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.

 Dysartes wrote:
Melta-spear guy being released instead of a non-unique SoS character sculpt is a fairly odd move, given how many character options AC already have.

Would it have hurt GW to have kept the "Talons of the Emperor" name for the 'dex and webstore category?

The worst part is the opportunity to explore the "failed" Custodes and Sisters of Silence as their own subfaction, making the Talons of the Emperor into an organization that could have been three pronged...much like the talons of a bird of prey.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
the reason we got a short story confirming female custodians and not a refreshed sisters of silence range is because the effort needed for these two things are not equivalent. one would take months or years of sculpting, mold making, etc. while the other has a far quicker turnaround time, for a much lower cost. custodes only got one model with the new codex, so this wouldn't have been the time to expand that part of the army either way. it's not an either or situation, it's not like creating this short story means they can't expand SoS later, but they likely didn't have the resources allocated to custodes to justify such a thing

when SoS get more models, it's probably going to be via heresy, not 40k, anyway

I mean, I get that. It's simply that from now on they're probably gonna give Custodes a whole range refresh to include the fems, but are just gonna continue ignoring SoS, instead of giving them a big push like with Kroot. The writing is on the wall, really.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The worst part is the opportunity to explore the "failed" Custodes and Sisters of Silence as their own subfaction, making the Talons of the Emperor into an organization that could have been three pronged...much like the talons of a bird of prey.

Knowing GW, I doubt they know or have the ability to count the talons on a bird

Jaxmeister wrote:
I don't understand the hostility this has caused. Does it matter what gender they're depicted as? They're not real!

There are different things going on

One problem is that the main thing for 40k is the background for most people. GW changing the background is not something new and always causes unrest because if you start an army/faction for the background and it get changed, the reason why you play that faction might be removed
Yet most of the time this is something old and only veterans care about so ditched by the community as "haters gonna hate" and that the new fluff is superior as new people only know the new stuff anyway

The other problem is that hypocritical changes to a product by corporations are in general controversial as people are going to defend them because the topic is right, while others are against it because they are just hypocritical

For the Custodes, it was established in the last Codex that they are all male. This is not some leftovers from the 80ies or old fluff only the "haters" remember anyway but recently established.
And the change is not really doing something for the story as the Emperors bodyguard is already split into a male and female branch for reasons that make perfect sense in the context of the regime the Imperium is

So a corporation adapting their product to sell to a new demographic, combined with people who already are upset about constant changes to the product (ever changing rules and models and now the new background is not save either, which is more of a problem for people who came in the last 2 Editions) and people who did not get the joke in the first place (the setting was never good as satire anyway but people make connections, empathise or relate to the "heroes" of the setting which are written as murder machines that commit genocide to keep google maps running)

Or... Custodes can be women now because the designers thought that would be cool, and there's not really any larger agenda here.

That is true, if the designer thought it would not be cool, and there is examples of stuff like that from all GW games past, they wouldn't add it to new lore.
Now what ever what the designers thought is cool for designers and isn't for the players is a separate thing. Many frenchises shown people over the years that what the makers think is cool and what the audiance think is cool, are not the same thing.
As long as the number of Fallouts , In to the Spiderverses and Dunes is larger then Cpt Marvels, Wishs and Rings of Powahha, it is more or less okey. Of course with products like GW armies, there is that small problem that not everyone is the consumer of w40k or GW The Hobby, but rather a specific faction in a specific game. And those people can't or won't just jump from their BoC being gone, to lets say, playing Necromunda. But it is those people personal problems, not the companies.

All In all, after reading enough of old lore, I think that post 8th ed getting angry at any changes is just odd. Now in this specific case, the extra burn comes from the fact that the change is thrown in along side one of the worse codex (and this is coming from an 8th ed GK player) I have ever seen. Maybe if the Custodes rules were fun and enjoyable the whole female custodes thing would be a meh who cares thing.
As of right now GW could and is willing to write anything in their books. For all we know they could write the eldar were bio engineered scout tyranid organisms for all we know, and people would just have to live with it.

To people to dislike the changes, and it is a big change considering 40 years of w40k lore being changed, my condolances. But at the same time, after seeing the Cawl lore, and what was/is going on in the BL books, what did people expect? At least non of the named characters from the books, didn't suddenly change in to a female.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:


For the Custodes, it was established in the last Codex that they are all male. This is not some leftovers from the 80ies or old fluff only the "haters" remember anyway but recently established.
And the change is not really doing something for the story as the Emperors bodyguard is already split into a male and female branch for reasons that make perfect sense in the context of the regime the Imperium is

So a corporation adapting their product to sell to a new demographic, combined with people who already are upset about constant changes to the product (ever changing rules and models and now the new background is not save either, which is more of a problem for people who came in the last 2 Editions) and people who did not get the joke in the first place (the setting was never good as satire anyway but people make connections, empathise or relate to the "heroes" of the setting which are written as murder machines that commit genocide to keep google maps running)

For stormcast in 1st edition it was established that they were all men. All materials about them "men of Sigmar" " heroic men who fought chaos to the end" etc etc. And then 2ed came and GW decided that SCE were in fact populated by a lot of women too. They were in every box, a lot of the named characters were female, and got books and stories outside of their "codex". GW can do with their lore what ever they can. Tomorrow they could put out a story that Cawl has in dead created 20 extra legions of primaris, and they are all made out of women. All prior lore ignore and/or explained with "it is Cawl".

Removed, in the future please pay attention to mod warnings.

GW is not a company ran by robots. its designers are still human, its sculptors are still human, its writers are still humans. each of these are human beings with their own thoughts and feelings on a wide variety of subjects and those thoughts and opinions will bleed into the game in myriad ways

if i had to guess, the way this short story came about was not some GW accountant circling "woke" on a whiteboard to a chorus of cheers. it was probably one writer, or a small group of writers, who wanted to introduce female custodians because they thought it would be cool, who then asked higher ups "hey is this okay?" and got an answer ranging from "sure, whatever" to "absolutely". this is still just a short story in a codex. if they wanted Female Custodians Exist Now to be a major marketing point for this codex, they might have written a warcom article in advance about it, or had a female custodian on the cover, or something more. as-is, this feels like a small effort because someone personally wanted it to exist

Eh. Kind of neat I guess.
For me, Warhammer is a pretty sexless/genderless setting, so... kinda not fussed or excited about it.

The models are plastic, and the settings are about war, and not much else.


Good for people who find meaning in it though.

The custodes thing sours me because they chose to just lie and gaslight people saying "they've always been there" rather than add an actual reason.

The fact anyone pointing this out gets called an incel/misogynist/etc. is proof that this is just part of the ongoing culture war, and nothing else.

I'm pretty new to the hobby (I started playing last summer), but I've exposed to the 40k universe since college in the early 2010s when my best friend and college room mates were very into the hobby. I do know a fair bit about the lore from what I already knew previously, and from what I have absorbed over the last 10 months.

In regards to female space marines, the people that want them seem to fall under two categories from what I have seen:

1. They want badass women in battle armor, shooting guns, fighting enemies of the Empire, and shouting about heresy.

2. The want the dogmatic, oppressive empire to somehow be a bastion of progressive values and equality.

The first one is filled by the Adepta Sororitas, and the second runs counter to what makes the Empire interesting. As a storyteller, perhaps you can make the Empire a progressive utopia, but you largely remove the pre-existing lore plot hooks by doing so. This risks making the enemies of mankind uninteresting. Part of the fun of running xenos armies is taking down the oppressive Imperium. Every sentient faction (barring the Tyranids and probably Orks) has valid criticisms of the other factions, and likewise, each has moral faults. You remove that nuance if you turn the Imperium into the unambiguous good guys.

Female Custodes. Ok, I prefer the aesthetics of female miniatures.
If this female custode is the first one, that could be interesting. It would raise a lot of questions, how, why? perhaps Guilliman saw a sister of silence standing next to a Custode, and said, turn that (SoS), into that (custode)
But no, there have always been female custodes. Ok, so where have they been? why have they never been mentioned. why are all the custodes we've met been men? or at least had male names. Are the writers sexist? is this a case of female erasure up until now. how is GW going to tackle the bigotry of the writers they have used up til now, fire them I say!

If they have always been present, then why is the organisation called the Adeptus Custodes? the name is high gothic, which is essentially latin, and the correct way to decline nominative nouns to reflect genders is -a (female) --us (male) and -um (neuter) hence, adepta sororitas (female) adeptus astartes (male) so the custodes should be, adeptUM custodes, to reflect that the organisation is gender neutral.

So why are they still the adeptUS custodes? GW needs to change the name ASAP to reflect the fact that the organisation practices gender equality, and is a proponent of Diversity Equity and Inclusion. anything else and GW are just proving they are bigots by erasing women.

Goodrich wrote:
I'm pretty new to the hobby (I started playing last summer), but I've exposed to the 40k universe since college in the early 2010s when my best friend and college room mates were very into the hobby. I do know a fair bit about the lore from what I already knew previously, and from what I have absorbed over the last 10 months.

In regards to female space marines, the people that want them seem to fall under two categories from what I have seen:

1. They want badass women in battle armor, shooting guns, fighting enemies of the Empire, and shouting about heresy.

2. The want the dogmatic, oppressive empire to somehow be a bastion of progressive values and equality.

The first one is filled by the Adepta Sororitas, and the second runs counter to what makes the Empire interesting. As a storyteller, perhaps you can make the Empire a progressive utopia, but you largely remove the pre-existing lore plot hooks by doing so. This risks making the enemies of mankind uninteresting. Part of the fun of running xenos armies is taking down the oppressive Imperium. Every sentient faction (barring the Tyranids and probably Orks) has valid criticisms of the other factions, and likewise, each has moral faults. You remove that nuance if you turn the Imperium into the unambiguous good guys.

I agree with you that #2 is wrongheaded, but I haven't seen many people advocating for that. I think the issue actually is that in a lot of the newer (and by this I mean not ancient) fluff Imperium already is portrayed too much as the good guys, undermining the satire and veering dangerously close to fascism apologia.

But most people actually just want j#1 and SoB, whilst very cool, are aesthetically and thematically very different from marines, and of course not the favoured faction around which most of the game revolves. Marines are thematically very customisable. There are viking marines, vampire marines, whatever sort of marines you want... unless your theme involves girls! It is just a weird and needless limitation.

madtankbloke wrote:
Female Custodes. Ok, I prefer the aesthetics of female miniatures.
If this female custode is the first one, that could be interesting. It would raise a lot of questions, how, why? perhaps Guilliman saw a sister of silence standing next to a Custode, and said, turn that (SoS), into that (custode)
But no, there have always been female custodes. Ok, so where have they been? why have they never been mentioned. why are all the custodes we've met been men? or at least had male names. Are the writers sexist? is this a case of female erasure up until now. how is GW going to tackle the bigotry of the writers they have used up til now, fire them I say!

If they have always been present, then why is the organisation called the Adeptus Custodes? the name is high gothic, which is essentially latin, and the correct way to decline nominative nouns to reflect genders is -a (female) --us (male) and -um (neuter) hence, adepta sororitas (female) adeptus astartes (male) so the custodes should be, adeptUM custodes, to reflect that the organisation is gender neutral.

So why are they still the adeptUS custodes? GW needs to change the name ASAP to reflect the fact that the organisation practices gender equality, and is a proponent of Diversity Equity and Inclusion. anything else and GW are just proving they are bigots by erasing women.

I appreciate this is a sarcastic post... but canonically the Adeptus Mechanicus is mixed gender and they don't use Adeptum. Neither does the Adeptus Terra. GWs faux latin is, well, faux.

Anyway, it does seem that the answer to no female Custodes prior to now is a combination of biases of various authors and/or managers in GW* and (allegedly) a degree of "no model no rule" when that was apparently even extended to lore.


*Regarding bias, we have straightforward examples of this. Lorewise, the Imperial Guard has contained large numbers of female Guard pretty much since the beginning, but representation in the model range has been minimal until recent years, and representation in the background was also fairly minimal in GW's earlier years. You can also see elements of this in how older rulebooks would always refer to players using male pronouns rather than neutral ones. I doubt much of this was conscious but that doesn't stop it being a bias.

The Imperium has pretty much always been portrayed as good guys.... on the outside. I can't think of a time when people who weren't into 40k saw them the same way as the Stormtroopers they are. Finding out they're not the heroes is part of the hook that keeps your attention once you start really paying attention to the fluff and getting to experience its more engaging stories.

 Haighus wrote:


I appreciate this is a sarcastic post... but canonically the Adeptus Mechanicus is mixed gender and they don't use Adeptum. Neither does the Adeptus Terra. GWs faux latin is, well, faux.

They are quite happy to use the correct declension of the noun with the adepta sororitas and the adeptus astartes, Its obviously female erasure by a cohort of sexist writers when it comes to the mechanicus and the custodes. fire them i say! Astra Militarum gets a pass, Militarum is either the adjective 'Military' or the noun 'singular soldier' which does reflect the gender inclusivity of the imperial guard as in the noun form, it has the -um (neuter) ending.

Seriously, they can't even get their faux latin consistently right (or wrong).

Why be opposed to more options? I thought everyone here wanted more kitbashes, more ways of seeing the 40k setting. Disappointed by the forumite reaction to this, but also hopeful from the positivity and artistry I've seen on social media.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Why be opposed to more options? I thought everyone here wanted more kitbashes, more ways of seeing the 40k setting. Disappointed by the forumite reaction to this, but also hopeful from the positivity and artistry I've seen on social media.

In general I don't see people opposed to more optional parts.

The dividing line isn't what people do with their own armies, its more purely what the official GW stance is on the story and lore of the 40K setting.

If GW made optional female models of every single model in their line up, but they were not "lore accurate" no one would care one bit and would use what they want. The only stickler is that the story was X (either in reality or in the impressions of people) and now the story might be Y. People just like their stories to "mean something" and have some sense of permeance/structure.

Wayniac wrote:The custodes thing sours me because they chose to just lie and gaslight people saying "they've always been there" rather than add an actual reason.

An honest question, to both yourself and anyone else who feels strongly on the "they've always been there" comment: what would you have rather had GW do?

Let's say that they did fully want to retcon Custodes, instead of it being a development within universe, which is pretty clearly what they intend for. How should GW handle retcons?

Public announcement that they *are* retconning something (which I've never known them to explicitly do)?
Retcon and not elaborate (Necrons, Votaan)
Retcon, and explain WHY they're retconning it (again, never really known to happen)

I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon (and before anyone suggests, I'm not going to accept "advance the narrative" - it's very clear that GW weren't going to do this approach).

Goodrich wrote:1. They want badass women in battle armor, shooting guns, fighting enemies of the Empire, and shouting about heresy.
...
The first one is filled by the Adepta Sororitas

I see this bandied around, but it missed a lot of points. The biggest one is that the Sororitas are VERY aesthetically limited. Unlike Astartes, Sororitas are locked into a very specific aesthetic design, and if you don't like that aesthetic, you're kinda shafted. Obviously, this is a problem for ANY faction (well, not all, I suppose - many factions have a variety of aesthetic approaches that they can take), but for Sisters, because of how ornate their models are, and the very strong theming they have, this is much harder than Astartes.

For instance, with Astartes, you have tacticool, Gothic knights, robes, greco-roman, viking, Mongolian, native American, lizard, celtic, mechanical, birds, etc etc - and these are just the canon choices!!
With Sisters, you have... different shades of the same Catholic/Gothic design.

Now, Custodes are ALSO fairly limited in their aesthetic design, but at least now there's at least TWO (three if you include SoS) flavours of women in cool armour. Compared to men in cool armour, that's still very limited, but hey, more choice is good!

I know that "badass women in battle armor, shooting guns, fighting enemies of the Empire, and shouting about heresy" is technically fulfilled by just Sisters of Battle, but by that same logic, we should scrap Deathwatch, Grey Knights, male Custodes, Inquisitors, and all forms of Space Marines, except for Ultramarines because "genetically enhanced men in battle armour, shooting guns, fighting enemies of the Empire and shouting about heresy" is covered by Ultramarines.
Evidently, a choice of flavour is good. If people like the flavour of Sisters of Battle, they have those. If people don't, they now have the option of Custodes.

2. The want the dogmatic, oppressive empire to somehow be a bastion of progressive values and equality.
...
and the second runs counter to what makes the Empire interesting. As a storyteller, perhaps you can make the Empire a progressive utopia, but you largely remove the pre-existing lore plot hooks by doing so. This risks making the enemies of mankind uninteresting. Part of the fun of running xenos armies is taking down the oppressive Imperium. Every sentient faction (barring the Tyranids and probably Orks) has valid criticisms of the other factions, and likewise, each has moral faults. You remove that nuance if you turn the Imperium into the unambiguous good guys.

The Imperium *already* has women at arms. Why wouldn't they have them elsewhere?

Not to mention that the Imperium *is not institutionally sexist*. Never has been. Them having women soldiers doesn't make them "progressive". The appearance of women doesn't mean that a faction is "good" or "progressive" within the setting, but we should remember that there ARE real world people, who might want to have women in their armies which commit awful genocides and xenophobic wars.

The existence of women in your fictional army doesn't make them "good". Women can also be part of oppressive theocratic regimes. Women can also be rebuilt on the genetic level to commit atrocities against aliens. Why shouldn't they be able to?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
People just like their stories to "mean something" and have some sense of permeance/structure.

40k hasn't had permeance and structure since Rogue Trader. And if women being able to be super soldiers as well as men means that your story "means nothing", politely, what on earth were your priorities?

 Overread wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Why be opposed to more options? I thought everyone here wanted more kitbashes, more ways of seeing the 40k setting. Disappointed by the forumite reaction to this, but also hopeful from the positivity and artistry I've seen on social media.

In general I don't see people opposed to more optional parts.

The dividing line isn't what people do with their own armies, its more purely what the official GW stance is on the story and lore of the 40K setting.

If GW made optional female models of every single model in their line up, but they were not "lore accurate" no one would care one bit and would use what they want. The only stickler is that the story was X (either in reality or in the impressions of people) and now the story might be Y. People just like their stories to "mean something" and have some sense of permeance/structure.

Oh, people do care! Try posting pictures of converted female marines or art of female marines on FB groups. There will be a bunch of hostile comments and good chance that moderators just delete your pictures. I used to think that it is not important for GW to canonise this, but the reactions when I did try to just model my own models how I wanted changed my mind. That toxic section of the fanbase just needs to be shut up by the GW.

And of course it would be really bizarre for GW to do non-canon conversion bits.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wayniac wrote:The custodes thing sours me because they chose to just lie and gaslight people saying "they've always been there" rather than add an actual reason.

An honest question, to both yourself and anyone else who feels strongly on the "they've always been there" comment: what would you have rather had GW do?

Let's say that they did fully want to retcon Custodes, instead of it being a development within universe, which is pretty clearly what they intend for. How should GW handle retcons?

This is a malformed question.

'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'

Here's my suggestion for the introduction of femstodes:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed.

It's a retcon which is actually detrimental to female Custodes.

With a little thought and care, it could have gone some thing like: The creation of Custodes isn't gender-locked, but requires some sort of specific genetic marker which is most common in the noble houses of Terra; thus that's where they mostly recruit from. They traditionally recruited males because that's what the Emperor did. However after their losses at the battle of the Lion's Gate, and the ongoing pressures of the Indomitus Crusade, their recruitment can no longer keep up with demand, and so they've chosen to widen their pool of potential candidates to include women from the Terran houses.

Instead we get: There have always been female Custodes, but they've never done anything notable enough to be mentioned in any of the Horus Heresy, Siege of Terra, Emperor's Legion, Dawn of Fire (etc.) novels, or any sourcebooks.

It's frustrating that for so many people, the destination is all that matters, regardless of how it is reached.

This is literally the laziest way of introducing female Custodes, or increasing female representation in the faction possible. It's on the same level as Rise of Skywalker featuring the first gay couple in Star Wars History! - two nameless characters without any lines, in the background of a scene, who were cut out for the Chinese release. Stunning and brave.

Imagine a world where instead of a lazy retcon and a horribly proportioned Shield Captain (but now he has a new hat spear!) there was a thoughtful introduction of female Custodes, and either a female model/female upgrade sprue or Sisters of Silence upgrade sprue to give the existing female sub-faction some depth on the tabletop.

ie. actually show some CARE.

I didn't see this thread for one day, and now it's 4 pages in. Sounds like a gender thread.

 Crimson wrote:

Goodrich wrote:

In regards to female space marines, the people that want them seem to fall under two categories from what I have seen:
...
2. The want the dogmatic, oppressive empire to somehow be a bastion of progressive values and equality.

The first one is filled by the Adepta Sororitas, and the second runs counter to what makes the Empire interesting. As a storyteller, perhaps you can make the Empire a progressive utopia, but you largely remove the pre-existing lore plot hooks by doing so.

I agree with you that #2 is wrongheaded, but I haven't seen many people advocating for that. I think the issue actually is that in a lot of the newer (and by this I mean not ancient) fluff Imperium already is portrayed too much as the good guys, undermining the satire and veering dangerously close to fascism apologia.

While authors sometimes make the mistake of casting the imperium in too positive a light, I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that recruiting women (and men) to be super soldiers somehow means the imperium can't be horrible in all the ways it has always been shown to be horrible. One of the points we kept circling in a thread on gender ratios in the guard was that, while the imperium is absolutely nightmarish in most regards, gender inequality isn't something that the imperium as a whole advocates. Which is inkeeping with the idea that they're desperate for soldiers to feed the war effort. Being willing to let people with boobs die on the battlefield doesn't somehow translate to the imperium being a bastion of progressive ideals.

Marines being a boys only club isn't awkward from an in-universe perspective. However, it is awkward/cringe from a real-world perspective in that marines are the most supported and most visible faction of the game, and they're a 100% sausage fest. I'm not saying that that's turning women away in droves, but you can imagine how a percentage of women who might be interested in the game might decide to pass when they realize that the emphasis in tabletop support, video games, and novels is overwhelmingly on a faction of all dudes. Someone made the Star Wars analogy earlier, and it's a good one. Star Wars tends to put a ton of emphasis on jedi. If wielding a lightsaber was a boys-only club, I suspect the franchise would have fewer women interested in the franchise than it does.

Now, while the arbitrary boys-only rule for marines is completely arbitrary (at best, you could maybe headcanon it's a Frankenstein thing where the Emperor was trying to prevent marines from reproducing as easily so that they'd be easier to wipe out like Thunder Warriors)... you also can't elegantly retcon it because there are decades of material explicitly stating there aren't/weren't femarines up to that point. Changing that retroactively would be tough. While the primaris lore is awkward and clunky in its own right, it really should have been GW's chance to introduce femarines. Doubling the recruitment pool would have been a way more valuable use of Cawl's time than turning marines into bigger targets who have trouble riding in standardized transports. They could still go this route by having Cawl roll out additional primaris improvements or whatever, but it would be more awkward.

To my knowledge, custodes haven't been explicitly a boys-only club until recently. So the retcon, while awkward, is more doable for the golden bananas than it would be for marine. The stain hasn't had as much time to set. Having femstodes is probably a good move overall as it helps distinguish them form marines a bit. As-is, they really suffer from just being marines+1 without much to differentiate them from astartes. That said, custodes aren't the flagship faction. Letting girls join custodes doesn't have the same positive impact letting them join marines would. So while I like the change, it loses a couple points for awkward retcon'ing, and it doesn't gain many points for making the game more approachable to women.

 Crimson wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Why be opposed to more options? I thought everyone here wanted more kitbashes, more ways of seeing the 40k setting. Disappointed by the forumite reaction to this, but also hopeful from the positivity and artistry I've seen on social media.

In general I don't see people opposed to more optional parts.

The dividing line isn't what people do with their own armies, its more purely what the official GW stance is on the story and lore of the 40K setting.

If GW made optional female models of every single model in their line up, but they were not "lore accurate" no one would care one bit and would use what they want. The only stickler is that the story was X (either in reality or in the impressions of people) and now the story might be Y. People just like their stories to "mean something" and have some sense of permeance/structure.

Oh, people do care! Try posting pictures of converted female marines or art of female marines on FB groups. There will be a bunch of hostile comments and good chance that moderators just delete your pictures. I used to think that it is not important for GW to canonise this, but the reactions when I did try to just model my own models how I wanted changed my mind. That toxic section of the fanbase just needs to be shut up by the GW.

And of course it would be really bizarre for GW to do non-canon conversion bits.

Oh there's always toxic groups in ANY hobby and places like FB can allow them to congregate. However in general I've not seen it happen. It will depend what groups you join, what groups you're active in and in how things go - eg if the post devolves into a huge fight it might well get removed. Not because mods hate women in armour or something but just because its a huge headache.

That said FB's moderation systems are more limitd than normal forums and communities on FB are often far more face-less than those on forums. By their nature whilst they are highly social they are also kind of not on FB groups. You get a similar thing on Reddit as well.

 Crimson wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Why be opposed to more options? I thought everyone here wanted more kitbashes, more ways of seeing the 40k setting. Disappointed by the forumite reaction to this, but also hopeful from the positivity and artistry I've seen on social media.

In general I don't see people opposed to more optional parts.

The dividing line isn't what people do with their own armies, its more purely what the official GW stance is on the story and lore of the 40K setting.

If GW made optional female models of every single model in their line up, but they were not "lore accurate" no one would care one bit and would use what they want. The only stickler is that the story was X (either in reality or in the impressions of people) and now the story might be Y. People just like their stories to "mean something" and have some sense of permeance/structure.

Oh, people do care! Try posting pictures of converted female marines or art of female marines on FB groups. There will be a bunch of hostile comments and good chance that moderators just delete your pictures. I used to think that it is not important for GW to canonise this, but the reactions when I did try to just model my own models how I wanted changed my mind. That toxic section of the fanbase just needs to be shut up by the GW.

And of course it would be really bizarre for GW to do non-canon conversion bits.

Unfortunately absolutely true. Any time female Marines are posted, there is very often a backlash. A picture of a woman Space Marine very often attracts people crying about it's non-canonity or making hurtful/misogynistic comments, even if no other comment by the creator is made beyond simply showing the Astartes in question.

Evidently, while YOU might not care about what other people do with their armies, there are plenty of people who do, and it's very reductionist for you, Overread, to sweep that under the rug.

If GW shouldn't make any changes to their canon, how should this issue be resolved?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wayniac wrote:The custodes thing sours me because they chose to just lie and gaslight people saying "they've always been there" rather than add an actual reason.

An honest question, to both yourself and anyone else who feels strongly on the "they've always been there" comment: what would you have rather had GW do?

Let's say that they did fully want to retcon Custodes, instead of it being a development within universe, which is pretty clearly what they intend for. How should GW handle retcons?

This is a malformed question.

'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'

Here's my suggestion for the introduction of femstodes:

Incidentally, I actually already responded to this comment in that thread, because I don't think your comment actually hits the mark.

As I said - it's clear that GW don't want to advance the narrative by having Custodes only recently be able to have women recruits. They want to have had Custodes of all genders since their inception. That means a retcon is essential. You say "how should GW do they thing they shouldn't do", but WHY shouldn't GW retcon? And, more importantly, they already have. I'm asking how they should go about it.

How do you suggest they do a *retcon*, not just an advanced narrative?

Overread wrote:Oh there's always toxic groups in ANY hobby and places like FB can allow them to congregate. However in general I've not seen it happen. It will depend what groups you join, what groups you're active in and in how things go - eg if the post devolves into a huge fight it might well get removed. Not because mods hate women in armour or something but just because its a huge headache.

That said FB's moderation systems are more limitd than normal forums and communities on FB are often far more face-less than those on forums. By their nature whilst they are highly social they are also kind of not on FB groups. You get a similar thing on Reddit as well.

And how do you propose *dealing* with that?

I'm sorry, but it's long past time for "well, you'll always find toxic groups" and "I've not seen it".

 Wyldhunt wrote:

While authors sometimes make the mistake of casting the imperium in too positive a light, I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that recruiting women (and men) to be super soldiers somehow means the imperium can't be horrible in all the ways it has always been shown to be horrible.

I don't think that. Gender equality is not part of what I consider the wrongheaded portrayals of Imperium as good guys. That takes the form of how the narrative usually frames the marines etc as valiant saviours and defenders of humanity in completely unironic manner.

One of the points we kept circling in a thread on gender ratios in the guard was that, while the imperium is absolutely nightmarish in most regards, gender inequality isn't something that the imperium as a whole advocates. Which is inkeeping with the idea that they're desperate for soldiers to feed the war effort. Being willing to let people with boobs die on the battlefield doesn't somehow translate to the imperium being a bastion of progressive ideals.

Agreed.

Marines being a boys only club isn't awkward from an in-universe perspective. However, it is awkward/cringe from a real-world perspective in that marines are the most supported and most visible faction of the game, and they're a 100% sausage fest. I'm not saying that that's turning women away in droves, but you can imagine how a percentage of women who might be interested in the game might decide to pass when they realize that the emphasis in tabletop support, video games, and novels is overwhelmingly on a faction of all dudes. Someone made the Star Wars analogy earlier, and it's a good one. Star Wars tends to put a ton of emphasis on jedi. If wielding a lightsaber was a boys-only club, I suspect the franchise would have fewer women interested in the franchise than it does.

Yep. Exactly this.

Now, while the arbitrary boys-only rule for marines is completely arbitrary (at best, you could maybe headcanon it's a Frankenstein thing where the Emperor was trying to prevent marines from reproducing as easily so that they'd be easier to wipe out like Thunder Warriors)... you also can't elegantly retcon it because there are decades of material explicitly stating there aren't/weren't femarines up to that point. Changing that retroactively would be tough. While the primaris lore is awkward and clunky in its own right, it really should have been GW's chance to introduce femarines. Doubling the recruitment pool would have been a way more valuable use of Cawl's time than turning marines into bigger targets who have trouble riding in standardized transports. They could still go this route by having Cawl roll out additional primaris improvements or whatever, but it would be more awkward.

Introduction of the primaris definitely would have been the easiest point of time to change this. They could of course still just do it as a new improvement by Cawl. But frankly, I don't really care how they do it. The lore has been changes so many times for way worse reasons that it being changed for good reasons is no problem at all.

To my knowledge, custodes haven't been explicitly a boys-only club until recently. So the retcon, while awkward, is more doable for the golden bananas than it would be for marine. The stain hasn't had as much time to set. Having femstodes is probably a good move overall as it helps distinguish them form marines a bit. As-is, they really suffer from just being marines+1 without much to differentiate them from astartes. That said, custodes aren't the flagship faction. Letting girls join custodes doesn't have the same positive impact letting them join marines would. So while I like the change, it loses a couple points for awkward retcon'ing, and it doesn't gain many points for making the game more approachable to women.

Yeah, there simply is not that much fluff on the custodes to begin with and not so many people are familiar with it, so the change is easier to make.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And how do you propose *dealing* with that?

I'm sorry, but it's long past time for "well, you'll always find toxic groups" and "I've not seen it".

How do I propose solving moderator issues in multiple FB groups? No idea I'm not a manager for FB with the kind of influence to even attempt some kind of cross group moderation policy for FB.

If you mean in the hobby space then honestly I mostly covered bringing more women into the hobbyspace here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/813538.page#11658697

Pretty sure I also made one or two further posts in the thread on this topic, which mostly rehash the same core concept.



This isn't something that a few lines of lore will change or a line of women heads for space marines. The issue isn't the lore when people get hostile, its people who have a focused agenda to start with and are using the marines as an excuse to beat their chest on that agenda. Changing that agenda is far more complex.
Moderation in FB groups is also not limited to this issue alone - almost all hobby groups have their own problem topics with "FB Groups" because, as I said, the nature of FB and FB groups means that you get a VAST variety of moderation skils; moderation tools and also tricks for getting around them etc....

So yes I've solutions for how to get more women into the hobbyspace; ways in which specific groups can also improve upon that and heck I could suggest ways in which moderators and staff could work to promote good behaviour and drive out bad. But none of it will touch a mass swathe of FB groups in one go as a solution.

I do know that simply creating "female marines" as official models wouldn't "solve" it. Those with an agenda would just fixate on something else to use as their argument.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that adding FemMarines will solve sexism.
But what it DOES do is leave sexists with one less tool to use for their bigotry. No, it won't make the GW hobby space a utopia of equality-but it'd be a helpful step.

 Overread wrote:
If you mean in the hobby space then honestly I mostly covered bringing more women into the hobbyspace here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/813538.page#11658697

Pretty sure I also made one or two further posts in the thread on this topic, which mostly rehash the same core concept.

My counterpoint is that all men, women, and non-binaries that I know also feel that the approach GW has taken with Custodes has meant more to them than the approaches you've mentioned. I'm inclined to take their word on that.

This isn't something that a few lines of lore will change or a line of women heads for space marines. The issue isn't the lore when people get hostile, its people who have a focused agenda to start with and are using the marines as an excuse to beat their chest on that agenda. Changing that agenda is far more complex.

And defanging those who use that agenda is a good place to *practically* start. Theory and abstracts are one thing - but for now, it's important to remove the tools that those folks would sek to browbeat others with.

You mention that they use the Marines as an excuse to beat their chest - so remove their ability to do so first, and then do the rest.

I do know that simply creating "female marines" as official models wouldn't "solve" it. Those with an agenda would just fixate on something else to use as their argument.

And then you remove that from them as well. Make it CLEAR to them that their argument will not be permitted. We've already seen plenty of people online announce that this is their departure from 40K. I can only hope that they're telling the truth - they will not be missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think anyone seriously believes that adding FemMarines will solve sexism.
But what it DOES do is leave sexists with one less tool to use for their bigotry. No, it won't make the GW hobby space a utopia of equality-but it'd be a helpful step.

Exactly - it's a step, a preventative measure. It won't suddenly make everyone get along, because those are wider societal problems - but it DOES disarm people who would seek to use misogynistic talking points. It does defang them. And it does show them that they're NOT the ones calling the shots here.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think anyone seriously believes that adding FemMarines will solve sexism.
But what it DOES do is leave sexists with one less tool to use for their bigotry. No, it won't make the GW hobby space a utopia of equality-but it'd be a helpful step.

Bonus: if it drives away people who have tantrums about the idea of femarines, then you're less likely to end up playing a game against people who have tantrums about femarines.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think anyone seriously believes that adding FemMarines will solve sexism.
But what it DOES do is leave sexists with one less tool to use for their bigotry. No, it won't make the GW hobby space a utopia of equality-but it'd be a helpful step.

Bonus: if it drives away people who have tantrums about the idea of femarines, then you're less likely to end up playing a game against people who have tantrums about femarines.

This. If it causes a mass exodus of players, all the better. If people are that put off by the change they probably aren’t worth playing against.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think anyone seriously believes that adding FemMarines will solve sexism.
But what it DOES do is leave sexists with one less tool to use for their bigotry. No, it won't make the GW hobby space a utopia of equality-but it'd be a helpful step.

Bonus: if it drives away people who have tantrums about the idea of femarines, then you're less likely to end up playing a game against people who have tantrums about femarines.

Win-win.