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.

 Quickjager wrote:

If Chaos Grey Knights ever exist then the entire point of Grey Knights, as Paladins in Space is ruined. It's something else that is immutable. And if you say I'm ruining people's fun by saying they can't exist, then I can say the same by pointing out Chaos GK existence would ruin MY fun with them and many others.

No Man is above the temptation of Chaos, and while the grey Knights are highly trained and protected.. while they carry around such corrupt artifacts such as book containing fell knowledge they are open to said corruption

Even the Emperor consorted with the Gods for his power.

You say Paladins, I presume you mean in a D&D sense where there are several ways for your paladin to become a fallen paladin

Are you saying the Big E has fallen to Chaos? Really? That's stupid as saying the Grey Knights have fallen.

DnD is another game it has no place here and you should be smart enough to realize that.

 Quickjager wrote:
Are you saying the Big E has fallen to Chaos?

No, I am saying he made deals with the Chaos Gods for his power, and used them for the creation of the Primarchs, the Chaos gods in their anger to get back at the Emperor scattered his sons across the Galaxy.

Corruption does take a while though... and the stronger the mind the longer it takes.. But Chaos is eternal and it can wait.


Also you referring to Grey Knights as space paladins, was more of the DnD reference. as I don't know a setting where paladins are immune to corruption


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But also think of this... The fact that the Emperor's Sons were able to be manipulated by daemons, even as recently as Gathering Storm with Guilliman being tormented as he traveled to Terra. What makes you think that the Grey Knights are no more vulnerable

Holy heckin heck. Let's all move on from the Femstartes. Can we just call them genetically enhanced and call it a day?

GodDamUser wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Are you saying the Big E has fallen to Chaos?

No, I am saying he made deals with the Chaos Gods for his power, and used them for the creation of the Primarchs, the Chaos gods in their anger to get back at the Emperor scattered his sons across the Galaxy.

Corruption does take a while though... and the stronger the mind the longer it takes.. But Chaos is eternal and it can wait.


Also you referring to Grey Knights as space paladins, was more of the DnD reference. as I don't know a setting where paladins are immune to corruption


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But also think of this... The fact that the Emperor's Sons were able to be manipulated by daemons, even as recently as Gathering Storm with Guilliman being tormented as he traveled to Terra. What makes you think that the Grey Knights are no more vulnerable

Being corrupted and being tricked are two different things, if I put whip cream in someone shaving cream canister does that make them corrupted by my ideas? The Grey Knight Geneseed was made to be specifically untaintable after the Big E saw his failure in not putting that in the first place.

 Quickjager wrote:
Yea and I told you I don't CARE about the female marines, no one does at this point, rather I'm addressing the idea of canon in 40k. There is a series of solid 100% factual things in 40k, things that are immutable.

- A Bolter is a gun in use by Space Marines variants and the Imperium as a whole. That is 100% immutable.
- A thing called the Horus Heresy happened and it fethed up a great deal of stuff.
- There are races called Orks, Necrons, etc.

Things that never CAN happen in 40k include obvious things like

- A 40k setting that Necrons don't exist. Period.
- A 40k without Space Marines.

If you just handwave everything as fantasy and that it can be made up as you go then it isn't 40k. Its something else.

EDIT: If Chaos Grey Knights ever exist then the entire point of Grey Knights, as Paladins in Space is ruined. It's something else that is immutable. And if you say I'm ruining people's fun by saying they can't exist, then I can say the same by pointing out Chaos GK existence would ruin MY fun with them and many others.

Ok, you don't care about Female Marines, but because that was the original point that has still yet to be settled or agreed upon (and evidently other people still care about it as evidenced by myself and the last quote on this reply), I'd like to get to the bottom of that.

Thankyou for actually making an attempt to answer my question of what makes a piece of fluff immutable by providing examples of stuff that you feel is immutable. That's a step forwards. Now, can you please explain why you feel that these particular pieces of fluff are immutable where others aren't:

- A 40k setting that Necrons don't exist. Period.
- A 40k without Space Marines.

From what I can tell, is it something to do with 'if you change this, everything about that faction or the universe in general is irrevocably changed to the point that tons of other fluff makes no sense'? That seems like a fairly reasonable justification for something not being changeable.

Please note that that is not mutually incompatible with the statement that I hold to be true: 'everything could be mutable, provided you have a half-decent fluff explanation for it'. I cannot think of a half-decent fluff explanation for 'Necrons don't actually exist', so that seems likely.

As for the ability of Grey Knights to fall to Chaos, are they actually 100% immune to corruption? If they are 100% immune to corruption, then why do they constantly scan through their ranks for corruption? As stated in The Emperor's Gift, Grey Knights themselves do not know if they are corruptible or not. Having one of them fall to Chaos in no way 'destroys the faction's fluff'.

I'd point towards this thread which discusses the topic and comes to the same conclusions: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/469878.page

If you don't mean the D&D reference, could you please explain what you mean by 'Paladins in space', and why this means that they 100% cannot be corrupted? Apologies, but the link is unclear.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Holy heckin heck. Let's all move on from the Femstartes. Can we just call them genetically enhanced and call it a day?

If someone can actually answer my question of why that one particular sentence in the fluff is immutable when others of similar irrelevance to the wider universe aren't then I am perfectly happy to just call them genetically enhanced and call it a day.

I don't think people can because any justification for a piece of fluff being immutable (such as the one that Quickjager has started to provide), hinges on the destructive effect that change has on other aspects of the universe. Here's some examples of fluff changes with their relative importance described using the above model:

1. The Emperor is a Tau - he needed to be a powerful psyker to make the Primarchs, so as a Tau with a Blunt psychic signature the whole Primarch thing wouldn't really have been possible. Destructive. Hard to find a fluffy justification for.
2. Necrons don't exist - if Necrons don't exist, then everyone who has ever collected Necrons, or played against Necrons, sudden;y doesn't have an army that exists or matters. Destructive. Hard to find a fluffy justification for.
3. There is one planet out there among billions where a rogue Magos found out a way to meld 100% Astartes modifications with a 100% female population - changes literally nothing about every single other Marine, process to make a Marine, Chapter, facet of Imperial culture, or other army that people have collected. Not destructive in the slightest. Easy to find a fluffy justification for.

So why are people so dead-set against it? Unless it makes them feel iffy to think about Female Space Marines moreso than another change in a similarly innocuous and low-relevance piece of fluff. Can people please reflect on their own internal though-processes to reach that conclusion and prove me wrong about it please. I really don't like the connotations the above explanation has.

So, until someone can actually provide me with a justification for that stance, can we just call them Astartes and call it a day?

Come on Ynneadwraith, no Grey Knight having ever fallen to Chaos is a defining part of their background. Taking that away removes a large part of their identity.

As for the female Space Marines thing, it's said that Space Marines can't be female and people tend to dislike retcons. It's just viewed as worse when it's a player doing it rather than the actual company. It's just how it is.

You could have a grey knight fall to chaos pretty easy, secrecy and suppression of facts is a huge part of the background of the ordo malleus; so even if it has happened they'll always deny it anyway. Then again they should have executed/mind wiped people while out in a certain parade lately to keep their existence a secret, but it goes to show that the fluff is continually corrupted and sometimes ignored by some of the writers.

Ok, fair enough, I'll concede on the Grey Knight thing. I'll add that to my 'will fundamentally break the fluff of a faction if it's changed' list, although I still think that it's not impossible. Just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it's impossible when even the Grey Knights themselves don't know.

I will not budge on the female Space Marine thing though. 'Just because it is' doesn't quite cut it when the reasoning behind it is quite frankly non-existent.

It's not a retcon, it's one teeny tiny sentence in the fluff that people have decided is gospel when damn near everything around it is subject to change to allow someone to make their dudes.

Why do people get so het up about this one piece of fluff to the point that they spend 7 pages trying to convince other people that it's not possible? It really is odd the fervour with which people insist that it is flat-out impossible to have Space Marines with girly bits when bending that piece of fluff (not retconning it, just bending it in this one instance) so that one person can have their dudes be dudettes is really rather easy to explain using in-universe ideas.

Now, I know you're trying to be reasonable and reach some sort of amicable conclusion, but why not be reasonable and actually admit that no-one has managed to come up with a satisfactory answer of why this particular piece of fluff is sacrosanct, when it neither affects them, the universe at large, their faction or their dudes.

If we let DizzyStorey have her female Space Marines, the process by which your SM are made doesn't change. It's still impossible to make female Black Templars. We're not suddenly saying that half of the Ultramarines are smuggling boobs (which would actually be a retcon). We're just bending a very minor piece of fluff as we do on a fantastically regular basis to allow one person to have the dudettes they want.

Yet people go bonkers about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

If people want yet another example of why the female Space Marines thing is weird and treated differently to any other piece of fluff, there was a thread a while back specifically about a Slaanesh-corrupted Grey Knight conversion:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/713848.page

I don't see 7 damn pages of people telling him to 'get out of here with that', or that it's impossible. People just let him do his thing, and if they didn't like it, just didn't look at it.

Not once was he told 'no, that's impossible, don't do that you're breaking the fluff of my faction'.

People are really weird about female Space Marines.

The female space marine thing is exactly like the incorruptible grey knights thing. The idea of it just hasn't been explored in the background yet. I mean if you really want to mention it the Daemonculaba shows that there's other methods of making marines to start with. I wouldn't go as far as to say the idea that marines are male only has anything to do with sexism and all that stuff cause it just doesn't (the daemonculaba is all sorts of messed up though and might brush on it ).

The background mostly explains it away as impossible because the emperor had based the primarchs off of himself and the marines off of the primarchs and gone with he hadn't figured out how to do it. Which means it's impossible for female marines to be seen as loyalist currently, perhaps renegades trying to fight for the Imperium, but they would be seen as heretical due to the sanctions on tampering with something as holy as the gene seed. There's some very slight room for someone to finally figure it out, it's just they won't be welcomed with open arms into the Imperium so easily.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


So why are people so dead-set against it? Unless it makes them feel iffy to think about Female Space Marines moreso than another change in a similarly innocuous and low-relevance piece of fluff. Can people please reflect on their own internal though-processes to reach that conclusion and prove me wrong about it please. I really don't like the connotations the above explanation has.

So, until someone can actually provide me with a justification for that stance, can we just call them Astartes and call it a day?

Official fluff is relevant to the universe.
Fan-fiction is not.

You want a justification for why people are dead-set against fan-fiction in this context over established lore, do I really have to explain why you are wrong here?

Your attitude about the issue is the reason why you can't see eye-to-eye with people trying to repeat more of the same to you. You want a thought process?
I like this universe > I refer to official sources for all my entertainment needs. - End process.

Your thought process: - I like this universe > I prefer to insert this fan-fiction here. - End process.

From an individual perspective, you can go official, fan-fiction, or a hybrid of both. It's your hobby. The problem here is when you take your fan-fiction and argue why people who prefer the official material won't except it, and you try to either spin an unsupported in-universe justification for it or you ask/demand that the fanbase justify to YOU why it isn't possible to satisfy your criteria, if such exists.

So all this song and dance about what fluff is important, what isn't, what should or shouldn't be overlooked, it's all besides the point. So you're either just doing some 'light' trolling act, or searching for someone to troll that is sexist towards the concept of Female marines or something, and if you find someone like that.. it still has nothing to do with the issue of official material vs fan fiction anyway.

It may come as a surprise to some people, all things considered, but I am actually against femmarines. The fact is that it just does not work in the lore that we have now. I kind of wish there were, and I mean proper ones (they wouldn't really need anything else than separate, slightly different heads) rather than just breasts greenstuffed on. But there aren't.

C.S. Goto wrote:My form of canon is just as valid as anyone else's. Warhammer nerds need to get out of their mother's basements and do something with their life before they start criticizing others.

Reminder than thanks to this guy it is canon that an Eldar Falcon may be taken out with rocks thrown by some random children, which then said tank's commander will be beaten to death with sticks when he gets out to deal with them by the same kids. Also that terminators have multilasers and can do backflips.


Point being official =/= good; they're not mutually exclusive. The only thing is you get stuck with official cause there's not really any room to deny it.

 Ginsu33 wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


So why are people so dead-set against it? Unless it makes them feel iffy to think about Female Space Marines moreso than another change in a similarly innocuous and low-relevance piece of fluff. Can people please reflect on their own internal though-processes to reach that conclusion and prove me wrong about it please. I really don't like the connotations the above explanation has.

So, until someone can actually provide me with a justification for that stance, can we just call them Astartes and call it a day?

Official fluff is relevant to the universe.
Fan-fiction is not.

You want a justification for why people are dead-set against fan-fiction in this context over established lore, do I really have to explain why you are wrong here?

Your attitude about the issue is the reason why you can't see eye-to-eye with people trying to repeat more of the same to you. You want a thought process?
I like this universe > I refer to official sources for all my entertainment needs. - End process.

Your thought process: - I like this universe > I prefer to insert this fan-fiction here. - End process.

From an individual perspective, you can go official, fan-fiction, or a hybrid of both. It's your hobby. The problem here is when you take your fan-fiction and argue why people who prefer the official material won't except it, and you try to either spin an unsupported in-universe justification for it or you ask/demand that the fanbase justify to YOU why it isn't possible to satisfy your criteria, if such exists.

So all this song and dance about what fluff is important, what isn't, what should or shouldn't be overlooked, it's all besides the point. So you're either just doing some 'light' trolling act, or searching for someone to troll that is sexist towards the concept of Female marines or something, and if you find someone like that.. it still has nothing to do with the issue of official material vs fan fiction anyway.

Please don't try to insinuate that I'm doing this in any way to be trolling. I am honestly trying to persuade people reading this that the community's attitude towards female Marines is disproportionate to its actual importance in the fluff.

It's absolutely fine that we have differing opinions of what is and isn't relevant to the 40k universe. Presumably you don't think people's homebrew chapters or characters are relevant either.

The issue I take, is that because of your (and a number of other people's) attitudes towards this one piece of fluff in particular, you've come into someone else's thread and spent 7 pages trying to prove that what they want to do is completely impossible, even after we've found a number of in-universe explanations for how to make it work that don't mess up anything anyone else is doing.

So, please tell me why you think that isn't a disproportionate response? I don't see a similar response to other people suggesting 'fan-fiction'. If you don't care about 'fan-fiction' at all, then why are you responding so strongly to this person's 'fan-fiction'? I honestly cannot think of an explanation. You should be able to jsut dismiss it as fan-fiction and move on, yet here we are.

I say again. Many people in this community's attitude towards one sentence in the fluff regarding female marines is weird.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

Please don't try to insinuate that I'm doing this in any way to be trolling. I am honestly trying to persuade people reading this that the community's attitude towards female Marines is disproportionate to its actual importance in the fluff.

All official material is important to the universe/setting.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

It's absolutely fine that we have differing opinions of what is and isn't relevant to the 40k universe. Presumably you don't think people's homebrew chapters or characters are relevant either.

GW gave us the leg room and encouraged us to pretend that our Marines are out there somewhere, because we all enjoy the hobby in our own way, it's our own fiction.
But is such fiction relevant to official material? no.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

The issue I take, is that because of your (and a number of other people's) attitudes towards this one piece of fluff in particular, you've come into someone else's thread and spent 7 pages trying to prove that what they want to do is completely impossible, even after we've found a number of in-universe explanations for how to make it work that don't mess up anything anyone else is doing.

I don't agree that you've been trying to argue/debate hypothetical scenarios because you keep insisting that the fan-fiction should be accepted in universe when anyone can reject it for simply not being official GW.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

So, please tell me why you think that isn't a disproportionate response? I don't see a similar response to other people suggesting 'fan-fiction'. If you don't care about 'fan-fiction' at all, then why are you responding so strongly to this person's 'fan-fiction'? I honestly cannot think of an explanation. You should be able to jsut dismiss it as fan-fiction and move on, yet here we are.

Because you are trying argue that people should accept fan-fiction as official fiction, implicating that it is 'wrong' for someone to dislike or reject the concepts being raised here. If you didn't question people so much about why they can't/won't accept it and this actually was a fan-fiction discussion, I wouldn't have an issue. However just like the OP, there seems to be a motivation of sorts to stir the pot and identify what problems people have with the concept of Female Space Marines.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

I say again. Many people in this community's attitude towards one sentence in the fluff regarding female marines is weird.

Hence your interest in exploring it, I understand.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


I don't think people can because any justification for a piece of fluff being immutable (such as the one that Quickjager has started to provide), hinges on the destructive effect that change has on other aspects of the universe. Here's some examples of fluff changes with their relative importance described using the above model:

So why are people so dead-set against it? Unless it makes them feel iffy to think about Female Space Marines moreso than another change in a similarly innocuous and low-relevance piece of fluff. Can people please reflect on their own internal though-processes to reach that conclusion and prove me wrong about it please. I really don't like the connotations the above explanation has.

So, until someone can actually provide me with a justification for that stance, can we just call them Astartes and call it a day?

Here's my personal justification:

Female Astartes are impossible because my definition of 'Astartes' is: the superhuman warriors created through the process devised by the Emperor of Mankind. For whatever reason, the Emperor chose not to create female Astartes, citing genetic/biological reasons as to why it would be more difficult/problematic. Said process has since been followed throughout the Imperium's long history.

In the 10.000 years between the Astartes' inception and now (being the year 40/41k), there have been no official attempts to create female Astartes, as far as I can tell from the lore. I suppose that this is either because of the Imperium's rigid adherence to ancient creeds no-one really remembers, or because there have not been suitable subjects, or because it's simply impossible. Or some other reason that hasn't been explained in the lore.

On the other hand, creating genetically-enhanced female supersoldiers is totally possible, but said female supersoldiers do not fall under my personal definition of 'Astartes'. Hence, Female Astartes are not possible, but Female Space Marines totally are.

Which is pretty much what I already posted earlier:

- Female Astartes, as in, the superhuman warriors created through the process devised by the Emperor of Mankind, are not possible. The lore outright states this (and I believe the Emperor himself touched upon the subject once, but I could be mistaken).

- Female Space Marines, as in, superhuman warriors created through any other means than the Imperium-sanctioned, Emperor-created process, are completely possible. There are numerous instances in the fluff where human beings have been altered genetically or biologically through various processes. For example, plenty of the old Imperial Army regiments that served in the Great Crusade had been genetically tampered with (such as the Geno Five-Two Chilliad).

Can I ask you something, though? And I don't mean offense with this, I really don't, but I've come to wonder...

...why do they have to be Astartes? Why can't the Astartes be an all-male warrior brotherhood?

 Ginsu33 wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

Please don't try to insinuate that I'm doing this in any way to be trolling. I am honestly trying to persuade people reading this that the community's attitude towards female Marines is disproportionate to its actual importance in the fluff.

All official material is important to the universe/setting.

C.S. Goto wrote:Somewhere in the lashes of the Eye of Terror, Lelith Hesperax flicked open her eyes with a slow smile, the serrated perfection of her teeth glinting lightlessly...(upon killing an underling) This soul she would offer to the Satin Throne, its twisted and unrestrained hedonism would please the dark lord of pleasure and fulfill the continuing terms of their ancient compact.

Just some official material stomping over some well established major defining factor of an entire race through apathy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Can I ask you something, though? And I don't mean offense with this, I really don't, but I've come to wonder...

...why do they have to be Astartes? Why can't the Astartes be an all-male warrior brotherhood?

Astarte or Ashtoreth (Greek: Ἀστάρτη, Astártē) is the Hellenized form of the Middle Eastern goddess Ishtar, worshipped from the Bronze Age through classical antiquity. The name is particularly associated with her worship in the ancient Levant among the Canaanites and Phoenicians. She was also celebrated in Egypt following the importation of Levantine cults there. The name Astarte is sometimes also applied to her cults in Mesopotamian cultures like Assyria and Babylonia.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Can I ask you something, though? And I don't mean offense with this, I really don't, but I've come to wonder...

...why do they have to be Astartes? Why can't the Astartes be an all-male warrior brotherhood?

Astarte or Ashtoreth (Greek: Ἀστάρτη, Astártē) is the Hellenized form of the Middle Eastern goddess Ishtar, worshipped from the Bronze Age through classical antiquity. The name is particularly associated with her worship in the ancient Levant among the Canaanites and Phoenicians. She was also celebrated in Egypt following the importation of Levantine cults there. The name Astarte is sometimes also applied to her cults in Mesopotamian cultures like Assyria and Babylonia.

We get it, GW is lazy at naming things. What's next, your going to try to find a justification that the Lion is gay because of his name?

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:


Can I ask you something, though? And I don't mean offense with this, I really don't, but I've come to wonder...

...why do they have to be Astartes? Why can't the Astartes be an all-male warrior brotherhood?

Because it's political.
*BOOOOO HISSSSSS*

shudaaupp!!

The Sisters of Battle just don't cut it for some of the ladies around here... I think it's because of their available range.. they need plastics and upgrade kits for more customisation. GW you have failed the Loyalist female Imperial Consumers! FOR SHAME GW! Countless women turning to foul Xeno species instead... for shame.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Can I ask you something, though? And I don't mean offense with this, I really don't, but I've come to wonder...

...why do they have to be Astartes? Why can't the Astartes be an all-male warrior brotherhood?

Astarte or Ashtoreth (Greek: Ἀστάρτη, Astártē) is the Hellenized form of the Middle Eastern goddess Ishtar, worshipped from the Bronze Age through classical antiquity. The name is particularly associated with her worship in the ancient Levant among the Canaanites and Phoenicians. She was also celebrated in Egypt following the importation of Levantine cults there. The name Astarte is sometimes also applied to her cults in Mesopotamian cultures like Assyria and Babylonia.

We get it, GW is lazy at naming things. What's next, your going to try to find a justification that the Lion is gay because of his name?

*you're and nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ginsu33 wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:


Can I ask you something, though? And I don't mean offense with this, I really don't, but I've come to wonder...

...why do they have to be Astartes? Why can't the Astartes be an all-male warrior brotherhood?

Because it's political.
*BOOOOO HISSSSSS*

shudaaupp!!

The Sisters of Battle just don't cut it for some of the ladies around here... I think it's because of their available range.. they need plastics and upgrade kits for more customisation. GW you have failed the Loyalist female Imperial Consumers! FOR SHAME GW! Countless women turning to foul Xeno species instead... for shame.

That and they halfassed the concept a bit and left them fairly restricted for at least a decade now, it's like I can't really see much of an appeal for people to start sisters anymore besides maybe a bit of that special snowflake feeling.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


I don't think people can because any justification for a piece of fluff being immutable (such as the one that Quickjager has started to provide), hinges on the destructive effect that change has on other aspects of the universe. Here's some examples of fluff changes with their relative importance described using the above model:

So why are people so dead-set against it? Unless it makes them feel iffy to think about Female Space Marines moreso than another change in a similarly innocuous and low-relevance piece of fluff. Can people please reflect on their own internal though-processes to reach that conclusion and prove me wrong about it please. I really don't like the connotations the above explanation has.

So, until someone can actually provide me with a justification for that stance, can we just call them Astartes and call it a day?

Here's my personal justification:

Female Astartes are impossible because my definition of 'Astartes' is: the superhuman warriors created through the process devised by the Emperor of Mankind. For whatever reason, the Emperor chose not to create female Astartes, citing genetic/biological reasons as to why it would be more difficult/problematic. Said process has since been followed throughout the Imperium's long history.

In the 10.000 years between the Astartes' inception and now (being the year 40/41k), there have been no official attempts to create female Astartes, as far as I can tell from the lore. I suppose that this is either because of the Imperium's rigid adherence to ancient creeds no-one really remembers, or because there have not been suitable subjects, or because it's simply impossible. Or some other reason that hasn't been explained in the lore.

On the other hand, creating genetically-enhanced female supersoldiers is totally possible, but said female supersoldiers do not fall under my personal definition of 'Astartes'. Hence, Female Astartes are not possible, but Female Space Marines totally are.

Which is pretty much what I already posted earlier:

- Female Astartes, as in, the superhuman warriors created through the process devised by the Emperor of Mankind, are not possible. The lore outright states this (and I believe the Emperor himself touched upon the subject once, but I could be mistaken).

- Female Space Marines, as in, superhuman warriors created through any other means than the Imperium-sanctioned, Emperor-created process, are completely possible. There are numerous instances in the fluff where human beings have been altered genetically or biologically through various processes. For example, plenty of the old Imperial Army regiments that served in the Great Crusade had been genetically tampered with (such as the Geno Five-Two Chilliad).

Thankyou, that's a genuine response that attempts to address my queries and explains your position on the matter without resorting to meta-arguments about 'how every single thing written about 40k is canon', when that simply can't be true due to the rampant canon conflicts, and we've had a statement from a senior GW employee that says that it isn't.

It doesn't, however, explain why that one particular piece of fluff is completely immutable to the point that half a dozen people will spend 7 pages of discussion trying to enforce the fact that it is impossible to have female Astartes, when myself and a number of other people have provided justifications for it that would be perfectly acceptable if it was any other bending of the fluff.

Just to clarify on the matter. I, too, think that 'genetically enhanced female soldiers' is fluffier than 'female Astartes'. That doesn't mean that it is in any way justifiable to tell someone so vehemently that they are impossible, when they've come up with reasons that would justify bending any other piece of fluff that's similarly inconsequential to the rest of the universe.

It happens every time female Marines comes up, and I flat-out do not understand why people have such strong opinions on this particular.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:


Can I ask you something, though? And I don't mean offense with this, I really don't, but I've come to wonder...

...why do they have to be Astartes? Why can't the Astartes be an all-male warrior brotherhood?

I really like that question, and I don't take any offence by it at all it shows that someone is actually thinking about this on a level above blindly defending their one ardent belief about something very minor to the 40k universe at large.

There is actually very little reason why Astartes can't be an all-male brotherhood, but there's similarly no reason that there can't be an exception to that (given that it's common practice to allow exceptions to damn near every other statement in the fluff provided you have a half-decent explanation for it).

Yet with this we get comments like 'yeah well, they might be completely identical to Astartes, but they're not actual Astartes' which is just being needlessly sh*tty about it.

 Ginsu33 wrote:

Because it's political.
*BOOOOO HISSSSSS*

shudaaupp!!

The Sisters of Battle just don't cut it for some of the ladies around here... I think it's because of their available range.. they need plastics and upgrade kits for more customisation. GW you have failed the Loyalist female Imperial Consumers! FOR SHAME GW! Countless women turning to foul Xeno species instead... for shame.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop assuming that this has anything to do with politics, or even feminism. The only reason I brought that up because that is literally the only reason I can think of to explain why people get their knickers in a twist about female Astartes, when they're perfectly fine with other controversial subjects like Chaos Eldar provided you have a good explanation for it.

Unless you can provide me with another explanation for why this one piece of fluff in particular gets people's hackles up, as opposed to any number of other fluff bending instances that don't result in 7 pages of dialogue. Honestly, I don't want that to be the explanation for it because it's crappy. Provide me with another one that actually fits! Why is it you feel so strongly about this, despite the fact that you 'don't care about fan-fiction' which would suggest you'd just ignore it.

I do agree that the SoB is in dire need of an updated range though

For people who are acting like the lore must be treated as golden (despite saying otherwise), the canon of this game has been changed so much over time. I'm not even talking about from the silliness of RT days, but plenty of 3rd/4th edition things and later have been retconned. Some people still see themselves as the defenders of the realm of fluff saying what others can and can't do with regards to femarines for some reason. As Ynneadwraith said, any other time people post something lore-breaking, people say 'go with it' when it's done well. An Ork-looted carnifex? Great model, that's sweet! Femarines? You can't do that!
"Everything is canon, nothing is true." I already posted that earlier in this thread. The whole universe is supposed to be bendable to what you want to make. It's a setting to forge your own narrative. When it comes to building your army, rule of cool reigns.

Maybe SoB doesn't cut it because the player would rather play SM! The reverse situation (male SoB) has been discussed and people were ok with the poster's reasoning behind it, despite the Ecclesiarchy not being allowed to maintain men under arms. That's on par with Femarines in terms of lore-breaking. Others on here weren't up in arms like they are for femarines.

Ranting about politics and assuming everyone else is talking about politics too, when we're really just thinking "well this can be cool if done this way" and "I had an idea for a really cool army", is really fething disrespectful, can we stop already?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flanker wrote:
When it comes to building your army, rule of cool reigns.

And that's the fething truth of the matter.

 Flanker wrote:
For people who are acting like the lore must be treated as golden (despite saying otherwise), the canon of this game has been changed so much over time. I'm not even talking about from the silliness of RT days, but plenty of 3rd/4th edition things and later have been retconned. Some people still see themselves as the defenders of the realm of fluff saying what others can and can't do with regards to femarines for some reason. As Ynneadwraith said, any other time people post something lore-breaking, people say 'go with it' when it's done well. An Ork-looted carnifex? Great model, that's sweet! Femarines? You can't do that!
"Everything is canon, nothing is true." I already posted that earlier in this thread. The whole universe is supposed to be bendable to what you want to make. It's a setting to forge your own narrative. When it comes to building your army, rule of cool reigns.

Maybe SoB doesn't cut it because the player would rather play SM! The reverse situation (male SoB) has been discussed and people were ok with the poster's reasoning behind it, despite the Ecclesiarchy not being allowed to maintain men under arms. That's on par with Femarines in terms of lore-breaking. Others on here weren't up in arms like they are for femarines.

Thankyou for coming out in support, it's appreciated

It really is just femmarines that people take specific umbrage to, and I can't work out the justification for it.

I don't mind if people don't like the idea. No-one's forcing you to make an army of them or anything. There's no need for 7 pages (and counting) of dialogue of people trying their utmost to prove that it's impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Ranting about politics and assuming everyone else is talking about politics too, when we're really just thinking "well this can be cool if done this way" and "I had an idea for a really cool army", is really fething disrespectful, can we stop already?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flanker wrote:
When it comes to building your army, rule of cool reigns.

And that's the fething truth of the matter.

Apologies, I shouldn't really have brought it up in the first place. I was just trying to think of some reason, any reason, why people were so attached to that one particular piece of fluff as to feel compelled to argue that it's immutable when all the evidence I've provided suggests that minor pieces of fluff that don't break the universe are perfectly acceptable to be changed to make 'your dudes'.

I had hoped it would prompt some honest self-reflection on why people felt it was so important to them.

The thing is, this happens all the time. People say "hey, this army idea is cool", and then get shouted down because "HOW CAN YOU LIKE THIS IDEA IT MUST BE POLITICS GET YOUR POLITICS OUT OF MY HOBBY!!!111ONE"-- when ultimately, the shouting down is, itself, political.

How glorious it is to finally step back onto the Dakka forums... So I'd like to believe.

This female Space Marine argument gets a little too out of hand and, unsurprisingly, there's plenty of 'IT CAN'T HAPPEN' without exploring the various reasons why it can't happen while equally exploring plausible theories to why it could.

First off, try imagining a female Space Marine? That'd be bizarre looking, and frankly, unsettling. Weird forced transgender feminine Marines with beards. I doubt they'd even have breasts, cause honestly, that amount of musculature would render them null and void. Going a tad deeper, said female Astarte's would need genital swaps or an alternative for testosterones. (Don't want to dig out my high school biology book and long f-ing work day.)

I personally believe female Space Marines are plausible but considering the amount of genetic modification pre-birth, infancy, and further genetic tinkering is simply ridiculous. Men are physically more capable than women with some exceptions here and there. So, turning us nut-sack swinging savages into Space Marauders with a stiffy for purging seems a hell of a lot easier than making female Marines. I doubt the end result would neither be man or woman but a weird muscle bound, post-op transgender in power armor.

Simply put, making male Marines is just a hell of a lot easier than female Space Marines... But I must stress, in the 41st Millennium, it's not impossible just f-ing difficult to a point Biologus flip a table and make the candidate a servitor instead... A bar-tending Servitor to ease the ensuing alcoholism said Biologus would inevitably indulge.

Anyone wants to argue my stated points, feel free! I personally don't feel inclined to argue cause really, 41st Millennia... The amount of medical science, regardless of what's been lost, is pretty damn extensive. Personally, I believe fans compare 40K to our own universe, especially technologically speaking. 40 thousand years, despite the Horus Heresy, casts a shadow over our own advances that we might not be even to fathom. For instance, we don't know how Void Sheilds work but we go with it; why, cause 40K. So who's to dismiss a heavily genetically modified female couldn't become an/or equivalent to an Astarte's?

At the end of the day, it's a sci-fi/fantasy universe where anything can happen... Oh, one more point- the Warp. Anything can happen in the Warp, so if Fabulous Bill and friends want to make female Space Marines in the Eye of Terror they'd probably did it just because. The man makes perfectly cloned primarchs, so that and Warp non-sense, there's another very easily explained reason for female Space Marines.

Now to lock my doors before the Ordo Hereticus billy clubs my skull into oblivion. You chaps have a fine day!

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, this happens all the time. People say "hey, this army idea is cool", and then get shouted down because "HOW CAN YOU LIKE THIS IDEA IT MUST BE POLITICS GET YOUR POLITICS OUT OF MY HOBBY!!!111ONE"-- when ultimately, the shouting down is, itself, political.

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume it's not me you're talking about in allcaps

As far as I'm concerned, this thread should have finished at 'hey, this army idea is cool' moving on to 'well, it's not my cup of tea, but here's some ideas on how to model it'.

That's how a lot of people on here have originally responded, and what Ezra Tyrius valiantly tried to steer the conversation towards a few pages back. I think the outcome of that was 3rd party IG female heads coupled to SM bodies because that's the only thing that's actually beefy enough to seem genetically modified, although there are plenty of other options like GS Cults bodies and Sisters of Silence

Actually, just had a thought about the GS Cults bodies. Although the legs on Acolyte Hybrids are mutated and digitigrade, the torsos themselves are actually relatively normal, just a lot bulkier than standard human torsos. Could well use them as an option for generic genetically engineered dudes and dudettes of any creed

Fun Army Idea; Skitarii Forces with pet Ogryns on leashes that act like dogs. Mash some mutant bits on them and let'em loose.

Crazed Beastmen/Guardsmen that pretend to be human. Like a forced nobility among officers and women wearing extravagant steam-punky/victorian dresses cause REASONS!

Those delusional Beastmen would have to have one hell of a narrative to make them cannon but it'd make for a good chuckle.

 Melissia wrote:
People say "hey, this army idea is cool", and then get shouted down because "HOW CAN YOU LIKE THIS IDEA IT MUST BE POLITICS GET YOUR POLITICS OUT OF MY HOBBY!!!111ONE"-- when ultimately, the shouting down is, itself, political.

This needs unpacking. First, you're conflating tone and criticism. Identifying someone's argument in favor of femarines as political is not the same thing as shouting them down. Second, you're rhetorically implying that people bring up femarines in a genuine, naive way. In over a decade of lurking, posting on, and modding Dakka, I have run across maybe two users sincerely interested in the femarine concept. But the topic comes up all the time. Not necessarily in bad faith - but yes certainly as a matter of politics. Why? Because our culture is extremely politicized. It's only natural that people will import into discussions of 40k the same absurdly superficialy understanding of sexism that saturates all media. BTW this thread is an example of that.

That's not to say politics has no place in discussions of 40k. Calling out the concept of SM as sexist, however, is badly misplaced. And 40k fans taking offense to that critique, which they correctly perceive as an implied attack (sometimes its explicit) on themselves, does not reveal that they are sexists. I am very confident that the majority of 40k fans are not sexist, at least insofar as their enjoyment of 40k goes, for the simple reason that basically none of us object to the concept of Guardswomen. And if anything about 40k - as a product line - is sexist, it is definitely the lack of Guardswomen models. That is an example of applicably "dragging politics into it."

Manchu wrote:
First, you're conflating tone and criticism.

No, I am not. If anything, I'd say you are. My criticism was towards someone dismissing another person's concerns because they accused that person's concerns of being political and therefor inferior to his own, which is implied to be apolitical. This kind of double standard is very, VERY worthy of criticism.

Manchu wrote:
Identifying someone's argument in favor of femarines as political is not the same thing as shouting them down.

It's a method used to dismiss a person's concerns and passion for the hobby. The attitude expressed was "oh you're just being political but I'm not therefor I'm better", which is utter bullgak and you know it. If you want to say "it is all political regardless", then you have to admit that claiming one side is being political but the other side isn't is utter crap.