Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
If Cawl found a way to make Marines female, I'd accept that. Again, I won't go into whether it SHOULD be changed, but if that's how it was done, I could work with that.
If the Space Wolves just "magically" learned how to do it, and were the only ones who did, I'd be leading the new crusade to have Space Wolves take the coveted "Muh spiritual liege" trophy and let the Ultramarines have a break!
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people immediately seem to think this means female marines.
Not trying to create conflict here, but what ELSE is it supposed to mean?
Arjac mentions that he needs male fighters. Tyra says words along the lines of "Why just men? Surely that needs to change". Now, maybe by fighters, Arjac might be referring to the human auxiliaries of the Wolves, their "PDF" equivalent instead of or as well as the Astartes themselves. However, I was under the impression and wouldn't know why this wouldn't be the case, that there were women in the Fenris auxilia too. After all, not all auxilia is made up of failed aspirants - they can be self-managing stocks, recruitment, or made up of the failed stock.
So, as I understood, there were already women in this force. This would make the above train of thought that Arjac is referring to more than just the Space Marines incorrect - why would Tyra have that response? No, the only logical thing she can be referring to is Female Astartes. Arjac's own thought supports that - he goes on to think about the changes that have been made to Space Marines, how they've become even better than before, and wonders if similar changes could occur.
This doesn't mean Female Marines are a thing right now - but it is a reference to the idea of them, and could indicate a change in GW's attitude to it. Maybe Cawl will find a way. Maybe the Wolves will suddenly be able to. That's what people seem to be discussing.
Curious to hear other interpretations, but this seems pretty cut and dry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/24 20:54:04
tneva82 wrote: Funny how people immediately seem to think this means female marines.
Not trying to create conflict here, but what ELSE is it supposed to mean?
Howabout simply female warriors? It's not like space marines are Imperium's only fighting force? Leeeeet's seee....Howabout we imagine huge large army that fields human warriors. Let's give them flak armour. Then arm them with lasgun! And hey let's call them Imperial guard.
What a novel concept! Entirely new type of army in the world of warhammer 40k! IMAGINE THAT! Non-space marine force for Imperium. What an AMAZING CONCEPT!
So you didn't read a word of what I wrote except what you quoted. Nice.
I already said that he COULD have been referring to the Fenris auxilia (and other forms of simple human warriors), but it makes no sense in context because:
- Fenris ALREADY has female soldiers in it's PDF - perhaps Arjac called them all male ("sons") when he meant "sons and daughters", but this makes no sense, because his response to when he's called out on it isn't "sorry, I meant sons and daughters". If he was talking about an already mixed gender group, why would Tyra talk about water needing to flow differently - it already does?
- Guardsmen can already be women - again, for the same reasons as above, it makes no sense to talk about this. Arjac doesn't clear up the miscommunication, Tyra's statement wouldn't make sense if women couldn't already fight, and even more so, why would defending Fenris be a concern for normal Guardsmen? That's a Space Wolf and PDF thing -- not regular Imperial Guard.
- He then goes on to think about Space Marines and the changes that the Primaris have brought to their ranks. If he wasn't talking about Space Marines, this semantic field would make no sense. Why would he think about Space Marines when according to you, he meant Guardsmen? It's more logical in context to think he was talking about Space Marines - first, he mentions "sons". Tyra calls him out and suggests maybe women should be considered too, implying that they already aren't. Arjac then compares himself, a Space Marine, to her, and then thinks about all the changes that have recently occurred to Space Marine physiology. Logically, how is he NOT talking about female Space Marines?
I understand that you're sick to death of hearing about them, sick to death of Space Marines getting the attention, and maybe you dislike the idea itself. That doesn't take away from the fact that here, it's pretty much cut and dry he's talking about female Astartes, not female guardsmen. We already have that - if he was referring to that, why would Tyra imply that it's not happened yet, and why didn't he correct his mistake about his choice of pronoun?
So yeah, it'd be lovely if you actually read what I posted instead of making some snarky point which I disproved in the previous post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/25 11:19:48
It's not recruits Chapters are short on - it's more the codex restrictions, geneseed, wargear and such that are the restrictive factors. I'd imagine the Codex restrictions are the main ones.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Yeah, no kidding. That's what everyone is doing. Stating their opinions on the subject.
This.
All everyone is doing is spouting opinions, for, against, in-between. However, no matter how many times this is talked about, until GW do something, it's useless.
Crimson wrote: Sure. And that is pretty much what the current fluff is, and I don't have a huge problem with it. But it could easily be changed. Or not. It is just that some people make absolutely ludicrous justifications to why it absolutely must be this way. It doesn't. Just say you don't can't handle the change. It's fine, I get it.
However, implying that everyone who doesn't like Female Space Marines "can't handle the change" is an incredibly reductionist, and some may argue, condescending, approach.
Do you genuinely believe that's the only reason people don't want it?
Niiai wrote: Is it as massive core retcon to make space marines being based on females? For me it would be a very small retcon. I think perhaps there the crux of the problem is.
Agreed - to some people it matters. To others, not so much. Neither is wrong.
Every time this subject comes up there is always this little tappdance. The people who do not like the change make an argument, either in the fluff or outside the fluff. Upon taking a close examination of the argument it does not stand up to examination. The next argument gets launches. Upon closer examination the argument does not stand up to examination. A third argument gets launched etc.
And vice versa. It's not just the opposers who make bad arguments - changers do too.
It is always this tap dance. Some one gets frustrated with the adnasium discussion and people starts attacking the players instead of the ball, or it gets out of hand in some other way. And then the thread closes, only to pop up another place. Look at the title of this thread 'Re:Ashes of Prospero spoilers'. Currently we are not discussing Ashes or Prospero.
To be fair, the OP is mainly about the female thing anyways.
Buttom line is there are many bad arguments for not having space marines based on females, but not any good once. Continuing discussing this will just be one side swatting down the bad arguments from the other side, whereas the other side starts to dance and come up with new arguments.
Very subjective to say "bad arguments" and not mentioning that again, people see other arguments on the change side as as bad.
From how I'm reading what you're saying, you're very much implying that the opposers are in the wrong by default, and that there's no fault in the people advocating change. That hopefully isn't the case, but that's how it's coming across.
Albino Squirrel, at face value, that's very much exactly what it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 19:47:42
Niiai wrote: Because that side of the argument are making the posetive claim that this can not happen. Then they have to prove it. That is where all these bad arguments and tap dances come in.
I can prove the default position actually - it's the one GW have made.
I can prove why it can't happen - GW said so.
That's the default. Change for the sake of it isn't default in the slightest. To change, you should have a reason to, and explain why that reason outweighs the default (which is unchanged).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 20:57:45
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Default is unchanged - aka Space Marines being as they are right this moment.
But if I ask 'Why can not space marines be based upon females' you responce is 'that is the current setting'. Is that correct?
I'd say the laws of the setting dictate that such a thing is improbable to the point of impossibility.
Your response, as would be the only natural one to that question, is "we shouldn't we change the lore" - my response would be "why should we?" Yours is then the statement which requires evidence. After all - as the status quo, mine doesn't need validation, because it's the default.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Default is unchanged - aka Space Marines being as they are right this moment.
But if I ask 'Why can not space marines be based upon females' you responce is 'that is the current setting'. Is that correct?
I'd say the laws of the setting dictate that such a thing is improbable to the point of impossibility.
Your response, as would be the only natural one to that question, is "we shouldn't we change the lore" - my response would be "why should we?" Yours is then the statement which requires evidence. After all - as the status quo, mine doesn't need validation, because it's the default.
So the reasons why there no space marines can not be based upon females are this, please clearify if I am missrepresenting you here:
- I'd say the laws of the setting dictate that such a thing is improbable to the point of impossibility.
- It is currently in the setting.
Is that correct? I am not trying to lure you into anything here. I just want to uderstand you clearly.
Those are my personal main reasons, yes. I can't speak for everyone, mind, but my main reasons are that the rules of the setting say so, and I see no reason to change that, because, as I see it, "what isn't broken doesn't need to be fixed".
Do not mistake this as some kind of sexism or avoidance of female models - I'm a staunch advocate for better female representation where the setting would encourage it (Guardsmen, Eldar, Sisters, etc etc).
Why we've not had plastic sisters is a wonder to me, and not the good kind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kastelen wrote: There are two ways I can think of GW could introduce female marines and/or custodes.
1. They were already here and basically all the fluff needs to be rewritten.
2. They're made by cawl or someone else. Why would cawl test gene seed on women?
For what it's worth, I oppose female Astartes, but female Custodes sounds amazing to me. I'd love if GW gave us the clear on that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 23:01:28
Speaking of Sisters of Battle, they are an all female faction, right? Wouldn't it make sense to have a all male faction to run parallel to that? Marines are an elite force of all powered armored men. Sisters are a elite force of powered armored women. That's kind of their theme.
In theory, one could say that's fair, but in practice it isn't. Marines are posterboys of the setting, there several different codices dedicated to them, they get more new models than other factions and most of the fluff is about them. Sisters on the other hand are completely neglected line with most models being decades old. So if these factions would have even somewhat comparable prominence in the game and in the setting then you might have a point, but that is not even remotely the case.
Wouldn't the more logical solution be then to promote Sororitas rather than ruining the parallel? Its not as if Sisters are completely forgotten. Wasn't there a series of novel about them in 2015, Hammer and Anvil, I believe it was called? Whilst they are in dire need of a complete plastic release, they did at least receive Celestine in plastic, their most iconic character.
My thoughts exactly.
Promote SoB, reduce SM exposure (although seeing as they ARE the more recognisable GW property, this would need to be carefully moderated), and add female models where the lore supports it.
There's no need to change the lore - it's the real world stuff that's the issue.
- We already have female SM in sisters of battle. That is hardly the same. Sisters are often cast as exstreme bad guys claims everything must be purged.
Oh yes, and space marines are always so noble and pleasant. Like those Marines Malevolent Guys. Or Black Templars. Or Flesh Tearers And sisters are presented as good guys. They are presented as extremely loyal to the Emperor and will not be corrupted or surrender. If you want bad guys, look at Chao and Dark Eldar. The fact that they purge is irrelevant, as marines do the same damned thing. I find it ironic how you go on about bad arguments, when that argument is pretty terrible and is extremely divorced from reality.
You are sort of awnsering your own objection there. Space Marines are not always noble and pleasant, they are in fact very versatile in their representation. Double up so when you include chaos space marines as well. That is why is use the plural of cars in my car comparison metaphore. You have just so many cool space marines chapters to chose from out there. Wheras sisters of battle, well say what you want about them, but they are not as versatile as space marines when it comes to pick your flavour. I stil claim it is like comparing one lame car to all of the cool cars in the world. Even if you like that lame car, and many do, comparing them is doing injustice to all the cool cars (who are the space marines well all know and love in this metaphore.)
Have we not considered making Sisters more diverse? Creating precedent for a variety of Orders and Minor Orders, with their own flair and styles? After all GW has done it with the Scions - why couldn't they with Sisters?
The ONLY requirements of the Sisterhood is that they are fanatically loyal to the God-Emperor via the Ecclesiarchy. Everything else, really, from that, can follow. Why can't we expand the Sisters?
As Cthulu'sSpy says - we already deviation between Orders - bring that out more, encourage it with new plastic kits, and that's a faction waiting to be exploited.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 00:51:40
Niiai wrote:I will admitt I know next to nothing about sisters. The last time I saw sisters of battle was in Dawn of War soulstorm and that came out in 2008. Today is 2018, so the last time I saw some sisters was 10 years ago, and that was not even a plastic model. There is no last time I saw a Space Marine because I am currently looking at one.
And I would love to change that. Sisters should have more exposure: plastic would be a perfect medium.
Sgt_Smudge has a fun forum avatar where a warhammer space marine is holding up the helmet of a star wars storm trooper implying some rather funny jokes. Has the space marine killed the storm trooper in a ironic gloryfied 40K pulpy gore fashion, does he conteplate the similareties between them or is he just practesing his hamlet impressions. It is a rather good avatar. Space Marines makes rather good poster boys.
It's for the Hamlet impression, in matter of fact. I'd have preferred if it was an Ultramarine with a Mark 7 helmet, but hey, what can you do. Space Marines do make good poster boys, but that's because GW have saturated them into their setting. If SoB were given similar saturation (and they ARE a very recognizable aspect of 40k - frequently cosplayed, in fact), then their power armoured aesthetic would be similar enough to the already popular SMs to give them a stronger foothold in the IP of 40k.
If you claim sisters of battle are just as diverse as space marines, or as well represented in the setting you are just lying.
I beg to differ. I'm not saying they're quite as diverse now, but they have the potential to be, with very little to stop that. So long as the criteria are met, then all can follow.
If you say women in power armour are the same as geneticaly manipulated space marines with beefy S4T4 you are also lying. I will grant you sisters of battle has a cultural footprint within the setting, but it is hardly the same in scope.
I thought we wanted women in 40k, not specifically superhuman women. A woman is a woman, whether with a second heart or not. It shouldn't matter if they're a Space Marine, necessarily - only that they have the same influence as one.
And agreed on the latter - this is something that I want to fix. I'm not saying it's perfect right now, but that's the avenue I want to go down to reach the desired goal.
I belive the reasons GW chooses not to expand on sisters is because they are not as well liked, and they do not sell as much. When you are trying to have an income in global market with many competors you focus on your streanghts.
However, GW's methods are self-perpetuating.
If they only make Space Marines, that's all they'll sell. If they expanded out to the ever-growing market of SoB fans, then there's a solid chance they'd be snapped up. After all - look how well Celestine sold in plastic. Canoness Veridyan, the House Escher gang, their AoS scuplts - all very popular.
As of October 2017 there are 46 published volumes of the horus heresey franchise, pluss several other books with space marines as the main antagonist. There is a horus heresye game with their own models and rules popularly refered to as 30K. There are currently 3 loylalist codexes, with SW on the rumour will, and 3 chaos codexes.
Sisters of battle has... well if I walk into a store they have no models I can buy. That is a problem. They have their army entry in an index, that is a good thing. You have the sisters of battle novel series (2 books and an audio drama) and some other books but I have a hard time tracking them down. Do not compare sisters to space marines and say they are the same, for they really are not.
I'm not saying that they ARE the same. I haven't said that. I've made it clear that I WANT them to be the same, that I want Sisters to have that exposure.
I understand that you may be misreading my argument, and that's not deliberate, but I hope I've made it clear that I don't think SoB have anywhere near the exposure of SM. I still very much want that to change.
For GW to go hard in on sisters of battle makes as much sence as continuing tomb kings in age of sigmar. It is a miracle sisters of battle are stil around. Making some elaberate plan that GW can expand on sisters in a big way is ludacriss. Even if they did, that stil do not change the fact that there are no good reasons to not have female space marines.
Good in YOUR OPINION. I have my reason why not, and it's a solid reason TO ME. That's just my opinion. Yours is yours. You don't have the power to say your opinion is the overriding one here.
If you feel there are no good reasons, I have just as much authority to say that there are plenty of good reasons, and neither of us is more right than the other.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Have we not considered making Sisters more diverse? Creating precedent for a variety of Orders and Minor Orders, with their own flair and styles? After all GW has done it with the Scions - why couldn't they with Sisters?
Sisters aren't designed as a blank canvas army. They already have a very strong personality. They are a monolithic organization, unlike marines, that have one supreme leader (the only one to have this, there is no supreme Marine leader in charge of all the marine chapters, there is no Imperial Guard supreme leader either, and I never heard about one for Mechanicus), they are stated as being the one with the least variation, etc. Of course you could change all that. But what's the point of making a pretty nice faction with a very strong personality into a blank canvas faction instead of simply extending the already existing blank canvas faction?
The entire Imperium, barring perhaps the Mechanicus, is a monolithic organisation in it's entirety. That doesn't mean that every fighting force within it is the same, and nor should it mean the same for the Sisters.
The Imperial Guard have one, the Lord Commander Militant. The Lord Solar is also a noted position, occupied once by Macharius. I can understand missing this one, however.
The AdMech have their Fabricator General. I am more surprised you didn't know of this one, as it's been a noted position since before the Heresy itself. And, of course despite both these factions having a "supreme leader" (except the Emperor himself), they're incredibly diverse, Guardsmen especially. The various AdMech groups have been different enough to go to civil war (see Moirae Schism) - so why are the Sisters so monolithic?
Nothing about them explains WHY they are - they just are. We also see differences between orders, as CthulusSpy pointed out - what's really stopping us from that? If there's a lore reason as to why not - fair enough. That then warrants the discussion on "if that lore should be changed", which is the current debate on SMs.
If not, then more diverse Sisters can ABSOLUTELY be a thing. As long as the central tenet of the Sisters' design philosophy is met (an all-female holy order acting as the militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy) then anything can follow.
Who says that devotion can't take it's place in the form of tribal worship, or fortification of the Emperor's Lands, or in massed Exorcist volleys?
Galas wrote: Sisters of Battle have a strong personality thats right but they are too world-based, and even by GW canon the Imperial Creed is very, very diverse in all of the Imperium.
Yes but the Sisters aren't. The traditions of the Sisters, etc, are extremely codified. The Sisters are very different from the rest of the Ecclesiarchy in this regard. Note that unlike Imperial Guards, the Sisters aren't raised in the culture of their world. They are raised into the schola progenium.
Like Scions? And they're all totally the same- wait. Nope, that's not true.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/04 01:57:46
Niiai wrote: Again, just bacause so much is being said, even if we had the most glorius sisters of batle in en every store that is no reason not to have space marines based on females.
Why?
The main reason people are asking for Female Space Marines isn't because they're Space Marines specifically.
It's because Space Marines are popular.
If SoB were as popular as SM, that reaches the goal set.
There is a perfectly good reason why women can't be SM. That's the lore. As I personally see it, there is no reason to change it, because increasing exposure of the Sisters of Battle, without even having to change their lore, would achieve the same result - increased female exposure.
Niiai wrote: Again, just bacause so much is being said, even if we had the most glorius sisters of batle in en every store that is no reason not to have space marines based on females.
Why?
The main reason people are asking for Female Space Marines isn't because they're Space Marines specifically. It's because Space Marines are popular.
If SoB were as popular as SM, that reaches the goal set.
Spoiler:
There is a perfectly good reason why women can't be SM. That's the lore. As I personally see it, there is no reason to change it, because increasing exposure of the Sisters of Battle, without even having to change their lore, would achieve the same result - increased female exposure.
That is a really big if.
Really, it's not. They're exactly the same, because my opinions and desires will have no effect either way. You can say "If GW changed their lore" - that's also an If. Anything we suggest is an If because none of us are GW employees who could have any influence on this.
What is the timeline you predict for this? Ever since Space Marines have been established around rogue trader first- or secondedition space marines has been an instant hit. Some time ago GW celbrated their 30 year aniversary, that is near 30 years of Space Marines iconicness. Your big if, is not very realistic.
I didn't say it was reaslistic. I saud it was what I wanted. All this bleating about wanting female marines is unrealistic, because it probably won't amount to anything. Knowing GW, it'll fall on deaf ears, making it all useless. All we can said is what we'd like to happen - without any hope of it actually happening.
But yes, you mention Space Marines being an instant hit - why is that? What is it about Space Marines that make them more appealing than Guardsmen, Sisters, etc etc? Is it that they're overexposed and that's the first thing new people see? If people like Space Marines, then they shouldn't be changed. Change the Sisters to make them more appealing instead then.
Wheras spacae marines females GW would just need to point to the tactical squad and say 'Do you know that SM can be based on females as well as males?". No models would need to be changed, they are clad in power armour. No changes. Over times, ad some female heads as options for the helmetless squad leaderes.
But as some people have said, they want noticablely female parts on their Space Marines. And again - if they're going to look just like normal Marines, what's the point?
With female Space Marines, GW needs to change the lore. With Sisters, no lore needs changing - only new models. It's not hard. The ingredients to make Sisters more popular and diverse are there - they only need to be used.
What goal sett would that be? Female Space Marines? I want female space marines.
WHY.
Why specifically Space Marines.
The vast majority of people want Female Space Marines because the existing female army, Sisters, is unsupported. If that army were more supported, then I can assure that most of the female Space Marine advocates would be appeased.
At the end of the day, what's the difference between the Space Marines and Sisters?
Space Marines: Monogender Power armour Bolters Elite Fanatical devotion to the Imperium (not necessarily to the Emperor himself as a God) Superhuman biology
Sisters: Monogender Power armour Bolters Elite Fanatical devotion to the Imperium (via the Church, seeing the Emperor as divine) Holy powers
The ONLY difference I'm seeing is that the Sisters draw strength from their faith, instead of from superhuman biology. Seriously, the fundamentals of the factions are identical.
So what is it about Space Marines themselves, ignoring the popularity of the Astartes (because as I said, if popularity is the only reason, then we should instead be bolstering the Sisters popularity instead).
Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
The setting also says women can't be Space Marines.
You can't use the setting to say "you can't have X" and then ignore it to have Y. That's not how an argument works.
If you can say "Space Marines can't reproduce because of the setting", I have every right to say "Space Marines must be male because of the setting".
Formosa wrote: 3: who said sisters are female marines? sure they are a MEQ but thats about it.
Who says sisters are female marines? Well you do in the following sentence after you ask the question. Do you know what MEQ actualy stands for?
MEQ = Marines and Equivalents. Sisters, because they wear power armour and carry bolters, with a high BS and morale, classify as them, despite some differences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 11:50:30
Crimson wrote: Whilst I wouldn't mind having both, if I had to choose between having female Astartes and fully supported SoB, it would be no contest at all. SoB win hands down, they're one of the coolest factions in the setting.
Aside from the having both part, agreed.
Sisters are a whole faction with their own lore and nuances that could be expanded outwards to fill that "strong female soldiers" role that people have wanted from Female Space Marines.
Space Marines remain unchanged, pleasing the "remainers". Sisters get expanded and their own love, pleasing the "changers".
Niiai wrote: Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
Wait, what?
Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting.
You've just defeated your own argument. Either the established setting is important, or it isn't. Pick one.
You are also preseneting a straw man argument. Space marines can not reproduse in that way. They are grown and enginered, not bred in the traditional sence. Why would any of that change?
Do you even know what a straw man is?
You state that space marines cannot have children, as its clearly established in the setting. According to you, this cannot be changed.
It is also clearly established in the setting that marines cannot be women. But you believe this can be changed.
That is a logical disconnect. If they can be written to be women, they can just as easily be written to support sexual reproduction.
A strawman is when you present one persons position and argulent as something they are not actually saying, and then you follow up by arguing that possition.
The fact that females can be made into SM is established in the setting. The fact how SM are made is established in the setting. How is it changing the first premmis changes the second premmis? Because if you read the above posts that is what some people are saying. And then they attack the idea of SM being potensially based on females because of it. Is that not a textbook example of a strawman argument?
It's because what you're doing is wanting to change one thing, which people want to stay the same due to the lore, and then when other people change something else, you use the lore to say it should also stay the same.
You're being hypocritical - either the lore is something that should stay the same or shouldn't.
The lore says that females can't be Space Marines. It also says they can't reproduce. Why should I accept one as sacrosanct and the other not?
Crimson wrote: The marine baby argument is absurd. That is not automatic end result of having female Astartes, the fluff could be written so that this problem would not occur. These two things are really not related.
Agreed - the issue I have is that apparently "the lore says so" can be used as a reason for why marine babies can't be a thing, but can't be used to defend mono-gender marines.
Either the lore can be used as a defence or it can't.
Crimson wrote: The marine baby argument is absurd. That is not automatic end result of having female Astartes, the fluff could be written so that this problem would not occur. These two things are really not related.
Agreed - the issue I have is that apparently "the lore says so" can be used as a reason for why marine babies can't be a thing, but can't be used to defend mono-gender marines.
Either the lore can be used as a defence or it can't.
So from you perspective changing one thing in the lore means you are now changing anything else at the same time. You might as well say haing female compatable with SM means the emperor is an actual dinosaur elephant hybrid. Nobody has sugested this change to the lore and arguing against it does not dent the SM based upon females more then changing how SM are made dent the SM based upon female argument does.
Now THAT'S a strawman. I haven't suggested Dinosaur Elephant Hybrids anywhere. Again - if you can't tell that two very closely linked aspects of Space Marine creation are different to Space Marine creation and what the Emperor is, I'm afraid I'm wasting my time on you.
Changing that the fictional zygotes is is keyed to humans instead of human males does not change how SM are made.
And changing the process so that reproductive organs are unharmed doesn't change how Space Marines are made either, right?
You can't change one important thing about a very specific subject and say that other similarly important things shouldn't be changed too without sounding like a hypocrite.
Reproductive organs do not survive the astrates process. You stil inplant 13 extarnal organgs into the subject. For this to happen you would also need to rewritte how DNA works in the setting becquse from that argument the human DNA now comes equipped with the blueprint of how and when to grow those organs. That is a huge change.
That same article states that all of those organs cannot be implanted into women. Stop making it out that one is more important than the other, or more "valid". Both are treated the same, so why should be one be more important than another.
So stop arguing against the straw man.
I'm not saying that changing one thing changes everything.
I'm saying that both points are about fundamentals of Space Marine biology - yet apparently one is set in stone, and the other isn't. Maybe because your own opinions are saying that one is less imprtant than the other. However, that's JUST your opinion.
Stop using buzzwords to defend hypocrisy.
I'd also note that you've not answered WHY specifically females must be in the form of Space Marines and not SoB, without mentioning Space Marine popularity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 13:06:28
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If not, then more diverse Sisters can ABSOLUTELY be a thing.
Yeah, we could change the Sisters of Battle into a blank canvas faction, sure. Then you'd have two blank canvas to chose from every time. “Do I want the male blank canvas or the female blank canvas?”.
Or we could allows female space marines, and then people would just be “How do I fill the blank canvas that allows for all male factions, all female factions, or mixed factions, like a good blank canvas should”.
I like the second one better.
However, as far as the Imperium goes, that would be absolutely possible for this.
Space Marines - Male Blank Canvas
Sisters of Battle - Female Blank Canvas
Astra Militarum/Tempestus Scions/Custodes (because they REALLY should be mixed) - Mixed Blank Canvas
No faction's genders are retconned, only expanded upon (except Custodes, but their lore is more recent and less entrenched, a la Knights).
I would love Sisters to get a bit more diversity between orders, yeah, just like there is diversity between different craftworlds, klans, hive fleets, etc. But not to the point of being a blank state army.
Of course I think your solution is better than nothing but I still like mine more ^^.
That's fair enough. Again, I prefer my solution, but compromise is the only thing we can expect to get out of this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 16:51:11
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?
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.
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.
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: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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/09 01:09:38
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.
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.
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.
