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.

Would hello kitty marines count as furry too?
I think they'd be more acceptable than Captain Sparkle and Librarian Spike.

insaniak wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:I dunno, I find furry Marines weirder than MLP Marines because furry Marines are more of a sexual things, ...

No. They are not.

For the last time, if you're thinking of sexual behaviour, you're thinking of the wrong kind of furry. Drop it.

That may not be true. It may be true for you, but according to the wikipedia article on furries (and a sociologist's research project) 4/5 furries are in it for some sexual interest. So it is not wrong to presume that when people say "furry" that's what they mean.

Unit1126PLL wrote:That may not be true. It may be true for you, but according to the wikipedia article on furries (and a sociologist's research project) 4/5 furries are in it for some sexual interest.

Because, as we all know, wiki is such a reliable source.

So it is not wrong to presume that when people say "furry" that's what they mean.

Unless you did something crazy like read the first post in this thread, or the numerous posts during the course of it explaining that this wasn't the kind of furry under discussion.

Seriously, it boggles the mind that this even needed to be pointed out once, let along multiple times..

I have found that furries and bronies both tend to be creepy and extremely nerdy, both of which are things I do not enjoy. I personally wouldnt have issue with someone converting their models to be ponies or furries, as they can do whatever they want with their toys, but I dont think I could enjoy a game against that kind of person.

insaniak wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:That may not be true. It may be true for you, but according to the wikipedia article on furries (and a sociologist's research project) 4/5 furries are in it for some sexual interest.

Because, as we all know, wiki is such a reliable source.

So it is not wrong to presume that when people say "furry" that's what they mean.

Unless you did something crazy like read the first post in this thread, or the numerous posts during the course of it explaining that this wasn't the kind of furry under discussion.

Seriously, it boggles the mind that this even needed to be pointed out once, let along multiple times..

Wiki is a reliable enough source for my philosophy thesis according to the professor I am working with, as long as it has a citation.

Alright, then, I'll try a different tact, since you aren't understanding what I'm saying:

Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations. From this statement, it follows, then, that any furry marine, no matter the type, would scare me. I understand that there are different types of furries, but based on the numbers and having no internal knowledge of the fandom, I would be leery of all of them.

Wiki is a reliable enough source for my philosophy thesis according to the professor I am working with, as long as it has a citation.

The 4/5th thing has no Citation, no source, and no actual numbers.

Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations.

Do Dark Eldar Wych cult's and Sisters of Battle scare you too? Sorry to poke at this, but I find it funny what with SoB having a literal mistress presiding over a bunch of naked, repenting girls.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wiki is a reliable enough source for my philosophy thesis according to the professor I am working with, as long as it has a citation.

The 4/5th thing has no Citation, no source, and no actual numbers.

Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations.

Do Dark Eldar Wych cult's and Sisters of Battle scare you too? Sorry to poke at this, but I find it funny what with SoB having a literal mistress presiding over a bunch of naked, repenting girls.

Actually, it does cite a source, but the source is 404'd. However, a quick google search will show you the year that The Furry Sociological Survey was published, the author, and the results, even though the exact webserver hosting it is offline. It isn't fake, quite obviously.

No, they don't scare me. Because BDSM is more acceptable to me than furry-ism (I hesitate to use the word "yiffing" for fear of offending though I've been told it's the proper word within the fandom).

Unit1126PLL wrote:Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations. From this statement, it follows, then, that any furry marine, no matter the type, would scare me. I understand that there are different types of furries, but based on the numbers and having no internal knowledge of the fandom, I would be leery of all of them.

So, does Mickey Mouse scare you? Or Star Fox? Or the Wind in the Willows? Or this guy?:



Exactly what 'sexual connotations' are you seeing in a Space Marine with the head of a dog? Because that's all that is being discussed here.

This isn't some extremem fetish thing. It's about making Marines that are humanised animals walking on their back legs. Like Duckula. Or Danger Mouse. Or the Rescue Rangers. Or any number of other terrifying, fetishistic children's cartoons.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wiki is a reliable enough source for my philosophy thesis according to the professor I am working with, as long as it has a citation.

The 4/5th thing has no Citation, no source, and no actual numbers.

Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations.

Do Dark Eldar Wych cult's and Sisters of Battle scare you too? Sorry to poke at this, but I find it funny what with SoB having a literal mistress presiding over a bunch of naked, repenting girls.

Actually, it does cite a source, but the source is 404'd. However, a quick google search will show you the year that The Furry Sociological Survey was published, the author, and the results, even though the exact webserver hosting it is offline. It isn't fake, quite obviously.

No, they don't scare me. Because BDSM is more acceptable to me than furry-ism (I hesitate to use the word "yiffing" for fear of offending though I've been told it's the proper word within the fandom).

If you could find me some actual numbers for that Survey. Survey's are my least trusted source, since the way I've seen most, if not nearly all of the way they are generally used is with the subjective manner of who they interview, not to mention having a closed number bias means you can easily figure out who will say what according to statistics.

Alright than, was just curious about that.

Or this guy?:

Huh, I guess the Tauren Marine got bored being in Starcraft.

insaniak wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations. From this statement, it follows, then, that any furry marine, no matter the type, would scare me. I understand that there are different types of furries, but based on the numbers and having no internal knowledge of the fandom, I would be leery of all of them.

So, does Mickey Mouse scare you? Or Star Fox? Or the Wind in the Willows? Or this guy?:



Exactly what 'sexual connotations' are you seeing in a Space Marine with the head of a dog? Because that's all that is being discussed here.

This isn't some extremem fetish thing. It's about making Marines that are humanised animals walking on their back legs. Like Duckula. Or Danger Mouse. Or the Rescue Rangers. Or any number of other terrifying, fetishistic children's cartoons.

I guess this is true, theres a pretty big gap between putting beastmen heads on space marines and saying their geneseed got scrambled, and making highly converted BDSM fox marines or 4 legged MLP marines. I think the first one is pretty much a non issue. The 2nd would be extremely awkward and the person who took the time to do that is probably too strange to play against.

insaniak wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations. From this statement, it follows, then, that any furry marine, no matter the type, would scare me. I understand that there are different types of furries, but based on the numbers and having no internal knowledge of the fandom, I would be leery of all of them.

So, does Mickey Mouse scare you? Or Star Fox? Or the Wind in the Willows? Or this guy?:



Exactly what 'sexual connotations' are you seeing in a Space Marine with the head of a dog? Because that's all that is being discussed here.

This isn't some extremem fetish thing. It's about making Marines that are humanised animals walking on their back legs. Like Duckula. Or Danger Mouse. Or the Rescue Rangers. Or any number of other terrifying, fetishistic children's cartoons.

Those are not furries. The word "furry" as used in the title of this thread is associated with sexuality, by definition (if you can define such slang terms, I suppose). Unless you broaden the definition to include any anthropomorphized animals anywhere, in which case I think you're overgeneralizing.

Anubis-themed Marines are ok, Darkwing Duck is ok. Mickey Mouse is ok.

Furry-themed Marines are not ok. Because AFAIK, unless you overgeneralize, the term Furry has a distinct sexual connotation.

Eidolon wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations. From this statement, it follows, then, that any furry marine, no matter the type, would scare me. I understand that there are different types of furries, but based on the numbers and having no internal knowledge of the fandom, I would be leery of all of them.

So, does Mickey Mouse scare you? Or Star Fox? Or the Wind in the Willows? Or this guy?:



Exactly what 'sexual connotations' are you seeing in a Space Marine with the head of a dog? Because that's all that is being discussed here.

This isn't some extremem fetish thing. It's about making Marines that are humanised animals walking on their back legs. Like Duckula. Or Danger Mouse. Or the Rescue Rangers. Or any number of other terrifying, fetishistic children's cartoons.

I guess this is true, theres a pretty big gap between putting beastmen heads on space marines and saying their geneseed got scrambled, and making highly converted BDSM fox marines or 4 legged MLP marines. I think the first one is pretty much a non issue. The 2nd would be extremely awkward and the person who took the time to do that is probably too strange to play against.

Except the second thing isn't under discussion. Just the first and third one.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Furry Marines scare me because of their sexual connotations. From this statement, it follows, then, that any furry marine, no matter the type, would scare me. I understand that there are different types of furries, but based on the numbers and having no internal knowledge of the fandom, I would be leery of all of them.

So, does Mickey Mouse scare you? Or Star Fox? Or the Wind in the Willows? Or this guy?:



Exactly what 'sexual connotations' are you seeing in a Space Marine with the head of a dog? Because that's all that is being discussed here.

This isn't some extremem fetish thing. It's about making Marines that are humanised animals walking on their back legs. Like Duckula. Or Danger Mouse. Or the Rescue Rangers. Or any number of other terrifying, fetishistic children's cartoons.

Those are not furries. The word "furry" as used in the title of this thread is associated with sexuality, by definition (if you can define such slang terms, I suppose). Unless you broaden the definition to include any anthropomorphized animals anywhere, in which case I think you're overgeneralizing.

Anubis-themed Marines are ok, Darkwing Duck is ok. Mickey Mouse is ok.

Furry-themed Marines are not ok. Because AFAIK, unless you overgeneralize, the term Furry has a distinct sexual connotation.

There is no one single definition of what a furry is. Even within the furry fandom, people cannot always agree on just what makes a person a furry or not.


As with any hobby, most furries are normal people just like anyone you'll meet at work/school or going to/from work/school or anywhere. Then there is the small percent that are hard core fans and have taken what for most is a hobby and perverted it (sometimes in an all to literal sense).

Is their a reason for why people would want to change the way Space Marines look? Especially along the lines of a pony or a furry.

I find it hard to imagine on a Grim dark Battefield a Khorne Beserker being charged at by this:

[img]http://1d4chan.org/wiki/File:Space_wolves_sergeant_by_GordonFreeguy.png

LORD_PANTERA wrote:Is their a reason for why people would want to change the way Space Marines look? Especially along the lines of a pony or a furry.

Nothing better to do/need to insert their fandoms into everything.

Eidolon wrote:

LORD_PANTERA wrote:Is their a reason for why people would want to change the way Space Marines look? Especially along the lines of a pony or a furry.

Nothing better to do/need to insert their fandoms into everything.

Fans like crossing things over, 40k is a fandom that's often pushed into other Sci-fi fandoms as well

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyctzgNEPr1r79zz1o1_500.jpg

For example, Link marine! People often have multiple fandoms they are apart of, and some would think it cool to see them mixed (or funny)

Unit1126PLL wrote:Those are not furries. The word "furry" as used in the title of this thread is associated with sexuality, by definition (if you can define such slang terms, I suppose). Unless you broaden the definition to include any anthropomorphized animals anywhere, in which case I think you're overgeneralizing.

Go back and have another look at the rather large picture in the first post of this thread. The one that illustrates just what sort of furry the original question was about.

And yes, the term does apply to pretty much any anthropomorphised animals. As I already explained.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LORD_PANTERA wrote:Is their a reason for why people would want to change the way Space Marines look?

Because for some fun of the modelling is more important than the background.
Or because they think it will be amusing. Similar to people arguing over whether the Galactic Empire can beat the United Federation of Planets... Batman fought the Predator, and Giger's Alien, and Spawn, and ... well, just about everybody. Not because it makes sense in the established background, but just because some people think that sort of thing is fun.

insaniak wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:I dunno, I find furry Marines weirder than MLP Marines because furry Marines are more of a sexual things, ...

No. They are not.

For the last time, if you're thinking of sexual behaviour, you're thinking of the wrong kind of furry. Drop it.

Insaniak, I usually agree with everything you say... but you're missing the point here. To many of us, the fact that a significant amount of the people who self identify as "furries" have a sexual connection to it IS WHY we have an issue with people getting all excited about anthro animals in a 40k army. To us, anthros are different than animalistic daemons or werewolf like marines. Its not so much the What it is the Why, and the deviant sexual behavior being dropped into a rather PG-13 setting with its own lore is what makes us dislike and disapprove.

If someone sits across from me and tells about his Space Lions, and goes through how he liked the idea of space wolves, but wanted thunder lion cavalry, and roman-like lion standards and lion paws on everything, I'm cool with it. If instead, they proudly announce that they like furries and based each squad off a Gold Digger character (good friend of mine is really into this series, so I'm passingly familiar with it), I'm a little weirded out, but whatever. Finally, if the person says they are a furry and therefore made they army all foxlike as that fits their persona, I'm not playing them. They have crossed the line. Too much of another interest (and a questionable one at that) being interjected. I might add that if someone was really into fishing (which I also like) and did their entire army as men with fishing poles and their rhinos where bass boats, I'd feel like they also crossed the line. This is 40k. Play 40k, be creative, make it your own, build it in a way that interests you, but at the end of the day, it needs to still be 40k.

Same with a brony army. If a force is painted powder blue and has the symbol of a MLP character, again, weird, but whatever. If there's ponies instead of bikes, and rainbows everywhere and human heads are replaced with ponies, and things look like something my little sisters played with in the 80s, its not 40k anymore. You can't break the setting and lore and expect people to be ok with it (we're a little invested in it, and that means some people will take it personally if you shove something that doesn't fit into the setting). Subtle changes, fine; turning it into something else, well that's going to be met with fierce resistance. If you don't get it, too bad, but that's the way it is.

Lobukia wrote: Play 40k, be creative, make it your own, build it in a way that interests you, but at the end of the day, it needs to still be 40k.

You realise you're essentially just saying 'Play it my way, or youre doing it wrong...'?


In a game that includes Space Marines riding giant gerbils, 'Sly Marbo' and the Blood Angels with their Bloody Blood-weapons of Bloodness, is it any wonder that some people don't take the background too seriously?

So stuff like this is out then?

insaniak wrote:

Lobukia wrote: Play 40k, be creative, make it your own, build it in a way that interests you, but at the end of the day, it needs to still be 40k.

You realise you're essentially just saying 'Play it my way, or youre doing it wrong...'?

Not at all. There are basic expectations in 40k. You can push or violate those, when you do, you increase the risk of people feeling like you've gone to far. Its like a dinner party. You can come slightly under dressed, and get some looks. You can come way under dressed and hope your good reasons are enough. You also come dressed in a manner that most people find unacceptable for a dinner party, just don't be surprised if they don't like it. You can whine about them saying "their way or the highway" but that's the nature of these things, and if you didn't know that before (and you should have), you'll know it afterwards.

Certain groups have different expectations for a dinner party, if you don't know the group well enough and they ask you not to come back due to you not meeting their expectations (which you knowingly pushed), that's your own dumb fault. Furries and bronies are so proud of their ability to push and defy norms (kudos to them). When you push at people's perception, you get some push back. If you're pushing gamers so far that they push back, you've usually crossed some serious lines and in the end, they're not the ones left out, you are.

I'm all for people doing their thing (like the people who wouldn't play a guy because he had a white painted army that had a MLP symbol is just silly). But people need to learn that if you want to march to the beat of a different drum, that's fine, but that also means some times your "unique" little force is just too different for the rest of us to stomach.

n0t_u wrote:So stuff like this is out then?

This is badass. I would love to play against this army. However, if the owner likes to get dressed up in a fursuit, I dont want to hear about it.

I guess with furries it boils down to this.

Did you convert those marines up as animals because you feel it gives them a more savage or frightening appearance? Or is it because you have a sexual attraction to animals?

I dont see any excuse for bronyism though, liking a tv show made for little girls is pretty sad.

n0t_u wrote:So stuff like this is out then?

I dunno, are you trying to pass them off as Blood Angels or Chaos marines? Do you know the local club enough to know if they'll go for it?

Now if you showed up at my club (12 members) or any FLGS around here with that as Chaos Marines, no one would care and anyone would play you... but unless that's your plan, my input is irrelevant.

....however, if you go on about how you love dressing up as a goat and such and tell people about the furry conventions you go to, many of the above players will be less interested, and I know some would pass. Is that fair, probably not, but that doesn't mean that isn't the way it is, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't know enough to see the natural consequence of that action.

I'm not trying to pass them off as anything, I found them on Coolmini here.

I guess we're on the same page there then.

Lobukia wrote:....however, if you go on about how you love dressing up as a goat and such and tell people about the furry conventions you go to, ....

...which was never the focus of this thread.

The question asked was about modelling your army.

insaniak wrote:

Lobukia wrote:....however, if you go on about how you love dressing up as a goat and such and tell people about the furry conventions you go to, ....

...which was never the focus of this thread.

The question asked was about modelling your army.

See, this is what I mean. Connect the dots for crying out loud. OP wanted to know why people don't like furry armies... and constantly people are saying its because of people dressing up like cartoon animals and calling themselves furries is just too wrong for them. Whether the two are really connected or not is irrelevant, perception has become the reality. Players perceive the furry armies to be associated with sexual and social deviance that is beyond what they are comfortable with and it is too far beyond the social norms the 40k community has (which again, says something). You can dislike that reason, you can tell people to stop telling you the reason, you can insist that people answer the question without giving you reasons you don't want to hear, but that is still the reason.

Lobukia wrote:See, this is what I mean. Connect the dots for crying out loud.

There are no dots to connect. You can keep yelling all you want that how you model your army is in some way linked to a desire to dress up in furry ears, and it won't make it any more true than insisting that people who like Batman clearly have issues because you heard somewhere that some guy who liked Batman once punched somebody.

It's a ludicrous connection, and if people are having trouble seeing past it, maybe they need to stop and examine their own unreasonable biases, rather than insisting that some kid who thought that plonking a fox head on his space marine would be fun is some sort of sexual deviate.


However, since certain posters do seem to be incapable of separating the idea of 'liking furries' from 'dressing up as a furry', I think this thread is done.