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.
Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?
No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/10 00:56:47
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ] Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male, These Feminine. For Spirits when they please Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ] Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb, Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones, Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure, Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ] And works of love or enmity fulfill.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/10 01:02:22
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ]
Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names
Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male,
These Feminine. For Spirits when they please
Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ]
Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb,
Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose
Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure,
Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ]
And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost. And as someone pointed out they are both sexes. Cherry picking selecting passages does not prove the first, or debunk the second. I am also not engaging in this argument again. It is debunked.
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ] Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male, These Feminine. For Spirits when they please Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ] Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb, Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones, Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure, Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ] And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost.
You mean like this?
“Imagine a science fiction Paradise Lost,” says Abnett. “It’s a HUGE scale, epic story of the fight to control a massive empire. It’s set in a gothic universe that’s brilliantly realised. And despite the fact that there’s a large amount of thunking action going on, it’s pretty clever stuff with great characters and ideas. You don’t have to be a fan or player of Warhammer 40,000 to get into it.”
Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.
Oh really, Formosa said Automatically did he?
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
so I'm working off the hyperthetical possibilty of self replicating astartes
space marines cannot have children for several reasons, anatomy being one of them, hyperthetically if you make a male marine fertile you have the issue that a female would likely not be able to carry the much larger (theoretically) fetus to term, it would likely kill her, now reverse this and apply the same theory to a female marine, make her fertile (something that Fabious would likely be able to do) and replicate this across the legions, suddenly you have a massive threat on your hands, its just not worth it.
if marines could reproduce naturally
Imagine if marines could "reproduce" in such a manner, a woman finds some lucky (or unlucky) bloke for Snu Snu and suddenly you have a self replicating species of Astartes (if its possible to reproduce with a normal human that is)
Hmmmm "If" "hyperthetically" "possibility" are all thrown around in there.
Lets see what else Formosa said.
making all marines male to make sure that at no point no one works out how to make them able to give birth make perfect sense for a disposable force, and thats what the marines are, imagine if fabious worked out how to allow female marines to have children during a female heresy, its a whole new can of worms, so like it or lump it, this is a valid in universe reason not to have female marines, if I were the Emperor, I would not even want the hint of a risk of that happening.
They are not a race that can reproduce, but they are also all male, so to be frank, if you can have you nonsense, so can I, like I said before, you want female marines, then this is a valid reason why the Emperor would not want it, you don't like it, tough, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Thats all I am willing to help you with right now, click my previous posts and stop being lazy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/10 01:40:53
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ]
Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names
Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male,
These Feminine. For Spirits when they please
Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ]
Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb,
Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose
Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure,
Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ]
And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost.
You mean like this?
“Imagine a science fiction Paradise Lost,” says Abnett. “It’s a HUGE scale, epic story of the fight to control a massive empire. It’s set in a gothic universe that’s brilliantly realised. And despite the fact that there’s a large amount of thunking action going on, it’s pretty clever stuff with great characters and ideas. You don’t have to be a fan or player of Warhammer 40,000 to get into it.”
And even then, all it takes is a bit of inference to draw the connections.
Similar to, is not the same as inspiered by. And your argument was that the SM are the angels, and the angels are male. Nothing your argument touches upon. In fact, if anything, is an argument that SM should be compatable with both genders because the angels in paradise lost are both angels. You need to find relevant arguments for you claim instead of just a argument that does not suport your clain.
Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.
Oh really, Formosa said Automatically did he?
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
so I'm working off the hyperthetical possibilty of self replicating astartes
space marines cannot have children for several reasons, anatomy being one of them, hyperthetically if you make a male marine fertile you have the issue that a female would likely not be able to carry the much larger (theoretically) fetus to term, it would likely kill her, now reverse this and apply the same theory to a female marine, make her fertile (something that Fabious would likely be able to do) and replicate this across the legions, suddenly you have a massive threat on your hands, its just not worth it.
if marines could reproduce naturally
Imagine if marines could "reproduce" in such a manner, a woman finds some lucky (or unlucky) bloke for Snu Snu and suddenly you have a self replicating species of Astartes (if its possible to reproduce with a normal human that is)
Hmmmm "If" "hyperthetically" "possibility" are all thrown around in there.
You are not providing any context for those quotes or who are saying them, si it is hard to comment on them. I stil do not know what your argument about the daemon-what-it's-name is. And I stil do not understand how that argument naturaly leads to a lot of SM being birthed. And you are continuing to poison the well just as you did 5 posts back. I am from here on out ignoring youm you are from everything I can se, a troll, at least in this part of the argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/10 01:39:03
AegisGrimm wrote: All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.
All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.
I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.
I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.
Does Milton really write that though? He generally addresses the angels with male pronouns, and the only passage about changing gender I could find refers to Baal and Astaroth, who were both Levantine gods associated with farming and fertility who are sometimes considered to be related or the same, and was probably what Milton was referring to. It does not necessarily mean that all angels can change gender at will. And considering how they are fallen angels, which are described as being abominable, it would seem that the heavenly angels would not share these traits.
Of old Euphrates to the Brook that parts [ 420 ]
Egypt from Syrian ground, had general Names
Of Baalim and Ashtaroth, those male,
These Feminine. For Spirits when they please
Can either Sex assume, or both; so soft
And uncompounded is thir Essence pure, [ 425 ]
Not ti'd or manacl'd with joynt or limb,
Nor founded on the brittle strength of bones,
Like cumbrous flesh; but in what shape they choose
Dilated or condens't, bright or obscure,
Can execute thir aerie purposes, [ 430 ]
And works of love or enmity fulfill.
You never demonstarted that it was based upon paraidse lost.
You mean like this?
“Imagine a science fiction Paradise Lost,” says Abnett. “It’s a HUGE scale, epic story of the fight to control a massive empire. It’s set in a gothic universe that’s brilliantly realised. And despite the fact that there’s a large amount of thunking action going on, it’s pretty clever stuff with great characters and ideas. You don’t have to be a fan or player of Warhammer 40,000 to get into it.”
And even then, all it takes is a bit of inference to draw the connections.
Similar to, is not the same as inspiered by. And your argument was that the SM are the angels, and the angels are male. Nothing your argument touches upon. In fact, if anything, is an argument that SM should be compatable with both genders because the angels in paradise lost are both angels. You need to find relevant arguments for you claim instead of just a argument that does not suport your clain.
Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.
Oh really, Formosa said Automatically did he?
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
so I'm working off the hyperthetical possibilty of self replicating astartes
space marines cannot have children for several reasons, anatomy being one of them, hyperthetically if you make a male marine fertile you have the issue that a female would likely not be able to carry the much larger (theoretically) fetus to term, it would likely kill her, now reverse this and apply the same theory to a female marine, make her fertile (something that Fabious would likely be able to do) and replicate this across the legions, suddenly you have a massive threat on your hands, its just not worth it.
if marines could reproduce naturally
Imagine if marines could "reproduce" in such a manner, a woman finds some lucky (or unlucky) bloke for Snu Snu and suddenly you have a self replicating species of Astartes (if its possible to reproduce with a normal human that is)
Hmmmm "If" "hyperthetically" "possibility" are all thrown around in there.
You are not providing any context for those quotes or who are saying them, si it is hard to comment on them. I stil do not know what your argument about the daemon-what-it's-name is. And I stil do not understand how that argument naturaly leads to a lot of SM being birthed. And you are continuing to poison the well just as you did 5 posts back. I am from here on out ignoring youm you are from everything I can se, a troll, at least in this part of the argument.
I hadnt finished posting, but as I said in the last post, stop being lazy and read the previous posts.
Dark wrote: So far, it seems we have this huge international pizza franchise, ad the most popular and best selling pizza is the ham and bellpeppers one.
Seems that some want that pizza changed so it also has pinneaple slices on it. I came bit late for the peas analogy.
Aparantly if you put pineapple on it you have to completly restructure your franchise. Even though you can stil have a slice with just ham and bellpepper.
Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?
No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?
Didn't even see your reply, wow.
I have no problem with tyranids adapting in the setting. This is an explanation that is 'in the setting' as opposed to something that is retconned 'outside of the setting'. Either option is fine with me. But you should notice that some of the units are introduce 'in the setting' as a follow of a special problem. But many of the units I mentioned where retconned 'outside of the settinng'. One edition they where not there, the next edition they suddenly apeared. And when you dig into the setting they do not form as gradual evolution, they just apear in the first description of tyranids.
So see if you follow me here. People have no problem with retconning the tyranid background.
If you where to retconn in SM based upon females you would essentually change very little. Why do people have such a problem with this, as opposed to retconning tyranids.
As I have said a couple of times now I think the problem can be in how big we observe the change. In my eyes having SM compattable with the Y cromosome is a very small change, in the same category as retconning in new tyranid units.
Question: Do you actually know what retcon means? Because the Tyranid changes would be considered an addition to the lore, because it shows changes that they've used in the past to evolve things to deal with.
Here's another example: The Space Marine Centurions were an addition to the lore as well, a bit meh by most people but them having a new suit for dealing with things isn't too big.
Changing Space Marines to female from the beginning would retcon nearly every single massive major thing in the Imperium Lore, this is not an addition to the lore. This is outright CHANGING the lore that was set in stone, to put it bluntly it'd be like saying that Tyranids are now catfolk that evolve.. I'm beginning to honestly question if you are just straight up trolling now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/10 02:11:31
Yes I do know what retcon mean. Would it be easier if I found some other race they retconned at some point? Orks, eldar, chaos, marines or the even un-popular necrons. I just find the tyranid example good since it gets retconned so frequently. Although I will admit that some of the changes happen in setting does make it a bit confusing now that you have pointed it out.
Why is female based SM such a big thing? Just pop them in there.
Even if retocons have been done before (like Orks and Necrons), doesn't means doing it again is a good thing.
And some changes in he setting, while welcome for some, doesn't means they have to be done neither. (As for me, i don't like the whole primaris thing myself)
I think it is time I bow out of this thread. My inclusion in it has made tensions worse by my over usage of right wing terminology. I still very much stand by my remarks thread wide. I will go on record stating that I think the continued discourse from fem marines comes down to wanting the attention given to space marines for their preference. If this was not the case they would take one of the many alternatives presented in this thread. I cant really blame them, everyone would like SM treatment for their preferences. To defend myself I have to state that in the america's there are a group of liberal people whom try to bully both companies and fans into accepting their politics and that is why I was using buzz words. After reading this thread again I can say that this has not been done here. So it is a case of me over reacting. I apologize for any offensive remarks I have made if any have been made.
In the end, it comes down to cold hard cash and profits. Other fantasy settings and IPs have suffered lower sales when including politics and using replacement methods to assert said politics into the setting. Marvel comics is a great example of this. There was no need to replace existing heroes with new more diverse persona's. They could have easily made RiRI/Ironheart into her own comic instead of replacing Tony Stark/Iron Man. Since this push of forced diversity (buzz word.....apologies) Marvel has lost huge chunks of market share. If you ever wonder why the cinematic universe is doing so well as opposed to the comics then you have your answer.
I am all for more female miniatures and factions. I think female marines would hurt the company and the setting. I hope GW is smart enough to not make any changes to existing factions. I do hope GW will give The Sisters of Battle a army wide plastic release and a proper codex. I do hope we get female guard miniatures. There is nothing wrong with not being able to identify with a faction in a sci-fi game of toys. That truth being said I am glad we already have a faction that female and progressive male players can identify with. A good portion of the aesthetic's of space marines is based on its existence as a fraternal warrior brother hood. To take that away is to take away marines as we know them and replace them with a new faction. This is a BAD idea as it hurts many players and helps far fewer.
I would also be open to the idea of a whole new faction of augmented warriors in power armor that include both male and females. But I say let marines be marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiai wrote: Yes I do know what retcon mean. Would it be easier if I found some other race they retconned at some point? Orks, eldar, chaos, marines or the even un-popular necrons. I just find the tyranid example good since it gets retconned so frequently. Although I will admit that some of the changes happen in setting does make it a bit confusing now that you have pointed it out.
Why is female based SM such a big thing? Just pop them in there.
Also, thank you for remaining civil in our discourse. My answer to your question is because to "pop them in there" is to change what the faction is, which is a fraternal warrior brotherhood. Marines are defined by their gender and there is nothing wrong with that. Let the players who like that aspect of the faction be. Ask for representation in a new faction or more attention given to the female warrior order. But once more, and for the final time. Let marines be marines. Peace out my friend.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/10 04:02:53
~4100
~1660
