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.

I'm from the UK too, and no, we don't - not with pre-teens.

We do, people do it all the time. My eldest son is 10, i often say young man to him. Its common place in the UK to do so.

Not as huge as the differences that having a bunch of artificial hormones and organs implanted will force.

Irrelevant, the difference in body structure will still be there.

Source.

Observable reality.

Source.
But that's not even what I asked - are you suggesting that irradiated waifs from Baal would be just as, if not more, capable than Catachan girls? Do you deny that the conditions of living on each world has more to play than the sex of the children they're recruiting from?

They are male and will be physically superior for the reasons already stated.

Your question is irrelevant. The Blood Angles recruit by tradition from Baal. If they wanted to aquire healthier candidates, then they would find other male candidates from another non-post apocalyptic planet.

Except that they literally do.

They do not. The odd exception aside, ladies in military gear are smaller and slighter. Again, this is obvious observable reality.

I can think of plenty of men who are also shorter and slighter than other men and women. You seem to be implying that women are all shorter than men, and that men are all the same size and shape.

On average women are shorter than men. Really that simple.

What about them looks male?

Body shape and proportions. What about them do you think looks female?

That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. They aren't physically equal, they aren't equal in terms of focus, they aren't equal in terms of unit quantity and depth, they aren't equal in terms of media representation, they aren't equal in terms of aesthetic range, they aren't equal in terms of creative freedom.

You know this. I ask again - do you disagree then with people who claim "you have FSM, they're called Sisters of Battle"?

No faction is equal in that regard to Marines, because they are popular with collectors/players. The kits are equally as nice and well designed as any marine kit, and the faction has a lot of nice models.

Sisters of Battle aren't FSM. You don't need FSM.

These aren't anonymous forums. Women content creators, like Louise Sugden, are REGULARLY hit with those sorts of messages. And you have the gall to say that their experiences aren't worth considering?

Welcome to the internet mate. It grants a certain level of anonymity, so you will get a few more people on it being rude compared to real life. My previous statement still stands - Exceptions on anonymous forums (and social media) don't reflect the community overall, particularly not in real life.

And how much of that is because of self-perpetuating mindsets like your own?

Literally zero. Its because of the fundamental general psychological differences between men and women.

Difficult, considering that they're fictional war dolls. You're not doing well to justify this idea that they apparently HAVE to recruit the strongest children for their space crusades.

They do recruit the strongest (male) children on Baal Secundus. That is their traditional recruiting ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morganfreeman wrote:

robbienw wrote:


Look up the numbers of women in the UK infantry, Armour, Paratroopers, Marines, SAS, F35 an Typhoon pilots etc and get back to me on that

You mean those same armed forces that have a staggeringly high rate of sexual assault for female service members, and well documented history of openly misogynistic and hostile behavior towards female members?

It’s easy cite hostile environments as a justification for other environments being hostile. Almost like women have a tendency avoid places which openly don’t want them and are come with a very high likelihood of being sexually mistreated.

Oh here we go. "Its because men are so mean that women don't join up" Give over.

Women don't join up because they are on average weaker, smaller and slower than men, and as a result of this and psychological differences, they don't want to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

so the established lore is the current 10th Edition AC Codex and nothing else

Says who?

The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.

Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.

Custodes never left terra until they retconned them in the codex to justify them as an army. They never guarded special people in the imperium, they never had blade guards or terminators.

But then bam they did and everyone lapped it up because it was a change that agreed with their sensibilities.


I can't help but think how this conversation would have gone if it had been racial rather than gender segregation in 4ok.

Custodes are all white men, no other man may join. But it's ok because we have an all black group called the brothas of violence for you non whites to enjoy. They are not only not super soldiers they're mentally repulsive to everyone around them, but they're your group you get to have so don't complain about not having black custodes.

I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what? Some ephemeral feeling. Because your sense of fantasy is tied into the history on which it was based, a misogynistic history that is only attractive to men and unless fantasy reflects those historical biases it lacks the feeling you like and is therefore bad.

People really need to disconnect fantasy from reality. It's not a virtue to support exclusionary fiction just because it evokes an atmosphere tied to a past that is only kind to a small number of people.

 Hellebore wrote:
The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.

Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.

Hardly.
Those other retcons? They're bad as well.
But rehashing them here (even the Custodes ones) would simply be off topic as THIS thread is dedicated to arguing about female Custodes.

ccs wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.

Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.

Hardly.
Those other retcons? They're bad as well.
But rehashing them here (even the Custodes ones) would simply be off topic as THIS thread is dedicated to arguing about female Custodes.

I don't recall people being up in arms when Blade Champions were added. That's as much a retcon/change as adding women to the Custodes, and yet it didn't produce even a tenth the vitriol that I've seen about this.

 Hellebore wrote:


I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what?

We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.

Many of them are not just separated by ideology, but physical appearance and hereditary as well. Now granted they aren't generally separated on skin colour, which is often a big element of Real world racial segregation, but there are elements of segregation within Necromunda



So yeah its there, right in the setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.

Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.

Hardly.
Those other retcons? They're bad as well.
But rehashing them here (even the Custodes ones) would simply be off topic as THIS thread is dedicated to arguing about female Custodes.

I don't recall people being up in arms when Blade Champions were added. That's as much a retcon/change as adding women to the Custodes, and yet it didn't produce even a tenth the vitriol that I've seen about this.

And put part of that being down to a lack of models from GW. Models are what we are all about and cool models shuts people up faster than pages of debate.

Also the whole "Female Marines" thing has been a hot button topic some groups have pushed for and against very hotly and linked into real world elements so much that it also tends to generate a lot more drama around it by people pushing different agendas and the like. It doesn't help that there's a general move by many to be more inclusive, but at the same time GW's Marine army is the poster-child and is very single gender single style. Honestly a lot of that could be resolved if GW abandoned Marine Marketing as their cornerstone and went for more holistic marketing of all the factions being more equally weighted.

As I said on the background thread there are plenty of fans that threw fits at lore changes previously.

If we are going to limit it to Custodes, and to Dakkadakka you are totally right that Custodes not being limited to guarding the Emperor didn't generate much vitriol, but if we open the lense a bit I had somebody on Discord telling me that he sold his Chaos army, and left 40K after the Horus lore was changed because he didn't like it. Another person told me at the begining of 10th that 40K felt no longer like his 40K, and has refused to play since.

For the last 30 years GW has been using "extensive" lore as the selling point of 40K while at the same time making it an incoherent mess everytime a codex was released. And each of those times there's been disagreement to the changes. The difference is that for example when new-crons received the new lore there was no Youtube or X to rant so maybe the discussions were more polite, or subdued.

People decrying GW changing stuff is nothing new, I will grant that the level of noise generated by female Custodes is something else, but I blame it more on the way everybody conducts themselves on the web nowadays.

M.

I think most folks are angry over the fact GW could reach back 40 years and either add, subtract, or completely change core fluff of a game they have played and devoted themselves too for years if not decades.

The whole rage over a female custodes or marine is so trivial in a game with demonic worshipping and possession, replacing church/religion with government as the religion, inquisition forces based off the Catholic Church (yikes), leather bound big boobed dominatrix women, slaanesh sexual debauchery, conformity (humans), socialism/communism (tau), canabalism (Kroot), mass genocide, colonialism & colonization, Rainbow Warriors space marines, erasure and rewriting of history, human sacrifice, bodily transformations, traitoristic themes, hidden agendas, and more!

Wait a minute, looks like GW was woke before the woke arrived!

GW has played fast, and loose with dogmatism, and ortodoxy among fans to create a player base that unquestionably buys GW products. Now the rabid adherence to the dogma of a certain % of the base is bitting them on the ass while probably making the inquisition blush in inadecuacy..

I find ironic that we are mimicking the EoM, and on the cusp of a heretical split between LORE, and TRUE LORE with both sides claiming the moral ground.

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
GW has played fast, and loose with dogmatism, and ortodoxy among fans to create a player base that unquestionably buys GW products. Now the rabid adherence to the dogma of a certain % of the base is bitting them on the ass while probably making the inquisition blush in inadecuacy..

I find ironic that we are mimicking the EoM, and on the cusp of a heretical split between LORE, and TRUE LORE with both sides claiming the moral ground.

M.

I'm not sure the reaction is them getting bitten in the ass.

At the end of the day, it's a tiny lore reinforcement that should have been obvious when GW scrubbed out any gender associate with the custodes in one of their codices. It didn't so much as come with a model or even a new head. It came with a little story tidbit, but words are cheap. If a person doesn't like it, they're free to just ignore it and it wouldn't have any impact on them at all. Someone might call their custodes model a her, but I imagine that's about as offensive as calling a non-named Necron character a he...right?

There's only a very small segment of the playerbase that's getting pissy about this update, youtube influencers jockeying to cash in on the outrage notwithstanding.

Hell, GW might even consider it a bonus since the outrage seems to have drowned out their shenanigans about squatting some AoS content right before they launch the new edition...which ironically includes numerous female models. Between the quality of the models and the fact that there doesn't seem to be as much of this "ermagawdwoke!" manufactured outrage in the AoS community, I wish it had been around when I was looking to get into the hobby.

If we're being honest, GW might be relieved if individuals with certain extreme ideologies would cut themselves off from the hobby, between a lot of their content being highjacked by individuals of that slant--such as the uniform worn to an event a few years back, certain God-Emperor memes being made of a particularly unpleasant political individual, and so on.

It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.

Altima wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:


There's only a very small segment of the playerbase that's getting pissy about this update, youtube influencers jockeying to cash in on the outrage notwithstanding.

And the bolded part is the key point. If you are a clueless parent that it's looking into 40K for your kids, and suddenly you see a bunch of articles on the internet raging that 40K is all about bigotry/wokism/whatever, and you cannot discern the what, the why, or the how because the only thing you knew about GW was that the miniatures are expensive, would you still let your kid join that kind of enviroment?

Back in my day my mom got warned by a "concerned party" that my brother was playing DnD, and we had to do a lot of explaining. And that was without easy access to all kinds of unhinged articles/videos.

Sometimes no publicity is better than bad publicity no matter what the marketing guy says.

M.

 Hellebore wrote:

Spoiler:

The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.

Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.

Custodes never left terra until they retconned them in the codex to justify them as an army. They never guarded special people in the imperium, they never had blade guards or terminators.

But then bam they did and everyone lapped it up because it was a change that agreed with their sensibilities.

I can't help but think how this conversation would have gone if it had been racial rather than gender segregation in 4ok.

Custodes are all white men, no other man may join. But it's ok because we have an all black group called the brothas of violence for you non whites to enjoy. They are not only not super soldiers they're mentally repulsive to everyone around them, but they're your group you get to have so don't complain about not having black custodes.

I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what? Some ephemeral feeling. Because your sense of fantasy is tied into the history on which it was based, a misogynistic history that is only attractive to men and unless fantasy reflects those historical biases it lacks the feeling you like and is therefore bad.

People really need to disconnect fantasy from reality. It's not a virtue to support exclusionary fiction just because it evokes an atmosphere tied to a past that is only kind to a small number of people.

didn't there used to be a racial segregation aspect to space marines? ie, SW are scandinavian, DA are native american, salamanders are black or at least dark-skinned with a dubious excuse as to why, white scars are mongolians, etc. and then over time most of these have gone away because it turns out that racial segregation isn't cool and recently GW have been doing a slightly but let's be real still not great job of portraying space marines as being more multi-racial

Can people please calm down and stop treating this as it there's discrimination involved. They are toys neither male nor female just facsimiles of such to play with.
There is enough trouble and real discrimination in the world without arguing over this.
Every person has their own thoughts on it, if you don't like certain models then don't buy them. This is supposed to be a fun hobby there is no need to bring politics or any further RM of ism into this, ism being sexism, racism or any other ism. Enjoy your hobby, you don't have to agree on everything but be civil.
The game is set in a massive universe which is full of misinformation and lost knowledge. Nobody is right or wrong, please stop trying to force your own ideas about this made up place on each other. There is enough of that in real life.
Take from the lore and books whatever feels right to you. Do as you wish with your hobby as suits you and have fun, otherwise if you're not enjoying it then do yourself a favour, walk away and find something else to enjoy.

 Miguelsan wrote:
It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.

It will end the same way it always does. The outrage merchants will eventually drop it because its not generating clicks anymore and then it'll be brought back up every so often when someone has an axe to grind.
The only difference here is that the Daily Racist picked it up which shows you how pathetic this all is.

 Gert wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.

It will end the same way it always does. The outrage merchants will eventually drop it because its not generating clicks anymore and then it'll be brought back up every so often when someone has an axe to grind.
The only difference here is that the Daily Racist picked it up which shows you how pathetic this all is.

I agree, this is a "storm in a teacup" situation which the internet is great at. Honestly I'm a touch surprised its gone on as long as it has, but I suspect in a week or so it will burn itself out. A few will use it as an axe to grind on every so often and I suspect after this the next time it will rear its head is when there's a model. Which could be years off.

The BL books don't tend to generate as much drama - most of the time - but we did have that horrible situation where the younger books got people sending hate and death threats to the writers. Which was freaking awful to think anyone in the hobby was doing that.

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
Rainbow Warriors space marines

I've always wondered if the Sisters of Battle started out as a deliberate female counterpart to the space marines (nuns and monks) or if both they and the Rainbow Warriors chapter existed originally just to make that political joke in the back of the first rogue trader rulebook.

 Hellebore wrote:
The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.

Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.

Custodes never left terra until they retconned them in the codex to justify them as an army. They never guarded special people in the imperium, they never had blade guards or terminators.

But then bam they did and everyone lapped it up because it was a change that agreed with their sensibilities.

Hell, even them being golden armoured superhuman giants is a retcon! The only thing that hasn't been retconned about them is wearing pointy helmets. (Easily the worst part of their look.)

I can't help but think how this conversation would have gone if it had been racial rather than gender segregation in 4ok.

Custodes are all white men, no other man may join. But it's ok because we have an all black group called the brothas of violence for you non whites to enjoy. They are not only not super soldiers they're mentally repulsive to everyone around them, but they're your group you get to have so don't complain about not having black custodes.

I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what? Some ephemeral feeling. Because your sense of fantasy is tied into the history on which it was based, a misogynistic history that is only attractive to men and unless fantasy reflects those historical biases it lacks the feeling you like and is therefore bad.

People really need to disconnect fantasy from reality. It's not a virtue to support exclusionary fiction just because it evokes an atmosphere tied to a past that is only kind to a small number of people.

Yeah, absolutely.

 Gert wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.

It will end the same way it always does. The outrage merchants will eventually drop it because its not generating clicks anymore and then it'll be brought back up every so often when someone has an axe to grind.
The only difference here is that the Daily Racist picked it up which shows you how pathetic this all is.

Obligatory https://youtu.be/5eBT6OSr1TI?si=d-emRIU875kjDVGY

The rainbow warriors were very much a joke at the time, and clearly reference the French clinking of the boat of the same name. They have been used since to represent much more but the initial joke was just that.

This thread isn’t about female custodes only, it’s about gender representation in all of 40K, it’s clear gw is moving to make 40K more inclusive. They have expanded the ethnic diversity of their models through paints, sculpts and background representing more visible ethnicities and are doing the same with gender/sex. Most ranges new models contain more of a mix and more options, and they aren’t being overtly sexualised like the sisters of battle.

Now this is all good and can only lead to a more open and accepting community that is better represented in the IP. If this is offensive to you and upsets you, then I’m sorry but you are the problem not the changes gw is making. If you can’t tolerate people of different ethnicities, genders or sexualities being represented in your hobby then you need to take a long look at yourself and think why?

It’s not because you have respect for the “lore”, that’s BS, the “lore” is always changing and is never sacred. I’ve played 40K for all 10 editions and it is constantly evolving and changing. Every new release is a retcon of sorts.

Just look at custodes, given form half naked blokes in pointy hats who never left the palace to this we have today. Every marine release with new units is a retcon, they didn’t exist before but do now, lapped up the fans. Whole new factions appearing from nowhere (necrons, tau, leagues of votann). The entire Horus heresy series of books is one giant retcon. But the fans love it.

So, sorry but if you are upset by female inclusion in the hobby either get over it or leave, because it’s clearly the direction the company is going. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just that such misogynistic opinions just aren’t acceptable anymore. Thankfully.

 Hellebore wrote:
I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k

Why not?

"You're telling me the genocidal space-Nazis who are all about genetic and racial purity might be racist? I'm literally shaking with how triggered I am!"

Don't forget classisms?

Many Imperial worlds have a class tiered society and its VERY evident that many upper classes consider the peasantry to be lesser creatures than them. People who can be killed by the thousands by faulty machinery or cheap food or lack of proper healthcare and those upper classes sleep sound at night.

The 'you didn't complain about every other retcon so you must be misogynist' argument is (obviously) disingenuous.

There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification) and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning, and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon.

They haven't done themselves any favours in this instance.

they don't need to give you paragraphs of lore to justify women existing

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The 'you didn't complain about every other retcon so you must be misogynist' argument is (obviously) disingenuous.

There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification) and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning, and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon.

They haven't done themselves any favours in this instance.

But the question, as MDG has asked several times, is why does this one bother people so much? I've already told him why he shouldn't expect to hear an answer from these people.

Besides, is there an in-universe explanation that these people would find acceptable? GW was going to be a in no-win situation, so they probably decided the easiest thing to do was say female Custodes were just off-screen the whole time. Any attempt to write an in-universe explanation that also may or not have been a retcon likely would have generated even more backlash because it would have been seen as a ham-fisted way to 'force inclusion into the narrative'.

There was simply no way GW was going to please the crowd that is up in arms over this, so they just said 'feth it, why bother?'

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The 'you didn't complain about every other retcon so you must be misogynist' argument is (obviously) disingenuous.

There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification) and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning, and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon.

They haven't done themselves any favours in this instance.

GW didn't bother with any in-universe justifications for any of their retcons which went back and inserted new stuff into the past before now, either. So why is that an issue here?

As for not discussing it? There's nothing to discuss. Maybe they need to put out another statement like after the spanish fascist got kicked out of the tournament. But you don't "debate" or try and justify yourself to the internet outrage mob, because they don't care about reason. There is nothing that GW could say about why they decided to change the lore to allow women into the custodes that would be acceptable to these people because the people making a massive fuss and banging the culture war drum are angry because they flat out do not want women in the custodes because they are misogynists. There is no reasoning or compromise with them. They either get their way, or they will rage at you as another part of their incessant culture war. You're assuming that when these people are honest about why they are upset about lore changes. They aren't, they never are. Dishonesty is a core weapon in their rhetorical arsenal. As Sartre said of anti-semites:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

EDIT: What Manfred said. There's no pleasing the fascistic alt-right rage merchants.

Of the entire 40k setting, most armies depict soldiers of both genders, aeldari, t'au, imperial guard, inquisition or gender is n/a, i.e Orks and necrons. I can only think of two fender specific armies for each gender, marines and custodes for men , sisters if battle and silence for women. Curiously, i've noticed all the people shouting the usual thought terminating cliche's of "fascist" and "alt right" and other buzzwords never seem to be able to explain how much representation would be enough. Only that it always seems to be more.

The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.

If it was really just about girl custodes, the people who wanted them would've made the models and played with their friends and nobody would've cared. But that's not what they did, is it?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
But the question, as MDG has asked several times, is why does this one bother people so much? I've already told him why he shouldn't expect to hear an answer from these people.

Besides, is there an in-universe explanation that these people would find acceptable? GW was going to be a in no-win situation, so they probably decided the easiest thing to do was say female Custodes were just off-screen the whole time. Any attempt to write an in-universe explanation that also may or not have been a retcon likely would have generated even more backlash because it would have been seen as a ham-fisted way to 'force inclusion into the narrative'.

There was simply no way GW was going to please the crowd that is up in arms over this, so they just said 'feth it, why bother?'

I'm pretty sure the "backlash" to this pales before the outcry that occurred over Primaris.
Its a minor tremor compared to the howling and tearing and army burning that occurred with Fantasy->AoS, although you can argue there's significantly more to that than just a lore change.

GW will not please everyone. But I can say I don't care about female Custodes.
With that said, GW going "no no, its always been like that" rubs me the wrong way - because it wasn't. I know that. You know that. GW know that.
It would rub me the wrong way were they to do that with any similar retcon. They didn't have to do it that way. "For me" therefore, there was a better way GW could have gone with this.

But they have done exactly that for similar retcons. Many times.

We can measure the outrage by the "Burned Army" Quota.

Old World closing down months before AoS started resulted in 1 burned and melted army.



So for this news to have caused real outrage we need at least 1.5 Burned army videos on FB and they must be Custodes Armies only .

Hd404 wrote:


The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.

"you see, I win because I have depicted myself as the chad wojak, whereas you are the soyjak."

Consistent logic in 40k? Tell me the new poster is not familiar with the 40k lore without explicitly saying it.

Also, many of the youtube channels now complaining about this lore change can't even pronounce custodes correctly, so forgive me for doubting their passion for the setting and its characters.

Hd404 wrote:
Of the entire 40k setting, most armies depict soldiers of both genders, aeldari, t'au, imperial guard, inquisition or gender is n/a, i.e Orks and necrons. I can only think of two fender specific armies for each gender, marines and custodes for men , sisters if battle and silence for women. Curiously, i've noticed all the people shouting the usual thought terminating cliche's of "fascist" and "alt right" and other buzzwords never seem to be able to explain how much representation would be enough. Only that it always seems to be more.

The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.

If it was really just about girl custodes, the people who wanted them would've made the models and played with their friends and nobody would've cared. But that's not what they did, is it?

I am just as passionate about the setting and its creative anachronistic brand of sci-fi as anyone who thinks girls don't belong in their clubhouse.