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.

Well if anyone has any more modelling ideas, I'd love to hear them! Maybe we should make a list of possible parts, for quick reference and stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Y'know, looking at the new Custodes and Sisters of Silence models, I'm thinking one could make a very awesome female space marine out of kitbashing those two together...

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 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.

That doesn't state that they're genetic clones. All that states is that the DNA contained within their Progenoid Gland is their Primarch's.

In fact, the sole way that Astartes get around the whole 'holy human form' thing is that they are still genetically human, just biologically augmented. Their genome is human.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

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

And that means OP isn't allowed to have female marines because...

Still stands that there is flat-out zero evidence that the Emperor couldn't make female Marines. The only thing is that he didn't, for whatever reason.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Well if anyone has any more modelling ideas, I'd love to hear them! Maybe we should make a list of possible parts, for quick reference and stuff.

For purely 40k minis, baseline Imperial power armor comes in three forms-- astartes, sororitas, and sisters of silence, ideally I'd recommend astartes or sisters of silence, the latter IMO being more in line with what the OP wants, I think. Heads can be swapped from sororitas, sisters of silence, and dark eldar / eldar.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

Y'know, looking at the new Custodes and Sisters of Silence models, I'm thinking one could make a very awesome female space marine out of kitbashing those two together...

That's a pretty good idea actually. I had forgotten about Custodes, as is their lot in life.

Those Sisters of Silence are so expensive though...

But yeah, head-swaps and those kits would be a good start.

If the OP is willing to go down the 'horrific genetic experimentation'-route, the Sicarian Ruststalkers might make a good starting point as well...

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

I'm not interested in your fan fiction though, sorry.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

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

They aren't clones. But you could totally make a female 'clone' of a man. Just get rid of the Y chromosome* and use the X twice.

(* which has very little of genetic information anyway.)

None of you is going to let this discussion go, isn't it?

Another thought: Genestealers cultists could be a good starting point too, and would only require a few headswaps to look convincing, I think.

 Ginsu33 wrote:


I'm not interested in your fan fiction though, sorry.

Gee what a thoughtful, well made and valuable comment. You've really made me reconsider my opinions on this. /s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
None of you is going to let this discussion go, isn't it?

Another thought: Genestealers cultists could be a good starting point too, and would only require a few headswaps to look convincing, I think.

You know i think you're right

GS Cults with headswaps are another good idea.

I'm not certain they're beefy enough to look genetically modified though.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Another thought: Genestealers cultists could be a good starting point too, and would only require a few headswaps to look convincing, I think.

That would certainly be a mutant abomination with the potential to be MEQ. But might not be human enough for the OP.

Recruitment world that has a species of human that are mostly intersexual. Or a mutation species where men become women/women become men as they grow older?

Still, what do they look like? A box of damn tactical marines! What's the point?! Their not going to make MK.VII for a woman, its made for superhumans and will look the same for all marines.

The OP wanted female marines to stir the pot, and was looking for justification, but its absurd because its simply an aesthetic so minor its questionable what the point is.

And why only females? Why not mixed marines? So no I don t take it seriously because I dont see any real attempt to consider what it would be like in universe. New Marines of either gender will be fine if GW goes down that road.

 Ginsu33 wrote:
Recruitment world that has a species of human that are mostly intersexual. Or a mutation species where men become women/women become men as they grow older?

Still, what do they look like? A box of damn tactical marines! What's the point?! Their not going to make MK.VII for a woman, its made for superhumans and will look the same for all marines.

The OP wanted female marines to stir the pot, and was looking for justification, but its absurd because its simply an aesthetic so minor its questionable what the point is.

And why only females? Why not mixed marines? So no I don t take it seriously because I dont see any real attempt to consider what it would be like in universe. New Marines of either gender will be fine if GW goes down that road.

So honestly what's the big deal if she wants to do it? So what?

Why is it so controversial?

Oh, and i think it's an assumption that the 'OP wanted female marines to stir the pot' is a pile of crap. She explicitly wanted that she knew it was controversial, put imagination into trying to find ways to do it that are less controversial.

What about that suggests she only did it to stir the pot?

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
What about that suggests she only did it to stir the pot?

DizzyStorey wrote:I do relish the idea of pissing off everyone around me with my space marines

I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
What about that suggests she only did it to stir the pot?

DizzyStorey wrote:I do relish the idea of pissing off everyone around me with my space marines

Tell me, if that was the only motivation, why did she put the effort in to think up ideas of how to make it fit the fluff?

 DizzyStorey wrote:
I have a few other ideas of how it could work too.. And I never said endorsed by the imperium, Infact iv said it was heretical and isolated multiple times. Kinda like this lunatic who made them wanted his own little privet chapter for his own purposes.

I was thinking they could be made using re-descovered thunder warrior genes, which didnt have the traditional restrictions.
Or they could be from a planet which has its population mutated to be adapted to the process, so you wouldn't even need a particularly brilliant scientist to make it work. Just say "Yep these girls have genes in them to survive" and somebody descovered them.. With mutations that make people into wolf monsters and grow eyestocks this sounds simple making them all harboring a Y chromosome or something. Some genetic wibbly wabbly nonesense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

Probably. If people hadn't got their panties in a twist about a very minor throwaway comment in the fluff that has taken on a seemingly gospel quality, we might have had a fruitful discussion here.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
What about that suggests she only did it to stir the pot?

DizzyStorey wrote:I do relish the idea of pissing off everyone around me with my space marines

Tell me, if that was the only motivation, why did she put the effort in to think up ideas of how to make it fit the fluff?

 DizzyStorey wrote:
I have a few other ideas of how it could work too.. And I never said endorsed by the imperium, Infact iv said it was heretical and isolated multiple times. Kinda like this lunatic who made them wanted his own little privet chapter for his own purposes.

I was thinking they could be made using re-descovered thunder warrior genes, which didnt have the traditional restrictions.
Or they could be from a planet which has its population mutated to be adapted to the process, so you wouldn't even need a particularly brilliant scientist to make it work. Just say "Yep these girls have genes in them to survive" and somebody descovered them.. With mutations that make people into wolf monsters and grow eyestocks this sounds simple making them all harboring a Y chromosome or something. Some genetic wibbly wabbly nonesense.

I'm not saying I supported Ginsu's point, I'm just saying that there is some level of evidence to suggest pot stirring, as it is called, so much so to the point that a thread was closed because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

Probably. If people hadn't got their panties in a twist about a very minor throwaway comment in the fluff that has taken on a seemingly gospel quality, we might have had a feuitful discussion here.

That comment is no more throwaway than any other singular piece of fluff. How is it any more throwaway than any other, if all 40k fluff is unreliable? How is some fluff more equal than others?

If there were mercenaries I'd like to see them added to an inquisition codex and have it be a legit codex of its own and maybe add some special rules/formations so that inquistors can more easily group various things together without breaking formation limit rules and things like that. Maybe even add some kind of rogue traders into it also. Working with mutants, abhumans, or xenos is something that inquistors do as they start to drift away from purist views and rogue traders cross into a lot of mercenary and smuggler work.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

Probably. If people hadn't got their panties in a twist about a very minor throwaway comment in the fluff that has taken on a seemingly gospel quality, we might have had a feuitful discussion here.

That comment is no more throwaway than any other singular piece of fluff. How is it any more throwaway than any other, if all 40k fluff is unreliable? How is some fluff more equal than others?

Precisely! So please answer my question. Why is the 'no female space marine' thing immutable gospel while other stuff is mutable?

And yes. All 40k fluff is unreliable, as stated by one of the guys that comes up with the stuff.

Please find me a statement that suggests otherwise.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

Probably. If people hadn't got their panties in a twist about a very minor throwaway comment in the fluff that has taken on a seemingly gospel quality, we might have had a feuitful discussion here.

That comment is no more throwaway than any other singular piece of fluff. How is it any more throwaway than any other, if all 40k fluff is unreliable? How is some fluff more equal than others?

Precisely! So please answer my question. Why is the 'no female space marine' thing immutable gospel while other stuff is mutable?

Or, perhaps the other stuff is immutable?
That's our difference. You believe all fluff defaults as mutable. I believe all fluff defaults as immutable.

This is the point at which we can't move either on, and I think this is a good place to leave this.

And yes. All 40k fluff is unreliable, as stated by one of the guys that comes up with the stuff.

Please find me a statement that suggests otherwise.

I highlighted them in red. He said himself that it was his personal view, not the officially held on amongst the company, and that he didn't state an actual answer. He said "perhaps".

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

Probably. If people hadn't got their panties in a twist about a very minor throwaway comment in the fluff that has taken on a seemingly gospel quality, we might have had a feuitful discussion here.

That comment is no more throwaway than any other singular piece of fluff. How is it any more throwaway than any other, if all 40k fluff is unreliable? How is some fluff more equal than others?

Precisely! So please answer my question. Why is the 'no female space marine' thing immutable gospel while other stuff is mutable?

And yes. All 40k fluff is unreliable, as stated by one of the guys that comes up with the stuff.

Please find me a statement that suggests otherwise.

I wish I could keep asking the same question over and over again until someone finally cracked and gave me what I wanted.

You had your answer on the first page of this thread. The whole debate on female Astartes is stupid because one side says "Femarines can't exist" while the other keeps asking why.

*quietly sobbing in the background as the fire rages on in this thread*

Seriously, can't we just drop the argument and think of ways to model Female Space Marines instead?

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
*quietly sobbing in the background as the fire rages on in this thread*

Seriously, can't we just drop the argument and think of ways to model Female Space Marines instead?

This is fair.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

Yes, but there are exceptions and Themyscirans would be one of them.

Yes they are from a different specie wich grants them different abilities and characteristics but they are still humans in the wide sense of terms. Themyscirans, being beautiful, strong, intelligent and very humanlike in apperance are considered much better than disgusting ratlings and brutish orgryns. Thus they were allowed more rights. Due the warlike nature of the inhabitant of the planet a Space Marine Chapter inherited rulership of the world and was forced to draw its recruit from it. Ironically, their attempts to find male candidates to recover their numbers failed, but they found out that women could accept the geneseed thanks to their peculiar hormonal chemistry. Over time, the Chapter changed of name and became exclusively female due to their particular restrictions. See, there is no stopping it. Once you start inventing stuff you can make it fit. You just need a little bit of imagination and know how to use bs science and weird appenstance to make it fit and keep it cool.

As for models, I would use mostly Sister Of Silence. They look tall and slightly wierd for human women. They would be perfect for female Space Marines. I would only change the helmet for something more classic and some weapon choices to add diversity.

 Ginsu33 wrote:
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.

The emperor could do it, it was just impractical and had an extraordinarily high instability rate. Only 1 in a trillion woman are compatible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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 was going to buy female heads on space marine body but using the tribal furs an fetishes of the space wolves but none of there symbols or insignias. Probably paint all furs tiger paterns and such.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

Probably. If people hadn't got their panties in a twist about a very minor throwaway comment in the fluff that has taken on a seemingly gospel quality, we might have had a feuitful discussion here.

That comment is no more throwaway than any other singular piece of fluff. How is it any more throwaway than any other, if all 40k fluff is unreliable? How is some fluff more equal than others?

Precisely! So please answer my question. Why is the 'no female space marine' thing immutable gospel while other stuff is mutable?

Or, perhaps the other stuff is immutable?
That's our difference. You believe all fluff defaults as mutable. I believe all fluff defaults as immutable.

No, i'm sorry. The difference between our views is that i believe all fluff could be immutable because I am told all fluff could be immutable by someone who is involved in creating the fluff.

You believe all fluff is immutable for reasons that i can't find evidence for.

Please find me anything from anyone in any way affiliated with GW that states that the fluff is immutable.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


I wish I could keep asking the same question over and over again until someone finally cracked and gave me what I wanted.

I'll stop asking as soon as anyone can provide me with an answer as to why other fluff is mutable and this isn't.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

You had your answer on the first page of this thread. The whole debate on female Astartes is stupid because one side says "Femarines can't exist" while the other keeps asking why.

Very true, and so far no-one from the 'can't exist' side has come up with an answer for that question beyond 'because one of the books says so', which i have already demonstrated by a quote from a senior GW employee is intended to be mutable. That's notwithstanding the masses of evidence of other things being mutable in the fluff all over the P&M blogs section of this forum.

So, please, i ask again. Why is this particular piece of fluff immutable?

 DizzyStorey 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 was going to buy female heads on space marine body but using the tribal furs an fetishes of the space wolves but none of there symbols or insignias. Probably paint all furs tiger paterns and such.

Will you be filing off all the chest insignia too? I can't really imagine a Space Marine torso without the bling, so I'm curious what that would look like

Just bear in mind that the aquila isn't an astartes symbol. It's an Imperial symbol. A lot of the "bling" is that way actually.

 DizzyStorey wrote:

I was going to buy female heads on space marine body but using the tribal furs an fetishes of the space wolves but none of there symbols or insignias. Probably paint all furs tiger paterns and such.

Sounds good.

I once converted a female marine, but unfortunately I have ho idea where the model is now.

As for how would female marines look in general, I think Overwatch's Zarya has pretty much the sort of physique I'd imagine them having.

DizzyStorey wrote:

 Ginsu33 wrote:
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.

The emperor could do it, it was just impractical and had an extraordinarily high instability rate. Only 1 in a trillion woman are compatible.

Is that a canon source?

Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
I'm starting to think that the OP has left this thread a while ago...

Probably. If people hadn't got their panties in a twist about a very minor throwaway comment in the fluff that has taken on a seemingly gospel quality, we might have had a feuitful discussion here.

That comment is no more throwaway than any other singular piece of fluff. How is it any more throwaway than any other, if all 40k fluff is unreliable? How is some fluff more equal than others?

Precisely! So please answer my question. Why is the 'no female space marine' thing immutable gospel while other stuff is mutable?

Or, perhaps the other stuff is immutable?
That's our difference. You believe all fluff defaults as mutable. I believe all fluff defaults as immutable.

No, i'm sorry. The difference between our views is that i believe all fluff could be immutable because I am told all fluff could be immutable by someone who is involved in creating the fluff.

You believe all fluff is immutable for reasons that i can't find evidence for.

Please find me anything from anyone in any way affiliated with GW that states that the fluff is immutable.

Because, as default, in nearly every source of lore for every fictional universe, that lore is canon.
If I see lore, I assume that to be immutable, because that is the norm. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the norm, and I don't see any other fictional universe cite that their lore is all immutable. Yes, it is based on assumption, but one of societal norms in our real world.

In 40k, the only thing we have to suggest it is anything but that is a non-official quote from a writer who doesn't give a straight answer. And that's meant to justify all 40k fluff being mutable?
If so, why does this sub-forum exist? If all fluff is mutable, and can be treated as half-truths, speculation, etc etc - how can we ever discuss 40k lore?

That's all I can say on the matter.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
As for how would female marines look in general, I think Overwatch's Zarya has pretty much the sort of physique I'd imagine them having.

This seems pretty right, maybe sans boobplate, but otherwise solid.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because, as default, in nearly every source of lore for every fictional universe, that lore is canon.
If I see lore, I assume that to be immutable, because that is the norm. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the norm, and I don't see any other fictional universe cite that their lore is all immutable. Yes, it is based on assumption, but one of societal norms in our real world.

In 40k, the only thing we have to suggest it is anything but that is a non-official quote from a writer who doesn't give a straight answer. And that's meant to justify all 40k fluff being mutable?
If so, why does this sub-forum exist? If all fluff is mutable, and can be treated as half-truths, speculation, etc etc - how can we ever discuss 40k lore?

That's all I can say on the matter.

You're right. You're making an assumption based on other IPs that the fluff in 40k is immutable.

However, 40k is different from those other IPs in that it is explicitly stated that any part of the fluff could well be mutable.

You say 'how does a non-official quote from a GW writer justify that all fluff is mutable'? It provides the only statement from GW regarding its fluff policy. Please find something anywhere which actually states that the 40k fluff is immutable, other than an assumption you have made based on other IPs.

It's unfair to keep asking as i'm fairly certain that there isn't one, and i'm really sorry to labour the point, i really don't want any bad blood of any sort, but it's important otherwise we give people like DizzyStorey a really crap experience by belittling her ideas rather than trying to make them work. All because we've placed more importance on one small piece of fluff over and above its actual effect on the rest of the universe.

I've also heard the concept that 'if theres no canon, how do we debate it?' before. It's not a prerequisite to debate or discussion. The whole thing's made up and we still discuss it fine. Whether some bits are more made up than others makes no difference.

Back on topic sort-of, i think you're bang on about female marines looking like Zarya from overwatch. How would be the best way to model that (probably sans boob-plate)?

I can't think of anything other than a marine model that's actually marine-sized. Stormcast are too big, and normal humans are too small.

I like the merc idea, myself. A challenge to create and a challenge to play.