H.B.M.C. said:
Page 28 of the DW Core Rulebook makes this entire topic moot.
There are no female Marines, just as there have never been.
BYE
It's common knowledge. Anyone who argues otherwise is completely clueless and ought to listen to their betters.
Atheosis said:
You don't need to be "hardcore" or a "puritan" or whatever you want to call it. You simply need to have a familiarity with the setting and an appreciation and respect for it. You say your group won't care. Great. Do whatever you want, but when you make fundamental changes to the setting realize that you aren't playing a 40k RPG, you're playing a homebrew setting influenced by 40k. It's really that simple. If you and you're group are cool with it great, just don't expect the people here to accept your ideas as legitimate within the context of the 40k universe.
Bottom line is that every setting has certain things that really shouldn't be changed if you want to be loyal to the setting, while other things are open to interpretation. Beyond that, your notion that players scoffing at the liberties you choose to take with an established setting is absurd. It's hard to be a GM with players that don't buy into your game or who simply out altogether. It might not effect you and your group, as they apparently aren't that into the 40k background, every group is going to be different, but many GMs are going to have problems when they unilaterally make fundamental changes to such a beloved game universe.
Bottom line is that yes a GM and his/her group can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't expect other to agree with or accept it on a larger stage.
Wow. Nice response. This is exactly right. Exactly.
Tarnis Phoenix said:
If it makes you feel any better a Rank 8 Battle Sister can kick the crap out of a space marine if you do it right.
IIRC wasn't the basic Battle Sisters design based on the art for the oft mentioned fluff regarding "Female Astartes"?
The reason why Female Astartes do not work in games fluff is because the gene seed and all it's derivatives were
based on the Emperor's very, very male genetic code. To implant them in a woman would cause only one of two
results:
>Tissue rejection. Remember even male recruits can suffer implant rejection.
>Tissue acceptance. If this occured and some other complication did not arise(which is apparently highly unlikely)
you would still have a Space Marine, only with an "Inney" instead of an "Outey".
The way the space marine enhancement process is described the end product of result 2 would still be a hulking
human with a hyper masculine frame much like really built female body builder. They are cononically an
exclusively male group. Thems the breaks.
If you really need a female character in DW build her out of DH or RT and make her an attache', Adeptus Mechanicus,
or somthing like that.
Professor Dire said:
Tarnis Phoenix said:
If it makes you feel any better a Rank 8 Battle Sister can kick the crap out of a space marine if you do it right.
IIRC wasn't the basic Battle Sisters design based on the art for the oft mentioned fluff regarding "Female Astartes"?
The reason why Female Astartes do not work in games fluff is because the gene seed and all it's derivatives were
based on the Emperor's very, very male genetic code. To implant them in a woman would cause only one of two
results:
>Tissue rejection. Remember even male recruits can suffer implant rejection.
>Tissue acceptance. If this occured and some other complication did not arise(which is apparently highly unlikely)
you would still have a Space Marine, only with an "Inney" instead of an "Outey".
The way the space marine enhancement process is described the end product of result 2 would still be a hulking
human with a hyper masculine frame much like really built female body builder. They are cononically an
exclusively male group. Thems the breaks.
If you really need a female character in DW build her out of DH or RT and make her an attache', Adeptus Mechanicus,
or somthing like that.
We've been through it before. Multiple times.
Alex
We have. And we don't need to any more.
Page 28.
Done. Discussion rendered moot, void, redundant - over.
BYE
H.B.M.C. said:
We have. And we don't need to any more.
Page 28.
Done. Discussion rendered moot, void, redundant - over.
BYE
Still no FAQ in sight.
Alex
Funny thing about this whole debate is that none of the girls in my group have a problem playing a male space marine, it didn't even become an issue or a conversation. I get the feeling that there are a lot of boys out there who for some reason almost always play female characters and that mostly its them whining, ranting and generally QQ'ing about this subject.
Also a female inquisitor while maybe not as combat monkey as a marine would be a welcome addition with her social skills and so on, maybe an assassin could make a difference as well.
Then of course there is the good old devision of labour, those among you who remember the first trilogy of star wars know how to do this, now what is it?
Well basically a Jedi like say Luke was so much more powerful than Han and Leia in combat that anything that was a challenge to him would almost certainly maul the two non-force users, thus uncle George created a plot line that separated the two groups when ever it was action time.
Example:
Our kill team heroes have landed on the forsaken world of Horrendus 4 to get some eyes on enemy action and create a distraction while I high level Imperial operative (the assassin) infiltrates the enemy city of Baobab and inhumes a local resistance leader. Also the inquisitor they are working for has tagged along with a few minions (scribes, astropaths and a dialoges sister).
Some travel, some social, an encounter or two with the local human population, an ambush that separates the two groups. And bam, the marines continue with their mission objective, to wreck havoc and mayhem allowing the assassin to slip in unnoticed. Meanwhile the Inquisitor investigates the locals trying to get intel on enemy forces and a better understanding of the location.
Assassin gets to sneak, marines get to blow **** up and the social players get to social... Everyone is happy. Also you can if you want the players to feel challenged flip it, so that the marines end up in a place where they can't get to the fighting so they have to convince the locals that they are mighty heroes there to rescue them from oppression and bring them back into the Imperial fold while our Inquisitor gets bogged down without her fire support marines and have to hump to a safe location while the assassin is trying to protect her.
There you go, voila.
double post, delete please mr moderator man
ak-73 said:
H.B.M.C. said:
ak-73 said:
An FAQ would be the result of something being unclear or ambiguous.
Page 28 is neither of those things.
BYE
Correct. No FAQ necessary because it's extremely clear. In addition, I posted the exact point of reference in CANON where there are no female Space Marines and why.
Of course, as a GM you can do as you like. However, doing so means you aren't playing Deathwatch. Who knows what you're playing if you can't even get this one small detail right. It's like playing in a game about medieval Japan and wanting to play a Viking. It's like playing playing in d20 version of Game of Thrones campaign and demanding to play a Warforged from Eberron. It's like playing in a WoD Vampire game and demanding to play a Solar Exalted.
These comparisons can go on and on. Sure you can play one of those, but it's not in the game, it's not supported, the fluff is wrong, it implies a misunderstanding of the game itself, and it's just ridiculous.
But play how you want.
If I ever meet some GM who believes that women Space Marine exist in person and incorporates them into her (his?) game, I'll just laugh in their face. The next time that person plays in a game or runs a game, I'll demand to play some totally off-the-wall character concept that doesn't exist. I'm 99% sure they'd say no though. You see, this leftist kind of logic only works one direction.
Wodan said:
H.B.M.C. said:
ak-73 said:
An FAQ would be the result of something being unclear or ambiguous.
Page 28 is neither of those things.
BYE
Correct. No FAQ necessary because it's extremely clear. In addition, I posted the exact point of reference in CANON where there are no female Space Marines and why.
Of course, as a GM you can do as you like. However, doing so means you aren't playing Deathwatch. Who knows what you're playing if you can't even get this one small detail right. It's like playing in a game about medieval Japan and wanting to play a Viking. It's like playing playing in d20 version of Game of Thrones campaign and demanding to play a Warforged from Eberron. It's like playing in a WoD Vampire game and demanding to play a Solar Exalted.
These comparisons can go on and on. Sure you can play one of those, but it's not in the game, it's not supported, the fluff is wrong, it implies a misunderstanding of the game itself, and it's just ridiculous.
But play how you want.
If I ever meet some GM who believes that women Space Marine exist in person and incorporates them into her (his?) game, I'll just laugh in their face. The next time that person plays in a game or runs a game, I'll demand to play some totally off-the-wall character concept that doesn't exist. I'm 99% sure they'd say no though. You see, this leftist kind of logic only works one direction.
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts. It can be established thought that there are no official and authorized female chapters present, that's for sure. That doesn't mean that 40K- setting -wise loopholes don't exist. The DW rules don't allow for it, that's for sure. But then again the GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
As for your laughter you might want to save your breath for it is only good for intimidating teenagers into insecurity. Everyone else will continue doing what they are doing long after your laughter has subsided.
Alex
ak-73 said:
Wodan said:
H.B.M.C. said:
ak-73 said:
An FAQ would be the result of something being unclear or ambiguous.
Page 28 is neither of those things.
BYE
Correct. No FAQ necessary because it's extremely clear. In addition, I posted the exact point of reference in CANON where there are no female Space Marines and why.
Of course, as a GM you can do as you like. However, doing so means you aren't playing Deathwatch. Who knows what you're playing if you can't even get this one small detail right. It's like playing in a game about medieval Japan and wanting to play a Viking. It's like playing playing in d20 version of Game of Thrones campaign and demanding to play a Warforged from Eberron. It's like playing in a WoD Vampire game and demanding to play a Solar Exalted.
These comparisons can go on and on. Sure you can play one of those, but it's not in the game, it's not supported, the fluff is wrong, it implies a misunderstanding of the game itself, and it's just ridiculous.
But play how you want.
If I ever meet some GM who believes that women Space Marine exist in person and incorporates them into her (his?) game, I'll just laugh in their face. The next time that person plays in a game or runs a game, I'll demand to play some totally off-the-wall character concept that doesn't exist. I'm 99% sure they'd say no though. You see, this leftist kind of logic only works one direction.
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts. It can be established thought that there are no official and authorized female chapters present, that's for sure. That doesn't mean that 40K- setting -wise loopholes don't exist. The DW rules don't allow for it, that's for sure. But then again the GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
As for your laughter you might want to save your breath for it is only good for intimidating teenagers into insecurity. Everyone else will continue doing what they are doing long after your laughter has subsided.
Alex
Sure you could do that. It's, once again, a massive, massive stretch though. No one fully understands the technology that the Emperor used to create the Astartes, and no one has any notion of how to modify or alter zygotes, especially to the degree you are referring. Attempts to do so tend produce mutated creatures that aren't Astartes at all. The notion of a "rogue scientist" is also completely off seeing as there are no scientists in 40k. The only way to incorporate your idea while respecting canon is to make the "rogue scientist" a heretech who somehow knows something of the science of the Dark Age of Technology (perhaps a member of the Serrated Querry), and then they and their female marines are going to be hunted as abominations. There's definitely no way female marines created by such an individual are ever going to get an invite to Deathwatch. Space Marine chapters must be established through proper channels using geneseed stored within the vaults of the mechanicus. A chapter formed in any other way, female or otherwise, is an act of heresy that leaves both the creator and the chapter created as targets of the Inquisition.
And with all that said, why would a "rogue scientist" dedicate the amount of time and effort it would take to create female space marines in-game? Sure you and others may have your reasons based upon some misled notion of gender equality within a fictional universe, but in-game space marines are meant to kill things. Making them female does not in any way improve their ability to kill (and if one is realistic it likely degrades it somewhat). Why would a "rogue scientist" waste all the zygotes and geneseed it would take to eventually make what is, at best, a cosmetic change? It's a complete waste of time, energy, and resources, and would only happen within a 40k universe that desperately needs to be PC for some reason, no matter how illogical.
So once again, yes you can have female marines in your game if you so choose, but such a game is no longer a canon 40k experience. No matter what angle you take adding female marines to 40k, especially female marines that are going to be serving in Deathwatch, it isn't accommodated by canon. It just flat out isn't.
Atheosis said:
ak-73 said:
Wodan said:
H.B.M.C. said:
ak-73 said:
An FAQ would be the result of something being unclear or ambiguous.
Page 28 is neither of those things.
BYE
Correct. No FAQ necessary because it's extremely clear. In addition, I posted the exact point of reference in CANON where there are no female Space Marines and why.
Of course, as a GM you can do as you like. However, doing so means you aren't playing Deathwatch. Who knows what you're playing if you can't even get this one small detail right. It's like playing in a game about medieval Japan and wanting to play a Viking. It's like playing playing in d20 version of Game of Thrones campaign and demanding to play a Warforged from Eberron. It's like playing in a WoD Vampire game and demanding to play a Solar Exalted.
These comparisons can go on and on. Sure you can play one of those, but it's not in the game, it's not supported, the fluff is wrong, it implies a misunderstanding of the game itself, and it's just ridiculous.
But play how you want.
If I ever meet some GM who believes that women Space Marine exist in person and incorporates them into her (his?) game, I'll just laugh in their face. The next time that person plays in a game or runs a game, I'll demand to play some totally off-the-wall character concept that doesn't exist. I'm 99% sure they'd say no though. You see, this leftist kind of logic only works one direction.
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts. It can be established thought that there are no official and authorized female chapters present, that's for sure. That doesn't mean that 40K- setting -wise loopholes don't exist. The DW rules don't allow for it, that's for sure. But then again the GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
As for your laughter you might want to save your breath for it is only good for intimidating teenagers into insecurity. Everyone else will continue doing what they are doing long after your laughter has subsided.
Alex
Sure you could do that. It's, once again, a massive, massive stretch though. No one fully understands the technology that the Emperor used to create the Astartes, and no one has any notion of how to modify or alter zygotes, especially to the degree you are referring. Attempts to do so tend produce mutated creatures that aren't Astartes at all. The notion of a "rogue scientist" is also completely off seeing as there are no scientists in 40k. The only way to incorporate your idea while respecting canon is to make the "rogue scientist" a heretech who somehow knows something of the science of the Dark Age of Technology (perhaps a member of the Serrated Querry), and then they and their female marines are going to be hunted as abominations. There's definitely no way female marines created by such an individual are ever going to get an invite to Deathwatch. Space Marine chapters must be established through proper channels using geneseed stored within the vaults of the mechanicus. A chapter formed in any other way, female or otherwise, is an act of heresy that leaves both the creator and the chapter created as targets of the Inquisition.
And with all that said, why would a "rogue scientist" dedicate the amount of time and effort it would take to create female space marines in-game? Sure you and others may have your reasons based upon some misled notion of gender equality within a fictional universe, but in-game space marines are meant to kill things. Making them female does not in any way improve their ability to kill (and if one is realistic it likely degrades it somewhat). Why would a "rogue scientist" waste all the zygotes and geneseed it would take to eventually make what is, at best, a cosmetic change? It's a complete waste of time and energy, and only exists within a 40k universe that desperately needs to be PC for some reason, no matter how illogical.
Simply to not go the potential of female candidates go unwasted. It's all been discussed before though, you can check out the respective posts.
The Jericho Reach DW could for example be of a more radical branch and embrace the female SMs. House ruling for sure but it could be done. There could be unauthorized female chapters and there could be covert chapters, in essence field tests because the female marines genes are not stable.
There's plenty of possibilities for individual GMs. It's a House Rule but who cares? Personally I'd rather go without female SMs but it could be done without too much contradiction to the established setting.
Alex
ak-73 said:
Atheosis said:
ak-73 said:
Wodan said:
H.B.M.C. said:
ak-73 said:
An FAQ would be the result of something being unclear or ambiguous.
Page 28 is neither of those things.
BYE
Correct. No FAQ necessary because it's extremely clear. In addition, I posted the exact point of reference in CANON where there are no female Space Marines and why.
Of course, as a GM you can do as you like. However, doing so means you aren't playing Deathwatch. Who knows what you're playing if you can't even get this one small detail right. It's like playing in a game about medieval Japan and wanting to play a Viking. It's like playing playing in d20 version of Game of Thrones campaign and demanding to play a Warforged from Eberron. It's like playing in a WoD Vampire game and demanding to play a Solar Exalted.
These comparisons can go on and on. Sure you can play one of those, but it's not in the game, it's not supported, the fluff is wrong, it implies a misunderstanding of the game itself, and it's just ridiculous.
But play how you want.
If I ever meet some GM who believes that women Space Marine exist in person and incorporates them into her (his?) game, I'll just laugh in their face. The next time that person plays in a game or runs a game, I'll demand to play some totally off-the-wall character concept that doesn't exist. I'm 99% sure they'd say no though. You see, this leftist kind of logic only works one direction.
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts. It can be established thought that there are no official and authorized female chapters present, that's for sure. That doesn't mean that 40K- setting -wise loopholes don't exist. The DW rules don't allow for it, that's for sure. But then again the GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
As for your laughter you might want to save your breath for it is only good for intimidating teenagers into insecurity. Everyone else will continue doing what they are doing long after your laughter has subsided.
Alex
Sure you could do that. It's, once again, a massive, massive stretch though. No one fully understands the technology that the Emperor used to create the Astartes, and no one has any notion of how to modify or alter zygotes, especially to the degree you are referring. Attempts to do so tend produce mutated creatures that aren't Astartes at all. The notion of a "rogue scientist" is also completely off seeing as there are no scientists in 40k. The only way to incorporate your idea while respecting canon is to make the "rogue scientist" a heretech who somehow knows something of the science of the Dark Age of Technology (perhaps a member of the Serrated Querry), and then they and their female marines are going to be hunted as abominations. There's definitely no way female marines created by such an individual are ever going to get an invite to Deathwatch. Space Marine chapters must be established through proper channels using geneseed stored within the vaults of the mechanicus. A chapter formed in any other way, female or otherwise, is an act of heresy that leaves both the creator and the chapter created as targets of the Inquisition.
And with all that said, why would a "rogue scientist" dedicate the amount of time and effort it would take to create female space marines in-game? Sure you and others may have your reasons based upon some misled notion of gender equality within a fictional universe, but in-game space marines are meant to kill things. Making them female does not in any way improve their ability to kill (and if one is realistic it likely degrades it somewhat). Why would a "rogue scientist" waste all the zygotes and geneseed it would take to eventually make what is, at best, a cosmetic change? It's a complete waste of time and energy, and only exists within a 40k universe that desperately needs to be PC for some reason, no matter how illogical.
Simply to not go the potential of female candidates go unwasted. It's all been discussed before though, you can check out the respective posts.
The Jericho Reach DW could for example be of a more radical branch and embrace the female SMs. House ruling for sure but it could be done. There could be unauthorized female chapters and there could be covert chapters, in essence field tests because the female marines genes are not stable.
There's plenty of possibilities for individual GMs. It's a House Rule but who cares? Personally I'd rather go without female SMs but it could be done without too much contradiction to the established setting.
Alex
My post already negated pretty much everything in your response, but I'm starting to realize that you either a)don't really know much about the 40k setting or b)are just arguing for the sake of arguing, so for the last time:
There is no way to make female space marines within the established material. There is no legitimate way to shoehorn it in. Adding female marines to 40k involves making massive changes to the entire backstory of the Astartes or making the setting a more traditional sci-fi where there are scientists researching and modifying geneseed rather than techpriests and marines venerating them as holy and sacrosanct items that must be kept pure and unmolested. It doesn't work in the context of canon no matter how much you argue otherwise.
Atheosis said:
My post already negated pretty much everything in your response, but I'm starting to realize that you either a)don't really know much about the 40k setting or b)are just arguing for the sake of arguing, so for the last time:
There is no way to make female space marines within the established material. There is no legitimate way to shoehorn it in. Adding female marines to 40k involves making massive changes to the entire backstory of the Astartes or making the setting a more traditional sci-fi where there are scientists researching and modifying geneseed rather than techpriests and marines venerating them as holy and sacrosanct items that must be kept pure and unmolested. It doesn't work in the context of canon no matter how much you argue otherwise.
Um, actually, that's not entirely true. The 21st 'cursed' founding arose out of AdMech and Inq researches attempting to reengineer the geneseed as part of project "Homo Sapiens Novus". It is not know exactly how many chapters were founded, however, almost all of them experianced either insane levels of bad luck, or mutation. This means that there are an unknown number of non-codex space marine chapters floating around out there.
Considering how radical some of the mutations are, such as the Black Dragons bony crests or the Sons of Anetus' appearent adamantium skeletons and regeneration (not joking!), the idea that they created a chapter that could recruit from a broader selection of the population seems to be a relatively minor matter.
BaronIveagh said:
Atheosis said:
My post already negated pretty much everything in your response, but I'm starting to realize that you either a)don't really know much about the 40k setting or b)are just arguing for the sake of arguing, so for the last time:
There is no way to make female space marines within the established material. There is no legitimate way to shoehorn it in. Adding female marines to 40k involves making massive changes to the entire backstory of the Astartes or making the setting a more traditional sci-fi where there are scientists researching and modifying geneseed rather than techpriests and marines venerating them as holy and sacrosanct items that must be kept pure and unmolested. It doesn't work in the context of canon no matter how much you argue otherwise.
Um, actually, that's not entirely true. The 21st 'cursed' founding arose out of AdMech and Inq researches attempting to reengineer the geneseed as part of project "Homo Sapiens Novus". It is not know exactly how many chapters were founded, however, almost all of them experianced either insane levels of bad luck, or mutation. This means that there are an unknown number of non-codex space marine chapters floating around out there.
Considering how radical some of the mutations are, such as the Black Dragons bony crests or the Sons of Anetus' appearent adamantium skeletons and regeneration (not joking!), the idea that they created a chapter that could recruit from a broader selection of the population seems to be a relatively minor matter.
Okay go with that if you like. It's a stretch, but I guess it could be used to explain a chapter with female marines. Such a chapter would never second marines to the Deathwatch however (which is primary matter here), at least none of their female members. To do so would speak to a divergence in geneseed and chapter practices that are utterly anomalous and heretical. Trust me such a chapter wouldn't last long if they were open about their coed status. Oh and then there's the whole matter of being part of the cursed founding which is problematic to say the least.
So once again there is no canon way to make female marines in 40k that are going to be a part of Deathwatch.
ak-73 said:
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts.
Yes there is, you just don't like it: PAge 28 "all Space Marines are male". Not most, not some, all. This is completly unambiguous
ak-73 said:
GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
and I'm afraid FAQ's are only for the official rules. You may certainly do whatever you want in your own game, but you won't see any FAQ's supporting it. The point of an FAQ is to provide official rules.
Darq said:
ak-73 said:
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts.
Yes there is, you just don't like it: PAge 28 "all Space Marines are male". Not most, not some, all. This is completly unambiguous
ak-73 said:
GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
and I'm afraid FAQ's are only for the official rules. You may certainly do whatever you want in your own game, but you won't see any FAQ's supporting it. The point of an FAQ is to provide official rules.
I think he was talking about a FAQ for the forum. You know, a list of threads that get flogged like dead horses? The FSM debate has been hashed and rehashed numberous times... since second edition 40k.
So far, we have, at least the following facts:
No codex Space Marine chapter has female members. This is well established.
There are holes you could fling a mack truck through in space marine creation fluff. Most particularly the age at which one can become a space marine.
The 21st Founding allows for the possibility of female space marines, just as it allowed for space marines composed of living flame (Again, not joking).
Deathwatch does take chapters with dubious histories and odd mutations. (this is, after all, Ordo Xenos, not Hereticus) Chapters such as the Blood Ravens (you know, the loyalist Thousand Sons ?) Space Wolves (canis) Blood Angels (red thirst), Black Templars (suspected of heresy, for violating the ban on chapters being greater in strength then 1,000 battle brothers), Mortificators (where to START?), and, last but not least, Black Dragons (see above) have all seconded members to Deathwatch.
(Notice the above avoided mentioning the Dark Angels AT ALL.)
Female Space Marines, why will this ludicrous idea never die?! I worked for GW for 5 years without ever hearing a whisper of the idea and then I looked at some forums and there were these guys foaming at the mouth about the concept.
I don't get it, I never will.
BaronIveagh said:
Darq said:
ak-73 said:
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts.
Yes there is, you just don't like it: PAge 28 "all Space Marines are male". Not most, not some, all. This is completly unambiguous
ak-73 said:
GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
and I'm afraid FAQ's are only for the official rules. You may certainly do whatever you want in your own game, but you won't see any FAQ's supporting it. The point of an FAQ is to provide official rules.
I think he was talking about a FAQ for the forum. You know, a list of threads that get flogged like dead horses? The FSM debate has been hashed and rehashed numberous times... since second edition 40k.
So far, we have, at least the following facts:
No codex Space Marine chapter has female members. This is well established.
There are holes you could fling a mack truck through in space marine creation fluff. Most particularly the age at which one can become a space marine.
The 21st Founding allows for the possibility of female space marines, just as it allowed for space marines composed of living flame (Again, not joking).
Deathwatch does take chapters with dubious histories and odd mutations. (this is, after all, Ordo Xenos, not Hereticus) Chapters such as the Blood Ravens (you know, the loyalist Thousand Sons ?) Space Wolves (canis) Blood Angels (red thirst), Black Templars (suspected of heresy, for violating the ban on chapters being greater in strength then 1,000 battle brothers), Mortificators (where to START?), and, last but not least, Black Dragons (see above) have all seconded members to Deathwatch.
(Notice the above avoided mentioning the Dark Angels AT ALL.)
Oh if thats the case, my appologies Alex, I missunderstood!
BaronIveagh said:
Darq said:
ak-73 said:
There is a necessity for a FAQ because what you have provided has been provided before. Multiple times.
In case you were not around or forgot: I said before that nothing in the background precludes that somewhere there hasn't been a rogue scientist throughout the milennia who has found a way to at least partially make the zygotes work with female hosts.
Yes there is, you just don't like it: PAge 28 "all Space Marines are male". Not most, not some, all. This is completly unambiguous
ak-73 said:
GM is always right and official rules are always a non-binding suggestion only, I'm afraid.
and I'm afraid FAQ's are only for the official rules. You may certainly do whatever you want in your own game, but you won't see any FAQ's supporting it. The point of an FAQ is to provide official rules.
I think he was talking about a FAQ for the forum. You know, a list of threads that get flogged like dead horses? The FSM debate has been hashed and rehashed numberous times... since second edition 40k.
So far, we have, at least the following facts:
No codex Space Marine chapter has female members. This is well established.
There are holes you could fling a mack truck through in space marine creation fluff. Most particularly the age at which one can become a space marine.
The 21st Founding allows for the possibility of female space marines, just as it allowed for space marines composed of living flame (Again, not joking).
Deathwatch does take chapters with dubious histories and odd mutations. (this is, after all, Ordo Xenos, not Hereticus) Chapters such as the Blood Ravens (you know, the loyalist Thousand Sons ?) Space Wolves (canis) Blood Angels (red thirst), Black Templars (suspected of heresy, for violating the ban on chapters being greater in strength then 1,000 battle brothers), Mortificators (where to START?), and, last but not least, Black Dragons (see above) have all seconded members to Deathwatch.
(Notice the above avoided mentioning the Dark Angels AT ALL.)
Hyperbole aside, the chapters that have "dubious" histories or mutations, and have seconded marines to Deathwatch, all keep their dirty little secrets, well secret. So if you want to go out of your way to create a chapter that has battle sisters (wow does that sound dumb) they still aren't going to second them to Deathwatch. Just like Blood Angels don't second those who suffer heavily from the Red Thirst and Space Wolves don't second those with pronounced canis helix mutations. Beyond that the whole cursed founding appraoch to try and create a chapter that contradicts canon is on thin ice from the consensus viewpoint of chapter design. It's almost as bad as the lost legion approach.
Seriously dude just stop trying to shoehorn in your ideas into the canon, and just rewrite it. It's more creatively honest and will make more sense in the long run. Your ideas of how to fit it into canon are far-fetched at best.
Oh and by the way, neither the Mortifactors nor Black Dragons have ever seconded marines to Deathwatch within canon.
Darq said:
Oh if thats the case, my appologies Alex, I missunderstood!
I wouldn't know what you'd apologize for. Seriously. Let's move on.
Alex
Phil73805 said:
Female Space Marines, why will this ludicrous idea never die?! I worked for GW for 5 years without ever hearing a whisper of the idea and then I looked at some forums and there were these guys foaming at the mouth about the concept.
I don't get it, I never will.
I hear that a few GW people react to it like that. Just not getting it, just like most of us
Now this will also be my last post on these threads for a while, simply put, I don't have the time to argue with fanatics.
