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: A tiny majoraty? If you buy the representation argument (and I do not say that you should, or that it is a good argument, I am not touching that even with a 11 feet pole (because sometimes 10 feet is not long enough)) but if you buy the representation argument sales would increase, not decrease, even if you account for the people who would stop buying because some of their SM could happen to have been based upon a female underneath that power armour.
But I can not flaw GW for not pushing sisters more if they do not bring in the money. If they do not sell that makes not sence for the company. I am not saying that is the case, they might sell like hot cakes, but I am not flaunting GW for giving people something that does not sell.
Why would you assume that representation would increase sales? There are already female players that buy Space Marines, presumably because they like them as is. Why does representing who you are as a person in 40k matter? Are you a Catholic Space Nazi hell bent on purging the Universe of people that don't share your beliefs? Are you a crazed worshiper of Ancient and very real deities who rapes, murders, plots and spreads disease. Are you an 8 foot tall genetically enhanced killing maching? How about an evolved Genderless Fungus that lives only for war? Or part of a hive mind hell bent on eating everything? Ancient Machine, the vast majority of them not identifying as male or female, hell bent on killing everything or enslaving it?
I dont identify as any of them, I simply chose the armies I have because I like how they look, or are portrayed in the lore. I cant speak for everyone, nor will I, but the vast majority of people I have met seem to pick the armies they do because they look cool, not because they identify with them.
It kind of is though, because the army's designer explicitly stated that women cannot be marines, as the geneseed is designed to work with male hormones and tissue. If the creator of the army himself said it, and it has been that way since the marines as we know were designed, then wouldn't that constitute a drastic change?
But such reasons don't actually hold up to even our medical knowledge. Tissue type is not different between men and women, it is different between literally everybody. Even your own mother and father don't have the same tissue type as you. If tissue type was an actual issue, there would be no Space Marines as you would never find a close match to the Primarchs whose genetics the chapters are based on due to them being entirely made in a lab with input from chaos gods.
As for hormones, apparently the Imperium hasn't heard of hormone therapy.
And, changing it from "These are specific reasons which are obviously wrong based on biology" to "these are what the Imperium assumed the reasons were and never actually questioned because blindly following the incomplete instructions from 10 thousand years ago is what the Imperium does" isn't that drastic. It just serves to highlight the idiocy, ignorance and wastefulness of the Imperium, which are core themes of the setting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/05 17:51:14
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
It kind of is though, because the army's designer explicitly stated that women cannot be marines, as the geneseed is designed to work with male hormones and tissue.
If the creator of the army himself said it, and it has been that way since the marines as we know were designed, then wouldn't that constitute a drastic change?
But such reasons don't actually hold up to even our medical knowledge. Tissue type is not different between men and women, it is different between literally everybody. Even your own mother and father don't have the same tissue type as you. If tissue type was an actual issue, there would be no Space Marines as you would never find a close match to the Primarchs whose genetics the chapters are based on due to them being entirely made in a lab with input from chaos gods.
As for hormones, apparently the Imperium hasn't heard of hormone therapy.
And, changing it from "These are specific reasons which are obviously wrong based on biology" to "these are what the Imperium assumed the reasons were and never actually questioned because blindly following the incomplete instructions from 10 thousand years ago is what the Imperium does" isn't that drastic. It just serves to highlight the idiocy, ignorance and wastefulness of the Imperium, which are core themes of the setting.
Fair enough. You do realize though that as per your argument, women still would not be made into space marines, as that would contradict such themes?
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: ISome apolagetics are better then others. For instance 'It is not currently in the setting' is the best argument against space marines based upon females. In my opponion it is not a good argument as we have seen several revisions of the setting form GW to the setting so far, but it is by far the strongest argument.
It was also YOUR argument when other issues were brought up!
Niiai wrote: ISome apolagetics are better then others. For instance 'It is not currently in the setting' is the best argument against space marines based upon females. In my opponion it is not a good argument as we have seen several revisions of the setting form GW to the setting so far, but it is by far the strongest argument.
It was also YOUR argument when other issues were brought up!
What do you mean? Can you explain what you are refering to a bit more?
Niiai wrote: ISome apolagetics are better then others. For instance 'It is not currently in the setting' is the best argument against space marines based upon females. In my opponion it is not a good argument as we have seen several revisions of the setting form GW to the setting so far, but it is by far the strongest argument.
It was also YOUR argument when other issues were brought up!
What do you mean? Can you explain what you are refering to a bit more?
I already did a couple of pages back (you erroneously dismissed it as a strawman, remember?)
When people started talking about Space Marines reproducing, you literally said that that couldn't happen because the setting has established it as impossible - which presumably you regard as a good argument, otherwise why make it(?).
Meanwhile, the setting has also established that female Marines are impossible - which you claim is not a good argument. Hmm...
Niiai wrote: ISome apolagetics are better then others. For instance 'It is not currently in the setting' is the best argument against space marines based upon females. In my opponion it is not a good argument as we have seen several revisions of the setting form GW to the setting so far, but it is by far the strongest argument.
It was also YOUR argument when other issues were brought up!
What do you mean? Can you explain what you are refering to a bit more?
I already did a couple of pages back (you erroneously dismissed it as a strawman, remember?)
When people started talking about Space Marines reproducing, you literally said that that couldn't happen because the setting has established it as impossible - which presumably you regard as a good argument, otherwise why make it(?).
Meanwhile, the setting has also established that female Marines are impossible - which you claim is not a good argument. Hmm...
He has been dodging that question for a few pages now lol, sad thing is I am not actually against female marines per say, if they must come, then it needs to come with the whole package, the fluff has shown that some really really horrible things happen when you involve chaos in the mix and has also shown that they are more than willing to monkey with genetics to get what they want aaaaand has also shown that fully grown marines with all the organs needed can be produced from females, all be it in a totally horrific way, but he ignores that, because it does not fit his personal narrative of how things should work in spite of wanting to break one part of the fluff to make it work, he wants his cake and to eat it too.
Could we clarify if those people who are so utterly insistant of GW changing the lore of my Grimdark setting to be more representative, will be happy with just "Female Space Marines" In the lore, or if their insistance also translates into plastic?
Niiai wrote: ISome apolagetics are better then others. For instance 'It is not currently in the setting' is the best argument against space marines based upon females. In my opponion it is not a good argument as we have seen several revisions of the setting form GW to the setting so far, but it is by far the strongest argument.
It was also YOUR argument when other issues were brought up!
What do you mean? Can you explain what you are refering to a bit more?
I already did a couple of pages back (you erroneously dismissed it as a strawman, remember?)
When people started talking about Space Marines reproducing, you literally said that that couldn't happen because the setting has established it as impossible - which presumably you regard as a good argument, otherwise why make it(?).
Meanwhile, the setting has also established that female Marines are impossible - which you claim is not a good argument. Hmm...
Aha. You are refering to my argument that I do not think it is a strong argument. I was confused to what you where refring to.
Yeah, I am not convinced by that argument as good. It can be changed. It would be a minor changen (in my opinion.) You could retcon the entier thing outside of the setting, retcon it in the setting like A Town Caled Malus have given a good example of, or you could just change the setting from this point on that Sgt_Smudge sugests on page 1. All of these could work. (Se how GW has inserted new tyranid monsters into the codex each edition without anybody batting an eyelid. And they do it retroactivly, so it is not explained in setting, it just happens. Or they make a big change, like with Necrons.)
The straw man I was refering to was that I say
'I do not see how it would be a problem with space marines being female. We all know marines can not make children anyway, they are made into space marines with a genseed.'
And then somebody refutes that argument by saying
'No I do not like this, there would be pregnent marines all over the place, you could just birth new marines'.
The counter argument in that case missrepresent what I am saying, and then defend against something I did no not say. That is what a straw man argument is, because you build a false version of my argument (the straw man) and then you attack an argument that is not actualy being presented. I hope that clear things up for you.
He has been dodging that question for a few pages now lol,
What is it I am dodging? Please ask and I will awnser. (The only thing I am dodging is the question of representation because that is a sure way to get this thread locked and I refuse to go down that road. I think this thread is quite constructive so far.)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/05 18:36:33
'I do not see how it would be a problem with space marines being female. We all know marines can not make children anyway, they are made into space marines with a genseed.'
That can also be refuted with the same argument that you've been using for why there should be female marines. Just saying "X is already established in the lore." is something you've been saying isn't a good enough answer.
Yeah. But why would you need to make that change? As I said earlier why would you change the emperor into a dinosaur elephant (page 4 I think.)
If you find a good reason to change the setting, it follows that you change as little as possible, enough to furfill the justefication of changing the setting.
For instance you will notice that all the times they have made small changes (tyranids small changes each edition) or big changes (necrons 5th editoin) they have only changed what actually needed changing. At no point did they cram in things that did not have anything to do with the justification for the change. They did not, say, incert flying pegasuses in rainbow colours into the setting.
This is much the same way when you allow space marines to be based on females, you can stop the change there, You do not need to include the sentence "[..., and now they can get pregnent." Even if you include that sentence you would need to include the sentence. "And not only can they get pregnent, they birth new space marines when they do."
If I understand Fomosa correctly, he acused me of not adressing this. If that is the case, I have adressed this before. Why include that part? Space Marines being based upon females would need to only change that. Nothing else.
To get the changes Formosa suggests you would also need to change this:
- Space Marines can now make babies.
- Even though Space Marines have human DNA, when you insert the 13 external organs, you rewrite the DNA so that babies made from female space marines are also space marines.
- Chaos did in some way consieve of a way to mass produce babie space marines. Because of this, we now have many chaos space marines.
I would say that you can implement my sugested change, withouth including the 3 above changes.
But just to be clear, you do understand the argument that you can change something in the setting, withouth having to change something else right? Or does that not come over as a clear consept?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/05 19:11:59
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change?
And hence we've come full circle with the over all topic.
But my innitial question was why can you not have space marines based on females. And if the awnser is 'Because it is in the setting' and that is the only reason, GW can just change it if they want to. I find the given reson quite bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/05 19:16:07
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change?
And hence we've come full circle with the over all topic.
But my innitial question was why can you not have space marines based on females. And if the awnser is 'Because it is in the setting' and that is the only reason, GW can just change it if they want to.
And your argument for why couldn't male and female marines breed boils down to that very same defense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/05 19:16:09
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change?
And hence we've come full circle with the over all topic.
But my innitial question was why can you not have space marines based on females. And if the awnser is 'Because it is in the setting' and that is the only reason, GW can just change it if they want to.
And your argument for why couldn't male and female marines breed boils down to that very same defense.
No it does not. You would have to change three things.
- Can females be made into space marines?
- Can space marines make babies now?
- Are space marines altered in such a way that babies they make themselves turn into space marines withouth the use or organs?
As far as I can tell through this 11 page thread nobody would like change number 2 and 3. I, and some others in this thread, would like to see number 1 change. Number 2 and 3 are uncalled for.
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change?
And hence we've come full circle with the over all topic.
But my innitial question was why can you not have space marines based on females. And if the awnser is 'Because it is in the setting' and that is the only reason, GW can just change it if they want to.
And your argument for why couldn't male and female marines breed boils down to that very same defense.
No it does not. You would have to change three things.
- Can females be made into space marines?
- Can space marines make babies now?
- Are space marines altered in such a way that babies they make themselves turn into space marines withouth the use or organs?
As far as I can tell through this 11 page thread nobody would like change number 2 and 3. I, and some others in this thread, would like to see number 1 change. Number 2 and 3 are uncalled for.
It still boils down to the same argument you are giving. Why not? Because the lore says so! Too bad, not good enough.
Alpharius wrote: Is this a thread on "female Space Marines", and is it in the 40K Background section?
It is the thread do Ashes of Prospero alude to space marines buing build from females, and if so, will it become a thing in the future? There are rather few SW left out there after the 1000 Sons incurison into the sector,
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change? As I said earlier why would you change the emperor into a dinosaur elephant (page 4 I think.)
If you find a good reason to change the setting, it follows that you change as little as possible, enough to furfill the justefication of changing the setting.
For instance you will notice that all the times they have made small changes (tyranids small changes each edition) or big changes (necrons 5th editoin) they have only changed what actually needed changing. At no point did they cram in things that did not have anything to do with the justification for the change. They did not, say, incert flying pegasuses in rainbow colours into the setting.
This is much the same way when you allow space marines to be based on females, you can stop the change there, You do not need to include the sentence "[..., and now they can get pregnent." Even if you include that sentence you would need to include the sentence. "And not only can they get pregnent, they birth new space marines when they do."
If I understand Fomosa correctly, he acused me of not adressing this. If that is the case, I have adressed this before. Why include that part? Space Marines being based upon females would need to only change that. Nothing else.
To get the changes Formosa suggests you would also need to change this:
- Space Marines can now make babies.
- Even though Space Marines have human DNA, when you insert the 13 external organs, you rewrite the DNA so that babies made from female space marines are also space marines.
- Chaos did in some way consieve of a way to mass produce babie space marines. Because of this, we now have many chaos space marines.
I would say that you can implement my sugested change, withouth including the 3 above changes.
If you want an in game excuse for mass producing chaos SM it would not be difficuly. You can in fact do this withouth retconning the setting. Just make a deal with some demons to have an calm part of the warp where time moves slow (or in reverse, we know the warp acidentaly causes time travel.) Now get a space ship with a gellar field and make a lot of babies on that ship. Now implant those babies with geneseeds, and harvest them. Now you have twice the amount of geneseeds. Just repeat it again. All until you feel you have a good amount of geneseeds and now implant them in actual SM candidates. And vòla, you have a conveluded way to mass produse chaos space marines in game. Just like you are justefying some massive conveluted plot to produce space marines, even if you implement the sugested change I was making.
But just to be clear, you do understand the argument that you can change something in the setting, withouth having to change something else right? Or does that not come over as a clear consept?
Wrong again, to implement your changes you need to consider the implications of said change, and one of those implications is the self replicating marines, something the fluff supports as not only a possibility, but has actually happened before, you see chaos marines have a hell of a time finding humans that can take the gene seed, so a way around this was forcing gene seed into woman, adding a dash of warp nastiness to grow them to a montrous size, then implanting a child into the woman (so so nasty), the result was a fully grown astartes with all the organs but lacking skin, thankfully the Demonculaba were destroyed.
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
Then you have Cawl who mucked with astartes genetics to make primaris.
So the lore supports that an attempt would be made to produce marines that can reproduce, males doing it would still require woman that could carry the baby to term, given the nature of marines it can be assumed that this would kill a normal human woman, a female marine though, thats a different story all together, all it would take is time to have the fetus grow with marine organs as part of its genetic makeup, which we also know is possible, since the primarchs have the full suit of marine organs (minus gene seed) and grew naturally (albeit at a faster rate), and the aformentioned demonculaba.
We understand that you can change one thing without changing anything else, you seem to lack the ability to see the bigger picture though, the ramifications of such a change to the setting.
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change?
And hence we've come full circle with the over all topic.
But my innitial question was why can you not have space marines based on females. And if the awnser is 'Because it is in the setting' and that is the only reason, GW can just change it if they want to.
And your argument for why couldn't male and female marines breed boils down to that very same defense.
No it does not. You would have to change three things.
- Can females be made into space marines?
- Can space marines make babies now?
- Are space marines altered in such a way that babies they make themselves turn into space marines withouth the use or organs?
As far as I can tell through this 11 page thread nobody would like change number 2 and 3. I, and some others in this thread, would like to see number 1 change. Number 2 and 3 are uncalled for.
It still boils down to the same argument you are giving. Why not? Because the lore says so! Too bad, not good enough.
But you do understand that those 3 changes are all 3 seperate changes though? Not every one in this thread understand that distiction.
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change? As I said earlier why would you change the emperor into a dinosaur elephant (page 4 I think.)
If you find a good reason to change the setting, it follows that you change as little as possible, enough to furfill the justefication of changing the setting.
For instance you will notice that all the times they have made small changes (tyranids small changes each edition) or big changes (necrons 5th editoin) they have only changed what actually needed changing. At no point did they cram in things that did not have anything to do with the justification for the change. They did not, say, incert flying pegasuses in rainbow colours into the setting.
This is much the same way when you allow space marines to be based on females, you can stop the change there, You do not need to include the sentence "[..., and now they can get pregnent." Even if you include that sentence you would need to include the sentence. "And not only can they get pregnent, they birth new space marines when they do."
If I understand Fomosa correctly, he acused me of not adressing this. If that is the case, I have adressed this before. Why include that part? Space Marines being based upon females would need to only change that. Nothing else.
To get the changes Formosa suggests you would also need to change this:
- Space Marines can now make babies.
- Even though Space Marines have human DNA, when you insert the 13 external organs, you rewrite the DNA so that babies made from female space marines are also space marines.
- Chaos did in some way consieve of a way to mass produce babie space marines. Because of this, we now have many chaos space marines.
I would say that you can implement my sugested change, withouth including the 3 above changes.
If you want an in game excuse for mass producing chaos SM it would not be difficuly. You can in fact do this withouth retconning the setting. Just make a deal with some demons to have an calm part of the warp where time moves slow (or in reverse, we know the warp acidentaly causes time travel.) Now get a space ship with a gellar field and make a lot of babies on that ship. Now implant those babies with geneseeds, and harvest them. Now you have twice the amount of geneseeds. Just repeat it again. All until you feel you have a good amount of geneseeds and now implant them in actual SM candidates. And vòla, you have a conveluded way to mass produse chaos space marines in game. Just like you are justefying some massive conveluted plot to produce space marines, even if you implement the sugested change I was making.
But just to be clear, you do understand the argument that you can change something in the setting, withouth having to change something else right? Or does that not come over as a clear consept?
Wrong again, to implement your changes you need to consider the implications of said change, and one of those implications is the self replicating marines, something the fluff supports as not only a possibility, but has actually happened before, you see chaos marines have a hell of a time finding humans that can take the gene seed, so a way around this was forcing gene seed into woman, adding a dash of warp nastiness to grow them to a montrous size, then implanting a child into the woman (so so nasty), the result was a fully grown astartes with all the organs but lacking skin, thankfully the Demonculaba were destroyed.
Next you have Fabulous bill who would muck with the genetics to make the female marines fertile, the result is up for debate sure, but its still a possibility.
Then you have Cawl who mucked with astartes genetics to make primaris.
So the lore supports that an attempt would be made to produce marines that can reproduce, males doing it would still require woman that could carry the baby to term, given the nature of marines it can be assumed that this would kill a normal human woman, a female marine though, thats a different story all together, all it would take is time to have the fetus grow with marine organs as part of its genetic makeup, which we also know is possible, since the primarchs have the full suit of marine organs (minus gene seed) and grew naturally (albeit at a faster rate), and the aformentioned demonculaba.
We understand that you can change one thing without changing anything else, you seem to lack the ability to see the bigger picture though, the ramifications of such a change to the setting.
If you are retconning the setting for Fabulous Bill to invent the equilant to biological birthing machines you can just space magic it up in the current setting. That has nothing to do with the argument. It is your straw man again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/05 19:26:01
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change?
And hence we've come full circle with the over all topic.
But my innitial question was why can you not have space marines based on females. And if the awnser is 'Because it is in the setting' and that is the only reason, GW can just change it if they want to.
And your argument for why couldn't male and female marines breed boils down to that very same defense.
No it does not. You would have to change three things.
- Can females be made into space marines?
- Can space marines make babies now?
- Are space marines altered in such a way that babies they make themselves turn into space marines withouth the use or organs?
As far as I can tell through this 11 page thread nobody would like change number 2 and 3. I, and some others in this thread, would like to see number 1 change. Number 2 and 3 are uncalled for.
I'm not sure if you're being wilfully ignorant at this point, but the point VictorVonTzzentch is making is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you say that you can make space marines into females, which breaks established fluff, then anything is fair game and you can easily make it so marines can procreate as well. You've been hypocritically taking the same position that us naysayers have been using to shoot down this possibility while saying it doesn't apply to your idea of just changing the lore to include female marines.
pm713 wrote: I don't really see how female Marines = Marines can have babies. It seems like a fair leap of logic.
It would be a leap if woman couldn't have babies, the main reason it's not though is because we know that in setting that people would try if female astartes were a thing, and those same people have been shown to have the ability to make it happen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/05 19:34:11
'Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting' a good argument
but
'Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting' a bad argument (again according to you)
SM not having children is a good argument because as almost every one in this thread has pointed out it would break the setting.
I am never saying space marines cannot be female. I am always saying Space Marines based upon females. It is quite clear that a Space Marines is hardly a human at this point. (2,5 meters tall, 13 new organgs etc.) That distinction aside the argument that is established in the setting is bad if you find a good reason to change. That reason would be because some people, me among them, would like to see astartes based upon females.
Formosa, just so we are clear: You do understand how DNA works? If you chop of the tail of a male and fermale rat, their rat child would stil be born with a rat tail. That is because you do not change the rat DNA. When you turn a human into a space marine you do not change the DNA of the human. If that SM where to make a baby it would stil be a human. To make a SM you need to graft in the genseed and those 13 organs, in adition to everything else.
We can also mostly asert that space marines can not reproduce. The change happens before they hit puperty, and even if they make it through puberty it is never stated that they can have children. While I understand that GW do not have a huge focus on this, do you not think some noble woman out there would have SM sperm when she is looking for sperm donors? SM are clearly eluded to as not capable of having babies in the setting. Why would this change if fenmales could be space marines? You can just say that this it not possible. 'Because GW decides it' seems like a good reason by me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/05 19:39:18
'Space Marines can not have children it is clearly established in the setting' a good argument
but
'Space Marines cannot be female it is clearly established in the setting' a bad argument (again according to you)
SM not having children is a good argument because as almost every one in this thread has pointed out it would break the setting.
I am never saying space marines cannot be female. I am always saying Space Marines based upon females. It is quite clear that a Space Marines is hardly a human at this point. (2,5 meters tall, 13 new organgs etc.) That distinction aside the argument that is established in the setting is bad if you find a good reason to change. That reason would be because some people, me among them, would like to see astartes based upon females.
Formosa, just so we are clear: You do understand how DNA works? If you chop of the tail of a male and fermale rat, their rat child would stil be born with a rat tail. That is because you do not change the rat DNA. When you turn a human into a space marine you do not change the DNA of the human. If that SM where to make a baby it would stil be a human. To make a SM you need to graft in the genseed and those 13 organs, in adition to everything else.
We can also mostly asert that space marines can not reproduce. The change happens before they hit puperty, and even if they make it through puberty it is never stated that they can have children. While I understand that GW do not have a huge focus on this, do you not think some noble woman out there would have SM sperm when she is looking for sperm donors? SM are clearly eluded to as not capable of having babies in the setting. Why would this change if fenmales could be space marines? You can just say that this it not possible. 'Because GW decides it' seems like a good reason by me.
Aaaaaand proven wrong by the demonculaba example yet again, I will say it again just for you.
We already have examples of fully grown space marines with all organs being produced, they were naturally grown in the womb of a female and the result was either a mutant, or a skinless space marine, so you DNA example is meaningless, it can be done in setting, because it has been done, demonculaba are females with gene seed implanted and warp dickery applied.
All it would take is one dark mech adept or fabulous bill to work out how this is done, then bam, marine babies, naturally grown astartes organs like PRIMARCHS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/05 19:47:42
Niiai wrote: That distinction aside the argument that is established in the setting is bad if you find a good reason to change. That reason would be because some people, me among them, would like to see astartes based upon females.
So if I was to say, 'some people, me among them, would like to see astartes having babies' it's now somehow a good/better argument..?
Niiai wrote: Yeah. But why would you need to make that change?
And hence we've come full circle with the over all topic.
But my innitial question was why can you not have space marines based on females. And if the awnser is 'Because it is in the setting' and that is the only reason, GW can just change it if they want to.
And your argument for why couldn't male and female marines breed boils down to that very same defense.
No it does not. You would have to change three things.
- Can females be made into space marines?
- Can space marines make babies now?
- Are space marines altered in such a way that babies they make themselves turn into space marines withouth the use or organs?
As far as I can tell through this 11 page thread nobody would like change number 2 and 3. I, and some others in this thread, would like to see number 1 change. Number 2 and 3 are uncalled for.
I'm not sure if you're being wilfully ignorant at this point, but the point VictorVonTzzentch is making is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you say that you can make space marines into females, which breaks established fluff, then anything is fair game and you can easily make it so marines can procreate as well. You've been hypocritically taking the same position that us naysayers have been using to shoot down this possibility while saying it doesn't apply to your idea of just changing the lore to include female marines.
But you do understand that those 3 changes are all 3 seperate changes though? Not every one in this thread understand that distiction.
The number of changes is beyond the point Im trying to make, Im not arguing for or against allowing Astartes to breed. Indeed the whole point of them seemingly not being able to breed is to prevent the Astartes from replacing mankind whole sale. They are its defenders not its replacements. On the note of Astartes breeding, even if the geneseed wont be formed in the womb, the genetics of the parents being both Astartes capable would ensure larger success rates of implantation.
I am arguing that the defense you are using against them breeding is in fact the same defense you denounce when its being used to deny FemMarines.
~4100
~1660
