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.

 trexmeyer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Isn't the "skinhead" thing simply because that's what is most comfortable if you spend a large portion of your time wearing a helmet? Just seems like the logical thing to do. It's more strange that Space Wolves are so often hairy, I just imagine the Space Wolves who are wearing a helmet having a mess of hair under there.

It's really not difficult to tie your hair up and fit it under a hat. Would it really be much harder to fit it under a helmet? Where are the short haircuts? Why do Space Marines look liked 40 year old juiced to the gills powerlifters?

Pfft, how long have you had long hair?

Wearing it in a fancy up do starts to hurt after a while without a helmet.

I think all space marine armies should have some female marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be cool.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Isn't the "skinhead" thing simply because that's what is most comfortable if you spend a large portion of your time wearing a helmet? Just seems like the logical thing to do. It's more strange that Space Wolves are so often hairy, I just imagine the Space Wolves who are wearing a helmet having a mess of hair under there.

It's really not difficult to tie your hair up and fit it under a hat. Would it really be much harder to fit it under a helmet? Where are the short haircuts? Why do Space Marines look liked 40 year old juiced to the gills powerlifters?

Pfft, how long have you had long hair?

Wearing it in a fancy up do starts to hurt after a while without a helmet.

im guessing your a girl?
well, long hair doesn't hurt that much when your a guy with long hair, although, that time I was walking around in a Templar helmet I felt like my hair was being ripped out.

How many times have you worn an actual updo?

Not just wadding it up there. A real updo.

Outside of men in drag, this number is commonly zero

hang on, are we talking using hair bands to hold it all up like a bun?
'cause that's what I meant.

 trexmeyer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Isn't the "skinhead" thing simply because that's what is most comfortable if you spend a large portion of your time wearing a helmet? Just seems like the logical thing to do. It's more strange that Space Wolves are so often hairy, I just imagine the Space Wolves who are wearing a helmet having a mess of hair under there.

It's really not difficult to tie your hair up and fit it under a hat. Would it really be much harder to fit it under a helmet? Where are the short haircuts? Why do Space Marines look liked 40 year old juiced to the gills powerlifters?

Because short buzz cuts are good and feel good?

Baldness probably results from the immortality/near immortality kicking in during their forties or something.

More likely than not, baldness was an aesthetic choice on the part of the artists, rather htan something justified in-lore.

Sooo...the armor of a female astartes should just look like a Sister of Battle with all the fleur de lys and gothic embellishments removed. Seems very pointless.

 AegisGrimm wrote:


Sooo...the armor of a female astartes should just look like a Sister of Battle with all the fleur de lys and gothic embellishments removed. Seems very pointless.

Not to mention female Astartes defeats the point of their creation in the first place. And the reason why SOBs exist. They should stay separated as well lest GW wants to pull a really bad marketing move, and nerd rage is not to be underestimated.

you know you don't have a life when you realise that the bolt pistol is tiny.

The tiny knees are what bother me the most.

And how thin that armour must be. Just look at the size of the head.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Not to mention female Astartes defeats the point of their creation in the first place

You don't create a Space Marine so that they can have a penis.

You create them so that you can have an uberbadass heavily modified pseudo-human whom can do missions that are nearly impossible for normal humans. Gender is irrelevant in this.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Not to mention female Astartes defeats the point of their creation in the first place

You don't create a Space Marine so that they can have a penis.

You create them so that you can have an uberbadass heavily modified pseudo-human whom can do missions that are nearly impossible for normal humans. Gender is irrelevant in this.

Due to height, bone structure, muscle developmnt differences and so forth, Wouldnt it take way more resources and time to get them the same as marines? They would need to change the basic make up of a women to a man then go on to making her a marine and so forth. Sounds like a waste of resources and time to me. But as usaul I dont look at the fluff much so I could be wrong.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Due to height, bone structure, muscle developmnt differences and so forth, Wouldnt it take way more resources and time to get them the same as marines?

Not when they recruit before or during puberty, where the body is most sensitive to growth hormones to begin with.

Also, given that 40k is a universe wherein the most capable human soldiers are women, this is a silly suggestion.

Also, given that 40k is a universe wherein the most capable human soldiers are women, this is a silly suggestion.

What does that come from?

 Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Due to height, bone structure, muscle developmnt differences and so forth, Wouldnt it take way more resources and time to get them the same as marines?

Not when they recruit before or during puberty, where the body is most sensitive to growth hormones to begin with.

Also, given that 40k is a universe wherein the most capable human soldiers are women, this is a silly suggestion.

Ok well if your gonna argue using crap im not gonna bother. And in 40k women are not the most capable soldiers... sisters of battle hardly even fight real battles anyway , unless some poor family has a kid with 6 toes counts. In the imperial guard all fluff, models and stories point to males being the dominant driving force of the imperium (in leadership, manpower and heroes). Anyways that last statement is far from correct.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
What does that come from?

Sisters of Battle, the only humans capable of overcoming human limitations through pure skill and martial training (according to C:WH's explanation of Acts of Faith).

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ok well if your gonna argue using crap

Of course not, I'm not stooping to your level.

Just because the writers rarely ever think to write female Imperial Guard characters doesn't make it a conscious decision to exclude women. It just makes them lazy. It's always better to assume incompetence rather than malice.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Also, given that 40k is a universe wherein the most capable human soldiers are women, this is a silly suggestion.

What does that come from?

I suspect it is not true. Melissia is probably looking at the SoB as the pinnacle of human soldiery but I'd argue that, say, Stormtroopers equal them.

Also... I just got this epic idea.

Ogryn Space Marines.

14' tall Ogryns in PA running around with Battle Cannons or something in their fists, because why the hell not.

Sisters of Battle, the only humans capable of overcoming human limitations through pure skill and martial training (according to C:WH's explanation of Acts of Faith).

That has nothing to do with them being female. The only reason there are no units of male Eccleciarchy troops in power armor with tons of flamers calling down acts of faith is an Imperial Edict saying "no", that the Sisters being female is to just to expressly flaunt.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Not to mention female Astartes defeats the point of their creation in the first place

You don't create a Space Marine so that they can have a penis.

You create them so that you can have an uberbadass heavily modified pseudo-human whom can do missions that are nearly impossible for normal humans. Gender is irrelevant in this.

Space Marines exist to fill the super soldier/space marine, crusader, and military monk tropes. Since their inception with W40K, they're meant to male, to even the point that IIRC the Emperor declared them to be male.

Plus you also seem to be ignoring that, with a population in the high trillions, there's no shortage of aspirants suitable, and the strongest woman will be weaker than the strongest man. There is absolutely no point for them to draw from female recruits, especially when it will cost them more resources in the long run considering 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of female recruits will simply die from gene-seed rejection. That and the end result of making a female astartes would genderswap them into a male.

The SOB's exist for a reason. Screwing with the gender of astartes and adding female astartes for no good reason is simply stupid, as the only justification is 'just because', and kills the theme of Astartes being crusading knights.

For that matter we should retcon the Sisters of Battle because some people might not want to have to play an army made purely of female models.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Sisters of Battle, the only humans capable of overcoming human limitations through pure skill and martial training (according to C:WH's explanation of Acts of Faith).

That has nothing to do with them being female.

You're completely missing the point.

The fact is, they're STILL the only humans shown to be regularly capable of exceeding human limitations without psychic power or cybernetic implants.

It's not because they're female, I agree, but not for the same reason you'd think. The reason why it's "not because they're female" is actually because there's no difference, in 40k's narrative, between the fighting capability of a male and female human. They're capable of doing the miraculous things they do because of their unrivaled dedication to their training, and the skill that results from it.

But my point was simple: If the Sisters of Battle are capable of training their women soldiers to exceed human limitations, then it's quite obvious that, within 40k's setting, plenty of female candidates that have the capabilities required to be considered Astartes exist.

Within 40k's lore, the reason behind Astartes being all-men has nothing at all to do with fighting capability, and you really need to stop pushing that argument.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
For that matter we should retcon the Sisters of Battle because some people might not want to have to play an army made purely of female models.

I've already responded to this. That you chose to ignore the response says very poorly about you.

 Melissia wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Sisters of Battle, the only humans capable of overcoming human limitations through pure skill and martial training (according to C:WH's explanation of Acts of Faith).

That has nothing to do with them being female.

You're completely missing the point.

The fact is, they're STILL the only humans shown to be regularly capable of exceeding human limitations without psychic power or cybernetic implants.

It's not because they're female, I agree, but not for the same reason you'd think. The reason why it's "not because they're female" is actually because there's no difference, in 40k's narrative, between the fighting capability of a male and female human. They're capable of doing the miraculous things they do because of their unrivaled dedication to their training, and the skill that results from it.

But my point was simple: If the Sisters of Battle are capable of training their women soldiers to exceed human limitations, then it's quite obvious that, within 40k's setting, plenty of female candidates that have the capabilities required to be considered Astartes exist.

Within 40k's lore, the reason behind Astartes being all-men has nothing at all to do with fighting capability, and you really need to stop pushing that argument.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
For that matter we should retcon the Sisters of Battle because some people might not want to have to play an army made purely of female models.

I've already responded to this. That you chose to ignore the response says very poorly about you.

except you are basing it on skill and not genetics.

 Swastakowey wrote:
[oversized quote snipped to save space]

You should actually read the conversations you're joining.

I've already responded to this. That you chose to ignore the response says very poorly about your critical thinking ability.

Considering the response, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one willing to repeat myself to death over the subject.

Space Marines being purely men is as big a part of the imagery as Sisters of Battle being purely women. That's just the way it is. It's not some conspiracy by a miniatures game to tromp on women's rights.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Considering the response,

You never responded to my post regarding why people might want female Space Marines, and why, yes, it IS different than the never-seriosu requests for male Sisters of Battle.

 Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
[oversized quote snipped to save space]

You should actually read the conversations you're joining.

Point taken.

You never responded to my post regarding why people might want female Space Marines, and why, yes, it IS different than the never-seriosu requests for male Sisters of Battle.

Actually there was nothing farcical about my latest post. It is exactly as fair a point as the reasoning behind female Astartes.

So it's perfectly fine to alter the fluff of Space marines to be "fair" to both genders, but Sisters of Battle fiction would not suffer from the same rule?

 Swastakowey wrote:
Point taken.

Also, the given reason in the lore is that the average hormone levels of the pubescent male candidates are required for it, which is uncommon for girls of the same age (though by no means rare or unheard of). It's a lazy excuse, but at least it's not as lazy as "genetics", which would be wrong on so many levels.


AegisGrimm: Stop being lazy and go back to actually read the conversation.

I actually provided an example of "Male Sisters of Battle" that has existed in the lore. You ignored it, because you're not honestly interested in "Male Sisters of Battle". Or being intellectually honest in this conversation.

AegisGrimm: Stop being lazy and go back to actually read the conversation.

As guilty of posting about nothing as this makes me, why is it your personal mission to attack anything I say? I have made one sarcastic remark among a slew of constructively questioning ones.