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.

nice work dont see what all the hate was about tho nicely painted and modled, 8/10 keep up the good work

jamessearle0 wrote:nice work dont see what all the hate was about tho nicely painted and modled, 8/10 keep up the good work

Gracias

those are properly awsome

Fantastic work, and kudos for not letting small minds bring you down. I'm always happy to see people have fun with their projects, rather than letting someone they've never met dictate what is and isn't acceptable. The heads work really well, and the vast gap between the legs always worked better for the female physiology than the male.

I'm now going to add a female marine or two to my chapter. Just for spite.

i dont see what all the whining was about at the end of the day they'r great models. nice work!

The issues are the following if you forgot. Small minds. LOL.

One small mind would be that there are no female space marines. Yep I guess fluff has nothing to do with anything.

Heads are all the same. No difference in them what so ever. Didn't even try to take green stuff and make different hair styles.

Armour was not changed to reflect that they are women. Major problem if you ask me and you did.

They are not even painted yet. So what is the nice work? Any monkey can glue heads to a space marine body. The only difference is that this guy got to say "done!".

So you are saying awesome because he took female heads and put them on male bodies. Well break out the bubbly because somebody can glue.

I really don't care that someone wanted to make female space marines. I do care that someone just glued heads to a model and said look at me I'm an artest. Of course some of you jump on the wagon and say, "man that is rad!". Well I'm not buying it.

So here is what this guy can do. Fix his models so that they reflect a woman. (a different women for each of them) I freaking eye patch on one at least. Then he can paint and base them. Post the FINISHED project on here.

Then and only then should ANYONE say AWESOME if they are truely AWESOME.

People don't like it when they're cherished notions of reality are challenged. Doubly so in nerd heavy environments where they define their identity a lot based on their knowledge of a particular field. The idea that, in the case of fictional worlds, something might be retconned or altered distresses them to no end.



Incidentally the painted versions are shown a few posts back to show that they're finished and look pretty good, actually.

Looked at the painted pics and stand by my post.

Head look the same. No difference in them.

When did the humans allow pointed ears into the ranks?

So now you want me to believe that we have elf woman in the space marine ranks!

It is a crying shame that all that work in PAINTING was wasted. Woman have boobs or thats what the woman I have dated have. My wife has nice boobs and I can tell you she would not fit into that top portion of the armour.

So read my post above. Try again. This one did not go well. Make them ALL have different faces. Make them look like woman and not a man. Man body + woman head does not equal awesome. It equals transgender.

I don't know what you're whining about.
It's actually not a bad idea.
Why is it that women are'nt allowed in the Astartes?

Dr Thunder, you have a done a pretty good job at going down adventerous avenues. Keep it up!

great work. I was wondering why you decided to paint them all dffrent chapters. Is it the SM ass kicking beauty pageant.

Q. What has been the most significant accomplishment in your life? Why?

A. When i riped that slimmy orks head off.

Q. At what point does a girl become a woman?

A. AT the point when she first gets her perfectly manicured hands on a stormbolter.

Q. Do you consider yourself to be a giver or a taker? Why?

A. Both. i give them pain and take their lives.

I vote the Tech marine Kick Ass beauty of 2009 or equivelent 40k star date(or whatever)

And they above post proves that you like woman that look like men.

lol Quite posible nothing wrong with a tom boy.

But you never know. what is considerd beauty changes with the changes in culture. so by 40k that could be what is beautifull.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:Looked at the painted pics and stand by my post.

Head look the same. No difference in them.

When did the humans allow pointed ears into the ranks?

So now you want me to believe that we have elf woman in the space marine ranks!

It is a crying shame that all that work in PAINTING was wasted. Woman have boobs or thats what the woman I have dated have. My wife has nice boobs and I can tell you she would not fit into that top portion of the armour.

So read my post above. Try again. This one did not go well. Make them ALL have different faces. Make them look like woman and not a man. Man body + woman head does not equal awesome. It equals transgender.

Jesus H. FREAKING CHRIST you have to be joking man. You... Buddy you are a douche so touche yourself into the fantasy realms PLEASE.

For your next project can you make something even more crazy and mind-bendingly inventive to piss these guys off more...seriously though. I doubt it will be hard... I've got it Momma Ork!!! Ooooh yeah right to the heart of it eh? "But they are fungus and BLaBLaBlAlABLAJjkjAoofkjkjii". If it is just over your head call it a very confused Ork, in fact I would consider this type of "crossdressing" among Orks to be common to as they say "Trick Da Oomans!"

If you want to really twist some stomachs make a squad of "crossdressing" Ork boyz and call them... you geussed it... DA GIRLZ.

I say that whatever the eight foot tall woman with the thunder hammer says is beautiful is beautiful.

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:
I really don't care that someone wanted to make female space marines. I do care that someone just glued heads to a model and said look at me I'm an artest. Of course some of you jump on the wagon and say, "man that is rad!". Well I'm not buying it.

So here is what this guy can do. Fix his models so that they reflect a woman. (a different women for each of them) I freaking eye patch on one at least. Then he can paint and base them. Post the FINISHED project on here.

Then and only then should ANYONE say AWESOME if they are truely AWESOME.

Have you complained to GW that every wood elf head looks exactly the same, and that you are confused by the lack of variety? I see helmets, half helmets, a pony tail. No eye patch though. Kudos for nailing the fatal flaw in Thunder's project. You have an amazing eye for detail.






Automatically Appended Next Post:


AWESOME.

Doc Thunder,

I've always been a huge admirer of your work. Feminine Space Marines? They said it couldn't be done. But you have done it with style, and shown everyone what a little creativity and talent can do. Scratch that, a little creativity and a LOT of talent!

Kudos,
Solorg

This thread's hijack, in a nutshell: "My toy soldiers are more correct than your toy soldiers."

Doc. T, very nice, clean paintjob.

Ello ello chaps and chapettes. Trygon here. Long time browser, first time poster. Anyways, from information gathered from Bolter and Chainsword I can safely say that Doctor Thunder likely did not paint these marines. Not one. During my time on Bolter and Chainsword I have run into a few of his commissioned artists and sculptors. Some of them confirmed for me that most of his armies were painted by commissioned painters. The Doc was also caught out with his Black Widows on Warseer when one of the posters said he knew the commissioned painter that painted the army. So whilst MauleedlovesYakeface's comments were not that well put, he is technically right. The Doc likely did just glue female heads on male bodies and then just sent them off for a paintjob.

Anyways, just letting you folks know. I for one do not care about what gender a marine is, but what I do care about is giving credit where it is due.

terribletrygon wrote:Ello ello chaps and chapettes. Trygon here. Long time browser, first time poster. Anyways, from information gathered from Bolter and Chainsword I can safely say that Doctor Thunder likely did not paint these marines. Not one. During my time on Bolter and Chainsword I have run into a few of his commissioned artists and sculptors. Some of them confirmed for me that most of his armies were painted by commissioned painters. The Doc was also caught out with his Black Widows on Warseer when one of the posters said he knew the commissioned painter that painted the army. So whilst MauleedlovesYakeface's comments were not that well put, he is technically right. The Doc likely did just glue female heads on male bodies and then just sent them off for a paintjob.

Anyways, just letting you folks know. I for one do not care about what gender a marine is, but what I do care about is giving credit where it is due.

The reason I'm not answering you is because you are trolling my threads and I believe the best policy is to ignore and report trolls rather than to feed them. Please do not assume that my ignoring you is an answer to your questions.

That is quite a claim Terribletrygon, nonetheless whoever did paint these he did quite a good job imo. As a designer I would be "happy" ( ) to get paid if I knowingly would not get credit for my work. Lots of professions do this, usually called "Ghost" writing/painting/sculpting. It is more common than you would think, and while I don't entirely agree with it, bills need to be paid and a name can be made on others accomplishments with no harm or foul to most.

I actually thought the heads were tastefully done when painted. Lacking a bit of detail but well positioned and chosen for each model. I can't say I see two people doing this project.

With that said... Actually I need to clarify that I am not accusing anyone of anything, it is really none of my business. I will stay out of this argument from this point on because I am not a part of the professional painting community.

i really would like to point out how "mauleedlovesyakeface" is completely wrong but its SO much more satisfiying simply to say thats he's being an ass

Let's not forget that everybody is wrong on the internet

insaniak wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Nope, it means that they wont be Astartes (Space Marines) if they don't use that process.

So... if I make a plate out of baked clay, and then make another plate out of cast aluminium... which one is really a plate, and which one is something else?

Are you seriously saying the difference between men and women is the same as the difference between clay and aluminum?

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
According to canon.

Except that GW says there is no such thing as canon, so that flushes itself.

No, there is such a thing as canon. It is, on this issue, clear and defined. If we were discussing the dates of the Damocles Gulf Crusade or the Exorcist founding status, then maybe, but not this one.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
So as you can see, no female marines exist

Ummm, male marines don't exist either. It's pretend

Wow, ok, so your going to cop out of the discussion with that then? How dare you. Don't talk down to us just because we enjoy talking about this fictional made up universe. Its too bad your such a damn good modeler and painter.

Mastiff wrote:





Have you complained to GW that every wood elf head looks exactly the same, and that you are confused by the lack of variety? I see helmets, half helmets, a pony tail. No eye patch though. Kudos for nailing the fatal flaw in Thunder's project. You have an amazing eye for detail.






Automatically Appended Next Post:


AWESOME.

OMG! Yes!...Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!
I must agree. That IS awsome.
Just one little thing, the slamander chick looks kind of fat.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
No, there is such a thing as canon.

Not according to Games Workshop, as I'll quote in a moment.


40K is very different then almost any other sci-fi you are likely to encounter. And I don’t mean that it’s gothic and vast. I mean that it is written without the 3rd person objective voice ever being used.
In most sci-fi, we are accustomed to the “voice” of the narration being omniscient, knowing exactly what has happened and what is happening. Even if the characters involved in the story may never know the whole truth, the narrator does, and so, generally, the reader does as well. Publishers hate the idea that the readers may get confused and frustrated with loose ends, and normally demand full and correct disclosure to the readers at some point. Even though there may have been half-truths and misunderstandings along the way, by the end of the series, the readers are given a full and truthful picture of the world they have been reading about.
40K, however, never does this.



Here to explain it better then I can, we have a very important quote from Marc Gascoigne - Publisher, The Black Library and Black Flame

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumor that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumors, distorted legends and half-truths.

I think the real problem is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note the answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nuclear war; that nails it.

Notice that even when he is talking about things that some players consider fairly indisputable, like the Black Templars lacking the belchers gland, his response is still "’sometimes’ or ‘it varies’ or ‘depends.’"

And another from the design team in White Dwarf 302:

The back story presents questions, enigmas, problems, and conflicts. Gamers explore and solve these issues by playing games and developing armies. In short, the background provides the beginning, but the players provide the end.
What is Cypher up to? Well, he's up to whatever you need him to be up to for your games and campaigns. What does the cult mechanicus have to do with the dragon? Whatever you want that relationship to be.
The background should be like Schrodinger's Cat-Nothing is defined until the players look into the box by playing games and determining the outcome for themselves. Backgrounds should be full of possibilities to be exploited and expanded by players, not answers that limit the potential of the game and its setting.

So, what do we learn from these very important quotes?

1) That the idea of "canon" is incompatible with the way 40K is written. There is no such thing as canon in 40K. No matter how much we may wish it were to be so, there is no full and truthful picture, only scraps of information of questionable validity. Everything we read about in 40K books is either "exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumor that may or may not have any truth behind it."

2) That the idea of a "shared universe" is a fan construct only. 40K is a multiverse, where each player is intended to and asked to create their own version. In one player’s universe, Cypher is working to kill The Emperor, in another player’s universe, he is working to restore The Emperor. Again, we may want the 40K universe to be a consistent and defined singular place like other sci-fi brands, but no matter how much we may wish it to be, it is not.

3) That GW does not intend their universe to be anything more then a setting, and any attempt or desire to place borders and limitations on something that is not designed to have borders and limitations goes against the express intent of the background.

I think we all love the 40K background, but I think that love leads some players to wish it was more concrete then it really is, or more consistent then it really is. Our love of 40K background must never lead us to change it into it is something it is not.

Sure, it may not be as exciting to talk about rumors as it is to talk about actual events. It may not be as emotionally satisfying to tell someone that they are allowed to interpret something as they see fit instead of telling them that they are just plain wrong, but when we treat 40K as a closed and defined universe we are perverting what it is into something that it is not.

So there's a paradox...

The only canon is that there is no canon.

Thank you, games workshop! I eagerly await your next game where we'll play all powerful genies trying to create rocks so big even an all powerful genie cannot move them, before trying to solve the archers paradox.

Really cool, great work.

Nice work D.

But, that comes from the BL guy, who doesn't work for the studio. The Dark Angels Primarch is Lion El' Jonson, their are no loyalist traitor marines still around, and their are no female space marines. These are unchangeable facts of 40K.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:But, that comes from the BL guy, who doesn't work for the studio.

Actually he does, but nice try. Plus, you can't ignore the fact that the other quote is from the Design Team in a White Dwarf article. There is nothing more official then that and you know it.

The Dark Angels Primarch is Lion El' Jonson, their are no loyalist traitor marines still around, and their are no female space marines. These are unchangeable facts of 40K.

I think your heart is in the right place, which is why I'm going to help you out. If you want to make a legitimate argument, you're going to need to bring some evidence to support your claims. As it stands right now, I have presented quotes from GW staff and published White Dwarf articles. This begs the obvious question, "If some anonymous guy online says there are unchangeable facts, while Games Workshop says there are only rumors, legends, and half-truths, why would anyone listen to the amonymous online guy?"

I can tell you enjoy being knowledgeable about the background and adhering to it canonically. There is nothing wrong with that desire. The problem is that you have chosen a game that fundamentally doesn't support it. Rather than face this fact, you try and treat the background as if it was written canonically anyway. You are welcome to do this, incidentally, as GW encourages each player to create their own corner in the 40K multiverse. The problem is that you are treating your own corner as if it were the only corner, and scorning anyone who does not fall in line with your approach.

Remember the quote from the Design Team Published in White Dwarf. What is Cypher up to? Whatever we need him to be up to. So, in my multiverse, Cypher is working to kill the Emperor. Perhaps in your multiverse, he is trying to restore The Emperor. So long as we both respect each other's freedom to work within our own multiverse, that is fine, but if I start telling you that you are wrong and only my multiverse is correct, then I have crossed the line.

If it helps you swallow it, try to look at it this way. In your multiverse, female space marines are an impossibility. In my multiverse, they exist and are central characters. We are each doing what GW has asked up to do, which is create our own 40K multiverse. So long as we don't start telling each other that only our multiverse is correct, we are both enjoying the hobby as intended.

So, to summarize:
You like canonical fluff - that's good.
You picked a game without canonical fluff - that's bad.
You treat the fluff as if it were canonical anyway - that's good.
You insist that everyone else do so as well - that's bad.


The beautiful thing about 40K message boards, Marshal, is that we occasionally get GW staff members to come on and comment on subjects like these. Here's a quote from a GW staffer from the B+C forums:

As far as I've heard or read, it has yet to be tried. That DOESN'T mean that it cannot be done. "Could" is a LOT different than "can" or "can't". So go ahead and make some female Space Marines! Make your own fluff! DO WHAT YOU LIKE. That's what the hobby is all about. It IS a fictional universe after all.

And if anyone wants to convert an all-female Space Marine army, PLEASE send me good photos. i think they'd be cool!

If GW staff don't mind, then why should we?