still, at the end of the day, all we are talking about is whether or not we'd like Space Marines to be made from females, and why we would or wouldn't like it. There isn't really a good "argument" for that. It's like demanding someone give you one good reason why they don't like to eat peas. And they won't accept "I don't like the taste" as a valid reason.
Albino Squirrel wrote: In fairness, some of this may be a language barrier thing, and not being able to use quite the right word to express what he's thinking.
Still, at the end of the day, all we are talking about is whether or not we'd like Space Marines to be made from females, and why we would or wouldn't like it. There isn't really a good "argument" for that. It's like demanding someone give you one good reason why they don't like to eat peas. And they won't accept "I don't like the taste" as a valid reason.
Exactly.
The ONLY thing that is free from opinion and conjecture is that the lore says no. Everything beyond that is opinions and reasons clashing.
If you do not like eating peas, saying 'I do not like the taste' is a very good argument. But it is hardly an argument for why nobody should eat peas. They might not share you aestetic experince of eating peas.
But here is am example where I mean you can say objectivly good or bad:
I ask for apolegetics to why we can not have SM based upon females. And one of the reasons given is 'It is based upon Paradise Lost, where and the SM are representing the angels that are male.' This argument hinges upon the fact that it is based upon paradise lost and that the angels are male. First of, weather it even is based upon paradise lost is unclear. Second, the angels in paradise lost are gender fluid and apear as male and female and even male and female at the same time. Then that argument is objectivly a bad argument, because facts the argument hinges on are in fact not true.
If the argument SM can not be based upon females because it is not currently in the setting. Then that is true for now because the setting states it. But we have much evedence of the setting changing many times, both within the setting but also outside the setting. Could this happen with regards to SM not being able to be based upon females? Yes. Well then that is not a good argument of weather SM can be based upon females at some point in the future.
Niiai wrote: If you do not like eating peas, saying 'I do not like the taste' is a very good argument. But it is hardly an argument for why nobody should eat peas. They might not share you aestetic experince of eating peas.
Same as many people might not agree with your opinions. Still just opinions.
But here is am example where I mean you can say objectivly good or bad:
I ask for apolegetics to why we can not have SM based upon females. And one of the reasons given is 'It is based upon Paradise Lost, where and the SM are representing the angels that are male.' This argument hinges upon the fact that it is based upon paradise lost and that the angels are male. First of, weather it even is based upon paradise lost is unclear. Second, the angels in paradise lost are gender fluid and apear as male and female and even male and female at the same time. Then that argument is objectivly a bad argument, because facts the argument hinges on are in fact not true.
Yes, but unless you dedicated all 9 of my points to that, it still stands that you claim many things as "objectively good or bad". Especially seeing as many were my points.
If the argument SM can not be based upon females because it is not currently in the setting. Then that is true for now because the setting states it. But we have much evedence of the setting changing many times, both within the setting but also outside the setting. Could this happen with regards to SM not being able to be based upon females? Yes. Well then that is not a good argument of weather SM can be based upon females at some point in the future.
The problem with this argument is that it makes ANY lore discussion completely irrelevant, because someone can turn around and say "well, the lore's changed before, so your point doesn't work".
Under these terms, I can claim absolutely anything, because "the lore's changed before".
Niiai wrote: If you do not like eating peas, saying 'I do not like the taste' is a very good argument. But it is hardly an argument for why nobody should eat peas. They might not share you aestetic experince of eating peas.
As a person who would not mind female marines, I still have to say this to you: what one finds central to 'theme' of Space Marines is pretty much a matter to taste. Some may find the maleness being thematically important while others do not. Granted, finding the maleness important has probably a lot to do with that this how it has been for decades and people are used to it, but even realising this does't change how the people feel, just like if you realising that you like peas because that's what your gradma used to feed you when you were a kid doesn't change you liking peas.
I ask for apolegetics to why we can not have SM based upon females. And one of the reasons given is 'It is based upon Paradise Lost, where and the SM are representing the angels that are male.' This argument hinges upon the fact that it is based upon paradise lost and that the angels are male. First of, weather it even is based upon paradise lost is unclear. Second, the angels in paradise lost are gender fluid and apear as male and female and even male and female at the same time. Then that argument is objectivly a bad argument, because facts the argument hinges on are in fact not true.
That person probably just feels Space Marines should be male because they're used to it being so, and then tries to rationalise that really, really badly.
Right. So you want the setting to change to have female marines. No matter what reasons you have for wanting that, your reasons aren't going to make everyone else want the setting to change to have female marines. Because other people have reason why they wouldn't like it.
Try to convince someone who doesn't like peas that they should like peas just because you like peas. It's kind of a waste of time. Especially if you mostly just tell them that their reasons for not liking peas aren't very good arguments. It's not really an argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think we can all agree that there are no female marines in the current setting. I think we can also all agree that the setting could hypothetically be changed to be different in any way one could imagine. Obviously the difference of opinion is whether or not we'd like them to make that change.
Yes, but there could be reasons for not having female basedvspace marines that could prevent that from happening in the future. For instance if the Paradise Lost argument was more valid, that could be more of a reason. I think (and I have no evidence to prove this) that the reason is because of social norms in the time when that particular part of the setting was written.
I will agree that it hurts the symetry between having 1 imperium male faction and 1 imperial female faction. (Although the female faction features males in roles.) But Sisters of Battle have enough distinct personalaty removing the symetry would not harm their identety in any meaningfull way. There are more to sisters then just an monopoly on the Y cromosome and a suit of power armour.
There could be a reason that is good that I had not thought of, and I thank you all for helping me trying to find it.
I feel that the biggest take away from all of this is how big such a change would be. Although only Sgt_Smudge awnsered my ten point scale question I am shocked that he think female SM is a seven, while I think of it only a one or two. It clearly tells me how much Sgt_Smudge opposes this idea, and why I do not see a problem with it. I think the more interesting question that follows would be why I value it as a one or two, and he values it at a seven. You others have not chimed in, but I feel it would be great to hear.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The problem with this argument is that it makes ANY lore discussion completely irrelevant, because someone can turn around and say "well, the lore's changed before, so your point doesn't work".
Under these terms, I can claim absolutely anything, because "the lore's changed before".
This is not true of all arguments though. For instance Slanesh has had little suport, and he/she has disapeared quite a bit in the fantasy setting. There are good reasons for not removing Slanesh in 40K. You have huge plot holes in the back story. No eye or terror, the eldars have no fall, you would need to re-write all eldar back story, and the backstory of 40K entierly. The emperor children will be void etc. etc.
Like vice removing chaos entierly is not something you can do without ruiening the entier setting. Compare that to removing say the Tau? The Tau can for the most part be removed relativaly easy. You would need to patch up some things, like every battle the Tau took part in, hive fleet gorgons backstory etc. etc. But it could be done, as opposed to say remove slanesh.
Incoperating SM being based upon female is relativaly easy. Why do you think it is such a big change in the setting as opposed to a small change? (Yes we all know Formosa is gonne post a wall of text with Damonculaba in it.)
@Sgt_Smudge what 9 points are you talking about BTW: Are they these?
Niiai wrote:I do not agree with you that one can not have strong opinions on culture. And game is culture just like anything else. We have arts, books and movie critique, why not games? I studied all four of them to some degree at universaty. (Read critique not nesaseraly as critesimn.)
No-one's saying that games aren't culture. However, how does adding Female Marines add to that culture? We don't want all cultures to be the same - having an all male and an all female society in a fictional culture is still culture.
How big do I rate this on the 'things that matter scale in the world' it rates very low. But when we are talking about the actual game I feel quite strong about it.
As do we all. I wouldn't go on a march for this in real life, but internet talk is free and easy - hence why I can wax lyrical about it.
Now from a practical point of view, if you are thinking production pipelines, it is very easy to implement. Change some of the fluff the next time they print it. And then you need to craft the head spruces. Either make new spruces as they are want to do. But more easaly make some upgrade spruces like they have done for GSC. Some packaging for the upgrade spruces and that is it. It is a very easaly implementation.
If you compare this to sisters of battle for instance they woudl need to design all of the boxes. I do not know if the molds are compatable with plastic. You would need to do a codex, and that includes hiering authors etc. It is much more work, and a bigger financial risiko. What if sisters do not sell? Who is sisters main audience? Is it ment for women in the 'representation argument' for instance? That is a tangent with a lot of speculation.
See, I think this is the issue you're having.
You simply don't care about Sisters, the existing all female army. You admit it in the paragraph below. And that's why, from what I see, you want to reinvent the wheel, as it were.
We ALREADY have female supersoldiers in the lore. They're called the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence - and there's only one gap I see female Marines filling that the SoB/SoS can't (that being genetically modified).
As I put in a previous post (which you still haven't replied to), Sisters and Space Marines are very similar, differing in tiny ways.
You say that the problem with Sisters is that you'd need to do them in plastic. Why SHOULDN'T they be in plastic? Plastic Sisters should have been a thing years ago, supporting an actual existing army rather than having to redesign Space Marines for the umpteen time. With your Space Marine one, they need to make upgrade sprues - with Sisters, they're supporting an army that's been in the game longer than most players, and still hasn't been updated.
To have Female Space Marines, you need to change what currently exists. With Sisters, you just need to give plastic models to a faction.
Are you actually against plastic sisters, is what I'm saying? Because for saying you're trying to "support female issues", not supporting the actual female army is baffling.
Do you want to SQUAT the Sisters?
And the audience argument? That's been terrible used against Female Marines, and now it's being used to squat Sisters? Not just women play Sisters. Sister's main audience is people who want female models, church models, like the aesthetic, like the gameplay, or really, ANY of the reasons people like ANY of the other armies.
But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle.
And herein lies the root of the problem. You ignore the easiest answer to the problem because you don't like it.
Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word. I do not like them. And it also feels like playing 'at the kids table'. I like that SM lends themself to so much. I have a SM army, I was very close to having a GK and BA army, I have some of their models. I also really like the minotars and the cha-charadons in the badab war. SM is the icon on 40K, there is no way sisters of battle would ever grow to that status, they are not iconic enough. And I think itw ould be folly for GW to invest a lot of money into it when SM are so iconic.
IOW Let's squat everyone from the game because they're not Space Marines.
Nope. Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. Sisters fulfil the craving for Female Supersoldiers, and if they were updated, then there could be a vast influx of players, a new lease of life for their lore and representation, and could be JUST a diverse as Space Marines. Space Marines and Sister have JUST as much opportunity to be diverse and varied as eachother - if we gave Sisters a chance.
You're saying "Sisters aren't iconic because they're not iconic" - WHY? It's because GW hasn't given them any actual care beyond existing. Not because there's a fundamental flaw with their concept.
I also really dislike that sisters are T3 and S3. They might have rhinoes and that 3+ save, but form a rules perspective SM they are not. Having T4 is like a very confertable blanket.
So for me, sisters no, SM yes, SM based on both genders, yes please.
That's a gameplay issue. We're in the background section. If you don't like that Sisters are T3, then don't play them, and don't complain that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want female models? Play Sisters. Don't like T3? Don't play them.
Same as if someone came up to me and said "I love Orks, but I wish they had a 3+ save". Does that mean we should give Orks power armour now, or should the player just deal with it and choose which one they want? Or, even better - they can use the Sisters models, and Space Marine rules! No lore changes, no need to make Female Marines at all.
We have two monogender factions. We don't need to change Space Marines when something else fits what we want.
Edit: Just read the above comment. I think perhaps I can try to bridge it with a methaphore. If the 40K was a joke being told, I think the joke would flow a lot better if females SM where part of the setting instead of this artificial conveluted thing it is now.
I disagree. And that's all that needs to be said about it.
Niiai wrote:No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.
But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.
So you really don't know that much about SW then.
Salamanders are more protective of civilians, and Ultramarines and Lamenters are close too.
Space Wolves don't turn into Wulfen when exposed to the Warp - that's geneseed degradation.
Other factions have standoffs with the Inquisition. However, unlike the Space Wolves who have A-Grade plot armour, they don't get away with irritating one of the most powerful single bodies in the Imperium - see Celestial Lions.
Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.
Tell me, why can't that apply to Sisters?
Why aren't they as diverse as SM? Answer - they ARE just as diverse, if only GW would embrace the narrative potential of it.
I shall repeat my question for the third time, seeing as you still have yet to answer it:
What role can Sisters not fill that Space Marines can, barring popularity, which is subjective, and something which my proposal aims to solve?
See, you're going into a circle again, we've already pointed out the ramifications of what hamfisting female space marines does to the fluff, as unlike your example of Tau, it means we have to rewrite the entirety of 30k-40k if you try to include it from the beginning. Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix. It also leads to a slippery slope of potentially allowing marines to reproduce, which you vehemently reject, but have no basis to if women become marines as well.
You already acknowledge the Daemonculaba, which is canon, yet handwave off it....because? You don't like it? Because that's what we're arguing with you right now, you have no more justification than we do and frankly its more trouble than its worth than just supporting sisters of battle. Just head-canon your own fem-marines for your army and call it a day.
Grimskul wrote: Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!
Yes the argument are going in circle because people started bringing up points we have already discussed and left undecided. And then they bring up the old arguments as though they where setteled, and then I feel compelled to comment on them.
I do not understand why people keep brining on Daemonculaba as an argument. They already exists in the setting. I stil do not see any link between Daemonculaba and any problems with female based SM. People have not provided a link as to why that is relevant.
Niiai wrote: Yes, but there could be reasons for not having female basedvspace marines that could prevent that from happening in the future. For instance if the Paradise Lost argument was more valid, that could be more of a reason. I think (and I have no evidence to prove this) that the reason is because of social norms in the time when that particular part of the setting was written.
I will agree that it hurts the symetry between having 1 imperium male faction and 1 imperial female faction. (Although the female faction features males in roles.) But Sisters of Battle have enough distinct personalaty removing the symetry would not harm their identety in any meaningfull way. There are more to sisters then just an monopoly on the Y cromosome and a suit of power armour.
There could be a reason that is good that I had not thought of, and I thank you all for helping me trying to find it.
I feel that the biggest take away from all of this is how big such a change would be. Although only Sgt_Smudge awnsered my ten point scale question I am shocked that he think female SM is a seven, while I think of it only a one or two. It clearly tells me how much Sgt_Smudge opposes this idea, and why I do not see a problem with it. I think the more interesting question that follows would be why I value it as a one or two, and he values it at a seven. You others have not chimed in, but I feel it would be great to hear.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The problem with this argument is that it makes ANY lore discussion completely irrelevant, because someone can turn around and say "well, the lore's changed before, so your point doesn't work".
Under these terms, I can claim absolutely anything, because "the lore's changed before".
This is not true of all arguments though. For instance Slanesh has had little suport, and he/she has disapeared quite a bit in the fantasy setting. There are good reasons for not removing Slanesh in 40K. You have huge plot holes in the back story. No eye or terror, the eldars have no fall, you would need to re-write all eldar back story, and the backstory of 40K entierly. The emperor children will be void etc. etc.
Like vice removing chaos entierly is not something you can do without ruiening the entier setting. Compare that to removing say the Tau? The Tau can for the most part be removed relativaly easy. You would need to patch up some things, like every battle the Tau took part in, hive fleet gorgons backstory etc. etc. But it could be done, as opposed to say remove slanesh.
Incoperating SM being based upon female is relativaly easy. Why do you think it is such a big change in the setting as opposed to a small change? (Yes we all know Formosa is gonne post a wall of text with Damonculaba in it.)
@Sgt_Smudge what 9 points are you talking about BTW: Are they these?
Niiai wrote:I do not agree with you that one can not have strong opinions on culture. And game is culture just like anything else. We have arts, books and movie critique, why not games? I studied all four of them to some degree at universaty. (Read critique not nesaseraly as critesimn.)
No-one's saying that games aren't culture. However, how does adding Female Marines add to that culture? We don't want all cultures to be the same - having an all male and an all female society in a fictional culture is still culture.
How big do I rate this on the 'things that matter scale in the world' it rates very low. But when we are talking about the actual game I feel quite strong about it.
As do we all. I wouldn't go on a march for this in real life, but internet talk is free and easy - hence why I can wax lyrical about it.
Now from a practical point of view, if you are thinking production pipelines, it is very easy to implement. Change some of the fluff the next time they print it. And then you need to craft the head spruces. Either make new spruces as they are want to do. But more easaly make some upgrade spruces like they have done for GSC. Some packaging for the upgrade spruces and that is it. It is a very easaly implementation.
If you compare this to sisters of battle for instance they woudl need to design all of the boxes. I do not know if the molds are compatable with plastic. You would need to do a codex, and that includes hiering authors etc. It is much more work, and a bigger financial risiko. What if sisters do not sell? Who is sisters main audience? Is it ment for women in the 'representation argument' for instance? That is a tangent with a lot of speculation.
See, I think this is the issue you're having.
You simply don't care about Sisters, the existing all female army. You admit it in the paragraph below. And that's why, from what I see, you want to reinvent the wheel, as it were.
We ALREADY have female supersoldiers in the lore. They're called the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence - and there's only one gap I see female Marines filling that the SoB/SoS can't (that being genetically modified).
As I put in a previous post (which you still haven't replied to), Sisters and Space Marines are very similar, differing in tiny ways.
You say that the problem with Sisters is that you'd need to do them in plastic. Why SHOULDN'T they be in plastic? Plastic Sisters should have been a thing years ago, supporting an actual existing army rather than having to redesign Space Marines for the umpteen time. With your Space Marine one, they need to make upgrade sprues - with Sisters, they're supporting an army that's been in the game longer than most players, and still hasn't been updated.
To have Female Space Marines, you need to change what currently exists. With Sisters, you just need to give plastic models to a faction.
Are you actually against plastic sisters, is what I'm saying? Because for saying you're trying to "support female issues", not supporting the actual female army is baffling.
Do you want to SQUAT the Sisters?
And the audience argument? That's been terrible used against Female Marines, and now it's being used to squat Sisters? Not just women play Sisters. Sister's main audience is people who want female models, church models, like the aesthetic, like the gameplay, or really, ANY of the reasons people like ANY of the other armies.
But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle.
And herein lies the root of the problem. You ignore the easiest answer to the problem because you don't like it.
Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word. I do not like them. And it also feels like playing 'at the kids table'. I like that SM lends themself to so much. I have a SM army, I was very close to having a GK and BA army, I have some of their models. I also really like the minotars and the cha-charadons in the badab war. SM is the icon on 40K, there is no way sisters of battle would ever grow to that status, they are not iconic enough. And I think itw ould be folly for GW to invest a lot of money into it when SM are so iconic.
IOW Let's squat everyone from the game because they're not Space Marines.
Nope. Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. Sisters fulfil the craving for Female Supersoldiers, and if they were updated, then there could be a vast influx of players, a new lease of life for their lore and representation, and could be JUST a diverse as Space Marines. Space Marines and Sister have JUST as much opportunity to be diverse and varied as eachother - if we gave Sisters a chance.
You're saying "Sisters aren't iconic because they're not iconic" - WHY? It's because GW hasn't given them any actual care beyond existing. Not because there's a fundamental flaw with their concept.
I also really dislike that sisters are T3 and S3. They might have rhinoes and that 3+ save, but form a rules perspective SM they are not. Having T4 is like a very confertable blanket.
So for me, sisters no, SM yes, SM based on both genders, yes please.
That's a gameplay issue. We're in the background section. If you don't like that Sisters are T3, then don't play them, and don't complain that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want female models? Play Sisters. Don't like T3? Don't play them.
Same as if someone came up to me and said "I love Orks, but I wish they had a 3+ save". Does that mean we should give Orks power armour now, or should the player just deal with it and choose which one they want? Or, even better - they can use the Sisters models, and Space Marine rules! No lore changes, no need to make Female Marines at all.
We have two monogender factions. We don't need to change Space Marines when something else fits what we want.
Edit: Just read the above comment. I think perhaps I can try to bridge it with a methaphore. If the 40K was a joke being told, I think the joke would flow a lot better if females SM where part of the setting instead of this artificial conveluted thing it is now.
I disagree. And that's all that needs to be said about it.
Niiai wrote:No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.
But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.
So you really don't know that much about SW then.
Salamanders are more protective of civilians, and Ultramarines and Lamenters are close too.
Space Wolves don't turn into Wulfen when exposed to the Warp - that's geneseed degradation.
Other factions have standoffs with the Inquisition. However, unlike the Space Wolves who have A-Grade plot armour, they don't get away with irritating one of the most powerful single bodies in the Imperium - see Celestial Lions.
Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.
Tell me, why can't that apply to Sisters?
Why aren't they as diverse as SM? Answer - they ARE just as diverse, if only GW would embrace the narrative potential of it.
I shall repeat my question for the third time, seeing as you still have yet to answer it:
What role can Sisters not fill that Space Marines can, barring popularity, which is subjective, and something which my proposal aims to solve?
I dont need to lol, I have already proven you wrong on the subject, you just refuse to concede its a very valid in universe reason, you see it boils down to this.
My argument has:
A: precedence
B: In universe examples
C: Consistency
D: Conjecture
E: Opinion
Yours has:
A: opinion
B: Conjecture
You wonder why I and others are so dismissive of your stance?
Grimskul wrote: Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!
Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.
Niiai wrote: Yes the argument are going in circle because people started bringing up points we have already discussed and left undecided. And then they bring up the old arguments as though they where setteled, and then I feel compelled to comment on them.
I do not understand why people keep brining on Daemonculaba as an argument. They already exists in the setting. I stil do not see any link between Daemonculaba and any problems with female based SM. People have not provided a link as to why that is relevant.
#
You know exactly why it keeps getting brought up, I refuse to believe you are being that wilfully ignorant, its been spelled out for you several times Niiai.
All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
Grimskul wrote: Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!
Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.
Because the Tyranids can evolve things to do things so a new monster is not oddball, and there was a big page thread discussing Cawl before.
Formosa, can you please just walk through the Daemoculaba argument one more time, because every time you make that argument you start out by saying something, and then end the argument on a point that is not relewant to the discussion. Poisenings of the well keeps making the discusion quite tiersome.
Grimskul wrote: Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!
I never said I was a fan of Primaris marines was I? And to be fair, Primaris marines were only possible because Cawl had access to the Sangprimus Mortum, which has the original geneseed of all the Primarchs. There's precedent as well from Corax's own first Raptor Marines which were basically proto-Primaris all but in name, which he also made through direct access to unblemished Primarch gene-code.
As to why the Emperor didn't make his marines like Cawl or Corax did? It's hinted he saw the heresy coming and given that he never intended Astartes to replace or rule humanity (clear from their exemption from the first High Lords of Terra) and making Primaris marines would have just made things even worse than it already was.
Grimskul wrote: Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!
Niiai wrote: Formosa, can you please just walk through the Daemoculaba argument one more time, because every time you make that argument you start out by saying something, and then end the argument on a point that is not relewant to the discussion. Poisenings of the well keeps making the discusion quite tiersome.
Sigh, one more time.
Demonculaba are female humans who have had their size enhanced to grotesque proportions through warp dickery, they have gene seed implanted and more warp dickery applied to make it work, a child is then implanted within the womb of this poor woman, over the space of several days the child is turned into a fully grown space marine with all the organs, (un)naturally grown within its body, when it is "born" it is either a mutant, or a skinless space marine, skin from harvested humans is then stretched and bonded to the marine.
This is just one example of "natural" born space marines and shows precedent that forces within the 40k universe are willing to experiment to produce fully grown marines.
And no I dont
"start out by saying something, and then end the argument on a point that is not relewant to the discussion"
I answer questions an points in line with the person I am answering.
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
If the universe GW made is not an alegory/metaphore, then the alegory/metaphore argument does not make sence then does it? If SM just happen to be male only because that was the consensus of the time the setting was made, there is nothing that prevents GW from changing the setting. This would be a problem if the alegory/metaphore argument was in place. Do you see the differnce between those two senarioes?
Grimskul wrote: Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!
Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.
Because the Tyranids can evolve things to do things so a new monster is not oddball, and there was a big page thread discussing Cawl before.
But the way you frame the tyranids you make it sound like they evolved the mawlock in the setting. Almost all of the aditions in the tyranid codex from 5th edition and outwards are not explained 'in setting'. Instead they are retconned in from outside the setting. How would female compatable SM be any different from this? (Mind you some models did get involved inside the setting, like the deathleaper and possible the mawlock. But the trygon / trygon prime, mawlock, one of the two flyers, the drop spore, the hive guards (both hive guard guns) are all just retconned into the codex with no objections from anyone.)
Grimskul wrote: Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.
Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!
Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.
Because the Tyranids can evolve things to do things so a new monster is not oddball, and there was a big page thread discussing Cawl before.
There is also the fact of the matter there is a not insignificant part of the lore fans who do in fact hate Cawl for...
1. A.I.
2. Deus Ex Everything
3. Convenient memory loss
4. Apparent Heretek obsession
5. Apparent top of the field knowledge in EVERYTHING
6. Apparent development of new weapons, armor and vehicles for 10k years that were never released.
But hey guess what @Niiai?
This was already discussed, go start a different thread if you want to know more.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?
Demonculaba are female humans who have had their size enhanced to grotesque proportions through warp dickery, they have gene seed implanted and more warp dickery applied to make it work, a child is then implanted within the womb of this poor woman, over the space of several days the child is turned into a fully grown space marine with all the organs, (un)naturally grown within its body, when it is "born" it is either a mutant, or a skinless space marine, skin from harvested humans is then stretched and bonded to the marine.
Yes, thats a way to make marines in the setting. Again you are making a statement, but you are not saying how this is relewant. How is that relevant to having female based SM? Currently the SM do not have any reproductive organs.
Are you implying that chaos would use SM based upon females to make demonculabas out of them? If that is the implecation then you could just have stated this the first time you brought up the argument. If that is not the argument you are making then please spell it out, I can not understand your reasoning.
How can SM be used as demonculaba if the reproductive organs do not survive the process of becoming a SM? If that is your worry, just have GW clearify that this can not happen. (It would probably be defaultly clearified by omission.)
This is also very simular to the "fabius bile would do something bad with SM based females". Just have GW state that he has not managed to do so yet, in much the same way he has not managed to have male SM be done something bad with. (Probebly by omission once again.) If fabius bile can do something in the setting female based SM does not change thins either way.
I thought I had replied to theese arguments before. Or is there some implicid argument I am making that I am not seeing here? Or are you just stating that there aredamonculaba in the setting? If so we agree. But then what does that statement have to do with the discussion?
And on a different note, if demonculaba are so common in the setting, why does chaos have problems making new marines?
Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?
No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?
Demonculaba are female humans who have had their size enhanced to grotesque proportions through warp dickery, they have gene seed implanted and more warp dickery applied to make it work, a child is then implanted within the womb of this poor woman, over the space of several days the child is turned into a fully grown space marine with all the organs, (un)naturally grown within its body, when it is "born" it is either a mutant, or a skinless space marine, skin from harvested humans is then stretched and bonded to the marine.
Yes, that a way to make marines in the setting. How is that relevant to having female based SM? Currently the SM do not have any reproductive organs.
Are you implying that chaos would use SM based upon females to make demonculabas out of them? If that is the implecation then you could just have stated this the first time you brought up the argument. If that is not the argument you are making then please spell it out, I can not understand your reasoning.
How can SM be used as demonculaba if the reproductive organs do not survive the process of becoming a SM? If that is your worry, just have GW clearify that this can not happen. (It would probably be defaultly clearified by omission.)
This is also very simular to the "fabius bile would do something bad with SM based females". Just have GW state that he has not managed to do so yet, in much the same way he has not managed to have male SM be done something bad with. (Probebly by omission once again.) If fabius bile can do something in the setting female based SM does not change thins either way.
I thought I had replied to theese arguments before. Or is there some implicid argument I am making that I am not seeing here? Or are you just stating that there aredamonculaba in the setting? If so we agree. But then what does that statement have to do with the discussion?
And on a different note, if demonculaba are so common in the setting, why does chaos have problems making new marines?
Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?
No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?
I am not going over it again Niiai, you are literally demonstrating right now that you didnt even bother to read any of my previous posts properly or even at all, as far as I am concerned now you lack any credibility and are to be utterly dismissed in this discussion as you are ignoring others to fit your agenda.
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
Niiai wrote: This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.
This is what it seems like you are doing
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Niiai wrote: This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.
This is what it seems like you are doing
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.
Niiai wrote: This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.
This is what it seems like you are doing
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Gonna have to agree with Formosa here, he has spent practically pages trying to keep up with your questions and you don't have the courtesy to take the time to look through them. His posts are still there, you just have to go to his post history if you want a more condensed version. I get we all have bias in this discussion (who doesn't? considering its background) but Formosa has made his points as clear as I think he can make it. As the mods have stated, until GW proper comes in and says marines can be female, they can't be.
Niiai wrote: This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.
This is what it seems like you are doing
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.
Except he's not the one asking for you to reiterate your point ad nauseam. Everyone see's your 'points' and many of us have argued against your 'points' of view. Which you then either ignore the crux of the argument to focus on a small aspect of it, or you ignore it and demand more and more evidence or explanations
Niiai wrote: This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.
This is what it seems like you are doing
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.
Also, this "NO U" reply kinda proves formosa's point.
Niiai wrote: This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.
This is what it seems like you are doing
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.
Thank you for confirming that you are indeed trolling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now we have that confirmed, I personally think this thread should be locked or moved to off topic.
I am not confirming that I am trolling. I think you are trolling,
You keep making these arguments that lacks relevance as to why the argument has any inpact on what is being asked. And then I ask if you can clearify it. And then you do not clearify it. And then you accuse me of trolling, and I point out that I am actually awnsering questions that are asked at me, but I stil do not see how you arguments are relewant. And you say 'No, I refuse to say this.' And then people chime in and call me a troll. I have no idea how this is happening, it is rather frustrating.
Most of all I stil do not see the democulaba argument because you just stated that democulaba where in the setting, and not how that has any effect on the female SM argument. I am frustrated and confused.
Niiai wrote: This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.
I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.
This is what it seems like you are doing
Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.
Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.
Thank you for confirming that you are indeed trolling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now we have that confirmed, I personally think this thread should be locked or moved to off topic.
The thread should have been locked when a account with literally no history said, "DISCUSS FEMALE MARINES." It should just be a blanket ban in this part of the forum, if you want to discuss it go to the 40k GENERAL section because female marines are not part of the lore period.
Niiai wrote: I am not confirming that I am trolling. I think you are trolling,
You keep making these arguments that lacks relevance as to why the argument has any inpact on what is being asked. And then I ask if you can clearify it. And then you do not clearify it. And then you accuse me of trolling, and I point out that I am actually awnsering questions that are asked at me, but I stil do not see how you arguments are relewant. And you say 'No, I refuse to say this.' And then people chime in and call me a troll. I have no idea how this is happening, it is rather frustrating.
Most of all I stil do not see the democulaba argument because you just stated that democulaba where in the setting, and not how that has any effect on the female SM argument. I am frustrated and confused.
Please stop, my previous posts are there for you to read in your own time, they are relevent and in context to your questions and others seem to have had no issue with understanding them and there relevance, if you want an answer to a question I have already answered previously, I can only assume that you are sea lioning and thus, a troll.
Just as you are when you make an argument you imply has an inpact on the discussion but you do not actually provide why that is. And then you refuse to point it out instead saying 'I alreadyd did this' when you in fact did not do this.
Formosa wrote: Not refering to you in this context Hybrid, you made a mistake previously and thought I was refering to you with the "I want female marines Wa Wa" comment, I dont get that impression of you, I am refering to not sugar coating in general and stopped a few pages back as Nihai keeps ignoring my and other peoples points, and "safe space" is a dig at his "SJW" political beliefs.
Thanks, it's nice to know you were not referring to me. However I should point out that my political believes in general have often been dubbed SJW, and that they generally align with celebrities that have been called SJW very often. So it kind of feels like a dig at mine too .
Table wrote: Its kind of hard not to use the buzzwords. If someone can tell me a polite way to say social justice warrior, forced diversity and virtue signaling then I would gladly replace all instances of buz word usage. Sadly I am not that creative with language so I tend to ape what others have used. Just know it is not my intention to over use these words, I just lack a better vocabulary.
I advise dropping the concept of SJW entirely, at least when talking on a public forum where you want to keep the conversation cordial. It's bound to make things tense with people who have been called SJW or align with personalities that have been very often qualified as such, as it's a pretty pejorative term. Discuss the issues, not the people.
For forced diversity, I'm not exactly sure what the concept entails. How is forced diversity different from non-forced diversity? Is it a question of one being due to pressure from external sources?
For virtue signaling, it is often about attributing intent on people, which often sour discussion. The expression itself it okay, but to be used very parsimoniously. For instance, it's okay to use it for someone whose behavior very directly and strongly contradict their actual engagement for a cause which they claim to support. It's not very much okay to use it for someone who merely claim that their cause is virtuous.
My two cents.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Every time I make a reasonable post or ask someone a question about 'Why female marines?' or 'What Female marines?' or even 'Do you want female marines in the fluff, or marine plastics?' I get ignored.
I am sorry you felt ignored. I feel like I have given my opinion on all those subjects though. I checked your previous posts for other subjects on which I could have ignored you.
About the disconnect between the opinions of the fictional characters in the settings, and one's personal opinions, which was touched when we spoke of Starship Troopers, I think that there is a big difference between a fictional setting that include characters with some political opinions, and a setting that presents some political opinions as correct. While the protagonists of the story are often depicted as being justified in their political opinions (and even work as stand-in for the authors opinion), that's not always the case, and in 40k, I feel it depends a lot on the author and it is quite often hard to tell. Which is a bit similar with Judge Dredd, funnily.
So yeah, if the political opinions defended by the story are directly opposed to someone, that person will have a very hard time enjoying this piece of media. However, I don't personally feel like 40k is actually defending any political opinion. It seems more like an exercise of style, in making everything as grimdark and baroque as possible .
Crimson wrote: As a person who would not mind female marines, I still have to say this to you: what one finds central to 'theme' of Space Marines is pretty much a matter to taste. Some may find the maleness being thematically important while others do not. Granted, finding the maleness important has probably a lot to do with that this how it has been for decades and people are used to it, but even realising this does't change how the people feel
While just realizing it by itself may not be enough to change how people feel, I tend to believe to this + repeated exposition to the idea of female space marines can. It goes from being this weird alien concept to something familiar…
Niiai wrote:Yes, but there could be reasons for not having female basedvspace marines that could prevent that from happening in the future. For instance if the Paradise Lost argument was more valid, that could be more of a reason. I think (and I have no evidence to prove this) that the reason is because of social norms in the time when that particular part of the setting was written.
That doesn't explain all the other reasons, mine included, that you dismiss as "bad".
I will agree that it hurts the symetry between having 1 imperium male faction and 1 imperial female faction. (Although the female faction features males in roles.) But Sisters of Battle have enough distinct personalaty removing the symetry would not harm their identety in any meaningfull way. There are more to sisters then just an monopoly on the Y cromosome and a suit of power armour.
Sorry, you said yourself that the Sisters of Battle only exist because of their gender - how does removing this not affect them in any way?
If you're removing the monogender Space Marines, then I'd have to ask "why then are we promoting sexist segregation in a faction?" Space Marines are all male. Sisters are all female. They balance eachother out. If you don't have the other, then they become sexist, due to an imbalance of opportunity.
If it hurts the balance, then it doesn't need to be touched.
I feel that the biggest take away from all of this is how big such a change would be. Although only Sgt_Smudge awnsered my ten point scale question I am shocked that he think female SM is a seven, while I think of it only a one or two. It clearly tells me how much Sgt_Smudge opposes this idea, and why I do not see a problem with it. I think the more interesting question that follows would be why I value it as a one or two, and he values it at a seven. You others have not chimed in, but I feel it would be great to hear.
Again - opinions. Neither is "bad" as you put it. It's just opinions. When opinion is removed, only the empirical lore remains as a basis, which states it's impossible.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The problem with this argument is that it makes ANY lore discussion completely irrelevant, because someone can turn around and say "well, the lore's changed before, so your point doesn't work".
Under these terms, I can claim absolutely anything, because "the lore's changed before".
This is not true of all arguments though. For instance Slanesh has had little suport, and he/she has disapeared quite a bit in the fantasy setting. There are good reasons for not removing Slanesh in 40K. You have huge plot holes in the back story. No eye or terror, the eldars have no fall, you would need to re-write all eldar back story, and the backstory of 40K entierly. The emperor children will be void etc. etc.
You miss my point. If I can say "well, the lore changes", then absolutely anything in the lore can be nullified.
No Slaanesh? The Eye of Terror was always there. The Eldar fell due to natural means. Yeah, I have to rewrite 40k, but I can do what I want, because the lore CAN be changed, right?!
That's why it's stupid. Because if you start pretending like lore points in a background forum don't matter, then nothing to do with the lore matters.
Like vice removing chaos entierly is not something you can do without ruiening the entier setting. Compare that to removing say the Tau? The Tau can for the most part be removed relativaly easy. You would need to patch up some things, like every battle the Tau took part in, hive fleet gorgons backstory etc. etc. But it could be done, as opposed to say remove slanesh.
As I demonstrated, removing Slaanesh can be done. It doesn't leave 40k anything like it was, but it can still be done, right?
Incoperating SM being based upon female is relativaly easy. Why do you think it is such a big change in the setting as opposed to a small change? (Yes we all know Formosa is gonne post a wall of text with Damonculaba in it.)
Yeah, adding female marines might be easy. Making Space Marines fertile would also be easy.
But why SHOULD I change the lore? That's the question that you STILL haven't answered. Because why SHOULD I change anything to do with the background when the background perfectly supports the Sisters as the natural occupier of the "female super solider" role?
It's not about "could". It's about "should".
@Sgt_Smudge what 9 points are you talking about BTW: Are they these?
No -I'm referring to the nine points where you show disdain and superiority over other opinions despite saying that we need to understand all opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiai wrote:Just as you are when you make an argument you imply has an inpact on the discussion but you do not actually provide why that is. And then you refuse to point it out instead saying 'I alreadyd did this' when you in fact did not do this.
Begging your pardon, but no - Formosa HAS done this.
But the way you frame the tyranids you make it sound like they evolved the mawlock in the setting. Almost all of the aditions in the tyranid codex from 5th edition and outwards are not explained 'in setting'. Instead they are retconned in from outside the setting. How would female compatable SM be any different from this? (Mind you some models did get involved inside the setting, like the deathleaper and possible the mawlock. But the trygon / trygon prime, mawlock, one of the two flyers, the drop spore, the hive guards (both hive guard guns) are all just retconned into the codex with no objections from anyone.)
I honestly am baffled by this. Are you seriously saying that you cannot understand why a hive mind well known for evolving new strains to deal with problems would get new things at will, but changing entire setting based fluff is just as similar? It's not even CLOSE. They are given fluff explanations but generally it's easy to because they are able to mutate new things at will.
Niiai wrote:Yes, but there could be reasons for not having female basedvspace marines that could prevent that from happening in the future. For instance if the Paradise Lost argument was more valid, that could be more of a reason. I think (and I have no evidence to prove this) that the reason is because of social norms in the time when that particular part of the setting was written.
That doesn't explain all the other reasons, mine included, that you dismiss as "bad".
I will agree that it hurts the symetry between having 1 imperium male faction and 1 imperial female faction. (Although the female faction features males in roles.) But Sisters of Battle have enough distinct personalaty removing the symetry would not harm their identety in any meaningfull way. There are more to sisters then just an monopoly on the Y cromosome and a suit of power armour.
Sorry, you said yourself that the Sisters of Battle only exist because of their gender - how does removing this not affect them in any way?
If you're removing the monogender Space Marines, then I'd have to ask "why then are we promoting sexist segregation in a faction?" Space Marines are all male. Sisters are all female. They balance eachother out. If you don't have the other, then they become sexist, due to an imbalance of opportunity.
If it hurts the balance, then it doesn't need to be touched.
I feel that the biggest take away from all of this is how big such a change would be. Although only Sgt_Smudge awnsered my ten point scale question I am shocked that he think female SM is a seven, while I think of it only a one or two. It clearly tells me how much Sgt_Smudge opposes this idea, and why I do not see a problem with it. I think the more interesting question that follows would be why I value it as a one or two, and he values it at a seven. You others have not chimed in, but I feel it would be great to hear.
Again - opinions. Neither is "bad" as you put it. It's just opinions. When opinion is removed, only the empirical lore remains as a basis, which states it's impossible.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The problem with this argument is that it makes ANY lore discussion completely irrelevant, because someone can turn around and say "well, the lore's changed before, so your point doesn't work".
Under these terms, I can claim absolutely anything, because "the lore's changed before".
This is not true of all arguments though. For instance Slanesh has had little suport, and he/she has disapeared quite a bit in the fantasy setting. There are good reasons for not removing Slanesh in 40K. You have huge plot holes in the back story. No eye or terror, the eldars have no fall, you would need to re-write all eldar back story, and the backstory of 40K entierly. The emperor children will be void etc. etc.
You miss my point. If I can say "well, the lore changes", then absolutely anything in the lore can be nullified.
No Slaanesh? The Eye of Terror was always there. The Eldar fell due to natural means. Yeah, I have to rewrite 40k, but I can do what I want, because the lore CAN be changed, right?!
That's why it's stupid. Because if you start pretending like lore points in a background forum don't matter, then nothing to do with the lore matters.
Like vice removing chaos entierly is not something you can do without ruiening the entier setting. Compare that to removing say the Tau? The Tau can for the most part be removed relativaly easy. You would need to patch up some things, like every battle the Tau took part in, hive fleet gorgons backstory etc. etc. But it could be done, as opposed to say remove slanesh.
As I demonstrated, removing Slaanesh can be done. It doesn't leave 40k anything like it was, but it can still be done, right?
Incoperating SM being based upon female is relativaly easy. Why do you think it is such a big change in the setting as opposed to a small change? (Yes we all know Formosa is gonne post a wall of text with Damonculaba in it.)
Yeah, adding female marines might be easy. Making Space Marines fertile would also be easy.
But why SHOULD I change the lore? That's the question that you STILL haven't answered. Because why SHOULD I change anything to do with the background when the background perfectly supports the Sisters as the natural occupier of the "female super solider" role?
It's not about "could". It's about "should".
@Sgt_Smudge what 9 points are you talking about BTW: Are they these?
No -I'm referring to the nine points where you show disdain and superiority over other opinions despite saying that we need to understand all opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiai wrote:Just as you are when you make an argument you imply has an inpact on the discussion but you do not actually provide why that is. And then you refuse to point it out instead saying 'I alreadyd did this' when you in fact did not do this.
Begging your pardon, but no - Formosa HAS done this.
- Yes, I still claim them as bad. Nothing is hurt by having SM based marines, there have currently been sugested any excuse as to why they can not be changed to be aplicable.
- Sisters of battle are more then their Y cromosome and power armour. They have a rich cultural background, they have unique rules and they have an unique aesthetic visual profile. The earlier statement about sisters of battle growing forth from a teqnicalaty about 'no armyr of menn' could be retconned from the background. However you would not to do that if you made SM be based upon females, as sisters are not touched by this, (And sisters are not all female as they include a lot of male priests etc.) I do not think we are promoting sexists segration in anything. We are promoting segregation, I do not find it sexists. I did not think you did either, witch is why it is odd you use the word. I do not think SM and sisters needs to stand in opposition to each other. They both have more then enough cultural background to exist without the contrast. (I stil do not like sisters though, but that is my subjective opinion about them.)
- I do not understand why you use the word bad here. Also you avoiud to go into why having SM female based being a 7 on the scale. It would just be a small change.
- Some piece of lore can not be removed or changed as others. Removing Slanesh could not be justefied that the eye of terror was there. You would need to explain the warp stomes that plagued the imperium. The eldars fall. Darfk Eldars would not function, craftworld eldar would not functiion, exodites would not function, ynari would not function. Emperors children does not function. It is quite a bit redcon, as opposed to female based space marines that could just be inserted no problem.
- Yes you can remove slanesh, you are right. But it is a massive difference in scale. I imagine removing the emperor would be an example of a bigger change, and removing any of the other 3 chaos gods would be less problematic, as they are not as integrated in the setting. (See eldar fall.) But removing Tau would be far easier in comparison. And implementing retconned SM based on females will be super easy.
- I have awnsered why quite some times. Because I want to. You do not like the awnser, but others in this interest have statet their interest in this as well. Although they are not as vocal as me.
Why would you make Sm fetile though? It seems quite smart to me to not do it. It gets less complicated and you do not end up wth space marines in the democabra situation, but by all means champion that notion if you will. This would also open up things like SM sperm on the black market. Does this also mean SM have potensial for sex now? Can you have gay SM who bond like soldiers did in ancient greece? While I would not oppose it personally, I do not want to tie 40K with a lot of sexualaty. It has been avoided for far in the setting, a setting mostly focusing on a sarcastic version of a war torn future.
- I do not know about any spesific nine points where I have shown distain and superiorety. Without the spesifics I can not coment on it, but I thank you that you find my argumentation superior, but a pitty it comes out with distain.
- Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.
But the way you frame the tyranids you make it sound like they evolved the mawlock in the setting. Almost all of the aditions in the tyranid codex from 5th edition and outwards are not explained 'in setting'. Instead they are retconned in from outside the setting. How would female compatable SM be any different from this? (Mind you some models did get involved inside the setting, like the deathleaper and possible the mawlock. But the trygon / trygon prime, mawlock, one of the two flyers, the drop spore, the hive guards (both hive guard guns) are all just retconned into the codex with no objections from anyone.)
I honestly am baffled by this. Are you seriously saying that you cannot understand why a hive mind well known for evolving new strains to deal with problems would get new things at will, but changing entire setting based fluff is just as similar? It's not even CLOSE. They are given fluff explanations but generally it's easy to because they are able to mutate new things at will.
I have no problem with tyranids adapting in the setting. This is an explanation that is 'in the setting' as opposed to something that is retconned 'outside of the setting'. Either option is fine with me. But you should notice that some of the units are introduce 'in the setting' as a follow of a special problem. But many of the units I mentioned where retconned 'outside of the settinng'. One edition they where not there, the next edition they suddenly apeared. And when you dig into the setting they do not form as gradual evolution, they just apear in the first description of tyranids.
So see if you follow me here. People have no problem with retconning the tyranid background.
If you where to retconn in SM based upon females you would essentually change very little. Why do people have such a problem with this, as opposed to retconning tyranids.
As I have said a couple of times now I think the problem can be in how big we observe the change. In my eyes having SM compattable with the Y cromosome is a very small change, in the same category as retconning in new tyranid units.
Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?
No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ] Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male, These Feminine. For Spirits when they please Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ] Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb, Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones, Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure, Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ] And works of love or enmity fulfill.
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ]
Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names
Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male,
These Feminine. For Spirits when they please
Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ]
Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb,
Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose
Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure,
Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ]
And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost. And as someone pointed out they are both sexes. Cherry picking selecting passages does not prove the first, or debunk the second. I am also not engaging in this argument again. It is debunked.
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ] Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male, These Feminine. For Spirits when they please Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ] Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb, Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones, Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure, Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ] And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost.
You mean like this?
“Imagine a science fiction Paradise Lost,” says Abnett. “It’s a HUGE scale, epic story of the fight to control a massive empire. It’s set in a gothic universe that’s brilliantly realised. And despite the fact that there’s a large amount of thunking action going on, it’s pretty clever stuff with great characters and ideas. You don’t have to be a fan or player of Warhammer 40,000 to get into it.”
Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.
Oh really, Formosa said Automatically did he?
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
so I'm working off the hyperthetical possibilty of self replicating astartes
space marines cannot have children for several reasons, anatomy being one of them, hyperthetically if you make a male marine fertile you have the issue that a female would likely not be able to carry the much larger (theoretically) fetus to term, it would likely kill her, now reverse this and apply the same theory to a female marine, make her fertile (something that Fabious would likely be able to do) and replicate this across the legions, suddenly you have a massive threat on your hands, its just not worth it.
if marines could reproduce naturally
Imagine if marines could "reproduce" in such a manner, a woman finds some lucky (or unlucky) bloke for Snu Snu and suddenly you have a self replicating species of Astartes (if its possible to reproduce with a normal human that is)
Hmmmm "If" "hyperthetically" "possibility" are all thrown around in there.
Lets see what else Formosa said.
making all marines male to make sure that at no point no one works out how to make them able to give birth make perfect sense for a disposable force, and thats what the marines are, imagine if fabious worked out how to allow female marines to have children during a female heresy, its a whole new can of worms, so like it or lump it, this is a valid in universe reason not to have female marines, if I were the Emperor, I would not even want the hint of a risk of that happening.
They are not a race that can reproduce, but they are also all male, so to be frank, if you can have you nonsense, so can I, like I said before, you want female marines, then this is a valid reason why the Emperor would not want it, you don't like it, tough, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Thats all I am willing to help you with right now, click my previous posts and stop being lazy.
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ]
Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names
Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male,
These Feminine. For Spirits when they please
Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ]
Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb,
Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose
Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure,
Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ]
And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost.
You mean like this?
“Imagine a science fiction Paradise Lost,” says Abnett. “It’s a HUGE scale, epic story of the fight to control a massive empire. It’s set in a gothic universe that’s brilliantly realised. And despite the fact that there’s a large amount of thunking action going on, it’s pretty clever stuff with great characters and ideas. You don’t have to be a fan or player of Warhammer 40,000 to get into it.”
And even then, all it takes is a bit of inference to draw the connections.
Similar to, is not the same as inspiered by. And your argument was that the SM are the angels, and the angels are male. Nothing your argument touches upon. In fact, if anything, is an argument that SM should be compatable with both genders because the angels in paradise lost are both angels. You need to find relevant arguments for you claim instead of just a argument that does not suport your clain.
Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.
Oh really, Formosa said Automatically did he?
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
so I'm working off the hyperthetical possibilty of self replicating astartes
space marines cannot have children for several reasons, anatomy being one of them, hyperthetically if you make a male marine fertile you have the issue that a female would likely not be able to carry the much larger (theoretically) fetus to term, it would likely kill her, now reverse this and apply the same theory to a female marine, make her fertile (something that Fabious would likely be able to do) and replicate this across the legions, suddenly you have a massive threat on your hands, its just not worth it.
if marines could reproduce naturally
Imagine if marines could "reproduce" in such a manner, a woman finds some lucky (or unlucky) bloke for Snu Snu and suddenly you have a self replicating species of Astartes (if its possible to reproduce with a normal human that is)
Hmmmm "If" "hyperthetically" "possibility" are all thrown around in there.
You are not providing any context for those quotes or who are saying them, si it is hard to comment on them. I stil do not know what your argument about the daemon-what-it's-name is. And I stil do not understand how that argument naturaly leads to a lot of SM being birthed. And you are continuing to poison the well just as you did 5 posts back. I am from here on out ignoring youm you are from everything I can se, a troll, at least in this part of the argument.
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ]
Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names
Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male,
These Feminine. For Spirits when they please
Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ]
Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb,
Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose
Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure,
Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ]
And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost.
You mean like this?
“Imagine a science fiction Paradise Lost,” says Abnett. “It’s a HUGE scale, epic story of the fight to control a massive empire. It’s set in a gothic universe that’s brilliantly realised. And despite the fact that there’s a large amount of thunking action going on, it’s pretty clever stuff with great characters and ideas. You don’t have to be a fan or player of Warhammer 40,000 to get into it.”
And even then, all it takes is a bit of inference to draw the connections.
Similar to, is not the same as inspiered by. And your argument was that the SM are the angels, and the angels are male. Nothing your argument touches upon. In fact, if anything, is an argument that SM should be compatable with both genders because the angels in paradise lost are both angels. You need to find relevant arguments for you claim instead of just a argument that does not suport your clain.
Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.
Oh really, Formosa said Automatically did he?
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
so I'm working off the hyperthetical possibilty of self replicating astartes
space marines cannot have children for several reasons, anatomy being one of them, hyperthetically if you make a male marine fertile you have the issue that a female would likely not be able to carry the much larger (theoretically) fetus to term, it would likely kill her, now reverse this and apply the same theory to a female marine, make her fertile (something that Fabious would likely be able to do) and replicate this across the legions, suddenly you have a massive threat on your hands, its just not worth it.
if marines could reproduce naturally
Imagine if marines could "reproduce" in such a manner, a woman finds some lucky (or unlucky) bloke for Snu Snu and suddenly you have a self replicating species of Astartes (if its possible to reproduce with a normal human that is)
Hmmmm "If" "hyperthetically" "possibility" are all thrown around in there.
You are not providing any context for those quotes or who are saying them, si it is hard to comment on them. I stil do not know what your argument about the daemon-what-it's-name is. And I stil do not understand how that argument naturaly leads to a lot of SM being birthed. And you are continuing to poison the well just as you did 5 posts back. I am from here on out ignoring youm you are from everything I can se, a troll, at least in this part of the argument.
I hadnt finished posting, but as I said in the last post, stop being lazy and read the previous posts.
Dark wrote: So far, it seems we have this huge international pizza franchise, ad the most popular and best selling pizza is the ham and bellpeppers one.
Seems that some want that pizza changed so it also has pinneaple slices on it. I came bit late for the peas analogy.
Aparantly if you put pineapple on it you have to completly restructure your franchise. Even though you can stil have a slice with just ham and bellpepper.
Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?
No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?
Didn't even see your reply, wow.
I have no problem with tyranids adapting in the setting. This is an explanation that is 'in the setting' as opposed to something that is retconned 'outside of the setting'. Either option is fine with me. But you should notice that some of the units are introduce 'in the setting' as a follow of a special problem. But many of the units I mentioned where retconned 'outside of the settinng'. One edition they where not there, the next edition they suddenly apeared. And when you dig into the setting they do not form as gradual evolution, they just apear in the first description of tyranids.
So see if you follow me here. People have no problem with retconning the tyranid background.
If you where to retconn in SM based upon females you would essentually change very little. Why do people have such a problem with this, as opposed to retconning tyranids.
As I have said a couple of times now I think the problem can be in how big we observe the change. In my eyes having SM compattable with the Y cromosome is a very small change, in the same category as retconning in new tyranid units.
Question: Do you actually know what retcon means? Because the Tyranid changes would be considered an addition to the lore, because it shows changes that they've used in the past to evolve things to deal with.
Here's another example: The Space Marine Centurions were an addition to the lore as well, a bit meh by most people but them having a new suit for dealing with things isn't too big.
Changing Space Marines to female from the beginning would retcon nearly every single massive major thing in the Imperium Lore, this is not an addition to the lore. This is outright CHANGING the lore that was set in stone, to put it bluntly it'd be like saying that Tyranids are now catfolk that evolve.. I'm beginning to honestly question if you are just straight up trolling now.
Yes I do know what retcon mean. Would it be easier if I found some other race they retconned at some point? Orks, eldar, chaos, marines or the even un-popular necrons. I just find the tyranid example good since it gets retconned so frequently. Although I will admit that some of the changes happen in setting does make it a bit confusing now that you have pointed it out.
Why is female based SM such a big thing? Just pop them in there.
Even if retocons have been done before (like Orks and Necrons), doesn't means doing it again is a good thing.
And some changes in he setting, while welcome for some, doesn't means they have to be done neither. (As for me, i don't like the whole primaris thing myself)
I think it is time I bow out of this thread. My inclusion in it has made tensions worse by my over usage of right wing terminology. I still very much stand by my remarks thread wide. I will go on record stating that I think the continued discourse from fem marines comes down to wanting the attention given to space marines for their preference. If this was not the case they would take one of the many alternatives presented in this thread. I cant really blame them, everyone would like SM treatment for their preferences. To defend myself I have to state that in the america's there are a group of liberal people whom try to bully both companies and fans into accepting their politics and that is why I was using buzz words. After reading this thread again I can say that this has not been done here. So it is a case of me over reacting. I apologize for any offensive remarks I have made if any have been made.
In the end, it comes down to cold hard cash and profits. Other fantasy settings and IPs have suffered lower sales when including politics and using replacement methods to assert said politics into the setting. Marvel comics is a great example of this. There was no need to replace existing heroes with new more diverse persona's. They could have easily made RiRI/Ironheart into her own comic instead of replacing Tony Stark/Iron Man. Since this push of forced diversity (buzz word.....apologies) Marvel has lost huge chunks of market share. If you ever wonder why the cinematic universe is doing so well as opposed to the comics then you have your answer.
I am all for more female miniatures and factions. I think female marines would hurt the company and the setting. I hope GW is smart enough to not make any changes to existing factions. I do hope GW will give The Sisters of Battle a army wide plastic release and a proper codex. I do hope we get female guard miniatures. There is nothing wrong with not being able to identify with a faction in a sci-fi game of toys. That truth being said I am glad we already have a faction that female and progressive male players can identify with. A good portion of the aesthetic's of space marines is based on its existence as a fraternal warrior brother hood. To take that away is to take away marines as we know them and replace them with a new faction. This is a BAD idea as it hurts many players and helps far fewer.
I would also be open to the idea of a whole new faction of augmented warriors in power armor that include both male and females. But I say let marines be marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiai wrote: Yes I do know what retcon mean. Would it be easier if I found some other race they retconned at some point? Orks, eldar, chaos, marines or the even un-popular necrons. I just find the tyranid example good since it gets retconned so frequently. Although I will admit that some of the changes happen in setting does make it a bit confusing now that you have pointed it out.
Why is female based SM such a big thing? Just pop them in there.
Also, thank you for remaining civil in our discourse. My answer to your question is because to "pop them in there" is to change what the faction is, which is a fraternal warrior brotherhood. Marines are defined by their gender and there is nothing wrong with that. Let the players who like that aspect of the faction be. Ask for representation in a new faction or more attention given to the female warrior order. But once more, and for the final time. Let marines be marines. Peace out my friend.
. But yeah, I remember seeing a few illustrations of marines without armor (very very few though), just never any model. I should have been clearer on this.
!!!!
