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.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
Which one is obsessed?

It's you, you're the creepy and obsessed one.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
And before you say "It's not the same thing"...

It's the same thing.

Candy Land doesn't have a narrative, 40k does. If Candy Land had a narrative it would (or at least could) be the same thing. But it doesn't. So it isn't.

It is of course possible to make female Space Marine models. But there is no place in the 40k narrative where such a thing is possible.

Ultimately this is pointless. Nothing I say will convince you that FemMarines are both outside the 40k narrative. Nothing you say will change the fact that FemMarines don't belong in the narrative.

Doctor Optimal wrote:

It's you, you're the creepy and obsessed one.

You're name-calling over the way a stranger plays with toy soldiers thousands of miles away from you, and I'm the creepy and obsessed one?

Why would you even care? I mean, I don't care about how you play with your toys, why would you care about how I play with mine?

Candy Land doesn't have a narrative, 40k does. If Candy Land had a narrative it would be a comparison

Sure it does. As you play the game, you follow the narrative of a bunch of kids saving King Candy and Princess Lolly from Lord Licorice. It's all on the inside of the box, and it's just as in-depth and well-thought-out as most 40K fluff.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
Sure it does, the story and narrative are on the inside of the box. As you play the game, you follow the narrative of a bunch of kids saving King Candy and Princess Loli from Lord Licorice, and it's just as in-depth and well-thought-out as most 40K fluff.

Doctor Thunder talking about Loli. What a shock.

Like I said, you can do as you please. And I know you will. It's your property and you're entitled. But FemMarines aren't part of the 40k narrative. If you don't care about the narrative, my saying this shouldn't bother you. And this is the 40k background forum, where we talk about the 40k narrative, the one you say doesn't exist. I don't go into FemMarine P&M threads to criticize because those are about the models. This thread is about the narrative possibility of FemMarines. And there isn't any.

Doctor Optimal wrote:
Doctor Thunder talking about Loli. What a shock.

Why all the venom, Optimal? I've never even met you, so why all the hate?



I'm curious as to what you objective is.


Are you looking for an apology for the way I play with my toys?

Are you trying to convince me to come over to your way of thinking?

Or do you just enjoy hurting others?

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Doctor Optimal wrote:
Doctor Thunder talking about Loli. What a shock.

Why all the venom, Optimal? I've never even met you, so why all the hate?



I'm curious as to what you objective is.


Are you looking for an apology for the way I play with my toys?

Are you trying to convince me to come over to your way of thinking?

Or do you just enjoy hurting others?

I'm wondering why you're in a background thread, where there is no background to be had, talking about how background doesn't matter in what is just a beer and pretzels game.

This will never resolve itself. You think the background is secondary to the toys, I think the toys are secondary to the background. We have mutually irreconcilable positions.

And that's ok.

If you think the background doesn't matter, knock yourself out. Make whatever toys you want. I really have no problem with you doing whatever it is you want to do. I just don't understand what you are looking to prove here in a background thread, when FemMarines don't HAVE any background.

Doctor Optimal wrote: We have mutually irreconcilable positions.

I understand that we have irreconcilable positions, what I don't understand is your reaction to it. Do you think that name-calling, and slander, and hatred, are appropriate reactions when encountering someone who is different to yourself, or who thinks differently then you do?

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Doctor Optimal wrote: We have mutually irreconcilable positions.

I understand that we have irreconcilable positions, what I don't understand is your reaction to it. Do you think that name-calling, and slander, and hatred, are appropriate reactions when encountering someone who is different to yourself, or who thinks differently then you do?

Burn the heretic.

Doctor Thunder wrote:Do you think that name-calling, and slander, and hatred, are appropriate reactions when encountering someone who is different to yourself, or who thinks differently then you do?

Neo-nazis and serial killers think differently from me. The specifics of the differences are what matter.

Neo-nazis and serial killers think differently from me. The specifics of the differences are what matter.

And you think that the game pieces we use in an imaginary children's game are that important? Important enough to validate treating other human beings with scorn?

I think not.

People are more important then plastic toys. Courtesy is more important then make-believe. Respect is more important then candyland.

Doctor Optimal wrote:

Burn the heretic.

Well, I tried reasoning with you. Even though you called me a creep and intonated that I am a pedophile, I bear you no ill will. I allow you to play with your toys without calling you names. I only hope that some day you will grant me the same respect and courtesy.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
And you think that the game pieces we use in an imaginary children's game are that important? Important enough to validate treating other human beings with scorn?

I think not.

I was just disagreeing with your rationale, not the specifics of your claim.

They say that space marines must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Well females produce the same hormones as males do and either sex can take hormones to become the other, and on top of that if a baby is exposed to excess hormones from the mother before it's born it can suffer from Hermorphaditeism. So a space marine zygotes must be keyed to the Y chromosone which makes a male a male and not a female.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Doctor Optimal wrote:...if you take the setting of 40k seriously...

Perhaps that's the problem right there.

40K is a beer and pretzels game. You should never take it too seriously. Doing so would be like taking candyland seriously.

Sure, you can make a candyland tournament and increase the level of competition and even give out a big trophy, but it remains nothing more then a child's game. Nothing wrong with enjoying a kids game, but the minute it becomes so serious that you write up several paragraphs about how it's just not acceptable to use a monopoly car instead of the gingerbread man that comes in the box, because it breaks the candyland universe, it's really time to take a step back and chill out about a million percent.

Yes, 99% of the people out there obsessed with female SM's are creepy weeboo 4channers.

No, you don't want to be one of them.

Player 1 puts down a monopoly piece on the candyland board, and player 2 freaks out and starts name-calling.

Which one is obsessed?



And before you say "It's not the same thing"...

It's the same thing.





.

Its beer and pretzels to you. To others it is a narrative universe like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:

Its beer and pretzels to you.

I'm not the only one who calls it a beer and pretzels game. The design team calls it that in WD all the time. You can find the references yourself.

If you want to go against the design team, you are welcome to.

To others it is a narrative universe like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.

The problem with comparing 40K to things like LOTR and Star Wars is that those things are designed to have some depth and be complete universes, while 40K is merely a setting comprised of a bunch of stolen IP duct-taped together.

I love 40K, I just don't pretend it is what it isn't.

Doctor Thunder wrote:The problem with comparing 40K to things like LOTR and Star Wars is that those things are designed to have some depth and be complete universes, while 40K is merely a setting comprised of a bunch of stolen IP duct-taped together.

Listen, you can't whine about people not respecting you and then say something like this in a 40k Background thread. The reason that this space exists is because for many people it's more than "stolen IP duct-taped together." Respect is a two-way street here and everywhere else.

They don't exist in 40K.

I wouldn't play someone who made an army out of something that beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't exist, be it a fem-marine army, friendly dark eldar, or whatever else it might be.

Though female groups in IG would be different IMO.

If someone's motivation is boobs in space armor, they should play SoB.

I understand that there are no Fem-Sm in 40k, I just don't understand why it isn't possible?

Anyway, even if it doesn't QUITE make sense it wouldn't stop me having a game with one. Although I don't really know why someone wouldn't be satisfied with SoB or Fem IG. (Forget about not hitting girls, these chicks would knock your block off.)

The augmentations to make someone a SM don't work on females, for whatever reason that might be.

I think the better question is why are people looking for a workaround to the rules? Plenty of armies field women. Heck, Eldar even have a female-only aspect; Howling Banshees.

and that whatever reason is?

Does it even state in the Sm Codex that the SM is a male only club? I know it shows no indication of females, but does it actually say that there aren't?

EasyE wrote:friendly dark eldar

Best analogy yet. If you're the type to make a friendly DE army, then go ahead and have them fight your boobie mehreins.

Doctor Thunder wrote:The problem with comparing 40K to things like LOTR and Star Wars is that those things are designed to have some depth and be complete universes, while 40K is merely a setting comprised of a bunch of stolen IP duct-taped together.

LOL.

Yeah, Doctor Thunder, Star Wars is a better "complete universe" than 40k. It's not like they didn't just add lasers to westerns and samurai movies.

Seriously though, they put some sort of CGI Jabba in the first one, that gak pissed me off. He lost like two hundred pounds for that scene too.


(Also, I think the twenty or so serious novels published about the 40k universe by Games Workshop disagree with your claim that no one takes it seriously.)

Many, many Mod Alerts on this thread...

So close to closing...

Debate the background, the possibility, etc.

STOP the personal attacks.

Time for my favorite picture!

To others it is a narrative universe like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.

Unfortunately, the design team completely disagrees with you.

Quote from the design team, US White Dwarf 302:

The Background exists as a context for the games that people play. Despite the occasional event, the background was never intended as an ongoing narrative.

Like I said, I love 40K for what it is, I don't pretend that it is something that it is not.

Manchu wrote:
Listen, you can't whine about people not respecting you and then say something like this in a 40k Background thread. The reason that this space exists is because for many people it's more than "stolen IP duct-taped together." Respect is a two-way street here and everywhere else.

Sure I can, because I'm calling the background shallow and infantile, I'm not calling you shallow and infantile. See the difference?

For instance, if Doctor Optimal had attacked my arguments earlier, he would have been fine, what got him in trouble with the mods for trolling, is that he attacked the person instead of their arguments.

Fluff is not a person, it can be criticized.

Also, I think the twenty or so serious novels published about the 40k universe...

Which one should we talk about? The one where a Tau gets possessed by a demon? Or the one where Ultramarines ignore the codex? Or the one where the Iron Warriors aren't paranoid at all?

If a player wrote anything like that and posted it online, he would get burned in effigy for making something so "unfluffy" and "unofficial" that "doesn't exist"

That's a huge double-standard that I just can't wrap my head around.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Also, I think the twenty or so serious novels published about the 40k universe...

Which one should we talk about? The one where a Tau gets possessed by a demon? Or the one where Ultramarines ignore the codex? Or the one where the Iron Warriors aren't paranoid at all?

If a player wrote anything like that and posted it online, he would get burned in effigy for making something so "unfluffy" and "unofficial" that "doesn't exist"

That's a huge double-standard that I just can't wrap my head around.

Nice evasive maneuvre.

Isn't it a difference if GW provided a story ?

An obsessed Tau isn't impossible. Tau are already obsessed with their "greater good". They may not have the same presence in the warp like humans, doesn't make them immune.
Ultramarines may ignore the codex. Would be a universe without renegades if every marine kept his path.
Why should all IW be paranoid? A halfbreed like Honsou could behave different.

See. All of your 3 examples fit with the background.

Still the primary question stands unanswered: Why should the imperium/the Emperor create them?

1hadhq wrote:
Still the primary question stands unanswered: Why should the imperium/the Emperor create them?

Why ask me? My female marines are chaos.

See. All of your 3 examples fit with the background.

Sure, they can be justified, but so can female marines. So why accept one justification but reject the other?

GW can justify wonky things but players cannot?

Double standard.

Isn't it a difference if GW provided a story ?

Nope, because that is a self-defeating argument. I'll illustrate:

Player 1: That background you wrote needs to be changed.

Player 2: Why?

Player 1: Because it is different from what GW wrote.

Player 2: Why does that matter?

Player 1: You are supposed to follow what GW writes, they are the authority.

Player 2: But the authority tells me I should do whatever I want.



If you call upon the authority of GW as the reason why a player should not write something, then you are in opposition to that very authority. You are being contradicted by GW itself.

Essentially, by trying to force others to be fluffy, you are being unfluffy.

Doctor Thunder wrote:Sure I can, because I'm calling the background shallow and infantile, I'm not calling you shallow and infantile. See the difference?

Would you walk into a GW store and give the staff and any customers present a sermon on how "shallow and infantile" the fluff is? Maybe you would, I don't know you at all. It seems pretty rude, though. "Hey guys, all the stuff that you enjoy talking about--it's complete garbage and you're wasting your time." The fact that you have to point out the difference between insulting a person and insulting his or her interests makes it clear how weak that distinction actually is.

1hadhq wrote:Still the primary question stands unanswered: Why should the imperium/the Emperor create them?

There doesn't seem to be an official reason. But to hazard a guess . . .

SM are not supposed to be self-replicating. They are not a race apart from humanity but, by the time they get the geneseed, they aren't quite human, either. Setting aside any rumor/info that female biology rejects the zygotes, can you imagine the possibility of SM breeding amongst themselves. Several millennia of evolution might see them diverge completely from their human origin. Keeping an all-male force drawn directly from normal human populations keeps the SM directly connected to humanity.

Or at least that's one possible explanation.

Also, from what's known, there were no female Primarchs.

Manchu wrote:The fact that you have to point out the difference between insulting a person and insulting his or her interests makes it clear how weak that distinction actually is.

If you don't like it, your beef is with the forum and it's rules, not me. If you want a happy place where no one ever points out how poor 40k fiction is, start a blog.

Me, I like cheap things. I like airline food, those cheap walmart cookies, and the 40K background. I just don't pretend like they are something that they are not.

Would you walk into a GW store and give the staff and any customers present a sermon on how "shallow and infantile" the fluff is?

Would you walk up to someone playing a game of 40K with their female marines and say something like this:

If you're the type to make a friendly DE army, then go ahead and have them fight your boobie mehreins.

So, you can insult my interests (female marines) But I can't point out the flaws in your interests (40K background) ??

That is a one-way street.


How about we just follow the forum rules instead? Arguments and interests are free game, but the person is not.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Would you walk up to someone playing a game of 40K with their female marines and say something like this:

If you're the type to make a friendly DE army, then go ahead and have them fight your boobie mehreins.

Sounds like a one-way street to me.

Sound like another weak, equivocal jab to me.

The point of that statement--which you conveniently forgot to quote--is that female SM are analogous to friendly DE. You are controverting the established theme and tone of an army to the point that you are playing in a separate universe. So if there are, in someone's imagination, a such thing as female SM they most likely exist in the same world as friendly DE.

Doctor Thunder wrote:How about we just follow the forum rules instead? Arguments and interests are free game, but the person is not.

I have no problem with forum rules.

Manchu wrote:
Sound like another weak, equivocal jab to me.

Hardly. You want your interests to be free from criticism, while criticizing mine.

It doesn't work that way.

Not really. And this is the last time I'm going to try and explain it to you. I agree with DocOptimal if not his way of addressing you: IMO, 40k is fairly coherent as is. Something like female SM doesn't fit. It's the same with friendly DE. I never said female SM are shallow and infantile. There, I wash my hands of it.

To get back on track, I'm quoting the last OT post which happens to have been me:

Manchu wrote:There doesn't seem to be an official reason. But to hazard a guess . . .

SM are not supposed to be self-replicating. They are not a race apart from humanity but, by the time they get the geneseed, they aren't quite human, either. Setting aside any rumor/info that female biology rejects the zygotes, can you imagine the possibility of SM breeding amongst themselves. Several millennia of evolution might see them diverge completely from their human origin. Keeping an all-male force drawn directly from normal human populations keeps the SM directly connected to humanity.

Or at least that's one possible explanation.

Also, from what's known, there were no female Primarchs.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Still the primary question stands unanswered: Why should the imperium/the Emperor create them?

Why ask me? My female marines are chaos.

Why not ask?



Chaos or not doesn't matter. All primarchs/space marines are creations of the Emperor.

Refusing to provide a reason only invalidates the possibility of FemSm.
Either care to reply including the provided background to have a common base for all participants to discuss, or just don't post.

Back to the Question N° 1: Reason to create FemSm ( and traitors are still former imperial SM )