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.

pelicaniforce wrote:


And of course they are still using the words wrong.

Often intentionally. Sometimes its tongue-in-cheek throw away lines to demonstrate the evolution from 38,0000 years like the word Catheric. Often, it's because they (GW) weren't Doctors of History. Sometimes it's because they wanted to pilfer the surface aspects of the culture and not dive too deep. I mean if they were really trying to deep dive in their historical wink and a nod, Space Marines wouldn't be sterile, and they would occasionally be TDY to special Cloisters of the Order Propago where they would sire children which then belong to the state to generate more space marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:
All you have to realize is that not all retcons have the same weight, and it does little good in pretending that they do in order to try and score a point.

Of course not all retcons have the same weight, that's kind of the point. The half-eldar librarian argument is a response to the idea that female space marines are bad purely because they are a retcon, which relies on the premise that all retcons are always bad and the fluff can not be changed. If you accept that retcons have varying weight and merit then merely labeling female marines a retcon is saying nothing of substance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
Often intentionally. Sometimes its tongue-in-cheek throw away lines to demonstrate the evolution from 38,0000 years like the word Catheric. Often, it's because they (GW) weren't Doctors of History. Sometimes it's because they wanted to pilfer the surface aspects of the culture and not dive too deep. I mean if they were really trying to deep dive in their historical wink and a nod, Space Marines wouldn't be sterile, and they would occasionally be TDY to special Cloisters of the Order Propago where they would sire children which then belong to the state to generate more space marines.

But if you're going to accept that GW is using the words wrong and it's fine for space marines to be crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars it's also fine for GW to misuse the word "monk" to include women.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
Facts that dont support my unsupported claim are irrelevant. As is the fact that Multi-chapter SM Forces are called Crusade Fleets. That they participated in The Great Crusade to liberate the holy lands of the Imperium from oppressors like independence, and the control of "others".

Crusading knights =/= monks.

Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.

At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:

Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery

So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
All you have to realize is that not all retcons have the same weight, and it does little good in pretending that they do in order to try and score a point.

Of course not all retcons have the same weight, that's kind of the point. The half-eldar librarian argument is a response to the idea that female space marines are bad purely because they are a retcon, which relies on the premise that all retcons are always bad and the fluff can not be changed. If you accept that retcons have varying weight and merit then merely labeling female marines a retcon is saying nothing of substance.

I think it's a sort of disingenuous read of the argument. Generally when people are upset by retcons it's just by retcons that are important to them. I think they say "retcons are bad" but it only really means "retcons that are important to me are bad".

Imo the time is better spent on discussing why a particular retcon is bad, rather than aiming for the absolutist "all retcons bad".

What I think is inarguable is that big retcons can be extremely disruptive, for better or for worse.

Breton wrote:
Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.

At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:

Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery

So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.

Yes, and that's the point. The original claim was that marines must be men because that's what monks were historically and the historical concept may not be changed. Marines already diverge from the popular concept of a monk by being crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars, and by preaching an atheistic creed that explicitly rejects any claim to the divinity of the Emperor. If you're fine with diverging from the concept in those ways you can't simultaneously argue as a matter of principle that space marines must be men because Christian monks were always men. Marines draw inspiration from Christian monks but they are not Christian monks and 40k is not a history textbook.

And yes, there were religious orders of crusading knights. They aren't monks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo the time is better spent on discussing why a particular retcon is bad, rather than aiming for the absolutist "all retcons bad".

I agree, but that's not what people do. They expect the argument to end at "retcons are bad" because that's their trump card to avoid having to discuss the merits of a particular retcon.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.

At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:

Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery

So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.

Yes, and that's the point. The original claim was that monks must be men because that's what monks were historically and the historical concept may not be changed. Marines already diverge from the popular concept of a monk by being crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars, and by preaching an atheistic creed that explicitly rejects any claim to the divinity of the Emperor. If you're fine with diverging from the concept in those ways you can't simultaneously argue as a matter of principle that space marines must be men because Christian monks were always men.

And yes, there were religious orders of crusading knights. They aren't monks.

No, I think you missed the point. Likely intentionally.

Wikipedia wrote:Warrior monk

Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Warrior monk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A warrior monk is a concept found in various cultures of a person who combines aspects of being a monk, such as deep religious devotion and an ascetic lifestyle, with being a warrior, trained to engage in violent conflict.

Spoiler:

Examples include:

Sant Sipahi is a Sikh ideology, inspired by the lives of Sikh gurus, of a saint soldier who would adhere one's life in strict discipline both in mind and body.
Sōhei, a type of Japanese warrior.
Righteous armies, Korean guerilla fighters, including monks
Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights, warriors during the Crusades.
Shaolin Monastery, a Chinese monastery renowned for monks who were experts in the martial arts.
Naga Sadhus, a militaristic sect of arms-bearing Hindu sannyasi.
In fiction:

The description of the ideal soldier in the manual of the First Earth Battalion.
The Jedi Order, a fictional monastic organization in the Star Wars epic space opera franchise
The Adeptus Astartes, Space Marines, are genetically altered super soldiers who serve the Imperium of Mankind in the Warhammer 40,000 universe[citation needed] alongside the Adepta Sororitas, Sisters of Battle, who are soldier-nuns serving directly under the command of the Imperium's church.

Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo the time is better spent on discussing why a particular retcon is bad, rather than aiming for the absolutist "all retcons bad".

I agree, but that's not what people do. They expect the argument to end at "retcons are bad" because that's their trump card to avoid having to discuss the merits of a particular retcon.

I would just save time and translate that as "major retcons are bad".

I also think that's not an invalid argument. Many people who invest in a setting would prefer if it was stable.

Breton wrote:
Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?

Quibble over semantics, says the person insisting on pointing to the rare exceptions to the rule rather than the popular image of a monk: a dude in a robe cloistered in a monastery and spending his days praying, tending the monastery garden, and silently copying bibles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I would just save time and translate that as "major retcons are bad".

I also think that's not an invalid argument. Many people who invest in a setting would prefer if it was stable.

You could translate it that way, but that raises the question of whether female space marines count as a "major retcon" in a setting where far larger changes are regularly made without nearly as much controversy.

And yeah, stability is desirable for some people, but I have no idea why they'd have any interest in 40k. GW has clearly established that this is a sprawling multi-author universe with no single canon and that they will change any part of the fluff on a whim if it means selling new models.

pelicaniforce
It isn't a meme, it is a fact During the rogue trader time period GW was just throwing anything and everything at the wall to see what would work. they had ideas that became hard lore later but most of what was rogue trader was a joke and wasn't carried over once they got serious and realized that a scifi setting could be as big for the company as the flagship fantasy setting.

Eldar with land raiders? because stealing inferior imperial tech was somehow better than eldar vehicles? the afore mentioned half eldar librarian, silly names stolen from other franchises back when GW was less concerned about their own position on the matter.

The lore was very well defined by the time i took serious interest in the game in late 3rd edition (2001). and it stayed that way up until 8th edition. that is the mid 1990s up until what 2017?

The emperor, primarchs, state of the imperium, the chaos gods, the horus heresy and yes the fact that space marines can only every be male was clear defined cannon.

The un-reliable narrator excuse doesn't work from our point of view because we have the overview of god (AKA the company and writers) telling us exactly what is canon even if inquisitor "X" in some short story set in universe is getting half truths handed down by the ecclesiarchy.

I am all for playing older editions because i find them more fun ( and GW isn't changing them and screwing things up anymore), however it doesn't mean i like them all, i have zero interest in RT and only passing interest in 2nd. i have a bunch of the old 2nd ed codexes and the main rule book to browse through but no interest in actually playing it. i like the kreigspeil inspired squad/army level game that 40K became with 3rd and it has a unique place and style of play different from other games i like to play.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?

Quibble over semantics, says the person insisting on pointing to the rare exceptions to the rule rather than the popular image of a monk: a dude in a robe cloistered in a monastery and spending his days praying, tending the monastery garden, and silently copying bibles.

I just did point to the popular image of monks, and I did it using someone else's list of popular images, not one I made up on my own without any support then claimed it was "popular". Especially when you're wrong.

Breton wrote:
I just did point to the popular image of monks, and I did it using someone else's list of popular images, not one I made up on my own without any support then claimed it was "popular". Especially when you're wrong.

Ask 100 people to describe a "monk". I bet you almost all of them give you a guy in a robe cloistered in a monastery and hardly anyone gives you a crusading knight, even if technically by some definition the knight has been called a monk somewhere.

It's funny though because the list of examples you quoted includes the Jedi Order, a group that has canon women in it. Guess monks aren't all-male after all!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:
The un-reliable narrator excuse doesn't work from our point of view because we have the overview of god (AKA the company and writers) telling us exactly what is canon even if inquisitor "X" in some short story set in universe is getting half truths handed down by the ecclesiarchy.

40k is the textbook example of an unreliable narrator. Not only has GW explicitly said that truth in 40k is lost and everything is conflicting points of view they allow each author to make their own works with very little effort given to maintaining a single canon. Two books by two different authors can have irreconcilable contradictions and the only way out is to accept that 40k has an unreliable narrator. And that's on top of the fact that GW will contradict their own lore on a whim if it means selling a new model kit.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
I just did point to the popular image of monks, and I did it using someone else's list of popular images, not one I made up on my own without any support then claimed it was "popular". Especially when you're wrong.

Ask 100 people to describe a "monk". I bet you almost all of them give you a guy in a robe cloistered in a monastery and hardly anyone gives you a crusading knight, even if technically by some definition the knight has been called a monk somewhere.

It's funny though because the list of examples you quoted includes the Jedi Order, a group that has canon women in it. Guess monks aren't all-male after all!

I never said they were. I was just enjoying your hypocrisy and cherry picking. Doubling down on it here with That's not a popular list of monks even though it's on that little known website named Wikipedia - except where it mentions Jedi because they had girls is outstanding.

Breton wrote:
Doubling down on it here with That's not a popular list of monks even though it's on that little known website named Wikipedia

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
Doubling down on it here with That's not a popular list of monks even though it's on that little known website named Wikipedia

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Feel free to challenge it as not a list of popular images of warrior monks. But so far it's been accurate and popular enough to stay up unchallenged. And its still someone else's preexisting list, not one I made up myself to suit my own narrative. And you're wrong.

Trying to use history as a gotcha for things like this isn’t really that great, as even with a lot of history it’s very specific to time and place.
And exceptions are common with history as well, where a hard stance in lore becomes rather silly when you consider how big the galaxy is.

The big reason GW doesn’t really touch on it much, is all the interesting story to do with it would make marines and the imperium less cool to a lot of the fans most clambering for this lore bit to be upheld.
They really do just want to keep selling marines!

Apple fox wrote:
They really do just want to keep selling marines!

That was somewhat my point only more that they just want to keep selling Sisters and everybody else.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?

Just a thought?

considering your reaction, no i don't think so, i think bluntly and that sounds way ruder than it is intended, that this is an issue of your selfesteem and or your hobby skills and or hobby group.

And I think bluntly and this sounds ruder than it is intended, but that's an issue of your lack of empathy and self-centredness.

As you said, thinking bluntly.

Hmm, am i wrong then ? Frankly i think your reaction shows that i am right with my assessement, that either your hobby group is just bad or you feel particulary targeted for reasons that i can only assume the nature about.
Frankly no i am good. I wanted to make an serious attempt to help you i see it hasn't been welcome.

Is it against the lore? Yes.
Is that a valid reason to point out or even avoid a match against your army? yes, for people that value the setting and lore that is more than fair enough to decline but that can and will be done against any other army that doesn't fit 40k by some people.

I value the setting. I don't value ALL of it, because the setting is large enough that it's a sandbox and should be there to promote creativity.

I value the setting's ability to uplift and encourage people, not to gak on their work.

And besides - if someone "values" the setting and hates the idea of Space Marine aircraft before they became canon, do they then change their opinion to continue "valuing" the setting, or do they hold their beliefs, and now no longer "value" the setting?

A setting as a sandbox requires still limitations else you got the sand everywhere, normally the limitation is the IP holder, in combination with the community.
And yes, i don't like the SM aircraft, but in the context of the setting airsupport for marines makes atleast sense. A more and far bigger issue is Primaris which in the setting don't make sense and are there to resell the SM players their army. In fact they have been designed in a way that they are completly irrealistic from a military standpoint (mono equipment infantry) and break with multitudes of core asspects of the lore in a magnitude of ways that they are a massive detriment. NVM that their "great design " is a massive disadvantage for balance aswell but that is a whole other can of worms i am not going into.

if someone loses their gak then you didn't want to play them anyways because chances are they take themselves too serious anyways.

If someone loses their gak because they didn't like how someone's plastic soldiers had women heads, then we should all rightfully mock them and deride them for it. It's pathetic behaviour. Do you agree?

Pointing something out =/= mocking. Pointing out that 2.5 out of 4 of my R&H armies have non GW models as their basis is also not mocking. It's also not losing their gak and it is your potential game partners decision to play or don't against said armies.
Also stop tone trolling, it's tiresome and adds nothing to the discussion that is to be had.

Not Online!!! wrote:Yet, we see, priests (chaplains), knightly armour and swords, cross symbology, double headed eagles ala HRE/ Religious symbol on marines all the time....

Guardsmen also have priests, Knights are a faction, nearly all factions have swords, cross symbology only occurs on SOME Astartes, double headed eagles occur on EVERY Imperial force - so why aren't guardsmen and Imperial Knights also symbolic of warrior monks?

They are, to a lesser extent, insofar however that space marines also have the corresponding terminology, whilest guard and knights often don't and in their ogranisational structers aswell. Knights are just feudal knights but battlemech and guard has more in common with 30 years war infantrymen, very likely to fight for a religious reason but not dominated by religious personell but very much grounded in realpolitik.
SM on the other hand use the terminology, function as brotherhoods of crusaders, have the corresponding training methods etc.

Eldar, Dark Eldar and tau also exist and are esthethiqually quite diverse, especialy if you consider corsairs or the differing subgroups of deldar and if you don't want to field PA then the guard and a whole slew of regiments to your liking exist and may only require slightly more effort to field..

Yeah - aesthetically diverse from the Imperium, but they too also suffer from a very homogenous aesthetic identity within their own faction. Space Marines don't have that issue. And as for Guardsmen - yet again, a very different type of army to what Space Marines are.

Unless you want to claim that all the aesthetics that Space Marines currently have can be done by every other faction, and that, if Space Marines didn't exist, all would be the same anyways, you're simply wrong here.

Calling eldar homogenous, i guess, dark eldar already is a massive stretch, corsairs can be as distinct as you would want and nvm exodites. Indeed arguably SM are LESS diverse model wise than any of the above even though SM have MORE units than all of above and i am sorry but there's basically 3 types of SM, PA, TA and scouts. Eldar have the same ammount and DE have even more.

Further if theme is what you are concerned with, with a bit of effort it would be easy to achieve the themes that space marines cover with basically all other imperial armies, Custodes come to mind f.e. hell even space vikings can be done with SoB instead if you are willing to convert excessivly, a la shieldmaidens, with guard it is positivly easy considering we know about feral world regiments and even get the bits necessary still from gw in the AOS realm.

Breton wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.

At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:

Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery

So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.

Yes, and that's the point. The original claim was that monks must be men because that's what monks were historically and the historical concept may not be changed. Marines already diverge from the popular concept of a monk by being crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars, and by preaching an atheistic creed that explicitly rejects any claim to the divinity of the Emperor. If you're fine with diverging from the concept in those ways you can't simultaneously argue as a matter of principle that space marines must be men because Christian monks were always men.

And yes, there were religious orders of crusading knights. They aren't monks.

No, I think you missed the point. Likely intentionally.

Wikipedia wrote:Warrior monk

Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Warrior monk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A warrior monk is a concept found in various cultures of a person who combines aspects of being a monk, such as deep religious devotion and an ascetic lifestyle, with being a warrior, trained to engage in violent conflict.

Spoiler:

Examples include:

Sant Sipahi is a Sikh ideology, inspired by the lives of Sikh gurus, of a saint soldier who would adhere one's life in strict discipline both in mind and body.
Sōhei, a type of Japanese warrior.
Righteous armies, Korean guerilla fighters, including monks
Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights, warriors during the Crusades.
Shaolin Monastery, a Chinese monastery renowned for monks who were experts in the martial arts.
Naga Sadhus, a militaristic sect of arms-bearing Hindu sannyasi.
In fiction:

The description of the ideal soldier in the manual of the First Earth Battalion.
The Jedi Order, a fictional monastic organization in the Star Wars epic space opera franchise
The Adeptus Astartes, Space Marines, are genetically altered super soldiers who serve the Imperium of Mankind in the Warhammer 40,000 universe[citation needed] alongside the Adepta Sororitas, Sisters of Battle, who are soldier-nuns serving directly under the command of the Imperium's church.

Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?

No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


You could translate it that way, but that raises the question of whether female space marines count as a "major retcon" in a setting where far larger changes are regularly made without nearly as much controversy.

Indeed.

I think taking, say, Space Wolves and changing the Nordic myth source material and wolf/claw/fang nomenclature and aesthetics (even if they are... overdone) to that of, say 17th century prussians would be a vastly greater 'retcon' than turning around and saying that Space Wolves now have a new character - Wolf Lord Aegartha*, who is female.

*who is an obvious nod to the historical figure Legartha (spelling), first wife of Ragnar Lofbrok (spelling) and a famous viking raider/warrior/Queen in her time. There's also the imagery of the Valkyries to easily draw on.

If you want some interesting greek/roman deities that knew how to 'throw down' and knew the pointy end of the bow n arrow to the quiver, Artemis/Diana is an easy reach (Diana herself being an obvious namesake to Wonder Woman). I'm sure there's plenty others.

And an obvious Matthew Reilly joke regarding 'mother' figures (because his most nadass character isnt Schofield, its Mother)- they're not maternal.figures, it's short for mother[bleep]ers.

stratigo wrote:


No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.

That huge derail about monks is dumb as hell, especially when declaring religious knightly orders 'irrelevant' in the same breath - they existed for roughly 1000 years, at various times held significant military and wordly power, diplomatic power and whole kingdoms and territories and are overall much, much closer to what the Space Marines are in setting than generic 'monks'. Literally one of the officially supported chapters is called the 'Templars' and borrows its optics and heraldry from... the Knights Templar.

Tsagualsa wrote:

stratigo wrote:


No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.

That huge derail about monks is dumb as hell, especially when declaring religious knightly orders 'irrelevant' in the same breath - they existed for roughly 1000 years, at various times held significant military and wordly power, diplomatic power and whole kingdoms and territories and are overall much, much closer to what the Space Marines are in setting than generic 'monks'. Literally one of the officially supported chapters is called the 'Templars' and borrows its optics and heraldry from... the Knights Templar.

No, really, no one cares about real world monks.


Some chapters are inspired by military orders. Most aren't.

stratigo wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

stratigo wrote:


No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.

That huge derail about monks is dumb as hell, especially when declaring religious knightly orders 'irrelevant' in the same breath - they existed for roughly 1000 years, at various times held significant military and wordly power, diplomatic power and whole kingdoms and territories and are overall much, much closer to what the Space Marines are in setting than generic 'monks'. Literally one of the officially supported chapters is called the 'Templars' and borrows its optics and heraldry from... the Knights Templar.

No, really, no one cares about real world monks.


Some chapters are inspired by military orders. Most aren't.

I'm not even sure where that argument was supposed to lead. Some chapters are monks, others are templars, vikings, vampires, emos, batman or robots. None of that has any particular bearing on the question of allowing female marines.

stratigo wrote:


No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.

Space Marines are monks.

No they're not.

Here's the definition of monks.

That's not what most people think of.

Here's a list of monks by other people not interested in this debate.

Monks are just a red herring!

Not that I don't agree - the reason is shouldn't happen has nothing to do with monks or rights. But its a bit late to bring that up now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:


I'm not even sure where that argument was supposed to lead. Some chapters are monks, others are templars, vikings, vampires, emos, batman or robots. None of that has any particular bearing on the question of allowing female marines.

All of them are monks. But some of them are Viking monks, Vampire Monks, Greco-Roman Senator monks, etc. Warrior Monk is the play by play wrapped around the Color Commentary

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Just Tony wrote:The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.

Lizard people aren't real. Space Marines are trans-human, and look humanoid. Not the same thing.

Two fictional creations. Yep, the same thing. Trans-human genetically modified super soldiers don't exist.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.

haha purple hair and pronouns, what a funny joke. /j

I didn't realize "nose rings" was a pronoun.

Oh, you mean when I referred to the totality of Slann models as a group by calling them "them". Does that mean any time someone uses the word "them" that they are transphobic dogwhistling?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Just Tony wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."

Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.

"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."

Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.

In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic?

I'm sorry, did you miss where Hec here asked for people to JUSTIFY trans ideology? Why the hell does that need justifying?

I reread it since you were oh, so kind enough to quote it by quoting me. NOWHERE is he asking people to justify trans ideology. He was referring explicitly toward your attitudes about the lore. Once again, this is you shoving yourself personally into an argument in an effort to stay professionally offended.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Just Tony wrote:You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.

Would you say that about Primaris Marines ten years ago? Aircraft? Grav-weapons? Centurions?

Seems a little weird, your fixation on participation trophies. Did you not get one, and all the other kids did?

No, I didn't, because they didn't exist. I also know how to accept that I don't get my way, and that the world doesn't revolve around me. You should try it sometime.

And gear being introduced without explicit lore reasons saying it SHOULDN'T EXIST is nowhere near the same thing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Just Tony wrote:Oh, and it's "strawperson"...

And case in point on mocking transphobia. Do you get tired of this?

I pointed out someone whose verbiage inferred that fallacial arguments were male exclusive, and I corrected them. How is that mocking transphobia? Unless somehow I missed the straw specifying how it identified, you are making baseless accusations. AGAIN.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Just Tony wrote:There isn't an eyeroll emoji strong enough. I don't need official GW validation to have a Lithuanian/Irish descent based Marines chapter if I felt this overwhelming urge to be as self-fellating as some here, you don't need official GW validation to have FSM in your Chapter or a whole FSM chapter.

You can have that, but you'll find very few people kicking up a stink if you show up with Lithuanian/Irish inspired models. Meanwhile, we have Breton here in the thread outright saying that they'd be trying to refuse a game against someone who played FSM, and first hand experience from many of us here who have experienced people crying when they see a FSM about how "it doesn't fit with the lore".

This is the kind of stuff we mean by that FSM is apparently a bridge too far. No-one cares when people make their own homebrew chapters, as long as they don't include women - because then, all hell breaks loose.

My CSM force will be painted up as Ultramarines. Do you think the wailing and teeth-gnashing over that lore breaking will stop me from being able to run and play that army? No, because I have enough of a spine to not beta the second someone says something expressly not nice to me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Breton wrote:I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.

One hell of an assumption. I have FSM, and am non-binary and queer. You think I'd call you that if you were winning?

Having seen your posting habits? I'd think you'd call someone that with LESS prompting. IN. THIS. VERY. THREAD.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Seems to me that an obvious counterpoint is that you didn't need GW to greenlight your cool conversions though. You're already free to personalize away without changing the setting.

It doesn't stop people from saying "COOL BUT THE LORE SAYS..."

If you haven't seen those sorts of comments, you're a lucky person. I've seen Crimson's art/conversions in various places across the interwebs, and they invariably have a comment like that left on them.

Do their comments make your work suddenly disappear? Do their comments erase your fabricated Chapter lore? If the answer to any of this is "Yes.", which would be the ONLY way their nitpickiing comments could even AFFECT your hobby, then you need to seek help for your demetia. Internet comments can't hurt you, and real world comments simply indicate which people you need to never play against. For every person you find like that I'm willing to bet you can find over 20 more that don't care what justifies your converted army as long as you are a pleasant person to play against. Given your... excitability, I'd gather you aren't.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:If somebody wants to be a dick about you or your models, they will find a way. No amount of officiall regulation from GW will change that.

But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?

Disarm them. Remove their veneer of legitimacy. Take away their ability to use the lore as a hammer to smash down people's ideas. They'll get the message.

Just like making things illegal makes people stop committing crimes.


Oh, wait...

 Just Tony wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Breton wrote:I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.

One hell of an assumption. I have FSM, and am non-binary and queer. You think I'd call you that if you were winning?

Having seen your posting habits? I'd think you'd call someone that with LESS prompting. IN. THIS. VERY. THREAD.

Hell having already pointed it had already happened in this thread, and that it was as much about Home Brew Mary Sue syndrome - which was ignored in support of the aggrieved narrative and slipping in an implied Transphobe attack.. yeah.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
The Catholic military orders of the Crusades will be shocked to hear this.

Irrelevant. The popular concept of "monk" that defines the term is a dude in a robe sitting silently in a monastery copying bibles by hand.

If you want to pick out isolated exceptions to the rule here's some (as far as I can tell 100% sincere) female Christian monks: https://www.prayerfoundation.org/why_lady_monks.htm

It is completely relevant. The Holy Knights orders were monks.
The popular concept of those monks are fanatics who go out on crusades. You know, like marines, who literally call their military campaigns crusades.

Breton wrote:

stratigo wrote:


No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.

Space Marines are monks.

No they're not.

Here's the definition of monks.

That's not what most people think of.

Here's a list of monks by other people not interested in this debate.

Monks are just a red herring!

Not that I don't agree - the reason is shouldn't happen has nothing to do with monks or rights. But its a bit late to bring that up now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:


I'm not even sure where that argument was supposed to lead. Some chapters are monks, others are templars, vikings, vampires, emos, batman or robots. None of that has any particular bearing on the question of allowing female marines.

All of them are monks. But some of them are Viking monks, Vampire Monks, Greco-Roman Senator monks, etc. Warrior Monk is the play by play wrapped around the Color Commentary

Man you really love monks huh?

stratigo wrote:


Man you really love monks huh?

Nah, I really love honesty.

Breton wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Breton wrote:
The Catholic military orders of the Crusades will be shocked to hear this.

Irrelevant.

Facts that dont support my unsupported claim are irrelevant. As is the fact that Multi-chapter SM Forces are called Crusade Fleets. That they participated in The Great Crusade to liberate the holy lands of the Imperium from oppressors like independence, and the control of "others".

Well, here's a fact for you:

The KNIGHTS Templar were not called the MONKS Templar.

Nor were the KNIGHTS Hospitaller called the MONKS Hospitaller.

As it turns out, the "Knights" or fighting forces were about 10% of the total membership. The other 90% were involved in finance and logistics- none of them seem to have sworn vows of poverty or celibacy as a rule- though I'm sure that some certainly did. In any case, using these orders as examples of warrior monks really weakens your argument, because these orders included people with a great diversity of societal roles, and the fighters among them had far more in common with Knights than Monks, and reflected this in their own vocabulary and nomenclature.

To bring it back to 40k, it has been my view that Space Marine chapters are supposed to be diverse in nature- claiming that all must cleave to a monastic tradition in order to be legitimate is quite reductive. Some chapter certainly are Monk supreme. Others less so. Some likely behave nothing like monks, and have nothing resembling monasteries in their background.