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.
Well if you're interested I've been playing since fourth edition, have a solid two thirds of Horus heresy in paperback which I've been collecting since high school when I started. Seriously, I could tell you why the fates decreed the Khan be sent to chemos and fulgrim to chogoris and what arcane force prevented it. The reason I never bother posting, aside from crafting queries on bolter and chainsword, is because there's always someone derailing the discussion by trying to shoehorn their annoying outside politics into it.
Which is why I felt compelled to speak out, because as this thread so ably demonstrates, the discussions of the future will be about political BS like this instead of interesting stuff about the setting.
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?
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Previous retcons have been generally consistent with established lore, and when they aren't, like with say abaddon the despoiler, the retcons have been rightfully mocked.
For the record, I actually prefer female miniatures, I prefer the female Yu-Jing Invincibles to the male ones, I prefer female elves to male ones. I like the fact that all firewarriors fight, and so forth. I do not like this change.
so in your words, i'm a Fascistic, alt-right, Misogynist.
More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
Apart that's already been disrpoven earlier in the thread. Either all the changes bother you or none do. Also why does this feel like an alt-account to me?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/21 13:50:33
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?
Are you able to explain how much representation is too much and why? I'll bet you can't.
As for how much is enough? How about enough so that things like this are met with, 'oh, okay' instead of all the manufactured outrage.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
Hd404 wrote: Well if you're interested I've been playing since fourth edition, have a solid two thirds of Horus heresy in paperback which I've been collecting since high school when I started. Seriously, I could tell you why the fates decreed the Khan be sent to chemos and fulgrim to chogoris and what arcane force prevented it. The reason I never bother posting, aside from crafting queries on bolter and chainsword, is because there's always someone derailing the discussion by trying to shoehorn their annoying outside politics into it.
Which is why I felt compelled to speak out, because as this thread so ably demonstrates, the discussions of the future will be about political BS like this instead of interesting stuff about the setting.
While I can't definitely claim to be as long in the tooth, being only 24-going-on-25, I can state without hesitation it doesn't really matter how long someone's been in the wargaming hobby. Skill, talent, and passion are external to that, as is aesthetic appreciation. I've seen people take inspo from 2nd-4th edition (me amongst them) who came to the brush in 8th, and I've seen people who have been in the hobby for years who still struggle to paint well. I've seen absolute salt-of-the-earth newbies who somehow manage to bang out greatness the first time. And, I've seen those who have to work their way up the mountain or out of the plateau. All this post shows me is that you have a chip on your shoulder about being 'more' of a fan than others.
"Lore" is a useful word, but so is "fluff". While something can be to sell a product, a lot of objects sell you a product through art. Movies sell you their stories or artistic experiences, for example. That said, we can evaluate all artistic objects as works of art, criticize them, engage in discourse with the artists, and make inductions about them. We can debate their merit, whether elements should stay or go.
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Space marines suddenly pulling brand new units out of their backside from a supposedly extremely rigorous structure is consistent to you?
White Dwarf 105, which was December 1988 i think, established the Space marines as having Tactical, Assault and devastator marines, plus medics, techmarines, chaplains, Rhinos, Landraiders, land speeders, grav bikes, bikes, attack bikes, thudd guns, Rapiers, tarantulas, Grav attack and dreadnoughts.
Added between then and 8th edition, we had Terminators, scouts, Ironclads, the razorback, Vindicators, Predators, Whirlwinds (all rhino variants) 2 Landraider variants, Centurions, 4 flyers, and drop pods. plus veterans and honour guard. Drop pods were included in Epic before they were in 40k.
None of those additions are inconsistent with established lore, except maybe the centurions (what were they thinking?? they are ridiculous). WD105 establishes that the first company is composed of veterans, and there are variations in organisation between chapters, the cited example being the Dark angels ravenwing. Rank structure is slightly different in terms of terminology.
You also have the horus heresy, with weird and wonderful vehicles, these are for the most part new additions and reflect that the forces of the 31st millenium were better equipped than the current ones, and the fact they are not widely available in current 40k is a reflection of the fact that the heresy was devastating to the Imperium, they can't make them any more, and they have been lost to attrition over time. that is consistent with established lore.
The Primaris are new, and are the product of a secret initiative ordered by Guilliman, and executed in secret by Cawl. this is a progression of the storyline rather than a retcon, and the fact that it was a secret initiative is a bit jarring, but narritively consistent since the vehicles and units are borderline, sometimes outright, heretical. the narrative device is that the imperium is starting to make 'some' technological progress now, and the astartes are becoming more adaptive in the units they can field rather than being forced by the Codex Astartes to stick to a rigid organisation. Guilliman has also amended the codex astartes iirc, and since he wrote the thing in the first place he is the only one who would be accepted in doing so.
So yeah, the development of the marines from 1987 with Rogue trader, then the establishment of the official list in 1988 up til now is remarkably consistent and doesn't really violate the established lore at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/21 13:55:45
A Town Called Malus wrote: 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?
To be fair people argued about the primaris retcon for months, years even. And how long were CSM players banging on about GWs 'retcon' of the eye of terror campaign?
If this particular thread goes on for half as long it's likely to morph into people complaining about a lack of models for the female custodes after all the fuss they kicked up mentioning them. And of course 3rd party female pillar custodes incoming in 3...2...
I'd say too much representation is when you start changing established characters and factions to other demographics. And I'd say it's a problem because apart from breaking the immersion of the setting, the rationale behind it seems to invariably be, "we don't like the demographic this character or group was originally and would prefer it if he/she or they were the demographic we are overtly prejudiced in favour of".
As for how much is enough? That's a real nice and vague unfalsifiable criteria you got there. Almost like you actually have no success criteria at all. Just a vague demand for 'more' like I said.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: So you're saying the WD's retconned the marines structure to fit in all these new additions. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As i'm sure you are aware, in WD105 (1988) the organisation of a chapter was established as:
10 Companies of 100 marines
the 1st company consists of veterans.
each squad has (or can take) 1 rhino.
additional support is held by the armoury and assigned to units as needed for a mission.
Variations exist between chapters.
With 1 exception (10th company) the organisation of the chapter, and disposition of the equipment within a chapter up till 8th edition, remained consistent.
If you want to call that a retcon, go right ahead.
A Town Called Malus wrote: 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?
To be fair people argued about the primaris retcon for months, years even. And how long were CSM players banging on about GWs 'retcon' of the eye of terror campaign?
If this particular thread goes on for half as long it's likely to morph into people complaining about a lack of models for the female custodes after all the fuss they kicked up mentioning them. And of course 3rd party female pillar custodes incoming in 3...2...
Doubtless, shortly followed by manufactured outrage about how the new femstodes models are somehow depicted in some overtly sexist way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/21 14:26:18
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: So you're saying the WD's retconned the marines structure to fit in all these new additions. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As i'm sure you are aware, in WD105 (1988) the organisation of a chapter was established as:
10 Companies of 100 marines
the 1st company consists of veterans.
each squad has (or can take) 1 rhino.
additional support is held by the armoury and assigned to units as needed for a mission.
Variations exist between chapters.
With 1 exception (10th company) the organisation of the chapter, and disposition of the equipment within a chapter up till 8th edition, remained consistent.
If you want to call that a retcon, go right ahead.
Well that's precisely what it is, is it not? Changing previously established lore into new lore through a new source.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: So you're saying the WD's retconned the marines structure to fit in all these new additions. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As i'm sure you are aware, in WD105 (1988) the organisation of a chapter was established as:
10 Companies of 100 marines
the 1st company consists of veterans.
each squad has (or can take) 1 rhino.
additional support is held by the armoury and assigned to units as needed for a mission.
Variations exist between chapters.
With 1 exception (10th company) the organisation of the chapter, and disposition of the equipment within a chapter up till 8th edition, remained consistent.
If you want to call that a retcon, go right ahead.
Well that's precisely what it is, is it not? Changing previously established lore into new lore through a new source.
Oh, I understand where you are coming from now. sorry for my misunderstanding.
Yes, absolutely everything that was not included in the 1987 Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader book, is a retcon. Everything. you've got me. apologies. you win whatever argument it is you were making.
I mean there has been massive retcons in 40k. Maybe noobs that started only during 4th edition or something do not remember all of them, but the current Custodes are a result of a massive retcon in the first place.
The whole Horus Heresy even existing is a retcon, and then its details have been massively retconned by the Black Library.
Whole Eldar history was retconned to include the Necrons, and then the Necrrons themselves were retconned to be completely different later.
And of course then there is a ton of smaller stuff, which no one even notices, which in scale to me is more like this latest Custodes stuff.
Lol "hundreds" of citations and it's like 3 total.
How long did it take for the anti-women league to start dipping into conspiracy theories that GW was coming to destroy your life and leftists wanted you dead? Oh yeah, that's right less than 24 hours.
Well the entire affair in brief seems to have been,
*Custodes are female now. They've always been female.
* Huh? No they've always been men. There's literally hundreds of textual citations.
But certainly people actually aren't that dumb? Like they do understand that "always" refers to the fictional history of the setting, as it mentions the first ten thousand, not the publication history in the real world? It's like there "always were" Rogal Dorn tanks even though in the real world the model was released last year.
Furthermore, the outrage had started before that tweet.
*Fascists!!! Sexists!!!! The alt-right, are trying to take over!
If it's so utterly trivial that all objection is 'manufactured outrage', why even bother making it?
The manufacturing is happening via various ragebait YT channels and such. And it certainly is interesting how this gender related retcon seems to garner so much vitriol whilst retcons related to other matters pass without much comment or even notice. It is almost like if them retconning the fluff was not the issue, but the inclusion of women was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/21 14:51:51
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Primaris did not follow the established "rules of the lore" and were a far greater Deus Ex Machina because they literally arrived to save the Imperium from destruction.
In all of GW's history, there had been one and only one way to create space marines, right up until there wasn't... And we get told that the millions of troops created a) took 10k years to create and b) stayed secret until then.
I suppose it's fair to say that GW provided more support for the transition, because there were new models and lots of lore, and some mechanics. But it was DEFINITELY a bigger and more impactful retcon than this, and there was far more outrage. In fact, antiprimaris threads are still popping up three editions later.
Hd404 wrote: More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
I think in some of the anit-femme-marine threads, it came up explicitly in ONE of ten editions that Marines are exclusively male, and I think in THIS thread, it's been stated that Custodes were NEVER explicitly stated to be exclusively male- there just hasn't been a story involving women.
Could be wrong about both things, but the key is that "Lore forbidding the presence of women" and merely an absence of female characters are not the smae thing. The later is common, but the former is actually not as common as people think (because of how common the latter is).
Doubtless, shortly followed by manufactured outrage about how the new femstodes models are somehow depicted in some overtly way.
It's a tad rich to blame that side of the conversation for manufactured outrage.
Well the entire affair in brief seems to have been,
*Custodes are female now. They've always been female.
* Huh? No they've always been men. There's literally hundreds of textual citations.
*Fascists!!! Sexists!!!! The alt-right, are trying to take over!
If it's so utterly trivial that all objection is 'manufactured outrage', why even bother making it?
no one's been calling anyone else fascists. transphobic, sexist, sure. fascist? you're the one bringing that into this conversation
also, it's a couple stray uses of "sons" in backstory. you clearly don't know about the lore you're ostensibly trying to defend
"What Manfred said. There's no pleasing the fascistic alt-right rage merchants.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2024/04/21 12:11:54" seriously at least give the thread a passing glance before you start posting. Also, you do understand that transphobic, sexist etc. isn't actually any better?
Also, what 'backstory' are you talking about? Did you ever even read anything from black library? Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra. Every custodes ever depicted until now is a man. If you want to proselytize about anyone who doesn't include your personal is a 'ist or 'phobe, feel free to waste your time as you see fit. But don't pretend it has anything to do with the setting.
Crimson wrote: And it certainly is interesting how this gender related retcon seems to garner so much vitriol whilst retcons related to other matters pass without much comment or even notice. It is almost like if them retconning the fluff was not the issue, but the inclusion of women was.
Different audience.
If GW suddenly retconned Ultramarines to be orange - and they have always been orange - the players would still be complaining about in in the year 40000. But there isn't much social media grift to be made off that.
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Primaris did not follow the established "rules of the lore" and were a far greater Deus Ex Machina because they literally arrived to save the Imperium from destruction.
In all of GW's history, there had been one and only one way to create space marines, right up until there wasn't... And we get told that the millions of troops created a) took 10k years to create and b) stayed secret until then.
I suppose it's fair to say that GW provided more support for the transition, because there were new models and lots of lore, and some mechanics. But it was DEFINITELY a bigger and more impactful retcon than this, and there was far more outrage. In fact, antiprimaris threads are still popping up three editions later.
Hd404 wrote: More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
I think in some of the anit-femme-marine threads, it came up explicitly in ONE of ten editions that Marines are exclusively male, and I think in THIS thread, it's been stated that Custodes were NEVER explicitly stated to be exclusively male- there just hasn't been a story involving women.
Could be wrong about both things, but the key is that "Lore forbidding the presence of women" and merely an absence of female characters are not the smae thing. The later is common, but the former is actually not as common as people think (because of how common the latter is).
"It is known that all custodians begin their lives as noble sons of terra...entire generations of newborn sons to earn it" codex custodes 8tg ed. And at least for me, the primaris marines were handled much better with a large lore push behind it in novels and games. Whereas this was a lazier retcon delivered condescendingly by social media and accompanied by mobs like this one, crushing any questioning under a tide of bad faith accusations of prejudice
Overread wrote:We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.
That's not the same thing, and you know it. That's factionalism, not racism. Segregation, possibly, but even that isn't segregation as we know it, from a dominant power oppressing others - the Helmawrs' don't care about the underhivers, and certainly aren't saying "Escher can sit at the front of the bus, Goliaths have to sit at the back".
Institutionally, the Imperium isn't internally racist. The racism and intolerance of the Imperium that apes fascist ideology is transposed and xenos races and Chaos rebels are used to replicate the same point.
Note: the Imperium being internally egalitarian on issues of sexuality, gender, sex, and race *does not make them Good.* They are STILL classist, xenophobic, imperialist, colonial, uncaring and theo-fascist.
The Imperium is already awful and intolerant. Nothing is *gained* by them being sexist or racist as well.
Lord Damocles wrote:There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification)
They don't owe you one, for a start.
and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning,
I've asked this question several times, but what explanation *would you have accepted from GW?*
You mention that they didn't discuss the change from an out of universe reasoning - what would you have accepted as a response from them?
and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon..
Yes, because those people are usually following those messages up with sexist or misogynistic comments. That, or they're trolling.
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.
Interesting choice of language there. You're implying that people who want women Custodes' aren't "fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the game" there.
I am one such fan. I've been doing 40k since before I was in double digits. I'm evidently passionate about the setting and characters and game. And I want women Custodes.
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.
You're the umpteenth person to claim this, and you're just as wrong as all the others.
No, people were not able to do this without people caring. As Crimson has posted several times in several threads, their art has been criticised repeatedly for portraying women Astartes, *despite it being posted without any other context*.
Evidently, there are people who *do* care when people post images of their women Custodes and Astartes. What would your reaction be to those people?
madtankbloke wrote:Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting
The Imperium didn't have atmospheric aircraft until the Thunderhawk in Epic. Primarch was a rank. Half-Eldar Ultramarines Astropaths Knights used to be all male. Omegon didn't exist until Legion. Guilliman and the Lion were KIA/MIA. Space Marines were convicts and unaugmented. Eldrad died. Abaddon failed. Primaris. Votaan. Tau. Necrons. C'tan. Tyranid diplomats. Enslavers. Zoats. Riptides and the Ta'unar. The Startide Nexus. Necron Pariahs. Admech not needing transports.
the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it.
How does women Custodes break your immersion?
Hd404 wrote:I'd say too much representation is when you start changing established characters and factions to other demographics.
No Custodes character has changed, and their lore which established them as male is barely five years old. Hardly "established", is it?
And I'd say it's a problem because apart from breaking the immersion of the setting,
I ask again, why does having women Custodes break your immersion?
the rationale behind it seems to invariably be, "we don't like the demographic this character or group was originally and would prefer it if he/she or they were the demographic we are overtly prejudiced in favour of".
Two things: Women existing isn't "prejudice". It's normal. Having women exist isn't "overtly prejudiced".
Coming off of that, would it be a problem if GW turned around and said "yeah, we aren't happy that our lore in some previous books indicated that Custodes were all male, we recognise that this was a shortsighted view, and we want to change this to reflect the story we want to tell." Would that be a problem for you?
Hd404 wrote:Well the entire affair in brief seems to have been,
*Custodes are female now. They've always been female.
* Huh? No they've always been men. There's literally hundreds of textual citations.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Hundreds?? There's not even ten. There are *two* I can think of off the top of my head, and it's offhanded comments like "the sons of noble houses". Hundreds, what hogwash.
Hd404 wrote:Also, you do understand that transphobic, sexist etc. isn't actually any better?
I don't know if you noticed, but at least one user has been banned from the site for 70 years over *actually transphobic comments*. We also have people in this thread claiming that "women just aren't intellectually engaged enough to get into 40k", or words to that effect.
So, I'd be a bit more wary before you start claiming that people calling out sexism and transphobia are just dogwhistles. Or, are you claiming that those people don't exist, or that they didn't make transphobic comments?
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
Also, on the subject of Black Library, but in Echoes of Eternity, Sanguinius remarks on seeing men and women in golden armour as his father's bodyguard. The text is ambiguous on what he's referring to, but it's not a stretch with modern understanding to recognise that perhaps some of those Custodians were women.
Every custodes ever depicted until now is a man.
They've also all been white.
Does that imply that all Custodes are white?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/21 15:32:52
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Primaris did not follow the established "rules of the lore" and were a far greater Deus Ex Machina because they literally arrived to save the Imperium from destruction.
In all of GW's history, there had been one and only one way to create space marines, right up until there wasn't... And we get told that the millions of troops created a) took 10k years to create and b) stayed secret until then.
I suppose it's fair to say that GW provided more support for the transition, because there were new models and lots of lore, and some mechanics. But it was DEFINITELY a bigger and more impactful retcon than this, and there was far more outrage. In fact, antiprimaris threads are still popping up three editions later.
Hd404 wrote: More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
I think in some of the anit-femme-marine threads, it came up explicitly in ONE of ten editions that Marines are exclusively male, and I think in THIS thread, it's been stated that Custodes were NEVER explicitly stated to be exclusively male- there just hasn't been a story involving women.
Could be wrong about both things, but the key is that "Lore forbidding the presence of women" and merely an absence of female characters are not the smae thing. The later is common, but the former is actually not as common as people think (because of how common the latter is).
"It is known that all custodians begin their lives as noble sons of terra...entire generations of newborn sons to earn it" codex custodes 8tg ed. And at least for me, the primaris marines were handled much better with a large lore push behind it in novels and games. Whereas this was a lazier retcon delivered condescendingly by social media and accompanied by mobs like this one, crushing any questioning under a tide of bad faith accusations of prejudice
Are you also happy then that the primarchs were just the emperors friends and generals not his sons, that was stone original lore. Or that to make more chapters they had to raise and slaughter slaves for 55 years to get the organs ready for implantation for the 1000 marines and then the emperor had to personally sign off on the organs suitability? That was the original lore from the article so many male only fans love stating that marines had to be male.
So if you are ok with those changes why are you unhappy with this one? Why are you ok with custodes not looking like the below picture anymore?
What about this retcon is different from the others?
If 40K was a setting that had established lore that never changed or was never altered I could believe some of the hurt feelings on this. But it isn’t. It has had a hugely inconsistent lore for its entire existence. It has been changed retrospectively to suit the company all the time.
Why does this change bother you so much that you have to make a new account just to comment on it on here.
I don’t know the answer for sure but I can take a guess.
Overread wrote:We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.
That's not the same thing, and you know it. That's factionalism, not racism. Segregation, possibly, but even that isn't segregation as we know it, from a dominant power oppressing others - the Helmawrs' don't care about the underhivers, and certainly aren't saying "Escher can sit at the front of the bus, Goliaths have to sit at the back".
The Helmawrs don't care, but you can bet a regular Escher Ganger is not going to join the Orlocks or vis versa. In fact males from anywhere outside of Escher aren't getting in.
The Gangs themselves segregate themselves and have huge internal political fights over territories. They are as segregated and as racist to each other as nations are in the real world. I'm fairly sure in many of the books there's even terms they use as slurs against each other
The Helmawrs don't care about that. They DO care about keeping the Gangers and the Middleclasses out of the upper regions of the Hive. It's a whole separate system of class. Heck the upper classes will done powersuits and go hunt the in the Underhive. They will literally use the underhivers for sport like the Upper Classes of old would hunt Foxes*. As I noted many Imperial societies operate a strict hierarchy within society and many of those groups will be insulting, hostile, antagonistic and all to those in different classes.
Plus don't forget 1 Hive City has more population than the world we live on. Whilst we might think of things like Escher and Orlocks as "gangs" they are likely closer to having populations that would be considered countrysized in terms of numbers that would relate to the real world .
Where the Imperium differs is that things like gender and skin colour appear to have very little meaning; however your social position and class as well as parts of your racial background are very important. Heck how much mutation you have is also another very key element in your social position within many social groupings. It's more complex though because each world is a thing unto itself. Some will be insanely tolerant; some will just be hostile to anything; some will be highly class run; some less so; some feudal some class etc...
*I'm aware fox hunting isn't dead, but its also no longer exclusive to the upper classes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/21 15:39:38
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
In what way does it 'disrespect the lore' to allow Custodes to be women?
It changes previously established lore. Not that I feel it's a bad change. I'm just pointing out that merely owning an IP doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly.
Seriously, there was never any definitive lore indication that custodes were exclusively male.
How is this statement a thing this far into the thread? Didn't the "all Custodes are sons of yadda yadda" excerpt appear several times already?
Did we not have the discussion where we contrast that against Sanguinius identifying Custodes as men and women?
(Arguments that these are Sisters of Silence are refuted by the fact that elsewhere in the book, Sanguinius can identify nearby SoS because of his psionic affinity).
Now, I am willing to say that this is "unclear" in that it does not emphasize the point, if you can meet me halfway and accept that the lore talking about the noble families giving their sons away does not indicate that they didn't also give away any of their daughters (or more especially that they could not).
That way we can give equal weight to the contradictory pieces of official lore.
What I think happened is that people simply read Custodes as Astartes (I think it would take a real lore change to make women astartes)
But a bigger deal here- I think this is one if the smallest lore changes that they have just hand-waived away. Mind, I am old enough to remember Tyranid mind slaves, squats, non-fungus ork mating practices, 6' tall marines and primarchs that could pass as normal humans.
I think some of those changes really disrupted the lore, whole this one did not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/21 15:46:59
