Switch Theme:

Heresy of the worst kind  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






There's at least one woman general in Archon by Dan Abnett and there's been a couple high ranking generals/admirals IIRC so far is the Dawn of Fire series. I would like to see more but its not 100% confirmed canon that women can't be AM generals.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:14:49


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yeah, we're all in agreement that lore exists, that much is evident...

Clearly not, since at least two posters now have claimed the opposite!
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Its not in any current publication and has not been featured in core publications since Index Astartes came out. It may as well not exist.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Gert wrote:
Its not in any current publication and has not been featured in core publications since Index Astartes came out. It may as well not exist.


So still more core than anything in BL books.
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Hecaton wrote:

So still more core than anything in BL books.

More core than the 9th Edition Space Marine Codex? Thought not.
Would you like to post more nonsense or would you like to contribute something useful?
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Gert wrote:

More core than the 9th Edition Space Marine Codex? Thought not.
Would you like to post more nonsense or would you like to contribute something useful?


Does the 9e codex *contradict* the Index Astartes on the topic?
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, where was that explicit lore? I don't believe I've seen it in any Codex or current publication.


Ah, we're off to the Codex, last refuge of a lore weasel. While Sandy Mitchell's Cain series is the main source for this, (Particularly the aforementioned For the Emperor, which is still in print) it also turns up in Imperial Munitorum Manual


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gaunt's Ghosts is the main one, as well as the Severina Raine novels. If we're including other media, we can include the Indomitus trailer, the Space Marine video game, and explicit lore about Cadia, where women are only judged by their service, not their gender - just like men.


Gaunt's Ghosts is not a typical guard novel series. Some of the other books openly mock it.

Space Marine is not the example you like to think it is. 2nd Lieutenant Mira is literally the last officer left in the 203rd Cadian. Severina Raine IIRC has some problems with it in the short stories, but I'd have to double check that. The Indomistus trailer only has three guardsman in it, and the woman is the only one not disintegrated. While it's undeniable that she's in command at that point, in command of 'what'?

And, to be blunt, Cadian PDF isn't the Guard, no matter how awesome they may have been. The only Cadian women to go off world served in mixed units such as the 203, the 'all female' ones, ie the majority, were assigned to the interior guard, Cadia's PDF, per Gunheads

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:44:06



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Gert wrote:
Hecaton wrote:

So still more core than anything in BL books.

More core than the 9th Edition Space Marine Codex? Thought not.
Would you like to post more nonsense or would you like to contribute something useful?

So is everything not in the current Codex: Space Marines non-canon?

How long does something have to go unmentioned for for it to be non-canon?

Is all currently out of print material non-canon?

What happens if GW were to re-publish Index Astartes next week? Would it have been canon, then non-canon, then canon again?

What happens if part of a narrative (eg. the World Engine incident) is no longer in print, but part is?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:41:01


 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






I would say 20 years and a GW article saying the information from the book is outdated. Oh man we have both of those!
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Gert wrote:
I would say 20 years and a GW article saying the information from the book is outdated. Oh man we have both of those!


I wouldn't even then. Notice how fast and loose they're playing with lore and the new Kreig minis.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Gert wrote:
I would say 20 years and a GW article saying the information from the book is outdated. Oh man we have both of those!


What GW article?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Gert wrote:
I would say 20 years and a GW article saying the information from the book is outdated. Oh man we have both of those!

Index Astartes I was published in 2002 (I'm pretty sure there was a later re-release of all of the volumes together too).

The Warhammer Community article didn't say that [all of] (or what of) the material was supposedly outdated.
EDIT: In fact it doesn't say that it is outdated at all. It claims that 'changes have been rendered to the detail' (sic)

And you've not answered the other questions which make the idea of 'retcon by omission' fall apart when put under any level of scrutiny...


And and, the Community article (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/), which contains the stipulation that potential recruits be male, was published in 2016, so it's only a mere five years old!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 20:05:14


 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






If it didn't specify then the whole thing is considered outdated. Pretty simple concept.
Oh no its only 19 years, what a difference.
If GW were to republish a book they've said is outdated I would question why it's being reprinted.
Your final question doesn't make sense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 20:02:55


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Gert wrote:
If it didn't specify then the whole thing is considered outdated. Pretty simple concept.


Uh, no, not at all. Can you show anywhere where it says that the Astartes process works on female humans? If not, we can assume that part wasn't changed or made outdated.

It also notes that the updates happened in Codex: Space Marines. Where in these codices does it say that female humans can be Astartes?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 20:07:57


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Gert wrote:

Oh no its only 19 years, what a difference.

Hey, YOU specified that it should be less than twenty years old.

You're the one trying to lay out some set of rules for what is and isn't canon. If you have to abandon one of your major necessities so immediately because it actually fails to support your position, that's on you...
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






I didn't say that all canon lore is less than 20 years old but keep twisting my words to suit your narrative chief.
Biggest thing to consider here is that the only defence you have is an outdated source (GW's words) and that's enough to never ever have female SM ever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 20:16:08


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Gert wrote:
I didn't say that all canon lore is less than 20 years old but keep twisting my words to suit your narrative chief.
 Gert wrote:
I would say 20 years and a GW article saying the information from the book is outdated. Oh man we have both of those!

*womp womp *

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 20:15:10


 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Yup, that doesn't say "all canon". Nice one.
Are you also really going to take the stance that since its not been contradicted (despite being in an outdated publication) that it's 100% super canon?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 20:19:02


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Gert wrote:

Are you also really going to take the stance that since its not been contradicted (despite being in an outdated publication) that it's 100% super canon?


I mean I'm saying that since it hasn't been contradicted, and they've had multiple opportunities to do so, it is definitely still canon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
Yup, that doesn't say "all canon". Nice one.


And no, he's talking about this specific issue. Anyone can see that he's got you dead to rights on that one.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 20:21:09


 
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






Damocles you've linked the wrong article. The latest article concerning the creation of SM was posted last year and the it quoted Index Astartes and specifically said the quote was taken from an old publication that contained outdated info.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

Hecaton wrote:
 Gert wrote:

Are you also really going to take the stance that since its not been contradicted (despite being in an outdated publication) that it's 100% super canon?


I mean I'm saying that since it hasn't been contradicted, and they've had multiple opportunities to do so, it is definitely still canon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
Yup, that doesn't say "all canon". Nice one.


And no, he's talking about this specific issue. Anyone can see that he's got you dead to rights on that one.



Yes he has but remember the lore only matters insofar as it supports the cause if it does not then it can be changed or ignored don't you know, also remember that making Sisters the same as space marines stat wise has no lore reason and is ridiculous but making female space marines and changing the lore is A-ok.

Spoiler:
yes this is tongue in cheek
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Gert wrote:
Damocles you've linked the wrong article. The latest article concerning the creation of SM was posted last year and the it quoted Index Astartes and specifically said the quote was taken from an old publication that contained outdated info.


Could you link that one?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Gert wrote:
Damocles you've linked the wrong article. The latest article concerning the creation of SM was posted last year and the it quoted Index Astartes and specifically said the quote was taken from an old publication that contained outdated info.

Do you have a link?

The only version I can find via Google is the 2016 version.
The version which Lexicanum claims is from 2019 actually links to the 2016 version too.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

 Lord Damocles wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Damocles you've linked the wrong article. The latest article concerning the creation of SM was posted last year and the it quoted Index Astartes and specifically said the quote was taken from an old publication that contained outdated info.

Do you have a link?

The only version I can find via Google is the 2016 version.
The version which Lexicanum claims is from 2019 actually links to the 2016 version too.


went all the way through all mentions of space marine to nov 2019 and could not find what he is referring to
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




And now he's going to pretend this never happened to avoid being wrong...
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

Space Marine may based on astrology, or nipples. That's fine: but if they would be so, we will expect and explanation about how astrology or nipples are involved in process, and how this have other implications.
That is what the suspension of disbelief is about... Building a world with ots internal consistency: otherwise it's just a bad piece of writing with no bearing.
And let me be very clear: Cawl (as a concept) horribly drop the ball on that already. Female marine really are a wash compared to Primaris. Where were Gondor when Primaris were introduced? You really think Female Spaces Marine would somehow be more impactful than that? Call alone broke the credibility of the setting order of magnitude more than what a Space Marine has between the legs.

Case in point, Chaos: Chaos has rules, an internal consistency and an internal logic (and considering it's Chaos, I think that's enough to prove that you can't ignore internal consistency in fiction not even when you are detailing the literal Caos solidified).

Currently, being male as no bearing at all in the process, it is not explained, included or used in the lore. We don't have heretic versus traditionalist, male chapter versus female chapter, or stories of female excluded from the process, or heretical foundation female marine. If thing would be so, maybe the issue would be more debatable. But it's not.
This is not the same as Sister: for them being female is a part of their internal consistency and narrative. They have an history, a decree, a civil war that all relate to that.

But let's try to clarify: would you accept a Primaris process if it would be based on fire, water, wood, metal an earth like the Chinese traditional medicine?
Note: I didn't mean it on the sense of "because the Mechanicus doesn't know how it really works". I mean, the literal technical explanation relies on the five elements and improve the amount of "fire" in the candidate bodies.

That's the current level of credibility of this specific piece of lore: so little that damage the setting for being there and should be removed.

I'v already gave at least three or four options about why extending/updating the lore can be done with exactly zero consequences or retcons, while IMPROVING the options and opportunities presented by the setting, keeping it grimdark, making the Emperor personality even worse (I think we all agree the Imperium aren't the good guys right?), not forcing anyone to change what they already have from a modelling point of view, simply including new options for everyone that they can use or not.
My preferred one is that female Astartes are already possible (as I said, the process itself conflict with it's restrictions in term of genders), but since the Imperium is unable to learn, none though about that on large scale (so any hobbyst may have Firstborn Female... They are simply unknown to the wider Imperium).


No political reasons here, as you can see. No argument about GW market, business expansions and etcetera.
Those are fine, but those will never directly convince somehow who is erroneously convinced that the current limitation lore-wise make any sense or improve their enjoyment of the setting in any plausible way (while actively working at detriment of their fellow hobbyst, both male and female).

So, again, you're refusing something that doesn't impact you negatively, and may instead produce more enjoyment for you (worst case: you'll enjoyment being the same).
The only reason to keep the lore as it is are essentially all variation of "I don't trust changes" or "I may don't like the final results".
Well, that's won't cut it when you are advocating for restricting other about how they should use their toys.

I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Formosa wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Damocles you've linked the wrong article. The latest article concerning the creation of SM was posted last year and the it quoted Index Astartes and specifically said the quote was taken from an old publication that contained outdated info.

Do you have a link?

The only version I can find via Google is the 2016 version.
The version which Lexicanum claims is from 2019 actually links to the 2016 version too.


went all the way through all mentions of space marine to nov 2019 and could not find what he is referring to

I'm not going to rule out the possibility that it exists just yet.

I was checking back in this thread in case it was posted earlier, an did find that way back on page 8 Aszubaruzah Surn posted a link to the Rites of Initiation article (with male initiates only stipulation) from 2008 (https://web.archive.org/web/20080411194030/http://uk.games-workshop.com/spacemarines/initiation/3/), so that 20 19 years is fully blown away...
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




 Cybtroll wrote:


I despised Primaris (and never bought one): they are a sales driver that has been force-fed into the lore. Female Primaris would, at least, let them serves some purposes aside from trying to sell you your entire collection again.


This sounds very sensible, but Primaris were introduced a few years ago (2017?) and remain an all male force... Which BTW shows that for GW the Astartes being male continues to be a significant part of the setting.

As I said in my first post this was a lost chance.
   
Made in gb
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!






It's not that one, there's one later on that was linked I'm still trying to find. This thread is 69 pages long, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

 Lord Damocles wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Damocles you've linked the wrong article. The latest article concerning the creation of SM was posted last year and the it quoted Index Astartes and specifically said the quote was taken from an old publication that contained outdated info.

Do you have a link?

The only version I can find via Google is the 2016 version.
The version which Lexicanum claims is from 2019 actually links to the 2016 version too.


went all the way through all mentions of space marine to nov 2019 and could not find what he is referring to

I'm not going to rule out the possibility that it exists just yet.

I was checking back in this thread in case it was posted earlier, an did find that way back on page 8 Aszubaruzah Surn posted a link to the Rites of Initiation article (with male initiates only stipulation) from 2008 (https://web.archive.org/web/20080411194030/http://uk.games-workshop.com/spacemarines/initiation/3/), so that 20 19 years is fully blown away...


I also just remembered in the Fulgrim Primarchs novel they say something about testing all the boys for compatibility, vague memory however so I may be mis remembering to be fair, I will check.

Edit: yep. Fabius is testing the mutants for compatibility and asks for the children to be tested "Males only" page 175 if anyone wants to check the context to make sure I am right or wrong

Release date October 2017.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 21:01:29


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: