Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

robbienw wrote:
In this context, to mean what you claim it means it would have to have said something like "These people", or of course could have just said 'These men and women" if that was the actual intention.

Except you make a simple linguistic error here. You assume that since 1987 and now, convention in writtings have not changed which is false. Inculsive writting was not common in the late 80's outside of some academic publications. In English, the term men can be used in some context to people of either gender which led to the feminist joke at the time of: "there are only two gender: normal and women.". Nowday the joke is "there are only two gender: men and political". It would not be incorrect to say that in such context men could refer to both men and women. When talking or writting about people in general, the masculine form used to be fairly commonly used. It's a phenomenon of the last 25 years or so to include explicitly and equally both gender in writting format. Once upon a time, it was viewed as making the text too ponderous.

Furthermore there is what we could call the "except Jenny" problem. Let's say there is three female Space Marine in the entire universe, just three. Neither of these three female Space Marine are notable for anything else then being women. They are as average as Space Marines goes; they hold no special rank, no special fame not special feat to their name. Would it be incorrect to say that Space Marines are men or recruited from young men and boys from their respective planet? No, I think this would be a good description of who Space Marines are and from who they are recruited since there are so little women in them that they are more like exception that confirm the rule. It would be almost more misleading to say that Space Marine are men and women since this would give the impression that there would far more women than just three in over a million, that women being Space Marines is not a exceedingly rare and strange exception. It would also be strange to always highlight the exception like Space Marines are men, except Jenny, Suzanne and Gloria. It highlights a small detail that isn't required to the reader in a text where someone talks about a subject in general.

The sheer number of Sisters of Silence, since their initial incorporation, pre-Crusade, to the nascent Imperium suggests they’re not naturally occurring blanks, because at that point there wasn’t inter-solar-system-travel. So whilst yes, in the modern day, it could be the Black Ships also keep an eye out for Blanks as well as Psykers, that doesn’t explain their original numbers.

Sadly it’s not really touched upon in the background, so we can only speculate. And I speculate there’s some kind of cloning/cloneskein going on, which by limitation or sheer old tradition, only produces female Blanks.

Tiberias wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
The idea that we now suddenly need male representation in things like the SoB or SoS displays an almost childlike immaturity. “Muuuuum, Johnny has a choc ice, Iiiiiiiii want a choc iiiiiice.” “But you already have a choc ice Timmy.”

The Custodes aren’t a particularly fleshed out faction, they’ve been background fluff for the majority of 40K, but it’s only in recent years that we’ve had models, books, codices etc. It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.

I don’t understand why anyone needs to feel like they’ve had something taken away from them, or that anything needs “even-ing up” that would now necessitate a retcon to the two female only factions.

It’s all striking me as somewhat pathetic and needy.

Kinda have to ask: have you even read the original post? How am I needy and pathetic in wanting male sisters of silence? I wasn't even arguing that everything needs even-ing up like you say or everything needs to be 50:50, just that it would be cool if they included it. Explain that one to me.

On Custodes: first of all I said initially that I was fine with the change, BUT in all fairness it is a retcon: in both custodes codices (8th and 9th) it is stated that the noble families of terra give their sons as tribute. It doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things since they've now officially changed it, but saying it isn't even a retcon is just not correct.

I didn’t mention you or the first post in mine. But social media is awash with cry babies declaring that since there’s now female Custodes, GW must give them male Sisters of Battle, or Silence. We’ve even seen someone in this thread declare that if GW don’t they’re hypocrites.

As for if it’s a retcon or not, as I said in my original post, none of the lore explicitly states that women cannot be part of the Adeptus Custodes. Even the really ancient stuff that Doc Grotsnik kindly posted for us.

It only states that the nobles of Terra give their sons, it does not state that they only give their sons, and it does not state they don’t give give their daughters.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

robbienw wrote:


It actually did though. They've been referred to as all male since RT, as we can see from Mad Doc Grotsniks quote. There are other lore statements pre-10th edition codex. It’s 100% a retcon.

Sure, be happy with the change if you like it, but lets not pretend its not a retcon.

As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.

If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.

That's kind of where I'm at. Was a lack of lady bits really a major part of custodes' appeal for people? Do ovaries somehow detract from their interest in the Emperor's marine-spanking BFFs?

Back on Sisters of Silence (for whom gender does form an identity)

Does it though? I feel like SoS are much like custodes in this regard. Being an army of mysterious, witch-hunting blanks is what (I assume) attracts people to them; not the contents of their trousers. Being exclusively female kind of just makes them harder to differentiate from sisters, to my mind.

what if there is a reason why they're all women?

I mean, men and women can be blanks, and blanks are extremely rare, but also useful- so you'd think that the imperium would exploit all of the blanks- right?

So what if they aren't recruiting Sisters of Silence from the extremely rare blanks in the world- what if they're making them?

If they took an original blank and cloned her into a fighting force, that would fit with pretty much everything we know (and it doesn't involve splitting up the blanks and assigning them jobs based on gender).

Cool concept! Pure speculation, but fun speculation.

Sorry, got to wibble further about the possible origin of the Sisters of Silence.

In my last post I touched on the Votann using Cloneskeins to create further generations. Now it’s important to understand that’s not outright cloning. Rather, each Votann (essentially self-aware STCs) contains genebanks, and uses those to custom design each member of each generation of Kin, incorporating genetic tweaks and edits to fit them to a given need or role. Indeed the Kin’s short and stout stature and other common adaptations are themselves a result of that process, to better suit them to the high grav nature of the galactic core.

And it includes the “hardened souls” of the Kin, which render them highly resistant (but not immune) to the predation of the warp and its denizens. It’s also how the Grimnyr are granted their warp powers.

Now, 40K being 40K? That’s merely a sensible application of such technology, and presumably its original intent and purpose. To rapidly adapt colonists to non-Earth standard worlds without the moral queasiness of Eugenics or the time period needed for evolution - even evolution to a very different environment which would be comparatively rapid, provided said environment isn’t utterly hostile to the point nobody survives.

But let’s weaponise it to a greater or lesser degree. If you and yours detest Psykers and the risks they bring, either foresightedly or a direct result of the Age of Strife, creating Blanks is….not that bad an idea, really. I mean, if proximity to a single Blank can yeet a Daemon back into the warp, or cause a Psyker intense pain and even death? What effect might a citadel or city full of the buggers do? At the very least, it’s a hell of an advantage in the right circumstances, right circumstances we know to have occurred.

Less wibbly? Kin/Votann prove gene editing and designer babies were well within Peak Humanity’s capabilities. Blanks are just too rare for the ranks of the Sisters of Silence to have manifested naturally in such number. Therefore, the evidence strongly points to someone arseing about with Genhancement.

Why only women? Could be a strict limitation of the technology. Could be someone misplaced the instructions to create male Blanks, could just be good old fashioned “that’s our tradition and if you don’t roll with it we’ll smash up the production facilities just to spite you, because we hold that card, screw you”.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.

Back on Sisters of Silence (for whom gender does form an identity) what if there is a reason why they're all women?

I mean, men and women can be blanks, and blanks are extremely rare, but also useful- so you'd think that the imperium would exploit all of the blanks- right?

So what if they aren't recruiting Sisters of Silence from the extremely rare blanks in the world- what if they're making them?

If they took an original blank and cloned her into a fighting force, that would fit with pretty much everything we know (and it doesn't involve splitting up the blanks and assigning them jobs based on gender).

We basically know that (at least present day) Sisters of Silence aren't clones, since their codex talked about them spreading their genes throughout humanity.

What if there is a reason that the Custodes are all men? There is a reason that Astartes are all men, but that doesn't deaden the calls for femarines.

Clones aren’t necessarily sterile. So a cloned Sister of Silence, once aged beyond necessary combat efficiency, could well go off to get knocked up, and try to spread the gene further.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.

GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Nitpicking at semantics.

Gotcha. Saying this with the best intentions: might want to be careful with that. Don't want to paint yourself in a bad light by accident.

Yeah, I was about to assume the worst and mentally categorize BobtheHero with some of the guys who just got banned. Good to know he’s actually just a linguistic party pooper.

The Culexus temple holds all Pariahs (2nd edition Codex:Assassins page 21), presumably the Sisters of Silence skim any aspirants that show promise off the top of that crop and then leave the rest to the Officio, minus any that Inquisitors find particular use of.

It's entirely possible that there's no genetic reason for the Sisters of Silence to HAVE to be all female, it's just that they choose to be. A lot of stuff in 40k happens because "this is the way it has always been", ontological inertia carries a lot of weight, so because they're called the sisters of silence, they must now always be female, not for any good reason other than tradition.

So if they do skim off the black ships it would go:
- Black ships gather up both psykers and Pariahs
- Sisters identify potential candidates and the rest get shipped off to the Culexus temple known as The Fortress "on the edge of the galaxy"
- Black ships complete their cycle and return to Terra with a small number of Pariahs that have been selected out for recruitment (it has to be a small number, before the Culexus temple was founded all Pariahs were shipped to terra and it disrupted the Astronomican, hence why The Fortress was constructed to keep them out of the way)

So there doesn't need to be a good or biological reason for sisters to be all female, it can just be "because they are", but similarly if you want male sisters of silence then go for it too. It's not like Pariahs are even that rare, "less than one in a billion" which would put the number at just under 8 on earth right now, and that's to say nothing of the hive worlds and the vast breadth of the Imperium. there's plenty of scope for splinter factions of SoS who have expanded their recruitment

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The sheer number of Sisters of Silence, since their initial incorporation, pre-Crusade, to the nascent Imperium suggests they’re not naturally occurring blanks, because at that point there wasn’t inter-solar-system-travel. So whilst yes, in the modern day, it could be the Black Ships also keep an eye out for Blanks as well as Psykers, that doesn’t explain their original numbers.

Sadly it’s not really touched upon in the background, so we can only speculate. And I speculate there’s some kind of cloning/cloneskein going on, which by limitation or sheer old tradition, only produces female Blanks.

Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."

So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.

The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon

(I hope they go this route with the Sisters of Silence because it is cool)

A.T. wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.

GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.

But that wasn’t necessary.

It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.

robbienw wrote:
GW has no mechanism to stop those whose views they disagree with from buying their stuff and gaming with/collecting it, so it really is literally for everyone who wants to participate.

They do have a mechanism, though. Every time they notice an abundance of bigots buying their minis, they put out a statement hat Warhammer is for Everyone or they add in black space marines and female Custodes. Keep pushing it and you’ll force them to retaliate with Femmarines.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But that wasn’t necessary.

<insert your opinon here> is wrong, it has always been <insert contradicting opinion here>. And we have always been at war with eastasia.

Perhaps this is why GW is advertising an editors position...

Incidentally Corvus Corax was originally a proto-repentia. Really.

Or, I dunno, retcon something like Custards to now be comprised of men and women, and wait for Teddy to be thrown from the pram.

That usually pretty reliable.

Unless of course the claimed disaffected are also silly liars who aren’t ditching the hobby?

Hmmmmmmm.

A.T. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But that wasn’t necessary.

<insert your opinon here> is wrong, it has always been <insert contradicting opinion here>.

And we have always been at war with eastasia.

Incidentally Corvus Corax was originally a proto-repentia.

They did this with dozens of retcons, though. They did it with Necrons, Tyranids, Centurion armor, Ultramarines being the best and all other marines wished they could be Ultramarines.

GW has always been an arrogant company that treats its customers with condescension. It always will be. It used to be even worse during the Kirby era. Really, this is a great opportunity for you to get out and find some non-GW gaming companies that aren’t market-dominating jerkasses.

The real win-win here is that GW can shed some of the more toxic elements of its fandom and people shook by typical GW behavior have that shove to get them out the door and playing Battletech or Warmahordes or Flames of War or whatever.

A.T. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But that wasn’t necessary.

<insert your opinon here> is wrong, it has always been <insert contradicting opinion here>. And we have always been at war with eastasia.

Perhaps this is why GW is advertising an editors position...

Incidentally Corvus Corax was originally a proto-repentia. Really.

If you’re gonna quote, quote the whole thing. Because there’s more to post, isn’t there?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real win-win here is that GW can shed some of the more toxic elements of its fandom and people shook by typical GW behavior have that shove to get them out the door and playing Battletech or Warmahordes or Flames of War or whatever.

It would be sadly ironic for poor handling of a diversity statement to lead to less diversity in the hobby.

Maybe we are approaching this from the wrong angle and the actual reason for why certain units/factions have historically been coded for a specifix sex is simply their miniatures.

Space Marines and Custodes have been considered male because their miniatures use an exaggerated male silhouette, while SoB and (maybe to a lesser extent) SoS have more of an hourglass type silhouette and proportions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is currently any female model in standard (male) power armor available from GW. Inquisitors Draxus and Greyfax both wear female silhouettes, with the latter being more overt and the former being a bit more subdued.

If we take the closest analogue from AoS, they also have distinctive designs for male and female storm cast in terms of proportions and armor design.

So maybe this is mostly a case of lore being subordinate to whatever miniature concepts are deemed feasible.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If you’re gonna quote, quote the whole thing. Because there’s more to post, isn’t there?

I didn't see the point of padding things out with the part of the post I wasn't replying to.

But for what it's worth the rest of you post :

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.

Yes, I agree - that's what I meant when I said 1984ing it.

It was a needless and ham-fisted retcon where where a lore change would have served. The fact that other things have been retconned in the past doesn't change the laziness of this change.

A.T. wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real win-win here is that GW can shed some of the more toxic elements of its fandom and people shook by typical GW behavior have that shove to get them out the door and playing Battletech or Warmahordes or Flames of War or whatever.

It would be sadly ironic for poor handling of a diversity statement to lead to less diversity in the hobby.

Getting rid of gatekeepers and bigots is not a reduction in diversity in the hobby. They all had pretty much the same perspective. It does however, allow more normies to feel comfortable getting into the game or buying a copy for their previously-unwelcomed friends.

robbienw wrote:

Doesn't work like that

It does when talking about a body of soldiers. "Men" in such context absolutely cannot be assumed to exclude women.

I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time accepting its a retcon. There is no need to pretend it always was the case there have been female Custodes since 1987, just because GW has decided to change things now.

The only clearish statement for excluding women was in the 8th edition codex, and it was already changed for the 9th. So yes, it is a super minor retcon, similar to the same thing happening with Imperial Knights. And of course absolutely pales in comparison with the retconning of Custodes to be gold armoured gigantic super soldiers.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Getting rid of gatekeepers and bigots is not a reduction in diversity in the hobby. They all had pretty much the same perspective. It does however, allow more normies to feel comfortable getting into the game or buying a copy for their previously-unwelcomed friends.

Perhaps I misread your post. It seemed to suggest that the controversy would put people off and direct them to battletech and the like, or were you literally talking about shoving people out of the hobby?

A.T. wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Getting rid of gatekeepers and bigots is not a reduction in diversity in the hobby. They all had pretty much the same perspective. It does however, allow more normies to feel comfortable getting into the game or buying a copy for their previously-unwelcomed friends.

Perhaps I misread your post. It seemed to suggest that the controversy would put people off and direct them to battletech and the like, or were you literally talking about shoving people out of the hobby?

I’m saying the people who leave GW are always going to find better gaming experiences. I’m also saying that anyone who wasn’t put off by all the earlier retcons, but found THIS retcon to be the one that makes them leave GW will make the GW fanbase less toxic by leaving. The gamer wins and the GW fans win.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I’m also saying that anyone who wasn’t put off by all the earlier retcons, but found THIS retcon to be the one that makes them leave GW will make the GW fanbase less toxic by leaving.

Well that at least I would agree with.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."

So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.

The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon

One of the common mistakes fandoms make is using conclusions reached in a theory discussion to support a new theory. Nothing is scarier than headcanon hype built on headcanon.

 LunarSol wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."

So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.

The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon

One of the common mistakes fandoms make is using conclusions reached in a theory discussion to support a new theory. Nothing is scarier than headcanon hype built on headcanon.

That depends.

Head cannon informed by existing background is a very different beast from “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want”, not to mention “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want and insist that it’s now therefore canon”.

Many, many shades.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.

GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.

But that wasn’t necessary.

It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.

In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.

GW hasn't really stopped using the subtly sexist language- I think because it echoes a lot of their source material (they like to sound like an old chivalric epic, you know?). But that means that using male terms is the least reliable indication that a group is made up of only one gender.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."

So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.

The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon

One of the common mistakes fandoms make is using conclusions reached in a theory discussion to support a new theory. Nothing is scarier than headcanon hype built on headcanon.

That depends.

Head cannon informed by existing background is a very different beast from “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want”, not to mention “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want and insist that it’s now therefore canon”.

Many, many shades.

You're right. Head canon is often not a problem at all. To be honest, I don't think that so many people put so much stock into that line about "sons" so much as they transported the astartes lore on the topic and saw how all of the minis were male. I mean, I think Middle Earth should be a world that is 50% women, but The Hobbit doesn't contain an interaction with even a single one.


And ultimately a lot of things are scarier than head canon build on head canon.

Like grizzly bears. They're way scarier.


-

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The sheer number of Sisters of Silence, since their initial incorporation, pre-Crusade, to the nascent Imperium suggests they’re not naturally occurring blanks, because at that point there wasn’t inter-solar-system-travel. So whilst yes, in the modern day, it could be the Black Ships also keep an eye out for Blanks as well as Psykers, that doesn’t explain their original numbers.

Sadly it’s not really touched upon in the background, so we can only speculate. And I speculate there’s some kind of cloning/cloneskein going on, which by limitation or sheer old tradition, only produces female Blanks.

Nah I think you are onto something here, and there is a slight nod to it, Bequin is a clone, she goes to a realm with other clones of blanks and allegedly its run by Constantine Valdor, it could be nothing at all but your theory is not baseless.

 Formosa wrote:

Nah I think you are onto something here, and there is a slight nod to it, Bequin is a clone, she goes to a realm with other clones of blanks and allegedly its run by Constantine Valdor, it could be nothing at all but your theory is not baseless.

Where is that from? I don't remember this from Eisenhorn or Ravenor...