Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by player461339

  1. IF you're so sick of it then why are you responding? Why are you bothering? Good question, isn't it? You aren't going to stop people from asking the question so quite trying.
  2. "At the moment I have not yet had a chance to read the Rogue Trader rulebook," then you shouldn't be here, you should be reading the book. It's that simple. Just another FYI--they are called thrones, not credits.
  3. I'm just wondering why you felt the need to provide so much backstory for a simple question. No one really cares about the first part of your question. As far as getting them together, that's on them, not on you. It's your fault for not starting them together in the first place.
  4. HappyDaze said: zealot12 said: I do think you're exaggerating, though I understand if you're disappointed that the game has not lived up to your expectations. Certainly not all FFG games are like Relic and Talisman. Actually, these are the only two, as far as I know. I'm not sure what point you believe that I'm exaggerating. We've had nine games with 3, 4, and even once with 5 players. Six games have been terrible for all involved after the first hour of play. Even the other three usually had one player that was totally out of the game in any meaningful manner* for more than an hour of play. None of this is an exaggeration. * Turn after turn of desperately trying to land on a space to bleed off Corruption or to get a new mission count. So too does running around the outside with no power cards, assets, or influence when everyone else out levels you by 4+ levels, is on the middle or inner tier, and has a Relic. These might not be so bad if they only happened occasionally, but we've seen it over and over. We get it. You don't like it. You don't sit here and rage anymore. Seriously. Your ranting has reached its fever pitch now. Just go already. For the rest of us, we like it. So please don't buy another FFG boardgame again. Seriously. Please don't.
  5. H.B.M.C. said: Wha...? No... this whole conversation is the very definition of 'mutually exclusive'. There are no female Marines. It's not a debate, there are no 'loop holes', it has been categorically and explicitly stated that Marines are always male. There's no wiggle room. There's no leeway. There's no chance that somewhere, out there, in the fluff, that they exist. They don't. They simply don't. If you want to have Female Marines, then, as I said before, that's fine - you and your group can do whatever you want - but in doing so you are breaking the established fluff and not playing within the confines of the 40K universe. I make no judgements about people who do that and, again, to repeat myself, you and your group are completely free to come up with whatever you want, but this isn't a debate. It is an absolute. There are no female Marines. There just aren't. BYE Like (thumbs up). These people should play White Wolf games. It would fit their egalitarian mindset better.
  6. darkrose50 said: Evola said: Of course, this is directed at those in the center, not on the Left. Those people that say those days are over and obviously applauding the decline of the West (not to be confused with Spengler's work), and cannot be reasoned with. The Left is inherently illogical. To a left-thinking brain the right is inherently illogical. There appears to be a fundamental measurable difference in brain chemistry between the left and the right. I would imagine that this is due to part nature and part nurture. This leads me to believe that humanity needs members of the left as well as members of the right. Teachers are have the most education out of any profession. Is it more likely that teachers are all brainwashed, or that logic is present on the left? Note #1: I did not say that logic was not present on the right. Logic is present on the right. Note #2: In America Democrats are to the left, and Republicans are to the right. . . . survey by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) examined the phenomenon of political bias among faculty at 32 elite colleges and universities, where it found 1,397 professors who were registered Democrats and only 134 who were registered Republicans a ratio greater than 10 to 1. . . . . . Another CSPC study found that at 10 major law schools in the U.S., 430 professors were registered Democrats and 53 were registered Republicans a ratio of more than 8 to 1. . . . . . The same survey further revealed that at 9 major journalism schools, 120 professors were registered Democrats and 29 were registered Republicans a ratio of more than 4 to 1 . . . . . . A study released in late December 2005 by UC-Santa Clara economics professor Dan Klein found that social science professors are overwhelmingly Democratic, and that Democratic professors in those disciplines are more homogeneous in their thinking than Republicans. On the question of political affiliation, the survey showed an immense imbalance in the breakdown of Democrats to Republicans, ranging from 21.1 to 1 among anthropologists; . . . 9.1 to 1 among political and legal philosophers; . . . . . . 8.5 to 1 among historians; . . . . . . 5.6 to 1 among political scientists . . . Another 2005 study by Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter, and Neil Nevitte, titled Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty, found that 72 percent of those teaching at American colleges and universities describe themselves as liberal, as compared to only 15 percent who claim to be conservative. According to the study, the most one-sided departments are English literature, philosophy, political science, and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative. "The American College Teacher" a major 2001 study by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, which has never been challenged, posed a number of questions on politics to a nationwide sample of professors. The researchers found that 5.3 percent of faculty members could be classified as far left, and another 42.3 percent as liberal. By contrast, 17.7 percent were conservative, and 0.3 percent were far right. Thanks for the studies. While I find this information quite interesting, I'm not entirely surprised by the results. As everyone knows, especially Dr. Kevin MacDonald amongst others, academia is not friendly to anyone in the conservative camp. They'll try to oust you. It's actively hostile. Actively. This is how the Frankfurt school won out. I think someone of your caliber understands this. I know many on the left who are quite bright, many are smarter than myself. However, their logic, their philosophy, their whole Derrida/post-colonialist/post-modernist philosophy is not only destructive but illogical. Still, thanks for posting this information.
  7. Peacekeeper_b said: Cailieg said: I am excited for these waits. I do not know about you Peace, but I like getting new reading materials for the only active game setting I am currently following. All the other games I play are oop collections. Its like trying to find treasure the week they release. I drive to every game store in the area, peruse their section and see if they will be the first to get them in, if they will be I pre-purchase. Alexis *smiles* Thats all and good and I too look forward to these works. But lets be honest here, unless some miracle happens, but "This Fall" they more that likely mean "January", but I hope they prove me wrong. They proved you wrong. Did you apologize?
  8. MILLANDSON said: If that's the case, I'd like to point out that, during the interviews Ross/Sam have given Dark Reign, they have said that they are not allowed to cover areas of 40k covered by previous GW canon (such as established sectors, etc). As such, due to the terms of their licence, they are forced to write up their own sectors/areas of the 40k setting. Whether you like the FFG settings or not, there's nothing FFG can do about it. Complain to GW for taking away their chance to cover areas from the 40k history in the RPG if you have to complain to anyone. And that's the real answer. I had totally forgotten about that.
  9. professor_kylan said: Rogue Trader isn't about fighting these aliens, it's about ripping them off and making a profit. If you and your players want to play a game which is all about blowing thing up, play DH or DW. Trader works better when players find a better way to succeed than fighting. Fighting, after all, is expensive. Who wants to pay to repair armour plating when you can simply buy out or sell out all of your problems? Don't blame the game if you are trying to run something else with the same book. Yes, you get it!
  10. signoftheserpent said: The corebook doesn't allow me to run the following scenarios, neither of which are particularly unusual for the setting: 1. a space hulk that the crew learn is full of treasure. They set out to find it only to discover it's full of tyrannids. No tyrannids in the rogue trader book. Very few spaceship rules (which is unforgiveable). 2. a planet the crew learn has lots of treasure. They set out to find it only to discover said riches are stored within a necron tomb they risk unwittingly activating. Both necrons and tyrannids are core 40k antagonists. Why are they not properly covered? How can it make any sense to prioritise FFG's own creations over canon elements? If we don't need Necrons in our game then we need FFG's own ideas even less surely? On top of that the random nature by which info is portioned out is ridiculous: one Eldar stat in the mainbook (useless, frankly), a couple in the screen and scattered elsewhere. How can that make any sense? It's not convenioent from the point of view of referencing stuff - why not do an Eldar sourcebook? They've had enough time to put one out? It's hardly as if Eldar are a minority canon element. This is the problem. Rogue Trader is a mess. The book is all over the place, covers nothing in enough detail and leaves out huge swathes of canon detail. FFG seem to have gone out their way to create something that ignores most of what's actually in the setting with the argument that it's up to me to fill int he blanks. Well why bother wihth the game at all? Wow. Seriously? Into the Storm is a great book full of useful material. It's not our fault you don't have any money to buy every supplement? Every supplement? LOL This is better than the @!#$ who want female Space Marines. Gimme, gimme, gimme.
  11. I was hoping that some day I get to play in a game where the GM rules that there are female Space Marines. I want to play a man who was trapped in cyro-freeze sometime in the late 25th century. He knows all of the tech-heresies and is totally familiar with how backward the Imperium is. In addition, I want to have huge mech that can transform into a car and a robot on demand and makes cool little sounds. In addition, my frozen guy knows every spell in the 3.5 Player's Handbookbecause I'm half gnome and half troll named Optimus Prime. No one is going to argue with my character concept because it's not canonso I'm not only totally magical and mechanical, I exist in a totally different universe. Shoehorn me in please. I'm ready to roll my stats.
  12. http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Space_Marine During the recruitment and enhancement process, some recruits may not survive the initial rigours of training and the later medical treatments one must undergo to become a full-fledged Battle-Brother. First and foremost, a potential Space Marine recruit must be male, as the gene-seed and the developing Space Marine organ zygotes are compatible only with male hormones. The three following requirements also apply: * Space Marine recruits must be adolescents or very young adults, as the implants must be able to coordinate with a human male's natural growth hormones during adolescence to stimulate the growth and development of the various unique physiological features of a Space Marine. In specific terms, the recruit must be about 10-16 Terran standard years of age. * Much like a blood transfusion or organ transplant, there must be genetic compatibility between the recruit and the implants; otherwise organ failure may result, causing the recruit to die or simply degenerate into a state of madness. * The mental state of a potential space Marine must also be susceptible to the various training and psycho-conditioning regimes of the Chapter, and cannot be tainted by the Ruinous Powers of Chaos.
  13. BaronIveagh said: Remember too that some chapters are just poorly documented in general, even among the canon ones. Sons of Aneatus are a 21st founding that have only ever been seen once by other Imperials. Given Imperial recordkeeping, a chapter might be lost for entirely non-sinister reasons. Such as the three or four accounts of them by non-members being misfiled someplace by the Administratum It doesn't matter how poorly documented they are, female Space Marines don't exist and will never exist. I've posted a link to the exact page in canon where it says that, and there's no denying it. If you want to have women Space Marines, and can't handle the idea that the Sisters of Battle fulfill that role, do me a favor and say that you don't play in or run Deathwatch but instead have adopted the Marxist political correct brand and adapted the above mentioned product to fit your liberalism. If you'd just come out and say that, it would be that much easier for everyone.
  14. Atheosis said: Nah, as with most the people on these boards, I and the rest of the people I know that will be playing Deathwatch actually want the game to be in keeping with the background. Player's that want female marines are a definite minority amongst those who are actually fans of 40k, and those are the only people I plan on playing Deathwatch with. For those that just want to play any old sci-fantasy game, there's always the bland Star Wars universe. Besides if a person reserves the right to demand alterations to the universe for them to play Deathwatch, I reserve the right to tell them to take a leap so I can play a 40k Space Marine game the way it's supposed to be played. LOL owned. Good job as usual. "...So I can play a 40k Space Marine game the way it's supposed to be played." Exactly. BTWthere's no need to find a solution because there's no problem. The only problem are some people who can't either read or accept a universe that isn't politically correct. I guess people can't stand the idea of sticking to canon. It must just bother them to no end to play the game correctly. It must just irk them to tears that female Space Marines don't exist because they just DEMAND Marxism and political correctness at every point in their lives. They just rage at a universe that doesn't fit their narrow and completely ridiculous world view where there are differences in the sexes that are concrete and absolute.
  15. Peacekeeper_b said: BaronIveagh said: .....I'm not sure how to interpret that last comment, peacekeeper, other then as a suggestion not in keeping with the rules of this board. Please elaborate. If it is not in keeping with the rules of the board, then perhaps I shouldnt elaborate. My bad, and apologies to anyone who may take it offensive. You didn't say anything wrong, don't apologize.
  16. I didn't see anyone running the game or any other DH games. Too bad, I would have played in one in a heart beat.
  17. Sounds like some people don't know how to play the game and are giving a knee jerk reaction to what they don't understand.
  18. H.B.M.C. said: ak-73 said: Still no FAQ in sight. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Let me help with this whole debate. i56.tinypic.com/2r6eir9.jpg
  21. 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.
  22. Atheosis said: Kage2020 said: On the other hand it's an interesting diversion from the "I've got my copy!" threads. Well, even if it has seen more attention than... No, I'm going to stop that analogy right there. Kage On the other hand, I'm sure there are better diversions than another female Space Marine thread. At this point, my mild objection to the idea has grown into an utter and complete hatred. It's led me to the conclusion that there will be NO female option in my Deathwtach games, Space Marine or otherwise. If people can't get over the idiocy of worrying about a fictional character's sex because it doesn't match theirs, I don't want to ever play with them. The complete lack of imagination it takes to be unable to play a character of a different sex is something my games can do without, thank you... Yes, yes and yes. Totally agree. These people who not only want to change canon but can't stand the idea of a gender specific game need to get a clue or play a different game. Seems like many of these people might be happier playing in some lefty White Wolf game. Kage2020 +1
  • Create New...