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.

Adeptus Astartes were created by the God Emperor of Mankind, and to question his divine wisdom is nothing short of heresy.

And don't even think about bothering Guilliman with this nonsense right now, that would be downright heretical!
I would suggest the OP return to her duties, and remember that our place is not to question but to serve! Do not let such notions or the political ramblings of those unfit to be heard by this council fill your minds with such madness.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


With abhumans, yes, they won't be standard human, but the given rule seems to imply specifically male traits, which, if an abhuman had, they would have to be classed as male, no?
The actual quote we are given is "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types". The rule mentions specifically male hormones and tissues. Such as a Y chromosome? If they have a Y chromosome, then by biological argument (which seems to be what 40k is basing their definitions on), the abhuman is not a woman - they are intersex or male. Again, identification means nothing. So long as you have "male hormones and tissue types", which only males and intersex would have, you can be an Astartes. Yes, a loophole exists in intersex having a Y chromosome, but unless one has that chromosome, they cannot be a recognised and official Astartes.

An abhuman women with good old XQ chromosome (remember they don't necessarly have the same genes than normal humans and nowhere does it say that abhuman have to be able to reproduce with one another) could very well be implanted the geneseed because, due to hasard (or fate), it's compatible. Geneseed thus works only with XY chromosome (human male/intersex only) and XQ chromosome (female abhuman from Themyscira only). Why, because women from Themyscira produce prabofolium instead of testosterone and due to its chemical property, prabofolium "tricks" the geneseed into thinking that the women is a men and thus the implantation works. See how with bs science you can solve problems of bs sciences? Ain't that great!

There you go, I just made a loophole in the rule no women can be Space Marines because. It respect all the composant of the fluff while allowing for an exception.

Yeah, this works. However, due to being XQ, how can we say that biologically these Amazons are female? Being female is being XX, so whilst these abhumans, if the Q chromosome acted as the "male" section, could be Astartes, they cannot be female.

Other than that, that explanation can work.

This might surprise you but the XX and XY configuration isn't universal chicken are ZZ and ZW for example. Themsciran would look like human (exept taller and ridiculously pretty with funky eye and/or hair colors). There male would be XC and female XQ. Males aren't compatible with the geneseed due to being XC. Sexing is based on your reproductive role (and in the case of humans social role), not a chromosome type. Chicken with ZZ is a female just like a women is a female. A Themysiciran with XQ is just as much a women (and look like so) than a XX Terran women. One is just a female of a different specie that happens to be compatible with the geneseed thanks to a wierd twist of fate and the special property of prabofolium as a geneseed connector.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The reason I'm so against female Space Marines is because of the quote it originates from: "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types."

That's nonsense anyway. There are no exclusively male hormones and tissue types, unless being marine somehow literally requires that you have male genitalia.

epronovost wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


With abhumans, yes, they won't be standard human, but the given rule seems to imply specifically male traits, which, if an abhuman had, they would have to be classed as male, no?
The actual quote we are given is "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types". The rule mentions specifically male hormones and tissues. Such as a Y chromosome? If they have a Y chromosome, then by biological argument (which seems to be what 40k is basing their definitions on), the abhuman is not a woman - they are intersex or male. Again, identification means nothing. So long as you have "male hormones and tissue types", which only males and intersex would have, you can be an Astartes. Yes, a loophole exists in intersex having a Y chromosome, but unless one has that chromosome, they cannot be a recognised and official Astartes.

An abhuman women with good old XQ chromosome (remember they don't necessarly have the same genes than normal humans and nowhere does it say that abhuman have to be able to reproduce with one another) could very well be implanted the geneseed because, due to hasard (or fate), it's compatible. Geneseed thus works only with XY chromosome (human male/intersex only) and XQ chromosome (female abhuman from Themyscira only). Why, because women from Themyscira produce prabofolium instead of testosterone and due to its chemical property, prabofolium "tricks" the geneseed into thinking that the women is a men and thus the implantation works. See how with bs science you can solve problems of bs sciences? Ain't that great!

There you go, I just made a loophole in the rule no women can be Space Marines because. It respect all the composant of the fluff while allowing for an exception.

Yeah, this works. However, due to being XQ, how can we say that biologically these Amazons are female? Being female is being XX, so whilst these abhumans, if the Q chromosome acted as the "male" section, could be Astartes, they cannot be female.

Other than that, that explanation can work.

This might surprise you but the XX and XY configuration isn't universal chicken are ZZ and ZW for example. Themsciran would look like human (exept taller and ridiculously pretty with funky eye and/or hair colors). There male would be XC and female XQ. Males aren't compatible with the geneseed due to being XC. Sexing is based on your reproductive role (and in the case of humans social role), not a chromosome type. Chicken with ZZ is a female just like a women is a female. A Themysiciran with XQ is just as much a women (and look like so) than a XX Terran women. One is just a female of a different specie that happens to be compatible with the geneseed thanks to a wierd twist of fate and the special property of prabofolium as a geneseed connector.

XX and XY are standard in mammals though, and I am assuming these Themysicirians are mammals?
If they are a completely different species, does that not then rebel against the idea that Space Marines are humans, built of of the pure human image, which makes them more acceptable than that Ogryns and suchlike?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I made my reasons for the Ork situation. The reason I'm so against female Space Marines is because of the quote it originates from: "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types."

But that's one throwaway sentence among a sea of other sentences.

Why is that one sentence afforded utmost impunity when any number of other sentences are subject to flexibility?

On the subject of immutability of fluff (again, not lore, it's an important difference), this is the only official statement I've ever heard regarding fluff from the people in GW. AFAIK it's from Marc Gascoigne who is a senior GW writer/editor:

I'll happily be your tree. But I'm not sure you'll hear much of a crash. I weary of this question, and I weary of typing it all in yet again, yet again.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, 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 for me, 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 thet 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 for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

Nowhere in there does it state 'except for the case of female Space Marines, that's rock-solid certainty'.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The reason I'm so against female Space Marines is because of the quote it originates from: "They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types."

That's nonsense anyway. There are no exclusively male hormones and tissue types, unless being marine somehow literally requires that you have male genitalia.

There might not be exclusively male hormones and tissue types now, but remember, we're talking about 40.000 years in the future here. Who knows what kind of genetic evolution humanity will have gone through by the time the Emperor decides to create his Astartes?

Also, if we're just going to write off parts of the established lore as 'nonsense', then this entire discussion is utterly pointless. The in-universe explanation is what it is, whether we like it or not.

And this is getting rather off-topic I'm afraid...

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

There might not be exclusively male hormones and tissue types now, but remember, we're talking about 40.000 years in the future here. Who knows what kind of genetic evolution humanity will have gone through by the time the Emperor decides to create his Astartes?

That is completely absurd idea.

Also, if we're just going to write off parts of the established lore as 'nonsense', then this entire discussion is utterly pointless. The in-universe explanation is what it is, whether we like it or not.

It is just technobable, and if there's one thing I've learned from Star Trek, it is that you can always counter technobable with more technobable. "This is normally the case, but the theta radiation on this planet has caused an unusual mutation..." It is really all the explanation you need.

 Crimson wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

There might not be exclusively male hormones and tissue types now, but remember, we're talking about 40.000 years in the future here. Who knows what kind of genetic evolution humanity will have gone through by the time the Emperor decides to create his Astartes?

That is completely absurd idea.

Why? Humanity is bound to have evolved in some way shape or form, either naturally or through genetic experimentation.

Also, if we're just going to write off parts of the established lore as 'nonsense', then this entire discussion is utterly pointless. The in-universe explanation is what it is, whether we like it or not.

It is just technobable, and if there's one thing I've learned from Star Trek, it is that you can always counter technobable with more technobable. "This is normally the case, but the theta radiation on this planet has caused an unusual mutation..." It is really all the explanation you need.

So we're countering nonsense with more nonsense then?


And again, this is all getting really off-topic...

That depends. I think it's still on topic. After all, one of the ideas listed is effected by this argument, though the argument itself is silly and never-ending and no one will ever budge until / unless GW decides feth it and changes its mind.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

There might not be exclusively male hormones and tissue types now, but remember, we're talking about 40.000 years in the future here. Who knows what kind of genetic evolution humanity will have gone through by the time the Emperor decides to create his Astartes?

That is completely absurd idea.

Why? Humanity is bound to have evolved in some way shape or form, either naturally or through genetic experimentation.

Which is exactly why claiming that there flat-out aren't any women at all in the entirety of the 40k universe that are compatible with the Astartes modifications, and no possible way at all to modify either so that they are compatible is patently absurd.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

There might not be exclusively male hormones and tissue types now, but remember, we're talking about 40.000 years in the future here. Who knows what kind of genetic evolution humanity will have gone through by the time the Emperor decides to create his Astartes?

That is completely absurd idea.

Why? Humanity is bound to have evolved in some way shape or form, either naturally or through genetic experimentation.

Which is exactly why claiming that there flat-out aren't any women at all in the entirety of the 40k universe that are compatible with the Astartes modifications, and no possible way at all to modify either so that they are compatible is patently absurd.

Or perhaps it is that final.

You can say that the canon is absurd in that it flat out claims that no woman can be a Space Marine, but someone could say it's equally absurd that people don't listen to the flat out claim that no woman can be a Space Marine.
Melissia hits it right on the head. This is "never-ending and no one will ever budge until / unless GW decides feth it and changes its mind."

Female Marines? Would look like GW trying to make a statement more than anything else, i'll pass.

Those new legions I hear about, if they have women in the ranks then you'll have it. Otherwise keep your political ideas off 30year lore thanks.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

There might not be exclusively male hormones and tissue types now, but remember, we're talking about 40.000 years in the future here. Who knows what kind of genetic evolution humanity will have gone through by the time the Emperor decides to create his Astartes?

That is completely absurd idea.

Why? Humanity is bound to have evolved in some way shape or form, either naturally or through genetic experimentation.

Which is exactly why claiming that there flat-out aren't any women at all in the entirety of the 40k universe that are compatible with the Astartes modifications, and no possible way at all to modify either so that they are compatible is patently absurd.

If the Emperor of Mankind couldn't do it, then no one else could, with the sole exception of Fabius Bile. It's a pretty straight forward argument.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or perhaps it is that final.

You can say that the canon is absurd in that it flat out claims that no woman can be a Space Marine, but someone could say it's equally absurd that people don't listen to the flat out claim that no woman can be a Space Marine.
Melissia hits it right on the head. This is "never-ending and no one will ever budge until / unless GW decides feth it and changes its mind."

It would be that final if it wasn't for this quote from GW that specifically states that nothing in any book is final in any way:

I'll happily be your tree. But I'm not sure you'll hear much of a crash. I weary of this question, and I weary of typing it all in yet again, yet again.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, 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 for me, 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 thet 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 for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

Well, if we can all agree that further discussion on the lore behind Female Space Marines is pretty much pointless, perhaps we could focus on a more practical aspect of these Amazonian warriors, namely how one would model them?

Maybe Eisenkern stormtroopers to represent the power armour? Anvil Industry has recently released some nifty pieces for their regiments range too, including some Solar Auxilia-esque warplate...

 Ginsu33 wrote:
Otherwise keep your political ideas off

Because apparently someone can't like something you don't like without it being politics or something. Can we not have this "I hate SJWs" crap, and just admit sometimes people like things that you, personally, don't like? FFS I don't really care for female space marines, but that doesn't mean I can't see someone else finding their appeal. Insulting people and insinuating they don't honestly like something and it's all "politics" is really damn disrespectful. You're the only one bringing in politics, here. The rest of the people posting are merely passionate about what they like.

Games Workshop has not yet made an equivalent to female Space Marines. Maybe they someday will. Maybe not. I honestly don't care and won't care if they release them, either. But even without that, this is a science fiction setting where genetic manipulation, cybernetics, and augmentation are a thing, available to normal humans and not just Marines.

Hell, you could just say they're a group of already immensely strong amazonian women-warriors who are furthermore heavily cybernetically augmented to be roughly equivalent to marines. Bam, done. Not my thing, but it's certainly possible within the lore-- far more impressive augmentations have been done through cybernetics after all. It's not like they're using cybernetics to justify giving a character Eternal Warrior, which is a much more grievous abuse in my view.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

If the Emperor of Mankind couldn't do it, then no one else could, with the sole exception of Fabius Bile. It's a pretty straight forward argument.

Where does it state that he couldn't?

The only actual thing apparent is that he didn't. He could just as easily decided not to do it even though he could for any number of potential reasons:

1. Slightly more complicated to work with women, so costs outweigh benefits of increased recruiting populace
2. Thought that women were better off staying at home breeding the next generation of soldiers
3. Had his own brand of mysogeny and thought that the superhuman protectors of mankind should be manly men and manly men alone
4. Same as the above, but thought it was a man's duty to protect the innocent women of the universe

Any of those are as likely as a possibility that it is impossible, if not more.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Well, if we can all agree that further discussion on the lore behind Female Space Marines is pretty much pointless, perhaps we could focus on a more practical aspect of these Amazonian warriors, namely how one would model them?

I would suggest using Sisters of Silence as a base for conversion. They already have a knightly look to them after all.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or perhaps it is that final.

You can say that the canon is absurd in that it flat out claims that no woman can be a Space Marine, but someone could say it's equally absurd that people don't listen to the flat out claim that no woman can be a Space Marine.
Melissia hits it right on the head. This is "never-ending and no one will ever budge until / unless GW decides feth it and changes its mind."

It would be that final if it wasn't for this quote from GW that specifically states that nothing in any book is final in any way:

I'll happily be your tree. But I'm not sure you'll hear much of a crash. I weary of this question, and I weary of typing it all in yet again, yet again.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, 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 for me, 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 thet 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 for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

Who is that quote attributed, and where can one find it?

At the same time, that doesn't give you a blank check to ignore lore. If you do, then no actual lore exists whatsoever, it is all fan-fic.

40k lore being fan-fic material might actually improve its quality. But that's neither here nor there.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or perhaps it is that final.

You can say that the canon is absurd in that it flat out claims that no woman can be a Space Marine, but someone could say it's equally absurd that people don't listen to the flat out claim that no woman can be a Space Marine.
Melissia hits it right on the head. This is "never-ending and no one will ever budge until / unless GW decides feth it and changes its mind."

It would be that final if it wasn't for this quote from GW that specifically states that nothing in any book is final in any way:

I'll happily be your tree. But I'm not sure you'll hear much of a crash. I weary of this question, and I weary of typing it all in yet again, yet again.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, 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 for me, 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 thet 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 for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

My emphases in red. There is nothing that states that this is official, or nothing even giving a solid answer. This is the writer's personal view, and is not official, it even says so at the start.

Melissia wrote:Hell, you could just say they're a group of already immensely strong amazonian women-warriors who are furthermore heavily cybernetically augmented to be roughly equivalent to marines. Bam, done. Not my thing, but it's certainly possible within the lore-- far more impressive augmentations have been done through cybernetics after all. It's not like they're using cybernetics to justify giving a character Eternal Warrior, which is a much more grievous abuse in my view.

I'll support this. Cybernetics can easily accommodate for the statline of an Astartes. They won't be actual Marines, but can easily be equivalent.

Ezra Tyrius wrote:Well, if we can all agree that further discussion on the lore behind Female Space Marines is pretty much pointless, perhaps we could focus on a more practical aspect of these Amazonian warriors, namely how one would model them?

Maybe Eisenkern stormtroopers to represent the power armour? Anvil Industry has recently released some nifty pieces for their regiments range too, including some Solar Auxilia-esque warplate...

I think this is a good tangent.
As for modelling, I'd suggest still using Space Marine armour, but slimmed down and a lot of Astartes iconography removed (eagles, Aquilas, etc etc). Cannibalised armour, if you will?

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

If the Emperor of Mankind couldn't do it, then no one else could, with the sole exception of Fabius Bile. It's a pretty straight forward argument.

Where does it state that he couldn't?

The only actual thing apparent is that he didn't. He could just as easily decided not to do it even though he could for any number of potential reasons:

1. Slightly more complicated to work with women, so costs outweigh benefits of increased recruiting populace
2. Thought that women were better off staying at home breeding the next generation of soldiers
3. Had his own brand of mysogeny and thought that the superhuman protectors of mankind should be manly men and manly men alone
4. Same as the above, but thought it was a man's duty to protect the innocent women of the universe

Any of those are as likely as a possibility that it is impossible, if not more.

No one in the Imperium is even ASKING these questions.
And what women want to be Marines? 0000.1%?

There already exists enough man-power for the chapters to recruit, and Marines tend to recruit warriors and gangsters, no woman is going to be amongst them unless it's a special case, sorry to break it to you. And then it becomes one of those weird things where Chapter Equality has women, here have a Marine head with non-regulation hair to glue on your Marine or a chest plate with moulded breasts so women are represented because a dozen people asked for it?

 Ginsu33 wrote:
[snip for space]

Do you have a point or are you just gonna continue to try to push your politics on to the hobby?

The fact is, we don't KNOW if "is anyone asking these questions in-lore". There's 10,000 years of Imperial history, with the Magos of the Adeptus Mechanicus constantly trying to find old technology, the Inquisition constantly searching for new methods of strengthening the Imperium, and chapters constantly struggling to find new viable recruits-- someone somewhere has likely asked it. Doesn't matter, regardless.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ginsu33 wrote:
[snip for space]

Do you have a point or are you just gonna continue to try to push your politics on to the hobby?

My politics? That 30 years of lore > essentially a head swap. My points are clear enough for anyone bothering to pay attention here.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

If the Emperor of Mankind couldn't do it, then no one else could, with the sole exception of Fabius Bile. It's a pretty straight forward argument.

Where does it state that he couldn't?

Astartes are genetic clones of the Primarch which are genetic clones of the EoM? Can't really make Male genes that compatible female genes.

The only actual thing apparent is that he didn't. He could just as easily decided not to do it even though he could for any number of potential reasons:

1. Slightly more complicated to work with women, so costs outweigh benefits of increased recruiting populace

The Emperor isn't one to say "hey that's slightly out of my comfort zone" and not do it.

2. Thought that women were better off staying at home breeding the next generation of soldiers
3. Had his own brand of mysogeny and thought that the superhuman protectors of mankind should be manly men and manly men alone

Yes, because the Sisters of Silence would exist if the Emperor was a frothing mysoginist.

4. Same as the above, but thought it was a man's duty to protect the innocent women of the universe

Unless you take into account that the Imperial Army, Navy, Admech and AdTitanicus are mixed sexes.

Any of those are as likely as a possibility that it is impossible, if not more.

Except that none have every been implied or asked by anyone in the 10,000 years the Emps has been a thing.

I think the armour should also reflect the rules that they're using, as in, if the army's using Space Marine rules, Space Marine armour would be appropriate. Otherwise, the armour of SM Scouts or Scions could work too, with some female headswaps of course.

 Ginsu33 wrote:
My politics?

You've already outright said that you think that someone having a conversion idea that they find cool is "political". So yes, your politics. Keep your goddamned politics out of my hobby.

Your "point" has no point. It's already been well established that there's no canon female Space Marines. But that's irrelevant. There's plenty of things players do that aren't canon-- in fact, every single battle that players participate in is a non-canon battle until or unless Games Workshop includes it in their own narrative.

Should people stop playing the game until they get permission from GW to have their battles be canon? Of course not. "30 years of lore" is irrelevant. Games Workshop changes its "30 years of lore" all the time. Centurions never existed until a few years ago, and now suddenly they've always been there. So that "30 years of lore" isn't a sacred cow. It's just there, in all its self-contradictory, ever-changing glory. So we take what we can and what we want from it and build the universe that most appeals to us.

FFS stop making such terribly bad arguments that I feel obligated to defend female space marines.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Astartes are genetic clones of the Primarch

No, they are not.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I think the armour should also reflect the rules that they're using, as in, if the army's using Space Marine rules, Space Marine armour would be appropriate. Otherwise, the armour of SM Scouts or Scions could work too, with some female headswaps of course.

Scions could really only work if you were running your dudes with Sniper rifles. Otherwise I'd stick to the scout minis and do head swaps (and trim that massive codpiece down.)

 Melissia wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Astartes are genetic clones of the Primarch

No, they are not.

Warhammer Wikia wrote:Thus, for most Astartes, their Progenoid Glands represent the only form of reproduction they will ever know, though the DNA passed on will be that of their Primarch, not their own.

 troa wrote:


Who is that quote attributed, and where can one find it?

At the same time, that doesn't give you a blank check to ignore lore. If you do, then no actual lore exists whatsoever, it is all fan-fic.

It's attributed to Marc Gascoigne, a senior writer and developer at GW. Apologies, I don't know of somewhere where I can find the source, but I'll get back to you on that.

You're absolutely 100% on the money regarding the fact that no actual lore exists, and it's all fan-fic. That's the point, and it's an utterly fantastic one.

40k is, as far as I can tell, utterly unique in the fact that we as the consumers are encouraged outright to make our own stuff up and have it be just as legitimate as the stuff that appears in the codices. It's one of the reasons 40k has been so successful when other IPs haven't. The stigma of 'fanfic vs lore' is something that downright does not belong in 40k. We're encouraged to come up with our own armies, and at no point are we ever told that anything in our armies is no-go by the people from GW.

If you want to support the assertion that there is actual bonafide canon or lore in 40k, I'd ask for a quote from GW to support it. I've provided one to the contrary.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My emphases in red. There is nothing that states that this is official, or nothing even giving a solid answer. This is the writer's personal view, and is not official, it even says so at the start.

Fair enough, and you can take whatever emphasis you like to support your views. I don't think that negates the overall message of the quote though, which is that it is the writer (who is a senior member of GW) asserts that nothing in the 40k universe can be taken as gospel because anything might be incorrect.

We come back to my original point of why this particular point is immutable, which I still haven't heard a reasonable justification for beyond 'well, maybe it is immutable'.

I'd also ask the same thing of yourself as I have of troa. Could you provide me with a statement from GW that asserts that the fluff we read in the 40k rulebook and codices is immutable fact?

 Ginsu33 wrote:

And what women want to be Marines? 0000.1%?

I'm sorry but this displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how women's minds work, which is pretty damn near identical to how men's do.

If you want an example of how women react to the threat on their lives that war represents, I'd point towards the massive upswell among the women of the countries involved in WW2. There were protests organised by women for them to join the army.

Why would a woman not want to be biologically augmented to fight the enemies of mankind, just as a man might?

 Ginsu33 wrote:

There already exists enough man-power for the chapters to recruit, and Marines tend to recruit warriors and gangsters, no woman is going to be amongst them unless it's a special case, sorry to break it to you. And then it becomes one of those weird things where Chapter Equality has women, here have a Marine head with non-regulation hair to glue on your Marine or a chest plate with moulded breasts so women are represented because a dozen people asked for it?

This isn't really about that. This is about someone wanting to convert an army of 'their dudes' and a veritable legion of people shouting from the rooftops about how she can't do it because it breaks fluff. No-one's asking for female marine torsos to be released alongside male ones. We're asking for something that's a fantastically minor part of the fluff not to be treated as gospel when damn near everything else around it is changeable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Ezra Tyrius wrote:Well, if we can all agree that further discussion on the lore behind Female Space Marines is pretty much pointless, perhaps we could focus on a more practical aspect of these Amazonian warriors, namely how one would model them?

Maybe Eisenkern stormtroopers to represent the power armour? Anvil Industry has recently released some nifty pieces for their regiments range too, including some Solar Auxilia-esque warplate...

I think this is a good tangent.
As for modelling, I'd suggest still using Space Marine armour, but slimmed down and a lot of Astartes iconography removed (eagles, Aquilas, etc etc). Cannibalised armour, if you will?

This is what this thread should have been about from the get go before people started getting het up about the idea of female marines for no good reason.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Warhammer Wikia is fanfiction.