AvPGalaxy Forums

There are multiple locations in the Alien Universe that are out there and still contain the means of Xenomorph creation. Will these sites ever be encountered by humans? How long will they lie dormant?

First there is LV-233 post-Prometheus. Not only is there a crashed Engineer Juggernaut on the surface but multiple still lay beneath the surface. These ships contain massive amounts of the Black Pathogen and the means to weaponise it. There is also the lone Deacon. Some may find their answers in Fire and Stone & Life and Death but I personally don't consider them canon.

Then there are David's Neomorph egg sacks and Ovomorphs of Planet 4. When David and the last survivors of the Covenant crew escaped Planet 4 they left behind a planet likely littered with Neomorph egg sacks. There are also multiple Ovomorphs left unopened deep in David's chambers.

David also has complete control over the USCSS Covenant and it's two surviving crew members, 2000 colonists and 1140 second-generation embryos. He also has at least two Ovomorph embryos. Destination: Origae 6.

Finally, was the Derelict truly destroyed by the detonation of the Atmosphere processor? Or has Weyland Yutani revisited this site as seen in Aliens: Female War, Aliens: Colonial Marines and Aliens: Infestation?

Are any of these locations related to how Weyland Yutani appears to have so many specimens over the course of Alien: Blackout, Aliens: Defiance, Aliens: Resistance, Aliens: Rescue and Alien: The Cold Forge?

Setting aside that they can all be traced back to David at some point, can probably say 'no' to the last question.  At least right now.

I'm hoping we'll go back to Paradise at some point!

I do wonder how much can be traced back to Sevastapol's floating army of Aliens.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Apr 30, 2019, 07:40:31 AM
I do wonder how much can be traced back to Sevastapol's floating army of Aliens.

I assume that's where the one from Blackout may have come from.

Quote from: SM on Apr 30, 2019, 06:52:37 AM
Setting aside that they can all be traced back to David at some point

Not all sources can be traced back to David, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Quote from: Frosty Venom on Apr 30, 2019, 06:41:12 AM

Finally, was the Derelict truly destroyed by the detonation of the Atmosphere processor? Or has Weyland Yutani revisited this site as seen in Aliens: Female War, Aliens: Colonial Marines and Aliens: Infestation?

it also gets revisited in AvPClassic on PC, in the first Marine mission.
Also according to the USCM Tech Manual it was not destroyed.

But I have it on good authority that the derelict was destroyed.

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 01:59:50 AM

Quote from: SM on Apr 30, 2019, 06:52:37 AM
Setting aside that they can all be traced back to David at some point

Not all sources can be traced back to David, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

If the story follows its current intended trajectory...yes, they'll all be having to trace back to David at some point.

Quote from: Local Trouble on May 01, 2019, 03:31:49 AM
But I have it on good authority that the derelict was destroyed.

I don't think it's been mentioned in the current continuity so I'd be interested to hear what state it's supposed to be in now.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 01, 2019, 07:38:42 AM

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 01:59:50 AM

Quote from: SM on Apr 30, 2019, 06:52:37 AM
Setting aside that they can all be traced back to David at some point

Not all sources can be traced back to David, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

If the story follows its current intended trajectory...yes, they'll all be having to trace back to David at some point.

And when they get traced back to David then that will be true, but at the moment my statement stands.

The "current trajectory" post-Prometheus was that Shaw was going to get to the Engineer planet and get her answers, but saying with definitive certainty that that's what happens just because it's "the current trajectory" woudn't just be silly, it would be outright wrong given how things played out. The "current trajectory" isn't "canon" anymore than any headcanon is, because it hasn't happened yet.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 01, 2019, 07:38:42 AM

Quote from: Local Trouble on May 01, 2019, 03:31:49 AM
But I have it on good authority that the derelict was destroyed.

I don't think it's been mentioned in the current continuity so I'd be interested to hear what state it's supposed to be in now.

The USCM Tech Manual is in the current continuity, so we know what state it's in. :)

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 07:51:39 AM
And when they get traced back to David then that will be true, but at the moment my statement stands.

The "current trajectory" post-Prometheus was that Shaw was going to get to the Engineer planet and get her answers, but saying with definitive certainty that that's what happens just because it's "the current trajectory" woudn't just be silly, it would be outright wrong given how things played out. The "current trajectory" isn't "canon" anymore than any headcanon is, because it hasn't happened yet.

At the risk of this turning into yet another asinine and circular canon argument...That's fair but the difference is David has already made the Alien and Scott has fully stated his intentions in regards to David being the Alien's creator. And that's where we currently stand.

It could be changed in future entries to be he created a Alien but that is not the current intention. I certainly hope they do change the direction but I'm not going to ignore the facts that that is the intention.

WYR says the Derelict was rendered unviable as a source of eggs after the destruction of Hadley.

CMTM is a core reference for things relating to the marines but the events of the last chapter don't count.

Quote from: SM on May 01, 2019, 09:03:10 AM
WYR says the Derelict was rendered unviable as a source of eggs after the destruction of Hadley.

CMTM is a core reference for things relating to the marines but the events of the last chapter don't count.

Thanks for the info, SM. Much appreciated.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 01, 2019, 08:17:12 AM

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 07:51:39 AM
And when they get traced back to David then that will be true, but at the moment my statement stands.

The "current trajectory" post-Prometheus was that Shaw was going to get to the Engineer planet and get her answers, but saying with definitive certainty that that's what happens just because it's "the current trajectory" woudn't just be silly, it would be outright wrong given how things played out. The "current trajectory" isn't "canon" anymore than any headcanon is, because it hasn't happened yet.

At the risk of this turning into yet another asinine and circular canon argument...That's fair but the difference is David has already made the Alien and Scott has fully stated his intentions in regards to David being the Alien's creator. And that's where we currently stand.

It could be changed in future entries to be he created a Alien but that is not the current intention. I certainly hope they do change the direction but I'm not going to ignore the facts that that is the intention.

"Intent" does not equal "canon" - what's "canon" are the movies/books/etc themselves; based on those, "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is accurate. Could that change? Hey, sure, we'll have to wait and see.

Man at this point it feels like you're actively trying to miss the point for the sake of an argument.

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 09:41:51 AM
Man at this point it feels like you're actively trying to miss the point for the sake of an argument.

When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument. Call me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

Edit-- made a pretty important change to back things away from being a "canon debate".

There's nothing to discuss. Its just a personal choice of whether you accept the titan books, or Scott's intentions.

Quote from: yhe1 on May 01, 2019, 09:54:35 AM
There's nothing to discuss. Its just a personal choice of whether you accept the titan books, or Scott's intentions.

Well, that too. Also, it's "Scott's current intentions, in the moment, which change frequently" but that's neither here nor there. :P

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 09:45:52 AM

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 09:41:51 AM
Man at this point it feels like you're actively trying to miss the point for the sake of an argument.

When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument. Call me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

Edit-- made a pretty important change to back things away from being a "canon debate".

But the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is not "they will be, eventually". It is, that "They infact are".

Shown on screen, as intended.

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 09:45:52 AM
When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument.

That's a purposefully ignorant simplification of what Hicks has been saying at best -- again for the sake of argument.

Fox is going with David made the Aliens at the moment whether you like it or not. All roads lead to Rome. Why you insist on arguing like that's not the case is anyone's guess.

Quote from: yhe1 on May 01, 2019, 09:54:35 AM
There's nothing to discuss. Its just a personal choice of whether you accept the titan books, or Scott's intentions.

It's whether you care what Fox is operating on as a canon timeline, not books vs Scott.

Quote from: The Kurgan on May 01, 2019, 10:01:43 AM

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 09:45:52 AM

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 09:41:51 AM
Man at this point it feels like you're actively trying to miss the point for the sake of an argument.

When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument. Call me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

Edit-- made a pretty important change to back things away from being a "canon debate".

But the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is not "they will be, eventually". It is, that "They infact are".

Shown on screen, as intended.

At risk of continuing the "canon debate", they're not shown "on screen", like, at all. The Derelict isn't in Alien Covenant, and we don't know the source of the eggs for a myriad of other non-movie sources. Regardless of intent, it has not been explained yet how a whole bunch of egg sources can be traced back to David.

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 10:04:49 AM

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 09:45:52 AM
When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument.

That's a purposefully ignorant simplification of what Hicks has been saying at best -- again for the sake of argument.

Fox is going with David made the Aliens at the moment whether you like it or not. All roads lead to Rome. Why you insist on arguing like that's not the case is anyone's guess

It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 09:45:52 AMCall me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 10:17:02 AM
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

You're intentionally leaving out the context -- the substance of what's being said -- when you simplify it, making your post incredibly vapid and -- again -- doing little more than to give yourself an excuse to argue about stuff for no reason.

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 10:17:02 AM
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

Assuming you're referring to me explaining what SM was likely meaning - feel free to step in and correct me if I was wrong, SM - then no, it's not silly nor does it achieve nothing as I was quite clear in my explanation as it's a simple answer. If David is responsible for the creation of the Alien, then yes, then all sources of the Alien obviously have to lead back to David in some fashion.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 01, 2019, 10:32:24 AM

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 10:17:02 AM
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

Assuming you're referring to me explaining what SM was likely meaning - feel free to step in and correct me if I was wrong, SM - then no, it's not silly nor does it achieve nothing as I was quite clear in my explanation as it's a simple answer. If David is responsible for the creation of the Alien, then yes, they all obviously have to lead back to David in some fashion.

Okay, and?
"Not all sources can be traced back to David" is still a true statement at the moment. Even if they eventually will be or have to be or whatever, regardless of "intent", they have not actually in fact been traced back to David yet.

Also I think some people might be conflating Scott's intent and FOX's, but that's neither here nor there.

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 10:31:11 AM

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 10:17:02 AM
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

You're intentionally leaving out the context -- the substance of what's being said -- when you simplify it, making your post incredibly vapid and -- again -- doing little more than to give yourself an excuse to argue about stuff for no reason.

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 09:45:52 AMCall me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

And what?

What's your point? Is this just another "David didn't make the Alien" argument?

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 01, 2019, 10:37:42 AM
And what?

What's your point? Is this just another "David didn't make the Alien" argument?

More like "if David made the Alien, then someone got a whole lotta 'splaining to do."

Are you really not seeing how profoundly silly your own argument is?

"He made them. Literally the entire species was made by this guy."
"That doesn't mean the entire species can be traced back to him."

Are you actually just taking the piss or what, because I cannot fathom how you think you're making a sensible argument at this point ???

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 10:40:40 AM
Are you really not seeing how profoundly silly your own argument is?

"He made them. Literally the entire species was made by this guy."
"That doesn't mean the entire species can be traced back to him."

Are you actually just taking the piss or what, because I cannot fathom how you think you're making a sensible argument at this point ???

Quote from: Xenomrph on May 01, 2019, 10:40:30 AM
More like "if David made the Alien, then someone got a whole lotta 'splaining to do."

I'm not sure this can be any clearer. ???

Hicks also said there's 'splaining to do -- one might even say eventually, since it's not instantaneous -- and you said that was "profoundly silly". You're not being clear at all.

Yeah, I have to say you're not being clear. It seems like you're just picking arguments and being frustrating to deal with at this point.

Obviously if they go all out with the David = creator angle, things will need explaining. Or more likely, wiping and starting from scratch again.

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 10:44:37 AM
Hicks also said there's 'splaining to do -- one might even say eventually, since it's not instantaneous -- and you said that was "profoundly silly". You're not being clear at all.

I've been responding to this post (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=62176.msg2386580#msg2386580).
If he agrees that there's a whole lot of 'splaining to do then hey awesome, I think we're on the same page. :)
The part I see as silly is relying on an unreliable "intent" from a person known for changing his intent, especially when we've got a license-holder who is continually cranking out new material that makes said intent increasingly difficult to explain or justify without contorting ourselves into pretzels. It's almost as if FOX's "intent" (inferred from the material they keep authorizing and publishing) doesn't quite line up with Scott's.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 01, 2019, 10:46:39 AM
Obviously if they go all out with the David = creator angle, things will need explaining. Or more likely, wiping and starting from scratch again.

I'm interested to see how Disney handles things, or if they step in at all.

QuoteIf he agrees that there's a whole lot of 'splaining to do then hey awesome, I think we're on the same page.

One might have very, very easily inferred that's what he was saying from the outset with "if they stick on that trajectory they'll have to trace back to him eventually" but hey.

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 11:08:59 AM

QuoteIf he agrees that there's a whole lot of 'splaining to do then hey awesome, I think we're on the same page.

One might have very, very easily inferred that's what he was saying from the outset with "if they stick on that trajectory they'll have to trace back to him eventually" but hey.

I acknowledge that he said as much in his most recent post. Looks like we're on the same page! :)

And it only took a single page of utterly unnecessary obfuscation to get there! New record!

Quote from: SiL on May 01, 2019, 11:13:49 AM
And it only took a single page of utterly unnecessary obfuscation to get there! New record!

Not unnecessary, I was expressing an opinion that even if we agreed, it's still profoundly stupid. :)

We've got there. Let's leave it at that before I rip out some hair.

Quote from: SM on May 01, 2019, 09:03:10 AM
WYR says the Derelict was rendered unviable as a source of eggs after the destruction of Hadley.

The ambiguity of that never made sense to me.  If the derelict was rendered unviable to the point that Ripley's blood was the only alternative, why not just say it was obliterated in the explosion?  Why the euphemistic language?

Or are we only talking about David now?

Because the egg hold could have collapsed and destroyed the eggs, but other parts of the ship might remain intact for further exploration and exploitation.

Even destroyed eggs should offer salvageable remains.  On the other hand, if they were irradiated...

It just gives them a little wiggle room in terms of future stories.

In case they want to retread Hankerson from Earth War?

Quote from: Local Trouble on May 01, 2019, 11:41:14 AM
Even destroyed eggs should offer salvageable remains.  On the other hand, if they were irradiated...

IIRC they actually went down that route for AvP Classic.

Since an AvP game would be pointless without aliens, I can only assume that the irradiated eggs survived.

Some of them were infertile, some not.

Did the fertile ones spawn ridiculous mutant versions?

Ha. No, that was all ACM.  :laugh: Though Classic did have the Xenoborgs and PredAliens that were the result of messing about creating a hybrid with gene therapy and whathaveyou rather than just bursting from a Predator.

(https://i.imgur.com/WCFBYRg.jpg)

Nah, still interesting though. I miss my Xenoborgs.

It'd be kinda cool if there were more strains of our favorite Xenomorph spread throughout the universe through different means. All with their own unique niches for their environment. The ones that we seen thus far are simply one out of the many, just particular to the three main movies.

I'm still curious how those Tusked Xenomorphs (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/34/d7/1a/34d71a5de9f5ef22da8d76bdce5ed691.png) came about.

Walruses prolly.

It was supposed to have been answered in Three World War but never was.

@ArcudiJohn Hi John! Huge fan of your work on Alien & Predator! I had a quick Q I was hoping you could answer. In your Alien relaunch, the Alien's had tusks. We were told back then 3 World War would answer that question but it didn't. I was wondering if you remembered the reason?

— Alien vs. Predator Galaxy (@avpgalaxy) May 3, 2019

Go poke this post to help get his attention.

Quote from: Local Trouble on May 02, 2019, 08:03:14 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/WCFBYRg.jpg)

I am canon.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 03, 2019, 06:10:53 AM
It was supposed to have been answered in Three World War but never was.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/ArcudiJohn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ArcudiJohn</a> Hi John! Huge fan of your work on Alien &amp; Predator! I had a quick Q I was hoping you could answer. In your Alien relaunch, the Alien&#39;s had tusks. We were told back then 3 World War would answer that question but it didn&#39;t. I was wondering if you remembered the reason?</p>&mdash; Alien vs. Predator Galaxy (@avpgalaxy) <a href="https://twitter.com/avpgalaxy/status/1124194459611217920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go poke this post to help get his attention.

Done.

So it was nothing to do with Arcudi apparently. He has no idea.

Looks praetorian-ish.

Quote from: SM on May 03, 2019, 01:39:40 AM
Walruses prolly.

You joke, but trust me that'd be nightmarish. Hell, imagine something like a Elephant Seal getting implanted knowing the males of that species casually beat up cars.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 03, 2019, 06:10:53 AM
It was supposed to have been answered in Three World War but never was.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/ArcudiJohn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ArcudiJohn</a> Hi John! Huge fan of your work on Alien &amp; Predator! I had a quick Q I was hoping you could answer. In your Alien relaunch, the Alien&#38;#39;s had tusks. We were told back then 3 World War would answer that question but it didn&#38;#39;t. I was wondering if you remembered the reason?</p>&mdash; Alien vs. Predator Galaxy (@avpgalaxy) <a href="https://twitter.com/avpgalaxy/status/1124194459611217920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go poke this post to help get his attention.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 03, 2019, 06:09:31 PM
So it was nothing to do with Arcudi apparently. He has no idea.

So it'll forever be a mystery.  :-[

In their debut story it definitely had something to do with that strange entity which controlled those people. Perhaps it took a liking to the Xenomorphs and decided to make them it's own harbingers.

I though 3WW handwavingly explained them as just Aliens from a different part of the galaxy with presumably different hosts? Did I imagine that? Also wasn't aware they made other appearances.

If memory serves they were in the More Than Human series, and there was was a comment in the letters saying the difference would be addressed in the future.  It's easier to handwave in 3WW (a sequel to More Than Human), because there's Predator with Aliens on leashes.  Addressing it in the context of MTH is more difficult.

I'm hoping to speak to Chris Warner at some point in the next few months. I'm sure he was the editor of that line so I'll ask him if that comes to pass.

Don't let him leave until you get some answers.  >:(