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.
Niiai wrote: Again, just bacause so much is being said, even if we had the most glorius sisters of batle in en every store that is no reason not to have space marines based on females.
Why?
The main reason people are asking for Female Space Marines isn't because they're Space Marines specifically.
It's because Space Marines are popular.
If SoB were as popular as SM, that reaches the goal set.
Spoiler:
There is a perfectly good reason why women can't be SM. That's the lore. As I personally see it, there is no reason to change it, because increasing exposure of the Sisters of Battle, without even having to change their lore, would achieve the same result - increased female exposure.
That is a really big if.
What is the timeline you predict for this? Ever since Space Marines have been established around rogue trader first- or secondedition space marines has been an instant hit. Some time ago GW celbrated their 30 year aniversary, that is near 30 years of Space Marines iconicness. Your big if, is not very realistic.
Wheras spacae marines females GW would just need to point to the tactical squad and say 'Do you know that SM can be based on females as well as males?". No models would need to be changed, they are clad in power armour. No changes. Over times, ad some female heads as options for the helmetless squad leaderes.
What goal sett would that be? Female Space Marines? I want female space marines.
Niiai wrote: So since I was away the three new reasons as to why we can not have femalen space marines are as follows.
- There would not be enough wimen left to make babies.
Others have pointed out how this is a bad argument. One of the reasons why being that the population is to big for it to leave a dent compared to how many marines there are, and I will leave thatbone at that.
- Space Marines would get out of hand as they could self populate.
This runs into the problem that nothing prevents marines from self populating right now if they so chosed (astra claws in the badab war anyone) and that all space marines are sterile by design. Just like SM can not create children Space Marines would stil not be able to make children.
- We already have female SM in sisters of battle.
That is hardly the same. Sisters are often cast as exstreme bad guys claims everything must be purged. S3 and T3 does not a SM make. Wheras marines excist in all the colours of the rainbow bothbin colour and culture and are the iconic character of the setting. This is like comparing a lame ass car that does not sell well with several of the most iconic cars in the world and say they are the same.
I guess I am 'moving the goal post again' but none of those are good arguments. You can tell by the amount of people who points out they are not good arguments. Put please continue this tapdance where you present your best reasons, and then come with more reasons when they do not stick.
1: yep thats a dim reason
2: not remotely the same and you know it, if female marines can theoretically create more marines WITHOUT the implantation process, natural male and female astartes, then it would get out of hand very very quickly, if marines could reproduce naturally, then they would rule the universe already, billions of marines instead of humans, marines making other marines badab war style takes decades to do properly, making all marines male to make sure that at no point no one works out how to make them able to give birth make perfect sense for a disposable force, and thats what the marines are, imagine if fabious worked out how to allow female marines to have children during a female heresy, its a whole new can of worms, so like it or lump it, this is a valid in universe reason not to have female marines, if I were the Emperor, I would not even want the hint of a risk of that happening.
3: who said sisters are female marines? sure they are a MEQ but thats about it.
What do you mean 'if female marines can theoretically create more marines WITHOUT the implant process...]'? (The without was written in caps, I am not emphesasing it.) Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting. Do you think if you can base space marines on females suddenly space marines can birth babies, let alone space marine babies? There is literarly nothing else that changes if Space Marines can be based on females. Why on earth would that introduce space marine babies? Can you seperate these to notions from each other? It is well estrablished how you make a space marine. You take a young promesing person and start the process, including inplanting the literal seed other space marines carries with them.
The badap war is a great example of how you make a lot of marines. And they even did it partly incidentaly. Horun did not plan the badab war. He was depleated of resources, his suplies streched to wide. There where not enough Astra Claws so cover the work load, so he overstepped the allowed quota and posted them in remote outposts so it would be hard for outsiders to get a good overview on how many marines the astra claws had. But this is perhaps a bad example as the production was out of necesaty and not a mass production as such.
But we have example of mass production asllready. Several on both side whips up new space marines all the time, the lords of terra name them after 'generations'. There is nothing in the setting that prevents this from happening currently, as it is currently happening if so inclined.Space Marines based on females would change this in any way.
Formosa wrote: 3: who said sisters are female marines? sure they are a MEQ but thats about it.
Who says sisters are female marines? Well you do in the following sentence after you ask the question. Do you know what MEQ actualy stands for?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/03/04 03:06:25
Niiai wrote: Again, just bacause so much is being said, even if we had the most glorius sisters of batle in en every store that is no reason not to have space marines based on females.
Why?
The main reason people are asking for Female Space Marines isn't because they're Space Marines specifically.
It's because Space Marines are popular.
If SoB were as popular as SM, that reaches the goal set.
Spoiler:
There is a perfectly good reason why women can't be SM. That's the lore. As I personally see it, there is no reason to change it, because increasing exposure of the Sisters of Battle, without even having to change their lore, would achieve the same result - increased female exposure.
That is a really big if.
What is the timeline you predict for this? Ever since Space Marines have been established around rogue trader first- or secondedition space marines has been an instant hit. Some time ago GW celbrated their 30 year aniversary, that is near 30 years of Space Marines iconicness. Your big if, is not very realistic.
Wheras spacae marines females GW would just need to point to the tactical squad and say 'Do you know that SM can be based on females as well as males?". No models would need to be changed, they are clad in power armour. No changes. Over times, ad some female heads as options for the helmetless squad leaderes.
What goal sett would that be? Female Space Marines? I want female space marines.
Niiai wrote: So since I was away the three new reasons as to why we can not have femalen space marines are as follows.
- There would not be enough wimen left to make babies.
Others have pointed out how this is a bad argument. One of the reasons why being that the population is to big for it to leave a dent compared to how many marines there are, and I will leave thatbone at that.
- Space Marines would get out of hand as they could self populate.
This runs into the problem that nothing prevents marines from self populating right now if they so chosed (astra claws in the badab war anyone) and that all space marines are sterile by design. Just like SM can not create children Space Marines would stil not be able to make children.
- We already have female SM in sisters of battle.
That is hardly the same. Sisters are often cast as exstreme bad guys claims everything must be purged. S3 and T3 does not a SM make. Wheras marines excist in all the colours of the rainbow bothbin colour and culture and are the iconic character of the setting. This is like comparing a lame ass car that does not sell well with several of the most iconic cars in the world and say they are the same.
I guess I am 'moving the goal post again' but none of those are good arguments. You can tell by the amount of people who points out they are not good arguments. Put please continue this tapdance where you present your best reasons, and then come with more reasons when they do not stick.
1: yep thats a dim reason
2: not remotely the same and you know it, if female marines can theoretically create more marines WITHOUT the implantation process, natural male and female astartes, then it would get out of hand very very quickly, if marines could reproduce naturally, then they would rule the universe already, billions of marines instead of humans, marines making other marines badab war style takes decades to do properly, making all marines male to make sure that at no point no one works out how to make them able to give birth make perfect sense for a disposable force, and thats what the marines are, imagine if fabious worked out how to allow female marines to have children during a female heresy, its a whole new can of worms, so like it or lump it, this is a valid in universe reason not to have female marines, if I were the Emperor, I would not even want the hint of a risk of that happening.
3: who said sisters are female marines? sure they are a MEQ but thats about it.
What do you mean 'if female marines can theoretically create more marines WITHOUT the implant process...]'? (The without was written in caps, I am not emphesasing it.) Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting. Do you think if you can base space marines on females suddenly space marines can birth babies, let alone space marine babies? There is literarly nothing else that changes if Space Marines can be based on females. Why on earth would that introduce space marine babies? Can you seperate these to notions from each other? It is well estrablished how you make a space marine. You take a young promesing person and start the process, including inplanting the literal seed other space marines carries with them.
The badap war is a great example of how you make a lot of marines. And they even did it partly incidentaly. Horun did not plan the badab war. He was depleated of resources, his suplies streched to wide. There where not enough Astra Claws so cover the work load, so he overstepped the allowed quota and posted them in remote outposts so it would be hard for outsiders to get a good overview on how many marines the astra claws had. But this is perhaps a bad example as the production was out of necesaty and not a mass production as such.
But we have example of mass production asllready. Several on both side whips up new space marines all the time, the lords of terra name them after 'generations'. There is nothing in the setting that prevents this from happening currently, as it is currently happening if so inclined.Space Marines based on females would change this in any way.
Formosa wrote: 3: who said sisters are female marines? sure they are a MEQ but thats about it.
Who says sisters are female marines? Well you do in the following sentence after you ask the question. Do you know what MEQ actualy stands for?
space marines cannot have children for several reasons, anatomy being one of them, hyperthetically if you make a male marine fertile you have the issue that a female would likely not be able to carry the much larger (theoretically) fetus to term, it would likely kill her, now reverse this and apply the same theory to a female marine, make her fertile (something that Fabious would likely be able to do) and replicate this across the legions, suddenly you have a massive threat on your hands, its just not worth it.
Why would it introduce space marine babies, because thats what woman do, make babies, they replicate the species, in this case it would be Femstartes, if you lot want female marines, you need to consider all the implications, not just cherry pick what you like, making male marines fertile isnt as big a deal as making female marines fertile.
Chaos have a hard time mass producing marines, its even stated in several books, Imperial space marines cannot mass produce marines at all, if they start to hoard gene seed to try it, well, Badab war happens, the High lords are able to mass produce marines from the massive stockpiles of gene seed, thats it.
Ok before asking do I know what MEQ stands for
equivalent
"a person or thing that is equal to or corresponds with another in value, amount, function, meaning, etc"
corresponds
"have a close similarity; match or agree almost exactly."
Perhaps you should learn what equivalent means, Sisters have a close similarity to marines, hence "MEQ" but they are not literally marines, thats plain stupid.
They are not marines in culture, and they are T3, that is not equalant as marines. Sister of battles is not the same as marines.
And why do you thing being able to base the creation of a space marine on a woman would mean babies are inbound? This is so rong on all account. Least of that is not how you enginer space marines. They are not a race that can reproduce that way. You have to take the genseed and inplant it into a young person cross your t's and dot your i's and hope theys urvive the process and training. Why are you brining in all of this other gakk?
Niiai wrote: They are not marines in culture, and they are T3, that is not equalant as marines. Sister of battles is not the same as marines.
And why do you thing being able to base the creation of a space marine on a woman would mean babies are inbound? This is so rong on all account. Least of that is not how you enginer space marines. They are not a race that can reproduce that way. You have to take the genseed and inplant it into a young person cross your t's and dot your i's and hope theys urvive the process and training. Why are you brining in all of this other gakk?
I put a quote of what equivalent means, and you still argue
The gene seed changes the genetics of the host, females reproduce, so I'm working off the hyperthetical possibilty of self replicating astartes, during the great crusade they had issue with keeping the numbers up and during the heresy even more issues, so taking your want of female marines to its logical conclusion means in universe they would try to find a way to speed up the recruitment process, so use the resources you have... woman, if you can find a way (thousands of apothecaries and Fabius) to allow woman to give birth to Astartes (demonculaba shows it's possible) then you now have a very large threat.
They are not a race that can reproduce, but they are also all male, so to be frank, if you can have you nonsense, so can I, like I said before, you want female marines, then this is a valid reason why the Emperor would not want it, you don't like it, tough, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You are using the word equivalent wrong here. Is T4 equalent to T3?
And for us to have space marines based on females you would need to change one thing. Have space marines be compatable with female starting bodies. To have space marines that are not only based on females but that can have babies you would need to change two things. You must be able to base space marines onf emale starting bodies. And reproductive orangs would have to survive becomming a space marine, and the genetic traits of the 13 extra organgs must be coded into the DNA blueprint of the host, and you must some how be able to give birth. And why would space marines be able to do that? They are geneticly enginered warriors, made for battle. It just seems odd you would try to change their purpose in the setting. It seems far less justefied and would requier a bigger detachment from the setting, the tagline is literarly 'there only war'.
In rethoric they would call the thing you do as building a straw man argument. You build a straw man that space marines build on females would mean a lot of pregnate space marines. That is a wrong way to present the argument. And you are presenting a false dilemma that either keep the space marines as is, or you will have pregnant space marines. That these are the only two options. I think that is a very dishonest way to argue.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/03/04 04:23:27
Niiai wrote: You are using the word equivalent wrong here. Is T4 equalent to T3?
Similar. Similar is the operative word. Similar =/= the same. Sisters have a 6" move, a 3+ save, 3+ to hit in ranged, LD 7 and the same loadout; a boltgun. That makes them a MEQ, as Marines tend to share those stats and equipment as well. The sisters have several points of similarity with marines, which is why there's a strong case for classing them as a MEQ.
Lychguard are also considered MEQ. They have T5, LD10 and RP. Do marines have that? No. Some people refer to them as TEQ, but's a very loose classification, as they miss the 2+ save. They have 2 wounds like terminators, but so do Primaris, so I guess one could say that Lychguard are Primaris equivalents. Who are MEQ.
Immortals are considered MEQ as well. They have T4, but still LD10, a S5 AP-2 gun and RP. Do marines have that? Nope again, and marines move an inch faster too. If you really want to split hairs, Sisters are a cross between GEQ and MEQ. Which does make them somewhat unique. Still close enough though, especially once you consider their loadout.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiai wrote: They are not marines in culture, and they are T3, that is not equalant as marines. Sister of battles is not the same as marines.
Necrons are also not marines in culture. They are still considered MEQs.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2018/03/04 09:46:13
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Niiai wrote: Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
Wait, what?
Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting.
You've just defeated your own argument. Either the established setting is important, or it isn't. Pick one.
You are also preseneting a straw man argument. Space marines can not reproduse in that way. They are grown and enginered, not bred in the traditional sence. Why would any of that change?
Niiai wrote: You are using the word equivalent wrong here. Is T4 equalent to T3?
And for us to have space marines based on females you would need to change one thing. Have space marines be compatable with female starting bodies. To have space marines that are not only based on females but that can have babies you would need to change two things. You must be able to base space marines onf emale starting bodies. And reproductive orangs would have to survive becomming a space marine, and the genetic traits of the 13 extra organgs must be coded into the DNA blueprint of the host, and you must some how be able to give birth. And why would space marines be able to do that? They are geneticly enginered warriors, made for battle. It just seems odd you would try to change their purpose in the setting. It seems far less justefied and would requier a bigger detachment from the setting, the tagline is literarly 'there only war'.
In rethoric they would call the thing you do as building a straw man argument. You build a straw man that space marines build on females would mean a lot of pregnate space marines. That is a wrong way to present the argument. And you are presenting a false dilemma that either keep the space marines as is, or you will have pregnant space marines. That these are the only two options. I think that is a very dishonest way to argue.
Yep Sisters a MEQ, as the above poster aptly showed.
Nope not a strawman, as you seem to be forgetting the massive elephant in the room, chaos, you introduce that into the mix and suddenly things like
"And reproductive orangs would have to survive becomming a space marine, and the genetic traits of the 13 extra organgs must be coded into the DNA blueprint of the host"
Stop mattering as much, Fabious was able to clone a primarch, which is a super advanced marine (kind of) with all the above organs naturally grown in the body, minus the gene seed, so again its highly unlikely, but possible to reproduce this method for marines, we also have Corax producing marines from children in a matter of weeks, so advanced growth can also be done.
So take say.... a well known master apothecary, dark mechanicum, and a lot of time to monkey with the Astartes process (hmmm sure this happened recently with Cawl), so nope, not a massive disconnect with the setting, infact its completely in line with the setting as it is today.
You call it a strawman, I call it drawing a logical conclusion, you see it boils down to this, if I were the Emperor, and I even thought it was slightly possible for marines to become self replicating, I wouldnt take the risk, you are the one articficially creating barriers here, claiming to be the keeper of the lore, that other peoples arguments are worthless, thing is, you cant do it with this argument, because it would be something that would attempted by Chaos marines at the very least, were they female, you are the one being dishonest here, especially as I have said several times that the story of how this could come about would be interesting.
Niiai wrote: Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
Wait, what?
Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting.
You've just defeated your own argument. Either the established setting is important, or it isn't. Pick one.
You are also preseneting a straw man argument. Space marines can not reproduse in that way. They are grown and enginered, not bred in the traditional sence. Why would any of that change?
Nope he isnt mr goal post mover, answer his question.
Either the setting doesnt matter, or it does, pick one.
Also primarchs are grown, space marine clones are grown, Demonculaba space marines are grown and born with all the relevent organs, so you are wrong, flat wrong, super wrong, not all marines are engineered, chaos has shown they can be bred.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 11:43:40
Niiai wrote: Again, just bacause so much is being said, even if we had the most glorius sisters of batle in en every store that is no reason not to have space marines based on females.
Why?
The main reason people are asking for Female Space Marines isn't because they're Space Marines specifically. It's because Space Marines are popular.
If SoB were as popular as SM, that reaches the goal set.
Spoiler:
There is a perfectly good reason why women can't be SM. That's the lore. As I personally see it, there is no reason to change it, because increasing exposure of the Sisters of Battle, without even having to change their lore, would achieve the same result - increased female exposure.
That is a really big if.
Really, it's not. They're exactly the same, because my opinions and desires will have no effect either way. You can say "If GW changed their lore" - that's also an If. Anything we suggest is an If because none of us are GW employees who could have any influence on this.
What is the timeline you predict for this? Ever since Space Marines have been established around rogue trader first- or secondedition space marines has been an instant hit. Some time ago GW celbrated their 30 year aniversary, that is near 30 years of Space Marines iconicness. Your big if, is not very realistic.
I didn't say it was reaslistic. I saud it was what I wanted. All this bleating about wanting female marines is unrealistic, because it probably won't amount to anything. Knowing GW, it'll fall on deaf ears, making it all useless. All we can said is what we'd like to happen - without any hope of it actually happening.
But yes, you mention Space Marines being an instant hit - why is that? What is it about Space Marines that make them more appealing than Guardsmen, Sisters, etc etc? Is it that they're overexposed and that's the first thing new people see? If people like Space Marines, then they shouldn't be changed. Change the Sisters to make them more appealing instead then.
Wheras spacae marines females GW would just need to point to the tactical squad and say 'Do you know that SM can be based on females as well as males?". No models would need to be changed, they are clad in power armour. No changes. Over times, ad some female heads as options for the helmetless squad leaderes.
But as some people have said, they want noticablely female parts on their Space Marines. And again - if they're going to look just like normal Marines, what's the point?
With female Space Marines, GW needs to change the lore. With Sisters, no lore needs changing - only new models. It's not hard. The ingredients to make Sisters more popular and diverse are there - they only need to be used.
What goal sett would that be? Female Space Marines? I want female space marines.
WHY.
Why specifically Space Marines.
The vast majority of people want Female Space Marines because the existing female army, Sisters, is unsupported. If that army were more supported, then I can assure that most of the female Space Marine advocates would be appeased.
At the end of the day, what's the difference between the Space Marines and Sisters?
Space Marines: Monogender Power armour Bolters Elite Fanatical devotion to the Imperium (not necessarily to the Emperor himself as a God) Superhuman biology
Sisters: Monogender Power armour Bolters Elite Fanatical devotion to the Imperium (via the Church, seeing the Emperor as divine) Holy powers
The ONLY difference I'm seeing is that the Sisters draw strength from their faith, instead of from superhuman biology. Seriously, the fundamentals of the factions are identical.
So what is it about Space Marines themselves, ignoring the popularity of the Astartes (because as I said, if popularity is the only reason, then we should instead be bolstering the Sisters popularity instead).
Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
The setting also says women can't be Space Marines.
You can't use the setting to say "you can't have X" and then ignore it to have Y. That's not how an argument works.
If you can say "Space Marines can't reproduce because of the setting", I have every right to say "Space Marines must be male because of the setting".
Formosa wrote: 3: who said sisters are female marines? sure they are a MEQ but thats about it.
Who says sisters are female marines? Well you do in the following sentence after you ask the question. Do you know what MEQ actualy stands for?
MEQ = Marines and Equivalents. Sisters, because they wear power armour and carry bolters, with a high BS and morale, classify as them, despite some differences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 11:50:30
Niiai wrote: Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
Wait, what?
Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting.
You've just defeated your own argument. Either the established setting is important, or it isn't. Pick one.
You are also preseneting a straw man argument. Space marines can not reproduse in that way. They are grown and enginered, not bred in the traditional sence. Why would any of that change?
Do you even know what a straw man is?
You state that space marines cannot have children, as its clearly established in the setting. According to you, this cannot be changed. It is also clearly established in the setting that marines cannot be women. But you believe this can be changed.
That is a logical disconnect. If they can be written to be women, they can just as easily be written to support sexual reproduction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 11:51:36
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Whilst I wouldn't mind having both, if I had to choose between having female Astartes and fully supported SoB, it would be no contest at all. SoB win hands down, they're one of the coolest factions in the setting.
I do like their aesthetic direction. Has a nice sort of militant baroque appeal, which makes sense thematically, considering how baroque art came about as a reaction to rise of Protestantism during the reformation and wars of religion.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Crimson wrote: Whilst I wouldn't mind having both, if I had to choose between having female Astartes and fully supported SoB, it would be no contest at all. SoB win hands down, they're one of the coolest factions in the setting.
Aside from the having both part, agreed.
Sisters are a whole faction with their own lore and nuances that could be expanded outwards to fill that "strong female soldiers" role that people have wanted from Female Space Marines.
Space Marines remain unchanged, pleasing the "remainers". Sisters get expanded and their own love, pleasing the "changers".
Crimson wrote: Whilst I wouldn't mind having both, if I had to choose between having female Astartes and fully supported SoB, it would be no contest at all. SoB win hands down, they're one of the coolest factions in the setting.
Totally agree, marines are boring to me now, sisters (regardless of the gender nonsense) are a lot more interesting, a new model line would mean new unit types too and that would also be cool.
Niiai wrote: Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
Wait, what?
Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting.
You've just defeated your own argument. Either the established setting is important, or it isn't. Pick one.
You are also preseneting a straw man argument. Space marines can not reproduse in that way. They are grown and enginered, not bred in the traditional sence. Why would any of that change?
Do you even know what a straw man is?
You state that space marines cannot have children, as its clearly established in the setting. According to you, this cannot be changed.
It is also clearly established in the setting that marines cannot be women. But you believe this can be changed.
That is a logical disconnect. If they can be written to be women, they can just as easily be written to support sexual reproduction.
A strawman is when you present one persons position and argulent as something they are not actually saying, and then you follow up by arguing that possition.
The fact that females can be made into SM is established in the setting. The fact how SM are made is established in the setting. How is it changing the first premmis changes the second premmis? Because if you read the above posts that is what some people are saying. And then they attack the idea of SM being potensially based on females because of it. Is that not a textbook example of a strawman argument?
Niiai wrote: Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
Wait, what?
Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting.
You've just defeated your own argument. Either the established setting is important, or it isn't. Pick one.
You are also preseneting a straw man argument. Space marines can not reproduse in that way. They are grown and enginered, not bred in the traditional sence. Why would any of that change?
Do you even know what a straw man is?
You state that space marines cannot have children, as its clearly established in the setting. According to you, this cannot be changed.
It is also clearly established in the setting that marines cannot be women. But you believe this can be changed.
That is a logical disconnect. If they can be written to be women, they can just as easily be written to support sexual reproduction.
A strawman is when you present one persons position and argulent as something they are not actually saying, and then you follow up by arguing that possition.
The fact that females can be made into SM is established in the setting. The fact how SM are made is established in the setting. How is it changing the first premmis changes the second premmis? Because if you read the above posts that is what some people are saying. And then they attack the idea of SM being potensially based on females because of it. Is that not a textbook example of a strawman argument?
It's because what you're doing is wanting to change one thing, which people want to stay the same due to the lore, and then when other people change something else, you use the lore to say it should also stay the same.
You're being hypocritical - either the lore is something that should stay the same or shouldn't.
The lore says that females can't be Space Marines. It also says they can't reproduce. Why should I accept one as sacrosanct and the other not?
Niiai wrote: Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting.
Wait, what?
Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting.
You've just defeated your own argument. Either the established setting is important, or it isn't. Pick one.
You are also preseneting a straw man argument. Space marines can not reproduse in that way. They are grown and enginered, not bred in the traditional sence. Why would any of that change?
Do you even know what a straw man is?
You state that space marines cannot have children, as its clearly established in the setting. According to you, this cannot be changed. It is also clearly established in the setting that marines cannot be women. But you believe this can be changed.
That is a logical disconnect. If they can be written to be women, they can just as easily be written to support sexual reproduction.
A strawman is when you present one persons position and argulent as something they are not actually saying, and then you follow up by arguing that possition.
The fact that females can be made into SM is established in the setting.
No it isn't. That is something that you made up. The lore explicitly states that the process is designed to work on men. That is established in the setting. The idea that women can be made into space marines is not established in the background, and is your opinion that contradicts established fluff.
From lexicanum
Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types.
Which in turn is taken from page 16 of White Dwarf Issue 98, in an article about the creation of space marines, written by Rick Priestly, the man who designed the setting as we know it, and is described by Andy Chambers as being the original Emperor of the 40,000 universe
There is nothing that supports your assertion.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/03/04 12:24:58
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
They are stil using the straw man argument though. The difference being I actually want to see space marines being based on females. And then right out of left field, right out of the blue, somebody jumps inn and starts arguing against a possition nobody has sugested at all. Why on earth are they brining up a possition nobody have talked about, nobody has sugested yet and they themselves do not want? Either they are being falacius or they are clearly missrepresenting the argument. They are muddeling the subject being discussed in order to seed confusion about the positions in the debate. What does the one have to do with the other, and why are they debating the one thing nobody has brought up? If you change one thing in the setting you are not automatically changing everything else, that is the straw man argument teqnicue.
Niiai wrote: [A strawman is when you present one persons position and argulent as something they are not actually saying, and then you follow up by arguing that possition.
The fact that females can be made into SM is established in the setting. The fact how SM are made is established in the setting. How is it changing the first premmis changes the second premmis? Because if you read the above posts that is what some people are saying. And then they attack the idea of SM being potensially based on females because of it. Is that not a textbook example of a strawman argument?
That isn't anywhere near to the argument I was making (ironically!)
I was highlighting the blatant hypocrisy of your position/thought process.
The marine baby argument is absurd. That is not automatic end result of having female Astartes, the fluff could be written so that this problem would not occur. These two things are really not related.
Crimson wrote: The marine baby argument is absurd. That is not automatic end result of having female Astartes, the fluff could be written so that this problem would not occur. These two things are really not related.
Agreed - the issue I have is that apparently "the lore says so" can be used as a reason for why marine babies can't be a thing, but can't be used to defend mono-gender marines.
Either the lore can be used as a defence or it can't.
Crimson wrote: The marine baby argument is absurd. That is not automatic end result of having female Astartes, the fluff could be written so that this problem would not occur. These two things are really not related.
Agreed - the issue I have is that apparently "the lore says so" can be used as a reason for why marine babies can't be a thing, but can't be used to defend mono-gender marines.
Either the lore can be used as a defence or it can't.
So from your perspective changing one thing in the lore means you are now changing anything else at the same time. You might as well say having females compatable with SM means the emperor is an actual dinosaur elephant hybrid. Nobody has sugested this change to the lore and arguing against it does not dent the SM based upon females, more then changing how SM are made dent the SM based upon female argument does.
Changing that the fictional zygotes is is keyed to humans instead of human males does not change how SM are made.
Reproductive organs do not survive the astrates process. You stil inplant 13 extarnal organgs into the subject. For this to happen you would also need to rewritte how DNA works in the setting becquse from that argument the human DNA now comes equipped with the blueprint of how and when to grow those organs. That is a huge change.
Crimson wrote: The marine baby argument is absurd. That is not automatic end result of having female Astartes, the fluff could be written so that this problem would not occur. These two things are really not related.
Agreed - the issue I have is that apparently "the lore says so" can be used as a reason for why marine babies can't be a thing, but can't be used to defend mono-gender marines.
Either the lore can be used as a defence or it can't.
So from you perspective changing one thing in the lore means you are now changing anything else at the same time. You might as well say haing female compatable with SM means the emperor is an actual dinosaur elephant hybrid. Nobody has sugested this change to the lore and arguing against it does not dent the SM based upon females more then changing how SM are made dent the SM based upon female argument does.
Now THAT'S a strawman. I haven't suggested Dinosaur Elephant Hybrids anywhere. Again - if you can't tell that two very closely linked aspects of Space Marine creation are different to Space Marine creation and what the Emperor is, I'm afraid I'm wasting my time on you.
Changing that the fictional zygotes is is keyed to humans instead of human males does not change how SM are made.
And changing the process so that reproductive organs are unharmed doesn't change how Space Marines are made either, right?
You can't change one important thing about a very specific subject and say that other similarly important things shouldn't be changed too without sounding like a hypocrite.
Reproductive organs do not survive the astrates process. You stil inplant 13 extarnal organgs into the subject. For this to happen you would also need to rewritte how DNA works in the setting becquse from that argument the human DNA now comes equipped with the blueprint of how and when to grow those organs. That is a huge change.
That same article states that all of those organs cannot be implanted into women. Stop making it out that one is more important than the other, or more "valid". Both are treated the same, so why should be one be more important than another.
So stop arguing against the straw man.
I'm not saying that changing one thing changes everything.
I'm saying that both points are about fundamentals of Space Marine biology - yet apparently one is set in stone, and the other isn't. Maybe because your own opinions are saying that one is less imprtant than the other. However, that's JUST your opinion.
Stop using buzzwords to defend hypocrisy.
I'd also note that you've not answered WHY specifically females must be in the form of Space Marines and not SoB, without mentioning Space Marine popularity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 13:06:28
Everyone does realise that "Female Space Marines" wouldn't actually be female, right?
By the time they'd be turned into Space Marines, they'd just be the sexless defenders of humanity. They wouldn't look female, likely being bald, breastless giants, they couldn't have kids, and their personalities would be brainwashed wrecks. [Ya know, like the rest of the space marines. CLENSE PURGE KILL] Space Marines are barely human, they're not particularly male either. They're generic stompy supersoliders.
What do you think would be particularly 'Female Representative', aside from a changed line in background fluff most people might not even bother to read on page 64 of Codex Ultra-Ultramarines?
I'm not sure going, 'This hulking killing marine was once a girl before we ripped her insides out in childhood, took away her ability to have children, brainwashed her, and surgically implanted a bunch of organs inside her', is really the pro-women approch we're looking for...
Is it?
Or are we saying the only way to represent women in 40k in a major way is to introduce themselves in a way in which they're unrecongiseably female and have to be surgically butchered to be any use?
Sisters of battle are just girls. They kick ass. In spite of being girls. They fight and win, or die, as normal human women. Sounds a lot more positive to me.
OK, so everybody on both sides of the argument seems to have misunderstood the point I was making about the Emperor making Astartes all-male as a way of stopping them replacing normal humans.
As things stand, the Astartes are completely dependent on regular humans to recruit from. They have to keep a large population of regular humans around in order for the Astartes themselves to continue to exist. You need both a regular human child and a set of geneseed to create a new Space Marine. But Astartes can only produce one of those two things independently. This is just as important culturally/philosophically as biologically/practically: all-male Astartes are emphatically not an independent species.
If Astartes could mate with each other and produce children, of course those children would still need geneseed implantation to become new Marines, but the Astartes would now have the capability to produce both 'components' of a new Marine themselves. There would be no need for any humans who are not either Astartes or the pre-implantation offspring of Astartes. At this point, regular humans are obsolete, on the way to being replaced by a new and superior species. This is what the Emperor sought to avoid.
AFAIK, the whole "Marines are sterile" thing has never been official fluff, merely a fan theory. The reason Marines don't have kids is that they don't get the opportunity. But even if they are sterile, if you introduce female Astartes, they may well start to feel like they are their own (superior) species rather than dutiful guardians of Humanity. Or at least so the Emperor presumably thought.
FWIW, while I am personally on the "keep Marines as they are but give female IG and SoB (and female non-Astartes Chaos worshippers) much more prominence in the fluff and artwork" side of the argument, I would also be absolutely fine with it if GW decided to introduce female Marines. Just as long as they do a better job of it than they did with the Primaris...
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry.
Crimson wrote: The marine baby argument is absurd. That is not automatic end result of having female Astartes, the fluff could be written so that this problem would not occur. These two things are really not related.
Agreed - the issue I have is that apparently "the lore says so" can be used as a reason for why marine babies can't be a thing, but can't be used to defend mono-gender marines.
Either the lore can be used as a defence or it can't.
So from your perspective changing one thing in the lore means you are now changing anything else at the same time. You might as well say having females compatable with SM means the emperor is an actual dinosaur elephant hybrid. Nobody has sugested this change to the lore and arguing against it does not dent the SM based upon females, more then changing how SM are made dent the SM based upon female argument does.
Changing that the fictional zygotes is is keyed to humans instead of human males does not change how SM are made.
Reproductive organs do not survive the astrates process. You stil inplant 13 extarnal organgs into the subject. For this to happen you would also need to rewritte how DNA works in the setting becquse from that argument the human DNA now comes equipped with the blueprint of how and when to grow those organs. That is a huge change.
Primarchs have full set of astartes organs bar the gene seed.
Demonculaba produces fully grown astartes with full set of organs, bar the skin.
Corax produced fully grown superior astartes in a manner of weeks, having tinkered with the primarch goo.
Fabulous bill has tinkered with astartes genetics with varied results, has created fully grown primarchs (ferus and Horus), created new organs from alien sources and bonded them to astartes.
Cawl tinkered with astartes genetics to produce primaris
But no, with all this tinkering you find it hard to believe that even the mere possibility of "marine babies" could happen, never mind that the fluff supports such a possibility, if you support female marines being made from the same lore stand point, then engineered pregnancy for natural marine births is also part of that, chaos marines would try it, possibly succeed too, since you know.... they have before.
Honestly, after multiple threadstorms on the subject, by now there's a pretty snarky part of me that thinks the majority of people who want female space marines just like the arguments it produces, rather than a burning need for it to be an inclusion in the fiction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/04 14:51:41
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
This subject certainly does seem to attract "passionate" advocates for both sides I'm not sure I'd count myself among those who want female marines, but I'm not against it. Over the many years that I've been a fan of 40k I don't think I've ever considered maleness to be a defining trait of the Astartes.
~4100
~1660
