WestRider Posted September 12, 2018 Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 To my mind, it makes more sense from a force maintenance point of view. Why throw away half your potential pool of recruits? There's certainly no biological reason it can't work. Male to female transplants (essentially what's going on here, since all the geneseed is originally derived from the Emperor) have the lowest rejection rates of any combination of donor/receiver genders, so there would probably actually be a slightly higher recruitment success rate as well as the larger recruitment pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 2 hours ago, pretre said: Or you could just add them and not rewrite anything. You know, like everything they add to the game. 🙂 Adding something to current line isn’t the same as changing the core fluff of space marines dating back to Horus Hersey. 😝 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 40 minutes ago, Ish said: This is a game where retcons are a canon, in-universe concept. The Historical Revision Unit of the Adeptus Terra is one of the most powerful departments within the Administratum, their leader the Historicus, is not infrequently one of the High Lords of Terra. Their mission is to “correct” the official Imperial historical record to a more “correct” version... If the Ultra-Marines can be “corrected” from their origins as a third-founding chapter created to replace a chapter that had turned to Chaos into a first founded Legion led by a Primarch...? Yeah, we can have female marines added easily enough. Well we wont ever agree on this. I respect your opinion, but I honestly hope it never comes true. 👍😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted September 12, 2018 Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, happycamper said: Adding something to current line isn’t the same as changing the core fluff of space marines dating back to Horus Hersey. 😝 It is. We’re not saying that it was possible before. We’re saying Cawl or whoever figures out a way of doing it going forward. adding to not retcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 20 minutes ago, WestRider said: To my mind, it makes more sense from a force maintenance point of view. Why throw away half your potential pool of recruits? There's certainly no biological reason it can't work. Male to female transplants (essentially what's going on here, since all the geneseed is originally derived from the Emperor) have the lowest rejection rates of any combination of donor/receiver genders, so there would probably actually be a slightly higher recruitment success rate as well as the larger recruitment pool. Besides you know... the drastic biological differences between men and women. But ah yes in today’s world, we aren’t allowed to speak of those ... 🤔😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 Just now, pretre said: It is. We’re not saying that it was possible before. We’re saying Cawl or whoever figures out a way of doing it going forward. adding to not retcon This I would have no problem. Make them their own thing. Hell could be a whole new faction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 They do like a Primaris like addition that creates some new elite super human chicks that do their own thing like SoBs, I’m all good with that. i think they should also add female upgrade kits for guard. I just can get on board with randomly the brotherhoods suddenly have sisters too. It’s just too weird and breaks it for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted September 12, 2018 Report Share Posted September 12, 2018 17 minutes ago, happycamper said: Besides you know... the drastic biological differences between men and women. But ah yes in today’s world, we aren’t allowed to speak of those ... 🤔😜 Other than the physical form of the primary sexual organs, the bulk of those differences arise when the body gets flooded with gendered hormones during puberty. Since the hormone dose from the geneseed would massively overshadow the differences due to gender, it's really not a substantial issue, and adding an oophorectomy during the geneseed implantation process could completely nullify that. Also, because all embryos start out as female, and then various factors (largely, but not entirely genetic) shift some to a male form, it's actually much easier to make changes in the female to male direction than vice versa. For example, testosterone supplements will cause increased muscle growth and other tertiary sexual characteristics (facial hair, etc.) in women, but estrogen supplements and/or testosterone suppressants won't remove facial hair or reverse male pattern baldness. The only relevant differences when it comes to individuals being modified for purely combat roles on the level that geneseed alters a human body are that women tend to have higher pain tolerances*, and they don't get hurt as badly if they get hit between the legs. *Necessary to survive childbirth. Studies have estimated that level of pain would kill a substantial percentage of men, purely from the pain sending the body into shock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 31 minutes ago, WestRider said: Other than the physical form of the primary sexual organs, the bulk of those differences arise when the body gets flooded with gendered hormones during puberty. Since the hormone dose from the geneseed would massively overshadow the differences due to gender, it's really not a substantial issue, and adding an oophorectomy during the geneseed implantation process could completely nullify that. Also, because all embryos start out as female, and then various factors (largely, but not entirely genetic) shift some to a male form, it's actually much easier to make changes in the female to male direction than vice versa. For example, testosterone supplements will cause increased muscle growth and other tertiary sexual characteristics (facial hair, etc.) in women, but estrogen supplements and/or testosterone suppressants won't remove facial hair or reverse male pattern baldness. The only relevant differences when it comes to individuals being modified for purely combat roles on the level that geneseed alters a human body are that women tend to have higher pain tolerances*, and they don't get hurt as badly if they get hit between the legs. *Necessary to survive childbirth. Studies have estimated that level of pain would kill a substantial percentage of men, purely from the pain sending the body into shock. So what your saying, is take female recruits and turn them into men....🤔 so.... what would make them female then? Let me guess.. pony tails and bangs...😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 12 minutes ago, happycamper said: So what your saying, is take female recruits and turn them into men....🤔 so.... what would make them female then? Let me guess.. pony tails and bangs...😜 Some of what I posted there is, in fact, from research done with trans men. But Space Marines are different by a far greater degree from either men or women than men and women are from each other. Like I said, my issue with it is that the Space Marines are throwing away half their potential recruit pool. I don't like PA Models without helmets, so it would really just be a fluff difference, not a modeling one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 You really cannot get too hung up on biological differences between the sexes when also talking about soldiers that have been genetically re-engineered to be eight foot tall, acid-spitting, blood-drinking, “eat my enemy’s brain to learn his thoughts,” bench-press-a-light-tank, nigh-immortals... who ride into battle aboard kilometers long weaponized cathedrals that fly through HELL ITSELF during their commute. They really should update the plastic Cadian infantry kit sometime soon... and when they do, I’d hope they include a couple of female faces. There’s got to be room for one or two more heads on the sprue, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 10 hours ago, happycamper said: But.... why? Purely social justice reasons? Eh lame.... GW has established that they are a model company. To promote greater sales would be the motive. Not looking for any physical difference in the models other than, maybe, the heads. The main change is a minor tweak to the cannon. And the gain is a broader target audience for their product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 1 hour ago, WestRider said: Like I said, my issue with it is that the Space Marines are throwing away half their potential recruit pool. I don't like PA Models without helmets, so it would really just be a fluff difference, not a modeling one. Yeah, spot on. The fluff needs to change, not the models. I prefer helmeted marines too. And it's both the recruit pool in fluff, and the potential customers in real life. GW is currently marketing a game where females can't be "good guys" except in a very select and limited capacity - it's just stupid to alienate customers like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 30 minutes ago, Ish said: You really cannot get too hung up on biological differences between the sexes when also talking about soldiers that have been genetically re-engineered to be eight foot tall, acid-spitting, blood-drinking, “eat my enemy’s brain to learn his thoughts,” bench-press-a-light-tank, nigh-immortals... who ride into battle aboard kilometers long weaponized cathedrals that fly through HELL ITSELF during their commute. They really should update the plastic Cadian infantry kit sometime soon... and when they do, I’d hope they include a couple of female faces. There’s got to be room for one or two more heads on the sprue, right? Totally down with female heads for guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 23 minutes ago, paxmiles said: Yeah, spot on. The fluff needs to change, not the models. I prefer helmeted marines too. And it's both the recruit pool in fluff, and the potential customers in real life. GW is currently marketing a game where females can't be "good guys" except in a very select and limited capacity - it's just stupid to alienate customers like that. There is literally an army that is only female...that are good guys. If an entire army that is getting completely redone next year is “select and limited” then I don’t know what to tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 38 minutes ago, happycamper said: There is literally an army that is only female...that are good guys. If an entire army that is getting completely redone next year is “select and limited” then I don’t know what to tell you. One actual Army out of 25. 4% sounds pretty select and limited to me. About 7% if you look at it just as out of just the "good" Factions. Still pretty limited. Zooming out a bit. Including the tiny ones, GW has 29 Factions listed on the 40K Webstore. Of those, two are entirely female (and one of those only has a single kit), three have some sort of mix (the major Eldar Factions. But for Craftworlds, it's only Banshees, Jain Zar, and 1 in 5 Guardians. Even Drukhari and Harlequins have about 2/3 of their range as male, and the distribution in both of them is really uneven.), four have exactly one female model, and the remaining 20 are purely male. If you take out the minor Factions*, it's down to one all-female Army, the same three with some sort of mix, one with a single female Model, and still 20 that are purely male. That's...pretty badly skewed. *The ones you can't functionally be built as a Matched Play Army on their own, outside of very small Games. Inquisition, Assassinorum, Sisters of Silence, and the Ynnari-only Models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanvoodoo Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 I look forward to more YouTube videos of people burning their armies in outrage against GW when or if they decide to include women in the game. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 24 minutes ago, WestRider said: One actual Army out of 25. 4% sounds pretty select and limited to me. About 7% if you look at it just as out of just the "good" Factions. Still pretty limited. Zooming out a bit. Including the tiny ones, GW has 29 Factions listed on the 40K Webstore. Of those, two are entirely female (and one of those only has a single kit), three have some sort of mix (the major Eldar Factions. But for Craftworlds, it's only Banshees, Jain Zar, and 1 in 5 Guardians. Even Drukhari and Harlequins have about 2/3 of their range as male, and the distribution in both of them is really uneven.), four have exactly one female model, and the remaining 20 are purely male. If you take out the minor Factions*, it's down to one all-female Army, the same three with some sort of mix, one with a single female Model, and still 20 that are purely male. That's...pretty badly skewed. *The ones you can't functionally be built as a Matched Play Army on their own, outside of very small Games. Inquisition, Assassinorum, Sisters of Silence, and the Ynnari-only Models. We are never going to agree here. I’ll counter back and then you will counter. In the end it all comes down to a matter of opinion. We can argue about fictional genetic viability of it being used for fictional marines. Me personally see it as pointless retconing for the sake of “inclusion”. I for one hope that doesn’t happen, not based on not wanting women in game, based on thinking they should create something new if you want to include more females. Never go full Ghostbusters. Don’t replace, create. Still, I respect your opinion, and politely disagree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 Well, we probably shouldn’t include Necrons (no external sex or gender characteristics), Tyranids (no sex or gender at all*), Orks (asexual fungus), and Knights (can’t see into the cockpit) from the list when counting armies for comparison purposes. But bringing back Sisters of Battle and giving 1:5 or 1:4 female:male heads for the basic Guardsmen squads should really help out. I don’t want to see 1:1 gender parity, I’d just like to see more options. More options is better options! * Although the names for most units introduced prior to third edition are based on archaic and/or obscure insulting terms for b——hy women: hadrian, termagant, dominatrix, harpy, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, Ish said: Well, we probably shouldn’t include Necrons (no external sex or gender characteristics), Tyranids (no sex or gender at all*), Orks (asexual fungus), and Knights (can’t see into the cockpit) from the list when counting armies for comparison purposes. But bringing back Sisters of Battle and giving 1:5 or 1:4 female:male heads for the basic Guardsmen squads should really help out. I don’t want to see 1:1 gender parity, I’d just like to see more options. More options is better options! * Although the names for most units introduced prior to third edition are based on archaic and/or obscure insulting terms for b——hy women: hadrian, termagant, dominatrix, harpy, etc. Don’t think Dominatrix is code word for b***hy 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 I’m generalizing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Bungalow Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 I heard that the original primarchs first recruiting drive was involuntarily celibate internet tough guys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ish said: I’m generalizing. 😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happycamper Posted September 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, Brick Bungalow said: I heard that the original primarchs first recruiting drive was involuntarily celibate internet tough guys. Which legion were you apart of? 😱😱😱 kiding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2018 Report Share Posted September 13, 2018 4 hours ago, happycamper said: There is literally an army that is only female...that are good guys. If an entire army that is getting completely redone next year is “select and limited” then I don’t know what to tell you. An army? Space Marines are always front and center on the website, and on all their 40k promotions. Space Marines are the icons of 40k. I've even heard that the other factions were created to give them something to fight... Regarding gender by army, Space Marines represent close to half half of the army options, be it SM, SW, BA, DA, GK, DW, CSM, TS, or DG. Regarding sisters of battle, that is the last army you want GW using to represent female interests. Ever read into the sister's "Red Rage" fluff? Or how about that the SoBs are all physically weaker than their "male" sm counter parts. And that Sisters need fight in a segregated force because the imperium is that much not okay with gender equality... The entire sisters of battle is a negative female sterotype (and really cool models). Sisters fluff is something GW, also, needs to really fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.