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.

Yes the argument are going in circle because people started bringing up points we have already discussed and left undecided. And then they bring up the old arguments as though they where setteled, and then I feel compelled to comment on them.

I do not understand why people keep brining on Daemonculaba as an argument. They already exists in the setting. I stil do not see any link between Daemonculaba and any problems with female based SM. People have not provided a link as to why that is relevant.

 Niiai wrote:
Yes, but there could be reasons for not having female basedvspace marines that could prevent that from happening in the future. For instance if the Paradise Lost argument was more valid, that could be more of a reason. I think (and I have no evidence to prove this) that the reason is because of social norms in the time when that particular part of the setting was written.

I will agree that it hurts the symetry between having 1 imperium male faction and 1 imperial female faction. (Although the female faction features males in roles.) But Sisters of Battle have enough distinct personalaty removing the symetry would not harm their identety in any meaningfull way. There are more to sisters then just an monopoly on the Y cromosome and a suit of power armour.

There could be a reason that is good that I had not thought of, and I thank you all for helping me trying to find it.

I feel that the biggest take away from all of this is how big such a change would be. Although only Sgt_Smudge awnsered my ten point scale question I am shocked that he think female SM is a seven, while I think of it only a one or two. It clearly tells me how much Sgt_Smudge opposes this idea, and why I do not see a problem with it. I think the more interesting question that follows would be why I value it as a one or two, and he values it at a seven. You others have not chimed in, but I feel it would be great to hear.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it makes ANY lore discussion completely irrelevant, because someone can turn around and say "well, the lore's changed before, so your point doesn't work".

Under these terms, I can claim absolutely anything, because "the lore's changed before".

This is not true of all arguments though. For instance Slanesh has had little suport, and he/she has disapeared quite a bit in the fantasy setting. There are good reasons for not removing Slanesh in 40K. You have huge plot holes in the back story. No eye or terror, the eldars have no fall, you would need to re-write all eldar back story, and the backstory of 40K entierly. The emperor children will be void etc. etc.

Like vice removing chaos entierly is not something you can do without ruiening the entier setting. Compare that to removing say the Tau? The Tau can for the most part be removed relativaly easy. You would need to patch up some things, like every battle the Tau took part in, hive fleet gorgons backstory etc. etc. But it could be done, as opposed to say remove slanesh.

Incoperating SM being based upon female is relativaly easy. Why do you think it is such a big change in the setting as opposed to a small change? (Yes we all know Formosa is gonne post a wall of text with Damonculaba in it.)

@Sgt_Smudge what 9 points are you talking about BTW: Are they these?

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Niiai wrote:I do not agree with you that one can not have strong opinions on culture. And game is culture just like anything else. We have arts, books and movie critique, why not games? I studied all four of them to some degree at universaty. (Read critique not nesaseraly as critesimn.)

No-one's saying that games aren't culture. However, how does adding Female Marines add to that culture? We don't want all cultures to be the same - having an all male and an all female society in a fictional culture is still culture.

How big do I rate this on the 'things that matter scale in the world' it rates very low. But when we are talking about the actual game I feel quite strong about it.

As do we all. I wouldn't go on a march for this in real life, but internet talk is free and easy - hence why I can wax lyrical about it.

Now from a practical point of view, if you are thinking production pipelines, it is very easy to implement. Change some of the fluff the next time they print it. And then you need to craft the head spruces. Either make new spruces as they are want to do. But more easaly make some upgrade spruces like they have done for GSC. Some packaging for the upgrade spruces and that is it. It is a very easaly implementation.

If you compare this to sisters of battle for instance they woudl need to design all of the boxes. I do not know if the molds are compatable with plastic. You would need to do a codex, and that includes hiering authors etc. It is much more work, and a bigger financial risiko. What if sisters do not sell? Who is sisters main audience? Is it ment for women in the 'representation argument' for instance? That is a tangent with a lot of speculation.

See, I think this is the issue you're having.

You simply don't care about Sisters, the existing all female army. You admit it in the paragraph below. And that's why, from what I see, you want to reinvent the wheel, as it were.

We ALREADY have female supersoldiers in the lore. They're called the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence - and there's only one gap I see female Marines filling that the SoB/SoS can't (that being genetically modified).
As I put in a previous post (which you still haven't replied to), Sisters and Space Marines are very similar, differing in tiny ways.

You say that the problem with Sisters is that you'd need to do them in plastic. Why SHOULDN'T they be in plastic? Plastic Sisters should have been a thing years ago, supporting an actual existing army rather than having to redesign Space Marines for the umpteen time. With your Space Marine one, they need to make upgrade sprues - with Sisters, they're supporting an army that's been in the game longer than most players, and still hasn't been updated.

To have Female Space Marines, you need to change what currently exists. With Sisters, you just need to give plastic models to a faction.

Are you actually against plastic sisters, is what I'm saying? Because for saying you're trying to "support female issues", not supporting the actual female army is baffling.
Do you want to SQUAT the Sisters?

And the audience argument? That's been terrible used against Female Marines, and now it's being used to squat Sisters? Not just women play Sisters. Sister's main audience is people who want female models, church models, like the aesthetic, like the gameplay, or really, ANY of the reasons people like ANY of the other armies.

But for me at least, I do not like sisters of battle.

And herein lies the root of the problem. You ignore the easiest answer to the problem because you don't like it.

Perhaps I do not know them well enough, but as statet eralier my experience with them is from Storm of Souls in 2008 and then they where bat gak crazy. Fanatic is the word. I do not like them. And it also feels like playing 'at the kids table'. I like that SM lends themself to so much. I have a SM army, I was very close to having a GK and BA army, I have some of their models. I also really like the minotars and the cha-charadons in the badab war. SM is the icon on 40K, there is no way sisters of battle would ever grow to that status, they are not iconic enough. And I think itw ould be folly for GW to invest a lot of money into it when SM are so iconic.

IOW Let's squat everyone from the game because they're not Space Marines.

Nope. Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. Sisters fulfil the craving for Female Supersoldiers, and if they were updated, then there could be a vast influx of players, a new lease of life for their lore and representation, and could be JUST a diverse as Space Marines. Space Marines and Sister have JUST as much opportunity to be diverse and varied as eachother - if we gave Sisters a chance.

You're saying "Sisters aren't iconic because they're not iconic" - WHY? It's because GW hasn't given them any actual care beyond existing. Not because there's a fundamental flaw with their concept.

I also really dislike that sisters are T3 and S3. They might have rhinoes and that 3+ save, but form a rules perspective SM they are not. Having T4 is like a very confertable blanket.

So for me, sisters no, SM yes, SM based on both genders, yes please.

That's a gameplay issue. We're in the background section. If you don't like that Sisters are T3, then don't play them, and don't complain that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want female models? Play Sisters. Don't like T3? Don't play them.

Same as if someone came up to me and said "I love Orks, but I wish they had a 3+ save". Does that mean we should give Orks power armour now, or should the player just deal with it and choose which one they want? Or, even better - they can use the Sisters models, and Space Marine rules! No lore changes, no need to make Female Marines at all.

We have two monogender factions. We don't need to change Space Marines when something else fits what we want.

Edit: Just read the above comment. I think perhaps I can try to bridge it with a methaphore. If the 40K was a joke being told, I think the joke would flow a lot better if females SM where part of the setting instead of this artificial conveluted thing it is now.

I disagree. And that's all that needs to be said about it.

Niiai wrote:No, they are not good guys, I meant the SW. I think SW are the closest I have come to good guys in the setting. They look out for the little guy (being mad at the inquestition when they kill the humans) and that is a very sympathetic trait. When they fall to chaos mutation, they apear to exlusivly get physical mutations that turns them into where wolves instead of anything else.

But they are super shady. So many skeletons in the closet. I like the arogance about them knowing better. And the texas standoff they have with the inquesition and sisters of battle.

So you really don't know that much about SW then.
Salamanders are more protective of civilians, and Ultramarines and Lamenters are close too.
Space Wolves don't turn into Wulfen when exposed to the Warp - that's geneseed degradation.
Other factions have standoffs with the Inquisition. However, unlike the Space Wolves who have A-Grade plot armour, they don't get away with irritating one of the most powerful single bodies in the Imperium - see Celestial Lions.

Just proves how flexible SM are when it comes to being fitted to fictional cultures.

Tell me, why can't that apply to Sisters?
Why aren't they as diverse as SM? Answer - they ARE just as diverse, if only GW would embrace the narrative potential of it.

I shall repeat my question for the third time, seeing as you still have yet to answer it:

What role can Sisters not fill that Space Marines can, barring popularity, which is subjective, and something which my proposal aims to solve?

I dont need to lol, I have already proven you wrong on the subject, you just refuse to concede its a very valid in universe reason, you see it boils down to this.

My argument has:
A: precedence
B: In universe examples
C: Consistency
D: Conjecture
E: Opinion

Yours has:
A: opinion
B: Conjecture

You wonder why I and others are so dismissive of your stance?

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.

Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!

Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.

 Niiai wrote:
Yes the argument are going in circle because people started bringing up points we have already discussed and left undecided. And then they bring up the old arguments as though they where setteled, and then I feel compelled to comment on them.

I do not understand why people keep brining on Daemonculaba as an argument. They already exists in the setting. I stil do not see any link between Daemonculaba and any problems with female based SM. People have not provided a link as to why that is relevant.

#

You know exactly why it keeps getting brought up, I refuse to believe you are being that wilfully ignorant, its been spelled out for you several times Niiai.

All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.

All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.

I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.

 Niiai wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.

Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!

Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.

Because the Tyranids can evolve things to do things so a new monster is not oddball, and there was a big page thread discussing Cawl before.

Formosa, can you please just walk through the Daemoculaba argument one more time, because every time you make that argument you start out by saying something, and then end the argument on a point that is not relewant to the discussion. Poisenings of the well keeps making the discusion quite tiersome.

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.

Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!

I never said I was a fan of Primaris marines was I? And to be fair, Primaris marines were only possible because Cawl had access to the Sangprimus Mortum, which has the original geneseed of all the Primarchs. There's precedent as well from Corax's own first Raptor Marines which were basically proto-Primaris all but in name, which he also made through direct access to unblemished Primarch gene-code.

As to why the Emperor didn't make his marines like Cawl or Corax did? It's hinted he saw the heresy coming and given that he never intended Astartes to replace or rule humanity (clear from their exemption from the first High Lords of Terra) and making Primaris marines would have just made things even worse than it already was.

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.

Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!

 Niiai wrote:
Formosa, can you please just walk through the Daemoculaba argument one more time, because every time you make that argument you start out by saying something, and then end the argument on a point that is not relewant to the discussion. Poisenings of the well keeps making the discusion quite tiersome.

Sigh, one more time.


Demonculaba are female humans who have had their size enhanced to grotesque proportions through warp dickery, they have gene seed implanted and more warp dickery applied to make it work, a child is then implanted within the womb of this poor woman, over the space of several days the child is turned into a fully grown space marine with all the organs, (un)naturally grown within its body, when it is "born" it is either a mutant, or a skinless space marine, skin from harvested humans is then stretched and bonded to the marine.

This is just one example of "natural" born space marines and shows precedent that forces within the 40k universe are willing to experiment to produce fully grown marines.

And no I dont

"start out by saying something, and then end the argument on a point that is not relewant to the discussion"

I answer questions an points in line with the person I am answering.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
All-male Space Marines would have a legitimate excuse if the setting was ripped off from Paradise Lost.

All-male Space Marines do NOT have an excuse if they are an artefact of a setting that is 'original' to GW.

I'm more than a little frustrated by these two points. Evidently disagreeable things can only be legitimized if they are an omage to existing works, otherwise they should be changed.

I felt like the paradise lost argument was setteled quite nicely when someone pointed out that the angels have fluid genders, also multiple genders at one time.

If the universe GW made is not an alegory/metaphore, then the alegory/metaphore argument does not make sence then does it? If SM just happen to be male only because that was the consensus of the time the setting was made, there is nothing that prevents GW from changing the setting. This would be a problem if the alegory/metaphore argument was in place. Do you see the differnce between those two senarioes?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.

Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!

Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.

Because the Tyranids can evolve things to do things so a new monster is not oddball, and there was a big page thread discussing Cawl before.

But the way you frame the tyranids you make it sound like they evolved the mawlock in the setting. Almost all of the aditions in the tyranid codex from 5th edition and outwards are not explained 'in setting'. Instead they are retconned in from outside the setting. How would female compatable SM be any different from this? (Mind you some models did get involved inside the setting, like the deathleaper and possible the mawlock. But the trygon / trygon prime, mawlock, one of the two flyers, the drop spore, the hive guards (both hive guard guns) are all just retconned into the codex with no objections from anyone.)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Similarly, if its later in the timeline by the miracle of Cawl or some other 40k magos, it undermines the previous fluff and the Emperor's work when someone could have just come along the whole time and wave a wand and throw girls into the mix.

Yeah, it would be terrible if they just invented some never before heard tech-priest out of thin air, that could suddenly improve on Emperor's work... GW would never do such a thing, it would totally ruin the entire setting!

Yes I feel this ilustraits the problem with the female based SM quite well. Why is there not a 10 page thread discussing Cawl? Or when ever they introduced the mawlock into the tyranid codex back in 5th edition? What is it about female based SM that really thicks people off. It seems to have much more opposition then the implemention of primaris marines.

Because the Tyranids can evolve things to do things so a new monster is not oddball, and there was a big page thread discussing Cawl before.

There is also the fact of the matter there is a not insignificant part of the lore fans who do in fact hate Cawl for...

1. A.I.
2. Deus Ex Everything
3. Convenient memory loss
4. Apparent Heretek obsession
5. Apparent top of the field knowledge in EVERYTHING
6. Apparent development of new weapons, armor and vehicles for 10k years that were never released.

But hey guess what @Niiai?

This was already discussed, go start a different thread if you want to know more.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?

 Formosa wrote:

Demonculaba are female humans who have had their size enhanced to grotesque proportions through warp dickery, they have gene seed implanted and more warp dickery applied to make it work, a child is then implanted within the womb of this poor woman, over the space of several days the child is turned into a fully grown space marine with all the organs, (un)naturally grown within its body, when it is "born" it is either a mutant, or a skinless space marine, skin from harvested humans is then stretched and bonded to the marine.

Yes, thats a way to make marines in the setting. Again you are making a statement, but you are not saying how this is relewant. How is that relevant to having female based SM? Currently the SM do not have any reproductive organs.

Are you implying that chaos would use SM based upon females to make demonculabas out of them? If that is the implecation then you could just have stated this the first time you brought up the argument. If that is not the argument you are making then please spell it out, I can not understand your reasoning.

How can SM be used as demonculaba if the reproductive organs do not survive the process of becoming a SM? If that is your worry, just have GW clearify that this can not happen. (It would probably be defaultly clearified by omission.)

This is also very simular to the "fabius bile would do something bad with SM based females". Just have GW state that he has not managed to do so yet, in much the same way he has not managed to have male SM be done something bad with. (Probebly by omission once again.) If fabius bile can do something in the setting female based SM does not change thins either way.

I thought I had replied to theese arguments before. Or is there some implicid argument I am making that I am not seeing here? Or are you just stating that there aredamonculaba in the setting? If so we agree. But then what does that statement have to do with the discussion?

And on a different note, if demonculaba are so common in the setting, why does chaos have problems making new marines?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?

No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?

 Niiai wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Demonculaba are female humans who have had their size enhanced to grotesque proportions through warp dickery, they have gene seed implanted and more warp dickery applied to make it work, a child is then implanted within the womb of this poor woman, over the space of several days the child is turned into a fully grown space marine with all the organs, (un)naturally grown within its body, when it is "born" it is either a mutant, or a skinless space marine, skin from harvested humans is then stretched and bonded to the marine.

Yes, that a way to make marines in the setting. How is that relevant to having female based SM? Currently the SM do not have any reproductive organs.

Are you implying that chaos would use SM based upon females to make demonculabas out of them? If that is the implecation then you could just have stated this the first time you brought up the argument. If that is not the argument you are making then please spell it out, I can not understand your reasoning.

How can SM be used as demonculaba if the reproductive organs do not survive the process of becoming a SM? If that is your worry, just have GW clearify that this can not happen. (It would probably be defaultly clearified by omission.)

This is also very simular to the "fabius bile would do something bad with SM based females". Just have GW state that he has not managed to do so yet, in much the same way he has not managed to have male SM be done something bad with. (Probebly by omission once again.) If fabius bile can do something in the setting female based SM does not change thins either way.

I thought I had replied to theese arguments before. Or is there some implicid argument I am making that I am not seeing here? Or are you just stating that there aredamonculaba in the setting? If so we agree. But then what does that statement have to do with the discussion?

And on a different note, if demonculaba are so common in the setting, why does chaos have problems making new marines?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Are you really asking why a hivemind creature made to adapt within 10 minutes to a problem is able to change in fluff, compared to a 10k year old bureaucracy that goes off bylines created 10k years ago that hates change?

No. Changes seems to happen all the time in the setting. Why is it that having SM compatable with females would be such a problem?

I am not going over it again Niiai, you are literally demonstrating right now that you didnt even bother to read any of my previous posts properly or even at all, as far as I am concerned now you lack any credibility and are to be utterly dismissed in this discussion as you are ignoring others to fit your agenda.

 Niiai wrote:
Currently the SM do not have any reproductive organs.

I can't believe this keeps being ignored. There are no male space marines.

This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

 Niiai wrote:
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.

This is what it seems like you are doing

Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.

 Formosa wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.

This is what it seems like you are doing

Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.

Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.

 Formosa wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.

This is what it seems like you are doing

Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.

Gonna have to agree with Formosa here, he has spent practically pages trying to keep up with your questions and you don't have the courtesy to take the time to look through them. His posts are still there, you just have to go to his post history if you want a more condensed version. I get we all have bias in this discussion (who doesn't? considering its background) but Formosa has made his points as clear as I think he can make it. As the mods have stated, until GW proper comes in and says marines can be female, they can't be.

 Niiai wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.

This is what it seems like you are doing

Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.

Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.

Except he's not the one asking for you to reiterate your point ad nauseam. Everyone see's your 'points' and many of us have argued against your 'points' of view. Which you then either ignore the crux of the argument to focus on a small aspect of it, or you ignore it and demand more and more evidence or explanations

 Niiai wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.

This is what it seems like you are doing

Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.

Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.

Also, this "NO U" reply kinda proves formosa's point.

 Niiai wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.

This is what it seems like you are doing

Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.

Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.

Thank you for confirming that you are indeed trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now we have that confirmed, I personally think this thread should be locked or moved to off topic.

I am not confirming that I am trolling. I think you are trolling,

You keep making these arguments that lacks relevance as to why the argument has any inpact on what is being asked. And then I ask if you can clearify it. And then you do not clearify it. And then you accuse me of trolling, and I point out that I am actually awnsering questions that are asked at me, but I stil do not see how you arguments are relewant. And you say 'No, I refuse to say this.' And then people chime in and call me a troll. I have no idea how this is happening, it is rather frustrating.

Most of all I stil do not see the democulaba argument because you just stated that democulaba where in the setting, and not how that has any effect on the female SM argument. I am frustrated and confused.

 Formosa wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This is incredebly frustarting for me, others who read this thread. You keep making a statement and I do not understand how that stamenet is relevant to the discussion being made. And then I interprit as good as I can and I deliver the rebuttle. And then you say I did not understand you. And above I asked you to explain again. And you try to explain, but you leave out why that is relewant. And then I ask again, and you are saying I dismiss your arguments, while I stil do not know what your arguments are.

I told you time and time again, others told you, you have willfully ignored me and them.

This is what it seems like you are doing

Sea lioning (also spelled sealioning and sea-lioning) is a type of Internet trolling which consists of bad-faith requests for evidence, or repeated questions, the purpose of which is not clarification or elucidation, but rather an attempt to derail a discussion or to wear down the patience of one's opponent.

Yes and this seems to be what you are doing. If you are it is probably why this thread is 15 pages long.

Thank you for confirming that you are indeed trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now we have that confirmed, I personally think this thread should be locked or moved to off topic.

The thread should have been locked when a account with literally no history said, "DISCUSS FEMALE MARINES." It should just be a blanket ban in this part of the forum, if you want to discuss it go to the 40k GENERAL section because female marines are not part of the lore period.

 Niiai wrote:
I am not confirming that I am trolling. I think you are trolling,

You keep making these arguments that lacks relevance as to why the argument has any inpact on what is being asked. And then I ask if you can clearify it. And then you do not clearify it. And then you accuse me of trolling, and I point out that I am actually awnsering questions that are asked at me, but I stil do not see how you arguments are relewant. And you say 'No, I refuse to say this.' And then people chime in and call me a troll. I have no idea how this is happening, it is rather frustrating.

Most of all I stil do not see the democulaba argument because you just stated that democulaba where in the setting, and not how that has any effect on the female SM argument. I am frustrated and confused.

Please stop, my previous posts are there for you to read in your own time, they are relevent and in context to your questions and others seem to have had no issue with understanding them and there relevance, if you want an answer to a question I have already answered previously, I can only assume that you are sea lioning and thus, a troll.

Just as you are when you make an argument you imply has an inpact on the discussion but you do not actually provide why that is. And then you refuse to point it out instead saying 'I alreadyd did this' when you in fact did not do this.

 Formosa wrote:
Not refering to you in this context Hybrid, you made a mistake previously and thought I was refering to you with the "I want female marines Wa Wa" comment, I dont get that impression of you, I am refering to not sugar coating in general and stopped a few pages back as Nihai keeps ignoring my and other peoples points, and "safe space" is a dig at his "SJW" political beliefs.

Thanks, it's nice to know you were not referring to me. However I should point out that my political believes in general have often been dubbed SJW, and that they generally align with celebrities that have been called SJW very often. So it kind of feels like a dig at mine too .

Table wrote:
Its kind of hard not to use the buzzwords. If someone can tell me a polite way to say social justice warrior, forced diversity and virtue signaling then I would gladly replace all instances of buz word usage. Sadly I am not that creative with language so I tend to ape what others have used. Just know it is not my intention to over use these words, I just lack a better vocabulary.

I advise dropping the concept of SJW entirely, at least when talking on a public forum where you want to keep the conversation cordial. It's bound to make things tense with people who have been called SJW or align with personalities that have been very often qualified as such, as it's a pretty pejorative term. Discuss the issues, not the people.
For forced diversity, I'm not exactly sure what the concept entails. How is forced diversity different from non-forced diversity? Is it a question of one being due to pressure from external sources?
For virtue signaling, it is often about attributing intent on people, which often sour discussion. The expression itself it okay, but to be used very parsimoniously. For instance, it's okay to use it for someone whose behavior very directly and strongly contradict their actual engagement for a cause which they claim to support. It's not very much okay to use it for someone who merely claim that their cause is virtuous.
My two cents.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Every time I make a reasonable post or ask someone a question about 'Why female marines?' or 'What Female marines?' or even 'Do you want female marines in the fluff, or marine plastics?' I get ignored.

I am sorry you felt ignored. I feel like I have given my opinion on all those subjects though. I checked your previous posts for other subjects on which I could have ignored you.

About the disconnect between the opinions of the fictional characters in the settings, and one's personal opinions, which was touched when we spoke of Starship Troopers, I think that there is a big difference between a fictional setting that include characters with some political opinions, and a setting that presents some political opinions as correct. While the protagonists of the story are often depicted as being justified in their political opinions (and even work as stand-in for the authors opinion), that's not always the case, and in 40k, I feel it depends a lot on the author and it is quite often hard to tell. Which is a bit similar with Judge Dredd, funnily.
So yeah, if the political opinions defended by the story are directly opposed to someone, that person will have a very hard time enjoying this piece of media. However, I don't personally feel like 40k is actually defending any political opinion. It seems more like an exercise of style, in making everything as grimdark and baroque as possible .

 Crimson wrote:
As a person who would not mind female marines, I still have to say this to you: what one finds central to 'theme' of Space Marines is pretty much a matter to taste. Some may find the maleness being thematically important while others do not. Granted, finding the maleness important has probably a lot to do with that this how it has been for decades and people are used to it, but even realising this does't change how the people feel

While just realizing it by itself may not be enough to change how people feel, I tend to believe to this + repeated exposition to the idea of female space marines can. It goes from being this weird alien concept to something familiar…

Niiai wrote:Yes, but there could be reasons for not having female basedvspace marines that could prevent that from happening in the future. For instance if the Paradise Lost argument was more valid, that could be more of a reason. I think (and I have no evidence to prove this) that the reason is because of social norms in the time when that particular part of the setting was written.

That doesn't explain all the other reasons, mine included, that you dismiss as "bad".

I will agree that it hurts the symetry between having 1 imperium male faction and 1 imperial female faction. (Although the female faction features males in roles.) But Sisters of Battle have enough distinct personalaty removing the symetry would not harm their identety in any meaningfull way. There are more to sisters then just an monopoly on the Y cromosome and a suit of power armour.

Sorry, you said yourself that the Sisters of Battle only exist because of their gender - how does removing this not affect them in any way?
If you're removing the monogender Space Marines, then I'd have to ask "why then are we promoting sexist segregation in a faction?" Space Marines are all male. Sisters are all female. They balance eachother out. If you don't have the other, then they become sexist, due to an imbalance of opportunity.

If it hurts the balance, then it doesn't need to be touched.

I feel that the biggest take away from all of this is how big such a change would be. Although only Sgt_Smudge awnsered my ten point scale question I am shocked that he think female SM is a seven, while I think of it only a one or two. It clearly tells me how much Sgt_Smudge opposes this idea, and why I do not see a problem with it. I think the more interesting question that follows would be why I value it as a one or two, and he values it at a seven. You others have not chimed in, but I feel it would be great to hear.

Again - opinions. Neither is "bad" as you put it. It's just opinions. When opinion is removed, only the empirical lore remains as a basis, which states it's impossible.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it makes ANY lore discussion completely irrelevant, because someone can turn around and say "well, the lore's changed before, so your point doesn't work".

Under these terms, I can claim absolutely anything, because "the lore's changed before".

This is not true of all arguments though. For instance Slanesh has had little suport, and he/she has disapeared quite a bit in the fantasy setting. There are good reasons for not removing Slanesh in 40K. You have huge plot holes in the back story. No eye or terror, the eldars have no fall, you would need to re-write all eldar back story, and the backstory of 40K entierly. The emperor children will be void etc. etc.

You miss my point. If I can say "well, the lore changes", then absolutely anything in the lore can be nullified.

No Slaanesh? The Eye of Terror was always there. The Eldar fell due to natural means. Yeah, I have to rewrite 40k, but I can do what I want, because the lore CAN be changed, right?!

That's why it's stupid. Because if you start pretending like lore points in a background forum don't matter, then nothing to do with the lore matters.

Like vice removing chaos entierly is not something you can do without ruiening the entier setting. Compare that to removing say the Tau? The Tau can for the most part be removed relativaly easy. You would need to patch up some things, like every battle the Tau took part in, hive fleet gorgons backstory etc. etc. But it could be done, as opposed to say remove slanesh.

As I demonstrated, removing Slaanesh can be done. It doesn't leave 40k anything like it was, but it can still be done, right?

Incoperating SM being based upon female is relativaly easy. Why do you think it is such a big change in the setting as opposed to a small change? (Yes we all know Formosa is gonne post a wall of text with Damonculaba in it.)

Yeah, adding female marines might be easy. Making Space Marines fertile would also be easy.

But why SHOULD I change the lore? That's the question that you STILL haven't answered. Because why SHOULD I change anything to do with the background when the background perfectly supports the Sisters as the natural occupier of the "female super solider" role?

It's not about "could". It's about "should".

@Sgt_Smudge what 9 points are you talking about BTW: Are they these?

No -I'm referring to the nine points where you show disdain and superiority over other opinions despite saying that we need to understand all opinions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiai wrote:Just as you are when you make an argument you imply has an inpact on the discussion but you do not actually provide why that is. And then you refuse to point it out instead saying 'I alreadyd did this' when you in fact did not do this.

Begging your pardon, but no - Formosa HAS done this.

But the way you frame the tyranids you make it sound like they evolved the mawlock in the setting. Almost all of the aditions in the tyranid codex from 5th edition and outwards are not explained 'in setting'. Instead they are retconned in from outside the setting. How would female compatable SM be any different from this? (Mind you some models did get involved inside the setting, like the deathleaper and possible the mawlock. But the trygon / trygon prime, mawlock, one of the two flyers, the drop spore, the hive guards (both hive guard guns) are all just retconned into the codex with no objections from anyone.)

I honestly am baffled by this. Are you seriously saying that you cannot understand why a hive mind well known for evolving new strains to deal with problems would get new things at will, but changing entire setting based fluff is just as similar? It's not even CLOSE. They are given fluff explanations but generally it's easy to because they are able to mutate new things at will.

- Yes, I still claim them as bad. Nothing is hurt by having SM based marines, there have currently been sugested any excuse as to why they can not be changed to be aplicable.

- Sisters of battle are more then their Y cromosome and power armour. They have a rich cultural background, they have unique rules and they have an unique aesthetic visual profile. The earlier statement about sisters of battle growing forth from a teqnicalaty about 'no armyr of menn' could be retconned from the background. However you would not to do that if you made SM be based upon females, as sisters are not touched by this, (And sisters are not all female as they include a lot of male priests etc.) I do not think we are promoting sexists segration in anything. We are promoting segregation, I do not find it sexists. I did not think you did either, witch is why it is odd you use the word. I do not think SM and sisters needs to stand in opposition to each other. They both have more then enough cultural background to exist without the contrast. (I stil do not like sisters though, but that is my subjective opinion about them.)

- I do not understand why you use the word bad here. Also you avoiud to go into why having SM female based being a 7 on the scale. It would just be a small change.

- Some piece of lore can not be removed or changed as others. Removing Slanesh could not be justefied that the eye of terror was there. You would need to explain the warp stomes that plagued the imperium. The eldars fall. Darfk Eldars would not function, craftworld eldar would not functiion, exodites would not function, ynari would not function. Emperors children does not function. It is quite a bit redcon, as opposed to female based space marines that could just be inserted no problem.

- Yes you can remove slanesh, you are right. But it is a massive difference in scale. I imagine removing the emperor would be an example of a bigger change, and removing any of the other 3 chaos gods would be less problematic, as they are not as integrated in the setting. (See eldar fall.) But removing Tau would be far easier in comparison. And implementing retconned SM based on females will be super easy.

- I have awnsered why quite some times. Because I want to. You do not like the awnser, but others in this interest have statet their interest in this as well. Although they are not as vocal as me.

Why would you make Sm fetile though? It seems quite smart to me to not do it. It gets less complicated and you do not end up wth space marines in the democabra situation, but by all means champion that notion if you will. This would also open up things like SM sperm on the black market. Does this also mean SM have potensial for sex now? Can you have gay SM who bond like soldiers did in ancient greece? While I would not oppose it personally, I do not want to tie 40K with a lot of sexualaty. It has been avoided for far in the setting, a setting mostly focusing on a sarcastic version of a war torn future.

- I do not know about any spesific nine points where I have shown distain and superiorety. Without the spesifics I can not coment on it, but I thank you that you find my argumentation superior, but a pitty it comes out with distain.

- Formosa has implied multiple times that introducing female combatable SM into a setting that contains daemokabra means you automaticaly must end up with pregnant female marines. I have stil no confirmation if that is what he in fact is implying. (Can someone confirm this?) And if that is what he is implying I do not understand how he can lead to a situation where you have pregnant marines.



I have no problem with tyranids adapting in the setting. This is an explanation that is 'in the setting' as opposed to something that is retconned 'outside of the setting'. Either option is fine with me. But you should notice that some of the units are introduce 'in the setting' as a follow of a special problem. But many of the units I mentioned where retconned 'outside of the settinng'. One edition they where not there, the next edition they suddenly apeared. And when you dig into the setting they do not form as gradual evolution, they just apear in the first description of tyranids.

So see if you follow me here. People have no problem with retconning the tyranid background.

If you where to retconn in SM based upon females you would essentually change very little. Why do people have such a problem with this, as opposed to retconning tyranids.

As I have said a couple of times now I think the problem can be in how big we observe the change. In my eyes having SM compattable with the Y cromosome is a very small change, in the same category as retconning in new tyranid units.